1.  NH finally has an indymedia website!
2.  Some talking points re: the recent attack on the UN headquarters in Iraq.
3.  Report on strategies for success in Iraq - good talking points for those who are advocating "Bring the troops home", and need to suggest an alternative to continued US occupation
4.  Article comparing current events to Iran-Contra
****************

1.  Here's the link to the NH indymedia website - www.NHIndymedia.org - it's under construction so it will be changing fairly frequently as it gets customized to NH.

2.  The following offer some different points of view regarding the UN and its' role in the reconstruction of Iraq.  Past and current inconsistencies in its' behavior continue to undermine its' authority and effectiveness.

Talking Points on the Attack on UN Headquarters
August 20th, 2003
By Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies (D.C.)
pbennis@compuserve.com

Bennis is author of "Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's U.N." and "Before and After: U.S. Foreign Policy and the September 11th Crisis."

    1. The murderous attack on UN headquarters in Baghdad, in targeting civilians, was a violation of international law as well as a huge tragedy for the victims, their families and for the global organization as a whole. It was also a violation of the Rome Treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, which criminalizes attacks on UN personnel.

    2. But such an attack should not have been a surprise. The U.S.-UK war and occupation of Iraq were and remain illegal. However happy Iraqis were to see the end of the regime of Saddam Hussein, they remain understandably angry towards military occupation.

    3. The UN should never have agreed to participate under the authority of that occupation force; to do so provides a political fig leaf for an illegal occupation. And now we're seeing the inevitable results of that participation, as anti-U.S. militants target anyone working under the auspices of the U.S. -- including American, British and Danish soldiers, Iraqi translators, and now the civilian staff of the United Nations.

    4. Under the Geneva Conventions it remains the responsibility of the occupying powers --not the United Nations -- to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people -- starting with food, medicine, and security.

    5. The U.S. and UK are also responsible for providing security for the UN humanitarian operation as a whole. The occupation forces failed to provide sufficient protection to the United Nations, and bear responsibility for those security failures. The May 2003 Security Council resolution recognizing the U.S. and UK as occupying powers places full responsibility for security on the occupying powers, not granting the UN any authority for security, even for its own personnel. The U.S. refused to allow any UN peacekeeping or security troops into Iraq.

    6. The UN should pull out of Iraq, and refuse to return until the U.S. ends its occupation. Only then should UN humanitarian agencies go back to work in support of the people of Iraq.

The U.N. Role in Iraq:
Interviews Available
Institute for Public Accuracy
August 20th, 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
----------------------------------------------------------------

NANCY LESSIN, CHARLIE RICHARDSON
mfso@mfso.org, http://www.bringthemhomenow.org, http://www.mfso.org

Co-founders of Military Families Speak Out, Lessin and Richardson have a son, Joe, who just returned from Iraq. They said today: "Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and others are arguing that attacks in Iraq mean we have to send more troops. We have 58,000 names on a wall -- and millions of dead Vietnamese -- to tell us where that road leads."

EMAN AHMED KHAMMAS
In Baghdad via: eman@occupationwatch.org, http://www.occupationwatch.org

Khammas is co-director of the Occupation Watch Center in Iraq. She said today: "The U.N. is not very reputable here. Many people consider the U.N. responsible for the suffering of the last 13 years, the sanctions and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Despite some statements, it was largely silent when Iraq was attacked. In the last month, the U.N. has been friendly with the American authorities. These may or may not be the reasons for this attack, but if this is resistance, and it could well be, these are some of the grievances toward the United Nations.

"Before the invasion, the U.N. was paralyzed and did not stop the U.S. attack. Some people think of it as a department of the U.S. government. Security Council Resolution 1483 basically gave legal cover for the occupation and to legitimize the attack on Iraq. This is a pity, since the U.N. does good work through UNICEF, UNESCO, UNDP and the World Health Organization.... Sergio Vieira de Mello had praised the governing council and was friendly with Paul Bremer."

DENIS HALLIDAY
djhalliday@msn.com, http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR032803.htm

Available for a limited number of interviews, Halliday is former head of the U.N. oil-for-food program in Iraq. He said today: "We all think of the U.N. as this benign entity, but in Iraq it's held responsible for a great deal of suffering of the Iraqi people. The U.N. has been particularly corrupted by the Security Council. Resolutions on Israel go unenforced. We love to talk about our good humanitarian work -- and there's certainly truth to that, good people trying to help Iraqis were just killed -- but the Secretary General has implemented programs which are inherently incompatible with the U.N. Charter."

----------------------------------------------------------------
For more information, contact the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

3.  Fourth Freedom Forum, press release, "New Report Outlines Strategy for Success in Iraq", http://www.fourthfreedom.org/pdf/eight_point.pdf

4. Interesting article drawing parallels between Iran-Contra events/actors and activities of current Bush administration, which includes some of the same people. Suggests that there is a covert parallel foreign policy being carried out by some folks that differs significantly from the apparent foreign policy (assuming that there is an official foreign policy to be paralleled by the covert one!)

   http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EH12Ak03.html