www.vheadline.com Posted: Sunday, March 09, 2003 By: Oscar Heck

VHeadline.com commentarist Oscar Heck writes: I have just received a list of what appears to be facts regarding the USA and it involvement in Iraq and in other wars.

One of the facts related to the USA's use of Agent Orange in Vietnam and another related to the assistance that the USA gave to Iraq in the development of its chemical weapons. In addition, there was mention that although the USA is supposedly attacking Iraq because of chemical and biological weapons, the USA apparently said nothing when Saddam Hussein supposedly killed thousands of Kurds with similar weapons.

Why am saying all these things?

Because, shortly after having read this list, I read Patrick J. O'Donoghue recent article, "Colombian narco-traffickers move poppy plantations to Venezuelan border badlands", and it brought up another element of great concern to me and hopefully to many others.

I had read and heard that the USA (with the OK from local governments) is fumigating large areas of Colombia (and perhaps Bolivia and Ecuador) in an attempt to stop cultivation of drugs. Some of the information points to the strong possibility that the chemicals being used by the Americans are seriously harming the health of the people who live in those areas and that they are contaminating the environment (rivers, soil, etc.).

I do not know if all this is true, and I have no interest in writing anti-American material, however (American or not) why is the use of potentially dangerous chemicals being allowed? (I have my own theories which I will not discuss here). If drug cultivation moves closer to the Venezuelan border, does this mean that the Americans will spray near the Venezuelan border as well? Contaminate Venezuela as well? Will Venezuela's water supply become contaminated? Will cancer become a concern? Can Venezuelans die from its effects? (Not to mention the many Colombians that may have already been exposed).

Would the Americans use these chemicals in the USA? Have these chemicals been tested and approved for safety? I do not know the answers ... but perhaps someone out there knows which chemicals are being used and what are the long-term effects.

Much of the media is spreading comments that Chavez is being un-collaborative with the American-led anti-drug campaign in north-western South America ... as if it were a crime not to collaborate.

Would you collaborate with someone who, for example, says "it doesn't matter if we use dangerous chemicals to kill your neighbor's lawn, it isn't your home."

What will happen to your neighbor's children? Their dog?

An other question arises.

What country is the greatest consumer of drugs? If I am not mistaken, it is the USA.

Does this mean that since they cannot educate their own people to "not take drugs," they have to get rid of the drug growers while simultaneously potentially harming innocent people and contaminating someone else's home.

What will they do to Canadians? Canada is considering decriminalizing marijuana?

Will they have the same attitude with Venezuelans?

I would greatly appreciate any true information about the chemicals that are being used and their effects. Perhaps, I will go down to the borders in question and collect some samples of the chemicals and have them analyzed as well.

I sincerely hope that the politicians and bureaucrats (pro-Chavez or anti-Chavez) in Venezuela will strongly consider the long-term effects of any potential arrangement with the USA regarding the use of chemical "warfare."

Que viva Venezuela sin contaminacion!

Oscar Heck oscarheck111@hotmail.com

www.boston.com By Associated Press, 3/9/2003

CARACAS -- After four months of talks, negotiators said this week they have little to show for their efforts to end a bitter political stalemate between President Hugo Chvez and Venezuela's opposition.

The Organization of American States and other mediators have so far failed to get the two sides to agree on the new elections sought by the opposition or to convince the political rivals to curb their harsh rhetoric.

The slayings of three dissident military officers in mid-February, the Feb. 18 arrest of opposition leader Carlos Fernandez, and bomb blasts outside Spanish and Colombian diplomatic missions last week have further complicated the impasse.

Each side blames the other for the incidents, which have raised tensions in the South American nation of 24 million, a major oil supplier to the United States.

Cesar Gaviria, secretary general of the Organization of American States, has sought to prevent a full-fledged confrontation like the street violence that rocked Caracas in April.

Opposition leaders say Chvez's leftist rhetoric and authoritarian policies have weakened the country's institutions and scared away investors. They briefly ousted Chvez in a coup following the April violence, but loyalists returned him to power two days later. Opponents tried again to topple him by organizing a two-month general strike. That effort collapsed Feb. 4 with Chvez still in power. Since then, his government has arrested strike organizers.

Meanwhile, opponents have been locked in negotiations with the government, trying to get Chvez to call a new election.

Although the negotiations have lacked any substantial advancements, said Nicolas Maduro, one of six government representatives at the talks, they have served as a ''containment mechanism ''to regulate the Venezuelan political conflict.''

Proposals to end the conflict by Jimmy Carter, the former US president, and the creation of the ''Group of Friends,'' a forum of six nations backing negotiation efforts, failed to give impetus to the talks, which have lacked ''rapid advancement,'' Maduro said.

Government adversaries have put ''obstacles'' in the way of progress because they aren't ''playing their cards in favor of a democratic . . . pact,'' said Maduro.

The opposition continues insisting on ousting Chvez, who was elected in 1998 and reelected in 2000 to a six-year term, as soon as possible, Maduro said.

Juan Rafalli, an opposition representative, blamed the lack of progress on the government, ''which hasn't shown any type of political will'' to agree on an electoral solution to the crisis.

Rafalli expressed optimism that Venezuela's wrenching economic downturn, coupled with the deepening political crisis, will force Chvez's government to negotiate an agreement soon.

Venezuela's economy shrank by nearly 9 percent in 2002 and analysts predict an even more abrupt contraction this year. According to official government statistics, unemployment stands at 17 percent.

Chvez, a former paratrooper, has balked at opposition demands for early elections. He insists that opponents must wait until August, when the constitution allows for a binding recall referendum on his rule.

During a recent speech, Chvez warned Gaviria, along with the governments of Spain and the United States, ''not to meddle'' in Venezuela's domestic affairs.

Delegates from the United States, Spain, Portugal, Mexico, Brazil, and Chile -- the nations making up the so-called ''Group of Friends'' -- are slated to meet in Brasilia tomorrow to discuss progress of the talks and escalating violence in Venezuela.

This story ran on page A11 of the Boston Globe on 3/9/2003. © Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

www.zwire.com BY STEPHEN DAILY THE SUNDAY TIMES 03/09/2003 Financially drained homeowners aren't the only ones who think this will stand out as an exceptional year in terms of heating prices. Industry analysts agree. "Next year, I think we will look back and say we're a lot better now than we were last year," said Sarah Emerson, director of petroleum at Energy Security Analysis Inc., Wakefield, Mass. The winter heating season, which is nearing its end, has seen a steady and swift increase in the price of home-heating oil, which jumped nearly 50 percent. On Dec. 9, the Pennsylvania average for a gallon of home-heating oil was about $1.26. By Jan. 6, the price jumped to $1.39 and, on March 3, the state average neared $1.84, according to the EIA Weekly Petroleum Status Report. And it's not just heating oil. Compared to last winter, natural gas costs are up 30 percent, propane up 25 percent and electricity up 11 percent. At the same time, from October through February in the Northeast, heating degree days -- the cumulative number of degrees during the period when the mean temperature fell below 65 degrees -- were 12 percent above normal and 35 percent above last year, according to the EIA short-term energy outlook. Ms. Emerson says it's all part of what she refers to as the "perfect storm." She said this was the worst possible winter to have excessively cold temperatures -- Venezuela cut off oil exports, and there is the lingering expectation of war with Iraq. The three factors led to higher demand for oil and lower inventories. But relief for homeowners may come as early as the next two weeks, Ms. Emerson said. Mid- to late March usually marks the end of the home-heating season and the decision to go to war with Iraq should be made soon. Whether we go to war or not, a decision would end a period of uncertainty, which is historically detrimental to oil prices, she said. Also favoring a return to normal prices are increasing oil imports from Venezuela, the fourth leading supplier of crude oil to the United States. At the core, prices rise when supplies are low and demand is high. Dave Costello, economist with the Energy Information Administration, said weak demand for oil in the first half of 2002 caused inventory levels to lower. But the demand for oil rose sharply this winter because of cold weather and loss of oil supply in Venezuela. This triggered an interaction that sent prices sharply higher. Barring no further major world disorder, next winter should bring lower prices. "Generally, anything that causes further disruptions in the supply of crude oil increases the prices of heating oil," Mr. Costello said. A big hurdle the government must overcome before prices drop is filling low inventories. The strong heating demand from residential and commercial consumers, and demand for production from a slowly recovering industrial sector, have resulted in 64 percent more of the country's natural gas storage being used than last year. More than 2.75 trillion cubic feet is likely to be withdrawn from stored natural-gas supplies by the end of this winter heating season, which would be an all-time record high, according to Energy Business Watch. Total supplies for the year will likely fall to 1.5 trillion to 2 trillion cubic feet below the Energy Department's 2003 forecast of expected U.S. consumption. Crude inventories are dangerously low, on the verge of not being enough to supply the refineries, according to a report from Dailyfutures Inc. OPEC 10 has increased its quota by 1.5 million barrels per day as of Feb. 1, to 24.5 million barrels per day, but the oil is slow in arriving, the report states. EIA estimates that OPEC countries, excluding Iraq and Venezuela, hold between 2 million and 2.5 million barrels per day of excess oil production capacity that could be brought online. Around 70 percent of this spare capacity is located in one country -- Saudi Arabia -- with nearly all the rest located in four Persian Gulf countries: UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Iran. The U.S. government recently announced it would be ready to release oil from the nation's petroleum reserve if war with Iraq broke out. Mr. Costello said such a move would likely lower prices of crude oil. Ron Planting, American Petroleum Institute analyst, said the only other time the government tapped into the petroleum reserves for emergency purposes was the Persian Gulf war. But exhausting its oil supply should not be a concern at this point, Mr. Planting said. The U.S. has about 600 million barrels of crude oil in reserves. Even at a high rate of usage -- 2 million barrels a day -- the supply is enough to last 300 days without any imports.

www.thestar.com Mar. 9, 2003. 01:00 AM

U.S. Aviation Ordnance Airman Mike Nash of Vidor, Texas, takes a swing at a golf ball during a picnic on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk in the Persian Gulf yesterday. The ship has been at sea close to 45 days and the crew were given time off to have "a beer day." The limit is two beers per sailor.

WASHINGTON—Any day now, there will be bombs falling on Baghdad.

Conventional bombs like nothing the world has ever seen.

"The bombs will still be ringing in their ears when the 'Third Mech' shows up,'' says U.S. military analyst John Pike, of Iraq's Saddam Hussein and whatever's left of his so-called elite Republican Guard after the first days of aerial pulverization.

"The Third Mech will be driving down the main drag in Baghdad.''

Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, describes an assault on Saddam's regime that begins with "shock-and-awe'' aerial bombardment, and quickly moves into crush mode with the Third Infantry Division (Mechanized) rolling up from the Kuwaiti desert and U.S. Marines storming the port city of Basra.

"Chances are 90 per cent it will go pretty quickly, and 10 per cent it will turn into one big holy mess,'' predicts Pike.

But, before turning to the combat debut of bombs that weigh about 9,000 kilos and can take out an entire battalion, consider why the United States is going to war.

Consider who drew up U.S. goals and objectives in the Persian Gulf, when, and why.

Consider oil.

This particular operation — Pentagon working title: "OpPlan 10-03-Victor" — has been on the drawing board for a year, according to defence officials. The immediate goal is disarming Iraq and getting rid of Saddam. It's expected to begin soon, this week or next. Hard to hold back more than 300,000 U.S. and British troops, in place and pumped to go.

But the long-term goal, say big-picture analysts, has been in the works for far more than the 23 years since former U.S. president Jimmy Carter linked American security — "the vital interests of the United States'' — to the Persian Gulf and its oil, and threatened military intervention.

This war, say analysts, is about power and oil. It's about control of the Gulf states by means of strategic Iraq and, by extension, a final post-Cold War shakeout to give the U.S. more economic clout over China and Russia by controlling the oil spigot.

This is the moment, Thomas Barnett, from the U.S. Naval War College, wrote recently in Esquire magazine, "when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.''

The Persian Gulf has the world's biggest oil reserves. After Saudi Arabia, Iraq has the second-largest proven reserves.

"The only precedent to what is shaping up now is the Roman Empire,'' says Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College. "There is only one power. I don't think Britain, France or Spain even came close in other centuries to the United States today.

"If the United States controls Persian Gulf oil fields, it will have a stranglehold on the world economy,'' adds Klare.

Washington is betting, Klare believes, that "controlling Gulf oil, combined with being a decade ahead of everybody else in military technology, will guarantee American supremacy for the next 50 to 100 years.''

These ideas aren't new.

For years, a small and powerful group, with corporate and political links, pushed the idea of controlling Persian Gulf oil. They did it publicly, at think-tanks and in the media. Now, this coterie of like-minded strategists controls both the Pentagon and the strategic aims of President George W. Bush's White House.

"You've got a team in the White House that is unafraid of world public opinion because they know it is unreliable, self-serving and hypocritical,'' says George Friedman, chair of the intelligence organization, Stratfor.

Originally, this was the "Kissinger plan,'' says James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He lost his state department job for publicly criticizing administration plans to control Arab oil back in 1975 when Henry Kissinger was secretary of state.

"I thought they were crazy then and they're crazy now,'' Akins tells the Star, adding that Congress studied plans to control Persian Gulf oil and concluded the idea was absolute madness.

"I thought this whole thing was dead. But now you've got all these `neo-cons' in power, and here we go again,'' says Akins, a Washington-based consultant. "They figure once they take over Iraq, they don't have to worry about the Saudis.''

Akins adds: "These people with their imperial ideas see themselves as part of the Great American Empire."

The players have moved steadily through the Republican presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Bush's father, George H.W. Bush and Bush himself.

They include: Vice-president Richard Cheney, a former oilman, like Bush, and defence secretary during his father's Persian Gulf War in 1991; Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, once Reagan's personal emissary to the Middle East when Saddam was a U.S. friend and staunch ally; Rumsfeld's deputy Paul Wolfowitz, who began publicly calling for war against Iraq after the 9/11 terror attacks; and Richard Perle, chair of the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, nicknamed the "Prince of Darkness'' for his political stick-handling.

They are joined by think-tankers, from fellows at the Project for the New American Century and the military and intelligence-oriented Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Bush recently chose a CSIS forum, rather than the White House, to deliver a major prime-time speech to the American people to make the case for war. The CSIS board includes, among other heavy-hitters, Kissinger, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former CIA director James Schlesinger.

Bush often mentions Iraqi oil, a jarring focus for a president on the brink of war.

"We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage from a dying regime and ensure they are used for the benefit of Iraq's own people,'' he said in last week's radio address.

Colin Robinson, an analyst with the Washington-based Centre for Defence Information, says: "The United States can stand well-accused of trying to dominate the whole region for its oil. But conspiracy theories are usually too complicated for everybody to carry them off."

Friedman says the 1991 war left unfinished business, the "status quo'' of Saddam in power. Not so this time, he says, in a war which, as U.N. diplomats dither, has already begun.

In recent weeks, British and U.S. warplanes strayed outside "no-fly'' zones to bomb Iraqi surface-to-air missiles. Robinson describes these zones, set up by the U.S. and Britain after Desert Storm as "barely legal'' in terms of international law.

As well, U.N. officials report violations of the demilitarized zone between Iraq and Kuwait by U.S. soldiers.

But the real devastation should begin within days.

"We've got everything we need. We're just waiting on the word, the decision from the president," Maj.-Gen. Buford Blount, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, told the Washington Post last week from Kuwait.

First comes aerial bombardment, an extraordinary 1,500 bombs every 24 hours during the time it takes heavy mechanized divisions to move up from Kuwait to Baghdad.

Big heavy bombers, from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, buttressed by screaming navy and air force jets will pound Iraqi sites, picked by aerial drones and U.S. and British Special Forces already in Iraq.

Defence contractors are eager to test out new gadgetry. One new bomb is the 9,000-kilo MOAB (Massive Ordnance Air Burst).

"Well, it's very efficient,'' says Friedman. "Let's say you've got a large concentration of Republican Guard units, instead of having to do repeated bombing sorties, you can take out a battalion (500 to 600 troops) with one bomb.''

Friedman's sources in theatre tell him there are "terrific fights between defence department officials and field commanders who are raring to go now.''

He says time is the enemy of troops in the field. Sandstorms at the end of March, for example, could play havoc with laser targeting systems.

Without the anticipated "northern front'' through Turkey, there are plans for C-130s to ferry troops to northern Iraq, as well as missions for U.S. Marines and Special Forces to secure oil sites throughout Iraq.

"The U.S. military cannot be defeated on the conventional battlefield,'' says military analyst Pike.

But what about the variables?

How much of a threat is Saddam? What about chemical and biological weapons?

"We gonna find out,'' says Pike.

Meanwhile, Iraqi exiles, opposed to Saddam, have been meeting with U.S. and British oil executives, promising access and leases in return for political power.

And, the U.S., as Friedman points out, on the brink of world hegemony, is going to find out who its friends are.

"I do so enjoy Canadians (against the war) getting so obsessed with human rights, and then pay no attention to places like Venezuela,'' says Friedman, who thinks Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is next on Bush's military agenda.

"I read the Canadian press and I wonder what planet your country is on.

"We have allies, and we are going to see who they are,'' he concludes. "If France, if Canada, can't support us in opposition to Saddam Hussein, you can't say you are our allies. Canada consistently says it's an ally of the United States of America ... we'll see, won't we?''

www.sun-sentinel.com By Juan C. Rodriguez Staff Writer Posted March 9 2003

JUPITER · The way Marlins manager Jeff Torborg describes it, Alex Gonzalez had a hole in his left shoulder.

Diving for Barry Bonds' grounder last May in San Francisco, the Marlins shortstop landed awkwardly and suffered a separation. The pain was overwhelming. Unable to move his arm, Gonzalez writhed.

Trainer Sean Cunningham reset the shoulder in the clubhouse, but the hole in the Marlins' infield remained through season's end. Andy Fox did an admirable job filling in, but ask anyone who observed Gonzalez regularly during the season's first six weeks, and they'll express the same sentiments.

"If he hadn't gotten hurt I think he had a good chance to win the Gold Glove," said Ozzie Guillen, a former major league shortstop and the Marlins' third base coach. "He was playing relaxed. He wanted to be at the ballpark every day and was having fun."

Added infield and first base coach Perry Hill: "He was the best shortstop I'd seen in the National League at that time."

No one had to tell Gonzalez how well he was playing. Though he was a .225 hitter through 42 games, his glove was outstanding.

That another left shoulder injury -- Gonzalez first hurt it in 1996 -- short-circuited a promising season added to the sting. He first underwent shoulder surgery in the minors after a subluxation. He missed three months but was able to finish the season.

"I felt like I was on track for a Gold Glove," Gonzalez said. "That was another reason I felt sad after the injury. I was helping the team making plays, turning double plays. But you never know when you're going to get hurt. You just have to move forward and start the season with the same mentality of aiming for that Gold Glove."

Nothing the Marlins have seen thus far suggests Gonzalez won't contend for it. He's made all the plays defensively. Offensively, he's off to a slow start, batting .154 (2 for 13) in six games, but the Marlins were expecting that.

Gonzalez hadn't seen regular live pitching for a while. He was set to play winter ball in his native Venezuela in early December until political unrest prompted the suspension and ultimate cancellation of the remaining games.

The Marlins initially though Gonzalez could rehab the shoulder without surgery. By July, he was playing with Jupiter of the Gulf Coast League. Gonzalez reached for a pitch during his fifth game and the bat flew out of his hands. Less than a week later he underwent a procedure that usually requires a six- to nine-month recovery.

"I knew what I had to do after that kind of injury," said Gonzalez, who completed a similar rehabilitation program in 1996.

"It was a little tougher after this operation because they had to open my shoulder. I had in mind to recuperate quickly and that's what happened. By November I was in instructional league and was able to hit.

"After the last checkup I had here in December, I had it in my mind I could play. I felt the shoulder was strong and I could swing hard and with one hand. That was one of the things that bothered me after the operation. I got to spring training like nothing had happened, like I never had the surgery or never had the injury because I felt so strong."

Added Hill, who maintained regular contact with Gonzalez during his rehabilitation: "It doesn't look like he's missed a beat to me. He's got full range of motion. He's throwing well. We're all holding our breath for the first time he dives, but he seems 100 percent to me."

That's encouraging for the Marlins, who haven't benefited from a healthy Gonzalez two of the last three years.

In 2000, a left knee sprain sidelined him July 28-Sept. 1.

Physical problems don't encompass all of Gonzalez's shortcomings since he became a major league fixture. Earlier in his tenure he was reprimanded for not hustling in running out grounders.

His lone wolf disposition didn't make him the most popular guy among teammates either.

Guillen made it his mission last season to help his countryman project a better persona. Gonzalez has yet to require a refresher course.

"Everything I wanted to do with him I did last year," Guillen said.

"I talked to him about having fun because you never know how long this is going to last. It's also easier to have fun when you have a manager that understands you and is 100 percent behind you. The attitude he has now is positive and that's what we want from him.

"If he doesn't get hurt, this year we should see the Alex everybody expects to see."

Juan C. Rodriguez can be reached at jcrodriguez@sun-sentinel.com.