| -Caveat Lector-
http://www.jbs.org/reviewonline/020915_transcript.htm No More UN Wars! Hello and welcome to Review of the News Online. I’m William Norman Grigg, senior editor of The New American magazine – an affiliated publication of The John Birch Society. There is only a handful of instances in which it is right to wage war. Free people understand, however, that where war is justified, it is mandatory. Those of us who cherish freedom understand that we have no choice but to fight if our homes, families, freedoms, and homeland are threatened by an aggressor. But we must also understand that if we are not fighting to protect any of these precious things, we are fighting the wrong war. This is the case with the impending war on Iraq. Are there circumstances under which it would be justified to go to war on Iraq? There could be. We have the right to defend our country from aggression, and to demand satisfaction from foreign powers that commit acts of war on our nation. If, for instance, Saddam’s regime played a central role in the Black Tuesday atrocity, or helped facilitate the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, we would be justified in declaring war on that regime. But before committing our nation to such a war, Congress should be compelled to examine the role played by both Republican and Democrat administrations in creating Saddam’s war machine, and preserving his regime. (For information about this scandal, please click on the link at the end of the transcript of this commentary.) But the Bush administration’s case for war against Iraq omits entirely the question of U.S. national interests, focusing instead on the supposed necessity of enforcing the will of the United Nations. In his September 12th speech to the UN General Assembly, President Bush declared: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" The President reprised that theme – in virtually identical language -- in his September 14th national radio address. And he recited the same mantra in remarks for reporters at a Camp David press conference on the same day: "The U.N. will either be able to function as a peacekeeping body as we head into the 21st century, or it will be irrelevant. And that's what we're about to find out…. This is the chance for the United Nations to show some backbone and resolve as we confront the true challenges of the 21st century." The President’s repeated public insistence that the U.S. should go to war against Iraq in order to validate the UN earned plaudits from former Secretary of State James A. Baker III. In a September 15th Washington Post column, Baker actually praised the President for omitting any mention of our own nation’s interests from his address to the UN. "[The President] did not try to link Iraq with the terrorist attacks of September 11th," noted Baker, "nor … did he argue in terms of other specific U.S. interests." Once again, Baker was not criticizing this approach, but rather praising the president for taking "the moral high ground on the issue of Iraq." According to Baker, "The administration’s challenge now is to persuade the United Nations to act on its principles." This would involve framing a UN Security Council Resolution requiring invasive arms inspections in Iraq, and authorizing the use of "all necessary means" to bring about those inspections. The inspectors would have "a warrant to go anywhere, anytime, without exceptions, … and should be backed up with a United Nations security force on Iraqi soil, preferably under U.S. command…." No sane American relishes the thought of an Iraqi regime armed with nuclear or bio-warfare weapons. But here’s the question patriotic Americans must confront: Are we willing to send our nation’s sons to kill and die on behalf of UN disarmament decrees? The Bush administration and the UN are rapidly reaching a "consensus" in favor of a proposal very much like that described in Baker’s op-ed column, and a draft of the envisioned Resolution is expected by September 23rd. The blueprint for that resolution was devised by the misnamed Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, which for decades has been a redoubt of globally minded elitists eager to use international conflict to advance the cause of world government. On September 12th, shortly before President Bush delivered his address to the UN, the Carnegie Endowment held a panel discussion at its Washington, D.C. headquarters to introduce its new report "Iraq: A New Approach," which offers a framework for "comply-or-else" arms inspections. Endowment President Jessica Matthews – proudly introduced as a former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (or CFR) and founding vice president at the World Resources Institute, tidily summarized the proposal. "We propose the creation of a powerful multi-national military force, created by the United Nations Security Council, that would enable … the UN inspection regime to execute its current mandate. These would be … `comply-or-else’ inspections…. The `or-else,’ of course, … is overthrow of the regime, optimally … under UN auspices, or in the worst case politically, by the U.S." Retired Air Force General Charles Boyd, former senior vice president and Washington program director for the Council on Foreign Relations, followed Matthews in the Carnegie panel discussion. General Boyd, who collaborated in the new Carnegie report, was also a high-profile member of the CFR-created Hart-Rudman Commission, which established the framework for the proposed Department of Homeland Security. According to General Boyd, "disarmament [is] … the only political objective here, and it should be sufficient to meet our national objectives as well as, I believe, the United Nations’ objectives." While the Bush administration presently insists that the U.S. is ready to act unilaterally against Iraq, General Boyd predicts: "With respect to command and control, I believe that … this must be a UN force, although I should imagine it would be led by the [nation] providing the largest force, and I would assume that to be the United States." It may also include military contributions from the other permanent nations of the UN Security Council, as well as from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan. How long are we to be mired in Iraq? According to General Boyd, the arms inspectors "would be there as long as the United Nations wanted them to be there … even after disarmament has occurred with the provision implicit in that that a [military] force would be reconstituted if [Saddam] begins a weapons program again." It must be emphasized that the Carnegie Endowment’s proposal is the working draft of future UN and Bush administration policy. Endowment President Matthews proudly pointed out: "We have met with senior White House officials…. The proposal made its way around the administration with extraordinary speed…. We have this week undertaken some briefings in Moscow and events at the Carnegie Moscow center there. We have plans underway for events like this in … 10 days in London and in Paris. We are meeting today with some key Arab diplomats here in Washington and tomorrow [September 13th] at the United Nations, including with the secretary general. So we are beginning a major global set of consultations on this." Congress has not committed our nation to a war against Iraq, and the public remains largely unconvinced that an aggressive war of "pre-emption" is justified. Yet the Carnegie cabal, working in tandem with other key elements of the globalist Power Elite, has already pre-set the dials for a war intended to enhance the power of the United Nations to carry out global disarmament. This is hardly the first time Carnegie has worked behind the scenes to entangle our nation in a counterproductive war. Several years before the start of World War I, Carnegie trustees held a meeting to discuss the question: "Is there any means known to man more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?" Deciding that there was none, a second question was examined: "How do we involve the United States in a war?" According to congressional investigator Norman Dodd, after America became entangled in World War I, the Carnegie trustees were so delighted with the new opportunities for social engineering that they dispatched a telegram to President Wilson "cautioning him to see that the war did not end too quickly." Warfare is an unfortunate, and probably inevitable, aspect of the fallen human condition. But Americans should fight wars on our terms, for our reasons, through the constitutional mechanisms provided by our Founding Fathers. The impending war on Iraq meets none of those conditions. Americans must contact our representatives in Congress – who control both the power of the purse and the power of the sword – and tell them in no uncertain terms that we will not stand for any more UN wars. Thank you for listening. Please join us again next week. <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om |
