March 31, 2003
A Reasonable Request
"Excuse me sir, Donald H. Rumsfeld's calling again and he's hopping mad!" This scene (or something like it) was played out in Syrian and Iranian war rooms last week, as Rumsfeld took the two to task for supplying Iraq with night-vision goggles -- though a U.S. General is "not aware of any that have been encountered."Rumsfeld's beef is that the alleged goggles "pose a direct threat to the lives of coalition forces." But did anybody notice Rumsfeld ordering a recall of the "coalition"'s goggles -- which, one can only presume, "pose a direct threat to the lives" of Iraqi forces?
The inscrutable charge comes hot-on-the-heels of the Pentagon's recent hypocritical cry-baby antics regarding POWs and the Geneva Conventions.
More ominously, George Bush last week renewed his threat to nuke Iraq should "coalition forces" come under a chemical or biological weapons attack. The Superbrain didn't say what he would by that logic consider an appropriate response to the United States' use of Depleted Uranium munitions, Natural Uranium munitions, tear gas, napalm (both The Sydney Morning Herald -- citing U.S. Marine officers -- and an off-hand eyewitness account from a CNN reporter have noted its use by the United States, though the State Department denies the claim), cluster bombs, land mines, or "E-bombs".
Further, the infantile, legalistic arguments coming out of Washington and London to the effect that recent Baghdad market massacres were the result not of "coalition" armaments, but of Iraqi anti-aircraft fire are belied by the recovered fragments' serial numbers. But Tony Blair's abysmal whinging that Iraqi surface-to-air missiles "have been malfunctioning and many of them have failed to hit targets and fallen back to Baghdad," completely fails to take into account what the missiles were firing at -- namely, U.S. aircraft on bombing runs over populated areas. Does he really expect us to believe that Iraq would be firing off missiles over Baghdad even were it not under attack?!
No doubt the U.S. is soon going to cry foul at the suicide bombers having now "arrived" in Iraq intending to blow up "coalition" troops -- notwithstanding that it's perfectly acceptable for the "coalition" to "hammer away", "soften up", "pound", "significantly degrade", "batter", "rock", "severely weaken", "clobber", "pummel", and "destroy" Iraqi military personnel and civilians with "barrages of bombs and missiles" in a "round-the-clock" "relentless onslaught". Perfectly acceptable, even though grossly illegal and wretchedly immoral.
How long, one wonders, before the Pentagon requests Iraqi soldiers to fight in their pyjamas, and to wipe the "coalition" forces' asses once they've finished shitting all over them?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:01 PM
| Comments (0)
If not the pinballs. Tommy Franks, head honcho of the U.S. invasion, in defence of the invasion's timing, claims that the invasion happened when it did because, "We saw evidence that the regime was intending to destroy the southern oil fields, [and] had not been able to fully set conditions to be able to do that, so we sensed that we had an opportunity to get to these oil fields."
It's probably a lie. But either way, it contradicts the officially stated pretext for the timing of the invasion: that U.S. intelligence had determined that Saddam was not disarming, but that he was just playing his usual tricks, in trying to indefinitely stretch out the inspections process.
This pretext has in turn been contradicted by the inspectors themselves.
As usual, the problem isn't so much that the State Department and military apparatus is lying and contradicting itself -- that's their job. But it's not (or shouldn't be) the job of the media to repeat the lies and contradictions without comment.
Tommy Spills The Beans
If not the pinballs. Tommy Franks, head honcho of the U.S. invasion, in defence of the invasion's timing, claims that the invasion happened when it did because, "We saw evidence that the regime was intending to destroy the southern oil fields, [and] had not been able to fully set conditions to be able to do that, so we sensed that we had an opportunity to get to these oil fields."
It's probably a lie. But either way, it contradicts the officially stated pretext for the timing of the invasion: that U.S. intelligence had determined that Saddam was not disarming, but that he was just playing his usual tricks, in trying to indefinitely stretch out the inspections process.
This pretext has in turn been contradicted by the inspectors themselves.
As usual, the problem isn't so much that the State Department and military apparatus is lying and contradicting itself -- that's their job. But it's not (or shouldn't be) the job of the media to repeat the lies and contradictions without comment.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:41 PM
| Comments (0)
This blogger has the worst drawing skillz of any vertebrate in all of history. But the worst! So if somebody wants to adapt these "screenplays" into real, live comics, be sure to pass them along.
Comic #1: First Panel The scenario: A sharply dressed caucasian male sitting inside his car, which in turn is sitting inside of a gridlock. The car radio says: "War protests have snarled traffic for miles in every direction. It's going to be a long commute." The sharply dressed caucasian male says: "FUCK!"
Second Panel The scenario: A sharply dressed caucasian male sitting in a comfy chair, watching the television. The television says: "We now pre-empt coverage of the NCAA tourney to bring you coverage of Operation: Kick Saddam's Ass." The sharply dressed caucasian male says: "FUCK!"
Third Panel The scenario: A sharply dressed caucasian male encounters a very long screening line-up of airline passengers. The public address system says: "Due to heightened terrorist concerns, we are now thoroughly checking out all passengers...including whites." The sharply dressed caucasian male says: "FUCK!"
Fourth Panel The scenario: A visibly shaken Iraqi woman spies a tank rolling up her Baghdad street. Bombed-out buildings abound, some still smoldering. The tank-driver says: Attention brave people of Iraq. We have assumed control. The Iraqi woman says: "Fuck..."
Comic #2: First Panel The scenario: A family watching the television, on which The President is holding forth. The President says: "...so it is with grave regret that we have elected to impose martial law, effective so long as we all shall live."
Second Panel The family, in a commotion, begins making for the door, calling out all manner of revolutionary slogans. The father distributes weapons and ammo to all.
Third Panel The President continues: "I have also ordered all television networks, including HBO and Showtime, to develop Survivor series. This means that a different Survivor will air every night of the week."
Fourth Panel The family returns quietly puts away its weaponry, and resumes watching television.
March 26, 2003
Comix!
This blogger has the worst drawing skillz of any vertebrate in all of history. But the worst! So if somebody wants to adapt these "screenplays" into real, live comics, be sure to pass them along.
Comic #1: First Panel The scenario: A sharply dressed caucasian male sitting inside his car, which in turn is sitting inside of a gridlock. The car radio says: "War protests have snarled traffic for miles in every direction. It's going to be a long commute." The sharply dressed caucasian male says: "FUCK!"
Second Panel The scenario: A sharply dressed caucasian male sitting in a comfy chair, watching the television. The television says: "We now pre-empt coverage of the NCAA tourney to bring you coverage of Operation: Kick Saddam's Ass." The sharply dressed caucasian male says: "FUCK!"
Third Panel The scenario: A sharply dressed caucasian male encounters a very long screening line-up of airline passengers. The public address system says: "Due to heightened terrorist concerns, we are now thoroughly checking out all passengers...including whites." The sharply dressed caucasian male says: "FUCK!"
Fourth Panel The scenario: A visibly shaken Iraqi woman spies a tank rolling up her Baghdad street. Bombed-out buildings abound, some still smoldering. The tank-driver says: Attention brave people of Iraq. We have assumed control. The Iraqi woman says: "Fuck..."
Comic #2: First Panel The scenario: A family watching the television, on which The President is holding forth. The President says: "...so it is with grave regret that we have elected to impose martial law, effective so long as we all shall live."
Second Panel The family, in a commotion, begins making for the door, calling out all manner of revolutionary slogans. The father distributes weapons and ammo to all.
Third Panel The President continues: "I have also ordered all television networks, including HBO and Showtime, to develop Survivor series. This means that a different Survivor will air every night of the week."
Fourth Panel The family returns quietly puts away its weaponry, and resumes watching television.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:35 PM
| Comments (0)
As we've all heard, Donald Rumsfeld has accused Iraq of violating the Geneva Conventions by airing video of captured Prisoners. The Red Cross quickly criticised both Iraq and the United States for breaking the same rules, while even elements of the mainstream media allowed that Rumsfeld's furor didn't jibe with the treatment of prisoners being held at Camp X-Ray in Cuba.
Okay, so that's covered -- provided one is diligent enough in seeking information. But what about the far greater hypocrisy, viz., that the entire U.S. war is such a major violation of International Law that it threatens a complete break-down of the system? The crime of unprovoked aggression is precisely the crime for which Nazi and Japanese leaders were hung following World War II. They were held accountable.
What about the civilian casualties generated by this war? If Rumsfeld is as familiar with the Geneva Conventions as he'd have us believe, he'll know that any civilian casualties are illegal -- whether "intentional" or not. He'll know that the United States is legally responsible for the well-being of the city of Basra, which is currently on the verge of a humanitarian disaster. He'll know that "coalition" deployment of radioactive munitions, cluster bombs, and napalm are illegal. He'll know, in short, that he is a war criminal.
Tony Blair, the great humanist, has either not read or not comprehended the Geneva Conventions. In the wake of the bombing of a Baghdad market (which some are already terming a massacre), Tony Blair's official spokesman announced that, "We have always accepted that there will be some very regrettable civilian casualties." Leaving aside the unintended ambiguity (are some other civilian casualties not regrettable?), the translation would read: "We have always accepted that we will commit war crimes." (Or, possibly: "The world has always accepted that we shall bomb niggers with impunity.") To repeat: the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit civilians casualties, including "very regrettable" casualties.
Speaking of International Law, where the fuck is the Security Council? The Council leapt into action following Iraq's annexation of Kuwait, immediately condemning the invasion, and imposing sanctions four days later. Why has not the Security Council done the same to the United States? (Yes, the United States and Britain would both veto, but at least the world would know that White nations are expected to abid by International Law.)
The Geneva Conventions Hypocrisy
As we've all heard, Donald Rumsfeld has accused Iraq of violating the Geneva Conventions by airing video of captured Prisoners. The Red Cross quickly criticised both Iraq and the United States for breaking the same rules, while even elements of the mainstream media allowed that Rumsfeld's furor didn't jibe with the treatment of prisoners being held at Camp X-Ray in Cuba.
Okay, so that's covered -- provided one is diligent enough in seeking information. But what about the far greater hypocrisy, viz., that the entire U.S. war is such a major violation of International Law that it threatens a complete break-down of the system? The crime of unprovoked aggression is precisely the crime for which Nazi and Japanese leaders were hung following World War II. They were held accountable.
What about the civilian casualties generated by this war? If Rumsfeld is as familiar with the Geneva Conventions as he'd have us believe, he'll know that any civilian casualties are illegal -- whether "intentional" or not. He'll know that the United States is legally responsible for the well-being of the city of Basra, which is currently on the verge of a humanitarian disaster. He'll know that "coalition" deployment of radioactive munitions, cluster bombs, and napalm are illegal. He'll know, in short, that he is a war criminal.
Tony Blair, the great humanist, has either not read or not comprehended the Geneva Conventions. In the wake of the bombing of a Baghdad market (which some are already terming a massacre), Tony Blair's official spokesman announced that, "We have always accepted that there will be some very regrettable civilian casualties." Leaving aside the unintended ambiguity (are some other civilian casualties not regrettable?), the translation would read: "We have always accepted that we will commit war crimes." (Or, possibly: "The world has always accepted that we shall bomb niggers with impunity.") To repeat: the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit civilians casualties, including "very regrettable" casualties.
Speaking of International Law, where the fuck is the Security Council? The Council leapt into action following Iraq's annexation of Kuwait, immediately condemning the invasion, and imposing sanctions four days later. Why has not the Security Council done the same to the United States? (Yes, the United States and Britain would both veto, but at least the world would know that White nations are expected to abid by International Law.)
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:56 PM
| Comments (2)
The U.S. military, though it hasn't done so yet, promising to "find" the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction which elicited this farce of a war. Uh, gee, didn't The Superbrain already declare on any number of occasions that his intelligence apparatus had determined the continued existence of such weapons? If so, then why do they have to be "found"? If U.S. intelligence knows of their existence, it should know exactly where they are (or, if they've been moved, where to).
This is just kindergarten-level logic, isn't it?
Update: Five days later, "senior officials in Washington said that intelligence information about weapons of mass destruction at 10 sites had proved to be unfounded." The Bush Administration vows to "find" them, and maybe it will (by hook or by crook). But U.S. intelligence last Autumn said that it didn't expect Saddam to use any weapons he might possess, unless attacked. Now, under heavy bombardment, he still hasn't used them -- if he has them (it's worth recalling that Hans Blix had requested "not years, not weeks, but months" more to finally determine Iraq's disarmament status).
So if he won't use them unless attacked, won't use them if attacked, the U.S. invaders can't find them...
About Those Iraqi Weapons...
The U.S. military, though it hasn't done so yet, promising to "find" the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction which elicited this farce of a war. Uh, gee, didn't The Superbrain already declare on any number of occasions that his intelligence apparatus had determined the continued existence of such weapons? If so, then why do they have to be "found"? If U.S. intelligence knows of their existence, it should know exactly where they are (or, if they've been moved, where to).
This is just kindergarten-level logic, isn't it?
Update: Five days later, "senior officials in Washington said that intelligence information about weapons of mass destruction at 10 sites had proved to be unfounded." The Bush Administration vows to "find" them, and maybe it will (by hook or by crook). But U.S. intelligence last Autumn said that it didn't expect Saddam to use any weapons he might possess, unless attacked. Now, under heavy bombardment, he still hasn't used them -- if he has them (it's worth recalling that Hans Blix had requested "not years, not weeks, but months" more to finally determine Iraq's disarmament status).
So if he won't use them unless attacked, won't use them if attacked, the U.S. invaders can't find them...
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:44 PM
| Comments (0)
This blog has been ridiculing the Iraq-war-as-liberation thesis since its inception (a thesis which, though to hear it told one would think is as old as the commandments themselves, was initially proposed about two and one-half months ago). So we had intended to write about the conclusions the mainstream media dare not draw from its own reports: this so-called war of "liberation" is, in the view of the Iraqi people, anything but. However, Dack has up and beaten us to it, so go read his analysis instead.
For continuing reports on this matter (and others), see the Iraq War Fallout page. Particularly recommended is Robert Fisk's interview with Democracy Now!. (Don't know how many journalism awards Fisk has won, but it's surely not nearly enough. Best quote (in response to the question why he had not left Baghdad as Colin Powell had instructed foreign journalists to do): "Because I don’t work for Colin Powell, I work for a British newspaper called The Independent; if you read it, you’ll find that we are. It’s not the job of a journalist to snap to the attention of generals.")
A note on language. The U.S., which had initially planned to avoid southern Iraqi cities in its manic rush to Baghdad has now decided to turn around and "address" the threat posed by Iraqi militias in the south before laying waste to Baghdad. Now, recall that just a week ago, The Superbrain promised to liberate the "brave" Iraqi people -- all those who aren't, he said, "Saddam and his gang of killers". A "senior American military official" in describing this new strategy, now says that, "We will go where the enemy is." The Superbrain assured us that these "brave" Iraqi people would throw down their weapons and welcome the U.S. military with open arms. As that didn't happen, they've now become the "enemy", with nary a reporter appearing to have noticed the about-face.
In the words of Johnny Cochrane: "That does not make sense!"
This Is What "Liberation" Looks Like
This blog has been ridiculing the Iraq-war-as-liberation thesis since its inception (a thesis which, though to hear it told one would think is as old as the commandments themselves, was initially proposed about two and one-half months ago). So we had intended to write about the conclusions the mainstream media dare not draw from its own reports: this so-called war of "liberation" is, in the view of the Iraqi people, anything but. However, Dack has up and beaten us to it, so go read his analysis instead.
For continuing reports on this matter (and others), see the Iraq War Fallout page. Particularly recommended is Robert Fisk's interview with Democracy Now!. (Don't know how many journalism awards Fisk has won, but it's surely not nearly enough. Best quote (in response to the question why he had not left Baghdad as Colin Powell had instructed foreign journalists to do): "Because I don’t work for Colin Powell, I work for a British newspaper called The Independent; if you read it, you’ll find that we are. It’s not the job of a journalist to snap to the attention of generals.")
A note on language. The U.S., which had initially planned to avoid southern Iraqi cities in its manic rush to Baghdad has now decided to turn around and "address" the threat posed by Iraqi militias in the south before laying waste to Baghdad. Now, recall that just a week ago, The Superbrain promised to liberate the "brave" Iraqi people -- all those who aren't, he said, "Saddam and his gang of killers". A "senior American military official" in describing this new strategy, now says that, "We will go where the enemy is." The Superbrain assured us that these "brave" Iraqi people would throw down their weapons and welcome the U.S. military with open arms. As that didn't happen, they've now become the "enemy", with nary a reporter appearing to have noticed the about-face.
In the words of Johnny Cochrane: "That does not make sense!"
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:44 PM
| Comments (0)
Warning: Seattle-centric post to follow. But maybe it applies equally well to other cities?
"Let us march! Let us March!" chanted Saturday afternoon's crowds at 1st & Spring, after briefly taking to the streets then being unceremoniously corralled onto the sidewalks. Instead of letting them march, though, the fuzz (aided by, I kid you not, reinforcements called in from Tukwila) split them off into ever-smaller enclaves of ever-more-frustrated would-be street-marchers. The show of force by Nickels' marauders was ugly, immature, and unnecessary. They should have let the protesters have their fucking little march, if that's what they wanted.
But exactly what the protesters hoped to accomplish with yet another wimpy march through downtown was unclear. Even more puzzling is the logic of the rally's organisers, who declined to obtain a parade permit -- according to a lieutenant on the scene -- as late as 1:30 Saturday afternoon. When asked why the protesters weren't being allowed to fill up 2nd avenue between Madison and Marion, the lieutenant claimed he'd revisit that issue if the Federal Building's plaza filled up with people. There was, he rightly pointed out, space still available in the plaza.
Yes, the cops were behaving like thugs. Yes, the protesters often seemed to be trying simply to provoke a reaction from the cops. Yes, the organisers' exhortations to take to the streets seemed odd considering their refusal to obtain a permit. But of much greater concern is the suddenly ænemic quality of the city's anti-war movement. Why did a pro-troops rally in Bellevue outdraw Saturday's anti-war crowd by a ratio of three- or four-to-one? What happened to the 25,000 revelrous marchers who lined the city's streets from one end to the other just five short weeks ago? Why were San Franciscans able to shut down their city's financial centre, while Seattleites are barely able to scrape up enough people to march it around the block? Most important of all, why has every single anti-war rally since October been so god-almighty boring?
The issue facing Seattle's Peace Movement in the wake of the weekend's disastrous rallies isn't whether or not to obey the man. It's how to get the numbers of people we know are sympathetic to our cause to show up downtown and voice their displeasure at the Bush Administration's execrable war, so that we never again have to spend four hours dicking off for no good purpose even while the bombs are falling. Failing that, we need to be spending our time not listening to an endless progression of embittered speakers (with the occasional Tom Morello or Jim McDermott thrown in for good measure) preaching to the already-converted, but spreading out in twos and threes to every street-corner and coffee shop in the "retail core" and taking our message to the people who aren't yet converted.
When word starts getting out that downtown shoppers are taking up the fight, then those peace-loving souls who simply can't stand the thought of being bored off their asses by yet another Federal Building speech-fest will know that something interesting's happening downtown, and will quickly rush in to join it. And then it won't matter if Greg Nickels calls in goons from fucking Shoreline, we'll still be able to take -- and hold -- the streets.
March 23, 2003
Whose Streets? Who Cares?
Warning: Seattle-centric post to follow. But maybe it applies equally well to other cities?"Let us march! Let us March!" chanted Saturday afternoon's crowds at 1st & Spring, after briefly taking to the streets then being unceremoniously corralled onto the sidewalks. Instead of letting them march, though, the fuzz (aided by, I kid you not, reinforcements called in from Tukwila) split them off into ever-smaller enclaves of ever-more-frustrated would-be street-marchers. The show of force by Nickels' marauders was ugly, immature, and unnecessary. They should have let the protesters have their fucking little march, if that's what they wanted.
But exactly what the protesters hoped to accomplish with yet another wimpy march through downtown was unclear. Even more puzzling is the logic of the rally's organisers, who declined to obtain a parade permit -- according to a lieutenant on the scene -- as late as 1:30 Saturday afternoon. When asked why the protesters weren't being allowed to fill up 2nd avenue between Madison and Marion, the lieutenant claimed he'd revisit that issue if the Federal Building's plaza filled up with people. There was, he rightly pointed out, space still available in the plaza.
Yes, the cops were behaving like thugs. Yes, the protesters often seemed to be trying simply to provoke a reaction from the cops. Yes, the organisers' exhortations to take to the streets seemed odd considering their refusal to obtain a permit. But of much greater concern is the suddenly ænemic quality of the city's anti-war movement. Why did a pro-troops rally in Bellevue outdraw Saturday's anti-war crowd by a ratio of three- or four-to-one? What happened to the 25,000 revelrous marchers who lined the city's streets from one end to the other just five short weeks ago? Why were San Franciscans able to shut down their city's financial centre, while Seattleites are barely able to scrape up enough people to march it around the block? Most important of all, why has every single anti-war rally since October been so god-almighty boring?
The issue facing Seattle's Peace Movement in the wake of the weekend's disastrous rallies isn't whether or not to obey the man. It's how to get the numbers of people we know are sympathetic to our cause to show up downtown and voice their displeasure at the Bush Administration's execrable war, so that we never again have to spend four hours dicking off for no good purpose even while the bombs are falling. Failing that, we need to be spending our time not listening to an endless progression of embittered speakers (with the occasional Tom Morello or Jim McDermott thrown in for good measure) preaching to the already-converted, but spreading out in twos and threes to every street-corner and coffee shop in the "retail core" and taking our message to the people who aren't yet converted.
When word starts getting out that downtown shoppers are taking up the fight, then those peace-loving souls who simply can't stand the thought of being bored off their asses by yet another Federal Building speech-fest will know that something interesting's happening downtown, and will quickly rush in to join it. And then it won't matter if Greg Nickels calls in goons from fucking Shoreline, we'll still be able to take -- and hold -- the streets.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:16 PM
| Comments (0)
Robert Fisk, perhaps the most important journalist in the English language, reports from the scene upon both Thursday's and Friday's aerial bombardments of Baghdad, as well as the bombardments' aftermath.
Once again this blog must implore all Americans to not drive your car and not pay your taxes. Unless somebody's got a better idea?
March 22, 2003
The Greatest Country In The World Announces Its Presence
Robert Fisk, perhaps the most important journalist in the English language, reports from the scene upon both Thursday's and Friday's aerial bombardments of Baghdad, as well as the bombardments' aftermath.
Once again this blog must implore all Americans to not drive your car and not pay your taxes. Unless somebody's got a better idea?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:12 AM
| Comments (0)
A new website is keeping track of the number of civilians killed during the U.S. massacre of Iraq. (See the latest total in the right-hand panel of this blog.)
But why, one wonders, are the counters totting up only civilian casualties? (This question isn't really directed at Iraq Body Count -- whose curators have discussed the matter -- so much as the general public.) Should not Iraqi military casualties, which would otherwise not have occured save for a blatantly illegal U.S. invasion be included as well? A Russian military expert has predicted that the United States, in order to minimise American casualties, is planning to completely wipe out the Iraqi military personnel -- presumably simply burying them with bulldozers, as was done during the first Gulf War. These deaths are no less tragic, no less preventable, and no less criminal than civilian casualties. Furthermore:
• Iraqi soldiers won't even have the option to try to flee the country or otherwise hide from the bombs. • U.S. war planners won't even think twice before destroying their lives (as they, given the world uproar, now might do before bombing civilian infrastructure). • The United States' preferred method of "warfare" -- dropping thousands upon thousands of tonnes of ordnance from high altitude, or launching thousands of missiles from out at sea -- is a supremely cowardly predilection whose intent is to increase the indiscriminate nature of its military destructions while decreasing the number of American military casualties. In other words, the United States' complete dominance of the skies leaves Iraqi military personnel sitting ducks -- with essentially no conceivable way of "fighting back". • The "allied forces" presumably will simply massacre Iraqi soldiers attempting to surrender -- just as during the first Gulf War.
Iraqi military personnel are probably even more sitting ducks than the civilians, yet their deaths are no less criminal. They should be counted as carefully as Iraqi civilian casualties are going to be counted.
Note too that the count doesn't include "indirect" deaths caused by destruction of civilian infrastructure -- though these are likely to be far greater than the number of civilians directly bombed to death. The designers of this study address the issue, and their rationale for not including "indirect" casualties seems reasonable enough. But we should keep it in mind that their tally will far underestimate the total "misery index" brought about by U.S. bombs.
March 20, 2003
The Body Count
A new website is keeping track of the number of civilians killed during the U.S. massacre of Iraq. (See the latest total in the right-hand panel of this blog.)
But why, one wonders, are the counters totting up only civilian casualties? (This question isn't really directed at Iraq Body Count -- whose curators have discussed the matter -- so much as the general public.) Should not Iraqi military casualties, which would otherwise not have occured save for a blatantly illegal U.S. invasion be included as well? A Russian military expert has predicted that the United States, in order to minimise American casualties, is planning to completely wipe out the Iraqi military personnel -- presumably simply burying them with bulldozers, as was done during the first Gulf War. These deaths are no less tragic, no less preventable, and no less criminal than civilian casualties. Furthermore:
• Iraqi soldiers won't even have the option to try to flee the country or otherwise hide from the bombs. • U.S. war planners won't even think twice before destroying their lives (as they, given the world uproar, now might do before bombing civilian infrastructure). • The United States' preferred method of "warfare" -- dropping thousands upon thousands of tonnes of ordnance from high altitude, or launching thousands of missiles from out at sea -- is a supremely cowardly predilection whose intent is to increase the indiscriminate nature of its military destructions while decreasing the number of American military casualties. In other words, the United States' complete dominance of the skies leaves Iraqi military personnel sitting ducks -- with essentially no conceivable way of "fighting back". • The "allied forces" presumably will simply massacre Iraqi soldiers attempting to surrender -- just as during the first Gulf War.
Iraqi military personnel are probably even more sitting ducks than the civilians, yet their deaths are no less criminal. They should be counted as carefully as Iraqi civilian casualties are going to be counted.
Note too that the count doesn't include "indirect" deaths caused by destruction of civilian infrastructure -- though these are likely to be far greater than the number of civilians directly bombed to death. The designers of this study address the issue, and their rationale for not including "indirect" casualties seems reasonable enough. But we should keep it in mind that their tally will far underestimate the total "misery index" brought about by U.S. bombs.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:46 PM
| Comments (23)
Now that the diplomatic process has ended, how shall France and Germany, having courageously stood up to the United States during the pre-war wrangling, react?
Fear not, friends, the White Race is still looking after its own. Tasks of the Bush Administration's "Coalition of the Willing" include France, "Allowing use of its airspace under treaty obligations," and Germany pledging "unhindered use of airspace and access to U.S. and British bases in Germany. Also helping to protect Turkey with AWACS crews and Patriot anti-missile rockets."
France's "treaty obligations" excuse is reminiscent of the Western stand-down during the Spanish Civil War -- which saw Hitler's and Mussolini's forces supply overwhelming aid to the fascists in clear violation of the non-intervention treaty, while the West looked on in bemusement. So due to "treaty obligations", the French are aiding and abetting an illegal, genocidal war upon a brown-skinned nation. Surprised? How many "treaty obligations" has the Bush Administration not honoured? Why should France, except for the colour of most of its inhabitants' skin, honour its own "treaty obligations" when the United States, by waging an unprovoked war of agression, has broken the most important compact in all of International Law?
Germany, in addition to its traitorous-to-the-human-race facilitation of The Superbrain's crusade, has stationed "chemical warfare decontamination specialists" in Kuwait. Now, even though Hans Blix doesn't expect Saddam to use chemical or biological weapons if he has them, even though months of invasive inspections have found nothing and the West's favourite Iraqi defector reported that all of Iraq's WMD were destroyed long ago, and even though the Pentagon is openly acknowledging its plans to utilise Depleted Uranium; why should Germany, except for the colour of most of its inhabitants' skin, be stationing decontamination specialists in Kuwait rather than in Baghdad?
Okay, geopolitical considerations probably have as much to do with the French and German treachery as do racial considerations. But either way, it stinks to high heaven.
A side-note on the DU issue: despite the high levels of correlation between use of radiological munitions and horrifying health and environmental developments, the U.S. military insists that the only reason Iraqis are opposed to its use is because "we kicked the crap out of them [in the first Gulf War], okay?"
This doesn't explain the well-documented effects, nor the reaction to its use from health and environmental experts the world over. But if we follow its logic to its conclusion, Colonel Naughton's remarks reveal the level of carnage wrought by its use, notwithstanding the subsequent health and environmental devastation. In other words, DU, even in its "benign" phase, is a weapon whose use will visit massive levels of destruction upon its targets, and so should be considered no more "acceptable" than a theoretical Iraqi chemcial weapon attack.
Once An Aryan, Always An Aryan
Now that the diplomatic process has ended, how shall France and Germany, having courageously stood up to the United States during the pre-war wrangling, react?
Fear not, friends, the White Race is still looking after its own. Tasks of the Bush Administration's "Coalition of the Willing" include France, "Allowing use of its airspace under treaty obligations," and Germany pledging "unhindered use of airspace and access to U.S. and British bases in Germany. Also helping to protect Turkey with AWACS crews and Patriot anti-missile rockets."
France's "treaty obligations" excuse is reminiscent of the Western stand-down during the Spanish Civil War -- which saw Hitler's and Mussolini's forces supply overwhelming aid to the fascists in clear violation of the non-intervention treaty, while the West looked on in bemusement. So due to "treaty obligations", the French are aiding and abetting an illegal, genocidal war upon a brown-skinned nation. Surprised? How many "treaty obligations" has the Bush Administration not honoured? Why should France, except for the colour of most of its inhabitants' skin, honour its own "treaty obligations" when the United States, by waging an unprovoked war of agression, has broken the most important compact in all of International Law?
Germany, in addition to its traitorous-to-the-human-race facilitation of The Superbrain's crusade, has stationed "chemical warfare decontamination specialists" in Kuwait. Now, even though Hans Blix doesn't expect Saddam to use chemical or biological weapons if he has them, even though months of invasive inspections have found nothing and the West's favourite Iraqi defector reported that all of Iraq's WMD were destroyed long ago, and even though the Pentagon is openly acknowledging its plans to utilise Depleted Uranium; why should Germany, except for the colour of most of its inhabitants' skin, be stationing decontamination specialists in Kuwait rather than in Baghdad?
Okay, geopolitical considerations probably have as much to do with the French and German treachery as do racial considerations. But either way, it stinks to high heaven.
A side-note on the DU issue: despite the high levels of correlation between use of radiological munitions and horrifying health and environmental developments, the U.S. military insists that the only reason Iraqis are opposed to its use is because "we kicked the crap out of them [in the first Gulf War], okay?"
This doesn't explain the well-documented effects, nor the reaction to its use from health and environmental experts the world over. But if we follow its logic to its conclusion, Colonel Naughton's remarks reveal the level of carnage wrought by its use, notwithstanding the subsequent health and environmental devastation. In other words, DU, even in its "benign" phase, is a weapon whose use will visit massive levels of destruction upon its targets, and so should be considered no more "acceptable" than a theoretical Iraqi chemcial weapon attack.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:11 PM
| Comments (6)
This blogger was not alive (or at least, not sentient) during the Vietnam Era, and didn't fully realise until later the horrors perpetrated both during the Reagan Administration's "secret" wars in Central America or the first Gulf War and its aftermath.
So, this particular moment in time feels like the crucible of the Generation X -- our very own Vietnam, as it were. Certainly there are horrors aplenty even without the existence of "Operation: Liberate Iraq" (or whatever it may be called) -- from the daily nightmare that is the Israeli occupation, to the "low-intensity" chemical warfare campaign in Colombia, to the depredations in Afghanistan, to the IMF-induced poverty throughout the Third World (to name just a few). But to be aware that one's nation is going to reduce a city of five million people to rubble elicits a truly sickening, helpless, desperate feeling.
So what has the Peace Movement to hang its hat on, after all is said and done? Well, plenty.
Never before has 90% of the world cried out in unison with one simple message: you can not do this. Never before has the United States' war-monger class been so diplomatically isolated.
The United States wasn't forced by world opinion to seek sanction for its wars in Vietnam. It didn't attempt to obtain authorisation to destroy Nicaragua, or Afghanistan, or Yugoslavia. It wouldn't have done so this time, either, except for massive domestic and international pressure.
Indeed, while it's forgotten now, there was talk late last year that we would "be at war by Christmas". Essentially, then, the Peace Movement checked the mightiest army on Earth three entire months.
Never before has there been discussion in mainstream circles regarding the legality of U.S. militarism, or threats to U.S. planners that they will be held accountable for their crimes.
Never before has so much attention been paid to the issue of civilian casualties of a U.S. war -- so much so, this time, that it's even possible that the U.S. has re-written its war plans to mitigate civilian casualties, for fear of a gargantuan worldwide backlash.
How else explain Tony Blair's predicament, anti-war presidential candidates playing to the crowds in candidate forums, or Turkey's refusal to allow U.S. troop access? How else explain the presence of dozens of Western "Human Shields" and Peace Team witnesses in Baghdad?
As demoralising as our inability to prevent this war may be, and as tenuous as the likelihood of survival of the species beyond the next month or so may now seem, what of the long-term future (if we do survive beyond the next month or so)?
Will it be possible for the Bush Administration to wage the next in its series of wars of conquest? Highly doubtful, one should think. First off, recall that one reason the Iraq blitz is occurring now rather than last year at this time is that the U.S. military used up so many of its munitions in blitzing Afghanistan that it had to wait for more to be built before it could launch its next war. So the earliest that the next war could be launched is probably about a year from now, for this reason alone.
Secondly, note that, while the premises of the war are racist, hypocritical, Orwellian, etc., in many ways Iraq is a unique case. Most of the charges against Saddam are true (even if the context has been elided or obfuscated). Saddam has been public enemy no. 1 for over a decade, and the takeover of Iraq has been in the planning for many a moon.
The Bush Administration surely expected that it could gather the support of virtually the entire world with one hand tied behind its back. That it was unable to do so, that it is left virtually isolated, that 90% of the world's population opposes its dastardly war, that it was reduced to grovelling at the feet of the likes of Cameroon and Mexico (to no avail), that its lies and deceit and treachery have been exposed for all the world to see; all when it plans to make the case against probably the easiest and most likely suspect on the planet -- would seem to indicate that it's going to have even a more difficult adventure next time around.
Added to which, a year from now (that is, as the re-election campaign begins to swing into high gear) there are likely to be U.S. troops ineptly bumbling their way through "nation building" processes in (at the least) Afghanistan, Iraq, and Colombia; and that the world economy may well have been thrown into a shambles.
Colour me naive, but it just doesn't seem possible for The Superbrain to launch another major war before he's bounced out onto his dimpled ass in November of next year. This is the legacy of "our" Vietnam -- and the Peace Movement's reaction to it.
What Have We Accomplished?
This blogger was not alive (or at least, not sentient) during the Vietnam Era, and didn't fully realise until later the horrors perpetrated both during the Reagan Administration's "secret" wars in Central America or the first Gulf War and its aftermath.
So, this particular moment in time feels like the crucible of the Generation X -- our very own Vietnam, as it were. Certainly there are horrors aplenty even without the existence of "Operation: Liberate Iraq" (or whatever it may be called) -- from the daily nightmare that is the Israeli occupation, to the "low-intensity" chemical warfare campaign in Colombia, to the depredations in Afghanistan, to the IMF-induced poverty throughout the Third World (to name just a few). But to be aware that one's nation is going to reduce a city of five million people to rubble elicits a truly sickening, helpless, desperate feeling.
So what has the Peace Movement to hang its hat on, after all is said and done? Well, plenty.
Never before has 90% of the world cried out in unison with one simple message: you can not do this. Never before has the United States' war-monger class been so diplomatically isolated.
The United States wasn't forced by world opinion to seek sanction for its wars in Vietnam. It didn't attempt to obtain authorisation to destroy Nicaragua, or Afghanistan, or Yugoslavia. It wouldn't have done so this time, either, except for massive domestic and international pressure.
Indeed, while it's forgotten now, there was talk late last year that we would "be at war by Christmas". Essentially, then, the Peace Movement checked the mightiest army on Earth three entire months.
Never before has there been discussion in mainstream circles regarding the legality of U.S. militarism, or threats to U.S. planners that they will be held accountable for their crimes.
Never before has so much attention been paid to the issue of civilian casualties of a U.S. war -- so much so, this time, that it's even possible that the U.S. has re-written its war plans to mitigate civilian casualties, for fear of a gargantuan worldwide backlash.
How else explain Tony Blair's predicament, anti-war presidential candidates playing to the crowds in candidate forums, or Turkey's refusal to allow U.S. troop access? How else explain the presence of dozens of Western "Human Shields" and Peace Team witnesses in Baghdad?
As demoralising as our inability to prevent this war may be, and as tenuous as the likelihood of survival of the species beyond the next month or so may now seem, what of the long-term future (if we do survive beyond the next month or so)?
Will it be possible for the Bush Administration to wage the next in its series of wars of conquest? Highly doubtful, one should think. First off, recall that one reason the Iraq blitz is occurring now rather than last year at this time is that the U.S. military used up so many of its munitions in blitzing Afghanistan that it had to wait for more to be built before it could launch its next war. So the earliest that the next war could be launched is probably about a year from now, for this reason alone.
Secondly, note that, while the premises of the war are racist, hypocritical, Orwellian, etc., in many ways Iraq is a unique case. Most of the charges against Saddam are true (even if the context has been elided or obfuscated). Saddam has been public enemy no. 1 for over a decade, and the takeover of Iraq has been in the planning for many a moon.
The Bush Administration surely expected that it could gather the support of virtually the entire world with one hand tied behind its back. That it was unable to do so, that it is left virtually isolated, that 90% of the world's population opposes its dastardly war, that it was reduced to grovelling at the feet of the likes of Cameroon and Mexico (to no avail), that its lies and deceit and treachery have been exposed for all the world to see; all when it plans to make the case against probably the easiest and most likely suspect on the planet -- would seem to indicate that it's going to have even a more difficult adventure next time around.
Added to which, a year from now (that is, as the re-election campaign begins to swing into high gear) there are likely to be U.S. troops ineptly bumbling their way through "nation building" processes in (at the least) Afghanistan, Iraq, and Colombia; and that the world economy may well have been thrown into a shambles.
Colour me naive, but it just doesn't seem possible for The Superbrain to launch another major war before he's bounced out onto his dimpled ass in November of next year. This is the legacy of "our" Vietnam -- and the Peace Movement's reaction to it.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:42 PM
| Comments (1)
Wondering why the Bush Administration is rushing in to the slaughter, even though Kofi Annan, Hans Blix (who still wonders whether Iraq has any WMD), the now-exited nuclear inspectors, and scads of World heads of state have denounced the invasion and U.S. dirty tricks; though 90% or more of the World's population is opposed; though it had to withdraw its much-touted Security Council Resolution because not one country (save the four that have been on board from the get-go) would have voted for it; though the Pope has warned The Superbrain that he has assumed "a grave responsibility before God"; and though legal scholars are questioning the legality of the war (or even outright warning Western leaders and troops that they will be made to account for their crimes)?
Surely it could have nothing to do with the White House having "restricted the initial bidding process" for $900 Million worth of reconstruction contracts to four American companies -- including Dick Cheney's good old boys at Halliburton?
While the Busheros had originally conceived to make Iraq pay for its own reconstruction through oil sales (there's a nice trick -- conduct an unprovoked attack on another country, and make it pay for its own reconstruction!), it's lamentably just going to be too costly for Iraq's oil revenues to cover. So, it's instead going to be left to the U.S. taxpayers (unlike the first Gulf War, no other countries are willing to pony up and funds this time around). If you're scoring at home, here's what it boils down to: massive tax cuts for the rich, massively increased deficit spending (that is, subsidies to "defense" contractors and bond-holders) to pay for the missiles with which to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis and propagate the "War on Terror" in general, and then the taxpayers line the pockets of Cheney and pals with tens of millions more.
Now, that's some freaking chutzpah for you!
March 19, 2003
We Had To Destroy The Village In Order To Rebuild It
Wondering why the Bush Administration is rushing in to the slaughter, even though Kofi Annan, Hans Blix (who still wonders whether Iraq has any WMD), the now-exited nuclear inspectors, and scads of World heads of state have denounced the invasion and U.S. dirty tricks; though 90% or more of the World's population is opposed; though it had to withdraw its much-touted Security Council Resolution because not one country (save the four that have been on board from the get-go) would have voted for it; though the Pope has warned The Superbrain that he has assumed "a grave responsibility before God"; and though legal scholars are questioning the legality of the war (or even outright warning Western leaders and troops that they will be made to account for their crimes)?
Surely it could have nothing to do with the White House having "restricted the initial bidding process" for $900 Million worth of reconstruction contracts to four American companies -- including Dick Cheney's good old boys at Halliburton?
While the Busheros had originally conceived to make Iraq pay for its own reconstruction through oil sales (there's a nice trick -- conduct an unprovoked attack on another country, and make it pay for its own reconstruction!), it's lamentably just going to be too costly for Iraq's oil revenues to cover. So, it's instead going to be left to the U.S. taxpayers (unlike the first Gulf War, no other countries are willing to pony up and funds this time around). If you're scoring at home, here's what it boils down to: massive tax cuts for the rich, massively increased deficit spending (that is, subsidies to "defense" contractors and bond-holders) to pay for the missiles with which to kill tens of thousands of Iraqis and propagate the "War on Terror" in general, and then the taxpayers line the pockets of Cheney and pals with tens of millions more.
Now, that's some freaking chutzpah for you!
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:21 AM
| Comments (0)
Serious White Men cannot reach consensus upon whether the United States' invasion of Iraq will usher in a wonderful new world of democracy throughout the region. Some think it will, some -- including the State Department itself -- think it will not. Time will judge those who dare to challenge The Superbrain's wisdom.
But unmentionable on the Serious White Men's talk shows is what the United States means by "democracy". Colombia, after all, is considered a "democracy", because it has elections -- never mind that it also has the worst human rights record in the hemisphere. Israel is, we're told ad naseum, the "only democracy in the Middle East" -- never mind that rights one reflexively associates with "democracy" ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to name a few) are brutally, savagely denied within its domains. Nicaragua was not considered a "democracy" when it staged perhaps the most-widely observed election in Third World history. Just a few of the literally dozens of examles of the United States' perverted notions of "democracy".
Also unmentionable is the reason why the rest of the Muslim World is ruled by dictatorial thugs, viz., the U.S. wants the Arab World to be ruled by dictatorial thugs, and sends billions of dollars of military aid to these same dictatorial thugs, thereby enabling them to retain their dictatorial, thuggish regimes. Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey -- clearly anti-democratic regimes, clearly and crucially supported by the United States -- the flow of the implements of death even increasing since September 11. The United States refers to this set-up as the "Arab facade". If the West truly wants democracy in the Muslim World, why is it doing so much to undermine it? As far as Saddam is concerned, we all know the sordid history here, as well: democratic groundswell undermined by Western intervention, bring Saddam to power; aiding Saddam's crushing of the post-Gulf War rebellion; murderous sanctions regime strengthening (as has been widely reported) Saddam's grip over the population.
But still we have not come to the heart of the matter. For, one will search the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in vain for the words, "Western-style 'democracy' is mandated for all people everywhere. If you don't like it, go live on the moon, you fucking niggers." Self-Determination is one of the founding principles of International Law (at least in theory). If the Muslim World doesn't want "Western-style Democracy", that's its own business, and the Serious White Men self-righteously "wanting" to deliver it to them should shove it up their collective ass.
Yes, yes: the United Nations has the authority to protect against human rights abuses -- including within the "Western-style Democracies". But the Gospel According to Dubya has thrown even the pretense of abiding by International Law into the rubbish bin of history and taken up the "project" of imposing its authors' values upon the whole of humanity.
All of which is to ask, what in the holy hell do the Serious White Men think they're talking about?
March 18, 2003
Self-Determination (Niggers Need Not Apply)
Serious White Men cannot reach consensus upon whether the United States' invasion of Iraq will usher in a wonderful new world of democracy throughout the region. Some think it will, some -- including the State Department itself -- think it will not. Time will judge those who dare to challenge The Superbrain's wisdom.
But unmentionable on the Serious White Men's talk shows is what the United States means by "democracy". Colombia, after all, is considered a "democracy", because it has elections -- never mind that it also has the worst human rights record in the hemisphere. Israel is, we're told ad naseum, the "only democracy in the Middle East" -- never mind that rights one reflexively associates with "democracy" ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" to name a few) are brutally, savagely denied within its domains. Nicaragua was not considered a "democracy" when it staged perhaps the most-widely observed election in Third World history. Just a few of the literally dozens of examles of the United States' perverted notions of "democracy".
Also unmentionable is the reason why the rest of the Muslim World is ruled by dictatorial thugs, viz., the U.S. wants the Arab World to be ruled by dictatorial thugs, and sends billions of dollars of military aid to these same dictatorial thugs, thereby enabling them to retain their dictatorial, thuggish regimes. Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey -- clearly anti-democratic regimes, clearly and crucially supported by the United States -- the flow of the implements of death even increasing since September 11. The United States refers to this set-up as the "Arab facade". If the West truly wants democracy in the Muslim World, why is it doing so much to undermine it? As far as Saddam is concerned, we all know the sordid history here, as well: democratic groundswell undermined by Western intervention, bring Saddam to power; aiding Saddam's crushing of the post-Gulf War rebellion; murderous sanctions regime strengthening (as has been widely reported) Saddam's grip over the population.
But still we have not come to the heart of the matter. For, one will search the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in vain for the words, "Western-style 'democracy' is mandated for all people everywhere. If you don't like it, go live on the moon, you fucking niggers." Self-Determination is one of the founding principles of International Law (at least in theory). If the Muslim World doesn't want "Western-style Democracy", that's its own business, and the Serious White Men self-righteously "wanting" to deliver it to them should shove it up their collective ass.
Yes, yes: the United Nations has the authority to protect against human rights abuses -- including within the "Western-style Democracies". But the Gospel According to Dubya has thrown even the pretense of abiding by International Law into the rubbish bin of history and taken up the "project" of imposing its authors' values upon the whole of humanity.
All of which is to ask, what in the holy hell do the Serious White Men think they're talking about?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:57 PM
| Comments (2)
Much of the last week was spent compiling a database of local ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, and PBS affiliates.
There are still plenty o' gaps, but it's now online, and ready for download (in plain-text form). Once downloaded, one can use it to find contact info or generate lists of contact e-mails, fax numbers, phone numbers, or snail-mail addresses for pretty much any local teevee affiliate (or group of affiliates) in the country.
As most Americans receive their news from local television, we oughta let them know that we want, at this urgent hour, more substance and fewer waterskiing chipmunks, in our newscast.
TV Activism
Much of the last week was spent compiling a database of local ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, and PBS affiliates.
There are still plenty o' gaps, but it's now online, and ready for download (in plain-text form). Once downloaded, one can use it to find contact info or generate lists of contact e-mails, fax numbers, phone numbers, or snail-mail addresses for pretty much any local teevee affiliate (or group of affiliates) in the country.
As most Americans receive their news from local television, we oughta let them know that we want, at this urgent hour, more substance and fewer waterskiing chipmunks, in our newscast.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:16 PM
| Comments (1)
The war hasn't yet begun, but already the Seattle Times is getting all Winston Smith on our asses. (Maybe.)
Yesterday's (March 17) print edition of the Times included an Op-Ed by Dr. Cesar Chelala entitled "The Human Costs of War". An excellent piece by an authoritative source, concerning an immensely important and criminally undercovered issue.
The piece has not been included in the Times' web archive. A phone call to the Times elicited surprise at the erroneous exclusion, and a promise to get on the case. As it's still not, as of this writing, available via the web archive, it has been made available via this blog.
If you know of any other cases of newspaper "revisionism", and can snail-mail photocopies of the original print articles, please endeavour to get in touch.
Update: The article in question has now been added to the Times' web archive. So it was all a false alarm. For now.
Salvagery
The war hasn't yet begun, but already the Seattle Times is getting all Winston Smith on our asses. (Maybe.)
Yesterday's (March 17) print edition of the Times included an Op-Ed by Dr. Cesar Chelala entitled "The Human Costs of War". An excellent piece by an authoritative source, concerning an immensely important and criminally undercovered issue.
The piece has not been included in the Times' web archive. A phone call to the Times elicited surprise at the erroneous exclusion, and a promise to get on the case. As it's still not, as of this writing, available via the web archive, it has been made available via this blog.
If you know of any other cases of newspaper "revisionism", and can snail-mail photocopies of the original print articles, please endeavour to get in touch.
Update: The article in question has now been added to the Times' web archive. So it was all a false alarm. For now.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:08 PM
| Comments (0)
Nekkid as a jaybird, The Superbrain delivered his St. Patrick's Day Sermon tonight. At least one of his "remarks" might be considered promising: "War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders.'" We shall see.
Barring a deus ex machina (Pope John Paul, are you listening?), the slaughter will begin sooner than later. The Wobblies like to say, "Don't mourn, organise." Weldon Bello has said, "Empires are transient, resistance is permanent." In that spirit, some suggested comportment for the days and weeks ahead.
Do: Continue to dissent. There are protest actions planned in scores of communities. Send the message that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated. Be visible, be persistent. Remember, 90% of the world's population shares your abhorrence of the Bush Administration's martial policies.
Do not: Tie a fucking yellow ribbon onto your antenna.
Do: Stay informed. Antiwar.com, Cursor's Media Patrol, The Common Dreams News Center, Dack's Permanent Warlog, and The War In Context will bring the world's media to your fingertips; and Counterpunch and Z will bring swift and sure analysis of events. A shout-out is also in order for the merrily anachronistic Anderson Valley Advertiser -- only available in print, but maybe the finest publication in the English language.
Do not: Watch the teevee. Why give them the satisfaction? If they're going to obediently repeat the State Department's lies, then don't watch.
Do: Support the troops. Gulf War veteran Allen Gunderson recommends sending them books by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Sound advice.
Do Not: Support the cops. Do not let them rescind our right to dissent. The peace community (which is to say, the community) needs to stand together, and needs especially to stand in solidarity with the immigrant and non-white communities, which can be expected to take the brunt of the state's abuse -- unless we don't allow it.
Do: Utilise the ink-wells. Sit down and compose, in your own words, letters to the President, your representatives, and the editor of your local newspapers. Urge your friends to do the same.
Do not: Utilise the oil-wells. Park the car, and refuse to drive it until the war is called off. This point is a pet peeve of this blog, but it's absolutely essential. If we don't want massacres committed in our names, we've got to stop feeding the beast.
Do: Pay your local peace organisation. Grassroots organising takes money. The more they've got, the wider the circle of resistance will grow.
Do not: Pay the IRS. Another pet peeve. Just remember: you will not go to jail for engaging in War Tax Resistance. Think of it this way: if you would refuse to murder thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings in cold blood, you should refuse to pay for somebody else to murder thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings in cold blood.
March 17, 2003
Wartime Dos 'n' Don'ts
Nekkid as a jaybird, The Superbrain delivered his St. Patrick's Day Sermon tonight. At least one of his "remarks" might be considered promising: "War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders.'" We shall see.
Barring a deus ex machina (Pope John Paul, are you listening?), the slaughter will begin sooner than later. The Wobblies like to say, "Don't mourn, organise." Weldon Bello has said, "Empires are transient, resistance is permanent." In that spirit, some suggested comportment for the days and weeks ahead.
Do: Continue to dissent. There are protest actions planned in scores of communities. Send the message that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated. Be visible, be persistent. Remember, 90% of the world's population shares your abhorrence of the Bush Administration's martial policies.
Do not: Tie a fucking yellow ribbon onto your antenna.
Do: Stay informed. Antiwar.com, Cursor's Media Patrol, The Common Dreams News Center, Dack's Permanent Warlog, and The War In Context will bring the world's media to your fingertips; and Counterpunch and Z will bring swift and sure analysis of events. A shout-out is also in order for the merrily anachronistic Anderson Valley Advertiser -- only available in print, but maybe the finest publication in the English language.
Do not: Watch the teevee. Why give them the satisfaction? If they're going to obediently repeat the State Department's lies, then don't watch.
Do: Support the troops. Gulf War veteran Allen Gunderson recommends sending them books by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Sound advice.
Do Not: Support the cops. Do not let them rescind our right to dissent. The peace community (which is to say, the community) needs to stand together, and needs especially to stand in solidarity with the immigrant and non-white communities, which can be expected to take the brunt of the state's abuse -- unless we don't allow it.
Do: Utilise the ink-wells. Sit down and compose, in your own words, letters to the President, your representatives, and the editor of your local newspapers. Urge your friends to do the same.
Do not: Utilise the oil-wells. Park the car, and refuse to drive it until the war is called off. This point is a pet peeve of this blog, but it's absolutely essential. If we don't want massacres committed in our names, we've got to stop feeding the beast.
Do: Pay your local peace organisation. Grassroots organising takes money. The more they've got, the wider the circle of resistance will grow.
Do not: Pay the IRS. Another pet peeve. Just remember: you will not go to jail for engaging in War Tax Resistance. Think of it this way: if you would refuse to murder thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings in cold blood, you should refuse to pay for somebody else to murder thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings in cold blood.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:04 PM
| Comments (0)
Note: While this post does contain some new links, it is largely a restatement of two previous posts: "A Final Solution For The Cradle of Civilisation?" and "The Whole World Is Watching". Why? Simply that the text of this post will be submitted for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's approval.
Imagine that Seattle were bombarded with 400 Cruise Missiles every day for a period of weeks. Imagine further that concomitant to this bombardment, Seattle would be attacked by tiny "microwave bombs", each designed to instantly destroy all electronic devices within a 1 or 2 mile radius. Imagine still further that the ordnance raining down upon Seattle were fitted with a heavy metal nuclear waste product which, upon impact, would aerosolize, releasing dust-sized particles with a radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years into the atmosphere. Finally, imagine that food and relief shipments into Seattle would be indefinitely cut off owing to region-wide chaos induced by the bombs.
The people of Iraq will not have to imagine this nightmare scenario. For despite the President's warm and fuzzy assurances that Iraqi civilian casualties will be kept to a minimum, this is the fate which will soon engulf them (or may already have by the time you read this).
The President's platitudes are belied by the most cursory of logical examinations. If civilian casualties are to be kept to a minimum, why are United Nations workers and other foreign residents of Baghdad being instructed to leave? Why are those Iraqi citizens who can afford to do so streaming into Syria and Jordan in advance of the U.S. bombs -- while "panic grips the city's poor"?
Though the United States refused to participate in a summit last month in Geneva to prepare for the humanitarian crisis expected to befall the Iraqi people, its leaders know full well the calamitous outcome being warned against by the United Nations and the relief agencies planning to deal with war's aftermath.
For example, a classified UN planning document, leaked last month to the public, warns that, "The improvement in malnutrition rates since 1996 is highly fragile and depends on a continuing distribution of food and regular supply of potable water. An estimated 4.2 million children under five and one million pregnant women are highly vulnerable. In the event of a crisis, 30 percent of children under 5 would be at risk of death from malnutrition." The leaked documents reveal that the UN is expecting a "humanitarian emergency of exceptional scale and magnitude."
The Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, in a November report, concluded that, "Heavy bombardments and the use of military forces will have incalculable consequences for a civilian population that has already suffered so much. It would be difficult to imagine a single, more effective way of wreaking devastation on an already devastated country and creating a major humanitarian crisis with hundreds of thousands of innocent victims."
Public Health physician and Vietnam Veteran Charlie Clements, after returning from an assessment mission in January, wrote that, "I have worked in war zones before, and I have been with civilians as they were bombed by U.S.-supplied aircraft. I don't think I've experienced anything on the magnitude of the catastrophe that awaits our attack on Iraq," and in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine warned that, "Food distribution will cease to function."
The International Study Team, subsequent to its fact-finding mission to Iraq, "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."
A Russian military expert, in discussing the U.S. war plan, claims that the destruction of Iraq will be so comprehensive that there won't be any need for ground operations, because after the air campaign, "There will simply be nobody" left to shoot at -- only a "burning desert".
It should be noted that these warnings, dire as they are, do not take into account the long-term health and environmental impacts which will result from the United States' use of radiological weaponry -- so-called "Depleted" Uranium and/or natural Uranium munitions.
This war, in short, is nothing less than the premeditated mass-murder of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the -- mostly children -- in the short-term, and the permanent poisoning of the environment (the radioactive dust left behind is virtually impossible to clean up). The Bush Administration, in tightly controlling ("embedding") the establishment media, and in reportedly promising to destroy independent media uplinks, is already preparing to hide its crimes from the world.
As American citizens, our task now is to do everything in our power to expose the State Department's lies, to publicize as widely as possible the consequences of this war, and to hold the planners and perpetrators of this monstrous undertaking accountable for their actions; in the hopes that we can mitigate the destruction, and prevent it from ever happening again.
March 16, 2003
This War Is Genocide
Note: While this post does contain some new links, it is largely a restatement of two previous posts: "A Final Solution For The Cradle of Civilisation?" and "The Whole World Is Watching". Why? Simply that the text of this post will be submitted for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's approval.
Imagine that Seattle were bombarded with 400 Cruise Missiles every day for a period of weeks. Imagine further that concomitant to this bombardment, Seattle would be attacked by tiny "microwave bombs", each designed to instantly destroy all electronic devices within a 1 or 2 mile radius. Imagine still further that the ordnance raining down upon Seattle were fitted with a heavy metal nuclear waste product which, upon impact, would aerosolize, releasing dust-sized particles with a radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years into the atmosphere. Finally, imagine that food and relief shipments into Seattle would be indefinitely cut off owing to region-wide chaos induced by the bombs.
The people of Iraq will not have to imagine this nightmare scenario. For despite the President's warm and fuzzy assurances that Iraqi civilian casualties will be kept to a minimum, this is the fate which will soon engulf them (or may already have by the time you read this).
The President's platitudes are belied by the most cursory of logical examinations. If civilian casualties are to be kept to a minimum, why are United Nations workers and other foreign residents of Baghdad being instructed to leave? Why are those Iraqi citizens who can afford to do so streaming into Syria and Jordan in advance of the U.S. bombs -- while "panic grips the city's poor"?
Though the United States refused to participate in a summit last month in Geneva to prepare for the humanitarian crisis expected to befall the Iraqi people, its leaders know full well the calamitous outcome being warned against by the United Nations and the relief agencies planning to deal with war's aftermath.
For example, a classified UN planning document, leaked last month to the public, warns that, "The improvement in malnutrition rates since 1996 is highly fragile and depends on a continuing distribution of food and regular supply of potable water. An estimated 4.2 million children under five and one million pregnant women are highly vulnerable. In the event of a crisis, 30 percent of children under 5 would be at risk of death from malnutrition." The leaked documents reveal that the UN is expecting a "humanitarian emergency of exceptional scale and magnitude."
The Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, in a November report, concluded that, "Heavy bombardments and the use of military forces will have incalculable consequences for a civilian population that has already suffered so much. It would be difficult to imagine a single, more effective way of wreaking devastation on an already devastated country and creating a major humanitarian crisis with hundreds of thousands of innocent victims."
Public Health physician and Vietnam Veteran Charlie Clements, after returning from an assessment mission in January, wrote that, "I have worked in war zones before, and I have been with civilians as they were bombed by U.S.-supplied aircraft. I don't think I've experienced anything on the magnitude of the catastrophe that awaits our attack on Iraq," and in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine warned that, "Food distribution will cease to function."
The International Study Team, subsequent to its fact-finding mission to Iraq, "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."
A Russian military expert, in discussing the U.S. war plan, claims that the destruction of Iraq will be so comprehensive that there won't be any need for ground operations, because after the air campaign, "There will simply be nobody" left to shoot at -- only a "burning desert".
It should be noted that these warnings, dire as they are, do not take into account the long-term health and environmental impacts which will result from the United States' use of radiological weaponry -- so-called "Depleted" Uranium and/or natural Uranium munitions.
This war, in short, is nothing less than the premeditated mass-murder of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the -- mostly children -- in the short-term, and the permanent poisoning of the environment (the radioactive dust left behind is virtually impossible to clean up). The Bush Administration, in tightly controlling ("embedding") the establishment media, and in reportedly promising to destroy independent media uplinks, is already preparing to hide its crimes from the world.
As American citizens, our task now is to do everything in our power to expose the State Department's lies, to publicize as widely as possible the consequences of this war, and to hold the planners and perpetrators of this monstrous undertaking accountable for their actions; in the hopes that we can mitigate the destruction, and prevent it from ever happening again.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:07 PM
| Comments (1)
If the United States is able to coerce nine Security Council members to authorise its fucking war, but France (and/or Russia and China) vetoes the resolution, we go to war anyway because France's veto will have been "unreasonable". (Yep, it's right there in the UN Charter: "Unreasonable vetoes, as determined by The Superbrain, shall become null and void.")
During The Superbrain's March 7 Press Conference, when asked if the U.S. would call for a vote "even if you aren't sure you have the votes", he answered, "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council."
It now appears that, unable to attain the requisite "whip count", the U.S. will drop its plans to submit its new resolution to a vote (in which case it would be "free" to annihilate Iraq at any time), because, well, those nasty French have poisoned the diplomatic process altogether. Knowing that France will veto any new resolution, it is now argued, resigns the "swing countries" to voting against the resolution. (No word on whether knowing the U.S. will bomb away regardless of "unreasonable" vetoes would resign the "swing countries" to also voting for the resolution, thus setting up a fascinating paradox.)
Logic, my pretties, logic! His logic skillz separate The Superbrain from us mortals.
March 15, 2003
Blame France
If the United States is able to coerce nine Security Council members to authorise its fucking war, but France (and/or Russia and China) vetoes the resolution, we go to war anyway because France's veto will have been "unreasonable". (Yep, it's right there in the UN Charter: "Unreasonable vetoes, as determined by The Superbrain, shall become null and void.")
During The Superbrain's March 7 Press Conference, when asked if the U.S. would call for a vote "even if you aren't sure you have the votes", he answered, "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council."
It now appears that, unable to attain the requisite "whip count", the U.S. will drop its plans to submit its new resolution to a vote (in which case it would be "free" to annihilate Iraq at any time), because, well, those nasty French have poisoned the diplomatic process altogether. Knowing that France will veto any new resolution, it is now argued, resigns the "swing countries" to voting against the resolution. (No word on whether knowing the U.S. will bomb away regardless of "unreasonable" vetoes would resign the "swing countries" to also voting for the resolution, thus setting up a fascinating paradox.)
Logic, my pretties, logic! His logic skillz separate The Superbrain from us mortals.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:26 PM
| Comments (1)
Can somebody explain why the hawks are so up-in-arms over France's opposition to war? (In the latest, most childish manoeuvre to-date, for example, the House of Reps' cafeterias have ceased serving "French" Fries, in lieu of "Freedom" Fries. You'd think these people could find something more important to do with their time.)
The French, after all, are not alone in promising to veto any new UN Resolution authorising force: China and Russia have promised the same. And the Resolution would be down in flames altogether were it not for American coercion of the "swing" voters, would receive an even more ignominous response were it advanced in the General Assembly, and would probably fail to secure even 10% of the vote in a hypothetical plebiscite of all the world's people. So again, why take it out on the French?
But even more to the point, why take it out at all? The Bush Administration has promised many times over that it will obliterate Iraq with or without UN authorisation. So, shouldn't the war-mongers, knowing full well that there's nothing anybody can do to stop it, be sniggering mercilessly at the rest of the world's bumbling efforts to prevent this war?
Maybe they're just pissed off that it hasn't started yet...
March 12, 2003
What's The Big Deal?
Can somebody explain why the hawks are so up-in-arms over France's opposition to war? (In the latest, most childish manoeuvre to-date, for example, the House of Reps' cafeterias have ceased serving "French" Fries, in lieu of "Freedom" Fries. You'd think these people could find something more important to do with their time.)
The French, after all, are not alone in promising to veto any new UN Resolution authorising force: China and Russia have promised the same. And the Resolution would be down in flames altogether were it not for American coercion of the "swing" voters, would receive an even more ignominous response were it advanced in the General Assembly, and would probably fail to secure even 10% of the vote in a hypothetical plebiscite of all the world's people. So again, why take it out on the French?
But even more to the point, why take it out at all? The Bush Administration has promised many times over that it will obliterate Iraq with or without UN authorisation. So, shouldn't the war-mongers, knowing full well that there's nothing anybody can do to stop it, be sniggering mercilessly at the rest of the world's bumbling efforts to prevent this war?
Maybe they're just pissed off that it hasn't started yet...
Posted by Eddie Tews at 09:32 PM
| Comments (1)
Near to the conclusion of Thursday evening's Presidential pow-wow, The Superbrain was asked the following question:
Mr. President, if you decide to go ahead with military action, there are inspectors on the ground in Baghdad. Will you give them time to leave the country, or the humanitarian workers on the ground, or the journalists?
To which he replied:
Of course, we will give people a chance to leave. And we don't want anybody in harm's way who shouldn't be in harm's way. The journalists who are there should leave. If you're going and we start action, leave. The inspectors -- we don't want people in harm's way.
He then talked about not wanting to hurt anybody except "Saddam and his group of killers". But if all white people are being instructed to leave, does this not suggest that anybody remaining in the country will be in "harm's way" -- including the 20-million-plus Iraqis who are not "Saddam and his group of killers"? And that, if these 20-million-plus will not be spirited away before the onslaught begins, that they're among those who "should" be in "harm's way"?
And if this statement can be given without anybody even noticing (indeed, if the question can be framed in such a manner as to presuppose that the niggers will not be escorted to safety, but rather will be left in "harm's way"), then, what are we to make of Western culture and society?
March 07, 2003
Dubya Spills The Beans
Near to the conclusion of Thursday evening's Presidential pow-wow, The Superbrain was asked the following question:
Mr. President, if you decide to go ahead with military action, there are inspectors on the ground in Baghdad. Will you give them time to leave the country, or the humanitarian workers on the ground, or the journalists?
To which he replied:
Of course, we will give people a chance to leave. And we don't want anybody in harm's way who shouldn't be in harm's way. The journalists who are there should leave. If you're going and we start action, leave. The inspectors -- we don't want people in harm's way.
He then talked about not wanting to hurt anybody except "Saddam and his group of killers". But if all white people are being instructed to leave, does this not suggest that anybody remaining in the country will be in "harm's way" -- including the 20-million-plus Iraqis who are not "Saddam and his group of killers"? And that, if these 20-million-plus will not be spirited away before the onslaught begins, that they're among those who "should" be in "harm's way"?
And if this statement can be given without anybody even noticing (indeed, if the question can be framed in such a manner as to presuppose that the niggers will not be escorted to safety, but rather will be left in "harm's way"), then, what are we to make of Western culture and society?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:00 AM
| Comments (1)
Have transcribed the late Eqbal Ahmad's November 17, 1990 lecture "Roots of the Gulf Crisis".
At times it looks like it could have been delivered yesterday, and at other times looks spookily prescient. At all times informative and impassioned, though. Have a look, won't you?
March 05, 2003
The Mighty Eqbal
Have transcribed the late Eqbal Ahmad's November 17, 1990 lecture "Roots of the Gulf Crisis".
At times it looks like it could have been delivered yesterday, and at other times looks spookily prescient. At all times informative and impassioned, though. Have a look, won't you?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:02 PM
| Comments (0)
While war looks increasingly likely, it may still not be inevitable, as this third weekly glimpse at the news perhaps reveals.
First, we have an incredible (if it's accurate) account if the blow struck by the Turkish parliament's failure to authorise the use of U.S. troops -- the U.S. military's so-called "Plan A" which has apparently now been "abandoned". Powell has, according to this account, warned Bush that a UN vote to authorise war will result in a "humiliating defeat" (certainly Russia, France, and China seem for the moment united in their opposition, vowing that, "We will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force,") while White House aides complain that, "The vote in Turkey fucked things up big time," and others "now admit privately that the President, for all his tough talk, may have to back down and postpone his plans to invade Iraq in the near future, delaying any invasion until April or May at the earliest," an analysis corroborated by Israeli military intelligence.
On the disarmament front, Hans Blix is now claiming that the inspections "are beginning to work," (still no progress on disarming the United States, alas).
Around the world, Philippine President Arroyo has announced that U.S. troops will not be involved in combat missions there (as the United States had prematurely announced would be the case), Italian activists have not only blocked American military trains, but even turned them around, U.S. plans to use chemical weapons in Iraq have provoked the "first split in the Anglo-US alliance," Mexican President Vicente Fox says "Mexico would not accept any unilateral U.S. action to disarm Iraq," (despite The Superbrain's promise to "discipline" Mexico if it votes against the U.S. resolution), the Pope is sending a peace mission to the White House, and a new poll reveals that 84% of the Japanese people oppose a U.S. attack.
Listen, dammit: we can still stop this thing. There are lots and lots and lots of things we can all do to help stop it happening. The more we do, the less likely the chances it'll occur. It's as simple as that.
War Plan Fucked Up Big Time?
While war looks increasingly likely, it may still not be inevitable, as this third weekly glimpse at the news perhaps reveals.
First, we have an incredible (if it's accurate) account if the blow struck by the Turkish parliament's failure to authorise the use of U.S. troops -- the U.S. military's so-called "Plan A" which has apparently now been "abandoned". Powell has, according to this account, warned Bush that a UN vote to authorise war will result in a "humiliating defeat" (certainly Russia, France, and China seem for the moment united in their opposition, vowing that, "We will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force,") while White House aides complain that, "The vote in Turkey fucked things up big time," and others "now admit privately that the President, for all his tough talk, may have to back down and postpone his plans to invade Iraq in the near future, delaying any invasion until April or May at the earliest," an analysis corroborated by Israeli military intelligence.
On the disarmament front, Hans Blix is now claiming that the inspections "are beginning to work," (still no progress on disarming the United States, alas).
Around the world, Philippine President Arroyo has announced that U.S. troops will not be involved in combat missions there (as the United States had prematurely announced would be the case), Italian activists have not only blocked American military trains, but even turned them around, U.S. plans to use chemical weapons in Iraq have provoked the "first split in the Anglo-US alliance," Mexican President Vicente Fox says "Mexico would not accept any unilateral U.S. action to disarm Iraq," (despite The Superbrain's promise to "discipline" Mexico if it votes against the U.S. resolution), the Pope is sending a peace mission to the White House, and a new poll reveals that 84% of the Japanese people oppose a U.S. attack.
Listen, dammit: we can still stop this thing. There are lots and lots and lots of things we can all do to help stop it happening. The more we do, the less likely the chances it'll occur. It's as simple as that.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:52 PM
| Comments (0)
Multiple-award-winning journalist Laurie Garrett obtained access to last month's World Economic Forum summit in Davos. In a private e-mail to friends which has been leaked to the Internet at-large, she gives some impressions of the world's leaders' impressions of the "state of the world".
Overall, she encountered largely unbridled pessimism regarding the world economy, and not a small amount of antipathy regarding U.S. hegemony.
Perhaps the most revealing direct quote in her account comes from unnamed "American security and military speakers" who acknowledge that, "Iraq is just one piece of a campaign that will last years, taking out states, cleansing the planet."
There we have it, straight from the horse's mouth: the United States will not rest until all the niggers have been "cleansed" from the planet.
March 04, 2003
American Security And Military Speakers Spill The Beans
Multiple-award-winning journalist Laurie Garrett obtained access to last month's World Economic Forum summit in Davos. In a private e-mail to friends which has been leaked to the Internet at-large, she gives some impressions of the world's leaders' impressions of the "state of the world".
Overall, she encountered largely unbridled pessimism regarding the world economy, and not a small amount of antipathy regarding U.S. hegemony.
Perhaps the most revealing direct quote in her account comes from unnamed "American security and military speakers" who acknowledge that, "Iraq is just one piece of a campaign that will last years, taking out states, cleansing the planet."
There we have it, straight from the horse's mouth: the United States will not rest until all the niggers have been "cleansed" from the planet.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:01 PM
| Comments (0)
You see displayed before you the front and back of the English language version of one of the many leaflets dropped over Iraq since November of last year.
This one seems to suggest that those Iraqis who dare defend themselves against a U.S. invasion of their country will be blown sky-high. Yeah, the Iraqis, no longer completely ignorant of the fate awaiting niggers attempting to resist a Yankee invasion, are now expected to throw down their weapons and embrace the invaders with open arms (and maybe invite them inside for tea).
The "Leaflet Gallery" is available to patrons of the "World Wide Web" -- helpfully arrayed by date of drop -- courtesy of United States Central Command (General Tommy Franks Commanding).
March 03, 2003
"Subtle" It Ain't
You see displayed before you the front and back of the English language version of one of the many leaflets dropped over Iraq since November of last year.This one seems to suggest that those Iraqis who dare defend themselves against a U.S. invasion of their country will be blown sky-high. Yeah, the Iraqis, no longer completely ignorant of the fate awaiting niggers attempting to resist a Yankee invasion, are now expected to throw down their weapons and embrace the invaders with open arms (and maybe invite them inside for tea).
The "Leaflet Gallery" is available to patrons of the "World Wide Web" -- helpfully arrayed by date of drop -- courtesy of United States Central Command (General Tommy Franks Commanding).
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:47 PM
| Comments (0)
The next time somebody tells you that, regardless of your stand on the issue of war with Iraq, you must "support the troops", have 'em read this interview with Doug Rokke.
Rokke, a career military man was tasked with cleaning up the Depleted Uranium left behind during the first Gulf War. After seeing all of the men on his team either die or become quite ill, he turned into an anti-DU activist. His story is both scary and inspiring.
Interestingly, Rokke reveals that duct tape is not only the recommended agent to save civilians from terrorists, it's also regarded as the cure for soldiers' leaking gas masks!
For those new to the wonderful world of radiological munitions, there're a bunch of informative links set up here.
DU: It's Not Just For Breakfast Anymore
The next time somebody tells you that, regardless of your stand on the issue of war with Iraq, you must "support the troops", have 'em read this interview with Doug Rokke.
Rokke, a career military man was tasked with cleaning up the Depleted Uranium left behind during the first Gulf War. After seeing all of the men on his team either die or become quite ill, he turned into an anti-DU activist. His story is both scary and inspiring.
Interestingly, Rokke reveals that duct tape is not only the recommended agent to save civilians from terrorists, it's also regarded as the cure for soldiers' leaking gas masks!
For those new to the wonderful world of radiological munitions, there're a bunch of informative links set up here.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:14 PM
| Comments (0)
Remember the days following September 11th? Recall that the terrorists "hated our freedoms" and were motivated by their ties to Satan himself? Those days may be gone.
Paul Wolfowitz, in arguing the case for war, asserted that, as the U.S. occupation of Iraq will mean that U.S. troops won't need to be stationed in "the holy land of Saudi Arabia", then "Osama bin Laden's principal recruiting device, even more than the other grievances he cites," will have been eliminated. This may be the first time that a member of the Bush Administration has acknowledged the existence of grievances -- all the more revealing in that he implies that the grievances are legitimate.
Granted, the logic is beyond the pale (not least because the second-most frequently cited grievance is the decimation of Iraqi culture). But, baby steps here, folks. Baby steps.
Paul Spills The Beans
Remember the days following September 11th? Recall that the terrorists "hated our freedoms" and were motivated by their ties to Satan himself? Those days may be gone.
Paul Wolfowitz, in arguing the case for war, asserted that, as the U.S. occupation of Iraq will mean that U.S. troops won't need to be stationed in "the holy land of Saudi Arabia", then "Osama bin Laden's principal recruiting device, even more than the other grievances he cites," will have been eliminated. This may be the first time that a member of the Bush Administration has acknowledged the existence of grievances -- all the more revealing in that he implies that the grievances are legitimate.
Granted, the logic is beyond the pale (not least because the second-most frequently cited grievance is the decimation of Iraqi culture). But, baby steps here, folks. Baby steps.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:40 PM
| Comments (0)
Ari Fleischer's reaction to recent developments suggest that the "powers behind the throne" may be trying to posit George W. Bush as possessing the intellectual faculties and the wisdom to not only single-handedly formulate policies for all the world's people, but to see into the future as well. A, kind of, Paul Muad'Dib for the 21st century, perhaps.
Fleischer on Friday informed the world that Iraq can now "only prevent war by both disarming and sending Saddam Hussein into exile." Despite this apparent contradiction of UN Resolution 1441, Fleischer maintained "both would be necessary conditions because disarmament was the United Nations' goal and changing Iraq's government was Bush's." One can only infer that the collective intellectual and empathic capacities of the world's six billion souls are as that of a mouse compared with those of The Superbrain.
Similarly, in reaction to Iraq's decision to destroy the ghastly missiles whose range exceeds the mandated limit by 20 miles, Fleischer cautioned that, "This is the deception The President predicted." If The Superbrain can in hindsight "predict" what many had assured as soon as the issue arose (viz., that the missiles would be destroyed), what mental midgets are we?
Here's hoping The Superbrain uses his newfound mind powers only for the good of humanity. He's certainly off to a rousing start...
March 02, 2003
Make Way For The Superbrain
Ari Fleischer's reaction to recent developments suggest that the "powers behind the throne" may be trying to posit George W. Bush as possessing the intellectual faculties and the wisdom to not only single-handedly formulate policies for all the world's people, but to see into the future as well. A, kind of, Paul Muad'Dib for the 21st century, perhaps.Fleischer on Friday informed the world that Iraq can now "only prevent war by both disarming and sending Saddam Hussein into exile." Despite this apparent contradiction of UN Resolution 1441, Fleischer maintained "both would be necessary conditions because disarmament was the United Nations' goal and changing Iraq's government was Bush's." One can only infer that the collective intellectual and empathic capacities of the world's six billion souls are as that of a mouse compared with those of The Superbrain.
Similarly, in reaction to Iraq's decision to destroy the ghastly missiles whose range exceeds the mandated limit by 20 miles, Fleischer cautioned that, "This is the deception The President predicted." If The Superbrain can in hindsight "predict" what many had assured as soon as the issue arose (viz., that the missiles would be destroyed), what mental midgets are we?
Here's hoping The Superbrain uses his newfound mind powers only for the good of humanity. He's certainly off to a rousing start...
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:16 PM
| Comments (1)
Note: This post you are about to read is the handiwork of guest author Dane Spencer. It is a revision of a piece posted to WagingPeace.org in April of last year. Mr. Spencer can be reached at fontleroy -at- bainbridge.net. Thanks, Dane!
If history is any indication, the United States may be subject to the violence of war within my lifetime (I am 42). Military scholars say that war and its resulting violence on a civilian population is unavoidable. We are told that peace just isn’t obtainable in the Middle East, or in other war-torn countries across the globe; that violent conflict will always be a fact of life as we try to control territory and natural resources. We are given example after example of how, throughout history and including today, violent conflict is inevitable and in some cases necessary.
Some people are quick to defend the notion that there is nothing to be done about civilian death and destruction caused by violent conflict, that in times such as these, war is best left to the experts. It is true that only war experts know how to successfully conduct war, that to win a conflict is to win by any means -- and that includes civilian casualties. Talking heads for the military tell us that they are working to reduce the number of civilian casualties through more efficient means of killing: smarter bombs, better technology. But, the truth remains that while any military is good at killing, it is inept at not targeting civilians. After all, to target civilians is to terrorize a population and to attack an enemy’s infrastructure. With this illogic, there is no such thing as a non-military target.
Yet, if we leave war to the war experts, who will oversee the peace process? Who are our peace experts? Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld? They have been buddies since their early thirties, and they have amassed power by putting their friends in important positions throughout the government and the military. They are war experts dictating military policy for this country, yet there is not a diplomat for peace between the two of them. There is no peace equivalent to the Department of Defense, we have no such office or branch of government that we can go to in times such as these. Our non-existent Department of Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution Services does not receive a $400 Billion infusion for its capital, operating, and maintenance budget -- that is our Department of War. Blind military spending appears to be a priority for our country, with no visible way to counteract or slow it down. The peace dividend has long since been chucked out the window.
And, what has become of our domestic programs that deal with our children's education, our failing health care system, our weakened social security, our declining environmental health, and our loss of morale as citizens of this country?
It isn’t the destruction of the twin towers on September 11, 2001 and the threat of terrorism that is causing this country’s morale to plummet. It is the lack of hope that things will ever get better in the lifetime that is ahead. There is no clear way out, no end in sight. That is because we are spending billions of dollars on high tech toys of destruction for a group of people who want to see major conflict such as with Iraq, so that they can use their toys against military targets, and civilians if necessary. They want to see this conflict happen just like a six-year-old boy with a firecracker wants to see it explode.
Civilian Casualties
Let the facts speak for themselves: World War II resulted in killing 61 million people, 67% of those killed (40 million) were civilian. Violent clashes and wars world-wide in the 1950s resulted in 4.6 million people killed, 50 percent being civilian (2.3 million). In the the 1960s, 6.5 million people were killed, 56% were civilian (3.64 million). The 1970s saw fewer people killed (3 million), but most of them were civilians (2 million). The 1980s saw 5.5 million people killed through violent conflict around the world, with over 4 million being civilian. Conflict and wars of the 1990s left 5 million people killed world wide, half were civilian. From World War II to 2000 we have seen 85.6 million killed, with 63% of those being civilian (54 million).
The 1st Gulf War
The Gulf War has seen tens thousands of casualties, both civilian and military, by the end of the conflict. But, ten years after the end of this conflict, nearly 10,000 American service-men and -women have died from the Gulf War Syndrome. Of the 600,000 troops that had served in the Gulf War, 230,000 have applied for medical assistance since the end of that conflict. A combination of things are suspected in the causing of this widespread illness. It is believed that either untested anthrax vaccinations, the transfer of toxic polyvinlylchloride from plastic packaging of MREs (meals ready to eat), or troop use of depleted uranium munitions (which was never disclosed to the troops who were using them) have caused severe illness.
Dr. Doug Rokke who headed the clean-up effort from the first Gulf War was a career military man and a patriot. He had 90 people under his supervision who specialized in nuclear medicine. Thirty of those who served this country are now dead due to depleted uranium exposure (or at least it is believed). Dr. Rokke also is sick from his exposure to the same unknown.
Whatever the cause, this is a better kill and injury rate than any enemy could hope to level on our troops.
Because of sanctions on Iraq, 500,000 children have died from diarrhea and malnutrition because of the lack of clean water, a direct result of targeting civilian infrastructure by the U.S. military.
Why are these numbers significant?
As technology improves and as dollars increase, the efficiency of killing also improves. But improving the efficiency of killing doesn’t reduce the number of civilian deaths, it increases the number of civilian deaths. The number increases because there is a greater tendency to use these weapons on lesser known targets. If it can be claimed that a "smart bomb" (remember, bombs are only as smart as the people who use them) can "surgically" remove a military target within tight civilian quarters with minimal civilian casualties, then the tendency to use these weapons in tight civilian quarters will increase, resulting in higher numbers of civilian deaths.
The myth of Peace
Civilians do not wage war. Indeed, war and military police actions are argued as necessary to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure. So, civilians agree to support the military in promise that the war will not touch them. Civilians are confident that their families will not suffer the losses of their enemies. Most civilians who have experienced war however, come to know that war only means to reduce profits and production, bringing only pain, suffering, and agony down the road. But none the less, these civilians have been convinced that their experts have exhausted all other diplomatic avenues and have come up empty handed. The leaders come back to say, "Sorry, war is inevitable. Prepare for war," and the civilians feel they have no other choice.
How many times have you heard someone say that it is in our "human nature" to go to war? That the Human Species is violent and warlike and there is nothing that we can do about it? Might makes right, to the winner goes the spoils?
To say that it is in our human nature to kill others and that war is inevitable perpetuates the myth that war is forever our way. It is not our nature to kill others who don’t agree with us or who think differently from ourselves. But, it is our human nature to be fearful of others who have opposing ideas or who are different from ourselves. This fear may go in two directions: Our fear may sway into curiosity or it may sway into anger and violence.
Another trait of our "human nature" is to divide ourselves into leaders and followers. Leaders can choose to go to war for entire populations and will not hesitate to call upon the followers to do the dirty work. It is not our human nature to go to war, but it is in our human nature to be led into war.
Therefore, if we can be led into war, we can be led into peace.
People are not warlike creatures. It is the random individual who sees value in herding the masses into violence. Every war is led by someone who has convinced a critical mass of people that war is the only option. This is true with either side of any war or violent conflict. And, it is the same for peace. Any conflict that has not escalated into violence or where violence has ceased, a leader has led a critical mass of people to great change.
Will our current leader seize upon this opportunity for great change? Will President Bush see value in stepping back from the precipice to regain the popular support he once held? Only time will tell.
A war with Iraq will not bring greater stability to the Middle East, nor will it make the U.S. a safer place. A war with Iraq can only cause greater suffering and death of innocent Iraqis, greatly destabilize the world, and create profound despair for the hope of a better future.
Take notice when the President speaks about "Peace" in the Middle East: he speaks only in terms of war. He talks of liberating Iraqis, yet he never mentions their inevitable deaths. The idea of American troop deaths never crosses his lips.
The myth of peace begins within the very roots of the Judeo-Christian religion. Peace in this religious sense is an unattainable time/place. Peace is symbolized by the phrase, ""When the lion lays down with the lamb," which indicates that all life on Earth will be as one, living in harmony for the rest of all eternity.
This peace does not exist, nor will it ever exist, on this Earth inhabited by our wonderfully fallible human species. Peace is not the cessation of conflict with a resulting agreement in totality. Peace is a continuing evolving process that produces nonviolent results. Peace can revert to war or it can be sustained through constant communication, but it can never be stagnant or absolute.
Peace begins when violence ends. That doesn’t mean that the conflicting ideas will suddenly disappear. It means that when people stop doing violence to each other -- stop killing -- negotiations can begin. In the simplest terms, peace is a process where no one is dying from an act of aggression. This is a real living peace that is attainable and quite possible when built upon the hard work of conflict resolution and diplomacy. Peace is not a time/place. Peace is a process that is ongoing and never without tension.
March 01, 2003
The Myth Of Peace
Note: This post you are about to read is the handiwork of guest author Dane Spencer. It is a revision of a piece posted to WagingPeace.org in April of last year. Mr. Spencer can be reached at fontleroy -at- bainbridge.net. Thanks, Dane!
If history is any indication, the United States may be subject to the violence of war within my lifetime (I am 42). Military scholars say that war and its resulting violence on a civilian population is unavoidable. We are told that peace just isn’t obtainable in the Middle East, or in other war-torn countries across the globe; that violent conflict will always be a fact of life as we try to control territory and natural resources. We are given example after example of how, throughout history and including today, violent conflict is inevitable and in some cases necessary.
Some people are quick to defend the notion that there is nothing to be done about civilian death and destruction caused by violent conflict, that in times such as these, war is best left to the experts. It is true that only war experts know how to successfully conduct war, that to win a conflict is to win by any means -- and that includes civilian casualties. Talking heads for the military tell us that they are working to reduce the number of civilian casualties through more efficient means of killing: smarter bombs, better technology. But, the truth remains that while any military is good at killing, it is inept at not targeting civilians. After all, to target civilians is to terrorize a population and to attack an enemy’s infrastructure. With this illogic, there is no such thing as a non-military target.
Yet, if we leave war to the war experts, who will oversee the peace process? Who are our peace experts? Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld? They have been buddies since their early thirties, and they have amassed power by putting their friends in important positions throughout the government and the military. They are war experts dictating military policy for this country, yet there is not a diplomat for peace between the two of them. There is no peace equivalent to the Department of Defense, we have no such office or branch of government that we can go to in times such as these. Our non-existent Department of Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution Services does not receive a $400 Billion infusion for its capital, operating, and maintenance budget -- that is our Department of War. Blind military spending appears to be a priority for our country, with no visible way to counteract or slow it down. The peace dividend has long since been chucked out the window.
And, what has become of our domestic programs that deal with our children's education, our failing health care system, our weakened social security, our declining environmental health, and our loss of morale as citizens of this country?
It isn’t the destruction of the twin towers on September 11, 2001 and the threat of terrorism that is causing this country’s morale to plummet. It is the lack of hope that things will ever get better in the lifetime that is ahead. There is no clear way out, no end in sight. That is because we are spending billions of dollars on high tech toys of destruction for a group of people who want to see major conflict such as with Iraq, so that they can use their toys against military targets, and civilians if necessary. They want to see this conflict happen just like a six-year-old boy with a firecracker wants to see it explode.
Civilian Casualties
Let the facts speak for themselves: World War II resulted in killing 61 million people, 67% of those killed (40 million) were civilian. Violent clashes and wars world-wide in the 1950s resulted in 4.6 million people killed, 50 percent being civilian (2.3 million). In the the 1960s, 6.5 million people were killed, 56% were civilian (3.64 million). The 1970s saw fewer people killed (3 million), but most of them were civilians (2 million). The 1980s saw 5.5 million people killed through violent conflict around the world, with over 4 million being civilian. Conflict and wars of the 1990s left 5 million people killed world wide, half were civilian. From World War II to 2000 we have seen 85.6 million killed, with 63% of those being civilian (54 million).
The 1st Gulf War
The Gulf War has seen tens thousands of casualties, both civilian and military, by the end of the conflict. But, ten years after the end of this conflict, nearly 10,000 American service-men and -women have died from the Gulf War Syndrome. Of the 600,000 troops that had served in the Gulf War, 230,000 have applied for medical assistance since the end of that conflict. A combination of things are suspected in the causing of this widespread illness. It is believed that either untested anthrax vaccinations, the transfer of toxic polyvinlylchloride from plastic packaging of MREs (meals ready to eat), or troop use of depleted uranium munitions (which was never disclosed to the troops who were using them) have caused severe illness.
Dr. Doug Rokke who headed the clean-up effort from the first Gulf War was a career military man and a patriot. He had 90 people under his supervision who specialized in nuclear medicine. Thirty of those who served this country are now dead due to depleted uranium exposure (or at least it is believed). Dr. Rokke also is sick from his exposure to the same unknown.
Whatever the cause, this is a better kill and injury rate than any enemy could hope to level on our troops.
Because of sanctions on Iraq, 500,000 children have died from diarrhea and malnutrition because of the lack of clean water, a direct result of targeting civilian infrastructure by the U.S. military.
Why are these numbers significant?
As technology improves and as dollars increase, the efficiency of killing also improves. But improving the efficiency of killing doesn’t reduce the number of civilian deaths, it increases the number of civilian deaths. The number increases because there is a greater tendency to use these weapons on lesser known targets. If it can be claimed that a "smart bomb" (remember, bombs are only as smart as the people who use them) can "surgically" remove a military target within tight civilian quarters with minimal civilian casualties, then the tendency to use these weapons in tight civilian quarters will increase, resulting in higher numbers of civilian deaths.
The myth of Peace
Civilians do not wage war. Indeed, war and military police actions are argued as necessary to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure. So, civilians agree to support the military in promise that the war will not touch them. Civilians are confident that their families will not suffer the losses of their enemies. Most civilians who have experienced war however, come to know that war only means to reduce profits and production, bringing only pain, suffering, and agony down the road. But none the less, these civilians have been convinced that their experts have exhausted all other diplomatic avenues and have come up empty handed. The leaders come back to say, "Sorry, war is inevitable. Prepare for war," and the civilians feel they have no other choice.
How many times have you heard someone say that it is in our "human nature" to go to war? That the Human Species is violent and warlike and there is nothing that we can do about it? Might makes right, to the winner goes the spoils?
To say that it is in our human nature to kill others and that war is inevitable perpetuates the myth that war is forever our way. It is not our nature to kill others who don’t agree with us or who think differently from ourselves. But, it is our human nature to be fearful of others who have opposing ideas or who are different from ourselves. This fear may go in two directions: Our fear may sway into curiosity or it may sway into anger and violence.
Another trait of our "human nature" is to divide ourselves into leaders and followers. Leaders can choose to go to war for entire populations and will not hesitate to call upon the followers to do the dirty work. It is not our human nature to go to war, but it is in our human nature to be led into war.
Therefore, if we can be led into war, we can be led into peace.
People are not warlike creatures. It is the random individual who sees value in herding the masses into violence. Every war is led by someone who has convinced a critical mass of people that war is the only option. This is true with either side of any war or violent conflict. And, it is the same for peace. Any conflict that has not escalated into violence or where violence has ceased, a leader has led a critical mass of people to great change.
Will our current leader seize upon this opportunity for great change? Will President Bush see value in stepping back from the precipice to regain the popular support he once held? Only time will tell.
A war with Iraq will not bring greater stability to the Middle East, nor will it make the U.S. a safer place. A war with Iraq can only cause greater suffering and death of innocent Iraqis, greatly destabilize the world, and create profound despair for the hope of a better future.
Take notice when the President speaks about "Peace" in the Middle East: he speaks only in terms of war. He talks of liberating Iraqis, yet he never mentions their inevitable deaths. The idea of American troop deaths never crosses his lips.
The myth of peace begins within the very roots of the Judeo-Christian religion. Peace in this religious sense is an unattainable time/place. Peace is symbolized by the phrase, ""When the lion lays down with the lamb," which indicates that all life on Earth will be as one, living in harmony for the rest of all eternity.
This peace does not exist, nor will it ever exist, on this Earth inhabited by our wonderfully fallible human species. Peace is not the cessation of conflict with a resulting agreement in totality. Peace is a continuing evolving process that produces nonviolent results. Peace can revert to war or it can be sustained through constant communication, but it can never be stagnant or absolute.
Peace begins when violence ends. That doesn’t mean that the conflicting ideas will suddenly disappear. It means that when people stop doing violence to each other -- stop killing -- negotiations can begin. In the simplest terms, peace is a process where no one is dying from an act of aggression. This is a real living peace that is attainable and quite possible when built upon the hard work of conflict resolution and diplomacy. Peace is not a time/place. Peace is a process that is ongoing and never without tension.