the shots are called by Perles and
swine...
THE DATE of these
pictures and this letter is:
APRIL
6, 1991
Letters
to the Guardian
..One week of slaughter in
Kurdistan has destroyed all democratic pretence during
the US war in the Gulf, and most illusions in its
purpose. Public opinion has responded with horror to the
atrocities committed against the Kurdish and Shia
populations of Iraq.That horror has helped tear aside the
veil of justification for United States and British
government policies in the Gulf war.
..Events in post-war Iraq have revealed that the war was
not waged to fight a foul dictator, or to restore
democracy and freedom to the area. It was fought
exclusively to defend American and British interests
there.
..But popular support could not have been won for a Gulf
war fought in the name of such interests. The war had to
be disguised as a crusade against a new Hitler (one whom
the US and British administrations had supported for the
previous ten years). What is happening now has exposed
the so-called principles of the Western coalition as the
purest hypocrisy.....
...Both US and British governments politically oppose a
popular struggle against Saddam Hussein, and would
only intervene to support a pro-US military takeover.....despite
the fact that rarely has a population been so unanimous
as the Kurds in supporting the movement against Saddam
Hussein.
..The Bush administration's argument with Saddam was not
that he was a dictator, nor even that he invaded other
countries (an acceptable move by US ally Indonesia
against East Timor) Saddam's unacceptable act was the
take-over of an oil state friendly to the USA.....
..Those who defended the war with honest motives now find
they lent support not to a crusade for democracy and
freedom, but to a brutal assertion of
US interests. They feel betrayed, they were
betrayed. Our concern lies not with the replacement of
one dictator in Iraq with another.....it means political
support and Aid, but not to aspiring anti-Saddam
generals.
Signed on behalf of the Committee for a Just
Peace in the Middle East: Jeremy Corbyn MP;Sabah
Jawad;Ken Livingstone MP; Air Commodore Alistair
McKie;Alice Mahon, MP; Jim Mortimer;Dafydd Elis Thomas
MP.
WHERE ARE THOSE VOICES NOW ???
Prior
to the Gulf war Noam Chomsky,
in an article "Low Moral
Ground",in the same newspaper, Jan
10 1991, wrote: The US and Britain established
the post-war settlement in the region. A major US policy
goal has been to keep its incomparable energy resources,
and the enormous profits reaped,
under control of the US or
dependable allies and clients.....De-classified documents
reiterate that " the UK asserts that its financial
stability would be seriously threatened if the petroleum
from Kuwait and the Persian Gulf area were not available
to the UK on
reasonable(!?)terms; if the UK were
deprived of the large investments made by that area in
the UK and if sterling were deprived of support... (2002 - Hello to
the Euro, Mr. Blair?? I think not yet.. Ssh!!Speculators
on the stockexchange!!) Capital flow from Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait and the other Gulf principalities to the US and
Britain has provided a significant support for their
economies, corporations and financial institutions....The
US intends to maintain its near monopoly of force, with
no likely contestant for that role. (2002 - Israel
approaches,.. Mr. Bush !!)One consequence will be
exacerbation of domestic economic problems; another, a
renewed temptation to rely on the threat of force rather
than diplomacy....Deputy Secretary of State, Lawrence
Eagleburger, explained to Congress that the New World
order will be based on "a kind of new invention in
the practice of diplomacy"; others will finance
intervention.(2002 - The only finance paying for
re-structuring and aid at present in Afghanistan is from
charity organisations, and the World Food Programme is
calling for money.)
He closes with the following:
..For the traditional victims, the New World Order is not
likely to be an improvement on the old, and the prospects
for citizens of the mercenary states are also less than
attractive, if they permit this scenario to unfold.
"Defusing the crisis without a
demonstration of the efficacy of force is an unwelcome
outcome for Washington"
 
..September 2002
ZNet
Commentary:Always Up to Date
www..zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-09/19solomon.cfm
By Norman
Solomon : Always on the Line
Baghdad, Autumn 2002: City Of Doom September 19, 2002
BAGHDAD -- When Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz
described the box that Washington has meticulously
constructed for Iraq, he put it this way: "Doomed if
you do, doomed if you don't."
It would be difficult to argue the point with Aziz, and I
didn't try. Instead, during a Sept. 14 meeting here in
Baghdad, I joined with others in a small American
delegation who argued that the ominous dynamics of recent
weeks might be reversable if -- as a first step -- Iraq
agreed to allow unrestricted inspections.
Despite Iraq's breakthrough decision that came two days
later to do just that, I'll be leaving Baghdad tonight
with a scarcely mitigated sense of gloom. While the news
from the Iraqi capital has been positive in recent days,
the profuse signs of renewed acquiescence to war among
top Democrats on Capitol Hill are all the more repulsive.
Boxed in, the Iraqi government opted to accept arms
inspectors as its least bad choice. Gauging the odds of
averting war, Iraq chose a long shot -- appreciably
better than no chance at all, but bringing its own risks.
Several years ago, Washington used UNSCOM inspectors for
espionage totally unrelated to the U.N. team's authorized
mission. This fall, new squads of inspectors poking
around the country could furnish valuable data to the
United States, heightening the effectiveness of a
subsequent military attack.
Aziz, a very analytical man, hardly seemed eager to grasp
at weapons inspections as a way to stave off attack.
Instead, he told our delegation -- which included Rep.
Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) and former Sen. James Abourezk - -
that a comprehensive "formula" would be needed
for a long-term solution.
Presumably the formula would include a U.S. pledge of
non-aggression and a lifting of sanctions. No such
formula is in sight. Instead, the White House remains
determined to inflict a horrendous war. Meanwhile, the
Democratic Party's "leadership" in the Senate,
pursuing some sort of craven political calculus, is
lining up to put vast quantities of blood on its hands.
I would like to take Tom Daschle to visit a 7-year-old
girl, suffering from leukemia, who I saw in a Baghdad
hospital a few days ago. He might spare a few senatorial
moments to look at the I.V. connected to her wrist, the
uncontrolled bleeding from her lips, the anguish in the
dark eyes of her mother, seated on a bare mattress. Years
of sanctions, championed by moralizers in Washington,
have left Iraq without adequate chemotherapy drugs.
Now we're hearing about a resolution that -- unless
people across the United States mobilize in opposition --
will sail through the House and Senate to authorize a
massive U.S. military attack on Iraq.
I can hear the raspy and prophetic voice of Sen. Wayne
Morse, who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution,
roaring 38 years ago: "I don't know why we think,
just because we're mighty, that we have the right to try
to substitute might for right."
After leaving Tariq Aziz's office, our delegation met
with Sa'doun Hammadi, speaker of Iraq's National
Assembly. "We are now a country facing the threat of
war," he said. "We have to prepare for
that."
Hammadi is an elderly man. While he's now in frail
physical health, his mind and articulation remain acute.
If the U.S. invaders come, Hammadi said, "the Iraqi
people will fight." As those words settled in the
air, the gaunt old man paused and then added: "I
will fight." And for a moment I thought that I could
see the dimming of light in his eyes, like embers in a
dying fire.
During the current heavy dance of death, the U.S.
government leads with every major step. And the sky over
Baghdad seems to foreshadow new horrors; unfathomable and
avoidable.
With an all-out war on Iraq shadowing the near horizon,
what are Americans to do if they want to prevent such
carnage from happening in their names with their tax
dollars? For one thing, they -- we -- can speak up. Now.
The fact that the odds are dire should spur us into
creative action, not anesthetize us into further
passivity. "And henceforth," Albert Camus
wrote, "the only honorable course will be to stake
everything on a formidable gamble: that words are more
powerful than munitions."
Norman
Solomon is executive director of the Institute for Public
Accuracy (www.accuracy.org), which
sponsored the U.S. delegation to Baghdad in
mid-September.
Please Search this site using:
|
