Dear cj et al,
I can't find words strong enough to express the horror and shame of this
cowardly and deadly game the US is playing in Iraq.
The callousness of those perpetrating this outrage, this pre-publicised
savaging of a population, beggars description. It would be different if
they actually feared Saddam, or even if they actually hated him, but they
don't. They couldn't care less. He's no worse than most of the dictators
the US supports and has supported on a regular basis for many decades, and
he's probably practiced no evils that aren't on the curriculum in Uncle
Sam's "School of the Americas".
They know the last thing on Saddam's mind is anthraxing his neighbors - his
concern has been getting his oil back on the market, getting the sanctions
lifted, getting his realm back on its feet. Even if Saddam is fully as
demented as the media tells us he is, he still knows enough not to invite
cruise missiles back to visit. He knows they can get himself this time if
they have a mind to.
He and all the Iraqis, and all the Iraqi children, as well as the whole
chain of US military command, are simply pawns in the game. The game, as
I've endeavored to establish in previous postings, is simply the
establishment of a new world order - a replacement of the sovereign-nation
international regime with a centrally controlled global regime.
Such a regime is precisely what is necessary to support globalization.
World economic planning has been centralized (WTO, IMF) and its policies
reflect one specific constituency, and one only: the capitalist elite. It
is natural and appropriate that a global policing regime be established
which is centrally controlled by the same elite.
In a federated system - which is what globalization is all about - it is
central _policing_ that is appropriate, not provincial _warfare_. If
Arizona, for example, is violating US federal law, one would not expect New
Mexico to launch an assault across the border to enforce discipline.
That's job for the Feds. And the knowledge of Federal power is what makes
the scenario one that never occurs. Or almost never - a concerted effort
was made _once_, but it's now gone with the wind.
What makes sense under globalization is for there to be an elite global
strike force that can enforce discipline without going through the
rigamarole and hoopla of a "war". One offending installation, one cruise
missile, one mention on the evening news - much like a crime report.
That's efficient law and order, global style. Conditioning the world to
that scenario is what the carnage in Iraq is all about, and has been all
about since the US first tricked Saddam into invading Kuwait.
Have I adequately characterized the cold, calculating monsters behind this
whole affair? Think of Hitler chuckling at SS films of concentration
camps, which he did, and you can get some idea of the mentality of those
who plan their weapons tests and engineeer their legal precedents while
concocting propaganda cover stories to sell to the masses. Will they lift
a champagne glass when the first air strikes begin? Will they be watching
satellite hooked-up video from the lead plane? Will they be chuckling at
Ted Koppel (He's still around isn't he? I don't get him in Ireland) as he
effects his serious demeanor and delivers his script ever so sincerely?
But the human story isn't up in Monster Olympia, it's down on the ground in
Iraq. Please allow me a one-paragraph diversion to make a certain
emotional point.
I just got back from seeing "Titanic". It is a _really_ brilliant film,
quite unexpected from such a high-budget product (I had fears of Spielberg
fare). After the old lady survivor tells her (incredible but very
satisfying) story, and the hardened salvage crew all have tears in their
eyes, the salvage chief says: "For three years my whole life has been the
Titanic, but I never let it _in_ before." That is, he never really let
himself FEEL the panic and suffering of the victims, the utter
helplessness, the lack of life boats, the failure of those in boats to help
those freezing to death in their life jackets.
There's a documentary by (former US Attorney General) Ramsey Clark (one of
those welome elite turncoats) that conveys the feeling that all of us
should be feeling at this moment - it's called "Nowhere to Hide". You
probably haven't seen it, for obvious reasons, but it was shot in Iraq soon
after Desert Storm and attempted to capture the helplessness and
vulnerability of the civilians who were subjected to endless night-time
terrorism, perpertrated by drug-hyped flyboys in multi-million dollar
machines and black outfits looking at computer imaging screens, pressing
joysticks, and swapping stories about target-rich missions and
butt-kicking. If that isn't the Evil Empire instantiated, the Klingons
made real, I don't know what else you could ask for.
This is the time to "let it in". To realize what it's all about on the
ground. To understand what a fuel-air explosion means if you're in the
vicinity. Or to appreciate what it means to find the scraps your starving
children have been playing with are deadly spent-plutonium shells. The
pictures were hidden from us. One photo of a charcoaled head leaning out
of a burned-out truck hulk, which made the press in Europe, was deleted
from the US news wires by some New York UPI editor.
You remember, surely, all those television replays of laser bombs striking
some X-marked building, presumably uninhabited during non-working hours.
But have you learned subsequently that 90% of the bombing was by
conventional B52's carpet bombing their target areas? Did you know that
military targets were of minimal concern, and that the main point was
simply to destroy the Iraqi national infrastructure?
With minor exceptions, the Iraqi military never left their bunkers. One US
pilot, in a press interview, said there wasn't any war, there was a
slaughter - "like a professional football team playing a primary-school
team". The gall(!) of the officers sitting around discussing "The Art of
Strategy", as if they were Alexander outfoxing Darius. What assholes.
Give them video games and send them home to play with themseleves to their
heart's content.
Do you remember the footage of all the squashed vehicles streaming out of
Kuwait? Like a stream of ants that had been sprayed with Raid, and then
stomped on? The voice-over told us the Iraqi military had commandeered
civilian vehicles. That turns out to be largely a lie. The military, for
the most part, had their own transport. Thousands of Palestinian
guest-workers and others, who were in some sense "liberated" by the Iraqi
invasion, feared for their lives with the expelling of Iraqi troops. It
was mainly civilians who were fleeing, and the US knew that.
I talked to a fellow who was there, and he said the orders were to kill
every single person who fled Kuwait city. First they bombed the roads with
their fuel-air explosions that make napalm look like a kid's firecracker.
Then they sortied back and fired rockets at individual vehicles that had
gone cross-country. Then they came back yet again and strafed people
running from the burning cars. Those clever young men in their flying
machines. Maybe they're only propandized pawns, but goddammit they're
responsible too, just as much as the SS troops who "only followed orders".
Lots more of this footage reached European audiences than reached American
audiences. For Americans it was to be a clean and glorious war, for
Europeans there was also a note of subliminal warning: don't cross Uncle
Sam, he's one mean son-of-a-bitch.
Did you read on page three the report of 3,000 Iraqi troops being buried
alive by bullozers? An "innovative tactic", said the officer being
interviewed. The troops, obviously, posed no military threat - but they
didn't surrender quickly enough, so they were fair game. Can you imagine
the outrage if a single GI were to be buried alive while undergoing
capture? How many Americans read that story without having their faith in
the whole game shattered? _That_ is what I call racism.
Did you hear about the "turkey-shoot" division? An armoured Iraqi division
that didn't surrender quickly enough? This was after the supposed cease
fire. With their depleted-Plutonium magic bullets the US Air Force
systematically destroyed every vehicle in the division, an exercise that
can only be described as target practice for the new stubby tank-killer
plane they were field testing.
Sorry to go on for so long, I don't mean to be repetitive, but you've got
to understand that this is serious crime-against-humanity bullshit. If
history were to be written by the victims, it is you and I who would be the
silent Good Germans; it is our leaders who would be on the dock at
Nurenberg; it is you and I who would need to invent stories for our
children and grandchildren about how we hadn't been part of it.
---At this point, I can think of only one effective counter tactic for people- who-give-a-damn to apply against the horrendous course of events. That would be for plane-loads of people from the US, the UK, and Germany (the Knights on the rampage) to make their way to Baghdad with battery-powered short-wave transmitters, establish contact with various publicity venues world wide, and thereby link arms in solidarity with the innocent civilians of Iraq. Sort of like the folks who put up Anne Frank. Funny how we remember her name, and not theirs. I don't mean to put anyone in danger as a voluntary hostage, but rather hope by this suggestion that innocent lives might be saved.
---Below are some very recent publications that I'd like to share. The first two are particularly thoughtful analyses of the Iraqi situation by gentlemen I don't always agree with, but in this case whom I heartily endorse. Following that are clips from some recent publications that claim to have insider knowledge of US tactics and timing. I can't vouch for their validity, but I'd give them more weight than anything you'll see on television, and I'd keep what they say in mind as events unfold.
rkm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 From: Gunder Frank <agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca> To: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu> Subject: Iraq in Columbus, Washington, New York et al X-Cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>,
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-<snip>-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
The fact is that the whole Iraq thing has been a US run and manged show from the very beginning, which already in 1990- 1991 violated at least a half dozen sections of the UN Charter and which its then Secretary Genral Perez de Cuellar denounced as being 'not a UN war but a US war." That was one of its most troubling aspects already then, and a fortiori it is now that 3 permanent members of the Security Council are opposed, not to mention most of the rest of the world including the US allies. At it has been one of the most troubling aspects of the 'debate', including especially the town meeting yesterday in Colombus, that the vital issue of US vs. UN is never even raised.
CNN [which after President Bush, whom it just interviewd egain to drum up support for war] already was the worst war monger in 1990, is at it again including its sponsorship and airing of the Columbus spectacle. Note that CNN showed in its opinion poll citations - and the discussants at Ohio State talked about - US opinion ONLY, as thought that were all that matters. Even the US sabre/missile [not to mention nuclear] rattling is in violation of the UN Charter.
Any use of force by one or more member states against another violates the very UN Charter Article 42 and various of its sections under whose cover resolution 678 about 'all necessary means' was made in 1990 and used to make war in 1991. Since according to the Charter
- 1. before these means are used, several sections of Articles 41 and 42 are to be complied with that were not last time around and even less this time [only one of which is to also satisfy Article 27 Clause 3 that requires athat all five permanent members of the Security Council must cast an AFFIRMATIVE vote, which they failed to do last time and certainly will not do this time]
- 2. It is the Security Council that must DECIDE if and when what means are necessary, and no member state can decide that on its own within the Charter, but the US does not want even a Security Council meeting, since it knows that it would veto US policy, and
-3. It is the United Nations under its Charter, and NOT any member state/s, that must implement any such Security Council decision, which was not done in 1991, and is not even contemplated this time, vide that there has been NO mention of the Security Council deciding anything or the UN doing anything or not and any US [and or UK or any other member] decision to act violently against another member state is in total VIOLATION of the UN Charter, no matter what resolutions may have been passed by the Security Council even if there were such a resolution, which there is not [and that is why US argues that the old resolution 678 which violated international law then is still in force [not to mention il/legal] now -precisely because the US knows that it can no longer ram through any similar resolution now].
4. so the entire 'debate' is beside the point of the UN and outside of international law and the UN. The US government spokesmen' and women's 'appeal' to any and all UN resolutions as an alledged cover for US policy is nothing more than the height of cynicism and alas the denigration of the very UN whose mantle the US seeks to use.
So whether the US Congress and/or public supports or not military action vs Iraq is totally beside the point of the respect for and implementation of international law and the UN Charter, to which the US formally subscribes while it actively circumvents and emasculates it [and does not even PAY for it!] [another very significant case was the transfer of decision making about the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia from the UN Security Council to NATO].
Now the transfer of world decision and military action is to be simply to the White House, with or without congressional War Act approval [which makes even the US constitutionality more than dubious] - and the total DISregard for all UN Charter and international conventions, which no longer even receive any public mention in Columbus, Washington, the media or anywhere.
Beyond the long suffering people of Iraq, it is the people of the whole world, including those of the United States, that do and will SUFFER this loss of international law, which is as great as the deadly silence about it.
respectfully submitted andre gunder frank
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Feb. 19, 1998 From: margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com To: foreignc@foreigncorrespondent.com Subject: ForeignCorrespondent ONWARD, CLINTON SOLDIERS!
Foreign Correspondent
Inside Track On World News By International Syndicated Columnist & Broadcaster Eric Margolis <margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com>
,,ggddY"""Ybbgg,, ,agd888b,_ "Y8, ___`""Ybga, ,gdP""88888888baa,.""8b "888g, ,dP" ]888888888P' "Y `888Yb, ,dP" ,88888888P" db, "8P""Yb, ,8" ,888888888b, d8888a "8, ,8' d88888888888,88P"' a, `8, ,8' 88888888888888PP" "" `8, d' I88888888888P" `b 8 `8"88P""Y8P' 8 8 Y 8[ _ " 8 8 "Y8d8b "Y a 8 8 `""8d, __ 8 Y, `"8bd888b, ,P `8, ,d8888888baaa ,8' `8, 888888888888' ,8' `8a "8888888888I a8' `Yba `Y8888888P' adP' "Yba `888888P' adY" `"Yba, d8888P" ,adP"' `"Y8baa, ,d888P,ad8P"' ``""YYba8888P""''
ONWARD, CLINTON SOLDIERS! by Eric Margolis February 19, 1998
NEW YORK - Two fascinating events this week.
First, presidential spokesman Mike McCurry floated a trial balloon by suggesting the truth about the Lewinsky 'affaire' was a "complicated story." McCurry later claimed he "misspoke." But this was clearly step one in an eventual admission by President Clinton that he did, in spite of all his denials, have an 'affaire' with the young intern.
Second, faced with worldwide criticism over what he hoped to gain by attacking Iraq, President Clinton admitted air strikes, likely to begin next Wednesday or Thursday, would only "seriously diminish" the threats he claims Saddam poses. Call it, War-Lite.
This tricky Clinton-speak - akin to "I do not NOW have a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky" - left everyone scratching their heads. What do weasel words, "seriously diminish," mean? Clinton was obviously lowering expectations in case the attack produces nothing more than piles of dead Iraqi civilians and demolished buildings. But is "seriously diminishing" worth the couple of billions of taxpayers dollars the campaign against Iraq is costing, or American lives?
Former CIA analyst Tony Cordesman, America's leading military expert on Iraq, predicted Tuesday air strikes would not eliminate Iraq's ability to produce chemical or bio weapons. What, he asked, would 4,000 air strikes accomplish that 40,000 failed to do so in 1991?
President Husni Mubarak of Egypt warns attacking Iraq will ignite anti-American rage across the Mideast, gravely endanger pro-US regimes in the region, and turn Saddam into a hero. Syria, a foe of Iraq, also opposes strikes.
A senior diplomat from an important Arab ally of the US, who knows President Hussein well, tells me: "Saddam is a stupid thug, an embarrassment to the Arab World. But America is behaving as stupidly as Saddam. We can't sit back any longer and see the Iraqi people tortured. Only Israel benefits from this horrible mess."
A majority of the permanent members of the UN Security Council opposes attacking Iraq. So do the Pope, the Non-Aligned Nations, a majority of the UN General Assembly, the Arab League. Stripped of the fig-leaf of UN support, the US now claims the attack is justified by "America's self-interest." Translation: might makes right.
But where is it written only America has the right to police the Mideast? For perspective, consider the following shoe-on-the-other-foot scenario:
The Mideast is in Russia's backyard, not America's. Russia announces it will no longer tolerate Israel's ongoing violation of Security Council resolutions to (a.) withdraw from Israeli-occupied Southern Lebanon, and (b.) cease building illegal Jewish settlements on occupied Arab territory.
Russia demands Israel open its massive nuclear, chemical and biological weapons facilities to thorough international inspection, something Israel has persistently refused to do, and dismantle missiles with nuclear warheads pointed at Russia. Moscow delivers an ultimatum: either comply with Security Council resolutions and eliminate your weapons of mass destruction - as the US now demands of Iraq - or face air and missile attack.
Outrageous, of course. But this is precisely how many nations, and certainly the Arab World, feel towards America's threats to further savage Iraq. Besides, once the latest "surgical" bombing is over, Iraq will likely expel all UN weapons inspectors, ending any hope of effective supervision. If he survives, Saddam will proclaim another great victory.
Interestingly, Iran, the only nation to actually suffer chemical attack by Iraq, bitterly opposes America's latest crusade. This week, Bahrain joined Saudi Arabia by refusing to allow its air bases to be used to attack Iraq. Only the disco-loving Kuwaitis firmly back the US.
Clinton's military half-measures will make Americans feel good, and certainly divert attention from the Lewinsky case, which looks to go critical in the coming weeks. Most revealingly, White House spokesmen now argue the attack is needed to "maintain the credibility of the Clinton Administration." At last. The truth.
Copyright: E. Margolis, February 1998
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
To receive Foreign Correspondent via email send a note to majordomo@foreigncorrespondent.com with the message in the body: subscribe foreignc To get off the list, send to the same address but write: unsubscribe foreignc WWW: www.bigeye.com/foreignc.htm For Syndication Information please contact: Email: margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com FAX: (416) 960-4803 Smail: Eric Margolis c/o Editorial Department The Toronto Sun 333 King St. East Toronto Ontario Canada M5A 3X5
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Friday 13 February 1998, London-UK [SRTV-i0255-00004]
From: Parveez Syed Global Media Monitoring Unit Shanti Communications One Stuart Road, Thornton Heath, Surrey CR7 8RA1 UK Telephone: London-UK 44-0831-196693 E-Mail INTERNET: PARVEEZ@CR78RA1UK.WIN-UK.NET
Copyright 1998 by Shanti Communications news agency.
Clinton-Blair jingoism to provoke mass killings by Parveez Syed (c) Shanti RTV news agency
LONDON-UK (SC-SRTV) - US president Bill Clinton is ready to launch upto ninety Scuds on Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to help US justify bombing Iraq, a Western intelligence source told Shanti RTV news agency.
"Upto ninety unarmed and some 'loaded' Scuds would be fired from the US bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan. The Scuds would be aimed at Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They would give Clinton the pretext needed to bomb and kill Iraq civilians," the source told Shanti RTV news agency. "The 'friendly fire' has the full covert support of top US, British and the Israeli officials. The Scuds were captured by the US forces in the 1991 assault on Iraq, and covertly tranported to a number of US bases and secret sites in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel, Jordon and Turkey. The US-UK pretext and its subversion of the UN is set to provoke endless mass killings," the source explained.
The Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz has affirmed that Iraq has no intention of attacking Israel. Aziz said Iraq will only attack countries that attack Iraq. "We don't have any plans or intentions to strike against anybody except an aggressor inside our territory," Aziz confirmed.
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-<snip>-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
"Fax attack the British war efforts," [British Labour MP] Galloway said. "Send your faxes before they switch them off," he said. British prime minister Phony Flair MP on 0044-171-930-2144; British foreign secretary Robin Cock MP on 0044-171-270-2144; British state minister Derek Hatchet MP on 0044-171-270-3731; British defence secretary Georgie Robertsony MP on 0044-171-218-7140.
ends Presented by: Shanti RTV (c) 13 February 1998.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 From: jslakov@TartanNET.ns.ca (Jan Slakov) Subject: fwd from IWW re: Iraq
Hi Richard, Feb. 18
From: "Janet M. Eaton" <jeaton@fox.nstn.ca> To: jslakov@tartannet.ns.ca Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 Subject: (Fwd) The Iraqui Situation (fwd)
------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 From: MichaelP <papadop@peak.org> To: unlikely.suspects:; Subject: The Iraqui Situation (fwd)
In the department of rumor mongering - this fwd at least carries a hint of credibility, namely that a suprise bombing has been set for a time where the UN Secretary is likely to be still negotiating under terms set by the perm. members of the security council. Of course, Clinton's statement that the results of the negotiation must also pass US scrutiny, over and beyond what the Security Council may have agreed to, is one which sounds like NOTHING negotiated can possibly pass that scrutiny. As to the stated date of prospective attack, is it relevant that the US Congress is scheduled to debate its "Senate Conc.Res. 71" after return from recess, with a vote expected in the week beginning Feb 22?
At least we have a few days to mail the congress.
And remember the Tonkin Gulf resolution to support Lyndon Johnson's military objectives was a response to fake reports of North VietNam bellicosity.
Michael P ==================================== Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 From: "David Brock (RevDrDB2)" <dgb2a@frank.mtsu.edu> To: iww-news@iww.org
Fellow Workers,
Here is a portion of an interesting email I received from a friend of mine that is a member of our socialist workers group. I think that everyone will find this quite intriguing. After all of the talk of "diplomacy" in the Iraq situation, this angered me quite a bit. We have organized a large protest at the Federal Building in Nashville to coincide with the visit of Clinton stooge Madeline Albright, who will be visiting Nashville to sell the war. I think everyone will be horrified...
-=-=-=-=-=-=~-<snip>-~=-=-=-=-=-=-
Subject: Re: Protest Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 From: Roland K Frye <fola001e@frank.mtsu.edu>
"I talked to my girlfriend, who is in Kuwait. She told me that the US plans to bomb Iraq at 500am Mon. 23. This is Sunday at 200pm our time. She said that the citizens of Kuwait have been told to give them time to prepare and were given instructions on the guidelines in case of a chemical attack. She also said that the the company that she works for (A British company) are evacuating all American and British nationals..."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~ Posted by: Richard K. Moore | PO Box 26, Wexford, Ireland rkmoore@iol.ie | www.iol.ie/~rkmoore/cyberjournal * Non-commercial republication encouraged - with this sig * ~=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
To leave cyberjournal, simply send (from the account at which you're subscribed): To: listserv@cpsr.org Subject: (ignored) --- unsub cyberjournal
To join cyberjournal, simply send: To: listserv@cpsr.org Subject: (ignored) --- sub cyberjournal John Q. Doe <-- your name there