Slashdot Mirror

Heres an essay from my website regarding why I do not believe this war is a good idea - see the website for facts backing up the essay, plus a more viewer friendly version of the argument -

1. Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism. The Iraqis, arabs and muslims around the world will see such a war not only as a war on Islam, but also for what it largely is about - an imperialistic grab for oil. Anyone doubting this need only consider Iraq's history. The CIA played a hand in overthrowing the government in Iraq in 1963 which led to Saddam's party and thus Saddam himself coming to power. The reason was that the government had moved to nationalise oil (exactly the same thing also happened in Iran). Going back further also gives a long history of the colonial power Britain treating Iraq atrociously in order to control their oil.

Anyone still doubting that oil is a motive behind the war need only consider the Bush Administration's deep ties with the oil industry, read about the English and US oil companies already lobbying over who gets to drill the Iraqi oil (Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world), read the report submitted to Dick Cheney suggesting the use of military force in Iraq because the US needs the oil, or consider that a result of the war in Afghanistan was the US finally getting to build a pipeline through the country, or that high oil prices are currently threatening the US economy and could be reliably kept significantly lower if the US were to control Iraq's oil.

2. There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda. The best intelligence agencies (those of the US and Britain) in the world have been working flat out to try and find one, yet both reported no link (despite this fact, both Bush and Blair repeatedly cite information discredited by their own intelligence agencies as evidence of a link - if they are so convinced of the case for war they shouldn't need to lie in presenting it). British intelligence reports that even the possibility of a substantial link is unlikely, given that Osama is in ideological conflict with Saddam (in a recent tape Osama termed Saddam and his regime 'infidels').

3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. At least for his own people he had thus done a better job than most other Middle Eastern leaders, and now we're supposed to be saving his people from him? I'm not saying Saddam is all good, far from it, but he is also not the evil tyrant Bush depicts him to be (i.e. he did not gas his own people as Bush repeatedly claims).

Worth also noting is that the reason an estimated 5000-6000 children die due to starvation and lack of water and medication in Iraq every week is not Saddam or even solely the UN sanctions, but the fact that the US and UK have blocked the efforts of the oil-for-food program. The two successive UN leaders of the oil-for-food program resigned due to this fact, saying that Saddam had done his best to provide his people with food, and calling what the US and UK were doing 'genocide'. If the US and UK have pursued a genocidal policy at the cost of 1.5 million Iraqi lives over the past 10 years, can we believe their claim to now be taking war to the people of Iraq for their own good?

4. The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny. Iraq probably still has some 'weapons of mass destruction' of course, but an insignificant amount which pales in comparison to that of many other countries (including of course the US and Britain, but also less stable places such as Syria and the nuclear states of North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel).

Saddam has never been a threat to or threatened the US. This brings into question not only the motives for the war but also whether there is any right by international law to initiate one. Saddam's army was pathetic in the Gulf War and is much weaker now. Even CIA Director George Tenet beli

There will be civilian casualties, but not many, as they are bad PR. I am against the war, but not because of the civilian casualties. The UN sanctions have killed 1.5 million Iraqis - if the war kills a few thousand more but puts a stop to the sanctions that would be justifiable. Heres an essay from my website regarding why I do not believe this war is a good idea - see the website for facts backing up the essay, plus a more viewer friendly version of the argument -

1. Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism. The Iraqis, arabs and muslims around the world will see such a war not only as a war on Islam, but also for what it largely is about - an imperialistic grab for oil. Anyone doubting this need only consider Iraq's history. The CIA played a hand in overthrowing the government in Iraq in 1963 which led to Saddam's party and thus Saddam himself coming to power. The reason was that the government had moved to nationalise oil (exactly the same thing also happened in Iran). Going back further also gives a long history of the colonial power Britain treating Iraq atrociously in order to control their oil.

Anyone still doubting that oil is a motive behind the war need only consider the Bush Administration's deep ties with the oil industry, read about the English and US oil companies already lobbying over who gets to drill the Iraqi oil (Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world), read the report submitted to Dick Cheney suggesting the use of military force in Iraq because the US needs the oil, or consider that a result of the war in Afghanistan was the US finally getting to build a pipeline through the country, or that high oil prices are currently threatening the US economy and could be reliably kept significantly lower if the US were to control Iraq's oil.

2. There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda. The best intelligence agencies (those of the US and Britain) in the world have been working flat out to try and find one, yet both reported no link (despite this fact, both Bush and Blair repeatedly cite information discredited by their own intelligence agencies as evidence of a link - if they are so convinced of the case for war they shouldn't need to lie in presenting it). British intelligence reports that even the possibility of a substantial link is unlikely, given that Osama is in ideological conflict with Saddam (in a recent tape Osama termed Saddam and his regime 'infidels').

3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. At least for his own people he had thus done a better job than most other Middle Eastern leaders, and now we're supposed to be saving his people from him? I'm not saying Saddam is all good, far from it, but he is also not the evil tyrant Bush depicts him to be (i.e. he did not gas his own people as Bush repeatedly claims).

Worth also noting is that the reason an estimated 5000-6000 children die due to starvation and lack of water and medication in Iraq every week is not Saddam or even solely the UN sanctions, but the fact that the US and UK have blocked the efforts of the oil-for-food program. The two successive UN leaders of the oil-for-food program resigned due to this fact, saying that Saddam had done his best to provide his people with food, and calling what the US and UK were doing 'genocide'. If the US and UK have pursued a genocidal policy at the cost of 1.5 million Iraqi lives over the past 10 years, can we believe their claim to now be taking war to the people of Iraq for their own good?

4. The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny. Iraq probably still has some 'weapons of mass destruction' of course, but an insignificant amount which pales in comparison to that of many other countries (including of course the US and Britain, but also less stable places such as Syria and the nuclear states of North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel).

Saddam

Talk about propaganda. The lie is put to it by Che Guevarra who wrote about how strict the Arbenz dictatorship was, only some kinds of Stalinists were allowed (and not Che's which is why Che complained).

i thought i'd take a bit of time to read guevara's book 'back on the road' - see if i could confirm what you say.

however, what i find is a guevara who is in guatemala at the time of arbenz' overthrow, who however is still quite non-political, and certainly by no measure a hardened marxist/communist. these views come much later, and are in fact largely shaped by resentment at the us he feels after the us overthrow of arbenz.

i also read him claiming that the population is united with arbenz against the militia which the us creates to overthrow him. he also has no problem understanding that the us is only in there to support the united fruit company rather than any idealogical ideals or to fight the russians or any other such rubbish.

che's general opinion is of guatemalas hopes being crushed by the us, an opinion well born out by the historical truth commission in 99 - 'A U.N. sponsored truth commission report has concluded that the United States gave money and training to a Guatemalan military that committed "acts of genocide" against the Mayan people during the most brutal armed conflict in Latin America history - Guatemala's 36-year civil war [1960-1996]. The report of the independent Historical Clarification Commission ... contradicts years of official denial about the torture, kidnapping and execution of thousands of civilians in a war that the commission estimates killed more than 200,000 Guatemalans.' reports the New York Times.

in short, i hardly see che guevara as someone you can use to support your claims.

given what the following us advisor said at the time, i cannot understand how you manage to so rewrite history to see arbenz as evil, and the US and dictators before and after him as relatively good. the US went in there to defend business interests and in doing so destroyed a country - i don't see how you can support any other reading of the history (but i AM willing to consider your views if you can back them up) ...

Charles R. Burrows of the Bureau of Inter-American Affairs writes 'Guatemala has become an increasing threat to the stability of Honduras and El Salvador. Its agrarian reform is a powerful propaganda weapon; its broad social program of aiding the workers and peasants in a victorious struggle against the upper classes and large foreign enterprises has a strong appeal to the populations of Central American neighbors where similar conditions prevail.'

again, these quotes are referenced on my website

maybe you're right ....

but can you perhaps explain a few things to me?

why is no us-media reporting on iran's attempts to sue the us for its support of iraq during the iran-iraq war (in particular, its supply of chemical/biological weapons, and its destruction of iranian oil rigs)?

or why the cnn (which another post saw fit to describe as 'leftist'???) saw fit to censor journalists during the gulf and afghanistan wars, reminding them to only provide pro-us reportage?

or as an example of british media - the major newspaper guardian published a front page story called 'blood on his hands' with a picture of tony blair with blood on his hands, relating to blair's support of the war and also the us+uk responsibility in the deaths of 1.5 million iraqis due to lack of water,food,medication to date (see this link for information on exactly how heavy the responsibility rests on us+uk shoulders rather than saddam's). find me a major us newspaper with a picture of bush with blood on his hands as front page story, or something similar. or any story from aclaimed journalist john pilger for that matter.

or why the cnn+times was forced to withdraw a story of nerve gas usage in vietnam by the us miliary, an unprecedented case of media censorship??

or how many major us newspapers interested themselves in the reports on bush's election stealing? a bbc link is bbc article but i haven't found anything in a major us paper on this.

how about the investigations into pre-sept 11 shares sales, or the alleged meeting between bin laden and the cia shortly before sept 11? all major stories in europe, obviously not important enough to warrant mention in the free-press of the us. or fox news pulling (without explanation) of its revelation into the huge israeli spy ring in the us, which was not covered by a single other paper?

woops - i got the links to my website wrong! i meant this. (is it not possible to fix your own posts?)

You cannot name ONE. from Arbenz' terror state (in which parties other than his own were outlawed) to Allende who enforced his rule with the Soviet army to the Sandinistas (who physically assaulted those who dared run against them in 1984).

may i refer you to my website i find what you just say incredible. i don't mean to be rude, but your views can only be a product of propaganda. arbenz, allende, the sandinistas all represented, for their respective countries, the best thing that had happened to them. just look at what came before and after in every case!

the russians also had nothing to do with events in latin america in this period. communism was the US's excuse of course, but there was very little russian involvement.

Why not hold those guilty responsible

you're incredible! so you are a better judge of this than the world court???

You have it backwards. The Soviets waged war against this country during the 1980s. All the U.S. did was help keep Nicaraguan nationalism alive until the democratic process could actually overcome the Sandinista's rigged elections.

what can i say? please look at my site. the sandinistas were the best thing to happen to nicaragua. the illegal attacks + sanctions by the usa caused them to limit some civil liberties (as any country does in war), but they were 100x better than somoza, who the US had supported b4 them. if you can't be bothered looking at the facts then i'll quote my site -

An Oxfam report entitled 'The Threat of a Good Example' (which sums up precisely the threat posed to the US by Nicaragua) on the Sandinistas concludes 'in Oxfam's experience of working in seventy-six developing countries, Nicaragua was to prove exceptional in the strength of that government commitment [to meeting the basic needs of the poor majority]'. This should be contrasted with Nicaragua's neighbours at the time (Guatemala and El Salvador) who had 'military dictatorships responsible for the sheer institutionalisation of state terror, installed and propped up by the US. Tens of thousands of civilians were regularly slaughtered by government death squads trained and armed by the CIA. The vast majority of the populations were impoverished'.

or how about this regarding arbenz and his 'terror state'

The dictator Ubico is overthrown and Guatemala enjoys the 'Ten Years of Spring' with two popularly elected and reformist Presidents. President Arbenz permits free expression, legalized unions and diverse political parties, and initiates basic socio-economic reforms. One key program is a moderate land reform effort aimed at alleviating the suffering of the rural poor, by which only plantations of very high acreage are affected, and only in cases where a certain percentage of such acreage is in fact lying unused. In these extreme cases, the unused portions of the land are not expropriated, but simply purchased by the Guatemalan government at the same value declared on the owner's tax forms. The property is then resold at low rates to peasant cooperatives. To set an example, President Arbenz starts with his own lands.'

do you prefer the civil war, terror, and 100,000 civilian deaths that followed the CIA's removal of him???? or perhaps you prefer US-backed pinochet to allende???

need i repeat - everything i say here is well backed up by reliable sources at my website

You cannot name ONE. from Arbenz' terror state (in which parties other than his own were outlawed) to Allende who enforced his rule with the Soviet army to the Sandinistas (who physically assaulted those who dared run against them in 1984).

may i refer you to my website i find what you just say incredible. i don't mean to be rude, but your views can only be a product of propaganda. arbenz, allende, the sandinistas all represented, for their respective countries, the best thing that had happened to them. just look at what came before and after in every case!

the russians also had nothing to do with events in latin america in this period. communism was the US's excuse of course, but there was very little russian involvement.

Why not hold those guilty responsible

you're incredible! so you are a better judge of this than the world court???

You have it backwards. The Soviets waged war against this country during the 1980s. All the U.S. did was help keep Nicaraguan nationalism alive until the democratic process could actually overcome the Sandinista's rigged elections.

what can i say? please look at my site. the sandinistas were the best thing to happen to nicaragua. the illegal attacks + sanctions by the usa caused them to limit some civil liberties (as any country does in war), but they were 100x better than somoza, who the US had supported b4 them. if you can't be bothered looking at the facts then i'll quote my site -

An Oxfam report entitled 'The Threat of a Good Example' (which sums up precisely the threat posed to the US by Nicaragua) on the Sandinistas concludes 'in Oxfam's experience of working in seventy-six developing countries, Nicaragua was to prove exceptional in the strength of that government commitment [to meeting the basic needs of the poor majority]'. This should be contrasted with Nicaragua's neighbours at the time (Guatemala and El Salvador) who had 'military dictatorships responsible for the sheer institutionalisation of state terror, installed and propped up by the US. Tens of thousands of civilians were regularly slaughtered by government death squads trained and armed by the CIA. The vast majority of the populations were impoverished'.

or how about this regarding arbenz and his 'terror state'

The dictator Ubico is overthrown and Guatemala enjoys the 'Ten Years of Spring' with two popularly elected and reformist Presidents. President Arbenz permits free expression, legalized unions and diverse political parties, and initiates basic socio-economic reforms. One key program is a moderate land reform effort aimed at alleviating the suffering of the rural poor, by which only plantations of very high acreage are affected, and only in cases where a certain percentage of such acreage is in fact lying unused. In these extreme cases, the unused portions of the land are not expropriated, but simply purchased by the Guatemalan government at the same value declared on the owner's tax forms. The property is then resold at low rates to peasant cooperatives. To set an example, President Arbenz starts with his own lands.'

do you prefer the civil war, terror, and 100,000 civilian deaths that followed the CIA's removal of him???? or perhaps you prefer US-backed pinochet to allende???

need i repeat - everything i say here is well backed up by reliable sources at my website

Amusing. While your general point is correct, I would have to disagree with a few things you say there.

'This does NOT matter'

So endless rants on DMCA, Microsoft's evils, the latest tech toy matter more than issues like war and the exploitation of the third world? Maybe this stuff doesn't belong on slashdot, but that it doesn't matter????

'If i wanted to read about the failure of modern civilization to provide resources for its citisens, i'd read stuff at CNN/BBC/Local papers.'

I think if you read the stuff at CNN, local papers etc you won't really be getting much of the story. Want to read why Latin America really is screwed up? Why the CIA overthrew so many democratic governments there (thus explaining why the idea that it tried to otherthrow the Venezuelan govt. is at least plausible), or (just as an example) why the US waged covert war on Nicaragua and still refuses to honour the World Court ruling adjudging it to owe Nicaragua $17 billion in damages, and instead sucks the life out of Nicaragua by strangling it with debt payments. Or a real discussion regarding the war on Iraq. Try finding that on US media etc with their 'selective amnesia'. I do admit however that BBC, which you also mention is better (not being corporate owned always helps).

Forgotten History

As far as I've read, Chavez is not objecting to the scheduled referendum, just the opposition's demands that he immediately hold one - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2724855.stm .

'The Venezuelan Government has rejected an opposition call for a vote on a constitutional amendment to allow the term of President Hugo Chavez to be cut short.'

'However, the government said it endorsed another plan - to hold a binding referendum on Mr Chavez's presidency after August.'

'We're proposing what we always have: referendum after 19 August as laid down in the constitution," Vice-President Jose Vicente Rangel said.'

I don't believe that Chavez is perfect, but he has done a lot of good for the poor majority of the country, and he did win the last election with a landslide. He is also lot preferable to the people trying to replace him (i.e. the coup leaders, who in the three days they had in power managed to establish a dictatorship).

If people in America started demanding Bush hold an election tommorrow would it make him a dictator to say 'wait till the next scheduled elections'?

Again, for more info see my website.

there was an attempted coup, in which the US was allegedly involved.

whether involved or not, Bush was pretty delighted at the replacement of the elected president with a dictator. and there were at least talks between the white house and the coup plotters in which the white house obviously didn't do a very good job in discouraging the coup plotters.

for a collection of references to articles giving a good background on this issue, see my website (comments, additional info much appreciated).

also provided on the same page is a history of similar coups over the past 50 years in Latin America which occurred to governments in response to actions similar to what Chavez has been doing (land reform, nationalisation of oil/industries). basically anything to alleviate the poor majority. it is this historical pattern which gives the biggest indication that the CIA may be behind it. however, the difference in venezuela is that the CIA supposedly stopped performing these coups.

perhaps the failure of the coup indicates how much harder it is for them to pull them off today (they have to be much more careful to leave no fingerprints, as the public is much less likely to support them without the cold war excuse).