|
|
 4 Oct 2002 @ 22:47
WSWS : News & Analysis : North America
New York Times urges “debate” to prepare war
By Bill Vann
5 October 2002
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
...The claim that the US is in imminent danger of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack from Iraq is a barefaced lie aimed at terrorizing the American public, and the Bush administration, the Democrats in Congress and the editors of the Times all know it. That is the reason that “no further debate is needed”—or allowable—on this issue.
There has been no debate whatsoever on the real aims of the US war drive—the seizure of Iraq’s oil wealth and the assertion of US global hegemony. Even mention of these long-standing strategic objectives is for the most part avoided through a rigorous self-censorship by the mass media. Instead, the public is fed a steady diet of “weapons of mass destruction” and the need to overthrow the “evil dictator.”
It is worth noting that the Times, just the day before this editorial appeared, did publish an article on the war’s potential impact on petroleum prices, the oil industry and the American capitalist economy in general.
“A market awash in Iraqi oil would mean lower prices—an economic boon to the United States, the world’s top consumer of oil,” the article noted. “As before the gulf war, there is a sharp debate about the extent to which oil is driving Washington’s policies toward Iraq,” it continued. “That would seem inevitable, given the potential of Iraqi oil fields. ‘It’s not about oil, but becomes about oil,’ said Lawrence J. Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation, a research group.”
When they say it’s not about the oil, it’s about the oil. But the gentlemen at the Times have no interest in opening up a debate on this predatory motive for the explosive development of US militarism. They are proposing only a discussion on the most effective tactical means to prepare a US invasion.
Thus, the editorial counsels Congress to “make clear its expectation that all diplomatic avenues be thoroughly explored,” and “emphasize the need for the broadest international unity.” In other words, the United Nations should be utilized in the preparation for war. This means following through on the provocations Washington has begun around the weapons inspection regime and securing a pseudo-legal justification for a war of unprovoked aggression.
The editorial suggests that the American public should be prepared for a level of slaughter that it has not experienced in generations. “There could be urban clashes like those Americans experienced in Somalia, but on a vastly larger scale,” the newspaper warns. “If Baghdad sees war as inevitable, it might launch a preemptive attack of its own as American forces are assembling in the region.”
Likewise, the Times advises, “Americans must think more seriously about the shape of postwar Iraq and the regional upheavals that could follow changes in Baghdad.... Reconstituting it as a democracy could take years and a substantial American commitment. At the same time, the neo-colonial nature of such an endeavor could produce a fierce backlash by Iraqis and others in the region.”
Which “Americans” must give more thought to a postwar Iraq? The Times editorialists write as if they were living in some ideal democratic society, with policies being hammered out at a town meeting. The nature of the regime that will be imposed on the Iraqis will be worked out in secret by a handful of gangsters at the top of the Bush administration working through the CIA and the military.
Inadvertently, however, the Times begins to let the cat out of the bag. A US invasion and occupation of Iraq would indeed constitute a “neo-colonial” endeavor. This effort will not be directed at “reconstituting” Iraq as a democracy. The objective of colonialism, today no less than 100 years ago, is to extract the wealth of the colonized territory in order to increase the profits and strengthen the geopolitical position of the colonizer.
Such a relationship will require a ruthless dictatorship. The British set the standard when they first occupied the territory of Iraq in the aftermath of World War I, sending in a Mesopotamia Expeditionary Force of some 100,000 troops. For over a decade, the British—who proclaimed that they were “civilizing” the Arabs, much as the Times today promises “democracy”—carried out punitive expeditions and aerial bombardments against villages deemed in revolt against colonial rule or for merely failing to pay their taxes.
Should the threat of massive casualties—both Iraqi and US—and the prospect of an open-ended military occupation of what will effectively become an American colony dissuade Washington from going to war? The Times editors make no such suggestion. Rather, they merely caution: “The likely consequences of war in Iraq extend far beyond November’s elections. The Congressional debate must be equally farsighted.”
Any such debate in Congress will be conducted within the narrow parameters of what serves the interests of the financial oligarchy that controls both political parties. It will in no way reflect the broad opposition and disquiet in relation to war that currently exists among the vast majority of working people in the US. They are the ones who will be forced to pay the price—both the deaths of working class youth used as cannon fodder and the vast sums to be spent on war as well as the economic dislocation that will inevitably result.
The necessity of a real farsighted debate is posed by the unity of Republicans and Democrats—from the right-wing ideologues of the Bush administration to the erstwhile liberals of the New York Times—behind war. That debate, over how war can be stopped, can only take place within the broad mass of the working population. A serious consideration of this life-and-death question points inexorably to the necessity of building a new, independent political movement of the working class fighting against war and militarism and for social equality
|
|
|
|
3 Oct 2002 @ 13:11
On War
For those of you who have ever wondered how the Nazis got away with what they did, the answer can be summed up simply…silence, obedience and denial….
From the net…
2. From: "Virginia Heick" vheick@netonecom.net
Subject: Making Connections... Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 "Civil disobedience is not our problem.
Our problem is civil obedience. [Paying taxes, pretending to be “politically correct-patriotic, participating in society, etc.] Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. . . Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running and robbing the country. That's our problem." - Howard Zinn ---
******
Global Military Expenditures 2002 Global military expenditures currently exceed $800 BILLION!
The top military spenders are:
United States $343.2 Billion
Russia* $60 China
$42 Japan
$40.4 United Kingdom
$34 Saudi Arabia $27.2
France $25.3
Germany $21
Brazil $17.9
India $15.6
Italy $15.5
South Korea $11.8
*Based on 2000 funding (most recent year available) Global Priorities For approximately 30% of Annual World Military Expenditures (~$810 billion),
all of the following could be accomplished
***: To Eliminate Starvation and Malnutrition ($19 billion)
To Provide Shelter ($21 billion)
To Remove Landmines ($4 billion)
To Build Democracy ($3 billion)
To Eliminate Nuclear Weapons ($7 billion)
To Refugee Relief ($5 billion)
To Eliminate Illiteracy ($5 billion)
To Provide Clean, Safe Water ($10 billion)
To Provide Health Care and AIDS Control ($21 billion)
To Stop Deforestation ($7 billion)
To Prevent Global Warming ($8 billion)
To Stabilize Population ($10.5 billion)
To Prevent Acid Rain ($8 billion)
To Provide Clean, Safe Energy: Energy Efficiency ($33 billion), Renewable Energy ($17 billion)
To Stop Ozone Depletion ($5 billion)
To Prevent Soil Erosion ($24 billion)
To Retire Developing Nations Debt ($30 billion)
For more information, please visit: [link] Sources: Center for Defense Information, Council for a Livable World, International Institute for Strategic Studies, US State Department, US Central Intelligence Agency
****
Phyllis Bennis, Fellow of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies, said the U.S. effort to win support in the Security Council is already leading to the kind of over-the-top bribes and threats that characterized the run-up to the passage of resolution 678 authorizing war against Iraq in 1990. At that time, she said, every impoverished country on the Security Council, including the former Zaire, Ethiopia and Colombia, was offered free or extra-cheap oil, courtesy of Saudi Arabia and the exiled Kuwaiti royals, orchestrated by the United States. Ethiopia and Colombia were also offered new arms packages, after years of being denied military aid, because of war and human rights violations, she added. The only two countries that voted against the 1990 resolution authorizing a war against Iraq were Cuba and Yemen. But minutes after Yemen said ''no'', the U.S. ambassador turned to the Yemeni diplomat in the Security Council chamber, and said: ''That will be the most expensive vote you would ever cast.'' Three days later, said Bennis, the U.S. cut its entire 70 million dollar aid budget to Yemen. <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> More >
|
|
|
|
 30 Sep 2002 @ 09:25
Dear NCN members,
In the last "poll" there was less than one percent response from our readership. I guess you could call this a "low voter turnout". So let's hear from the vast silent majority, as to what they have to say...
You can also write me directly in response to this vote at spellscaster9@yahoo.com
For those of you who care about unnecessary wars and killings, I recommend that you forward the below questionaire to everyone you know. Let's take some spiritual action to stop what could turn out to be World War III. The form is in duplicate for that purpose.
Love,
Sandi
The “Pre-emptive Strike” Vote
Let’s exercise the democratic process! Let’s take a vote.
After reading the two statements below, please indicate “yes” (I agree to all) or “no” (I don’t agree with all) of those statements, and then explain why, if you wish…
Statement #1;
It is “evil, unacceptable and criminal” to KNOWINGLY GIVE MONEY to fund a terrorist group, which kills thousands of innocent people in unprovoked attacks.
Statement #2;
It is “good, expected and patriotic” to KNOWINGLY PAY TAXES to fund your military, which kills millions of innocent people in unprovoked attacks.
YES
NO
COMMENTS; (optional)__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Replies may be sent to: spellscaster9@yahoo.com
The “Pre-emptive Strike” Vote
Let’s exercise the democratic process! Let’s take a vote.
After reading the two statements below, please indicate “yes” (I agree to all) or “no” (I don’t agree with all) of those statements, and then explain why, if you wish…
Statement #1;
It is “evil, unacceptable and criminal” to KNOWINGLY GIVE MONEY to fund a terrorist group, which kills thousands of innocent people in unprovoked attacks.
Statement #2;
It is “good, expected and patriotic” to KNOWINGLY PAY TAXES to fund your military, which kills millions of innocent people in unprovoked attacks.
YES
NO
COMMENTS; (optional)________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________Replies may be sent to: spellscaster9@yahoo.com
|
|
|
|
28 Sep 2002 @ 06:07
The “Pre-emptive Strike” Vote
Let’s exercise the democratic process! Let’s take a vote. Send this to your friends, and ask them to vote too!
After reading the two statements below, please indicate “yes” (I agree to all) or “no” (I don’t agree with all) of those statements, and then explain why, if you wish…
Statement #1; It is “evil, unacceptable and criminal” to KNOWINGLY GIVE MONEY to fund a terrorist group, which kills thousands of innocent people in unprovoked attacks.
Statement #2; It is “good, expected and patriotic” to KNOWINGLY PAY TAXES to fund your military, which kills millions of innocent people in unprovoked attacks. More >
|
|
|
|
17 Sep 2002 @ 17:04
"There’s been a lot of talk about attacking Iraq for
months, and yet another war is not far away. Why is
it we always seem to be in a state of war? The
“debate” rages on, not so much as to why we should
attack, or what right we have playing policeman, (or
God Almighty) to the rest of the world. We seem to
assume that the whole world is ours to do with as we
wish, while punishing those who dare to manage their
own affairs. We hear congressmen screaming for blood,
and a president who consults “legal advisors” as to
whether or not he can go to war without the approval
of congress. Of course, there is a high public
approval rating for all this, if the news is to be
believed. You know, it’s really fascinating to watch
such events with an attitude of detachment. If for
instance you had just arrived on this planet and knew
absolutely nothing about “the war on terror”, how
would you perceive the American attitude? Try that
mental exercise and see where it leads.
In any case, we’re told by the media that it is our
dire need to immediately attack Iraq in a
“pre-emptive strike”, before they attack us or anyone
else. Because Iraq possesses, or might possess,
“weapons of mass destruction” we should do away with
Saddam Hussein. Hmmm. I guess that means it’s OK for
us to attack them, since we are morally perfect in
every way. It’s our self-assigned role on this planet
to define right and wrong, after all. So while it
would be “evil” (i.e. George Bush‘s “axis of evil”)
for them to attack and kill us, it is “good” for us to
attack and kill them. When ’they” kill it’s called
“terrorism”…when we kill it’s called “establishing
democracy”. Continuing on this line of reasoning then,
it’s called “murder” if anybody else kills, but if we
do it, it’s called, “preventing murder”. Confused? I
should hope so. If this makes sense to you I suggest
you look up the word “hypocrisy“ in the dictionary..
Imagine if our legal system adopted this same
reasoning. Picture the police driving around shooting
and killing anyone on the street who, “looks like they
might commit a crime“ or who, “appears to have an
interest in buying a gun” thereby preventing murder,
rape and other atrocities.. “Justice” could then be
dispensed at the humble price of a bullet, rather than
messy court proceedings and the silly presentation of
evidence. If we have such a foreign policy, devoid of
all due process, UN approval or international court
proceedings, then why not adopt such a policy at home?
That seems to be where we’re headed. Everyone is
assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, assuming
that is, you are even allowed to see a lawyer behind
closed doors, after the police beat you when they’re
sure no one has a camera aimed in their direction.
Also, if by merely possessing or hoping to possess,
“weapons of mass destruction” a country deserves to be
bombed and occupied, then almost all the countries of
the world will have to be leveled flat. What about
Russia, Canada, China, France or Great Britain? Hey,
for that matter, what about US? Nobody has more of
these weapons than we do, and nobody has sold more of
them to other countries than we have. Oh, that’s
right, we can do that because we’re “God’s chosen”.
Isn’t this the official line? Well, what other excuse
can one offer?
We spend about 300 billion dollars a year on the
military budget, not counting the cost of wars and
preparations for war. This is far more than any
country, anywhere, in the history of this planet.
That’s enough to completely transform the environment
and world poverty, in one stroke. It’s not hard to
see where our priorities are.
Proud to be an American? Am I proud about the bombing
of Afghanistan or Iraq for weeks on end, and at the
cost of a billion dollars a day? No, mass murder is
not something I cherish, nor is it a hobby of mine.
I’m not convinced that the Afghan people had anything
to do with the events of 9-11. Nor am I convinced
that Iraq deserves to be singled out for execution, as
a “bad guy” with a black hat, amidst a sea of pearly
white morality the world over. And what’s this about
“IF” we go to war with Iraq? Don’t our warplanes bomb
Iraqi targets on a regular basis, even as we speak?"
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 Older entries >> |
|
|
A Newslog for those who seek Truth for the expansion of consciousness, knowledge, wisdom and the Highest Benefit for All. Leave your egoes at the door please! |
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|
| 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
| 8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
| 15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
| 22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
| 29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
Create your own News Log in your profile. |
|
