Starting with first principles and the scientific method
America First Books
Featuring ebooks that find a truer path in uncertain times

Kevin Alfred Strom Archive


Cannon Fodder, Part 1:
Background to Betrayal

American Dissident Voices broadcast
February 1, 2003
by Hadding Scott and
Kevin Alfred Strom


Welcome to American Dissident Voices. Today's program, which I've entitled "Cannon Fodder, part 1: Background to Betrayal," was written and prepared for broadcast by Hadding Scott and yours truly, Kevin Alfred Strom.
Thucydides, the Athenian historian, wrote in his account of the Peloponnesian War, "The way that most men deal with traditions, even traditions of their own country, is to receive them all alike as they are delivered, without applying any critical test whatever," and furthermore, "There are many other unfounded ideas current among the rest of the Hellenes, even on matters of contemporary history, which have not been obscured by time. For instance, there is the notion that the Lacedaemonian kings have two votes each, the fact being that they have only one; and that there is a company of Pitane, there being simply no such thing. So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." (Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, tr. Richard Crawley)
Thucydides' observation about the proliferation of easily disproven falsehoods during wartime in Democratic Athens rings true also in democratic America during this "war on terror" and its accompanying hysteria.
By the end of this program I hope to have shown that the picture of Iraq and of Saddam Hussein presented by the mainstream media is highly distorted and misleading. The most important thing that I hope to accomplish here is to demonstrate to our listeners, who are probably already suspicious of the government and the mainstream media, that the extent of their misrepresentation is much greater than the average person even dares to suspect. I also expect that the facts presented will make it clear what the proposed war is really about.
There are two distinct cases against Iraq that have been disseminated among the American people. One is that Iraq may have committed an act of aggression against the U.S., through some secret involvement in the World Trade Center attack or the subsequent anthrax-mailings in 2001. The other is an unsubstantiated allegation that Iraq has flouted restrictions placed on the kinds of weapons that it could possess following the Gulf War of 1991.
It is abundantly clear, however, that the concern about compliance or non-compliance with United Nations protocols is a mere pretense. It is a fig leaf. The really persuasive argument in the minds of Americans who accept Bush's call for war -- the real meaning for them of the words "Iraq's weapons of mass-destruction" --  is that Iraq may possess weapons that will be used in another attack against the United States such as occurred on September 11, 2001. To the average American, that is what all the talk of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass-destruction really means. The requirements of the United Nations per se carry little or no weight in the minds of most Americans; if the United States could be motivated to go to war just to enforce U.N. resolutions, the State of Israel would have had a regime-change and a partition imposed upon it many years ago.
The accusation that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction is not really about the United Nations at all. If the principles of the United Nations mattered then there could be no talk of attacking Iraq without U.N. approval. Rather, it is all about scaring the American people into a war.
The baseless innuendoes that Iraq may have been involved in the World Trade Center attack and the worry that Iraq may commit or facilitate such an attack against the United States in the future are both groundless. Both stories are attempts to exploit the fear and anger that the 9-11 attack generated, and thus to manipulate the American people into supporting a war against a country that has done them no harm.
The characterization of the leader of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, as irrational and dangerous has been carefully cultivated by the Jewish-controlled news media for many years now. The American people could never believe that Saddam Hussein would ever deliberately provoke a war with the United States if they had not become accustomed to hearing over the course of many years that Saddam Hussein is "So-Damned Insane" -- that he is an irrational maniac who gassed his own people and does other cruel things for no reason at all.
The fact that Saddam Hussein has been able to survive one crisis after another as leader of an ethnically and religiously divided country like Iraq is in itself prima facie evidence that Saddam Hussein is not irrational. He has had to be very realistic and rational indeed to survive the kinds of crises that his country has endured, from the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988 to the Gulf War to the ruinous sanctions that have caused 1.7 million deaths in Iraq, to the frequent bombings that the U.S. and Britain have carried out, and of course, the many assassination plots, some of which have been sponsored by the United States. No leader who is insane or out of touch with reality could survive all that.
Let's examine the record. Saddam Hussein has been the de facto leader of Iraq since 1975. Following the retirement of President Bakr in 1979, Saddam Hussein became the third Arab Nationalist President of Iraq.
Although the Communist Party of Iraq was forcibly shut down in May of 1979, and although one of Saddam Hussein's first actions was the notorious bloody purge of several hundred persons in the government accused of conspiring against Iraq's sovereignty, Iraq under the secular Ba'ath or Arab Nationalist government has been arguably the freest of all Arabic-speaking countries.
In Iraq, the rigors of Islamic law are not in force. Women are not required to wear veils or to cover their heads, and are allowed to have a career. In Iraq you can even buy liquor if you want. Before the Gulf War in 1991, it was the habit of some people in Kuwait to go into Iraq whenever they wanted to cut loose and have a good time. The government of Iraq also strongly encourages literacy among the people. In general, Saddam Hussein has represented progress in the Arab world.
Iraq was facing a crisis because of the new Islamic Republic in Iran, which, aside from provoking the hostility of the United States by seizing and holding hostage 50 employees of the U.S. embassy, also set out to foment unrest in neighboring countries. In April 1980 members of a Shi'ite political party called al-Dawah attempted to assassinate Iraqi foreign minister Tariq Aziz, who is a Christian. An attempt on the life of Iraq's minister of culture and information also occurred. Since al-Dawah was supported and encouraged by Iran, in the following September Iraq declared war on Iran, and set as a war aim the acquisition of the important Shatt-al-Arab waterway. Since these two assassination attempts had preceded the war, one could truthfully say that when Saddam Hussein attacked Iran he was beginning a war against Radical Islamic terrorism.
In the early stages of secular Iraq's war on Islamic terror it appeared that a quick victory was the likely outcome, since many of Iran's competent military leaders and pilots who were not Islamic religious fanatics had been imprisoned, and Iran was unable to buy spare parts for its U.S.-built aircraft because of the hostage crisis. Iraqi armored columns made rapid progress deep into Iran.
But then Iran released its competent military personnel from prison and also mobilized its multitudes of Shi'ite religious fanatics, who very often brought their own burial shrouds with them to the front. The fact that the Iranians had multitudes of people ready to die gave them a chance against the Iraqi forces, who, unlike the Iranians, were not religious fanatics eager to die in battle.
One major miscalculation which had encouraged Saddam Hussein to launch the war was an expectation that Iran's substantial Arab population in the "Arabistan" region would welcome the Arab Nationalist Iraqis as liberators and turn against the oppressive theocracy of the non-Arab Iranians. Saddam Hussein's vision of Iran's Arab minority revolting and embracing their brother Arabs as liberators did not materialize.
In September 1981, the Iranians won their first ground battles, and continued to win -- using human waves of religious fanatics. These human waves, including old men and children as young as nine, would charge across minefields clearing the way so that Iranian tanks could safely roll through on top of them. Saddam Hussein learned what we learned only in 2001: It is very difficult to protect yourself against an enemy who has many supporters ready to die for their cause.
In June of 1982, Saddam Hussein attempted to make peace, but the ayatollahs were running the war and would make no peace; the ayatollahs had the ambition of creating a Shi'ite Islamic Republic in Iraq, and they set the goal of capturing a major city in Iraq that could be declared the provisional capital of an Iraqi Islamic Republic. Since the war was going badly Saddam Hussein was forced to buy additional weaponry, including crop dusting helicopters from the United States, which were understood to be for the delivery of chemical weapons.
It was a war of attrition: The Iranians suffered much higher casualties than the Iraqis, but Iran was a much larger country with many more people. Iran could suffer four times as many casualties as Iraq and still win the war. In April 1984 Saddam Hussein requested to meet the Ayatollah Khomeini in a neutral location to negotiate peace, but the offer was refused. Iraq tried several times to make peace, but as late as 1988 Iran rejected a United Nations resolution calling for a ceasefire.
It was during the war with Iran that Iraq improved the range of its Soviet-made SCUD missiles,  so that they could reach Teheran. Iraq also developed a capacity for mass producing chemical weapons, though the number of casualties that Iran suffered from chemical weapons was very small compared to the total number dead: As of 1986 the total Iranian casualties from chemical weapons was estimated at 10,000, compared to one million plus Iranians who died in the entire war. Iran also used chemical warfare, but this did not become widely known until 1988. [New York Times, Jan 17, 1988; I, 9:5]
A threat of dispatching chemical warheads against Teheran is considered to have been a major factor in persuading the Islamic Republic of Iran to make peace, allowing Iraq to retain the Shatt-al-Arab waterway which Iraq had managed to seize again, and which had been Iraq's main objective in the war.
The Iran-Iraq War was a victory, although very hard-won, for Iraq. The total casualties suffered by Iraq in that war are estimated at 375,000 -- about one in 40 Iraqis killed or maimed. Iraq also lost a lot of its oil production capacity as a result of Iranian air attacks, and had incurred a large debt because of the need to buy weapons.
Nonetheless, the eight-year war against the Islamic Republic of Iran had discouraged Iran from supporting Islamic revolution in other countries, and this not only preserved Iraq but aided other countries of the region. The United States was also well served by the blunting of Iran's influence, and some political scientists even suggested that Iraq should replace Israel as the primary U.S. ally in the region. In addition to its good relations with the U.S., Saddam Hussein and Iraq had gained prestige among Arabs, and Iraq had become militarily the second most powerful country in the region, after Israel.
The Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s was in no way an indicator of lunacy, nor of any desire on the part of Saddam Hussein to conquer the world.
During that war, something very significant occurred: In 1981 the State of Israel dispatched its jets to attack and destroy a nuclear reactor in Iraq. The many knee-jerk supporters of Israel have regarded this attack as a righteous move by the wise and clever Jews to prevent Iraq from developing a nuclear weapon. The fact is, however, that Iraq's nuclear reactor was in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Iraq was a charter signatory, and which Israel had never signed.
Dr. Sigvard Eklund, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, stated to the U.N. Security Council on 19 June 1981 that the Israelis had acted on the basis of faulty intelligence and really had no justification at all for what they had done.
It has been stated by the Israelis that a laboratory located 40 meters below the reactor -- the figure was later corrected to four meters -- which allegedly had not been discovered by IAEA inspectors had been destroyed. The existence of a vault under the reactor that has apparently been hit by the bombing was well known to the inspectorate, That vault contains the control rod drives and has to be accessible to the staff for maintenance purposes.... [T]hat space could not be used to produce plutonium.
Putting it more plainly, Dr. Eklund said:
In fulfilling its responsibilities the Agency has inspected the Iraqi reactors and has not found evidence of any activity not in accordance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The President of the United Nations Security Council, Mr. Porfirio Muñoz Ledo criticized the action and attitude of Israel in no uncertain terms:

[T]he reasons on which the Government of Israel bases its contention are as unacceptable as the act of aggression it committed. It is inadmissible to invoke the right to self-defense when no armed attack has taken place. The concept of preventive war, which for many years served as justification for the abuses of powerful States, since it left it to their discretion to define what constituted a threat to them, was definitively abolished by the Charter of the United Nations.


Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear installations is not an isolated act; it should be seen as the climax of escalating violations of international law. The background to it has already been described both by the General Assembly and the Security Council. It includes annexation of territory by conquest, persistence in an illegal occupation, the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, and frequent acts of aggression and harassment against neighboring States.

Even the United States joined in condemning Israel's attack on the Osirak nuclear facility, although apologetically so, but the Israelis dismissed the condemnation and wailed about always being persecuted by the U.N., all the while continuing their own development of nuclear weapons. [Security Council Official Records, S/PV.2288 19 June 1981,
Although the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency could say with certainty that the Iraqis were not diverting uranium or producing plutonium at Osirak as the Israelis had claimed, and although the United Nations Security Council had passed a resolution condemning Israel's action, the Israeli misrepresentation has been kept alive in the minds of the American people. Immediately after the end of the Iran-Iraq War Zionist Jew William Safire wrote: "The Iraqi [Saddam Hussein] trails the Asian [Pol Pot] in the number slaughtered only because his nuclear capability was curtailed by the Israelis." [New York Times; Sept 1, 1988]
If you hear some Christian Zionist know-it-all like Glenn Beck saying that Israel did good by bombing Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981, you should tell him that even the unreservedly pro-Israel president Ronald Reagan condemned Israel's action, as did the U.N. Security Council. Better yet, tell him to stop getting his opinions from columnists like William Safire and do some real research.
As it became clear in 1988 who the winner of the Iran-Iraq War would be, a smear-campaign commenced against the country that was now the leading challenger to Israel's power in the Middle East. The story that Iraq had gassed its own Kurdish citizens at al-Halabja in northern Iraq was not such a big story when it first appeared, and one could not have guessed from the first reports in April of 1988 that Saddam Hussein would become primarily known as the man who "gassed his own people." It actually didn't become a subject of major importance until that September, after Iran and Iraq had made peace. Iran was the source of the story that Saddam Hussein had gassed his own Kurdish citizens at al-Halabja, and initially there was a note of skepticism about the story. Malcolm W. Browne, wrote in the New York Times of April 17, 1988: "Iran expects to reap a propaganda harvest by showing that Iraq is gassing those of its own citizens deemed sympathizers in the seven-year-old war.... According to the Iranians, a single Iraqi chemical attack on the Iranian-occupied village of Halabja last month killed 5,000 people and injured 5,000 others. Baghdad has said that 58 Iraqi soldiers were injured by Iranian chemical weapons." [New York Times April 17, IV, 7:1]
Although the Iranians claimed 5,000 dead at al-Halabja, Western journalists who visited the town saw "more than a hundred bodies." On September 1, when Iraq had won the war and was mopping up the Kurdish rebellion, two pieces about Saddam's gassing of the Kurds appeared in the New York Times on the same day, one by William Safire, in which the politically connected Zionist Jew advocated providing the Kurds with stinger missiles. This rabble-rousing by a Jewish journalist about the alleged gassing of the Kurds was the first expression of what became the U.S. conflict with Iraq.
Here's the shocker: it's all a big lie. Iraq gassed no Kurds. The physical appearance of the bodies indicates the cause of death, and the hundred or so Kurds who died at al-Halabja were not victims of Iraqi mustard or nerve gas, but of cyanide gas, which only Iran used in that war. Subsequent to the lie about who was responsible for al-Halabja, the Kurds themselves picked up on the idea of claiming that the Iraqis were using gas on them, but no physical evidence for these claims has ever been produced, and the symptoms of gassing claimed by the Kurds do not match any known agent. [ ] This lie was exposed by Stephen C. Pelletiere and Douglas V. Johnson of the U.S. Army War College, and by Jude Wanniski, a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. Recently Wanniski sent a letter to George W. Bush's press-secretary, the Jew Ari Fleischer, stating:
You might want to have one of your assistants call over to the Pentagon and ask for its 1990 report, "Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East," which concluded the Iraqi Kurds who were gassed were probably the victims of the Iranians. 
[ ]
Ronald Reagan's second term was ending in 1988, and George Bush Sr.*, a very different character from Reagan, was running for president. [*Bush Sr. as Vice President cast two tie-breaking votes in the Senate to continue U.S. production of chemical weapons, which casts a strange light on his son's seeming prohibitionist fervor about such weapons.]
The Reagan Administration had winked at Iraq's use of chemical weapons, but Bush, following the line established by William Safire, decided to make political hay out of Iraq's fictitious use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. Candidate Bush said: "They must know that continued violation of the ban against the use of such weapons carries a heavy penalty. Not just a fine or a minor sanction that can be ignored." It appears that Pappy Bush was using an excuse to pick a fight with the leading enemy of the State of Israel so that he could get Jewish votes and favorable treatment from the Zionist Jews in the media. Bush Senior's belligerent words against Iraq of course came to fruition in the Gulf War, which the Bush Administration deliberately caused.
I hope that I have not tried the patience of regular listeners too much by discussing at length a leader who is not of our people. I think, however, that the Jews have forced us into a consideration of this man and his people, since the Jewish establishment is attempting to involve us in a conflict with them which would serve Jewish interests and no interest of ours.
This program, which I title Cannon Fodder, will continue next week, when I will be discussing what the Jews hope to gain from a war on Iraq.
Today's program was written by Hadding Scott and prepared for broadcast by Kevin Alfred Strom. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom asking you to join us, the men and women of the National Alliance, in our great effort to restore the freedom and self-determination of our people.


For the latest contact, donation, and other update information regarding Kevin Alfred Strom, please visit his web page at Please also visit, and Prices, addresses, and availability information pertaining to materials cited in his works are subject to change.

Please also visit the America First Institute donation page.




Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.