|
|||||||||
Posted April 2, 2003
Shock
The campaign of "Shock and Awe" appears to have been designed to shock the Iraqis into submission and to awe any potential adversities to the United States. It was surely also designed to also show those pesky French, Russians and Germans who really was top dog with an unparalleled show of raw military might.
Paradoxically, this tactic appears to have done exactly the opposite. Not only have Iraqis fought back bravely, but the rest of the world has been treated to a live spectacle of American political and military incompetence. The United States has already wasted more in "precision" weapons in 12 days of war than the entire annual Iraqi military budget. Iraq was supposed to be a fourth rate military, and has been subject to 12 years of continuous Anglo-American bombing and sanctions and not yet recovered from two devastating wars in the 1980s and 1991. Yet the Iraqis are fighting back and halting the progress of a $300 Billion a year military superpower.
British troops are now more worried that they may be killed by Americans rather than their enemy. What does this say about American military superiority?
The alleged neoconservative plan vis a vis Iraq the Middle East and the rest of the world must surely now be questioned. If Iran, Syria and North Korea are next on Rumsfeld and Co.'s hitlist, how much more poorly will the United States fare in these countries that are militarily much more powerful than Iraq? In the former two cases, the people also do not hate their leaders as much as Iraqis hate Saddam. It is also my own personal feeling that Saudi Arabia, a Sunni nation like Pakistan (but rolling in cash) probably has a few Pakistani nukes hidden somewhere, just in case American tanks do a U-run and head towards Riyadh.
I would urge all those Americans who actually love their country to do as much as they can to halt the stupidity of their leaders. I do not want to see an American empire McDonaldising the rest of the world, but neither do I want to see a world so radicalised that it becomes full of Osama Bin Laden clones or a United States so weakened as to bring down the rest of the world with it.
~ Neil Lowrie, IPTME, Loughborough University, UK
Regarding Sam Koritz's and Eric Garris's replies to Scott Albers' letter posted March 27, and follow-up letters and replies posted March 30:
Sure, dry-drunk Bush is "responsible" for what he does, with or without his arms being twisted. And the Christian fundamentalists are "responsible" too, though none of them are directing foreign policy from the White House.
To tell your readers that you didn't cover the Corrie matter, and the general context (for example, the Israelis not issuing gas masks to Palestinians and protesters) because you were just to busy covering "the war" is ridiculous.
Mr. Koritz, you are deceptive, apparently trying to build or placate your pro-Israel faction, and have lost me as a reader.
Sam Koritz replies:
I.W. does not seem to have been much of a reader of Antiwar.com in the first place. Had he (I'll assume maleness for simplicity's sake) read even the replies he claims to be objecting to he would know that I did not comment on the "Corrie matter" and that Antiwar.com did cover it. Also, as I explained to I.W.'s friend M. McCormick, "Choosing news links, such as the Rachel Corrie story, is not my department."
I understand the distinction you are making between the formulation of U.S. foreign policy and the influence on this formulation by Israeli/US Zionist/Neo-con-Likudnik nexus. You are right, America is to blame for her own foreign policy. We can't blame Israel for dictating it. However, as history reveals and present conditions reflect, the very fact of the "State of Israel" has shaped and continues to shape US foreign policy in the Mideast. You might say there is a bias in behalf of Israel in Washington D.C.?
I also agree with your solution: pull out American troops and bring them home where they belong according to the US Constitution; cancel all US foreign aid of the Israeli war machine as well as to the other nations in the region, and go to free trade. Unfortunately, this leaves the Palestinian problem simmering, which was indirectly caused by our interventionism in behalf of Israel in 1948, in the first place.
I thank you and the rest of the Antiwar staff for the fine job being done to give us viewers a well rounded perspective of this horrible affair and the opportunity to express our opinions.
"(Incidentally, the US government has given billions not trillions of dollars to Israel.)"
I quote one of your remarks in today's Backtalk.
Here is what leading economist Thomas Stauffer says, according to Charley Reese:
"The Christian Science Monitor published in its Dec. 9 edition a story about Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist, who said recently that the total cost of US support for Israel since 1973 is $1.6 trillion, or twice the cost of the Vietnam War.
"This is relevant because the Israelis have just demanded from the US taxpayers another $4 billion to cover the cost of their oppression of the Palestinians as well as an $8 billion loan guarantee."
With regard to your various replies on the subject and the distinctions you make therein, with all due respect I believe you continue to be evasive. For example, I didn't say in my email to you that you "deny" Israel's third-party status, I said you downplay it. You do. Israel, not only the state but its citizens in the US who are in high places in American government, have very aggressively promoted this war and are hell-bent on promoting more wars. US politicians are responsible for kowtowing to the ambitions of a foreign power (though to use the word "responsible" in connection with them may be absurd), but Israel is a primary director, covertly and overtly. But especially covertly, "by means of deception."
Sam Koritz replies:
The article you're referencing states that "Israel has been given $240 billion ...," which supports my contention that "the US government has given billions not trillions of dollars to Israel." (A trillion is a thousand times larger than a billion.)
Even this $240 billion figure is questionable. Try this for yourself. Go to Google and put in relevant keywords, like aid, US, Israel; then randomly pick a couple of Palestinian websites. When I did this I came up with The Palestine Monitor, which claims that the US has funded Israel to the tune of $150 billion, since 1949. The Palestine Right to Return Coalition says that Israel receives over $3 billion dollars per year (at that rate it would take 600 years for the US to pay Israel $2 trillion).
How does the economist, Mr. Stauffer, derive the figure of $1.6 trillion as the cost of US support for Israel? By including (among other questionable costs):
- $117 billion given to Egypt and $22 billion given to Jordan "for signing a peace treaty with Israel."
- $420 billion of reduced US (not US government) output during the mid-'70s recession.
- $450 billion in cost due to raised oil prices.
- $134 billion for the creation of a US oil reserve.
This claim of $1.6 trillion in societal (not governmental) cost depends on a number of assumptions:
- That the bribes to Egypt and Jordan were given entirely on behalf of Israel, rather than being at least partly attributable to the common hegemonic tactic (see Gibbon's Decline and Fall) of extending and defending influence through reward and punishment.
- That the mid-1970s recession was caused exclusively by the Arab oil embargo, rather than being at least partly attributable to Vietnam War costs and domestic economic structural problems.
- That the creation of the US oil reserve was exclusively caused by the effects of US support for Israel and that it provided no benefit to Americans.
The Stauffer analysis ignores the context of all these costs: a little thing called the the Cold War. Nixon, no lover of Israel, began the massive funding of that country in an attempt to neutralize Soviet-backed Egypt. The age-old tactic of punishment (Israel) and reward (bribes) was successfully applied and Egypt tilted into the US camp.
Of course billions of dollars in military aid is billions of dollars too much; we have logically defensible arguments for this position and are not helped by exaggeration.
As for Israel's "third-party status," you're right: you accused me of downplaying it, not of denying it – and no doubt by your standards I do downplay it.
Peter Arnett
The firing/censorship of Peter Arnett is such an outrage I suggest all well-meaning people begin a boycott of NBC and GE products. (Much as I will miss Conan, I can do without that warmonger Leno.) Following is an email I sent to NBC:
"The firing of Peter Arnett for simply stating the obvious will go down as one of the worst examples of press censorship of all time. In response I am going to boycott all NBC programs and all GE products until Mr. Arnett is reinstated. And I am going to do all I can to get other people who believe in civil liberties (and I know quite a few – even in this climate!) to do the same. Correction: I may tape some programs to determine the identity of the sponsors so I can write to them and tell them why I may take my business elsewhere. Blacklists work both ways. You think you're suffering from the recession now!"
Civil disobedience in the streets is counterproductive. But boycotts like this can be effective. We especially must nip in the bud the chilling effect this firing might cause on the other journalists.
~ Douglas H. Binkley, Chicago, Illinois
Small Numbers
The war seems to be going very well, if you look at the numbers of people we have over there and the small numbers killed, that same number statistically would have died in accidents if they would have been home. That is how you fight a war.
Regarding "On the Middle East Escalator" by Justin Raimondo:
I don't know how serious you are in your comment about "the old one-two-three punch", but consider that Iran is a country of over 600,000 square miles, much of it mountains and deserts, with a population of 70,000,000, and a strong central government that can probably field at least half a million soldiers. I think any war against Iran would be extremely bloody, and last for years, not months. The forces we have now might not be able to win.
One big point on which I disagree with you, however, is this: as Srdja Trifkovic says in his book on Islam, we are in a religious war with Islam, whether the modern irreligious people who rule us like it or not. ... I don't know what part the government of Saudi Arabia had in the atrocity of September 11, 2001, and I don't know that we will ever find out. But we can't pretend that they are our friends, or that we ought to continue our suicidal policies, which include, among other things, letting large numbers of Moslems visit and immigrate to the United States.
I think Justin should really go on the offensive with the ADL. While the notion of forming an organization to confront problems of discrimination and racism is a worthy cause I think the ADL has become more than that. Maybe Abe Foxman can give an explanation of this little reported event in San Francisco in the early 1990s. [See "Jewish defense group settles S.F. spying suit."]
Abe Foxman is quoted often in the Haaretz and other daily papers about how American policy should be towards Israel and what is acceptable to Israel. When you start dictating foreign policy you have crossed the line from a civil rights group to a promoter of foreign interests. Plain and simple.
The fact that other Jews and even Israelis themselves point out the influence of pro-Israel Zionists organizations makes Foxman's attempt to discredit Justin a good old fashioned smear job.
Keep it up Justin!
Just a tip on framing the issue of Israel: I think it is correct and more effective to describe Israel and Zionist Jews as "pawns" of more powerful interests.
Zionism itself was nurtured since the days of the Balfour Declaration – airdropped over Russian Jewish shtetls with strong anti-Czar leanings – as part of an effort to redirect the antiCzarist energy into something less threatening to the Anglo-American-Czarist alliance. (Balfour and Churchill saw that Jews were at the forefront in the struggle against Czarism and had to be steered into the dead end of Zionism otherwise if successful they would overthrow the Czar and take Russia out of World War I, which is exactly what happened.)
Churchill went further and saw how relocating Jews to the Middle East under British tutelage would provide them their usual isolated dependent minority quite useful for colonial management of a region.
As you may have guessed I am Jewish and have had to face the opprobrium of being certified as "self-hating." Since it is clear that Jews are not a monolithic organism, but are riven by numerous outlooks, it follows that the equation of Zionism = Judaism reflects that one strata has usurped monopoly privilege to speak on behalf of all Jews.
For decades there was spirited debate among Jews on whether Zionism was appropriate. Noted intellectuals like Martin Buber were vociferous in advocating a radical diaspora strategy for preserving the people by strenuously fighting for world freedom in whichever countries they lived. They noted the inherent dangers involved in displacing another people, and the increase of vulnerability when concentrating a small people in a small territory, difficult to defend. This is of course, is even more true in times of WMD.
I am proud to be part of a tradition of Jewish fighters for social justice running from Marx and Emma Goldman to Noam Chomsky.
And as a Jew who speaks both Hebrew and some Arabic, who was bar mitzvahed and traveled to Israel I have a very simple slogan for all to adopt: One Person, One Vote, One State for the Whole Middle East.
Just a few quick comments. I enjoy reading your articles and website immensely. Your work always seems quite fresh, insightful, and timely.
This is a difficult time for most people who are against unlawful and unbiblical war.
Your connection between the dispensationalist position and Zionist movement is on target. It is a dangerous heresy. It is linked to a Jesuit priest in the 16th century, though I do not have the reference before me now, began to develop more broadly in the 18th century, and has been promulgated in the English-speaking and Western nations since the mid-1800s through Darby, a lawyer in Ireland, and Scofield an unusual individual and dubious but popular minister in Texas who developed the Scofield Bible, after six or so years in Switzerland working on it. It was printed by the Oxford Press. (Follow the money). Of course in our times Dallas Theological Seminary and Hal Lindsey have been the strong propagators of these views.
However, all Christians are not to be lumped in with this group. There are those who believe that the book of Revelation applies not primarily to the future but to the past when the nation of Israel fell under God's total judgment in 70 AD. (Four excellent books on this subject are: The Days of Vengeance by David Chilton, Dominion Press, Tyler, TX, 1987; House Divided, Bahnsen and Gentry, 1989; He Shall Have Dominion, Gentry, 1992, and Prophecy and the Church, Allis, 1945.) Prophets were not primarily foretellers they were forthtellers – though they did both. They acted as God's advocates or lawyers. When the Covenant had been broken, God would send them forth to warn the people of their gross sins and of judgment to come.
Furthermore, these Christians believe that people of God are not two-tiered but rather one people. Israel (spiritually speaking not geographically) is the church of God and is made up of those, from every nation, tribe and tongue, who have the faith of Abraham, in Jesus Christ, the Messiah, who was the blessing to come. This blessing was sent out by the Apostles to all nations with the Ascension of Christ to heaven, where he is now sitting upon his throne, ruling over the nations (Ps. 2 & 110), and putting all nations under his feet (I Cor. 15:24-28), after which the new heavens and new earth will be consummated.
Unfortunately these dispensational Christians, many who are ignorant of the ramifications of their views, think it is the Zionist Jews who will rule over the nations with a "rod of iron"; rather than the second person of the Trinity. I believe it was Tom Clancey who had a dispensational President in his book, Sum of All Fears.
It is doubtful in my own mind that Bush is a Christian being a member of Skull and Bones, Bohemian Grove, and having no problem with breaking the fundamental law of the land, the Constitution, and the 10 commandments, especially the 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th – not to mention the 1st and 2nd. He is simply a ruthless pawn in the hands of the mighty Nimrods who have an insatiable appetite for wealth, power, and eternity. The world is not enough for them. They are the enlightened elite.
But in spite of these types the Triune God rules and he will destroy the wicked, ruthless people and nations with his rod of iron. He has placed His Son on His holy hill and has given the nations as his inheritance – not to the Zionist, God-haters, conspirators, or globalist.
In closing, while I understand the emotion of the time causes one to break forth in emotional and strong language, would you mind trying to use more creative language, excluding vulgarities, since I like my children to look at your site and articles.
Mr. Raimondo – lay off the "liberal media" already! WHAT liberal media, as Eric Alterman asks. Whatever liberal media there is is not shocked that the Iraqis are fighting back, they exhibit the same disgust as you do that our government appears to be surprised by this. They're on your side.
But I agree that we MUST now have a national discussion about where all this is leading. What is the point of saber-rattling against Syria and Iran when it isn't entirely clear yet that the United States can handle Iraq? American troops were told that the road home lay through Baghdad. They weren't told that it also wound through Teheran, Damascus and Riyadh. Of course it would have been much better to have had this discussion before, but it is even more important now.
May I say that name-calling and finger-pointing concerning this war is completely out of place. I am a "born-again fundamentalist dispensationalist" Christian and I am as opposed to this war as anyone can be. My beliefs about the end times do not include this nation invading another under any pretext. (I have yet to find the United States in the Bible although I have read it cover to cover!) To say that any one group supports this war because of your ideas of what they believe, whether they are Jews, Christians, pagans, or whatever, is beneath you. I think you owe all of us an apology.
As an American Jew I thank you from the bottom of my heart. A Brucha on you, yours and your site!
If we reflect on the present situation with at least a groatsworth of integrity, it is obvious that it is predicated on a racist, or at least an pathologically ethnocentric basis. Every construct or schema concerning the Middle East has at it's heart the idea that the Israelis are "good" and the Arabs "bad." I have been subjected to this nonsense all my life, and it doesn't add up.
Please try to distinguish between what is "Jewish" and what is "Israeli." Israel does not occupy a place, for Jews, analogous to the Vatican for Catholics.
Although I have a sentimental attachment and a certain sympathy (fast eroding) for Israel, I know on which side my bagel is buttered. As an American citizen, and as a Jew, I am obligated to put the interests of America foremost.
I just wanted to express my gratitude in your work that you have been doing. I'm also impressed by your discernment when it comes to the Dispensational Theology that seems to be underpinning this current administration. I myself am a Reformed Christian (Reformed Christians are non-Dispensational in their eschatology) and received my B.A. in Biblical Studies at a Dispensational College named Washington Bible College in Lanham MD. I picked up on this link between Dispensatonalism and our foreign policy when my room mate showed me a presentation that his grandfather, George M. Miles, who founded the school, gave to some government officials at a Marriot hotel in the 1940s, arguing why the Jews have a right to their own land (I'll see if I can contact my old roommate to get a copy of this). Dispensationalist are obsessed with the Middle East. I call it Christian Zionism.
Anyway, again thank you for your enlightening efforts. I think many people are beginning to see that the Emperor has no clothes via writings like you yourself produce. I know your articles have helped me to become more Libertarian in my thinking. Thank you.
50th Anniversary of the CIA Coup in Iran
The 1953 coup in Iran was the CIA’s first successful overthrow of a foreign government. Britain initiated the plot in 1952. Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining the West's control over Iranian oil. The coup put the shah on the throne, who ruled with an iron hand for 26 more years. It also set the stage for the Islamic revolution and the American Embassy hostage taking by Iranian students in 1979.
In 1972, the US sought to undermine neighboring Iraq by arming Kurds who were in revolt against the Iraqi regime. The continued fighting was intended to sap the resources of Iraq BUT NOT to allow the Kurds to win their freedom. In 1975, Iran and Iraq ended their dispute and the US cut off aid to the Kurds. When Saddam then attacked the rebel Kurds, Moscow cut off arms shipments to Iraq. The US used this opportunity to make ties with Iraq.
After the 1979 revolution in Iran, the US supplied Saddam with intelligence that showed that if Iraq attacked Iran, Iranian forces would swiftly crack. Saddam attacked Iran in September 1980. The US provided him with intelligence on Iranian troop movements. Still, by the end of 1981, Iraq was loosing the war.
In 1981, US president Reagan asked France to send weapons to help Saddam. France reluctantly did so, being concerned over French hostages being held in Iran. In March 1982, the US removed Iraq from the list of terrorist nations and sold military equipment directly to Saddam. The US also secretly sold weapons to Iran thru Israel. Profits from weapon sales were used by the US to train and arm the Contra terrorists who were murdering people in Nicaragua who had revolted against the US supported Somoza dictatorship.
The US was selling arms to Saddam (including chemicals and technology) until the very day he attacked Kuwait, knowing he had used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds. The US was prepared to give him a piece of northern Kuwait, but young Frankenstein had ideas of his own and took all of Kuwait.
When the US realized they had created a monster they could no longer control, they had to destroy him, similarly to what was done to Noriega in Panama. At the end of the Gulf War in 1990, the US encouraged the Kurds and Shiites to revolt, then abandoned them to Saddam's wrath.
The "real politic" policies of the US are an obstacle to peace. CIA backed coups set up puppet dictators who are armed to defend American interests against those of the indigenous population, leading to more terrorism, revolution and war. This war in itself is proof of the failure of these policies. ...
Responsibility
Entry
Word: RESPONSIBLE
Function: adjective
Synonyms:
accountable, amenable, answerable, liable
Related Words: exposed, open, subject
Contrasted Words: clear, exempt, immune; irresponsible, unaccountable,
unanswerable, unliable
Antonyms: irresponsible
I have been an daily visitor to your site recently. I am thrilled by the enormous quantity and variety of viewpoints you post. In readings of all sides of deliberation; it is clear that we can no longer as Americans have a lessez fare approach to our government. This war did not come to pass overnight and is not the fault of G.W. Bush as much as it is our own fault as citizens for turning a blind eye to world issues for years and further allowing our government to do as they please once elected, expecting it to just take care of things so we don't have to be bothered. We have done much to foster the world view of Americans as selfish, self involved people by our own lack of responsibility for the actions of our leaders and what is done throughout the world in our name. If anything this war has shown us that without question, we must strive to make our government accountable, amenable, answerable and liable to the people whom they swear to serve. We must protect ourselves, not only from vicious acts of terrorism but from the vicious acts we allow to occur throughout the world through our own ignorance and laziness. Your site does much to foster knowledge and truth, a necessary tool in becoming a more responsible nation.
The Fascist Seed
I would like to offer you a personal perspective on the Iraq war, its supporters and its global context. I'm a retired senior officer, spent 25 years in the Armed Forces, commanded units in Turkey, the US and Guam and lived the past 12 years in Bavaria.
I, and my Munich-American-Peace-Committee colleagues are still able to openly protest the war-wagging Bush Administration. That speaks well for the state of democracy in the US and Germany (forget not that Germany supports the US war in many important ways other than diplomatically, and like the US, recently stuck its nose further into personal privacy on the grounds it too is fighting a "war" against unknown terrorists).
From here in Central Europe we see that personal freedoms and rights are being curtailed in the US as fast as the White House and its mind-molding machinery can convince Americans to embrace political and economic slavery. Of course CNN (motto: War – we can't live without it!), Fox, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and PBS are major cogs in the machine. They do such a patriotic job of morphing "Shock and Awe" into visual candy and helping Americans to "get over it" or "live with it" so they can "move on," with backs turned to the piles of dead bodies in Iraq, in Palestine, in Afghanistan.
They underestimate Americans. Just because we have not yet learned to feel the sorrow and suffering of our victims does not mean there isn't time, or hope for the nation to grow up. We may yet see through Mr. Bush's perverse "morality" and understand what Pope John Paul and Bishop Tutu have been trying to teach us.
It's quite evident that many are not happy in the US with the ever-widening wealth gap fueled by Mr. Bush and his Janus-faced associates (one side corporate chief, the other, senior politician) and the ever-deepening sense of economic insecurity throughout the lower and middle classes. Meanwhile, we Americans no longer participate in our legendary but failing democracy. And we know little and care less about the world "out there." "No time for anything except surviving" is the popular refrain. And the enormous concentration of corporate and political power in Washington is increasingly worrisome for people inside and outside the US.
During the brief tenure of the current Administration, US leadership has unfailingly shown its disdain for international law, (for example, its illegal war in Iraq, and rejection of the International Criminal Court) and its drive to control world resources (like the oil under the Arabian peninsula, Central Asia, West Africa, South America, etc.), while trying to clone the rest of the human family into its own image and likeness.
Domestically, hard-won freedoms and social needs are being quickly trumped by national security and defense demands. The nation and the rest of the world are fast becoming subservient to American-anchored multinational corporations, compulsive consumerism and a globally dominant US military, all orchestrated by right-wing crusaders for faith-based global supremacy. The brains behind the Bush presidency have already promised regime change in Syria, Iran and China after Iraq along with "full spectrum dominance" of Earth's land, sea, air and surrounding space by the Pentagon. We see an American Empire in the making.
So questions arise like: Do we want a global overlord? Can humanity stomach a world cop? How long can the American Empire last until humanity's goal of universal freedom is achieved?
Let's not fool ourselves. This is not about anti-Americanism but fascism writ large, with fascism defined in my dictionary as "any authoritarian system of government characterized by state economic control, militaristic nationalism, propaganda and the crushing of opposition" – in other words, precisely what we see occurring in our fear-obsessed, preemptive homeland.
Author Tom Hartmann offers a spine-chilling comparison between the rise to power of the Nazi Dritte Reich and the current Administration. The parallels are truly frightening, that is if you are concerned about the unwitting exchange of democracy for totalitarianism in the United States. We should not forget that President Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush was a favored business partner of the Nazis for nearly twenty years until he faced federal prosecution for trading with the enemy in 1942. American presidents have never been averse to allying with fascist dictators, including the Ronald Reagan and G.H.W. Bush liaisons with Saddam Hussein.
The fascist seed has been a long time germinating in American society. Its time to look carefully at the extent of its roots and power before every American becomes, as German philosopher Herbert Marcuse defined it so well in his book One Dimensional Man, a duped but willing economic slave.
~ John Otranto, Munich, Germany
Regarding "Liberate the Vatican!" by Matthew Barganier:
This article, written sarcastically, will sadly find some in agreement. Just a few weeks ago, I suggested the ridiculous idea that the United States ought to begin bombing France at once, over its objections to the present invasion of Iraq. To my distress, one of my luncheon companions immediately exclaimed, "Yes!" I thought she was in on the joke, and continued in this vein for a bit, until I realized that she was, in fact, quite serious. Thereupon I changed the subject.
Regarding AB's and Seth Keaveny's letters posted March 30:
In spite of the carnage they wrought in Hiroshima, Dresden, Vietnam, Cambodia, Kosovo, Iraq (1991), South America etc., Yanks have this amazing conviction about their own inherent goodness: “we couldn’t have done it.” Even when presented with irrefutable evidence, they would argue, “it must be an accident.” Sure, like in 1999 when the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia was “accidentally” flattened by three satellite guided smart bombs. The Pentagon blithely blamed it on an “out of date map” – case close! Nobody besides the Yanks, not least the Chinese believe such crap that Uncle Sham, the father of “so-called” high tech warfare, used an old map to select targets and out of that vast landscape, managed to pick out an embassy – the embassy of China, which happened to be among a handful of countries opposing the US attack on Yugo. Russia of course was also vehemently opposed to the Yugo attack but you can bet your life there would be no accidents involving the Russian embassy, what with its fearsome retaliatory capability of 3000 nuclear warheads!
Uncle Sham’s cavalier dismissal of the atrocity was like rubbing salt on an injury, the Chinese poured onto the streets and besieged the US embassy (with the graceful permission of the Chinese government!). but it was not until several months later did Pentagon deign to trot out an “official report” in response to China’s demand. “the accident happen because
(1) the USAF couldn’t afford a new map (which is easily available in the market place) and
(2) inspite of the Chinese embassy having hosted several official functions in the embassy attended by various US officials in the preceding years, the data base in the Pentagon computer was not updated and
(3) the data base in the targeting computer was not updated and
(4) on that fateful day an official inexplicably decided to apply a method of coordinates interpolation known to be less accurate than the one he normally used, thus selecting a wrong target – which turn out to be the Chinese embassy! As if this is not enough,
(5) all the supposedly fail safe mechanism designed specifically to weed out such “out of bound” targets chose to break down on that day!”. The probability of each individual event in the report happening is practically nil. The chance that they all happen simultaneously is therefore zero to the power of 5!
To the Chinese, the report was an even bigger insult than the old map hogwash. I mean would you bet your money on such incredible odds? Apparently the Yanks would bet their lives on it. As one typical patriot put it, “the Pentagon (sic) said it was an accident, but they want a full report, now we give them a report and they won't accept it, these Chicoms are just being difficult if you ask me.” The Yankee media had a field day gloating on Chinese xenophobia – “I told you didn’t I , these Chicoms hate our guts!” I heard the Chinese government had made it a point to pass on the exact location of their Iraqi embassy to the yanks. I don’t blame them for applying this preemptive self-defense, don’t forget this time around China is again not with the US team, and if you aren’t with me...
Urban Combat
Just viewed a program on the History channel where a Lt. Col. in charge of training marines for urban combat stated that the "casualty rate for urban fighting is estimated to be 30% and really should be avoided".
Today Pentagon officials were stating that during World War II that it was not uncommon to hear that 1,000 troops were wounded or killed overnight. Are they preparing us for heavy casualties in Baghdad?
The original SPIN on the war in Iraq was that it would be over in a few weeks, the Iraqi forces would beg to surrender, and throngs of 'liberated' Iraqis would flood the streets. Why is the media avoiding the Baghdad urban body count estimates? How will the surrounding Muslim states react to mass graves being filled with Baghdad dead?
The American people are not prepared for this level of death and destruction. I know I am not. ...
Maybe This Stuff Really is Written by a Machine
I think ur voice should but right now I think we should stand united cuz our soldiers are and paying so plz mad thanx for ur time.
Yet Another Modest Proposal
Comrades will recall or have read about the gallant attempts of members of the International Brigade to help the elected government of the Spanish Republic to resist the fascist and militarist rebellion of Francisco Franco.
Those who similarly oppose the fascist regime of Saddam Hussein al Takriti are hereby invited to enlist to the Anne Clwyd Battalion of the Clare Short International Brigade.
Because these formations will be personally and privately organised and financed, and entirely independent of the British State and of the monopoly capitalist class, , there can be no implication of imperialism in respect of their activities.
Nor will they be in receipt of training or arms supplied by the British state. They will supply their own arms and travel and other costs, including supplies of rose petals and of rice.
They will thus be entirely on a par with the reputed volunteers from the Islamic world who have privately volunteered and enlisted to defend the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Their function will be to operate militarily and politically in complete independence from the US, UK, Canadian, Australian, Polish and other ‘coalition’ forces. They will engage with forces supporting the regime of Saddam Hussein, but will also assist those Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein who are operating within Baath occupied Iraq. They will have no contact with the ‘opposition’ forces (INC, INA etc) sponsored by and clients of the US and UK states.
Following the footsteps of the International Brigade, they will be performing an invaluable function in demonstrating the democratic bona fides of the opposition of citizens of Western countries to Baathi fascism, and in persuading the Iraqi masses to oppose the Baathist regime, demonstrating the existence of a Third Way. We anticipate a rapid recruitment to the Clare Short Brigade, and expect it soon to overtake the numbers of recruits to the reputed Islamic volunteers. (this success will be a vital index of the democratic credentials of the Third Way). Gallantly battling against overwhelming odds, they are prepared to lay down their lives for their principles, even preparing to engage in suicide bombings, so eager are they to bring democracy to Iraq..
We are approaching Ms Clwyd and Ms Short for their patronage and personal leadership of these bodies. Gender quotas will not apply. to recruits, but may be applied to civilian targets. Decorations will not be awarded by the British state, but work is proceeding to develop a rose-petal and rice medal on an agreed basis.
Proposed Brigade Song:
We don’t want to fight, but by jingo if we do,
we’ve bought the tanks,
we’ve got the persons
we’ve borrowed the money too
Those unable to afford the trip overseas will be privileged to form a militia guard to defend the local headquarters of the ruling ‘Labour’ Party and especially portraits and statues of the Leader, the Rt Hon Tony Blair, M.P., P.C, against the threat of Iraqi heavy bombers, missiles, ricin capsules, anthrax, suicide bombers, cluster bombs and depleted uranium.
SFPD
I know that you're not impressed with the civil disobedience tactics on display in SF. I'm not overwhelmed myself. But as an expatriate San Franciscan, I felt my blood boil when I read about tourists dragged off of a cable cars and beaten by police. (See "The War on Protesters" by Ann Harrison, Counterpunch.)
The Libertarians seem to have a rather odd blind spot when it comes to police brutality, an attitude not shared by Murray Rothbard:
"It is true, of course, that police are systematically brutal...the police have a legal monopoly on guns, and he who is entrusted with such great power will be the one who enjoys using that power to the hilt...The police are the enforcement arm for all despotic legislation and ordinances on the government books. The police are the hired thugs who do the dirty work for the bosses of the State apparatus."
~ Rothbard
"The Black Revolution," Left and Right vol. 3, no. 3
1967
http://www.libertarianstudies.org/journals/lar/pdfs/3_3/3_3_2.pdf.
The sad fact remains that, in opposing totalitarians, you will have to become as anti-brutality as you are anti-war. ...
Regarding Christopher Deliso's reply to Carter Mitchell's letter posted March 30:
Christopher DeLiso writes, "I believe when the American people really learn how much they have been cheated and needlessly endangered – probably, when the next major terrorist attack occurs – heads will start to roll."
Much as I enjoy your always incisive articles, I can't share your optimism here about the perpetrators of this horrific scam ever being called to account for their actions. The American people already have ample evidence of the Bush administration's lies and manipulations before them if they cared to see it, but they don't. I doubt the next, inevitable terrorist attack will do anything but convince most of the public that they need even more fatherland security, fewer freedoms, more Arab-slaughtering military adventures, and a brutal President to protect them from the bogeyman du jour. Probably the next attack will occur right when the hawks are shopping for a handy pretext on which to invade Iran or Syria. Then all they'll have to do is get that buffoon Aaron Brown to repeat "suspected ties between this attack and _______ (country of your choice)" in an ominous tone for a few months to keep the people's credulous bloodlust at the desired manic level.
However, I do hope it turns out (not you) that you're right and I'm wrong, and I continue to rely on Antiwar.com as one of the few sources of accurate news coverage and reasoned commentary.
Protests
My name is Erin S. and I would like to write my peace. I live in Hanau, Germany and my husband was deployed 2 weeks ago.
4 weeks ago our 2nd son, Jace, was born. Our oldest son, Tyler, cries out for his daddy everyday. Believe me if it was up to me this war would not be going on, my husband would not be there, and these protests could stop.
Living in Germany is hard enough without having protesters yelling at our gates "Army go home". Believe me I would if I could. But the sad thing is you are making it just as hard in the States. Our Husbands, Wives, Brothers, Sisters, Sons, Daughters, etc. are fighting for you to have the right to protest.
I don't think its much to ask that you stop protesting and put your efforts into something more productive. The war has already started and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. The US will not stop until we win. Does that mean you'll go to Iraq and get them to quit?
We are all in this together. You live in America and should support what it does regardless of if you agree with it or not. Im sure some where along the lines you've had or will have somebody you know or love in the military. Would you stop supporting them?
Please understand how we feel. Freedom is something this country is trying to give EVERYONE and in order to do this it may mean a war.
~ Erin S., proud army wife (praying for the safe return of my soldier)
Consistency
Austin B.: Were you guys out protesting (i.e. was this site as "big" as it is now?) when we were bombing the sh*t out of Milosevic? Thanks in advance for your answer regarding your consistency.
Please post this question to the forum: "Were you just as pissed about the dropping of bombs/civilian casualties during the Milosevic bombings?"
Managing
editor Eric Garris: Yes, we were. Here
is an article about Antiwar.com in 1999 leading the antiwar, anti-Clinton
protests movement.
Here is our history. We were started in 1995 to protest the bombing of Bosnia, and later expanded to protest the Kosovo War. I have been a Republican for 20 years.
AB: I apologize for my preconception. I am very impressed with your history. I won't lie: 90% of those that I've encountered protesting today's war were not out during Bosnia/Kosovo. I respect, very deeply, your kind of pacifism. Unfortunately, the freaks breaking Starbucks windows is what most of us think about/see on TV. Anyway, thanks for the response, and best of luck to you.
A Terrible Insult
F*ck you all, you act like you are a majority.
Two Screaming Sides
In the newspapers and in the general media, there have been two screaming sides to the debate over Iraq. Both arguments seemed equally illogical to me. The hawks formulated their whole debate based on theories, would's, and could's such as: Saddam COULD have WMD's, Saddam WOULD use WMD's, Saddam COULD hand off WMD's to terrorists. It's also interesting that the hawks contend that UN res. 1441 gives us authorization for war. I read 1441 and nowhere does it give a time frame for the duration of inspections, nor does it authorize "regime change." Using the logic of preemption, anybody could start a war for any reason. The only explanation as to why Americans would go for such a crazy idea is that we are frightened as a result of 9-11.
Also, I do not believe that most Americans distinguish between the current Iraqi regime and the 9-11 terrorists. To me then, it is obvious that the War Party's argument is full of holes and that it's success is in large part due to emotional appeal to scared and pissed off Americans.
On the other side of the fence are the "no blood for oil" crowd. The arguments presented by this side are even more comical than the arguments presented by the War Party. You mostly hear their points of view when protesters are interviewed on the streets. Their argument is this: That Bush and Cheney are going to war to hijack Iraqi oil. Anybody with any knowledge of the global market would know that the Iraqi's would be happy to sell us all the oil we want, at below the market prices, if we would just lift the sanctions.
Being that neither argument holds up to the basic tests of logic, I sat on the fence for a very long time. There is something missing in this debate, and that's when I started reading Pat Buchanan's articles in The American Conservative, which also had links to your site. I had heard that Buchanan is opposed to the war but I never bothered to look further into it. What I discovered shocked me; there is a handful of hard core ideologues who want to make over the middle east in the image of America, and that they have tremendous influence in the current administration. After 9-11, we Americans unknowingly gave the neocons a blank check that WE, not they, will have to cash. This aggressive plan has been written by the chickenhawks themselves, Buchanan and the writers on this site merely point it out. The goal of exporting democracy to the middle east has been discussed very little by the media. Instead we hear over and over again mantras like weapons of mass destruction, regime change, bioterrorism, U.N. compliance, etc.
Now that our troops are already committed to battle, we should give them all our full support and hope that they get home safely. However, I am ready to do whatever I can to help oppose the War Party's expansion of this conflict to the rest of the Middle East. I am actually a soldier myself, I served two years in the active Army and I have been in the California National Guard for about three years. It is possible that I could be mobilized soon. In that case I will gladly serve my country but at the same time oppose the War Party's plans. I feel like it is not enough for me to sit here and read articles and get more and more enraged at the current situation. I want to do something, but I also do not want to join the vomiters in San Francisco.
~ Michael S.