Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this article |
Angry crowds greet Troops - CNN perplexed (english)
by Brent Herbert
03 Apr 2003
Modified: 04 Apr 2003
When they find out that the oil profits will, of course, be going into the pockets of the U.S. oil robber barons, they will be even more pissed off...After all, these are the Americans who are liberating Iraq's oil fields, and in America, there is no such thing as 'developing the oil for the benefit of all the people' and, despite George W. Bush's socialist talk, the people of Iraq will be robbed blind and then left with nothing, just like Africa after colonialism...
The inevitable propaganda movies have been played (joyous people celebrating American troops) and of course when the inevtiable happened there was troll posting to Indymedia sites such as the following
Now, CNN has just shown footage of an angry mob blocking the movement of troops. The CNN correspondent looked very perplexed by this strange new development. There was gigantic mob shaking their fists and chanting in anger, and the tanks were stopped.
First its one thing and then its another.
personally, I don't pay any attention to all the bullshit explanations and all the bullshit propaganda going out about this war.
In the end, the only thing that matters is Iraqi oil. We are coming to the end of the oil age, and, after living in poverty over the last century while their oil wealth makes rich Shieks and rich american oil barons ever more rich, the people of the middle east, and the people of Iraq, are about to lose the last little bit of their hopes for the future.
immediately, during the first three days of the war, the Americans moved swiftly to occupy all the oil fields, with the bullshit propaganda line being that 'the oil is the property of the Iraqi people' and that it would be 'developed for the benefit of all the Iraqi people.' Yah. That's right. George W. Bush, socialist. Funny how he's not like that in America. IN America the oil is developed only for the benefit of the rich oil barons, just as is the case with the lumber and everything else, and Iraq will be no different.
The only difference in Iraq will be that Iraq is a colony of the wealthy west, and as is the case throughout colonial history, the rule of thumb is export the wealth, and then dump the empty nut shell, leaving the colony in extreme poverty (see the entire continent of Africa which was sucked dry of resources, left undeveloped and ripped off, and the discarded onto the trash heap of poverty).
So then if some Shi'ites are politically unconcious and decide to dance in the streets as the American troops roll in, I say let them dance, while they can, before the last drop of oil runs out, and they are left to market sand dunes and palm dates, and you can only go so far on palm dates and sand is not a hot commodity on the world's markets.
As I said the people of the Middle east have been oppressed and kept in poverty for most of the last century while huge profits have been made sucking the last drop of oil out from under their sand, and now very little is left, and their hopes for the future are disappearing as fast as the profits from the oil under their feet.
So let the politically niave and the unconcious dance for CNN and the American Military Industrial Complex and the Robbing Oil Barons of the United States, and let the trolls rush straight to Indymedia sites to post the glorious news of those dancing fools. They are not all dancing, because they are not all unconcious, thus leaving CNN correspondents looking troubled and confused. As the correspondent said, of those angry mobs blocking the invading troops, it just goes to show you how much of a 'grey area' there is in a place like Iraq.
One good thing you can say about Saddam Hussein is that about half the population of Iraq is entirely dependant on the food baskets Saddam hands out from the oil for food program. Iraq was once a 'middle class' type of country with a decent standard of living all of which was completly destroyed by the sanctions plunging the nation into third world status. George Bush is promising to be as generous with those food stamps as Saddam was, but given how food stamps have been sacked and social security and medicaire are being ransacked in the United States, it is a little hard to imagine how the Iraqis are going to be the ones getting the better deal than the people of America.
Of course it is lying bullshit (or BushShit if you prefer). There are about 10 million Iraqis who are entirely dependant on Iraq's social security system, and keeping them in food stamps will seriously cut into the profits of all that light, sweet Iraqi crude, so those people are in for some pretty hard times, given that it is the dog eat dog, everyone for themselves, robber baron capitalism that is in vogue in America that is about the devestate the social safety in Iraq, just as it has been devestated in Africa due to IMF imposed little America policies which have been forced onto poor countries around the world (in a nutshell, cut taxes for the rich, and then destroy the social services and safety net programs for the poor). Currently, due to this devestation of the safety net programs, about 40 million people are about to starve to death in Africa, being to damn poor to afford to eat, and it is a little hard to believe that those charming and much loved people of Iraq won't be doing some of that starving as well, because Uncle Sam doesn't do the charity thing, and as for the oil, it won't be developed for them but for super rich oil barons, who will also not be getting taxed on their great wealth, as Iraq gets the same iron gloved treatment dished out to all the other colonies in the world.
As the oil is siphoned off, and the profits disappear, and the people of the middle east understand that their future in trying to sell sand dunes doesn't look to bright, we can expect a lot less of that dancing for the Pentagon propagandists and a lot more of that angry fist waving. Until then let the unconcious dance and let the trolls post their equally unconcious celebrations of those dances on Indy sites. The struggle against this war goes far beyond this war. I have heard people saying 'and then we will have to move on to protest the next war and try to stop the next war.' Hey, not so fast. The protest against this imperialist aggression will and must go on perpetually, long after the so called 'victory' is declared, unless you want to be the party to once again ripping off entire nations and then tossing them onto the scrap heap of history...its called colonialism, imperialism (steal their stuff and then sell it yourself). you might be familiar with it from history. Its how the poor nations got to be so damned poor in the first place and also how the north got to be so much better off, with the really super rich doing the very best out of that crooked deal, and now its is happening to Iraq as well.
What is happening to Iraq is just the military expression of what the IMF has been doing to poor countries at the bidding of Washington for years. In the example of Iraq, it has just become more brutal and shown its face, instead of trying to hide behind a viel. But its the same process at work. Tax cuts for the rich. No regulations. No social services. No food stamps or welfare or other such things. No barriers or interference with the most brutal type of robber baron capitalism. Become a low cost exporter of resources for the enrichment of a select few (always known by the euphemism 'investors').
It has been said that war fare is just politics being expressed in a different form. What's happening to Iraq is just the brutal military expression of what has been happening through the agency of the IMF for many, many years.
this is not the first time the extreme right wing has co-opted the socialist talk, you know, like the extreme right winger, George Bush, talking about medicaire and food stamps for Iraq, and then even going so far as to say that the oil 'is the property of the Iraqi people' and 'will be developed for the benefit of all the Iraqi people'
the historical precendent is truly disturbing
Nazi means, after all, National Socialist
When a right winger finds it convenient to co-opt socialist leftist type talk what we have here is an example of National Socialism, a technique pioneered by that other great socialist talker Adolph Hitler, an extreme right winger who was so eager to co-opt socialism and socialist talk he even named that extreme right wing movement of his "National Socialist' better known to most people as 'nazi'...not a very comfortable historical precedent, wouldn't you say...
but as I said, the Iraqi people will benefit from those oil profits when pigs fly, or when the American people benefit from the oil, lumber or what ever else America has, whichever comes first (I think I'll go with the flying pig myself, because its a lot more likely to happen)
for some more parallels between Dubya and hot (english)
(No verified email address)
04 Apr 2003
NEW YORK, Mar 28, 2003 -- The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.
It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world.
His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn't had time to read the bill before voting on it.
Immediately after passage of the anti-terrorism act, his federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were interred, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings.
Citizens who protested the leader in public - and there were many - quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police's batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader's public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)
Within the first months after that terrorist attack, at the suggestion of a political advisor, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir a "racial pride" among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as "The Homeland," a phrase publicly promoted in the introduction to a 1934 speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl's famous propaganda movie "Triumph Of The Will."
As hoped, people's hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sewn. Our land was "the" homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the "true people," he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation's concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it's of little concern to us.
Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn't act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He thus withdrew his country from the League of Nations in October, 1933, and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Anthony Eden of The United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.
His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called a "New Christianity."
Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared "Gott Mit Uns" - God Is With Us - and most of them fervently believed it was true. Within a year of the terrorist attack, the nation's leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the clear communication and overall coordinated administration necessary to deal with the terrorist threat facing the nation, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome "intellectuals" and "liberals."
He proposed a single new national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader. He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency, the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.
His assistant who dealt with the press noted that, since the terrorist attack, "Radio and press are at our disposal." Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation's leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public's recollection as his central security office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors.
This program was so successful that the names of some of the people "denounced" were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out - a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.
To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn't enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation's largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the Middle Eastern ancestry terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas.
He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by suspicious people of Middle Eastern ancestry. He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow. Industry flourished.
But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent again arose within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family.
With his number two man - a master at manipulating the media - he began a campaign to convince the people of the nation that a small, limited war was necessary. Another nation was harboring many of the suspicious Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation's most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity.
He called a press conference and publicly delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe - at first - denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine only claimed in the past by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar's Rome or Alexander's Greece.
It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but, after he personally met with the leader of the United Kingdom, finally a deal was struck. After the military action began, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader's new first-strike doctrine would bring "peace for our time."
Thus Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.
In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators."
To deal with those who dissented from his policies, at the advice of his politically savvy advisors, he and his handmaidens in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself. National unity was essential, they said, to ensure that the terrorists or their sponsors didn't think they'd succeeded in splitting the nation or weakening its will.
In times of war, they said, there could be only "one people, one nation, and one commander-in-chief" ("Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer"), and so his advocates in the media began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself. Those questioning him were labeled "anti-German" or "not good Germans," and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation's valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the "intellectuals and liberals" who were critical of his policies.
Nonetheless, once the "small war" annexation of Austria was successfully and quickly completed, and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the Homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn't enough to rouse the populace and totally suppress dissent.
A full-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class's way of life.
A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security. It was the end of Germany's first experiment with democracy.
As we conclude this review of history, there are a few milestones worth remembering.
February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe's successful firebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief action to seize Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine's "Man Of The Year."
Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt and its SchutzStaffel, simply by its most famous agency's initials: the SS.
We also remember that the Germans developed a new form of highly violent warfare they named "lightning war" or blitzkrieg, which, while generating devastating civilian losses, also produced a highly desirable "shock and awe" among the nation's leadership according to the authors of the 1996 book "Shock And Awe" published by the National Defense University Press.
Reflecting on that time, The American Heritage Dictionary (Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983) left us this definition of the form of government the German democracy had become through Hitler's close alliance with the largest German corporations and his policy of using war as a tool to keep power: "fas-cism (fbsh'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."
Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.
Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war.
America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.
To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is again ours.
-- Thom Hartmann lived and worked in Germany during the 1980s; he is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight."
?Thom Hartmann, 2003. Distributed in partnership with Globalvision News Network (www.gvnews.net). All rights reserved.