www.ktsm.com LOCAL NEWSCHANNEL 9

NewsChannel 9 wanted a sampling of what El Pasoans thought of the President's speech, so we invited some of our viewers to watch Thursday night's speech and give offer some of their thoughts.

Friday, March 07, 2003 -- Here is a look at their mixed opinions.

President Bush made his case Thursday night to use force against Iraq if it doesn't disarm voluntarily. Some NewsChannel 9 viewers who watched the conference in our studio say he gained their support.

Fernando Rodriguez said, "I am convinced because they have had more than enough time to disarm. September 11th can't happen again."

But others say the President has not given them proof that Sadaam Hussein is tied to terrorism.

Eduardo Barboza said, "I was hoping that he would present a more balanced approach, but it seems that he's still fixated on Iraq and there's more important issues like North Korea, Venezuela, and our own economy at home."

Some say the President's conference didn't affect their views.

Joe Oliva said, "Finally, the decision is Saddam's. All he has to do is comply with the United Nation's Resolution 1441 and there will be no war."

www.printz.usm.edu By  Whitney Dennis Staff Writer

Community members, USM students, faculty and staff crowded a Joseph Greene Hall auditorium  to voice opinions on  the possible war with Iraq.

 The USM Department of History sponsored its second public forum on the issue,  which featured six panelists from the USM faculty.

One panelist, Paula Smithka, assistant professor of philosophy and religion, discussed Christian ideas of just warfare and questioned the ability of the U.S. to justify war with Iraq. Smithka said that the U.N. charter of 1945 says the only justifiable war is self-defense.

Smithka challenged the motive behind the pending war. "Our president and vice-president are both oil people," Smithka said.     Frank Glamser, professor of sociology, said that oil would not be the reason for war with Iraq.

"It is not blood for oil," Glamser said. He said the U.S. could get oil from Venezuela if the need for oil were the problem.

Glamser said Saddam Hussein is responsible for the rapes and murders of thousands of civilians, citing a need for a regime change. Hussein has also used poison gas on 5,000 in northern Iraq and set fire to 700 oil wells, Glamser said.

Dia Ali, a USM computer science professor said, "There is a lot of reason to go to war everywhere." Ali, who received a phone call from the USM Department of Human Resources confirming his U.S. citizenship recently, said, "Saddam Hussein does not care about anybody."

Elizabeth Drummond, USM history professor, explained European reactions to the President Bush's policy toward Iraq. She said European countries have been some of the closest allies to the U.S. in the fight against terrorism. France and Germany, however, support weapons inspections before declaring war on Iraq, Drummond said.

 Joseph Parker, USM political science professor, said Bush wants to show other Middle Eastern countries how to build democracies. War would be the easiest part of this process, Parker said. "The talk now is of a decade, at least, of American involvement." Projected costs for involvement in Iraq reach as high as $2 trillion, Parker said.

War in Iraq would result in anywhere from 48,000 to 200,000 deaths, many of which would be civilian deaths, Parker said. War in Iraq would also result in the destruction of transportation, electric grids and food and water supplies. The U.S. would have to feed 60 percent of Iraqis. While civilian opinion on the conflict with Iraq is split, civilians control the actions of the military, Lt. Col. Kevin Dougherty said.  "One of the founding principles of our country is civilian control of the military," Dougherty, professor of military science and chair of the department of military science, said.

One member of the audience voiced ambivalent opinions about the war. Bon Suarez, a 2002 graduate of USM and a lance corporal in the United States Marine Corps, said, "The last thing we want is war." Suarez, however,  said American civilians do not know results of biological weapons and other atrocities servicemen have seen.

www.vheadline.com Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 By: Paul Volgyesi

Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 18:15:44 +0100 From: Paul Volgyesi sanbasan@interware.hu To: editor@vheadline.com Subject: K vs. K

Dear Editor: Both Ks (Kaminsky and Kirkman) present us with a debate on America that hasn't changed one iota since the 1950s and would make for funny parodies if it wasn't so pathetic. Basically, K1 wouldn't live in the States where it is as bad as he sees it unless he's either a total idiot or a junkie on US consumerism, while the very concept of "Yankee Go Home" wouldn't exist if the US fitted K2's picture of it.

As for Mr. Kirkman's question: "Why not follow up his letter and tell us just exactly what it is that we Americans should be doing.", I can only answer:

• Go out and vote massively, do it based on facts -- easier obtained in the US than anywhere else in the world -- and not on commercial media lies and political ads, communicate with elected representatives and ask for respect of the US Constitution, laws and civil rights. No, sorry, DON'T DO IT! You may be accused to be a Castro-communist drug pusher, the drug being participative democracy!

*Look at it from a very egoistic point of view, don't feel for some whacked-out niggers out there in the bush, just for precious little YOURSELVES! That is, most of ALL of the damage the outer world is accusing neo-liberalism of doing to them is inflicted upon YOU TOO.

The only difference is that you have a little more distance to fall than they do.

Well, W.'s little war games may be accelerating that pace too.

Paul Volgyesi sanbasan@interware.hu

www.vheadline.com Posted: Friday, March 07, 2003 By: Cecil Kirkman

Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 19:16:24 -0500 From: Cecil Kirkman cecilkir@cox.net To: Editor@VHeadline.com Subject: Re: VHeadline letter

Dear Editor: Reference the letter from Mr. Steven Hunt: Maybe I missed something or maybe you missed something in mine. I asked Mr. Kaminski to outline just exactly what the US policy should be and to spell out exactly the actions the US should take to be a peace loving and moral nation.

I would ask the same of you. It is easy to criticize ... it is easy to see the faults in others. But facing one's own shortcomings and presenting a better way... positive things ... are not so easy, are they?

But I ask the same from you, Mr. Hunt. Show us a better way. I cannot follow you if all you can do is hate, condemn, and see the bad things of life.

I would like to know the positive things that will occur if I follow your teachings ... is that asking too much?

Also, you are an expert at putting words into other people's mouths and misconstruing what they have to say. I did not ask Mr. Kaminski to leave the country, nor anyone else. I merely said I do not understand why anyone so bitter and unhappy with the country in which they live, would want to stay here and continue to be so unhappy and bitter.

And, as for me leaving, why? I am happy here and proud of my country. Why in God's name would I want to leave just because I disagree with my neighbor on some things?

And please, do not lecture me about the guaranteeing freedom of speech.

You wrote: "By the way -- freedom of expression was not "given" to us by elites; it was won by the little people that put their asses on the line and suffered state sponsored terror. Many people have been imprisoned, thrown out of work, or otherwise persecuted."

Mr. Hunt, you are addressing a man who served in the United States Air Force for over 26 years. I and my family have been shot at, escaped bombings by the skin of our teeth. I have held and consoled my children and explained to them that it was only a few fanatical Moslems that wished us harm.

If you read my bio, you know that I spent over 7 years in the Middle East living and working with Moslems. I married one and we have been together for over 40 years, happily married and have three wonderful boys (well, men now).

Mr. Hunt, I am one of those "little people that put their asses on the line"... for you, Mr. Hunt. I did it for you, that you might live in freedom and say what you want. And I can tell you for sure, I never suffered state-sponsored terror from any government. The vast majority of Moslems that I know (and there are many), are my personal and good friends and they all love America.

As for 90% of the world's population disagreeing and seeing our confrontation with Iraq as a war crime that will see the death of thousands of innocents, forgive me if I doubt your figures. I would be very interested in how you arrived at your figure. Where did you find that figure?

I also wonder this: A little over a week ago, there were mass demonstrations against an Iraqi war held in many cities around the world. Millions of people turned out to demonstrate. It was all coordinated so very well. The gathering and starting points were all predetermined. The route the parade was to take was laid out. At the end, there were stages constructed, loudspeakers and microphones at the ready. In almost every place, celebrities were scheduled to be there.

Famous singers and actors/actresses were present. A well-staged and awe inspiring event. But the whole thing raised certain questions in my mind. Who planned this demonstration? Other demonstrations that well-staged usually take months of planning and preparation ... usually about a year to plan and coordinate. And sponsors ... who sponsored these demonstrations? If the demonstrations are to have any credibility, they need to speak up and tell us stupid, lying Americans who they are.

I cannot agree or follow a group blindly unless I know who they are and what they advocate. I don't really want to know what they are against ... I want to know what they are for. Maybe you know, Mr. Hunt. If you do please let me know. I would appreciate it ... and I mean that sincerely.

Another thing about the demonstrations puzzled me. The official count given in the media, was that over 5 million turned out ... some said 6 million. OK, we know how the media is, don't we, Mr. Hunt. They would not tell us the real number. So let's say there were 10 times as many as the media said ... let's see, take the high figure (6 million), multiply that by 10 and we get 60 million people, right?

Well, every source I can find tells me that the world population is 6 billion. Well, if 60 million were at the demonstrations, where were the other 5 billion, 940 million people?

Of course, we know that the 2 billion people in the great country of China, which is a beacon of light and intelligence and democracy and freedom to the world, does not allow demonstrations unless they are state-sponsored. If you don't believe what happens to those who cross the state in China, ask the poor demonstrators in Tinnamen Square. The ones still alive (few of them) can tell you what happens if you criticize the government there. How would you fare there, Mr. Hunt?

I would suggest that you not live there. Nor Mr. Kaminski. Anyways, I digress. So getting back to my point. Because the 2 billion Chinese are not allowed to demonstrate, let's deduct them from the equation. That leaves 3 billion, 940 million not accounted for. Can you see why I sorta doubt what you say when you tell me 90% of the world's population believes the US is guilty of war crimes.

Did you know, Mr. Hunt, that the United States asked permission from every country ... for permission for our planes to fly over their country, if we needed to?  Did you know that, even though we could fly across most of them with no interference at all if we so desired, we will not do so if they object?

You don't believe me? Well, let me tell you that when I was in the Air Force, I was flying from Turkey to Germany on an Air Force plane. It was a passenger plane with no guns or ammo. The pilot before leaving Istanbul asked permission from Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Austria, and Switzerland for permission to fly over their country. We sat on the plane in Istanbul for over 5 hours waiting for replies. Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and Austria denied us permission. So we asked Greece and Italy ... again permission denied. Did we fly over them anyway? No. We  respected their wishes, and we had to fly out of Istanbul, down the Turkish coast to the Mediterranean Sea, around Greece and around Italy and up across France to Frankfurt. ... it was way outta way and took us hours longer.

Does that sound like a country that does not respect other countries, Mr. Hunt?

Our country spends billions of dollars ... billions of dollars, Mr. Hunt, developing guided bombs that can hit with pin-point accuracy. Do you know why, Mr. Hunt?

Most other countries do not spend one dime developing such weapons. Why?

Because, Mr. Hunt, they are designed to hit targets and spare the civilian structures around them. We could build many more daisy cutters and very cheaply bomb buildings in a city and wipe them out if we had no concern for civilian casualties. I know what I am talking about ... I was a part of the planning. I am not telling you what a government told me to say ... I am telling you what I know from first hand experience.

• Yes, civilians do get killed in a war, Mr. Hunt. It is unavoidable. But if America did not care and spend billions, thousands more would be killed than do.

Now do not misunderstand me. I am not telling you to think like I do. I am not telling you to shut up. I put my life on the line, to give you the right to speak up, and say what you believe. So once again, do not put words in my mouth. I disagree with you but I do not tell you to shut up.

It does not bother me that we disagree.  But what does bother me, is the vile words and language you use to attack me ... why? Because you disagree with me.

I put my life on the line for you ...and you (figuratively) spit in my face and call me dirty names. Polite people would say thank you for the thought, but I disagree with you. But I guess to you, you are just telling it like it is, without regard for my feelings. For I am nothing but a stupid, blind idiot who knows nothing.

You wrote: "Mr. Kirkman, you subscribe to the vile patriotism that is blind and morally defunct -- you demand that we obey and not be angry or critical at the gross hypocrisy we see."

Again, you put words in my mouth that I did not utter.

For you see, Mr. Hunt, although I disagree with you, I have never ... and will never demand that you obey and not be angry or critical at the gross hypocrisy that you see.

And I have never and will never tell you to shut up. NEVER.

For the more you talk and the more people you talk to, the more you become your own worst enemy.

Respectively yours, Horace C. Kirkman Cecilkir@cox.net

www.military.com In-Depth U.S.-Iraq War Analysis

Subscribe now to the U.S.-Iraq War Website. Unbiased analyses, situation reports, 24/7 monitoring, and tools for understanding the pending war from the experts at Stratfor.

Stratfor: The Chirac-Hussein Connection

French President Jacques Chirac is a pivotal figure on the international scene, whose views on Iraq are of vital concern. Those views are not driven simply by geopolitics, however. The factors that shape his thinking include a long, complex and sometimes mysterious relationship with Saddam Hussein. The relationship is not secret, but it is no longer as well known as it once was -- nor is it well known outside of France. It is not insignificant in understanding Chirac's view of Iraq.

Analysis

In attempting to understand France's behavior over the issue of war with Iraq, there is little question but that strategic, economic and geopolitical considerations are dominant drivers. However, in order to understand the details of French behavior, it is also important to understand a not really unknown but oddly neglected aspect of French policy: the personal relationship between French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein.

The relationship dates back to late 1974, when then-French Premier Chirac traveled to Baghdad and met the No. 2 man in the Iraqi government, Vice President Saddam Hussein. During that visit, Chirac and Hussein conducted negotiations on a range of issues, the most important of these being Iraq's purchase of nuclear reactors. In September 1975, Hussein traveled to Paris, where Chirac personally gave him a tour of a French nuclear plant. During that visit, Chirac said, "Iraq is in the process of beginning a coherent nuclear program and France wants to associate herself with that effort in the field of reactors." France sold two reactors to Iraq, with the agreement signed during Hussein's visit. The Iraqis purchased a 70-megawatt reactor, along with six charges of 26 points of uranium enriched to 93 percent -- in other words, enough weapons-grade uranium to produce three to four nuclear devices. Baghdad also purchased a one-megawatt research reactor, and France agreed to train 600 Iraqi nuclear technicians and scientists -- the core of Iraq's nuclear capability today. Other dimensions of the relationship were decided on during this visit and implemented in the months afterward. France agreed to sell Iraq $1.5 billion worth of weapons -- including the integrated air defense system that was destroyed by the United States in 1991, about 60 Mirage F1 fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles and advanced electronics. The Iraqis, for their part, agreed to sell France $70 million worth of oil. During this period, Chirac and Hussein formed what Chirac called a close personal relationship. As the New York Times put it in a 1986 report about Chirac's attempt to return to the premiership, the French official "has said many times that he is a personal friend of Saddam Hussein of Iraq." In 1987, the Manchester Guardian Weekly quoted Chirac as saying that he was "truly fascinated by Saddam Hussein since 1974." Whatever personal chemistry there might have been between the two leaders obviously remained in place a decade later, and clearly was not simply linked to the deals of 1974-75. Politicians and businessmen move on; they don't linger the way Chirac did. Partly because of the breadth of the relationship Chirac and Hussein had created in a relatively short period of time and the obvious warmth of their personal ties, there was intense speculation about the less visible aspects of the relationship. For example, one unsubstantiated rumor that still can be heard in places like Beirut was that Hussein helped to finance Chirac's run for mayor of Paris in 1977, after he lost the French premiership. Another, equally unsubstantiated rumor was that Hussein had skimmed funds from the huge amounts of money that were being moved around, and that he did so with Chirac's full knowledge. There are endless rumors, all unproven and perhaps all scurrilous, about the relationship. Some of these might have been moved by malice, but they also are powered by the unfathomability of the relationship and by Chirac's willingness to publicly affirm it. It reached the point that Iranians referred to Chirac as "Shah-Iraq" and Israelis spoke of the Osirak reactor as "O-Chirac." Indeed, as recently as last week, a Stratfor source in Lebanon reasserted these claims as if they were incontestable. Innuendo has become reality. Former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who held office at the time of the negotiations with Iraq, said in 1984 that the deal "came out of an agreement that was not negotiated in Paris and therefore did not originate with the president of the republic." Under the odd French constitution, it is conceivable that the president of the republic wouldn't know what the premier of France had negotiated -- but on a deal of this scale, this would be unlikely, unless the deal in fact had been negotiated between Chirac and Hussein in the dark and presented as a fait accompli. There is some evidence for this notion. Earlier, when Giscard d'Estaing found out about the deal -- and particularly about the sale of 93 percent uranium -- he had ordered the French nuclear research facility at Saclay to develop an alternative that would take care of Iraq's legitimate needs, but without supplying weapons-grade uranium. The product, called "caramel," was only 3 percent enriched but entirely suitable to non-weapons needs. The French made the offer, which Iraq declined. By 1986, Chirac clearly had decided to change his image. In preparation for the 1988 presidential elections, Chirac let it be known that he never had anything to do with the sale of the Osirak reactor. In an interview with an Israeli newspaper, he said, "It wasn't me who negotiated the construction of Osirak with Baghdad. The negotiation was led by my minister of industry in very close collaboration with Giscard d'Estaing." He went on to say, "I never took part in these negotiations. I never discussed the subject with Saddam Hussein. The fact is that I did not find out about the affair until very late." Obviously, Chirac was contradicting what he had said publicly in 1975. More to the point, he also was not making a great deal of sense in claiming that his minister of industry -- who at that time was Michel d'Ornano -- had negotiated a deal as large as this one. That is true even if one assumes the absurd, which was that the nuclear deal was a stand-alone and not linked to the arms and oil deals or to a broader strategic relationship. In fact, d'Ornano claimed that he didn't even make the trip to Iraq with Chirac in 1974, let alone act as the prime negotiator. Everything he did was in conjunction with Chirac. In 1981, the Israelis destroyed the Iraqi reactor in an air attack. There were rumors -- which were denied -- that the French government was offering to rebuild the reactor. In August 1987, French satirical and muckraking magazine, "Le Canard Enchaine" published excerpts of a letter from Chirac to Hussein -- dated June 24, 1987, and hand-delivered by Trade Minister Michel Noir -- which the magazine claimed indicated that he was negotiating to rebuild the Iraqi reactor. The letter says nothing about nuclear reactors, but it does say that Chirac hopes for an agreement "on the negotiation which you know about," and it speaks of the "cooperation launched more than 12 years ago under our personal joint initiative, in this capital district for the sovereignty, independence and security of your country." In the letter, Chirac also, once again, referred to Hussein as "my dear friend." Chirac and the government confirmed that the letter was genuine. They denied that it referred to rebuilding a nuclear reactor. The letter speaks merely of the agreements relating to "an essential chapter in Franco-Iraqi relations, both in the present circumstances and in the future." Chirac claimed that any attempt to link the letter to the reconstruction of the nuclear facility was a "ridiculous invention." Assuming Chirac's sincerity, this leaves open the question of what the "essential chapter" refers to and why, instead of specifying the subject, Chirac resorted to a circumlocution like "negotiation which you know about." Only two possible conclusions can be drawn from this letter: Chirac either was trying, in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war and after his denial of involvement in the first place, to rebuild Iraq's nuclear capability, or he wasn't. And if he wasn't, what was he doing that required such complex language, clearly intended for deniability if revealed? No ordinary state-to-state relationship would require a combination of affection, recollection of long history and promise for the future without mentioning the subject. If we concede to Chirac that it had nothing to do with nuclear reactors, then the mystery actually deepens. It is unfair to tag Chirac with the rumors that have trailed him in his relations with Hussein. It is fair to say, however, that Chirac has created a circumstance for breeding rumors. The issues raised here were all well known at one time and place. When they are laid end-to-end, a mystery arises. What affair was being discussed in the letter delivered by Michel Noir? If not nuclear reactors, then what was referenced but never mentioned specifically in Chirac's letter to his "dear friend" Hussein? Whatever the answer, it is clear that the relationship between Chirac and Hussein is long and complex, and not altogether easy to understand. That relationship does not, by itself, explain all of France's policies toward Iraq or its stance toward a war between the United States and Iraq. But at the same time, it is inconceivable that this relationship has no effect on Chirac's personal decision-making process. There is an intensity to Chirac's Iraq policy that may simply signify the remnants of an old, warm friendship gone bad, or that may have a different origin. In any case, it is a reality that cannot be ignored and that must be taken into account in understanding the French leader's behavior.