|
|||||||||
Posted April 8, 2003
Tell America
I am from Syria, and I want to thank every friend who works on this site, Antiwar.com, and I want to tell you that we respect the American people and we know the real facts about this dirty war. I really want to speak to the whole American people and tell them that we do not hate you, but we hate the killing and madness.
Regarding "NBC
'Today' Co-Anchor David Bloom Dies in Iraq," Reuters:
It is interesting that 6 journalists have died in Iraq while supposedly only 80 American troops have been killed by all causes including accidents. Considering there are approximately 200,000 American troops in the area and far far fewer journalists, it would seem it is statistically more dangerous to be a reporter in Iraq than to be a soldier. Because this makes no sense intuitively, I would question whether the American death counts are accurate.
Unending Propaganda
Once again, unending propaganda makes "news". The latest shocking headlines, "Human remains found in warehouse" immediately evokes images of body parts that are fleshy, covered with gore. But wait! I actually saw a film of "human remains" and, technically speaking, there are "remains" of homo sapiens there but they are really bags of old dried bones that were obviously dug up and carried inside and put in individual white coffins.
What it looks like is someone had a plan to dig up the bones of soldiers, since some still had the remains of uniforms clinging to them, and re-bury them in proper coffins. It seems to me that Saddam must have decided to do formal burials of victims of past wars there to increase patriotism and his program fell apart when war engulfed his nation.
The voice-overs for this were utterly out of control. They carefully used words designed to give the impression that these bones were the victims of torture or mutilation that was deliberately done by Saddam. No other explanation was given for this find. The logic of Saddam digging up bones of victims of his torture so he could rebury them in shining white coffins wasn't explored at all.
This is how nearly all pictures are pitched. We are given a verbal frame that is many times, illogical or even outright lies, all clothe the pictures we see so we get the wrong impression of reality. Indeed, going into this war, we were fed immense amounts of false information on the sly in order to convince the gullible and trusting people that Saddam was behind 9/11. Already, we are seeing the same process happening to Iran. Constantly denying that we plan to attack even though Bush announced he would attack in his famous "axis of evil" speech, nonetheless, Bush and his machine are inserting little references, often a word here and there, to give an overall impression that Iran is also responsible for 9/11.
I wish to thank you all for struggling against this tidal wave of disinformation and manipulation.
Regarding Carter Mitchell's letter posted April 5:
Carter, if you think America is so bad, so abusive, so undemocratic, so evil as to murder Iraqi women and children, then maybe you should take your own advice to Erin, the soldier's wife and mother of two, and pack your bags and move to Canada – the bastion of enlightenment. ...
Erin, I hope your soldier comes home soon. Tell your son that his dad is respected and loved by the vast majority of Americans and that he is a hero to us.
~ Ron Niesen, attorney, Waunakee, Wisconsin
Antiwar with Universal Love
I, a Chinese from RPC, feel very very angry and grief since the war began, especially when I saw the pictures of the dead Iraqi people or American soldiers. One of my strong reasons against the Iraq war or any war comes from my dear Mom's death by killing herself for political reason in China's Cultural Revolution, put into other words, she was forced to be killed by man-made reasons! And I did not see her when and after her death. I always always feel that she has been somewhere in this World. That leaves me endless pain. Due to this reason, I can feel that that a Mom or Dad, or brother or sister, or daughter or son of any killed Iraqi civilian, Iraqi soldier or American soldier does or will have such a feeling toward the dead dears forever. Life is just once for every human being. Why we purposefully create something to end this precious life for every unnatural reason?!
I have been in the United States for years and I received and felt many many loves from ordinary Americans without racial or national difference and without price during the time I stayed there. And I deeply believed and still believe that universal love is a prevailing feeling in a culture or society oriented from Christianity. I simply cannot find any word to express my feeling to Americans, to American power-holders for their starting the war against Iraq with my understanding of Christianity-oriented culture. Simply for killing Saddam Hussein?! The Bible states: Love is to love your enemy.
Demonstrations
I have been watching your demonstrations on T.V. I notice that your tactics are all wrong. Antiwar is not anti-American. The pro-war demonstrators wave the American Flag and sing "God Bless America." The antiwar demonstrators should do the same. Being antiwar is not the same as being against America. You should sing "God Bless America, Bring Home the Troops."
We are against the military actions of our government, not our military troops. When you are waving your banners and shouting your protests, you should do so carrying an American Flag. We love our country just as much as the pro-war people. We want our sons and daughters to come home, and not to die just because Bush is throwing a smokescreen. We want to end this war for America. We want peace for America. We, as much as they, love America.
Managing Editor Eric Garris replies:
We totally agree with you. We have run article after article urging people to only conduct pro-troops, peaceful, legal, non-disruptive demonstrations.
Control of Iraq
WHY AREN'T YOU PROTESTING AGAINST THE US ONLY CONTROL OF IRAQ? IF PROTESTERS WERE MARCHING FOR THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO BE IN CHARGE I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY EFFECTIVE.
Eric Garris replies:
Preemptive invasion and occupation are immoral. Involving more people in this criminal act only increase the number of criminals involved. If more countries are involved, the number of countries protesting this illegal act will be decreased.
Regarding Grace B.'s letter posted April 3:
The Bible also says "blessed are the peacemakers." Bush may indeed claim Jesus Christ but I have grave doubts regarding whether Christ, given the things he claimed to stand for while alive, were he present today, would have anything to do with Dubya. As far as standing behind Mr. Bush, I most certainly do – it's far safer there than standing in front of him. I cannot, however, support any president that acts outside the limits of the constitutional powers that have been delegated to him. Perhaps, Grace, you should trouble yourself to take the ten or fifteen minutes required to read the document. It's not very long and the language is very clear. Your little manifesto is a perfect yardstick of the magnitude of the problem facing those of us who believe in and champion limited government and individual freedom.
Iraq and the Spanish American War
The United States is a relative latecomer to empire building in comparison to its European counterparts. Current events in Iraq and the Middle East remind one of the first war for the American Empire: The Spanish American War at the turn of the last century. One hundred years later, that war’s similarities to the lead up and hostilities in Iraq are almost frightening.
The Spanish American war began and ended in 1898. After it was over, the United States had declared its hegemony over Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines. What began as a mission to “free” the people of the crumbling Spanish Empire turned into almost a century of direct and indirect occupation of these small islands. The war itself was sparked by a mistaken belief that the Spanish had “bombed” a US ship (The Maine) in Havana harbour.
The Spanish American War was the first “filmed” war. A funny little invention by Thomas Edison, the movie camera, was employed to “animate” the battles. None of the battles shown in American movie theatres were made from actual footage, they were “reenactments” of what the war “might” look like. The media played a huge part in pushing for the war, as millionaire newspaperman Randolph Hearst thought that war was what the United States needed, and Spain was the perfect target. When Hearst sent his correspondents to cover the growing unrest in Cuba, they cabled back to New York asking to be sent home because there “was no war”. Hearst replied: “You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war.” Other newspapers followed Hearst’s lead in calling for war with Spain. Their exhortations fell on very powerful ears.
As Undersecretary of the Navy, Theodore Roosevelt felt that every generation needed a war and the Americans hadn’t had one since the Civil War 33 years earlier. This belief was reflected in a number of newspapers. Theodore Roosevelt later became president, largely on the exaggerated tales of his exploits in charging up the San Juan ridge. He also became famous for his particular brand of diplomacy: “walk softly and carry a big stick”. In reference to the brutal dictator of Nicaragua, Roosevelt said: “He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch”. This trend in American foreign policy has continued throughout the century as a virtual parade of brutal dictators, from Somosa to Pinochet to Hussein were allowed to maintain their hold on their countries as long as they towed the American party line.
In the months prior to the Spanish American War, the media seized upon the character of Valeriano Weyler, a brutal Spanish General sent to quell the Cuban Revolutionaries that were pressing for independence. Weyler was a heartless butcher; of that there is no doubt. He has the dubious honour of introducing “reconcentration camps” to the arsenal of military commanders. (Also used in South Africa by the British to fight the Boers) The purpose of these camps was to separate the revolutionaries from the general population, a difficult prospect at any time. (Why is it that people who are fighting for their freedom never manages to see a tailor to get matching uniforms?) The conditions in these camps were horrendous, thousands died from starvation and disease. The American government used their own brand of “reconcentration camps” in Vietnam. They called it “hamletisation”, the purpose to keep the good Vietnamese from the bad Vietnamese.
The media pressed for war, yet it took the explosion of the Maine in February of 1898 with the death of 266 sailors to get the government moving. The Spanish denied any responsibility for the sinking; the Americans claimed that a mine had destroyed the ship in Havana harbour. Hearst’s newspaper even showed an artist’s recreation of the Spanish mining the Maine’s hull. Subsequent investigations have shown that an internal explosion, probably in the engine room, caused the disaster. The American people and media were convinced of Spain’s culpability. Songs and posters exhorted Americans to “Remember the Maine”. The calls for war took on a fever pitch as countless diplomatic manoeuvres were attempted but failed. Interestingly enough, a very influential foreign policy book called The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660-1783 which “advocated the taking of the Caribbean Islands, Hawaii, and the Philippine Islands for bases to protect U.S. commerce, the building of a canal to enable fleet movement from ocean to ocean, and the building of the Great White fleet of steam-driven armour plated battleships” was written in 1890, 8 years before the decision to go to war against Spain was made.
The war was painted as a struggle for Cuban and Filipino freedom from the Empire of Spain. The United States, as a former colony of Britain, abhorred the idea of an overseas Empire. Many prominent Americans, including Mark Twain were openly opposed to the war due to its Imperial implications. To ease those fears, the Teller amendment was included in the declaration of war, making it clear that the United States had no interest in a permanent empire....
The long and the short of it is that the Teller Amendment was replaced by the Platt Amendment (which was later written directly into the newly “freed” Cuban Constitution). This amendment allowed the USA "the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty..." This amendment was not abrogated until Cuban independence was finally granted in 1934.
While fighting side by side with the Cuban rebels, the United States came to believe that the Cubans were unable to create their own government. When the Americans took possession of Cuba from the Spanish, the Cuban militia was specifically barred from entering Santiago and the American flag ran up the staff. Subsequent American intervention in Cuba was common, until they could install a series of dictators sympathetic to American policy. Batista was the last American supported Cuban dictator, overthrown by their current dictator, Fidel Castro in 1959.
The forgotten tragedy of the Spanish American war was the situation that developed in the Philippines. Within very few months, the Filipinos realized that they were not going to get their freedom from the American “liberators” who had expelled the Spanish. Instead of getting rid of foreign occupation, they simply exchanged it for American control. When they objected, a new war of resistance began, a war against the Americans. After a couple of months, the American “liberators” resorted to “reconcentration camps” to separate combatants from noncombatants. The Americans defended their action by arguing that the Filipinos were also too “backward” to govern themselves. In addition, a Philippine base was essential to American interests, in conjunction with the newly annexed islands of Hawaii. The human toll of this war in the Philippines alone was more than 4,200 US soldiers, 20,000 Filipino soldiers, and 200,000 Filipino civilians dead. ...
The similarities to the current situation in Iraq are just too obvious to ignore. Is Saddam Hussein a brutal dictator? Yes. Has he tortured and murdered his own people? Yes. If this war means that the Iraqis will become the architects of their own future, then perhaps it is justified. However, just as the record of Iraq’s untrustworthiness is a viable argument for Hussein’s removal, a similar argument can be made for the United States of America’s history in dealing with weaker powers in strategically important areas. The occupation of Iraq has the potential to be long and bloody. Arab citizens in the Middle East have shown their willingness in Israel and elsewhere to refuse to accept foreign occupation, even at the cost of thousands of lives, be they suicide bombers or regular citizens. Until the fundamental inequities in Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and elsewhere are addressed, the Arab world will continue to view the US intervention as a simple case of Imperialism, and they will fight it just as the Filipinos did 100 years ago.
The United States will be forced to install a friendly regime in Iraq that may use the same tactics as its predecessor to force the Iraqi citizens to accept a permanent US presence. Just as Hussein gained US support in the '70s and '80s by playing the Cold War superpowers off each other to gain more power for himself, the new leader of Iraq may use the fear of Islamic Fundamentalism to solidify his hold on his country.
As to the initial plan for Iraq, evidence has been mounting that the USA had hoped to make a move in Iraq long before the tragedy of 9/11. Just as “Remember the Maine” became the battle cry of an almost forgotten conflict, the memory of the thousands killed by terrorists has spurred the American people to believe that they are protecting themselves by attacking Iraq. There is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks of 9/11. Hussein’s government is no friend of Islamic Fundamentalist militants. They are a threat to his regime and have been the target of political reprisals in Iraq.
What many hoped would emerge from that dark day in September was that the US would realise the impact, both real and perceived, of its foreign policies. Instead of simplifying the conflict as one between “good and evil” the US had an opportunity to rethink its global strategy. Instead we have a new conflict whose outcome will cause more terrorism, not less, as extremist groups gain new converts to radical political Islam in order to expel the American “infidels” from Islamic territory.
There is an old saying that goes, “we reap what we sow.” The United States must be vigilant and responsible, now that it is the only superpower left. The American people have no desire for world domination. History has shown us that when a people is confronted with insurmountable odds, they often do everything and anything they can to prolong their own survival. The taxicab army of France in 1915, the kamikaze pilots of the Japanese Empire in 1944, the residents and soldiers of the Alamo, all evidence of a willingness to die in the face of overwhelming strength. The questions must be asked: Is the United States prepared for the long-term fallout of the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq? 100 years from now, will this conflict, with all its probable and long-term repercussions, be as forgotten as the Spanish American war that began America’s long and bloody march towards Imperialism?
~ KP, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada