February 26, 2003
Richard Spills The Beans
Appearing on the Tim Russert program earlier this week, Richard Perle asserted that "democracies do not wage aggressive wars." His words, dude.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:23 PM
| Comments (0)
Is the Bush Administration losing its grip on the world? This second installment of promising items in the news suggests that he may be.
Here on the home front, the Administration's smallpox immunization plan is "as close to stalled as you can get" as "hundreds of hospitals, a half-dozen major unions and even some public-health departments have refused to participate." In another welcome demonstration of spine some booksellers are openly defying the "PATRIOT" act's authorisation of the Feds to seize patron records -- by destroying the records before the goons have a chance to come get them. Moving right along, prominent Senators have put in a bid to check the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act with a new bill that would at least rein in Ashcroft's Holy Warriors.
Bush's war plans are taking on more water, too. As, "Many people in the world increasingly think President Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Iraqi President Saddam Hussein," and U.S. embassies report that, "There is an absence of any recognition that Hussein is the problem," (imagine that!), so to have some of the President's closest advisors begun "urging the President to consider complying with the UN position or to look for other 'face saving' ways to avoid war with Iraq." Finally, 20-year diplomat John Brady Kiesling has resigned in protest of the Administration's "fervent pursuit of war."
Meantime, activists in the Bay Area shut down a military recruitment centre for a while; and more than one million phone calls, faxes, and e-mails in from opponents to war "left Capitol offices overwhelmed Wednesday."
What about our allies? Well, as Tony Blair has been dealt the "biggest backbench revolt of his premiership" so to are Italian anti-war protesters "vowing to block all movement of US arms by rail between American bases in Italy," and dock workers saying they will "boycott the loading and unloading of all shipments of US arms in and out of Italian ports." War Resisters International is calling for nonviolent actions at military bases on April 5th and 6th, while down Under, Condelo Bulk Wholefoods is going to withhold a portion of its taxes to protest the war. And Germany's Carnival festival is shaping up as a 10-million strong war protest!
The moral of the story? Same as last week, only with greater urgency as war grows nearer: we can stop this war. The Administration is feeling the strain, even as it grows ever more desperate to initiate the slaughter. Let's get on it.
Incontinence
Is the Bush Administration losing its grip on the world? This second installment of promising items in the news suggests that he may be.
Here on the home front, the Administration's smallpox immunization plan is "as close to stalled as you can get" as "hundreds of hospitals, a half-dozen major unions and even some public-health departments have refused to participate." In another welcome demonstration of spine some booksellers are openly defying the "PATRIOT" act's authorisation of the Feds to seize patron records -- by destroying the records before the goons have a chance to come get them. Moving right along, prominent Senators have put in a bid to check the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act with a new bill that would at least rein in Ashcroft's Holy Warriors.
Bush's war plans are taking on more water, too. As, "Many people in the world increasingly think President Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Iraqi President Saddam Hussein," and U.S. embassies report that, "There is an absence of any recognition that Hussein is the problem," (imagine that!), so to have some of the President's closest advisors begun "urging the President to consider complying with the UN position or to look for other 'face saving' ways to avoid war with Iraq." Finally, 20-year diplomat John Brady Kiesling has resigned in protest of the Administration's "fervent pursuit of war."
Meantime, activists in the Bay Area shut down a military recruitment centre for a while; and more than one million phone calls, faxes, and e-mails in from opponents to war "left Capitol offices overwhelmed Wednesday."
What about our allies? Well, as Tony Blair has been dealt the "biggest backbench revolt of his premiership" so to are Italian anti-war protesters "vowing to block all movement of US arms by rail between American bases in Italy," and dock workers saying they will "boycott the loading and unloading of all shipments of US arms in and out of Italian ports." War Resisters International is calling for nonviolent actions at military bases on April 5th and 6th, while down Under, Condelo Bulk Wholefoods is going to withhold a portion of its taxes to protest the war. And Germany's Carnival festival is shaping up as a 10-million strong war protest!
The moral of the story? Same as last week, only with greater urgency as war grows nearer: we can stop this war. The Administration is feeling the strain, even as it grows ever more desperate to initiate the slaughter. Let's get on it.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:12 PM
| Comments (0)
Well factually, it's a picture of a recent protest at the fate of the Argentine economy -- and the United States' role in it. Not a pretty story.
But then, it seems that the whole of the South American continent is on the verge of exploding. From Argentina to Bolivia to Brasil to Venezuela to Colombia, the outrage at the carnage wrought by the so-called "neo-liberal" development model propounded by the IMF and World Bank is palpable, and growing.
Time was, back in the halcyon days of the Clinton/Lewinsky Administration, your humble narrator was making known his opinion to all who would listen (i.e., nobody) that of the two great evil institutions in the world -- the IMF and the Pentagon -- the IMF probably caused the most harm to the World's population.
May no longer be the case. But it's still chugging along, starkly outlining the ugliness and barbarity of U.S. imperialism for all to see. The "contradictions" inherent in forcing people to live in the deepest wells of poverty aren't going to go away -- unless, maybe, the Bush Administration wipes the entire continent off the map, as it can't wait to do with Iraq.
Ronnie James Dio Rocks Buenos Aires!
Well factually, it's a picture of a recent protest at the fate of the Argentine economy -- and the United States' role in it. Not a pretty story.But then, it seems that the whole of the South American continent is on the verge of exploding. From Argentina to Bolivia to Brasil to Venezuela to Colombia, the outrage at the carnage wrought by the so-called "neo-liberal" development model propounded by the IMF and World Bank is palpable, and growing.
Time was, back in the halcyon days of the Clinton/Lewinsky Administration, your humble narrator was making known his opinion to all who would listen (i.e., nobody) that of the two great evil institutions in the world -- the IMF and the Pentagon -- the IMF probably caused the most harm to the World's population.
May no longer be the case. But it's still chugging along, starkly outlining the ugliness and barbarity of U.S. imperialism for all to see. The "contradictions" inherent in forcing people to live in the deepest wells of poverty aren't going to go away -- unless, maybe, the Bush Administration wipes the entire continent off the map, as it can't wait to do with Iraq.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:16 PM
| Comments (0)
During the Second World War, the west fiddled while the Nazis undertook to enact their grisly "solution" to the "problem" of European Jewry. Later, an aghast world promised to "never again" allow such a monstrous crime to occur.
It then proceeded to, within a decade watch the U.S. reduce Korea to absolute rubble (including the bombing of dikes to flood crops and starve out the civilian population). It watched Stalin's and Mao's crimes. It watched the United States and France annihilate Indochina, and watched France's miserable war upon Algeria. It watched Indonesia's genocidal annexation of East Timor, Rwanda's implosion, and much else besides. It watched Israeli bulldozers make minced meat of Jenin. It watched Bush I decimate Iraq in Gulf War I, it watched a decade of sanctions isolate and wither one of the world's oldest cultures, and is getting ready to watch Bush II finish the job in Gulf War II.
To be sure, the world -- especially those not in positions of power -- is putting up a bit more resistance this time around. But only a bit.
UN aid workers are getting ready to evacuate Iraq (apparently they're not so confident of the United States' ability and/or willingness to distinguish between civilian and military targets). What would happen if the UN were to instead greatly increase the contingent of aid workers, and facilitate an influx of thousands of westerners -- thereby daring the United States to bomb white civilians?
The non-aligned movement (which represents 55% of the world's population, but whose views only "matter because six of its members are currently on the UN Security Council"), while generally opposing the war is at the same time pleading with Saddam to hand over his "alleged weapons" (emphasis added). One could damned well bet that the NAM's views would "matter" if it were to, for example, order all U.S. troops sent beyond its members' frontiers, and all bases closed down, until the United States would hand over its weapons of mass destruction. Or if it were to en masse call a halt to all debt-service payments.
The Europeans continue to insist that force isn't yet necessary, but that Iraq (and Iraq only, natch) must achieve "full and effective disarmament". While Russia is concerned enough "that a change of regime in Iraq would have serious repercussions for the oil-dependent Russian economy" to have sent an envoy to Baghdad, it's not concerned enough to "risk ruining its relationship with the United States by vetoing a new resolution." Ah, er, the Europeans have apparently yet to receive word that the United States' will invade Iraq despite a UN veto. So why aren't the Europeans -- who are only too happy to make known the opinion that it is the U.S. military presence in the Gulf which will assure Saddam's compliance -- deploying their military forces to the Chesapeake Bay? Wouldn't that command Richard Perle's attention?
The Pope is disapproving enough of the U.S. plans to have made several pronouncements, and to have sent and received several envoys. He has said over and over that war would be a "defeat for humanity". Given that the very survival of humanity is at stake, is there nothing more that the most powerful religious leader -- possibly the most revered person -- in all the world can offer? What if the Pope himself, along with the entire Catholic hierarchy, were to take up residence in Baghdad until such time as the U.S. sent its troops packing? An eighty-two-year-old man versus the mightiest military machine in history, and we all know what the outcome of that showdown would be. Update! Indian doctor/spiritualist Deepak Chopra, apparently an avid reader of this blog, has proposed that himself, the Dalai Lama, and the Pope should set up shop in Iraq as Human Shields, saying that, "If we bombed Baghdad tonight and thousands of children died, most people would be unaffected. But if the Pope was there we wouldn't do it. Isn't that funny?" There is also a grassroots movement afoot to convince the Pope to high-tail it to Baghdad. Add your voice to this "heavenly choir"!
Here at home, President Bush's popularity with the American "electorate" has declined sharply over the last two months. Yet if 46% of the nation's population disapproves of the President, why weren't a corresponding percentage of the nation's inhabitants -- 133.55 Million, that would have been -- in the streets last weekend? And for the love of god, why are we all still driving cars? You think that Pres. Bush would "respectfully disagree" with (that is to say, ignore) a "focus group" of 130 Million people refusing to purchase gasoline?
When it comes to preventing genocide, the world is "again" finding the task just too inconvenient, or politically and economically unfeasible, to put some serious effort into. "Never again"? Who has the time for that, man? Anyways, what's a few million dead niggers, more or less?
February 24, 2003
The Whole World Is Watching
During the Second World War, the west fiddled while the Nazis undertook to enact their grisly "solution" to the "problem" of European Jewry. Later, an aghast world promised to "never again" allow such a monstrous crime to occur.
It then proceeded to, within a decade watch the U.S. reduce Korea to absolute rubble (including the bombing of dikes to flood crops and starve out the civilian population). It watched Stalin's and Mao's crimes. It watched the United States and France annihilate Indochina, and watched France's miserable war upon Algeria. It watched Indonesia's genocidal annexation of East Timor, Rwanda's implosion, and much else besides. It watched Israeli bulldozers make minced meat of Jenin. It watched Bush I decimate Iraq in Gulf War I, it watched a decade of sanctions isolate and wither one of the world's oldest cultures, and is getting ready to watch Bush II finish the job in Gulf War II.
To be sure, the world -- especially those not in positions of power -- is putting up a bit more resistance this time around. But only a bit.
UN aid workers are getting ready to evacuate Iraq (apparently they're not so confident of the United States' ability and/or willingness to distinguish between civilian and military targets). What would happen if the UN were to instead greatly increase the contingent of aid workers, and facilitate an influx of thousands of westerners -- thereby daring the United States to bomb white civilians?
The non-aligned movement (which represents 55% of the world's population, but whose views only "matter because six of its members are currently on the UN Security Council"), while generally opposing the war is at the same time pleading with Saddam to hand over his "alleged weapons" (emphasis added). One could damned well bet that the NAM's views would "matter" if it were to, for example, order all U.S. troops sent beyond its members' frontiers, and all bases closed down, until the United States would hand over its weapons of mass destruction. Or if it were to en masse call a halt to all debt-service payments.
The Europeans continue to insist that force isn't yet necessary, but that Iraq (and Iraq only, natch) must achieve "full and effective disarmament". While Russia is concerned enough "that a change of regime in Iraq would have serious repercussions for the oil-dependent Russian economy" to have sent an envoy to Baghdad, it's not concerned enough to "risk ruining its relationship with the United States by vetoing a new resolution." Ah, er, the Europeans have apparently yet to receive word that the United States' will invade Iraq despite a UN veto. So why aren't the Europeans -- who are only too happy to make known the opinion that it is the U.S. military presence in the Gulf which will assure Saddam's compliance -- deploying their military forces to the Chesapeake Bay? Wouldn't that command Richard Perle's attention?
The Pope is disapproving enough of the U.S. plans to have made several pronouncements, and to have sent and received several envoys. He has said over and over that war would be a "defeat for humanity". Given that the very survival of humanity is at stake, is there nothing more that the most powerful religious leader -- possibly the most revered person -- in all the world can offer? What if the Pope himself, along with the entire Catholic hierarchy, were to take up residence in Baghdad until such time as the U.S. sent its troops packing? An eighty-two-year-old man versus the mightiest military machine in history, and we all know what the outcome of that showdown would be. Update! Indian doctor/spiritualist Deepak Chopra, apparently an avid reader of this blog, has proposed that himself, the Dalai Lama, and the Pope should set up shop in Iraq as Human Shields, saying that, "If we bombed Baghdad tonight and thousands of children died, most people would be unaffected. But if the Pope was there we wouldn't do it. Isn't that funny?" There is also a grassroots movement afoot to convince the Pope to high-tail it to Baghdad. Add your voice to this "heavenly choir"!
Here at home, President Bush's popularity with the American "electorate" has declined sharply over the last two months. Yet if 46% of the nation's population disapproves of the President, why weren't a corresponding percentage of the nation's inhabitants -- 133.55 Million, that would have been -- in the streets last weekend? And for the love of god, why are we all still driving cars? You think that Pres. Bush would "respectfully disagree" with (that is to say, ignore) a "focus group" of 130 Million people refusing to purchase gasoline?
When it comes to preventing genocide, the world is "again" finding the task just too inconvenient, or politically and economically unfeasible, to put some serious effort into. "Never again"? Who has the time for that, man? Anyways, what's a few million dead niggers, more or less?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:07 PM
| Comments (3)
Reading the UN Inspectors has lately been akin to watching an episode of To Tell The Truth.
Blix himself, in a new interview, claims that Iraq has "no credibility", but that the inspection process should be allowed to continue so long as Iraq cooperates. (No word from Blix about U.S. non-cooperation with weapons inspectors.) Further, as some media "outlets" reported "fading cooperation" with weapons inspectors (citing only UN and/or U.S. "officials"), CBS News (which to its credited also broke the "Shock and Awe" story) found inspectors "privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases," and The Independent reported upon an "outburst" from Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov complaining that, "Inspectors are being subjected to very strong pressure in order to provoke their departure from Iraq, or to present to the Security Council assessments which could be used as a pretext for the use of force against Iraq."
We'll recall that prior to Blix's last progress report, the buzz in the print was that he was going to take Iraq to task, but in fact ended up dissing Powell's UN "evidence" session. There's no telling in which direction the Blix pendulum will swing when he delivers his next report. But he's set to issue a list of demands to Iraq this week.
What You Can Do: This blog has argued on more than one occasion that the Bush Administration's and United Nations' focus upon Iraq's WMDs to the exclusion of all others' is racist and hypocritical. But given the political realities, we should make clear, when we place our phone calls to Washington, DC on Wednesday, that Blix's demands should not be perceived as a final block on the road to war, but as the final hurdle in the path to removing sanctions.
Will The Real Hans Blix Please Stand Up?
Reading the UN Inspectors has lately been akin to watching an episode of To Tell The Truth.
Blix himself, in a new interview, claims that Iraq has "no credibility", but that the inspection process should be allowed to continue so long as Iraq cooperates. (No word from Blix about U.S. non-cooperation with weapons inspectors.) Further, as some media "outlets" reported "fading cooperation" with weapons inspectors (citing only UN and/or U.S. "officials"), CBS News (which to its credited also broke the "Shock and Awe" story) found inspectors "privately complaining about the quality of U.S. intelligence and accusing the United States of sending them on wild-goose chases," and The Independent reported upon an "outburst" from Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov complaining that, "Inspectors are being subjected to very strong pressure in order to provoke their departure from Iraq, or to present to the Security Council assessments which could be used as a pretext for the use of force against Iraq."
We'll recall that prior to Blix's last progress report, the buzz in the print was that he was going to take Iraq to task, but in fact ended up dissing Powell's UN "evidence" session. There's no telling in which direction the Blix pendulum will swing when he delivers his next report. But he's set to issue a list of demands to Iraq this week.
What You Can Do: This blog has argued on more than one occasion that the Bush Administration's and United Nations' focus upon Iraq's WMDs to the exclusion of all others' is racist and hypocritical. But given the political realities, we should make clear, when we place our phone calls to Washington, DC on Wednesday, that Blix's demands should not be perceived as a final block on the road to war, but as the final hurdle in the path to removing sanctions.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:00 PM
| Comments (0)
Seattle Times letter-writer Edwin G. Davis, while expressing his concern for the likely humanitarian impact of war, as well as its probable costs, still counts himself as a hawk -- until the Peace Movement can satisfactorily answer some nagging questions. These are precisely the sorts of people the Peace Movement should be reaching out to. So here goes.
• Why isn't the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons against the U.S. and others, maybe through terrorists, a certainty unless Iraq is disarmed? Note first of all that the U.S. intelligence apparatus itself has disputed the imminence of any Iraqi threat on more than one occasion. CIA Director George Tenet has even stated that he doesn't expect that Saddam would ever use any weapons of mass destruction he might possess unless he were attacked. The Institute for Public Accuracy has thoroughly debunked the Iraqi threat myths, and none of the other countries in the region -- those that would be much more likely to fall within Saddam's reach -- are the least bit worried by an Iraqi attack. Moreover, the only times that Iraq has used WMD upon others were when it had the support of the United States. We should be much more worried, frankly, of the certainty that the United States will use chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons when it attacks Iraq. • Why will inspections disarm Iraq when they didn't before? In fact, Iraq was essentially disarmed by 1998 -- as testified by former inspectors Raymond Zilinskas, Scott Ritter, and others. Even former UNSCOM chief Richard Butler acknowledged in 1998 that if disarmament were a five-lap race, that the inspectors were three-quarters of the way through the fifth lap. Saddam stopped cooperating with UN Inspectors because, he said, the U.S. was using the inspections as a cover for spying operations. The United States denied the charge, ordered the inspectors to leave (they were not kicked out by Saddam), and commenced bombing. The spying charges were later confirmed. The inspectors didn't return for almost four years. But at the time of UNSCOM's demise, Iraq was already "qualitatively disarmed". We should wonder, then, at U.S. motives. Why did it fear the end of the sanctions regime (which, it was well known at the time, was not only a disaster from a humanitarian perspective, but had strengthened Saddam's grip on the populace)? Why didn't the United States allow the inspectors to finish their job, and certify Iraq in compliance with UN Resolution 687? We might also ask why the current administration has promised to launch a war even if the current inspectors certify Iraq's disarmament, and why U.S. intelligence is supplying the inspectors with "garbage after garbage after garbage", while at the same time impugning their effectiveness and leaning on them to give disparaging reports. • When you say force should be the last resort, what resort hasn't been tried in the past 12 years? Those that preach force "as a last resort" have bought into the fallacy that Iraq is a threat to its neighbours and the world. In reality, it is the United States which is engaging in military operations worldwide, and threatening the peace on virtually every continent. The vast majority of the world's people are opposed to a U.S. invasion of Iraq irrespective of whether the U.S. is able to obtain a UN resolution -- and the opposition is strongest in the region. Having said all that, even those (European leaders, for the most part) that do consider it important to "disarm" Iraq insist that the inspections need be given much more time. And of course, the inspectors themselves have pleaded this need over and over again. In short, it is the United States which has, through three presidential administrations, engaged in duplicity, defied UN Resolutions (most germane here are those regarding the Israeli occupation of Palestine and UN 687's mandate for region-wide disarmament), "moved the goalposts", and ostracised the International Community -- all while the sanctions have destroyed thousands of innocent lives every month for the past 12 years. • Do you propose keeping the U.S. forces now assembled in the Gulf there forever, and if not, will Iraq comply with U.N. mandates? No. U.S. forces should be immediately withdrawn. The current buildup is a clear violation of international law. As stated, Iraq has for the most part complied with UN mandates in the past without the presence of U.S. forces. There's no reason to think that it wouldn't do so in the future. Of far more import is whether the world will be able to convince the United States to comply with UN mandates -- a very tricky proposition indeed, especially given the current Administraion's open disregard for international law. • What will happen to the U.N. and Iraq's neighbors if Iraq is not now disarmed? As shown, Iraq's neighbours are overwhelmingly opposed to a U.S. military invasion, and consider the notion of an Iraqi "threat" laughable. Regarding the UN, we should be asking what will happen to it if the United States invades despite monumental opposition within the UN. It is not for the United States to dictate to the world community, it is for the United States to act within the parameters of International Law. If the International Community -- especially that segment which would be most affected by an invasion -- is opposed to an invasion, this doesn't signify its "irrelevance", but its vitality. It is supremely contemptible that the United States displays the arrogance to defy International Law, and/or to buy off and threaten those sectors of the International Community with which it doesn't agree. • Won't Iraqis fare better under almost any other government? Yes. Saddam Hussein is a murderously brutal despot. Unfortunately, those candidates most favoured by the United States to replace him are even worse. Kurdish leaders and Iraqi exile opposition leaders are both bristling at U.S. plans for post-Saddam Iraq. The U.S. has time and again spurned democratic formations in Iraq (and throughout the region and world) in favour of murderously brutal despots -- remember, Saddam was a valuable U.S. ally at the height of his depredations. The Iraqi people should determine their country's polity. The United States should worry about its own "difficulties" in maintaining a democratic polity in the "homeland".
What You Can Do: Help open the lines of dialogue. Point those who, like Mr. Davis, are concerned at the calamity that war will bring, but who've legitimate questions regarding the wisdom of opposing the war, to this post. Those who're still not convinced, or who still have questions, use this post's comment form to express your concerns. That's another non-force option this country hasn't fully exhausted: a thorough discussion of the issues at hand. No time like the present.
February 23, 2003
Q&A
Seattle Times letter-writer Edwin G. Davis, while expressing his concern for the likely humanitarian impact of war, as well as its probable costs, still counts himself as a hawk -- until the Peace Movement can satisfactorily answer some nagging questions. These are precisely the sorts of people the Peace Movement should be reaching out to. So here goes.
• Why isn't the use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons against the U.S. and others, maybe through terrorists, a certainty unless Iraq is disarmed? Note first of all that the U.S. intelligence apparatus itself has disputed the imminence of any Iraqi threat on more than one occasion. CIA Director George Tenet has even stated that he doesn't expect that Saddam would ever use any weapons of mass destruction he might possess unless he were attacked. The Institute for Public Accuracy has thoroughly debunked the Iraqi threat myths, and none of the other countries in the region -- those that would be much more likely to fall within Saddam's reach -- are the least bit worried by an Iraqi attack. Moreover, the only times that Iraq has used WMD upon others were when it had the support of the United States. We should be much more worried, frankly, of the certainty that the United States will use chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons when it attacks Iraq. • Why will inspections disarm Iraq when they didn't before? In fact, Iraq was essentially disarmed by 1998 -- as testified by former inspectors Raymond Zilinskas, Scott Ritter, and others. Even former UNSCOM chief Richard Butler acknowledged in 1998 that if disarmament were a five-lap race, that the inspectors were three-quarters of the way through the fifth lap. Saddam stopped cooperating with UN Inspectors because, he said, the U.S. was using the inspections as a cover for spying operations. The United States denied the charge, ordered the inspectors to leave (they were not kicked out by Saddam), and commenced bombing. The spying charges were later confirmed. The inspectors didn't return for almost four years. But at the time of UNSCOM's demise, Iraq was already "qualitatively disarmed". We should wonder, then, at U.S. motives. Why did it fear the end of the sanctions regime (which, it was well known at the time, was not only a disaster from a humanitarian perspective, but had strengthened Saddam's grip on the populace)? Why didn't the United States allow the inspectors to finish their job, and certify Iraq in compliance with UN Resolution 687? We might also ask why the current administration has promised to launch a war even if the current inspectors certify Iraq's disarmament, and why U.S. intelligence is supplying the inspectors with "garbage after garbage after garbage", while at the same time impugning their effectiveness and leaning on them to give disparaging reports. • When you say force should be the last resort, what resort hasn't been tried in the past 12 years? Those that preach force "as a last resort" have bought into the fallacy that Iraq is a threat to its neighbours and the world. In reality, it is the United States which is engaging in military operations worldwide, and threatening the peace on virtually every continent. The vast majority of the world's people are opposed to a U.S. invasion of Iraq irrespective of whether the U.S. is able to obtain a UN resolution -- and the opposition is strongest in the region. Having said all that, even those (European leaders, for the most part) that do consider it important to "disarm" Iraq insist that the inspections need be given much more time. And of course, the inspectors themselves have pleaded this need over and over again. In short, it is the United States which has, through three presidential administrations, engaged in duplicity, defied UN Resolutions (most germane here are those regarding the Israeli occupation of Palestine and UN 687's mandate for region-wide disarmament), "moved the goalposts", and ostracised the International Community -- all while the sanctions have destroyed thousands of innocent lives every month for the past 12 years. • Do you propose keeping the U.S. forces now assembled in the Gulf there forever, and if not, will Iraq comply with U.N. mandates? No. U.S. forces should be immediately withdrawn. The current buildup is a clear violation of international law. As stated, Iraq has for the most part complied with UN mandates in the past without the presence of U.S. forces. There's no reason to think that it wouldn't do so in the future. Of far more import is whether the world will be able to convince the United States to comply with UN mandates -- a very tricky proposition indeed, especially given the current Administraion's open disregard for international law. • What will happen to the U.N. and Iraq's neighbors if Iraq is not now disarmed? As shown, Iraq's neighbours are overwhelmingly opposed to a U.S. military invasion, and consider the notion of an Iraqi "threat" laughable. Regarding the UN, we should be asking what will happen to it if the United States invades despite monumental opposition within the UN. It is not for the United States to dictate to the world community, it is for the United States to act within the parameters of International Law. If the International Community -- especially that segment which would be most affected by an invasion -- is opposed to an invasion, this doesn't signify its "irrelevance", but its vitality. It is supremely contemptible that the United States displays the arrogance to defy International Law, and/or to buy off and threaten those sectors of the International Community with which it doesn't agree. • Won't Iraqis fare better under almost any other government? Yes. Saddam Hussein is a murderously brutal despot. Unfortunately, those candidates most favoured by the United States to replace him are even worse. Kurdish leaders and Iraqi exile opposition leaders are both bristling at U.S. plans for post-Saddam Iraq. The U.S. has time and again spurned democratic formations in Iraq (and throughout the region and world) in favour of murderously brutal despots -- remember, Saddam was a valuable U.S. ally at the height of his depredations. The Iraqi people should determine their country's polity. The United States should worry about its own "difficulties" in maintaining a democratic polity in the "homeland".
What You Can Do: Help open the lines of dialogue. Point those who, like Mr. Davis, are concerned at the calamity that war will bring, but who've legitimate questions regarding the wisdom of opposing the war, to this post. Those who're still not convinced, or who still have questions, use this post's comment form to express your concerns. That's another non-force option this country hasn't fully exhausted: a thorough discussion of the issues at hand. No time like the present.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:38 PM
| Comments (0)
A possible new "trigger" allowing Washington to release the dogs -- Iraqi missiles that travel 20 miles further than the 94-limit -- is "rapidly emerging".
Let's see, we've had the WMD, the aluminum tubes, the links to Al-Qaeda, the gassing of the Kurds, the invasions of Iran and Kuwait, the "liberation" angle... As Washington casts about to find the One True Pretext, it may want to remember that sometimes the simplest solution is the best solution. Why not just have Trent Lott stand up in front of the Security Council and announce that Iraq is "another black republic" (or words to that effect)? The Security Council would immediately see the light, and the really-big-show could begin directly.
Thank you. Refreshments are on the house.
February 21, 2003
No Stone Unturned
A possible new "trigger" allowing Washington to release the dogs -- Iraqi missiles that travel 20 miles further than the 94-limit -- is "rapidly emerging".
Let's see, we've had the WMD, the aluminum tubes, the links to Al-Qaeda, the gassing of the Kurds, the invasions of Iran and Kuwait, the "liberation" angle... As Washington casts about to find the One True Pretext, it may want to remember that sometimes the simplest solution is the best solution. Why not just have Trent Lott stand up in front of the Security Council and announce that Iraq is "another black republic" (or words to that effect)? The Security Council would immediately see the light, and the really-big-show could begin directly.
Thank you. Refreshments are on the house.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:08 AM
| Comments (1)
Well, we all know that treaties entered into by the United States supercede the U.S. constitution. This includes the UN Charter, yes yes, and the UN Charter explicitly forbids invading another country without prior authorisation from the Security Council. In fact, even if the Security Council does authorise force, the measures are to be taken by the Security Council itself, using forced made available to it by member nations.
Notwithstanding the Bush team's bizarre admonitions that if the Security Council faces a test of "relevance", it's perfectly obvious that a unilateral U.S. (oops, "coalition of the willing") attack upon Iraq would be a major violation of International Law. Indeed, some have even warned that United States that it won't get away with a unilateral military action this time. (Can't you just feel Colin Powell quaking in his boots?)
But here legitimate questions do arise.
First, wouldn't any U.S. soldier refusing to follow (illegal) orders to carry out a unilateral attack upon Iraq easily win a court martial trial? If so, shouldn't there be a campaign educating soldiers to their rights under International Law? Hell, given the Nuremberg Principles' unambiguous declaration that, "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him," shouldn't individual soldiers even be obligated to refuse such orders? Also, isn't the massive troop build-up already a violation of the Charter?
Second, could, say, the Washington, DC Police Department apprehend George Bush and friends to stand trial for war crimes? The Nuremberg Principles, again, are explicit in identifying the, "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances," (emphasis added) as a violation of International Law. Washington, DC is, after all, a "City for Peace", so presumably the political will to do so would be in place.
February 20, 2003
Any Lawyer-Types Out There?
Well, we all know that treaties entered into by the United States supercede the U.S. constitution. This includes the UN Charter, yes yes, and the UN Charter explicitly forbids invading another country without prior authorisation from the Security Council. In fact, even if the Security Council does authorise force, the measures are to be taken by the Security Council itself, using forced made available to it by member nations.
Notwithstanding the Bush team's bizarre admonitions that if the Security Council faces a test of "relevance", it's perfectly obvious that a unilateral U.S. (oops, "coalition of the willing") attack upon Iraq would be a major violation of International Law. Indeed, some have even warned that United States that it won't get away with a unilateral military action this time. (Can't you just feel Colin Powell quaking in his boots?)
But here legitimate questions do arise.
First, wouldn't any U.S. soldier refusing to follow (illegal) orders to carry out a unilateral attack upon Iraq easily win a court martial trial? If so, shouldn't there be a campaign educating soldiers to their rights under International Law? Hell, given the Nuremberg Principles' unambiguous declaration that, "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him," shouldn't individual soldiers even be obligated to refuse such orders? Also, isn't the massive troop build-up already a violation of the Charter?
Second, could, say, the Washington, DC Police Department apprehend George Bush and friends to stand trial for war crimes? The Nuremberg Principles, again, are explicit in identifying the, "Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances," (emphasis added) as a violation of International Law. Washington, DC is, after all, a "City for Peace", so presumably the political will to do so would be in place.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:41 PM
| Comments (0)
If we divide the United States' offer to Turkey of $26 Billion for military access to its soil by the roughly 500,000 Iraqis expected to be killed in the war, it would appear to be, according to the Bush Administration's accountants, about $52,000. Alas, the Turks think it's worth twice that much, leading the Bush Administration to warn Turkey that in five days' time its offer turns into a pumpkin.
Fully 95% of the Turkish population is opposed to war, yet the Bush Administration is openly trying to buy its way in with your tax dollars, while the mainstream media openly reports the matter without comment. One couldn't draw up in a textbook a more perfect illustration of the Bush Administration's contempt for democracy, and its skewed notions of "diplomacy".
What You Can Do: At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Tax Revolt Now! As the mainstream media is also openly reporting, the Bush Administration's proposed FY 2004 "defense" budget is 16% more than all other discretionary spending combined. Four Hundred billion feet high and rising, and the military's complaining that it's still not enough. What will happen to you if you refuse to pay your taxes? You will not go to jail. The IRS may, eventually, attempt to collect the money, plus interest and penalties. By strategically hiding one's assets, even this attempt can be thwarted with varying degrees of success. But you will not go to jail. See the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee's website for more information. Your conscience will thank you.
February 18, 2003
How Much Is A Nigger's Life Worth?
If we divide the United States' offer to Turkey of $26 Billion for military access to its soil by the roughly 500,000 Iraqis expected to be killed in the war, it would appear to be, according to the Bush Administration's accountants, about $52,000. Alas, the Turks think it's worth twice that much, leading the Bush Administration to warn Turkey that in five days' time its offer turns into a pumpkin.
Fully 95% of the Turkish population is opposed to war, yet the Bush Administration is openly trying to buy its way in with your tax dollars, while the mainstream media openly reports the matter without comment. One couldn't draw up in a textbook a more perfect illustration of the Bush Administration's contempt for democracy, and its skewed notions of "diplomacy".
What You Can Do: At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Tax Revolt Now! As the mainstream media is also openly reporting, the Bush Administration's proposed FY 2004 "defense" budget is 16% more than all other discretionary spending combined. Four Hundred billion feet high and rising, and the military's complaining that it's still not enough. What will happen to you if you refuse to pay your taxes? You will not go to jail. The IRS may, eventually, attempt to collect the money, plus interest and penalties. By strategically hiding one's assets, even this attempt can be thwarted with varying degrees of success. But you will not go to jail. See the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee's website for more information. Your conscience will thank you.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:03 PM
| Comments (5)
The cracks in the Bush Administration edifice are growing longer and deeper, as a scan of the day's news quickly reveals.
After a weekend which saw "Inspectors Contradict U.S. Evidence on Iraq" and with "Protests still ringing in ally leaders' ears" and Tony Blair's approval ratings plummeting, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is now lamenting that "we have to take account of public opinion."
While Arab leaders "affirm the necessity for their countries to refrain from offering any kind of assistance or facilities for any military action that leads to the threat of Iraq's security, safety, and territorial integrity" and Saudi Arabia has "hardened opposition to a unilateral attack" on Iraq and warned that same would be perceived as an "act of aggression" (duh); Turkey is still reluctant to grant U.S. troop access -- even with Bush having dangled 26 Billion U.S. taxpayer dollars in front of its face; Kurdish leaders are livid at the United States (Christopher Hitchens take note) for "quietly abandoning earlier declarations that it would make Iraq a model democracy in the Middle East;" "New rifts between the Bush administration and the Iraqi opposition are threatening to derail U.S.-led planning for a smooth transition to democracy in Iraq" as the plan "reverses a decade-long moral and financial commitment by the US to the Iraqi opposition, and is guaranteed to turn that opposition from the close ally it has always been during the 1990s into an opponent of the United States on the streets of Baghdad the day after liberation;" Austria is prohibiting U.S. troop movements through its territory; and Germans "would be very happy" if the U.S. were to close military bases there. While much of this opposition to U.S. plans is unprincipled, it's still something the United States isn't used to, and that perhaps couldn't a few weeks ago have even been conceivable.
Continuing the news-scan, we learn that the weekend's events are "setting back the Bush Administration's diplomatic schedule for lining up support for a war," the Administration is concocting yet another reason to blow Iraq to smithereens: a rocket that travels slightly further than the 93-mile limit, and it's "for the first time openly discussing" what could go wrong during and after the invasion. Perhaps not coincidentally, Dennis Kucinich has thrown his hat into the 2004 ring, becoming just the second (thanks, Dack) anti-war Democrat to opt in.
Ha! Even Wall Street, given "fresh hope" by last week's Blix report and massive peace rallies, is shaking off its doldrums.
Meanwhile, North Korea refuses to go away, Afghanistan slips further from the Bush Administration's grasp by the week, and three Americans have apparently been kidnapped by Colombian guerillas.
Clearly, the Bush Administration has bitten off more that it can chew. But here's the rub: it's also capable of destroying the world many times over. Indeed, some of the United States' top leaders appear to be giddy at the prospect: "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good and evil in this world," says Jesse Helms of Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John R. Bolton, for example. Which is to say that time is very seriously a-wastin'.
There are any number of ways we can each -- in Marcos' words -- stand up and say, "No!" None of them is too trivial. Each of them increases our chances of success. The Wobs are fond of saying that "I Will Win". While it still seems highly improbable, the events of the last five days have shewn at least that we can win. We have the opportunity. Let us run with it.
The Rout Is On?
The cracks in the Bush Administration edifice are growing longer and deeper, as a scan of the day's news quickly reveals.
After a weekend which saw "Inspectors Contradict U.S. Evidence on Iraq" and with "Protests still ringing in ally leaders' ears" and Tony Blair's approval ratings plummeting, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw is now lamenting that "we have to take account of public opinion."
While Arab leaders "affirm the necessity for their countries to refrain from offering any kind of assistance or facilities for any military action that leads to the threat of Iraq's security, safety, and territorial integrity" and Saudi Arabia has "hardened opposition to a unilateral attack" on Iraq and warned that same would be perceived as an "act of aggression" (duh); Turkey is still reluctant to grant U.S. troop access -- even with Bush having dangled 26 Billion U.S. taxpayer dollars in front of its face; Kurdish leaders are livid at the United States (Christopher Hitchens take note) for "quietly abandoning earlier declarations that it would make Iraq a model democracy in the Middle East;" "New rifts between the Bush administration and the Iraqi opposition are threatening to derail U.S.-led planning for a smooth transition to democracy in Iraq" as the plan "reverses a decade-long moral and financial commitment by the US to the Iraqi opposition, and is guaranteed to turn that opposition from the close ally it has always been during the 1990s into an opponent of the United States on the streets of Baghdad the day after liberation;" Austria is prohibiting U.S. troop movements through its territory; and Germans "would be very happy" if the U.S. were to close military bases there. While much of this opposition to U.S. plans is unprincipled, it's still something the United States isn't used to, and that perhaps couldn't a few weeks ago have even been conceivable.
Continuing the news-scan, we learn that the weekend's events are "setting back the Bush Administration's diplomatic schedule for lining up support for a war," the Administration is concocting yet another reason to blow Iraq to smithereens: a rocket that travels slightly further than the 93-mile limit, and it's "for the first time openly discussing" what could go wrong during and after the invasion. Perhaps not coincidentally, Dennis Kucinich has thrown his hat into the 2004 ring, becoming just the second (thanks, Dack) anti-war Democrat to opt in.
Ha! Even Wall Street, given "fresh hope" by last week's Blix report and massive peace rallies, is shaking off its doldrums.
Meanwhile, North Korea refuses to go away, Afghanistan slips further from the Bush Administration's grasp by the week, and three Americans have apparently been kidnapped by Colombian guerillas.
Clearly, the Bush Administration has bitten off more that it can chew. But here's the rub: it's also capable of destroying the world many times over. Indeed, some of the United States' top leaders appear to be giddy at the prospect: "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon, if it should be my lot to be on hand for what is forecast to be the final battle between good and evil in this world," says Jesse Helms of Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John R. Bolton, for example. Which is to say that time is very seriously a-wastin'.
There are any number of ways we can each -- in Marcos' words -- stand up and say, "No!" None of them is too trivial. Each of them increases our chances of success. The Wobs are fond of saying that "I Will Win". While it still seems highly improbable, the events of the last five days have shewn at least that we can win. We have the opportunity. Let us run with it.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:15 PM
| Comments (1)
After a rousing weekend which saw the spanking of the United States' war plans at the hand of the UN and its inspectors, and which saw an estimated 30 Million people in 600 cities raise its collective middle finger up high, Condi Rice made a star turn on the Sunday morning talk show circuit.
Seemingly blissfully unawares of the enormity of the backlash, she magnanimously allowed that it's "fine to protest", while insisting the Bush Administration still plans to begin the pyrotechnics in "weeks, not months".
Since the Bush Administration hasn't yet heard our voices, we've no choice but to raise up the volume. (Okay, technically we do have a choice: accomplice to genocide, or not.) There's no shortage of activities one can commence, and even the smallest of them, when totted up, can make a huge difference.
If the weekend's massive seas of humanity weren't inspirational enough, check out the last missive from the inimitable Subcommandante Marcos, who insists that "the question is not whether we can change the murderous march of the powerful. No. The question we should be asking is: could we live with the shame of not having done everything possible to prevent and stop this war? No honest man or woman can remain silent and indifferent at this moment. All of us, each one in our own voice, in our own way, in our own language, by our own action, must say 'NO'."
February 17, 2003
The Insurgency Began (And She Missed It)
After a rousing weekend which saw the spanking of the United States' war plans at the hand of the UN and its inspectors, and which saw an estimated 30 Million people in 600 cities raise its collective middle finger up high, Condi Rice made a star turn on the Sunday morning talk show circuit.Seemingly blissfully unawares of the enormity of the backlash, she magnanimously allowed that it's "fine to protest", while insisting the Bush Administration still plans to begin the pyrotechnics in "weeks, not months".
Since the Bush Administration hasn't yet heard our voices, we've no choice but to raise up the volume. (Okay, technically we do have a choice: accomplice to genocide, or not.) There's no shortage of activities one can commence, and even the smallest of them, when totted up, can make a huge difference.
If the weekend's massive seas of humanity weren't inspirational enough, check out the last missive from the inimitable Subcommandante Marcos, who insists that "the question is not whether we can change the murderous march of the powerful. No. The question we should be asking is: could we live with the shame of not having done everything possible to prevent and stop this war? No honest man or woman can remain silent and indifferent at this moment. All of us, each one in our own voice, in our own way, in our own language, by our own action, must say 'NO'."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:03 PM
| Comments (1)
Representative Jim McDermott, speaking at yesterday's massive Seattle anti-war rally, talked at length about the dangers of Depleted Uranium, even quoting Doug Rokke at one point.
Also, trendspotters take note: postcards, addressed to the White House and informing its residents that they've not yet obtained the sender's permission to eighty-six Iraq, were creating Cabbage-Patch-Doll-like hysterics -- even though there were plenty to go around.
What You Can Do: Contact your congressperson, urging him or her to drop by McDermott's office for a DU primer. Also, pass out as many postcards as your time and finances afford. They're not locale-specific, so have at it from anywhere within the US of A!
February 16, 2003
Exposure
Representative Jim McDermott, speaking at yesterday's massive Seattle anti-war rally, talked at length about the dangers of Depleted Uranium, even quoting Doug Rokke at one point.
Also, trendspotters take note: postcards, addressed to the White House and informing its residents that they've not yet obtained the sender's permission to eighty-six Iraq, were creating Cabbage-Patch-Doll-like hysterics -- even though there were plenty to go around.
What You Can Do: Contact your congressperson, urging him or her to drop by McDermott's office for a DU primer. Also, pass out as many postcards as your time and finances afford. They're not locale-specific, so have at it from anywhere within the US of A!
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:07 PM
| Comments (1)
In honour of this blog's fiftieth post, two humourous items you may have missed.
• Humourous item #1: Last night on Charlie Rose, Economist Editor-in-Chief Bill Emmott exasperatedly proclaimed, "I can't believe Jacques Chirac really thinks America is an imperial power."
• Humourous item #2: In response to Alan Greenspan's having taken the piss out of the Bush tax-cut plan, Senator Jim Bunning told Greenspan that, "You are once again interjecting yourself into matters in which you have no business."
We now return you to your regularly scheduled expletive-filled tirades.
February 13, 2003
We Laugh Because It's Funny
In honour of this blog's fiftieth post, two humourous items you may have missed.
• Humourous item #1: Last night on Charlie Rose, Economist Editor-in-Chief Bill Emmott exasperatedly proclaimed, "I can't believe Jacques Chirac really thinks America is an imperial power."
• Humourous item #2: In response to Alan Greenspan's having taken the piss out of the Bush tax-cut plan, Senator Jim Bunning told Greenspan that, "You are once again interjecting yourself into matters in which you have no business."
We now return you to your regularly scheduled expletive-filled tirades.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:41 AM
| Comments (1)
Note: Somehow, this post became seriously mangled, during an attempt at minor editing, on February 17th. Something to do with a poor internet connection, maybe? Why do these things always happen directly before a planned backup? Anyhow, this is a re-post based on Google's (very helpful) cached version. Coupla people had posted disparaging comments before the mangling, and they're encouraged to re-post those as well.
A European plan to avert war in Iraq, as initially conceived, would have looked something like the following:
The nearly 150,000 U.S. troops deployed in the Persian Gulf would stay in place to force Iraq to cooperate and be ready to invade if Baghdad breaches the tougher inspection system.
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would be forced to admit thousands of armed UN troops to oversee intensified weapons inspections throughout Iraq, creating a de facto "UN protectorate".
The number of weapons inspectors working in Iraq would be tripled to about 300, and a permanent UN coordinator of arms inspections would be appointed.
The no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq would be extended to cover the entire country. French, German and U.S. reconnaissance planes would be allowed to patrol the skies.
Sanctions would be made more focused to clamp down on oil smuggling by Iraq's neighbors and tighten export controls.
A special UN court would be established to oversee infringements of the new inspection system and human rights abuses.
The latest (as of February 16th) word from Jacques Chirac is that, "We have to give the inspectors time. And probably -- and this is France's view -- we have to reinforce their capacities, especially those of aerial surveillance," and, "[Chirac] added that the huge United States military deployment in the Persian Gulf region -- now nearing 150,000 troops -- had created the possibility of peaceful Iraqi disarmament."
In other words, the Europeans, are essentially pushing for a return to the old League of Nations "mandate" system for Iraq, with the U.S. hammer ready to pound down should Iraq "get out of line".
Russia's HMIC Vladimir Putin in response to the incipient proposal, stressed the "need to solve the problem and the crisis diplomatically." Is the nature of the "crisis" that the United States is planning to commit the war crime of unprovoked aggression upon another country, a war in which the United States is planning to use nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and toxic gases, land mines, depleted and/or non-depleted uranium weapons, and (presumably) cluster bombs? Is the nature of the "crisis" that the United States is planning to again obliterate Iraqi civilian infrastructure (and even declined an invitation to participate in a recent conference in Geneva concerning the humanitarian consequences of war), in the full knowledge that in so doing it is expected to create a "humanitarian emergency of exceptional scale and magnitude", which could in the short-term generate 500,000 casualties, 3 million refugees, and 3 million hungry? Keep dreaming!
Given that the United States has been steadily bombing Iraq since 1998, and that Special Operations units are already operating in Iraq, are any European leaders proposing Security Council resolutions ordering the United States to get its ass on home, and promising "serious consequences" should it fail to comply? Keep dreaming!
Similarly, prominent "actors, writers, and public figures" have drafted a statement opposing war on Iraq, while assuring the President that, "We are patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. We support rigorous UN weapons inspections to assure Iraq's effective disarmament." They're against the war, they say, because it would "harm American interests". The World Wide Punks want to "win without war", too.
A slightly nuanced version of the appeal, "Keep America Safe: Win Without War", promulgated by "a broad coalition of leaders of religious and civic organizations", seeks to "stop Iraqi militarism", and supports "rigorous UN weapons inspections to assure Iraq's effective disarmament."
Many others, including well-known liberal smarty-pants Todd Gitlin, various members of Congress, and repentant former CIA analyst Bill Christison argue that "containment is working". That is, that in dealing with the Saddam menace, we need simply continue the present genocidal sanctions policy and almost daily bombing in the "no-fly zones" -- and then the rest writes itself.
Gitlin, in a February 11th letter to the New York Times, opined that, "The alternative to full-blown war remains a combination of tough inspections (aided by limited force, if need be), no-fly zones, and intelligent sanctions -- that is, containment." Was he proposing that these measures are needed to "disarm" the United States, in order to keep it from threatening its neighbours? Keep dreaming!
Granting that the job of the moment is clearly to prevent a U.S.-led war, if we accept the Bush Administration's framing of the agenda, we've done a grave disservice to the Iraqi people and the World, and are tacitly endorsing the Administration's thoroughly contorted picture, in which "up is down" and "black is white". If possession of weapons of mass destruction and aiding and abetting terrorists is grounds for "regime change", then the United States, Israel, Pakistan, India, France, Russia, and China -- all erstwhile allies in the vaunted "War on Terror" -- had better get in line. And presuming that one's place in line is to be determined by the magnitude of the threat posed, then the United States will be heading up the line.
For, while it would surely be nice were Saddam Hussein to renounce his repressive ways, or fuck off entirely, this would do nothing to deter (or, if you like, "contain") the greatest threat to peace that the world has ever seen: the United States military. U.S. military spending dwarfs that of any other nation. In point of fact, the United States' military budget is greater than the next 19 biggest spenders combined -- all of whom are allies. The U.S. spends 57.8 times more than the "Axis of Evil" nations combined, and 285 times more than Iraq. This doesn't even include the projected cost of either Gulf War II (which all by its lonesome runs roughshod over any other country's entire military budget) or the ongoing "War on Terror". It also doesn't include spending on nuclear weapons, or on past military adventures, which when thrown into the mix bring the grand total for Fiscal Year 2004 to the brink of $800 Billion. Lest anybody think the war toys will only be fired off in the event of emergency, we've always got Madeleine Albright to keep us Walking Tall: Merry Maddy once asked Colin Powell, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"
The United States maintains dozens of military bases in foreign countries worldwide, and is currently already at -- or almost at -- war with Afghanistan, Iraq, and Colombia, while also providing enormous amounts of taxpayer largesse to fund Israel's insanely criminal occupation of Palestine, and planned ethnic "cleansing" of its inhabitants. The United States has time and again mounted foreign military "liberations" and "destroyed villages in order to save them" -- always to the detriment of the target country's people, and without having sought their consent; and is far and away the world's leader in committing and enabling acts of terrorsim, possessing and using weapons of mass destruction, and shipping armaments to all corners of the globe. Long the scourge of democracy, the United States has increased aid to human rights violators since September 11. Furthermore recent U.S. planning documents make it alarmingly clear that the United States intends nothing less than forcible world domination (to an even greater extent than currently exists, that is).
A Time Europe poll, boasting nearly 400,000 respondents to-date, finds that 84.6% consider the United States the "greatest danger to world peace in 2003." The wonder is not that so many should think so, but that nearly 15% should think that it could possibly instead be either Iraq or North Korea. We know why (in addition to the tautology that only niggers could ever pose a threat to world peace) the European leadership is happy to take the Bush Administration line in the "crisis", despite its populations' fear of the U.S. menace: it can't bear the thought of a democratically elected Iraqi government getting "uppity", and threatening its economic interests. If it doesn't completely agree with the United States' intended methods, this is simply because it doesn't want to be frozen out by a unilateral U.S. occupation of Iraq. But we don't have to accept the Bush Administration line any more that the European people do.
The "win without war" and "containment is working" angles are counterproductive at best, despicable at worst, and strikingly dishonest in any case. They ought to be scrapped. In favour of what? Americans are duty-bound to take responsibility for their government's actions, and, inasmuch as we profit from the fruits of empire, our own actions as well. This is not to say that the U.S. is responsible for all the world's problems. But as American citizens we're responsible for addressing our country's contributions to the world's problems. Rather than propagating the Bush Administration's Saddam Hysteria, the peace movement needs to be forthrightly proposing real solutions. To wit:
• All U.S. troops everywhere shall return home, and all foreign military bases shall be closed down. A worldwide U.S. military presence is synonomous with imperialism, and is therefore unacceptable. • The sanctions against Iraq and Cuba shall be called off, and substantial amounts of reparations shall be paid to Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Colombia, Iran, Okinawa, South Africa, Vietnam, Sudan, Guatemala, Korea, El Salvador, East Timor, Serbia, Panama, Cambodia, Chile, Vieques, Congo, Haiti, Laos, and other victims of U.S. militarism (yes, there are many more). • U.S. war criminals George Bush I, George Bush II, Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Robert McNamara, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Schultz, Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest (yes, there are many more) shall be "detained", tried, and thrown into the slammer. • All weapons of mass destruction -- not just the niggers' -- shall be dismantled. • Unilateralism in world affairs shall not be tolerated. The U.S. will work within the established multilateral framework for solving the world's problems. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. • All arms shipments abroad shall immediately be halted. Again, if a menace to the world's peace and safety presents itself, the solution lies not in U.S. military dominance, but within the framework established by the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions (including the protocol additional). • The U.S. military budget shall be drastically slashed, and redirected toward domestic and international social programmes: ending the AIDS crisis, feeding and securing sources of fresh water for the world's people, expanding literacy, developing sustainable sources of energy, and so on. • The Third World debt shall be cancelled, and IMF and World Bank eliminated. Economic self-determination for all people shall carry the day.
That oughta keep us busy for awhile. Pie-in-the-sky? Sure. But at least it derives from an honest assessment of the problems facing humanity. Problems which have destroyed scores of millions of innocent lives, and are on the verge of destroying millions more. Problems which, if not addressed honestly, have set us well on the course to extinction -- probably sooner than later. Possibly even before you have the opportunity to finish reading this sentence.
February 11, 2003
Forest For The Trees
Note: Somehow, this post became seriously mangled, during an attempt at minor editing, on February 17th. Something to do with a poor internet connection, maybe? Why do these things always happen directly before a planned backup? Anyhow, this is a re-post based on Google's (very helpful) cached version. Coupla people had posted disparaging comments before the mangling, and they're encouraged to re-post those as well.
A European plan to avert war in Iraq, as initially conceived, would have looked something like the following:
The nearly 150,000 U.S. troops deployed in the Persian Gulf would stay in place to force Iraq to cooperate and be ready to invade if Baghdad breaches the tougher inspection system.
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would be forced to admit thousands of armed UN troops to oversee intensified weapons inspections throughout Iraq, creating a de facto "UN protectorate".
The number of weapons inspectors working in Iraq would be tripled to about 300, and a permanent UN coordinator of arms inspections would be appointed.
The no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq would be extended to cover the entire country. French, German and U.S. reconnaissance planes would be allowed to patrol the skies.
Sanctions would be made more focused to clamp down on oil smuggling by Iraq's neighbors and tighten export controls.
A special UN court would be established to oversee infringements of the new inspection system and human rights abuses.
The latest (as of February 16th) word from Jacques Chirac is that, "We have to give the inspectors time. And probably -- and this is France's view -- we have to reinforce their capacities, especially those of aerial surveillance," and, "[Chirac] added that the huge United States military deployment in the Persian Gulf region -- now nearing 150,000 troops -- had created the possibility of peaceful Iraqi disarmament."
In other words, the Europeans, are essentially pushing for a return to the old League of Nations "mandate" system for Iraq, with the U.S. hammer ready to pound down should Iraq "get out of line".
Russia's HMIC Vladimir Putin in response to the incipient proposal, stressed the "need to solve the problem and the crisis diplomatically." Is the nature of the "crisis" that the United States is planning to commit the war crime of unprovoked aggression upon another country, a war in which the United States is planning to use nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and toxic gases, land mines, depleted and/or non-depleted uranium weapons, and (presumably) cluster bombs? Is the nature of the "crisis" that the United States is planning to again obliterate Iraqi civilian infrastructure (and even declined an invitation to participate in a recent conference in Geneva concerning the humanitarian consequences of war), in the full knowledge that in so doing it is expected to create a "humanitarian emergency of exceptional scale and magnitude", which could in the short-term generate 500,000 casualties, 3 million refugees, and 3 million hungry? Keep dreaming!
Given that the United States has been steadily bombing Iraq since 1998, and that Special Operations units are already operating in Iraq, are any European leaders proposing Security Council resolutions ordering the United States to get its ass on home, and promising "serious consequences" should it fail to comply? Keep dreaming!
Similarly, prominent "actors, writers, and public figures" have drafted a statement opposing war on Iraq, while assuring the President that, "We are patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. We support rigorous UN weapons inspections to assure Iraq's effective disarmament." They're against the war, they say, because it would "harm American interests". The World Wide Punks want to "win without war", too.
A slightly nuanced version of the appeal, "Keep America Safe: Win Without War", promulgated by "a broad coalition of leaders of religious and civic organizations", seeks to "stop Iraqi militarism", and supports "rigorous UN weapons inspections to assure Iraq's effective disarmament."
Many others, including well-known liberal smarty-pants Todd Gitlin, various members of Congress, and repentant former CIA analyst Bill Christison argue that "containment is working". That is, that in dealing with the Saddam menace, we need simply continue the present genocidal sanctions policy and almost daily bombing in the "no-fly zones" -- and then the rest writes itself.
Gitlin, in a February 11th letter to the New York Times, opined that, "The alternative to full-blown war remains a combination of tough inspections (aided by limited force, if need be), no-fly zones, and intelligent sanctions -- that is, containment." Was he proposing that these measures are needed to "disarm" the United States, in order to keep it from threatening its neighbours? Keep dreaming!
Granting that the job of the moment is clearly to prevent a U.S.-led war, if we accept the Bush Administration's framing of the agenda, we've done a grave disservice to the Iraqi people and the World, and are tacitly endorsing the Administration's thoroughly contorted picture, in which "up is down" and "black is white". If possession of weapons of mass destruction and aiding and abetting terrorists is grounds for "regime change", then the United States, Israel, Pakistan, India, France, Russia, and China -- all erstwhile allies in the vaunted "War on Terror" -- had better get in line. And presuming that one's place in line is to be determined by the magnitude of the threat posed, then the United States will be heading up the line.
For, while it would surely be nice were Saddam Hussein to renounce his repressive ways, or fuck off entirely, this would do nothing to deter (or, if you like, "contain") the greatest threat to peace that the world has ever seen: the United States military. U.S. military spending dwarfs that of any other nation. In point of fact, the United States' military budget is greater than the next 19 biggest spenders combined -- all of whom are allies. The U.S. spends 57.8 times more than the "Axis of Evil" nations combined, and 285 times more than Iraq. This doesn't even include the projected cost of either Gulf War II (which all by its lonesome runs roughshod over any other country's entire military budget) or the ongoing "War on Terror". It also doesn't include spending on nuclear weapons, or on past military adventures, which when thrown into the mix bring the grand total for Fiscal Year 2004 to the brink of $800 Billion. Lest anybody think the war toys will only be fired off in the event of emergency, we've always got Madeleine Albright to keep us Walking Tall: Merry Maddy once asked Colin Powell, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"
The United States maintains dozens of military bases in foreign countries worldwide, and is currently already at -- or almost at -- war with Afghanistan, Iraq, and Colombia, while also providing enormous amounts of taxpayer largesse to fund Israel's insanely criminal occupation of Palestine, and planned ethnic "cleansing" of its inhabitants. The United States has time and again mounted foreign military "liberations" and "destroyed villages in order to save them" -- always to the detriment of the target country's people, and without having sought their consent; and is far and away the world's leader in committing and enabling acts of terrorsim, possessing and using weapons of mass destruction, and shipping armaments to all corners of the globe. Long the scourge of democracy, the United States has increased aid to human rights violators since September 11. Furthermore recent U.S. planning documents make it alarmingly clear that the United States intends nothing less than forcible world domination (to an even greater extent than currently exists, that is).
A Time Europe poll, boasting nearly 400,000 respondents to-date, finds that 84.6% consider the United States the "greatest danger to world peace in 2003." The wonder is not that so many should think so, but that nearly 15% should think that it could possibly instead be either Iraq or North Korea. We know why (in addition to the tautology that only niggers could ever pose a threat to world peace) the European leadership is happy to take the Bush Administration line in the "crisis", despite its populations' fear of the U.S. menace: it can't bear the thought of a democratically elected Iraqi government getting "uppity", and threatening its economic interests. If it doesn't completely agree with the United States' intended methods, this is simply because it doesn't want to be frozen out by a unilateral U.S. occupation of Iraq. But we don't have to accept the Bush Administration line any more that the European people do.
The "win without war" and "containment is working" angles are counterproductive at best, despicable at worst, and strikingly dishonest in any case. They ought to be scrapped. In favour of what? Americans are duty-bound to take responsibility for their government's actions, and, inasmuch as we profit from the fruits of empire, our own actions as well. This is not to say that the U.S. is responsible for all the world's problems. But as American citizens we're responsible for addressing our country's contributions to the world's problems. Rather than propagating the Bush Administration's Saddam Hysteria, the peace movement needs to be forthrightly proposing real solutions. To wit:
• All U.S. troops everywhere shall return home, and all foreign military bases shall be closed down. A worldwide U.S. military presence is synonomous with imperialism, and is therefore unacceptable. • The sanctions against Iraq and Cuba shall be called off, and substantial amounts of reparations shall be paid to Iraq, Cuba, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Colombia, Iran, Okinawa, South Africa, Vietnam, Sudan, Guatemala, Korea, El Salvador, East Timor, Serbia, Panama, Cambodia, Chile, Vieques, Congo, Haiti, Laos, and other victims of U.S. militarism (yes, there are many more). • U.S. war criminals George Bush I, George Bush II, Henry Kissinger, Madeleine Albright, Robert McNamara, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Schultz, Donald Rumsfeld, and the rest (yes, there are many more) shall be "detained", tried, and thrown into the slammer. • All weapons of mass destruction -- not just the niggers' -- shall be dismantled. • Unilateralism in world affairs shall not be tolerated. The U.S. will work within the established multilateral framework for solving the world's problems. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. • All arms shipments abroad shall immediately be halted. Again, if a menace to the world's peace and safety presents itself, the solution lies not in U.S. military dominance, but within the framework established by the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions (including the protocol additional). • The U.S. military budget shall be drastically slashed, and redirected toward domestic and international social programmes: ending the AIDS crisis, feeding and securing sources of fresh water for the world's people, expanding literacy, developing sustainable sources of energy, and so on. • The Third World debt shall be cancelled, and IMF and World Bank eliminated. Economic self-determination for all people shall carry the day.
That oughta keep us busy for awhile. Pie-in-the-sky? Sure. But at least it derives from an honest assessment of the problems facing humanity. Problems which have destroyed scores of millions of innocent lives, and are on the verge of destroying millions more. Problems which, if not addressed honestly, have set us well on the course to extinction -- probably sooner than later. Possibly even before you have the opportunity to finish reading this sentence.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:39 PM
| Comments (21)
It could be Afghanistan, or it could be Iraq. It could also be Colombia. NarcoNews reported on October 25, citing "reliable sources" that U.S. Marines had been ordered into Colombia, with a target date of February. Lo and Behold, the reliable sources were correct. The Marines are now "in country", and the military buildup may now be commencing.
In many ways, the U.S. is already at war with Colombia, sending billions in military aid to the hemisphere's worst human rights violator and engaging in a horrific fumigation programme causing widespread devastation to the Colombian peasantry.
It should come as no surprise that the principle concern of the U.S. in Colombia is protecting an oil pipeline. And it should come as no surprise that the Bush Administration is willing to destroy thousands of innocent lives to protect its "interests". So let's not be too surprised when the shit hits the fan, and the flow of men and materiel increases.
What You Can Do: Get into the streets. But also, don't drive a car, and don't pay your taxes. Dissent is vital, but must be backed up by hitting the motherfuckers where it will really hurt them: in their wallets.
February 10, 2003
The Next Vietnam?
It could be Afghanistan, or it could be Iraq. It could also be Colombia. NarcoNews reported on October 25, citing "reliable sources" that U.S. Marines had been ordered into Colombia, with a target date of February. Lo and Behold, the reliable sources were correct. The Marines are now "in country", and the military buildup may now be commencing.
In many ways, the U.S. is already at war with Colombia, sending billions in military aid to the hemisphere's worst human rights violator and engaging in a horrific fumigation programme causing widespread devastation to the Colombian peasantry.
It should come as no surprise that the principle concern of the U.S. in Colombia is protecting an oil pipeline. And it should come as no surprise that the Bush Administration is willing to destroy thousands of innocent lives to protect its "interests". So let's not be too surprised when the shit hits the fan, and the flow of men and materiel increases.
What You Can Do: Get into the streets. But also, don't drive a car, and don't pay your taxes. Dissent is vital, but must be backed up by hitting the motherfuckers where it will really hurt them: in their wallets.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:16 PM
| Comments (0)
Robert Fisk, Maria Tomchick, and Scott Ritter, among others, have helped reveal last week's Powell presentation before the UN as the sham that it was.
Often unmentioned, though, is the bogus foundation upon which the entire sham rests. UN Resolution 1441, "Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA." So, supposing that Powell's "evidence" wasn't doctored or dated, why didn't the U.S. immediately turn this evidence -- much of it supposedly gathered in November and December -- over to UNMOVIC and the IAEA? And why was Colin Powell, rather than UNMOVIC and the IAEA, making a presentation before the United Nations?
Further, if the mainstream press is quoting intelligence experts and officials to the effect that Powell's evidence "suggests, in one way or the other, we're operating inside Iraq," and that, "Over time, our intelligence on the ground has gotten better," why wasn't the U.S. immediately busted for spying on Iraq? It was, after all, U.S. spying activities that led to the demise of UNSCOM in 1998 -- though this wasn't confirmed until after the fact.
So, to summarise. The U.S. has illegally placed operatives on the ground in Iraq, but refuses to share its intelligence with the inspectors, and is still unable to find a "smoking gun", and therefore has to fabricate evidence (or plagiarise dated academic papers), which it expects the world to take at face value.
And expects the World to accept it as a cause to annihilate Iraq. For here is the final, unmentionable irony: if U.S. intelligence is so competent as to be able to turn up prohibited weapons programmes that the inspectors cannot find, then there's no need for a war at all. Simply lead the horses to water, and let them safely destroy the weapons on site.
But of course none of this decoding of U.S. intransigence is even necessary, as the North Korea case has clearly shewn. The U.S. doesn't want to attack North Korea precisely because it now has the ability to hit back. If Iraq were capable of retaliating against a U.S. attack, the U.S. would be hesitant to unleash the dogs upon it as well.
But how does the Bush Administration know that Iraq poses no threat? Its own intelligence agencies have told it so!
Spies Like Us
Robert Fisk, Maria Tomchick, and Scott Ritter, among others, have helped reveal last week's Powell presentation before the UN as the sham that it was.
Often unmentioned, though, is the bogus foundation upon which the entire sham rests. UN Resolution 1441, "Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA." So, supposing that Powell's "evidence" wasn't doctored or dated, why didn't the U.S. immediately turn this evidence -- much of it supposedly gathered in November and December -- over to UNMOVIC and the IAEA? And why was Colin Powell, rather than UNMOVIC and the IAEA, making a presentation before the United Nations?
Further, if the mainstream press is quoting intelligence experts and officials to the effect that Powell's evidence "suggests, in one way or the other, we're operating inside Iraq," and that, "Over time, our intelligence on the ground has gotten better," why wasn't the U.S. immediately busted for spying on Iraq? It was, after all, U.S. spying activities that led to the demise of UNSCOM in 1998 -- though this wasn't confirmed until after the fact.
So, to summarise. The U.S. has illegally placed operatives on the ground in Iraq, but refuses to share its intelligence with the inspectors, and is still unable to find a "smoking gun", and therefore has to fabricate evidence (or plagiarise dated academic papers), which it expects the world to take at face value.
And expects the World to accept it as a cause to annihilate Iraq. For here is the final, unmentionable irony: if U.S. intelligence is so competent as to be able to turn up prohibited weapons programmes that the inspectors cannot find, then there's no need for a war at all. Simply lead the horses to water, and let them safely destroy the weapons on site.
But of course none of this decoding of U.S. intransigence is even necessary, as the North Korea case has clearly shewn. The U.S. doesn't want to attack North Korea precisely because it now has the ability to hit back. If Iraq were capable of retaliating against a U.S. attack, the U.S. would be hesitant to unleash the dogs upon it as well.
But how does the Bush Administration know that Iraq poses no threat? Its own intelligence agencies have told it so!
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:58 PM
| Comments (0)
The United States keeps on trotting out the "he gassed his own" people line of argument as justification for its war plans -- and the mainstream media keeps on regurgitating it without comment.
As part of his "evidence" presented to the UN last Wednesday, indeed the "most damning" piece of evidence, Colin Powell cited Saddam's gassing of the Kurds.
As previously mentioned, not only did the United States support this bit of nastiness at the time, but it also wants Saddam to be granted immunity from prosecution for these crimes, in exchange for his going into exile.
What You Can Do: Write to your local paper, asking it to point up the hypocrisy of the Administration's repeated listing of this crime as evidence of the need to destroy Iraq.
February 09, 2003
Hypocrites In Wolves' Clothing
The United States keeps on trotting out the "he gassed his own" people line of argument as justification for its war plans -- and the mainstream media keeps on regurgitating it without comment.
As part of his "evidence" presented to the UN last Wednesday, indeed the "most damning" piece of evidence, Colin Powell cited Saddam's gassing of the Kurds.
As previously mentioned, not only did the United States support this bit of nastiness at the time, but it also wants Saddam to be granted immunity from prosecution for these crimes, in exchange for his going into exile.
What You Can Do: Write to your local paper, asking it to point up the hypocrisy of the Administration's repeated listing of this crime as evidence of the need to destroy Iraq.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:41 AM
| Comments (0)
It's not enough that the United States maintains the world's highest incarceration rate and wants to bomb the fuck out of the entire Third World. It's not enough to indefinitely "detain" without charges "suspected terrorists", or torture "enemy combatants" at Camp X-Ray. It's not enough that a new-and-improved Patriot Act II: You Have the Right to Fuck Off and Die more less makes it a crime to not be white, fat, balding, male, wealthy, American, and fundamentalist Christian (but especially to not be white). It's now getting time to round up the A-rabs and throw them into concentration camps on general principle.
At least, this appeared to be the thrust of Rep. Howard Coble's comments expressing support of the World War II Japanese internment -- made in response to a talk radio caller's suggestion that Arabs living in the U.S. should be "confined".
Will a Trent Lott-style shitstorm ensue? Doubtful. Those of Middle Eastern descent are even lower on the nigger totem pole than those of African descent. If anything, Aschcroft was probably taking notes.
But here's an idea that hasn't been floated yet. How if we send all of the fucking caucasians back to Europe, and let the remaining inhabitants of this continent live in peace? It just might work!
Lock Up All The Niggers
It's not enough that the United States maintains the world's highest incarceration rate and wants to bomb the fuck out of the entire Third World. It's not enough to indefinitely "detain" without charges "suspected terrorists", or torture "enemy combatants" at Camp X-Ray. It's not enough that a new-and-improved Patriot Act II: You Have the Right to Fuck Off and Die more less makes it a crime to not be white, fat, balding, male, wealthy, American, and fundamentalist Christian (but especially to not be white). It's now getting time to round up the A-rabs and throw them into concentration camps on general principle.
At least, this appeared to be the thrust of Rep. Howard Coble's comments expressing support of the World War II Japanese internment -- made in response to a talk radio caller's suggestion that Arabs living in the U.S. should be "confined".
Will a Trent Lott-style shitstorm ensue? Doubtful. Those of Middle Eastern descent are even lower on the nigger totem pole than those of African descent. If anything, Aschcroft was probably taking notes.
But here's an idea that hasn't been floated yet. How if we send all of the fucking caucasians back to Europe, and let the remaining inhabitants of this continent live in peace? It just might work!
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:23 AM
| Comments (1)
Judging by his cracker-jack piece in this week's Stranger, putting the lie to the Bush Administration's pretexts for its wars, maybe cartoonist Ted Rall ought to quit his day job. (Though, while he's best known as a cartoonist, his bio makes clear that he's long been multi-media antagonist.)
An unflinching, withering attack upon the Bush wars, it's also that rarest of animals: a convincing political thesis that's also engagingly written -- so much so that it seems too short.
As for The Stranger, one can only wonder at its schizophrenic editorial stance. But this more than makes up for its having solicited Christopher Hitchens' childish and ignorant hit piece of a few weeks ago.
Also highly recommended is a somewhat lengthy special edition of Aspects of India's Economy, "Behind the Invasion of Iraq", which excellently lays out not only the strategic underpinnings of the U.S. war drive, but also the history of Western involvement in Iraq (and the Middle East generally).
Recommended Reading
Judging by his cracker-jack piece in this week's Stranger, putting the lie to the Bush Administration's pretexts for its wars, maybe cartoonist Ted Rall ought to quit his day job. (Though, while he's best known as a cartoonist, his bio makes clear that he's long been multi-media antagonist.)
An unflinching, withering attack upon the Bush wars, it's also that rarest of animals: a convincing political thesis that's also engagingly written -- so much so that it seems too short.
As for The Stranger, one can only wonder at its schizophrenic editorial stance. But this more than makes up for its having solicited Christopher Hitchens' childish and ignorant hit piece of a few weeks ago.
Also highly recommended is a somewhat lengthy special edition of Aspects of India's Economy, "Behind the Invasion of Iraq", which excellently lays out not only the strategic underpinnings of the U.S. war drive, but also the history of Western involvement in Iraq (and the Middle East generally).
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:01 AM
| Comments (0)
An interview with Frank Blethen, the publisher of the Seattle Times, is the cover feature in this week's Seattle Weekly. In it, Blethen repeatedly blah blahs about the value of "independent journalism" and "watchdog journalism", and boasts about having angered many of the region's largest and most influential business.
At the same time, Blethen submitted a full-page letter "to our readers" in yesterday's Times, with lots more blah blah. But he also invited readers to "write to us about the content of the newspaper or your service from us."
So let's let him have it. Here's what I'll send:
Mr. Blethen, I'd appreciate it if the paper were more forthcoming with the facts surrounding the planned Iraq invasion. Instead of at most capsule coverage (but usually not even that), for example, of the many reports predicting a humanitarian calamity in Iraq should war occur, why not print the reports in their entirety, or at least give prominent coverage of their findings? Why has the Seattle P-I, for another, run two features concerning Depleted Uranium in the past few months, while the Times hasn't run any? And why did the Times not afford Front page coverage to the story, which broke last week, that the U.S. intends to inflict Hiroshima-like damage upon Baghdad? The plan's creators, after all, are boasting that, "There will be no safe place in Baghdad," and that "you also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water." These are major war crimes the U.S. is planning, and openly so, yet it's not important enough to merit a mention?
If we must read Charles Krauthammer's and Michael Kelly's lunacy each week, why not solicit op-eds from the likes of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Hans von Sponeck, Denis Halliday, Kathy Kelly, Gabriel Kolko? Indeed, why not run Robert Fisk's column? He has, after all, made a career of covering the Arab world, and even speaks the language.
How about more and better coverage of the burgeoning peace movement, whose scope is worldwide, and whose numerous actions before the onset of war are unprecedented in World history? Isn't it worth knowing that 80% or more of the World's population opposes the coming war, with opposition the strongest in the region itself -- that is, among those supposedly the most threatened by Saddam's weapons?
Is there any reason, as we stand on the brink of a war in which tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians will be killed and a million people driven from their homes, in which Depleted Uranium (or perhaps even non-Depleted Uranium) munitions will be used, and in which the President has authorised the use of nuclear weapons should any "unexpected" battlefield developments arise or should the U.S. need to destroy bunkers buried too deep in the ground for conventional weapons to reach; that Bert Sacks, a Seattleite who has made numerous trips to Iraq, devoted his life to ending the Sanctions Regime, and been levied a $10,000 fine upon by the U.S. government for delivering medicine to Iraq; should not be given a weekly column?
As the shooting is set to begin in less than a month, shouldn't the letters page of the paper be expanded to at least two pages? And shouldn't the editorial page (especially the meagre Sunday Opinion section) be bolstered?
Is it not, in short, in all of our best interests for the public to be as fully informed as possible before the missiles start exploding?
I thank you for this opportunity to share these thoughts with you, and hope that you can implement some of these ideas.
Update! Have received the following heartfelt reply from the Times: "Thank you for your message. We appreciate hearing the views of our readers and your message will be shared with the appropriate people at The Seattle Times."
February 06, 2003
Dude Wants To Hear From You
An interview with Frank Blethen, the publisher of the Seattle Times, is the cover feature in this week's Seattle Weekly. In it, Blethen repeatedly blah blahs about the value of "independent journalism" and "watchdog journalism", and boasts about having angered many of the region's largest and most influential business.
At the same time, Blethen submitted a full-page letter "to our readers" in yesterday's Times, with lots more blah blah. But he also invited readers to "write to us about the content of the newspaper or your service from us."
So let's let him have it. Here's what I'll send:
Mr. Blethen, I'd appreciate it if the paper were more forthcoming with the facts surrounding the planned Iraq invasion. Instead of at most capsule coverage (but usually not even that), for example, of the many reports predicting a humanitarian calamity in Iraq should war occur, why not print the reports in their entirety, or at least give prominent coverage of their findings? Why has the Seattle P-I, for another, run two features concerning Depleted Uranium in the past few months, while the Times hasn't run any? And why did the Times not afford Front page coverage to the story, which broke last week, that the U.S. intends to inflict Hiroshima-like damage upon Baghdad? The plan's creators, after all, are boasting that, "There will be no safe place in Baghdad," and that "you also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water." These are major war crimes the U.S. is planning, and openly so, yet it's not important enough to merit a mention?
If we must read Charles Krauthammer's and Michael Kelly's lunacy each week, why not solicit op-eds from the likes of Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Hans von Sponeck, Denis Halliday, Kathy Kelly, Gabriel Kolko? Indeed, why not run Robert Fisk's column? He has, after all, made a career of covering the Arab world, and even speaks the language.
How about more and better coverage of the burgeoning peace movement, whose scope is worldwide, and whose numerous actions before the onset of war are unprecedented in World history? Isn't it worth knowing that 80% or more of the World's population opposes the coming war, with opposition the strongest in the region itself -- that is, among those supposedly the most threatened by Saddam's weapons?
Is there any reason, as we stand on the brink of a war in which tens or even hundreds of thousands of civilians will be killed and a million people driven from their homes, in which Depleted Uranium (or perhaps even non-Depleted Uranium) munitions will be used, and in which the President has authorised the use of nuclear weapons should any "unexpected" battlefield developments arise or should the U.S. need to destroy bunkers buried too deep in the ground for conventional weapons to reach; that Bert Sacks, a Seattleite who has made numerous trips to Iraq, devoted his life to ending the Sanctions Regime, and been levied a $10,000 fine upon by the U.S. government for delivering medicine to Iraq; should not be given a weekly column?
As the shooting is set to begin in less than a month, shouldn't the letters page of the paper be expanded to at least two pages? And shouldn't the editorial page (especially the meagre Sunday Opinion section) be bolstered?
Is it not, in short, in all of our best interests for the public to be as fully informed as possible before the missiles start exploding?
I thank you for this opportunity to share these thoughts with you, and hope that you can implement some of these ideas.
Update! Have received the following heartfelt reply from the Times: "Thank you for your message. We appreciate hearing the views of our readers and your message will be shared with the appropriate people at The Seattle Times."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:12 AM
| Comments (0)
Last week saw the release of another study forecasting a humanitarian disaster awaiting Iraq's civilians upon the advent of war. This one, released by the International Study team and focusing upon Iraq's children, "is forecasting, should war occur, a grave humanitarian disaster. While it is impossible to predict both the nature of any war and the number of expected deaths and injuries, casualties among children will be in the thousands, probably the tens of thousands, and possibly in the hundreds of thousands."
While the report has received some attention, it's somehow failed to escape the notice of the nation's major papers.
What You Can Do: E-mail the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, and USA Today, expressing your dismay at the magnitude of their failure to properly inform the American people, and asking them to give prominent coverage to this, and related, studies. Urge your friends and neighbours to do the same.
February 04, 2003
Ho-Hum
Last week saw the release of another study forecasting a humanitarian disaster awaiting Iraq's civilians upon the advent of war. This one, released by the International Study team and focusing upon Iraq's children, "is forecasting, should war occur, a grave humanitarian disaster. While it is impossible to predict both the nature of any war and the number of expected deaths and injuries, casualties among children will be in the thousands, probably the tens of thousands, and possibly in the hundreds of thousands."
While the report has received some attention, it's somehow failed to escape the notice of the nation's major papers.
What You Can Do: E-mail the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, and USA Today, expressing your dismay at the magnitude of their failure to properly inform the American people, and asking them to give prominent coverage to this, and related, studies. Urge your friends and neighbours to do the same.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:35 PM
| Comments (1)
A few weeks ago, I speculated that the reason the Bush Administration had offered immunity from war crimes prosecution to Saddam Hussein if he would go into exile was that it might be trying to find a face-saving way to get out of undertaking a politically unpopular and militarily risky war in Iraq.
Since that time, the bickering between "old Europe" and Washington commenced, Schwarzkopf warned against going to war, the Dow hit new lows on fear of war, the UN inspectors gave not-perfect but not-damning reports on their progress, Bush tried unsuccessfully to rally the World to war, and the Bush Administration renewed its hysterical attempt to link bin Laden and Hussein, only to be undermined by "senior intelligence officials".
After all of which, the Bush Administration again displayed its rigid adherence to principle in offering to help facilitate the easing of Saddam into exile.
What in the Sam-Hell is going on here? Bush the elder's Adminstration shot down several promising proposals to effect a negotiated settlement to the 1990 Gulf crisis, so determined was it to have its war. There's no reason to believe, especially given the flimsy and hypocritical pretext upon which its case for war is built, that the current Administration desires anything less. So why is it seemingly trying to avoid war?
Colin Powell is downplaying the nature of the so-called evidence to be presented to the UN tomorrow. So what happens if the World remains unconvinced of the need for war? If another floating of the Saddam exile-with-immunity offer ensues, we'll know something's up.
Cold Feet?
A few weeks ago, I speculated that the reason the Bush Administration had offered immunity from war crimes prosecution to Saddam Hussein if he would go into exile was that it might be trying to find a face-saving way to get out of undertaking a politically unpopular and militarily risky war in Iraq.
Since that time, the bickering between "old Europe" and Washington commenced, Schwarzkopf warned against going to war, the Dow hit new lows on fear of war, the UN inspectors gave not-perfect but not-damning reports on their progress, Bush tried unsuccessfully to rally the World to war, and the Bush Administration renewed its hysterical attempt to link bin Laden and Hussein, only to be undermined by "senior intelligence officials".
After all of which, the Bush Administration again displayed its rigid adherence to principle in offering to help facilitate the easing of Saddam into exile.
What in the Sam-Hell is going on here? Bush the elder's Adminstration shot down several promising proposals to effect a negotiated settlement to the 1990 Gulf crisis, so determined was it to have its war. There's no reason to believe, especially given the flimsy and hypocritical pretext upon which its case for war is built, that the current Administration desires anything less. So why is it seemingly trying to avoid war?
Colin Powell is downplaying the nature of the so-called evidence to be presented to the UN tomorrow. So what happens if the World remains unconvinced of the need for war? If another floating of the Saddam exile-with-immunity offer ensues, we'll know something's up.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:15 PM
| Comments (0)
Not to minimise the tragic nature of the Space Shuttle's demise, but do we really need 'round-the-clock coverage of the events? Have we not seen the same shot of the astronauts smiling and waving as they enter the shuttle enough times?
And, isn't the outpouring of emotion just a tad hypocritical? Did anybody now crying his or her eyes out even know the name of a single one of the fallen heroes? Did they even know that there was a Shuttle mission in progress? I sure as fuck didn't.
American workers suffer 6,000 fatalities per year. Why no time on the evening news to recognise each of them by name?
Although events like this usually elicit unintentinally hilarious utterances from our professional talkers. On September 11, a local TV news anchor stated that, "Northgate mall is canceled." And on Saturday, a local talk radio host, in reference to the space programme, said that, "Some people think that robots should be in charge of everything."
A Nation Mourns
Not to minimise the tragic nature of the Space Shuttle's demise, but do we really need 'round-the-clock coverage of the events? Have we not seen the same shot of the astronauts smiling and waving as they enter the shuttle enough times?
And, isn't the outpouring of emotion just a tad hypocritical? Did anybody now crying his or her eyes out even know the name of a single one of the fallen heroes? Did they even know that there was a Shuttle mission in progress? I sure as fuck didn't.
American workers suffer 6,000 fatalities per year. Why no time on the evening news to recognise each of them by name?
Although events like this usually elicit unintentinally hilarious utterances from our professional talkers. On September 11, a local TV news anchor stated that, "Northgate mall is canceled." And on Saturday, a local talk radio host, in reference to the space programme, said that, "Some people think that robots should be in charge of everything."