>Once again the US is beating the war drums against Iraq. What does this
>signify? I wonder how many of you would respond that it's a matter of
>Clinton trying to distract attention from his personal scandals? I
wonder
>how many would suggest that opposition by other countries indicates a
>turning of the tide against US interventionism? I wonder how many feel
>that Iraq deserves to be attacked? I ask anyone who answered yes to any
of
>these questions to think again.
This time around, I am only thinking, since i dont know anything more
than what i see on TV - and a couple of e-mail things.But last time
around I DID know something, since i spent much work on reading/writing
about it then [its somewhere on wsn or psn archives]. and that 'informs'
my 'thinking' now.
I dont know what to think about the Wash scandal except that it IS a
scandal to make a scandal. whether/how that bears on Iraq, I dunno, but
1. people being against the attack - they were last time too. the entire
political and MILITARY [including chieff of staff] establishment was
AGAINST. In fact, 7 our of 8 of the previous secretaries of defense came
out AGAINST. The congress and public was AGAINST. THAT is why Bush
delayed announcement of sending more troops until 2 days AFTER the
congressional elections, although the decision was made the week before
[indeed HIS decision to go to war was made on Aug 7, that 5 days after the
invasion]. that is also why he said the troops were 'only replacements' to
rotate when he knew that they were to DOUBLE the number.
2. that is also why the crucial Security Council resolution was rammed
through and deliberatly worded so ambiguously, to shore up Bush's war.
3. the Congress and US public did not come around until the day the bombs
started dropping, that is when they were faced with a fait acompli that
hoodwinked the Congress and public.
and it was done despite at least 7 public international Iraqi and other
concessions/attempts to negotiate an avoidance of war
4. There was a RECESSION and Bush popularity was down, and this was an
clearly electoral attempt to shore it back up [same as Maggie Thacher who
advised him between Aug 2 and 7 when she was in Wash DC, who started the
Falklands/Malvians War for the same reason just when negotiations in Lima
threatend to de-fuse the war- it woreked for Maggue but not for Bush].
But in the US, EVERY recession since WWII
generated military escalation. so did this one.
[now is not a recession - although the Asian one threatens to arrive
soon in the US also , and Clinton is not running for re-election]
4.Even then, but of course the US Congress and people dont care or even
know about that, it was a US war and NOT a UN war. Not only did the UN
Secretary General SAY so publically, but at least 7 different Sections of
the UN Charter were VIOLATED by this US war. Perez de Cuellar SHOULD have
resigned].
That time China abstained and USSR voted yes because it was in an economic
bind to the US. France voted yes, becaus of Mittreran [ his defense
minister resigned]. If France had voted no or even abstained, USSR could
have abstained at least and China could have voted NO, and scotched the UN
resultion that Bush used.
This time all three are against, and a similar UN resultion is not
possible [never mind being vs the UN charter]. That is why the US is
arguing that the previous 1990 resolution is still in force and enough for
it to act on legally. But it was NOT legal last time, and it is even LESS
legal now. This issue is not even raised anywhere in/by the US press,
which only asks if 'the American people' are for or against this war.
Under the UN charter, it is not for the American people or even the
American president to decide what the UN should do or not, or even what
the US can do in the UN's name. The Security Council must DIRECT any war,
not a member state [its even more complicated in the charter, thats why
the war violoated 7 sections, and not just one].
5. The last time ,apart from the terrible damage to the Iraqi people,
and to South Asians kicked out of nearby areas,the Palestine/Israel
problem [again a boost to diversiionary war] etc. etc. three of the most
terrible tning about that war were
a. the violation and abuse of the UN, a bad one but the only one we got
b. the de facto if not de jure violation of the American constitution
/war act etc.
c. the undercutting of social movements around the world, including the
womens movement.
6. A RELATIVELY minor matter was the 99.44/100 percent pure brain-washng
of the public by the media, and especially by CNN [CNN war],, including
about the great weapons, like the patriotic PATRIOT. It was a total
failure, despite being toutet as such a great thing. moreover only 7
percent of all bombs were 'smart' bombs [the other 93 were too dumb to be
mentioned] and only half of that 7 percent even reached their targets.
7. what WAS successful was the use of DEPLETED URANIUM as ammuniton
heads. That has caused untold cancer in Iraq and is the most unmentioned
probable cause of the "Gulf War Syndrome" among the allies.
8. That is STILL on the warheads, or at least no one has said that it has
been taken off. on the other hand, there have been technological
'advances' in other weapons and their guidance systems. This time there
does seem to be military support/pressure for making a war to 'test' them
out, but not to send troops in!
[if you dont know where the alleged chemical/biological weapns are,
then of coursse accurate guidance is not enough to pinpoint them either.
but no matter, you can pin-point any place and see if it works].
Or is it that the UN=US inspectores HAVE found some places? ...
and the US wants to bomb these with the new penetration bombs the military
wants to test and that were not available last time around.
9. One of the problems the last time arond was that the recession reduced
demand and price for oil. and it remained low for a while, so the embargo
on Iraq = oil was made and continued.
But when a couple of years ago during the recovery the price of oil rose
and gas price at the pump in the US shot up, the embargo was immediately
lightened to let Iraq export more oil!
NOW gas prices have fallen all over, because the recesision in Asia has
reduced world demand there and EL Nin~o has reduced demand for fuel oil
etc in North America. What better time to DO something to bolster oil
prices? what better way to do so than start a war? - even if the recession
is not world wide yet and Clinton cannot run for re-election no matter
what w/y/x/z gate.
Whatever is going on, the only thing we can know for sure is that what we
are TOLD about it is NOT it.
Like Napoleon, I apologize for having lacked them time to write a short
letter or to think faster.
gunder frank
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andre Gunder Frank
University of Toronto
96 Asquith Ave Tel. 1 416 972-0616
Toronto, ON Fax. 1 416 972-0071
CANADA M4W 1J8 Email agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca
My home Page is at: http://www.whc.neu.edu/whc/resrch&curric/gunder.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~