|
South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition Forums 2006 ...
THE COSTS OF WAR?
South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition believes that the illegal invasion of Iraq was itself a gross act of state terrorism bringing death to thousands of innocent Iraqi people and many others, including the needless loss of British soldiers. We also believe that the British people were lied to and misled by our national government, which supported the hidden reasons America invaded Iraq – including plans to establish military and economic control of the Middle East ... but it does not end there ...
The costs of this and other wars are incalculable and have profound and the most serious consequences for the world and to what makes us human. The forum aims to expose not only the huge cost in human life and the most terrrible injuries which have occurred, but also the consequences - which are throwing the world back into a medieval anarchy. We now live in a world in which a minority of big power governments and the transnational corporation they represent are destroying human rights, destroying conflict-resolving international institutions and tearing up International Law - and replacing civilized modes of behaviour with the law of force, imprisonment without trial and the torture chambers of medieval times. The big powers manipulate the United Nations and other bodies, fabricating any excuse to exert control and make war against whichever country they wish to annex. In such ways, the US is threatening Iran, Syria, DPRK, Venezuela and many other countries, whilst Britain also seems to have its eyes fixed on Africa. The people have to put in the dock the leaders of these powers who are flouting international law - because the consequences might lead to world war. The forum will take up many of the aspects of the costs of war and encourage people to join in free-thinking debates. The call of the times is to facilitate bold discussions - to think and act like true human beings rather than hairless apes; to take the high road of civilisation rather than the low road to barbarism; to uphold the interests of all people; to consider how to enable new societies which people build for themselves; to start to make a new world where wars are relics of the past.
Another World Is Possible! We Will Create It!
+++++
Formal Forum Start: Wednesday, February 15, 2006, South Shields Town Hall, Committee Room C, 6.30pm - 8.00pm, attended by about 15 people.
Topics Presented for Discussion :
1) Introduction - Phil Talbot
2) Who Pays the Price? - Alan Newham
3)The Costs of War - Nader A Naderi
4) The Need For Anti-War Government - Roger Nettleship
+++++
THE COSTS OF WAR - INTRODUCTION, by Phil Talbot
The costs of the war in Iraq are mostly hidden costs, because it is mostly a 'secret war', with many of its realities covered up and denied. One aim of this forum is to try to bring out into the open some of those 'hidden costs' - not only of the war in Iraq but also of the wider so called 'war on terror'. Obviously we will be able to do little more than scratch the surface of those costs in the brief time available.
These are some of the costs of war we might discuss:
COSTS IN LIVES LOST - The number of lost human lives is not actually known to any degree of certainty - because [to cover up the scale of their own violent acts] the American and British governments 'don't do body counts' - but it is at least 100,000 people, most of them unarmed civilians killed by the invading and occupying powers.
COSTS IN INJURIES AND OTHER TRAUMAS - Again there are no precise figures available, but they must be in the hundreds of thousands, even perhaps millions.
EMOTIONAL COSTS - Including people traumatized and brutalized by the violence and including the grief of victims' families.
MORAL COSTS - Including a general brutalization and blunting of moral sensibility - in a world in which murder, violence, arbitrary arrest, and torture are being done on a huge scale in the travestied name of 'protecting freedom and democracy'
COSTS IN TERMS OF REDUCED CIVIL LIBERTY - The 'war on terror' is increasing rather than reducing the 'terror problem', and the big government responses - essentially: increasing state power and reducing civil liberties - further 'terrorizes' many sections of the population.
COSTS OF THE 'SLOW POISONING' OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE - By, for example, the demonization of entire ethnic, religious and political groups - and the type-casting 'them' as 'the enemy' who 'threaten our way of life'.
COSTS IN TERMS OF PUBLIC TRUST - We were lied to about the reasons for war. We have been lied to about the details of the war. More and more people just don't believe a word they are told about anything anymore - and while 'scepticism' might be healthy, the present extreme levels of 'cynicism' seem unhealthy.
COSTS IN TERMS OF WORSENING 'GLOBAL INSECURITY' - The war in Iraq and the wider 'war on terror' have worsened the 'terror problem' and opened up a violent 'can of worms'. It is a fact of life that 'those to whom violence is done tend to do violence in return'.
COSTS OF THE WRECKING OF INTERNATIONAL LAW - America and Britain have set terrible examples to the rest of the world. Via the Iraq war, America - aided and abetted by Britain - has torn up established conventions of modern international law ... and returned the world to a dark age of rule by force, imprisonment without trial, and torture chambers ... and all in the travestied names of 'freedom' and 'democracy'.
ECONOMIC COSTS - These are huge, but almost incalculable. A few people have clearly benefited - most obviously those personally gaining from profits made by oil, military, security corporations - but for most people the war has been a loss-making affair. In so far as estimates of monetary costs have been made, it is generally in terms of the direct cost to U.S. and U.K. tax-payers. Such estimates produce big numbers ... billions ... tens of billions ... even trillions ... of dollars ... numbers so big as to be more or less incomprehensible to most people. But these big number tax costs are in fact small proportions of the wider economic costs - which include: the effects of disruptions to trade due to global instability; the effects of fuel price volatility; the effects of diversion of investment resources; etc. Meanwhile, far from being 'reconstructed', the Iraqi economy has effectively been destroyed.
COSTS IN TERMS OF LOST OPPORTUNITIES - War should be a relic of the past, as should violent imperialism. But with the attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, we have lost the opportunity to start a new century with fresh, more civilized, modes of international behaviour. The best way to reduce the 'terror problem' is not to behave in a terrorist manner ourselves.
+++++
WHO PAYS THE PRICE? by Alan Newham
It was the Greek dramatist Aeschylus who first stated: 'In war, truth is the first casualty.'
It is now 3 years since the beginning of the war in Iraq, and the accumulation of evidence surrounding the lies and deception employed by the US and UK governments to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq continues to this day.
But if Aeschylus was right about the first casualty, then the second casualty must be the innocent men, women and children who pay the ultimate price with their lives, and the survivors suffering various physical and psychological damage. Of course there was a time when wars fought between armies on the battlefield away from centres of population. Now it is reversed - it is the innocent who suffer most, and in increasing numbers.
Modern warfare means that most of those who are killed never see their attackers. The pilots who drop bombs from 5 miles above the ground will never hear the screams of the innocent any more than the naval technicians who launch the missiles out at sea; all are free from the visual devastation of their actions.
Estimates of civilian casualties in Iraq range between some 25,000 to 100,000, while US and UK military casualties stand at under 2,500 deaths. It is the innocent who pay the most.
The following story comes from someone who saw through the fog of war and the pressures upon ordinary people who are expected to support war:
In 1990 when the USA was preparing for what became known as 'Desert Shield', a bunch of 5th formers from a school in Pennsylvania wrote letters to US troops. Only one pupil, called Lisa, received a reply. It was from a Puerto Rican called Alex, an enlisted soldier who came from the Bronx in New York, and she read it out to the class. It was heard by a fellow pupil called Will Ulrich who recalled it 11 years later and wrote to the student newspaper The Daily Pennsylvanian with his recollection in 2001. Ulrich said that when the letter was read out he got the impression that the soldier didn't have too much experience of correspondence. It was not the image he had of GI Joe as superhuman specialist and it was unnerving to hear the soldier express feelings of loneliness and homesickness. It made Ulrich think that it was largely just a group of 'Alexes' fighting the war against Saddam Hussein. Ulrich said that the letter drove home a lesson that he never lost sight of: 'Here was a poor scared Puerto Rican boy from the Bronx who probably joined the army for a paycheck, not for a Purple Heart.' He goes on: '... the childhood incident continues to convince me that a sort of paradox lies at the heart of modern warfare ... while contemporary world battles are rife with cartoon villains and bombastic rhetoric, most of what resides at the core of these conflicts is the pain of average citizens. ... While the present showdown between the Taliban and the USA may be fuelled by strategic concerns and masterminded by some of the most powerful men in the world, those who have suffered the real deleterious consequences are just plain folks ... It seems as if our government want us to believe that we only wage war against demonic personalities these days: bin Laden, Hussein, Milosovic. What we must never forget is that warfare, especially the sort we see in our post-Cold-War world, hurts average citizens most of all. Whether across the globe or at the local 7-11 it is they who pay the steepest price.' This letter is encouraging, given that young Americans are brought up with the view that America has a duty to bring 'freedom' and 'democracy' to all, usually by force.
In London on 6th February 2006, General Mark Kimmitt - a key strategist in the US central command covering the Middle East - spelled out the American Military's 'reposturing' of its forces in an area stretching from Egypt in the west to Pakistan in the east, and from Kazakhstan in the north to Uganda in the south, to 'protect US interests' there. He said the US would 'retain sufficient military capability' to strike Iran. This is the US reorganisation of its 'war on terror' into the so called 'Long War', which has been spelled out in the Pentagon Defence Review stating that a 'large-scale, potentially long duration, irregular warfare campaign including counter-insurgency and security, stability, transition and reconstruction operations' - which it says are 'necessary and unavoidable'. So the innocent live in fear around the world.
Yet we must look at why, in the lead up to the war in Iraq, opinion was divided between support for and opposition to the war - and why, when the war started, there was a clear majority that appeared to say in opinion polls that, since our forces were now engaged, we should therefore support them. Can it necessarily be a contradiction that people could continue to be against the war yet feel obliged to support our armed forces? Do we suspend individual conscience for 'the cause'? Is the contagion of war, the expectation to rally and support, so strong that it can't be resisted?
There was clear evidence before the start of the war that showed the unlikelihood of Iraq possessing WMD. There were also questions of the legality without UN support. Yet the support continued from ordinary people - people who are very distanced from exercising any real power over world events and may well simply need and want to believe what they are told by the powers that be, particularly here in the West where we are constantly being reminded that it is our idea of 'democracy' and our 'values' that the world should adhere to.
The numbers ever grow of ordinary people in the US, the UK, and around the world who, after 3 years of accumulated evidence now believe that it was wrong to go to war with Iraq. But that is after the event.
We must hope that Iraq will be the catalyst that will change how people react when wars are threatened , and end the kind of gullibility that helped us into the Iraq war.
The message is that it is ordinary people the world over who pay the ultimate price during war and conflicts. The young army recruits in Iraq are no different to the young recruits here in the UK. They all pay the price. That message must be fundamental and repeated time and time again in our anti-war campaigns.
+++++
THE COSTS OF WAR, by Nader A Naderi
The available scientific data point to the extent of 98%
similarities that exist between the human DNA and that of the
primates’ DNA. The similarities between the apes, and human
beings evidently do not end there. Hence it would be safe to
assume that, just because some human being facsimiles have lost their fur coat that somehow does not make these human. In fact the closest description of these can be denoting them as hairless apes. Human beings evolved and moved out of caves by learning from their mistakes but apes remain in caves because as yet theydo not exhibit any introspective analysis in an aid to prevent the repetition of their errors.
Hence, to err is human, but to insist dogmatically on erring
is the trait of apes, the not so distant cousin of the hairless apes.
Avoidance and prevention of errors from occurring have remained
paramount for human beings, due to their recognition of the high
costs of errors. Those are apparent, as well as the hidden costs
associated with failures and errors, which have been fundamental
to human progress, while apes blissfully go onto erring in a serial
fashion, hence the divergence of the humanity form these apes.
One of the major failures in any human society is recourse 16
to violence. In fact human beings have come to recognise violence as the ultimate expression of helplessness and the ultimate state of failure, while apes carry-on resorting to violence as a matter of course, and find violence to be the only method of arbitration in the arising disputes between the troop.
The current wars across the globe, which can only be seen
as the ultimate estate of error, and failure, are associated with
costs that as yet have not been fully calculated. The most obvious
of these costs are the 2.68 trillion dollars that is 2.68 million, million dollars which has been, and will be spent on killing Iraqis, of course all spent in aid of teaching them democracy, or such contentions is maintained by the chief hairless apes.
These apes’ ears are deaf to the wailing cries of the mother
clutching on to the shredded remains of her children, these apes’
eyes are blind to the wreathing of the injured souls, the same
wretched souls who will find no anaesthesia while their broken limbs are being amputated by the doctors working in primitive conditions in the dilapidated, bombed out hospitals with little or no medicine, and these apes’ souls are numb to the carnage that is being wreaked upon Iraq, and perceive the carnage as in fact spreading the gospel of how to live democratically. While the anxious mother burying her offspring who fought in distant lands under orders, is paying the cost of democratising the heart broken mother in Iraq.
But how can anyone explain Halliburton coining in $1800 for
a sack of laundry that is washed by Filipino workers who are paid
600 dollars a month. How can $1400 be explained away for a plate of fruit that is ordered by a Halliburton executive in a hotel in Kuwait and tabbed to the American taxpayer?
So apparently we pay 5 thousand million pounds, Americans
pay 2.68 million, million dollars for democracy in Iraq. But
Halliburton gets 2000% rise in profits, the same ailing company
that was nearly bankrupt in 2002. Evidently the state of violence
destroys lives in Iraq while destroying lives in our country too, only
to foster greater profits for a select few.
Everyday we wake up to a new supposed threat emanating
from the Officially Designated Enemy of the day. This threat then
has to be dealt with through military action. The Officially
Designated Enemy on a given day could be North Korea the next
day, Syria the day after Iran then there is Venezuela, Bolivia not
forgetting Cuba, China and Russia. We are told all the options are
on the table, which in ape speak means nuclear weapons as a first strike choice, while the talking heads allude this to be a reference to military action, and these same pusillanimous ape groupies in the main stream media get on with effervescence to promulgate the ape behaviour as the only standard to aspire to. That is, in addition to bird flu, terrorists and all manner of hobgoblinary that any grey functionary can think of. All this being in aid of frightening the dickens out of the human beings in order to getting our consent for the impending apelike actions to follow.
The bellicose warmongers have torn international
conventions and international laws all in favour of operation “Shock and Awe”. All the while talking about carrot and stick (need it be any more clarified?). I can assure the hairless apes that we human beings are really shocked, and so far as the awe remains we are truly in woe.
Considering that our young are being taught to settle any
dispute through violence, considering that our healthiest and fittest
are being sent to their destruction in Iraq, and elsewhere,
considering that our quality of life, which has steadily declined,
considering that our liberties that have been steadily eroded,
considering that 500,000 souls whom are incarcerated in
concentration camps around the globe, as per the Washington Post, considering the inflationary prices (tax on poor), considering the lack of hope in the future and considering the miserable times
thrust upon us we human beings are indeed shocked.
Shocking too is the sad story of Little Ali the Iraqi poster
child. Who ironically is shown to be grateful to us for giving him
prosthetics, having had his limbs blown apart and his family
destroyed by us. While Little Ali, goes and joins the long queue of
the forgotten, and the maimed, outgrowing his prosthetics. Who
will replace his old artificial appendages that he will have soon
outgrown? While the oil flows, tills ring, and shareholders’ never
ending appetites are somewhat satiated, these are some of the
costs no ape cares to mention, for these lack the cognisance, and
or the ability of introspection.
We are told that exhaust fumes from our cars are destroying
the environment, what of the exploding bombs, shells, depleted
uranium shells, phosphorus munitions and super charged military
jets screaming across the skies delivering their deadly loads on
any unsuspecting Officially Designated Enemy of the moment?
The hypocrisies of it all are astounding, no human being can ever
be proud of killing another.
Finally, after all that has been said about the financial and
environmental costs, there is one very significant point that ought
to be paramount, which is never mentioned that is the cost to
humanity; the child left with no father, the wife left with no husband,
the mother and father left with no child, the brothers and sisters
left with no sibling, our physically injured and our traumatised
military persons left with no support, all while the hairless apes
rule OK.
+++++
THE NEED FOR ANTI-WAR GOVERNEMENT, by Roger Nettleship
I think it is very significant that we are holding this Forum on the Costs of War on the third anniversary of the massive demonstration prior to Bush and Blair's attack on Iraq.
In my view the history of the world's people will show that February 15, 2003 was a defining moment. It was a day when the world said "No to War", when millions of people demonstrated around the world against the impending invasion of Iraq.
Not only did the people say "No to War" and that this was "Not in Our Name", but it raised the whole issue of the necessity for change and to bring about anti-war government.
The possibility of anti-war government was also opened up after the Second World War and with the United Nations charter which demanded an end to resolving international conflicts through military means. As you know what we got instead, inspite of the high hopes of the people, was pro-war government. The US and Britain used the excuse of "containing communism" for pro-war government. Today that excuse is gone for the time being, so they have created another excuse for pro-war government the excuse of a "war on terrorism."
The consequences of this is that the US and Britain, far from using the UN to maintain international peace and security, are attempting to use it to justify the crime of war. Far from renouncing the use of force and the threat of war as the bedrock to international relations, they are declaring that the "credible threat of force" must prevail, that no other solutions are to be permitted.
Far from respecting the territorial integrity and political independence of states, they are demanding the adoption of the Anglo-American model by everyone and intervening and committing aggression in the name of their own interests of globalisation and "universal values". They claim the right to send their armies anywhere in the world and to any country. This is the nature of pro-war government at the head of the most powerful states.
The need for anti-war government is what the anti-war movement has placed on the agenda:
Just to mention 5 features of anti-war government.
· Outlaw any and all British involvement in wars of aggression and renounce the use of force in settling international affairs; The Ministry of Defence would be truly the Ministry of Defence and not what it really is a Ministry for War. This would also mean the removal of British troops from foreign soil. As Germany did after the Second World War it would be necessary that this be enshrined in a modern constitution.
· Recognise the sovereignty and equality of all nations even if they have differing social systems; It would respect the right of peoples to have the system of their choice. Accept the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries;
· Adopt a foreign policy independent of the United States;
· Stop producing weapons of mass destruction, Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and comply with the NPT a treaty which Britain hypocritically tries to impose on other countries but has never complied with itself;
· Pay reparations for all the crimes of war, occupation and the colonial conquests of the past.
So those are five features of a modern foreign policy for anti-war government. But what does the need for anti-war government mean right now? What can we do to bring it about?
For the anti-war movement, for all of the people involved in this broad movement it means to strengthen their unity and keep the initiative in their own hands. Literally it is embodied in the demand to bring the troops home now.
It also means to organise our selves to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the people against the propaganda with which they are trying to poison the minds of the people and particularly the youth.
It is important to look at the evil and cunning nature of those big business interests behind Blair and Brown and the media barons that they represent. They didn't join in directly in anti-Muslim propaganda around the Danish cartoons but they made sure that it was conveyed in every detail to have exactly the same effect.
They make no comment on the fact that thousands of Muslims and the Muslim Association of Britain takes part in the anti-war movement and are demanding the same as us - a peaceful world without wars. But they publicise a tiny protest in London, made up of people who could have very well been compromised by the British state, to launch the most vicious attack on those of Muslim faith and dehumanise them.
Let us make no mistake this dehumanisation of Muslims is the prerequisite to genocide. This is what they are doing in the Middle East, with Iraq and Afghanistan and what they plan to do possibly with Iran and Syria and maybe even they are attempting to prepare us for nuclear strikes. It is also to try and derail the anti-war movement because this is a significant block to their plans.
How does it attempt to derail us? We are saying that the issue is bring the troops home, peaceful resolution of conflicts to stop their wars, the upholding of the rights of nations to sovereignty and the need to affirm the rights of all humanity. They want us to believe that it is a clash of civilisations between Muslims and Christians and that there is only the military solution and the implementation of a policy of degradation of human rights and criminalisation of human beings in Britain and elsewhere.
The people of all walks of life, from military families, workers, students, doctors, nurses and so on are part of the anti-war movement. The movement itself has entered the political arena to further its work. The Respect Coalition stood on that basis in the last election and ourselves stood our own anti-war candidate in South Shields in Nader Naderi. Reg Keys from the Military Families Against the War stood against Blair in Sedgefield. This was a significant step in the direction of anti-war government and one which we need to continue to discuss, and organise for.
I would like to conclude by saying that the need for anti-war government is expressed by keeping the initiative in our own hands in deciding what is to be done to bring the troops home and end the wars and occupations.
It is also, to continue to elaborate and develop the anti-war alternative foreign policy as the only foreign policy for a modern world and to directly intervene in the political process which we are doing and should continue to develop.
+++++
THE COSTS OF WAR, by Doreen Henderson
When we talk of 'The Cost of The War' everyone knows the war we are talking about is the Iraq War. However the 'dodgy dossiers', etc, about Iran are already being drip-fed to us and it is only time, I fear, before 'This War' won't just be the Iraq War but also the Iranian War.
The cost of this war in civilian deaths is the first obvious scandal. The cost of war in civilian deaths alone is sufficient evidence that it is the war-mongers, the politicians and the military who suffer the least casualties. This, I might add, is the biggest most heart-breaking injustice in the whole sordid illegal war.
The financial cost is perhaps the second obvious scandal. When half the world's population is starving, we have spent, and go on spending, millions on this mass-murdering 'religious crusade'.
The greatest fear I have coming out of this disaster concerns the total lack of moral fibre and the belief in their own total 'omnipotence' displayed by the 2 B's [Bush and Blair]. They went to war because they felt they had the right to - with no real justification given or needed [discount the lies]. They succeeded in getting away with this, and having succeeded once they have been given the way to attack again elsewhere - and on even flimsier jumped up evidence. To me this is the greatest danger to come out of this bloody war.
I cannot condone wars under any circumstances. They achieve nothing but sorrow and suffering. They leave scars between nations, which might never heal. But we never learn. I remember my Granny talking of the Boer War, my Mother of the 'Great War' [but what was 'great' about that war?], I talk of the '39-'45 War, my Grandchildren of the Iraq War, and so it goes on ...
But I still say in true Geordie style: KEEP HAAD - there must be a brighter day to come. Perhaps it will be when people like Bush start to talk WITH God as opposed TO God [and that comes from an atheist! - desperation, eh?!]
Peace and more peace be with you.
+++++
THE COST - THE PAINFUL BLOODY COST OF THIS WAR, by Alan Trotter
In the name of Humanity for how much longer will the British people turn their backs and close their eyes to what is happening to the children of Iraq?
It is painful to see anyone injured or killed, soldier or civilian, but when it happens to children the pain and the hurt and the sorrow is so more acute. The highest price of this war has been paid by children. The Red Cross reported in the first month of the war that over 100 children had to have limbs amputated due to injuries from guns and the devastating cluster bombs.
Childhood is supposed to be the most innocent and happiest time of a person's life, have we become so divorced from reality that we no longer care?
We all have families, and those of us that have small children or young grandchildren could we ever think the unthinkable: that we could lose our children in such a way as parents have lost their children in Iraq? The very thought is too horrendous to contemplate, and yet kids are killed almost daily in Iraq and our backs are still turned, our eyes still shut and our hands over our ears. We must all share the shame and disgrace.
Who will speak out on the human rights abuses against these children and their lost childhood?
What of the ones not killed ... the wounded, the traumatized and the psychological damage done to these children who have witnessed destruction, beatings and mutilated bodies. These innocents suffer because of decisions made by adults. How can we ever repair the damage that has been done to these children?
In May 2000 Nelson Mandela said: 'We cannot waste the lives of precious children, not another one, not another day. It is long past time for us to act on their behalf.'
It was in 2002 when the UN General Assembly passed a resolution 'A World Fit For Children', which pledged to protect children from the horrors of armed conflict.
Meanwhile the slaughter goes on. What has got to happen before we as a nation stand up and yell in the name of Humanity 'No more killing of children'? The saddest thing is that it is not just Iraq where this is happening. It's in Afghanistan, Palestine, Africa, Bosnia and many other countries.
During the writing of this small piece seven children (all from the same family) were killed by American war planes during a bombing in Bayji, seven other relatives were injured when their home was attacked.
+++++
LIVES LOST - THE GREATEST COSTS OF WAR, by Philip Talbot
Of all the costs of war, the costs in terms of the lost human lives are the greatest.
All the other costs might be recovered by changes in policy and political direction - but the lost lives can never be recovered.
The terrible truth is that no one knows for sure what the cost in human lives in Iraq has been - largely because the American and the British governments [clearly wanting to hide the scale of their own violent acts] 'don't do body counts'.
The two most reliable casualty estimates are from the Lancet medical journal and the independent Iraq Body Count organization.
Both show casualty levels way in excess of anything admitted officially, and both are probably conservative under-estimates of the real figures.
The Lancet estimate, published in 2004, was based on a complicated statistical analysis of changing population levels. Its casualty estimates concentrate on the 2003 invasion phase of the war and the immediate aftermath. The British and American governments have attempted to rubbish the Lancet report, but it has stood up to the attacks, and its estimate of at least 100,000 deaths up to the time of its publication has been widely accepted as 'credible'.
The Lancet report states: 'Violent deaths were widespread ... and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher ... than in the period before the war. [...] Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.'
The ongoing Iraq Body Count estimate is based on the slow piecing together of fragmentary casualty details published in diverse news reports. It estimates upwards of 30,000 deaths.
It is important to stress that the sort of news reports used by Iraq Body Count generally under-report the deaths of unarmed civilians killed by occupying forces - because they occur in areas where journalists are not able to work. This produces a misleading over-emphasis on the deaths caused by the non-state forces variously described as 'terrorists', 'insurgents' or 'resistance fighters'.
It is simply a fact - but rarely pointed out in the mainstream media - that the American military is the single most violent force in Iraq at present. Its 'shock and awe' attack policy is clearly a 'terrorist' doctrine - and it is only word-play to suggest otherwise.
It is a denial of reality if we only recognize 'terrorism' as something done by someone else - 'them' against 'us'.
It is true that more than 2,000 American troops have been killed in Iraq over the past 3 years, and something like 20,000 injured - and these casualties, like all war casualties, are to be deeply regretted.
But the Americans have not been soaking up casualties without inflicting them themselves.
For much of the last three years American forces have been actively on the offensive in many parts of Iraq - launching mostly unreported, and sometimes very indiscriminate, attacks on areas with large civilian populations - and have killed tens of thousands of people, mostly unarmed civilians.
These are facts:
* 'terrorists' killed more than 3,000 people in America in September 2001, and more than 50 people in London in July 2005
* 'terrorists' have killed tens of thousands of people in Iraq since March 2003
It is also a fact that the American forces have killed more people in Iraq than any other force operating there - and most of the victims were unarmed civilians rather than armed combatants.
These are reports of a sort you might not have heard on the BBC and other mainstream media outlets:
* 15,000 residents of an Iraqi town on the Euphrates were forced to flee during an attack by the US army.
* Residents of another Iraqi town described American bombs as falling on them 'like heavy rain' and witnesses reported marines shooting many unarmed inhabitants.
* Various American airstrikes on an Iraq town killed more than 40 unarmed civilians.
* Witnesses said US warplanes attacked rescuers attempting to free survivors from the rubble of a previous airstrike.
* 1,000 US troops cut off power and water supplies to a village near the Syrian border. The Americans then stormed the village killing dozens of civilians.
* 2,500 US troops backed by warplanes and helicopters launched a circling attack that sealed off three towns, causing untold numbers of casualties and damaging most buildings in the sealed off area.
And so it goes on ...
Such mostly indiscriminate attacks - which have included the deliberate use of chemical weapons, carpet bombing and cluster bombing - continue ... in mostly unreported incidents ...
And the cost in human lives continues ...
Britain has so far lost more than 100 military people killed in Iraq.
No figures for British military injured have been issued - and the British government has even refused to disclose such details under its own Freedom Of Information Act - but they must be at least in the hundreds.
Many of the other details of these British casualties remain mysterious. Families of many of the victims are still demanding explanations of the circumstances of their deaths.
There are also, in addition to the official forces, many somewhat mysterious forces now operating in Iraq.
There are, for example, known to be thousands of armed people, from America, Britain, and elsewhere, employed privately by security corporations in Iraq. No official numbers or casualty figures for these people have ever been issued.
It is also known that large contingents of so-called 'green card mercenaries' - generally poor people, from Latin America and elsewhere, offered U.S. citizenship in return for military service - are working with and within the American forces in Iraq. Many of these people have more or less untraceable backgrounds - and so are, effectively, 'disposable' soldiers, who can die or otherwise 'disappear' without having to be officially counted.
It is also known that within and alongside the British forces, there are unknown - but probably considerable - numbers of Commonwealth 'volunteers' - particularly from the West Indies and the Pacific islands. Official data gives little indication of their numbers, nor of what casualties they might have suffered.
It is also important to point out that war casualty figures obscure many other 'hidden' casualties - including the many - at least 'dozens' of - other British citizens - including contractors, aid workers, peace activists, journalists and others - who have been killed, injured, kidnapped, or otherwise traumatized in Iraq.
Nor do they include the thousands of deaths and injuries from 'common' criminal activity - which has soared in the many parts of Iraq that are now effectively lawless.
And nor do they include the civilian casualties in terrorist bombings elswhere, such as those in Madrid, Bali, Istanbul, and London - which no one - including Tony Blair - can seriously believe were not linked to the continuing war in Iraq.
+++++
COSTS OF WAR: AN HISTORICAL NOTE, by Philip Talbot
In 1692/3, while at war with France, the British government introduced a new method of paying for wars that enabled it to raise huge sums of money without having to resort to additional taxation: The National Debt.
The National Debt was initially intended as an emergency measure at a time when existing arrangements for obtaining credit were on the verge of collapse ... but it proved strangely enduring ...
In the initial 1692/3 National Debt scheme, corporations and individuals were invited to loan money to the government in return for stock that paid an annual dividend - thus investors were guaranteed a regular source of income, while the government found the wherewithal to pay for armies, navies and other forces as they were needed for each new overseas war.
During the following century, each successive war added to The National Debt: in 1757, for example, it stood at £57 million; by 1797 it had risen to £240 million [and in that year interest payments cost the British Treasury £9.4 million - a considerable sum for a nation which at that time had an annual income from taxes and other duties of only about £13 million]; by the end of the 'Napoleonic' wars, in 1815, The National Debt stood at £834 million.
Needless to say, the burden of servicing such an ever-expanding National Debt required an ever-expanding military-political-economic British overseas empire ...
Nevertheless, the burden of servicing the ever-rising National Debt was offset by certain advantages it offered to the British ruling classes: in particular it freed them from serious anxieties about the effects of their actions on public opinion - which might, for example, have reacted adversely to emergency taxation to pay for overseas wars in times of crisis.
+
Time to End the Attack On Humanity
South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition held a forum on
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
at South Shields Town Hall, Committee Room A
6.30pm - 8.00pm
Chaired by Peter Murray
Topics Presented for Discussion included:
Hope Not Fear - Phil Talbot
Unity and Resistance - Roger Nettleship
Other contributions - Nader Naderi, Alan Newham
On Saturday, 23 September thousands of people are travelling to Manchester for a demonstration that coincides with the start of the Labour Party Conference:
* To demand troops out of Iraq.
* To oppose British and US plans to attack Iran.
* To demand that the US and Israel take their hands off Lebanon.
* To demand that Britain complies with the the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty and scraps the Trident nuclear weapons without any replacement.
This demonstration is taking place at a time when the "war on terror" launched by Bush and Blair has created an even more dangerous situation for the world´s people.
War criminals at the head of the most powerful states have launched a savage offensive on every front - with wars of occupation, attacks on rights, social programmes and the environment.
They have put humanity itself under attack in order to further their interests and the interests of the huge arms, oil and other monopolies they represent.
This forum in South Tyneside gave ordinary local people the opportunity to discuss the present situation - and consider the progressive idea that it is time to end this sort of attack on humanity once and for all.
+++++
REMEMBRANCE, by Les Barker
I want to tell you of a dream that came to me one night;
I dreamed I saw a monument, an arch of purest white,
The purest, whitest arch atop the longest marble wall;
I saw when I moved closer that it bore no words at all.
I heard a sound behind me; as I turned, I caught my breath;
I saw a hooded figure and I knew that it was Death.
"Do you like my piece of sculpture? Let me tell you what it's for;
It's just one more memorial to those who die in war.
It's just one more memorial, like those in every town;
Once a year, you honour them; you stand with heads bowed down
In remembrance of the sacrifice of those who won't come back
From Paschendaele, Gallipoli, Vietnam and Iraq.
And so," he said, "this monument; as yet it bears no text;
A monument remembering the war that's coming next.
You'll come here and you'll read the names and touch the ones you know;
If ever you remembered.....you'd never let them go.
Look beside the wall; see, there's a mason standing by
To carve the names of sons and daughters sent away to die.
If ever you remembered, he'd not carve 'lest we forget'...
If ever you remembered; but you've not remembered yet."
I woke and Death was gone; and I swore that very night
That I would build a monument; an arch of purest white;
The purest, whitest arch atop the longest marble wall;
And strive for all my life to see it bears no words at all.
[tune: Roslin Castle]
South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition gratefully
thanks Les Barker, a professional performance poet,
for this contribution.
For more of Les's work visit:
<http://www.mrsackroyd.com/>
+++++
The Three Stooges
Suddenly, the airwaves are filled, from John O' Groats
to Land's End, with interviewers thrusting microphones
into the faces of hapless Muslims, or confronting them
in round-table discussions. They are earnestly asked
if there is anything more that "we" can do (that is,
anything more "they" can do), in these parlous times,
to help the "war on terror" (brainless phrase). The
tone has become increasingly illiberal. The
implication is that they are not fully "on board",
that in some way they should, they ought to do more,
and they are not doing it. Quite what the average
British Muslim, living peacefully in Acacia Avenue,
can do, is never fully asserted. Actively spy on his
neighbours? Convert to Christianity, join the paras,
and go to fight in Iraq? Approve of our foreign policy
despite his instincts? Disapprove of our foreign
policy, but shut up about it?
Patriotism (of the gutter variety, my country right or
wrong) is not yet a social demand. We do not have to
run the flag up the flagpole every morning. We do not
have to think certain things, and not others. All that
is required of us, Muslim or non-Muslim, is that we
stay peacefully within the bounds of the law. Or at
least, this is how it used to be. And no doubt the
vast majority of Muslims would, like the rest of us,
dutifully report a bomb factory next door.
Last weekend, in an open letter to Prime Minister Tony
Blair, British Muslim groups and politicians said
British foreign policy on issues like Iraq and the
Israel-Hizbollah war was putting us all at increased
risk of a terrorist attack.
Enter New Labour's three stooges, Reid, Howells and
Beckett (Blair having gone fishing). Blair's
praetorian guard know that they cannot let this one
stick, or, with the likelihood of further attacks, it
will be very bad for them. Thus they set about
strewing red herrings across our path, and creating
smokescreens to divert our attention from the real
issue.
However, there is no question that British foreign
policy has increased the likelihood of a terrorist
attack. The facts are:
·Shehzad Tanweer, one of the London bombers, said so
himself. In his recently released video statement, he
stated "To the non-Muslims of Britain, you may have
wondered what you have done to deserve this. You are
those who have voted in your government, who have in
turn and still continue to this day continue to
suppress our mothers, children, brothers and sisters
from the east to the west in Palestine, Afghanistan,
Iraq and Chechnya. Your government has openly
supported the genocide of over 150,000 innocent
Muslims in Fallujah." Can any statement be clearer
than this? Of course Tanweer could be
unrepresentative, and the others may have done it,
say, just because they hated travelling on the Tube,
but it doesn't seem likely, does it?
·Tanweer also said "What you have witnessed now is
only the beginning of a string of attacks that will
continue and become stronger until you pull your
forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq and until you stop
your financial and military support to America and
Israel."
·Osama bin Laden also said so himself, in a message
broadcast on al-Jezeera in October 2003. He reserved
the right to retaliate against all countries involved
in Iraq. He said "We reserve the right to retaliate at
the appropriate time and place against all countries
involved [in Iraq], especially the UK, Spain,
Australia, Poland, Japan and Italy, not to exclude
those Muslim states that took part, especially the
Gulf states, and in particular Kuwait, which has
become a launch pad for the crusading forces."
·The police think so, according to a piece in The
Guardian (July 6), headed "Police report: foreign
policy helped make UK a target", They said so in a
private briefing document to senior Scotland Yard
officers compiled by anti-terrorist specialists within
the last few months. The paper said it had seen the
document, which was marked "restricted". The document
said that the conflict in Iraq has had a "huge impact"
and stated that the removal of grievances the
jihadists use to justify violence will take time:
"What will change them - gradually - is argument, the
removal of justifying causes (Palestine, Iraq), the
erosion of perverted beliefs and day-to-day
frustrations." The Guardian piece also said there has
been debate among counter-terrorism experts about the
extent to which Britain's foreign policy has made it a
terrorist target. One counter-terrorism source said:
"We should not slavishly follow the government line.
It damages our ability to do our job."
·A joint Home Office and Foreign Office dossier
prepared in April 2004 for Tony Blair also thought so.
This was discussed in an article in the Sunday Times
(July 10, 2005) just after the London bombings, headed
"Leaked No 10 dossier reveals Al-Qaeda's British
recruits" The newspaper reported that the confidential
assessment forms the basis of the government's
counter-terrorism strategy and noted that the Iraq war
is identified by the dossier as a key cause of young
Britons turning to terrorism. The analysis stated "It
seems that a particularly strong cause of
disillusionment among Muslims, including young
Muslims, is a perceived 'double standard' in the
foreign policy of western governments, in particular
Britain and the US. The war on terror, and in Iraq and
Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British
Muslims as having been acts against Islam." It also
said that "Perceived western bias in Israel's favour
over the Israel/Palestinian conflict is a key
long-term grievance of the international Muslim
community which probably influences British Muslims."
·The spooks thought so too. In September 2003, the
parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee
(ISC) disclosed that the Joint Intelligence Committee
(JIC) had warned Mr. Blair in February - a month
before the start of the Iraq war - that al-Queda was
"by far the greatest threat to western interests and
that the threat would be increased by military action
against Iraq."
·The Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC), in which
the police and customs are represented along with the
intelligence services, also thought so. Leaked
extracts from a JTAC assessment drawn up in June 2005
were published in the New York Times (19 July 2005).
The assessment included the words "Events in Iraq are
continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range
of terrorist related activity in the UK" The
government has not denied that this is an authentic
extract from the assessment.
·Disinformation has been extensively used by the
government. One particularly effective line which
seems to have successfully misled many commentators
has been to point out that several al-Queda attacks,
including the 9/11 attack, took place before the
invasion of Iraq. To refute this, it is necessary to
look at recent history. It is 50 years or so since the
Suez crisis ended Britain's colonial domination in the
Middle East - a long time for Arab resentment to
considerably dissipate. Around that time, the United
States, the superpower, took over, and began a long
series of belligerent actions in the Middle East in
general, including fomenting coups (Iraq), using
sanctions (Iraq), securing permanent military bases
(Saudi Arabia), and it's aggressive support for Israel
in both war and peace. It did so in pursuit of it's
own vital interests - primarily oil. As a result, it
is widely disliked in the Middle East by the "man in
the street" as opposed to the political elites. In
other words, it became the main focus of Arab dislike
by many, and hatred by some. Terrorist attacks against
the USA before the Iraq war are not therefore
surprising. It was Britain's support for America in
Iraq which put us in the firing line together with
them, and re-energised Arab resentments towards us.
This is hinted at in the April 2004 joint Home Office
and Foreign office dossier referred to above, which
includes the following words: "The perception is that
passive 'oppression' as demonstrated in British
foreign policy, eg non-action in Kashmir and Chechnya,
has given way to 'active oppression' - the war on
terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan are all seen by a
section of British Muslims as having been acts against
Islam."
· Another effective line of disinformation is to
misrepresent the nature of terrorist attacks. Thus
Jack Straw on 18th July 2005: "….But let me also say
this the time for excuses for terrorism are over, the
terrorists have struck across the world in countries
allied with the United States, backing the war in Iraq
and in countries which had nothing whatever to do with
the war in Iraq. They struck in Kenya, in Tanzania, in
Indonesia, in the Yemen. They struck this weekend in
Turkey which was not supporting our action in Iraq."
Straw knew of course that the targets of the attacks
in Kenya, Tanzania and Yemen were American, and the
attack on Bali in Indonesia was against Australian
tourists (Australia being part of the "coalition of
the willing" in the Iraq war). He also knew that the
attack on Turkey was committed by a Kurdish separatist
organisation, not by al-Queda.
We know all this, of course, but in spin-filled times
such as these it is sometimes necessary to state the
obvious. No wonder we have been refused a full
enquiry. Instead, we have more fact-free government
spin from the stooges:
·John Reid said that "No government worth its salt
would stay in power in my view, and no government
worth its salt, would be supported by the British
people if our foreign policy or any other aspect of
policy was being dictated by terrorists." The
implication, the attempted slur, is that those of us
who would like a change in foreign policy wish to
buckle under the terrorist threat. This, of course, is
nonsense. We do not wish to change foreign policy to
appease the terrorists who wish to attack us - we
utterly oppose them too. We wish to change it, over
Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and the Middle East
generally, including our current subservience to the
American line, because (a) it is abhorrent (b) in
purely practical terms it is the biggest foreign
policy disaster since Suez (c) it has badly damaged
our standing around the world (except, of course, with
the ugly clique of neocons currently in residence in
the White House).
·Kim Howells said the letter's comments were "facile"
(again, the attempted slur). He said "I have no doubt
that there are many issues which incite people to
loath government policies but not to strap explosives
to themselves and go out and murder innocent people.
There is no way of rationalising that. I think it is
very, very dangerous when people who call themselves
community leaders make some assumption that somehow
that there's a rational connection between these two
things." The use of the words "some assumption",
"somehow" and "rational" is of course a not-so-subtle
smear to imply a bunch of crazies attempting to make a
spurious link between foreign policy and the terrorist
threat. All we can say is, read the facts we have
given above. Howells is strong on assertions, but
non-existent on facts.
·Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said those who
blamed the country's foreign policy for the terrorism
threat were making "the gravest possible error. This
is part of a distorted view of the world, a distorted
view of life. Let's put the blame where it belongs:
with people who wantonly want to take innocent lives,"
she said. Again, no facts - just the bald assertion of
error. Of course those who commit atrocities are to
blame for them - but that tells us precisely nothing
about whether they committed such atrocities because
they were motivated, in whole or in part, by British
foreign policy. It's a red herring.
·We could add a fourth to the trio - Transport
Secretary Douglas Alexander. He told BBC Radio "No
government worth its salt should allow its foreign
policy to be dictated to under the threat of
terrorism. The contemporary challenge we face is how
do we maintain the safety of the British public, how
do we uphold the perfect right of people to debate
these issues but never to succumb to what I think
would be both dangerous and foolish". Same old
fact-free stuff, then - we're just dangerous and
foolish. But who's really dangerous and foolish - us
or them?
John Tinmouth
On Behalf Of South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition
+++++
THE MILITARY AND THE MONETARY
The military and the monetary,
They get together whenever they think its necessary,
They've turned our brothers and sisters into
mercenaries,
They are turning our planet into a cemetery.
"Work for Peace" Gil Scott-Heron
Gil Scott-Heron makes reference in the same song to
President Dwight D. Eisenhower who, in his farewell
address to the American people in 1961, said that
America had been compelled to create a permanent
armaments industry of vast proportions and America
must not fail to comprehend its implications.
He said, " In the councils of government, we must
guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought, or unsought, by the
Military-Industrial Complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will
persist"
Eisenhower is credited with creating the term
Military-Industrial Complex.
A precursor of such a term was American Lieutenant
General Smedley Butler, author of "War is a Racket"
published in 1935. Looking back, Butler noticed how
defence industries lobbied politicians emphasising the
job creation benefits on the one hand, and on the
other, concerns that without America's involvement in
World War One, the Allied countries may lose the war
owing billions of dollars to American banks, munitions
makers and manufacturers; money that they wouldn't get
back.
President Woodrow Wilson having been re-elected in
1916 claiming that he had
" Kept us out of war" asked Congress 5 months later to
declare war on Germany-
According to Butler on the pretext that it was a " war
to make the world safe for democracy" a phrase people
might be familiar with in more recent times.
In the 1980's there was a huge increase in US military
and defence spending during the Reagan arms build up,
and, what American Professor J.K.Galbraith referred to
as
"…The emergence of a largely autonomous military
establishment standing above and apart from democratic
control" Just as worrying is Galbraith's assertion
that the civilian heads of the defence establishment
play a mere ceremonial role; that tenure in these
positions is also brief and they move onto jobs in the
defence industry, either employed directly or as
consultants. In effect, all are part of a closed
circle of common interest.
The same ceremonial role may apply to the Congress and
its Committees whose members are given careful
attention by high military officers and civilian
officials.
Chalmers Johnson, retired Professor of International
relations at California University gives an example of
how Legislators in general are held hostage by the
different firms and military installations in their
home districts or states; a big project like the B-2
Stealth Bomber has the sum of its parts divided
between the 48 continental states to insure that
individual members of Congress can be threatened with
the loss of jobs in their district should they ever
get the idea that another Weapon of Mass Destruction
is not necessary.
As Professor Galbraith has argued - no one will doubt
that the modern corporation is a dominant force in the
present - day economy. Where once in the US there were
capitalist individuals such a Carnegie and
Rockerfeller - Galbraith now claims that power belongs
to corporate management - pro-active in developing
ever new-sophisticated weaponry without being asked to
do so and then to present their designs to be awarded
production and profit.
As corporate interest moves to power in what was the
public sector, it serves the corporate interest e.g.
that of nominally private firms into the defence
establishment.
From this comes a primary influence on the military
budget, on foreign policy, military commitment and,
ultimately, military action. War.
Major corporate figures are also in senior positions
in the Federal Government; you will know the one who
came from the bankrupt and thieving Enron to preside
over the US army.
The American State Department official Francis
Fukuyama famously claimed the end of history following
the collapse of the Soviet Union; the West had won and
everyone would reap what was called the "peace
dividend" - a reward, a benefit. Yet, just as before,
the development of weapons systems continues apace
with no plausible enemy, only to sustain the
Military-Industrial Complex, so necessary to the US
economy.
As governments around the world adopt and support the
neo-conservative agenda of the so called "free
market"; so powerful that corporations can dictate
government policies; when ordinary people- the
citizens of the world- appear to have less and less
influence on the powerful, so the Military- Industrial
Complex gathers greater power over our destiny, an
undemocratic self - serving profit driven major player
in shaping the world for its own benefit.
It seems as if we, the ordinary citizens of the world
are deliberately being prevented from rubbing along
together - the manufacturers of weapons, the
manufacturers of animosity between peoples - simply
won't allow it.
Smedley Butler summarised three steps that must be
taken to smash the war racket.
1.We must take the profit out of war
2.We must permit the youth of the land who would bear
arms to decide whether or not there should be war
3.We must limit our military forces to home defence
purposes.
If those steps sound hopelessly naïve today, then it's
a measure of how deeply embedded in power are those
who threaten our civilisation.
The people we will see on the streets of Manchester on
23rd September this year should remind us that there
are those - not only here in the UK - but all over the
world for whom silence is shame and will continue to
speak out and refuse to tolerate those who manufacture
war.
Alan Newham.
+++++
Our Unity and Resistance Against the Warmongers and
Scaremongers is Key
The Manchester demonstration is taking place at a time
when the "war on terror" launched by Bush and Blair
has created an even more dangerous situation for the
world's people, in which
war criminals at the head of these most powerful
states have launched the most savage offensive on
every front, with wars of occupation; attacks on
rights, attacks on social programmes and the
environment that have put humanity itself in jeopardy.
There is a growing movement against warmongers in
government. The British government and its members
have not drawn the conclusion that is they that are
responsible for the loss of life both in this country
and Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, including British
soldiers who are stationed on foreign soil. People
are increasingly questioning the whole position, taken
up by an obedient media, to attempt to sow divisions
and suspicion to blame the situation on "terrorism"
and lay charges of this against the Muslim community
and others of extremism and to whip up the most
frantic hysteria and scare mongering.
The conclusion which a wide section of the people are
coming to is that the promotion and acts of terrorism
serve the interests of the warmongers and scare
mongers to impose the type of society that restricts
its citizens to be mere consumers of all the lies and
misinformation that is dished up about the serious
problems of security, of the health service, of the
environment and the devastating wars that the British
government has undertaken.
There is no attempt to support all people and all
communities in investigating and finding solutions to
these serious and dangerous problems whilst at all
times safeguarding the unity of the people and
outlawing any attempt to promote division. Instead
there is a deliberate attempt by these hardened
warmonger politicians and the obedient media to incite
an atmosphere of suspicion and blame against the whole
Muslim community and whoever else they want to target.
The alleged terrorist plot and its thwarting has been
used to attempt to gloss over and divert attention
from the war and other crimes of the "war on terror".
They want to subvert the growing movement of the
people and intend to try an smash the precious unity
that the people themselves have forged in the face of
the attacks on their communities and on the nations
and countries of the world, nationalities and cultures
that are reflected in all our communities in Britain
and the unity of peoples and nations that the people
so earnestly desire.
The warmongers and scare mongers are desperate people
driven by an agenda set by a tiny minority who would
rather see the world destroyed in their quest for
monopoly over the worlds resources and markets than
step off the scene of history.
The growing movement against war and its justification
has been joined by military families against war, the
families and communities of those who have been the
targeted in arrests by the state, and indeed also the
survivors of 7/7 who are demanding that the truth of
these outrages be uncovered and now whole sections
have come forward with the dangerous situation,
destruction and death caused by the US-Israeli
invasion of Lebanon with Britain's support.
In this situation developing our unity and resistance
against the warmongers and scaremongers is key. It is
this unity of the people that the government and the
media are so desperate to split and they have shown
already how far they are prepared to go to try and
divide us. Unity and resistance against these
warmongers and scaremongers is the watchword.
For the people there is no need to believe any of the
"news" that the media pumps out daily to justify the
"war on terror". Firstly, they dehumanise the people.
In Afghanistan they tell us that the NATO force is
there to defend the Afghans and kill "insurgents", or
"Taliban", or to stop opium production. Of course,
in reality they are an occupying force, just as in
Iraq, responsible for the killing of Afghan people
every day and now Afghanistan produces 92% or the
worlds opium one third of which is produced in the
British occupied and controlled Helmand province.
Secondly, the US and British attack on Afghanistan and
Iraq and their occupation, the US-Israeli attack on
Lebanon and the siege of Gaza are crimes that are
worse that any in the modern world which have been
undertaken by any other government or individual
terror group. In this situation do we need to take a
stand on any "justification" for their "war on
terror"? Whether it is "weapons of mass destruction",
"tyrannical leaders", "terrorist plots", all the lies
and disinformation have one aim to justify their
attacks on the peoples and nations at home and abroad.
The "war on terror" is a war of terror aimed at
creating the very response it claims to be aimed at
defeating in order to justify a permanent war against
the peoples and nations of the world. The Independent
on Sunday ran and article on the anniversary of 9-11
stating that the "war on terror" had claimed the lives
of a minimum of 62,006 people, created 4.5 million
refugees and cost the US more than the sum needed to
pay off the debts of every poor nation on earth."
However the special report admitted that this figure
on the number of deaths in Iraq alone could in its
estimate "reach as high as 180,000"
Unity and resistance of the anti-war movement has made
it one of the most vital movements of the peoples over
recent years in opposition to the "war on terror".
This is why it is vital that the people keep the
initiative in their own hands and not allow the
movement to be allied to the "opposition" created by
the big parties. An anti-war government will not be
brought about by changing one warmongering Prime
minister for another from a war mongering cabinet, or
another of the big parties. Whilst the political
crisis is real and being deepened by the continuing
opposition of the people it must be recognised that
the "debate" which leader should take over from Blair
is an attempt by the ruling circles to find a new
arrangement with which to continue these attacks on
humanity
What the movement stands for is stopping the war and
replacing Blair with an anti-war government. Stopping
the war means stopping this "war on terror", putting
on trial those responsible, paying reparations for the
huge damage to Iraq and other countries, abiding by
international law, bringing all troops home from
foreign soil, recognising the sovereignty of all the
nations of the world and of taking a stand to resolve
international conflict peacefully. The fight for an
anti-war government in Britain is the greatest support
the British people can give to the peoples of Iraq,
Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria, Iran and North Korea.
What the movement stands for is uniting people
politically around its programme and oppose any
attempt to split the people on ideological, religious
or any other ground.
What the movement stands for is that another world is
possible in which the people's security and well-being
is at the centre of all concerns and that warmongers
are no longer allowed to usurp power and the people
are able to establish an anti-war government.
Roger Nettleship
+++++
Hope Not Fear
Some people noticed that when George Bush - the 'brave
leader of the free world' - visited his friend Tony
Blair in Sedgefield 3 years ago, he was wearing body
armour under his shirt.
Mr Bush's choice of under-wear was quite revealing.
Only a very fear-filled American president would feel
the need to wear body armour under his shirt when
visiting the home town of his closest overseas ally.
Such a frightened, body-armoured, American president
clearly had nothing but the 'politics of fear' to
offer to Britain or the wider world - then or now.
Sadly, Britain under Tony Blair and his New Labour
government, has found no better option than to join
this frightened man from across the Atlantic in his
crazy crusade of a 'war on terror'.
Hiding within security screens themselves, the
fear-filled 'leaders of the free world' try to
convince people that the world is more dangerous and
terrifying than it really is.
According to Mr Bush and Mr Blair, there are 'tens of
thousands' of 'terrorists' lurking around the world
'like ticking time bombs' wanting to 'destroy our way
of life'.
That is just not true. That is just paranoid fantasy.
According to Mr Bush and Mr Blair, 'if you are not
with us, you are with the terrorists'.
That is just not true. That is just paranoid fantasy.
Many of us who are, in fact, 'not with' Mr Bush and Mr
Blair actually regard them as among the world's most
dangerous 'terrorists'.
Small-scale non-state 'terrorists' could never
threaten 'our way of life' as thoroughly as Mr Bush
and Mr Blair have been doing over the past few years.
Through their lunatic 'war on terror' they have opened
up a 'can of worms' and made the world a more
dangerous place than it was before 9/11.
Their illegal attack on Iraq tore up existing
conventions of international law.
The war in Iraq has resulted in more death and
destruction than all the acts of the non-state forces
they label 'terrorists' - in New York, London, and
elsewhere.
In their home countries, they are destroying civil
liberties - supposedly to counter a 'terror problem',
which, in fact, they have largely created.
The frightened 'leaders of the free world' have
attempted to scare their own citizens unnecessarily -
as a way to maintain control over them.
And they have also scape-goated their own citizens in
a disgraceful manner through their so-called
'anti-terror' measures.
In Britain alone, over the past 5 years, more than
1,000 people of Asian family origin have been arrested
under 'anti-terror' measures. Only 27 of these people
have been convicted of any offence - mostly not
'terror' related.
In fact, large parts of the British population, from
all ethnic groups, are 'not with' Mr Bush and Mr Blair
in their 'war on terror'. Few of these many opponents
of Mr Bush and Mr Blair have any connection with the
largely phantom 'networks of terrorists'.
Most of the opponents of Mr Bush and Mr Blair are in
fact strongly 'anti-terror' - and part of a large
loose alliance of broadly anti-war people, which, in
fact, makes up the bulk of humanity.
Most people in most places would like to believe
'another world is possible' and would want to see a
world without the sort of violence and war that Mr
Bush and Mr Blair have been fostering.
A world without war is not an unworldly fantasy - it
is possible, and we can all do small things on our
local scales to start to bring it about.
South Tyneside Stop The War Coalition is a local group
of people with diverse political, religious and
cultural views. We were founded by a group of
concerned people shortly before the U.S. led invasion
of Iraq in March 2003.
We believe that being against a prolonged U.S./U.K.
occupation of Iraq and other aspects of the 'war on
terror' is not enough - we should also have positive
ideas of building a better world without war.
We are not a political party with a fixed set of ideas
that all supporters are expected to sign up to -
indeed, we celebrate diversity and open debate,
believing them key to a more prosperous and peaceful
world.
More than three years since the invasion, Iraq is
still an occupied country in a state of disorder - and
the world is still in a state of uncertainty as to
whether further military action will happen elsewhere
as part of the war on terror.
It is a commonplace of politics that you depict your
opponents in the worst possible light. We have not
really had to do that with Mr Bush and Mr Blair and
their cronies - because they have done it for
themselves.
As each week has passed over the last few years more
and more grotesque facts about their 'war on terror'
have come to light - revealing lies, phoney scare
stories, outrageous acts of violence, disgraceful
abuses of the rule of law - all initially denied, then
more or less admitted [though never with full
explanation or apology]
First there were the machinations at the United
Nations that tore up existing conventions of
international law - particularly the vital convention
of 'national sovereignty'.
Then there were the lies about 'weapons of mass
destruction'.
Then there were the phoney 'terror plots' such as the
'ricin scare'.
Then there was the deliberate use of chemical weapons
in Falluja and elsewhere.
Then there was the indiscriminate use of cluster bombs
in highly populated areas.
Then there was detention of people without trial in
torture camps.
Then there was a terrorist suspect 'shoot to kill'
policy that led to innocent people being shot by
police.
Then, just last week, there was the admission that the
CIA does indeed have a secret network of prisons
scattered around the world - where untold numbers of
anonymous people are still being held.
South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition believes that
the control of world events should not be left to the
decisions of Mr Bush and Mr Blair and the narrow
circles of the rich and powerful they represent.
Millions of British people - including many who
eventually decided to support the war - were deeply
troubled by the idea of Britain being involved in a
military invasion of another country - against normal
United Nations conventions, and according to a plan
mostly devised by a right-wing American government but
with a so-called 'centre left' British government
playing a major part.
The millions of anti-war voices were ignored and Mr
Bush and Mr Blair got the war they wanted - a
disastrous violent policy failure as we now know.
The initial anti-war movement failed to stop the war,
but up and down the country there emerged numerous
groups that did not exist before, acting locally but
combining informally into a united anti-movement.
In South Tyneside, and other parts of the North-East,
there are now anti-war groups where nothing of the
sort existed before.
More than a thousand people from South Tyneside signed
our petitions against the start of the war in 2003.
Since then dozens of South Tynesiders have taken part
in public meetings, demonstrations, peace vigils and
other actions, locally and nationally.
During our campaigning, we also found many examples of
people in the borough taking independent anti-war
actions - including putting banners on their houses,
taking part in prayer vigils, as well as lobbying
politicians via telephone, mail, email, text messages
and other forms of communication.
Large numbers of people still believe that the war was
unjustified, illegal by the normal standards of
international law, and likely to make the world a more
dangerous place over the medium, and long terms.
Many believe that non-state terrorist attacks are
likely to increase in number and severity in future as
a consequence of the war.
The South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition has more
than a dozen active supporters - and more than one
hundred people have indicated that they want to
continue to help our work in various ways.
A major focus of our present campaigning is against
the war-mongering right-wing zealots at the heart of
the present American government and the support they
receive from the British government.
However, we are not anti-American.
We support the rich diversity of the American People
and their culture - which we believe is better
represented in our counterpart anti-war groups in the
USA than in the present American government.
What we are seeing now with anti-war groups around the
world is a shift in perspective.
Previously the anti-war movement was mostly a pressure
group aimed at persuading those in power to cease
their warmongering activities.
Now the anti-war movement has started to encourage
people to empower themselves and consider ways of
creating anti-war government.
This has been evident in the forums such as this one
that South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition has
organised over the past few years.
At our first ever forum in May 2003, one speaker
reflected the seriousness of the work our movement is
undertaking for the future of humanity. He said:
'Wars of the 21st century are in fact an all out
assault on the rights of people around the world -
'rights' that must remain sacred if we are to
subscribe to notions of civilised transaction, with a
view to stability of our societies, ultimately leading
to a life free from molestation, threat, and danger
for all the human family.'
Another speaker then stressed the importance of
organising locally, making the vital point that
'people have to do their own thinking and organising
and create new arrangements to give this movement for
peace permanent life'.
In many different ways at that and subsequent forums
speakers have elaborated this view that the movement
should work to establish an anti-war government.
South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition has a
local-based, do-it-yourself approach to campaigning.
We operate on a small local scale, but with global
concerns in mind.
The primary question we ask is: How can people acting
on a relatively small-scale, locally, influence wider
events nationally and internationally?
We believe that 'another world is possible' - and that
through collected small-scale actions, we can create
it.
Phil Talbot
*****
Hope Not Fear - some end-notes for further
consideration.
The casualties of the 'war on terror' are not only
those people suffering physical damage.
Psychological scars run deep. In August 2006 the MoD
released figures showing 1,541 British soldiers who
served in Iraq are suffering from psychiatric illness.
Last year, 727 cases were recorded, amounting to
nearly 10% of the British deployment at that time.
People who live in fear, think in fear-filled terms,
and distort their own minds. The lives people in
'security' services live, for example, - in secret
rooms, talking in coded languages, constantly
suspecting others - means the ordinary winds of common
sense often do not blow into their world views. They
are constantly looking to react to an 'enemy' in
adversarial and conspiratorial terms. It is absolutely
necessary to the 'intelligence' mentality that they
put the worst possible interpretation upon their
supposed 'adversaries'. Excited, overstimulated
people, often on very short sleep, together with all
the toys of secret intelligence work - the bugs, the
'Top Secret' documents, the special passes -
inevitably produce irrational behavior patterns, and a
kind of 'institutionalized paranoia'.
We might be better off worrying less about the few
non-state terrorists who might slip through the net,
and more about the ways 'anti-terror' measures and the
irrationalities associated with them are corrupting
our civil liberties.
The best defence against terrorism is not to behave in
a terrorist manner ourselves - and actually to create
the progressive and democratic societies we are
supposed to need the 'security' services to 'protect'.
What we also need, perhaps, are new positive
'idealistic' dreams.
We have become relatively inarticulate and undirected
in our collective thinking - and so more prone to
fearful negative paranoid fantasies.
We are squandering the possibilities of peace.
+++++
The 'Ricin Plot' - Fact and Fiction
The deceptions over 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' are
now widely understood.
Less well known are the deceptions involved in the
so-called 'ricin plot' - which, like the phoney WMD
scare, was also used for propaganda purposes in the
build up to the attack on Iraq.
In January 2003, three months before the attack on
Iraq, media reports were full of a so-called 'ricin
plot'.
The Sun, reported the discovery of a "factory of
death". Other newspapers warned of "a poison gang on
the loose" and that "250,000 of us could have died"
from attacks by ricin - "a killer with no antidote"
The real facts of the so-called 'ricin plot' are now
fairly well-established.
Ricin is a liquid contact poison unlikely to be spread
as a gas cloud.
It can be extracted from castor oil plants - but only
with great expertise.
On 5 January 2003, acting on a 'tip off', the police
raided a flat in Wood Green, North London and arrested
six men. They were accused of 'manufacturing ricin for
a terrorist poison attack on the London Underground'.
A seventh man was arrested on 7 January, when the
earlier arrests were made public.
On 12 January 2003 five men and a woman were arrested
in the Bournemouth area accused of 'terrorism
involving ricin', but were released without charge
several days later.
On 14 January 2003 three men were arrested in
Manchester when a house was raided as part of the
investigation. During the raid there was a violent
scuffle, and a police officer DC Stephen Oake died
after being stabbed by one of the suspects with a
kitchen knife.
On 20 January 2003 Finsbury Park mosque was raided by
police and closed for several days as part of the
investigation. Seven men were arrested. Another man
was arrested in London a day later.
On 5 February 2003, while making the case for military
intervention in Iraq to the UN Security Council, U.S.
Secretary of State Colin Powell presented those
arrested as the 'UK Poison Cell' of a global terrorist
network.
More than a year later, in June 2004, a man of north
African origin, Kamel Bourgass was convicted for the
murder of DC Oake during his arrest and was jailed for
life.
The following year, at a second trial in April 2005,
Mr Bourgass alone was convicted and sentenced to 17
years for 'conspiring to cause a public nuisance' in
relation to the so-called 'ricin plot'. Eight other
defendents were aquitted or had their case dropped.
There was a blanket ban on reporting on anything
involving the two trials until the second one had
ended.
At the trials it became apparent that 'intelligence'
in this 'plot' had been extracted under torture in
Algeria.
There was in fact no 'ricin plot' - because the
suspects had no ricin to plot with - and this was
known to the authorities within a few days of the
men's arrest.
In January 2003 castor oil plants and some biological
notes [of a sort that could be downloaded by anyone
from the internet] were found - or planted - among the
suspects' possessions. A team from the Ministry of
Defence's Biological Weapon Identification Group was
sent to investigate, and discovered that ricin was not
present at the suspects' dwellings.
This information, that there was no ricin, was not
revealed to the public until two years after the
original scare story.
In the meantime, the ricin scare story had been used
to 'justify' further 'anti-terror' laws, and as part
of the propaganda in the build-up to the attack on
Iraq.
Because the men's aquital received much less attention
than the sensational stories at the time of their
arrests, there still persists a myth that there was a
'British ricin plot'.
As late as February 2006, Gordon Brown - the 'next
prime minister', so we are told - was still referring
to this 'ricin plot' as a 'terrorism case'.
Several of the men aquitted are still under control
orders, including taggings and curfews, with some
facing deportation on 'terrorism' charges, apparently
based on 'information' from a prisoner tortured in
Algeria.
Phil Talbot
+++++
AN OPEN LETTER TO ONE OF THE 'CONTENDERS' FOR THE NEW
LABOUR LEADERSHIP
FROM SOUTH TYNESIDE STOP THE WAR COALITION
[C/O Trinity House Social Centre, 134 Laygate, South
Shields, NE33 4JD]
Tuesday 19 August 2006
Dear Mr David Miliband, MP for South Shields
More than 3 years on from the U.S.-U.K-led attack on
Iraq, will you now come clean on the ways the New
Labour government of which you are a prominent member
misled the people of South Tyneside?
Will you also now acknowledge some important matters
of fact that we first pointed out to you in 2003:
· that the British people were tricked over the
reasons for going to war?
· that you personally misled the people of South
Tyneside on the issue of ‘weapons of mass destruction’
[WMD]?
· that the world is a much more dangerous place as a
consequence of the Iraq war, which you fully
supported?
The charge we make against you personally is very
specific, and the evidence against you is
overwhelming.
On 15 March 2003 you told the Shields Gazette that you
had ‘overwhelming evidence’ that Iraq possessed WMD.
This claim of ‘overwhelming evidence’ was demonstrably
untrue, as, more than 3 years on, not a trace of real
solid evidence of WMD has been found in occupied Iraq.
Will you now finally admit that you did not have the
‘overwhelming evidence’ you claimed to have?
In a letter to South Tyneside Stop the War Coalition
[STSTWC], dated 11 August 2003, you said: ‘… as more
facts become known and more change is achieved, we can
all come to a balanced conclusion about the decisions
that were taken’.
More than 3 years on, with many ‘more facts’ now
known, the ‘balanced conclusions’ of STSTWC are that:
· British public opinion was originally strongly
against the war plans, but the British people were
tricked into accepting – rather than actively
supporting – the war by a mixture of lies and scare
stories, which you played a prominent part in
spreading.
· Without the evidence of WMD, and without proper
United Nations sanction, the invasion and occupation
of Iraq was illegal by any standard existing
convention of international law.
· The toppling of Saddam – however odious he might
have been – in the manner it was done was equally
illegal.
· The illegal actions of the U.S.-U.K-led coalition,
in the name of a so-called ‘war on terror’, have
corrupted the fabric of international relations -
increasing the level of general lawlessness
world-wide, and making it a much more dangerous place
as a consequence.
· A ‘can of worms’ has now been opened up – there are
now untold numbers of ‘terrorists’ of unknown
designations, and a general state of fear and
insecurity.
What are your own ‘balanced conclusions’ Mr Miliband?
In an open letter to you first issued on 31 July 2003,
we asked you a further series of detailed questions,
which you have so far failed to answer.
We now repeat them:
· Did you ever really believe that Iraq had
battlefield WMD ready to use at 45 minutes notice? -
as your leader Tony Blair suggested to the House of
Commons [24/09/2002].
· Would you now accept that the style of the U.S-led
assault with ground troops strongly suggests that
war-planners believed all along that American and
British troops would not be attacked by WMD?
· Do you now agree that Britain was never under direct
threat of a nuclear, chemical or biological attack by
Iraq and that Saddam did not possess usable
battlefield WMD?
· Do you personally regret supporting an invasion that
took place contrary to the normal conventions of
international law, without the support of the UN, and
without ‘overwhelming evidence’ of Saddam’s possession
of WMD?
· Do you agree with your leader’s implication that
regardless of international law and regardless of
accuracy of intelligence, the 'result' justified the
action?.
· Have you read policy statements by the right-wing
American ‘think-tank’ The Project for a New American
Century? In a statement of principles first published
in 1997 - and signed by, among others, Dick Cheney,
now U.S. Vice President, Donald Rumsfeld, now U.S.
Defence Secretary - this group calls on Americans to
support an increase in defence spending and attempts
to ‘rally support for American global leadership’. Are
you happy to be, in effect, a supporter of such a
project of American imperialism? Is it in the best
interests of Britain and the wider world?
· Would you now agree that the invasion of Iraq was an
example of the new style of American imperialism,
which Britain is tamely supporting, and that the world
is a much more dangerous place as a result?
We trust you will have the politeness to reply to this
letter - and with the honesty and integrity that the
people of South Tyneside would expect from an elected
representative.
Yours sincerely,
Philip Talbot
On behalf of the South Tyneside Stop the War
Coalition.
p.s. On 15 March 2003, you were asked by the Shields
Gazette about the circumstances in which you would
‘resign on principle’. Your reply was:
‘My bottom lines are that the government acts in
accordance with international law, pursues
international co-operation at every stage, and argues
for a wider settlement in the Middle East that brings
peace to Israel and Palestine, stability to Iraq and
democracy and prosperity to the region.’
Would you now agree with our ‘balanced conclusion’
that the government of which you are a member has
conducted its business in a manner falling well below
your own ‘bottom lines’?
+++++
The Ambiguities of Ownership,
Self Determination,
and Sovereignty
As dawn breaks, the saga of human tragedies, and triumphs, begin
yet another new cycle. The tragedies facing those in the far flung
lands, translated through puffed-up, bloodshot eyes of the wailing
women young and old, still mournful, and tearful from the ghastly
memories, of the burial of the mangled, and mutilated remains of
what used to be their offspring, husband, brother, or sister, once
more registering the unfolding chaos, and carnage these victims
of aggression are drowning in. But as John Pilger notes it, this is
only the slow news. Pilger further explains; “When I began working
as a journalist, there was something called “slow news”. We would
refer to “slow news days” when “nothing happened” – apart from,
that is, triumphs and tragedies in faraway places where most of
humanity lived. These were rarely reported, or the tragedies were
dismissed as acts of nature, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
The news value of whole societies was measured by their
relationship with “us” in the west and their degree of compliance
with, or hostility to, our authority. If they didn’t measure up, they
were slow news.”
Slow news is also the continuous unfolding of atrocities of US
The Ambiguities of Ownership,
Self Determination,
and Sovereignty
by Nader Naderi
soldiers, as reflected by Robert Fisk; “from Abu Ghraib to
Guantanamo to Bagram, to the battlefields of Iraq and to the “black”
prisons of the CIA, humiliation and beatings, rape, anal rape and
murder have now become so commonplace that each new outrage
is creeping into the inside pages of our newspapers”. Fisk goes on
to state; “My reporting notebooks are full of Afghan and Iraqi
complaints of torture and beatings from August 2002, and then
from 2003 to the present point. How, I keep asking myself, did this
happen? Obviously, the trail leads to the top. But where did this
cult of cruelty begin?”.
Slow news includes the eye witness accounts of events by army
specialist Tony Lagouranis, who recanted to Amy Goodman of
Democracy Now, which can not be classified as main stream media
by any measure. Specialist Lagouranis, part of an American mobile
interrogation team working with US marines, during his interview
describing a 2004 operation in Babel, outside Baghdad goes on
record; “Every time Force Recon went on a raid, they would bring
back prisoners who were bruised, with broken bones, sometimes
with burns. They were pretty brutal to these guys”. Specialist
Lagouranis continues; “I would ask the prisoners what happened,
how they received these wounds. And they would tell me that it
was after their capture, while they were subdued, while they were
handcuffed and they were being questioned by the Force Recon
Marines ... One guy was forced to sit on an exhaust pipe of a
Humvee ... he had a giant blister, third-degree burns on the back
of his leg.”
While slow news days grind on, in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere
in the theatres of various operation freedoms, and or war on terror
trademarks, the vast numbers of the dead and wounded are on the
rise on an almost hourly basis. While the regular news informs us
all; Blair is Labour’s most successful prime minister, winning three
landslide election victories in a row and airline passengers are happy
with the new security measures, designed for their safety. The
surreal choices of the news items propagated by the various
anonymous news editors, and back room staff, sensibly following
the directions of the relevant boards of governors, or the proprietors.
In addition to the well intentioned self imposed censorship of the
same media organisations, are explained away as exercise of care
not to offend, and or upset the sensibilities of their audiences. This
clean, and clinical approach, to clean news, that is news clean of
gore, blood, torn limbs, charred bodies, and reality, has its own
appeal to the sensibilities of those liberals, whom find the glimpses
of reality as war pornography, and or gore-feast. However, these
Liberals do not extend the same concerns for the plight of those
caught up in the theatres of war whom are forced to live the
nightmare, and witness the carnage first hand, young and old, man,
woman, and child. After all those far flung lands are far removed
from our own doorsteps, and clean cut lawns, further, those living
in those far flung lands are not perhaps as susceptible to nausea in
the face of torn limbs, ripped open guts with intestines hanging
out, or being forced to carry their dead on the roof racks of taxis,
and small trucks.
George Galloway decrying the neo conservative perpetrators of
the carnage unleashed, and the ultimate perpetrators, namely
Messrs Bush and Blair, the point men to these crazed Zionists.
Asks do these hermits caught up in the vacuum of office, and
divorced from reality, as they sit behind their mahogany desks in
the White House and Downing Street. Do they imagine that the
rest of us have not noticed how they do not deem those Arab and
Muslim dead worthy of the same grief as attends their own?
However, Mickey Z of MickeyZ.net in his style observes the
limitation of the terms of current debate, and considers transcending
the usual humilities passed as descent by writing; “There’s plenty
of tolerated public outcry against the Bush administration and the
occupation of Iraq, but it’s neither fashionable nor acceptable to go
as far as saying, no, I do not support the troops and yes, I hate
what America does. Fear of recrimination allows the status quo to
control the terms of debate”. Mickey Z further elaborates; “Until we
voice what is in our hearts and have the nerve to admit what we
hate...we will never create something that can be loved.”
On the other hand Galloway goes on to reflect; “In truth, it was the
freedom of US corporate culture, the democracy of the dollar and
an Arab world ruled by corrupt kings and puppet presidents just as
pliant but a little less gauche, able to rig an election as the Bush’s
do in Florida rather than tactlessly incarcerating the opposition.”
Notwithstanding the above, Galloway’s latter remarks in fact point
to the implicit and underlying war against humanity, that is waged
by the current Junta in the Whitehouse, and Downing Street,
appointing themselves as the Masters of the Planet, and universe
beyond. These latter-day robber barons challenging the inherent
ambiguities of the concepts of ownership, sovereignty, and selfdetermination,
have legitimised the use of lethal force as currency
in the acquisition of the resources of those lands inhabited by those
indigenous populations, whom are left with little recourse to any
constructs in law, and or arbitration, and are faced with the choices
of death, and or surrender of their precious resources, with little
recompense other than their lives being spared. These blatant
disregards to fundamental human values and constructs, are then
translated to a sustained assault on common place values of civil
liberties, and human rights, in our own lands.
The lawlessness must end, crime against humanity, and crimes
against peace must be met within the existing constructs in place
since Nuremberg. The perpetrators must not be allowed to slink
away into the shadows, and or to perpetuate even more wars to
abstain from appearing in the relevant courts and account for their
crimes of aggression, and their crimes against peace.
It would serve us all well to take note of William Blum, who declares,
“I’m committed to fighting U.S. foreign policy, the greatest threat
to peace and happiness in the world, and being in the United States
is the best place for carrying out the battle. This is the belly of the
beast, and I try to be an ulcer inside of it.”
Nader Naderi - September 19th, 2006
References;
Global popular power
George Galloway
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/812/op2.htm
Popular resistance from Caracas to Cairo
George Galloway
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14996.htm
Robert Fisk: The US military and its cult of cruelty
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1603876.ece
The American Military’s Cult of Cruelty
By Robert Fisk
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14993.htm
No News Is Slow News
John Pilger
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14982.htm
Why I hate America
By Mickey Z.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14998.htm
So Guantanamo wasn’t needed after all
Alasdair Palmer
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14994.htm
So Guantanamo wasn’t needed after all
By Alasdair Palmer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/ 09/
17/do1710.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/09/17/ixopinion.html
Imperialism 101 - The US Addiction to War, Mayhem and Madness
Stephen Lendman
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14995.htm
The Longer the War, the Larger the Lies
By Frank Rich
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15002.htm
The Longer the War, the Larger the Lies
By FRANK RICH
Published: September 17, 2006
Friendship, then missiles in terror sting
By BRENDAN J. LYONS, Senior writer
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/
story.asp?storyID=517204&category=ALBANY&BCCode=HOM E
In praise of the ‘subversive’ documentary
By John Pilger
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14973.htm
|
