Five Myths About the War with Iraq

Mega Genius® Intelligence Briefing [19]



Throughout the entirety of this physical universe there are only two ways to accomplish anything.

The simplest way is to change your own mind and, thereby, increase your understanding.

For example, one who considers himself to be unlucky, or a victim, might suddenly decide to consider himself responsible for his own condition. He might, although it’s unlikely that he will … since changing one’s own mind is often the most difficult thing a person can do. Furthermore, changing one’s own mind about some major aspect of life is almost impossible.

You see, one of life’s deeper secrets is that life isn’t difficult at all. It’s paradise on a Popsicle® stick. What makes life seem continually hard is merely the inflexibility of one’s own mind.

The second way to accomplish something in this universe is to communicate with someone or something.

Here is how communication works. First you talk, listen, write, read, or otherwise send or receive ideas, information, or objects.  And in the course of doing so, you differentiate more effectively between things that have appeared to be identical or similar. In the process of that differentiation, you increase the accuracy of your perception and — abracadabra — your understanding consequently increases.

If your understanding does not increase, then you have not been communicating, but miscommunicating.

For example, you might stop by your local nursery and read the information on tags attached to various plants. By doing that, you differentiate more effectively between different kinds of tomato seedlings, and increase your perception of the assorted tomato plants’ requirements, and, with increased understanding, select the variety of plant that is likely to produce the choicest tomatoes on your patio.

In brief, by communicating effectively, you can differentiate more thoroughly, then perceive more accurately, and then increase your understanding of anything that appears complex.

By communicating effectively, you can also do something else that is remarkable. Sometimes you can change another person’s mind, thereby causing them to increase their understanding.

So, either you change your mind or you communicate effectively. There is no other way in this entire universe to increase understanding.

Many people around the world do not understand the approaching military situation between the United States and Iraq. Furthermore, most of them have made up their minds and are neither inclined to change them nor, in many cases, are even able to do so. Yet the only hope we have of increasing understanding about the war with Iraq is by addressing a few of the myths with the only technique by which we can change someone else’s mind — effective communication.

Let’s try it.


1. President George W. Bush is determined to start a war with the Republic of Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein.


That’s false.

In August 1990, President Saddam Hussein, of Iraq, seized the Country of Kuwait. Hussein’s rejection of diplomatic efforts to solve that crisis led to the decision to restore Kuwait’s sovereignty by military force. Accordingly, in February 1991, Hussein was expelled by United Nations coalition forces led by the United States.

President George H. W. Bush then declared a cease-fire and the United Nations Security Council required Saddam Hussein to destroy all his weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles. The Security Council also required Hussein to allow unconditional United Nations verification inspections, to which Hussein agreed, but subsequently reneged. United Nations trade sanctions remain in effect due to Hussein’s defiant non-compliance with 17 United Nations resolutions. (The Security Council will vote on resolution number 18 in a few days.)

President George W. Bush cannot start a war with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by preemptively striking the Republic of Iraq, since the 1991 Persian Gulf War has never ended. Only a cease-fire was declared.

On 29 January 2003, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Richard Myers finally revealed to the public that United States military forces were actually operating on the ground in Iraq. (I had already revealed that to you some four months earlier.)

The fact is that our forces are continually and systematically striking Iraqi military sites with hundreds of warplanes daily in a war that has endured, in varying degrees, for the past 12 years and officially continues to this day.


2. The United States should abide by any decision of the United Nations and is required to do so.

That’s false.

The United Nations was established on 24 October 1945, with four purposes: To maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights; and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations.

It has been substantially ineffective in attaining its goals of agreement, friendship, peace and security (which wisdom dictates must be realized in that order). The United Nations is a fine idea with a fatal flaw, which is that it does not understand the subject of ethics. Consequently the United Nations is irrelevant, but does not realize it, yet.

The United Nations is not a world government, cannot and does not make laws, and, therefore, cannot be responsible for the security of the United States. Therefore, the United States must consider any decision of the United Nations to be subordinate to ensuring the security of the United States.

Unlike the United Nations, President George W. Bush has solemnly sworn an oath to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Furthermore, the President is authorized by a resolution of the United States Congress (and Resolution 1441 of the United Nations Security Council [which passed 15 - 0]) to use force at this time to disarm Saddam Hussein.


3. A significant percentage of Americans are against removing Saddam Hussein from power.

That’s false.

Some celebrities, like American folk singer and political activist Joan Baez, are protesting the impending military action, much as celebrities protested the Vietnam War in the late 1960′s.

I don’t know Joan Baez, although (Mrs.) Joan Bridge Baez, the singer’s charming mother, and I began a long-term correspondence well before the singer began protesting the Vietnam War. From the mother’s comments, I’ve inferred that the daughter is merely against all violence.

I sympathize with the singer. War is horrendous, but can easily be eliminated by any civilization of sufficient intelligence. Unfortunately those who inhabitant this planet do not yet understand the simple secret for doing so.

I think it would be unfair to categorize Joan Baez with, for example, Academy Award-winning actress and political activist Jane Fonda, with whom I have had several face-to-face conversations (along with her former husband, “Chicago Seven” member and former California State Legislator Tom Hayden). From Jane’s comments, I inferred that she was merely against America.

My inference may have had something to do with Jane’s statement in 1970:


“If you understood what communism was, you would hope [pause], you would pray on your knees that we would someday become communist.”


Perhaps I was also influenced by the 1972 photograph of a helmeted “Hanoi Jane” sitting in a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun carrier used to destroy United States planes and kill American servicemen, whom she referred to as “war criminals.”

Nevertheless, in 1988 Jane publicly and sincerely apologized to Vietnam veterans and their families whom she had hurt. Like many others she had been young (well, in her early 30′s) and quite foolish, which fortunately for every one of us is not necessarily a crime. Jane’s particular mistake was that, in addition, she had simultaneously been quite rich and famous (a combustible combination).

A number of celebrities have been protesting recently, including Jane Fonda, Madonna, Barbra Streisand, Kim Basinger, Oliver Stone, Matt Damon, Martin Sheen, Danny Glover, Mike Farrell, George Clooney, Harry Belafonte and Sean Penn. Nevertheless, neither Joan Baez nor any of these other singers and actors has the responsibility for making the decisions that ensure the security of the United States. They are people with fine talents in the arts, whose opinions about politics mean no more than anyone else’s.

Keep in mind that most Americans, famous or not, who are protesting the impending removal of Saddam Hussein from power are partial. Most of them voted for Al Gore in the last general election and have never supported George W. Bush.

According to a current nationwide poll, fifty-nine percent of Americans think that Saddam Hussein should be removed, without reservation. Another thirty-seven percent think he should be removed, with reservations, regarding when and how. Four percent don’t know (are incapable of human thought) or think he should remain in power.

Almost everyone thinks Saddam Hussein must go. It’s just a question of when and how.


4. Other world leaders think America is wrong to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

That’s false.

One’s own survival usually seems more important to oneself than any group to which one belongs. A person almost invariably feels more responsibility for himself than he feels for the group.

That is why our Congresspersons and Senators vote their pocketbooks in the form of what appears to be best for their individual states and constituents in the short-term, rather than what is best for the entire United States and their constituents in the long-term. With few exceptions, members of Congress are more concerned about their reelection than they care about our Country.

Those politicians’ characters and ethics are deficient, but those are the men and women for whom the majority of your relatives, friends and neighbors have continually cast their votes. Perhaps you have, too.

Similarly, the leaders of other countries tend to care more about their own immediate economic interests and reelections than they do about what is best for our planet.

Jiang Zemin, President of the Peoples’ Republic of China, does not appear to be on the side of the United States as this new phase of the Gulf War approaches. That is more of an apparency than a fact. Regardless, the position of Jiang Zemin will not matter in the end.

What matters to China is that it is respected.

Nor does Russian President Vladimir Putin appear to be on the side of the United States. That, too, is primarily an apparency. The reason the United States has not had President Putin’s support is three-fold. The first is that Russia has been providing weapons’ components to Saddam Hussein. The second is Iraq’s seven-billion dollar debt to Russia. The third is Russia’s multi-billion dollar oil-exploration contracts with the Iraqi dictator. (Russia is Iraq’s number one oil-trading partner.)

What matters to Russia is money.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is not on the side of the United States. That state of affairs is of a relatively short-term nature. The reason the United States has not had Schroeder’s support is two-fold. The first is that Chancellor Schroeder is concerned with his political survival. The second is that Germany has covertly sold significant weapons to Iraq, in violation of United Nations trade sanctions, which Chancellor Schroeder does not want revealed.

What matters to Germany is reputation.

French President Jacques Chirac is currently antagonistic to the United States, which is likely to be a prolonged situation, continuing for at least the term of the French President. The reason the United States has not had President Chirac’s support is four-fold. The first is that President Chirac wants to become a world player instead of a pawn, which he mistakenly thinks he can best achieve by opposing the United States. The second is that France is Iraq’s largest European trading partner. The third is that France wants to protect its oil-exploration contracts with Saddam Hussein. The fourth is that France has covertly sold significant weapons to Iraq, in violation of United Nations trade sanctions, which President Chirac does not want revealed.

What matters to France is stature and saving face.

Just as most citizens of the Middle East know that the unelected leader of Iraq needs to be removed from his dictatorship for the good of this planet (some just don’t fully trust the United States to lead the coalition), so do the leaders of China, Russia, Germany and France know that Saddam Hussein must be removed. They, however, don’t care — except for protecting their reputations, other self-interests and political futures.

They want the United States to consider that they are friends, but they are not good friends, and French President Jacques Chirac is not being a friend at all.

As a Country of relatively recent origin, the United States is like the new rich kid on the block, desperately needing to be liked by all the other kids. The United States should concentrate on doing what is most ethical and stop obsessing about what all the other kids think.


5. President Saddam Hussein has no chance against the coalition led by the United States.

That’s false. The first objective of the United States will not be to kill Saddam Hussein.

In 1991 the United States amassed tanks and troops and began a ground war, with key air support, from the “outside in,” and then stopped too soon. The United Nations repeatedly threatened Hussein, but then “diddled” its lips. This time the United States will use the opposite technique: the “inside out” plan.

With the first two F-117A Nighthawks screaming across the dark and moonless Iraqi night skies as the first major air strike begins, the United States will employ a new high-intensity electromagnetic pulse (EMP) technique designed to knock out all ground-based electronics and electrical systems for several square blocks around the heart of Saddam Hussein’s operations. The first objective will be to immediately sever Hussein’s communication with his generals, thereby rendering him and his high command inoperative.

The second objective will be to immediately terminate Saddam Hussein.

The inner circles refer to the “Butcher of Baghdad” as a “psychotic (an adjective sometimes used as a noun),” meaning a madman.

Saddam Hussein’s first objective will be to protect himself underground. If he can do so even briefly, he will then attempt to strike Israel with at least a chemical weapon. If he unleashes a biological weapon, Israel will need to be restrained from retaliating with a nuclear device.

Saddam Hussein does not have a workable nuclear weapon at this time, although he has spent billions of dollars attempting to develop one over the last couple of decades. The only thing that stands between him and nuclear device of the caliber that was detonated above Hiroshima is a sufficient amount of enriched uranium, which he has been trying to purchase. He has everything else that he needs.

What chance does the psychotic Saddam Hussein have against the coalition led by the United States?

He has no chance of remaining in power, but his chance of reeking unfathomable havoc depends first on whether he will attempt to massacre United States or coalition forces before they strike at him. Beyond that, Saddam Hussein’s chance of producing catastrophe is as good as he can survive the first air strike against him and continue to survive minute by minute thereafter.

The war will not be pretty, but it will be less ugly than what would have occurred if Hussein were not disarmed.

President Bush would have preferred to have begun the impending next phase of the Persian Gulf War months ago, but it was not feasible. Now, in March, sandstorms and other inclement weather threaten.

Five months ago, on 14 October 2002, I told you:


“Since the Islamic New Year won’t begin until 5 March 2003, my advice to Saddam Hussein is to break out the champagne now, while he still has hands to pop the cork.

“Unknown to the public, the last week of March 2003 has been scheduled by President Bush as a time for the citizens of Iraq to begin their celebration.”


Now the Islamic New Year has begun.

Only George W. Bush, Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military Armed Forces, knows the precise moment when he will give the order to disarm Saddam Hussein. General Tommy Franks, Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command, however, is departing today for Qatar with no scheduled return date, and the last week of March 2003, dark-drenched by a new moon, is fast approaching.

Mega Genius®

10 March 2003



[President Bush issued an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein just one week after this Mega Genius® Intelligent Briefing, on March 17, 2003.  On March 19, the war began with an air strike against Hussein, and the Iraqi leadership, which lasted some four weeks.  Saddam Hussein was captured in an underground hideaway, just as Mega Genius® had predicted, in December 2003, and executed December 30, 2006.]


Copyright © 2003 – 2016, Mega Genius®.  All rights reserved.