<a href=www.worldnetdaily.com>WorldNetDaily.com Posted: April 10, 2003 8:15 p.m. Eastern

A U.S. plan for getting Iraq back on its feet may deliver a body blow to the economies of oil-producing Gulf states, according to Arab analysts, who are greeting the remarks by Vice President Dick Cheney about Iraq's future crude production with suspicion.

Cheney predicted Iraq may be able to pump as much as 3 million barrels of oil a day by the end of this year, which would generate annual sales of $20 billion to help it rebuild.

The total cost of reconstruction in Iraq is estimated to reach $100 billion.

Iraq averaged production of 2.48 million barrels a day in February, according to Bloomberg News estimates and currently produces 1.7 million barrels a day, according to Arab News.

Arab analysts allege the U.S., the world's largest oil consumer, will seek to pump up Iraq's production quotas as a way to drive down the price.

Adnan Jaber, economic editor of Al-Watan, told Arab News the drop in oil prices could have a domino effect on other sectors of the economy in Saudi Arabia and across the region, exacerbating an existing unemployment problem.

"It is worth noting that while the U.S. forces allowed the Iraqis to loot and plunder various ministries, the only one they protected against public intrusion and theft was the Ministry of Petroleum," Adnan said.

Oil prices slid nearly 5 percent yesterday as Kurdish fighters took control in the oil-rich city of Kirkuk in northern Iraq, easing fears of damage to Iraqi oil fields, which in turn contributed to fears a glut may be on the horizon.

The International Energy Agency reported global oil production last month rose to a record 80.3 million barrels a day.

"OPEC is worried, and with good reason,'' Jim Steel, director of commodity research at Refco Inc. in New York, told Bloomberg News. "Production is up, and it will be difficult to get the different nations to reduce output by enough to support prices.''

Top exporters Saudi Arabia and Russia increased output last month after Iraqi production was disrupted by the war. The reported daily production surplus is now 2 million barrels.

"There is an awful lot of oil out there," Kyle Cooper, a Citigroup Inc. analyst in Houston, told Bloomberg. "Even if the Saudis cut production by 1 million barrels, supplies will grow. Nigerian production is increasing and there could still be further increases from Venezuela. OPEC members hate cutting output because it means a decline in income.''

OPEC will consider whether to cut production quotas at a proposed emergency meeting planned for later this month or early May.

Adnan suspects the U.S. would pull Iraq out of OPEC to undercut the oil-quota system.

"After all, the U.S. bypassed the U.N. Security Council in going to war against Iraq. It could just as well bypass OPEC in its quest for cheap Iraqi oil, since Iraq has 300 billion barrels of underground oil reserves," he asserted.

The suspicions in the Arab world may explain why Bush administration officials plan to revive strained relations with the United Nations Security Council. As WorldNetDaily reported, Secretary of State Colin Powell said the U.S. will seek new resolutions regarding management details in post-war Iraq.

"We need an endorsement of the authority, an endorsement of what we're doing in order to begin selling oil in due course, and in order to make sure that the humanitarian supplies continue to flow in the oil-for-food program," Powell said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.

<a href=www.abs-cbnnews.com>ABS-CBNNews VANTAGE POINT By LUIS V. TEODORO  

  The next targets of U.S. regime change are likely to be Iran and Syria, but will include Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well as other governments the US regards as actually or potentially hostile.  

World War IV has begun. Although the war is barely noticed by Filipinos, the Philippines is already part of it. The clearest indication of that involvement is the Philippines’ being part of the “Coalition of the Willing.” The less obvious signs are the bombings in Davao, the Balikatan “exercises” and the return of the U.S. military bases.

WW I lasted from 1914 to 1918, WW II from 1939 to 1945. The entire world was in WW III from 1945 to 1990, though much of it didn’t know it. The longest world war yet, WW III was also known as the Cold War, in which the United States and the Soviet union, though several times coming close to a nuclear exchange, fought several wars by proxy: in Korea and Vietnam, for example, and finally in Afghanistan in the 1980s. (The war in Afghanistan, which resulted in the USSR's withdrawal, was among the reasons why the USSR and the entire Eastern Bloc collapsed in 1990.)

The characterization of the Cold War as WW III comes from James Woolsey, who was director of the US Central Intelligence Agency during the Bill Clinton presidency. If he’s right, the next world war will be the first in the 21st century, but the fourth since 1914.

Woolsey says WW IV -- a war supposedly against terrorism and oppressive regimes, but in truth a war for US global dominance -- began with the US invasion of Iraq.

Woolsey doesn’t use the word “invasion,” since like all U.S. hawks he believes that the United States attacked Iraq to “liberate” the Iraqis. But he did suggest in a speech at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) in the first week of April that, once the US has removed Sad- dam Hussein, Iraq will be the base from which it will remake the Middle East.

The next targets of U.S. regime change are likely to be Iran and Syria, but will include Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- US allies the United States believes have be- come too erratic to depend upon -- as well as other governments the U.S. regards as actually or potentially hostile. These are, among others, Libya, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and China.

The means to wage “war” against these countries, says U.S. author Richard Bennett, will be diplomatic and economic pressure, propaganda campaigns and espionage, “but if all else fails, [will include] military action . . . up to and including full-scale war.”

It’s all in keeping with the Bush doctrine to remake the world to America’s liking (a prerogative that once belonged only to God and the sovereign peoples of each nation).

The campaign is couched in terms like “bringing democracy” to various countries and “liberating” them from oppressive regimes, but it’s actually meant to assure total US global dominance in land, sea, air and, eventually, space.

“As we [the U.S.] move toward a new Middle East . . . over the decades to come, we will make a lot of people nervous,” Woolsey said in his UCLA speech. Addressing Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak -- whose government has been appeasing the US by arresting and torturing anti-U.S. demonstrators in the last few weeks -- and the Saudi Arabian royal family (with which the Bush family has had close business ties), Woolsey said, “we [the U.S.] want you nervous.

“We want you to realize that now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you, the Mubaraks and the Saudi royal family most fear: we’re on the side of your own people.”

That the U.S. will be -- it has never been -- on the side of the people suffering under oppressive regimes (which in most cases it either put in power or sustains) anywhere is of course mostly myth, the U.S. being on the side of the U.S. and its economic and strategic interests.

But besides pointedly suggesting that past friendships and even canine devotion are of no consequence to the current U.S. rulers, Woolsey’s warning does suggest that the U.S. did not invade Iraq just to oust Saddam Hussein, but to seize control of Iraqi oil, establish a permanent military presence in the Middle East, and remake the entire region.

The plan is all there in black and white -- in the September 2000 report of the Project for a New American Century (“Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century”), which had for members U.S. Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. (PNAC claims to be a “nonprofit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership.”)

To maintain U.S. global “preeminence” (read: total dominance), the report envisions a Pax Americana in which the United States would have global dominance “precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with U.S. principles and interests.” The U.S., urges the report, must have the capability to fight “multi-theater wars” to extend U.S. power throughout the planet.

The invasion of Iraq began the process. Neither Saddam Hussein nor his “weapons of mass destruction,” or his being a dictator, the PNAC Report makes clear, is really the issue.

The report speaks of “the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf . . . [which] transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.” The report admits that what is envisioned is for the U.S. “to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security.”

To achieve this, “the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification” for moving U.S. forces into the region.

Where does the Philippines figure in this grand design for a war that’s likely to last for decades, perhaps for much of this century?

The United States has been establishing military bases all over the world in the last two years, in compliance with one of the report’s major recommendations: that the US shift “permanently based [military] forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia” (where the Philippines is located) so US troops can be quickly deployed in the event of war with the regimes (in Asia, North Korea and China particularly) the Bush coterie abhors.

Once host to U.S. bases, the Philippines since 2001 has opened its territory to U.S. forces, and allowed the construction of “temporary” facilities for them. The Balikatan exercises and the Mutual Logistics Support Agreement, which assure U.S. troops a presence in the Philippines that’s likely to become permanent over time, are thus part of U.S. preparations for the wars that, following the PNAC Report, it is likely to wage.

The bombings in Davao have achieved two things. They have demonized the Muslim groups and justified repression as well as the use of U.S. troops in “training” their Philippine counterparts. In this context, the escalating violence in that long-suffering region is as much a part of World War IV as the U.S. attack on Iraq.

Please send your comments or feedback to newsfeedback@abs-cbn.com

LUIS TEODORO/TODAY

Posted on Fri, Apr. 04, 2003 CASTO OCANDO Especial para El Nuevo Herald

``¿Sabes? No me siento asustada. Tengo mucha seguridad de que todo va a salir bien, y que va a ser tan rápido que cuando menos lo esperemos voy a estar de regreso. Los extraño mucho''.

Estas cortas líneas fueron escritas a pocas millas de Bagdad por la sargento del Cuerpo de Marines Jinais Paiz Cadenas, de 23 años, una de las primeras mujeres venezolanas que están dando la pelea en el frente de guerra en Irak.

Nacida en Caracas en 1979 y llegada a Miami hace ocho años, Jinais forma parte del contingente de venezolanos que están participando en el conflicto bélico, un reducido grupo de entre los 15,000 hispanos que según el Departamento de Defensa, están peleando en la guerra contra Irak.

''Me siento muy orgullosa de ella, pero me siento preocupada por lo que le pueda pasar'', dice su madre, Sol Rivero, de 46 años, que desde la partida de Jinais a la guerra quedó a cargo de su pequeña hija, Natasha, de 2 años.

La sargento Paiz Cadenas, especialista en equipos eléctricos, está en Bagdad al igual que su esposo Jimmy Paiz, un especialista en artillería aérea hijo de padres hondureños, a quien conoció hace tres años cuando ambos estaban en la base norteamericana de Okinawa, Japón.

Ingresada en 1998 a la base del Cuerpo de Marines de Parris Island, en Carolina del Sur, inmediatamente después de terminar la secundaria, Paiz Cadenas se formó en las bases militares de Lejeune, en Carolina del Norte; Okinawa, Japón, y Pendleton, en San Diego, donde estaba asignada antes de ir a la guerra.

''Desde que estaba en la escuela, siempre se interesó en los temas militares'', cuenta su padre Edgard Cadenas, de 46 años y también nacido en Caracas. ''Cambió la posibilidad de aceptar una beca en una universidad prestigiosa por la vida militar'', acota.

La tradición militar ha estado presente en la familia. El abuelo de Paiz Cadenas fue funcionario de la Guardia Nacional de Venezuela, y tiene un primo que llegó a coronel del ejército venezolano, ahora en situación de retiro.

La vida de la familia de la sargento cambió radicalmente desde su partida hacia Irak, el 29 de enero de este año.

''Mi vida me ha cambiado mucho, porque la siento a ella muy lejos, hay mucha tristeza. Ya no me provoca salir, casi no tengo vida social'', afirma su madre. ''He estado muy preocupada por Jinais, y estoy aquí porque quiero saber lo que ella está viviendo'', dice Gloria Cox, abuela de la sargento.

La noticia de la partida de Paiz Cadena se regó como pólvora entre sus amistades en Caracas. Anabella Delgado, su mejor amiga y compañera de estudios desde los 3 años, quedó sorprendida. ''¿Cómo que está en la guerra? ¡No puede ser!'', preguntó asombrada Delgado por internet al padre de Jinais en Miami.

La familia completa se reúne con frecuencia, ''para recordar a Jinais, ver las noticias en la televisión, y comentar el avance de las tropas'', explica Amanda, actual esposa de Cadenas.

En medio de la tristeza familiar, los comentarios de buen humor de la propia Paiz Cadenas ponen una nota refrescante. En la última carta que llegó esta semana, escribió: ``Yo estoy de vacaciones por aquí en el Medio Oriente, con todo pago. Qué más quiero''.

<a href=www.vheadline.com>Venezuela's Electronic News Posted: Friday, April 04, 2003 By: Patrick J. O'Donoghue

The Venezuelan media has unearthed a Venezuelan, currently fighting in the Anglo-American war on Iraq. Eugenio Jose Caceres (19) , son of Livia Caceres, was born in Maracaibo (Zulia) but has lived in the USA since 1987. He joined up for the US Marines two years ago after finishing high school in Stuart, Florida. 

The news report does not discover the reasons why Eugenio went to the USA in the first place nor does it delve into the realm of human interest regarding why his parents are in Zulia. 

What is certain is that on the phone Eugenio the Marine has a marked "maracucho" accent and that he is with the Marines in Nasariya (Iraq) where the first skirmishes broke out between Anglo-American forces and Iraqi troops. 

The Marine has two brothers Samuel (16) and Israel (14) and it seems the family belongs to an evangelical church. Mrs. Caceres says she's proud of her son, who phones home regularly ... "I  was surprised and apprehensive when he told that he was going to war." 

The family relates that it received a pleasant surprise when an unknown US citizen brought them  a basket of food on discovering that the son was fighting in Iraq. Mr. Caceres does not beat about the bush, saying he supports his son 100% and Sadaam Hussein is a criminal, who deserves to be overthrown.

Apr. 4, 2003. 11:50 AM <a href=www.thestar.com>Toronto Star Olivia Ward in Israel  

We asked readers for their views on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Here's what you had to say:

This conflict makes me think of a swarming. Saddam reminds me of a mean kid who is cruel to his brothers and sisters, disliked by others, and is suspected of carrying a weapon. Finally, out of fear and loathing, a bunch of kids swarm this bully and kick the crap out of him. Justified? Well, swarmings are never justified. They are vigilante justice. They are wrong. -Wendy Bailey, Penetanguishene, April 4

How can anyone suggest we Canadians support this illegal war that the U.S. is waging on Iraq just because we may be punished with monetary sanctions? Are we not a moral people? -Anthony Watt, Toronto, April 4

If the House of Commons passes the resolution supporting a quick victory for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, I'll never vote Liberal again. -Mark Lundie, Waterloo, April 4

Whether you are American or Canadian I'm disgusted by the whining about "if the shoe was on the other foot Americans would support us Canadians." Well, the shoe is not on the other foot because Canada is not a war-mongering nation and would not have taken the position the U.S. has to begin with. Remember how the U.S. was 3 years behind Canada in joining the first two World Wars? Yeah, right beside us, weren't you! -Lorne Busse, Toronto, April 4

I am against this war, against the fascist tendencies of this administration, and I feel sorry for the Iraqi people who, on top of having to deal with a tyrannical dictator, now have to watch innocent family members die while their country is invaded because "it's for their own good." -Chad Lovewell, Wilmington, N.C., April 4

I am a Canadian who has immigrated to the U.S. I have been here for almost four years and since then I have gained an appreciation for my American friends. It sickens me to see Canadians slamming Americans and their policies when in fact Canadians benefit in all respects from having a strong neighbour. -Ed Kahle, Houston, April 4

I find it alarming that many responses supporting the U.S. actions are based on our reliance on the U.S. as a trading partner. Is this the basis of our "friendship"? -Mike Fagan, Belleville, April 4

It goes without saying that the rule of Saddam Hussein is brutal. However, the world can thank the U.S.A. and its meddlesome CIA that his regime exists at all. Indeed for years Saddam was a favoured American ally. -Kelly Thomas, Toronto, April 4

Where were the hoards of protesters when Saddam was slaughtering his people? I don't recall one single person offering to be a human shield to stop Chemical Ali. -Joan Craig, Ottawa, April 4

Mr. Chretien has made a wise decision not to involve Canada in this war. Saddam is no saint, but this time around there was no provocation to merit a war. I supported the '91 war but the pretext of going to war this time is flimsy and hollow. -Tuffour Agyemang, Toronto, April 4

The U.S. invasion of Iraq is indefensible. It is a naked attempt to steal Iraqi oil. Millions worldwide have protested and the United Nations has opposed this criminal invasion. -Irvine Barat, Windsor, Mar. 30

Many supporters of the war have accused anti-war Canadians of acting smug . . . regarding our government’s decision not to support it. Most Canadians don’t feel smugness, they feel fear. Not only because of the potential for human misery in Iraq and that region generally . . . but fear that future U.S. administrations will lead the U.S. to automatically deal with international problems with the same 'might is right, damn the torpedoes' foreign policy. -Rick Argles, Mississauga, Mar. 30

Saddam's brutality towards his neighbours and his own people is well documented and indisputable. That alone is reason enough to go in. -Peter Degrassi, Mississauga, Mar. 29

The war is now a fact, so now it makes no difference if you support it or not. It is a time to pray that it will come to a swift conclusion with as little death and destruction as is possible. This is a very volatile part of the world and it would take little to get a massive and destructive world war started. Prayer is needed badly! -Michael Doyon, Gander, Mar. 29

I spent 30 years of my life serving Canada as a member of its Armed Forces. In all that time whenever there was trouble in the world and we were sent to help, our American brothers were always there first. . . . What our government has done is unforgivable. We are standing by while our best friend is in need. Forget the right and wrong of the war, it's our duty to our friend that we must honour. I can honestly say I am ashamed to be a Canadian at this time. -Marvin Hodgins, Kingston, Mar. 28

I believe any thinking person is against war but sometimes it is necessary and we should back our neighbours and allies. -Josephine Ronquist, Westbank, B.C., Mar. 28

I am in full support of Chretien. The fact is that Saddam Hussein was America's boy. The CIA helped him to power, as they did the Shah of Iran and Noriega and Marcos and the Taliban and countless other brutal tyrants. The fact is that George Bush Sr. continued to supply nerve gas and technology to Saddam even after he used it on Iran and then the Kurds in Iraq. -Natalie Armstrong, Alliston, Mar. 28

I am appalled that many Canadians were content with the status quo in Iraq. They know of the brutality, murder, rape, and more that is part of daily life in Iraq. . . . Remember, Saddam has two sons who are equally brutal, if nothing is done now the rape and murder of the Iraqi people will continue for another generation. -Joseph Leclerc, Quinte West, Mar. 28

No one wanted a war, but it has started and we need to support the cause. I am an embarrassed Canadian! -Betty McKeown, Ft. Myers, FLA, Mar. 28

I am a Canadian living in the United States. . . . Has our Prime Minister forgotten who are friends are? We are now ignoring the U.S, Great Britain, and Australia, only to align ourselves with Russia, China, Germany and France. All of these countries . . . have been supplying sophisticated military technology to the Iraqi regime. Wake up Canada! -Greg Ward, Houston, Mar. 28

The U.S. has stated that they do not necessarily need to be directly attacked in order to claim self-defence because the mere possibility of a nation's aggression is provocation enough to 'defend' themselves. What would have happened to the world if this logic had prevailed during the Cold War? -Graham Pipher, Mississauga, Mar. 27

I believe that Canada's attempt to broker a deal at the U.N. was an admirable thing to do. But now that reality has set in and the war is on, we need to realize who we share this continent with and support the U.S. effort in Iraq. -Brian Doughty, Stratford, Mar. 27

I just have one question for everyone, regardless which side one is on concerning the war: where were each and every one of you during the last twelve years when this mad man massacred his people? And why isn't anyone protesting what is going on in Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Northern Ireland, Brazil, Sudan, the Congo, North Korea, Burma, and China? -Ian McClosky, Buffalo, NY, Mar. 27

At least the U.S. and England are trying to help the people of Iraq. What is Canada doing? At least we are trying to stop the torture and killing. -Jack Sawyer, Dallas, TX, Mar. 27

In the 80's, the U.S. bolstered Saddam into power, gave him the tools to battle Iran, and for a while, turned a blind eye to his use of chemical weapons. Now, they are portraying themselves as liberators against a regime that they themselves advocated. -Kevin Winik, Toronto, Mar. 27

Remember this moment in our history! When our fellow Canadians complain that the United States are shunning us and we are losing jobs, our economy is taking a hit, and tariffs are to high - remind them how we stabbed the U.S. in the back when they needed us. -John Chartrand, Toronto, Mar. 27