Comment on this article |
Email this article |
Confronting the Warmongers (english)
by Chico Tamilia
Email: demockracy (nospam) hypocrisy.org
07 Oct 2002
Challenging the justifications for war.
CONFRONTING THE WARMONGERS
Exposing Hypocrisy, Lies and Double Standards
by Chico Tamilia
The Corporate media (particularly in the States) is drumming to the beat of war. Their favorite team is ready to play hand grenades and there ready to cheer them on. It's quite pathetic really. Instead of being a watchdog on power the media is acting more like an attack dog for power. Those that refuse to blindly accept the party line are being labelled as Un-American or Anti-American. If we care about democracy and freedom we must reject such concepts. Speaking out is our duty when our governments are acting in such ways that we don't approve of. The mouthpieces for power want us to shut up, wrap ourselves in the flag and march in the parade, exactly what is expected out of those who live in totalitarian states.
The Bush administration has it's crosshairs set on Iraq for the second time. Bush Jr. seems intent on finishing what his old man refused to finish. So let's look at some of the justifications we are hearing put forth by the bandits in the White House.
1 - Saddam is a madman who used chemical weapons on Iranian troops and his own people.
Yes this is indeed true. Saddam did use chemical weapons on Iranian troops and on his own Kurdish populations in Halabja. The question that begs to be asked by anyone who still has the ability to think thru the endless parade of propaganda is this. How did the U.S. react when these atrocities were taking place. The New York Times reported on Aug. 18 in an article titled "Officers say U.S. aided Iraq in War despite Use of Gas". According to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the secret program, U.S. officials "provided Iraq with critical battle planning assitance at a time when american intelligence agencies knew the Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war". It's also very well documented that the U.S. had given Iraq satelite intelligence and other military support to prevent an Iranian victory. "More then 60 officers of the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq".
Bob Woodward of the Washington Post reported back in 86' that the CIA began giving Iraq intelligence which it used to "calibrate" its mustard gas attacks against Iranian troops. It has been estimated that 50,000 Iranian troops were killed in gas attacks.
Amnesty International , Human Rights watch and many other journals have written extremely well documented reports on the U.S. role in the 1988 gassing of the Kurds in Halabja. The U.S. also provided Iraq with many of the chemicals Saddam used.
As long as it serves U.S. interests chemical warfare is fair game. Let's not forget, the States drenched Vietnam in Agent Orange and other defoliants, used depleted urainium in the Gulf War and Kosovo and maintains the largest stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in the world. And is also the only country to use nuclear weapons.
2 - Iraq refuses to comply with U.N. resolutions.
Again this is true but so has Israel. Israel has refused to comply with numerous U.N. resolutions, the most famous one being 242 which calls for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The double standard is striking and obvious if we choose to see it. Turkey (another U.S. ally) is also in defiance of UN resolutions. If your a U.S. client resolutions don't matter, if your the enemy non compliance becomes justification for war. The United States just vetos any resolutions that don't serve it's interests..
3 - Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction.(WMD)
The key word is may. The problem is that there is absolutely no proof that he has such weapons. It is against international law to launch an unprovoked pre-emptive strike solely based on suspicions. One thing is for sure. The U.S. and Britain have been pounding Iraq with weapons of mass destruction for 12 years now. They also posess the largest stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in the world and refuse inspections. Would that justify Iraq in launching an attack on the U.S. or Britain? That's a question that can't even be imagined among those that have been so deeply indoctrinated by Western propaganda.
Here's another question we should be asking. If the United States cares so much about weapons of mass destruction why do they manufacture and sell more WMD than any other country in the world. George Bush boycotted a conference to promote the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and ripped up the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Bush has also refused to sign the UN treaty to ban landmines. In the 80's they provided Iraq with all kinds of weapons and didn't care when they used them. They provide Israel 3 billion dollars a year in aid much of it military related? Israel is a nuclear power, so is India and Pakistan and possibly soon Iran. Is it any wonder why Iraq might try to develop such weapons if even just as a deterrent.
Scott Ritter who was a former chief weapons inspector maintains that the military threat from Iraq has been largely exagerated. He points out that since the Gulf War Iraq has largely been disarmed and lacks the delivery systems( e.g. long-range missiles and rocket launchers) to turn chemical agents into weapons of mass destruction. It has also been noted that the facilities to build a nuclear weapons may exist but obtaining the enriched uranium would be extremely difficult considering how closely Iraq has been monitored (sattelite imagery, etc.) in the past 12 years.
It is also widely accepted that Iraq was far more powerful in the 80's when the West was supplying them with military and economic aid. They had a far greater chance of possessing WMD back then and we know they had chemical weapons. Did they use any during the Gulf War when they were being pounded into a pulp for a month and half? A question worth considering. Unless Saddam is suicidal or backed into a corner where he has nothing to lose the chances of him using such weapons are in my opinion remote.
4. Saddam interfered with the inspection process.
Yes, but so did the United States. It's worth paying attention to what Scott Ritter former chief weapons inspector has been saying:
"In 1998, I told the Senate that UNSCOM had a job to do and we expected to be able to carry it out in accordance within the framework of relevant Security Council resolutions. I emphasized the danger of entering into inspection activity that lacked any compelling arms control reason, noting that in doing so we would be heading down a slippery slope of confrontation that was not backed by our mandate. I pointed out the importance of the United States keeping commitments made to the Security Council. This meant not only holding Iraq accountable for its actions, but also preserving the integrity of the overall inspection operation so that any potential issue of confrontation would be about Iraq's non-compliance, versus issues not expressly covered by the mandate of the Council. I reiterated again and again the harm done to the inspection process by the continued interference by the United States.
Unfortunately my warnings were not heeded. In December, 1998, continued manipulation of the UNSCOM inspection process by the United States led to a fabricated crisis that had nothing to do with legitimate disarmament. This crisis led to the United States ordering UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq two days before the start of Operation Desert Fox, a 72-hour bombing campaign executed by the United States and Great Britain that lacked Security Council authority. Worse, the majority of the targets bombed were derived from the unique access the UNSCOM inspectors had enjoyed in Iraq, and had more to do with the security of Saddam Hussein than weapons of mass destruction. Largely because of this, Iraq has to date refused to allow inspectors back to work. The ensuing uncertainty has created an atmosphere that teeters on the brink of war".
Iraq has now agreed to let the inspectors back in but the U.S. seems intent on war. Perhaps because weapons of mass destruction are not the real concern of the United States government.
Saddam violates Human Rights.
The West didn't care when he was violating human rights in the 80's, the period of his worst crimes. The U.S. is currently supporting the government of Columbia which Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch has declared the worst violator of human rights in the Western Hemishere. Even the State Department has admitted that about 75% of the killings in Columbia can be attributted to the government and the paramilitaries in which they support. They also support the Turkish government which has been responsible for some of the worst ethnic cleansing throughout the 90's. Millions of refugees 10's of thousands killed and tortured, all with U.S. support. The U.S. also supported Suharto of Indonesia one of the worst mass murderers of the last century. They supported and installed such dictators as Pinochet in Chile, Somoza in Nicaraugua, the Shah of Iran and I could go on. The U.S. was also supporting vicious death squads in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras and the Contra's in Nicarauga. These facts clearly illustrate that the U.S. don't care about human rights as long as there being violated by friends.
So what are the real motives?
It is no surprise that U.S. policy in the Middle East is largely influenced by its desire to control the worlds oil supply. 44 years ago President Eisenhower described "the campaign of hatred against us in the Arab world, not by the governments but by the people". His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons. The U.S. supports corrupt and oppresive governments and is "opposing political or economic progress" because of its interests in controlling the oil resources of the region. (Note: The U.S. and Britain overthrew the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 and installed the Shah in order to protect Western oil interests. They also maintain a cosy relationship with the repressive Saudi regime in return for a large portion of control over Saudi oil.)
American dissident Noam Chomsky has noted:
"it's been a leading, driving doctine of U.S foreign policy since the 1940's that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price"
General Schwarzkopf, the man in charge of the Gulf War in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee noted:
"Mideast oil is the West's lifeblood. It fuels us today, and being 77 percent of the Free world's proven oil reserves, is going to fuel us when the rest of the world has run dry....it is estimated that within 20 to 40 years the U.S. will of virtually depleted its economically available oil reserves, while the Persian Gulf will still have at least 100 years of proven oil reserves".
Keep in mind that both George Bush Jr. and Vice President Dick Cheney are oil men. Bush was the head of Harken Energy and Cheney the CEO of Halliburton. The Bush administration is loaded with people with ties to big oil. Iraq has the second largest source of untapped oil in the world. Perhaps the United States and Britain just want a more compliant thug in charge.