[CTRL] War on Hippies?

[Eric Stewart]

-Caveat Lector-
War on Hippies 


What follows is copied from a friend's blog and at the bottom you will find the source link:Tuesday, August 22, 2006War on HippiesHat tip to commentor Luna_C at Mickey Z's for this story:DHS runs anti-cyber-hippie wargameThe Department of Homeland Security recently ran a cyber-wargame in which the US defended itself against an adversary consisting of anti-war groups, labor activists, vegans -- but not Al Quaeda.At the top of the pyramid is the Worldwide Anti-Globalization Alliance, which sets things off by calling for cyber sit-ins and denial-of-service attacks against U.S. interests. WAGA's radical arm, the villainous Black Hood Society, ratchets up the tension on day one by probing SCADA computerized control systems and military networks, eventually (spoiler warning) claiming responsibility for a commuter rail outage and the heat going out in government buildings.The Black Hoods are a faction of Freedom Not Bombs, whose name is suspiciously similar to the real Food Not Bombs, which provides vegan meals to the homeless.Another allied lefty-group called the Peoples Pact joins in, crashing portions of the power grid. Things get confusing when the "Tricky Trio," three evil hackers who are 50 percent more devious than the Deceptive Duo, hacks the FAA, issues false Amber Alerts, and manipulates the communications system of the U.S. Northern Command.Then someone posts the No-Fly List to a public website (third act shocker: it's all nuns and Massachusetts Democrats), and opportunistic cyber thieves raid a medical database looking for identity theft targets. Logic bombs explode, wireless communications devices are corrupted, DNS caches are poisoned.LinkThere's some superthriller ideas here, no?We'll take the El Gigante meat burrito, pleaseSource: War on Hippies

-- 
___
Get your free email from http://www.linuxmail.org

Powered by Outblaze
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!   These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] Fwd: [ctrl] War costs approach $10 billion a month

[RoadsEnd]

-Caveat Lector-
 
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!   These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om
--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector-



All for "Depleted" Uranium pollution and Martial Law at home from the decider        War costs approach $10 billion a month Military faces huge maintenance tab and spending to replace depleted equipmentJonathan Weisman, Washington Post  Thursday, April 20, 2006   Printable Version   Email This Article      Washington -- Annual war expenditures in Iraq will almost certainly come close to doubling since the U.S. invasion, as the military confronts the rapidly escalating cost of repairing, rebuilding and replacing equipment chewed up by three years of combat.         The cost of the war in U.S. fatalities has declined this year, but the cost in treasure continues to rise --      from $48 billion in 2003 to $59 billion in 2004 to $81 billion in 2005 to an anticipated $94 billion in 2006, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.         The U.S. government is now spending nearly $10 billion
 a month in Iraq and Afghanistan, up from $8.2 billion a year ago, a new Congressional Research Service report found.      Annual war costs in Iraq are easily outpacing the $61 billion a year that the United States spent in Vietnam between 1964 and 1972, in today's dollars. The Iraq invasion's "shock and awe" phase of high-tech laser-guided bombs, cruise missiles and stealth aircraft has long faded, but the costs of even those early months are just coming into view as the military confronts equipment repair and rebuilding costs it has avoided and procurement costs it never expected.         "We did not predict early on that we would have the number of electronic jammers that we've got. We did not predict we'd have as many (heavily) armored vehicles that we have, nor did we have a good prediction about what
 our battle losses would be," Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker recently told the Senate Armed Services Committee.         "If you look at the earlier estimates of anticipated costs, this war is a lot more expensive than it should be based on past conflicts," said Steven Kosiak, director of budget studies for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent defense think tank.         The issue will be hotly debated next week when the Senate takes up a record $106.5 billion emergency spending bill that includes $72.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House passed a $92 billion version of the bill last month that included $68 billion in war funding. That comes on top of $50 billion already allocated for the war this fiscal year.
         The bill is the fifth emergency defense request since the Iraq invasion in March 2003. Senate Democrats say that, in the end, they will vote for the measure, which congressional leaders plan to deliver to President Bush by Memorial Day. But the upcoming debate will offer opponents of the war ample opportunity to question the Bush administration's funding priorities.         At roughly $15 billion, personnel costs will actually drop 14 percent this year. But Pentagon officials and budget analysts point to a simple, unavoidable driver of the escalating costs --      the cost of repairing and replacing equipment and developing new war-fighting materiel has exploded. In the first year of the
 invasion, such costs totaled $2.4 billion, then rose to $5.2 billion in 2004. This year, they will hit $26 billion, and could go as high as $30 billion, Kosiak said.         Total operations and maintenance budgets will rise 33 percent this year, while investment in new technologies will climb 25 percent, according to the Congressional Research Service.      The helicopters, tanks, personnel carriers and even small arms "have required more maintenance than we planned for," said Gary Motsek, director of support operations at the Army Materiel C

[CTRL] Fwd: [ctrl] War Or Impeachment? By Robert Parry

[RoadsEnd]

-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:From: Neo Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: July 8, 2005 11:26:24 PM PDTTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [ctrl] War Or Impeachment? By Robert ParryReply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]         War Or Impeachment? By Robert Parry      In the days ahead, American politicians and pundits will talk a lot about "leveling" with the people by speaking the hard truth about Iraq, meaning an admission that the war is sure to rage for years and require an even heavier sacrifice in money and blood.      But this "leveling" will be just the latest spin. What they won't tell you are these two other hard truths:     First, whatever lies ahead in the Iraq War, the outcome is almost certain to be far worse for Iraqis and Americans than it would have been if the U.S.-led invasion had never happened. Despite the uplifting political rhetoric about democracy and peace, the smart money is on a staggering death toll, a grisly civil war, possibly even genocide, with Sunnis killing Shiites and Shiites killing Sunnis.     CIA analysts also have concluded that Iraq is emerging as a far more effective training ground for Islamic terrorists than Afghanistan ever was. Iraq is both more central to the Arab world and provides hands-on experience in bomb-making, kidnapping, assassination and conventional attacks on military targets. [Reuters, June 22, 2005]      If the Iraq insurgency ever ends, these battle-hardened terrorists also would be freed up to turn their skills on American targets around the world or on pro-U.S. governments in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan., according to an internal CIA analysis written in May 2005.      A drawn-out Iraq War also is certain to damage America's volunteer military, with some of the nation's best warriors killed, wounded or embittered after repeated tours in Iraq. Recruiters have struggled to meet quotas, and many current GIs have stayed in the military only because the Bush administration has invoked so-called "stop-loss" orders that prevent soldiers from leaving when their tours of duty are up.      Another sign of how poorly "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is going is that one of the mission's chief goals now is a major expansion of Iraq's prison system. In other words, the expectation is that Saddam Hussein's old police state will be succeeded by a government that will lock up even more people.    Click to join catapultthepropaganda    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catapultthepropaganda/join     Two Choices The second hard truth is that the American people have only two choices on what to do next: they can continue to send their young soldiers into the Iraqi death trap for at least the next several years and hope for the best, or they can build a movement for impeaching George W. Bush and other administration officials - and then try to make the best of a bad situation in Iraq.    Although the realistic prospects for electing a Congress in 2006 that would act against Bush may appear slim, an impeachment movement would create at least a focus for a national political campaign, much like the Republicans used the Contract with America to gain their congressional majorities in 1994.    An impeachment strategy would have two other benefits: it would create the framework for an official investigation into the deceptions that led the nation to war in 2002-2003 (as well as into the incompetence with which the war was fought) and it would offer a legal structure for achieving some accountability.    No accountability means that a precedent has been set for future presidents misleading the nation into other aggressive wars of choice and paying no price.    While many liberals and Democrats reject an impeachment strategy - fearing that it would be too confrontational and carry too many political risks - there are dangers, too, in again trying to finesse the Iraq War, as Democrats did in the disastrous elections of 2002 and 2004.    Arguably, the Democrats would be no worse off - and might actually be in control of the government - if they had stood up to Bush's war hysteria in 2002 and made the case in 2004 that the war must be brought to a swift conclusion. If Election 2006 is a reprise of the past two elections, the Republicans might actually gain ground against a demoralized Democratic base.    But these two "hard truths" - the recognition that the Iraq War fails any reasonable cost-benefit analysis and the realization that only extraordinary political courage can force a change of course - are sure not to be part of Bush's new PR push on Iraq, even as the politicians and the pundits say they're finally "leveling" with the American people. (c) 2005 Robert Parry, broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in th

[CTRL] Fwd: [ctrl] War As Mind Control,W's grandpa helped Hitler's rise 2 power

[RoadsEnd]

-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:From: intruthwetrust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: July 1, 2005 8:41:40 PM PDTTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], DavidIcke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [ctrl] War As Mind Control,W's grandpa helped Hitler's rise 2 powerReply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  War As Mind Control23/11/2004Signs of the Times.org   As more and more information is uncovered about faked terror attacks, bogus threats to our safety, government and military covert operations, "secret wars" and the duplicity that seems to have defined the nature of almost every "ruling elite" over the past two millennia, we are forced to consider the possibility that there has been no public war fought whose officially stated objective could not have been achieved in secret, far from the gaze or awareness of the general public. Consider the many secret campaigns, waged at the behest of successive US governments, that are only now, many years after the fact, coming to light. In Chile for example, the CIA were able to effect the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende and replace it with the 30-year-long brutal dictatorship of Pinochet. The benefits for the US administration at the time, were little different than if the US military had invaded Chile en masse and made the country an American protectorate - but they did not, simply because there was no need to. Following on from this, we must then consider the possibility that every public, large-scale war of any significance that has been fought in recent history has been fought for a motive other than that which was officially stated. We might say that, as a general rule, one of the major goals of all wars (other than the basic death suffering and money-making) has been, and continues to be, the shaping of the perception of reality of a particular groups of people or humanity as a whole, in order to accomplish the true, longer term and unspoken objectives of the war makers. Consider World War II for example. There exists copious and detailed evidence to suggest that Hitler was actually facilitated in his rise to power by the very people who would later claim that he was a threat to the entire planet, a claim which lead to the deaths of 65 million people and the establishment of the state of Israel. WWII could have been prevented simply by denying this support, or in the unlikely event that Hitler were to somehow continue to unilaterally accrue power even in the absence of such support, efforts could have been made, "a la Chile" to neutralise the threat that he presented. But this is not what happened. Someone wanted the massive trauma, bloodshed and re-ordering of the geopolitical world map that resulted from the "war to end all wars", and they had the knowledge and power to make it happen, while convincing the world that it was the result of pure chance. Consider the following article from the UK Guardian newspaper which we ran on the September 25th (04)edition of the Signs page   How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in WashingtonSaturday September 25, 2004The Guardian    George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism. His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy. The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty. Interesting legacy eh? The current

[CTRL] War Crimes: USA Part 2

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?id=1422



War Crimes: USA Part 2
by Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr, AUS Ret.

In spite of everything which has been written about Eisenhower which makes him out to be a hero, there seems little question that Dwight Eisenhower meets all the qualifications of a certified war criminal, even if Bacque's figures are off a bit. (If Germany had been the winner, there is little doubt he would have been tried and found guilty of the most heinous crimes against mankind.) 

Many veterans will get upset with this appraisal of a man they looked on as a "bona fide" American hero. But the proof for these accusations can be found in what happened to those Germans who were fortunate enough to surrender to the British and the Canadians some two million of them. The evidence shows that "almost all continued in fair health and many were quickly released and sent home or transferred to the French, to help in the post-war work of reconstruction. 

Bacque specifically commends General Patton for behavior towards his POWs it a civilized manner. His Third Army freed vast numbers of German captives during May 1945, to the dismay, no doubt, of the Zionists who controlled Washington. 

Both General Omar Bradley and J. C. H. Lee, Communications Zone (ComZ) Europe, ordered the release of prisoners within a week of the war's end. This SHAEF order was countermanded by Eisenhower on May IS, 1945. 

While German soldiers from the British and Canadian zones were quickly regaining strength and were helping rebuild Europe, Germans taken by the Americans were dying by the hundreds of thousands - emaciated figures in diarrhea smeared clothing, huddling pitifully in watery holes with perhaps a scrap of cardboard over their heads and a rotten potato for supper. At times many of them were reduced to drinking urine and eating grass. 

Did all this happen because of one supremely unprincipled and influential man named Eisenhower? Or was Ike in turn influenced by a small circle around him or by his superiors in Washington? Historians will be probing this question for decades to come. 

Here are the principle dates by which this infamy will live: 

1944: Eisenhower told the British ambassador to Washington that the 3,500 officers of the German General staff should be ''exterminated.'' He also favored the liquidation of perhaps 100,000 prominent Germans. Soon after, he wrote to his wife, Mamie: "God, I hate Germans! Why? Because the German is a beast!" Eisenhower said he was ashamed to bear a German name. 

August 1944: The North American wheat surplus was greater than at any time in history, nearly one billion bushels. The U.S. corn surplus and potato crop also reached a new high. 

March 10, 1944: A message sent from Eisenhower to the Combined Chiefs of Staff (CCS) of Britain and the U.S. recommended the creation of an entirely new class of prisoners, Disarmed Enemy Forces or DEFs. At a press conference in Paris, this same day, Ike said: "If the Germans were reasoning like normal beings, they would realize the whole history of the United States and Great Britain is to be generous towards a defeated enemy. We observe all the laws of the Geneva Convention.'' 

March 19, 1945: Eisenhower's special assistant, General Everett Hughes, visited the American supply depots at Naples and Marseille. In both places, he writes, there are ''more stocks than we can ever use. (They) stretch as far as eye can see.'' 

Spring 1945: The International Red Cross had over 100,000 tons of food stockpiled in Switzerland. At one point, it sent two trainloads into the American Zone of Germany, but the food was sent back. The Morgenthau Plan for a ''Carthaginian Peace'' in Germany, to use the words of Military Governor Lucius Clay, is implemented through the directive JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) 1067, which specifies to Eisenhower the policy he must adopt towards every institution in Germany. The directive is largely the work of three of Henry Morgenthau's underlings in the Treasury Department Harry Dexter White, Frank Coe, and Harry Glasser. White and Glasser were both Jews and all three were Communist ''fellow travelers.'' 

April 11, 1945: On the eve of his death, FDR told Morgenthau in Warm Springs, GA: "Henry, I am with you l00%" When Truman took over, he continued Morgenthau's "Carthaginian Policy" towards conquered Germany. 

April 17, 1945: The Americans opened their enormous Rheinberg Camp, six miles in circumference, with no food or shelter whatsoever. As in the other big "Rhine meadow" camps, opened in mid-April, there was initially no latrines and no water. In some camps, the men were so crowded they could not lie down. Meanwhile, at Camp Kripp, near Remagen, the half-American Charles von Luttichau determines that his German comrades are receiving about 5% as much food as their captors." Complaining to the camp commander, HE SAID: ''Forget the Geneva Convention. You don't have any rights." 

Late April 1945: 

[CTRL] War Crimes: USA Part 1

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1419



War Crimes: USA Part 1
by Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr, AUS Ret. 

". . . there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed: and hid that shall not be made known." - Matthew 10:26

Is America finally about to be thrown a scrap or two of historical truth? If so, have the Soviet relations of recent months, which has caused its leaders to admit to the murder of millions of their own people, allowed a few rays of truth to filter down and penetrate the Iron Curtain which has been erected over World War II, and which has kept vital facts from our people? 

Something out of the ordinary seems to be going on within America's ruling circles. Are we finally to be told the truth about World War II? 

Recently a book was written by an eminent Canadian author, James Bacque, of Toronto. It is titled OTHER LOSSES and deserves the widest possible distribution in the United States, especially among our veterans who fought World War II. Although Mr. Bacque's book does not picture America and her allies in a favorable light, it has had an amazing reception in Canada, although the people of the United States, for the most part have been kept in the dark about one of the most heinous episodes of World War II, which revolves around the Supreme Commander of the Allies in Europe, Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower, who was known during his days at West Point as that "terrible Swedish Jew." 

I have my own opinions of Dwight David Eisenhower, opinions formed during the early days of World War II, from information I received from officers who knew "Ike" before he became Supreme Commander. 

During the days before World War II, "Ike," as he was affectionately called, was noted as a ''ladies man, and the best damned bridge player on the Post." (Quotation not mine.) When anyone would mention Ike as a troop commander, it was met with hilarious, profane skepticism. Then too, my opinions of Ike were formed by the attitude of my Commanding General, Gen. George Patton, who looked on Eisenhower as a "whimp," not worthy of his rank. 

As many of you will remember, Ike was promoted to Supreme Commander in Europe. From Lieutenant Colonel, in early 1941, Eisenhower was promoted to full Colonel in March 1941, to Brigadier General (temporary) in September. In February 1942, after he became a favorite of Gen. George Marshall during the Louisiana Maneuvers, he was appointed Assistant Chief of the War Plans Division. About this time, Ike became acquainted with the daughter of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and she introduced her boy friend to "pappa." Evidently F.D.R. recognized in this young officer, a man who would agree with his plans and who would do anything to get promoted. This began a rapid spiral of promotions which by-passed many officers who outranked him and who were much more qualified for the posts he occupied. He became Chief of Operations Division, War Department General Staff (March, 1942), to Commanding General of the European Theater of Operations in June 1942, to Allied Commander in Chief, for the invasion of North Africa (November, 1942), Sicily, (May 1943), Italy (September, 1943) and finally to his ultimate designation by President F.D.R. as Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force for the invasion of Europe. 

It was Eisenhower's advise to F.D.R. and Churchill, which caused the war to drag on for two extra years, resulting in millions of deaths on both sides, and hundreds of billions of dollars of profit for Eisenhower's racial brethren, the International bankers, who financed both sides. 

In early 1943, General Patton and the British Commander, Gen. Montgomery, presented a plan to Churchill and F.D.R. which called for the invasion of Europe through the "soft underbelly of Europe." This would have liberated all the eastern European countries from Communist control and would have ended the war in 1943. 

But Eisenhower's hatred of the Germans, which was openly shown many times during those terrible days of the war, demanded that as many Germans as possible be made to suffer for their part in the war. 
It might be well to state here, that as early as 1902, International Jewry had a plan for the destruction of Christianity in Europe. 

This called for the destruction, first of Czarist Russia, which took place in 1917, and then for the destruction of Germany. A war chest of some $2-billion was set aside for this purpose, long before a man named Adolf Hitler came on the scene. When Churchill and F.D.R. listened to the advice of Stalin, instead of their two best military leaders, it gave Stalin two years to establish control over all of Eastern Europe, which is now known as the Warsaw Pact Nations. 

We can see the further treason in Eisenhower's actions, when in 1945, as Patton's armored forces swept into Germany, they were held back from entering Berlin, and were even ordered to withdraw to the Western borders of Germany, until Soviet troops could ente

[CTRL] War-Gate - The Scandal That Could Bring Down A President

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://antiwar.com/justin/index.php?articleid=1579



January 12, 2004
War-gate 
The scandal that could bring down a President   
by Justin Raimondo

In the run-up to war the sheer volume of lies produced by this administration was meant to overwhelm Congress, the media, and the people with its inventiveness. In a veritable frenzy of prevarication, the War Party came up with some real whoppers â and one howler that has not only come back to haunt them, but which very well may prove to be their undoing. In his State of the Union address, George W. Bush made the claim that Iraq had sought to procure the means to assemble nuclear weapons in "an African country." This assertion puzzled former U.S. ambassador to Gabon Joseph C. Wilson, who had been sent to Niger earlier in 2002 by the CIA on a mission to track down rumors that Saddam's agents had sent an emissary there in search of weapons grade uranium. Ambassador Wilson used his connections to get word to National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice that her assertions that the Niger uranium claim was based on facts garnered somewhere in the bowels of the bureaucracy was in error. The message he got back was: thanks, but no thanks.

Wilson went public with his charges that the administration had relied on information it knew to be false to make the case for war. The administration struck back swiftly, and with potentially deadly accuracy: in addition to contacting columnist Robert Novak, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists, denigrating Ambassador Wilson as the beneficiary of "nepotism" because his wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA agent working on nuclear nonproliferation. Not only did Wilson have a political agenda, they charged, but it was only through her good offices that he was sent to Niger. As one source told the Washington Post:

"It was unsolicited. They were pushing back. They used everything they had."

But this volley backfired almost immediately. Robert Novak's now infamous column, in which he identified Plame, citing administration sources, caused a furor. Would the War Party stoop to this â outing and potentially endangering an undercover CIA agent, and all her contacts â in their zeal to discredit their enemies? 

For months, John Ashcroft sat on this investigation, and very little was heard of it. Then, suddenly, he recused himself, and gave the job to one of his subordinates, who promptly appointed a special counsel: Patrick J. Fitzgerald. As someone familiar with Fitzgerald's reputation in law enforcement circles put it:

"I'm sure the word is going out that the bulldog has arrived in town."

Investigators have already compiled a large file of evidence, as the New York Times reports:

"Including notes of White House meetings, calendars, phone records and datebooks that officials have said provided telling clues about who within the administration may have had access to Ms. Plame's identity."

While federal agencies have been instructed not to destroy any records that might be helpful in the investigation, the Times informs us that "the White House is the only agency at which investigators are known to have demanded that investigators actually turn over records." Let's hope Bulldog Fitzgerald lives up to his street name, and fast. I can already hear the sound of shredders working overtime. 

A question leaps out at us in the wake of Ashcroft's recusal: why now? 

News reports have it that FBI officials started out at the top, and worked their way down, interviewing high-ranking White House officials and then moving in on their subordinates. Whatever physical evidence has been turned over so far consists entirely of material garnered from the White House â and that was enough to trigger the recusal and a decision to proceed. 

They must have found something.

There is some speculation about whether or not a crime has actually been committed: under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the leaker must know an agent is working undercover. But the reality is that the investigation alone will destroy its targets, with lots of collateral damage to the War Party.

Who would target Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, seeking to discredit the former and destroy the career of the latter? And why? The political implications of these questions are potentially enormous. The answers could not only discredit the neocon network in Washington, but also drag down the Bush administration into a domestic quagmire from which there is no extrication. As former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski said in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week:

"On the intelligence, what the president said [about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa] raises an interesting issue, which hasn't been followed by the news media sufficiently. The documents on which that statement of the president was based were fabrications. We got them from the British. We asked the British, where did you get these docu

[CTRL] War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race

[Kris Millegan]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=62-1568582587-0
-

 War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race
by Edwin Black


Available at: Beaverton, Burnside, Quimby Warehouse

 This title ships for free on qualified orders! Find out how.
Â

ISBN: 1568582587 Subtitle: America's Crusade to Create a Super Race Publisher: Four Walls Eight Windows Subject: General Subject: Conspiracy & Scandal Investigations Subject: Discrimination & Racism Subject: Philosophy & Social Aspects Subject: History Subject: Human reproduction Subject: Eugenics Subject: Sterilization. Subject: United states Edition Description: Includes bibliographical references and index. Series Volume: 720. Publication Date: c2003 Binding: Hardcover Language: English Illustrations: Y Pages: 550 Dimensions: 9.18x6.36x1.73 in. 2.01 lbs.
 Other customers have also purchased:

â Author Unknown: On the Trail of Anonymous by Don Foster
â Nineteenth-Century British Women Writers: A Bio-Bibliographical Critical Sourcebook by Abigail Burnham Bloom
â Help Wanted: Tales from the First Job Front by Sydney Lewis
â The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power by Max Boot
â Women's Almanac by Doris Weatherford

Synopses & Reviews


Publisher Comments:
How American corporate philanthropies launched a national campaign of ethnic cleansing in the United States, help found and fund the Nazi eugenics of Hitler and Mengele â and then created the modern movement of "human genetics."
 In the first three decades of the 20th Century, American corporate philanthropy combined with prestigious academic fraud to create the pseudoscience eugenics that institutionalized race politics as national policy. The goal: create a superior, white, Nordic race and obliterate the viability of everyone else. How? By identifying so-called "defective" family trees and subjecting them to legislated segregation and sterilization programs. The victims: poor people, brown-haired white people, African Americans, immigrants, Indians, Eastern European Jews, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the superior genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists. The main culprits were the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, operating out of a complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. The eugenic network worked in tandem with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the State Department and numerous state governmental bodies and legislatures throughout the country, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. They were all bent on breeding a eugenically superior race, just as agronomists would breed better strains of corn. The plan was to wipe away the reproductive capability of the weak and inferior.
 Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized â legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes.
 American eugenic crusades proliferated into a worldwide campaign, and in the 1920s came to the attention of Adolf Hitler. Under the Nazis, American eugenic principles were applied without restraint, careening out of control into the Reich's infamous genocide. During the pre-War years, American eugenicists openly supported Germany's program. The Rockefeller Foundation financed the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the work of its central racial scientists. Once WWII began, Nazi eugenics turned from mass sterilization and euthanasia to genocidal murder. One of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute doctors in the program financed by the Rockefeller Foundation was Josef Mengele who continued his research in Auschwitz, making daily eugenic reports on twins. After the world recoiled from Nazi atrocities, the American eugenics movement â its institutions and leading scientists â renamed and regrouped under the banner of an enlightened science called human genetics.
 Review:
"War Against the Weak is a scary and necessary book." Adrienne Miller, Esquire (read the entire Esquire review)
 Review:
"Black ... reveals that eugenics was extensive, systematic, well-funded, and supported by major political and intellectual leaders; perhaps most startling, it directly inspired the rise of Nazism in Hitler's Germany... This chilling and well-researched book is highly recommended." Gregg Sapp, Library Journal
 Review:
"Fierce, compelling...well told and extraordinarily sad...a prodigious feat of reporting." David Plotz, Mother Jones Magazine
 Review:
"A hair-raiser and an eye-opener... ...contains details so vivid and horrid that one can hardly believe them or bear to read them. ... This is an important book, filled with little-known facts about how some of our most esteemed institutions and professionals have funded

[CTRL] War on terror taking back seat, ex-CIA boss says

[Sean McBride]

Title: Daily Press: War on terror taking back seat, ex-CIA boss says
-Caveat Lector-


http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-20668sy0dec04,0,1159938,print.story?coll=dp-headlines-topnews
 

  
  

War on terror taking back seat, ex-CIA boss saysBy Novelda 
SommersDaily PressDecember 4 2003NORFOLK -- Former CIA 
director Stansfield Turner asserted Wednesday that the conflict in Iraq is 
distracting the U.S. government from the more important war on terrorism. 
Turner, who ran the spy agency during President Jimmy Carter's 
administration, condemned moving to oust Saddam Hussein without gaining more 
international support."We probably would have had to topple Saddam 
Hussein eventually, but we didn't have to do it in March 2003," Turner said in 
his speech at an Economics Club of Hampton Roads luncheon put on by Old Dominion 
University.A frequent, outspoken critic of the president's Iraq policy, 
Turner said he didn't believe Iraq was a terrorist haven before the war, but it 
could become one if the U.S. removes its forces too soon.Turner, now a 
senior research scholar at the University of Maryland, also was critical of the 
Bush administration's efforts to address intelligence flaws uncovered after the 
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, though he called the creation of the 
Department of Homeland Security a good idea. The new department could do more to 
work with local police and fire departments to prevent terrorism at home, he 
said.In a post-attack, congressional investigators found numerous missed 
clues held in government files or databases that could have helped prevent the 
attacks. Numerous other problems also were uncovered, including the 
sometimes-clashing cultures at agencies required to work together to prevent 
terrorism. The lack of coordination of agencies led to the creation of the new 
department."There is nothing I've seen us do since 9-11 that is going to 
correct the flaws in intelligence that were uncovered by 9-11," Turner 
said.Turner also outlined his ideas on curbing nuclear arms 
proliferation. He authored a book on the subject, titled, "Caging the Genies: A 
Workable Solution for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons."The 
United States and other nuclear powers should agree to reduce to 200 the number 
of nuclear warheads each can own, and they should store warheads far away from 
delivery vehicles. Turner called the strategy "strategic escrow."He 
cautioned that U.S. officials who threaten to use nuclear weapons, even small 
"bunker busters," perpetuate nuclear proliferation. The Bush administration has 
proposed studying the feasibility of such weapons."It enhances the value 
(of nuclear weapons) to other people," Turner said. "If we can benefit from 
first use, so can they."Novelda Sommers can be reached at 247-4767 or by 
e-mail at [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Copyright © 2003, Daily Press 









 



www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!   These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om


NS?ci=703&di=d016&pg=&ai=787690
Description: Binary data

Re: [CTRL] War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

[Prudy L]

-Caveat Lector-



In a message dated 11/19/2003 11:08:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.
Especially since Israel had Iraq at the top of the list.  Prudy
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!   These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:

http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

[Sean McBride]

Title: Guardian | War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal
-Caveat Lector-



http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4801223-103550,00.html


War critics astonished as US 
hawk admits invasion was illegal 
Oliver Burkeman and 
Julian Borger in WashingtonThursday November 20, 2003The Guardian 
International lawyers and anti-war 
campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon 
hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. 
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, 
Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law 
stood in the way of doing the right thing." 
President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either 
because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British 
government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by 
international law. 
But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US 
defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have 
required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally 
unacceptable. 
French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism 
consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein". 
Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of 
Contemporary Arts at the Old Vic theatre in London, had argued loudly for the 
toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war. 
"They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda 
Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a 
high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law 
suits them that they want to use it." 
Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for 
war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated 
in Tuesday night's event. Certainly the British government, he said, "has never 
advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to 
international law in relation to Iraq". 
The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view 
between the British government and some senior voices in American public life 
[who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international 
law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the 
UN, then the defect is in international law". 
Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its 
main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, 
which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive 
self-defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's 
"sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad. 
The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, 
arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its 
allies were under imminent threat. Coalition officials countered that the 
security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, 
passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a 
complete accounting of its weapons programmes. 
Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued that 
the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which was ended 
only by a ceasefire. 
"I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a 
law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was 
illegal. "And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would 
have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact 
did, had the administration said that all along." 
The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence 
policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board. 
A Pentagon spokesman pointed out yesterday that Mr Perle was not on the 
defence department staff, but was a member of an unpaid advisory board. 
Mr Perle refused to elaborate on his remarks. 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian 
Newspapers Limited 2003 


www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!   These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as al

[CTRL] War On Iraq To Protect ISRAELI Interests?

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/October_2003/0310006.html



October 2003, pages 6, 79

Special Report

The U.S. War on Iraq: Yet Another Battle To Protect Israeli Interests? 

By Delinda C. Hanley

Why did President George W. Bush invade Iraq? Some very curious developments in the U.S.-occupied nation are making Iraqis and their Arab neighbors very uneasy as they question Bush's motives. These amazing tales should also infuriate Americans who are beginning to suspect they've been hoodwinked into fighting yet another battle on behalf of Israel. 

On the eve of war, President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair told their people that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction posed a real and present danger to Americans, their British cousins, indeed the entire planet. If Saddam Hussain didn't use his weapons himself, the Anglo-American leaders argued, he might pass them on to terrorist groups. U.S. and British citizens believed their leaders were looking out for their safety and that they had evidence of Saddam Hussain's evil intentions which they could not yet divulge. 

Some 1,500 American investigators are now searching Iraq for evidence to back up those controversial claims. Former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter doubts the investigators, known as the Iraq Survey Group, will have much luck. For one thing, he points out, every Iraqi government record relating to the weapons program was stored in metal containers at a complex in downtown Baghdad's Jadariya. This archive was the basis for the 12,500-page declaration Iraq compiled for the U.N. in 2002. 

On April 8 U.S. troops took possession of the complex. They never interviewed the scientists who continued to report for work or tried to examine the archives. Instead the U.S. soldiers simply withdrew after two weeks, leaving all the evidence: computers, disks, video records of U.N. interviews with Iraqi scientists throughout the 1990s, and the carefully organized documents. Looters ransacked the facility and destroyed any evidence of a weapons program. 

Anyone who watches TV knows that, in investigating a crime, it first is necessary to secure the crime scene. One has to wonder why U.S. forces never bothered to do thisâor to guard from looters the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, or six other nuclear sites in Iraq. Did coalition leaders know all along there were no weapons of mass destruction?

It's beginning to look like anti-war protesters were on the right track when they declared: "No War For Oil!" Iraq, one of the world's largest oil producers, has a potential output of 2.5 million barrels a day. Would the U.S. really attack a nation for its oil? Perish the thought! The coalition promised that Iraq's oil would finally benefit its own people, instead of lining its leader's pockets. Today Iraqis are beginning to doubt that message as well, as fuel shortages and gas lines at petrol stations make them wonder if they'll ever be able to return to normal. 

And now another horrible suspicion is crossing their minds. Did Bush's Israel-first advisers invade Iraq in order to assure that Israel would have easy access to oil? 

A March 31 Ha'aretz article reported upcoming plans to reopen a long-unused pipeline from Iraq's Kirkuk oil fields to the Israeli port of Haifa. Israel's National Infrastructure Minister Joseph Paritzky suggested that after Saddam Hussain's departure Iraqi oil could flow to the Jewish state, to be consumed or marketed from there. 

"The pipeline [of Iraqi oil] to Haifa is considered a 'bonus' the U.S. will give to Israel." 

According to John Cooley's April 23 article in The Christian Science Monitor, "The idea is economically tempting for Israel and some of its friends, especially those whose firms might profit from such a project. Oil-poor Israel, MEES [Middle East Economic Survey] reports, wants high-quality Kirkuk crude oil for its Haifa refinery. Israeli refineries currently use Russian, West African, Egyptian, and other crude oils.

"Politically, the scheme is a potential bomb," Cooley warned, because Israel and Iraq have been implacable foes since 1948. "Its implementation could ignite a new explosion in the chain of reactions to the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, now beginning to reverberate throughout the troubled Middle East."

Nevertheless, according to a Ha'aretz article the following day, "a senior Pentagon official" sent a telegram to a "top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem" to check the logistics of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa and rebuilding the Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa pipeline. According to the telegram, "The pipeline to Haifa is considered a 'bonus' the U.S. will give to Israel in return for its support for the American-led campaign in Iraq." 

In early September, Paritzky will travel to Washington, DC to present Israel's pipeline plans, along with a cost estimate, to U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham. Israel's National Infrastructure Ministry estimates

[CTRL] War Under False Pretense

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/08-11-2003/vo19no16_wmd.htm



War Under False Pretense
by Thomas R. Eddlem

President Bush was able to play up the uranium issue only by ignoring his own intelligence agencies.

Bush administration officials were recently forced to admit that the president never should have spoken the following 16 words in his January 28th State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." That charge, we now know, was based on forged documents and fragmentary intelligence. Yet, according to the administration and its defenders, the contested statement was cleared by the CIA, was technically correct, comprised only one small part of a large body of evidence justifying going to war, and should be put "behind us."

The issue, President Bush is finding out, is not "behind us." It is becoming increasingly clear that the whole house of cards that made the case for the war is falling down, from the alleged nuclear purchases, to the elusive chemical and biological weapons stockpiles, to the supposed ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda terrorists. By itself, the uranium issue could have been dismissed as an unfortunate mistake. But the Bush administration engaged in a pattern of downplaying æ or even ignoring æ intelligence disproving its alarmist claims.

President Bush was able to play up the uranium issue only by ignoring his own intelligence agencies. According to CIA Director George Tenet, the CIA did warn the Bush administration that the evidence supporting the claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa was unreliable. Tenet’s July 11th mea culpa, parts of which the media quoted heavily, also contained the following account: "[CIA] officials who were reviewing the draft remarks [in the State of the Union speech] on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct — i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa." That is, the administration resorted to relating what the British report said because it knew that the evidence supporting the allegation was fragmentary.

Even the much-touted huge stockpiles of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons have not been proven to exist. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer warned on September 6th of last year there "is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest." But the White House’s mountain of evidence hasn’t amounted to a molehill. President Bush said the Iraqi regime possessed "thousands of tons of chemical agents" in an October 2, 2002 Cincinnati speech. Those thousands of tons must have evaporated by July 13th of this year, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told NBC’s Tim Russert that Iraq possessed only a "relatively small amount of very lethal chemical or biological weapons or capability."

Before Saddam’s regime fell, the Bush administration supposedly knew where the weapons of mass destruction were, and would soon capture and destroy them. On March 30th, as American troops were closing in on Baghdad, Rumsfeld said of the WMDs: "We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." Now Rumsfeld is not so sure where they are, telling Tim Russert in his July 13th Meet the Press interview: "I think we will find them." I think? Whatever happened to that huge mountain of evidence?

It was never there — just like the supposed ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Before the war, the president sounded the alarm about extensive ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda. "We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases," Bush said in a major address on October 7, 2002. He added that Iraq and al-Qaeda had "high-level contacts that go back a decade." Yet the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (leaked to the press in June) revealed that Bush’s own intelligence agencies have said all along that there was no reason to believe any serious ties ever existed between the two. "There was no significant pattern of cooperation between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist operation," former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann told the Boston Globe on July 12th. Foreign intelligence agencies agree with the U.S. intelligence consensus. A British intelligence dossier leaked before the war concluded that any collaboration between the two would be improbable because "his [bin Laden’s] aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq."

Of course, if Saddam’s regime did not threaten the U.S. with its WMDs and with its al-Qaeda ties, as the Bush ad

[CTRL] War on Iraq: The Verdict

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/war-on-iraq.html



War on Iraq: The Verdict

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Turkish and American officials had just finished toasting the first shipment of oil out of Iraq when the sound of clinking glasses was drowned out by a terrifying explosion. An oil pipeline west of Baghdad had been blown up by saboteurs. The resulting flaming tower was a fitting symbol. The supposed victory of US forces in Iraq has turned from hoax to chaos and, now, to all-round calamity. 

Those who have made a science out of studying government know the principle at work: government tends to accomplish the opposite of its stated aims. The advertised aim of this war was to bring the region and world more safety and order. But even ulterior aims have failed: Saddam is loose, oil pipelines are being sabotaged, troops are being killed every day, and the entire region is more resistant to US control than ever before. 

Already it is too late for the US to leave in hopes of restoring anything resembling normalcy in the country and region. Islamic fundamentalists have never been as influential and powerful, and terrorists never more bolstered with an ideological rationale for menacing Americans at home and abroad. 

Without having found WMDs, the US has lost any rationale that might have existed for the war in the first place, which raises fundamental questions about the legitimacy of the continuing mission, even among those who supported the war. The Bush administration, which advertised forged documents and has otherwise done nothing to bolster its credibility as a truth teller, expects us to believe that someone made the WMDs vanish just ahead of advancing US troops. Uh huh.

The expense of life and resources that went into war has so far produced only one major political result: it has made a folk hero out of Saddam Hussein, who credible reports describe as still alive, along with his sons. Only the Bush administration could have led millions of Iraqis to reflect on how good they had it when the "brutal dictator" was in charge. Does anyone doubt that he would win a landslide election today – unless the Islamic parties prevail and impose someone worse? 

The unwillingness of the Bush administration to face any of this, or at least to admit any problems in public, is an ominous sign. So far its spokesmen have dealt with the massive tide of anti-US hatred in Iraq with absurd denials. US soldiers and civilian administrators wear body armor and travel only under the protection of heavy armor, and yet we are told that the opposition is somehow limited and narrow. 

Iraqi militants, Saddam loyalists, resistance fighters, Islamic radicals, guerillas under the control of the remnants of the Ba’ath party, disgruntled former employees of the former regime – these are all phrases invoked by the Bush administration and thus the press to describe the nameless snipers, rock throwers, and chanting mobs who continue to vex the US military during its occupation. 

For example, US head occupier Paul Bremer says these are merely "a very small minority still trying to fight us.'' But when reporters have a hard time finding any Iraqi, from any class or religion, to say something nice about the occupation, the prattle about "pockets of resistance" begins to wear thin. At some point in the course of human events, all decent people develop more sympathy with those who seek liberty from occupation than with the occupiers, even if the troops wear the Stars and Stripes. 

Almost half as many US troops have died since Bush declared the war over (55) as died during the war (138). That figure is significant enough, but consider that there is a huge difference between deaths in wartime and those killed during the supposed postwar peace. It is the difference between a military conflict, in which killing and dying is the whole point, and a political conflict, in which killing and death suggests despotism, lawlessness, and all-round calamity. 

We are encouraged to believe that anyone who would seek to harm US troops is necessarily driven by something other than the desire for the well-being of the Iraqi homeland. They must be radicals! They must be receiving their orders from a shadowy Saddam! They have been indoctrinated by Islam and thereby are prevented from seeing the great blessings being brought to Iraq by the US military! Pure nonsense, as ridiculous as the idea that the US has a just cause for occupying this country. 

Rich Bond, the former chairman of the GOP, said in response to questions about Democrats who are becoming increasingly vocal against the war: "Our men and women are under fire and dying to protect freedom." Yes, that is what US political figures always say. That is what the American people are encouraged to believe. If we say it enough, we can then dismiss anyone on the planet who resents American power as an opponent of freedom itself. 

In Iraq, the "freedom" brought by the troops has so 

[CTRL] War Party's Leftist & Elitist Roots Exposed

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html



June 13, 2003
TROTSKY, STRAUSS, AND THE NEOCONS
War Party's leftist and elitist roots exposed

The War Party is playing defense these days, and for good reason: in Iraq, there is no sign of those "weapons of mass destruction," and in Washington, Congress is getting ready to launch an investigation into who lied about what – and why. Meanwhile, one American soldier is getting killed every other day, on average – weeks after Bush's declaration of "victory." This is what old King Pyrrhus had in mind when he said: "One more victory such as this, and we are done for."

Worst of all – from the War Party's perspective – is that the neocon meme is really getting out there. Every day, it seems, there is a new article in some periodical not only pointing to them as the driving force behind the rush to war, but also detailing their ideological odyssey from left to right – and this is driving the neocons crzy. The result is that, within less than 24 hours, no less than four major polemics appeared denouncing this level of scrutiny as evidence of (what else?) "anti-Semitism."

First to weigh in was Robert Bartley, in the Wall Street Journal, who approaches the problem by floating his own sort of conspiracy theory: the whole brouhaha, he avers, is a plot by Lyndon LaRouche and his kooky followers. The evidence: a pamphlet put out by the LaRouchies, luridly entitled "Children of Satan." Bartley is apparently a LaRouche afficionado – or, at least, interested enough to claim, with a knowledgeable air, that 

"It does seem to be true that the LaRouche screed was first in line in thrusting Leo Strauss, author of such volumes as Natural Right and History, into the middle of the debate over the Iraq war. The theme was later sounded by James Atlas in the New York Times and Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker."

This is absolute nonsense, on two counts:

1) As anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of how to use Google could discover in a moment, the neocons' enemies have long been aware of Strauss's cult and its baleful influence. Libertarians are naturally horrified by the Straussian devotion to the benevolent dictatorship of a self-appointed elite, and we at antiwar.com have not spared Strauss and his followers their fair share of abuse. While Shadia B. Drury's 1999 book, Leo Strauss and the American Right, provided a critique of Strauss's influence from the left, paleoconservatives such as Paul Gottfried were among the first to raise the alarm. But I'll leave it to my old friend Burt Blumert to capture the essence of the antagonism that has long existed between the followers of Strauss and the Old Right gang centered around LewRockwell.com:

"Neocons, as ex-Trotskyites, are bad enough, but those who follow the pro-pagan Leo Strauss are deadly. He advocated the Big Lie. Forgive me for all the gory details, but these people – with their other leaders like Bill Buckley and Irving Kristol and the help of the CIA – perverted the American right into loving the welfare-warfare state."

And that was in one of Burt's fundraising pieces. Help save the world from the evil Straussians, he warned over a year ago. They want to drag us into war with their Big Lie technique – it all seems pretty prescient to me. 

2) Bartley seems to believe that if LaRouche says the sky is blue, it must be red, or perhaps some other color. But establishing such a LaRouche Standard, whereby we must rule out anything and everything the LaRouchians aver – aside from constituting a new category of logical fallacy – would lead Bartley to disavow his newspaper's avid support, over the years, for such projects as the "Star Wars" missile defense, which the LaRouchians really were the first to propose and lobby for.

If one believes, like most conservatives, that ideas have consequences, and that philosophy has an enormous impact on the conduct of foreign policy (or any government policy), then you belong, according to Bartley, "in the fever swamps" with the LaRouchies. But the punch-line for this joke of an argument is here:

"This is the ugly accusation an alert reader should suspect in encountering the word 'Straussian,' or these days even 'neo-conservative' in the context of the Iraq debate. Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle find their Jewish heritage a point of attack. But George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are gentiles. Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell don't look Jewish to me, but they also helped draft the basic statement of the Bush Doctrine, the September 2002 'National Security Policy of the United States.'"

In the Orwellian world of the neocons, where a new form of political correctness frames their every utterance, the language is contracting. Because the goal of totalitarian thought control is to make the _expression_ of political incorrectness impossible, the goal of this Neocon Newspeak is the abolition of many now-common words. In this context, words are used, not to

[CTRL] War Revisionism!

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/war-revisionism.html



War Revisionism!
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.


For those of us skeptical of all war, there was nothing really new in the latest Iraq fiasco. The government was lying (of course), the true motives were hidden (of course), it has created a disaster (of course), it ended up spreading death and misery (of course), and it was and is enormously costly (of course). All of this could be known in advance by anyone following the history of US wars. It's the same pattern, repeated again and again. 

War isn't nation building; it’s nation destroying. It vanquishes both the defeated and the defeating power because it chokes off the liberty that is the source of civilization. The lie is the father of war: the lie that because the state smashes and kills, the killers and smashers are mystically protected against the demands of justice; the lie that the war is moral and right because their state is diabolical and ours is angelic; the lie that the opposing government is an imminent threat that must be smashed, whereas, as Justin Raimondo points out, "in retrospect, the events that have impelled us to war have turned out, in every case, to be elaborate hoaxes."

The major task of any war historian, then, is to cut through the lies and tell what's true. The historians who do this are called war revisionists because they do not accept the dominant line of those who prosecuted the war. Taking the revisionist line usually lands you among marginal voices and assures that you will be dismissed as a crank from the fever swamps. 

There are exceptions to the rule. After World War I, war revisionism had a huge run. The war was supported by the public after the US entered it, and the familiar sight of war hysteria was everywhere in evidence as people cheered the jailing of dissenters, renamed consumer products, and held hate sessions against the foe.

After, however, the nation found itself shocked at the sheer destruction and expense, and especially the failure of the Wilson administration to provide a clear-headed rationale for why the US went to war in the first place. Slogans like "Make the World Safe for Democracy" or "the War To End All Wars" turned out to be elaborate hoaxes, and the search was on to find out who profited from the war and how. 

There were investigations, books, recriminations, and political fallout that doomed Wilson's League of Nations. This national attitude was called "War Guilt" back then, as if it were propelled by a psychological state instead of an examination of the facts. In the 1970s, the sense that the recent war was a grave error was called "the Vietnam Syndrome," as if doubting the merit of the war were a sickness that you catch. 

To those of us who opposed the latest war, it was obvious that this time was no different. The official rationale – that Saddam was hiding WMDs and we had to dislodge him in order to prevent him from using them in the region and against Americans – was nonsense. We knew this was merely an excuse at best because of the utter hypocrisy of the charge: no government in the world owns as many WMDs as the US. 

We all knew there were other reasons including Bush's personal hatred of his father's nemesis, the ambitions of US oil producers and their officials, the demands of allies in the region including Saudi Arabia and Israel, and much more. However, as with Afghanistan, Somalia, Haiti, the first Gulf War, as well as Vietnam and Korea, we were all ready to live the rest of our lives with the knowledge that this war was unnecessary and essentially a racket, but also to recognize the likelihood that our critique would never go mainstream. The power of the received line is so strong that it can easily outpace the truth in matters of war. 

And yet, what is unfolding before our eyes? A war revisionism unlike anything seen in 80 years. Every day the nation's newspapers and magazines are covered with articles reassessing why the US went to war, what the Bush administration knew and when it knew it, and what to do about it now. Today includes the following from Paul Krugman in the NYT: 

The Bush administration's determination to see what it wanted to see led not just to a gross exaggeration of the threat Iraq posed, but to a severe underestimation of the problems of postwar occupation. When Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, warned that occupying Iraq might require hundreds of thousands of soldiers for an extended period, Paul Wolfowitz said he was "wildly off the mark" – and the secretary of the Army may have been fired for backing up the general. Now a force of 150,000 is stretched thin, facing increasingly frequent guerrilla attacks, and a senior officer told The Washington Post that it might be two years before an Iraqi government takes over. The Independent reports that British military chiefs are resisting calls to send more forces, fearing being "sucked into a quagmire." I'll tell you w

[CTRL] War Party's Saber Rattling

[William Shannon]

http://www.theamericancause.org/index.htm



War Party's Saber Rattling

Patrick J. Buchanan    June  2,  2003


Did we, to borrow Churchill's phrase, kill the wrong pig?

So it would appear. For the War Party is already beating the drums for war on Iran, using the identical arguments they gave us for going after Saddam Hussein – i.e, the ayatollahs are backing al-Qaida and Iran is developing weapons of mass destruction.

And, on both counts, as this column has long argued, the case against Iran as a supporter of Islamic terror and seeker after the bomb was always stronger than the case against Saddam. The War Party's problem is that its credibility has taken more hits than the Nebuchadnezzar Division of the Republican Guard.

The War Party told us Iraq had huge stocks of biological and chemical weapons, that Saddam was building nuclear weapons, that he had a role in 9-11, that he was harboring al-Qaida, that victory would trigger democratic revolutions across the Middle East, that Iran would be intimidated by our "shock and awe" campaign.

None of this is panning out. A month after victory, Iran and North Korea are conducting crash programs to build atomic weapons and – or so we are told – the mullahs are back in the terrorism game, aiding al-Qaida in carrying out that triple-bombing in Saudi Arabia.

So, the War Party has a problem. Having spent a year telling us Saddam was a Hitler who must be destroyed lest we all perish, it is going to have a difficult time generating that fear, loathing and iron resolve a second time.

Moreover, neither North Korea nor Iran is as "doable" as was Iraq in the term used by Paul Wolfowitz. A large slice of the U.S. Army is now tied down pacifying Iraq's 23 million. Scores of thousands of veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom have come home to families that have no wish to see them sent off to war again.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner has already flown from the Abraham Lincoln. There are insufficient forces in the Gulf to invade and defeat an Iran that is three times the size of Iraq and does have missiles and chemical and biological weapons. After Afghanistan and Iraq, America is, psychologically, unprepared for another major war, especially against a nation the size of Iran.

Should we undertake war on Iran, there is surely no doubt as to the outcome. But few believe it would be a "cake walk," with only 125 U.S. dead and Iran's capital falling with only token resistance.

Why, then, this outburst of bellicosity? The president has no constitutional authorization from Congress to go to war with Iran. No NATO ally, not even the Brits, would fight beside us. And we have no binding U.N. resolution we can claim to be enforcing.

If we are not ready for war, why the war talk? Or do we now believe that our words will intimidate the ayatollahs – even though the lesson of what we did to Iraq, right next door, did not?

The painful truth: The "Bush Doctrine" is now being defied by both surviving partners of the axis of evil, Iran and North Korea, despite what we did to Iraq, and the president has few cards left to play, other than big casino.

Should Pyongyang build and test an atom bomb, how do we keep it from becoming a nuclear power? Sanctions have not disarmed it. China refuses to join an embargo. What options are left, except a blockade or a pre-emptive strike on North Korea's nuclear plants, obliterating them, even if it means using atomic weapons? Perhaps that is what the Pentagon request for a study of the uses of atomic weapons below five kilotons is all about.

But what would an act of war on North Korea do to the South?

As for Iran, the War Party appears to have miscalculated badly. The whipping we gave the Iraqi Republican Guard not only did not intimidate the ayatollahs, it caused them to reach this not unreasonable conclusion:

Axis-of-evil nations with nuclear weapons, like North Korea, get U.S. attention and respect. Axis-of-Evil nations without nuclear weapons, like Iraq, get JDAMs and the 101st Airborne. Therefore, Iran must acquire nuclear weapons or Iran must prepare to accept dictation from the Great Satan.

Once again, the action-oriented Americans failed to think it through. Like Britain, which went to war in 1939 to save Poland and prevent Hitler's domination of Europe but ended up – after six bloody and bankrupting years of fighting – with Stalin running Poland and Stalin dominating Europe, the United States, with its war on Iraq, seems only to have accelerated that very proliferation of nuclear weapons we fought the war to prevent. 

[CTRL] War Budget Includes Yet More Money for Israel

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/may03/0305020.html



May 2003, pages 20-21

Congress Watch

War Budget Includes Yet More Money for Israel

By Shirl McArthur

On March 25 Bush finally presented his $74.7 billion supplemental “war budget” to Congress.The spending requestincludes the hush-hush military aid and loan guarantees to Israel, as well as military and economic aid to other Middle Eastern countries.For Israel the amounts are $1 billion in military grants and $9 billion in loan guarantees, to be available over four years.Israel had requested $4 billion in military grants and $8 billion in loan guarantees.Reportedly, the loan guarantees have the same conditions as the 1991 guarantees, that none of the money may be used in the West Bank and Gaza.The 1991 conditions did nothing to stop Israeli colony expansion, however, and money is still “fungible,” that is, interchangeable.The amounts requested for other Middle East countries are $300 million in economic aid for Egypt; $700 million in economic aid and $406 million in military aid for Jordan; $90 million in military aid for Bahrain; $61 million in military aid for Oman; $1 billion for Turkey; and $50 million for the West Bank and Gaza to “reduce terrorism and support the peace process.”

Congress Fiddles During Inexorable March to Invade Iraq 

Throughout February and early March most members of Congress appeared oblivious to the fact that the administration of President George W. Bush, in lockstep behind the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle/Feith cabal, was leading the country into uncharted waters with unknown consequences that threatened to undo America’s foreign policy successes since World War II and magnify its failures.Congress did pass the FY 2003 appropriations bill, as described in the previous issue of this magazine, but then seemed either to not care or be too timid to try to head off the looming disaster.There were a few voices in the wilderness, especially Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). The Republican leadership, however, appeared either to agree with the rush to war or fear challenging the White House.

Except for House Minority leader Pelosi, the Democratic leadership was equally frozen into inaction.Some, such as Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-SD), Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), and former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO), seemed to genuinely support Bush’s position, while criticizing him for failing to get international support for the war effort.For the most part, however, Democrats seemed more afraid that opposing Bush would somehow hurt them in the 2004 elections than they were concerned about the country’s welfare. But, reported Arab American Institute president James Zogby, a member of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), at the DNC’s winter meeting, attended by some 400 party leaders, the most vigorous applause was given to those who spoke out against the war effort.Presidential candidate former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was quoted as questioning, “why in the world the Democratic leadership is supporting the president’s unilateral attack on Iraq.”

There are certain truths one does not utter in Washington.

Among those who spoke out during late February and March against the rush to war were, in addition to those mentioned above, Sens. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Richard Durbin (D-IL), and Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), John Duncan (R-TN), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), John Lewis (D-GA), Jim Moran (D-VA), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), David Obey (D-WI), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Janice Schakowsky (D-IL), and Mark Udall (D-CO).Duncan, the only Republican on the list, described at length why this war would be contrary to such traditional conservative positions as being against huge deficit spending, against being the policeman of the world, against world government, and believing it “unfair to U.S. taxpayers and our military to put almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on the U.S.”He pointed out that “other nations have violated U.N. resolutions; yet we have not threatened war against them.”

Moran created something of a firestorm, at least in the Washington, DC area, when he said to a Northern Virginia anti-war group, “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq we would not be doing this.The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going.”Moran was responding to a question from a woman who identified herself as Jewish and was wondering why she didn’t see more Jewish people in attendance.Moran later said he was trying to make the point that “if more organizations in this country, including religious groups, were more outspoken against a war, then I do not think we would be pursuing war as an option.”

Never mind.There are certain truths one does not utter i

[CTRL] War for Israel's sake.

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.theweeklyinformant.com/arishavit.htm



JEWISH WRITERS CLAIM ZIONIST JEWS  DROVE AMERICA INTO WAR FOR ISRAEL'S SAKE! 

When Congressman James Moran (D-VA) told an audience that the leaders of American Jewish groups were pushing America into a war with Iraq, he was denounced as an "anti-Semite" and  pressured to resign. (click here) 

When Syndicated columnist and former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan accused Jewish neo-conservatives and the US-Israeli lobby of pushing America into a war against Israel's enemies, he was also widely denounced as an "anti-Semite." (click here) 

But what are we to make of the many outspoken Jewish writers, Jewish intellectuals and Jewish activists who have been warning us about the exact same thing? Should we dismiss these jews as "anti-Semites" or "self-hating Jews"? 

Following are some very revealing quotes from just a few of these Jewish writers and journalists.

__

Joe Klein, Time Magazine, Time.com, February 5, 2003

"A stronger Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war with Iraq. It is a part of the argument that dare not speak its name, a fantasy quietly cherished by the neo-conservative faction in the Bush Administration and by many leaders of the American Jewish community. 

The fantasy involves a domino theory. The destruction of Saddam's Iraq will not only remove an enemy of long-standing but will also change the basic power equation in the region. It will send a message to Syria and Iran about the perils of support for Islamic terrorists. It will send a message to the Palestinians too: Democratize and make peace on Israeli terms, or forget about a state of your own." (click here)       __

 

 Michael Kinsley, Slate Magazine, October 24, 2002

Tariq Aziz has a theory. Saddam Hussein's deputy told the New York Times this week, "The reason for this warmongering policy toward Iraq is oil and Israel." Although no one wishes to agree with Tariq Aziz, he has put succinctly what many people in Washington apparently believe.

The lack of public discussion about the role of Israel in the thinking of "President Bush" is easier to understand, but weird nevertheless. It is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it. The reason is obvious and admirable: Neither supporters nor opponents of a war against Iraq wish to evoke the classic anti-Semitic image of the king's Jewish advisers whispering poison into his ear and betraying the country to foreign interests.  (click here)  

  __

 

Ari Shavit, April 5, 2003    Haaretz News Service (Israel)

"The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. 

In the course of the past year, a new belief has emerged in the town (Washington): the belief in war against Iraq. That ardent faith was disseminated by a small group of 25 or 30 neoconservatives, almost all of them Jewish, almost all of them intellectuals (a partial list: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Eliot Abrams, Charles Krauthammer), people who are mutual friends and cultivate one another and are convinced that political ideas are a major driving force of history."   (click here)

__

 

Thomas Friedman, April 4 2003  New York Time Columnist

I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened. 

It is not only the neo-conservatives who led us to the outskirts of Baghdad. What led us to the outskirts of Baghdad is a very American combination of anxiety and hubris."(click here) 

__

 

Dr. Henry Makow Phd., February 10, 2003  Writer, Inventor of  Board game "Scruples"

If the U.S. gets bogged down with heavy casualties on both sides, Americans are going to blame big oil and Zionism for getting them into this mess. 

Everybody knows that:


The only country that fears Iraq's WMD's is Israel; 
American-Jewish neo-conservatives on the Defence Policy Board (Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz) planned this war in 1998 and made it Bush Administration policy; 
The purpose of the war is to change the balance of power in the Middle East so Israel can settle the Palestinian issue on its own terms; and 
Congress trembles in fear before the Israeli Lobby, "AIPAC." At this perilous juncture in US history, there is no effective opposition because Zionist Jews appear to control both parties. The Jewish "Anti Defamation League" considers it a barometer of anti Semitism to say, "Jews have too much power." But is something anti- Semitic if it 

[CTRL] + WAR + Iraq Poster Exhibition +

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

http://war.miniaturegigantic.com/

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Re: [CTRL] War Strains

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

4/3/2003 8:03:44 AM, Prudy L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  This whole column is a joke.

Not falling for the sympathy sympatico symbiotic sympletonic?

This reminds me of the old images of LBJ displaying his scar ... or better
yet, Dicky Trick with 'Checkers' ... or Ford tripping the light fantastic ...

A<:>E<:>R

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Re: [CTRL] War Strains

[Prudy L]

-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 4/2/2003 4:02:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Bush is not an expert on military tactics.

I can't believe it.  It must be native genius.   Prudy  
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Re: [CTRL] War Strains

[Prudy L]

-Caveat Lector-
In a message dated 4/2/2003 4:02:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Rather, the president's passion is motivated by his loathing for Saddam's
brutality, aides say. He talks often about his revulsion for Saddam's use of
torture, rape and executions. He is convinced that the Iraqi leader is
literally insane and would gladly give terrorists weapons to use to launch
another attack on the United States.

This whole column is a joke.  Bush is having a fine time, and bloodshed (unless its his own) does not bother him a bit.  We're talking about the guy who joked about the impending execution of Carla Mae Tucker.  He went to war because he could.  His handlers encouraged him because Israel wants us to go to war.  Bush looks fine, and if he gave up candy, it either was for lent or because he had put on a pound.  Prudy


www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] "War" Starr Dies

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,928578,00.html
Soul legend Edwin Starr dies aged 61

Rebecca Allison
Thursday April 3, 2003
The Guardian

Soul legend Edwin Starr died yesterday at the age of 61, his manager, Lilian
Kyle, confirmed.

The US-born star - known for his enduring hits War and Contact - is
thought to have died of a heart attack.

Starr had lived for many years in the UK and died at his home near
Nottingham.

Leading tributes last night, 70s rock star Suzi Quatro, who has known Starr
since she was a teenager in Detroit, said: "He was the best. There was
nobody better on stage and he was the nicest man you could ever wish to
meet. We had been very close friends for many years and I'm just stunned
by the news."

The singer, who was born Charles Hatcher in Nashville, Tennessee, formed
his first group, The Future Tones, in 1957. His biggest success came with
his outspoken single War, a US number one in 1970 and number three in
the UK.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
Forwarded for your information.  The text and intent of the article
have to stand on their own merits.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do
not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera-
tions.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and
rumoured by many.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is
written in Holy Scriptures.  Do not believe in anything merely on
the authority of teachers, elders or wise men.  Believe only after
careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief,
from the Kalama Sutra

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Re: [CTRL] War, Hitler, & Cheney

[David Sutherland]

-Caveat Lector-



Nice to see a brain that 
functions at the speed of dark. I guess they don't call you Windgate for 
nothing.
 
I'm not sure where your 
homosexual fantasies are heading, but this probably isn't the appropriate forum 
to express them on. If you need -- either help, counselling or gay 
contacts, it might be best to e-mail me off-line -- can't promise anything, but 
I'll scour my best to get you help -- just hold off beaming-up to 
that Iraqi UFO dood!
Dave.- 
Original Message -From: "Steve Wingate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Wednesday, 
April 02, 2003 1:26 AMSubject: Re: [CTRL] War, Hitler, & 
Cheney> -Caveat Lector->> On 2 Apr 2003 at 8:21, 
David Sutherland wrote:>> > 'anal ysis'.>> I 
think that says everything about your intentions here. Your anal intentis 
alarming. Is> your dick also made from depleated uranium? Shall you stuff 
it up Sadam'sa***? You'd> love that, wouldn't you?>> 
Steve>>> > News alternatives to US 
war propaganda:>> http://www1.iraqwar.ru/?userlang=en> 
http://www.truthout.org/> http://www.aljazeerah.info/> http://www.overthrow.com/> http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/politics/content.htm>> www.ctrl.orghttp://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org>> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER> ==> CTRL 
is a discussion & informational exchange list. 
Proselytizingpropagandic> screeds are unwelcomed. Substance-not 
soap-boxing-please!  These are> sordid matters and 'conspiracy 
theory'-with its many half-truths, mis-> directions and outright 
frauds-is used politically by different groupswith> major and minor 
effects spread throughout the spectrum of time andthought.> That 
being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and> 
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no> 
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.>> Let us 
please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.> 
> 
Archives Available at:> http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html>  Archives'>http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/>  ctrlhttp://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl>> 
> 
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:> 
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To 
UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:> SIGNOFF 
CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
Om>
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Re: [CTRL] War, Hitler, & Cheney

[David Sutherland]

-Caveat Lector-



... and what difference would 
that make Steve? Do you have a need to be controlled Steve?Now if you'd 
have done what i asked and gone and re-read the original post you may have been 
able to come back with an intelligent comment. You may have also gleaned that 
what was claimed about the Beatles came from the psychotic pen of 
LaRouche-ism and not me. That was a 'quote' 
from the LaRouche Kamp Steve, that is why it was in quotation marks and 
with the source of the citation noted.
 
Whatever attendant politicised 
conspiracy theories or mad-hatter Xtian style demonisation 
blame-people want to lay on the Beatles and their music -- music at 
best is an aesthetic appeal and hence its appreciation is an extremely 
subjective experience. 
 
Some who think that psychedelic drugs 
somehow enhance the musician are deluded. It's a complete illusion and no 
musician who has worked under the influence for a considerable time has or will 
ever reach their peak ability -- their full, latent, gutsy, 
sublime, raw intellectual and physical capabilities. 
We call athletes on steroid drugs cheats -- Musos on drugs cheat themselves 
and their audience because they do not deliver their peak -- and never can. 
 
 
Personally, I like all kinds of music 
simply because I LIKE IT, not because someone else (like pope LaRouche as 
per the post) has determined that it is good, bad or therapeutic for the 
performer or spectator. 
 
Dave. 
 
- Original 
Message -From: "Steve Wingate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Tuesday, April 
01, 2003 2:30 PMSubject: Re: [CTRL] War, Hitler, & 
Cheney> -Caveat Lector->> David, are you our new 
psyops controller? Just wondering...>> Steve>> On 2 
Apr 2003 at 8:21, David Sutherland wrote:>> > Maybe you should 
look at the post again ... this time try reading dimwit...> > 
instead of giving us your out of context, halfwit 'anal ysis'.> 
>> > Dave.>>> > News 
alternatives to US war propaganda:>> http://www1.iraqwar.ru/?userlang=en> 
http://www.truthout.org/> http://www.aljazeerah.info/> http://www.overthrow.com/> http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/politics/content.htm>> www.ctrl.orghttp://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org>> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER> ==> CTRL 
is a discussion & informational exchange list. 
Proselytizingpropagandic> screeds are unwelcomed. Substance-not 
soap-boxing-please!  These are> sordid matters and 'conspiracy 
theory'-with its many half-truths, mis-> directions and outright 
frauds-is used politically by different groupswith> major and minor 
effects spread throughout the spectrum of time andthought.> That 
being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and> 
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no> 
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.>> Let us 
please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.> 
> 
Archives Available at:> http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html>  Archives'>http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/>  ctrlhttp://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl>> 
> 
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:> 
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To 
UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:> SIGNOFF 
CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
Om>
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War Strains

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-01-bush-cover_x.htm
Strain of Iraq war showing on Bush, those who know him say

By Judy Keen, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The public face of President Bush at war is composed and
controlled. On TV and in newspaper photos, he is sturdy and assured,
usually surrounded by military personnel. But those choreographed
glimpses of Bush's commander-in-chief persona don't tell the whole story.
Behind the scenes, aides and friends say, the president's role is more
complicated and his style more emotional.



President Bush lowers his head and is joined by members of the military in
prayer at MacDill Air Force Base last week.

By Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP

People who know Bush well say the strain of war is palpable. He rarely
jokes with staffers these days and occasionally startles them with sarcastic
putdowns. He's being hard on himself; he gave up sweets just before the
war began. He's frustrated when armchair generals or members of his own
team express doubts about U.S. military strategy. At the same time, some
of his usual supporters are concerned by his insistence on sticking with
the original war plan.

Interviews with a dozen friends, advisers and top aides describe a man who
feels he is being tested. As might be expected from loyal aides, they
portray the president as steady, tough and up to the task, someone whose
usual cheer has shifted to a more serious demeanor. Their observations
yield a rare inside look at how the president functions in a crisis.

Friends say the conflict is consuming Bush's days and weighing heavily on
him. "He's got that steely-eyed look, but he is burdened," says a friend who
has spent time with the president since the war began. "You can see it in
his eyes and hear it in his voice. I worry about him."

Bush is juggling a lot more than projecting the image of a confident
commander in chief. He's a prosecutor who quizzes military officials about
their backup plans when things go awry on the battlefield. He's a critic
who sees himself as the aggrieved victim of the news media and second-
guessers. He's a cheerleader who encourages others not to lose faith in
the war plan. He's a supervisor who manages the competing views and egos
of top advisers.

The president reads newspapers first thing in the morning, flipping through
some of them while he's still in the White House residence instead of
waiting for clippings assembled by aides. Through the day, he regularly
watches war coverage on the nearest TV, which is in the private dining
room next to the Oval Office. He knows when heavy bombardments of
Baghdad are scheduled and sometimes tunes in to see them.

As he consumes media accounts of the war, Bush has noted criticism
coming even from some people he believes should be his allies. He was
stung last year when Brent Scowcroft, his father's national security
adviser, wrote a newspaper column questioning the necessity and wisdom
of going to war. Similar complaints continue, and some people outside the
administration are pressing current Bush advisers to urge him to retool his
war plan. The president's aides say he's aware of those efforts but
"discounts" them.

News coverage of the war often irritates him. He's infuriated by reporters
and retired generals who publicly question the tactics of the war plan.
Bush let senior Pentagon officials know that he was peeved when Lt. Gen.
William Wallace, the Army's senior ground commander in Iraq, said last
week that guerrilla fighting, Iraqi resistance and sandstorms have made a
longer war more likely. But Bush has told aides that he wants to hear all
the news from the front — good and bad.

He has a special epithet for members of his own staff who worry aloud. He
calls them "hand-wringers." Two days after combat began, he has said
acidly, some people were already asking "how the unconditional surrender
talks were going."

'Do you need to see him?'

Bush makes a point of managing the balance of power in his inner circle.
Secretary of State Colin Powell receded from the headlines once the war
began, but Bush keeps him near. The president seeks second opinions
about military strategy in regular private meetings with Powell, who was
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Gulf War. There's
another reason Bush keeps Powell close: to signal to the hawks on his
team that he values the secretary of State's more cautious approach to
diplomacy and war.

Bush's schedule still includes meetings on matters unrelated to the war,
many of them on the economy, but the meetings are shorter now. Fewer
aides receive permission from chief of staff Andy Card to see the
president. "Do you need to see him or do you want to see him?" Card asks
them.

Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says
Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every
day. His history degree from Yale makes him mindful of the importance of
the moment. He knows he's making 

Re: [CTRL] War, Hitler, & Cheney

[Steve Wingate]

-Caveat Lector-

On 2 Apr 2003 at 8:21, David Sutherland wrote:

> 'anal ysis'.

I think that says everything about your intentions here. Your anal intent is alarming. 
Is
your dick also made from depleated uranium? Shall you stuff it up Sadam's a***? You'd
love that, wouldn't you?

Steve



News alternatives to US war propaganda:

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/?userlang=en
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.aljazeerah.info/
http://www.overthrow.com/
http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/politics/content.htm

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Re: [CTRL] War, Hitler, & Cheney

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

4/1/2003 3:01:54 PM, Steve Wingate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>No genuine musical talent?!! I think that statement says it all about the
value of your 'analysis'.

Well, they didn't until they went to the Summer of Love in San Fran then
got a hold of some of that acid that removed the bubblegum from their
instruments ... notice the change in style during that period ...

A<:>E<:>R

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Re: [CTRL] War, Hitler, & Cheney

[Steve Wingate]

-Caveat Lector-

David, are you our new psyops controller? Just wondering...

Steve

On 2 Apr 2003 at 8:21, David Sutherland wrote:

> Maybe you should look at the post again ... this time try reading dimwit ...
> instead of giving us your out of context, halfwit 'anal ysis'.
>
> Dave.



News alternatives to US war propaganda:

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/?userlang=en
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.aljazeerah.info/
http://www.overthrow.com/
http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/politics/content.htm

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Re: [CTRL] War, Hitler, & Cheney

[David Sutherland]

-Caveat Lector-

Maybe you should look at the post again ... this time try reading dimwit ...
instead of giving us your out of context, halfwit 'anal ysis'.

Dave.

- Original Message -
From: "Steve Wingate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [CTRL] War, Hitler, & Cheney


> -Caveat Lector-
>
> On 1 Apr 2003 at 13:56, David Sutherland wrote:
>
> >   "The Beatles had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped
according to
> >   British Psychological Warfare Division (Travis, and promoted in
Britain by agencies
> >   which are controlled by British intelligence."
>
> No genuine musical talent?!! I think that statement says it all about the
value of your
> 'analysis'.
>
> Steve
> 
> News alternatives to US war propaganda:
>
> http://www1.iraqwar.ru/?userlang=en
> http://www.truthout.org/
> http://www.aljazeerah.info/
> http://www.overthrow.com/
> http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/politics/content.htm
>
> http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
> ==
> CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing
propagandic
> screeds are unwelcomed. Substance-not soap-boxing-please!  These are
> sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'-with its many half-truths, mis-
> directions and outright frauds-is used politically by different groups
with
> major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and
thought.
> That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
> always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
> credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
>
> Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
> 
> Archives Available at:
> http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
>  http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
>  http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl
> 
> To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
> SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Om
>

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Re: [CTRL] War, Hitler, & Cheney

[Steve Wingate]

-Caveat Lector-

On 1 Apr 2003 at 13:56, David Sutherland wrote:

>   "The Beatles had no genuine musical talent, but were a product shaped according to
>   British Psychological Warfare Division (Travis, and promoted in Britain by agencies
>   which are controlled by British intelligence."

No genuine musical talent?!! I think that statement says it all about the value of your
'analysis'.

Steve

News alternatives to US war propaganda:

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/?userlang=en
http://www.truthout.org/
http://www.aljazeerah.info/
http://www.overthrow.com/
http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/politics/content.htm

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War Criticized

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/01/international/worldspecial/01PENT.ht
ml?ex=1050170549&ei=1&en=651e085576dc8ced
April 1, 2003

Rumsfeld's Design for War Criticized on the Battlefield

By BERNARD WEINRAUB with THOM SHANKER


V CORPS HEADQUARTERS, near the Kuwait-Iraq border, March 31 — Long-
simmering tensions between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and
Army commanders have erupted in a series of complaints from officers on
the Iraqi battlefield that the Pentagon has not sent enough troops to wage
the war as they want to fight it.

Here today, raw nerves were obvious as officers compared Mr. Rumsfeld to
Robert S. McNamara, an architect of the Vietnam War who failed to grasp
the political and military realities of Vietnam.

One colonel, who spoke on the condition that his name be withheld, was
among the officers criticizing decisions to limit initial deployments of
troops to the region. "He wanted to fight this war on the cheap," the
colonel said. "He got what he wanted."

The angry remarks from the battlefield opened with comments made last
Thursday — and widely publicized Friday — by Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace,
the V Corps commander, who said the military faced the likelihood of a
longer war than many strategists had anticipated.

The comments echo the tension in the bumpy relationship between Mr.
Rumsfeld and Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff.

Underlying the strains between Mr. Rumsfeld and the Army, which began
at the beginning of Mr. Rumsfeld's tenure, are questions that challenge
not only the Rumsfeld design for this war but also his broader approach to
transforming the military.

The first is why, in an era when American military dominance comes in
both the quality of its technology and of its troops, the defense secretary
prefers emphasizing long-range precision weapons to putting boots on the
ground.

At present, there are about 100,000 coalition troops inside Iraq, part of
more than 300,000 on land, at sea and in the air throughout the region for
the war. Just under 100,000 more troops stand ready for possible
deployment.

Even after the war, some experts argue that it could take several hundred
thousand troops to hold and control a country the size of California, with
about 24 million people.

Mr. Rumsfeld has argued that he adopted this approach for flowing forces
to the region to prepare for war without upsetting the Bush
administration's diplomatic efforts.

The idea was to raise pressure on Iraq until President Bush made a
decision on whether or not to go to war, Mr. Rumsfeld has said.

Even some of Mr. Rumsfeld's advisers now acknowledge that they misjudged
the scope and intensity of resistance from Iraqi paramilitaries in the south,
and forced commanders to divert troops already stretched thin to protect
supply convoys and root out Hussein loyalists in Basra, Nasiriya and Najaf.
But they also point to the air campaign's successes in the past few days in
significantly weakening the Republican Guard divisions around Baghdad. As
one senior official said of the process that produced the war plan, as well
as the pace and sequencing of troops, "It was a painful process to match
the political and military goals."

One Army officer said General Wallace's comments — particularly that "the
enemy we're fighting is different from the one we war-gamed against" —
were not meant to show defiance but merely express a view widely shared
among American officers in Iraq, at headquarters units in neighboring
Kuwait and back at the Pentagon. Some members of General Wallace's staff
have expressed concerns for the professional future of their boss.

Mr. Rumsfeld arrived at the Pentagon vowing to transform the military, and
senior aides promised to push aside what they described as hidebound
volumes of doctrine in order to create an armed force emphasizing combat
by long-range, precision strikes and expanding the most maneuverable
military assets, mostly ships, jets, drones, satellites and Special Operations
troops.

Many in the Army thought the defense secretary had declared war on
them, which struck them as unfair, because the Army had invested as
much brainpower as any other service in transforming itself — perhaps
because it had to, since the Air Force, Navy and Marines were already
more nimble.

In certain ways, the dissonance between Mr. Rumsfeld and General
Shinseki is surprising, because the general was himself the leading
advocate of reforming and modernizing the Army. In October 1999, General
Shinseki pledged to reshape the service from waging war by slog and slash,
calling for new theory and proposing new weapons to create a land force
more agile and precise in bringing lethal force to the battlefield.

"On the substantive issues, Shinseki and Rumsfeld share a large agenda,
about making the Army more deployable," said Michael O'Hanlon, senior
fellow at the Brookings Institution. "Shinseki was one of the first guys out
of the block with the concept, and it fit the wor

Re: [CTRL] War, Hitler, & Cheney

[David Sutherland]

pon discovering a 
burglar in his home said, "Friend, I would not harm thee for the world, but thou 
standest where I am about to shoot."
 
It was inevitable, given Quaker obsession with 
sin and holiness, transferred into societal do-goodersim and their manifestly 
Gnostic idea of an all-encompassing and powerful rule of evil in the world, 
that LaRouche would fall into the superstitious Roman Catholic Vatican 
manufactured 'Conspiracy Theory' camp formulated by the RC Jesuit 
Georgetown University's Professor Carroll Quigley who essentially wrote the 
LaRouches biblical manifesto proper  called 'Tragedy and Hope'. 

 
Dave.
 
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  William Shannon 
  
  To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 4:05 
PM
  Subject: [CTRL] War, Hitler, & 
  Cheney
  -Caveat Lector- http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2003/2003_10-19/2003-13/this_wk.htmlThis 
  Week You Need To KnowWar, Hitler, & Cheneyby Lyndon H. 
  LaRouche, Jr. — March 25, 2003The immediate situation of the U.S. is 
  summed up as follows: At this moment, as I had forewarned you in 1999-2000, we 
  are plunging into a world depression comparable to, but worse than that of the 
  Herbert Hoover Depression of 1929-1933. As I forewarned you in an address, 
  broadcast at the beginning of 2001, new would-be Adolf Hitlers have now 
  appeared, this time inside the U.S.A. Those would-be Hitlers now threaten the 
  whole world with the kinds of wars for which the world later hung Nazi 
  leaders, at Nuremberg: the new Hitlers from inside the U.S.A. and Blair's 
  government, who act exactly as Hitler threatened Czechoslovakia in 1938, and 
  invaded Poland in 1939.The pivotal feature of that warfare, into which 
  an already bankrupt U.S. has just been plunged, is the de facto usurpation of 
  the function of a still-sitting President by Halliburton's Vice President 
  Cheney, and by a gang of his organized-crime-linked lackeys polluting not only 
  the Departments of Defense and State, but also polluting, and virtually 
  castrating elected and other leaders of the nominal opposition, the Democratic 
  Party.Ironically, but not accidentally, the present war-like situation 
  in the Department of Defense, including the public rug-chewing exhibitions by 
  Secretary Rumsfeld, reminds today's serious historians of the way in which 
  Adolf Hitler and his Roman Legions-modelled SS, ultimately destroyed that 
  German military which would-be Caesar Hitler's gang feared and hated so 
  intensely.All too obviously, the leading war-makers inside the Bush 
  Administration today are mere lackeys, nasty pimps like the Leporello of 
  Mozart's famous opera. These real-life Leporellos, such as the politically 
  pimpish Wolfowitz and Ashcroft, were spawned, chiefly, by Chicago University 
  and associated circles of a prominent fascist ideologue, the late Professor 
  Leo Strauss. This Strauss was a follower of the Carl Schmitt who crafted the 
  law under which Hitler became dictator of Germany; so, are Strauss's ardent 
  followers inside the Bush Administration today. This fascist, Strauss, who 
  created Wolfowitz, was imported to the U.S. from the Germany of Carl Schmitt 
  and Hitler-midwife Hjalmar Schacht, at the time that also the later Robert 
  Hutchins-sponsored Strauss was already known to be a fanatical follower of the 
  leading Nazi ideologue Martin Heidegger.However, like the Nazi SS 
  enforcers, lackeys Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, Wurmser, Feith, and so on, are 
  merely expendable hoodlums adorned with political motley. To understand them, 
  you must look to those who created them and put them into their present 
  positions. You must look to the London-backed Hjalmar Schachts and von Papens 
  of the modern U.S.A., including the likes of the Conrad Blacks, the Rupert 
  Murdochs, George Shultz, and the Shultz-allied forces behind the Halliburton 
  firms' government and other connections.The essence of the matter is 
  exactly what I warned you might happen, in a broadcast address I delivered 
  just before the inauguration of President George W. Bush, Jr. We are in an 
  accelerating world depression, while this year's U.S. Federal deficit already 
  soars in the direction of the $1 trillions mark. The U.S.A. experienced its 
  "Reichstag Fire" on September 11, 2001, and the storm-trooper legions of Vice 
  President Cheney marched forth from those smoking ruins, brandishing their 
  Mein Kampf doctrine of "preventive nuclear" war. This is the Nazi-like 
  doctrine which Cheney had adopted in 1991, then in his capacity of Secretary 
  of Defense. Led by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's lackeys, the depression-wracked 
  U.S. is presently marching down the road toward self-inflicted Hell, unless 
  the war is stopped about now.We are, therefore, now trapped in a war 
  for which no foreseeable exit 

[CTRL] War Analysis From Israel

[flw]

-Caveat Lector-

Tuesday, April 01, 2003 Adar2 28, 5763
Israel Time:  05:03  (GMT+3)

A bushel of mistakes

By Yoel Marcus

No one knows if Saddam really has all those look-alikes they say he has,
but it's a shame Bush doesn't have one. Maybe he could do a better job of
running the war, with a lot fewer mistakes than the original Bush. Because
what we are looking at now is certainly a bushel of them.

Mistake No. 1: While the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan enjoyed
international support, Bush has not been able to prove that Saddam and
global terror are linked. Suspicions that he is settling a family feud has
cost him the support of the world and triggered mass demonstrations. The
editor of the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur wrote this week that
Bush has managed to turn a despised dictator into the heroic successor of
Salah a-Din.

Mistake No. 2: The United States went to war without adequate intelligence.
The campaign started off with 60 Tomahawks aimed at a certain building
where Saddam was supposedly staying, but he walked out of there alive, well
and speechifying. On top of that, there is still no information on the
whereabouts of his chemical and biological weapons, which means that for
the moment, the United States has yet to get its hands on the corpus
delicti touted as the main excuse for going to war. U.S. intelligence also
failed to predict the suicide bombings, and it was wrong in its assessment
that the Iraqis would greet the Americans with glee and showers of rice,
not to mention the Iraqi army turning its guns on Saddam. That hasn't
happened yet.

Mistake No. 3: Preparations for the war went on for half a year. With
battle plans, maps crisscrossed with arrows, and attack routes shouted from
every hilltop, Saddam had plenty of time to ready things on his end. One of
the things he did was brainwash his troops that the target is not his
regime but the Iraqi homeland. For the American soldiers, the fighting
spirit of the Iraqis has come as a surprise. On TV they said this wasn't
the sort of combat they were trained for.

Mistake No. 4: In Afghanistan, there was a fighting opposition and an
alternative regime waiting in the wings. No such opposition has been
cultivated to take over when Saddam is gone. The only ones who have the
power to move in are the Shi'ites, taking their cue from Iran. Israeli
military intelligence wasn't joking during the Gulf War when it said a live
but weakened Saddam was preferable to Shi'ites running the show from Iran
to Lebanon.

Mistake No. 5: U.S. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld pooh-poohed Iraqi military
strength. At first he wanted a surgical operation deploying 50,000 U.S.
troops, tops.

In the Gulf War, America's goal was liberating occupied Kuwait, and all the
Arab countries were on its side. The current war is not a surgical
operation but a large-scale occupation. There's a fatal difference between
liberation and occupation. In 1967, we thought we'd liberated the
territories and all of a sudden we found ourselves occupiers with the whole
world down our throats.

America has underestimated Iraqi endurance. When it became clear that
Turkey was not about to let U.S. troops pass through its territory to open
a northern front, why wasn't the offensive postponed for a few days rather
than leaving the troops vulnerable to attack and far from supply lines? Now
another 200,000 troops are being rushed in. Mistakes like that around here
would end in a commission of inquiry.

Mistake No. 6: The U.S. administration was wrong to add the goal of
inaugurating a democratic regime in Iraq to its primary objective of wiping
out terror. In doing so, it is biting off more than it can chew. As
President Mubarak once explained to an American news broadcaster, the type
of government in this part of the world - a blend of democracy and
dictatorship with a dummy parliament and a secret police - is the perfect
cocktail for political stability.

If Jordan and Egypt were democracies in the Western sense of the word, the
peace treaties with Israel would have been null and void long ago.
Democracies grow. They aren't parachuted in by a Tomahawk.

Mistake No. 7: Bush did not manage to win global sanction for the war on
Iraq. The amount of resistance put up by the Iraqis has been a shocker for
the army, and the hostility of the world media has been a shocker for the
powers that be in Washington. U.S. troops were prepared for a snap war, but
it's going to be a longer haul than expected. Sooner or later, victory will
come. The people of Iraq do not love Saddam, and the soldiers of Iraq will
not want to die to save his skin. He will disappear. But Bush's America,
after its break with the world, will not be what it was.

And why is that worrying? Because those same mistakes - the smugness and
the bullying - could be repeated when they start on us.

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagan

[CTRL] War Within a War: Rising fears Iraq could become haven for Al Qaida-type groups

[flw]

-Caveat Lector-

HARETZ (Israel)
Tuesday, April 01, 2003 Adar2 28, 5763
Israel Time:  04:57  (GMT+3)

Analysis / Rising fears Iraq could become haven
for Al Qaida-type groups

By Zvi Bar'el

The report that 4,000 suicide volunteers are in Iraq is more exotic than a
strategic threat at this stage, but it is raising fears of an
Afghanistan-style scenario. According to Turkish and Jordanian military
sources, Iraq could attract every organization and fragment group that has
not found a military operating field since Afghanistan.

"Iraq may turn into the next focus of Al-Qaida activity," said a senior
Jordanian source. "Now there is a dangerous combination of radical Islamic
rulings calling for jihad, a state in which every citizen carries arms, the
lack of ability to distinguish between an innocent civilian and an activist
in an organization, and an abundance of American targets."

Iraq's long and unsecured borders enable entrance from nearly every
direction - Syria, Iran, Jordan and Turkey - and every village or township
has plenty of weapons and explosive charges for volunteers to stock up on.
The result is already evident: When coalition soldiers have difficulty
setting traffic regulations for civilians, roadblocks turn into points of
unrest, food distribution becomes a dangerous military operation, and every
civilian vehicle is a suspicious object. In fact, a war within a war is
developing in Iraq: one involves heavy weapons, planes and missiles against
the Iraqi regime's targets, while the other involves an ongoing war to
secure the fighting forces and logistic divisions from sporadic attacks.

A threat even greater than outside volunteers, however, is being posed by
Iraqi civilians - this includes military men dressed in civil clothing and
tribesmen who received arms and money from Iraqi army commanders to act
against the coalition forces.

"Tribal heads have turned into a regular fighting force and are assigned
combat missions," the Jordanian source said. "They cannot beat an army, but
they can harass it and detain it. More important, they are forcing the
American and British forces to allocate large forces for guard and
protection duty."

According to reports before the war, American intelligence men tried to
persuade these tribal leaders to start a civil uprising, but it appears the
attempt failed. This double campaign is delaying implementation of the
civil aid program that not only was supposed to transfer food, medicine and
water to the population, but also was supposed to build a bridge of
confidence between the coalition forces and the population. The longer the
civil aid plan is delayed due to the lack of security on the main routes
and the inability to reach population centers, the harder it will be for
coalition forces to mobilize civil aid for the war.

Iraqi propaganda is taking advantage of the struggle for the public's
heart. Yesterday it presented foreign correspondents with Iraqi women
enlisting as warriors in the country's cities where they received lavish
meals at their positions. Iraq says there is enough food to last five or
six months, while international aid organizations estimate food supplies
will last only four or five weeks.

The problem is not merely food distribution and humanitarian aid
administration. Apparently in those townships and villages conquered, or
partly dominated, by the coalition forces, the local authorities have been
eliminated and there is no one overseeing public safety. Gangs of robbers
and looters have been formed, and in some places, there have been reports
of deadly score settling. The coalition forces lack the knowledge, ability
and suitable personnel to cope with these developments.

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

O

[CTRL] War On Freedom Update

[flw]

-Caveat Lector-

Liberty Action of the Week for April 1,2003
War on Freedom on its many fronts
by Mary Lou Seymour

War, war, and rumors of war. There's Bush's War of Aggression against
Iraq (and who knows who else in the future), the War on Civil
Liberties at home, and the War on Medical Marijuana patients. The
governmentt line is always "we're doing this for your safety, to
protect you from 'the enemy' (terrorists, third world countries with
WMD, drug dealers), we're doing this for your OWN GOOD and if you
don't agree you're unpatriotic and un American and probably an enemy
sympathizer (or drug user) or a 'useful idiot' being used by the
forces of evil."

But take away the propaganda and patriotic trappings, look behind the
flag waving and you'll see that all of these wars have a common
thread: the state using its power and might to crush individual
rights, and consolidate its own power at the expense of freedom. All
of these wars are different fronts in the War on Freedom.

When the governmentt goes to war abroad, of course, the stakes get
higher (citizens and their sons and daughters are actually going to
be openly killed, not just imprisoned or deprived of medicine); and
to appease those who find it hard to believe that the Mongol hordes
(communist hordes, Islamic hordes) are really much of a threat as
long as we mind our own business, they'll throw in the "we're doing
this to liberate Poland (Iraq, South Vietnam, South Korea) and spread
democracy" meme. Every aggressive imperialist state has used this
exact same justification, throughout history.

Some in the freedom movement just don't get the connection between
our government's actions at home and abroad. Some of us have lost
good friends over differences of opinion on Bush's War of Aggression
("Lost Friend"). Not only is it an individual tragedy to lose a
friend, but to lose a fellow freedom fighter, well, there aren't that
many of us to begin with and we can't afford to lose a single foot
soldier.

I can't offer any words of wisdom on how to not alienate friends and
fellow freedom fighters, except this ... if you find
yourself "talking to a brick wall" when you're doing outreach on ANY
issue, back off that issue and try another. That's simply good
organizing.

But never forget the common thread that runs through all these issues
and other issues that ultimately affect our freedom as individuals,
and realize that anything you can do to educate people of that
commonality will pay off in the long run. Get into the habit of
framing every issue in the context of the non-aggression principle,
the cornerstone of the culture of freedom. Maybe today they are too
blind to see, but maybe tomorrow, or the next day or hell, even a
year from now they'll suddenly remember what YOU said, and "see the
light."

The strength of the NAP is that most people understand it, and AGREE
with it (at least the people we're trying to reach), and once they
grasp the concept of seeing EVERY issue in light of the NAP, well,
you've got a convert for the cause of individual freedom.

I've talked about the War of Aggression abroad for several columns,
and last week we talked about the War on Civil Liberties on the home
front.

This week, let's revisit the War on Medical Marijuana Patients. This
is an excellent issue from several perspectives. Who, after all,
(except the terminally fascist) can be against sick and dying people
obtaining the medicine they need? And the WoMM is also a war on
states' rights: even though 8 states have passed medical marijuana
laws, the feds are still prosecuting folks under federal law, in
direct defiance of the state legislatures, and preventing jurors from
hearing evidence concerning why medical marijuana is used.

Several U.S. Representatives (Representatives Sam Farr, Lynn Woolsey
and Dana Rohrabacher) are seeking to end this unjust use of
government power to crush individual (and states') rights by
introducing FEDERAL legislation to protect states' rights to medical
marijuana and to remove the "gag" that the federal government is
placing on medical marijuana defendants in court.

The Marijuana Policy Project has an easy to use action plan to select
a pre-written letter to fax to your U.S. representative, urging him
or her to cosponsor the Patients' and Providers' Truth in Trials Act,
which would not only ensure that defendants could introduce evidence
about the medical nature of their marijuana-related activity, but
would also keep them from being sent to federal prison if it is
determined that they were acting in compliance with state medical
marijuana laws.

You can choose between several pre written letters:

*Prevent others from suffering Ed Rosenthal's fate

*The federal government's war on medical marijuana is immoral

*No justice in Justice Department's medical marijuana trials

*Protect those who truly need medical marijuana

*Help change a bad federal policy

*I am troubled by the treatment of the sick and dying

Or write your own, and, w

[CTRL] War, Hitler, & Cheney

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2003/2003_10-19/2003-13/this_wk.html



This Week You Need To Know

War, Hitler, & Cheney
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. — March 25, 2003

The immediate situation of the U.S. is summed up as follows: At this moment, as I had forewarned you in 1999-2000, we are plunging into a world depression comparable to, but worse than that of the Herbert Hoover Depression of 1929-1933. As I forewarned you in an address, broadcast at the beginning of 2001, new would-be Adolf Hitlers have now appeared, this time inside the U.S.A. Those would-be Hitlers now threaten the whole world with the kinds of wars for which the world later hung Nazi leaders, at Nuremberg: the new Hitlers from inside the U.S.A. and Blair's government, who act exactly as Hitler threatened Czechoslovakia in 1938, and invaded Poland in 1939.

The pivotal feature of that warfare, into which an already bankrupt U.S. has just been plunged, is the de facto usurpation of the function of a still-sitting President by Halliburton's Vice President Cheney, and by a gang of his organized-crime-linked lackeys polluting not only the Departments of Defense and State, but also polluting, and virtually castrating elected and other leaders of the nominal opposition, the Democratic Party.

Ironically, but not accidentally, the present war-like situation in the Department of Defense, including the public rug-chewing exhibitions by Secretary Rumsfeld, reminds today's serious historians of the way in which Adolf Hitler and his Roman Legions-modelled SS, ultimately destroyed that German military which would-be Caesar Hitler's gang feared and hated so intensely.

All too obviously, the leading war-makers inside the Bush Administration today are mere lackeys, nasty pimps like the Leporello of Mozart's famous opera. These real-life Leporellos, such as the politically pimpish Wolfowitz and Ashcroft, were spawned, chiefly, by Chicago University and associated circles of a prominent fascist ideologue, the late Professor Leo Strauss. This Strauss was a follower of the Carl Schmitt who crafted the law under which Hitler became dictator of Germany; so, are Strauss's ardent followers inside the Bush Administration today. This fascist, Strauss, who created Wolfowitz, was imported to the U.S. from the Germany of Carl Schmitt and Hitler-midwife Hjalmar Schacht, at the time that also the later Robert Hutchins-sponsored Strauss was already known to be a fanatical follower of the leading Nazi ideologue Martin Heidegger.

However, like the Nazi SS enforcers, lackeys Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, Wurmser, Feith, and so on, are merely expendable hoodlums adorned with political motley. To understand them, you must look to those who created them and put them into their present positions. You must look to the London-backed Hjalmar Schachts and von Papens of the modern U.S.A., including the likes of the Conrad Blacks, the Rupert Murdochs, George Shultz, and the Shultz-allied forces behind the Halliburton firms' government and other connections.

The essence of the matter is exactly what I warned you might happen, in a broadcast address I delivered just before the inauguration of President George W. Bush, Jr. We are in an accelerating world depression, while this year's U.S. Federal deficit already soars in the direction of the $1 trillions mark. The U.S.A. experienced its "Reichstag Fire" on September 11, 2001, and the storm-trooper legions of Vice President Cheney marched forth from those smoking ruins, brandishing their Mein Kampf doctrine of "preventive nuclear" war. This is the Nazi-like doctrine which Cheney had adopted in 1991, then in his capacity of Secretary of Defense. Led by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's lackeys, the depression-wracked U.S. is presently marching down the road toward self-inflicted Hell, unless the war is stopped about now.

We are, therefore, now trapped in a war for which no foreseeable exit is provided. It is not an "Iraq War"; it is a virtually endless world war, unless we stop it: unless you, personally, contribute to stopping it. It is a war already spreading, as the military forces of Turkey invade northern Iraq, in preparation to deal with a Kurdish campaign to carve a Kurdish state out of a region including large chunks of Turkey and Transcaucasia. This is a war of incalculable implications, being pushed by dangerous, and largely morally demented lunatics, such as Mother Cheney's Chickenhawks.

This is a spreading war, which threatens to topple most, or even all of the existing governments of the Middle East. As a result of the earlier foolishness of the Bush Administration policy toward the government of South Korea, President Bush's brainless launching of an absolutely unlawful war against Iraq, has created the grave possibility of an otherwise unlikely, nuclear-warfare incident between the U.S.A. and North Korea, with the possibility of a third nuclear-weapons detonation against Japan.

None of this insanity could have

[CTRL] War games vs. war reality

[goldi316]

-Caveat Lector-

I remember when there was all that buzz about "Millenium Challenge
2002", here's a link for their original page laying out the goals and
plans (to a point) of the operation, from the Joint Forces Command:
http://www.jfcom.mil/about/experiments/mc02.htm

When news began trickling out about how they skewered their own game
(read: cheated) in order to have a "win", I laughed.  Unfortunately I'm
not laughing now, for the poor folks in the current battle of their
lives were given a flawed gameplan to start with, because somebody
couldn't be "wrong".

How could they do something like this???  This wasn't a college exam
they were fudging - lives were depending on it.  To me this shows a
total and utter contempt for their own military, that they would even
skewer the results of a game because winning was everything, at all
costs (even human lives).  Even when they were wrong, they HAD to be
right!  What incredible arrogance!

Three articles below, including the Guardian report from August 2002 on
the results of the "game".

goldi


Editor's Note: If top fighting generals are making statements like this
with troops still in the field, the level of frustration among those
tasked to fight this war must be enormous. The game plan espoused by
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle has left our troops exposed, underfed,
lacking fuel and open to attacks from the flank. Nasiriya and Basra
remain untaken, with Baghdad looming ominously in the distance. Many of
our soldiers are dead or wounded. General Wallace has every right to be
angry. - wrp

Outspoken Army General Upsets White House
By The Associated Press

Friday 28 March 2003

WASHINGTON -- His war plan may not have panned out in Iraq quite as
neatly as Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace had hoped.

"The plan is to be decisive, rapid, lethal and to give our adversary no
edge he can take advantage of,'' Wallace, commander of the ground battle
in Iraq, was quoted as saying earlier this month.

After a week of war, Wallace upset the White House Thursday by saying
publicly that Pentagon strategists had misunderstood the combativeness
of Iraqi fighters. The miscalculation, he said, had stalled the
coalition's drive toward Baghdad.

"The enemy we're fighting against is different from the one we'd
war-gamed against,'' Wallace, commander of V Corps, told The New York
Times and The Washington Post. "We knew they were here, but we did not
know how they would fight.''

Wallace's comments fed into the frustration the Bush administration
already was expressing over media coverage of the pace of the war
effort. The war, the White House says daily, is going well and at a good
speed.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer on Friday would not say
whether he agreed with Wallace.

"The strength of the plan is at the ability to adapt to the realities of
the circumstances while still focused on what it is we seek to do,''
Fleischer said at his daily briefing.

At a briefing at U.S. Central Command in Qatar, Brig. Gen. Vincent
Brooks said uncertainty is part of battle.

"No one can ever predict how a battle will unfold,'' Brooks said. ``We
remain confident that we have a good grip on what's going on here and
we're proceeding.''

Tough talk isn't new for Wallace, 55, who was promoted to commanding
general of V Corps in June 2001.

Chafing at the wait for action to begin earlier this year, Wallace
growled to a reporter that he was sick of having to deal with missile
warnings of Iraqi incoming "lawn darts'' without striking back. Saddam
Hussein, he said in less polite terms, was ticking him off.

Wallace also said he found the responsibility humbling.

He had worked for it all his career. Wallace, who goes by his middle
name, Scott, graduated from West Point in 1969 and then the U.S. Army
Command and General Staff College and the Naval War College before
earning postgraduate degrees in operations analysis and international
relations.

A Vietnam veteran, Wallace progressed from soldier to student to trainer
and commander. By June 1999, he was serving as commander of the Joint
Warfighting Center and director of joint training at the U.S. Joint
Forces Command in Norfolk, Va.

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

© Copyright 2003 by TruthOut.org

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-War-Lt-Gen-Wallace.html
http://truthout.org/docs_03/033003B.shtml

***

War game was fixed to ensure American victory, claims general

Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday August 21, 2002
The Guardian

The biggest war game in US military history, staged this month at a cost
of £165m with 13,000 troops, was rigged to ensure that the Americans
beat their "Middle Eastern" adversaries, according to one of the main
participants.

General Paul Van Riper, a retired marine lieutenant-general, told the
Army Times that the sprawling three

[CTRL] war crimes in Iraq, US casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, civilians in Iraq

[Smart News]

-Caveat Lector-







scroll for news articles

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/whatsnew/action/actionAlert.asp
War Crimes Are Being Committed in Iraq

International humanitarian law requires that warring parties not indiscriminately attack civilians or the infrastructure on which they depend to live. Likewise, attacks designed to spread terror amongst civilians are not permitted. 

Today the US, UK and other forces launched a massive air strike against Iraq as part of the US military plan, "shock and awe." In the first 48 hours of this attack some 3,000 precision-guided missiles will be fired at or near Baghdad, a densely populated city of 5.6 million. In Afghanistan, these weapons had a maximum success rate of 85%, indicating that at least some 200 missiles will miss their targets daily and result in the indiscriminate deaths of innocent civilians. 

These tactics are illegal under the Geneva Convention as well as under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). 

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31461
U.S. Army prepares  for 9,000 casualties 
Sets up 'replacement center' to resupply Iraq combatants 
Posted: March 11, 2003 By Paul Sperry c 2003 WorldNetDaily.com WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army is stationing a minimum 9,000 soldiers at a "casualty replacement center" in Kuwait to swiftly replace troops lost across the border in Iraq combat, WorldNetDaily has learned. Pentagon officials say the center is part of worst-case preparations for a ground assault on Baghdad, and they don't expect American casualties to actually run as high as 9,000. 

http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.php?id=20101
Bodies of 500 US, UK soldiers lying in Jacobabad
Wednesday March 26, 2003 (0229 PST)
ISLAMABAD, March 26 (Online): Around 500 dead bodies of American and British soldiers killed during military operation in Afghanistan after September 11 blitz have been lying in a morgue at Shebhaz Airbase in Jacobabad. American and British authorities because of fear of strong reaction from their masses had kept the dead bodies of as many as 500 soldiers in a morgue established at Jacobabad Airbase instead of shifting them to their own countries, credible sources informed Online here Tuesday. 


http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=372132003
Baghdad blast 'kills 58 civilians' 

TIM RIPLEY AT US CENTRAL COMMAND AND EDWARD BLACK 
ALMOST 60 civilians were killed and dozens injured in an air strike on a Baghdad market in the largest loss of life during the allied military campaign so far, Iraqi authorities reported last night.  The bombing, which was said to have claimed many young victims, came just two days after 14 civilians died when another shopping area in Baghdad was hit. Although the allies have yet to accept responsibility for either attack, shocking images of dead and injured civilians are a major blow to military strategists as they hunker down for a long campaign. As commanders on both sides of the Atlantic yesterday conceded that the campaign was in some difficulty, The Scotsman was told that Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, is considering plans to deploy 5,000 more British troops to reinforce security around Basra.  The Ministry of Defence has sent plans to Downing Street to fly out a brigade of infantry, which could include men from the Perth-based 51st (Scottish) Brigade, to help British forces to fight off guerrilla attacks. US officers in the field are now said to be talking about a pause in the ground advance, while allied air power takes out Iraqi tanks and armour in central Iraq. They have admitted it could be as long as a month before an assault on Baghdad is launched.
"Most of the injured are children and are in very serious condition," said hospital director Dr Haqi Ismail Razouq. 


http://www.cep-news.org/
Community Empowerment Project
has info on war in Iraq

 



















www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Con

[CTRL] War in Iraq - a week of war

[Steve Wingate]

-Caveat Lector-

War in Iraq - a week of war

March 28, 2003
www.iraqwar.ru

The IRAQWAR.RU analytical center was created recently by a group of journalists and
military experts from Russia to provide accurate and up-to-date news and analysis of 
the
war against Iraq. The following is the English translation of the IRAQWAR.RU report 
based
on the Russian military intelligence reports.

[ < previous report | next report > ]

March 28, 2003, 1448hrs MSK (GMT +3), Moscow - According to the latest intercepted 
radio
communications, the command of the coalition group of forces near Karabela requested at
least 12 more hours to get ready to storm the town. This delay is due to the much 
heavier
losses sustained by the coalition troops during the sand storms then was originally
believed. Just the US 3rd Mechanized Infantry Division sustained more than 200 disabled
combat vehicles of various types. The 101st Airborne Division reported some 70
helicopters as being disabled. Additionally, the recently delivered reinforcements
require rest and time to prepare for combat.

At the same time the US forces have resumed attacks near An-Nasiriya and An-Najaf since
0630hrs and are continuously increasing the intensity of these attacks. During the 
night
and early morning of March 28 the Iraqi positions in these areas were subjected to 
eight
aerial assaults by bombers and ground attack aircraft. However, so far [the coalition]
was unable to penetrate the Iraqi defenses.

Also during the early morning the British units begun advancing along the Fao 
peninsula.
Latest radio intercepts from this area show that under a continuous artillery and 
aerial
bombardment the Iraqis have begun to gradually withdraw their forces toward Basra.

First firefights between troops of the US 82nd Airborne Division and the Iraqi forces
occurred in northern Iraq in the area of Mosula. At the same time the arrival of up to
1,500 Kurdish troops has been observed in this area. So far it is not clear to which of
the many Kurdish political movements these troops belong. Leaders of the largest 
Kurdish
workers party categorically denied participation of their troops. They believe that 
these
may be units of one of the local tribes not controlled by the central authorities of 
the
Kurdish autonomy and "ready to fight with anyone" for money.

According to verified information, during the past 48 hours of the Iraqi counterattacks
the coalition forces sustained the following losses: up to 30 killed, over 110 wounded
and 20 missing in action; up to 30 combat vehicles lost or disabled, including at 
least 8
tanks and 2 self-propelled artillery systems, 2 helicopters and 2 unmanned aerial
vehicles were lost in combat. Iraqi losses are around 300 killed, up to 800 wounded, 
200
captured and up to 100 combat vehicles 25 of which were tanks. Most of the [ Iraqi ]
losses were sustained due to the artillery fire and aerial bombardment that resumed by
the evening of March 27.

First conclusions can be drawn from the war

The first week of the war surprised a number of military analysts and experts. The war 
in
Iraq uncovered a range of problems previously left without a serious discussion and
disproved several resilient myths.

The first myth is about the precision-guided weapons as the determining factor in 
modern
warfare, weapons that allow to achieve strategic superiority without direct contact 
with
the enemy. On the one hand we have the fact that during the past 13 years the wars were
won by the United States with minimum losses and, in essence, primarily through the use
of aviation. At the same time, however, the US military command was stubborn in 
ignoring
that the decisive factor in all these wars was not the military defeat of the resisting
armies but political isolation coupled with strong diplomatic pressure on the enemy's
political leadership. It was the creation of international coalitions against Iraq in
1991, against Yugoslavia in 1999 and against Afghanistan in 2001 that ensured the
military success.

The American command preferred not to notice the obvious military failures during
expeditions to Granada, Libya and Somalia, discounting them as "local operations" not
deserving much attention.

Today we can see that in itself massed use of strategic and tactical precision-guided
weapons did not provide the US with a strategic advantage. Despite the mass use of the
most sophisticated weapons the Americans have so far failed to disrupt Iraqi command 
and
control infrastructure, communication networks, top Iraqi military and political
leadership, Iraqi air defenses. At the same time the US precision-guided weapons 
arsenal
has been reduced by about 25%.

The only significant advantage of the precision-guided weapons is the capability to 
avoid
massive casualties among the civilians in densely populated areas.

What we have is an obvious discrepancy between the ability to locate and attack a 
target
with precision-guided weapons and the power of this wea

[CTRL] War increases Arab hatred of America

[flw]

-Caveat Lector-

Updated: Mar 28th, 2003 - 07:33:05

America at War
---
-

War increases Arab hatred of America
By LANCE GAY
Scripps Howard News Service
Mar 28, 2003, 07:20

The Arab view of the United States could hardly be bleaker.

Arabs protest war

Dislike of America is turning into hatred, reports U.S. pollster John
Zogby, who has been monitoring views in six Middle East countries.
Meantime, Arab newspapers this week are filled with pictures of
hospitalized civilians and stories that claim the real goal of the United
States is to capture the region's oil.

"The views on the United States are the lowest I've ever seen," said Zogby,
himself an Arab-American, who conducted a poll of Middle East sentiment
earlier this month in Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates.

"The war is having an impact on the region," he said. He said the polls are
showing that from 79 percent to 94 percent of the people who live in the
Middle East believe the war is going to result in less democracy.

British and American commanders are loudly condemning the way some Arab
organizations are covering the war.

Air Marshal Brian Burridge, commander of the British forces in Iraq, lashed
out Thursday at what he has seen on the Arab satellite TV network
al-Jazeera, which has broadcast Iraqi interviews of American prisoners of
war and pictures of Americans.

Thursday, the network broadcast pictures of wounded people from a missile
explosion in Baghdad, asking, "is this the freedom promised to the Iraqi
people?" The Pentagon said an investigation has failed to find any
coalition bomb fired that could have caused the damage.

"That type of reporting is neither balanced, nor should anybody take any
pride in it. Take it from me," Burridge said.

But Al-Jazeera's coverage reflects what is being said in other newspapers
throughout the Islamic world. Newspapers Thursday were filled with pictures
of Iraqi children fleeing the Baghdad market and pictures of Iraqis in
hospital beds.

Syria's al-Thawrah newspaper this week urged the Arab world to rise up
against the U.S-led war "and transform the whole of Iraq into a grave for
the aggressors."

Al-Khalij, a leading newspaper in the United Arab Emirates, said the U.S.
intervention signaled a wider war in the Middle East. "The Mongols of this
century will not be content with Iraq when they swallow it up," the
newspaper said. Meanwhile, in a Cairo newspaper, former Egyptian minister
of war Amin Huweidi compared George Bush's policies to those of Adolf
Hitler.

Bruce Kuniholm, a professor of public policy and history at Duke
University, said that while many of Iraq's neighbors don't like Saddam
Hussein, they also resent the presence of U.S. troops on Arab lands.

He said the Bush administration's arguments about the need to control
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction aren't getting through to most of those
in the Middle East, who suspect that the United States is at war with Iraq
only for the country's oil reserves and to expand U.S. control over Arab
lands.

"I think the United States is going to take a pretty big hit on this,"
Kuniholm said. "There's a relatively simplistic structure on the (Arab)
streets when looking at the United States."

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War Problems

[flw]

-Caveat Lector-

American Newsreel
What price war?

By DOUG THOMPSON
Mar 28, 2003, 06:03

New polls show 70 percent of Americans support the war with Iraq but
that support is, as pollsters like to say, a mile wide and an inch deep.
That means it wouldn't take much to turn public opinion in this country
against the war and send George W. Bush's political future into the
crapper.


American optimism, strong when the war began last week, dropped
dramatically in recent days. Pollster John Zogby points to a "squishy
middle that could fluctuate, depending on what happens on the ground."

To make matters worse, even if America wins the war in Iraq, it faces
increasing hostility and hatred in the Middle East. Zogby says Arab hatred
of the U.S. is at an all time high. Last month, Andrew Kohut, director of
the
Pew Research Center, warned that the clear unpopularity in the Middle East
of an Iraq war "can only further fuel hostilities - almost no matter how
well
such a war goes."

"War," General George S. Patton once said, "breeds war."  Now that
America has crossed the line between defensive action and pre-emptive
strikes, who's next?

"It takes little imagination to dream up other scenarios that might call
for
pre-emptive military action," says Thomas Donnelly, a military analyst at
the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank that has led the
charge for war against Iraq.

"Even after Mr. Hussein is gone, other tyrannies, such as North Korea and
Iran, will continue to threaten world peace," said Max Boot, a scholar at
the
Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

And Bush makes it clear he has no qualms about striking first.

"As a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against ...
emerging threats before they are fully formed," the president said last
year.

But while Bush may see America's military role as more proactive in the
coming years, it is not yet clear if the public supports such a policy. The
same polls that show 70 percent of Americans supporting the war also
shows growing uneasiness with aggressive moves against other countries.

Antiwar voices in this country are at their strongest level since Vietnam
and
appear to be growing. Anti-American sentiment abroad remains high.

Bush's risky strategy threatens far more than just his political future.

© Copyright 2003 by American Newsreel

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War in Iraq - preparing for battle UPDATE

[Steve Wingate]

-Caveat Lector-

March 27, 2003
www.iraqwar.ru

The IRAQWAR.RU analytical center was created recently by a group of journalists and
military experts from Russia to provide accurate and up-to-date news and analysis of 
the
war against Iraq. The following is the English translation of the IRAQWAR.RU report 
based
on the Russian military intelligence reports.

March 27, 2003, 2321hrs MSK (GMT +3), Moscow (UPDATE) - Intercepted radio 
communications
indicate that tomorrow we should expect a powerful attack by the coalition. During all
day today the coalition troops were being reinforced and fully resupplied with fuel and
ammunition. Additional units reserved for maintaining security along the Kuwaiti border
were moved today to the front lines. The total number of additional [coalition] forces 
to
enter Iraq numbers up to five battalions and around 800 combat vehicles.

By 1600hrs today the sand storm in Iraq has subsided allowing coalition to resume
helicopter support of ground troops. At the same time the Iraqi positions were attacked
by bombers and ground attack aircraft, which forced the Iraqis to cease their attacks 
and
to resume defensive operations.

Available information suggests that the coalition command, despite of the extreme
exhaustion of its troops, will attempt to use elements of the 3rd Mechanized Infantry
Division to actively contain the Iraqi forces around Karabela and to reach the 
strategic
Al-Falludja highway by moving from the west around the Razzaza lake, thus cutting off 
the
way to Jordan. It is expected that by noon of March 29 the main coalition forces will
reach this area.

During the night from March 29 to March 30 elements of the US 82nd Airborne Division
aided by the Army Special Operations units may attempt to capture the Saddam Hussein
Airport. Immediately following the capture of the airport the coalition plans to use it
for the deployment of a brigade from the 101st Airborne Division, which will be
responsible for holding the airport until the arrival of the main forces.

Commanders of the reinforced Marine brigade trying to take An-Nasiriya for the fourth 
day
have received strict orders to suppress the Iraqi defenses and to take the town during
the next day, after which to continue their advance toward Al-Kut and Al-Ammara.
Similarly strict orders were received by the command of the brigade attacking An-Najaf.
They will have to take this town, widen the staging area on the left bank of the
Euphrates and push the Iraqis away from the town. By the morning of March 29 both these
brigades are supposed join up southwest of Al-Kut, where they will be reinforced by the
elements of the 101st Airborne Division and, after forming a southern attack line, they
would blockade Baghdad from the south.

The British command has been ordered to completely take over the Fao peninsula, 
complete
the blockade of Basra from the south and to completely take over the [Basra] airport
area. After that the British are to advance toward Basra from the south along the 
Al-Arab
river.

Based on this information to say that tomorrow we should expect heated combat would be 
an
understatement.

(source: iraqwar.ru, 03-27-03, translated by Venik)

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news081.htm


News alternatives to US war propaganda:

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news080.htm
http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news081.htm
http://www.overthrow.com/
http://www.aljazeerah.info/
http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/politics/content.htm

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War [the ultimate stiffenenenener] coverage takes over as top Internet search

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org

http://wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/inte-m28_prn.shtml


WSWS : News & Analysis : The Internet & Computerization

War coverage takes over as top Internet search

By Mike Ingram
28 March 2003

Back to screen version| Send this link by email | Email the author

“War” has taken over “sex”, “Britney Spears” and “travel” as the top
Internet search term since the US and British forces commenced their
bombardment of Iraq.

Given the global, 24-hour character of the Internet the rise in numbers
looking for news on the latest developments in Iraq is hardly surprising.
That alone does not account for the increase, however, which more
fundamentally expresses the frustration of millions of people with official
news outlets. Their unashamed regurgitation of government propaganda
forces people to search for other news sources outside of the usual
channels.

The UK Internet Service Provider (ISP), Freeserve, which tracks daily
changes in popular search terms, said that over the weekend of March 22-
23, the term “war” outranked previous favourites.

According to the ISP, news sites are seeing a huge increase in traffic as
people look for the latest information on Iraq. Some sites are recording
more than two to three times more visitors than normal. According to
Comscore Media Metrix, traffic to the top 15 news sites has increased by
more than 40 percent.

Yahoo! is experiencing the same trend with “Iraq” claiming the top place
in its search index. The war now generates more interest than music and
basketball, with searches involving military technology also on the
increase.

Keynote Systems, which tracks how long it takes web users to access
sites, said that the Internet and the web as a whole were not showing any
major problems, but the company did find accessing some sites difficult.
The web sites of the US Navy and US Airforce, and the British Home Office
could not be accessed for several hours last week and the sites of CNN
and MSBNC were down for a few minutes after the US attack began, but
quickly recovered. Other sites affected included the London Times and
Jerusalem Post, which suffered from performance degradation, according
to Keynote.

The responsiveness of BBC News Online suffered during the busy lunchtime
period with average download times rising from 0.47 seconds to 1.88
seconds and ITV News saw average download times increase from 5.66
seconds to 15.84 seconds.

The Arabic-language satellite station Al Jazeera which broadcast Saddam
Hussein’s address in full following the start of bombing last week has also
had problems. Its web page took 240 seconds to load the night war
commenced.

Akamai Technologies distributes data from leading news sites. On March
19, Akamai had its largest spike ever with traffic to clients reaching 370,000
hits per second, up from the previous peak of 290,000 which was attained
earlier in the week. According to president Paul Sagan, Akamai added large
amounts of data storage and transmission capacity to the network in
anticipation of an increase in Internet usage during the war. The company
claims it could easily handle a tenfold increase in traffic. Customers
include CNN, Yahoo! and MSNBC.

Yahoo!’ s news site—which established itself by allowing submissions from
independent news sources—saw about three times more traffic than it
would in a typical hour directly after President George W. Bush’s speech
announcing that the US had launched war on Iraq, according to
spokeswoman Joanna Stevens.

Stevens said surfers were also using more targeted searches after Bush’s
speech. The top search terms on Yahoo! in the 15 minutes after the
speech were: Iraq, George W. Bush, world map, Ari Fleischer, Saddam
Hussein and war, she said.

In the Gulf War of 1991, governments relied on the self-censorship
practised by the official media to prevent working people from learning
the truth about the war. Twelve years on the same media is even more
craven in its parroting of the lies emanating from Washington and Downing
Street. But their ability to chloroform public opinion has been seriously
undermined with the emergence of the Internet and the World Wide Web
as a mass medium.

Of most concern to the British and US governments is the fact that the
Internet is not simply a repository for news and information but an active
tool of communication and organisation. The emergence of thousands of
antiwar sites and mailing lists has aided the co-ordination of protest
actions on an international scale.







Copyright 1998-2003
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effec

[CTRL] War in Iraq - requirement for more troops

[Steve Wingate]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news080.htm

War in Iraq - requirement for more troops

March 27, 2003
www.iraqwar.ru

The IRAQWAR.RU analytical center was created recently by a group of journalists and
military experts from Russia to provide accurate and up-to-date news and analysis of 
the
war against Iraq. The following is the English translation of the IRAQWAR.RU report 
based
on the Russian military intelligence reports.

March 27, 2003, 1425hrs MSK (GMT +3), Moscow - There has been a sharp increase in
activity on the southern front. As of 0700hrs the coalition forces are subjected to
nearly constant attacks along the entire length of the front. The Iraqi command took 
the
advantage of the raging sand storm to regroup its troops and to reinforce the defenses
along the approaches to Karabela and An-Najaf with two large armored units (up to two
armored brigades totaling up to 200 tanks). The Iraqi attack units were covertly moved
near the positions of the US 3rd Infantry Division (Motorized) and the 101st Airborne
Division. With sunrise and a marginal visibility improvement the Iraqis attacked these 
US
forces in the flank to the west of Karabela.

Simultaneously, massive artillery barrages and counterattacks were launched against 
units
of the US 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne Division conducting combat
operations near An-Najaf. The situation [for the US troops] was complicated by the fact
that the continuing sand storm forced them to group their units into battalion convoys 
in
order to avoid losing troops and equipment in near zero-visibility conditions. These
battalion convoys were concentrated along the roads leading to Karabela and An-Najaf 
and
had only limited defenses. There was no single line of the front; aerial reconnaissance
in these conditions was not possible and until the very last moment the coalition 
command
was unaware of the Iraqi preparations.

During one of such attacks [the Iraqi forces] caught off-guard a unit of the US 3rd
Infantry Division that was doing vehicle maintenance and repairs. In a short battle the
US unit was destroyed and dispersed, leaving behind one armored personnel carrier, a
repair vehicle and two Abrams tanks, one of which was fully operational.

At the present time visibility in the combat zone does not exceed 300 meters, which
limits the effectiveness of the 101st Airborne Division and that of its 70 attack
helicopters representing the main aerial reconnaissance and ground support force of the
coalition. One of the coalition transport helicopters crashed yesterday during 
take-off.
The reason for the crash was sand in the engine compressors.

The Iraqis were able to get in range for close combat without losses and now fierce
battles are continuing in the areas of Karabela and An-Najaf. The main burden of
supporting the coalition ground troops has been placed with the artillery and ground
attack aircraft. Effectiveness of the latter is minimal due to the weather conditions.
Strikes can be delivered only against old Iraqi targets with known coordinates, while
actually supporting the ground troops engaged in combat is virtually impossible and
attempts to do so lead to the most unfortunate consequences.

Intercepted radio communications show that at around 0615hrs this morning the lead of a
flight of two A-10 ground attack planes detected a convoy of armored vehicles. Unable 
to
see any markings identifying these vehicles as friendly and not being able to contact 
the
convoy by radio the pilot directed artillery fire to the coordinates of the convoy.

Later it was discovered that this was a coalition convoy. Thick layers of dust covered 
up
the identification markings - colored strips of cloth in the rear of the vehicles.
Electronic jamming made radio contact impossible. First reports indicated that the US
unit lost 50 troops killed and wounded. At least five armored vehicles have been
destroyed, one of which was an Abrams tank.

During the past day the coalition losses in this area [ Karabela and An-Najaf ] were 
18-
22 killed and up to 40 wounded. Most of the fatalities were sustained due to unexpected
attacks by the Iraqi Special Forces against the coalition rears and against 
communication
sites. This is a sign of the increasing diversionary and partisan actions by the 
Iraqis.


During the same period of time the Iraqi forces sustained up to 100 killed, about the
same number of wounded and up to 50 captured.

Since the beginning of the operation no more than 2000 Iraqi troops were captured by 
the
coalition. The majority of the captured troops were members of regional defense 
[militia]
units.

The Iraqis were able to move significant reinforcements to the area of An-Nasiriya 
making
it now extremely difficult for the Americans to widen their staging areas on the left
bank of the Euphrates. Moreover, the Americans [on the left bank of the Euphrates] may
end up in a very difficult situation if the Iraqis manage to destr

[CTRL] War, Hitler and Cheney

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://larouchein2004.net/pages/pressreleases/2003/030325hitcheney.htm



War, Hitler and Cheney
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
March 25, 2003

The immediate situation of the U.S. is summed up as follows: At this moment, as I had forewarned you in 1999-2000, we are plunging into a world depression comparable to, but worse than that of the Herbert Hoover Depression of 1929-1933. As I forewarned you in an address, broadcast at the beginning of 2001, new would-be Adolf Hitlers have now appeared, this time inside the U.S.A. Those would-be Hitlers now threaten the whole world with the kinds of wars for which the world later hung Nazi leaders, at Nuremberg: the new Hitlers from inside the U.S.A. and Blair's government, who act exactly as Hitler threatened Czechoslovakia in 1938, and invaded Poland in 1939.The pivotal feature of that warfare, into which an already bankrupt U.S. has just been plunged, is the de facto usurpation of the function of a still-sitting President by Halliburton's Vice-President Cheney, and by a gang of his organized-crime-linked lackeys polluting not only the Departments of Defense and State, but also polluting, and virtually castrating elected and other leaders of the nominal opposition, the Democratic Party.

Ironically, but not accidentally, the present war-like situation in the Department of Defense, including the public rug-chewing exhibitions by Secretary Rumsfeld, reminds today's serious historians of the way in which Adolf Hitler and his Roman Legions-modelled SS, ultimately destroyed that German military which would-be Caesar Hitler's gang feared and hated so intensely.

All too obviously, the leading war-makers inside the Bush Administration today are mere lackeys, nasty pimps like the Leporello of Mozart's famous opera. These real-life Leporellos, such as the politically pimpish Wolfowitz and Ashcroft, were spawned, chiefly, by Chicago University and associated circles of a prominent fascist ideologue, the late Professor Leo Strauss. This Strauss was a follower of the Carl Schmitt who crafted the law under which Hitler became dictator of Germany; so, are Strauss's ardent followers inside the Bush Administration today. This fascist, Strauss, who created Wolfowitz, was imported to the U.S. from the Germany of Carl Schmitt and Hitler-midwife Hjalmar Schacht, at the time that also the later Robert Hutchins-sponsored Strauss was already known to be a fanatical follower of the leading Nazi ideologue Martin Heidegger.

However, like the Nazi SS enforcers, lackeys Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, Wurmser, Feith, and so on, are merely expendable hoodlums adorned with political motley. To understand them, you must look to those who created them and put them into their present positions. You must look to the London-backed Hjalmar Schachts and von Papens of the modern U.S.A., including the likes of the Conrad Blacks, the Rupert Murdochs, George Shultz, and the Shultz-allied forces behind the Halliburton firms' government and other connections.

The essence of the matter is exactly what I warned you might happen, in a broadcast address I delivered just before the inauguration of President George W. Bush, Jr.  We are in an accelerating world depression, while this year's U.S. Federal deficit already soars in the direction of the $1 trillions mark. The U.S.A. experienced its “Reichstag Fire” on September 11, 2001, and the storm-trooper legions of Vice-President Cheney marched forth from those smoking ruins, brandishing their Mein Kampf doctrine of “preventive nuclear” war. This is the Nazi-like doctrine which Cheney had adopted in 1991, then in his capacity of Secretary of Defense. Led by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's lackeys, the depression-wracked U.S. is presently marching down the road toward self-inflicted Hell, unless the war is stopped about now.

We are, therefore, now trapped in a war for which no foreseeable exit is provided. It is not an “Iraq War”; it is a virtually endless world war, unless we stop it: unless you, personally, contribute to stopping it.  It is a war already spreading, as the military forces of Turkey invade northern Iraq, in preparation to deal with a Kurdish campaign to carve a Kurdish state out of a region including large chunks of Turkey and Transcaucasia. This is a war of incalculable implications, being pushed by dangerous, and largely morally demented lunatics, such as Mother Cheney's Chickenhawks.

This is a spreading war, which threatens to topple most, or even all of the existing governments of the Middle East. As a result of the earlier foolishness of the Bush Administration policy toward the government of South Korea, President Bush's brainless launching of an absolutely unlawful war against Iraq, has created the grave possibility of an otherwise unlikely, nuclear-warfare incident between the U.S.A. and North Korea, with the possibility of a third nuclear-weapons detonation against Japan.

None of this insanity could have happened this way, had the U.S.A

[CTRL] War, Hitler and Cheney

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

http://larouchein2004.net/pages/pressreleases/2003/030325hitcheney_prt.
htm

War, Hitler and Cheney
by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.
March 25, 2003

The immediate situation of the U.S. is summed up as follows: At this
moment, as I had forewarned you in 1999-2000, we are plunging into a
world depression comparable to, but worse than that of the Herbert
Hoover Depression of 1929-1933. As I forewarned you in an address,
broadcast at the beginning of 2001, new would-be Adolf Hitlers have now
appeared, this time inside the U.S.A. Those would-be Hitlers now threaten
the whole world with the kinds of wars for which the world later hung Nazi
leaders, at Nuremberg: the new Hitlers from inside the U.S.A. and Blair's
government, who act exactly as Hitler threatened Czechoslovakia in 1938,
and invaded Poland in 1939.

The pivotal feature of that warfare, into which an already bankrupt U.S.
has just been plunged, is the de facto usurpation of the function of a still-
sitting President by Halliburton's Vice-President Cheney, and by a gang of
his organized-crime-linked lackeys polluting not only the Departments of
Defense and State, but also polluting, and virtually castrating elected and
other leaders of the nominal opposition, the Democratic Party.

Ironically, but not accidentally, the present war-like situation in the
Department of Defense, including the public rug-chewing exhibitions by
Secretary Rumsfeld, reminds today's serious historians of the way in which
Adolf Hitler and his Roman Legions-modelled SS, ultimately destroyed that
German military which would-be Caesar Hitler's gang feared and hated so
intensely.

All too obviously, the leading war-makers inside the Bush Administration
today are mere lackeys, nasty pimps like the Leporello of Mozart's famous
opera. These real-life Leporellos, such as the politically pimpish Wolfowitz
and Ashcroft, were spawned, chiefly, by Chicago University and associated
circles of a prominent fascist ideologue, the late Professor Leo Strauss.
This Strauss was a follower of the Carl Schmitt who crafted the law under
which Hitler became dictator of Germany; so, are Strauss's ardent
followers inside the Bush Administration today. This fascist, Strauss, who
created Wolfowitz, was imported to the U.S. from the Germany of Carl
Schmitt and Hitler-midwife Hjalmar Schacht, at the time that also the later
Robert Hutchins-sponsored Strauss was already known to be a fanatical
follower of the leading Nazi ideologue Martin Heidegger.

However, like the Nazi SS enforcers, lackeys Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton,
Wurmser, Feith, and so on, are merely expendable hoodlums adorned with
political motley. To understand them, you must look to those who created
them and put them into their present positions. You must look to the
London-backed Hjalmar Schachts and von Papens of the modern U.S.A.,
including the likes of the Conrad Blacks, the Rupert Murdochs, George
Shultz, and the Shultz-allied forces behind the Halliburton firms'
government and other connections.

The essence of the matter is exactly what I warned you might happen, in a
broadcast address I delivered just before the inauguration of President
George W. Bush, Jr. We are in an accelerating world depression, while this
year's U.S. Federal deficit already soars in the direction of the $1 trillions
mark. The U.S.A. experienced its “Reichstag Fire” on September 11, 2001,
and the storm-trooper legions of Vice-President Cheney marched forth
from those smoking ruins, brandishing their Mein Kampf doctrine of
“preventive nuclear” war. This is the Nazi-like doctrine which Cheney had
adopted in 1991, then in his capacity of Secretary of Defense. Led by
Cheney's and Rumsfeld's lackeys, the depression-wracked U.S. is presently
marching down the road toward self-inflicted Hell, unless the war is
stopped about now.

We are, therefore, now trapped in a war for which no foreseeable exit is
provided. It is not an “Iraq War”; it is a virtually endless world war, unless
we stop it: unless you, personally, contribute to stopping it. It is a war
already spreading, as the military forces of Turkey invade northern Iraq, in
preparation to deal with a Kurdish campaign to carve a Kurdish state out
of a region including large chunks of Turkey and Transcaucasia. This is a
war of incalculable implications, being pushed by dangerous, and largely
morally demented lunatics, such as Mother Cheney's Chickenhawks.

This is a spreading war, which threatens to topple most, or even all of the
existing governments of the Middle East. As a result of the earlier
foolishness of the Bush Administration policy toward the government of
South Korea, President Bush's brainless launching of an absolutely unlawful
war against Iraq, has created the grave possibility of an otherwise unlikely,
nuclear-warfare incident between the U.S.A. and North Korea, with the
possibility of a third nuclear-weapons detonation against Japan.

None of this insanity could have happened this way, had the 

[CTRL] War to EMPOWER THE UNITED NATIONS (fwd)

[William Bacon]

-Caveat Lector-

"I pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to
the REPUBLIC for which it stands,  one Nation under God,indivisible,with
liberty and justice for all."

 visit my web site at
http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon My ICQ# is 79071904
for a precise list of the powers of the Federal Government linkto:
http://www.voicenet.com/~wbacon/Enumerated.html

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:59:26 -0500
From: John Perna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: John Birch Discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: War  to EMPOWER THE UNITED NATIONS

This war is ON BEHALF OF The New World Order, (Headquartered at the United
Nations)
and against the only dictator in the world,
who is not going along with The New World Order.

GW Bush cited a UN Resolution as the reason for the war.
The constitution say CONGRESS has the authority to get us into a war,
NOT THE UN.
We are angry because terrorists did damage in our country.
Our national pride was hurt.
We swore to obtain justice, or maybe even vengence.

We are ready to go to war because we say that Saddam has weapons of mass
destruction.
But, who has THE MOST weapons of mass destruction?
Which is the only country that has ever dropped a
nuclear bomb on a civilian population?

After we EMPOWER THE UNITED NATIONS,
in the name of opposing weapons of mass destruction,
then how will we refuse to live by the rules that we demanded?

Over and over again,
we have let our leaders drop bombs on other countries,
and we called this "patriotism".
Now there are people all over the world,
who want to do the same thing to us,
and we call this "terrorism".

Now our leaders tell us that to stop "terrorism",
we must drop more bombs.
How will this cycle end?

Bombing other countries;
which have not invaded us,
is not defense.
That is aggression.
This is all about EMPOWERING THE UNITED NATIONS.

Our leaders are United Nations puppets, who have no intention of saving this
country from the United Nations.
New World Order "one worlder" stooges have run our government for
generations.
Read Department of State Publication 7277;
which has been in effect since September of 1961

visit:
http://www.mikenew.com/pub7277.html
or
http://members.tripod.com/~Bill_Fisher/jbsapr91.html
or
http://feralnews.com/issues/jfk/US_Dept_of_State_Publication_7277.html
or
http://williamcooper.com/7277.htm

At the end, you will find this blunt summary:

"In Stage III progressive controlled disarmament
and continuously developing principles
and procedures of international law would proceed to a point
where no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively 
strengthened U.N. Peace Force
and all international disputes would be settled according
to
the agreed principles of international conduct."

The Full text follows:

Department of State Publication 7277


THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT
IN A PEACEFUL WORLD

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5
Released September 1961

Office of Public Services
BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

For sale by the Superintendent ot Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington 25, D.C. - Price 15 cents

INTRODUCTION

The revolutionary development of modern weapons within a world divided by
serious ideological differences has produced a crisis in human history. In
order to overcome the danger of nuclear war now confronting mankind, the
United States has introduced, at the Sixteenth General Assembly of the
United
Nations, a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.

This new program provides for the progressive reduction of the war-making
capabilities of nations and the simultaneous strengthening of international
institutions to settle disputes and maintain the peace. It sets forth a
series of comprehensive measures which can and should be taken in order to
bring about a world in which there will be freedom from war and security for
all states. It is based on three principles deemed essential to the
achievement of practical progress in the disarmament field:

First, there must be immediate disarmament action:

A strenuous and uninterrupted effort must be made toward the goal of general
and complete disarmament; at the same time, it is important that specific
measures be put into effect as soon as possible.

Second, all disarmament obligations must be subject to effective
international controls: The control organization must have the manpower,
facilities, and effectiveness to assure that limitations or reductions take
place as agreed. It must also be able to certify to all states that retained
forces and armaments do not exceed those permitted at any stage of the
disarmament process.

Third, adequate peace-keeping machinery must be established: There is an
inseparable relationship between the scaling down of national armaments on
the one hand and the building up of international peace-keeping machinery
and
institutions on the other. Nation

Re: [CTRL] War Dolphins [was: ANOTHER BAD RUSSIAN TRANSLATION]

[RevCOAL]

-Caveat Lector-






 >The dolphins are taught to avoid touching the mines, which might cause 
>them to explode, said Capt. Mike Tillotson, a Navy bomb disposal expert. 
>He said there was little risk to animals doing this kind of work.
 
Perhaps there isn't much risk  (but "little risk" is not the same as "no risk") to dolphins who only 'sniff' out mines (actually they don't smell mines, they are taught to ID them visually)...
 
But what isn't mentioned in this report, but was shown on a local broadcast yesterday, is the fact that the Navy is also using trained sea lions in conjunction with the dolphins...and while the dolphins don't touch the mines, the sea lions are trained to attach a line to a mine so that the mine can then be towed out of harms way...
 
Since the sea lions DO touch the mines, one has to ask just how many of these animals die in the line of duty...
 
 
June
 
 







  IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved - www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om
Click Here

[CTRL] War Conspiracy?

[John Miller]

-Caveat Lector-

And so to the Alchemy of Numbers and the tedious number crunching, which
threw up something this morning I was not expecting.

The Four Dead Lands - the Dead Middle East

I believe that real historical changes are not so much the result of new
ideas, philosophies, or the extraordinary actions of individuals but rather
they are because of spiritual forces running to a given time line agenda and
influencing such selected people.

Yet, most sensible people are against any kind of conspiracy theory, when it
has to said that the least they should do is consider such.

So to my latest conspiracy theory, that the United States has unwittingly
been sucked into the Iraqi War, called Iraq - Freedom, but the title should
be the 'Coffer War'.

Yes, I said unwittingly, for I don't believe that 99.9% of the US Military
Staff know what they have ventured into. for they have entered Iraq, of the
'Four Dead Lands' of the Middle East, the largest of the four lands.

Now the area of Iraq is 171,600 square miles, and Syria is 71,228 and Jordan
at 37,314 square miles, (thanks to the New Bancroft World Atlas, my land
area bible). These three countries have a combined area of 280,142 square
miles.

But the area 280,142 square miles has no significant 'measurement message'
that I can grasp at a first glance, until that is I add the area of Israel,
and the message is simply that of Death.

It was years after seemingly the British Government 'carved' up the region
in the Middle East, when on April 2nd 1947, the U.N. General Assembly set up
the Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP). This committee recommended that
the British Mandate over Palestine be ended and that the territory be
partitioned into two states.

"On the 29th November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a
resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel;
the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretz-Israel to take such
steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that
resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the
Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable."

And on May 14th 1948, the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine
expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum and
declared the establishment of the State of Israel. The new state was
recognized that night at 11:00pm Israel time by the United States and three
days later by the USSR.

The United Nations in 1947 had carved out the land area for Israel with a
total area of 7,992.6 square miles, of which the Dead Sea under Israeli
Authority is 108.1 square miles leaving a balance of 7,884.5 square miles.

So I add Israel's 7,992.6 square miles (and this does not include the West
Bank at some 2,615 square miles), to the area of 280,142 square miles, it is
288,134.6 square miles.

And this number 288,134.6 is where Death lies.

And it was the Egyptologist, Sir Flinders Petrie, who measured 'Death' that
is the somewhat broken granite sarcophagus in the King's Chamber of the
Great Pyramid. And for this he made calipers and gauges, and then proceeded
to measure using 388 reference points on the out side and 281 points on the
inside. And he published the mean inside measurements as inside length 78.06
inside width 26.81 and inside height 34.42 inches, a volume of 72,033.783
cubic inches, 41.68621 cubic feet.

Because the Coffer at 72,033.783 cubic inches x 4 is 288,135.134 and so add
only 0.534 and up pops 288,134.6 square miles, the total area of Iraq,
Syria, Jordan and Israel, the area of the Middle East's 'Four Dead Lands'.

So it was the Partition Plan for Palestine, where Israel was granted 7,992.6
square miles of territory, that caused the very symbol of Death, the
sarcophagus, the granite Coffer, to come into existence, a 'message
measurement' using the 'Alchemy of Numbers'.

And so I repeat, the United States has been sucked into this war in Iraq, by
those who carved up Palestine to make the 'Four Dead Lands'.

Conspiracy, I say yes, but I await the usual answers of there is "No
Conspiracy."

But I say there is. and so we await the result of this war.

John D. Miller

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lso

[CTRL] War becomes bloodier, less certain, maybe longer

[Steve Wingate]

-Caveat Lector-

"One analyst put the casualty figure at which the public would become uncomfortable
somewhere between the 148 US troops killed in the 1991 Gulf War and the 3,000
killed on September 11."

(I'd be willing to bet that 148 is close to the current true total of US troups killed,
including special operations, CIA, etc. At least.  It's looking VietNam. Very 
profitable
again for the military industrial complex again. Cycles. Generations are puppets to be
used for profit, again and again while fa;milies accumulate wealth, over and over. They
depend on the emotionalism and foolishness mostly based on sexual drive and 
frustrations,
of the typical human. --SW)


War becomes bloodier, less certain, maybe longer

By Douglas Hamilton

Reuters, JT, 3/26/03

DOHA — The Iraq war is becoming a bloodier, less certain and possibly longer gamble 
than
first advertised.

The American and British leaders and generals running it say it is going exactly
according to plan. The central strategy remains to decapitate the regime at Baghdad and
let resistance in the rear wither away.

There is no call to be fazed by pictures of skirmishes with irregular forces, they
insist.

“We think the toughest fighting is ahead of us and we have known that all along and we
are preparing for that,” America's top soldier, US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff
Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, said on Tuesday.

But their assurances seem to be falling short.

The prediction had been that Iraqis would not fight back; promises that “the outcome is
not in doubt” gave a new rhetorical hostage to fortune that could yet haunt the White
House.

A rally on Wall Street came to a screeching halt on Monday with the biggest slide in
stock prices of the year after a weekend of high-profile setbacks punctured optimism.

Investors fear that if President Saddam Hussein's core forces do not give up as hoped,
Baghdad may become a city under siege for weeks and perhaps months, deepening world
uncertainty.

Iraqs's second city Basra earned enemy city status on Tuesday, in a change of script. 
It
was meant to be “liberated.”

Beyond the bombing of Kirkuk and Mosul and classified special forces operations, the
northern front armoured thrust to the capital that the United States hoped for does not
exist.

Overall commander of joint invasion forces Gen. Tommy Franks says he has forces in 
places
we do not yet know about.

“We'll fight this on our terms,” he insists.

'Dead-enders' exploit chinks in US armour

US forces smashed across the Euphrates River, leaving the city of Nassiriya to Iraqi
units, to be “cleaned up” later.

A blinding sandstorm slowed their northward advance. But unlike the 1991 Gulf War, 
there
was no giant pall of burning oil well smoke to cripple their night-vision advantage. 
Also
unlike 1991, when Saddam issued a general retreat after only 49 hours of land war, 
Iraq's
morale seemed high as the invasion slowed from a fast desert drive to a combat 
offensive.


“Their dreams of a short and easy war have started to evaporate and their hopes of
defeating the Iraqi people are being destroyed,” said an Iraqi military spokesman.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was to see President George W. Bush in mid-week ahead
of what he called “a crucial moment” when the US 5th Corps meets Saddam's Republican
Guard Medina Division at the “red line,” south of the capital.

“I think Blair feels he needs this consultation,” a British official in London said.
Britain has lost 19 killed in five days, compared with 24 in the seven-week-long 1991
Gulf War.

The unofficial US death toll is 14, with 12 missing. Iraq reports at least 62 of its
soldiers and 84 civilians killed.

In the Gulf War, allied airpower pounded Iraqi units in Kuwait for 38 days before the
tanks went in to take surrenders by the tens of thousands — men with rusty guns, little
food, and low morale, some in sneakers, loafers and flip-flops.

Nothing like that has happened this time. The tanks went in a day after the war began 
to
find no big divisions waiting in the open. They had all been pulled back for the 
showdown
at Baghdad.

Political analysts said Americans may tolerate a long, bloody war because of continuing
anger over the deadly Sept. 11 attacks, (which Iraq has nothing to do with), provided
they believe in its strategic and moral purpose and accept they were fully warned about
the human cost.

One analyst put the casualty figure at which the public would become uncomfortable
somewhere between the 148 US troops killed in the 1991 Gulf War and the 3,000 killed on
September 11.

General Franks said on Monday that “pro-Saddam dead-enders” put up fierce firefights 
but
called their resistance “sporadic.” British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon dismissed it 
as
“patchy.”

Reinforcements needed?

But military analysts say the dash to Baghdad is leaving behind dangerous enemy 
fighters
and chaos in urban areas.

They fear Franks may be taking undue risks by stretching supply lines for an

[CTRL] War Dolphins [was: ANOTHER BAD RUSSIAN TRANSLATION]

[Mark McHugh]

-Caveat Lector-

Steve Wingate wrote:
>
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> Notice reference to US's use of dolphins to clear the mines. ;-(
>

[snip]


Here's what I got from AP today:

Dolphins to clear mines from port

CAMP AS SALIYAH, Qatar (AP) -- You've heard of bomb-sniffing dogs, but
mine-sniffing dolphins?

Coalition forces have brought in two specially trained bottle-nosed Atlantic
dolphins to help ferret out mines in the approaches of the port of Umm Qasr,
Maj. Gen. Victor Renuart of the Central Command said Tuesday.

The dolphins will help clear the way for the shipment of humanitarian aid to
allied-held southern Iraq, Renuart said.

The dolphins, named Makai and Tacoma, wre flown into Umm Qasr by US Navy
helicopters Tuesday night and were expected to begin searching for mines today,
according to pool reports.

The dolphins are taught to avoid touching the mines, which might cause them to
explode, said Capt. Mike Tillotson, a Navy bomb disposal expert.  He said there
was little risk to animals doing this kind of work.

The biggest hazard could come from other indigenous dolphins in the waters of
Umm Qasr.

Dolphins are territorial and there is a fear local dolphins might drive the
interlopers out, causing them to go AWOL.

[AP picture of handler and dolphin with a small camera on its right fin jumping
out of the water]

caption:
Sgt. Andrew Garrett watches K-Dog, a bottle nose dolphin attached to Commander
Task Unit 55.4.3, leap out of the water while training near the USS Gunston Hall
in ther Persian Gulf.  Commander Task Unit 55.4.3 is a multinational team from
the US, UK and Australia conducting deep/shallow water mine clearing operations
with the dolphins to clear shipping lanes for humanitarian relief.

--
´´
Mark McHugh

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War in Iraq - fighting the people

[Steve Wingate]

-Caveat Lector-

War in Iraq - fighting the people

March 26, 2003
www.iraqwar.ru

The IRAQWAR.RU analytical center was created recently by a group of journalists and
military experts from Russia to provide accurate and up-to-date news and analysis of 
the
war against Iraq. The following is the English translation of the IRAQWAR.RU report 
based
on the Russian military intelligence reports.

[ < previous report | next report > ]

March 26, 2003, 1230hrs MSK (GMT +3), Moscow - As of the morning March 26 fierce 
battles
have resumed in Iraq along the entire front. As was previously expected the sand storm
has halted the advance of the coalition forces. Additionally, the coalition troops were
in serious need of rest, resupply and reinforcement.

For much of the day unfavorable weather paralyzed combat activities of one of the main
attack groups of the coalition - the 101st Airborne Division, which was forced to
completely curtail all of its combat operations. Combat readiness of this division is 
of
strategic importance to the entire coalition force primarily due to the fact that the
division operates 290 helicopters of various types, including the 72 Apache attack
helicopters. The 101st Airborne Division along with the 82nd Airborne Division and the
3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) forms the backbone of the XVIII Airborne Corps - the
main strike force of the coalition.

In essence, the 101st Airborne Division provides suppression of the enemy while
simultaneously conducting aerial reconnaissance and suppression of any newly-discovered
enemy forces. It maintain constant contact with the enemy and contains the enemy until
the main forces arrive.

Currently the coalition's main forces are conducting combat operations along the
approaches to the towns of Karabela and An-Najaf.

During the past 24 hours the coalition units in these areas sustained 4 killed and up 
to
10 wounded. All indications are that one coalition special operations helicopter was 
lost
and no communication with the helicopter could be established. The faith of its crew 
and
the troops it carried is still being investigated. Another two coalition helicopters 
made
emergency landings in areas controlled by friendly forces. Aircraft engines were found 
to
be extremely susceptible to the effects of sand.

As was determined by our [GRU] intelligence even before the start of combat operations,
the primary goal of the coalition command was an energetic advance across the desert
along the right bank of the Euphrates river, reaching the central Iraq with a further
thrust toward Baghdad through Karabela. Another strategic attack was to go around Basra
through An-Nasiriya toward Al-Ammara followed by a full isolation of the southern 
[Iraqi]
forces, effectively splitting Iraq in half.

The first part of the plan - a march across the desert toward Karabela - was achieved,
albeit with serious delays. The second part of the plan in essence has failed. Up to 
this
moment the coalition troops were unable to punch through the Iraqi defenses near An-
Nasiriya and to force the Iraqis toward Al-Ammara, which would have allowed the 
coalition
to clear the way to Baghdad along the strategically important Mesopotamian river valley
with Tigris and Euphrates covering the flanks of the advancing forces. So far only a 
few
coalition units were able to get to the left bank of the Euphrates, where they are 
trying
to widen their staging areas.

Additionally, the prolonged fighting near An-Nasiriya allowed the Iraqis to withdraw 
most
of their forces from Basra region and to avoid being surrounded.

Currently the coalition forces are trying to get across the river near An-Najaf and
Karabela, where, all indications are, heavy combat will continue during the next two
days.

Harsh criticism from the top US military leadership and pressure from Washington forced
the coalition command to resort to more energetic actions. In addition to that the 
shock
of the first days of war among the coalition troops, when they expected an easy trek
across Iraq but encountered stiff resistance, is now wearing off. They are now being
"absorbed" into the war. Now the coalition actions are becoming more coherent and
adequate. The coalition command is gradually taking the initiative away from the 
Iraqis,
which is in part due to the reliance of the Iraqi command on inflexible defensive
tactics.

Now the main tactical move of the US troops is to use their aerial and ground
reconnaissance forces to test the Iraqi defenses, to open them up and, without entering
direct close combat, to deliver maximum damage using artillery and ground attack
aircraft. The coalition has finally stopped pointlessly moving around in convoys, as 
was
characteristic of the first three days of the ground war.

The tactics allowed for increased combat effectiveness and considerably increased 
losses
of the Iraqi side. Due to such attacks by the coalition during the previous night and
today's early morning the Iraqis have

[CTRL] WAR NEWSBREAK: U.S. War Propaganda Exposed

[Steve Wingate]

-Caveat Lector-

--- Forwarded message follows ---
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From:   Christopher Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:SNET: WAR NEWSBREAK:  U.S. War Propaganda Exposed
Date sent:  Wed, 26 Mar 2003 14:55:15 -0700
Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Barbara Hartwell
Legal Defense and Research Fund
PO Box 832
Woodstock NY 12498
Website: http://www.barbarahartwell.com

Note from Babs:

This report came to me from a NATO intelligence report. The source who acted as a 
conduit
is extremely trustworthy and so I would bank on the information being true.

 article follwows:

U. S. Forces in Iraq Lie for Psy Ops Purposes.


The U.S.-U.K. war in Iraq is going badly. The Iraqi resistance is much, much fiercer 
than
was ever expected and the casualties among the coalition forces are by at least 300 per
cent heavier than reported on western T.V. stations.

Many U.S. soldiers have been killed and wounded but their numbers are being held secret
and will be revealed only over a period of weeks in order to keep from disheartening 
the
masses in the U.S. and in the U.K.

Some additional facts of importance.

1. U.S. Marine units which had been fighting in and around the Iraqi port city Um Qasr
had to be withdrawn and replaced by British marine commandos because of widespread
"battle fatigue" and poor morale as a result of encountering both military and civilian
fierce resistance their commanders had told them would
not happen.

2. The so-called Iraqi prisoners of war shown on American T.V. networks have been
identified by members of the Swedish Red Cross as civilians and not as military men.

3. American planes have been bombing civilian targets in Baghdad, Mosul, Basra, and 
other
cities and the toll of civilian casualties in those cities has been growing in alarming
numbers.

4. According to a Hungarian journalist's report, the Oil fields at Rumailia have been
exploded and set afire by trained teams of U.S. Special Forces, not by Iraqis. [This is
consistent with reliable reports that U.S. black-ops torched the oil fields during Gulf
War I to further demonize Iraqis in the media with psy-ops distraction from the 
"Highway
of Death" massacre of 50,000+ retreating Iraqis troops, a fact still officially denied 
by
Washington but reported worldwide by many witnesses and evidence via mass graves
bulldozed by U.S. troops. -CR]

5. German reporters on the scene have confirmed that British journalist, Lloyd was 
killed
by American forces before he could broadcast a report about the falsehood of the Iraqi
P.O.W. story.

###

--- End of forwarded message ---

News alternatives to US war propaganda:
http://www.aljazeerah.us/
http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news077.htm
http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news078.htm

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War of the Leeches

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21268-2003Mar24?
language=printer
washingtonpost.com

White House Notebook: Many Willing, But Few Are Able

By Dana Milbank

Tuesday, March 25, 2003; Page A07

There must have been shock in Baghdad and awe in Paris last week when
the White House announced the news that Palau had joined the "coalition
of the willing."

Palau, an island group of nearly 20,000 souls in the North Pacific, has much
to contribute. It has some of the world's best scuba diving, delectable
coconuts and tapioca. One thing Palau cannot contribute, however, is
military support: It does not have a military.

"It's rather symbolic," said Hersey Kyota, Palau's ambassador to Washington,
of his country's willingness to be listed in the 46-member coalition of the
willing engaged in the Iraq war. Kyota said the president of Palau, which
depends on the U.S. military for its security, on a visit to Washington,
"thought it was a good idea to write a letter of support, so he did." Kyota
said Palau gamely offered its harbors and airports to the effort, but the
offer was graciously declined, as Palau is nowhere near Iraq.

Palau is one of six unarmed nations in the coalition, along with Costa Rica,
Iceland, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and the Solomon Islands. Then
there's Afghanistan.

Asked if Iceland would be supplying troops, ambassador Helgi Agustsson
gave a hearty Scandinavian guffaw. "Of course not -- we have no military,"
he said. "That is a good one, yes." In fact, Agustsson added, "we laid down
weapons sometime in the 14th century," when the Icelandic military
consisted largely of Vikings in pointy helmets. The true nature of Iceland's
role in the coalition of the willing is "reconstruction and humanitarian
assistance," Agustsson said, adding that this has not been requested yet.

Therein lies the peculiarity of the coalition of the willing. Some on the
White House list, such as Turkey, have been critical of the war and
uncooperative. Many of those on the list, such as the unarmed nations
above, will do far less than countries such as Germany, which adamantly
opposed the war but is defending Turkey from Iraqi missiles. To join the
coalition of the willing, a nation need do nothing more than offer "political
support" -- essentially, allow its name to be put on the list.

Administration officials have furnished the list to demonstrate, as Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld argued, that the current coalition "is larger
than the coalition that existed during the Gulf War in 1991." But that 34-
member group was an actual military coalition, with all members providing
troops, aircraft, ships or medics.

By that standard, there are only about a half dozen members of the
coalition in the current war. In addition to the 250,000 or so U.S. troops,
there are 45,000 from Britain and about 2,000 from Australia. Denmark and
Spain have sent a small number of troops, though not, apparently, for
ground combat.

Still, it's not certain exactly who is participating. Poland, for example, had
originally said it would help only in a non-combat role. But the country
acknowledged some of its commandos had participated in the attack when
the Reuters news agency produced photographs of masked Polish soldiers
taking prisoners, scrawling graffiti on a portrait of Saddam Hussein and
posing with U.S. Navy SEALs with an American flag.

Despite the contributions of Poland and the others, the firepower in the
Iraq war is basically all American and British. The other countries involved
spend a combined $25 billion a year on defense, less than Britain by itself
and less than one-tenth of U.S. military spending.

That sounds less impressive than the way White House press secretary Ari
Fleischer described it last week: "All told, the population of coalition of
the willing is approximately 1.18 billion people around the world. The
coalition countries have a combined GDP of approximately $21.7 trillion.
Every major race, religion and ethnic group in the world is represented.
The coalition includes nations from every continent on the globe."

Possibly. But the coalition remainsa work in progress. After initially
including Angola in the coalition of the willing last week, the White House
removed the country without explanation, as first noted by Agence
France-Presse. Angolan embassy officials didn't respond yesterday to
phone calls. With luck, Angola can be replaced by Morocco, if a report
yesterday by UPI is to be believed. According to the wire service,
Morocco's weekly al Usbu' al-Siyassi claimed that Morocco has offered
2,000 monkeys to help detonate land mines.

An official at the Moroccan Embassy could not confirm the presence of
monkeys in the coalition of the willing.

Staff researcher Brian Faler contributed to this report.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Forwarded for your information.  The text and intent of the article
have to stand on their own merits.

In accordance with Title

[CTRL] War To Pay Off "Big Time"

[flw]

-Caveat Lector-

Bush's War Spending Feeds Corporate Interests
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/business/23REBU.html?th=&pagewanted=print
&position=top

DIANA B. HENRIQUES - War began last week. Reconstruction starts this
week.That, at least, is how it looks to government contract officers, who
in
the coming days plan to give American companies the first contracts to
rebuild
Iraq, a task that experts say could eventually cost $25 billion to $100
billion. It would be the largest postwar rebuilding since the Marshall Plan
in Europe after World War II. . .

The companies that have been invited to bid on the work include some of the
nation's largest and most politically connected construction businesses.
Among them are Halliburton, where Vice President Dick Cheney served as
chief
executive from 1995 until mid-2000; the Bechtel Group, whose ranks have
included several Republican cabinet alumni; and Fluor, which has ties to
several former top government intelligence and Pentagon procurement
officials.

Others bidding on reconstruction business are the Parsons Corporation, the
Louis Berger Group and the Washington Group International, which absorbed
Morrison-Knudsen in 1996. . .

No company has firmer political connections than Kellogg Brown & Root, the
engineering and construction arm of Halliburton. Besides its links to Mr.
Cheney, the company has been a major military contractor since World War
II.
Most recently, it handled the high-speed construction of the Guantánamo
prison compound for terror suspects .

But since last May, the company has also come under scrutiny by the
Securities and Exchange Commission, which is investigating how the company
has accounted for cost overruns on its construction and engineering work
since 1998. And this spring, its shareholders will vote on a proposal,
sponsored by two giant New York City pension funds, calling for a review of
Halliburton's previous business ties to Iran.

Louis Berger, based in East Orange, N.J., could be a dark-horse contender
in
the Iraq reconstruction sweepstakes. Besides its work on an ambitious
pipeline to carry oil from Tengiz, Kazakhstan, to a deep-water port on the
Black Sea in Russia, the privately held firm has been an important
government contractor in the Balkans for years. More recently, it won a
contract to oversee extensive infrastructure development in postwar
Afghanistan. The centerpiece of the $300 million contract was the
rebuilding
of a shattered 600-mile highway from Kabul to Herat. . .

Bechtel is considered the largest contractor in the country, and one of the
largest in the world. Its board includes a former secretary of state,
George
P. Shultz, and its ranks once included a former defense secretary, Caspar
W.
Weinberger. . . It is facing a political meltdown of its own in
Massachusetts, where it is under severe criticism by the state's inspector
general for more than $1 billion in cost overruns on the tunnel and highway
construction project in Boston, the so-called big dig. Governor Mitt Romney
of Massachusetts has ordered an independent review of the project, which
was
managed for the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority by Bechtel and its joint
venture partner, Parsons Brinckerhoff - which is not related to the Parsons
Corporation that is bidding on the Iraqi work. . .

Fluor, based in Aliso Viejo, Calif., is not currently working on any Agency
for International Development projects, but it has extensive experience
building petroleum facilities in difficult places. It is building an
enormous plant on Sakhalin Island, off Russia's Pacific coast, for an
international consortium that includes Exxon Mobil, and is developing oil
and gas fields in Kazakhstan for a consortium whose largest member is
ChevronTexaco.

Last April, Fluor hired Kenneth J. Oscar, who as acting assistant secretary
of the Army oversaw the Pentagon's $35 billion-a-year procurement budget.
Its board includes Bobby R. Inman, a retired admiral who was also former
director of the National Security Agency and deputy director of the Central
Intelligence Agency.

Fluor is currently in arbitration to untangle a dispute with Anaconda
Nickel
in Australia over Fluor's work on a $615 million nickel-cobalt processing
plant in western Australia. Fluor has disputed the accusations of poor
workmanship, but Anaconda has collected millions of dollars in compensation
in the first phase of the arbitration.

A spokesman for Fluor, Jerry Holloway, confirmed that it had been invited
to
bid on the work in Iraq but said he could not comment on the scale or scope
of the contracts.

Parsons, an employee-owned company based in Pasadena, Calif., is one of
Bechel's most formidable rivals in the construction market. . . It does not
have the prominent political connections that Bechtel and Fluor have,
though
the labor secretary, Elaine Chao, served on its board for about a year
before joining the cabinet in January 2001.

In 1998, Parsons won a contract to take over the vehicle inspection program

[CTRL] War on the War

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0313/hoberman2.php



Oscar Declares War on the War


When Doves Cry
by J. Hoberman
March 26 - April 1, 2003


The big one: Best Documentary winner Michael Moore takes aim at the
fictitious president.
(photo: Staci Schwartz)
 cast of Bill Clinton's cronies, a vaunted billion viewers in 150 countries:
There were some who imagined that, four days into the Iraq war, Oscar
Night '03 might be the most widely seen peace demonstration ever beamed
into the universe.

As the Desert Storm sequel drew nigh, the right-wing media shifted their
enemies of choice from cheese-eating surrender monkeys to bigmouth
movie stars. Could Shock and Awe really be upstaged by Stupefaction and
Narcissism? The New York Post suggested that the Academy Awards be
canceled. Meanwhile, the Internet crackled with reports that activists like
Susan Sarandon and Martin Sheen were on a blacklist and that acceptance
speeches would be monitored for political content. Insiders warned a U.K.
daily that failure to award Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine the
Oscar for Best Documentary Feature would be proof that Hollywood had
reverted to "the witch-hunting 1950s."

What was appropriate—and what should people wear? The group Artists
United to Win Without War was handing out green peace buttons; other
members of the Academy sported a more abstract silver squiggle
apparently meant to represent a dove. Monitoring the stars' entrance on
the foreshortened red carpet from her E! aerie, fashion arbiter Joan Rivers
wondered what they meant. "Peace," her daughter explained. "Every idiot
in the world wants peace," Joan snorted, suggesting that the morning
after, the pins will wind up for sale on eBay. But what the buttons and
squiggles really meant was that, for those of us who cared, the stars were
making a statement—or not.

The Hollywood left had devolved to this. But then, the movies encourage
semiotic readings. The green semaphore seemed more radical, if less chic,
than the silver squiggle. It was less surprising to spot a green button
affixed to the lapel of Michael Moore's tuxedo than Harvey Weinstein's.
Salma Hayek, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Adrien Brody all wore the squiggle but
not their fellow nominees Julianne Moore and Meryl Streep (although it
had been reported they would). Presenter Richard Gere was besquiggled,
surprise loser Martin Scorsese not. Susan Sarandon sauntered confidently
out with her pin and held up two fingers in a goddessy peace sign. A shell-
shocked-looking Barbra Streisand was unsquiggled, although she did make a
statement in praise of protest music. There were some who devised other
accessories— Matthew McConaughey's lapel had sprouted a peculiar
mélange of red, white, and blue flowers—but only Jon Voight seemed to be
wearing an American flag pin.

Where were movieland's macho men? Who would defend Bush's war? Mel
Gibson, Charlton Heston, Clint Eastwood, Kevin Costner, Bruce Willis, and
Arnold Schwarzenegger all seemed conspicuous by their absence. Had
they driven their Humvees into lockdown? Were they stockpiling Poland
Spring and boycotting the hippie love-in? Was it the hall? The Kodak
Theater's outsize, quasi-pagan Oscar statues and the Babylonian deco
splendor had the look of an Iraqi presidential palace. Had the terrorists
won? There was an elephant in the room, but it wasn't Republican.



Based as they are on the pleasure principle, the movies needed only to
exist to come under political attack. In 1920, not long after the U.S.
replaced France as the world's greatest movie producer, the vice-
crusading Reverend Wilbur Fisk Crafts appealed to Congress and the
Catholic Church to "rescue" America's motion picture industry "from the
hands of the Devil and 500 un-Christian Jews."

Hollywood got the message and has been playing defense ever since. By
1922, the studio heads established a self-regulating body, the Motion
Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), and hired
Postmaster General Will Hays—an upstanding Indiana Republican and
Presbyterian church elder—to be its president. When the muckraker
Upton Sinclair ran for California governor in 1934, the studios rallied behind
his Republican opponent, Frank Merriam, and even tithed employees to
support Merriam's campaign. Some credit this with radicalizing
screenwriters—certainly it contributed to the creation of their guild. The
industry's political consciousness was further raised by the rise of
European fascism and the late-'30s influx of Jewish and political émigrés.

Writers and refugees joined forces in 1936 to found the Hollywood Anti-
Nazi League, attracting a fair number of stars and creating a prototype for
glamorous activism. Eddie Cantor, Paul Muni, Gloria Stuart, and Sylvia
Sidney were among HANL's celebrity sponsors. "Almost overnight, HANL
fundraising played a key role in the Hollywood social whirl," Paul Buhle and
Dave Wagner write in their recent history, Radical Hollywood.

HANL was attacked a

[CTRL] War in Iraq - situation at An-Nasiriya (update)

[Steve Wingate]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news077.htm

   March 24, 2003
   www.iraqwar.ru

The IRAQWAR.RU analytical center was created recently by a group of journalists and
military experts from Russia to provide accurate and up-to-date news and analysis of 
the
war against Iraq. The following is the English translation of the IRAQWAR.RU report 
based
on the Russian military intelligence reports.

[ < previous report | next report > ]

March 24, 2003, 0800hrs MSK (GMT +3), Moscow - As of morning (MSK, GMT +3) March 24 the
situation in Iraq can be characterized as quiet on all fronts. Attacking coalition 
forces
have settled into positional warfare, they are exhausted, lost the attacking momentum 
and
are in urgent need for fuel, ammunition, repairs and reinforcements. The Iraqis are 
also
busy regrouping their forces, reinforcing the combat units and setting up new defense
lines.

Exceptionally heavy fighting continued for two days and nights near An-Nasiriya. Both
warring sides employed large numbers of tanks and artillery. More than 20,000 troops of
the US 3rd Motorized Infantry Division, supported by 200 tanks, 600 other armored
vehicles and 150 artillery pieces, were opposed by the Iraqi 3rd Army Corps consisting 
of
up to 40,000 troops, up to 250 tanks, more than 100 artillery, up to 100 mortars and 
1000
rocket propelled grenade launchers (RPG) and anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM). The two-
day battle ended without any significant results.

The Americans have failed in trying to use their momentum in capturing An-Nasiriya and
attempted to encircle the town from the west, where they encountered strong layered 
Iraqi
defenses and forced to withdraw. The Iraqi forces used this opportunity to attack the 
US
flanks with two brigades, breaking the US combat orders and causing panic among the US
troops. The US command was forced to halt the advance of its forced toward An Najaf and
once again redirect several tank battalions to support the attacked units. Nearly 6 
hours
was needed for the US aviation to stop the Iraqi attack and restore combat order of the
US forces.

During the past day the coalition aviation flew more than 2,000 close support missions 
in
this area [An-Nasiriya]. "We can only thank God for having air dominance!” said the
commander of the US 15th Marines Exp. Corps Col. Thomas Waldhauser in a private
conversation with one of the CNN reporters. Later the CNN journalist cited the Colonel 
in
a phone conversation with his editor. The conversation was intercepted.

According to the intercepted radio traffic, the US forces have sustained up to 40 
killed,
up to 10 captured and up to 200 wounded during the fighting near An-Nasiriya. There is
confirmed information about one lost attack helicopter and an unconfirmed report about 
a
lost ground attack plane. The US forces have also lost up to 40 armored vehicles,
including no less than 10 tanks. Several intercepted reports by the US field commanders
stated that their troops are unable to advance due to their soldiers being demoralized 
by
the enemy's fierce resistance and high losses.

Four days of continuous advance exhausted the coalition forces, which now have settled
into defensive positions nearly on every front to rest and regroup. As of this morning
(MSK, GMT +3) the coalition forces are in control of the western part of An-Nasiriya 
but
have no foothold on the left bank of Euphrates. The left bank of the river is 
controlled
by the Iraqi forces, which are conducting engineering works to reinforce their 
defenses.
A part of the Iraqi forces have been deployed to strengthen the defense of An-Najaf,
where they expect the next coalition attack.

Around 2300hrs (MSK, GMT +3) March 23 a British platoon was ambushed by Iraqi Special
Forces unit near Basra. Following a powerful initial artillery barrage the Iraqis 
engaged
the British in close combat and destroyed several armored vehicles. After the Iraqis
withdrew the British commander reported up to 8 killed, two missing and more than 30
wounded British soldiers. Thus over the 30% of the unit's troops have been disabled in
the attack. Reinforcements and medevac helicopters have been dispatched by the 
coalition
to the scene of the attack.

During the past day there has been a sharp increase in combat activity in the 
coalition's
rearguard.

Reports have been intercepted showing at least 5 attacks on the coalition military
convoys, 8 vehicles destroyed by landmines and 2 ambushes. Iraqi special operation 
units
are mining the roads, setting up ambushes and conduct search and reconnaissance
operations. The coalition forces have been ordered to halt the movement of convoys 
during
dark hours and to provide each convoy with combat escort units and air cover.

The situation around the borderline town of Umm Qasr (population 1,500) still remains
unclear. Radio intercepts and satellite images show that the town was under c

[CTRL] War As Climax (What Will Be the Afterglow?)

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

 http://www.gulf-news.com/Articles/print.asp?ArticleID=81505


Patrick Seale: War is the climax of U.S.-Israeli partnership
Paris |  | 21/03/2003

The United States has embarked on an imperial adventure in the Middle
East. This is the true meaning of the war against Iraq. The war is not about
the disarmament of Iraq. That was always a hollow and cynical pretext.

No one with any real knowledge of the situation believed that Iraq, on its
knees from two disastrous wars and from 12 years of punitive sanctions,
presented any sort of "imminent threat" to anyone.

In any event, from the start last November when UN inspectors returned
to Iraq under Security Council Resolution 1441, the Washington hawks
wanted the inspectors to fail and then pressed impatiently for war just
when inspections showed real signs of progress.

Nor is the war only, or even primarily, about toppling Saddam Hussain.
Indeed the White House announced that U.S. forces would enter Iraq
whether or not the Iraqi leader resigned and left the country. The war has
bigger aims: it is about the implementation of a vast - and probably
demented - strategic plan.

Washington is intoxicated by the vision of imposing a Pax Americana on the
Arab world on the model of the imperial "order" which Britain imposed on
the entire region in an earlier age - with its Gulf and South Arabian strong
points protecting the route to India, its occupation of Egypt in 1882, and
then the extension of its rule after the First World War to some of the
Arab provinces of the defeated Ottoman Empire. The result was the
creation under British tutelage of Iraq, Palestine and Transjordan.

Bases across the region

With bases across the region from Oman to Central Asia, America is now
seeking to recreate the British Empire at its apogee. The occupation of
Iraq, a major Arab country at the strategic heart of the region, will allow
the United States to control the resources of the Middle East and reshape
its geopolitics to its advantage - or so the Anglo-American strategists hope.

But if things go badly, history may well judge the war to be a criminal
enterprise - unjustified, unprovoked, illegitimate, catastrophic for the Iraqi
victims of the conflict and destructive of the rules of international
relations as they have evolved over the past half century.

The fatal flaw is that this is not a purely American project. Rather it must
be seen as the culmination of America's strategic partnership with Israel
which began 36 years ago when, in 1967, President Charles de Gaulle told
Israel that it would lose French support if it attacked its Arab neighbours.

Israel promptly switched its attentions from Europe to the U.S., which it
gradually made its main external ally and subsidiser. The relationship has
since grown more intimate with every passing year, to the extent that the
tail now wags the dog.

Much of the ideological justification and political pressure for war against
Iraq has come from right- wing American Zionists, many of them Jews,
closely allied to Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and occupying
influential positions both inside and outside the Bush administration. It is
neither exaggeration, nor anti-Semitism, as they would have it, to say that
this is a Bush-Sharon war against Iraq.

As is now widely understood, the genesis of the idea of occupying Iraq can
be dated back to the mid- 1990s. Richard Perle, chairman of the
Pentagon's Defence Policy Board and often described as the intellectual
driving force behind President Bush's world-view, has for years been
pressing U.S. and Israeli leaders to go to war against Iraq.

On July 8, 1996, shortly after Benyamin Netanyahu's election victory over
Shimon Peres, Perle handed Netanyahu a strategy paper entitled A Clean
Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. It called for the removal of
Saddam Hussain as a key Israeli objective and as a means of weakening
Syria.

The call for an attack on Iraq was then taken up in 1997 by a right-wing
American group called The Project for a New American Century (PNAC),
whose members included Richard Perle; Deputy Defence Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz; Eliot Abrams, Middle East director of Bush's National Security
Council; Randy Scheunemann, President of the Committee for the
Liberation of Iraq; and two influential conservative editors, William Kristol
of the Weekly Standard and Norman Podhoretz of Commentary.

With friends such as Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfled and Vice-
President Dick Cheney, and backed by half a dozen right-wing think-tanks,
this group formed a formidable pressure group.

The terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 gave
these advocates of American empire and of the U.S.-Israeli alliance their
chance. They were able to make the inexperienced President George W.
Bush, who came to power after a questionable election, the vehicle for
their agenda.

The result is the war we are now witnessing. The ultimate objective is to
change the map of 

[CTRL] War must not be waged at Constitution's expense

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.eastvalleynews.com/appeal/article.cfm?i=1887



War must not be waged at Constitution's expense

CHARLES C. HAYES
Appeal Tribune
March 19

A warning sign now greets patrons entering all 10 of the county libraries in Santa Cruz, Calif. Beware, a record of the books you borrow may end up in the hands of the FBI. And if the FBI requests your record, librarians are prohibited by law from telling you about it. 

If you’re startled by this, you aren’t alone. How many Americans – including the lawmakers who voted for it – actually read the fine print when Congress passed the hastily drafted USA Patriot Act in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks? Our attention was (understandably) elsewhere.

Making it easier for the FBI to get library and bookstore records is just one obscure provision in the more than 300 pages of a sweeping law giving the government broad new search and surveillance authority. 

While we’re still learning about the contents of Patriot Act I (and trying to figure out how much of it is constitutional), along comes the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, dubbed Patriot Act II by the news media. Last month a Justice Department draft of this bill was leaked to the Center for Public Integrity, intensifying the debate about current threats to civil liberties in the United States.

What’s new in Patriot Act II? Among other things, the government would have expanded powers to create a DNA database of people not convicted of a crime, conduct wiretaps and searches under the authority of a secret court (and, in some circumstances, without any warrant), access credit reports, further restrict access to information about government actions, and reduce limits on police spying. (A full draft of the bill may be found at www.publicintegrity.org.) 

When this bill – or some version of it – comes before Congress, Attorney General John Ashcroft will make the case for further untying the government’s hands to fight the war on terrorism. And given the very real threats we face at home and abroad, it might prove to be a winning argument on Capitol Hill.

But here’s the danger. Many of the provisions in Patriot II would authorize new government powers without adequate safeguards – and, in some cases, without limiting the powers to terrorism investigations. Current restrictions on police spying, for example, were put in place to prevent persecution of innocent people based on their religious or political affiliations. Lifting those restrictions will undoubtedly stifle dissent by making Americans afraid to join protests or speak out against government policies.

Of course, as every schoolchild knows (or should know), this isn’t the first time the American government has over-reached in wartime. From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, U.S. history is replete with examples of excessive government restrictions on constitutional freedoms in times of crisis.

Even Abraham Lincoln – the great defender of the Constitution – asserted broad war powers to limit First Amendment rights, suspend the writ of habeas corpus and otherwise restrict freedom in order to preserve the Union. 

“By general law,” Lincoln wrote to a newspaper editor in 1864, “life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb.”

President Lincoln had a point. Few Americans would disagree that extraordinary threats to our nation may require extraordinary measures to defend it. And most of us recognize that some temporary limits on freedom may be necessary to pursue and destroy terrorist networks and to prevent future attacks.

But most historians now agree that Lincoln – as well as presidents before and after him – went much too far. War can be fought, even this new kind of war, without sacrificing the checks and balances that uphold basic constitutional rights. That requires open and full debate (not secretly drafted legislation) on just what the government needs to fight this war – and what safeguards must be in place to protect our freedoms.

Since the fight against terrorism appears unending, new powers granted to the government today may become permanent tomorrow. History teaches that once given, sweeping powers of search and surveillance will be difficult to take back. And once employed to combat an immediate threat, such powers may be subsequently used in unanticipated ways to suppress legitimate dissent.

Fortunately, exposure has probably put the brakes on Patriot Act II (be grateful for the power of a free press). When and if the bill reaches Congress, it’s unlikely to sail through unread this time around.

Can we win the battle against terrorism without dismantling the Constitution? For the sake of democratic freedom – at home and abroad – we must. 



www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propag

[CTRL] War on Time?

[John Miller]

-Caveat Lector-

Hello on this sad day,

This is when number crunching comes into its own, for even I could never
have contrived this religious war offering.

The Clockwork Cruise Missiles from Hades?

First Strike 5:30am (local time) Thursday, March 20th 2003.

Now the Book of Enoch speaks of a world where the Sun has a cycle of 364
days, and a Moon cycle of 354 days. From reading the text this world is the
parallel, the Earth’s twin in the other dimension, called Hades, a world
with a 360 day cycle.

Counting down from 9am Tuesday, September 11th 2001, which is ‘Shroud Day’,
to 6am Friday, April 7th AD30, that is the Judgment of Jesus Christ, on
‘Crucifixion Day’ is 720,049.5 days (1,971.430 years).

And counting down from the First Strike of 36 Tomahawk cruise missiles into
Baghdad, at 5.30am Thursday, March 20th 2003 to 2am Friday, April 7th AD30,
as Jesus Christ is dying on the Cross, is 720,604.5 days (1972.9497 years)

The difference in the two time periods is 555 days.

And 720,049.5 days x 720,604.5 days x 320 is equivalent to:

 The Hades Sun at 3,640 days x 3,640 days x the Hades Moon 3,540 days x
3,540.80 days.

And 3540 is 1770 + 1770 and the reference number 1770 is that for Darkness,
the Bible's 'Black Trinity' of the Dragon, Beast, and the False Prophet,
whose own demonic spirits are deceiving the world.

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War Against Iraq is Illegal

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://english.pravda.ru/world/2003/03/18/44545.html



02:35 2003-03-18

War Against Iraq is Illegal

Those who wage this war will be taken before the International Criminal Court at The Hague to be tried for war crimes if there are civilian casualties and possibly, crimes against humanity, if the conditions are met. The author of this article will be the proud author of the indictment. More than this, it is hereby proved that the nation in breach of Resolution 1441 is the United States of America, not Iraq. 

A war against the sovereign state of Iraq without the express authorization of the UNO is illegal under international law, running against the UN Charter and against the Resolution 1441. 

Under international law, Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the UN Charter is clear: 

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”. 

Article 51 spells out the right of nations to wage war: 
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security”. 

Since Iraq has neither waged an act of war against the USA or UK and since international peace and security is put at risk not by Iraq but by the USA and United Kingdom, the provisions for self-defence are not met. 

Much is said by the warmongers about Resolutions 678 and 687 (1991), claiming that they allow a military attack to be launched against Iraq under the principle that their provisions were not met. However, the UNO does not enact ghost or voodoo resolutions, which are passed, acted upon, forgotten and resurrected twelve years later when the time is deemed right. If the context of the question is different, the Security Council has to deliberate a further resolution. 

This was the case with 1441, which under paragraph 3, instructs Iraq to “provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA and the Council…a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and other delivery systems”. Iraq subsequently provided a 12.000 page report. 

Evidently, questions were asked about details and naturally, time is needed to reply. 12.000 pages and numerous weapons programmes involve a universe of materials and Iraq has complied consistently with the inspections teams. 

Under paragraph 4, “material breach will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below”. Material breach has not been reported to the Council, rather, the inspections teams have both stated that Iraq is cooperating and that they need more time to carry out their duties determined under Resolution 1441. 

The “immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access” guaranteed under Paragraph 5 of 1441 has been fulfilled by Iraq. Paragraph 10 “Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates”. 

The United States of America has not been forthcoming with this material, despite its many insinuations. There was even a ridiculous report presented to the UN Security Council by Colin Powell, who referred to foreign intelligence reports which turned out to be no more than a 1991 thesis copied from the internet by the British Intelligence Services and vague references, picked up by the biased western media, about links between Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath regime and Al-Qaeda, never proved because they are untrue. 

Under Paragraph 10 of Resolution 1441, the United States of America is hereby challenged to produce the documentation behind these allegations. Should this documentation not be produced, the USA is guilty of lying to the UNSC or is in breach of its provisions. 

Under Paragraph 12, should the provisions of Paragraph 4 (failure to comply and cooperate fully with this resolution will constitute material breach, which is not the case) or Paragraph 11 (interference with the inspection process or failure to comply with the disarmament process, also not the case), not be fulfilled, the UNSC “decides to convene immediately…to consider the situation and the need for full compliance of all of the relevant council resolutions in order to secure international 

[CTRL] WAR TO START MARCH 18?

[Jei]

-Caveat Lector-

Tuesday, March 11, 2003
EYE ON THE GULF

Government monitor intercepts order to troops from U.S. Central Command

Israeli official claims war starts March 18

Posted: March 11, 2003
6:08 p.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

An Israeli official said in a televised report today that the U.S.
military has been ordered to launch a war against Iraq on March 18,
reports WorldTribune.com.

Michael Gurdus, an Israeli government monitor, reportedly said the order
was relayed by U.S. Central Command to all American forces in the Persian
Gulf. According to the report, Gurdus told Israel's Channel 2 television
that he heard the order being relayed to U.S. fighter-jet pilots and
others over U.S. military radio communications he intercepted.

Gurdus is considered the leading communications monitor in the Middle
East. According to the WorldTribune.com report, he has broken numerous
stories because of his ability to intercept and understand
foreign-language civilian and radio broadcasts and communications. He
said the U.S. military, in its radio communications, refers to Iraq as
"bad cows" and "kabab," Middle East Newsline reported.

Israel's media reported that the United States had demanded that senior
Israeli officials stop issuing predictions of when the war would erupt.

The latest proposal from the U.S. and UK to the United Nations Security
Council called for a March 17 deadline for Saddam to disarm or face
consequences. Some media reports indicated the U.S. was considering
extending that deadline, but White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
described a plan to extend it as a "a non-starter."

The U.S. had hoped to vote on the resolution today but were forced to
delay action since the required nine votes for passage had not been
secured. In addition, France has threatened to veto the measure.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31474

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War Street Journal Spoils the Oil

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org

http://wsws.org/articles/2003/mar2003/wsj-m07_prn.shtml


WSWS : News & Analysis : North America

The Wall Street Journal spells it out: Turkey could lose “oil spoils” of war

By Henry Michaels
7 March 2003

Back to screen version| Send this link by email | Email the author

For all the denials in Washington and the corporate media, the looming
invasion of Iraq is all about oil and strategic control over the Middle East
and the wider Central Asian region. The Wall Street Journal, the voice of
American big business, declared as much in its March 4 editorial
denouncing the vote by the Turkish parliament to reject the use of the
country as a staging post for the US operation.

The editorial bemoaned the failure of Turkey’s political and military leaders
to “shape public opinion” to recognize the alleged benefits of supporting
the US takeover of Iraq. It summarized the benefits as follows:

“The badly needed cash (and US goodwill) aside, Turkey would benefit as
much as any nation from a neighboring Iraq that was free of both a
dictator and UN sanctions. Turkey would also give itself a larger voice in
postwar Iraq, especially in dealing with the Kurds. The Turkish military was
demanding joint supervision of the disarmament of the Kurds after the war,
for example, and for a buffer zone manned by Turkish troops in northern
Iraq, presumably in order to limit the free passage of Kurds into southern
Turkey. Now the US will have every right to ignore Turkish desires and
work with Kurds militarily and politically after the war. And the Turks can
forget about any postwar Iraqi oil spoils.”

In the most crass and brazen manner, the Journal has spelled out the
criminal calculations that dominate the Bush administration and Wall
Street: the looting of Iraq and the region of its “oil spoils,” the use of
some of the spoils to pay off its accomplices, and the military suppression
of the aspirations of the region’s people for liberation from national and
economic oppression.

In return for joining the US attack, the Turkish military would be rewarded
with control over Kurdish-populated northern Iraq, where a degree of
autonomy currently exists, and a cut of the oil proceeds.

As for the “badly needed cash,” it was to consist of $6 billion in aid,
followed by $24 billion in credits, all on the condition that the Turkish
government imposed the demands of the International Monetary Fund,
strongly influenced by the US, for a privatization program and cuts in its
national budget. These measures would of course require further
devastating cuts to jobs and social programs in a country where most
people live in cruel poverty, with an average monthly income for a worker
of less than 150 euros.







Copyright 1998-2003
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] "War is a racket!" information packet

[Steve Wingate]

-Caveat Lector-

--- Forwarded message follows ---
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From:   Geese 4 Peace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date sent:  Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:35:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject:!b_a_Act: "War is a racket!" information packet
Send reply to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Putting the threatened attack on Iraq in perspective:

==

Chickenhawks: An Anti-war Video

Take a look at this short video about the chickenhawks now
in power who previously dodged direct military service or
action but now crow for continuous war.

Then forward hither & yon.

http://www.symbolman.com/chickenhawks.html

==

"Money Talks" sound & visual:

Who benefits from a war on Iraq?

http://www.blah3.com/moneytalk.html

==

from
WAR IS A RACKET
by Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

War is Just a Racket -- General Smedley Butler

[The following is an excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by
Major General Smedley Butler, former Commandant of the United
States Marine Corps and the only American to have been awarded two
Congressional Medals of Honor].

  War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as
something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people.
Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted
for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

  I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and in nothing
else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then well, fight. The
trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns six
percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get
100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers
follow the flag.

  I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to defend some lousy
investment of the bankers. There are only two things that we
should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is
the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

  There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang
is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its
"muscle men " to destroy enemies, its "brain men " to plan war
preparations, and a "Big Boss"-Super-nationalistic Capitalism.

  It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison.
Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four
months in active military service as a member of our country's
most agile military force-the Marine Corps. I served in all
commissioned ranks from a Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And
during that period. I spent most of my time being a high class
muscleman for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.
In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

  I suspected I was just a part of a racket at the time. Now I am
sure of it. Like all members of the military profession. I never
had an original thought until I left the service. My mental
facilities remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the
orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the
military service.

  I helped make Mexico - especially Tampico - safe for American oil
interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for
the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in
the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the
benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I
helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of
Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican
Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped
see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

  During those years I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a
swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals and promotions.
Looking back on it I feel that I might have given Al Capone a few
hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three
districts. I operated on three continents.

=
LMNOP
http://lmno4p.org
"No War for Oil!"
__

PEACE!

Bay_Area_Activist list info: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bay_area_activist
Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bay_area_activist/messages
Calendar: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bay_area_activist/calendar
List-Unsubscribe: 
List-Subscribe: 

WHEN SPIDERS UNITE, THEY CAN TIE DOWN A LION  -- Ethiopian Proverb

--- End of forwarded message ---

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator."

 -GW Bush during a photo-op with Congressional leaders on
12/18/2000. As broadcast on CNN and available in transcript on
their website http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/18/nd.01.html

Steve Wingate, Webmaster
ANOMALOUS IMAGES AND UFO FILES
h

[CTRL] War on Terror Enables Terrorists?

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2814861.stm
Afghanistan retakes heroin crown

Afghanistan retook its place as the world's leading producer of heroin last
year, after US-led forces overthrew the Taliban which had banned
cultivation of opium poppies.

The finding was made in a key drug report, distributed in Kabul on Sunday
by the US State Department, which supports almost identical findings by
the United Nations last week.

Low-grade heroin is refined in Afghanistan from opium, which is
manufactured from the extract of poppies.

"The size of the opium harvest in 2002 makes Afghanistan the world's
leading opium producer," the report said.

The International Narcotics Control Strategy Report said the area of land
used to cultivate opium poppies reached 30,750 hectares, compared with
1,685 hectares in 2001.

Afghanistan overtook Burma - whose production fell for the sixth straight
year, to 630 tonnes - as the leading opium producer.

The British government is the leading sponsor of the anti-drugs campaign in
Afghanistan.

Contradictory claims

The report said fighting illegal drug trafficking was key to the US war on
terrorism.

"The US campaign against global terrorism in 2002 highlighted the
importance of our international drug control programs," it said.

Despite its own figures showing the Taliban had cut Afghanistan's heroin
production by about 95%, the report claimed that heroin had "financed
the former Taliban regime".

The UN International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) report, released on 26
February, said that Afghanistan produced 3,400 tonnes last year, up from
185 tonnes in 2001.

While the US report praised US-backed Afghan president Hamid Karzai for
the measures he has introduced to cut heroin production, the UN report
said his two executive orders had no practical impact.

Growing problem

The Pentagon and the State Department are reportedly split over how
heroin production should be tackled in the country.

While the Pentagon insists that the military operations in Afghanistan
should be limited to fighting terrorists, while the State Department thinks
armed forces should tackle opium production.

The US report also praised Pakistan for "excellent" co-operation with US
anti-drugs efforts.

Last week the head of Pakistan's Anti-Narcotics Force, Major General Zafar
Abbas, said that heroin production in Afghanistan this year is expected to
reach more than 4,000 tonnes.

Russian guards patrolling Afghanistan's 1,340-kilometre border with
Tajikistan, the main transport route for Afghan drugs to European markets,
have seized 1.5 tonnes of heroin already this year.

Last year, Russian and Tajik border guards seized 6.7 tonnes of drugs.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/2814861.stm

Published: 2003/03/03 13:08:54

© BBC MMIII
Forwarded for your information.  The text and intent of the article
have to stand on their own merits.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do
not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera-
tions.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and
rumoured by many.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is
written in Holy Scriptures.  Do not believe in anything merely on
the authority of teachers, elders or wise men.  Believe only after
careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief,
from the Kalama Sutra

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] 

[CTRL] WAR PARTY STUMBLES - Their propaganda campaign is pathetic

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html



February 24, 2003
WAR PARTY STUMBLES
Their propaganda campaign is pathetic 

While war may be inevitable – at least, that's what we're supposed to believe – the War Party's propaganda campaign is stupefyingly unconvincing. What was billed as a "Support the Troops" rally at the Alamo was held the other day, where "about 1,000" participants waved signs proclaiming "God Supports President Bush." This echoes the President's own remarks, made the same day, in which he declared it was the will of "the Almighty" to "liberate the oppressed people of Iraq." Having abandoned the Constitution, and the foreign policy advice of the Founding Fathers, the President and his supporters have reverted back to an earlier doctrine: the divine right of kings. 

Meanwhile, Indianpolis, Indiana, where a similar group rallied in support of mass murder in Iraq, was the scene of a breathtakingly ugly – and telling – incident, when one chickenhawk confronted counter-demonstrators from Veterans for Peace:

"Things got contentious at the end of the less-than-hourlong demonstration when some at the rally confronted a group calling itself Vietnam Veterans for Peace. 'Go home and eat your wine and cheese, you sissies,' William G. Rice, 40, yelled at the group of about 20 people as they walked away. 'Cowards.' Rice, a laborer, said that although he had no military experience, he thought he understood the political situation better than the veterans. 'I seem to have a better understanding of the price of freedom than they do,' he said."

Such is the moral blindness inspired by our righteous President – and his neoconservative amen corner, who lecture us on the glories of bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to the Middle East – that the men who fought in the muck and mire of Southeast Asia are now "sissies," while this good-for-nothing "laborer" who never fought a day in his life has "a better understanding of freedom than they do." 

General Anthony Zinni, retired Marine commander Joseph P. Hoar, and the most decorated soldier of the Vietnam war era, Colonel David Hackworth – these are all "cowards," because they challenge the rush to war, while the manly Rice and his fellow chickenhawks are not only morally superior, but gifted with a special insight that entitles them to lead.

"First of all, you know, size of protests – it's like deciding, 'Well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group,'" said the Boy Emperor, when asked about the effect of the recent anti-war rallies on U.S. policy. "The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon, in this case, the security of the people," he said, looking sternly presidential. 

Balderdash. This administration doesn't make a move without consulting focus groups. Karl Rove watches the polls, well, like a hawk, and the news is not good for the War Party, even in pro-military, staunchly conservative Alabama. Suddenly, the warmongers themselves are under attack from a growing anti-war movement – that's us, folks! – and an Associated Press report on the poll numbers attributes the shift in opinion to domestic anti-war sentiment as well as last week's dust-up with Turkey over the terms of their joining the coalition of the bribed:

"These events took a toll on domestic support for military action, according to polls taken last week by the Gallup Organization and the Pew Research Center. Both found that while majorities say they support the basic proposition of disarming Hussein by force, that support is strongly conditional on obtaining UN approval for any war."

With a large majority of the American people leery of war without UN approval, or some kind of international backing, Karl Rove must be having conniptions. This is the reason for the full-scale diplomatic offensive of the past few weeks, meant to bludgeon the French, the Germans, the Russians and the Chinese into line – not because the administration cares one whit about international public opinion, but to buttress Bush's own position at home. Pollsters attribute American ambivalence over this war to fears of the aftermath, in which the U.S. will be left alone to bear the postwar burden of policing and reconstruction. And in deep South states like Alabama, for instance, there is the knowledge that a great deal of the burden will fall directly on their shoulders, as the Mobile Register reports:

"Just as in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, however, it's likely that Alabama people will shoulder a disproportionate role in any new conflict. Although the ranks of the Alabama National Guard have shrunk in the last decade, its 15,000 members still make it among the largest state reserve forces in the country. Already, about 4,100 of those troops are on active duty, serving primarily in Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf and stateside on homeland defense duties. In comparison with other states, 'we would be right at the top' in the percentage of mobilized personnel, said Norm Arnold, 

[CTRL] War "Prosperity"

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

The Myth of War Prosperity

by Robert Higgs

February 6, 2003
Letters to the Editor
The Wall Street Journal

To the editor:

Bob Davis and Gref Jaffe?s article (Feb. 4) on the likely economic
consequences of a U.S. war against Iraq errs by giving past wars credit for
creating positive economic effects. This hoary fallacy, it seems, just can?t
be killed.

The strongest case for it has long been World War II, which Davis and Jaffe
claim ?clearly was a boon for the U.S. economy.? But a boon in what
sense? Unemployment fell during the war entirely because of the buildup
of the armed forces. In 1940, some 4.62 million persons were actually
unemployed (the official count of 7.45 million included 2.83 million
employed on various government work projects). During the war, the
government, by conscription for the most part, drew some 16 million
persons into the armed forces at some time; the active-duty force in mid-
1945 numbered in excess of 12 million. Voila, civilian unemployment nearly
disappeared. But herding the equivalent of 22 percent of the prewar labor
force into the armed forces (to eliminate 9.5 percent unemployment)
scarcely produced what we are properly entitled to call prosperity.

Yes, officially measured GDP soared during the war. Examination of that
increased output shows, however, that it consisted entirely of military
goods and services. Real civilian consumption and private investment both
fell after 1941, and they did not recover fully until 1946. The privately
owned capital stock actually shrank during the war. Some prosperity. (My
article in the peer-reviewed Journal of Economic History, March 1992,
presents many of the relevant details.)

It is high time that we come to appreciate the distinction between the
government spending, especially the war spending, that bulks up official
GDP figures and the kinds of production that create genuine economic
prosperity. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in the aftermath of World War I,
?war prosperity is like the prosperity that an earthquake or a plague
brings.?

Robert Higgs [send him mail] is senior fellow in political economy at the
Independent Institute, editor of The Independent Review, and author of
Crisis and Leviathan and the editor of Arms, Politics, and the Economy.

Robert Higgs Archives








Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs16.html



 SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close

 Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.



Forwarded for your information.  The text and intent of the article
have to stand on their own merits.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do
not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera-
tions.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and
rumoured by many.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is
written in Holy Scriptures.  Do not believe in anything merely on
the authority of teachers, elders or wise men.  Believe only after
careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief,
from the Kalama Sut

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http://archive.jab.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War: A Decent Summary

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

Robert Fisk: The case against war: A conflict driven by the self-interest of
America
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=378428
15 February 2003

In the end, I think we are just tired of being lied to. Tired of being talked
down to, of being bombarded with Second World War jingoism and scare
stories and false information and student essays dressed up as
"intelligence". We are sick of being insulted by little men, by Tony Blair and
Jack Straw and the likes of George Bush and his cabal of neo- conservative
henchmen who have plotted for years to change the map of the Middle
East to their advantage.

No wonder, then, that Hans Blix's blunt refutation of America's
"intelligence" at the UN yesterday warmed so many hearts. Suddenly, the
Hans Blixes of this world could show up the Americans for the
untrustworthy "allies" they have become.

The British don't like Hussein any more than they liked Nasser. But millions
of Britons remember, as Blair does not, the Second World War; they are
not conned by childish parables of Hitler, Churchill, Chamberlain and
appeasement. They do not like being lectured and whined at by men
whose experience of war is Hollywood and television.

Still less do they wish to embark on endless wars with a Texas governor-
executioner who dodged the Vietnam draft and who, with his oil buddies,
is now sending America's poor to destroy a Muslim nation that has nothing
at all to do with the crimes against humanity of 11 September. Jack Straw,
the public school Trot-turned-warrior, ignores all this, with Blair. He brays
at us about the dangers of nuclear weapons that Iraq does not have, of
the torture and aggression of a dictatorship that America and Britain
sustained when Saddam was "one of ours". But he and Blair cannot discuss
the dark political agenda behind George Bush's government, nor the
"sinister men" (the words of a very senior UN official) around the
President.

Those who oppose war are not cowards. Brits rather like fighting; they've
biffed Arabs, Afghans, Muslims, Nazis, Italian Fascists and Japanese
imperialists for generations, Iraqis included – though we play down the
RAF's use of gas on Kurdish rebels in the 1930s. But when the British are
asked to go to war, patriotism is not enough. Faced with the horror
stories, Britons – and many Americans – are a lot braver than Blair and
Bush. They do not like, as Thomas More told Cromwell in A Man for All
Seasons, tales to frighten children.

Perhaps Henry VIII's exasperation in that play better expresses the British
view of Blair and Bush: "Do they take me for a simpleton?" The British, like
other Europeans, are an educated people. Ironically, their opposition to
this obscene war may make them feel more, not less, European.

Palestine has much to do with it. Brits have no love for Arabs but they
smell injustice fast enough and are outraged at the colonial war being
used to crush the Palestinians by a nation that is now in effect running US
policy in the Middle East. We are told that our invasion of Iraq has nothing
to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – a burning, fearsome wound to
which Bush devoted just 18 words in his meretricious State of the Union
speech – but even Blair can't get away with that one; hence his
"conference" for Palestinian reform at which the Palestinians had to take
part via video-link because Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, refused to
let them travel to London.

So much for Blair's influence over Washington – the US Secretary of State,
Colin Powell, "regretted" that he couldn't persuade Sharon to change his
mind. But at least one has to acknowledge that Sharon – war criminal
though he may be for the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacres – treated Blair
with the contempt he deserves. Nor can the Americans hide the link
between Iraq and Israel and Palestine. In his devious address to the UN
Security Council last week, Powell linked the three when he complained
that Hamas, whose suicide bombings so cruelly afflict Israelis, keeps an
office in Baghdad.

Just as he told us about the mysterious al-Qa'ida men who support
violence in Chechnya and in the "Pankisi gorge". This was America's way of
giving Vladimir Putin a free hand again in his campaign of rape and murder
against the Chechens, just as Bush's odd remark to the UN General
Assembly last 12 September about the need to protect Iraq's Turkomans
only becomes clear when one realises that Turkomans make up two thirds
of the population of Kirkuk, one of Iraq's largest oil fields.

The men driving Bush to war are mostly former or still active pro-Israeli
lobbyists. For years, they have advocated destroying the most powerful
Arab nation. Richard Perle, one of Bush's most influential advisers, Douglas
Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Donald Rumsfeld were all
campaigning for the overthrow of Iraq long before George W Bush was
elected – if he was elected – US President. And they weren't doing so for
the benefit of Amer

[CTRL] War two weeks after Haj: Pentagon source (Feb 27th)

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=3583



US To Attack Iraq February 27th
Arab Governments Given Notification 

2/6/03 2:48:05 PM

Arab News

Washington, DC -- http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/02/as_Safir050203.html 

War two weeks after Haj: Pentagon source 

By Barbara Ferguson, 

Arab News Correspondent 

WASHINGTON, 4 February 2003 -- The US will go to war against Iraq two weeks after Haj, which is scheduled to end Feb. 13, a former deputy secretary at the US Defense Department told Arab News yesterday. 

"During this massive air attack, the last thing you want is cluttered airspace," a former deputy secretary at the Defense Department told Arab News. 

The "buzz" at the Pentagon, he said, is that Gulf War II will begin two weeks after Haj, before the end of February. 

"The big thing is that you don't want, right after Eid Al-Adha, hundreds of airplanes flying all over the place, and the Saudis certainly wouldn't want anyone stranded in the Kingdom," he said. 

Gulf War II will begin with 3,000-guided missiles ripping apart Iraqi military and leadership targets within the first 48 hours, aimed at facilitating a two-pronged ground attack, it was reported yesterday. Defense officials also revealed that US warships and aircraft bombers would fire an estimated 700 Tomahawk cruise missiles during the first two days of high-tech strikes. This means that the attack will be 10 times more powerful than the opening days of 1991 Gulf war. 

If the US makes the decision to go to war, Pentagon officials continued in their briefing, the air campaign will be carried out by 600 Air Force and Navy radar-jamming, attack and support planes flying from bases in the Gulf region and elsewhere, and from four or five US aircraft carriers and a British carrier. 

The US Army's 3rd Infantry Division and a sizable contingent of Marines would be assigned to attack north from Kuwait, while a force spearheaded by the 4th Infantry Division would move south from Turkey, Pentagon military and civilian officials told journalists yesterday. 

Military observers see the steady leaking of details about the US war plan as part of a last ditch strategy by the US to pressure Saddam Hussein to choose exile to pave the way for disarmament and the establishment of a democratic government in Baghdad. 

"I think the Bush administration was set on war as their foreign policy as soon as they were elected," said Simona Sharoni, professor of peace and conflict studies and Middle East politics at the Evergreen State College in Washington State. 

"These military operations will rebuild the US military, and provide a huge allocation for more money for the military budget. The US agreed to let the weapon inspection teams return to Iraq in order to create an ultimatum, because they realized it would not be good for them to act unilaterally." They were looking for a "smoking gun" to justify an attack, she added. 

The "smoking gun" may well be the release of US obtained transcripts of Iraqi officials gloating over their success in deceiving UN inspectors, which Secretary of State Colin Powell will make public when he addresses the UN Security Council tomorrow. 

US officials said the conversations on the tapes, obtained by American electronic interceptions, reveals the Iraqis saying "Move that", "Don't be reporting that", and "Ha! Can you believe they missed that?" 






www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War is the worst solution

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

War is the worst solution, warns Chirac
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,888981,00.html
Nicholas Watt in Le Touquet
Wednesday February 5, 2003
The Guardian

Jacques Chirac delivered a blunt warning to Tony Blair yesterday that
Britain and the US will have their work cut out to persuade France to back
a military attack on Iraq.

Laying bare Anglo-French divisions, the French president declared that war
was the "worst possible solution" as he called for UN weapons inspectors
to be allowed to continue their work.

"I note that the inspection system has proved very effective in the past,"
Mr Chirac said at the end of yesterday's Anglo-French summit in Le
Touquet. "I note that in the first round, more arms were destroyed than in
the Gulf war. Therefore the inspection system is very effective."

Mr Chirac's remarks set him directly at odds with London and Washington,
which believe that Baghdad's refusal to cooperate with the inspectors has
made their work all but redundant. Britain and the US have declared Iraq
to be in "material breach" of UN resolution 1441 - which they believe is
enough to trigger war.

Standing next to Mr Chirac, a stern-faced Mr Blair made no attempt to
hide his disagreement with the French president. "Of course there are the
differences that are familiar to people," the prime minister said at the
post-summit press conference.

The stark differences between the two sides highlight the formidable
challenge Britain faces in winning round the French. Mr Blair is determined
to win French support because it would pave the way for a second UN
security resolution - a key demand of sceptical Labour backbenchers.

The prime minister knows, however, that he has only another six weeks
after George Bush told him last Friday that his patience will wear thin by
next month.

Downing Street officials, who privately believe that Mr Chirac will
eventually be persuaded to come on board, were not surprised by the
French president's barbed remarks. On the day that France's only aircraft
carrier was dispatched to the Gulf, they also took heart when Mr Chirac
held out the possibility of rallying behind Britain and the US.

Mr Chirac repeatedly refused to be drawn on whether France would wield
its veto on the UN security council if Britain and the US attempt to press
for a second resolution authorising military action. "France will assume its
responsibility as it sees fit," he said.

The French president added that he would await the outcome of the next
report to the security council by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix,
on February 14. His remarks were echoed by Mr Blair, although the prime
minister indicated that Britain regards February 14 as more of a deadline
for Iraq to prove its compliance.

"We have then the report of Dr Blix, the chief inspector, on the 14th of
February. We will make our judgments then," Mr Blair said.

Divisions over Iraq overshadowed the summit, which was held in the British-
designed northern resort of Le Touquet to underline Anglo-French ties
after a series of recent rows. At the end of nearly five hours of talks,
which included a lunch of scallops and lamb at the Hotel Westminster, a
favourite of Edward VIII, the two leaders hailed a series of agreements on
defence, education and asylum.

Mr Blair made a gesture to his host by using his halting, public schoolboy
French to declare: "There are more things that unite us, than divide us."

His remarks were echoed by Mr Chirac, who turned on his famous Gallic
charm to lavish praise on the "five eminent members of the cabinet"
accompanying Mr Blair.

The two leaders concluded their talks, which were kicked off in the
marriage hall of the city's town hall, by announcing that they are to hold a
series of events next year to mark the 100th anniversary of the entente
cordiale - the historic Anglo-French agreement to end territorial disputes
over Egypt and Morocco.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
Forwarded for your information.  The text and intent of the article
have to stand on their own merits.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do
not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera-
tions.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and
rumoured by many.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is
written in Holy Scriptures.  Do not believe in anything merely on
the authority of teachers, elders or wise men.  Believe only after
careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief,
from the Kalama Sut

http://www.ctrl.o

[CTRL] War & the Rise of the State

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

>>>For those of you are interested in such things as "war' and how this
human activity has emerged and progressed and affected the World in
which we live, I recommend the following book.  There seems to be this
impetus for cataclysmic change in the world lately and the agent being
used is the organised application of military power to effect resolution of
conflicts, paradoxically enough, through conflict.  I have not yet finished it
but it has been so far very instructive as to how war and the reordering of
the world have gone hand in hand with the rise of the state, something
that is metamorphosising into the "New World Order".

What really struck me was the recent comments by the "Godfather of
War", the "Don" Rumsfeld who declared France and Germany to be "Old
Europe".  Reading through Porter, he argues that it was Napoleon, one of
them "Old Europeans", who actually was the genius behind using war to
effect changes in his and other nations and their state apparatii.  Through
war, many things can be done in the name of supporting same that could
not be otherwise done, or if done at all, done over a much longer period
of time.  And it is interesting that the GoW is shunning nations who -- in
their histories -- have taken war to unimaginable lengths to effect the
modernisation of the European continent.  The French were, apparently,
the first to understand the various relationships between battles and
logistics as well as the circuit between State, taxation, and military -- the
"Iron Triangle" (the State enforces taxation which is enforced by the
military that reinforces the State which takes more taxes to expand the
military that reinforces the enlarged state, and so forth).

It was Napoleon's effective ruling of Iberia that allowed the South
Americans to seek their independences at a time when Spain and Portugal
were unable to defend their empires abroad.  French was at once time
the Continental language, something to which the Russians were not
immune, emulating the enforcement of militarism in their ordering of their
societies.

I am sure there are other books that may cover the same material but
Porter has (and I'm sure will [as I get further along]) provided an excellent
starting point for *why* the Founders may have discouraged the existence
of standing armies as threats to freedoms and liberty.

A<:>E<:>R

>Amazon is one source that I used because of its extensive reviews<

War and the Rise of the State: The Military Foundations of Modern Politics
by Bruce D. Porter
http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743237781/ref%
3Dnosim/addallbooksea-20/702-8856810-7624028
US List Price: USD $22.95
CDN Equivalent: CDN$ 34.98
Our Price: CDN$ 34.98

Paperback - 400 pages (January 1994)
Language: English
Free Press ISBN: 0743237781
Other Editions: Hardcover

Editorial Reviews

>From Kirkus Reviews
By Porter (Political Science/Brigham Young/Harvard), an important
assessment of the critical role played by war in expanding and defining the
modern state. Drawing on five hundred years, mainly of European history,
Porter argues that, far from being the transient phenomenon that liberals
or progressives believe, or the dialectical engine of progress imagined by
Marxists, war is above all ``a powerful catalyst of change,'' the
consequences of which can be both reforming and ruinous. Concerning
himself ``not with what causes war, but with what war causes,'' the author
sees it as the main force behind the territorial consolidation of Europe
from perhaps a thousand political entities in the 14th century to 25 by
1900; and as the single greatest force for bureaucratizing and government
growth: ``wherever the gun went, the filing cabinet followed.'' The
Napoleonic Wars swept away feudal structures through much of Europe;
the Russian Revolution followed the huge losses suffered by the Russian
armies; and the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century have used the
glorification of war in their ``prostration of all politics to the good of the
state.'' One of Porter's most persuasive revisions of current orthodoxy is
his argument that the welfare state in the US was constructed between
1939 and 1945 rather than during the Depression. The substructure was
built during and following WW I, when the principle of the state's
responsibility for the welfare of its citizens became widely accepted, but
was ``essentially finished in its full bureaucratic and fiscal form'' by 1949.
Even after peace had come, the budget was almost five times larger than in
1938, the peak spending year of the Depression. Well written, thoughtful
and provocative. Porter has made a strong case with persuasiveness and
historical sweep. -- Copyright ©1993, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights
reserved.
Forwarded for your information.  The text and intent of the article
have to stand on their own merits.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
express

[CTRL] War Fever

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan2003/bush-j30_prn.shtml


WSWS : News & Analysis : North America

Bush’s State of the Union speech: the war fever of a ruling elite in crisis

By the Editorial Board
30 January 2003

Back to screen version| Send this link by email | Email the author

The State of the Union speech delivered by George Bush to a joint session
of Congress Tuesday night reflected a government in deep crisis. The war
fever in the chamber and Bush’s litany of lies and threats created the
impression of a ruling elite that feels itself under siege and overwhelmed
by economic contradictions it barely comprehends. Bush speaks for a
regime that is going to war in the hope that it can somehow extricate
itself from its crisis by means of military aggression and the seizure of
Persian Gulf oil.

It was impossible to sit through Bush’s hour-long tirade without wondering
what George Orwell would have made of such contributions to Newspeak
as Bush’s description of the massive invasion force assembling on Iraq’s
borders as those “who will keep the peace.”

Or such grotesque assurances to the Iraqi people as, “Your enemy is not
surrounding your country; your enemy is ruling your country”; and the
claim that an American military occupation of Iraq “will be the day or your
liberation.”

These words were spoken as the Pentagon leaked reports that the US will
strike Iraq with up to 400 cruise missiles in the first 24 hours of war, in
what is described as a “shock and awe” strategy aimed at terrorizing the
country into submission. (See “US plans “shock and awe” blitzkrieg in
Iraq”)

Secretary of State Colin Powell, meanwhile, has dismissed charges that
Washington is going to war in order to seize control of the country’s vast
oil reserves, insisting that it will only hold them in “trusteeship,” a
euphemism for colonialism that came into vogue in the aftermath of World
War I.

Similarly, on the domestic side, Bush raised the issue of poverty in the US,
and proposed to deal with the problem by further slashing taxes for the
rich. He invoked the massive crisis of health care, and proposed measures
to gut the Medicare program that serves senior citizens.

War is peace, occupation is liberation, and colonialism is freedom. Only
the propaganda department of a regime every bit as depraved as the one
depicted in Orwell’s 1984 could have crafted the words read by Bush from
his teleprompter.

The collection of gangsters and sadists who occupy the top echelons of
both the Bush administration and Congress jumped to their feet to cheer
the president’s vow to unleash “the full force and might of the United
States military” against an impoverished and oppressed country already
severely ravaged by war and economic sanctions.

They whooped it up when Bush, in the language of a Mafia don, alluded to
his government’s success in rubbing out alleged terrorists. Touting the
arrest of more than 3,000 suspects, most of them immigrants rounded up
on minor immigration charges, Bush boasted, “Many others have met a
different fate. Let’s put it this way, they are no longer a problem to the
United States.”

Bush went on to announce the formation of a “Terrorist Threat
Integration Center,” merging functions of the CIA, FBI, the Pentagon and
the new Homeland Security Department. The creation of this new super-
spy agency tears to shreds Constitutional safeguards against government
surveillance of American residents and citizens.

While White House officials had claimed the speech would make the case
for war against Iraq, it did nothing of the kind. Bush reiterated a litany of
alleged transgressions by the Iraqi regime that have all been heard—and
refuted—before.

There were the unsubstantiated and politically implausible allegations of
Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, a movement whose Islamist hostility for secular
nationalist movements like the Baathists in Iraq is well known. Bush again
claimed that the Iraqi regime had purchased aluminum tubes “suitable for
nuclear weapons production,” an allegation already discounted by the
International Atomic Energy Agency based on its inspections in Iraq.

In a cynical slight of hand, Bush presented UN charges that Iraq has failed
to prove that all of its non-conventional weapons from the 1980s have been
destroyed as proof that such weapons exist today—something even chief
weapons inspector Hans Blix does not assert.

As a “moral” justification for war, the US president cited human rights
reports detailing savage methods of torture used by the Iraqi regime’s
secret police. “If this is not evil then evil has no meaning,” declared Bush.
But the US administration’s moral outrage over torture is relative. It all
depends on who is doing it. All of the hideous methods mentioned by Bush
have been catalogued for decades in human rights reports issued on the
practices of US-backed dictatorships in Latin America and elsewhere.

Moreover, the US itself is presently 

[CTRL] War Within

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

The war within
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,883685,00.html
Israelis are not only in conflict with the Palestinians. They are also bitterly
divided among themselves over race, religion and politics. As the country
goes to the polls, Jonathan Freedland reports on how deep - and hateful -
those divisions really are

Jonathan Freedland
Tuesday January 28, 2003
The Guardian

Everyone here knows that he will lose. Even he, the leader of Israel's
Labour party on a last campaign swing before today's general election,
knows it. To cheer up this basement room crammed with activists and,
who knows, perhaps to lift his own spirits, Amram Mitzna promises that he
will win one day - "if not tomorrow, then the day after tomorrow".

The audience take the message well. They understand that Israelis have
united in their despair at two years of Palestinian terror, rallying behind
Ariel Sharon and making it impossible for a challenger like Mitzna to break
through. But they are also used to defeat. Here, in the down-at-heel,
southern town of Bet Shemesh, it has long been a lonely business working
for Labour. This is Likud country.

Bet Shemesh may be scarred by decades-old poverty and unemployment,
but it's still hostile terrain for Labour. That sounds like a paradox - surely
the poor should rally to the party of the left? - but it is explained by one
of the countless social faultlines that marks Israel. They are part of an
Israeli landscape that can be hard to see under the cloud-cover of
national unity produced by the all-consuming conflict with the
Palestinians. But look beneath and what you glimpse is a society riven
along every possible line: secular against religious, religious against
religious, European (Ashkenazi) against Middle Eastern (Mizrahi). These are
Israel's other wars - and they have been laid bare by this election
campaign.

Take another look at Mitzna in that Bet Shemesh basement. He stands tall
and impressive, in cobalt blue shirt and neat navy blazer. He has a
distinguished, even noble face: modern rimless glasses, and an ancient,
prophet's beard. He speaks fluently and well. Yet the key fact about him
for many in this town - visible in the way he looks, dresses and speaks - is
that he is not one of them. Instead, he looks the archetypal man of the
Labour establishment - educated and Ashkenazi - which so many Mizrahi
Jews continue to resent.

This has been a Labour problem ever since Likud first toppled them from
power in 1977, and they have still not cracked it. Jews who fled Yemen,
Morocco, Iraq and the rest of the Arab world in the 1950s stored up
decades of anger at their treatment by the embryonic Jewish state. They
felt that they were patronised, herded first into tent cities and then make
shift development towns; their centuries-old customs and costume were
mocked as primitive. They were urged to shed their traditions and become
"Israeli" - and in those days, in a state founded by Russians, Poles and
Germans, that meant Ashkenazi. The collective memory is one of
humiliation and Labour, the unchallenged masters of that period, bear the
blame.

By rights, those feelings should have faded long ago. Ashkenazim and
Mizrahim now mix and marry freely; few Israeli families are not intertwined.
Yet the pool of hurt remains, ready to be tapped. So the TV commercials
aired by Shas, the middle-sized party of religious Mizrahim, include black-
and-white pictures of a Yemeni arrival apparently being sprayed with
disinfectant by an (Ashkenazi) immigration official. It is a deliberate bid to
stir bitter collective memories and spur Israelis, even third-generation
Israelis, to vote on ethnic lines.

That's when the legacy manifests itself crudely. More subtle is the strange
case of Ariel Sharon's escape from what looked like a lethal corruption
scandal. A fortnight or so ago, the PM was haemorrhaging in the polls amid
allegations of undeclared, million-dollar foreign donations. He was under
police investigation. To stop the slide, he gave a televised address. By
common consent, it was a disaster, with Sharon rambling and aggressive.
Halfway through, he was pulled off the air by order of a high court judge,
for violating the election law which bars on-air politicking outside the
official campaign broadcasts.

Instantly, and curiously, the slide was halted. It turns out that the judge's
decision had helped Sharon, by confirming what many Likud voters have
long believed: that the country's institutions, including the judiciary, are
still run by the same condescending, leftwing Ashkenazi elite of old. The
snobs had gagged the Likud leader; he was once again the underdog,
leader of a party which has cast itself since the 1970s as the champion of
the outsider.

That used to mean Mizrahim, but now Likud's coalition of the excluded has
stretched to include Ethiopian Jews and the million Russians who have
come to Israel in the past decade. Ashkenazi they might be, but Likud's
hold on these i

[CTRL] War in Iraq Plays Into Bin Laden's Hands

[flw]

-Caveat Lector-

FINANCIAL TIMES

War in Iraq will hinder the war on terror
By David Gardner

Published: January 26 2003 21:08 |
Last Updated: January 26 2003 21:08

 Osama bin Laden did not get what he wanted after September 11, 2001.
Statements he made even before the bombing started in Afghanistan show he
was hoping for an indiscriminate and disproportionate response from the US
and its allies, a spur to Muslims to rise against the west and
western-allied regimes across the Islamic world. He was disappointed. The
US response was measured, based on widespread, active support and obviously
right.


What had been wrong was to have abandoned Afghanistan in the early 1990s,
after the success of the US-Pakistani-Saudi-backed campaign to drive the
Soviets out. That joint venture had blooded Mr bin Laden and his tens of
thousands of "Arab Afghan" volunteers and the future Taliban among the
Mujahideen. It gave them a taste of victory against a superpower and then
left them a shell state in which to incubate al-Qaeda.

A war in Iraq now would be as false a step as that cavalier abandonment of
Afghanistan was then, and more damaging. It would provide Mr bin Laden with
the groundswell of support he was denied after the attack on the twin
towers and the Pentagon. An assault on Iraq is the best recruiting sergeant
imaginable for his absolutist brand of Islamism, an ideology bordering on
fascism. It is this undeterrable creed and the band of zealots sympathetic
to it that is the foremost threat to liberal values and international
stability alike, not Saddam Hussein.

Mr Hussein can be deterred from using his rogue weapons. His much- reduced
regime is no immediate threat, even to his neighbours. Turkey, Iran, Syria,
Jordan and Saudi Arabia would all like to see the back of the Iraqi tyrant
but all fear what forces could be unleashed by war. They see Washington's
concentration on Iraq, while failing to engage actively with or deal
even-handedly in the Israel-Palestine conflict, as fuelling rage across the
Arab and Islamic world that has never before reached this pitch. The bin
Laden network's monstrous bet that it can trigger a clash of civilisations
may be evil but it is not mad, at least if Washington's skewed priorities
remain as they are.

The reasons the Bush administration is so determined to have a war with
Iraq are threefold.

First, an overwhelming demonstration of US military force will undoubtedly
be awesome and give the average tyrant great pause. It should deter all but
the most determined challenge to US interests. It may also erase part of
the sense of vulnerability Americans feel after September 11. But what this
exemplary display of firepower will not do is land a single blow on Mr bin
Laden and his ilk. To much of the world, and all of the Islamic world, it
will look as though Washington, frustrated by the lack of any quick way to
defeat the asymmetric threat of al-Qaeda, is nevertheless determined to
stage a show of its unprecedented power in a conventional war.

The second reason relates to strategy in the Middle East. It is not about
oil in the narrow sense - wanting to seize control of Iraq's reserves. It
is something more ambitious. Over the past century, the Gulf has always
been under the clear control of an outside power or its local proxy. It was
Britain in the first half-century, succeeded by the
Anglo-American-installed Shah of Iran and then, as de facto policeman and
US-backed bulwark against Islamist Iran, Mr Hussein himself.

The past decade or so has been an anomaly: current arrangements for
controlling the Gulf are unsatisfactory, because the US has constantly to
intervene directly, and Baghdad, though defeated, refuses to lie down. From
there to the conclusion that control of Baghdad would not only clarify the
position in the Gulf but also provide the lever with which to refashion the
whole Middle East in America's democratic image seems but a short step for
neo-conservatives in Washington.

This vision of Arab despots falling like ninepins is indeed seductive. But
it is a fantasy. Change in the Arab world will be a longer, harder and much
messier task, in which an America that has backed and bankrolled autocracy
will first have to re-establish its own democratic credentials with the
Arabs.

Third, there is the question of proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. The conviction that Mr Hussein is still developing such
weapons, and that these might fall into the hands of terrorists, is the
most often and overtly stated purpose of US (and British) Iraq policy. The
possibility that any Jihadist group around the world might acquire and use
such weapons is so appalling that almost any action to prevent it might
seem justified. But why should Iraq be the prime locus of such concern,
rather than, say, Pakistan, which has nuclear bombs and a swaggering, well
implanted Jihadist movement (whereas Iraq has neither)?

The available evidence indicates that Baghdad's weapons of mass destruction

[CTRL] War & the Profit System

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

No war for empire
War deeply rooted in profit system
http://www.workers.org/ww/2003/regime0123.php
By Fred Goldstein

Global political tensions are rising daily. Washington is relentlessly pushing
forward with its military buildup for unprovoked aggression against Iraq
despite growing opposition everywhere to U.S. war plans. The entire world
feels the military and political pressure of the Pentagon's rapid timetable
as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld orders 62,000 more troops to the
Gulf, with the aim of reaching a force of 150,000 by February.

Governments everywhere are being squeezed between the pressure from
the U.S. military juggernaut above and popular opposition below. It is
becoming absolutely clear that the anti-war movement will have to
broaden and deepen its resistance to this military mobilization in order to
tip the balance and keep the Pentagon from bringing death and
destruction to the Iraqi people.

As the Bush administration runs into more and more political opposition,
the opportunity for decisive intervention to stop the war increases.

The anti-war movement in the U.S. is growing faster than anyone can
count. Thirty thousand people turned out in Los Angeles to protest the
war on Jan. 11. Countless local demonstrations are taking place around the
country. Two hundred thousand people demonstrated in Wash ington,
D.C., and San Francisco on Oct. 26.

And a massive turnout is expected in both cities for the international day
of protest on Jan. 18. At least 19 cities in Europe, Asia and Latin America
are scheduled to demonstrate on that day.

In the wake of the half-a-million-strong demonstration in Florence last fall
and with the European movement gearing up for a massive anti- war
turnout on Feb. 15, even Tony Blair, Washington's staunchest ally,
backtracked on his unequivocal support for an early invasion--but only
momentarily.

The Bush administration has been warning that Jan. 27, the date for the
United Nations weapons inspectors to give their so-called "progress
report" to the Security Council, is going to be the moment for Washington
to declare Iraq in "material breach" and set the stage for war.

Mass pressure shakes imperialist allies

The first sign of a rift in the Anglo-U.S. imperialist alliance was directly
caused by the heat from below. Mass opposition pushed close to 100
members of the Labor Party to declare their opposition. Even a member of
Blair's cabinet, International Development Secretary Clare Short, publicly
said it was the prime minister's "duty" to stop Bush from carrying out the
war.

Blair, after blinking and calling for more time for the weapons inspectors,
quickly jumped back on board and ordered the call-up of 1,500 reservists.
He also put the Royal Navy, including the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, on
notice to prepare for pre-war training in the Mediterranean.

In France, a poll taken for Le Figaro showed 77 percent of those
interviewed opposed to military intervention against Iraq.

Yet President Jacques Chirac, in order to protect the interests of French
imperialism and not be left completely out of a division of Iraqi oil, "told his
armed forces to be prepared for deployment, the clearest suggestion so
far that France would participate in a military move against Saddam."
(Canadian Press dispatch, Jan.7)

Washington desperately needs to use Turkey as a major staging ground for
an attack on Baghdad from the north. It has been working on the
government for permission to put up to 80,000 troops in Turkey. Yet 80
percent of the population in this Muslim country opposes the war, the
country is in the worst depression it has seen in decades, and any war will
only intensify the economic and social crisis. (Christian Science Monitor,
Jan. 14) The repressive Turkish government has given the Pentagon
permission to send surveying teams to assess the basing situation for U.S.
troops, despite the prospect of disaster brought about by the war.

All over the Middle East, Washington's client regimes are trembling at the
prospect of social explosions in the wake of a U.S. invasion. The Saudi
Arabian oil monarchy has been compelled to privately assure its master
that it can use Saudi bases, but is terrified to admit that in public. And the
Saudi government is desperately trying to find some peaceful way out of
the crisis.

All this twisting and bending by powerful imperialist governments as well as
dependent but endangered regimes under the pressure of the White
House, the Pentagon and the State Department, as well as the complete
disregard by Washington for mass anti-war sentiment, contains important
lessons for the anti-war movement. Above all, the movement should not
count on the UN Security Coun cil, weapons inspectors' reports or public
opinion to stop the war.

Only mass resistance will have an impact.

Who really make the decisions?

The driving motivation behind the war is to conquer Iraq and seize its oil
fields, with 112 billion barrels of reserve

[CTRL] War On Hummers

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 96)
January 21, 2002
War on Hummers Edition
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/03/96.html
Welcome once again to the Top Ten Conservative Idiots! Democratic
Underground is two years old this week, and to celebrate we've got
some first-class idiots lined up for you. George W. Bush holds on to the
number one slot this week for flip-flopping like a freshly-landed
haddock over North Korea. CNN (2) are beating the drums of war and
Donald Rumsfeld (3) says that we will attack Iraq if they a) tell us that
they have WMD or b) don't tell us that they have WMD. Their choice.
Elsewhere Minneapolis City Workers (4) demonstrate what it means to
be a true patriot, Bill Frist (5) is getting off to a poor start, and - no sex
please! - Robert McDonnell (6) is an idiot. Meanwhile Poppy Bush gets a
free ride from ABC (9) and Matt Drudge reminds everybody who he is.
Enjoy! And don't forget the key.

George W. Bush
Three cheers for Dubya's fantastic foreign policy! From breaking off
diplomatic relations with North Korea when his administration began, to
ignoring and/or insulting them for two years (Bush has said publicly that
he "loathes" Kim Jong Il) the Bush administration's foreign policy seemed
to revolve around one simple plan: do the complete opposite of
whatever Bill Clinton did. And Since Bill Clinton's foreign policy attempted
to keep the peace around the world, it's now no surprise that we're on
the brink of Dubya-Dubya-Three. Unfortunately George and The Gang's
plans fell apart at the seams last week when it was decided that they
might in fact help North Korea with its energy and food problems after
all, providing that they stop developing nuclear weapons. Which was, of
course, Bill Clinton's plan in the first place. But wait, there's a big
difference! See, according to George, inviting North Korea to blackmail
the U.S. and then giving in to them in no way means that we're
rewarding "bad behavior." And just because we're "talking" with North
Korea doesn't mean we're "negotiating." Yeah, way to show that evil
dictator who's boss, George.

CNN
It seems that the administration will go to any lengths to make sure they
get their oil war with Iraq, and CNN are more than willing to help them if
it means more ratings for the desperate cable news organization.
Several alert viewers informed us that CNN's Judy Woodruff announced
on CNN last week that the Bush administration was "encouraged" by the
UN inspectors' recent discovery of 12 empty rockets, which begs the
question, "encouraged whaa?!?" And also last week CNN were banging
Donald Rumsfeld's war drum for him, insisting that "Lack of evidence
could mean Iraq's hiding something." Yes folks, that was the actual
headline on CNN's website. According to CNN, "The failure of U.N. arms
inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction 'could be evidence, in
and of itself, of Iraq's noncooperation' with U.N. disarmament
resolution." Why don't they just put up a headline which says "Come ON!
WAR already! Crispy-fried Iraqis are our top ratings-getter!"

Donald Rumsfeld
On a related note, from the same CNN story referenced above, Donald
Rumsfeld has decided that "the United States and the United Nations
have no obligation to prove that Iraq has continued efforts to develop
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Instead, he said, Iraq must
prove that it has abandoned them." Which obviously makes perfect
sense, if you're a semi-lobotomized Ignoramosaurus from Planet
Braindead.

Minneapolis City Workers
But it's not just CNN who are doing their best to ratchet up support for
the war and downplay the concerns of the average American. It was
revealed last week that city workers in Minneapolis have been going
around neighborhoods and removing antiwar signs from people's front
yards. Damn, if that's not the kind of activity that makes America great, I
don't know what is. Nancy Berneking, a Wayzata resident whose signs
were knocked down and damaged twice in one week, said, "It's like
seeing the Constitution being kicked down in your front yard... Why do
these people want to silence all dissent?" Come on, Nancy - it's because
they're true patriots, you god-forsaken Communist.

Bill Frist
Poor Bill Frist. It seems that the new Senate Majority Leader may not
quite have what it takes to run the Senate after all. According to a news
story last week, "US Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist debuted
in his new role by beating a retreat as he accepted a Democratic
proposal on committee seat distribution, rather than face a politically
costly standoff." Ha ha! Run, Bill, run! That's what we like to see.
Perhaps you can ask Chicken Dick Cheney if he's got any spare room in
his undisclosed hidey-hole. On second thoughts better not - I'm sure as
a doctor you find it really irritating when people start pestering you for
free medical advice.

Robert F. McDonnell
You might want to cover the childrens' eyes for this one! Ahem... thinking

[CTRL] War Facts that are NEVER REFERRED TO

[Jei]

-Caveat Lector-

  Excerpt from Harold Pinter's remarks on the occasion of his
  receiving an honorary degree at the University of Turin:

Earlier this year, I had a major operation for cancer. The  operation and
its after effects were something of a  nightmare. I felt I was a man
unable to swim bobbing about  under water in a deep dark endless ocean.
But I did not drown and I am very glad to be alive.

However, I found that to emerge from a personal nightmare was to enter an
infinitely more pervasive public nightmare - the nightmare  of American
hysteria, ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and  belligerence; the most
powerful nation the world has ever known effectively waging war against
the rest of the world.

"If you are not with us, you are against us,"  President George  W. Bush
has said. He has also said: "We will not allow the world's worst weapons
to remain in the hands of the world's worst leaders."  Quite right. Look
in the mirror, chum. That's you. America is at this moment developing
advanced systems of "weapons of massdestruction" and is prepared to use
them where it sees fit. It has more of them than the rest of the world
put together. It has walked away from international agreements on
biological and chemical weapons, refusing to allow inspection of its own
factories.

The hypocrisy behind its public declarations and its own actions is
almost a joke.

America believes that the 3,000 deaths in New York are the  only deaths
that count, the only deaths that matter. They are American  deaths. Other
deaths are unreal, abstract, of no consequence.

 *  The 3,000 deaths in Afghanistan are never referred to.

 *  The  hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dead through American
and British  sanctions which have deprived them of essential
medicines are never referred to.

 *  The effect of depleted uranium, used by America in the Gulf  war, is
never referred to. Radiation levels in Iraq are appallingly  high.
Babies are born with no brain, no eyes, no genitals. Where they do
have ears, mouths or rectums, all that issues from these orifices is
blood.

 *  The 200,000 deaths in East Timor in 1975 brought about by the
Indonesian government but inspired and supported by America are never
referred to.

 *  The 500,000 deaths in Guatemala, Chile, El Salvador,  Nicaragua,
Uruguay, Argentina and Haiti, in actions supported and subsidised by
America, are never referred to.

 *  The millions of deaths in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are no longer
referred to.

 *  The desperate plight of the Palestinian people, the central factor in
world unrest, is hardly referred to.

But what a misjudgment of the present and what a misreading of history
this is. People do not forget. They do not forget the death of  their
fellows, they do not forget torture and mutilation, they do not forget
injustice, they do not forget oppression, they do not forget the
terrorism of mighty powers. They not only don't forget: they also strike
back.

The atrocity in New York was predictable and inevitable. It was an act of
retaliation against constant and systematic manifestations of state
terrorism on the part of America over many years, in all parts of the
world.

In Britain, the public is now being warned to be "vigilant" in
preparation for potential terrorist acts. The language is in  itself
preposterous. How will - or can - public vigilance be  embodied?  Wearing
a scarf over your mouth to keep out poison gas?

However, terrorist attacks are quite likely, the inevitable  result of
our Prime Minister's contemptible and shameful subservience to  America.
apparently a terrorist poison gas attack on the London Underground system
was recently prevented. But such an act may indeed take place. Thousands
of  schoolchildren travel on the Underground every day. If there is a
poison gas  attack from which they die, the responsibility will rest
entirely on the shoulders of our Prime Minister. Needless to say, the
Prime  Minister does not travel on the Underground himself. The planned
war against Iraq is in fact a plan for premeditated murder of thousands
of civilians in order, apparently, to rescue them from their dictator.
America and Britain are pursuing a course that can lead only to an
escalation of violence throughout the world and finally to catastrophe.

It is obvious, however, that America is bursting at the seams to attack
Iraq. I believe that it will do this not only to take control of Iraqi
oil, but also because the American administration is now a bloodthirsty
wild animal. Bombs are its only vocabulary. Many Americans, we know, are
horrified by the posture of their government, but seem to be helpless.
Unless Europe finds the solidarity, intelligence, courage and will to
challenge and resist American power, Europe itself will deserve Alexander
Herzen's declaration - "We are not the doctors. We are the disease".

By Harold Pinter

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLA

[CTRL] WAR PARTY IN FULL RETREAT!! How Sweet It Is!

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html



January 10, 2003
WAR PARTY IN RETREAT
How sweet it is! 

It may be in somewhat poor taste to say "I told you so," but I can't resist. My prognosis that the Iraq war, far from being "inevitable," as we've been endlessly told, has been postponed if not put on the back burner indefinitely has been all but verified by recent events. In a column posted on New Year's Day, I wrote:

"As John McLaughlin and Eleanor Clift concurred on The McLaughlin Group this week, Colin Powell deserves the title 'Person of the Year' for having slowed the rush to war against Iraq. Clift pointed out that the President has gone with Powell, rather than the neocons, at every important turn in the road that may not lead to war after all. The War Party thought they had won the fight, and that they had a deal with the Bushies: but the UN inspections process, which could last out the new year, short-circuited the drive to war in the Middle East."

While it may be a bit early to claim that my prediction has come true, the evidence that the rush to war has slowed to a veritable crawl is rapidly proliferating to a state of near certainty. It looks like the Brits are "going wobbly," as Maggie Thatcher would no doubt put it, with Tony Blair's Labor Party in a uproar over the prospect of war and Cabinet ministers at each other's throats over the issue. The Telegraph reports:

"Britain is pressing for war against Iraq to be delayed for several months, possibly until the autumn, to give weapons inspectors more time to provide clear evidence of new violations by Saddam Hussein."

When Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, let the cat out of the bag by telling the BBC that the odds are running 60-40 against war, Geoff Hoon, their version of Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Perle combined, went ballistic, publicly rebuking Straw. Blair went nuclear, opining that Straw's remarks were "extremely stupid," but the Telegraph notes that Blair's support for the War Party is not quite so unconditional as previously supposed, citing a "senior Whitehall source" as saying:

"The Prime Minister has made it clear that, unless there is a smoking gun, the inspectors have to be given time to keep searching." 

This is a standard considerably higher than that enunciated by Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, who avers that it is up to Iraq to prove it doesn't have "weapons of mass destruction." As Blix stated in his prepared remarks to the UN:

"Iraq cannot just maintain that it must be deemed to be without proscribed items as long as there is no evidence to the contrary. If evidence is not presented ... there is no way the inspectors can close the file by simply invoking a precept that Iraq cannot prove a negative."

Blix, however, doesn't have any backbenchers to deal with: there is even talk that a few junior ministers would resign if Bush's poodle followed his master into the Iraqi morass without a UN mandate – and a "smoking gun" that could be waved at home front opponents of the war. The UN inspectors have so far visited 300 Iraqi sites, including 47 facilities that have not been inspected before, so far without uncovering even a trace of the alleged hidden arsenal. Unless something major is discovered in the eighteen or so days left before Blix is scheduled to come back to the UN, an Anglo-American assault on Iraq will have to be postponed – perhaps indefinitely.

On the international front, at least, the War Party seems to be unraveling, and it isn't just the Brits. The Turks, too, are getting cold feet, demanding as the price of their cooperation more "aid" and publicly wavering over the prospect of letting American ground troops on their soil. Reeling from an economic crisis, and with a new Islamic party at the helm, Turkey is essential to the US military strategy of a short and decisive strike, but Turkish public opinion is overwhelmingly opposed: eighty-eight percent say no to war. The Turkish government has delayed the decision until January 27, when Blix and his team are expected to deliver a more comprehensive report to the UN Security Council. At which time another looming crisis may enter the Council's purview almost simultaneously….

Back in October, I wrote that "we may have been saved from the prospect of war in the Middle East – only to be faced with an even greater crisis on the other side of the Asian landmass," warning that North Korea was about to blow. Kim Jong Il "has pulled the rug out from under the War Party," I wrote, "even as the U.S. gets ready to move on Iraq." Noting that the President had recently received Ariel Sharon at the White House and promised that the Israelis would get two weeks notice before we attack Iraq, I predicted that Sharon would have a long wait: "If I were Sharon, I wouldn't hold my breath."

Hey, come to think of it, the Israeli Prime Minister does look a little blue these days….

Once the Colin Powell faction won out and the U.S. w

[CTRL] War on Life

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

The War Against Life

by Butler Shaffer



It is interesting to observe so many Americans trying to find "meaning" in the Bush
administration’s war against an endless parade of "enemies." From Afghanistan to Iraq 
to
North Korea, the state continues to concoct "threats" for the consumption of a public 
that is
neither empirically nor analytically demanding. The media are quick to play their 
assigned
roles, providing state-generated "information" and self-styled "experts" to convince 
the rest of
us that everything the White House tells us is "just so," and that anyone who dissents 
from –
or even questions – the state’s purposes or policies is likely an apologist for 
terrorism!

The state’s ability to gull most of its citizens into an acceptance of politically 
defined reality
has been made possible by one of the few successful state institutions: the government
school system. Contrary to those who look upon government schools as failures, I have 
long
regarded them as shining accomplishments for state purposes: to produce herd-oriented
men and women incapable of making independent judgments, and who are thus prepared
to submit to external authorities for direction in their lives. In the words of Ivan 
Illich, "[s]chool
is the advertising agency which makes you believe that you need the society as it is."

Almost all graduates of government schools share an ignorance of the nature of social
institutions. The study of such fields as history, economics, and government have long 
been
confined to a compilation of names, dates, organizational descriptions, and other
disconnected data; but with little genuine critical analysis that would call into 
question
institutionally accepted political or social doctrines. I suspect that the typical 
government
school alumnus is more adept at spotting politically incorrect rhetoric, or putting a 
condom
on a banana, than he or she is in explaining the causes or consequences of World War I.
While most haven’t the slightest understanding of how political systems actually 
operate,
they have learned their catechisms about the virtues of "democracy" (i.e., the 
illusion that
they and a friend have twice the political influence of David Rockefeller)! While the 
bald eagle
does represent the predatory nature of the state, I believe it is time to adopt a 
national
symbol that more accurately reflects the mindset of most Americans: the parrot!

Of course, it is not in the interests of the state – or of those who profit from 
statism – to have
the nature of political systems explored; for to do so, might cause even the 
institutionally-
deferential students to catch on to the vicious game being played at their expense. It 
is not
enough to understand that the state often resorts to war: war is its fundamental 
nature.
Every political institution – from the local Weed Control Authority to the United 
States of
America – depends, for its existence, upon men and women being conditioned to submit to
the force and violence exercised by government authorities. The state is nothing more 
than
institutionalized violence that we have become conditioned to revere.

Herein lies the fundamental distinction between the marketplace and political systems: 
in the
marketplace, people are persuaded to cooperate and exchange with one another in
anticipation of being rewarded for doing so. Political systems, by contrast, induce
participation in their schemes through compulsion. In place of rewards, threats to the 
loss of
one’s life, liberty, or property are held out as the consequences of disobedience. I 
have
always found it remarkable that so many men and women are prepared to distrust any and
all businessmen – whose appeals, in a free market, they are free to ignore – while 
trusting
even the most corrupt or cruel politician – whose demands they fail to meet at their 
peril.

But how do political systems secure such servility to force and violence? Why would
otherwise intelligent human beings submit to such an abject condition? The state 
operates
on the basis of the most inhumane and anti-social premises – behaviors that we insist 
upon
criminalizing if done by private parties – and yet we tell ourselves that we cannot 
live well
without such brutal practices. Why?

Much of the explanation, I suspect, is to be found in our sense of fear: both of 
ourselves and
others. Having been institutionally trained to distrust our capacities for 
self-directed lives,
while having unfailing confidence in the judgments of institutional leaders, most of 
us have
grown up fearing our own sense of responsibility. To be free is to be accountable for 
one’s
actions. But it is not to others that we fear accountability, but to ourselves. In the 
words of
Epictetus: "It is a man’s own judgments which disturb him." The state is as eager to 
relieve
us of this sense of disquiet as most of us are to give it up.

In looking to others – particularly institutional authorities – to make decisions on 
our

[CTRL] War on Iraq is BECAUSE of Israel

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1555281.php



War on Iraq is BECAUSE of Israel
by Remember 1973 
Saturday December 28, 2002 at 12:58 PM


Many do not remember lining up in long gaslines on every other day in 1973, but I do!


I was in college in Boston in 1973. Back then I hardly ever read the newspapers, or watched TV, and was just immersed in classes and partying. But I do remember that sometime in 1973, all of a sudden there was a big gas crisis, and there were long lines to get gas. On top of that, cars with even and odd numbered license plates had to alternate on days on which drivers could get gas. 

Now I understand what was happening in the world, and it is an extension of what is happening today in our world with regards to the"war on terrorism", and though our government thinks of Al Queda and the Taliban when it comes to the world "terrorism", terrorism can most definately applies to what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians since day one of its creation in 1948. 

In 1973, Egypt started a war against Israel to get back the Sinai Peninsula which Israel took in its preemptive war in 1967. The war Egpyt started against Israel was the first time Egypt preempted a war against Israel. Israel, it is well-known and documented, started the both 1948 war and the 1967 war against its neighbors. Indeed, Israel has been at war with its neighbors ever since day one of its immoral creation in 1948 when the UN, completely dominated by European countries at that time, gave away Arab land that really was NOT the UN's land to give away in the first place to Eastern European Zionist Jews for a Jewish supremacist state on predominantly Muslim Arab land. 

In 1973, to show solidarity with Egypt, all the Arab countries raised their rates and lowered their export of oil to the US. Hence, the long lines at the gas pumps. It's all clear to me now. 

Hence the notion that Israel is an asset to the US in securing oil for the US is entirely false! The US never had an enemy in the Arab world UNTIL the creation of Zionist Israel, who has always acted aggressively towards its neighboring Arab Muslim countries, and even Lebanon, which has a large Christian population. Since the US has solidly supported the Zionist Israel with money and weapons used against the indigenous Muslims, the US and Israel has become as one, synomonous with each other... just the way Zionist Jews and Israel has planned it all along. 

If Zionist Jewish supremacist Israel was completely dismantled and transformed into a secular, democracy with equal rights for all regardless of religion, race or sex, the world would be a much more peaceful place, not to mention we would have no problem with getting the oil we need. In other words, our country's support for racist, apartheid Israel is a huge liability to Americans' best interests in a myriad of profoundly important ways: 

1. We have now become targets of extremists' hostility due to our government's enormous support financially and with weapons to Israel which oppresses the Palestinians who are the indigenous people of Palestine-Israel. Therefore this whole trillion dollar war effort our government is embarking on is a DIRECT extension of our government's FUNDING Israel's unjust war against the Palestinians and encroaching on its neighbors' land such as Syria and Lebanon!!! 

2. We waste billions and billions of our US tax dollars supporting the resource-poor, racist, apartheid, country of Israel both to simply "bolster" their lousy economy, and primarily their unjust war against the Palestinians, giving them money (loans that are "forgiven") and the most sophisticated weapons in the world for Israel to continue on its campaign of ethnic cleansing against the essentially defenseless Palestinian people when WE AMERICANS desparately need the money HERE for education, health, environmental and social programs HERE in the US! Did you see the headlines in the Chronicle yesterday About how parents are now having BAKE SALES to help pay for basics like teachers' salaries??? And at this very moment the Israeli government is NOW asking for an additional $14 BILLION on top of the $4 to 6 BILLION we have already given them this year 

3. Need I say anymore??? But I will! Now we cannot travel without trepidation anywhere in the world and especially perhaps to Muslim countries, as Zionists and their greedy dupes the Christian Right have campaigned hard to mobilize animosity against Muslims! Even European countries resent our support of Israel and our big bully arrogant ways! The US is the usually the ONLY country that supports Israel in UN Resolutions by vetoing the resolutions or abstaining from voting when every single other country in the entire world condemns Israel's aggression against the Palestinian people! Israel has defied over 80 UN Resolutions, more than ANY OTHER country!!! Israel's relationship with the UN is at an all-time low because of this and the fact that the 

[CTRL] War Blogging: Announcing the "Dead or Alive Count"

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.warblogging.com/archives/000377.php

Announcing the "Dead or Alive Count"

Warblogging.com is pleased to announce the latest measure of the war of terror, to join
the The Index of Evil and The Padilla Count. The new "Dead or Alive Count" will, from 
now
on, appear on the right side of Warblogging.com directly below the Padilla Count.

The Dead or Alive Count is the number of days since President George W. Bush promised 
to
catch Usama bin Laden "dead or alive".

Needless to say, Usama bin Laden may or may not be dead -- but he has certainly not 
been
captured.

The Administration would like us to forget that bin Laden is wanted dead or alive. But 
we
will not forget. We want him dead or alive. We won't settle for Saddam Hussein's head 
on
a platter -- we want bin Laden's head.

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Re: [CTRL] War with Iraq could cost US $2 tn : Study : HindustanTimes.com

[Party of Citizens]

-Caveat Lector-

Let's drink to that!

 *  **

On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Euphorian wrote:

> 12/6/02 2:16:41 AM, Party of Citizens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >don't worry. be happy.
>
> Having a reggae night / morning, are we?
>
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth
> shut."
> --- Ernest Hemingway
>
>
>

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War with Iraq could cost US $2 tn : Study : HindustanTimes.com

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_114912,0005.htm

War with Iraq could cost US nearly $2 trillion over a decade
Press Trust of India
Washington, December 6

War with Iraq could cost the United States anywhere from $99 billion to more than $1.9
trillion over a decade, researchers concluded in a study.

In the worst case, a war could consume the equivalent of an entire federal budget for 
one
year or close to that, according to the projections. The government spent $2 trillion 
in the
last budget year, which ended September 30.

The lower figure assumes a successful military, diplomatic and nation- building 
campaign
and the higher figure a prolonged war with a disruption of oil markets and a US 
recession,
said the American Academy of Arts and Sciences study released yesterday.

Both figures assume a US involvement in the country for 10 years.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said it was too premature to comment on cost
estimates. "War is the last resort," he said. "We're hoping for a peaceful solution."

Direct military spending could be $50 billion in a short campaign to $140 billion in a
prolonged war, according to the study, "War With Iraq: Costs, Consequences and
Alternatives."

The macroeconomic impact, which includes employment, could benefit the United States by
$17 billion, or in an unfavourable situation, cost $391 billion.

The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, founded in 1780 and based in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, is an international society of scientists, scholars, artists, business 
people
and political leaders.
Printed From

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] WAR PARTY DUMPS BUSH?

[flw]

-Caveat Lector-

November 27, 2002

WAR PARTY DUMPS BUSH?
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j112702.html

Newsweek's anti-Saudi conspiracy theory is a shot across the bow
It had to happen sooner or later, and I don't want to sound too full of
myself, but I did predict it: I mean the attempt to tie the Saudis, Al
Qaeda, and the Bush administration into one gigantic conspiracy and
cover-up. Headlines are being made by Newsweek, which ran a story by
Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas about how some Saudi princess sent money to
someone who knew somebody who knew somebody else who funneled the funds to
the 9/11 hijackers: if you go here you can see, in the form of a graph, how
far removed the alleged connection really is.

But the tenuous nature of the alleged Saudi government link to 9/11 doesn't
matter to Joe Lieberman and John McCain, who are both on this non-story
like dogs on a bone. Newsweek hypes this tale as getting "inside the probe
the Bush administration doesn't want you to know about"! Thanksgiving
hasn't even gotten here and already we're in presidential campaign mode.

Willya give me a friggin' break?!

There is absolutely nothing, zero, zilch, nada to this phony story; it's
politics, pure and simple. In August I wrote about the infamous briefing
given in the Pentagon by one Laurent Murawiec, the ex-LaRouchie who railed
that we ought to threaten to bomb Riyadh and take over the Kingdom. This
column included a prediction that the Democrats (led by Lieberman) would
try to make the alleged Saudi government connection to 9/11 a political
issue:

"The not-so-hidden subtext of all this is that the Democrats can always
bring up the Bush family's links to Saudi oil interests. The killer is that
the Democrats don't have to say a word.."

Why bother, when the tag-team of Isikoff and Thomas, not to mention
platoons of neoconservatives, will do the job for you? Okay, so it's a
little off-putting to quote yourself - and so often! - but bear with me for
a moment:

"What we're seeing, here, is a left-right squeeze play, with the Bushies in
the middle. It is, in reality, a form of political blackmail, a warning
shot fired over the bow - by the ostensibly Republican neocons, and not the
Democrats."

Okay, so I was wrong about the details: it's the neocons and the Democrats
who are taking out after the Newsweek story. Check out the huzzahs over at
Neocon Central for Isikoff's latest "scoop": the Amen Corner is fairly
quivering with gloating and exultant I-told-you-so's. As the administration
once again declared that the Saudis are "good partners" in the war of
terrorism, Lieberman and McCain didn't wait for any investigation to make
their opinions known, as Associated Press reports:

"Sens. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), who together
set up an independent commission that will investigate the terror attacks,
offered piercing criticism. Saudi leaders 'have to decide which side
they're on,' Lieberman said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'For too many
generations, they have pacified and accommodated themselves to the most
extreme, fanatical, violent elements of Islam, and those elements have now
turned on us and the rest of the world.' Added McCain: 'The Saudi royal
family has been engaged in a Faustian bargain for years to keep themselves
in power.'"

Lieberman and McCain, both with unabashedly presidential ambitions, are
positioning themselves to attack the Bushies as "soft on terrorism", i.e.
soft on the Saudis and all those other Ay-rabs, who, we all know, are all
alike. So why are the President's most fervent supporters over at National
Review also piling on?

The view that the President has put off the invasion of Iraq, perhaps
indefinitely, now seems uncontroversial, even among the most stubbornly
apocalyptic. By going the UN route, Bush has committed the United States to
wait until the process is clearly finished. Hans Blix, and not the
President of the United States, will effectively decide Iraq's fate. This
not only postpones the hawks' war plans, it also opens up the possibility
that the war may not come off at all. Although we are told, on a daily
basis, that Saddam the Monstrous will never comply voluntarily with the
disarmament process, he may be more pragmatic than mad. And then what?

The War Party is turning on the President with a vengeance: they want to
make the price of peace so high that war will be the only politically
viable alternative. The neocons thought they had a bargain with the White
House: unconditional support for Dubya in return for a conflagration in the
Middle East. The alliance worked, for a time: until the neocons upped the
ante. For they are not just after Iraq, they want the whole region - Iran,
Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and beyond. As Monsieur Murawiec put it in his
infamous rant in front of the Pentagon Advisory Board:

"Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the
prize."

The White House wasn't going along with it, however. With the triumph o

[CTRL] WAR PARTY DUMPS BUSH?

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html



November 27, 2002

WAR PARTY DUMPS BUSH?
Newsweek's anti-Saudi conspiracy theory is a shot across the bow

It had to happen sooner or later, and I don't want to sound too full of myself, but I did predict it: I mean the attempt to tie the Saudis, Al Qaeda, and the Bush administration into one gigantic conspiracy and cover-up. Headlines are being made by Newsweek, which ran a story by Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas about how some Saudi princess sent money to someone who knew somebody who knew somebody else who funneled the funds to the 9/11 hijackers: if you go here you can see, in the form of a graph, how far removed the alleged connection really is.

But the tenuous nature of the alleged Saudi government link to 9/11 doesn't matter to Joe Lieberman and John McCain, who are both on this non-story like dogs on a bone. Newsweek hypes this tale as getting "inside the probe the Bush administration doesn't want you to know about"! Thanksgiving hasn't even gotten here and already we're in presidential campaign mode.

Willya give me a friggin' break?!

There is absolutely nothing, zero, zilch, nada to this phony story; it's politics, pure and simple. In August I wrote about the infamous briefing given in the Pentagon by one Laurent Murawiec, the ex-LaRouchie who railed that we ought to threaten to bomb Riyadh and take over the Kingdom. This column included a prediction that the Democrats (led by Lieberman) would try to make the alleged Saudi government connection to 9/11 a political issue:

"The not-so-hidden subtext of all this is that the Democrats can always bring up the Bush family's links to Saudi oil interests. The killer is that the Democrats don't have to say a word…."

Why bother, when the tag-team of Isikoff and Thomas, not to mention platoons of neoconservatives, will do the job for you? Okay, so it's a little off-putting to quote yourself – and so often! – but bear with me for a moment:

"What we're seeing, here, is a left-right squeeze play, with the Bushies in the middle. It is, in reality, a form of political blackmail, a warning shot fired over the bow – by the ostensibly Republican neocons, and not the Democrats."

Okay, so I was wrong about the details: it's the neocons and the Democrats who are taking out after the Newsweek story. Check out the huzzahs over at Neocon Central for Isikoff's latest "scoop": the Amen Corner is fairly quivering with gloating and exultant I-told-you-so's. As the administration once again declared that the Saudis are "good partners" in the war of terrorism, Lieberman and McCain didn't wait for any investigation to make their opinions known, as Associated Press reports:

"Sens. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), who together set up an independent commission that will investigate the terror attacks, offered piercing criticism. Saudi leaders 'have to decide which side they're on,' Lieberman said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'For too many generations, they have pacified and accommodated themselves to the most extreme, fanatical, violent elements of Islam, and those elements have now turned on us and the rest of the world.' Added McCain: 'The Saudi royal family has been engaged in a Faustian bargain for years to keep themselves in power.'"

Lieberman and McCain, both with unabashedly presidential ambitions, are positioning themselves to attack the Bushies as "soft on terrorism", i.e. soft on the Saudis and all those other Ay-rabs, who, we all know, are all alike. So why are the President's most fervent supporters over at National Review also piling on? 

The view that the President has put off the invasion of Iraq, perhaps indefinitely, now seems uncontroversial, even among the most stubbornly apocalyptic. By going the UN route, Bush has committed the United States to wait until the process is clearly finished. Hans Blix, and not the President of the United States, will effectively decide Iraq's fate. This not only postpones the hawks' war plans, it also opens up the possibility that the war may not come off at all. Although we are told, on a daily basis, that Saddam the Monstrous will never comply voluntarily with the disarmament process, he may be more pragmatic than mad. And then what?

The War Party is turning on the President with a vengeance: they want to make the price of peace so high that war will be the only politically viable alternative. The neocons thought they had a bargain with the White House: unconditional support for Dubya in return for a conflagration in the Middle East. The alliance worked, for a time: until the neocons upped the ante. For they are not just after Iraq, they want the whole region – Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and beyond. As Monsieur Murawiec put it in his infamous rant in front of the Pentagon Advisory Board:

"Iraq is the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia the strategic pivot, Egypt the prize."

The White House wasn't going along with it, however. Wit

[CTRL] WAR, WHATEVER

[Steve Wingate]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12377231&method=full&si
teid=50143

WAR, WHATEVER

 Exclusive By Paul Gilfeather, Whitehall Editor

 GEORGE Bush's top security adviser last night admitted
 the US would attack Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find
 weapons.

 Dr Richard Perle stunned MPs by insisting a "clean bill of
 health" from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix
 would not halt America's war machine.

 Evidence from ONE witness on Saddam Hussein's
 weapons programme will be enough to trigger a fresh
 military onslaught, he told an all- party meeting on global
 security.

 Former defence minister and Labour backbencher Peter
 Kilfoyle said: "America is duping the world into believing
 it supports these inspections. President Bush intends to
 go to war even if inspectors find nothing.

 "This make a mockery of the whole process and
 exposes America's real determination to bomb Iraq."

 Dr Perle told MPs: "I cannot see how Hans Blix can state
 more than he can know. All he can know is the results of
 his own investigations. And that does not prove Saddam
 does not have weapons of mass destruction."

 The chairman of America's defence policy board said:
 "Suppose we are able to find someone who has been
 involved in the development of weapons and he says
 there are stores of nerve agents. But you cannot find
 them because they are so well hidden.

 "Do you actually have to take possession of the nerve
 agents to convince? We are not dealing with a situation
 where you can expect co-operation."

 Mr Kilfoyle said MPs would be horrified at the admission.
 He added: "Because Saddam is so hated in Iraq, it
 would be easy to find someone to say they witnessed
 weapons building.

 "Perle says the Americans would be satisfied with such
 claims even if no real evidence was produced.

 "That's a terrifying prospect."

 -BRITON Jack Roche, 49, a Muslim convert who claims
 to have met Osama bin Laden, has been charged in
 Australia with plotting to bomb the Israeli embassy in
 Canberra and a consulate in Sydney.
--
Steve Wingate, Webmaster
ANOMALOUS IMAGES AND UFO FILES
http://www.anomalous-images.com
Latest Update: Cydonia in 3-D
http://www.anomalous-images.com/Odyssey/Cydonia_3-d.html

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War Is Peace

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.progressive.org/webex/wx101802.html

Web Exclusives

Editor Matthew Rothschild comments on the news of the day.



October 17, 2002



War Is Peace

At the Oct. 16 signing ceremony for his war writ, Bush's remarks were offensive when 
they
weren't laughable.

First, he said this bill "symbolizes the united purpose of our nation."

But the nation is not united: 133 members of the House voted against the bill, as

did 22 Senators.

And the American public is not clamoring for war.

Actually, a majority of Americans don't want the war unless the United States

gets U.N. approval.

And a growing segment of the population is against the war, no matter what.

I've been speaking on one campus after another lately, and the resistance to this

war is building. Bush is sorely mistaken if he believes the citizenry will fall in 
line for this
one.

What was laughable was Bush's assertion that "the United States takes the
resolutions of the Security Council seriously."

As scholar Stephen Zunes has noted, Israel has violated 32 such resolutions,
Turkey 24, Morocco 17, and Iraq 12. Somehow, we don't hear Bush talking about regime
change in Israel, Turkey, and Morocco.

And what was grossly offensive was Bush's assertions that this war would be "for
the sake of peace" or in "the cause of peace" or "defending the peace."

How Orwellian is that?

In this war for peace, Bush warned that the United States would use "whatever

means" to confront Iraq.

This is a prospect that must concern all of us who worry about innocent people
being killed in Iraq,

Worrisome, too was Donald Rumsfeld's recently published assertion that we
should not limit the military's options by considerations of "collateral damage." 
(Rumsfeld
said that "the National Command Authorities must not dumb down what is needed by
promising not to do things" such as "not to permit collateral damage"). If saving 
civilians is
dumbing down, I'm all for it.

Bush also implicitly acknowledged that war may prompt Saddam to do what Bush
is so concerned about in the first place: use weapons of mass destruction against the
United States. "We will confront an enemy capable of irrational miscalculations, 
capable of
terrible deeds."

Now if I were the parent of a U.S. soldier, I'd be furious at Bush today for
jeopardizing my child's life. If Saddam ends up using these weapons on invading U.S.
troops, Bush will have a lot of explaining to do.

-- Matthew Rothschild

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War Crimes Arrest

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-486536,00.html

>>>Now all they have to do is get Chalabi, the Iraqis' version of Marc Rich and 
>they'll have
a pair for backgammon!  A<>E<>R<<<

November 20, 2002

War crimes arrest blow to Iraqi opposition
By Richard Beeston, Diplomatic Editor


DANISH police arrested last night an exiled Iraqi
general tipped as a possible replacement for President Saddam Hussein. He faces charges
that he was responsible for killing thousands of Kurds in a chemical weapons attack 14
years ago.

The arrest of General Nizar Khazraji, the former Iraqi Chief-of-Staff and the most 
senior
officer to defect from Baghdad, appeared to wreck any chances that he might lead a 
mutiny
in the Armed Forces and help to topple Saddam’s regime.

He has been under investigation in the North Sea town of Soroe for the past year, 
after he
was reported to the Danish authorities by a Kurdish immigrant. Reports from Copenhagen
last night said that the police had charged him with war crimes, violating the Geneva
conventions and other human rights abuses.

General Khazraji, 64, commanded the Iraqi Armed Forces during the Iran-Iraq War, when
Baghdad used banned poison gas against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians. In the 
most
notorious incident 5,000 Kurds in the town of Halabja were killed when Iraqi artillery 
and
warplanes bombed the area with nerve gas and mustard gas.

He remained military commander during the invasion of Kuwait in 1990, but fled to 
Jordan
after falling out with Saddam. He applied for political asylum with his wife and son in
Denmark three years ago.

Iraqi opposition sources said last night that his arrest was a serious blow to their 
efforts to
build a credible alternative to Saddam’s regime. Next month they hope to convene a
conference in London for 350 Iraqi exiles as a first step to establishing an 
alternative
government.General Khazraji could have played an important role, particularly on 
security
and military matters.

“His arrest is a major setback for us,” one opposition figure said. “He is a man with
credibility back home. His arrest will make it that much harder to encourage other 
officers
to defect if they fear that they will be charged, too.”

The Bush Administration is compiling evidence against several prominent members of the
Saddam regime, who could face war crimes trials if it is toppled. Washington, however,
would like any hearings to take place inside Iraq and to concentrate on a “dirty 
dozen” list
of suspects, including Saddam and his ruling clan.

General Khazraji, from a prominent Sunni Muslim family in the northern Iraqi city of 
Mosul,
was not believed to under investigation. Nevertheless, he was regarded in Washington 
and
London as one of the few former army officers with real clout inside the Armed Forces. 
His
arrest will probably be greeted with dismay in both capitals. The Bush Administration 
is
counting on the Iraqi Army to revolt en masse against Saddam in the event of a US-led
operation.

General Khazraji has consistently denied that he was responsible for ordering the use 
of
chemical weapons and claims that the accusations were orchestrated by Iraqi 
intelligence
officers to prevent him co-operating with the opposition.

In a BBC interview earlier this year he predicted that the military would rise against 
Saddam
in the right circumstances. “The most important thing is that the Iraqis must be sure 
that a
democratic regime will be there after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and Iraq will be 
an
independent country,” he said.

Although mentioned as a possible future leader, he said that he was not interested in 
the
job. “I am a military man, I prefer to stay on this side,” he said.


Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times
and The Sunday Times.

Copyright 2002 Times Newspapers Ltd.

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:

[CTRL] War Is A Racket (3 of 3)

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_history&Number=321910&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&part=



CHAPTER THREE

WHO PAYS THE BILLS?

Who provides the profits – these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them – in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us – the people – got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par – and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.

But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.

If you don't believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran's hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.

Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to "about face"; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another "about face" ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers' aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn't need them any more. So we scattered them about without any "three-minute" or "Liberty Loan" speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final "about face" alone.

In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don't even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.

There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn't stand it.

That's a part of the bill. So much for the dead – they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded – they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too – they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam – on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain – with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.

But don't forget – the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.

Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share – at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn't bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn't.

Napoleon once said,

"All men are enamored of decorations...they positively hunger for them."

So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the

[CTRL] War Is A Racket (2 of 3)

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_history&Number=321910&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&part=



CHAPTER TWO

WHO MAKES THE PROFITS?

The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let's get it.

Of course, it isn't put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and "we must all put our shoulders to the wheel," but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let's just take a few examples:

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn't one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn't much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let's look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

Or, let's take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let's look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.

Let's group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.

Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren't the only ones. There are still others. Let's take leather.

For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That's all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

International Nickel Company – and you can't have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.

American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.

Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.

And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know

[CTRL] War Is A Racket (1 of 3)

[William Shannon]

-Caveat Lector-
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_history&Number=321910&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&part=



WAR IS A RACKET
by Major General Smedley Butler USMC

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War {I} a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."

Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five y

[CTRL] War in Iraq Will Kill upto 4 Million People

[Jei]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2002-11/12/article79.shtml

War in Iraq Could Kill Half-a-Million People: Report

The report said the U.S. will spend 200 billion U.S. dollars or more
executing the war

SYDNEY, November 12 (IslamOnline & News Agencies) - A conventional war in
Iraq could kill nearly 500,000 people, with the death toll shooting to four
millions if nuclear weapons are used, a group of anti-war doctors said
Tuesday, November 12.

A report issued by the Medical Association for Prevention of War (MAPW) said
the loss of life in the first three months of a U.S.-led attack on Iraq
would range from a minimum of 48,000 to more than 260,000 people, Agence
France-Presse (AFP) reported.

The study compiled by medical and public health experts around the world and
titled “Collateral Damage: the Health and Environmental Costs of War on
 Iraq” estimated the post-war health fallout from the conflict could claim
another 200,000 lives.

If nuclear weapons were detonated, the death toll could reach four million,
said the study issued at the Australian parliament early Tuesday and to be
released later in the day in London and Washington.

The report examined various options for military action and predicted that
up to 5,000 soldiers from a U.S.-led coalition sent in to disarm the regime
of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would die in the fighting.

By comparison, in the Gulf War of the early 1990s some 120,000 Iraqi
soldiers and 15,000 civilians were killed, the MAPW estimated, saying a new
war would be far deadlier.

The United States has warned it will attack Iraq if Saddam does not comply
quickly with a U.N. resolution ordering him to allow international
inspectors to search for and destroy any weapons of mass destruction in the
country.

U.S. newspapers this week reported leaked Pentagon plans for an invasion of
Iraq with up to 250,000 U.S. and allied troops.

Australia and Britain are expected to join any U.S.-led action against Iraq,
which is suspected of trying to develop nuclear arms alongside other weapons
of mass destruction.

The MAPW report said the United States would spend 200 billion U.S. dollars
or more executing the war and on post-conflict occupation of Iraq.

“This report at least deserves a response from those who advocate war
against Iraq,” said Sue Wareham of the MAPW.

She urged Australian Prime Minister John Howard to read the report before
deciding to join a fight in Iraq.

“If Prime Minister Howard already understands the human effect of modern
warfare, then he has a responsibility to justify to the Australian people
our likely involvement in this carnage,” she said.

“If he does not understand, then this report is essential reading for him.
But let him not pretend he just doesn’t know.”

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/
 http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War Without End, Amen

[iNFoWaRZ]

-Caveat Lector-

War Without End, Amen
by Michael Peirce

It's bad enough that war, deemed by those who have experienced it as an unmitigated 
horror, is much harder to turn off than to start; and always involves unexpected 
consequences. We are frankly, in what Southerners call a 'fix' and all the 
chest-thumping jingoism in the world won't change that.

My question today is simple - isn't one war at a time enough? Hitler and Napoleon 
learned the hard way that the only answer to that question is a resounding 'Yes!' 
Let's discuss our current war, the pending war, and where we are headed as a country.

Remember this, war is the result of foolishness, hubris, and sin. Very rarely have we 
actually faced a threat to our national borders. Not until very recently, in fact. It 
took all the elements of mismanagement, venality, and spiritual sloth to get us in 
this mess - the war becomes obvious when you consider its genesis.

What about War Number One? In the wake of the recent killings outside Washington, DC, 
Americans have a right to ask 'Who or what will protect us from terrorism?' 
Apparently, our only defense is the stupidity of the terrorists. Consider that our 
'protectors' were quite unable to conceive that we might be under attack by a Muslim. 
Given that we are in the middle of a ongoing war against Islamic fanatics, one can 
only gasp in astonishment that our folks were unable to figure that out.

"Since September 11, Americans have been reminded that the safety of many depends on 
the courage and skill of a few," Mr. Bush said recently. He should be ashamed for 
making such an outrageous comment to Americans who still, perhaps mistakenly, consider 
themselves a free people. Unfortunately however, the War Leader is trying to turn his 
lie into truth and the facts are there - many if not most Americans are either 
disarmed or forbidden to carry weapons and are thus unable [and in some cases, 
unwilling] to defend themselves. We must depend upon such worthies as the FBI and the 
ATF to defend us. We've seen how well they did against the Beltway sniper.

They are however, quite good at covering up terrorist acts - but I wonder if we should 
consider that a virtue? Flight 800, anyone? What about that airliner that 'just fell 
apart' over New York right after 9/11? Everyone in the country except the FBI knew 
that was terrorism! They started covering up the LAX shootings even before the dead 
bodies had cooled.

This is more than just silly - it is dangerous. Their concerns for political 
correctness cost several lives at least, and delayed capture of the Beltway sniper 
rather than admit that the culprit might be someone other than a white 'gun nut.' 
Jorge Bush reminds me of the government flunkies in some fifties sci-fi movie who 
refuses to warn the public that a giant lizard is about to devour their city because 
'it may cause panic.' On the other hand, it sometimes pays to panic - God gave us a 
'fight or flight' reaction for a very good reason. Personally, I'd prefer to panic any 
day than be devoured by Godzilla or shot by a crazed Muslim gunman.

Yet here we are, unable to intelligently deal with the war we have, and contemplating 
yet another war, against an adversary who has not attacked us. Iraq has the bad luck 
to sit upon a great deal of oil and to not have nuclear weapons. As all those little 
'rogue' states have ascertained, nuclear weapons are the only thing that will keep Sam 
off their back. What a great message we are sending - soon the world will be one big 
nuclear shooting gallery.

If the government were telling the truth about an al-Qaeda connection to Iraq, which 
seems ludicrous given their mutual hostility; where is the evidence? For just this 
once, suspend disbelief and say, 'maybe it's true...why would they lie?' A better 
question is why should we believe them? Based on what track record? They owe us the 
evidence, if there is any, because of their long history of mendacity and venality. My 
late father taught me to never trust a liar. Will the Lord bless our efforts if we are 
waging aggressive war? I wonder.

Will the Lord, Who denounces witchcraft in His Holy Bible, bless the arms of a 
military saddled by its political 'leaders' with Wiccan 'chaplains?' Dare we shout 
'God bless America,' while violating His commandment that we shall have no other gods 
before Him? As a nation, we are quite literally playing with fire.

To paraphrase the old saying, "War is far too serious to trust to these idiots!" 
Without the blessing of God on our arms it will hardly matter how much firepower we 
have - preemptive war violates even the civilian laws on self defense. How can it then 
be in accordance with the principal of the 'just war'? Deadly force in self-defense 
must be based upon an 'imminent' threat of attack, which is hardly the case with Iraq, 
a country whose military has been reduced to a husk and whose threat to the United 
States is minimal. Without any irony it can 

[CTRL] War with Iraq About Oil - San Francisco Activists

[Steve Wingate]

-Caveat Lector-

--- Forwarded message follows ---
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From:   Geese 4 Peace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date sent:  Mon, 11 Nov 2002 00:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject:!b_a_Act: War with Iraq About Oil - San Francisco Activists

For news about upcoming peace & antiwar activities see the LMNOP
calendar at http://lmno4p.org/calendar.htm
--
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20021109/ts_nm/politcs_anti
war_dc


Top Stories - Reuters

War with Iraq About Oil - San Francisco Activists
Sat Nov 9, 6:56 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - While the Bush administration contends its
stance against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was bolstered by the U.N.
Security Council's call for Iraq to disarm, San Francisco activists say
they will continue protesting U.S. policy, calling it war planning on
behalf of oil interests.

  "The Bush administration is not interested in weapons inspections,"
activist Medea Benjamin of the San Francisco-based groups United for
Peace and Global Exchange told the San Francisco Chronicle. "It is
interested in going to war against Iraq. This is a war for oil," she
added.

  Benjamin, a former Green Party U.S. Senate nominee, charged that the
United States threatened nations that did not support the U.N.'s
resolution with loss of access to Iraqi oil after a possible military
conflict with Iraq, or with loss of future aid, the Chronicle reported
on Saturday.

  San Francisco has emerged as a hotbed of activism against the Bush
administration's Iraq aims. The city last month hosted its largest
peace rally since the Vietnam War, drawing a crowd of 80,000, according
to organizers.

  The newspaper also reported that Richard Becker, San Francisco
representative for the sponsor group of recent large peace
demonstrations, said the United States seeks a "colonial regime" that
would "turn over Iraq's oil to U.S. oil companies."

  Benjamin, who recently disrupted a presentation to Congress by
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, will join an around-the-clock
protest in front of the White House starting on Nov. 17, and Becker's
International ANSWER Coalition is planning three days of protests on
the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend in January in Washington,
D.C., according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

  More than half a million anti-war protesters from across Europe
marched through the Italian Renaissance city of Florence on Saturday in
a demonstration denouncing any possible U.S. attack on Iraq.

  President Bush warned Iraq on Saturday that any act of delay or
defiance would be a breach of its international obligations under a
tough new U.N. resolution requiring Baghdad to disarm.

  "The world has now come together to say that the outlaw regime in
Iraq will not be permitted to build or possess chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "And my
administration will see to it that the world's judgement is enforced."

  "Iraq must now, without delay or negotiations, give up its weapons of
mass destruction, welcome full inspections and fundamentally change the
approach it has taken for more than a decade," Bush said. "Iraq can be
certain that the old game of cheat and retreat, tolerated at other
times, will no longer be tolerated."
__
http://news.yahoo.com/


__
Do you Yahoo!?
U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
http://launch.yahoo.com/u2

--

PEACE!

Bay_Area_Activist list info: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bay_area_activist
Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bay_area_activist/messages
Calendar: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bay_area_activist/calendar
List-Unsubscribe: 
List-Subscribe: 

WHEN SPIDERS UNITE, THEY CAN TIE DOWN A LION  -- Ethiopian Proverb


---
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
---

--- End of forwarded message ---
--
Steve Wingate, Webmaster
ANOMALOUS IMAGES AND UFO FILES
http://www.anomalous-images.com
Latest Update: Cydonia in 3-D
http://www.anomalous-images.com/Odyssey/Cydonia_3-d.html

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is

Re: [CTRL] War Hysteria and Ezra Pound

[Zuukie]

-Caveat Lector-


-Caveat Lector-









Ezra Pound was saved from being hanged for
treason against the US by the occultists connected with Bollingin.  While at St. Johns this fascist had a room of his own, where he
held court with his followers, almost as a full-fledged guest at a luxury hotel.  Shows the  power of New Age and the occult as
opposed to those connected with the monotheism of Judaism and
Christianity.  Anyone wanting to know
where Pound ended can find his continuation in the works of Eustace Mullins,
his disciple, the paranoid

whose material is voluminous but never documented.  

 

-Original Message-
From: Conspiracy Theory Research
List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of Mermaid
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002
8:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [CTRL] War Hysteria and
Ezra Pound

 




 
  
   
  
  
  War Hysteria and Ezra Pound 
  by Kenneth J. Schmidt 
  
 
 
  
   
  
  
   
  
 
 
  
   
  
  
  I had the good fortune this weekend to read
  Michael Reck's excellent 1973 biography of the great poet Ezra Pound. In this
  age of terrorism and war hysteria, the subject of the "Cantos"
  sublime creator is timelier than ever. 
  
  At the beginning of the U.S. entry into the World War II, Pound found himself
  living in Rapallo, Italy. Pound was not only America's most renowned poet,
  but an enemy of Jewish supremacism, international bankers and the Roosevelt
  Administration. Pound attempted to climb aboard with the last trainload of
  Americans headed for the frontier, but was angrily thrown off the train by
  State Department officials who despised his sympathies for the Duce. 
  
  During the war, Italian radio gave him the opportunity to host a regular
  radio program in which he commented on various important issues of the day
  while avoiding saying anything strictly treasonous. Pound criticized "old
  rubberlegs" in the White House and deplored the senseless Anglo-American
  aggression that exploded into world war. At war's end Pound found himself
  under arrest for treason. Loathe tohang the most influential literary figure
  of that time, a federal court declared the slightly eccentric poet insane and
  committed him to St. Elizabeth's Lunatic Asylum in Washington DC. Poor Ezra
  languished in the booby hatch for twelve years until an international
  campaign led by mostly Leftist literati secured his release. 
  
  In this new era of Jew-induced war hysteria, we must remember that it is the
  truly "best and brightest" that get locked away while the folks
  that are really out of their minds - the Israel-first millenialist
  Evangelicals and the Likud Bloc Neo-Cons - freely preach madness and
  destruction. This time around, though, the NWO has bit off more than it can
  chew. Bush and Company want to destroy Islamic Civilization in its entirety.
  They will certainly fail in this task. It is up to us to be ready to pounce when
  our time comes. We must, however, have the courage to speak out and act. It
  was Pound himself who wrote: "If a man isn't willing to take some risks
  for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good." 
  
 


 








www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance?not soap-boxing?please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'?with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds?is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives 

[CTRL] War Is A Racket - Major General Smedley Butler

[goldi316]

-Caveat Lector-

Been meaning to send this for awhile.  This one is a MUST READ!  You
might also want to consider sharing it with military friends.  Though
General Smedley wrote this in the 30's, nothing much has changed in the
years since.  Of special note is Chapter 3 - "Who Pays the Bills?"

There is also a pdf version of this document available for download:
 http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf

Here is a recently-started webpage giving the history (partial at this
time, it's incomplete) of the General:
http://www.grunts.net/legends/butler.html

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/
 http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Title: War Is A Racket - Major General Smedley Butler 
-Caveat Lector-










Smedley Darlington Butler

Major General - United States Marine Corps [Retired]

Born West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881

Educated Haverford School

Married Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905

Awarded two congressional medals of honor, for capture of Vera Cruz,
Mexico, 1914,

and for capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917

Distinguished service medal, 1919

Retired Oct. 1, 1931

On leave of absence to act as director of Department of Safety,
Philadelphia, 1932

Lecturer - 1930's

Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932

Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940

For more information about Major General Smedley Butler, contact the
United States Marine Corps.

 


Chapter One


WAR IS A RACKET

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most
vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the
profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it
seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it
is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very
many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the
conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States
during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax
returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them
dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out?
How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and
machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of
them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are
victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the
few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public
shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones.
Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression
and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a
racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the
international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to
stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and
Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion],
their dispu

[CTRL] War Hysteria and Ezra Pound

[Mermaid]

-Caveat Lector-





  
  

War Hysteria and Ezra 
  Pound by Kenneth J. 
  Schmidt 
  
 
  
 

  I had the good fortune this weekend to read Michael 
  Reck's excellent 1973 biography of the great poet Ezra Pound. In this age 
  of terrorism and war hysteria, the subject of the "Cantos" sublime creator 
  is timelier than ever. At the beginning of the U.S. entry into the 
  World War II, Pound found himself living in Rapallo, Italy. Pound was not 
  only America's most renowned poet, but an enemy of Jewish supremacism, 
  international bankers and the Roosevelt Administration. Pound attempted to 
  climb aboard with the last trainload of Americans headed for the frontier, 
  but was angrily thrown off the train by State Department officials who 
  despised his sympathies for the Duce. During the war, Italian 
  radio gave him the opportunity to host a regular radio program in which he 
  commented on various important issues of the day while avoiding saying 
  anything strictly treasonous. Pound criticized "old rubberlegs" in the 
  White House and deplored the senseless Anglo-American aggression that 
  exploded into world war. At war's end Pound found himself under arrest for 
  treason. Loathe tohang the most influential literary figure of that time, 
  a federal court declared the slightly eccentric poet insane and committed 
  him to St. Elizabeth's Lunatic Asylum in Washington DC. Poor Ezra 
  languished in the booby hatch for twelve years until an international 
  campaign led by mostly Leftist literati secured his release. In 
  this new era of Jew-induced war hysteria, we must remember that it is the 
  truly "best and brightest" that get locked away while the folks that are 
  really out of their minds - the Israel-first millenialist Evangelicals and 
  the Likud Bloc Neo-Cons - freely preach madness and destruction. This time 
  around, though, the NWO has bit off more than it can chew. Bush and 
  Company want to destroy Islamic Civilization in its entirety. They will 
  certainly fail in this task. It is up to us to be ready to pounce when our 
  time comes. We must, however, have the courage to speak out and act. It 
  was Pound himself who wrote: "If a man isn't willing to take some risks 
  for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good." 
  
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

[CTRL] War Without End :: View topic - New evidence on USS Liberty

[Euphorian]

-Caveat Lector-

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=1106

Subj: New evidence on USS Liberty
Date: 10/31/02 9:59:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

>From Jim Ennes.

RN

A new book, A History of Israel, by the UK-based Israeli historian Ahron
Bregman, to be published by Palgrave Macmillan on 1st November in London,
reveals new evidence about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967,
which left 34 US men dead and 171 wounded. Using never-before-published
recordings of conversations over the radio system between Israeli pilots -
attacking the ship - and the Air Control Tower in Tel Aviv, Bregman shows
that the possibility that the ship was American was raised at the Israeli
Air Control Tower before the first strike on the ship. This new evidence
contradicts the Israeli official version that it was only after the attack
that the vessel was identified as a ship of the US navy and indicates,
according to Bregman, a possible cover-up by the Israelis. In A History of
Israel Bregman also lifts the lid on one of the most mysterious episodes in
Israel's history by revealing, for the first time, the identity and
activities of the most senior spy Mossad ever had in the Arab world.
According to Bregman, he was the Son-in-Law of President Nasser of Egypt!


For additional information on the intentional and brutal Israeli attack on the USS 
Liberty (in
which Israel murdered 34 American sailors and wounded 171), please access the following
URL at your convenience:

http://www.ussliberty.org

http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.

Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/
 http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/">ctrl

To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om