[Peace] Some responses to

[Dlind49 at aol.com]

I am providing some answers to   questions based on my work with DOD over the 
last 34 years, as a member of the theater preventive medicine / 3rd MEDCOM 
command staff during the Gulf war, and as a member of many of the special 
military teams that assessed Iraq's capabilities, and as a former DA/DOD/DOT 
scientist.   The evidence that is being used to justify a preemptive attack 
on Iraq is not sufficient.

dr. doug rokke
major, ms



"Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq.  Here are some
> questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this 
war:
> 
> 1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the
> height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

A: Yes, and that is still true today. Although Soviet atrocities were and 
still are beyond any other nations actions we will not force them to comply 
because of their military capabilities.  The Soviet nuclear weapons have not 
been disarmed nor removed from their launch sites. They are still armed, 
targeted and ready to fly at U.S. targets including S-U. .
> 
> 2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know
> it cannot retaliate -- which just confirms that there is no real threat?
> 
A: As the army medical service corps officer who was responsible for the WMD 
portion of the 3rd U.S. Army Captured Equipment Project it was readily 
obvious that not only were Iraq's weapons of poor quality during the war but 
we destroyed most of what he had and reconstitution has not occurred because 
of sanctions and continued bombing.  Iraq's military does not posses the 
capability to provide even an adequate defense and definitely does not 
possess any offensive capability. As to the SCUD missiles I survived 32 SCUD 
attacks and as Scott Ritter has said we probably destroyed all but maybe less 
than a dozen SCUDS.  The Iraqi main air defense weapon is a hand / foot 
operated ZSU. The ZSU is a 4 barrel 23 mm  piece of junk.  Compare it as a 
sling shot used against jets. They also had a more sophisticated version but 
we destroyed most of those but they are also radar controlled they are pieces 
of junk.   


> 3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot
> be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that
> we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

The WMD's that Iraqi forces used on Iran, on the Kurds, and then on U.S. and 
coalition forces were provide willfully and with full knowledge by the United 
States Department of Defense and  U.S. industry. Weapons were also provide by 
Germany, France, and England. Jim Tuite completed the congressional 
investigation (http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html) (documented 
in the Showtime movie "Thanks from Grateful Nation"  and prepared  published 
that report which identifies and verifies which WMD's and to whom and when 
they were sent to Iraq. This was continued even after they were used in 
violation of Geneva conventions. We wanted, specifically Dr. Hendrycks, to 
find out the health and environmental effects of their use.   When Iraq 
invaded Kuwait, the probable use of our WMD's and more that Iraq manufactured 
on our Coalition forces resulted in our WMD / NBC Army teaching team being 
activated to teach within the entire 4th U.S. Army region as CAT's (Command 
Assistance teams). We did this every weekend and usually 3 days per week from 
August until November when our team was called to active duty and sent to 
Saudi Arabia to head up the theater WMD special operations team known as 
"Bauer's Raiders" or politically corrected (recently) term "Bauer's Team".   
We knew where all Iraq's WMD's were and about how many so we decoded during 
December 1990 to blow then up in place before they were used on us (10 
December 90 C +125) . (Reference Schwartzkopf's autobiography "it Doesn't 
Take a  HERO" page 390).  We then targeted those sites. I have video footage 
of those actions. We continued that action through February 28 and then we 
decided to blow up all sites that remained. Dave K. and others then went into 
Iraq and blew up another 105 sites with WMD's. These detonations were done 
with complete disregard for health and environmental effects on any military 
of noncombatants.  Consequently thousands maybe millions are sick and dead. 
Then  based on our knowledge UN's UNSCOM team were prepared and sent in. I / 
our team helped get them ready. Scott Ritter has thoroughly and correctly 
explained the outcomes of UNSCOM's work. Scott's courage to tell the truth is 
unique.  all of us who were in positions to know what happened, why it 
happened, and what may happen but who decided to break away from the official 
nonsense have had to continue under retaliation. Today, Iraq's WMD program is 
probably in shambles and we must remember that the 'US PROVIDE IRAQ WITH THE 
WMD'S AND PRECURSORS THAT THEY USED AND THEN USED TO MANUFACTURED MORE WMD'S. 
 We have continued to bomb all sites since 1990. While it is possible that 
Iraq possesses WMD's, Scott's proposal as stated on NBC Today  yesterday is 
till the best action. This attack has nothing to do with WMD's. this about 
power and oil!!!!!   if we really were concerned about nations and leaders 
who use or authorize use of WMD's on civilians then our own nation is "guilty 
as hell" (please read attached Rockefeller report and Project Shad report). 
And this is jut one report of any. Then we have  Skull Valley, Gerstle River, 
AAD, JTOL. and even right here in Champaign County (I have news video from 
here).  


> 4. Is it not true that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency was able
> to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with
> Iraqi cooperation?

Yes. 
> 
> 5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to
> develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks
> on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19
> hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?
> 
This has been a sham from the start. The so called war on terrorism is 
strictly designed to permit military intervention and action in violation of 
international law and "The Law of Land Warfare".  The formal polices were 
written by the Clinton administration during the 90's. As to the initial 
formal proposal for response to WMD/terrorist actions by civilians and 
military we wrote that during 1981 and it was known as "EDRAT". This plan was 
the basis for our WMD response and preparations during  Desert Storm, the 
formal DOD/ DOJ program that I was asked to write by  General Ralph Wooten in 
preparation for the 96' Olympics, UN's 50th, and Pope John Paul's  visit to 
U.S.   My first students were from the New York and New Jersey Emergency 
Response unit (NY ESU). Those are the ones who went into WTC and died. THEY 
WERE MY FRIENDS!!   The warnings regarding an attack had been loud and clear 
and were expected in response to continued US actions / provocation 
throughout the world including within the U.S. and the double standard 
willfully applied in Israel / Palestine.  The attack was invited and expected 
and nothing was done as all news stories verify in order to justify the 
invasion of Afghanistan to over throw the taliban so the oil pipeline could 
be put in place (please read attached documents) , military intervention all 
over the world, and suspension of civil rights here in the U.S. as planned.   
AS TO ANTHRAX ATTACKS-WILLFUL USA ACTIONS.  (SEE ATTACHED INFO). As to known 
terrorist groups we have 15 primary groups and they all domestic. They have 
used and will use WMD-E's. We ignore them on world stage.   We still do not 
know who for sure was involved in 9/11/01. Yes, those who were identified 
held Saudi passports and were US citizens. 

> 6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he
> recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism?

NO he is correct!
> 
> 7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a
> Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?
> 
No evidence exists and this recently was admitted in intelligence circles.  

> 8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed
> al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?

Absolutely-Al Qaeda continued stuff is just more nonsense to inflame hysteria 
and justify more military actions.  Was / is al Qaeda dangerous - yes, but we 
have been blowing them up for months which the entire Afghanistan campaign)  
was illegal by law of land warfare anyway.  
> 
> 9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped
> appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called
> allies?
> 
Who knows? Who cares? This is irrelevant.  

> 10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total
> chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and
> that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts,
> alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses."
Sinking, they have always been sunk!  

> 11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away
> from tracking down those who did attack the United States -- and who may
> again attack the United States -- and using them to invade countries that
> have not attacked the United States?

There never was any intent to find out who did plan and implement the attack  
because it was invited through baiting and switching and U.S. Actions where 
we have been blowing up people all over the world (see attached). 
> 
> 12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst
> suspicions about the US â?" and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?

Forget Ben Laden- This all about putting ARAMCO back under U.S. interests 
control but not for betterment of average citizen. 

> 
> 13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force,
> and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then
> proved totally inept at defending the country?

More nonsense to develop hysteria!
> 
> 14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is
> exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the
> Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public
> opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to
> war?
> 
They powers behind this do not care!!!!  Bush is just a figure head
 and mouth piece.


> 15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of
> Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive
> evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city
> involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely
> controlled by Iran not Iraq?

Absolutely occurred, I have seen photos and helped evaluate outcome to 
prepare our actions as we prepared for Gulf War WMD. 
> 
> 16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers
> have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and
> that thousands may have died?

The official estimates are that over 300,000 out of  504,000 that deployed to 
Gulf are sick. I and my team are ill with 1/3 of my team dead as result of 
WMD-E exposures willfully used by Iraq, the United States, and England.  We 
had exposures caused by various actions.  Iraq used WMD's in SCUDS, land 
mines, artillery, sprayers, etc.  The U.S. incompletely destroyed IRAQI 
weapon sites and equipment with resulting downwind exposures on all military 
most significant noncombatants.  U.S. and England willfully used weapons of 
mass destruction, depleted uranium, and also willfully destroyed with intent 
to release infrastructure hazardous materials.  Consequently millions are 
sick or dead and medical care is willfully denied or delayed. When I and two 
others wrote the environmental clean up plan by request of U.S. State 
Department and our Army General for the Gulf war it was done for to hire 
Cheney's company: Brown and Root and CMS International. That plan was given 
to Kuwait but never to Iraq and only partially implemented thus contamination 
is until there and still spreading. 
On Monday this week I was finally awarded my 40% disability for health 
effects caused by military service during ODS.  My guys are still fighting 
for care as are millions who have been abandoned.  All actions of al parties 
plus U.S. sanctions and continued bombing has caused a disaster and pissed 
off millions. 


> 
> 17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war
> against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United
> States?

No one is ever prepared for casualties, but our past and continued inability 
to care for thousands of Gulf war casualties is simply unacceptable and we 
are unable to care for any new casualties and especially WMD-E type. Everyone 
still does not consider the number of noncombatants who will be killed, 
injured, or exposed to the toxic soup existing on a battlefield (Refer to 
attached Bauer's Team report).   

> 
> 18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war
> against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an
> already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation
> of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?

This had not been discussed and in reality is never discussed as a 
consequence of war. Hence to concept of  "defined exit policy".  There is 
none. 
> 
> 19. Iraq's alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to
> initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have
> been ignored by various countries without penalty?
> 
Were, are and will be. This has nothing to do with those violations. If 
violations had been used to justify war then we would have attacked hundreds 
of nations over many years. 

> 20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the
> reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack
> assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

Not sure- but the use of any resolution is selective anyway depending on 
combat or political goals.
> 
> 21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were
> set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the
> United Nations?
> 
Absolutely, set up and maintained with sustained attacks by U.S. and British 
forces. 

> 22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to
> its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our
> position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

Yes, but remember the nation with the most power sets the rules as needed.  
The idea that the U.S. can just say itself we have justification to attack is 
stupid.  If we applied that to criminal law we would  never convict any 
criminal. 
> 
> 23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable
> when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military
> tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically elected
> president?

This has nothing to do with the  "goal of bringing democracy to Iraq"!  
SIMPLY CONTROL OF OIL!!

> 
> 24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S..
> knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the
> Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 -- including after the alleged Iraqi gas
> attack on a Kurdish village?

ABSOLUTELY, WELL KNOWN SINCE GULF WAR.  SEE 
(http://www.gulfweb.org/bigdoc/report/riegle1.html) it is also documented in 
the Showtime movie "Thanks from Grateful Nation" we did several years ago. 
> 
> 25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and
> encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for
> his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

YES!

> 
> 26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of
> aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

Very good question and yes they mean the same thing. The change happened back 
in 1980 under President Carter.
> 
> 27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is
> not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
> 
OIL, OIL, OIL OIL, OIL!!!!!!!!!

> 28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that
> they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war
> than our generals?
> 
They are idiots who have never been to war. I have been in two wars already 
and was asked back for this one by AMEDD officials about 10 times in last two 
months  even though they know my combat injuries and consequent disability 
are rated at 40%. 
 
> 29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not
> initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

Not considered by planners!  Ethics and morality are excluded.  

> 30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any
> reason other than self-defense?

Permission is just by us saying so and is devoid of law

Please ask the expert- Francis Boyle, UIUC Law School..  

> 31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the
> time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries
> should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

I do not know. But intent is regime change so it does not matter what law or 
agreements exist.  If any other nation had publicly stated and threatened 
force change of the U.S government as many times and with such arrogance then 
the U.S. would have nuced-em to the stone age all ready.  
> 
> 32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely
> disagreements will be settled by war?
> 
Sorry charlie.   More likely- power power power. 

> 33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war
> and -- not coincidentally -- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

We have lost all wars since WWII. We actually lost ODS even though we forced 
Iraq out of Kuwait.  That is one more reason to finish the job!! 
> 
> 34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence
> services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?
> 
Irrelevant!!   Next government o fall is Pakistan. Already discussed in media 
and Bush issued advisory several days ago to them.  Oil pipeline requires 
them out.   

> 35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war
> resolution to the floor of Congress?"

Based on what? Iraq has never attacked us we have attacked them 


I hope this helps. It is my opinion based on years of  participation please 
read attached documents.  Sorry but there is no short cut to understand who, 
what, where, when, why, and how.