portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war

U.S. - IRAQ INVASION LIKELY TO BEGIN WITH STATE of the UNION, Tuesday

01/24/03 FTW URGENT BULLETIN Serious international developments are indicating that the first stages of the U.S. invasion of Iraq will begin unilaterally no later than next Wednesday and most likely as the President delivers his State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday night.
 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012403_invasion.html

U.S. - IRAQ INVASION LIKELY TO BEGIN WITH STATE of the UNION, Tuesday

by
Michael C. Ruppert

January 24, 2003, 1930 PST (FTW) - Serious international developments are indicating that the first stages of the U.S. invasion of Iraq will begin unilaterally no later than next Wednesday and most likely as the President delivers his State of the Union address to Congress on Tuesday night.

The Associated Press reported today, in a story little noticed by mainstream American press, that the Japanese government had today urged all Japanese citizens to leave Iraq as soon as possible. Japan has large numbers of its nationals working in Iraq in various trade and oil-related business ventures. According to a second report today on CNN Headline News the Japanese advisory was specific that all Japanese citizens should be out of the country by next Wednesday at the latest.

The Japanese alert was followed by a simultaneous advisory from the U.S. State Department issuing a worldwide alert to all Americans traveling overseas. According to another AP story, State Department officials tried to downplay the significance of the warning, "but officials were unable to say when the last such advisory had been issued." A worldwide alert for U.S. citizens is extremely rare and suggests that the administration is concerned about a global backlash against Americans traveling overseas. Cautionary advisories are normally isolated to specific countries or geographic regions.

The invasion of Iraq will most likely commence with a massive aerial campaign in which the U.N. and many military analysts have predicted widespread collateral damage with heavy civilian casualties. One recent UN estimate suggested that the total Iraqi casualty count for the entire operation could exceed 500,000.

This decision should not be taken as a surprise. In recent weeks support for the obvious U.S. intentions, both worldwide and at home, has been declining rapidly. At the time this story was written a contemporaneous CNN poll showed that 62% of those responding believed that the United States should not attack Iraq without UN approval. Politically, the Bush administration has seen that this situation is not going to improve. Every delay in an attack to which the administration has already committed not only risks greater military, political and economic opposition but also increases the risk that U.S. ground forces will be engaged in desert fighting in hot summer weather. Recent moves by both the French and Russian governments to approve new trade and development agreements with the Hussein government might also weaken U.S. economic control in a post-Saddam regime.

With crude oil prices at two-year highs and with U.S. oil reserves at 27-year lows the signs of a crumbling U.S. economy made themselves felt again today with a more than 200 point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial average. The Bush administration has apparently decided to roll the dice now in a go-for-broke imperial conquest that has as its primary objective the immediate control of 11 per cent of the world's oil reserves.

In many previous stories FTW has documented how the Iraqi invasion is but the first in a series of sequential worldwide military campaigns to which the United States has committed. All of these are based upon globally dwindling oil supplies and the pending economic and human consequences of that reality. On January 21st, CNN Headline News acknowledged, for the first time, the reality of Peak Oil and accurately stated that "all the cheap oil there is has been found." The story also acknowledged that there was only enough oil left to sustain the planet for thirty to forty years and that what oil remained was going to become increasingly more expensive to produce and deliver.

It is likely that the resiliency of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, in his effort to resist U.S.-inspired strikes by wealthy Venezuelan industrialists, has had an impact on this decision by the Bush administration. Venezuela, which is the third largest foreign importer of oil to the U.S., has seen its U.S. deliveries cut to a fraction of normal levels in recent weeks. Within the last week oil analysts have been predicting shortages and price spikes similar to those of 1973-4 if U.S. oil stocks were not replenished quickly. The administration's apparent decision to launch the attacks against Iraq appears to be at least a partial acknowledgement that Chavez is successfully resisting U.S. pressure to oust him.

Chavez angered multinational investors and financiers recently by moving to increase the share of oil profits retained in Venezuela for the benefit of its people.

Today's announcements signal that the world is entering a period of danger not seen for forty years. That the announcements from the Japanese government and the State Department came on the same day that the Department of Homeland Security became active and its Secretary Tom Ridge was sworn in seems an unlikely coincidence. Previous reporting from FTW had indicated that even massive protests and non-violent global resistance would prove ineffective in preventing an Iraqi invasion. And our predictions that the Bush junta had prepared for all the worst-case scenarios, including domestic unrest and worldwide opposition appear to be vindicated.

The administration has clearly issued a statement to the world. "Screw you. We're going to play this game any way you want to play it. And we're ready for anything that comes."

Only time will tell if they are correct.

homepage: homepage: http://www.fromthewilderness.com


Just what we need 24.Jan.2003 21:54

yes

It sure is easy to paint the obvious negative picture isn't it you loser. To all you that have been brainwashed into belief in the inevitability of such a ghastly scenario I say if its so obvious then who the hell do you think you're helping by parading your fear.

Would it be possible for you to demonstrate peace instead of repeating the same old drivel like you're some sort of expert.

Your journalism is a perfect example of how this sort of paranoid thought form monstrosity grows to such epic proportions. Send a copy of your dire resume to Newsweek or CNN and please BEAT IT! PEACE

just what we need 24.Jan.2003 22:05

peace?

Just the sort of negative crap that keeps us in this mess

At what point in your insightful diatribe is an opportunity to respond with anything but DUH!

How bout some positive ways to stop the spread of fear?

Peace

to 'yes', 'peace?' 24.Jan.2003 22:26

ummm . . .

try taking the *blue* pills next time . . .

good probablity 24.Jan.2003 22:30

dude dj8956@yahoo.com

1. attack is likely given the bums rush attitude of the current regime. Brits will take a while to move in place as with Back up US force per various news this week

2. UN got hans to give a report to un on or abouts the 27th.

3. US gots the draft report one way or another by now.

4. Got to get those fear ratings up, people are starting to think in thier stew.

5. intense bombing would be a logical inference then.

6. on another hand, note the good old boys could keep oil prices high, the threat of war up, the redeaming good cop (germany/france) appeasing the world and attack iraq next year for a good ole american presidential redo.

7. therefore they gov puppet could milk the US citizen more and then get on with its attack or not. What is most profitable to the multinational market? What is most profitable to this president? We will all see.

So what is new? 24.Jan.2003 22:50

Jaded

I read the above article and got the feeling that the author has the "sky is falling" syndrome. What is new? The US has been overflying Iraq, dropping bombs and missles for over 10 years now. Anything new there?

The US has forces in Iraq already, inside the Northern No Fly Zone, Kurdish territory. It is in the mainstream press, they are monitoring "islamic extreemists" and making ready an airstrip.

The state department issues a warning. Nothing new there either. Japan issues a warning, kind of a no brainer dont ya think?

When the US military invades what are you gonna do about it? Vote? Tag a recruiters office? Yell in the streets? Wear a black hoody with an ELF patch? They will all have the same effect, no effect. It will be nothing new, same shit different day.

this is a good article, but-- 24.Jan.2003 23:06

skeptic

Mike Ruppert has been wrong before.

back in September 2002, he predicted a US invasion by mid-October.

if the US *does* invade next week, it will be conducted in total violation of international and U.N. law and opinion.

the sky has been falling for a long time now 25.Jan.2003 01:39

chicken little, smashed

The sky has been falling for a long time now and I don't see why you're not freaked out about it. So what's new, you ask? The Bush Administration has accelerated things, and we're at an inflection point in the course of the world. Think back to Gulf War One. We had fairly broad support, we got in there, and we pulled out of there (though we should have knocked out Saddam when we had the chance). This time we don't have much support and we've pledged to stick around and help rebuild things. So what country in the Middle East truly supports us (aside from Israel)?

If you were a religious man in the Middle East, you might think that America was out to get you and your country's oil. You might think that you had to fight back. The only way you, a person whose country has a comparatively weak military, can defend yourself is through wack shit like chemical warfare and suicide bombings.

So what's new?!? This really could be the start of WWIII.

the shit is hitting the fan 25.Jan.2003 12:21

nunya bizniss

jeezus!
it seems like a lot of people would rather keep their heads firmly planted in their asses than psychologically deal with a catastrophic scenario. griping at someone for a post that isn't prettied up with flowers and west-coast positivity is pathetic. this is the beginning of a change in world politics and life in the US... burying your head in the sands of a positive outlook will not save your rights or the lives of innocents who happen to have brown skin.
get ready. the ride is about to get really fucking rough and a lot of people are gonna' die. it sucks.

Just what we need 25.Jan.2003 20:11

YES

burying your head in the sands of a positive outlook will not save your rights or the lives of innocents who happen to have brown skin.
get ready. the ride is about to get really fucking rough and a lot of people are gonna' die. it sucks.


OK I'm listening I need your help since you're so smart

1) How will a gloomy pessimistic outlook save OUR rights or the lives of anyone guilty or innocent of any color?

2) Please direct me to a single person who has not died so I can inquire as to how a gloomy pessimistic outlook serves to make immortality a pleasant experience?

3) What are you referring to when you say "it sucks", you must mean an eternally gloomy pessimistic mindset?

I am not being sarcastic, I just fail to see the logic or the usefullness in being perpetually pissed? ? ?

hmmm... 26.Jan.2003 00:21

chicken little

Come now, being perpetually pissed does no good for me or you. On the other hand, I think that it's important to not dismiss someone like Mike Ruppert out-of-hand. Just because he's always saying the sky is falling doesn't mean he's always wrong. If you look at shit objectively, like, say, the world news, you'll see that hatred of America is way up. You'll see that Bush is a war monger like few have been. You'll see major erosions to our civil liberties. All of these things do paint a rather bleak picture, don't they? I couldn't paint such a bleak picture with George Senior or Reagan or Clinton. This REALLY IS a dark time.

I am happy most days, and life goes on tyranny or not, but I certainly don't advocate sitting on the ass. Get up and share your knowledge with people who might not think things are so bad. Or maybe they aren't and we naysayers are wrong. But instead of just saying "oh, shucks, things aren't so bad", how about you take a long hard look at the picture and tell us why things are ok? We're on the same side--the anti-war side, the anti-imperialist side, the anti-Ashcroft side, so let's at least not be so dismissive of one another. MLK was successful because he brought us together.