The Policy of Empire	pg. 2-4
The Rise of the European Union	pg. 5-11
The Rules of the Debate	pg. 12-15
Broken Promises	pg. 16-19
Questions on Zionism	pg. 20-21
A Timeline of Deception	pg. 22-27
The Use of Illegal Weapons in Iraq	pg. 28-32
Legal Issues of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine	pg. 33-34

 

          Much of the debate regarding U.S. policy in the Middle East revolves around the issue of oil, or more precisely U.S. domination of oil.  While it is certainly accurate to say this war was about oil, it is an oversimplification of a much deeper truth about U.S. foreign policy.  Those truths are at risk of being lost if we focus only on the narrow question of American control of foreign oil, and we will not see the larger U.S. strategic plan that must be confronted and, ultimately, defeated.
           There are actually three reasons for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and one of those reasons is indeed control of Iraq's oil.  However, the other two issues are much more important, and oil plays only a "means to an ends" role in the overall equation.  Those issues are: maintaining the "petro dollar" standard for OPEC, and the survival of the U.S. economy in terms of global competition.  There is already plenty of literature about U.S. oil interests and how these interests shape Middle East policy, so I will only briefly touch on this topic.  Instead, I will address the two primary motivating factors that brought about not only the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but which will in all likelihood mean a broad U.S. military campaign throughout the Middle East and, eventually, elsewhere.
           Percentages and dollar amounts used here are averages, arrived at by combining data available from differing sources and coming to "compromise figures" roughly representative of the sometimes conflicting compiled data.  It is the author's belief that these numbers, while not always exact, give an honest representation of the figures involved.  However, it is conceded that some of the data here is debatable, albeit not to a degree that would significantly alter the fundamental conclusions of the analysis.
           As for the issue of oil in and of itself, we need to remember that Saudi Arabia has 25% of the proven oil reserves in the world, and Iraq 11%.  In fact, Iraq may have an additional 400 billion barrels of unexplored reserves, beyond its 112 billion barrels of proven reserves.  By the year 2020, Saudi Arabia is expected to be pumping over 20 million barrels of oil per day, and Iraq over 10 million.  At today's prices of around $30 per barrel, that comes to roughly $900 million dollars per day, for just those two nations.  If we throw in Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain (all of which are either under the U.S. heel or in its shadow), then consider the addition of Iran (which, regardless of current Pentagon denials, is a target for U.S. military action in the near future), we are talking about a sizable chunk of change, probably close to $500 billion per year.
            Moreover, by the year 2020, the Persian Gulf will supply between 54 and 67 % of the world's oil.  Therefore, it is not hard to imagine the incentive provided by half-a-trillion dollar profits and a worldwide consumer base.  As already noted, this is most definitely a motive.  To put this in perspective, however, we should remember that the pharmaceutical industry takes in about $800 billion per year, and over 90% of medicinal ingredients come from Africa; yet, this is not driving U.S. foreign policy in the way oil does.  So, while oil profits alone do influence policy to a large extent, it is the underlying reason we must keep in mind.
            The reason oil is so important to the U.S. policy is not simply because the government is totally obedient to its "oil masters," as some call them.  Yes, our government consistently acts on behalf of big-business, but with a much more long-term strategy than most people seem to realize.  Short-term favors certainly occur on a daily basis, but the real "master" of our military-industrial complex is the survival and continued dominance of U.S. hegemony, and that is possible only if the U.S. can maintain dominance both militarily and economically.  The former seems to be "in the bag" for a long time to come, but the latter is in grave danger.

           Much attention is focused right now on the U.S. policy in the Middle East.  To be sure, the global situation seems to hang on U.S. actions in pursuit of hegemony.  However, let us take a break for a moment from analysis of U.S. imperialism, and contemplate a few other equally important factors in the worldwide power play we are witnessing.  For make no mistake, a power play is exactly what is transpiring in front of us, although the unilateralist actions of the Bush regime tend to overshadow the activities and motivations of other states in this struggle.
            With this in mind, we should consider Europe, the other key force at work in the shifting of global power that is occurring today.  To understand the European strategy, we need to be sure we are aware of the U.S. plan, so a quick review may be in order.  It should be stated upfront that, quite obviously, this essay represents the views of the author, based on analysis of many facts and  political realities in today's world.  While it is impossible to know for certain whether these conclusions are all 100-percent accurate, it is the author's belief that most of what follows will be proven correct as events unfold.
           Basically, the U.S. is attempting to take control of the global oil supply and destroy OPEC for two reasons:  primarily, to establish the U.S. as the global supplier of energy, forestalling the otherwise coming loss of U.S. domination of the world economic markets; secondly, to maintain the dollar as the reserve currency of the world and as the oil transaction currency.  The U.S. is motivated not merely by the monetary profits involved in the oil trade; rather, it is the rising power of the E.U. and their currency, the euro, threatening to replace the U.S. as the dominant economic force in the world market, which compels the U.S. to take over global oil supplies as a means of continuing U.S. hegemony around the globe.
           The U.S. status as "superpower" is, to a very real extent, based on a flimsy foundation.  Should OPEC switch to the euro for oil transactions, central banks around the world would dump their dollars and revert to euros as reserve currency, a process that is in fact already beginning.  Iraq made a full switch to euros, even replacing their "Oil For Food" $10 billion fund at the U.N. with euros.  Iran recently converted over half their currency reserves to euros, and Venezuela is increasing their holding of euros over dollars, as is Russia.  If the euro replaces the dollar as the world's reserve currency (held by all nations' central banks so they may purchase oil, which all countries need but that can only be purchased with one currency, currently the "petro dollar"), the replacement of dollars in central banks will also lead to a withdrawal of funds from Wall Street, as foreign investments pour out of the U.S.  The budget deficit would probably default, and the dollar would lose anywhere between 20 to 50-percent of its value.
           Additionally, the U.S. economy is a federally subsidized welfare-state for corporations.  The Pentagon system provides funding for our high-tech industries, propping up our economy, which cannot compete in a real "free market".  There is no real industrial base anymore, no really strong production sector.  The strength of the U.S. economy lies in the subsidized nature of most industry, and more so in the dollar's status as reserve currency.  If the "petro dollar" disappears, the U.S. economy could not hope to be competitive globally.  The European Union is simply too strong, and too large.  When China's emerging economic power is also taken into account, it becomes clear that the so-called "super power" is not so "super" after all.
           Hence, the European strategy.  French and German opposition to the invasion of Iraq, while most certainly a welcome development to those of us who opposed the war, is not based on any sort of moral ground at all.  Rather, it is the first sign of the E.U.'s plan coming to the forefront.  We will discuss the seeming anomaly of Britain momentarily.  For now, let us look at the most likely scenario in the minds of the European leadership.
           Two goals must be foremost in E.U. planners' minds:  first, the removal or limiting of U.S. forces in the Middle East (which we will get to a bit later); second, the ascension of the euro to reserve currency status.  Put simply, the E.U. wants to broker deals with OPEC nations for lucrative drilling rights and pipelines, and for the conversion to the euro for oil transactions.  This is not only desirable because of the profits; like the U.S., the E.U. also wants to seize control of the oil markets, albeit in a subtler and less violent manner, for the long-term viability of their economy.  They intend to secure drilling rights and shipping rights from oil producing nations in a partnership fashion, and the deal the E.U. is offering is one most of OPEC cannot refuse.  What does the E.U. offer, besides money, that is so motivating?

            For those of us who strongly opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, facts and truisms seem so obvious that we are often flabbergasted by the positions taken on behalf of the war and the Bush regime's policies.  In particular, I would like to address the manner in which the pro-war camp dominated both the subjects and rules of debate during the build-up to war.  To do this, I will look at one of the questions frequently asked prior to the war by those in favor of the U.S. invasion, and use this as an example to show how the proponents of war demand domination over all aspects of the discussion.  The methods of control described below apply to most of the questions encountered when debating this war, but they also extend to practically every issue of U.S. policy that comes up in discussion.
            One question I have seen repeatedly is:  If you oppose the war, what would you recommend be done to remove Saddam Hussein from power?  Before addressing the question itself, there is an assumption here that is of greater importance than the answer itself.  Who says the U.S., or any nation for that matter, has some inherent "right" to remove Hussein?  I certainly do not concede the point.
           To put this in perspective, suppose Saddam Hussein decided that President Bush, being unelected and threatening to violate the U.N. Charter, deserved to be removed from power.  What if some other nation said, "Well, Ariel Sharon is a war criminal, Israel is in violation of more U.N. resolutions than any other nation, as well as the U.N. Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  Sharon must go."
           Would supporters of this war grant the same right of regime change to other nations, if it were directed at the U.S.?  At Israel?  Of course not, because such "rights" are reserved to the powerful, and nobody expects a challenge to the U.S. when it asserts its "duty" to intervene in the affairs of other nations.
           So we see the hypocrisy of the question is amazing.  Equally amazing is the assumption that the argument can be framed in this way.  There is no question as to the right of war supporters to set up the framework for any dialogue on the subject.  Saddam must be removed, that is a given.  You must respond within that framework, or your opinion is not really worth much.  We can see this play out in the media, and even among most of the mainstream liberals in U.S. politics.  Very few question the underlying assumption –that regime change must take place.  It is only the matter of how to achieve this goal that can be contemplated, not the merits of the assumption itself.
           Furthermore, asking such a question ignores fundamental realities about the situation that have to be addressed to even ask it in the first place.  For instance, to assume Saddam should lose power is to (presumably) assume he has done something to deserve removal.  This leads us to speculate on what he did—gassed his own people, gassed Iranians, invaded other countries, built weapons he has sworn to give up.  Now, we cannot possibly think about these things without remembering how he did them, namely with U.S. support.  Therefore, to assume Hussein must be removed, we have to immediately recognize events in which the U.S. was an accomplice.  Only with U.S. weapons, technology, political support, and prodding did Iraq do the things that are now used to justify a U.S. led invasion.
           It is quite extraordinary to witness, really.  A legitimate comparison would be handing someone a gun, showing them how to use it, telling them they should shoot their neighbor, then demanding they be arrested and given a death sentence.  How is it any different?  Actually, there is one difference—initially, the U.S. covered up Saddam Hussein's crimes while he was still a client.  The Reagan/Bush regime prevented Congress from imposing sanctions on Iraq when gas was used against Iran.  Then, when Hussein had the Kurds gassed, the administration denied Iraqi guilt – the War College even issued a report blaming Iran for the gassings.  It was only on September 8, 1988 that Saddam was suddenly demonized for the gassings, which had previously been denied by even his accusers.

           As the U.S. invasion of Iraq shifts into post-war mode, the validity of the Bush regime's pre-war assertions can now be judged (if there was ever any real doubt in the first place).  Recent events, as well as statements by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others, expose the true intentions of our government.  Most galling is the blatant lack of shame these folks show while reversing every promise spoken before the invasion, and daring anyone to notice or mention it.  They needn't fear, since the mainstream media certainly seems to have no intention of calling them out.
            Let us first look at the grandiose claims of "liberation", which in the well-understood lingo of the U.S. government is defined as bombing a nation into submission.  Keeping with that definition, then, the Iraqi campaign is a major success for "liberty."  If, however, we choose to adopt a more benign, humane interpretation of the word, we might expect to see Iraqi citizens treated as human beings, perhaps even going so far as to imagine they will be granted the right to determine their own future.
            Alas, anyone with such high expectations is in for a big letdown.  For, despite all of President Bush's sweeping oration about Iraqis choosing their own government, about the oil of that nation being turned over to the citizens, about the U.S. having no intention of imposing its will on the Iraqi people, the truth can be found emanating from the other sides of Bush's and Rumsfeld's mouths.
            The Iraqis will be firmly in charge of their own country—once the American ruler leaves power.  Then, of course, they will be free to choose their own government—as long as it is not religious, and as long as the leadership choices are all pre-approved by the U.S.  As for the oil, that belongs to the Iraqi people—it is just being pumped and controlled by U.S. oil firms for the benefit of the Iraqis, and the oil companies will have to pay for the oil they pump.  Many estimates say it will cost them upwards of one dollar per barrel, maybe even more!  And hey, that's a buck going right into the pockets of the Iraqi people.  Let the good times roll…no, really, hurrah.
           None of the talk about freedom and liberation was ever meant to be taken seriously by anyone except the under-informed U.S. public.  Nobody outside the U.S. believes the propaganda, and none of the people espousing it buys it for a second.  It is purely a "domestic consumption" product, to give marginal justification for the invasion, and subsequent political cover for the occupation and exploitation of Iraq.
            Here, then, is the U.S. version of liberation:  to forcibly remove a nation's government, then install a former Lieutenant General and president of a weapons manufacturing firm as interim head of government, followed by the possible appointment of an exile convicted of embezzlement as the new head of state (this being Ahmed Chalabi).  Any input from the citizens comes with the understanding that they are not free to choose a government representing their religious beliefs.  The entire time, the invading military force will patrol the nation.  Only the greatest of cynics and hypocrites could call this "liberation."  Lucky for us, cynical hypocrites abound in the U.S. government.
           Of course, this does not even begin to consider the price paid by the Iraqis during the war.  The civilian casualties were enormous, and multiple cases of direct targeting of innocent people exist.  The Shallal and Shu'ale market bombings; the Hilla cluster bombings; the use of thousands of massive 2,000-to-4,500-pound bombs and missiles against Baghdad; the destruction of the electrical and water facilities in Basra; the disgusting instances of U.S. soldiers gunning down civilians at checkpoints all over Iraq; and so on.  So, liberation comes at a price:  war crimes, mass slaughter, and imperialist occupation.  There are numerous sources with detailed accounts of such incidents, such as the Guardian, the Independent, Common Dreams, FAIR, and LAStopWar (Louisiana's anti-war independent media website—my own articles detailing many of the war crimes in Iraq are at this site, but they make use of reports from several sources, including the ones mentioned above).

            What should we think about the idea of a "racially pure" nation, where the rights afforded its citizens are determined by their ethnicity, and where the possessions (including land and homes) of peoples of other races or even other nations are confiscated for the nationally favored race?  How should we react when such a nation claims it has a "right" to take land from other nations, by force if necessary, for its own use as living space for the preferred race?  And how should we feel when we see this nation force other races within its borders into slums, many into camps where they are subjected to brutal treatment and policing by heavily armed troops, sometimes printing numbers on the wrists of those forced into the camps?
            Should we believe them when they say repeatedly that they only want peace, while they launch massive military assaults against civilians?  When they invade other countries, saying they are acting to prevent an immanent attack against themselves?  Or when the popular resistance by force to their occupation of foreign lands leads them to punish not only the resisters, but the families of the resisters as well, and the "racially pure" state claims that the occupied people "only understand force?"
            Now, the most important question:  which nation am I thinking of when I ask these questions, Nazi Germany or Zionist Israel?  If I said Nazi Germany, the answers to all of the previous questions would be obvious, and almost any person you asked in practically any country in the world would respond with uniform disgust for Nazi atrocities, correct?  However, if we pose the identical questions, but insert Israel in the place of Nazi Germany, why is the response completely different?
           Why is white racial purity repulsive, yet Jewish racial purity is not?  Why is the idea of a state based on such purity of Aryan bloodlines so obviously racist and immoral, whereas the same notion when applied to purity of Jewish bloodlines is somehow revered?  How is it possible that opposition to white bigotry is correctly encouraged, but those who oppose Jewish bigotry are, incredibly, accused of racism themselves?  And how did unquestioning, blatantly hypocritical support for virulent nationalist racism become a "liberal", "democratic" value?  Why is resistance to racist oppression, defense against violent assault and genocide, all dubbed "terrorism", while the same types of attacks used during the establishment of the "pure" state and in the years since is "self defense" and "purity of arms", rather than "state-terrorism?"
            How long will the atrocities of the holocaust during World War II be used to justify the holocaust occurring against the Palestinians?  How long will the same terror and murder as committed by the Nazis be condoned because the perpetrators were once victims themselves?  How long will those of us who call for an end to racist oppression, who demand recognition of the basic human rights of the Palestinian people, and who denounce the vicious policies of Zionism as equal to the racism of Apartheid and Nazism, be labeled "anti-Semites," suddenly forced to defend ourselves against attacks that deem any opposition to Zionism as unacceptable?
            When will people look at the actions and policies of Israel, and recognize they are indiscernible from those of Nazi Germany?  When will people read history, and learn that American Zionists during World War II sought to collaborate with the Nazis, even as Germany was brutalizing and murdering Jews?  When will people look to the history of Israel, replete with examples of terrorism (including attacks against U.S. citizens using bombs in public places) and mass murder, and realize Zionists used the same tactics that are now used to resist Israeli occupation of other lands?
           When will people decide that Israeli aggression, and U.S. support for that aggression (coupled with aggression by the U.S. in the region), has caused enough hatred and violence for everyone; that U.S. citizens, Palestinian citizens, Israeli citizens, European citizens, and so many others across the world have paid the price in blood and anguish for too long, for the self-interested, bigoted fascists running Israel and the U.S.?

           This analysis will attempt to put together an accurate timeline concerning the controversy over the now-invalidated claim that Iraq sought to purchase nuclear materials from Niger.  In addition to providing information about the events, the author will pose questions about the actions and motives of the Bush regime.  Finally, certain conclusions will be drawn based on the available data and reasonable interpretations of the statements of representatives and officials within the Bush regime.
           It must be noted that, at present, it is unclear whether all pertinent facts and documentation have been made public.  Every week brings new revelations, so this analysis might very well be obsolete by the time it is completed (mid-July).  However, enough information is now public that the truth seems readily apparent, and the release of further documentation will almost certainly act as further confirmation of the conclusions drawn here, rather than clearing the Bush regime of any wrongdoing.
           Finally, to readers who take offense at the conclusions contained in this analysis, it should be remembered that, while statements of opinion do indeed exist within this text, these statements are clearly defined as such.  The vast majority of the analysis is made up of information that is factually proven, and most of which is the product of documents and statements from the Bush regime itself.  In fact, very little statement of opinion is necessary.  It is likely that even without the questions and conclusions by the author, the facts themselves will prove so compelling that readers will reach the same obvious conclusions.
           The exact origins of the Niger document are still somewhat sketchy.  It appears that sometime in late 2001 or early 2002, Italian government or intelligence officials provided documentation to both the U.S. and Britain (or to a third party, possibly a journalist, who then passed them on) alleging Iraq and Niger signed an agreement in the summer of 2000 to ship 500 tons of yellow cake (uranium) to Iraq.  Following this "revelation", the CIA held a briefing of Vice President Dick Cheney regarding intelligence on Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium.  At this meeting, an aide to the Vice President raised concerns about the accuracy of the allegation..
           Because of these questions, the CIA decided to seek confirmation of the intelligence.  In February of 2002, the CIA dispatched Joseph Wilson, former U.S. ambassador to the West African nation Gabon during the first Bush regime, to Niger to investigate the claims.  Wilson spoke with the president of Niger and other officials supposedly involved in the Iraqi deal.  After his investigation, Wilson reported back to the CIA that the allegations were baseless.  He found not a shred of evidence to support the claims.
           After Wilson filed his report, the CIA shared intelligence reports on his trip with other agencies; however, these reports stated only that an envoy was sent to Niger, and the Niger government denied the reports of a deal with Iraq.  No mention was made of the identity of Mr. Wilson (and his identity initially remained secret even after the story of his investigation first appeared in the press), nor of the details of his report.  Furthermore, in the classified version of a National Intelligence Estimate prepared by U.S. intelligence agencies, the allegation about Iraqi activities in Niger (and also citing Somalia and the Congo) appear, although this document included a footnote stating the State Department doubted the evidence.
           There are currently questions as to whether or not Vice President Cheney's office was notified of Mr. Wilson's full report, as the investigation itself appears to have been prompted by questions from within Cheney's office.  To date, the Vice President, like the rest of the Bush regime, has denied any knowledge of Wilson's report.  There has been much skepticism about such claims, considering the importance of the information and the rigidity of the administration concerning control over information and intelligence.  This will be discussed more thoroughly below, with appropriate statements from the Bush regime and relevant facts that seem to suggest the denials are disingenuous at best, or flat out lies at worst.
           There are also questions as to whether the CIA was in possession of the Niger document.  The evidence seems to suggest that the State Department had a copy, but when they obtained it has been a matter of debate, and they have refused to disclose whether they possessed it prior to Bush's State of the Union speech.  The CIA has insisted that they did not obtain the document until after the speech.
           In the event, the available data now jumps ahead to September of 2002, with the publishing of the British White Paper.  This intelligence document asserted that Iraq "sought significant quantities or uranium from Africa".  Upon the public disclosure of the document, Joseph Wilson contacted the CIA to determine whether the British document was referencing the accusations he investigated in February.  The CIA informed Wilson they were investigating new information about the claims.
During a Senate Intelligence Committee meeting that same September, CIA Director George Tenet discussed estimates of Iraqi weapons programs and informed the committee about the Niger document.  However, Tenet did not mention the investigation by Mr. Wilson, saying only that some questions had been raised about the document.  Again, this brings into question just which agencies had copies of the document and when they obtained them.

 (Following is a discussion of the U.S. deployment of illegal weapons in the recent invastion of Iraq.  These are excerpts from other writings by this author.  The first section on DU weapons is from a chapter in "War Without Consent"; the section on cluster munitions is from a collection of articles written during the war, entitled "News Articles from the Last 10 Days"; the final section on napalm appeared in the first set of articles from the war, called "News Articles from the First 10 Days."  Both collections of  news articles can be found together in the compilation "Welcome to the Liberation".  These selections are edited versions of the original text, shortened to convey the essential information in a limited space.  While much more brief here than in their previous form, they still make the point that the U.S. engaged in war crimes in Iraq, using terrible weapons with horrific effects.)

           The most recent U.S. invasion of Iraq, just as the first Gulf War, involved the use of illegal weapons and the commission of multiple war crimes by the U.S. military forces on the ground in Iraq and the U.S. policy makers within the Pentagon and civilian government back home.  It is an unfortunate fact that such occurrences are nothing new, nor are they merely characteristic of the current Bush regime alone.  Throughout its history of military deployments, the U.S. has made illegal weaponry and war crimes fundamental parts of its modus operandi.  It would be a mistake to interpret the most recent war plan as anything other than what it is:  a continuation of aggressive imperialist warfare that embraces any and all methods of destruction and terrorization of civilian populations within the war zone; further, such military policies do not even concern themselves with the safety and health of U.S. soldiers, when such protection would limit the deployment of preferred weapons and means of terror.
            It is interesting to note that, despite the technological advances that have taken place with regard to more efficient and lethal methods of warfare, the most widely used illegal weapons during the most recent U.S. aggression have existed for over a decade, some for roughly half a century.  Below is a brief summary of just three examples of illegal weaponry employed in the invasion of Iraq.  Two of them are among the most widely used (depleted uranium and cluster munitions), and one of them (napalm) is included here not only because it is one of the most widely known illegal munitions, but because it is often the most widely denied to exist within the U.S. arsenal.

DEPLETED URANIUM WEAPONS

            In the production of nuclear weapons and at nuclear power plants, radioactive waste is produced.  While this waste has had much of its radioactive property removed, it still remains toxic.  What many people are unaware of, however, is that this waste is not merely destroyed or stored safely away.  The fact is that much of this waste is given free to the Pentagon for the production of weapons.  For over a decade, the U.S. military has been producing what is known as depleted uranium (DU) ordnance, using uranium 238 for warheads on missiles, rockets, anti-tank weapons, armor piercing ammunition, and possibly more.
           Uranium 238 is considered the best material to produce these weapons for several reasons:  it is highly dense and thus excellent for penetrating armor and bunkers; it is provided free of charge; it has residual effects, like producing radioactive particle harmful and potentially fatal when inhaled, swallowed, or as residue on skin and clothes; these particles can poison the soil, water, food supplies; and other dangerous conditions which may be "desirable" when occurring in an enemy territory.
           When these weapons are fired, the uranium bursts into flames, liquefies, and sears through even the steel on heavily armored tanks.  Any diesel fuel vapors inside the vehicle explode due to the intense heat from the burning uranium.  The fire creates uranium oxide, spreading and contaminating the corpses, equipment, and soil.  The dust particles and larger pieces are scattered all over the battlefield, creating radioactive, carcinogenic clouds of smoke.  Uranium 238 settles in the lungs, kidneys, testicles, and bones of persons exposed to its effects.  It also settles in the placentas of pregnant women.  Radioactive debris from DU weapons remains radioactive for over 4.5 billion years.  In Minnesota and New Mexico, where DU weapon testing occurs, the testing grounds are now permanently radioactive.

CLUSTER BOMBS

           Cluster bombs are filled with smaller explosive sub-munitions, which are released from the primary container over a target area, where they spread out and explode.  Cluster munitions can be used in bombs, missiles, or artillery shells.  Some cluster weapons, like certain Sensor-Fused Weapons, may contain as few as 10 sub-munitions (each of which, in turn, contains four smaller warheads that are released), while other Sensor-Fused Weapons may have over 200 sub-munitions.  The M26 warhead contains 644 sub-munitions, called M77 (also known as "dual-purpose grenades").  M483A1 and M864 artillery shells contain 88 and 72 sub-munitions (dual-purpose grenades), respectively.  The areas cluster bombs cover can be quite large, with the M26 scattering bomblets over an area of between 120,000 to 240,000 square meters.
           Cluster munitions have a high failure rate, so many of the sub-munitions do not detonate.  Instead, they land on the ground, where they stay scattered until someone (usually a child) steps on them or attempts to pick them up.  The sub-munitions in the M26 warhead have a failure rate of 16-percent, according to the Department of Defense report to Congress in February 2000.  The M483A1 and M864 sub-munitions have a failure rate of 14-percent.  According to Colin King, a British bomb disposal officer who served in the Gulf War, and author of Jane's Explosive Ordnance Disposal guide, cluster munitions have an overall failure rate of between 10 and 15-percent.
           Video footage (viewed by Human Rights Watch) from Iraq shows the Army 3rd Infantry Division using Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS), artillery systems that use only cluster munitions (M26 warheads).  In other footage, the 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion is supported by Marine artillery units, firing 155mm projectiles identified as M483A1 or M864 artillery shells.  On March 28, a helicopter attack by Army 101st Airborne Division was supported by 18 Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) fired against Iraqi air defense units.  ATACMS carry 300 or 950 M74 sub-munitions.
           From March 29 through April 1, U.S. cluster munitions were used against civilians in Hilla.  Hilla, once called Babylon, is surrounded by small villages.  The whole area was attacked for lasted several days.  Hilla's hospital received hundreds of casualties.  Roland Huguenin-Benjamin, spokesperson for the International Committee of the Red Cross, confirms at least 460 wounded and several dozen dead, all of them "farmers, women and children."  Journalists counted at least 60 or more dead.
           Robert Fisk of the Independent says there were 61 dead, and he notes that these are "only those who were brought to the hospital" either already dead or injured.  Fisk also reports that on April 1, the U.S. attacks struck the village of Hindiyeh, where the man who went to gather the dead told the hospital "the only living thing he found in the area was a hen."  11 Iraqis, three of who were children, died.

NAPALM

            CBS's John Roberts, the "embedded" reporter traveling with the 3rd Calvary Division, reported by videophone on Friday, March 21, that during the fighting near Basra, artillery fire was heavy, and the U.S. military used napalm to stifle some Iraqi resistance.  This was confirmed by a U.S. Colonel at the scene.  Remember that we were told retreating Iraqis set the oil wells alight.  Similar events in the first Gulf War might prove informative.
            During the first Gulf War, the U.S. accused Iraq of igniting hundreds of oil fires.  However, a review of media reports, Pentagon statements, and eyewitness accounts inform us that another cause for the fires was likely.  The U.S. air assault on Iraq began on January 17,1991.  By January 22, according to a Nuclear Defense Agency report, Iran was experiencing oily black rain on a regular basis, or exactly one month before President Bush accused Iraq of setting oil wells afire.  This black rain in Iran started five days after the first U.S. bombings in Basra.
           By the end of the first day of U.S. bombing, smoke from burning oil wells could be seen all over Iraq, as the U.S. targeted refineries and oil storage facilities for attack.  The assistant director of the Basra refinery told the Harvard International Study Team, during interviews in August-September of 1991, that U.S. bombs had ignited the oil fields.
           Rear Admiral Mike Cornell is quoted in the February 13, 1991, San Jose Mercury News as saying, "…there's the possibility that some of our strikes may have had some collateral damage to start a fire."  The Department of Energy issued a memorandum, leaked by the Livermore National Laboratory, ordering DOE facilities and contractors to "…discontinue any further discussion of war-related research and issues…the impacts of fires/oil spills in the Middle East…", an official mentioning of oil fires (and official orders not to talk about them) which occurred on January 25, eight days after the air war began.

CONCLUSION

           As we have seen, the U.S. made use of all three of these illegal weapons, thus committing multiple war crimes during the invasion of Iraq.  Other war crimes, such as the targeting of civilian population centers, the use of checkpoints, destruction of infrastructure, and indeed the entire invasion itself, also occurred and continue under the U.S. occupation of Iraq.  A complete analysis of U.S. war crimes would no doubt be a long and enormous undertaking; yet as each example occurs, it is imperative that those of us opposing U.S. aggression, and aggression by any nation anywhere in the world, stand up and loudly proclaim the injustice practiced beneath "our" flag, in "our" names.
           An end to these illegal, immoral practices will come only when we as citizens not just of the United States but of the world take power from the hands of these tyrants and hold them accountable before the court of history for their crimes against all humanity.

(Following is a piece written to lay forth some of the legal issues involved in the Israeli occupation.  This is a rather brief example of the illegalities rampant in the system employed by Israel to repress the Palestinian people, and this list is meant only as an introduction to the issues at hand.  This list is in no way meant to be comprehensive, as such a list would certainly be obsolete the moment it is completed—such is the frequency of illegal activity on the part of Israel.  Rather, it is hoped that the following list will serve as a starting point for those interested in further exploring the issue, and perhaps as a quick reference guide to some of the more basic questions involving Israeli violations of law.)
 
 

1.   General Assembly Resolution 194, of December 11, 1948, grants Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes, or compensation should they decide not to return.

2.  Security Council Resolution 242, of November 22, 1967, demands an end to Israeli occupation of territories taken during the Six Days War, and the recognition of territorial integrity and the political independence of all states in the region.

3.  General Assembly Resolution 3236, of November 22, 1974, grants Palestinians the right to self-determination, "without external interference", and the right to "national independence and sovereignty."

4.  Security Council Resolution 446, of March 22, 1979, defines Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as having "no legal validity" and being "a serious obstruction" to justice and peace.

5.  Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, in violation of a cease-fire agreement adhered to by forces opposing Israel (a fact initially denied by Israel, but later admitted), also violated the U.N. Charter.  Israeli actions during the conflict and subsequent occupation consistently violated international laws and human rights.

6.  Security Council Resolution 1402, of March 30, 2002, demands the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Palestinian cities.

7.  U.N. Human Rights Commission, on April 15, 2002, formally accused Israel of "gross violations" of humanitarian laws, recognizes the legal right of Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation, and condemns Israel for the mass killing of Palestinians.

8.  Security Council Resolution 1405, of April 19, 2002, demands an end to Israeli restrictions on humanitarian organizations in the Occupied Territories.

9.  General Assembly 10th Emergency Session Resolution ES-10/10, of May 7, 2002, condemns both Israeli attacks against Palestinians and Israel's failure to cooperate with U.N. fact-finders in the Jenin refugee camp; it also demands Israel discontinue interfering with human rights agencies in the Occupied Territories.

10.  Other U.N. resolutions also condemn the Israeli occupation as illegal, such as Resolutions 338, 1397, and many more, including the unanimous 1982 Security Council Resolution demanding Israel withdraw from Lebanon and noting Israel's violation of previous Resolutions and of the cease-fire agreement.

11.  At a 2002 U.N. Security Council meeting, Secretary General Kofi Annan told Israel, "You must end the illegal occupation."
 
 

1.  The 1949 Geneva Convention on Human Rights governs wartime activities as they relate to civilians, and the responsibilities of occupying powers:
 A.  Articles 146-147 prohibits the targeting and willful killing of civilians;
 B.  Article 47 prohibits the unilateral annexation of lands;
 C.  Article 49 prohibits the building of settlements on occupied lands;
 D.  Article 53, 146, and 147 prohibit the destruction of property without compelling military
       reasons;
 E.  Articles 31, 32, 146, and 147 prohibit torture;
 F.  Article 33 prohibits collective punishment;
 G.  Article 147 prohibits, defines, and demands legal accountability for war crimes;
 H.  In addition, Israel's failure to protect civilians in Lebanese refugee camps (many were
      massacred by Israeli-backed forces) during the occupation of southern Lebanon violated inter-
       national laws.

2.  Israel consistently violates every single one of the Articles listed above, many of them on a literally daily basis (collective punishment, destruction of property, targeting/killing civilians, building settlements).

1.  According to the U.S. Arms Export Control Act, the President must notify Congress immediately if any nation receiving U.S. military aid violates human rights, and any such aid must be ended to that nation.

2.  The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty forbids aid to and calls for sanctions against any nations obtaining nuclear weapons, and all signatory countries must abide by such aid restrictions and sanctioning.

3.  The State Department acknowledged, in a 2001 human rights report, that Israeli forces consistently use "excessive force", "impede…medical assistance to Palestinian civilians", "harassed and abused Palestinian pedestrians and drivers", used "live fire" against Palestinian protestors, etc.—all of which are serious violations of human rights, in addition to Israel's blatant violations of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

4.  The U.S. and the rest of the world are aware of Israel's illegal, undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal, estimated by the U.S. to be as large as 200 or more missiles, bombs, and artillery.

5.  Since Israel is clearly in violation of both the Arms Export Control Act and the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, all U.S. aid to Israel is illegal.

1.  Israel's system of laws concerning land ownership, including the Law of Acquisition of Absentee Property, the Law for Acquisition of Land, and regulations governing the Jewish National Fund combine to deny Palestinians ownership or control of land not only within Israel, but within the occupied territories as well; these are racist laws, specifically favoring Jews over other races.

2.  As little as 2% or less of Israeli land is controlled in any way by Palestinians, although they represent a segment of the Israeli population larger than 2%.

3.  Other Israeli laws are equally racially discriminatory:
 A.  Israeli exports to Western Europe are protected against competition by laws banning export
       to Western Europe of Palestinian goods;
 B.  The Law of Return, adopted by Israel in 1950, grants all Jews anywhere in the world the right
       to move and settle in Israel; this law was passed in contradiction of U.N. Resolution 194, of
       December 11, 1948, which granted all Palestinians the right to return to their homes in Israel;
 C.  Israeli law allows only Jews to live in the settlements constructed in the Occupied Territories.
 D.  Israel builds highways to the Jewish-only settlements; these bypass roads are for Jews only,
       and allow settlers to move from Israeli cities to the settlements without passing through the
       Palestinian communities; these bypass roads also divide the Palestinian areas, often preventing
       Palestinian farmers from reaching their fields;
 E.  Palestinians must use government-issued identification cards and car license plates that are
       color-coded, and these allow Israel to restrict the travel of non-Jews;
 F.  Many other Israeli policies, including at checkpoints and within the Israeli criminal justice
      system, openly discriminate against non-Jews (and specifically target Palestinians).

1.  Israel practices what it calls "extra judicial killings", a term for assassination.  Family members of those assassinated are often murdered along with the intended target, as are other innocent bystanders.

2.  Israeli forces have killed U.N. workers, relief agency employees, humanitarian volunteers, and medical personnel.  Ambulances are often refused access to injured Palestinians or foreigners, and even fired upon.

3.  Israeli forces regularly bulldoze and destroy Palestinian crops and trees (entire olive and orange groves).