  |
|
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||
iraq attack! by Preston Peet (ptpeet@cs.com) - March 07, 2001 |
||||
| US President George W. Bush told reporters that it was time to send the Chinese "an appropriate message" during his first official press conference at the White House (February 22, 2001), when asked about US accusations China was installing the new Iraqi radar system recently bombed by US and UK warplanes. What message might that be, the US bombing of another Chinese embassy? Bush bombed Iraq twice within a week (February 16-22), striving manfully to play catch-up to Clinton's incessant bombing of Iraq since Operation Desert Fox (December 1998). Accusing the Serbs and the Chinese of helping the Iraqis install an advanced fiber optics system that would increase the accuracy of Iraqi missiles fired at US and UK warplanes, the Bush administration has neglected to mention it was dual-purpose technology from the US being installed, designed by AT&T. The Chinese obtained the technology in 1994 from William Perry, the Clinton administration's Secretary of Defense. This would be a case of Clinton "following in the footsteps of his predecessor," as George Herbert Bush was also heavily involved in the same practice. When George Herbert Bush left office, investigators discovered that he had not only been enabling Saddam to defraud the US taxpayers by diverting grain-credits towards buying weapons and rebuilding his military since 1985, but that he had allowed highly-restricted dual-use technology, which can be used for both civilian and military purposes, to be sold to Saddam Hussein. (Not only that, but George Herbert Bush also allowed sales to the Chinese of dual-use technology, particularly for use in launching missiles.) As the Center for Security Studies noted in 1992, the harm caused by the Iran-Contra scandal was negligible compared to those of Bush's policy on Iraq, which resulted in $2 Billion in defaulted taxpayer-subsidized credit guarantees, "to say nothing of the human, financial and environmental costs of a war necessitated by Saddam's aggression which was, in turn, made possible at least partially by US assistance," Time magazine reporter Tony Karon wrote in December 2000. Karon observed that that a Bush presidential victory wouldn't mean a whole lot to China, because "where the Clinton administration harangued China periodically about human-rights, the Bush administration might be more likely to draw lines in the sand such as the sale of missile technology to third countries [emphasis added]. But the bottom line is that both teams has been opening up China for business, and President-elect Bush was a hearty supporter of lifting the annual Congressional review of trade relations between the two countries." So, we might know how the Chinese obtained the technology to take to Iraq, but how did they get it to Iraq? If the US government sold the Chinese this technology, why didn't they keep better tabs on it, instead of waiting until it was being installed in Iraq to flex USmilitary might? On Friday, February 16, 2001), on the Muslim Sabbath, 24 British and American warplanes "swooped in" at 35,000 feet, and while still within the Southern no-fly zone, fired 2000 pound Paveway III laser-guided missiles, and an unknown number of Raytheon/Texas Instruments-designed 'stand-off' bombs, costing $300,000 each, at Al Suwayrah, a sophisticated Iraqi radar and command center about 40 miles south-west of Baghdad. Five separate targets were hit, resulting in at least two civilian deaths (seven deaths in total), reported by Baghdad. On Thursday, February 22, 2001, US warplanes did itagain, this time in the northern "no-fly" zone. This is the tenth bombing of Iraq, conducted by US warplanes, since January 1, 2001. "This was done for military purposes," US Admiral Craig Quigley said at a press conference, held soon after the February 16 raid. It remains to be seen whether the purpose of these raids was primarily for military tactics or defense industry profits. "Did the bombing of Baghdad pull Wall Street out of danger?" asks University of Ottawa professor Michel Chossudovsky (February 19, 2001). "In fact, it did more than that. It put billions of dollars into the deep pockets of defense contractors and oil companies." Chossudovsky notes that February 16, 2001, had seen the world leader in fiber optics, Nortel Networks, spurred on by frantic trading, with the NASDAQ stock index declining "by more than 5 percent to an all time low." But after the bombings (1 PM US Eastern Standard Time), "defense stocks spiraled; oil and energy stocks boomed following news that Iraq's oil industry might be impaired. The value of Exxon, Chevron, and Texaco stocks shot up. "Harken Energy Corporation - in which George W. Bush served as company director and corporate consultant before entering politics - gained 5.4 percent by the end of trading. Harken Energy happens to be a key player in Colombian oil, with a multi-billion dollar aid package on hand to protect its investments. Harken Energy CEO Mikel Faulkner is a former business associate of G.W." Is it a coincidence that 2 days before this latest raid, in which president George W. Bush had to personally sign off on his first military order, he had publicly "confirmed" a $2.6 billion increase of the Pentagon's budget, only a "down payment onnew-weapons research and development?" "War and globalization go hand in hand," Chossudovsky observes. "Militarisation is an integral part of the neoliberal agenda. The build-up of the defense budget contributes to beefing up the 'Big Five' US defense contractors, while denying financial resources to civilian programs including health, education and social welfare not to mention the rebuilding of America's deteriorating urban infrastructure. "Whereas defense production has spiraled, recession has hit the sectors of the US economy which produce 'civilian' consumer goods and services. "The U.S. domestic economy increasingly hinges on the military industrial complex and the sale of luxury goods (travel, leisure, luxury cars, etc.). And this satisfies the financial establishment irrespective of the needs of ordinary people." Vice-President Dick Cheney even made millions of dollars profit for himself and Haliburton Company, by selling oil-industry equipment and services to Iraq through third-party countries from 1995 to 2000. Cheney thereby avoiding the 'strict' sanctions that he and the rest of George Herbert Bush's crew made sure to put in place, and which Clinton kept in place. The Chinese are alleged, in a similar fashion, to have forwarded the fiber optics technology bought from the US in 1994, on to Iraq. Would this outcome have anything to do with George Herbert Bush's decision to pull back his attacking troops after they had 'liberated' Kuwait during the Gulf War? When simply allowing his generals to continue into Baghdad would have rid the world of Saddam Hussein, that rebellious dictator, and kept US taxpayers (and the rest of the allies involved) from subsidizing 10 years of starvation causing sanctions and military actions? US forces under commanders like General Barry McCaffrey were literally slaughtering Iraqi forces, who never stood a chance, despite the intense Allied propaganda campaign which painted them as one of the largest, most modern armies in the world. Nothing stood between the Allied forces and Baghdad but beaten, retreating Iraqis and dead bodies. When George Herbert Bush called off his dogs of war, he stopped US Generals Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf from making a triumphant entry into the Iraqi capital. Why? Because Iraq is worth more to the ruling-class alive and struggling than it is bled-dry and left for dead. The current geopolitical scenario concerning Iraq was veritably designed by George Herbert Bush's strategists, and continued by the next two administrations, in order to justify war profiteering. The policy has enabled US defense contractors to continue raking in their dough of death while developing and supplying big oil's competition-killing murder-machinery. How dare the Iraqi people not overthrow their un-elected ruler? They should have total control over their government, but they don't, so they're going to continue getting what they "deserve." |
||||
|
||||
 |
||||
|
||||
|
Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions Prosecute Where Prosecution is Due: Forget About Weinberger: Get the Iraqgate Cabal Iraq Culture and History: From Noah to Present Bombing of Baghdad Staves Off Financial Uncertainty he Law of War: Bombing Iraq Was This Saddam's Bomb? My Experiences in America Regarding Iraq McCaffrey the Fraud (Part 1) Bombing Iraq: A Response Iraq: US Consular Information Sheet Iraq is Falling Apart: We Are Ruined US Attack on Iraq Keeps Ricocheting Eye on the Empire: Bombing for . . . What? China Sidesteps Claims of Aiding Iraqi Air Defenses US, Britain Remain Firm on Bombing Despite Criticisms Serb Role in Iraq Raids Government Was Set to Ease Iraq Sanctions Before Air Raid Bombing Iraq Illegal, Paris Says No 'Direct Evidence' of Iraq Weapons US Seeks Explanation from China Slow Motion War with Iraq Flares Up Iraq Fires at Warplanes as France Declares Bombing Raid Illegal Laser Missiles Allow High-Altitude Attack Bombs Destroyed Iraqi Command Center Iraqis Step Up Secret Russian Weapons Trade International War Crime Tribunal: US War Crimes Against Iraq US Warplanes Strike in Northern Iraq Clinton Administration Sold to China Systems Used by Iraq Our Forgotten Fight Against Saddam Hussein Russian Army Criticizes New US Air Raids on Iraq Britain Urged Bush to Launch Raids on Iraq Disinformation Dossier on The Chinese Embassy Bombing Disinformation Dossier on Noam Chomsky Disinformation Dossier on Is China Buying or Spying? |
||||
|
||||
|
