the reasons and consequenses of war

The urgency is the saving of lives. First, let us stop calling it a "war". The last time "war" was used in the Gulf was in 1991 when the truth was buried with more than 200,000 people. Attacking a 70-mile line of trenches, three American brigades, operating at night, used 60-ton armoured earthmovers to bury alive teenage Iraqi conscripts, including the wounded and those surrendering and retreating. Survivors were slaughtered from the air. The helicopter gunship pilots called it a "turkey shoot".

Of the 148 Americans who died, a quarter of them were killed by Americans. Most of the British were killed by Americans. This was known as "friendly fire". The civilians who were killed, whose deaths were never recorded by the American military because it was "not policy", were "collateral damage".

Today, after 13 years of an economic blockade that has been compared with a medieval siege, Iraq is defenceless, no matter the discovery of an odd missile that can reach barely 90 miles. Its ragtag army is woefully under-equipped and awaiting its fate, along with a civilian population of whom 42 per cent are children. They are stricken. Even the export of British manufactured vaccines meant to protect Iraqi infants from diphtheria and yellow fever has been restricted. The vaccines, say the Blair government, are "capable of being used in weapons of mass destruction".

This is the nation upon which the Bush gang says it will rain down 800 missiles within the space of two days. "Shock and awe" the Pentagon calls its "strategy". Meanwhile the weapons inspectors and their morose Swedish leader go about their treasure hunt and a cartoon show is hosted in the UN by General Colin Powell (who rose to the top by covering up the notorious My Lai massacre in Vietnam).

It is all a charade. The Americans want Iraq because they want to control and reorder the Middle East. Their once-favourite dictator, Saddam Hussein, made the mistake of misreading the signals from Washington in 1990 and invading another favourite American oil tyranny, Kuwait. So belatedly, Saddam must be replaced, preferably by another Saddam, though more reliable and less uppity. There is no issue of "weapons of mass destruction". That is a distraction for us and the media.

The wider significance of the promised attack is the rapacious nature of the American state. As Tony Blair has confirmed, North Korea is likely to be "next". I think he is wrong and that Iran will be next. That is what the Israeli regime wants and Israel's wishes are as important to influential members of the Bush gang as oil. Thereafter, there is China. Says Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Institute in Washington: "What radical US nationalists have in mind is either to 'contain' China by overwhelming military force or to destroy the Chinese Communist state."

Michael Leeden former Reagan official, now at the American Enterprise Institute , has said: "If we let our vision of the world go forth and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war ... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

September 11 2001 was their big opportunity. On September 12 Donald Rumsfeld wanted to use the Twin Towers tragedy as an excuse to attack Iraq, which was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell argued that "public opinion has to be prepared". Afghanistan was the easier option and they were planning to attack it anyway.

The subsequent American endeavour to encircle al-Qaeda in the eastern mountains of Afghanistan was a fiasco and more than 20,000 people, estimates Jonathan Steele in the Guardian, paid the price of that country's "liberation".

Since September 11 America has established bases at the gateways to all the major sources of fossil fuels. The Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has repudiated the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gas emissions, with the war crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states "if necessary" - incredibly Geoffrey Hoon, on Blair's behalf, has said exactly the same.
                                                          cont...........

 

Assassination is now legal. Virtually before our eyes, prisoners have been tortured to the point of suicide in an American concentration camp in Cuba. Under Donald Rumsfeld a secret group with the Orwellian name of the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group has the job of provoking terrorist attacks, which would then require "counter-attack" by the United States. You have to keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that the enemy to all our security is not a regional tyrant - there are plenty of those, many created by America and Britain.

And what of Blair? Do he and his craven Ministers understand any of this? It is difficult to know. Such is Blair's evangelical obsession with Iraq, and perhaps his desperation in the face of overwhelming public opposition, that he is prepared to mislead and deceive not only the public but the armed forces he has sent to pursue his and the mad Perle's "vision".

Does anyone believe the Prime Minister any more? During his interview last Thursday with the BBC's Jeremy Paxman, Blair lied once again that UN weapons inspectors were "thrown out" of Iraq by the regime in 1998. He knows the truth: that they were withdrawn when it was discovered the CIA had planted spies among them in order to gather intelligence for the subsequent Anglo-American bombing of Iraq in December 1998.

I MEAN," said Blair last week, "(the threat of Iraq's undiscovered weapons of mass destruction) is what our intelligence services are telling us and it's difficult because, you know, either they're simply making the whole thing up ..."

Making it up, indeed. On February 7 Downing Street had to apologise when it was revealed that its latest dossier seeking to justify war - "Iraq: its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation" - was lifted word for word, including the grammatical and spelling mistakes, from an article written by an American student 10 years ago. As David Edwards of Media Lens has pointed out, "the only changes involved the doctoring of passages to make the report more ominous: a claim that Iraq was 'aiding opposition groups' was changed to a claim that Iraq was 'supporting terrorist organisations'." Like Bush, Blair lies that "we do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq". An investigation by America's National Security Council, which advises Bush, "found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda. On February 5 a Ministry of Defence document, leaked to the BBC, revealed that British intelligence had told Blair there was "no current link" between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Blair has even denied seeing this crucial report.

As a Christian, Blair says be is helping to build a "secure and hopeful world for all our children".

The Labour MP Llew Smith recently asked the Education Secretary to explain "how we can find billions of pounds to increase our defence budget and go to war with Iraq but cannot find the money to scrap tuition fees?"

There was no intelligible reply.

LAST November a report by the School of Public Policy, University of College London, disclosed that "53 per cent of children in inner London are living in income poverty". Yet Chancellor Gordon Brown puts aside "at least a billion pounds" as "a war chest" with which to attack not poverty but an impoverished people half a world away.

A peaceful solution in the Middle East is only possible when the threat of an attack is lifted and a total ban on so-called weapons of mass destruction and arms sales is imposed throughout the region, on Israel as well as Iraq. The economic blockade on the people of Iraq should end immediately and justice for the Palestinians become a priority.

The power of public opinion, both moral and political power, is far greater than many people realise. That's why Blair fears it and why, through the inept Tessa Jowell, he tried to ban tomorrow's demonstration. He fears it because if the voice of the people threatens the house of cards he has built on his obsession with Iraq and America, it may well threaten his political life and make mockery of the Anglo-American "coalition" and deny the Bush gang its fig leaf.

Should that happen, American public opinion, now stirring heroically after the most sustained brainwashing campaign for half a century, may even stop the Bush gang in its tracks. As of yesterday 42 American cities had passed resolutions condemning an attack.

 

Sometimes life's just like that.

 

Now correct me if im wrong, but do I detect a understanding that this is an national disgrace, whats happening to our once great country, Ma Sonic like many in this country, I feel our armed services are lions led by donkeys. Our armed forces should be here to protect our country, not be pawns used by political leaders to inflict pain and suffering on innocent people, Im disgusted that our nation once again has been bombarded with propaganda the likes Goebbels would have been proud of, unfortunately the British public can be cajoled into virtually anything.

 

Notinmyname

While you have certainly provided some thought provoking stuff, which might well form the basis of a good debate (or dismissal as a rabid conspiracy theory) you MUST provide links to the source. Simply copying and pasting, does not allow people to look at the source. Furthermore , the original author(s) may well take us to task over breach of copyright , etc. Please modify your original post to show where the source material originated, or I'll have to remove it, in it's entirety.

PTP

 

Sorry PTP

I didnt realise that I had to supply sites and links. I was reading the article along with many and thought it hit the nail on the head. The site I took the article from is
http://www.counterpunch.org/
If you take time to browse the site it doesnt use politicians excuses and lack of understanding

 

An interesting analogy, shame it not yours, it was used to describe the loss of life at Gallipoli in WWI, by the author Dr Gary Sheffield & more recently by Barry Gardiner, Labour MP for Brent North to describe the Fire service & the FBU.  

 

Like I said, sometimes life is just like that.  

I'm a great believer in never taking on a fight unless you know you're going to win.  Didn't used to be, but after years of getting all stressed out about situations I could not change/people I could not legally kill, I decided that there's no point in getting upset about the inevitable.  I'm also a great believer in an expression I heard on a film.......... 'get with the winning team son'  and the quote that 'life is too short'  I'd add to the latter by saying, just make sure that it's not your life that's the short one.   So chill......we're on the winning team.

Yeah, George Doubleya and Bliar are out for a fight.  Nothing we can do about that now.  But what you can do is vote the f*cker out next time round.  At a guess, I'd say that the majority of those who've been protesting recently, were probably the same people who voted for New Labour and Big Tone.  Well maybe you shouldn't have done.  :-/

Personally I'm not interested in their view.  My only concern is that those who have deployed, all come back safely.  Some if not many of them probably feel the same way as you do, but they'll do their job.

Life is just one big sh*t sandwich mate..........so relax, get yourself a tinny from the fridge and watch some sport............and just be grateful that right now, you are sitting in the safety of your own home.   I know a few people who'd like to swap places with you

 

Thanks Ma, well put.

 

Dr Pox
 Tell me about it!!!

Ma Sonic
Unfortunately I carnt chill, I have actively taken part in an anti war protest in London, seen and quizzed my local MP over the stance on Iraq, and I will carry on till the bitter end if I have to, the reasons, I feel the people in Iraq have suffered enough, lets not forget that after the war sanctions were introduced, this has led to thousands of men women and more so children die though sickness and hunger, dont forget Saddam would never suffer, just like Tone wouldnt in the same situation. So all in all the UN sanctions have brought pain and suffering to the Iraqi population, this is not what the UN is supposed to stand for. After a union rally I had the pleasure of talking to George Galloway MP, this man has been called everything form a traitor to a man on the Saddam pay role. What I found was a man who like all people detests the Regime, but knows how the ordinary people of Iraq are suffering, a man who knowing he will never through his opinions now climb the political ladder unlike the yes men/women in the government, still voices his disapproval of our eagerness for invasion. Like him I have to act on something I believe in. If everyone did the opposite on everything then we would be in a dictatorship, just what Blair would love? Sometimes winning isnt everything especially if you cheat and lie your way to the winning line.

 

Lipstick
 Look I really dont want to stray from what I originally posted but, as I was reminded on more than 1 occasion, its what your paid for, you train to kill people, to protect our nation, in the same breath can I also say that you may be trained to kill and defend, but I never thought of you as aggressors, invaders. Our forces are being led into an action of death and destruction against a non-existent enemy, 150,000 troops to take out 1 man. You should never be in the position in the first place, ask yourself this after her tears on national TV Sherie Blair said she was trying to protect her son studying in Bristol uni, this is a hour car ride from where she lives, what would her reaction be if he was with you guys on the front line :-/

 

Notinmyname, I take that you are a civvy?  Nothing wrong there mate, but you need to slow down a bit.  

You've got lots of valid points, nobody here on this site who is of sound mind has the 'pray for war' mentaility and a substantial number of us share your beliefs.  But the simple fact is, you're getting yourself all worked up and at the end of the day, there's not a damn thing you can do to stop a war, no matter how strongly you feel or how many demos you go on.  If it comes, it'll be quick.  

On the flip side, if it does happen, Mr Hussein & Co will be ousted and whether they'll admit it or not, the Arab nations will be quietly relieved as he's threat to them.

Yeah there's always  the oil/Israeli arguments to consider, and every other consiracy theory, but politicians have always had a hidden agenda, we know that now and we knew it when we voted them in, so who's to blame, them or us?

Slow it down my freind.  Be selfish.  When I was at Uni, it always amazed me how many little protests went on around the campus about this war and that war and how unjust they all were.  Well, all wars are unjust, you've just got to accept that they will happen.  Your version of Utopia is probably better than mine, i don't doubt that, but keep your objectives small and achievable, take your time, accept that shit will happen on the way and when you get to a position where you can do something about it, remember what drove you down that route to begin with.  All politicians set out with ideals.........they almost always prove to be short lived.  That's why we distrust them so much.

Blair has pissed everyone off, which includes us in the Army, for lots of different reasons.  He's dug his own hole, so f*ck him.

If he ever reads this.......Tony, I'd just like to point out to you, that when you're up to your arrse in alligators mate, it's easy to forget that your original objective was to drain the swamp.  

Now, stop getting wound up fella.  I'm married with two kids so I've an excuse for sitting at a key board on a Saturday night..........if you're single notinmyname, why the f*ck aren't you out on the Razz with yer mates having a good time..............wish to f*ck I was!  

 

You have some very strident views obviously deeply held but I too have a view point which I hope you will give attention to.

The last time war was used in the Gulf the truth was very simple. Saddam Hussain, a cruel and evil tyrant, invaded another sovereign state. His army was guilty of many war crimes, including rape and murder.

Coalition forces ejected him using all force necessary.
You imply that those forces were somehow evil because they fought at night and killed some of their own forces in the fog of war. They did what was necessary to comply with several UN resolutions, and having many friends who fought there I have not heard one story of Iraqi surrender not being accepted.

The coalition forces did not go on to conquer Iraq and remove Mad Sad because that was not part of the UN mandate, though they would probably done us all a favour if they had.

The thirteen years worth of sanctions are imposed by the UN and are not a siege as they allow Iraq to sell oil in order to buy food and medicines. Saddam has chosen to spend the cash in other ways rather than on child support.

You may feel that missiles that can reach 90m are a state of defencelessness but then you will not be sitting anywhere within their range. Nor will you be worried by his rag-tag army, either as a member of the forces or indeed as an Iraqi civilian who may not exactly agree with everything that the great leader has to say. In any case the UN put a limit on the range of Iraqi

Your suggestion that the civilian population are waiting a fate is rather melodramatic. Civilians are not targetted, To put it in language that would agree with your prejudices, weapons are far too expensive to be aimed at low value targets such as civilians. We would all rather use weapons on stopping anything that is going to fire back.

The weapons inspectors are not there on a treasure hunt. They are there at the instigation of and with the authority of the UN in order to confirm that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction. The UN has put the onus on Saddam to declare any such weapons to the inspectors. Most reasonable commentators have yet to declare Mr Blix a puppet of the Americans.

You may not feel that there is an issue of weapons of mass destruction but the are many kurds and marsh arabs who might disagree with you.

You say that you want to ban all weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East (why just there?) but your earlier post has been one long tirade against people who want to remove them, or perhaps you think that by asking nicely Mad Sad will give them up.

You say you have to act on something you believe in, well I don't particularily believe in Mr Blair (indeed my views on the gentleman are certainly not printable on this forum) but for once I think that the man is doing something that he does believe in.

Saddam Hussain is a very nasty piece of work and the sooner he is sitting in the dock of the Court of Justice in the Hague the better. But he won't go there of his own volition. The UN is an imperfect organisation but it's the best thing that we have at the moment and as long as we act at its behest we will not be doing wrong.

If we had dealt robustly with Mussolini over Ethiopia in 1935 the course of the next ten years may well have been very different and some 40 million lives saved. The League of Nations bottled out and we all know the result.

And please don't insult the Army. The Lions led by donkeys quote was attributed to Col Hoffman who answered General Ludendorffs comment that 'The British fought like Lions' with the remark 'Yes but they are led by donkeys.' It was those donkeys and the Lions they led, that beat probably the best army in the world. The modern British Army is not composed of witless hunting type officers and cheery pantomime peasant type toms but is a cross section of the society that we all live in.

I feel that your posts are negative and based on some vague anti american beliefs. I have no problem acting within the remit of the UN to remove a regime (not just a man but the whole edifice of his reign of terror of which the man is just the figurehead) which has consistently shown itself to be based on pure terror, indeed I am sorry that the international will to deal with other such fascists is sadly lacking. Our whole approach Dictators stems from the 1816 Treaty of Vienna, when the principle of what happens inside a nation state is their own business was laid down. Today, this is not so simple a principle and we have to balance that principle with our abhorrence of some of the things happenig and be careful of intellectual imperialism.

I hold no love for Mr Bush or Mr Blair but I firmly believe that removing Saddam from the world stage is a good thing and I would rather do it now than after an anthrax attack on one of his neighbours or the local Kurd community.

 

ORG calm down mate, remember Notonthis planets posts reference the Firemen?

Ill remind you............Dribble!

The idea of military law sounds amusing though, I can picture some of the new laws

Ban the puffs from everywhere
compulsary lesbianism
24hr drinking
24hr porn
Mandatory happy hour at 4 pm every day
Cancel immigration to all, unless danish totty or generally fit chicks.
No sexual equality, birds go back to doing as they are told
Gyros, pommes Mayo on the schools menu's
National Service compulsory, whingers and failures get bayonetted.
Death sentence re-enstated
Bonnie Langford to be first on the Gallows (minus her feet)

Just a few to ponder over, Woopert could be PM for a while, If he was too grown up we could swap him for Ken Dodd. Then hang him for being a Trog

 

There you have mate, next elections......vote Mighty_Do_Nut!!!

I agree with all of his policies......bar hurting Miss Langford   He should promote her into his cabinet as Minister for Compulsary Lesbianism When the Lads Fancy a Show