[Peace-discuss] transcript of WDWS P4P interview clips

Tue Mar 4 09:54:11 CST 2003

Fellow peace activists: I am disappointed in the quality of responses given 
to Brandt Hansen when he asked the question: "Who do you think is worse, Bush 
or Hussein?" An opportunity was there to promote peace based on reality and a 
thoughtful response to Brandt's important question.  However, the responses 
did not accomplish that task and I believe hurt the cause for peace and 
brought into question the credibility of those who have dedicated hours week 
after week by participating in the Protests of Prospect.   As war is looming 
we must consider the real consequences of this war and how Saddam Hussein has 
been responsible for these actions and how U.S. and British leaders have also 
been involved.

My thoughts:

1. There is no comparison between Bush and Hussein. Hussein us a brutal 
dictator. However, in reality the situation in the middle east is not 
dependent on if Hussein or another individual is the leader of Iraq. During 
Gulf War I our specific task was to force Iraq's military to withdraw from 
Kuwait. That is all. We did not have any authorization to overthrow Hussein 
and take over control of another sovereign nation. If we had proceeded to 
invade Iraq and overthrow Hussein the coalition would have disintegrated and 
the region tossed into complete turmoil.
2. The focus on President Bush as somehow responsible for the current events 
is inaccurate. The original battle plans for Gulf War II were completed and 
tested using CPX's (command post exercises) and FTX's (field training 
exercises) by late autumn 2000 before George W. Bush was elected. While 
George W. is continuing with the plans initiated by directive under the 
Clinton administration, the group of individuals behind these decisions and 
plans is neither republican or democrat. Current plans have been refined 
since 2000 but make no error that if Gore had been elected the battle would 
have already occurred!!! As I suggested before one needs to read the 
articles, letters, and ongoing policy formulation in Foreign Affairs and 
Defense News to understand he foundation and need to control oil resources  
See comments of Dr. Steven Pelletiere  at end of this email.
3. The over decade long sanctions that were imposed by U.S. and England have 
had horrible effects (See http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/ ).  These 
sanctions are / were designed to force Hussein to abdicate power. However, 
unless a government it is put in place that follows the policies driving 
current U.S. and British efforts nothing would change. That is why efforts 
are actually to place a military style government under U.S. and British 
control in place just as is occurring in Afghanistan per Feb 12, 1998 
congressional discussion (U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS 
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES; ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS 
SECOND SESSION 
FEBRUARY 12, 1998).
4. Iraq does not pose a viable threat against the U.S. or the world with 
military capability. The threat is based on Iraqi/Islamic control of oil 
resources as it always has been since oil resources were developed 
(reference: "The Shield and the Storm', Department of the Army, U.S.A., ISBN 
#0-9631300).  Iraq's military offensive (attack) and defensive (protection) 
capability are virtually nonexistent because of Gulf War I combat results.    
5. Although Iraq did possess and use chemical and biological weapons during 
Iran - Iraq war we started destroying those during December 1990 and 
continued our efforts through 1998 and until present. At least 95% and more 
had been destroyed but that left maybe 5% unaccounted for not the huge 
amounts cited today. Today it is unlikely that Iraq possesses weapons of mass 
destruction in quantities or weaponized so that a threat is posed. However, 
that is why we, those of us who were involved in NBC during after Gulf War I  
have insisted on inspections. If weapons are found then scientists and 
engineers using effective incineration and neutralization techniques should 
be used to destroy these weapons. It is absolutely accurate that the U.S. and 
other nations gave or sold Iraq chemical, biological, and radiological 
munitions (Riegle Report:  U.S. Exports of Biological Materials to Iraq). It 
is also accurate that U.S. officials have and continue to sue chemical, 
biological, and radiological weapons on U.S. citizens (Project Shad and 103d 
Congress, 2d Session - COMMITTEE PRINT - S. Prt. 103-97; IS MILITARY RESEARCH 
HAZARDOUS TO VETERANS' HEALTH?; LESSONS SPANNING HALF A CENTURY;  A STAFF 
REPORT PREPARED FOR THE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS;                   
UNITED STATES SENATE; DECEMBER 8, 1994; JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West 
Virginia, Chairman) and on citizens of other nations (my own reports).
6.  U.S. military NBC personal protective equipment is defective and combat 
and medical training and capabilities are inadequate to sustain combat in a 
contaminated environment such as the middle east and thus battle should not 
be started (GAO 03-137T, CATO institute Report 467, "Are Our Troops Ready for 
Biological and Chemical Attack", Eric Taylor, 2/5/03).
7. Under the actual "Law of Land Warfare" a preemptive attack is not 
justified nor authorized as Iraq has not attacked the U.S.
8.  Collateral damage which means destruction of infrastructure, flora, 
fauna, and noncombatants will be extensive and uncontrollable given the 
weapons that we possess and will use and their consequent health and 
environmental effects on all combatants and noncombatants.   there is no such 
thing as a smart bomb.
9.  U.S. use of depleted uranium munitions has horrible health and 
environmental effects and must be banned while denied medical care for "all" 
military and civilian  DU casualties all over the world is provided, and 
required environmental remediation is finally completed.
10. The concept that U.S. leaders possess the authority and responsibility to 
establish a government in Iraq is simply wrong. This has nothing to do with 
freedom as we know it and desire it. The media, current,  past U.S. an 
British governmental administrations  has portrayed the U.S. as the savior 
which is not true at all. 

Consequently, as patriot and warrior, I must urge that war be prevented for 
many reasons but mainly because we cannot deal with the health and 
environmental effects of war as verified by current Gulf War I U.S. casualty 
data of over 221000 U.S. veterans on VA disability and over 10000 dead. We 
also have over 1.5 million Iraqi's either sick or dead and thousands of U.S. 
coalition forces sick or dead at same 30% rate as for U.S. casualties.  

In conclusion although war must be prevented, if the UN security council 
deems by unanimous vote that action is necessary then UN troops with 
exclusion of U.S. and British forces could take action. Also if a temporary 
government is required it should not involve any U.S. or British individuals.

dr. doug rokke
major, USAR
vietnam and gulf war I combat veteran 

**
War talk is all about oil, says former CIA analyst 

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=6877706&BRD=386&PAG=461&dept_id=4449

25&rfi=8

By MIKE TRASK , The Times Herald  01/30/2003 

ST. BONAVENTURE - Using words such as "naked power grab" and "imperialism," a 
Middle East expert criticized President Bush's showdown with Iraq as merely 
being about controlling world oil prices during a lecture Wednesday evening 
at St. Bonaventure University.
"The war is about oil," said Dr. Stephen Pelletiere during his lecture, "The 
Persian Gulf on the Brink," in the John J. Murphy Professional Building's 
Dresser Auditorium.
More than 120 students, faculty and community members attended.
Dr. Pelletiere was a senior professor of National Security Affairs at the 
U.S. Army War College for 13 years and also served for six years as the CIA's 
senior political analyst monitoring the bloody Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.
Dr. Pelletiere discussed for two hours many reasons why he believes the Bush 
administration wants to attack Iraq, but he focused primarily on the oil 
issue.
He said he doesn't believe the U.S. government wants to own the oil, it 
simply wants to control the amount of oil on the world market in order to 
control the price. Iraq possesses vast oil reserves which have been 
underutilized since the Persian Gulf War more than a decade ago.
Dr. Pelletiere also suggested that U.S. industries which are financially 
connected to the military have been seeking a "threat to promote" since the 
demise of the Soviet Union. In order for this industry to continue to make 
money it must push the notion that countries such as Iraq represent a threat 
to the U.S., its interests and its people.
In any case, Dr. Pelletiere doesn't believe the U.S. has made a compelling 
enough case to justify military action against Iraq. He believes Secretary of 
State Colin Powell will not fare well when he attempts to present the Bush 
administration's case to the United Nations next week. Without greater world 
commitment to the cause, the U.S. could be forced to attack Iraq virtually 
alone.
"I hope you realize you are living through what will be the greatest 
post-World War II crisis we have seen," Dr. Pelletiere said. "United States 
society will be changed by what occurs in the next week."
He insisted that Iraq has been disarmed and does not serve as any real 
threat, calling the notion "incomprehensible" because the country has not 
recovered from the Gulf War. If Iraq is arming itself, he suggested, it is to 
protect itself regionally.
Meanwhile, he predicted that war with Iraq would be over quickly.
"The war has to be over in 45 days. After 45 days the stock market gets 
nervous," he said.
More than 25 people from the audience asked questions and no one challenged 
Dr. Pelletiere's assessments or opinions. His verbal jabs at U.S. policies 
and actions were met with slight laughter from the crowd.
When asked by an audience member about Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's history 
of human rights violations, Dr. Pelletiere answered, "That's how things are 
in the Middle East."
A St. Bonaventure student questioned what the general public could do to 
prevent war with Iraq.
"The best thing you can do is to realize the media is your worst enemy," Dr. 
Pelletiere said.
The lecture was hosted by the SBU Visiting Scholars Program, the Department 
of Political Science, the Center for Non-Violence and the Olean Area 
Coalition for Peace and Justice.
A second lecture, "American Soldiers in Iraq: The New Warfare," featuring Dr. 
Doug Rokke, will be held at 7 p.m. today in the Dresser Auditorium.
Meanwhile, the Olean Area Coalition for Peace and Justice will meet Feb. 3 at 
7 p.m. at the First Presbyterian Church in Olean. 