November/December 2002
Feature Articles
Holistic Health Q & A
by Dr. Carol Anne Bates
The role of the liver in Oriental Medicine.
The connection between the liver and depression. How acupuncture can help.
What is... the Organic Movement?
by Robert Roman
Final part of a three-part article
detailing the author's personal experiences and the growth of the organic
movement.
UnCommon Sense!
by David Findlay
Iraq?
Articles on the theme "Miracles"
A State of Consciousness
by Rev. Susan R. Griffin
The real "reality" in which
miracles are part of everyday experience.
A Personal Course in Miracles
by Lisa Raphael
Miracles and the Big Picture. Co-creating
with the Creation.
Are Miracles Miraculous?
by Charles Larsen
A psychotherapist's attempt to define
the word "miracle."
An Everyday Experience
by Rev. LeRoy Zemke
The realm of miracles and how to get
there.
A Miracle?
by Dave Hunt
The "miraculous" effect of
changes in perception.
What Happened?
by Dr. Audrey Craft Davis
A first-hand account of two miraculous
events.
The Miracle of Life
by AnneMarie Dyer
Letting go of a personal perspective
and opening one's eyes to the miraculous possibilities of life.
Sharing the Miracle
by Rev. Pat Cross
Some personal miracles and some reflections
on the nature of miracles.
UnCommon Sense!
by David Findlay
Why, of course, the people don't want war. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. - H.G.
We have a bet going (Dee and I). My bet is that America will go to war with Iraq in the near future; Dee is betting that the forces of reason will prevail. We'll see who is right. I hope Dee is. My negative bet is based on my believe that the United States government has decided to go to war with Iraq the reason is secondary. If one reason does not work, another will. This, by the way, has nothing to do with political parties. There are those who are trying to turn this into a partisan issue (watch, for example, Hannity and Colmes on Fox cable TV); but there is a consistency in American foreign policy that transcends parties.
Oh, by the way, the quote at the beginning of this column is by Herman Goering (Hitler's second in command).
Let's look for a moment at the reasons that are being given to attack Iraq (if "necessary").
There are two stated reasons neither of which make good sense.
The first is that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) - at least chemical and biological and has shown the will to use them. Also, they also are close to developing nuclear devices if they don't already have them.
This is a serious matter, I agree. But Iraq is not the only country that possesses WMDs. In addition to the nuclear "club" America, Britain, France, Russia and China which form the United Nations Security Council there is India, Pakistan, and Israel. These are the known countries. All this is obvious. Less obvious is the likelihood that, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, a number of "missing" nuclear devices are in the hands of other countries or terrorist groups, and we should not discount the possibility or danger of low-grade, "dirty" nukes. There are also many countries and groups that possess chemical and biological agents remember the Japanese subway attack using saran gas?
What is so special about Iraq?
It is claimed that Saddam Hussein is more likely to use them in fact that he has used them in the past. The latter is true. But it is also true that during the war between Iraq and Iran both sides used chemical weapons. Is he likely to use WMDs now? Why, when it would be an act of political suicide? If there is anything that is important to Saddam Hussein, it is to stay in power. Isn't it more likely that he would use them if his position were seriously threatened?
It is also claimed that Iraq is likely to pass on WMDs to terrorist groups. This is also true. It is no doubt possible to prove a connection between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's Al Qa'ida. (Reference: Bin Laden, The Man Who Declared War on America by Yossef Bodansky a book I have mentioned in earlier articles and which was written in 1999.) But the same could be said of many other countries in particular Iran, a known sponsor of terrorism. (Russia is helping them build a nuclear reactor. Why? For energy when they have so much oil?) And Pakistan was also a known base for training terrorist (read Bodanksy) and is now the possessor of nuclear weapons. And, as for supplying WMDs to other countries, what about China which helped Pakistan? And who helped China, and India, and Israel? So to single out Iraq does not make sense.
The clincher to the argument that Iraq's WMDs are not the true reason is the recent disclosure that North Korea has had an active nuclear weapons program for years! Now, if any country is a threat to stability in the Middle East and Asia it is North Korea. They have also had a well-known and well-documented missile development program so they have the capability to deliver WMDs, which is almost as important as the WMDs themselves. And as for past history, remember the Korean War? Yet there is no talk of going to war with North Korea.
The second stated reason is that Iraq is a threat to American interests. This makes more sense since "American interests" could mean almost anything.
What we need is a clear statement put out by the U.S. government spelling out what it considers our "interests" to be, and which "interests" are of sufficient importance that we should be prepared to go to war for them. The American public would then be in a better position to decide whether or not it agrees.
I read in one report that on September 17, 2002 the Bush administration published its National Security Strategy of the United States of America. I have not seen this document but the report claims that "the document asserts as the guiding policy of the United States the right to use military force anywhere in the world, at any time it chooses, against any country it believes to be, or it believes may at some point become a threat to American interests." I'll try to get hold of a copy of the document. But what strikes me as especially significant is that the publication of this document received virtually no media coverage.
What possible national interests are at stake concerning Iraq? Since the "interests" have not been clearly defined, I can only guess. I can think of two: Israel and oil. Both are genuine interests, but are they interests we should be prepared to go to war for? In particular should we make a pre-emptive strike against Iraq because Iraq "threatens" these interests. We already support Israel with some 4 billion dollars a year - 2 billion of which is tied into military contracts with U.S. corporation (I got this bit of information from BBC World News). It is one thing to hit back at Iraq if Iraq strikes Israel but it is quite another matter to make a pre-emptive strike against Iraq because they might strike Israel. As for oil, Iraq has supposedly 11% of the world's known reserves. So, yes, Iraqi oil is important but just how important and how likely is it that Iraq will cut off our supply? Even under the current U.N. sanctions we have still been receiving 70% of the oil that we used to receive from them. And should Iraq cut off oil, what then? Is the only alternative to go to war? I well remember in the early 50s, when Egypt closed the Suez Canal and England went to war with Egypt, Anthony Eden, the prime-minister, claimed that Britain could not survive without the oil that passed through the canal everything would "grind to a halt." Well, what happened? America put pressure on the Brits to stop the war and the canal was closed. Did everything "grind to a halt"? No. The crisis led to the development of the large oil tankers we currently use and which are too large to pass through the canal anyway. So it appears that in crises we tend to find solutions. Would the American economy "grind to a halt" without Iraqi oil? I doubt it. It would simply lead to less dependence on foreign oil and the development of alternative energy sources.
Now comes an interesting question: If the stated reasons for going to war with Iraq are not the real reasons, why would the U.S. government want to go to war with Iraq?
Here we enter the realm of speculation.
There are those who believe in so-called "conspiracy theories." Others believe in some kind of supernatural Evil Force at work.
My theory, for what it's worth, is that just about everything can be explained by two almost universal human characteristics: greed and the desire to do the right thing. By "greed" I mean a sufficiently strong desire to get something that the means by which that something is gained become secondary. For example, if someone has something that you badly want, the desire to possess or own that something might be so great that you would take it by force. Greed, however, is tempered by the desire to do the right thing. So, before taking something by force, one has to justify the action to make it "right."
Let's for a moment play with the possibility that the whole Iraq "thing" is mainly about oil.
For centuries the area we now call Iraq was controlled by Turkey as part of the great Ottoman Empire. Oil first became really important strategically early on in the last century when steamships became the key military weapon (Winston Churchill during the first World War realized the importance this). The First World War ended with a large part of the Middle East being taken over by the Allies who installed a number of "friendly" puppet governments. Individually they were not sufficiently powerful to rule the area which would ensure the West's control and a reliable source of cheap oil. One of these countries was Iraq. Others were Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Iran, which was Persia, has also been a major player in the region for centuries. The key to American foreign policy for the whole of the last century has been one of "divide and conquer." If one of the powers in the Middle East became too strong, we supported one of the others. For example, when Iran became too strong, we supported Iraq. When Iraq became too strong and invaded Kuwait, we supported Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Whether this policy was a good one or not is open to debate. We may, however, be reaching a point where the policy is out-of-date.
So, back to Iraq, let's suppose that American government policy to secure Iraqi oil is based on greed the strong desire to have something that basically does not belong to us let's also suppose that the American government wants to do the right thing, or at least convince the American people that they are doing the right thing, so they have to come up with a "reason" in this case the danger of Iraq using its WMDs.
Why should the United States government be so "greedy" for Iraqi (and Middle Eastern) oil? Again pure speculation, but perhaps it perceives oil as key to its power and therefore an American interest. Or, another possibility, the greed may not be so much for the oil but for the money that oil represents. Which opens a whole new can of possibilities!
P.S. You can e-mail me at david@altnewtimes.com. I may or may not be able to comment on your e-mails in my column but they are appreciated and I will reply. Thanks.
The following information is available from the Dept. of Energy and can easily be documented.
Subject: Best Gasoline Companies to Buy From
Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of the Middle East. Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the Middle East.
Major companies that import Middle Eastern oil (9/1/00-8/31/01)
Shell - 205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco -144,332,000 barrels
Exxon/Mobil -130,082,000 barrels
Marathon -117,740,000 barrels
Amoco - 62,231,000 barrels
If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION.
Large companies that do NOT import Middle Eastern oil
Citgo - 0 barrels
Sunoco - 0 barrels
Conoco - 0 barrels
Sinclair - 0 barrels
BP/Phillips - 0 barrels
Hess - 0 barrels
Copyright (c) 2002 Altnewtimes,
Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this web site my be reproduced without written permission of Altnewtimes, Inc.
E-mail info@altnewtimes.com