We oppose the war against Iraq!

The government says: Saddam Hussein is a vicious dictator.
We say: yes he is. But he was just is vicious in the 1980s when we supported him generously in his war against Iran and even when he used poison gas against inhabitants of his own country. He was just as vicious in 1990 when President George W. Bush ended the Gulf War before deposing Saddam. He is only one of many vicious dictators that have been supported by U.S. funds and arms, including several repressive leaders now funded and armed more heavily by the U.S. War on Terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001.
The government says: Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.
We say: but Vice President Cheney also says that they are so well hidden that arms inspectors would not be able to find them. How then does our government know of these weapons? Scott Ritter, former Marine and UN weapons inspector in Iraq denies that the weapons of mass destruction exist.
The government says: Saddam Hussein is a terrible threat to the United States.
We say: 10 years ago, before the Gulf War, Iraq was a modern country. The Gulf War bombing destroyed water supplies, sewers, roads, schools and hospitals and left the Iraqi economy in a shambles. Ten years of embargo have worsened that situation. Saddam Hussein is less of a threat today.
The government says: This is a war for peace and freedom.
We say: Iraq has the world's second largest oil reserves ( after Saudi Arabia )in the Mid-East. With those oil reserves under US control we would control oil prices and supplies.
The government says: war against Iraq will be easily won.
We say: the Gulf War is said to have cost 200,000 Iraqi lives. In the aftermath, more than half a million children under 5 have died due to contaminated water, lack of health care, and poor nutrition. While few U.S. servicemen and women died in the Gulf War, more than hundred thousand veterans of that war are said to be still suffering from a series of difficult to identify illnesses, known as "Gulf War Syndrome." The Gulf war was very costly to both sides; the next one will be even worse also for us.
This war against Iraq will bring great suffering to the people of Iraq and may well cost many American lives. The government has no case to defend this military adventure.

We say: no attack on Iraq!


Information about Iraq
Brief History of Iraq

Part of the Turkish Empire until World War I, Iraq came under British rule in 1918. In the 1920s the British installed a monarchy which was overthrown in 1958. For the next 20 years a series of military governments alternated in quick succession until Saddam Hussein assumed power in 1979. A bitter war between Iraq and Iran erupted in 1980 and lasted until 1988. In 1991 Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait, provoking a US attack in 1992. Since the end of that war, Iraq has been under close UN and US scrutiny and control.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/737483.stm .
Why Attack Iraq?
Four different reasons have been given. None are convincing.
Reason number 1: Saddam Hussein is involved in Al Qaeda.
Soon after 9/11, the Bush administration tried to suggest that Iraq was implicated in the attacks. But the evidence for that-an alleged meeting between Mohammad Attah, a leader of the WTC attack, and an Iraqi envoy in Czechoslovakia turned out not to have taken place. No other links between Iraq and Al Qaeda appear to exist.

Reason number 2. We want a democratic Iraq
It is true that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. But it is also true that the US government has no interest in a democratic Iraq. The possibility arose for a popular government in Iraq when there was a rebellion at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. At that time the US did everything it could to help Saddam Hussein to suppress that rebellion. Popular government in Iraq is not on our government's agenda.
(www.global policy.org/security/oil/2002/0805causeofwar.htm)

Reason Number 3. Saddam is liable to do anything. He must be stopped.He even used poison gas during the war against Iran
Now the NY Times has revealed that when Iraq's government did use chemical weapons against Iranian forces and its own Kurdish population, the U.S. government was there - aiding and abetting! The Times ("Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas," 8/18/02) reported that, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the secret program, U.S. officials "provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war." http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=2292

Reason number 4. Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction.
But on September 10, 2002 "After a closed-door meeting with members of the Security Council, Hans Blix, the executive chairman of the U.N. Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC), said that the commission did not have solid evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=02091006.nlt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml





The real goal: Greater control over Mideast Oil

Remember our government is staffed by oilmen.
Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported on June 23, 2002. During last year's presidential campaign, Cheney said Halliburton did business with Libya and Iran through foreign subsidiaries, but maintained he had imposed a "firm policy" against trading with Iraq. "Iraq's different," the Post quoted him as saying. Oil industry executives and confidential U.N. records showed, however, that Halliburton held stakes in two companies that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer, the Post reported.
http://www.nehttp://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtmlwsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml

We have been increasing US control in the Middle East for a while.
Since the Gulf War, we have been able to station troops in Saudi Arabia. The Afghanistan War has opened the Republics of Kazakhastan, Uzbekistan, and others to us. In Uzbekistan we support a rigid Soviet style dictatorship. But we have access to the large oil resources in the region.
Plans for a pipeline from these oil rich republics to the Indian Ocean, controlled by the US, are progressing since the Afghanistan War.
The embargo against Iraq has given us considerable control over Iraqi oil. A conquest of the country would put us in even more complete control of Iraqi oil.

This is one more war about oil and the profits of oil companies.