Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Global Security Threanted by Reckless White House Actions
Will Fratboy Bush push the world to the brink of global warfare? Americans who have never seen war cheer it on, but the gruesome existential lessons of a century of modern warfare has other people less enthusiastic.
<strong>Washington, London should rewrite their policies: Daily Tehran</strong>
<br>Nov 25, IRNA -- The English-language paper, Iran Daily,
elaborated on extension of the US so-called anti-terrorism war in its
editorial on Monday.
<br><br>
With its power and prowess badly dented in the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks, noted the daily, the Pentagon has indicated that its
so-called war against terror will continue as long as necessary and
target any country it feels may be involved in terrorism, Iraq
included.
<br><br>
Although its officials have admitted that they do not yet have any
concrete evidence of Iraq's involvement in the suicide attacks, they
maintain that for recognizing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as a
sponsor of terrorism there was no need to wait for events that
occurred in New York and Washington, added the article.
<br><br>
America's resorting to force to destroy the Al-Qaeda network and
its decision to deal with the Baath Party in Iraq, more than being
symbolic of the fight against international terrorism, demonstrates
the error of judgment in the White House, especially with regard to
its Middle East.
<br><br>
Osama bin Laden, whose name until recently was reminiscent of the
Central Intelligence Agency's 'glorious plans' in fighting the
influence of the Kremlin in Afghanistan, has now preoccupied the
mindsets of the top CIA officials, it recalled.
<br><br>
By the same token, Saddam who was in the not so distant past
viewed as the best choice for gendarme of the Persian Gulf has now
more than proved his nuisance value to the White House.
<br><br>
The Taliban's atrocities, ranging from the gross violations of
human rights under the banner of its peculiar brand of Islam to
killing innocent Afghans, are not to be overlooked. Meanwhile, Iraq's
1980-88 war imposed on Iran, its invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the
Baath regime's massacre of its oppressed masses also cannot be
ignored.
<br><br>
There is no question that both Osama and Saddam must be brought to
justice for crimes against humanity, but what the US and Britain are
doing with that ostensible objective is by no means acceptable, the
editorial said.
<br><br>
Deploying military force to compensate the failures and fallacies
of the past is not the way to improve the situation or get a right job
done in the 21st century. Such cold war tactics are a thing of the
past and must remain so.
<br><br>
Existing evidence suggests that militarism has become a vogue
among American statesmen and the generals are calling the shots.
Should this line of thought get the better of logic and reason, the
already fragile global peace and stability will be further endangered.
It will be in the best interest of the international community to
convince Washington and London to rewrite their policies in this part
of the world, concluded the daily.
<br>Nov 25, IRNA -- The English-language paper, Iran Daily,
elaborated on extension of the US so-called anti-terrorism war in its
editorial on Monday.
<br><br>
With its power and prowess badly dented in the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks, noted the daily, the Pentagon has indicated that its
so-called war against terror will continue as long as necessary and
target any country it feels may be involved in terrorism, Iraq
included.
<br><br>
Although its officials have admitted that they do not yet have any
concrete evidence of Iraq's involvement in the suicide attacks, they
maintain that for recognizing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as a
sponsor of terrorism there was no need to wait for events that
occurred in New York and Washington, added the article.
<br><br>
America's resorting to force to destroy the Al-Qaeda network and
its decision to deal with the Baath Party in Iraq, more than being
symbolic of the fight against international terrorism, demonstrates
the error of judgment in the White House, especially with regard to
its Middle East.
<br><br>
Osama bin Laden, whose name until recently was reminiscent of the
Central Intelligence Agency's 'glorious plans' in fighting the
influence of the Kremlin in Afghanistan, has now preoccupied the
mindsets of the top CIA officials, it recalled.
<br><br>
By the same token, Saddam who was in the not so distant past
viewed as the best choice for gendarme of the Persian Gulf has now
more than proved his nuisance value to the White House.
<br><br>
The Taliban's atrocities, ranging from the gross violations of
human rights under the banner of its peculiar brand of Islam to
killing innocent Afghans, are not to be overlooked. Meanwhile, Iraq's
1980-88 war imposed on Iran, its invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the
Baath regime's massacre of its oppressed masses also cannot be
ignored.
<br><br>
There is no question that both Osama and Saddam must be brought to
justice for crimes against humanity, but what the US and Britain are
doing with that ostensible objective is by no means acceptable, the
editorial said.
<br><br>
Deploying military force to compensate the failures and fallacies
of the past is not the way to improve the situation or get a right job
done in the 21st century. Such cold war tactics are a thing of the
past and must remain so.
<br><br>
Existing evidence suggests that militarism has become a vogue
among American statesmen and the generals are calling the shots.
Should this line of thought get the better of logic and reason, the
already fragile global peace and stability will be further endangered.
It will be in the best interest of the international community to
convince Washington and London to rewrite their policies in this part
of the world, concluded the daily.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$50.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
the US is wrong to go after al-qaeda? an organization which has attacked america on 4 confirmed occasions, most likely 5 if you include wtc?
interesting.
fortunately for the US such childish and naive claims were ignored on december 8, 1941, and one can only hope that they will continue to be ignored now.
until the left comes up with actual solutions that are actually practicle, they shouldn't expect any policy-maker to give them two seconds of their time.
Al-quaeda's reactionary fundamentalist program is, as I understand it, opposed by most people in the muslim world. However, millions on the "street" agree with it's principal demands. The US can kill all the Taliban -- many of whom are forced conscripts it should be noted -- as well as all the al-quaeda operatives still in Afghanistan (while killing thousands of civilians through starvation and bombings) and the basis for the hatred that gives rise to anti-US terror will remain, and probably intensify. Until the US ruling class ends the policies that generate this hatred this will continue to be true. However, it is clear that US elites would rather have the threat of terrorism (in fact, it's clear that the fear of terror is a gift in that mobilizes sentiment for a more militaristic and expansionist set of policies) than change course, even if changing course means lessening the threat of terror directed at US citizens. The US should change it's policies not because of al-Quaeda, but it in spite of them. In so doing, al-Quaeda (the present bogey-man) and other terrorist groupings will be weakened. In tandem with targeted intelligence operations that don't kill civilians, if the US ruling class is sincere about ending anti-US terrorism (which it isn't), it would:
-- End US support for the Israeli occupation
-- End the sanctions and bombings of Iraq which have killed hundreds of thousands while leaving the ex-US ally, Saddam Hussein, solidly in control
-- Pull all US troops out of Saudi Arabia
-- End all US support for tyrannical and corrupt regimes in the Mid East
nine paragraphs total, no substance. amazing
-----------------------
There is no question that both Osama and Saddam must be brought to justice for crimes against humanity, but what the US and Britain are doing with that ostensible objective is by no means acceptable, the editorial said.
Deploying military force to compensate the failures and fallacies of the past is not the way to improve the situation or get a right job done in the 21st century. Such cold war tactics are a thing of the past and must remain so.
--------------------------------
these two out of the 9 paragraphs is the closest one gets to an argument, however it is entirely reactionary and offers no prescription whatsoever. criticism without alternatives is whining, plain and simple.
-------------------------
are the repeated U.S. attacks on Muslim countries a valid justification for al-Qaeda's attack in September?
------------------------
repeated US attacks?
excuse me?
what was the last war the US fought?
busting up a bunch of christians in defense of muslims in the balkans.
aaron: terrorism against the US will always exist irregardless of US policies.
take russia and china for example, both of them treat muslims far worse then the US ever did. a simple overview of china's tactics in putting down islamic separatists in the xinjiang province and russia's chechen campaigns will prove this.
the fact of the matter is that the US is ridiculously rich while the arab states are ridiculously poor. so long as those differences exist there will always be resentment. unfortunately, alleviating global poverty is rather complicated, and thus that strategy is entirely long-term and does nothing to solve the clear and present danger that al-qaeda represents to the US
And you can't see why there is resentment? The terror committed by the US in the Middle East, Latin America, Southeast Asia, would surely permit the rest of the world to bomb America to oblivion, following your logic. But what does one expect from a good American in 2001 but blind obedience? I was a good American in '65, i know the mindset.
the wealth that American corporations and their owners/managers do have is pretty directly traceable to the looting of the resources of the world and its people, including the Middle East
---------------------------
really?
examples please
your point that the US consumes most of the world's resources is quite fallacious.
yes, the US does use a larger chunk of the world's economic output compared to its population. however, it also produces most of the world's economic output, and thus that example does not stand.
and yes, the US supports crummy gov'ts in the middle east.
however, there are many that the US does not support that are still ridiculously awful. furthermore, it is just plain silly for a people to abdicate all responsibility from themselves simply because the US has interests there. believe it or not human agency does exist, and people can control their own destinies, w/ and w/o US interference.
remember that the US propped up many murderous regimes in east asia, yet the situation is quite different. perhaps you should explain that first before heaping the problem of Middle-eastern underdevelopment solely on the lap of the US
excuse me?
what was the last war the US fought?
busting up a bunch of christians in defense of muslims in the balkans. "
Jon, yer stupid, right? Remember 1998? Remember when we bombed Afghanistan? Remember when we bombed Sudan? There was enormous international outrage at US terrorism. I guess all the Amerikkkan citizens have been brainwashed, er I mean, conveniently forgot this little incident.
Which brings me back to my original question which you ignored: if the US is justified in attacking Afghanistan in "self-defense" ... isnt Afghanistan et al justified in hitting the US for the terrorist bombings in 98?
At the time, no one believed there would be retribution. And now that there has been retribution, corporate media, the government and patriotic idiots like you seem to have forgotten. Not everyone in the world is so dim-witted, though.
afghanistan/sudan: limited strike by cruise missiles.
not exactly a war.
----------------------------
Which brings me back to my original question which you ignored: if the US is justified in attacking Afghanistan in "self-defense" ... isnt Afghanistan et al justified in hitting the US for the terrorist bombings in 98?
--------------------------------
yes and no.
afghanistan in '98 no, just b/c they were supporting bin-ladin even then and the '98 bombings were in response to bin-ladin's attack on US interests.
but, another state, iran for example. attacking the embassy was "justified".
also keep in mind whether or not you can even hope to achieve victory.
the US can attack afghanistan in 2001 because it stands a reasonable chance of accomplishing its goals.
iran attacking the US stands almost no chance of accomplishing any of its goals. thus, warfare that has no purpose is rather difficult to justify
Have you ever gone without needed medication because the United States blew up the medicine plant? Didn't think so. Either way, it is an *act* of war, whether or not an entire war developed. As we can see, an entire war has developed ... starting in 98 with the bombing of Afghanistan through to today with the nonstop bombing of Afghanistan.
"afghanistan in '98 no, just b/c they were supporting bin-ladin even then and the '98 bombings were in response to bin-ladin's attack on US"
But bin-Laden's whole point is that US presence in Afghanistan is an act of war. Certainly, bin Laden is justified under your terms because the US declared that they would create another Vietnam in Afghanistan, which they did. So it seems that the US did strike first. Are you suggesting then that they are justified in hitting the WTC/Pentagon?
note, accidentally.
a declaration of war requires malicious intent, not accident
and the US struck first in afghanistan?
no.
the cruise missiling that happened several years ago was AFTER bin-ladin was linked to the bombing of two US embassies.
The US as a unit consumes 25% of the world's resources, emits 25% of greenhouse gases. Does the US produce 25% of the world's industrial output? American corporations indeed produce much of their output outside the US.
The US still props up lots of governments in East Asia, eg Thailand, Indonesia, The Philippines, even China in a way (US corporations do), militarily props up Japan. That's easily the bulk of East Asia.
And in the Middle East, it props up Egypt,Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the rest of the Gulf States, Turkey, Jordan and Israel, plus now Pakistan on the outer fringe. That's pretty much the Middle East. Iraq? Who got Saddam started? Clues: red, white and blue. And US involvement in Iran is well-known.
And still jon begs the question. Given the scale of terrorism the US gov't has employed against Latin America, Asia and the Middle East, do the people in those regions have the right to carpet bomb the US? After all, the World Court explicitely found the US gov't guilty of illegal use of military force against Nicaragua in 1986, a decision the US gov't responded to with a fuck you. And one of the leaders of that terrorist policy, John Negroponte, is now US amabassador to the UN. The leaders of terrorism against Iraq, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell, are in very high positions in the war against terrorism? Orwell would be proud (well, more like astounded, this is even beyond what he contemplated)
Raise such questions with right wing patriots like jon, and watch them resort to waving the flag and yelling about being attacked.
Tell me. With all these "precision-guided missiles," how is it that there are so many "accidents"? Satellite pictures can photograph a license plate from orbit. And yet the US could not tell that they were bombing a medical facility? Werent the CIA "on the ground" and they could go verify it themselves?
How much are those missiles anyway? Pretty costly mistake.
One of two things: either the US is lying, or they have no idea how to use their missiles. Either way, it seems like their "license to kill" needs to be revoked.
Suffice to say, people outside of the US dont fall for this bullshit. So as long as there is American terrorism, there will be terrorism against Americans. Sounds like fun. Wish I could get some of that oil money.
The US as a unit consumes 25% of the world's resources, emits 25% of greenhouse gases. Does the US produce 25% of the world's industrial output?
--------------------
american's are by far among the most productive people of the world, and this is reflected by our consumption. in other words, you are paid according to your productivity, and this is directly correlated to consumption. thus, americans consume more because we produce more. simple as that
-----------------------
The US still props up lots of governments in East Asia, eg Thailand, Indonesia, The Philippines, even China in a way (US corporations do), militarily props up Japan. That's easily the bulk of East Asia.
-----------------------------
rofl!
not quite. i'm assure you that the US is not "propping up" the gov't of japan, although i'm sure you and japan's PM could have quite a laugh with you saying that.
secondly, what private US citizens do is none of hte business of the US. one of the benefit of capitalism is that the interests of the market and the polity are less intertwined then they are with socialism/communism
as for the world court, or more accurately the international criminal court. it has no enforcement mechanism whatsoever, a conscious decision made by its founders. in other words, it was never designed to carry teeth, rather just to suggest possible outcomes and to facilitate a means to said ends. it is not as definitive as you are rather dishonestly alluding to
-----------------
The United States can commit whatever acts of terrorism it wants. But if it goes to the press and claims it is an "accident" ... everything will be forgiven?
--------------------
believe it or not accidents do happen. an intentional military attack that intentionally wants to cause X harm is quite different then accidentally causing harm X
----------------
With all these "precision-guided missiles," how is it that there are so many "accidents"? Satellite pictures can photograph a license plate from orbit. And yet the US could not tell that they were bombing a medical facility? Werent the CIA "on the ground" and they could go verify it themselves?
-----------------------
b/c quite a lot can go wrong from when the bomb leaves a plane and then hits its targets. the US freely admits that its smart weapons are not 100% accurate. the point however is that the US is trying, and thus is using these expensive weapons as opposed to just dropping conventional bombs over civilian areas.
----------------
One of two things: either the US is lying, or they have no idea how to use their missiles.
-----------------
no, and stop presenting a false dilemma where there are only two rather absurd options.
the more likely third way is simply that the US uses these missiles yet these missiles are not perfect.
as for CIA officials being on the ground to direct all of these attacks. its not as if they can knock on a door, enter it, snoop around, and then confirm an attack
as for terrorism: as long as there people who find it easier to blame others for their mistakes rather then trying to better their own situation, there will always be underdevelopment and therefore terrorism.
Japan's system has indeed been propped by US military power, which has made it unnecessary for Japan's corporate interests to finance their own war machine. As Thomas Freidman said, the invisible hand of the free market needs the invisible fist, the Us armed forces. And Japanese capital has had a hired fist since WWII.
And you're calling what's been going on in the Philippines, Indonesia, etc a matter of "private citizens"? How dishonest. AS if the US military did not play a key role in the '65 coup in Indonesia, and subsequently sponsoring the massacre of one million, the invasion of East Timor,... or all the goings-on in the Philippines, or Indochina,..You have zero integrity.
The World Court's lack of ability to enforce its findings does not lessen them. It was up to the Security Council to back up the decision, and it did 14 to 1, but that one was the US, ie a veto. That's like a terrorist voting on his own guilt. What the US did in Nicaragua and Central America in general is terrorism, pure and simple (even violating US law in the process!), and by your logic it would be OK for Central Americans to carpet bomb the US, which still maintains a terrorist training camp, ie the re-named School of the Americas.
As for the accuracy of US weapons, just look at the clearly marked Red Cross center that was hit twice, the second time it was two hits in one day. And to begin with, this war was not launched due to 9/11, as shown well in post # 110391.
As for Middle East US ravaging, just look at Iran, whose gov't was overthrown by the CIA in '53 for the benefit of US oil companies, replaced by the tyrannical Shah and his secret police, and US supplied army. Tens of thousands of Iranians died for US oil profits. That alone would make it OK for Middle Easterners to attack the US per your logic, no? Oh, i get it, the US is the big dick, it can stick itself whereever it wants, whenever, and that's not terrorism or aggression.
When you glibly made an equation between productivity and consumption I immediately thought of the Bangladeshi sweat-shop workers I recently read about in the Wall Street Journal who stich T-shirts and caps for American university's -- employed by subcontractors -- and make all of 7 cents an hour. My mind then wandered to my landlord who collects --extrapolating from the rent my lover and I shell out every month -- about $15,000 every 30 days on only ONE of the many buildings he owns. And the punk don't do shit! And my landlord is hardly the most extreme example I could contrast the Bangladeshi wage-slaves with.
There is no question that the American economy is more productive then, say, the Nicaraguan economy but to simply invoke this fact without mentioning colonialism -- which integrated its subjects into an emerging world market as sources of raw materials and cheap labor and buyers of industrial goods -- and its legacy -- nor to even utter the word 'exploitation', amounts to a whitewash.
Speaking of Nicaragua. One of its chief export commodities is coffee and in the past year, due to a huge glut on the world market, wholesale coffee prices have plummeted. This glut is due in no small measure to the fact that the US has actively supported coffee growing in southeast asia as a means of "development" (ha!). Anyway, now prices are so low that in southeast asia coffee is used as fertilizer and in Nicaragua coffee plantations are en masse going out of business. I read an account in the Washington Post in early September which hilighted a plantation where the bosses called in all 100 workers (or so) and told them that all but four were going to be terminated. The cruel bastards then ordered the four remaining to cut down all the plantains (bananas) on the property to ensure that the laid off workers wouldn't pick them for some form of sustenance -- the point was to starve the wage-slaves out of the area. Suffice to say, the they and their families were forced to leave -- by foot -- in the direction of Managua in search of food. Hunger is now endemic in many parts of Nicaragua, unemployment as high as 70% in some regions. And guess what? Starbucks is charging the same or more for a cup of coffee than they did a year ago!
Gotta go to bed, but I'll end with the following passage from Eduardo Galeano's book "Upside Down" which I think is relevant:
"Maximum production, minimum cost, open markets, high profits -- the rest is unimportant. Many US industries had already set up shop on the Mexican side of the border before the two countries signed a free-trade agreement. They turned the border zone into a vast industrial pigpen. All the treaty did was make it easier to take advantadge of Mexico's abysmal wages and the freedom to poison its water, land, and air. To put it in the language of the poets of capitalist realism, the treaty maximized opportunities to make use of the resources of comparative advantadge. Four years before the treaty, the waters near the Ford plant in Nuevo Laredo and the GM plant in Matamoros already contained thousands of times more toxins than the maximum allowed on the other side of the border. And in the vicinity of the Du Pont plant, also in Matamoros, the filth was such that people had to be evacuated."
You are missing the point. The US Military does not intend to not kill civilians. They just intend to minimize the damage. And, really, they intend to minimize the press coverage more than anything else. If you believe otherwise, you really need your head examined. It is fully intentional. The Joint Chiefs of Staff do not sit around and say: "Boy, maybe this war we'll make it without killing one innocent person!" They knew full on that they will be killing innocent people. In fact, most military strategy involves killing innocent people --- that's how you destabilize a government. I would be really shocked to find out that Rumsfeld and Cheney do not have strategic plans for bombing civilians. It just doesnt go along with 2000 years of warfare history. Think about it, Jon.
"as long as there people who find it easier to blame others for their mistakes rather then trying to better their own situation, there will always be underdevelopment and therefore terrorism"
Hahaha. Yeah, those whining Palestinians! If only they got a decent job, tried hard, they could make it! What are they complaining about anyway? Just because IDF puts boobytrapped bombs and their children get blown up left and right, hey, when *I* was young I had to walk through snow to get to school! Jon, you've never suffered a day in your life, have you?