Tag Imperialism

Death over there, excepting ours, is inconsequential

Chris Walker, writ­ing to the The Her­ald (webpage removed):

It’s one of life’s more sav­age iron­ies, but one which has become drear­ily famil­iar, that your head­line “Death toll rises in Afgh­anistan” (Leader, The Her­ald, July 11) means Brit­ish mil­it­ary fatalities.

These are given piquancy because they exceed sim­ilar losses incurred in Iraq. Thus the headline.

As a mat­ter of fact, com­bined, they approx­im­ate the loss of Iraqi civil­ian lives only last week — repeat, week — in Mosul and Bagh­dad. But that’s how war’s rhythms (and its suc­cesses and fail­ures) are cal­ib­rated. That hun­dreds of thou­sands of Iraqis and Afgh­anis have died since 2001 hardly raises an eye­brow, far less engen­der­ing a head­line. But, then, death “over there” was held to be one of the reas­ons for inva­sion, and for stop­ping it “over here”, on the streets of Leeds, Lon­don or Glas­gow. Or so it is said. Thus death over there, except­ing ours, is incon­sequen­tial in our mind­set: even a mil­lion deaths by inva­sion and occupation.

Gordon Brown’s hypocrisy on North Korea

Gor­don Brown, on BBC News today, called North Korea’s rocket launch “a breach of inter­na­tional obligations.”

Mean­while, under his lead­er­ship, Bri­tain con­tin­ues to flout a bind­ing legal require­ment — under the Nuc­lear Non-Proliferation Treaty—to move towards “com­plete dis­arm­a­ment under strict and effect­ive inter­na­tional control.”

One rule for us, one rule for every­body else.’

Congressman Ron Paul on America’s problem in a nutshell

Repub­lican Con­gress­man from Texas, Ron Paul, describe’s America’s prob­lem in a nut­shell:

ron_paulIma­gine for a moment that some­where in the middle of Texas there was a large for­eign mil­it­ary base, say Chinese or Rus­sian. Ima­gine that thou­sands of armed for­eign troops were con­stantly patrolling Amer­ican streets in mil­it­ary vehicles. Ima­gine they were here under the aus­pices of “keep­ing us safe” or “pro­mot­ing demo­cracy” or “pro­tect­ing their stra­tegic interests.”

Ima­gine that they oper­ated out­side of US law, and that the Con­sti­tu­tion did not apply to them. Ima­gine that every now and then they made mis­takes or acted on bad inform­a­tion and acci­dent­ally killed or ter­ror­ized inno­cent Amer­ic­ans, includ­ing women and chil­dren, most of the time with little to no reper­cus­sions or con­sequences. Ima­gine that they set up check points on our soil and routinely searched and ran­sacked entire neigh­bor­hoods of homes. Ima­gine if Amer­ic­ans were fear­ful of these for­eign troops, and over­whelm­ingly thought Amer­ica would be bet­ter off without their presence.

Ima­gine if some Amer­ic­ans were so angry about them being in Texas that they actu­ally joined together to fight them off, in defense of our soil and sov­er­eignty, because lead­er­ship in gov­ern­ment refused or were unable to do so. Ima­gine that those Amer­ic­ans were labeled ter­ror­ists or insur­gents for their defens­ive actions, and routinely killed, or cap­tured and tor­tured by the for­eign troops on our land. Ima­gine that the occu­pi­ers’ atti­tude was that if they just killed enough Amer­ic­ans, the res­ist­ance would stop, but instead, for every Amer­ican killed, ten more would take up arms against them, res­ult­ing in per­petual bloodshed.

Accord­ing to our own CIA, our med­dling in the Middle East was the prime motiv­a­tion for the hor­rific attacks on 9/11. But instead of re-evaluating our for­eign policy, we have simply escal­ated it. We had a right to go after those respons­ible for 9/11, to be sure, but why do so many Amer­ic­ans feel as if we have a right to a mil­it­ary pres­ence in some 160 coun­tries when we wouldn’t stand for even one for­eign base on our soil, for any reason?

Tony Benn’s Interview With Saddam Hussein

Due to being in Iraq at the time I missed this inter­view with Sad­dam Hus­sein. Fascinating.

U.S. subjugation of Iraq and the spoils of war

Shortly after the U.S.-led inva­sion of Iraq in 2003 I wrote this opin­ion piece, which was pub­lished in my homet­own news­pa­per, Hawke’s Bay Today, in New Zea­l­and. It promp­ted this response, by way of let­ter to the editor, from Har­die Mar­tin:

After read­ing his Opin­ion in Hawke’s Bay Today on April 12, it occurs to me that any­one seek­ing a Min­is­ter of (dis)Information of the same cal­ibre as Iraq’s Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, need look no fur­ther than Chris­ti­aan Briggs.

I won­der what Har­die Mar­tin would make of today’s occu­pa­tion of Iraq:

US using debts to black­mail Iraq:

Bagh­dad is under pres­sure by Wash­ing­ton to accept the secur­ity deal in exchange for clear­ing all of Iraq’s debts,” Iraqi law­maker Mohammed Kamid al-Humedawi told Press TV on Wed­nes­day. The US will be allowed to set up per­man­ent mil­it­ary bases, if Iraq signs the agree­ment. Under the deal the US forces will also be gran­ted immunity from legal pro­sec­u­tion inside their bases in Iraq. 

Iraqi gov­ern­ment fuels ‘war for oil’ the­or­ies by put­ting reserves up for biggest ever sale:

The biggest ever sale of oil assets will take place today, when the Iraqi gov­ern­ment puts 40bn bar­rels of recov­er­able reserves up for offer in Lon­don. BP, Shell and Exxon­Mobil are all expec­ted to attend a meet­ing at the Park Lane Hotel in May­fair with the Iraqi oil min­is­ter, Hus­sein al-Shahristani. Access is being given to eight fields, rep­res­ent­ing about 40% of the Middle East­ern nation’s reserves, at a time when the coun­try remains under occu­pa­tion by US and Brit­ish forces. Two smal­ler agree­ments have already been signed with Shell and the China National Pet­ro­leum Cor­por­a­tion, but today’s sale will ignite argu­ments over whether the over­throw of Sad­dam Hus­sein was a “war for oil” that is now to be con­sum­mated by west­ern mul­tina­tion­als seiz­ing con­trol of stra­tegic Iraqi reserves.

Bush regime drops preconditions to talks with Iran

It appears as if someone sens­ible finally has Bush’s ear.

Maybe Tom Engel­hardt is right.

Why the U.S. won’t attack Iran

The pro­spect of an attack on Iran has been on my mind since the attack on Iraq, not in the least because it would prob­ably pre­cip­it­ate a great depres­sion and turn much of the world into a fireball.

Tom Engel­hardt has a thought­ful piece on why he thinks the U.S./Israel won’t attack Iran, des­pite some of the nut­ters run­ning around the halls of power in those countries.

Let’s hope he’s right.

Iran is not the belligerent party

The media in the West has a lot of blood on its hands already. Is it going to have more blood on its hands in Iran? Iran is not the bel­li­ger­ent party:

When it comes to demon­ising Iran, the US, Israel and Bri­tain have a uni­fied mes­sage and a com­pli­ant media, which has learned noth­ing from its mis­takes dur­ing the run-up to the inva­sion of Iraq, and seems happy to con­tinue to act as a gov­ern­ment pro­pa­ganda arm in some cases.

Thanks to the duti­ful cor­por­ate mouth­pieces, most Amer­ic­ans and Bri­tons have no idea that Tehran is act­ing within its rights under the NPT.

They don’t know that in Decem­ber, a US intel­li­gence estim­ate stated cat­egor­ic­ally that Iran is not cur­rently devel­op­ing nukes or that the nuc­lear watch­dog, the Inter­na­tional Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which mon­it­ors Ira­nian facil­it­ies, has no proof it seeks to do so.

The West’s pro­pa­ganda cam­paign is so effect­ive that the major­ity of West­ern­ers believe that Iran is the bel­li­ger­ent even though the facts sup­port the con­trary argument.

A truly courageous soldier would not stay in Iraq or Afghanistan

Protest­ing The Protesters

17-05-2008 Update: And they do exist. Here’s the latest: Mat­this Chiroux

Chomsky on U.S. policy toward Iran

Paul Jay inter­views Noam Chomksy on U.S. policy toward Iran:

Sup­pose it was true that Iran is help­ing insur­gents in Iraq. I mean, wasn’t the United States help­ing insur­gents when the Rus­si­ans invaded Afgh­anistan? Did we think there was any­thing wrong with that? I mean, Iraq’s a coun­try that was invaded and is under mil­it­ary occu­pa­tion. You can’t have a ser­i­ous dis­cus­sion about whether someone else is inter­fer­ing in it. The basic assump­tion under­ly­ing the dis­cus­sion is that we own the world.”