Normally on the issue closest to April 1, ETS! dabbles in some sort of lighthearted April Fools' material. But frankly, we felt at this particular moment like we'd all suffered enough due to fools. Maybe next year they'll be funnier. --eds.

As I watch on TV and read Reuters wire service reports of US troops getting bogged down at Umm Qasr and Basra, I begin to wonder what, exactly, the evil triumvirate--Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld--really think they're doing. While US troops wait outside Basra, afraid to attack and hoping that Iraqi troops will "just surrender," Iraqi troops in Umm Qasr have put up an unexpectedly stiff resistance. Fighting with pistols, worn kalashnikovs, a few machine guns, and some grenade launchers, the Umm Qasr defenders have denied US and British troops the key transit point for most of Iraq's oil shipments abroad. Alarmingly, the Iraqi troops in Umm Qasr have begun to switch out of their uniforms and into civilian clothing, turning into snipers and guerrilla street fighters--the very nightmare scenario that Pentagon planners warned the Bush administration about when Bush first proposed the invasion of Iraq. And these are not the elite Republican Guard troops, which are dug into positions around Baghdad. If the US military's plan is to seize Baghdad quickly, then attempt to pacify the rest of Iraq, they may have just marched right into another Vietnam--this time fought in an urban setting. At the very least, our experience in Afghanistan, which is deteriorating into a full-blown civil war, should have warned the Bushies of the dangers of holding only the capital city and trying to "mop up" the rest of the country (a process that's still dragging on in eastern Afghanistan, while northern and western Afghanistan has been surrendered into the hands of fundamentalist warlords who are as bad or worse than the Taliban). It's heartbreaking to watch the idiot child, G.W., stumble into such a trap while playing with the lives of US troops and the security of the American people.--Maria Tomchick

Meanwhile, the invisible bombing of Baghdad continues, without any sizable US media presence to record what's going on. British media stayed in Baghdad, while US reporters tucked their tails and shipped out as soon as the UN inspectors left. Only Reuters (based in London), the BBC, and a few smaller British newspapers have reporters on the scene, and they're mostly confined to the northern part of the city by Iraqi minders, who refuse to let them cross the Tigris River and view the damage in southern Baghdad. Only a handful of reporters--Al Jazeera TV and Robert Fisk of The Independent--have been able to witness the bombings and the resulting casualties. An early casualty count: 3 dead on Thursday and at least 7 dead on Friday (3 of them children--Al Jazeera has the gruesome photos on their Arabic-language website, www.aljazeera.net/news/arabic/2003/3/3-22-26.htm) and more than 200 injured from shrapnel wounds and flying glass, many of them women and children. The only good thing to come out of this US news blackout is that the major US TV media have to pay the BBC and Al Jazeera royalties for use of their exclusive video footage.--M.T.

One of the main goals of a US invasion is to "secure the oil fields of Iraq"--in other words, seize them from Iraqi troops without doing too much damage to them or allowing the Iraqis to set them on fire. From the first day of the war, however, reports have been made of burning oil facilities--the second nightmare scenario that Pentagon planners identified for the Bush administration. The numbers of burning wells vary. British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon initially said 30 oil wells in southern Iraq were on fire, while US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it was only 3. British Admiral Boyce, the UK chief of staff, said 7 oil wells were on fire. The New York Times reported 6, while CNN said 7, including 4 oil and gas separation plants (massive refineries that provide a "vast amount of oil revenue for Iraq"). Subsequent reports have included Associated Press journalists writing that they've seen at least 3 Iraqi oil pipelines burning. Given that Iraq's oil infrastructure was already in bad shape from 12 years of sanctions, this destruction could remove Iraq's oil from the world markets for a long time to come and make rebuilding a very expensive proposition. Meanwhile, as I write this, on Day Four of the ground invasion, none of the northern Iraqi oil fields have been "secured," and Turkish troops are streaming across the border into northern Iraq--the third nightmare scenario, according to Pentagon staffers.--M.T.

And as Turkey invades the de facto autonomous Kurdish "republic," don't look for those grateful victory parades thrown for welcomed liberators. Kurds are more afraid of the Turks even than they were of Saddam Hussein, and for good reason; Hussein, for a dozen years, has been virtually powerless to harass them, while across that artificial colonially drawn border in "Turkey" Kurds continue to be rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, killed en masse. There's nary a word of this, or any of these other nightmares--let alone any verboten suggestion that human beings might be living under all those explosions--among American or British leaders, and, hence, among the mass media, Bleating Division. When hearing rosy scenarios (or disastrous ones) of civilian casualties or battlefield progress, remember: in war, even more than at other times, governments lie. And the first target of the Bush team's lies will be the American public. If you must expose yourself to network news, make like Gandhi and hoard every grain of salt you can find. You'll need 'em all. Oh, and some Liquid Plumber would help, too, to unclog all the shit overflowing from your set. --Geov Parrish

A new website is keeping track of the number of civilians killed during the US massacre of Iraq (www.iraqbodycount.net.)

But why, one wonders, are the counters totting up only civilian casualties? Should not Iraqi military casualties, which would otherwise not have occurred save for a blatantly illegal US invasion be included as well? A Russian military expert has predicted that the United States, in order to minimize American casualties, is planning to completely wipe out the Iraqi military personnel--presumably simply burying them with bulldozers, as was done during the first Gulf War. These deaths are no less tragic, no less preventable, and no less criminal than civilian casualties. Furthermore: Iraqi soldiers won't even have the option to try to flee the country or otherwise hide from the bombs. US war planners won't even think twice before destroying their lives (as they, given the world uproar and the expense of replacing them later, now might do before bombing civilian infrastructure).

The United States' preferred method of "warfare"--dropping thousands upon thousands of tons of ordnance from high altitude, or launching thousands of missiles from out at sea--is a supremely cowardly predilection whose intent is to increase the indiscriminate nature of its military destruction while decreasing the number of American military casualties. In other words, the United States' complete dominance of the skies leaves Iraqi military personnel sitting ducks--with essentially no conceivable way of "fighting back." The "allied forces" presumably will simply massacre Iraqi soldiers attempting to surrender--just as during the first Gulf War.

Iraqi military personnel are probably even more sitting ducks than the civilians, yet their deaths are no less criminal. They should be counted as carefully as Iraqi civilian casualties are going to be counted.

Note, too, that the count doesn't include "indirect" deaths caused by destruction of civilian infrastructure--though these are likely to be far greater than the number of civilians directly bombed to death. The designers of this study address the issue, and their rationale for not including "indirect" casualties seems reasonable enough. But we should keep it in mind that their tally will far underestimate the total "misery index" brought about by American bombs.--Eddie Tews

Once an Aryan, always an Aryan. Now that the diplomatic process has ended, how shall France and Germany, having "courageously stood up to" the United States during the pre-war wrangling, react?

Fear not, friends, the White Race is still looking after its own. Tasks of the Bush Administration's "Coalition of the Willing" include France, "allowing use of its airspace under treaty obligations," and Germany pledging "unhindered use of airspace and access to US and British bases in Germany. Also helping to protect Turkey with AWACS crews and Patriot anti-missile rockets."

France's "treaty obligations" excuse is reminiscent of the Western stand-down during the Spanish Civil War--which saw Hitler's and Mussolini's forces supply overwhelming aid to the fascists in clear violation of the non-intervention treaty, while the West looked on in bemusement. So due to "treaty obligations", the French are aiding and abetting an illegal, genocidal war upon a brown-skinned nation. Surprised? How many "treaty obligations" has the Bush Administration not honored? Why should France, except for the color of most of its inhabitants' skin, honor its own "treaty obligations" when the United States, by waging an unprovoked war of aggression, has broken the most important compact in all of International Law?

Germany, in addition to its traitorous-to-the-human-race facilitation of The Superbrain's crusade, has stationed "chemical warfare decontamination specialists" in Kuwait. Now, even though Hans Blix doesn't expect Saddam to use chemical or biological weapons if he has them, even though months of invasive inspections have found nothing, and the West's favorite Iraqi defector reported that all of Iraq's WMD were destroyed long ago, and even though the Pentagon is openly acknowledging its plans to utilize Depleted Uranium. Why should Germany--except for the color of most of its inhabitants' skin--be stationing decontamination specialists in Kuwait rather than in Baghdad?

Okay, geopolitical considerations probably have as much to do with the French and German treachery as do racial considerations. But either way, it stinks to high heaven.--E.T.

A side-note on the depleted uranium issue: despite the high levels of correlation between use of radiological munitions and horrifying health and environmental developments, the US military insists that the only reason Iraqis are opposed to its use is because "we kicked the crap out of them [in the first Gulf War], okay?"

This doesn't explain the well-documented effects, nor the reaction to its use from health and environmental experts the world over. But if we follow the logic to its conclusion, Colonel Naughton's remarks, quoted above, reveal the level of carnage wrought by its use, notwithstanding the subsequent health and environmental devastation. In other words, DU, even in its "benign" phase, is a weapon whose use will visit massive levels of destruction upon its targets, and so should be considered no more "acceptable" than a theoretical Iraqi chemical weapons attack.--E.T.

And let us note that two preliminary studies from Afghanistan released this year show an alarming increase in tumors, cancers, and other illnesses associated with radioactive exposure--much more so than in Iraq after the Gulf War. Reason? The US is no longer even bothering to "deplete" some of its uranium munitions. While the peace movement fretted about a new generation of nukes, seems our in-house Strangeloves have found a way to use them without anyone even much noticing or caring. And funny thing, Afghans have brown skin, too. Damn, those coincidences. --G.P.

Much of the last week was spent compiling a database of local ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, and PBS affiliates. There are still plenty o' gaps, but it's now online, and ready for download (in plain-text form)--see www.nacc.info/database.htm. Once downloaded, one can use it to find contact info or generate lists of contact e-mails, fax numbers, phone numbers, or snail-mail addresses for pretty much any local TV affiliate (or group of affiliates) in the country. As most Americans receive their news from local television, we oughta let them know that we want, at this urgent hour: more substance and fewer waterskiing chipmunks in our newscast. And no State Department brown-nosing whatsoever.--E.T.

"With God on our side.." I'm hearing a lot of fine, vintage Bob Dylan on my beloved community radio station these days (KBCS 91.3FM, near Seattle.) But Hip Hop artists are making powerful music against the latest imperialist carnage--check out www.daveyd.com/commentarylantiwarsonglist.html. I found this list on Hip Hop activist Davey D's excellent website (www.daveyd.com) along with an important resource for white folks who know that "8-Mile" isn't the real thing: "White Like Me: 10 Codes of Ethics for White People in Hip Hop" (www.daveyd.com/commentarywhitelikeme.html). --Valerie Rose

Get ready to pay higher taxes. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but certainly next year, and the year after, and the year after that. Our invasion of Iraq is expected to cost between $65 to $100 billion, by conservative estimates and if the invasion goes quickly. Any hope that Iraqi oil will pay for the invasion, much less the rebuilding of Iraq is idiotic. The numbers simply don't add up. Before the war, Iraq's degraded oil infrastructure produced and sold about 2 million barrels of oil per day. At the high price of $30 per barrel, that adds up to only $1.8 billion per month, and only $23 billion per year--not even enough to cover the expense of shipping US troops and their supplies over to the Gulf and back. And all those eastern European countries that have kissed up to the Bush administration haven't got two nickels to rub together. It's our money, in the form of higher and higher taxes, that will pay for this fiasco. Bring the troops home, before we go fucking broke!--M.T.

On to the border! If you're tired of playing chicken coop with symbolic marches in the four blocks surrounding the federal building, why not go where the fences, and destroyed lives, are real? Canadian and B.C. peace groups are pulling together a border peace rally on March 29 at Sumas/Abbotsford. It starts at 1 PM, and the idea is to "stay for an hour, or stay until the US leaves Iraq." They're looking for American groups to rally some of our folks. Bellingham? Seattle? Snohomish? Head for the border...contact unitetoendwar@yahoo.com if your group is interested in helping to pull things together on what is (surprise) very short notice.- -G.P.

What's up with the Activist Calendar? So many people are organizing peace events, the calendar could fill the entire paper--but we need articles--comix too, so I'm listing a few essential websites at the top of the calendar for finding ongoing peace vigils & meetings. If your group isn't already a member of SNOW, or one of the other coalitions, consider joining. And if your group is a member, be sure to update your event information on the groups' website. With any event listing, always include contact info--with so little calendar space, I often drop events that don't include a contact phone # or e-mail. And I've resumed adding bus route #s to most event listings (other than downtown Seattle and the U-District, which are served by a dozen or more routes.) Some people wonder why I "clutter" the listings with bus info--but this war is largely about oil, and using what public transit we have in the US reduces our outrageous rate of oil consumption. Remember, if you're driving alone, you're driving with the Bush/binLaden family! --V.R.