April 30, 2003
Revisionism
It's now becoming vogue for powerful people to chide the "coalition" for its failure to produce any Iraqi WMD -- Vladimir Putin's jabs at Tony Blair being the latest example. Explicit in these chidings is the truism that the finding of Iraqi WMD would "justify the conflict". (Or, as the Los Angeles Times opined on April 30: "Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction is central to the legitimacy of the war.")
But these same taunters -- and much of the domestic anti-war movement -- were opposed to the war, even while they accepted that Saddam and his weapons posed a major "threat" to world peace. If the Europeans' "anti-war" position was racist and hypocritical before the war, it's even more cynical now.
What are they going to do if WMD are found, come groveling at Dubya's feet? A laugh-a-minute, those European heads of state.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 02:09 PM
| Comments (0)
A few weeks ago, this blog asked who would put brick up John Ashcroft's cornhole. Since that time, many precincts have reported with favourable news.
It started with the ever-vigilant Librarians, some of whom have begun daily shredding patrons' records, before the FBI can get its grubby hands on them.
Then the ever-vigilant NYPD announced its plans to destroy a database of anti-war demonstrators' prior political activities, and the Denver Police have taken a similar stance.
Then we had Republicans and Democrats joining together to oppose the two PATRIOT Acts (and criticise the feds' desires to do away with the first PATRIOT Act's sunset provisions).
Now, nearly 100 cities and the state of Hawaii have passed resolutions opposing the PATRIOT Act (with similar efforts underway in 60 cities), and, the city of Arcata has passed an ordinance making it illegal to comply with the PATRIOT Act!
The Bush Administration's domestic policies are quite overtly intended to bring unending harrassment upon minorities and immigrants, and economic privation and paranoia upon the rest of us. It's all in the name of "security", they tell us. So we'd best shut the fuck up and let them pick our pockets and ream our asses, lest we want the terrorists to, er, do the same.
Just as the Administration's permanent state of world war has failed to cow the world's people, so has the domestic war failed to cow the country's people -- who will grow ever more uppity as the glory days of slaughtering sand niggers grow more distant and the consequences of economic stagnation grow more apparent.
What You Can Do: Join up with your local chapter of the Bill of Rights Defence Committee, or start your own. The effort to not only oppose, but to roll back the PATRIOT Act (and its cousins) is only just beginning. Its results, happily, should be more tangible -- and its goals more realisable -- that the opposition of the war machine.
April 28, 2003
Fascists On The Run
A few weeks ago, this blog asked who would put brick up John Ashcroft's cornhole. Since that time, many precincts have reported with favourable news.
It started with the ever-vigilant Librarians, some of whom have begun daily shredding patrons' records, before the FBI can get its grubby hands on them.
Then the ever-vigilant NYPD announced its plans to destroy a database of anti-war demonstrators' prior political activities, and the Denver Police have taken a similar stance.
Then we had Republicans and Democrats joining together to oppose the two PATRIOT Acts (and criticise the feds' desires to do away with the first PATRIOT Act's sunset provisions).
Now, nearly 100 cities and the state of Hawaii have passed resolutions opposing the PATRIOT Act (with similar efforts underway in 60 cities), and, the city of Arcata has passed an ordinance making it illegal to comply with the PATRIOT Act!
The Bush Administration's domestic policies are quite overtly intended to bring unending harrassment upon minorities and immigrants, and economic privation and paranoia upon the rest of us. It's all in the name of "security", they tell us. So we'd best shut the fuck up and let them pick our pockets and ream our asses, lest we want the terrorists to, er, do the same.
Just as the Administration's permanent state of world war has failed to cow the world's people, so has the domestic war failed to cow the country's people -- who will grow ever more uppity as the glory days of slaughtering sand niggers grow more distant and the consequences of economic stagnation grow more apparent.
What You Can Do: Join up with your local chapter of the Bill of Rights Defence Committee, or start your own. The effort to not only oppose, but to roll back the PATRIOT Act (and its cousins) is only just beginning. Its results, happily, should be more tangible -- and its goals more realisable -- that the opposition of the war machine.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 05:00 PM
| Comments (1)
All right, so her colleauges have administered to Judith Miller a good old-fashioned spanking over the journalistic ethics of her "wacky-assed" New York Times piece purporting to have shewn that Iraq destroyed its illicit weapons just prior to the war.
Good enough. But what if the claims of Iraqi chicanery were true? Some obvious conclusions would follow. But alas, the obvious related next-questions are not being asked.
As discussed previously, recently destroyed (or recently shipped-to-Syria) weapons would be indicative of a recently operating weapons programme and facilities -- which could not have on a moment's notice been hidden, destroyed, or trucked out-of-country. So now we've found the "silver bullet", where the fuck is the gun?
Curiously, neither is anybody questioning the source and timing of the "revelations". That is to say, why wasn't the U.S. intelligence apparatus, which had made such a dramatic display of being able to detect weapons production and movements, able to detect their subsequent destruction and/or transshipment?
Even more bizarre, though, is the story's implication that the new "findings" justify the Bush Administration having undertaken the war. The war, we'll remember, was -- according to the Administration -- necessary because the Administration had obtained proof that Iraq was not disarming. Now the Administration would have us believe that Iraq did disarm before the war was initiated! (Yes, it would also prove that Saddam had been lying all along. But his late-as-it-was disarming would nevertheless have obviated the need for a war to "disarm" him.) And let's not have any whining that the Administration didn't know 'til now that the weapons had been destroyed: if it knew that he hadn't been disarming, it surely would have known when he had disarmed. In hyping this "story", the Administration is shooting its own argument in the foot (gee, there's a first) -- yet everybody's acting as if it's doing the opposite. "Wacky-assed", indeed.
Finally, how about let's take a deep breath and ponder the logic of such an action? Why the shit would Saddam begin destroying weapons days before the war (even if not within the T-minus-48-hour period, he was well aware that the writing was on the wall weeks before the war's initiation) and not fucking tell anybody? That would have been "classic" Saddam behaviour, as defined by Bush and Blair: drop a bombshell at the latest possible hour, pushing the deadline back yet again. But in not telling anybody, he'd be hoping that, what, he could weather out the initial storm in a cave somewhere, then be allowed back into power after having been vindicated? But even if that had been his plan, why wait until days before the war? He'd been planning all along to use them during the war, but got cold feet right at the end, there? Please, people.
Update: The Blair Administration agrees with this blog's analysis of the "recently-destroyed theory", maintaining that, "We know that his regime has had WMD and there is a lot of work going on to discover its whereabouts. If Saddam was destroying his WMD capacity or had destroyed it, it is not unreasonable to think he might have told the inspectors."
This puts him in contradiction with some segments of the Bush Administration, and, along with his claims that doubters will be "eating some of" their words, has set him up for a major fall if weapons are not found. Blair, like his friends in the U.S., remains "absolutely convinced and confident about the case on weapons of mass destruction." But, also like his friends in the U.S., offers no evidence to support his convictions.
April 24, 2003
Judith And All That
All right, so her colleauges have administered to Judith Miller a good old-fashioned spanking over the journalistic ethics of her "wacky-assed" New York Times piece purporting to have shewn that Iraq destroyed its illicit weapons just prior to the war.
Good enough. But what if the claims of Iraqi chicanery were true? Some obvious conclusions would follow. But alas, the obvious related next-questions are not being asked.
As discussed previously, recently destroyed (or recently shipped-to-Syria) weapons would be indicative of a recently operating weapons programme and facilities -- which could not have on a moment's notice been hidden, destroyed, or trucked out-of-country. So now we've found the "silver bullet", where the fuck is the gun?
Curiously, neither is anybody questioning the source and timing of the "revelations". That is to say, why wasn't the U.S. intelligence apparatus, which had made such a dramatic display of being able to detect weapons production and movements, able to detect their subsequent destruction and/or transshipment?
Even more bizarre, though, is the story's implication that the new "findings" justify the Bush Administration having undertaken the war. The war, we'll remember, was -- according to the Administration -- necessary because the Administration had obtained proof that Iraq was not disarming. Now the Administration would have us believe that Iraq did disarm before the war was initiated! (Yes, it would also prove that Saddam had been lying all along. But his late-as-it-was disarming would nevertheless have obviated the need for a war to "disarm" him.) And let's not have any whining that the Administration didn't know 'til now that the weapons had been destroyed: if it knew that he hadn't been disarming, it surely would have known when he had disarmed. In hyping this "story", the Administration is shooting its own argument in the foot (gee, there's a first) -- yet everybody's acting as if it's doing the opposite. "Wacky-assed", indeed.
Finally, how about let's take a deep breath and ponder the logic of such an action? Why the shit would Saddam begin destroying weapons days before the war (even if not within the T-minus-48-hour period, he was well aware that the writing was on the wall weeks before the war's initiation) and not fucking tell anybody? That would have been "classic" Saddam behaviour, as defined by Bush and Blair: drop a bombshell at the latest possible hour, pushing the deadline back yet again. But in not telling anybody, he'd be hoping that, what, he could weather out the initial storm in a cave somewhere, then be allowed back into power after having been vindicated? But even if that had been his plan, why wait until days before the war? He'd been planning all along to use them during the war, but got cold feet right at the end, there? Please, people.
Update: The Blair Administration agrees with this blog's analysis of the "recently-destroyed theory", maintaining that, "We know that his regime has had WMD and there is a lot of work going on to discover its whereabouts. If Saddam was destroying his WMD capacity or had destroyed it, it is not unreasonable to think he might have told the inspectors."
This puts him in contradiction with some segments of the Bush Administration, and, along with his claims that doubters will be "eating some of" their words, has set him up for a major fall if weapons are not found. Blair, like his friends in the U.S., remains "absolutely convinced and confident about the case on weapons of mass destruction." But, also like his friends in the U.S., offers no evidence to support his convictions.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:06 PM
| Comments (13)
With the United States having failed with its conquest of Iraq to discover any WMD, be welcomed as liberators, or make the country safer; the pro-war apologists have in retrospect latched onto another supposed justification for the war. This new post-war pretext (hereinafter: "The Postulate") has begun to pervade the public conciousness to the degree that it's leached into letters to the editor of major metropolitan dailies, radio talk shows, and, even, the comments form of this-here blog. It goes like this: since the United States killed fewer people during the conquest than Saddam would have killed over the long-term had he remained in power, the war was justified. Let us count the ways in which this newest (and admittedly specious) Postulate fails to cut the mustard.
First, supposing it were true. Does this then give the United States the right to unilaterally mount an illegal invasion? Should it not have acted through legal channels, or at the very least attempted to ascertain whether Saddam's victims desired an American liberation?
Or if it does give us the right to act illegally and without consulting those we intend to liberate, some more questions follow.
Since the United States is imbued with the authority (and, by implication, is morally obligated to exercise this authority) to overturn murderous dictatorial regimes, why did it wait until now before taking out Saddam? Why doesn't it take out the Israeli regime, whose occupation of Palestine has created a Hell on Earth the equal to or probably surpassing Saddam's terrors? Why doesn't it take out the Chinese regime? Why doesn't it take out the Colombian and Turkish regimes? Why doesn't it take out the Saudi and Egyptian regimes? And if, being uniquely capable of processing these matters, it either fails to do so or fails to do so in a timely manner, then should it not be held culpable for its neglect?
On the other hand, if we are to apply the principle uniformly, should not the United States be subject to a punitive bombing campaign to discontinue the misery bought in its name? Approximately 30,000 children per day are killed by starvation and preventable disease largely wrought by IMF-mandated austerity programmes. As the IMF and World Bank are controlled by the United States (to such extent that their programmes are known as the "Washington Consensus"), and by the logic at hand, should not the world undertake a campaign of bombing the United States, being careful to kill only 29,999 children per day, until the U.S. calls off the IMF dogs?
Moving along, we'll recognise that far from "taking out" the above-mentioned regimes, the United States actively supports them -- as it does so many tyrannical regimes. Not only diplomatically and economically, either (though this would be bad enough). The United States is by a wide margin the leading arms dealer in the world -- the vast majority of these arms being shipped off to human rights violators -- and the flow of arms to rights violators has increased since September 11th. A military bombardment and occupation of the United States, resulting in the cessation of these arms flows, would surely greatly lower the level of worldwide suffering -- so would it be thereby justified?
But if The Postulate were true, would we not have expected it to be the Bush Administration's first-rank argument, rather than the latest in a long line of failed attempts to secure world acquiescence to its cause? Would we not have expected 90% of the world's population -- including most vociferously the inhabitants of the region, those who had studied (and would be tasked with picking up after) the likely consequences of war, and those who had witnessed Saddam's depredations first-hand -- to have been in favour of the invasion? Would we not have expected the world's people to have queued up to lend a hand, rather than washing their hands of the United States' deeds?
That the opposite was (and remains) true in these cases should at least give us pause. But let's take a cursory look at the numbers.
First, what should we have expected, should Saddam have remained in power? Should we have expected the summary executions of thousands of people and displacement of hundreds of thousands, as in 1989-90; or the summary executions of scores of people, as in 2002? A grisly, barbarous, wholly unacceptable record either way. But since we're dealing in comparison, the difference should matter. And since we're dealing with the future, the latest behaviour should give us the most accurate expectation of future behaviour. (We might also want, for shits 'n' giggles, to consider the implications of the difference in light of the attenuation of U.S. support of the regime -- or the correlation of U.S. military aid with human rights violations worldwide.)
Keeping this in mind as a baseline, what are the consequences of the United States' war? While we'll never know the precise toll, we do know that a website tracking the civilian death count figures somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed directly -- an all-the-more shocking total given the Bush and Blair Administrations' detestably languid reactions to them. Nobody seems to know how many Iraqi soldiers have been killed, but it surely numbers well into the thousands (the Pentagon has boasted of killing two-to-three thousand on a single day, and apparently thousands are still "missing"), while the onslaught succeeded in maiming and disfiguring thousands upon thousands more civilians and soldiers.
But if the United States needs to forcibly put down the disquieted masses daily telling it to get out of Iraq before "we force you out", we may need to add yet hundreds or thousands more to the total. If a war against the U.S. occupation breaks out, the toll could be especially monstrous. (Five million Indochinese and up to 1.5 million Algerians were killed in their anti-colonial struggles, for example.)
While we don't yet know how many Iraqis will have been directly murdered by the American adventure, so too do we not know how many will have been indirectly murdered. But here again the toll will be sobering at best, but more likely than not terribly nauseating. The country is on the verge of humanitarian collapse, with "hindered" aid agencies begging for help in averting a catastrophe. Supplies of food and clean water are desperately low, and Baghdad's mightily struggling hospitals are "preparing for a possible outbreak of cholera and typhoid". All while the U.S. is blocking UN aid workers from flying into the country, and following the United States' having allowed hospitals to be burned and looted while the Marines were busy protecting the oil ministry.
So by this reckoning, the at least thousands, but likely into the tens of thousands and possibly even into the hundreds of thousands (mostly children) killed in an initial "liberatory" orgy of violence and its immediate aftermath are to be set off against scores killed per year had Saddam remained in power and been left to his own devices. In order for The Postulate to "work", in other words, we would need to assume a return to something like Iraq's pre-Gulf War standard of living and an angelic government in place in Iraq for the whole of the many decades of angelic comportment it would take for the numbers of annual lives "saved" to cumulatively "catch up" with the number of dead bodies created in the initial "investment" -- after which time, The Superbrain's war would begin "paying off" for the brave people of Iraq.
But can we expect an angelic government in place in Iraq? Can we name any other country in which a U.S. or U.S.-orchestrated change-of-government resulted in an angelic (or even improved) polity, especially with regards to human rights? Certainly not Iraq, where Western intervention brought Saddam to power in the first place, nor Afghanistan, where the overthrow of the Taliban brought the despicable "Northern Alliance" back into power. What about Vietnam, or Chile, or Haiti, or Indonesia, or Iran, or Nicaragua, or the Congo, or Brasil, or East Timor? Can we think of even one case?
Are we surprised, then, that the United States is turning to former Ba'ath party officials, "screened" members of Saddam's police force, and "dozens of retired Iraqi military leaders" to help restore order in Iraq? "Saddamismo without Saddam", we might call it. A path trod before in Germany and Japan, among other places: if the consequences of "democracy" aren't to our liking, put the fascists back into power. Are we surprised that the United States has blocked (on the grounds that it would be "illogical") a proposed UN investigation of human rights abuses in post-Saddam Iraq?
At any rate, even if an angelic government were to emerge, and remain in place in perpetuity, the war still wouldn't have saved lives. For to the annual toll also must be added the health and environmental effects of radiological muntions and cluster bombs, which all by themselves will kill many more people per year than would have Saddam's regime. For how long? Well, thirty years later Indochinese peasants are still being blown up by unexploded ordnance (primarily cluster bombs) to the tune of hundreds per year, and Depleted Uranium has a radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years...
Clearly, then, this Postulate is as sopping wet as were its predecessors. Back to the drawing board.
Incidentally, how to have dealt with Saddam, then? We can't undo having brought him into power in the first place, having supported him through the period of his worst crimes, having destroyed the regime's admirable social welfare gains which had made Iraq's education and public health systems the finest in the region prior to the first Gulf War, having aided Saddam in putting down the popular uprising following the first war, or having strengthened Saddam's grip over the populace with the unconscionable sanctions regime. (We could consider reparations, though...) But UN Resolution 687 (which the Bush Administration is so fond of referencing) gives a good guide-post: region-wide disarmament. Stop flooding arms into the region, and let the people of the region (niggers though they be) run their own affairs. If, as in South Africa (another of the United States' close friends deplored by the rest of the world -- "civilised" and "not"), it were judged by the world community that sanctions not aimed at a country's people but at its government would be an appropriate response to internal repression, then, this too would be in order. So far as banned weapons programmes are concerned: let he without sin lob the first missile. Is it really so difficult to practice what we preach?
Alas, yes. Which is why, whatever the future does hold for Iraq, it's unlikely to be anything resembling sweetness and light -- unless American citizens do something about it. Try as they might, that's one thing the splenetic war-mongers can't hide.
April 23, 2003
Crippled Inside
With the United States having failed with its conquest of Iraq to discover any WMD, be welcomed as liberators, or make the country safer; the pro-war apologists have in retrospect latched onto another supposed justification for the war. This new post-war pretext (hereinafter: "The Postulate") has begun to pervade the public conciousness to the degree that it's leached into letters to the editor of major metropolitan dailies, radio talk shows, and, even, the comments form of this-here blog. It goes like this: since the United States killed fewer people during the conquest than Saddam would have killed over the long-term had he remained in power, the war was justified. Let us count the ways in which this newest (and admittedly specious) Postulate fails to cut the mustard.
First, supposing it were true. Does this then give the United States the right to unilaterally mount an illegal invasion? Should it not have acted through legal channels, or at the very least attempted to ascertain whether Saddam's victims desired an American liberation?
Or if it does give us the right to act illegally and without consulting those we intend to liberate, some more questions follow.
Since the United States is imbued with the authority (and, by implication, is morally obligated to exercise this authority) to overturn murderous dictatorial regimes, why did it wait until now before taking out Saddam? Why doesn't it take out the Israeli regime, whose occupation of Palestine has created a Hell on Earth the equal to or probably surpassing Saddam's terrors? Why doesn't it take out the Chinese regime? Why doesn't it take out the Colombian and Turkish regimes? Why doesn't it take out the Saudi and Egyptian regimes? And if, being uniquely capable of processing these matters, it either fails to do so or fails to do so in a timely manner, then should it not be held culpable for its neglect?
On the other hand, if we are to apply the principle uniformly, should not the United States be subject to a punitive bombing campaign to discontinue the misery bought in its name? Approximately 30,000 children per day are killed by starvation and preventable disease largely wrought by IMF-mandated austerity programmes. As the IMF and World Bank are controlled by the United States (to such extent that their programmes are known as the "Washington Consensus"), and by the logic at hand, should not the world undertake a campaign of bombing the United States, being careful to kill only 29,999 children per day, until the U.S. calls off the IMF dogs?
Moving along, we'll recognise that far from "taking out" the above-mentioned regimes, the United States actively supports them -- as it does so many tyrannical regimes. Not only diplomatically and economically, either (though this would be bad enough). The United States is by a wide margin the leading arms dealer in the world -- the vast majority of these arms being shipped off to human rights violators -- and the flow of arms to rights violators has increased since September 11th. A military bombardment and occupation of the United States, resulting in the cessation of these arms flows, would surely greatly lower the level of worldwide suffering -- so would it be thereby justified?
But if The Postulate were true, would we not have expected it to be the Bush Administration's first-rank argument, rather than the latest in a long line of failed attempts to secure world acquiescence to its cause? Would we not have expected 90% of the world's population -- including most vociferously the inhabitants of the region, those who had studied (and would be tasked with picking up after) the likely consequences of war, and those who had witnessed Saddam's depredations first-hand -- to have been in favour of the invasion? Would we not have expected the world's people to have queued up to lend a hand, rather than washing their hands of the United States' deeds?
That the opposite was (and remains) true in these cases should at least give us pause. But let's take a cursory look at the numbers.
First, what should we have expected, should Saddam have remained in power? Should we have expected the summary executions of thousands of people and displacement of hundreds of thousands, as in 1989-90; or the summary executions of scores of people, as in 2002? A grisly, barbarous, wholly unacceptable record either way. But since we're dealing in comparison, the difference should matter. And since we're dealing with the future, the latest behaviour should give us the most accurate expectation of future behaviour. (We might also want, for shits 'n' giggles, to consider the implications of the difference in light of the attenuation of U.S. support of the regime -- or the correlation of U.S. military aid with human rights violations worldwide.)
Keeping this in mind as a baseline, what are the consequences of the United States' war? While we'll never know the precise toll, we do know that a website tracking the civilian death count figures somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed directly -- an all-the-more shocking total given the Bush and Blair Administrations' detestably languid reactions to them. Nobody seems to know how many Iraqi soldiers have been killed, but it surely numbers well into the thousands (the Pentagon has boasted of killing two-to-three thousand on a single day, and apparently thousands are still "missing"), while the onslaught succeeded in maiming and disfiguring thousands upon thousands more civilians and soldiers.
But if the United States needs to forcibly put down the disquieted masses daily telling it to get out of Iraq before "we force you out", we may need to add yet hundreds or thousands more to the total. If a war against the U.S. occupation breaks out, the toll could be especially monstrous. (Five million Indochinese and up to 1.5 million Algerians were killed in their anti-colonial struggles, for example.)
While we don't yet know how many Iraqis will have been directly murdered by the American adventure, so too do we not know how many will have been indirectly murdered. But here again the toll will be sobering at best, but more likely than not terribly nauseating. The country is on the verge of humanitarian collapse, with "hindered" aid agencies begging for help in averting a catastrophe. Supplies of food and clean water are desperately low, and Baghdad's mightily struggling hospitals are "preparing for a possible outbreak of cholera and typhoid". All while the U.S. is blocking UN aid workers from flying into the country, and following the United States' having allowed hospitals to be burned and looted while the Marines were busy protecting the oil ministry.
So by this reckoning, the at least thousands, but likely into the tens of thousands and possibly even into the hundreds of thousands (mostly children) killed in an initial "liberatory" orgy of violence and its immediate aftermath are to be set off against scores killed per year had Saddam remained in power and been left to his own devices. In order for The Postulate to "work", in other words, we would need to assume a return to something like Iraq's pre-Gulf War standard of living and an angelic government in place in Iraq for the whole of the many decades of angelic comportment it would take for the numbers of annual lives "saved" to cumulatively "catch up" with the number of dead bodies created in the initial "investment" -- after which time, The Superbrain's war would begin "paying off" for the brave people of Iraq.
But can we expect an angelic government in place in Iraq? Can we name any other country in which a U.S. or U.S.-orchestrated change-of-government resulted in an angelic (or even improved) polity, especially with regards to human rights? Certainly not Iraq, where Western intervention brought Saddam to power in the first place, nor Afghanistan, where the overthrow of the Taliban brought the despicable "Northern Alliance" back into power. What about Vietnam, or Chile, or Haiti, or Indonesia, or Iran, or Nicaragua, or the Congo, or Brasil, or East Timor? Can we think of even one case?
Are we surprised, then, that the United States is turning to former Ba'ath party officials, "screened" members of Saddam's police force, and "dozens of retired Iraqi military leaders" to help restore order in Iraq? "Saddamismo without Saddam", we might call it. A path trod before in Germany and Japan, among other places: if the consequences of "democracy" aren't to our liking, put the fascists back into power. Are we surprised that the United States has blocked (on the grounds that it would be "illogical") a proposed UN investigation of human rights abuses in post-Saddam Iraq?
At any rate, even if an angelic government were to emerge, and remain in place in perpetuity, the war still wouldn't have saved lives. For to the annual toll also must be added the health and environmental effects of radiological muntions and cluster bombs, which all by themselves will kill many more people per year than would have Saddam's regime. For how long? Well, thirty years later Indochinese peasants are still being blown up by unexploded ordnance (primarily cluster bombs) to the tune of hundreds per year, and Depleted Uranium has a radioactive half-life of 4.5 billion years...
Clearly, then, this Postulate is as sopping wet as were its predecessors. Back to the drawing board.
Incidentally, how to have dealt with Saddam, then? We can't undo having brought him into power in the first place, having supported him through the period of his worst crimes, having destroyed the regime's admirable social welfare gains which had made Iraq's education and public health systems the finest in the region prior to the first Gulf War, having aided Saddam in putting down the popular uprising following the first war, or having strengthened Saddam's grip over the populace with the unconscionable sanctions regime. (We could consider reparations, though...) But UN Resolution 687 (which the Bush Administration is so fond of referencing) gives a good guide-post: region-wide disarmament. Stop flooding arms into the region, and let the people of the region (niggers though they be) run their own affairs. If, as in South Africa (another of the United States' close friends deplored by the rest of the world -- "civilised" and "not"), it were judged by the world community that sanctions not aimed at a country's people but at its government would be an appropriate response to internal repression, then, this too would be in order. So far as banned weapons programmes are concerned: let he without sin lob the first missile. Is it really so difficult to practice what we preach?
Alas, yes. Which is why, whatever the future does hold for Iraq, it's unlikely to be anything resembling sweetness and light -- unless American citizens do something about it. Try as they might, that's one thing the splenetic war-mongers can't hide.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:25 PM
| Comments (3)
Donald H. Rumsfeld, referencing the fabled Iraqi WMDs, doesn't "think we'll discover anything", because, "It is not like a treasure hunt where you just run around looking everywhere, hoping you find something." (Dubya will surely become cross upon learning of this piss-poor display of Easter spirit!) He says that we'll instead "discover people who will tell us where to go find it."
Right, well, this squares nicely with the Administration's repeated pre-war assertions that U.S. intelligence had proven (to the Administration, if not to its own agents, nor to anybody else) that Saddam had "failed to disarm" -- thus the critically urgent need to for the second time in a decade blast the holy fucking shit out of the country's beleaguered millions.
U.S. Brig. General Vincent Brooks insists that, "We remain convinced that there are weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq and we remain unwavering about that." But he doesn't say why they remain convinced. It must be based on some evidence, right? If so, then, what is the evidence, and where are the weapons? Maybe the Bush Administration is now tangling its feet in the inverse of its, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" axiom. Existence of evidence is not evidence of existence, apparently.
It is, in fact, now fairly widely assumed that WMD will not be found in Iraq unless planted there by the United States. Given that the U.S. is unwilling to allow the UN inspectors back into the country, preferring its own "more muscular" inspections, one could hardly be blamed for this suspicion. But here's a question for scientist-types. Can the U.S. really hope to get away with planting weapons? If a few weapons are uncovered in the absence of an active programme or facilities, won't it be pretty obvious that something isn't quite adding up? And even if Saddam had air-mailed his entire arsenal to Syria, evidence of an ongoing programme capable of producing such an arsenal would stick out like a sore thumb, yes?
While it's an issue this blog has discussed before now, it may be worth noting that expression of the glaringly obvious logical corollary to the widespread assumption that the "legitimacy" of the war could only be retroactively "repudiated" (that'll make the hurt go away) by a failure to unearth an Iraqi weapons programme -- viz., a devastating military attack and occupation of the United States would be a legitimate avenue for dealing with its weapons programmes -- has not yet found purchase in the mainstream media.
April 20, 2003
Donald Spills The Jellybeans
Donald H. Rumsfeld, referencing the fabled Iraqi WMDs, doesn't "think we'll discover anything", because, "It is not like a treasure hunt where you just run around looking everywhere, hoping you find something." (Dubya will surely become cross upon learning of this piss-poor display of Easter spirit!) He says that we'll instead "discover people who will tell us where to go find it."
Right, well, this squares nicely with the Administration's repeated pre-war assertions that U.S. intelligence had proven (to the Administration, if not to its own agents, nor to anybody else) that Saddam had "failed to disarm" -- thus the critically urgent need to for the second time in a decade blast the holy fucking shit out of the country's beleaguered millions.
U.S. Brig. General Vincent Brooks insists that, "We remain convinced that there are weapons of mass destruction inside Iraq and we remain unwavering about that." But he doesn't say why they remain convinced. It must be based on some evidence, right? If so, then, what is the evidence, and where are the weapons? Maybe the Bush Administration is now tangling its feet in the inverse of its, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" axiom. Existence of evidence is not evidence of existence, apparently.
It is, in fact, now fairly widely assumed that WMD will not be found in Iraq unless planted there by the United States. Given that the U.S. is unwilling to allow the UN inspectors back into the country, preferring its own "more muscular" inspections, one could hardly be blamed for this suspicion. But here's a question for scientist-types. Can the U.S. really hope to get away with planting weapons? If a few weapons are uncovered in the absence of an active programme or facilities, won't it be pretty obvious that something isn't quite adding up? And even if Saddam had air-mailed his entire arsenal to Syria, evidence of an ongoing programme capable of producing such an arsenal would stick out like a sore thumb, yes?
While it's an issue this blog has discussed before now, it may be worth noting that expression of the glaringly obvious logical corollary to the widespread assumption that the "legitimacy" of the war could only be retroactively "repudiated" (that'll make the hurt go away) by a failure to unearth an Iraqi weapons programme -- viz., a devastating military attack and occupation of the United States would be a legitimate avenue for dealing with its weapons programmes -- has not yet found purchase in the mainstream media.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:37 AM
| Comments (3)
Note: This post is a response to a comment from "Frank Rizzo". (Digression: why are all y'all so afraid to use your real names and/or e-mail addresses?) Which comment was in turn a response to the post "One Of These Things (Is Not Like The Others)". Some links may be added to this post in future if this blogger feels up to the task.
You raise a valid point: random or first-time readers of this blog will not find much mention of Saddam's crimes, but will find much mention of the United States' crimes. Here are some reasons why.
• Every person over the age of five is well-aware of the brutal, tyrannical, murderous nature of the regime that was Saddam's Iraq. Asserting that Saddam was a brutal, tyrannical, murderous dictator would be about as controversial as asserting that shit flows downstream. But while the sordid history of U.S. war crimes may be well-known outside our frontiers (after all, so many of the world's people have been on the receiving end of our military bombardments), it's not very well known here.
• Presuming he'll at some point be apprehended, there will be no difficulty in forcing Saddam to stand trial for his crimes. But that George W. Bush should stand trial for his crimes is an essentially inconceivable supposition.
• The United States is the most powerful state in history. We are citizens of the United States (most of those reading this, that is). It is our responsibility to address the injustices committed by our state, and in our names. It is not our responsibility (nor that of our "leaders") to address the injustices committed by Saddam Hussein. Indeed, it is not under our legal purview. In point of fact, given that Saddam's recent crimes pale into nothingness when compared with the most vile and heinous period of his rule -- the war with Iran and the concomitant internal repression, and that Saddam was crucially aided by the United States in this period, and given the utter barbarity of the U.S.-led sanctions regime; if we have any responsibility toward Iraq (this blog would argue that we do), it is to pay reparations, not to rain down thousands of bombs and kill thousands of people.
As far as the Iraqi regime's intermingling of civilian and military "objectives" is concerned, yes, that is clearly a crime. But this does not make American targeting of said "objectives" -- in the full knowledge that civilian casualties will result -- any less criminal, no matter how loudly the Pentagon bleats that it was all Saddam's fault. (Also note that the Pentagon openly acknowledges that its bombing of populated areas will "inevitably" result in civilian casualties -- a clear violation of the Conventions.)
But here we have come full circle. For by your logic, any war-related killing of civilians (never mind "military casualties") can be justified by claiming that it was merely the "unintended" by-product of the attaining of a "necessary" military "objective" or by blaming the "enemy" for situating civilians or civilian infrastructure near a "legitimate" target. This would include September 11th. Surely, if Al Qaeda's war is itself self-defined as "legitimate" (despite world opinion or the letter of the law), an office building (let alone two massive towers in the heart of the world's most important financial centre) is as "legitimate" an objective as a city's palaces, or a city's electrical grid, or a city's water-works. Hell, one could even argue that the Bush Administration was aware that the perpetrators of September 11th considered the twin towers targets -- they'd targetted them before -- and was therefore in "violation" of the Geneva Conventions for allowing civilians to work there during a time of war (September 11th didn't exactly burst out of a vacuum). Sounds completely absurd, doesn't it? Yet, put the shoe on the other foot, and ask how absurd the Bush Administration's justifications for the war (despite world opinion and the letter of the law), as well as for the specific methods used during the war, must sound to an Iraqi -- and how hollow they must ring when set beside the reality and the enormity of what has befallen that country. Or ask a "neutral" observer (from another planet, for example) which of the two "wars" is the more, or less, barbarous.
"Frank", if you're willing to accept that 1,642 (or 642, or 1) Iraqi civilians (plus unknown thousands of Iraqi soldiers) killed without their consent is justified in attaining the noble objective of "liberating" by force then occupying until a time of our choosing any country we alone purport to perceive as "bad" or "threatening"; then consistency dictates that you must be willing to accept that the killing of three thousand New Yorkers, without their consent, in service of attaining the noble objective, determined by Al Qaeda alone, of chasing the "infidels" out of the "holy land" is similarly justified. To tread that path is (or ought to be) unthinkable.
War itself is a crime against humanity.
This war itself is a travesty -- both legally and morally. Every shot fired is a war crime. This argument was stated parenthetically in the prior post, and this blog has stated it more forcefully in the past. But it cannot be stated loudly enough or frequently enough. If those international actors with the power to disregard International Law (to mention nothing of elementary morality) can only stoop to acceding to the law when it suits their own needs or conveniences, then, "civilisation" is ultimately doomed.
Having said all that, this blog will still maintain (even though the strict adherence to legalism in some ways dehumanises both ourselves and our victims) that it is important to hold the Bush and Blair Administrations' feet to the fire as regards "war crimes" committed within an illegal and unjustifiable war -- if for no other reason that it could save lives. If we can't prevent the next war, maybe we can prevent the utilisation of some of the more horrifying concoctions of military industrialists (and radioactive munitions and cluster bombs are at the very top of this list) in the next war.
Finally, "Frank", your statement that "Saddam thought he could get away with this war in the first place" is rather beyond the pale. You appear to have purchased hook, line, and sinker the Bush Administration's plea that this war was "forced" upon it; that the Administration was dragged kicking and screaming into battle only via Iraqi intransigence and aggressiveness. Is this not truly the apogee of doublethink?
April 18, 2003
The Crime Of War
Note: This post is a response to a comment from "Frank Rizzo". (Digression: why are all y'all so afraid to use your real names and/or e-mail addresses?) Which comment was in turn a response to the post "One Of These Things (Is Not Like The Others)". Some links may be added to this post in future if this blogger feels up to the task.
You raise a valid point: random or first-time readers of this blog will not find much mention of Saddam's crimes, but will find much mention of the United States' crimes. Here are some reasons why.
• Every person over the age of five is well-aware of the brutal, tyrannical, murderous nature of the regime that was Saddam's Iraq. Asserting that Saddam was a brutal, tyrannical, murderous dictator would be about as controversial as asserting that shit flows downstream. But while the sordid history of U.S. war crimes may be well-known outside our frontiers (after all, so many of the world's people have been on the receiving end of our military bombardments), it's not very well known here.
• Presuming he'll at some point be apprehended, there will be no difficulty in forcing Saddam to stand trial for his crimes. But that George W. Bush should stand trial for his crimes is an essentially inconceivable supposition.
• The United States is the most powerful state in history. We are citizens of the United States (most of those reading this, that is). It is our responsibility to address the injustices committed by our state, and in our names. It is not our responsibility (nor that of our "leaders") to address the injustices committed by Saddam Hussein. Indeed, it is not under our legal purview. In point of fact, given that Saddam's recent crimes pale into nothingness when compared with the most vile and heinous period of his rule -- the war with Iran and the concomitant internal repression, and that Saddam was crucially aided by the United States in this period, and given the utter barbarity of the U.S.-led sanctions regime; if we have any responsibility toward Iraq (this blog would argue that we do), it is to pay reparations, not to rain down thousands of bombs and kill thousands of people.
As far as the Iraqi regime's intermingling of civilian and military "objectives" is concerned, yes, that is clearly a crime. But this does not make American targeting of said "objectives" -- in the full knowledge that civilian casualties will result -- any less criminal, no matter how loudly the Pentagon bleats that it was all Saddam's fault. (Also note that the Pentagon openly acknowledges that its bombing of populated areas will "inevitably" result in civilian casualties -- a clear violation of the Conventions.)
But here we have come full circle. For by your logic, any war-related killing of civilians (never mind "military casualties") can be justified by claiming that it was merely the "unintended" by-product of the attaining of a "necessary" military "objective" or by blaming the "enemy" for situating civilians or civilian infrastructure near a "legitimate" target. This would include September 11th. Surely, if Al Qaeda's war is itself self-defined as "legitimate" (despite world opinion or the letter of the law), an office building (let alone two massive towers in the heart of the world's most important financial centre) is as "legitimate" an objective as a city's palaces, or a city's electrical grid, or a city's water-works. Hell, one could even argue that the Bush Administration was aware that the perpetrators of September 11th considered the twin towers targets -- they'd targetted them before -- and was therefore in "violation" of the Geneva Conventions for allowing civilians to work there during a time of war (September 11th didn't exactly burst out of a vacuum). Sounds completely absurd, doesn't it? Yet, put the shoe on the other foot, and ask how absurd the Bush Administration's justifications for the war (despite world opinion and the letter of the law), as well as for the specific methods used during the war, must sound to an Iraqi -- and how hollow they must ring when set beside the reality and the enormity of what has befallen that country. Or ask a "neutral" observer (from another planet, for example) which of the two "wars" is the more, or less, barbarous.
"Frank", if you're willing to accept that 1,642 (or 642, or 1) Iraqi civilians (plus unknown thousands of Iraqi soldiers) killed without their consent is justified in attaining the noble objective of "liberating" by force then occupying until a time of our choosing any country we alone purport to perceive as "bad" or "threatening"; then consistency dictates that you must be willing to accept that the killing of three thousand New Yorkers, without their consent, in service of attaining the noble objective, determined by Al Qaeda alone, of chasing the "infidels" out of the "holy land" is similarly justified. To tread that path is (or ought to be) unthinkable.
War itself is a crime against humanity.
This war itself is a travesty -- both legally and morally. Every shot fired is a war crime. This argument was stated parenthetically in the prior post, and this blog has stated it more forcefully in the past. But it cannot be stated loudly enough or frequently enough. If those international actors with the power to disregard International Law (to mention nothing of elementary morality) can only stoop to acceding to the law when it suits their own needs or conveniences, then, "civilisation" is ultimately doomed.
Having said all that, this blog will still maintain (even though the strict adherence to legalism in some ways dehumanises both ourselves and our victims) that it is important to hold the Bush and Blair Administrations' feet to the fire as regards "war crimes" committed within an illegal and unjustifiable war -- if for no other reason that it could save lives. If we can't prevent the next war, maybe we can prevent the utilisation of some of the more horrifying concoctions of military industrialists (and radioactive munitions and cluster bombs are at the very top of this list) in the next war.
Finally, "Frank", your statement that "Saddam thought he could get away with this war in the first place" is rather beyond the pale. You appear to have purchased hook, line, and sinker the Bush Administration's plea that this war was "forced" upon it; that the Administration was dragged kicking and screaming into battle only via Iraqi intransigence and aggressiveness. Is this not truly the apogee of doublethink?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:48 AM
| Comments (7)
• A CentCom spokeswoman, regarding U.S. use of cluster bombs in Baghdad, and referring to Iraqi missile systems and artillery: "We had to use them in an urban environment because that was where Saddam Hussein put those weapons."
• Brig. General Vincent Brooks: "The conditions for people, the conditions for unintended consequences, are taken into account before the decision [to use cluster bombs]."
• CentCom spokesman Herb Josey: "In general, we try to target legitimate military targets only. If cluster bombs are the best weapons to use against a target, they are the weapon of choice. We take into account the chances of civilian casualties all the time."
• UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon: "I accept that the short-term consequences are terrible," but that "one day" mothers of Iraqi children would thank Britain for using them. (The day has not arrived yet, but give it time...)
• The Geneva Conventions:
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
So, by CentCom's own descriptions of the matter, the U.S. is in violation of all five subsections listed here. Oddly enough, both Brooks' and Josey's comments imply that the military decision to use cluster bombs was taken with the awareness that civilian casualties would result -- that is, they're clearly acknowledging the commission of war crimes. (And our usual proviso that as the war itself was a violation of the most important principle of International Law -- sovereign nations shall not be attacked -- then every act of war was a war crime. Every cruise missile. Every bomb. Every inch of soil occupied. Every civilian killed or maimed. Every soldier killed or maimed. Every leaflet dropped. Every pre-war bombing in the "no-fly zones". Even the pre-war build-up. So that even if the "coalition" had operated within the Geneva Conventions, Bush and Blair and co. would still be war criminals.)
Update: Those readers not in acceptance of this blog's interpretation of the Geneva Conventions on this issue are encouraged to notice the interpretations of Human Rights Watch (and again), The Red Cross, Amnesty International, Amnesty Canada, Amnesty USA, and the United Nations, for starters.
April 16, 2003
One Of These Things (Is Not Like The Others)
• A CentCom spokeswoman, regarding U.S. use of cluster bombs in Baghdad, and referring to Iraqi missile systems and artillery: "We had to use them in an urban environment because that was where Saddam Hussein put those weapons."
• Brig. General Vincent Brooks: "The conditions for people, the conditions for unintended consequences, are taken into account before the decision [to use cluster bombs]."
• CentCom spokesman Herb Josey: "In general, we try to target legitimate military targets only. If cluster bombs are the best weapons to use against a target, they are the weapon of choice. We take into account the chances of civilian casualties all the time."
• UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon: "I accept that the short-term consequences are terrible," but that "one day" mothers of Iraqi children would thank Britain for using them. (The day has not arrived yet, but give it time...)
• The Geneva Conventions:
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
So, by CentCom's own descriptions of the matter, the U.S. is in violation of all five subsections listed here. Oddly enough, both Brooks' and Josey's comments imply that the military decision to use cluster bombs was taken with the awareness that civilian casualties would result -- that is, they're clearly acknowledging the commission of war crimes. (And our usual proviso that as the war itself was a violation of the most important principle of International Law -- sovereign nations shall not be attacked -- then every act of war was a war crime. Every cruise missile. Every bomb. Every inch of soil occupied. Every civilian killed or maimed. Every soldier killed or maimed. Every leaflet dropped. Every pre-war bombing in the "no-fly zones". Even the pre-war build-up. So that even if the "coalition" had operated within the Geneva Conventions, Bush and Blair and co. would still be war criminals.)
Update: Those readers not in acceptance of this blog's interpretation of the Geneva Conventions on this issue are encouraged to notice the interpretations of Human Rights Watch (and again), The Red Cross, Amnesty International, Amnesty Canada, Amnesty USA, and the United Nations, for starters.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:56 AM
| Comments (10)
Reading the page after page after page after page of euphoric triumphalism in the U.S. mainstream media, one could certainly be forgiven for thinking so. Is no person capable of recalling that the U.S. invasion (let alone many of its specific processes) of Iraq was itself a blatant violation of International Law? The case for invasion was made before the world -- and found wanting. The United States withdrew its barbarist's resolution in the face of resounding opposition. Does nobody, one month later, remember this?
Well, yes, some people do. A quick search of Google News for "war crimes Iraq", expected to return endless calls for prosecution of Iraqi war criminals, instead returned precisely the opposite: an array of calls for investigation of "coalition" crimes, including the underlying, fundamental crime of unprovoked aggression. "A good deal of informed opinion worldwide regards the Anglo-American invasion and conquest of Iraq as an illegal act of aggression, in the course of which it is coalition forces that have perpetrated numerous war crimes while pulverising Iraqi resistance," it says here. The Brooklyn-based Center for Economic and Social Rights has laid out the case in full.
So maybe there's hope.
What You Can Do: But it will take a great deal of popular outcry to even allow the issue to blip onto the radar. There's no time like the present. First, write to the Washington, DC Police Department and Mayor's Office, asking for the apprehension of George W. Bush and friends. Second, contact your representatives, urging the same. Third, contact media outlets, asking them to give coverage to this issue. Fourth, urge your friends and family to take these same steps.
April 15, 2003
Has The Whole World Gone Crazy?
Reading the page after page after page after page of euphoric triumphalism in the U.S. mainstream media, one could certainly be forgiven for thinking so. Is no person capable of recalling that the U.S. invasion (let alone many of its specific processes) of Iraq was itself a blatant violation of International Law? The case for invasion was made before the world -- and found wanting. The United States withdrew its barbarist's resolution in the face of resounding opposition. Does nobody, one month later, remember this?
Well, yes, some people do. A quick search of Google News for "war crimes Iraq", expected to return endless calls for prosecution of Iraqi war criminals, instead returned precisely the opposite: an array of calls for investigation of "coalition" crimes, including the underlying, fundamental crime of unprovoked aggression. "A good deal of informed opinion worldwide regards the Anglo-American invasion and conquest of Iraq as an illegal act of aggression, in the course of which it is coalition forces that have perpetrated numerous war crimes while pulverising Iraqi resistance," it says here. The Brooklyn-based Center for Economic and Social Rights has laid out the case in full.
So maybe there's hope.
What You Can Do: But it will take a great deal of popular outcry to even allow the issue to blip onto the radar. There's no time like the present. First, write to the Washington, DC Police Department and Mayor's Office, asking for the apprehension of George W. Bush and friends. Second, contact your representatives, urging the same. Third, contact media outlets, asking them to give coverage to this issue. Fourth, urge your friends and family to take these same steps.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:54 PM
| Comments (2)
"Free people," spake Donald H. Rumsfeld last week in response to the looting of Baghdad and Basra, "are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." The corollary to this newest commandment, undoubtedly, would be that the free people who had liberated the now-free people are free to stand around and watch the free people make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things -- even though said standing around and watching is in violation of the Geneva Conventions (Dubya's "irritated" remonstrations to the contrary notwithstanding).
But, hey, Americans are free people (by definition), so, let's go do some crimes!
Rounding out to-day's Bible Hour, this message: George W. Bush has decreed that, "Freedom is a gift from Almighty God."
Update: A New York man, apparently emboldened by Rumsfeld's edict, has stabbed to death a bouncer attempting to enforce the city's new smoking ban. The victim's brother, aware that free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things, blamed his brother's death on "this stupid cigarette law".
April 14, 2003
The Eleventh Commandment
"Free people," spake Donald H. Rumsfeld last week in response to the looting of Baghdad and Basra, "are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." The corollary to this newest commandment, undoubtedly, would be that the free people who had liberated the now-free people are free to stand around and watch the free people make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things -- even though said standing around and watching is in violation of the Geneva Conventions (Dubya's "irritated" remonstrations to the contrary notwithstanding).
But, hey, Americans are free people (by definition), so, let's go do some crimes!
Rounding out to-day's Bible Hour, this message: George W. Bush has decreed that, "Freedom is a gift from Almighty God."
Update: A New York man, apparently emboldened by Rumsfeld's edict, has stabbed to death a bouncer attempting to enforce the city's new smoking ban. The victim's brother, aware that free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things, blamed his brother's death on "this stupid cigarette law".
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:58 PM
| Comments (3)
This blog welcomes negative comments, and would like to refrain from replying to such comments, letting the posts' arguments speak for themselves.
At the same time, one must ask what is the point of the two camps standing at opposite ends of the room screeching at each other? This blogger is, frankly, not terribly interested in carrying on a dialogue with those already opposed to this war and/or to U.S. foreign policy in general. While an afternoon of mutual stroking may feel great, it's not, when all is said and done, going to be very productive.
On the other hand, a dialogue between opponents and proponents of U.S. foreign policy is desperately needed -- now more than ever. So, Bill Whitlock, David Williams, and others taking the piss: please feel free to comment to your hearts' desires. However, if you're not going to leave a real e-mail address, please also copy your comments to myself (find the e-mail address in the right-hand pane of the blog's main page).
Thanks.
April 11, 2003
A Request To Commenters
This blog welcomes negative comments, and would like to refrain from replying to such comments, letting the posts' arguments speak for themselves.
At the same time, one must ask what is the point of the two camps standing at opposite ends of the room screeching at each other? This blogger is, frankly, not terribly interested in carrying on a dialogue with those already opposed to this war and/or to U.S. foreign policy in general. While an afternoon of mutual stroking may feel great, it's not, when all is said and done, going to be very productive.
On the other hand, a dialogue between opponents and proponents of U.S. foreign policy is desperately needed -- now more than ever. So, Bill Whitlock, David Williams, and others taking the piss: please feel free to comment to your hearts' desires. However, if you're not going to leave a real e-mail address, please also copy your comments to myself (find the e-mail address in the right-hand pane of the blog's main page).
Thanks.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:52 PM
| Comments (3)
Madeleine Albright famously laid down the "acceptability" gauntlet in 1996 when she said on 60 Minutes, of the 500,000 Iraqi children killed to that point in time by sanctions that, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."
While Albright's sadism may be untoppable, the mind still boggles at Tony Blair's reaction to a Baghdad marketplace massacre: "We have always accepted that there will be some very regrettable civilian casualties."
What sort of depraved mind could devise such an argument, and what sort of depraved culture could accept it without comment? Is there not one commentator in the mainstream media able to point up that since Iraqis are the ones enduring the suffering, the acceptable level of suffering is theirs to determine, not ours?
An indication of the degree to which the mindset has suffused the culture could be gleaned the morning following V-S day, as a Seattle-based talk show emanating since war's inception from Doha interviewed a Qatari student strongly opposed to the war. Caller after caller regally scolded him that since the military action had freed the Iraqi people (or, alternatively, that Saddam's regime would have killed more people if left in power), then the number of concomitant civilian casualties was hunky dory. (It goes without saying that we're morally obligated to kill as many Iraqi soldiers as possible.)
No doubt the callers -- unlike Blair and Albright -- were well-intentioned, and certainly believed the pretexts. But even allowing for this, and even were both or either true (clearly not the case), we still can't escape the underlying truism evinced by the callers: niggers shan't be allowed to determine their own fates.
April 10, 2003
The Price Is Still Worth It
Madeleine Albright famously laid down the "acceptability" gauntlet in 1996 when she said on 60 Minutes, of the 500,000 Iraqi children killed to that point in time by sanctions that, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."
While Albright's sadism may be untoppable, the mind still boggles at Tony Blair's reaction to a Baghdad marketplace massacre: "We have always accepted that there will be some very regrettable civilian casualties."
What sort of depraved mind could devise such an argument, and what sort of depraved culture could accept it without comment? Is there not one commentator in the mainstream media able to point up that since Iraqis are the ones enduring the suffering, the acceptable level of suffering is theirs to determine, not ours?
An indication of the degree to which the mindset has suffused the culture could be gleaned the morning following V-S day, as a Seattle-based talk show emanating since war's inception from Doha interviewed a Qatari student strongly opposed to the war. Caller after caller regally scolded him that since the military action had freed the Iraqi people (or, alternatively, that Saddam's regime would have killed more people if left in power), then the number of concomitant civilian casualties was hunky dory. (It goes without saying that we're morally obligated to kill as many Iraqi soldiers as possible.)
No doubt the callers -- unlike Blair and Albright -- were well-intentioned, and certainly believed the pretexts. But even allowing for this, and even were both or either true (clearly not the case), we still can't escape the underlying truism evinced by the callers: niggers shan't be allowed to determine their own fates.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:15 PM
| Comments (8)
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak claimed last week that the U.S. war in Iraq would create "100 bin Ladens".
American soldiers are making claims of their own: "I say we just nuke this place and make it into a parking lot," and, "We shoot them down like the morons they are," and, "I didn't know who was there, and I didn't really care. The job was to go put the bombs on target and worry about that later," and, "We had a great day. We killed a lot of people," and, "The Iraqis are sick people, and we are the chemotherapy," and, "I'm Sorry. But the chick was in the way," and, "We dropped a few civilians. But what do you do?"
Couple this destroy-anything-in-your-path inculcation with slashing of veterans' benefits (and otherwise shitty treatment of returned vets) and a stagnating economy, and it sounds like the war will in the end create some more McVeighs as well.
How Many McVeighs?
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak claimed last week that the U.S. war in Iraq would create "100 bin Ladens".
American soldiers are making claims of their own: "I say we just nuke this place and make it into a parking lot," and, "We shoot them down like the morons they are," and, "I didn't know who was there, and I didn't really care. The job was to go put the bombs on target and worry about that later," and, "We had a great day. We killed a lot of people," and, "The Iraqis are sick people, and we are the chemotherapy," and, "I'm Sorry. But the chick was in the way," and, "We dropped a few civilians. But what do you do?"
Couple this destroy-anything-in-your-path inculcation with slashing of veterans' benefits (and otherwise shitty treatment of returned vets) and a stagnating economy, and it sounds like the war will in the end create some more McVeighs as well.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:31 PM
| Comments (4)
The United States is today warning Iran, Syria, North Korea, and others to "draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq": that the "pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their interest."
This blog has discussed ad nauseum the startling hypocrisy of this line of argument, coming from history's most notorious purveyor of weapons of mass destruction.
But even more mind-boggling is that such a pronouncement could come after days of the Administration down-playing of the importance of finding WMD in Iraq, and when time after time suspected weapons caches turn out to be something other than WMD, and when Americans now say that the invasion of Iraq will have been justified even if none are found.
April 09, 2003
Is Comment Possible?
The United States is today warning Iran, Syria, North Korea, and others to "draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq": that the "pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their interest."
This blog has discussed ad nauseum the startling hypocrisy of this line of argument, coming from history's most notorious purveyor of weapons of mass destruction.
But even more mind-boggling is that such a pronouncement could come after days of the Administration down-playing of the importance of finding WMD in Iraq, and when time after time suspected weapons caches turn out to be something other than WMD, and when Americans now say that the invasion of Iraq will have been justified even if none are found.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:53 AM
| Comments (4)
Note: The following was submitted to the Seattle Times' Op-Ed page, but declined as the editors "have more guest commentaries lined up than we'll be able to use" -- and after so much care was taken to fit it within the 750-word limit! Oh well.
The bill of goods upon which Americans' support of this war has been premised is dissipating item by item. We were told to expect a quick, easy, relatively bloodless war, in which we would be welcomed as liberators, and in which we would "disarm" the Iraqi regime of its Weapons of Mass Destruction, and strike a mighty blow against fundamentalist terrorism.
Instead, barely two weeks in, the President and all his men are now warning that the war will be protracted and costly, inflicting many casualties on both sides. Thousands of enraged suicide bombers are pouring into Iraq, and U.S. intelligence regarding supposed WMD sites has proved so far to be wholly inaccurate. We couldn't be bothered to ascertain the feelings of the Iraqi populace before the advent of hostilities, but since war's inception every day has brought new reports of its growing hostility to the American invasion. Furthermore, a website keeping track of Iraqi civilian casualties finds that no fewer than 596 have been killed as of this writing (see iraqbodycount.org for the current total). Nobody knows how many Iraqi soldiers have been killed, but it should at least be noted that in an illegal war undertaken without Security Council authorization, military casualties should be considered no less abhorrent and illegitimate that civilian casualties. It should also be noted that the full health and environmental consequences of the Untied States' use of radioactive munitions and cluster bombs will not be known for some years -- though it is expected to exact a horrifying toll.
Yet even though only 10% of the world's population is in support of this war, roughly 70% of Americans are still on board. Given that the planners' projections -- besides being illegal and immoral -- have been exposed as either deceitful or negligent, why (besides the shocking belief of 40% of the American public that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for September 11 -- a supposition the Administration's own intelligence apparatus considers absurd) are so many Americans still voicing their support? Two reasons appear to be most prominent.
First is the notion that, however abhorrent, once begun the war must be allowed to be seen through to its conclusion. This argument is analogous to saying that a group of horrified onlookers, watching a serial rapist attack his latest victim, should not attempt to intercede, but rather allow him to finish; whereon he would not be apprehended, but would immediately begin to stalk his next victim, while the onlookers, having already forgotten about the previous crime, hold forth on the merits of the next one. This war is an abomination. That it is has already begun does not make it any less so, nor diminish the urgency with which it should be opposed.
Second is that whatever our feelings on the war itself, we must support the troops, lest their morale plummet. Setting aside the question of what sort of warped mind could consider the exposing of the troops to our Uranium weapons, while at the same time slashing veterans' benefits, to be a sign of "support"; one must ask exactly what it is we should be encouraging the troops to do at this time. Given the Nuremberg Principles' admonition that, "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him," it is clear that the responsibility of those of us at home is to embolden the troops to disobey their orders, and to provide support for those willing to make this exceedingly courageous "moral choice".
This war could, and should, be discontinued short of its having achieved its repellent objective -- subjugating a society of 23 million people to -- just as surely as was the Vietnam War. And just as that war was called off by a combination of massive public protest and soaring budget deficits, so can this one be. Power being what it is, only the American people can shepherd our country back from its present state of barbarous militarism into the civilized world. We must demand the immediate, unconditional withdrawal of American forces from the region, the payment of reparations to Iraq, and the apprehension of the planners of this war to stand trial for war crimes. Those who would have us eschew this responsibility are committing treason upon not only the Iraqi people, but also the entire human race, and the concept of "civilization" itself.
Update: In answer to Jason's question, the source is Gallup polling from January. One needs to subscribe to Gallup's premium service to gain access to the full panoply of Gallup offerings, but Chomsky cited these particular poll results in a recent interview. In response to "Reginald"'s comment, note that the piece was submitted as an Op-Ed ("Guest Commentary", if you prefer), not a letter to the editor.
April 07, 2003
Call It Off
Note: The following was submitted to the Seattle Times' Op-Ed page, but declined as the editors "have more guest commentaries lined up than we'll be able to use" -- and after so much care was taken to fit it within the 750-word limit! Oh well.
The bill of goods upon which Americans' support of this war has been premised is dissipating item by item. We were told to expect a quick, easy, relatively bloodless war, in which we would be welcomed as liberators, and in which we would "disarm" the Iraqi regime of its Weapons of Mass Destruction, and strike a mighty blow against fundamentalist terrorism.
Instead, barely two weeks in, the President and all his men are now warning that the war will be protracted and costly, inflicting many casualties on both sides. Thousands of enraged suicide bombers are pouring into Iraq, and U.S. intelligence regarding supposed WMD sites has proved so far to be wholly inaccurate. We couldn't be bothered to ascertain the feelings of the Iraqi populace before the advent of hostilities, but since war's inception every day has brought new reports of its growing hostility to the American invasion. Furthermore, a website keeping track of Iraqi civilian casualties finds that no fewer than 596 have been killed as of this writing (see iraqbodycount.org for the current total). Nobody knows how many Iraqi soldiers have been killed, but it should at least be noted that in an illegal war undertaken without Security Council authorization, military casualties should be considered no less abhorrent and illegitimate that civilian casualties. It should also be noted that the full health and environmental consequences of the Untied States' use of radioactive munitions and cluster bombs will not be known for some years -- though it is expected to exact a horrifying toll.
Yet even though only 10% of the world's population is in support of this war, roughly 70% of Americans are still on board. Given that the planners' projections -- besides being illegal and immoral -- have been exposed as either deceitful or negligent, why (besides the shocking belief of 40% of the American public that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for September 11 -- a supposition the Administration's own intelligence apparatus considers absurd) are so many Americans still voicing their support? Two reasons appear to be most prominent.
First is the notion that, however abhorrent, once begun the war must be allowed to be seen through to its conclusion. This argument is analogous to saying that a group of horrified onlookers, watching a serial rapist attack his latest victim, should not attempt to intercede, but rather allow him to finish; whereon he would not be apprehended, but would immediately begin to stalk his next victim, while the onlookers, having already forgotten about the previous crime, hold forth on the merits of the next one. This war is an abomination. That it is has already begun does not make it any less so, nor diminish the urgency with which it should be opposed.
Second is that whatever our feelings on the war itself, we must support the troops, lest their morale plummet. Setting aside the question of what sort of warped mind could consider the exposing of the troops to our Uranium weapons, while at the same time slashing veterans' benefits, to be a sign of "support"; one must ask exactly what it is we should be encouraging the troops to do at this time. Given the Nuremberg Principles' admonition that, "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him," it is clear that the responsibility of those of us at home is to embolden the troops to disobey their orders, and to provide support for those willing to make this exceedingly courageous "moral choice".
This war could, and should, be discontinued short of its having achieved its repellent objective -- subjugating a society of 23 million people to -- just as surely as was the Vietnam War. And just as that war was called off by a combination of massive public protest and soaring budget deficits, so can this one be. Power being what it is, only the American people can shepherd our country back from its present state of barbarous militarism into the civilized world. We must demand the immediate, unconditional withdrawal of American forces from the region, the payment of reparations to Iraq, and the apprehension of the planners of this war to stand trial for war crimes. Those who would have us eschew this responsibility are committing treason upon not only the Iraqi people, but also the entire human race, and the concept of "civilization" itself.
Update: In answer to Jason's question, the source is Gallup polling from January. One needs to subscribe to Gallup's premium service to gain access to the full panoply of Gallup offerings, but Chomsky cited these particular poll results in a recent interview. In response to "Reginald"'s comment, note that the piece was submitted as an Op-Ed ("Guest Commentary", if you prefer), not a letter to the editor.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 06:15 PM
| Comments (5)
Note: The Mukilteo Beacon's Larry Simoneaux is up to his old tricks, chiding war protesters for their "naivete". Perhaps the following letter will be published, perhaps not.
Larry Simoneaux, in listing the crimes perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and his henchmen ("Reason for Pause", April 2, 2003), demonstrates the utility of selective memory in fitting the facts to a desired conclusion. No serious person doubts the crimes enumerated -- as well as many others -- were indeed committed.
But what Larry "forgot" to mention is that through the period of Saddam's greatest atrocities -- the mid- to late-'80s, he was avidly and crucially aided by the United States. The United States' friendly ties to Saddam extended to re-flagging Kuwaiti tankers during the Iran-Iraq war (so that they would not be attacked by Iran) and increasing the flow of military aid to the Beast of Baghdad after the gassing of the Kurds. No serious person denies these facts, either -- they simply choose not to mention them.
Similarly, the United States continues to this day to provide substantial sums of military to aid and/or maintain friendly relations with many of the world's most brutal, repressive regimes: Colombia, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, China, Israel, Egypt, Russia, and Pakistan to name a few. Regrettably, the United States has increased aid to human rights violators since September 11.
While still a far cry from what one would consider acceptable, Human Rights Watch's 2002 Country Report for Iraq is nowhere nearly as stomach-curdling as that from 1989 (the earliest year archived on its website -- and which also takes the United States to task for its support of the regime). More importantly, for those American Citizens willing to cast stones, HRW's 2002 Country Report for the United States is also a far cry from what one would consider acceptable. In fact, a blind reading of the HRW Iraq report and Ashcroft's proposed "PATRIOT Act II" could not but leave one wondering which country's citizens would be the worse off.
Many are fond of pointing up polling results indicating 70% of Americans support the current war in Iraq, while at the same time failing to notice that polling results indicate only 10% of the world's population in favour. The blatant double-standard, and selective memory, of U.S. foreign policy is one of the chief reasons for this disparity. (Though surely the horrific humanitarian catastrophe resulting from war is of even greater importance.)
At It Again
Note: The Mukilteo Beacon's Larry Simoneaux is up to his old tricks, chiding war protesters for their "naivete". Perhaps the following letter will be published, perhaps not.
Larry Simoneaux, in listing the crimes perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and his henchmen ("Reason for Pause", April 2, 2003), demonstrates the utility of selective memory in fitting the facts to a desired conclusion. No serious person doubts the crimes enumerated -- as well as many others -- were indeed committed.
But what Larry "forgot" to mention is that through the period of Saddam's greatest atrocities -- the mid- to late-'80s, he was avidly and crucially aided by the United States. The United States' friendly ties to Saddam extended to re-flagging Kuwaiti tankers during the Iran-Iraq war (so that they would not be attacked by Iran) and increasing the flow of military aid to the Beast of Baghdad after the gassing of the Kurds. No serious person denies these facts, either -- they simply choose not to mention them.
Similarly, the United States continues to this day to provide substantial sums of military to aid and/or maintain friendly relations with many of the world's most brutal, repressive regimes: Colombia, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, China, Israel, Egypt, Russia, and Pakistan to name a few. Regrettably, the United States has increased aid to human rights violators since September 11.
While still a far cry from what one would consider acceptable, Human Rights Watch's 2002 Country Report for Iraq is nowhere nearly as stomach-curdling as that from 1989 (the earliest year archived on its website -- and which also takes the United States to task for its support of the regime). More importantly, for those American Citizens willing to cast stones, HRW's 2002 Country Report for the United States is also a far cry from what one would consider acceptable. In fact, a blind reading of the HRW Iraq report and Ashcroft's proposed "PATRIOT Act II" could not but leave one wondering which country's citizens would be the worse off.
Many are fond of pointing up polling results indicating 70% of Americans support the current war in Iraq, while at the same time failing to notice that polling results indicate only 10% of the world's population in favour. The blatant double-standard, and selective memory, of U.S. foreign policy is one of the chief reasons for this disparity. (Though surely the horrific humanitarian catastrophe resulting from war is of even greater importance.)
Posted by Eddie Tews at 03:58 PM
| Comments (1)
We all know that the "coalition" has taken control of "the place formerly known as Saddam International Airport," and that, "The airport now has a new name -- Baghdad International Airport -- and it is a gateway to the future of Iraq."
But we can't help but wonder why the "coalition" had to actually occupy the airport before it could be renamed -- especially in light of its stated intention to declare victory "with or without" Saddam's surrender?
And why stop there? Why not rename every city and town in Iraq after place names in Texas? Then rename all Iraqis after members of the Bush Administration's cabinet. If not, how could we possibly have the audacity to say that we had "liberated" them?
April 06, 2003
What Were They Waiting For?
We all know that the "coalition" has taken control of "the place formerly known as Saddam International Airport," and that, "The airport now has a new name -- Baghdad International Airport -- and it is a gateway to the future of Iraq."
But we can't help but wonder why the "coalition" had to actually occupy the airport before it could be renamed -- especially in light of its stated intention to declare victory "with or without" Saddam's surrender?
And why stop there? Why not rename every city and town in Iraq after place names in Texas? Then rename all Iraqis after members of the Bush Administration's cabinet. If not, how could we possibly have the audacity to say that we had "liberated" them?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:15 PM
| Comments (4)
It's well know that Russia has enormous economic interests in Iraq. This, coupled with the United States' refusal to guarantee these interests in a post-war Iraq drove the Russians -- generally very close allies of the United States -- to oppose the U.S. war, and even threaten to veto a resolution granting war.
Since war's inception, Moscow has continued to criticise the United States' extralegality, while Russia and China are "retooling strategies to attenuate U.S. dominance". At the same time, the U.S. has called out the Russians for providing arms to Baghdad; Saddam, in expressing his gratitude for their help in devising the Iraqi military strategy, has awarded decorations to two former Soviet army generals; the Russians are "furious" that a diplomatic convoy en route to Syria from Baghdad twice came under fire; and the English translations of Russian intelligence analyses -- based on intercepted "coalition" communications -- of the military situation in Iraq (which, if authentic and accurate, paint a strikingly unflattering portrait of the "coalition" campaign thus far) have become a genuine Internet phenomenon.
Rubbing salt in the European wounds, Congress has stipulated that none of the $80 Billion approved for the rebuilding of Iraq shall be disbursed to companies based in France, Russia, Sryia, or Germany; and it's being reported that Russia and France would be among those taking "some of the biggest hits" from an Iraqi debt write-off.
Although Putin believes that Russian-American relations will survive this period of turmoil, Russia and India are set to begin "joint naval games" in the Indian Ocean -- which the Russians are portraying as harmless, but which are to include Russian nuclear Submarines, and, according to the Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya, "The Russian Defense Ministry expects that the situation in the Middle East will change dramatically by late April, which might require interference from Russia."
Needless to say, if cooler heads don't prevail sooner than later, the shit could be hitting the fan sooner than later. Bringing us, at last, to this blog's pet recommendation: if the Western World's "leaders" are so hell-bent on selling Iraqi oil to the world's consumers that they're willing to risk nuclear warfare, ever another reason to not consume any oil -- Iraqi or otherwise. That is to say: do not purchase gasoline.
April 05, 2003
Cold War Heating Up?
It's well know that Russia has enormous economic interests in Iraq. This, coupled with the United States' refusal to guarantee these interests in a post-war Iraq drove the Russians -- generally very close allies of the United States -- to oppose the U.S. war, and even threaten to veto a resolution granting war.
Since war's inception, Moscow has continued to criticise the United States' extralegality, while Russia and China are "retooling strategies to attenuate U.S. dominance". At the same time, the U.S. has called out the Russians for providing arms to Baghdad; Saddam, in expressing his gratitude for their help in devising the Iraqi military strategy, has awarded decorations to two former Soviet army generals; the Russians are "furious" that a diplomatic convoy en route to Syria from Baghdad twice came under fire; and the English translations of Russian intelligence analyses -- based on intercepted "coalition" communications -- of the military situation in Iraq (which, if authentic and accurate, paint a strikingly unflattering portrait of the "coalition" campaign thus far) have become a genuine Internet phenomenon.
Rubbing salt in the European wounds, Congress has stipulated that none of the $80 Billion approved for the rebuilding of Iraq shall be disbursed to companies based in France, Russia, Sryia, or Germany; and it's being reported that Russia and France would be among those taking "some of the biggest hits" from an Iraqi debt write-off.
Although Putin believes that Russian-American relations will survive this period of turmoil, Russia and India are set to begin "joint naval games" in the Indian Ocean -- which the Russians are portraying as harmless, but which are to include Russian nuclear Submarines, and, according to the Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya, "The Russian Defense Ministry expects that the situation in the Middle East will change dramatically by late April, which might require interference from Russia."
Needless to say, if cooler heads don't prevail sooner than later, the shit could be hitting the fan sooner than later. Bringing us, at last, to this blog's pet recommendation: if the Western World's "leaders" are so hell-bent on selling Iraqi oil to the world's consumers that they're willing to risk nuclear warfare, ever another reason to not consume any oil -- Iraqi or otherwise. That is to say: do not purchase gasoline.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:53 PM
| Comments (2)
A "highly experienced" "high ranking" American officer explains that Baghdad will not fall in just a few days' time (as originally predicted) because, "There is a big cultural difference between the U.S. and the Arab World. That makes it hard."
In other words, if the shoe were on the other foot -- if a massive and technologically superior invading armada came down from Mars with the stated goal of overthrowing the Bush Administration and "liberating" the American people, in the process raining death and destruction upon us day after day after day, poisoning the continent with radioactive weapons, not allowing any other country (or planet) to try to aid us, creating absolute chaos, littering the soil with unexploded ordnance, wiping out civilian infrastructure, cutting off an existing civilian aid programme, all while "getting the message across to educated people"; then, the rest of us -- the uneducated -- would welcome the Martians with open arms.
Or if we didn't do, it would be owing to the "cultural difference", and to the fact that the uneducated among us "want to be moved by emotion", and to Ashcroft's "very powerful enforcement and repression system". Got it.
Amazingly, this officer's testimonial is a dissenting view. The prevailing view is that Iraqi hostility is "receding day by day" and that the invading troops are more and more being given a "warm welcome".
April 02, 2003
That Explains It
A "highly experienced" "high ranking" American officer explains that Baghdad will not fall in just a few days' time (as originally predicted) because, "There is a big cultural difference between the U.S. and the Arab World. That makes it hard."
In other words, if the shoe were on the other foot -- if a massive and technologically superior invading armada came down from Mars with the stated goal of overthrowing the Bush Administration and "liberating" the American people, in the process raining death and destruction upon us day after day after day, poisoning the continent with radioactive weapons, not allowing any other country (or planet) to try to aid us, creating absolute chaos, littering the soil with unexploded ordnance, wiping out civilian infrastructure, cutting off an existing civilian aid programme, all while "getting the message across to educated people"; then, the rest of us -- the uneducated -- would welcome the Martians with open arms.
Or if we didn't do, it would be owing to the "cultural difference", and to the fact that the uneducated among us "want to be moved by emotion", and to Ashcroft's "very powerful enforcement and repression system". Got it.
Amazingly, this officer's testimonial is a dissenting view. The prevailing view is that Iraqi hostility is "receding day by day" and that the invading troops are more and more being given a "warm welcome".
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:35 PM
| Comments (0)
We've all heard the refrain a billion-and-one times: "They're fighting for our freedoms." (Or its variants: "Those young men died so that you could say that," and, "If you were living in ______, you wouldn't be able to say that.")
The implication, in the first case, is that here endeth all discussion. Marketplace bombed in Baghdad? "They're fighting for our freedoms." Hundreds of thousands incinerated in Hiroshima? "They're fighting for our freedoms." Entire villages massacred in Vietnam? "They're fighting for our freedoms." Birth deformities in Afghanistan? "They're fighting for our freedoms." Dikes destroyed in Korea? "They're fighting for our freedoms." Half of Sudan's pharmaceutical production taken out in one blow? "They're fighting for our freedoms." No crime is too great, it would appear, to ensure American freedoms.
The implication, in the second case, is even more beguiling. We won't suffer a gruesome fate for speaking out against injustice, ergo we should not speak out against injustice.
So much for the logic of our show-stopping interjection. How about the substance of the claim? When, in other words, have troops fighting an overseas war been protecting our freedoms? That is to say, in which wars would the target country, were it not for our expeditionary forces, have mounted an invasion of the United States and zapped our beloved freedoms from us?
World War I? A European civil war, whose combatants slaughtered each other by the hundreds of thousand, the battle lines remaining stalemated throughout. The United States entered the war -- over great public opposition -- near to its finish, in essence to make sure that British and French debts to it wouldn't be wiped out by a German victory.
Vietnam? A starving peasant country halfway around the world, wracked by French colonialism, with no navy, and whose proposed post-colonial constitution was modeled on the Declaration of Independence.
The Gulf War? After eight years of debilitating conflict with Iran (heavily aided by the United States), the border between the two remained unchanged. After the annexation of puny Kuwait, it was swiftly ejected, and subject to a decade of devastating and humiliating sanctions, then invaded again.
Korea? Another bloody stalemate on another tiny colonial outpost -- Korea had been occupied by first Japan, then the United States and Russia. Would not one think that before even considering an invasion across the World's largest ocean, it would have to first liberate itself? Korea lost a greater percentage of its population in the war than did Russia in the Second World War.
Afghanistan? The poorest country in the world, whose government was a world pariah which didn't even have control over its entire territory, and whose military budget does not exist.
The War in the Pacific? The Japanese attacked a few military bases located on colonies in the middle of the ocean. Not only was that as close as they came to snatching our freedoms from us, but they undertook the war in the knowledge that their industrial base was woefully insufficient for taking on the world's greatest industrial powerhouse. An act of desperation that, it was known from the outset was doomed to failure.
Finally, we come to the Nazis. The Nazis, who were unable to cross the English Channel would have been able to cross the Atlantic Ocean? The Nazis, who so frightened the bejeesuz out of the Americans that the American military landing in Europe was put off as long as possible to allow the Germans and Russians to kill as many of each other as possible. (Indeed, this proved to be the Nazis' downfall in the end: 80% of German casualties were suffered on the Eastern Front.)
Meanwhile, those freedoms we hold dear are under attack -- from within. Who shall honour those fighting valiantly to protect our hard-won civil liberties? How much money shall be allocated to defend the singularly immutable Bill of Rights? Who shall oversee the FBI and the police? Who shall hold the Supreme Court accountable? Who shall, my friends, put a brick in John Ashcroft's ass, and who shall support him or her doing so?
The young people abroad are too busy (and probably will be for some time), so it must be up to us. In the meantime, can we pretty please nip the "fighting for our freedoms" crap in the bud?
April 01, 2003
Can We Please Nip This One In The Bud?
We've all heard the refrain a billion-and-one times: "They're fighting for our freedoms." (Or its variants: "Those young men died so that you could say that," and, "If you were living in ______, you wouldn't be able to say that.")The implication, in the first case, is that here endeth all discussion. Marketplace bombed in Baghdad? "They're fighting for our freedoms." Hundreds of thousands incinerated in Hiroshima? "They're fighting for our freedoms." Entire villages massacred in Vietnam? "They're fighting for our freedoms." Birth deformities in Afghanistan? "They're fighting for our freedoms." Dikes destroyed in Korea? "They're fighting for our freedoms." Half of Sudan's pharmaceutical production taken out in one blow? "They're fighting for our freedoms." No crime is too great, it would appear, to ensure American freedoms.
The implication, in the second case, is even more beguiling. We won't suffer a gruesome fate for speaking out against injustice, ergo we should not speak out against injustice.
So much for the logic of our show-stopping interjection. How about the substance of the claim? When, in other words, have troops fighting an overseas war been protecting our freedoms? That is to say, in which wars would the target country, were it not for our expeditionary forces, have mounted an invasion of the United States and zapped our beloved freedoms from us?
World War I? A European civil war, whose combatants slaughtered each other by the hundreds of thousand, the battle lines remaining stalemated throughout. The United States entered the war -- over great public opposition -- near to its finish, in essence to make sure that British and French debts to it wouldn't be wiped out by a German victory.
Vietnam? A starving peasant country halfway around the world, wracked by French colonialism, with no navy, and whose proposed post-colonial constitution was modeled on the Declaration of Independence.
The Gulf War? After eight years of debilitating conflict with Iran (heavily aided by the United States), the border between the two remained unchanged. After the annexation of puny Kuwait, it was swiftly ejected, and subject to a decade of devastating and humiliating sanctions, then invaded again.
Korea? Another bloody stalemate on another tiny colonial outpost -- Korea had been occupied by first Japan, then the United States and Russia. Would not one think that before even considering an invasion across the World's largest ocean, it would have to first liberate itself? Korea lost a greater percentage of its population in the war than did Russia in the Second World War.
Afghanistan? The poorest country in the world, whose government was a world pariah which didn't even have control over its entire territory, and whose military budget does not exist.
The War in the Pacific? The Japanese attacked a few military bases located on colonies in the middle of the ocean. Not only was that as close as they came to snatching our freedoms from us, but they undertook the war in the knowledge that their industrial base was woefully insufficient for taking on the world's greatest industrial powerhouse. An act of desperation that, it was known from the outset was doomed to failure.
Finally, we come to the Nazis. The Nazis, who were unable to cross the English Channel would have been able to cross the Atlantic Ocean? The Nazis, who so frightened the bejeesuz out of the Americans that the American military landing in Europe was put off as long as possible to allow the Germans and Russians to kill as many of each other as possible. (Indeed, this proved to be the Nazis' downfall in the end: 80% of German casualties were suffered on the Eastern Front.)
Meanwhile, those freedoms we hold dear are under attack -- from within. Who shall honour those fighting valiantly to protect our hard-won civil liberties? How much money shall be allocated to defend the singularly immutable Bill of Rights? Who shall oversee the FBI and the police? Who shall hold the Supreme Court accountable? Who shall, my friends, put a brick in John Ashcroft's ass, and who shall support him or her doing so?
The young people abroad are too busy (and probably will be for some time), so it must be up to us. In the meantime, can we pretty please nip the "fighting for our freedoms" crap in the bud?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:57 PM
| Comments (1)
Not one week after the WTO issued an interim ruling finding U.S. tariffs on steel imports in breach of WTO rules and regs (a ruling the U.S. plans to appeal), the United States is complaining about Korean microchip subsidies.
In the steel tariff case, the operative words are: "...the WTO settlement body process is 'fundamentally broken'," and that the ruling is an "unalloyed [no pun intended?] assault on United States sovereignty."
In the microchip case, the operative words are: "DRAM makers in the United States may be injured by Korean subsidies."
A Newspeak Inside A Doublethink Wrapped In A Memory Hole
Not one week after the WTO issued an interim ruling finding U.S. tariffs on steel imports in breach of WTO rules and regs (a ruling the U.S. plans to appeal), the United States is complaining about Korean microchip subsidies.
In the steel tariff case, the operative words are: "...the WTO settlement body process is 'fundamentally broken'," and that the ruling is an "unalloyed [no pun intended?] assault on United States sovereignty."
In the microchip case, the operative words are: "DRAM makers in the United States may be injured by Korean subsidies."
Posted by Eddie Tews at 01:27 PM
| Comments (0)
Just in case you were hoping that we could get this current war over and done with, then get back to "normal", the Bush Administration would like to disabuse you of these preposterous fantasies. According to Condi Rice and John Bolton, the Bush Administration has placed an "extremely high priority" upon taking down Iran and North Korea, while Syria and Libya have also been singled out for their attempts to obtain Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Can they do it? It might seem, given that they've launched an illegal war upon Iraq which is opposed by 90% of the World's population, that the war-mongers are unstoppable. But as this blog has argued previously, and as The Guardian has reported even today, the Pentagon, having shocked 'n' awed Baghdad with thousands of them so far, is quickly running out of cruise missiles and JDAMs.
This has horrified the warriors, who, "always thinking at least one war ahead, are concerned that the US might use all its firepower in Iraq and not leave enough to deal with another possible threat."
Even setting aside the likely crumbling of the American guns 'n' butter 'n' tax cuts economy, we'll repeat our prediction that the Administration can't possibly launch another major war before next year's election simply on the grounds that it won't have the ammo.
If Bush is re-elected, or Lieberman is elected, or Ashcroft imposes martial law and calls off the election, or Bush's rigged voting machines proclaim him the victor; then, it could be lights-out for the human race.
All War, All The Time, All Over The World
Just in case you were hoping that we could get this current war over and done with, then get back to "normal", the Bush Administration would like to disabuse you of these preposterous fantasies. According to Condi Rice and John Bolton, the Bush Administration has placed an "extremely high priority" upon taking down Iran and North Korea, while Syria and Libya have also been singled out for their attempts to obtain Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Can they do it? It might seem, given that they've launched an illegal war upon Iraq which is opposed by 90% of the World's population, that the war-mongers are unstoppable. But as this blog has argued previously, and as The Guardian has reported even today, the Pentagon, having shocked 'n' awed Baghdad with thousands of them so far, is quickly running out of cruise missiles and JDAMs.
This has horrified the warriors, who, "always thinking at least one war ahead, are concerned that the US might use all its firepower in Iraq and not leave enough to deal with another possible threat."
Even setting aside the likely crumbling of the American guns 'n' butter 'n' tax cuts economy, we'll repeat our prediction that the Administration can't possibly launch another major war before next year's election simply on the grounds that it won't have the ammo.
If Bush is re-elected, or Lieberman is elected, or Ashcroft imposes martial law and calls off the election, or Bush's rigged voting machines proclaim him the victor; then, it could be lights-out for the human race.