Weidt
9th September 2002, 04:48
Bush's Crusade Against Iraq
by Joe DeNeen
September 08, 2002
----------------------------------------
[The following article, or a subsequent edited version, will be published in the first issue of a comrade's new zine, Barocka (http://www.barockapublications.com), in about two weeks, in case people would like to purchase a copy thereof when it is published.]
In the past months there has been a flood of rhetoric coming from the White House and a lot of guessing by the media, but very little in public discussion. President Bush has failed to present a legitimate reason for unilateral invasion of Iraq - the Bush administration and media prefers to call it "regime change", but most intelligent people know this is far more complex than just putting a bullet in Hussein, thereby saving the world, and "civilization" itself.
(What does the Bush administration even mean when it states our civilization and way of life is in threat? Our civilization, as in the very existence of humanity, is in threat, not from Iraq, but from the massive stockpile of weapons of mass destruction that the United States and others nations have. Remember, the USA has more of those weapons than the rest of the world combined! As for "our" way of life, we should all be in favor of flipping their way of life onto its head and creating a truly just and equal socialist society.)
It has been ten years since the original Gulf War of 1991, yet Hussein has come to monopolize American foreign policy, especially since the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Hussein and Iraq were not in the crosshairs of the Clinton administration, nor did Iraq engage in activities that threatened the United States, so how is it that ten years later he has become public-enemy number one (How often have you heard anything about catching Osama bin Laden, the supposed mastermind of the 9-11 attacks?) and the possible reality of war has re-entered the mainstream?
At one time Hussein was a good friend of the United States; the lesser of two evils in the contest between Iraq and Iran. With Western support, Iraq waged war with Iran and as the war drag on and became stagnate, Iraq used chemical weapons (also with support from the West) upon the Iranians. Following the war and a devastated economy, Iraq swiftly invaded and occupied Kuwait, its small southern neighbor. The United States and its Allies formed a coalition and had Iraq expelled, installed devastating sanctions that has resulted in the death of a million Iraqi civilians, establishing "no-fly zones", and requiring UN weapon inspectors into Iraq. Since 1991, Iraq has been targeted on a regular basis by US and British warplanes that bomb anti-aircraft installations, civilian buildings, and anything else deemed suspicious.
Jumping back to today, Hussein has not spread his wicked ways outside his limited realm of power, which has only been consolidated since 1991. Iraq has not invaded any neighbor, but rather has been using diplomatic channels to drum-up support for ending the UN sanctions. If Kuwait can forgive Iraq for invading it a decade ago, why is the US still an angry beast? Well, there is the fact Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, second to Saudi Arabia, which the US is very good friends with - though as we all know is an authoritarian monarchy that imposes harsh Islamic law upon its civilians and repressing the rights of women (similar to the evil Taliban?).
Let us examine a post-Hussein Iraq. This is quite possibly where many of the questions and few answers lie. There is the issue of the Kurds in northern Iraq who want an independent Kurdistan, or at least autonomy. Turkey, a close ally of the US, has voiced their opposition to the very notion of an independent Kurdistan and is very reserved on attacking Iraq, as it may well inflame tensions with its own Kurdish minority. Of course this also brings into question of whether the Iraqi Kurds would assist the US in an attack. The US has been involved in talks with the Iraqi National Congress, but it hardly has support within Iraq, and most importantly, lacks a military presence in Iraq. The primary question is who and what will replace Hussein's regime. Will it be a truly democratic nation (within the limits that capitalism can provide), or will it be a puppet government like that of the Karzai government in Kabul, Afghanistan? We can be sure any new government would be pro-West and especially pro-US and guarantee US oil companies lucrative contracts.
Nonetheless, war is never the answer. Yes, Hussein and his regime must be toppled and replaced with a democratic government based upon the will of the masses, but that must take place by the Iraqi people, not by the self-interested actions of the United States. Iraqi officials, including Hussein, should be brought before the International Criminal Court and tried for their role in crimes against humanity. If the Bush administration proceeds with its rhetoric and invades Iraq, President Bush and others should also be tried for crimes against humanity for the thousands, possibly hundred of thousands of Iraqi civilians who would die in the process.
Throughout the world there is opposition to any attack on Iraq, let alone a unilateral attack by the United States. At the Earth Summit held in South Africa recently, former South African President Nelson Mandela voiced his disgust at the saber rattling of the Bush administration stating, "No country should be allowed to take the law into their own hands." Mandela continued to stress that all disputes in world affairs must be dealt with within the United Nations. The current President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder also joined in voicing opposition to an attack on Iraq. In addition to them, France, Russia, Egypt, Malaysia, and many more nations have come out publicly against the threats of war.
Unfortunately, British Prime Minister Blair has decided of late to publicly declare his allegiance to the Bush administration and taking his rightful place as the American lapdog. In a recent poll by the Independent found nearly sixty-percent of Britons opposed assisting the United States in an attack on Iraq, unless done so under the United Nations. The poll also found that half of all voters of the Labour Party did not support Blair's position on Iraq, which only expresses the divide within the Labour Party and its supporters. As a few British comrades have told me, Blair's days are coming to an end, especially if the UK does join in an US assault on Iraq.
We must condemn violence, whether it be by the terrorists who flew airliners into buildings, or uniformed soldiers (who are paid and trained murderers) who follow the orders of their government. (The Nuremberg Trials of Nazi atrocities declared it was the duty of citizens to refuse immoral orders, let us not forget this!) Let us not follow the Orwellian rhetoric of the Bush administration in believing the "war is peace", but rather voice our opposition to all war, to all violence, to all repression, no matter where or to whom it is directed. If war actually brought about peace, humanity would have experienced millenniums of peace by now!
(Edited by Weidt at 11:49 pm on Sep. 8, 2002)
(Edited by Weidt at 1:00 am on Sep. 9, 2002)
by Joe DeNeen
September 08, 2002
----------------------------------------
[The following article, or a subsequent edited version, will be published in the first issue of a comrade's new zine, Barocka (http://www.barockapublications.com), in about two weeks, in case people would like to purchase a copy thereof when it is published.]
In the past months there has been a flood of rhetoric coming from the White House and a lot of guessing by the media, but very little in public discussion. President Bush has failed to present a legitimate reason for unilateral invasion of Iraq - the Bush administration and media prefers to call it "regime change", but most intelligent people know this is far more complex than just putting a bullet in Hussein, thereby saving the world, and "civilization" itself.
(What does the Bush administration even mean when it states our civilization and way of life is in threat? Our civilization, as in the very existence of humanity, is in threat, not from Iraq, but from the massive stockpile of weapons of mass destruction that the United States and others nations have. Remember, the USA has more of those weapons than the rest of the world combined! As for "our" way of life, we should all be in favor of flipping their way of life onto its head and creating a truly just and equal socialist society.)
It has been ten years since the original Gulf War of 1991, yet Hussein has come to monopolize American foreign policy, especially since the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Hussein and Iraq were not in the crosshairs of the Clinton administration, nor did Iraq engage in activities that threatened the United States, so how is it that ten years later he has become public-enemy number one (How often have you heard anything about catching Osama bin Laden, the supposed mastermind of the 9-11 attacks?) and the possible reality of war has re-entered the mainstream?
At one time Hussein was a good friend of the United States; the lesser of two evils in the contest between Iraq and Iran. With Western support, Iraq waged war with Iran and as the war drag on and became stagnate, Iraq used chemical weapons (also with support from the West) upon the Iranians. Following the war and a devastated economy, Iraq swiftly invaded and occupied Kuwait, its small southern neighbor. The United States and its Allies formed a coalition and had Iraq expelled, installed devastating sanctions that has resulted in the death of a million Iraqi civilians, establishing "no-fly zones", and requiring UN weapon inspectors into Iraq. Since 1991, Iraq has been targeted on a regular basis by US and British warplanes that bomb anti-aircraft installations, civilian buildings, and anything else deemed suspicious.
Jumping back to today, Hussein has not spread his wicked ways outside his limited realm of power, which has only been consolidated since 1991. Iraq has not invaded any neighbor, but rather has been using diplomatic channels to drum-up support for ending the UN sanctions. If Kuwait can forgive Iraq for invading it a decade ago, why is the US still an angry beast? Well, there is the fact Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, second to Saudi Arabia, which the US is very good friends with - though as we all know is an authoritarian monarchy that imposes harsh Islamic law upon its civilians and repressing the rights of women (similar to the evil Taliban?).
Let us examine a post-Hussein Iraq. This is quite possibly where many of the questions and few answers lie. There is the issue of the Kurds in northern Iraq who want an independent Kurdistan, or at least autonomy. Turkey, a close ally of the US, has voiced their opposition to the very notion of an independent Kurdistan and is very reserved on attacking Iraq, as it may well inflame tensions with its own Kurdish minority. Of course this also brings into question of whether the Iraqi Kurds would assist the US in an attack. The US has been involved in talks with the Iraqi National Congress, but it hardly has support within Iraq, and most importantly, lacks a military presence in Iraq. The primary question is who and what will replace Hussein's regime. Will it be a truly democratic nation (within the limits that capitalism can provide), or will it be a puppet government like that of the Karzai government in Kabul, Afghanistan? We can be sure any new government would be pro-West and especially pro-US and guarantee US oil companies lucrative contracts.
Nonetheless, war is never the answer. Yes, Hussein and his regime must be toppled and replaced with a democratic government based upon the will of the masses, but that must take place by the Iraqi people, not by the self-interested actions of the United States. Iraqi officials, including Hussein, should be brought before the International Criminal Court and tried for their role in crimes against humanity. If the Bush administration proceeds with its rhetoric and invades Iraq, President Bush and others should also be tried for crimes against humanity for the thousands, possibly hundred of thousands of Iraqi civilians who would die in the process.
Throughout the world there is opposition to any attack on Iraq, let alone a unilateral attack by the United States. At the Earth Summit held in South Africa recently, former South African President Nelson Mandela voiced his disgust at the saber rattling of the Bush administration stating, "No country should be allowed to take the law into their own hands." Mandela continued to stress that all disputes in world affairs must be dealt with within the United Nations. The current President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder also joined in voicing opposition to an attack on Iraq. In addition to them, France, Russia, Egypt, Malaysia, and many more nations have come out publicly against the threats of war.
Unfortunately, British Prime Minister Blair has decided of late to publicly declare his allegiance to the Bush administration and taking his rightful place as the American lapdog. In a recent poll by the Independent found nearly sixty-percent of Britons opposed assisting the United States in an attack on Iraq, unless done so under the United Nations. The poll also found that half of all voters of the Labour Party did not support Blair's position on Iraq, which only expresses the divide within the Labour Party and its supporters. As a few British comrades have told me, Blair's days are coming to an end, especially if the UK does join in an US assault on Iraq.
We must condemn violence, whether it be by the terrorists who flew airliners into buildings, or uniformed soldiers (who are paid and trained murderers) who follow the orders of their government. (The Nuremberg Trials of Nazi atrocities declared it was the duty of citizens to refuse immoral orders, let us not forget this!) Let us not follow the Orwellian rhetoric of the Bush administration in believing the "war is peace", but rather voice our opposition to all war, to all violence, to all repression, no matter where or to whom it is directed. If war actually brought about peace, humanity would have experienced millenniums of peace by now!
(Edited by Weidt at 11:49 pm on Sep. 8, 2002)
(Edited by Weidt at 1:00 am on Sep. 9, 2002)