Title: War test
Take the War on Iraq IQ Test

Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?

1. Q: What percentage of the world's population does the U.S. have? A: 6%
2. Q: What percentage of the world's wealth does the U.S. have? A: 50%
3. Q: Which country has the largest oil reserves? A: Saudi Arabia
4. Q: Which country has the second largest oil reserves? A: Iraq
5. Q: How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide? A: $900+ billion
6. Q: How much of this is spent by the U.S.? A:50%
7. Q: What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world, according the the UN? A: 10% (that's about$40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund our retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).
8. Q: How many people have died in wars since World War II? A: 86 million
9. Q: How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons? A: Since the early 1980's.
10. Q: Did Iraq develop these chemical & biological weapons on their own? A: No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government, along with Britain and private corporations.
11. Q: Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against Iran? A: No
12. Q: How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988?
A: 5,000
13. Q: How many western countries condemned this action at the time? A:0
14. Q: How many gallons of agent Orange did America use in Vietnam? A: 17 million.
15. Q: Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th terrorist attack? A: No
16. Q: What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War? A: 35,000
17. Q: How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western forces during the Gulf War? A: 0
18. Q: How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with ploughs mounted on the front?            A: 6,000
19. Q: How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War? A: 40 tons
20. Q: What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994? A: 700%
21. Q: How much of Iraq's military capacity did America claim it had destroyed in 1991? A: 80%
22. Q: Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything other than deterrence and self defense? A: No
23. Q: Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years ago? A: No
24. Q: How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on Iraq in 2002/3?
      A: 10,000
25. Q: What percentage of these will be children? A:Over 50%
26. Q: How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq? A: 11 years
27. Q: Was the U.S and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999?A: No
28. Q: How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999?
     A: 20 million
29. Q: How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict sanctions on Iraq's imports and exports? A: 12 years
30. Q: What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)? A: 38
31. Q: What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000 births)?
     A: 131 (that's an increase of345%)
32. Q: How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN sanctions? 
     A: 1.5 million
33. Q: How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to sanctions since 1997? A: 750,000
34. Q: Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq? A:No
35. Q: How many inspections were there in November and December 1998? A:300
36. Q: How many of these inspections had problems? A:5
37. Q: Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba'ath Party HQ? A: Yes
38. Q: Who said that by December 1998, "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history." A: Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.
39. Q: In 1998 how much of Iraq's post 1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction did the UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled? A: 90%
40. Q: Is Iraq willing to allow the weapons inspectors back in? A: Yes
41. Q: How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992? A: Over 65
42. Q: How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990? A: 30+
44. Q: How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons? A: 8
45. Q:How many nuclear warheads has Iraq got? A: 0
46. Q: How many nuclear warheads has US got? A: over 10,000
47. Q: Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons? A: the US
48. Q: How many nuclear warheads does Israel have? A: Over 400
50. Q: Who said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter"?       
     A: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr

Charles Sheketoff, Executive Director
Oregon Center for Public Policy
PO Box 7, Silverton, OR 97381


WAR  CRIMES, OR AN ACT OF WAR?   MIXING OIL AND WATER

STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE, NEW YORK TIMES: It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst  on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf.  In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.
This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.
And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.
The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent --- that is, a cyanide-based gas --- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.
These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.
I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.
We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.
Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades --- not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.
All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition --- thanks to United Nations sanctions --- Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.
Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.
Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?
Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf
--
--------------------------------------------------
Drop Bush, Not Bombs!
--------------------------------------------------

"During times of universal deceit,
telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

---------------------------------

END OF THE TRAIL SALOON
Live music, comedy, call-in radio-oke
Alternate Sundays, 6am GMT (10pm PDT)
http://www.kvmr.org

--------------------------------

"I uke, therefore I am." -- Cool Hand Uke
"I log on, therefore I seem to be." -- Rodd Gnawkin

Visit Cool Hand Uke's Lava Tube:
 http://www.oro.net/~dscanlan

Reply via email to