Broad cross-section marches againt war

[John Feeney]

"I wonder if these issues came up at any of the demonstrations today..."

Plenty of good information there, Tom. But I don' t think it negates the possibility of means other than war for dealing with these problems. In particular, I think we humans need to grow beyond our infancy in inventing and developing such means.

[Billy LTL]

What have you done lately in that regard? Checkraise a 4/8 player wirh the nuts?

With all due respect I think this is unfair, Jimbo. I've been in the military too, maybe even served in the same place as you.

I don't believe the hundreds of thousands of anti-war protesters back home at the time served the United States of America with any less distinction than you or I.

Billy

[Chris Alger]

"Guys like Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic can only be removed by force."

And we know this because they never die? The list of perpetual tyrants continues: Ceausescu, Suharto, Pinochet, Marcos, Duvalier -- all removed only as a result of US invasions and US military dictatorship over their countries. Meanwhile, on earth .....

"The coming war will probably kill fewer Iraqis than Saddam would manage to kill on his own over the next few years. The war will probably be over fast--very fast."

1. Do you ever bother to do any research? From this week's Economist:

<ul type="square"> "MANY aspects of the war hanging over Iraq are unpredictable but one is not: the unusual vulnerability of the civilian population. There are two reasons for this. First, about 60% of the population, or 16m people, are 100% dependent on the central government for their basic needs; they survive only because the government provides them with a food ration each month. Second, after two wars, decades of misgovernment and 12 years of exacting sanctions, there is no fat to rely on.

In last year's Afghan war, as in the 1991 Gulf war, more people died from the indirect results of the conflict than from the fighting itself. And Iraqis now are far less able to get by. In 1991, most of them were in work, enjoyed fair health and had material assets; now, more than 50% are thought to be unemployed and most people have sold just about everything they once had (visitors gauge this from the markets, where the goods for sale are increasingly dilapidated). Though conditions have improved since the oil-for-food programme was set up in 1996, the report of an International Study Team*, academics and doctors with mainly Canadian backing, that visited Iraq at the end of last month found how vulnerable Iraqis still are. Most face grinding poverty, and children, in particular, are terrified at the prospect of war.

Estimates by Unicef, the UN's childrens' agency, show close to a quarter of children under five suffering from malnutrition, some of it acute. A leaked report reveals that the UN is working on the calculation that, in war, some 5.4m Iraqis will need emergency help from outside, with small children needing it most."[/list]A populace with a month's worth of food. Terrified children already suffering from malnutrition. 5.4 million Iraqis in need of emergency assistance. And this doesn't even mention those that will be killed directly by US firepower.

What have the Iraqis done to you that warrants so much of your wrath? Oh yeah: they are non-modern Arabs who have "no one to blame but themselves" for their plight, as you put it with reference to the troubles of the Arab world generally.

2. How could you possibly guess how many people will die in the war? One way would be to ask the Pentagon for predictions of civilian war deaths generated by their dozens of computer scenarios. Unfortunately, you don't have the right to get this information from your government; it's none of your business. Such is the nature of the informed consent of the governed in the U.S.

3. How could you possilby guess how many people Saddam is likely to kill or injure during hte next few years? The worst human rights abuses in Iraq occurred prior to the Gulf War. When similar facts about the US are brought to your attention, you dismiss them as having occurred "in the past," under different historical circumstances.

"You can reason with reasonable people, and sometimes you can reason with somewhat unreasonable people, but tyrants only understand one thing."

Is your only reference work an encyclopedia of cliches?

"And lastly I think Saddam poses a real and growing menace to the region, and even to ourselves."

This must be the thousandth time you've made this hysterical prediction without any contemporary facts to back it. You still haven't reconciled how this can be possible given that Saddam can't "menace" away the no-fly zone he's been penned up in for 10 years. 1000 X 0 = 0.

[Chris Alger]

The answer to your question is no, at least for the veteran activists. People who have spent most of their lives sifting through and refuting war propaganda weren't taken back by this thing at all. It even falls into a propaganda genre: the defector/turncoat (typically with a history of aiding tyrants) who serves his new masters by promoting the idea that "war opponents don't understand as I do that the current enemy" is bent on world domination, irredeemable, Satan incaranate, etc. The two questions you always ask are (1) what's his record for veracity and (2) what's in it for him? When this things aren't disclosed, as they weren't in the Wall Street Journal copy where I read them first, you discount them automatically. And then you start to dig.

"Does any body deny the veracity of these statements? Note who makes the accusations."

First try to reconcile his premise with reality: Either (1) Saddam has some unique, mysterious way of hiding WMD or (2) the talks the US has been engaged in with Russia for several years over the desturction of Russia's WMD, which the State Dept.has described as eanest and productive, have been a total waste of time, as they would be in any country that prefers to simply conceal them.

But note the source as well: only one of hundreds of Iraqi scientists, but one who also happens to have an axe to grind, a track record of misstatement and exaggeration and a current book to promote.

Who is Khidhir Hamza?
By Firas Al-Atraqchi
http://216.239.37.100/custom?q=cache...n&amp;ie=UTF-8
It's all about money and exposure.

This week Khidhir Hamza, a former Iraqi nuclear scientist who defected to the U.S. in 1994, testified before a U.S. Senate panel investigating Iraq's nuclear armaments. Hamza told U.S. Senators that Iraq was three years away from creating up to three atomic bombs. Containment would not work with Iraq, Hamza claims. He strongly suggested regime change.

Hamza was joined by famed Oscar-nominee (former UNSCOM weapons inspector) Richard Butler. Butler so vehemently implicated Iraq behind the anthrax spread last fall that CNN rewarded him with a permanent chair next to the 'sexy' Paula Zahn. Since then no evidence has emerged that implicates Iraq or any foreign country. In fact, recent news reports seem to indicate that the anthrax spores were home grown.

There are some facts to consider about Hamza: The first; that he has not been in Iraq since 1994. Eight years out of the country and the man thinks he is an expert. The UNSCOM team acknowledge that their absence from Iraq for four years has made them blind to Iraqi activities. So, then, where is Hamza getting his information? I, for one, would like to see it. Quoting 'other' intelligence sources is not enough.

Secondly, Hamza is one of hundreds of prominent Iraqi scientists and engineers. The man, by far, does not hold exclusive knowledge to Iraq's weapons programs.

Hamza is also a Shiite. Let's dispense with the pleasantries; most Shiites in Iraq would love to see Saddam go and outside Iraq make no secret their hatred for Sunnis. A popular catch phrase repeated by Iraqi Shiites is "We will murder all you Sunnis while you sleep".

Consider also, Hamza's flair for misinformation and contradiction. In January 1999, Hamza addressed the Seventh Carnegie International Non-Proliferation Conference (Carnegie Endowment For International Peace Non-Proliferation Project - January 11-12, 1999; Washington, D.C.):

"The plans were made and designed for an eventual production of 100 kilogram bomb -- six bombs. That would be a reasonable arsenal in something like five to 10 years. So in a decade or so, Iraq would become a real nuclear power like Israel."

Hamza spoke as a representative of the Institute for Science and International Security.

In 1999, Hamza spoke of six bombs in no more than 10 years. Yesterday, he told the U.S. Senate it was three bombs in no more than three years. Fine. Let's give the man the benefit of the doubt. It has been three years since his Carnegie speech. However, the misinformation continues.

Douglas Pasternak and Stacey Schultz of U.S. News interviewed Hamza in December 2001. The following is an excerpt from their subsequent article:

"Hamza and his colleagues had 31 kilograms of uranium from their Osiraq reactor that had been destroyed by Israeli bombers in 1981, from which they could distill 18 kilograms enriched enough to form the core. But they also knew that any such move would set off alarms at the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitored Iraq's use of uranium, and that Iraq would be stopped from developing any more enriched uranium. Thus, Iraq would be able to build only one oversize bomb. Informed of this, Hamza says, Saddam agreed to shift to concentrating on using chemical and biological weaponry to halt the allied forces of Desert Storm."

"Even worse, he says, he is certain that Saddam Hussein has been rebuilding Iraq's chemical and biological programs-a task far easier than reconstituting the nuclear program."

In the above article, Hamza indicates that Iraq is focusing on non-nuclear weaponry. At the Senate hearing, Hamza seems to have backtracked and said that Iraq is focusing on its nuclear program. And if Iraq was able to build only one bomb in 1990, before allied bombings and intensive UNSCOM inspections and monitoring, how could they possibly build three, let alone six bombs now?

Earlier in October 2001, Hamza participated in an online chat for CNN. Following are excerpts:

"CHAT PARTICIPANT: If America could just do one thing in Iraq, what would you like see happen?

HAMZA: I would like to see the Iraqi opposition better trained, some two or three thousand persons, trained and sent back into south Iraq, and supported by U.S. Air Force, no U.S. troops, just Air Force, doing what it is doing now, but a little more intensely. By watching Saddam's troop movement and making them stay in their box, is all that's required right now. Just send the Iraqi opposition trained militia, and support them there. That's the only thing we need now. That's the official position right now of the Iraqi opposition, they want to be supported this way, with some resources provided, say food and some equipment. Minimal cost opposition. Much less than is being done in Afghanistan right now, for instance. This way, the U.S. would eliminate the major terrorist government in the Middle East right now, probably the world."

The above statement from Hamza is ominously identical to positions expressed by former CIA Chief Woolsley, Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz, and other hawks calling for Iraq's regime change.

The above also leaves open the question of Hamza's reliability. In claiming the official position of the Iraqi opposition, Hamza comes of sounding like their spokesperson. Consequently, all his opinions are skewed and biased. According to the CIA itself, the Iraqi opposition is known for manipulating, lying, distorting and fabricating defections and news coming out of Iraq to garner support for an attack on Iraq.

What also sticks out like a sore thumb is Hamza's own CV. Did he really head Iraq's nuclear weapons program? In 1999, David Albright and Kevin O'Neill published a report for the Institute for Science and International Security titled "Iraq's Efforts to Acquire Information about Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear-Related Technologies from the United States". In the report, Hamza is listed as "a senior Iraqi nuclear scientist who held several high-level positions in Iraq's pre-Gulf War nuclear weapons program". Question is why did the very institute where Hamza worked not list him as head or director of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program? Does this distinction not carry a weight of its own?

There have been widespread allegations that Hamza was little more than a mid-level physicist in Iraq. According to the Center for Non-proliferation Studies (CNS) and the CNS Monitoring Proliferation Threats Nuclear Abstract Database Hamza was definitely not the head of Iraq's Nuclear weapons program. From an article available on that database; "documents were faxed to the Times' offices from Greece by a person claiming to be acting on behalf of Dr. Khidhir Abdul Abas Hamza, a physicist known to have worked on electromagnetic enrichment of uranium (EMIS) for Iraq's nuclear weapons program, PC-3." (Nuclear Fuel, 4/24/95, p. 16, by Mark Hibbs).

The article goes on to state "the IAEA confirmed that Hamza worked in Iraq's nuclear program, and the Sunday Times located an article published in the 2/79 issue of Nuovo Cimento, a scientific journal, by "K A A Hamza of the Nuclear Research Centre, Tawattha [Tuwaitha], Baghdad".

However, according to Hamza's own CV (available at http://www.isis-online.org/publicati.../cvhamza.html) Hamza was not a part of the Nuclear Research Centre at Tuwaitha in 1979. Hamza was Head of the Fuel Division, Theoretical Section at the Iraqi Atomic Agency between 1975 and 1980. In the Publications section of the CV, no mention is made of the above article in Nuovo Cimento.

Isn't it peculiar that the IAEA, a much-lauded nuclear watchdog among other things, did not recognize that Hamza was head of Iraq's nuclear program but rather as someone who worked in the program? Would the IAEA never have met the men during its course of work in Iraq? That's a little hard to fathom.

The answer may lie in Hamza's own bungling. By his own admission in the September/October 1998 issue of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: "Over the years, I had many roles. I was chief of the fuel division in the 1970s, head of the theoretical division of the enrichment program in the 1980s, scientific adviser to the chairman of the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) in the mid-1980s, and--for a brief period in 1987--director of weaponization." ( http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/19...o98hamza.html)

"For a brief period". Touching words. A brief period in 1987 and yet the man is touted as the brilliant head of Iraq's nuclear program.

Of course it was a brief period because in 1988, Hamza took charge of Theory and Modeling of the Dense Plasma Focus (DPF) Project and Manager in charge of the Iraqi delegation to Poland.

Despite the discrepancy in his CV, the fact that the IAEA never recognized him as head of the nuclear program, and quite amazingly, his own admission that he was the head for a brief period ending in 1988, Hamza is brandished as Iraq's chief bomb-maker. In interviews on major news outlets, Hamza is referred to as Iraq's most senior nuclear scientist who miraculously is still alive today to tell the tale.

Mr. Hamza, just who in blue blazes are you really?

Greed and prejudice answer that question. Prejudice in that Hamza is a Shiite bent on seeing a Shiite government take power in Iraq. In his 1999 Carnegie Conference speech Hamza said: "For example, the Iranians present themselves as defenders of the Shi'is which is a majority of the Iraqi population, which is not the actual government. They are not representative of the actual government. Now, that is a threat to all other groups in Iraq."

Earlier, this article showed that Hamza strongly endorsed the Iraqi opposition. The most infamous Iraqi opposition group is the Iraqi National Congress (INC) who have been in bed with the CIA and Mossad for nearly a decade now. The INC head, Ahmad Chalabi, a notoriously corrupt fellow, is also Shiite.

Finally, we come to the most important factor: Money. Hamza wants to be shown the money. In every single segment, every single interview, every single talking head and sound bite, we hear of Hamza's book "Saddam's Bombmaker". Who would buy a book from a mid-level physicist, or a part-time head of a nuclear program? Nah, beef it up a little. Call yourself head of the nuclear program for the longest time, say 20 years. A nice even number. Then proclaim that you have all the secrets on all of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Don't mention how you got all this information.

Start to raise your hands about Iraq invading Zimbabwe and sending fissile material to Uranus. That should scare a few people. Tell everyone Saddam is coming to get them. Get on every radio show and babble your way through the scripted lines you were given. Endorse every attempt to attack Iraq. Endorse your Shiite chums in the INC.

Sit back and watch sales of your book soar.

And the book is hilarious by any account. Hamza has claimed that the Iraqi nuclear weapons program drained him and drove all of Iraq's scientists and engineers feverishly under the threat of prison and execution. Yet despite all his workload, Hamza had time to describe sexual exploitation of women in the Iraqi leadership, germ paranoia, human guinea pigs and the incredible claim that Iraq stockpiled barrels of germs and bio-gunk in the path of allied troops.

Sounds like A Thousand and One Nights. But then again, Arabs are always counted on to embellish a few here and there.

So, who are you again Mr. Hamza?

According to Scott Ritter, UNSCOM's most aggressive former weapons inspector, who appeared on a July 31st edition of CNN's Crossfire, you are a liar.

[Zeno]

"Hamza is also a Shiite. Let's dispense with the pleasantries; most Shiites in Iraq would love to see Saddam go and outside Iraq make no secret their hatred for Sunnis. A popular catch phrase repeated by Iraqi Shiites is "We will murder all you Sunnis while you sleep"."

I am not surprised by this statement, but find it very interesting. I may post a follow up later.

Do you know if Baptists say the same thing about Unitarians? My guess is that Baptists would drown all Unitarians if given the chance. Perhaps I am wrong in this assumption but it sounds reasonable.

-Zeno

[hudini36]

You have that freedom. Others have served their country so that dissent against dictatorial edicts is permitted. Only in America could a man that dodged the draft, and deserted the National guard would be the commander in chief urging Americans to aggressively invade a 3rd rate power. Of course that commander has a familial interest in the 1/8th percentage of developed oil resources that the 3rd rate power represents.

If the Pentagon Papers have taught us anything, it is that the Government will lie to the people to support corporate welfare.

If the Church Committee's findings have taught us anything, it is that the US intelligence community will deceive, and at times kill, Americans that seek to expose fraudulent "incidents" which it caused to gather support for economic wars which kill millions.

Still playing illegal online poker, Jimbo?

[morgan]

In NYC it was amazing. 25 degrees and cold cold cold winds and still hundreds of thousands came (the police commisioner estimated 100,000, while the protest organizers estimated 400,000. I think usually a good idea for most protests is to average the two). We were denied a permit to march (land of the free - right?) and the police built blockades to keep the crowd seperated. But spirits were high.

Just wanted to report my experience [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Morgan

[Glenn]

"We were denied a permit to march (land of the free - right?)"

Regardless of what you think about the war, there was a pretty legitimate reason for this. I mean, it's not like you weren't allowed to protest, they just kept a huge, unmanagable crowd in a reasonable place.

[morgan]

"I mean, it's not like you weren't allowed to protest, they just kept a huge, unmanagable crowd in a reasonable place."

Doesn't it seem wrong to you that the police can be allowed to contain free speach? The point of allowing a rally but not a march is to be able to say that you are up-holding free speach, but at the same time let as few people as possible see it.

"Regardless of what you think about the war, there was a pretty legitimate reason for this [denying a permit to march]"

The reason was that because of the hightend state of alert the police would have been spread too thin. However they had 5,000 officers involved. And they were mostly holding their barracades to keep the crowd seperated. Allowing a clear avenue for a march would have been far more organized and easier for the police. Also there were so many protesters that 4 avenues were taken over by scores of people. It took me over 2 hours to make it to 1st Ave (where the rally was), and I was still 12 blocks north of the speakers! Finally if the police did this so they wouldn't be spread too thin, then why was the following neccessary:

"At 1:45 pm, Chief Joseph J. Esposito, the highest-ranking uniformed officer, oredered the department's highest mobilization, a rare measure that brought 1,000 officers from precincts and other commands around town. The alert was last used in November 2001, when American Airlines Flight 587 crashed in the Rockaways." [Today's New York Times]

In any case, thank you for your reply. I know what the police and the city have said... I just don't believe it. Take care,

Morgan

[nicky g]

Why would the NYPD have been unable to control an "unmanageable" march of 400,000 when smaller police forces were happy to allow marches 3 times that size in other cities?