Cannon Fodder, part 1: Background to Betrayalby Hadding Scott and "Vermin Scum"Today's program, which I'veentitled "Cannon Fodder, part 1: Background to Betrayal," was writtenand prepared for broadcast by Hadding Scott and yours truly, "Vermin Scum".Thucydides, the Athenian historian, wrote in his account of thePeloponnesian War, "The way that most men deal with traditions, eventraditions of their own country, is to receive them all alike as theyare delivered, without applying any critical test whatever," andfurthermore, "There are many other unfounded ideas current among therest of the Hellenes, even on matters of contemporary history, whichhave not been obscured by time. For instance, there is the notion thatthe Lacedaemonian kings have two votes each, the fact being that theyhave only one; and that there is a company of Pitane, there being simplyno such thing. So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigationof truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand."(Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, tr. Richard Crawley)Thucydides' observation about the proliferation of easily disprovenfalsehoods during wartime in Democratic Athens rings true also indemocratic America during this "war on terror" and its accompanyinghysteria.By the end of this program I hope to have shown that the picture of Iraqand of Saddam Hussein presented by the mainstream media is highlydistorted and misleading. The most important thing that I hope toaccomplish here is to demonstrate to our listeners, who are probablyalready suspicious of the government and the mainstream media, that theextent of their misrepresentation is much greater than the averageperson even dares to suspect. I also expect that the facts presentedwill make it clear what the proposed war is really about.There are two distinct cases against Iraq that have been disseminatedamong the American people. One is that Iraq may have committed an act ofaggression against the U.S., through some secret involvement in theWorld Trade Center attack or the subsequent anthrax-mailings in 2001.The other is an unsubstantiated allegation that Iraq has floutedrestrictions placed on the kinds of weapons that it could possessfollowing the Gulf War of 1991.It is abundantly clear, however, that the concern about compliance ornon-compliance with United Nations protocols is a mere pretense. It is afig leaf. The really persuasive argument in the minds of Americans whoaccept Bush's call for war -- the real meaning for them of the words"Iraq's weapons of mass-destruction" -- is that Iraq may possessweapons that will be used in another attack against the United Statessuch as occurred on September 11, 2001. To the average American, that iswhat all the talk of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass-destruction reallymeans. The requirements of the United Nations per se carry little or noweight in the minds of most Americans; if the United States could bemotivated to go to war just to enforce U.N. resolutions, the State ofIsrael would have had a regime-change and a partition imposed upon itmany years ago.The accusation that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction is notreally about the United Nations at all. If the principles of the UnitedNations mattered then there could be no talk of attacking Iraq withoutU.N. approval. Rather, it is all about scaring the American people intoa war.The baseless innuendoes that Iraq may have been involved in the WorldTrade Center attack and the worry that Iraq may commit or facilitatesuch an attack against the United States in the future are bothgroundless. Both stories are attempts to exploit the fear and anger thatthe 9-11 attack generated, and thus to manipulate the American peopleinto supporting a war against a country that has done them no harm.The characterization of the leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, asirrational and dangerous has been carefully cultivated by theJewish-controlled news media for many years now. The American peoplecould never believe that Saddam Hussein would ever deliberately provokea war with the United States if they had not become accustomed tohearing over the course of many years that Saddam Hussein is "So-DamnedInsane" -- that he is an irrational maniac who gassed his own people anddoes other cruel things for no reason at all.The fact that Saddam Hussein has been able to survive one crisis afteranother as leader of an ethnically and religiously divided country likeIraq is in itself prima facie evidence that Saddam Hussein is notirrational. He has had to be very realistic and rational indeed tosurvive the kinds of crises that his country has endured, from theIran-Iraq War of 1980-1988 to the Gulf War to the ruinous sanctions thathave caused 1.7 million deaths in Iraq, to the frequent bombings thatthe U.S. and Britain have carried out, and of course, the manyassassination plots, some of which have been sponsored by the UnitedStates. No leader who is insane or out of touch with reality couldsurvive all thatLet's examine the record. Saddam Hussein has been the de facto leader ofIraq since 1975. Following the retirement of President Bakr in 1979,Saddam Hussein became the third Arab Nationalist President of Iraq.Although the Communist Party of Iraq was forcibly shut down in May of1979, and although one of Saddam Hussein's first actions was thenotorious bloody purge of several hundred persons in the governmentaccused of conspiring against Iraq's sovereignty, Iraq under the secularBa'ath or Arab Nationalist government has been arguably the freest ofall Arabic-speaking countries.In Iraq, the rigors of Islamic law are not in force. Women are notrequired to wear veils or to cover their heads, and are allowed to havea career. In Iraq you can even buy liquor if you want. Before the GulfWar in 1991, it was the habit of some people in Kuwait to go into Iraqwhenever they wanted to cut loose and have a good time. The governmentof Iraq also strongly encourages literacy among the people. In general,Saddam Hussein has represented progress in the Arab world.Iraq was facing a crisis because of the new Islamic Republic in Iran,which, aside from provoking the hostility of the United States byseizing and holding hostage 50 employees of the U.S. embassy, also setout to foment unrest in neighboring countries. In April 1980 members ofa Shi'ite political party called al-Dawah attempted to assassinate Iraqiforeign minister Tariq Aziz, who is a Christian. An attempt on the lifeof Iraq's minister of culture and information also occurred. Sinceal-Dawah was supported and encouraged by Iran, in the followingSeptember Iraq declared war on Iran, and set as a war aim theacquisition of the important Shatt-al-Arab waterway. Since these twoassassination attempts had preceded the war, one could truthfully saythat when Saddam Hussein attacked Iran he was beginning a war againstRadical Islamic terrorism.In the early stages of secular Iraq's war on Islamic terror it appearedthat a quick victory was the likely outcome, since many of Iran'scompetent military leaders and pilots who were not Islamic religiousfanatics had been imprisoned, and Iran was unable to buy spare parts forits U.S.-built aircraft because of the hostage crisis. Iraqi armoredcolumns made rapid progress deep into Iran.But then Iran released its competent military personnel from prison andalso mobilized its multitudes of Shi'ite religious fanatics, who veryoften brought their own burial shrouds with them to the front. The factthat the Iranians had multitudes of people ready to die gave them achance against the Iraqi forces, who, unlike the Iranians, were notreligious fanatics eager to die in battle.One major miscalculation which had encouraged Saddam Hussein to launchthe war was an expectation that Iran's substantial Arab population inthe "Arabistan" region would welcome the Arab Nationalist Iraqis asliberators and turn against the oppressive theocracy of the non-ArabIranians. Saddam Hussein's vision of Iran's Arab minority revolting andembracing their brother Arabs as liberators did not materialize.In September 1981, the Iranians won their first ground battles, andcontinued to win -- using human waves of religious fanatics. These humanwaves, including old men and children as young as nine, would chargeacross minefields clearing the way so that Iranian tanks could safelyroll through on top of them. Saddam Hussein learned what we learned onlyin 2001: It is very difficult to protect yourself against an enemy whohas many supporters ready to die for their cause.In June of 1982, Saddam Hussein attempted to make peace, but theayatollahs were running the war and would make no peace; the ayatollahshad the ambition of creating a Shi'ite Islamic Republic in Iraq, andthey set the goal of capturing a major city in Iraq that could bedeclared the provisional capital of an Iraqi Islamic Republic. Since thewar was going badly Saddam Hussein was forced to buy additionalweaponry, including crop dusting helicopters from the United States,which were understood to be for the delivery of chemical weapons.It was a war of attrition: The Iranians suffered much higher casualtiesthan the Iraqis, but Iran was a much larger country with many morepeople. Iran could suffer four times as many casualties as Iraq andstill win the war. In April 1984 Saddam Hussein requested to meet theAyatollah Khomeini in a neutral location to negotiate peace, but theoffer was refused. Iraq tried several times to make peace, but as lateas 1988 Iran rejected a United Nations resolution calling for aceasefire.It was during the war with Iran that Iraq improved the range of itsSoviet-made SCUD missiles, so that they could reach Teheran. Iraq alsodeveloped a capacity for mass producing chemical weapons, though thenumber of casualties that Iran suffered from chemical weapons was verysmall compared to the total number dead: As of 1986 the total Iraniancasualties from chemical weapons was estimated at 10,000, compared toone million plus Iranians who died in the entire war. Iran also usedchemical warfare, but this did not become widely known until 1988. [NewYork Times, Jan 17, 1988; I, 9:5]A threat of dispatching chemical warheads against Teheran is consideredto have been a major factor in persuading the Islamic Republic of Iranto make peace, allowing Iraq to retain the Shatt-al-Arab waterway whichIraq had managed to seize again, and which had been Iraq's mainobjective in the war.The Iran-Iraq War was a victory, although very hard-won, for Iraq. Thetotal casualties suffered by Iraq in that war are estimated at 375,000-- about one in 40 Iraqis killed or maimed. Iraq also lost a lot of itsoil production capacity as a result of Iranian air attacks, and hadincurred a large debt because of the need to buy weapons.Nonetheless, the eight-year war against the Islamic Republic of Iran haddiscouraged Iran from supporting Islamic revolution in other countries,and this not only preserved Iraq but aided other countries of theregion. The United States was also well served by the blunting of Iran'sinfluence, and some political scientists even suggested that Iraq shouldreplace Israel as the primary U.S. ally in the region. In addition toits good relations with the U.S., Saddam Hussein and Iraq had gainedprestige among Arabs, and Iraq had become militarily the second mostpowerful country in the region, after Israel.The Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s was in no way an indicator of lunacy, norof any desire on the part of Saddam Hussein to conquer the world.During that war, something very significant occurred: In 1981 the Stateof Israel dispatched its jets to attack and destroy a nuclear reactor inIraq. The many knee-jerk supporters of Israel have regarded this attackas a righteous move by the wise and clever Jews to prevent Iraq fromdeveloping a nuclear weapon. The fact is, however, that Iraq's nuclearreactor was in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, ofwhich Iraq was a charter signatory, and which Israel had never signed.Dr. Sigvard Eklund, Director-General of the International Atomic EnergyAgency, stated to the U.N. Security Council on 19 June 1981 that theIsraelis had acted on the basis of faulty intelligence and really had nojustification at all for what they had done.It has been stated by the Israelis that a laboratory located 40 metersbelow the reactor -- the figure was later corrected to four meters --which allegedly had not been discovered by IAEA inspectors had beendestroyed. The existence of a vault under the reactor that hasapparently been hit by the bombing was well known to the inspectorate,That vault contains the control rod drives and has to be accessible tothe staff for maintenance purposes.... [T]hat space could not be used toproduce plutonium.Putting it more plainly, Dr. Eklund said:In fulfilling its responsibilities the Agency has inspected the Iraqireactors and has not found evidence of any activity not in accordancewith the Non-Proliferation Treaty.The President of the United Nations Security Council, Mr. Porfirio MuņozLedo criticized the action and attitude of Israel in no uncertain terms:[T]he reasons on which the Government of Israel bases its contention areas unacceptable as the act of aggression it committed. It isinadmissible to invoke the right to self-defense when no armed attackhas taken place. The concept of preventive war, which for many yearsserved as justification for the abuses of powerful States, since it leftit to their discretion to define what constituted a threat to them, wasdefinitively abolished by the Charter of the United Nations.And,Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear installations is not an isolated act;it should be seen as the climax of escalating violations ofinternational law. The background to it has already been described bothby the General Assembly and the Security Council. It includes annexationof territory by conquest, persistence in an illegal occupation, thedenial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, and frequentacts of aggression and harassment against neighboring States.Even the United States joined in condemning Israel's attack on theOsirak nuclear facility, although apologetically so, but the Israelisdismissed the condemnation and wailed about always being persecuted bythe U.N., all the while continuing their own development of nuclearweapons. [ Security Council Official Records, S/PV.2288 19 June 1981,]Although the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency couldsay with certainty that the Iraqis were not diverting uranium orproducing plutonium at Osirak as the Israelis had claimed, and althoughthe United Nations Security Council had passed a resolution condemningIsrael's action, the Israeli misrepresentation has been kept alive inthe minds of the American people. Immediately after the end of theIran-Iraq War Zionist Jew William Safire wrote: "The Iraqi [SaddamHussein] trails the Asian [Pol Pot] in the number slaughtered onlybecause his nuclear capability was curtailed by the Israelis." [New YorkTimes; Sept 1, 1988]If you hear some Christian Zionist know-it-all like Glenn Beck sayingthat Israel did good by bombing Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981, youshould tell him that even the unreservedly pro-Israel president RonaldReagan condemned Israel's action, as did the U.N. Security Council.Better yet, tell him to stop getting his opinions from columnists likeWilliam Safire and do some real research.As it became clear in 1988 who the winner of the Iran-Iraq War would be,a smear-campaign commenced against the country that was now the leadingchallenger to Israel's power in the Middle East. The story that Iraq hadgassed its own Kurdish citizens at al-Halabja in northern Iraq was notsuch a big story when it first appeared, and one could not have guessedfrom the first reports in April of 1988 that Saddam Hussein would becomeprimarily known as the man who "gassed his own people." It actuallydidn't become a subject of major importance until that September, afterIran and Iraq had made peace. Iran was the source of the story thatSaddam Hussein had gassed his own Kurdish citizens at al-Halabja, andinitially there was a note of skepticism about the story. Malcolm W.Browne, wrote in the New York Times of April 17, 1988: "Iran expects toreap a propaganda harvest by showing that Iraq is gassing those of itsown citizens deemed sympathizers in the seven-year-old war.... Accordingto the Iranians, a single Iraqi chemical attack on the Iranian-occupiedvillage of Halabja last month killed 5,000 people and injured 5,000others. Baghdad has said that 58 Iraqi soldiers were injured by Iranianchemical weapons." [New York Times April 17, IV, 7:1]Although the Iranians claimed 5,000 dead at al-Halabja, Westernjournalists who visited the town saw "more than a hundred bodies." OnSeptember 1, when Iraq had won the war and was mopping up the Kurdishrebellion, two pieces about Saddam's gassing of the Kurds appeared inthe New York Times on the same day, one by William Safire, in which thepolitically connected Zionist Jew advocated providing the Kurds withstinger missiles. This rabble-rousing by a Jewish journalist about thealleged gassing of the Kurds was the first expression of what became theU.S. conflict with Iraq.Here's the shocker: it's all a big lie. Iraq gassed no Kurds. Thephysical appearance of the bodies indicates the cause of death, and thehundred or so Kurds who died at al-Halabja were not victims of Iraqimustard or nerve gas, but of cyanide gas, which only Iran used in thatwar. Subsequent to the lie about who was responsible for al-Halabja, theKurds themselves picked up on the idea of claiming that the Iraqis wereusing gas on them, but no physical evidence for these claims has everbeen produced, and the symptoms of gassing claimed by the Kurds do notmatch any known agent. [ ] This liewas exposed by Stephen C. Pelletiere and Douglas V. Johnson of the U.S.Army War College, and by Jude Wanniski, a former associate editor of theWall Street Journal. Recently Wanniski sent a letter to George W. Bush'spress-secretary, the Jew Ari Fleischer, stating:You might want to have one of your assistants call over to the Pentagonand ask for its 1990 report, "Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in theMiddle East," which concluded the Iraqi Kurds who were gassed wereprobably the victims of the Iranians. [ ]Ronald Reagan's second term was ending in 1988, and George Bush Sr.*, avery different character from Reagan, was running for president. [*BushSr. as Vice President cast two tie-breaking votes in the Senate tocontinue U.S. production of chemical weapons, which casts a strangelight on his son's seeming prohibitionist fervor about such weapons.]The Reagan Administration had winked at Iraq's use of chemical weapons,but Bush, following the line established by William Safire, decided tomake political hay out of Iraq's fictitious use of chemical weaponsagainst the Kurds. Candidate Bush said: "They must know that continuedviolation of the ban against the use of such weapons carries a heavypenalty. Not just a fine or a minor sanction that can be ignored." Itappears that Pappy Bush was using an excuse to pick a fight with theleading enemy of the State of Israel so that he could get Jewish votesand favorable treatment from the Zionist Jews in the media. BushSenior's belligerent words against Iraq of course came to fruition inthe Gulf War, which the Bush Administration deliberately caused.I hope that I have not tried the patience of regular listeners too muchby discussing at length a leader who is not of our people. I think,however, that the Jews have forced us into a consideration of this manand his people, since the Jewish establishment is attempting to involveus in a conflict with them which would serve Jewish interests and nointerest of ours.This program, which I title Cannon Fodder, will continue next week, whenI will be discussing what the Jews hope to gain from a war on Iraq.Today's program was written by Hadding Scott and prepared for broadcastby "Vermin Scum". Until next week, this is "Vermin Scum"asking you to join us, the men and women of the National Alliance, inour great effort to restore the freedom and self-determination of ourpeople.To comment on this broadcast, please write to: Toreport typos and technical errors in ADV-list or our web site, pleasewrite to: webmaster@natvan.comTo contact us via "snail mail," write to:National Vanguard BooksAttention: ADVlistP.O. Box 330Hillsboro, WV 24946The National Alliance: