nettime's_closet_case on Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:20:38 +0100 (CET) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> iraq file #1: 29 aug 26 oct 2002 |
[for historical perspective, here are the iraq-related messages that accumulated at nettime over the last several months. as noted last week ('ecology of nettime,' 12 mar 03) the mods tried to keep this issue to a peculiar minimum on the list. oh well. -- cheers, t] ...attack on Iraq would be illegal Phil Duncan <PDuncan@AggregateStudio.com> The War has already begun........! "Han Speckens" <h.speckens@wanadoo.nl> Only more democracy can save democracy ronda@ais.org (Ronda Hauben) John Ross: Mexico vs. Iraq in Upcoming US Resource War "ricardo dominguez" <rdom@thing.net> Bombing Iraq "Jason Handby" <jasonh@pavilion.co.uk> a sign of things to come: Wolf Blitzer for the Defense (Department) "geert lovink" <geert@xs4all.nl> The recolonisation of Iraq cannot be sold as liberation (The Guardian) "geert lovink" <geert@xs4all.nl> fueling and winning the war against terror "up" <up@treerunner.com> IRAQ JOURNAL "geert lovink" <geert@xs4all.nl> Silence Is Betrayal ernie yacub <yacinfo@mars.ark.com> Manifesto of International Surrealists against the war in Iraq Zazie <zazie@zazie.at> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:04:33 -0700 From: Phil Duncan <PDuncan@AggregateStudio.com> Subject: ...attack on Iraq would be illegal It would seems that there are some who are trying to counter-balance presidential appointee Bush's sabre rattling with legal realities: from: http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_info&lng=1&option=2,info&PHPSESSID=a14a8b82440009f869374d0ce22439f9 Ex-U.S. Attorney Gen. warns Bush attack on Iraq would be illegal With speculation about a U.S. military strike against Iraq gathering momentum the country's President Saddam Hussein has told his generals to put the nation on a war footing. He held a special meeting with his military advisors to draw up plans for dealing with an American assault. The Iraqi leader has received a boost from a former a U.S. attorney general who is now a leading peace campaigner. Ramsey Clarke is in Baghdad for talks with Iraqi officials. He has described President George Bush's claim that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction as a complete fraud. And he dealt a heavy personal rebuke to the President. "President Bush, you must not attack Iraq. You have to understand that you are not above the law, the United States is not above the law, you cannot attack a country, that you cannot declare a war on terrorism and say that you can strike anybody, anytime, at any place on suspicion that they are a terrorist. That is criminal under the laws of the United States, it violates the constitution of the United States and it violates international law and the American people and the American government and the American constitution are too good for that and you mustn't do it". ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:11:35 +0200 From: "Han Speckens" <h.speckens@wanadoo.nl> Subject: The War has already begun........! Hello Nettime We find many interesting information on: www.antiwar.com and: Democracy NOW! http://www.2600.com/offthehook/hot2.ram PressGallery NL - ------=_NextPart_000_0059_01C26E13.D3A5FD20 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 15:40:16 -0400 (EDT) From: ronda@ais.org (Ronda Hauben) Subject: Only more democracy can save democracy Following are some thoughts about the US governments activities to wage war against the Iraqi people despite the opposition to the war in the US and around the world. If there is no democracy in the US, how can the US be calling for a regime change in other countries to make them more democratic? (And if there were democracy in the US, the US wouldn't be calling for a regime change in any other country, but setting a good example in the US.) I called the NY Senators and their local phones were either busy or not taking messages. Hilary Clinton's local number 688-6262 tells you it is a voice mail box and you have to hang up and dial 212 and the number again. I did that and got the same message. Charles Schumer's number was busy (212-486-4430) and I couldn't get through. I decided to call the White House (202-456-1111) I had to wait about 15 minutes to speak to someone on the comment lines. I asked what we could do since the neither the President nor Congress appear to have any concern that the people in the US don't want a war and that millions of people around the world don't want a war against Iraq. The person I spoke with just asked what State I was from. Then she gave me the telephone numbers of the Senators from NY. I called Hilary Clinton's office (202-224-4451). When a staffer picked up the phone I asked what people could do as people don't want a war against Iraq but it seems the President and Congress are intent on attacking Iraq. I was told that he would put me through to Charles Schumer's office in Washington. He did and I got a busy signal. I called back using the number I had gotten from the Comment line at the White House for Charles Schumer(202-224-6542) After several rings and then being put on hold for several minutes, a staffer answered the phone. I asked his name. He said Kevin. I asked what the Senator's position was on the war. He said he is undecided. He said he would pass on what I said to the Senator. I expressed the concern that there seems no democracy in the US but that the Internet was created through a collaborative and democratic process. That we need to be supporting more democracy not threatening other countries and the UN if they don't join the US government in waging an illegitimate war against another country. Also that there is the need for more democracy here in the US as the real issues like the corporate corruption, and the lack of universal health care and lack of prescription drugs for elderly and lack of labor rights, etc are making life very difficult for many sectors of the population in the US. If the US were interested in advocating democracy around the world, it would set a good example here at home. While the opposite is happening. The staffer said he would convey my sentiments to the Senator. I didn't see how he could since he didn't seem to be asking any questions or taking any notes. So that was the best America's representative form of democracy seems to offer its citizens. Not very adequate to the problems facing the people in the US and around the world. What are we to do to have more democracy? That is the question that needs to be raised and somehow answered. And how do the people of the US and around the world prevent the US government from attacking Iraq and offering other countries the Iraq oil reserves etc? This is a serious problem the peoples of the world are faced with. The German people spoke up through their elections and the British people through their demonstrations in London and then the Italian people by demonstrating around Italy. In the US there are demonstrations as well like the one in Central Park NY yesterday. And at church services there were speeches against making a war against Iraq. We have been given challenges in the past. Hopefully we will find some means to take on this challenge. Cheers Ronda ronda@ais.org Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook ------------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:06:44 -0500 From: "ricardo dominguez" <rdom@thing.net> Subject: John Ross: Mexico vs. Iraq in Upcoming US Resource War Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 19:01:57 -0700 Mexico vs. Iraq in Upcoming US Resource War by John Ross MEXICO CITY (Oct. 10) -- Mexico vs. Iraq? No, it's not a contemplated first round match-up in the next World Cup but rather part and parcel of the global configuration being squeezed together by George W. Bush for the next unilateral US aggression against a sovereign nation. Mexico's foreign minister, Jorge G. Castaneda, a target of blistering criticism here for his affinity towards Washington, let the cat out of the bag when he tipped off leftwing legislators Sept. 19 that Mexico would cast its vote on the United Nations Security Council to greenlight the use of US military force against Saddam Hussein despite this nation's long- standing anti-interventionist stance. "All countries incline to Washington for one reason or another, and Mexico is not going to be the exception," Castaneda warned the leftists. "We are not going to pay the price of going against the United States." Castaneda then took his pro-war show on the road, winging off to London for a tete-a-tete with his British counterpart Jack Straw "to hear the UK's side of the [Iraqi] story." Last week (Sept. 28), the Mexican foreign minister huddled with US Secretary of State Colin Powell ("We have an excellent personal relation," Castaneda boasts), and the footage of the two emerging from behind locked doors with major grins on their mugs seemed to confirm that Mexico's support for the annihilation of Iraq is a done deal--although, like Bush, Castaneda promised the legislators he would "consult" with them before the bombing begins, presumably to fine-tune Mexico's role in the impending massacre. "Mexico's goals and ideals must not be confused with geopolitical realities," the foreign minister reminded the lawmakers. Castaneda's--and presumably his boss Vicente Fox Quesada's-- endorsement of the massive bombing of a sovereign nation marks the first time since Mexico entered World War II in 1942 that it has backed military intervention, and is a stunning turnaround from the country's traditional "Estrada Doctrine" (named for a 19th-century statesman) of nonintervention in world conflicts-- but follows in lock-step the current administration's pattern of snuggling up to Washington. Despite the snuggling, the attentions Mexico has lavished on the Bush White House have gone largely unrequited. The 9/11/01 terror attacks on New York and Washington torpedoed a budding immigration reform accord that has been the real object of Mexico's affections, and no negotiations have taken place since. Now the Bushites are batting their eyes and hinting that Mexico's support for their Iraqi "war" might well result in getting that long-desired agreement back on track. "I love Mexico," advertised Laura Bush when she arrived here in late September for a summit of First Ladies of the Americas hosted by Marta Sahagun de Fox, the Mexican president's better half. Although Laura Bush acknowledged that both presidents were "very busy right now," she hoped that her husband and Vicente Fox "could sit down soon to focus on the very vital issue of immigration." But the immigration agreement is not the only bait being dangled on the hook of Mexico's support for George W. Bush's announced revenge against Saddam Hussein for "trying to kill my dad." Mexican oil is expected to gas up both the Bush war machine and keep the US economy from floundering long enough at least to insure Bush's re-election with a solid majority in a Republican- dominated Congress. Although some alarmists predict the Bush war will bring economic chaos, with high budget overruns and sky-rocketing deficits, the White House braintrust anticipates it can destroy Iraq, clean up the dead and rebuild the country under a new corporate logo for a cool short-war $27 billion. But each month Bush bogs down in Baghdad will cost the US another $9 billion, and the strain tempts economic malaise, the experts say. This is certainly not good news for Mexico. Should the US crumble into double-dip recession as a result, Fox's promised economic recovery, soldered as it is to US consumer demand, is kaput. US invasion is expected to boost oil prices $6 USD a barrel from an already soaring $30 plus. But if Saddam blows up his oil fields, as he did 10 years ago in Kuwait, or if the Arab- dominated OPEC responds with an embargo on US deliveries, prices are apt to zoom to $100 per barrel, a short-term bonanza for Mexico's PEMEX, the world's fourth largest producer (as of July), and the US's number one supplier, having replaced not-to-be trusted Saudi Arabia this summer. To emphasize his tacit support for the US's designs to crush Iraq, Fox, like now-reviled ex-president Carlos Salinas de Gortari during the first Bush's adventure in the Persian Gulf, has already ordered production increases--Mexico's daily output is expected to jump 13% in 2003 to 4 million barrels daily, 1.8 million of which are destined for export, 95% to El Norte. The downside of this prospective boom, figures John Saxe- Fernandez, who directs the Strategic Resources Institute at the National University (UNAM), is that Mexico is pumping out its oil future (52 billion barrels in proven reserves, down 8 billion from previous estimates) to fuel what amounts to a global resource war that does not favor this country's interests. Mexico's support for Bush's bellicosity could very well turn out to be self-defeating, Saxe-Fernandez projects. Should George Bush "liberate" Iraq, as seems likely, and parcel out its oil fields to his friends (Vice President Dick Cheney's Halliburtan Corporation will be a big winner), the flood of Iraqi oil, bottled up for a decade by food-for-oil UN sanctions, could sink petroleum prices to record lows and critically wound PEMEX, the source of financing for one-third of the Mexican government's budget. Despite persistent rumors that he is a dark horse candidate to succeed Fox in 2006, Castaneda's servility to Washington has not made him a popular figure back home. Sometimes likened to General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna--who gave away half of Mexico's original territory to the North Americans--the foreign minister has a proclivity for blurting out blunt assessments of his colleagues and his enemies that earns him acid-dipped headlines whenever he opens his mouth. "Ambassadors are my employees," he snarled recently, summarily firing Ricardo Pascoe from his posting to Cuba after Pascoe had complained that the foreign ministry had cancelled Mexican Independence Day ceremonies in Havana. Castaneda's spats with Mexico's ambassador to the United Nations, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, a one-time bosom buddy, also occupy press attentions. When Aguilar Zinser recently voted against granting US peacekeeper troops immunity from prosecution by the newly created World Criminal Court as the White House had demanded, Castaneda hit the ceiling and threatened to fire Aguilar Zinser, a move Washington would no doubt applauds although Aguilar Zinser was sometimes known as Mexico's Condoleezza Rice when he served Fox as national security adviser. "Adolfo spends too much time giving interviews to La Jornada [the leftwing paper]," the foreign minister snapped to reporters. Two days later, Aguilar Zinser saw the error of his ways and Mexico reversed its vote in the Security Council to accommodate the US. In the past, Mexico has shied away from membership on the Security Council because rotating members are constant targets for US pressures, and has rather advocated a strengthened General Assembly, a position strongly backed by Castaneda's own father, also once Mexico's foreign minister. But it is Mexico's souring relations with Cuba where Castaneda's slavish attachment to Washington is most blatant. Last March, during a United Nations development summit in Monterrey, he virtually forced Fidel Castro to abandon the country because George W. Bush refused to land while the Cuban president's feet were still planted on Mexican soil. Former ambassador Pascoe accuses Castaneda of bringing diplomatic relations with Cuba to "the threshold of rupture" in accordance with White House strategies. Castaneda, he charges, deliberately set in motion a Havana embassy takeover last February when he told Miami anti-Castro "gusano" leaders that "Mexico's doors are always open" to dissident Cubans. Pascoe also suggested an investigation into Miami financing of Vicente Fox's winning 2000 campaign. Despite Fox-Castaneda backing of Bush's impending genocidal attack on Iraq, there is little support for such bloodletting in Mexico. Nightly television polls have been running about 85% against US aggression. Carlos Fuentes, the nation's premier literary light, compares Bush to Hitler and Stalin (presumably rolled into one), and even this reporter's barber, Lalo Miranda, is appalled by the US president's homicidal plans. "He's going to kill all those children just so he can get re-elected!" Lalo snorts as he trims hair in his central city market stall. Up in the ivory towers, Dr. Rene Drucker, the rector of the UNAM's medical school, deplores how Fox and Castaneda have attached Mexico to "Bush's fascist craziness." As thousands of US intellectuals and cultural workers have recently voiced, Drucker protests that the actions of the Mexican government are being taken "not in my name." Mexican opponents to the Fox-Castaneda fixation with Washington's aggressions, such as anthropologist and counterinsurgency war expert Gilberto Rivas y Lopez, underscore that Mexico's enlistment in Washington's twin wars on terrorism and Iraq makes this country into a terrorist target. Moreover, points out Rivas y Lopez, Bush's new national security program championing the US's self-proclaimed "right" to attack any country anywhere on the planet that is adjudged to threaten Washington's--and the free market's--interests, also threatens Mexico. Under the new US national security guidelines, should Mexican oil be considered vulnerable to terrorist assault, intervention--or even invasion--is not an unlikely scenario. In fact, this Oct. 1, the US military's North Command, concocted after 9/11 to defend North American territory, was officially inaugurated--the North Command prioritizes surveillance of Mexico as a US "security perimeter." Since 9/11, Mexico has been the object of intense scrutiny in the Bush terror war. Both southern and northern borders have been virtually locked down to prevent supposed infiltrators, and the FBI now openly conducts investigations here. Bush's Iraqi adventure can only increase such vigilance. Mexico has been a frequent route for Iraqis trying to enter the US--a group of 60 Iraqi Christians were turned away by US immigration authorities when they reached Tijuana soon after the New York and Washington attacks. Although the Iraqi community in Mexico is tiny, it wields considerable commercial and political power--longtime PRI (the once-ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party) honcho Jose Murat Kasab, the son of Iraqi immigrants, is the governor of the key southern state of Oaxaca. [John Ross, whose latest volume, The War Against Oblivion, chronicles seven years of Zapatista rebellion in Chiapas, will speak on struggles in southern Mexico Oct. 29 at Cal State, Los Angeles, and again the next noon at Cal Poly-Pomona. On Nov. 9, he will present his newest work, Murdered by Capitalism, a memoir of 150 years of life and death on the US Left, in Eureka, California, and on Nov. 20, the anniversary of the Mexican revolution, will assess the health of that landmark upheaval, at Cal State Hayward.] Copyright 2002 by John Ross. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 12:35:59 -0000 From: "Jason Handby" <jasonh@pavilion.co.uk> Subject: Bombing Iraq This just arrived in my inbox... Jason Handby Brighton, UK. - --------8<-------- (Sung to the tune: "If You're Happy And You Know It Clap Your Hands") If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq. If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq. If the terrorists are Saudi And the bank takes back your Audi And the TV shows are bawdy, Bomb Iraq. If the corporate scandals growin', bomb Iraq. And your ties to them are showin', bomb Iraq. If the smoking gun ain't smokin' We don't care, and we're not jokin'. That Saddam will soon be croakin', Bomb Iraq. Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq. >From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq. So to hell with the inspections; Let's look tough for the elections, Close your mind and take directions, Bomb Iraq. While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq. Yay! the clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq. If the ozone hole is growing, Some things we prefer not knowing. Though our ignorance is showing! Bomb Iraq. So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq, >From his favourite little laddy, bomb Iraq. Saying no would look like treason. It's the Hussein hunting season. Even if we have no reason, Bomb Iraq. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 11:21:31 +1100 From: "geert lovink" <geert@xs4all.nl> Subject: a sign of things to come: Wolf Blitzer for the Defense (Department) Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting http://www.fair.org/extra/0301/blitzer.html Wolf Blitzer for the Defense (Department) Making sure the official line is the last word By Jim Naureckas On the rare occasion when a mainstream news program interviews a forthright critic of U.S. policy, the interviewer often seems less like a journalist and more like a government spokesperson. That's what happened when CNN's Wolf Blitzer (11/7/02) interviewed Dr. Helen Caldicott, a nuclear critic (and a member of FAIR's advisory board), about the connection between the U.S.'s use of so-called depleted uranium in anti-tank shells during the 1991 Gulf War, and the dramatic rise in birth defects in southern Iraq. Blitzer at first challenged her facts, appropriately enough: "Dr. Caldicott, let me interrupt and point out what the Pentagon has said repeatedly over these years. That in all of their testing of these depleted uranium shells, they found no scientific evidence whatsoever that any rates of cancer, any kinds of cancer are higher when subjected to these areas as any other areas." Caldicott responded by pointing to evidence in her recent book, The New Nuclear Danger, that the Pentagon was well aware of the dangers of depleted uranium: "You'll find in the chapter on Iraq, Pentagon documents that were written before they went into Iraq, warning that none of the troops should be exposed to radiation from these depleted uranium shells. They had to wear total body suits, respirators--the whole thing. They shouldn't go near it, because it's carcinogenic, can cause cancer of the bladder, the lung, the kidney, and the like." The CNN anchor then moved the topic to the question of sanctions, which Caldicott had mentioned as making it more difficult to treat birth defects. Blitzer again presented the official line: "The Pentagon also points out, the Bush administration also points out very, very strongly that the Iraqi regime itself is to blame for all of these problems. If they simply complied with U.N. Security Council resolutions and disarm, there would be no sanctions, there would be no problem getting medical supplies, doctor, pediatricians, to all parts of Iraq." When Caldicott tried to tell Blitzer that the main issue with birth defects was not the sanctions but the fact that the U.S. left radioactive uranium 238 all over Iraqi battlefields, he cut her off and pointed out that the Iraqi government has used torture. "Do you feel comfortable, in effect, going out there and defending the Iraqi regime?," he asked--a line similar to CNN colleague Connie Chung's suggestion (10/7/02) that a congressmember who questioned George W. Bush was telling people to "believe Saddam Hussein" (Extra! Update, 12/02). After Caldicott's last answer, Blitzer made an unusual closing rebuttal to her interview. After ending the interview-- "we have to unfortunately, Dr. Caldicott, leave it right there, because we are all out of time"--he returned to the assertion he had made earlier about sanctions: "Let me just repeat what the U.S. government has said on many occasions. If the Iraqi regime were to comply with U.N. resolutions, none of these problems would exist. If the Iraqi government would not have invaded Kuwait in 1990, none of these problems would have existed. We have to leave it right there, Dr. Helen Caldicott." Wrong on the facts While it's odd enough for a TV host to insist on making a government denial the final word in an interview, it's particularly disturbing that the assertion Blitzer used twice to dismiss what his guest was saying was simply inaccurate. It's not true that sanctions would automatically be lifted if Iraq disarmed; shortly after the sanctions were imposed, President George Bush the first declared, "My view is we don't want to lift these sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power" (Washington Post, 5/21/91). And his secretary of state James Baker concurred: "We are not interested in seeing a relaxation of sanctions as long as Saddam Hussein is in power" (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 5/21/91). President-elect Bill Clinton made a point of saying that his policy toward Iraq was exactly the same as his predecessor's (New York Times, 1/15/93). His secretary of state Madeleine Albright stated in her first major foreign policy address in 1997 (Federal News Service, 3/26/97): "We do not agree with the nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted. Our view, which is unshakable, is that Iraq must prove its peaceful intentions.... And the evidence is overwhelming that Saddam Hussein's intentions will never be peaceful." (See Institute for Public Accuracy, 11/13/98.) It's rarely pretty when an interviewer insists on getting the last word. When that last word is a distortion of facts in defense of the official line, it's downright ugly. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 07:14:34 +1100 From: "geert lovink" <geert@xs4all.nl> Subject: The recolonisation of Iraq cannot be sold as liberation (The Guardian) (I somehow liked this piece, it pretty sums up what everyone knows. Enlightened, cynical knowledge for the 21st century. Geert) The recolonisation of Iraq cannot be sold as liberation Of course most Iraqis don't want their country invaded and occupied Seumas Milne Wednesday January 29 2003 The Guardian Tony Blair's government is running scared of the British people and their stubborn opposition to war on Iraq. The latest panic measure is to try to ban what has been trailed as the biggest demonstration in British political history from Hyde Park, where a giant anti-war rally is planned for February 15. As the US administration accelerates its drive to war, its most faithful cheerleader is having to run ever faster to keep up. Never mind that every single alleged chemical or biological weapons storage site mentioned in Blair's dossier last year has been inspected and found to have been clean; or that the weapons inspectors reported this week that Iraq had cooperated "rather well"; or that most UN member states regard Hans Blix's unanswered questions as a reason to keep inspecting, rather than launch an unprovoked attack. Jack Straw nevertheless rushed to declare Iraq in material breach of its UN obligations and fair game for the 82nd airborne. Most people have by now grasped that regime change, rather than disarmament, is the real aim of this exercise and that whatever residual "weapons of mass destruction" Iraq retains are evidently not sufficient to deter an attack - as they appear to be in North Korea. Since both the US and Britain have said they will use force with or without United Nations backing, the greatest impact of any new resolution blackmailed out of the security council is likely to be damage to the UN's own credibility. To harden up public support, the US has now promised "intelligence" to demonstrate the supposed links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, along with evidence that the Iraqis have been secretly moving weapons to outwit the inspectors. Since this will depend entirely on US sources and prisoners - including those we now know have been tortured at the US internment camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - it may not prove quite the breakthrough "Adlai Stevenson moment" the US is hoping for either. But if none of this seems likely to make a decisive difference to public attitudes to an invasion of Iraq, there is one argument which is bound to resonate more widely in the weeks to come. This is the case made by President Bush in his state of the union speech on Tuesday that war against Iraq would mean the country's "day of liberation" from a tyrannical regime. A similar point was made by a British soldier heading for the Gulf, when asked whether he wasn't concerned about the lack of public support for war. "Once people know what Saddam has done to his own people," Lance Corporal Daniel Buist replied, "they will be fully behind us." It is a theme taken up most forcefully by liberal war supporters in Britain and the US - the celebrated laptop bombardiers - who developed a taste for "humanitarian intervention" during the Yugoslav maelstrom. The Iraqi people want a US invasion to oust Saddam Hussein, they claim, while the anti-war movement is indifferent to their fate. Where was the "left movement against Saddam" 20 years ago? one critic demanded recently. In fact, leftwingers were pretty well the only people in the west campaigning against the Iraqi regime two decades ago - left activists were being imprisoned and executed in their hundreds by Saddam Hussein at the time - while the US and British political establishments were busy arming Iraq in its war against Iran and turning a blind eye to his worst human rights abuses, including the gas attacks on the Kurds in the late 1980s. What changed after 1991 was that the greatest suffering endured by Iraqis was no longer at the hands of the regime, but the result of western-enforced sanctions which, according to Unicef estimates, have killed at least 500,000 children over the past decade. Nor is there any evidence that most Iraqis, either inside or outside the country, want their country attacked and occupied by the US and Britain, however much they would like to see the back of the Iraqi dictator. Assessing the real state of opinion among Iraqis in exile is difficult enough, let alone in Iraq itself. But there are telling pointers that the licensed intellectuals and club-class politicians routinely quoted in the western media enthusing about US plans for their country are utterly unrepresentative of the Iraqi people as a whole. Even the main US-sponsored organisations such as the Iraqi National Congress and Iraqi National Accord, which are being groomed to be part of a puppet administration, find it impossible directly to voice support for a US invasion, suggesting little enthusiasm among their potential constituency. Laith Hayali - an Iraqi opposition activist who helped found the British-based solidarity group Cardri in the late 1970s and later fought against Saddam Hussein's forces in Kurdistan - is one of many independent voices who insist that a large majority of Iraqi exiles are opposed to war. Anecdotal evidence from those coming in and out of Iraq itself tell a similar story, which is perhaps hardly surprising given the expected scale of casualties and destruction. The Iraqi regime's human rights record has been grim - though not uniquely so - over more than 30 years. If and when US and British occupation forces march down Baghdad's Rashid Street, we will doubtless be treated to footage of spontaneous celebrations and GIs being embraced as they hand out sweets. There will be no shortage of people keen to collaborate with the new power; relief among many Iraqis, not least because occupation will mean an end to the misery of sanctions; there will be revelations of atrocities and war crimes trials. All this will be used to justify what is about to take place. But a foreign invasion which is endorsed by only a small minority of Iraqis and which seems certain to lead to long-term occupation, loss of independence and effective foreign control of the country's oil can scarcely be regarded as national liberation. It is also difficult to imagine the US accepting anything but the most "managed" democracy, given the kind of government genuine elections might well throw up. The danger of military interventions in the name of human rights is that they are inevitably selective and used to promote the interests of those intervening - just as when they were made in the name of "civilisation" and Christianity. If war goes ahead, the prospect for Iraq must be of a kind of return to the semi-colonial era before 1958, when the country was the pivot of western power in the region, Britain maintained military bases and an "adviser" in every ministry and landowning families like Ahmad Chalabi of the INC's were a law unto themselves. There were also 10,000 political prisoners, parties were banned, the press censored and torture commonplace. As President Bush would say, it looks like the re-run of a bad movie. s.milne@guardian.co.uk Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 11:23:59 -0700 From: "up" <up@treerunner.com> Subject: fueling and winning the war against terror If the below can be indicative of any progress, you can be rest assured we are steadfastedly on course. by next election time we can dance in streets. Invest in party(sponsered) favors now. - --kevin Hacker groups declare war on US.gov <snip> The number of malicious hacking attempts made this month is higher than the numbers recorded in any previous month, according to security specialists Mi2g. Mi2g has recorded 9,011 digital attacks to date in September, following previous record highs of 4,904 and 5,830 recorded in July and August of this year respectively. This pattern stands in stark contrast to last year, when the July and August figures of 3,499 and 2,820 were followed by a precipitous drop in digital attacks in September. The fall in malicious hacking activity to 816 attacks is attributed to the effects of the attack on the World Trade Centre. Mi2g attribute the increase in attacks to rising antagonism against the US in response to its policy on Iraq and support for Israel. US government on-line computers belonging to the House of Representatives, Department of Agriculture, Department of Education, National Park Service, NASA and the US Geological Survey were attacked in September, Mi2G said. The report named malicious hacker groups such as S4t4n1c_S0uls, USG, WFD, EgyptianHackers, Arab VieruZ, MHA, The Bugz and FBH, as responsible for many of the anti-US, anti- Israeli and anti-Indian attacks. US registered domains suffered the most, with 4,157 attacks, well ahead of the number two nation on the list Brazil who suffered only 835 attacks. The UK, Germany and India were next most popular victims, with less than 400 attacks each. Mi2g also reported that systems running Microsoft Windows suffered more attacks than all other operating systems combined, with only 1,740 attacks on Linux, 933 attacks on BSD and 229 attacks on Solaris. "Many hacker groups, in anonymous interviews with Mi2g, have said that they prefer attacking Linux systems and very rarely target anything running Windows, simply because to do so is far too easy," claimed Jan Andresen of Mi2g. "Those hacking for intellectual gain or fun will generally be attracted to the greater challenge associated with hacking Linux systems." "Hacker groups with political motivations target country or content specific on-line systems regardless of operating systems and this is where Windows comes under maximum fire." DK Matai, chairman and chief executive officer of Mi2g, noted in the report that an increasing number of vulnerabilities are being found in generic operating systems, server software, applications and libraries deployed on mission critical systems. These flaws are often time consuming to patch and as a result, fixes on these holes are often delayed. "Applying patches was traditionally relegated to the weekend. Invariably some mission critical machines don't get patched in time despite the best will to do so," said Matai. "Those are perfect doorways for hackers and they are being exploited ruthlessly." Mi2g projected that there would be over 45,000 digital attacks globally in 2002, up from 31,322 in 2001, 7,821 in 2000; 4,197 in 1999 and only 269 in 1998. </snip> article at: http://www.electricnews.net/news.html?code=8633950 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 15:34:45 +1000 From: "geert lovink" <geert@xs4all.nl> Subject: IRAQ JOURNAL From: "dhalleck" <dhalleck@weber.ucsd.edu> There were some delays with visas and transport, but Jeremy Skahill and Jacquie Soohan are now in Iraq and just posted their first report from the road to Baghdad. It was broadcast on Democracy Now this morning. Other reports will be coming regularly in the next few weeks. Madison's radio station WORT has provided a web site for Jeremy's project, which will also include reports from many other independent journalists. It is available at http://www.iraqjournal.org/ Please spread the word about this important news source. DeeDee Halleck ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 09:01:34 -0700 From: ernie yacub <yacinfo@mars.ark.com> Subject: Silence Is Betrayal I think this quote by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright should be understood for the horror it sanitises and should be memorised by every human being on this planet. To see what it really means.... http://www.web-light.nl/VISIE/extremedeformities.html Warning - the images on this site are extremely shocking and disturbing. ernie yacub >>> Much of the responsibility for this rests on the shoulders of the Clinton administration, which knew what was happening to Iraq's children. In 1996, Leslie Stahl of CBS asked Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but price, we think the price is worth it." >>> Silence Is Betrayal by Conn Hallinan; Foreign Policy In Focus; October 25, 2002 Dan Handelman is haunted by two images of Iraq that most Americans never see on television. One is a frail two-year-old slowly dying of dehydration in a Basra hospital while his mother sits next to him, helpless to stop the ravages of diarrhea and infection. He is, according the World Health Agency, one of the 5,000 Iraqi children who die of water-borne diseases and malnutrition each month. The other is a group of children begging in the streets. "There were no beggars in Baghdad before the Gulf War, and now many of them have to beg rather than be in school," he says. Indeed, Iraq used to have the highest literacy rate in the Arab world--95%--but according to UNICEF, 30% of its children no longer attend school. Handleman, a member of Friends of Voices in the Wilderness, is from Portland, Oregon, and along with a handful of other Americans, has traveled to Iraq to witness first hand the ravages of war and sanctions--and to record what is being done in our name. The young boy in Basra is dying because the U.S. systematically targeted water purification plants and electrical generators in the 1991 Gulf War. We certainly didn't bomb those targets by accident. According to Col. John Warden, the deputy director of strategy, doctrine, and plans for the U.S. Air Force, the purpose of the attacks was "to accelerate the effects of [economic] sanctions" and increase "long-term leverage." The bombing knocked out almost 97% of the country's electrical capacity, a disaster in a highly mechanized and electricity dependent society like Iraq. In the first eight months following the war, 47,000 children died of diseases like cholera, typhoid, and gastroenteritis. More than a half million have followed them in the past decade, and infant mortality has tripled. Much of the responsibility for this rests on the shoulders of the Clinton administration, which knew what was happening to Iraq's children. In 1996, Leslie Stahl of CBS asked Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but price, we think the price is worth it." Such bombing is in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which explicitly states that "It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works." There is a cruelty in all this that most Americans would recoil from. "The sanctions let water pumps in," says Handleman (which are essential for combating water-borne diseases), "but not the ball bearings that they need to function." He adds the sanctions let in syringes, "but not needles. You can get IV (intravenous) bags for combating dehydration, but not the needles that allow you to put the fluids into a child." The so-called "Food for Oil" program has been a flat-out failure, and not, according to the UN, because of the Hussein government. "The magnitude of the humanitarian needs is such," states a 1999 UN report, "that they cannot be met within the parameters set forth in Resolution 986,"(the Security Council resolution that set up Food for Oil). Malnutrition is spreading, in large part according to the UN, because of the "massive deterioration of the basic infrastructure, particularly in the water supply and disposal system." Besides the deliberate destruction of the civilian infrastructure, the backwash of war also continues to take a steady toll on Iraqi civilians. Southern Iraq was saturated with almost a million rounds of Depleted Uranium Ammunition, which has raised radioactive levels 150 to 200 times over background levels. Basra Hospital Director Akram Abed Hassan says, "Our cancer incidence has increased 10 times during the past few years. Before, we had very few patients under 30, now we're operating on 10-year-old girls with breast cancer." Leukemia and kidney failure rates have also risen sharply. The Bush administration says we are after Saddam Hussein, but for the past 10 years, as Handelman points out, the victims have been "the 23 million people of Iraq." A new war, he argues, will immeasurably worsen an already terrible situation. Iraq lost several thousand civilians in Gulf War I, and the Pentagon Projects Gulf War II will kill another 10,000, not counting those who will die from the consequences of bombing. Of course, in a sense, we are already at war with Iraq. The U.S. and Britain have dropped more bombs on Iraq since 1999 than were dropped on Serbia in the Kosovo War, and have sharply stepped up the air campaign over the past two weeks. That bombing has taken a steady toll on civilians, as it has in Afghanistan. For all the hype about "smart bombs" and "surgical strikes," more than 3,000 Afghan civilians have died from U.S, bombs, and it is scary to contemplate what an aerial assault on Baghdad, a city of five million, will do. All of this will be carried out in our name unless Americans do something to stop it. "A time has come when silence is betrayal," Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said about Vietnam, another war that targeted civilians, "that time is now." (Conn Hallinan <connm@cats.ucsc.edu> is provost at the University of California at Santa Cruz and a foreign policy analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org).) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 18:00:46 +0200 From: Zazie <zazie@zazie.at> Subject: Manifesto of International Surrealists against the war in Iraq Manifesto of International Surrealists against the pending war in Iraq War Metamorphosis: Friendly Spooks Into Invaluable Monsters “Can we be asked to toss onto the dunghill this unlimited capacity to say NO which is the entire secret of human progress in order to watch and wonder at what is going on without us at the other end of the world?” – André Breton, Preface to “The Political Position of Surrealism” War is not “inevitable.” Surrealism has always known that the worst is NEVER inevitable. Liberated imagination, unbound by profit and power, can reintegrate a world divided by cynical conspiracies. Does the parade of rotting suits in the White House REALLY know something we don’t, besides how to make crime pay? When America’s friends – Israel, Indonesia, Turkey, and the rest of the pack – invade neighbors or feed their own people to the mangle, the U.S. cries “encore,” and showers the stage with gifts of money and guns. Thus with Iraq when Saddam Hussein was America’s Friendly Spook. But time made the lovers restless, and now Iraq is a blood-clotted doormat on the path to future conquests. Some 200,000 killed in the orgy of Desert Storm, perhaps a million and a half more (mostly children under the age of 5; but we LOVE the children!) felled by genocidal sanctions, and yet more by persistent air strikes that form the decade’s wallpaper: What is the U.S. without its objects of corrupt desire? And being pals with the U.S. is as slippery a proposition as being a Mafia stoolie. Since Hussein passed from being a Friendly Spook to being an Invaluable Monster his days have been numbered, and now his number is up. The U.S. smokes all proposals for a non-violent resolution (as it had barricaded all routes to a peaceful settlement in 1990.) Even as we write, another Iraqi proposal for the unconditional return of weapons inspectors is angrily denounced as a “stalling” tactic before it is even considered. It will quickly be forgotten amid the banquet of oily sensationalism scented with patriotic spices, that the White House feeds its media teat-suckers to regurgitate, lap up, and regurgitate again. Imagine trying to stall the war! Brazen! Incomprehensible! SO WE WILL NOT BUY THE INEVITABLE! Remember: The U.S. is NOT some “new kid on the block” who must over-compensate for his anonymity by pissing bullets at each social “slight,” but THE practitioner of concentrated power, the Big Boy. Expedient “provocations” are exploited at regular intervals as a diversion for a bored audience.. Here and there, dreams have been flattened to a desert where peace cannot exist even as a mirage, where decency “digs in” underground and predators nourish themselves on what is most abandoned. We know (without any “experts”) that a politician’s mouth is a spigot of lies; AND we do not wish to drown! It will take many hands DREAMING IN UNION to turn off that filthy fountain. AND it is not too early to begin. WE DEMAND A CHANGE IN TARGETS! We know the U.S. indulges periodically in scratching its itches, not bothered by where the infection actually lies. Iraq constitutes a threat to imperial complacency: the West dreams it is on the right side, demanding a revolving collection of those on the wrong side. Yet WHO passes out weapons like flowers? WHO mugs world labor? WHO houses the most corporate thieves and killers? WHO is afraid to see itself as it passes a shop window? WHO holds the deepest and most dangerous myths about itself and kills religiously for those delusions? The answer is clear: if the U.S. is to bomb nations based upon their potential for damage, then it should begin at home, as an act of charity to the world about which it pretends to care. But what hands feed this beast? You already know the answer, though you are moving into denial: the oil companies, the military/industrial complex and the rest of the usual suspects that bankroll the White House joined in this murderous game of red light/green light by an anaesthetized servant class of pundits and intellectuals, whom we single out for blame because of the betrayal of a particular trust. InfoContainment has become the greatest tool for the maintenance of power, and those Ministries of Truth, which were historically dedicated to countering government and business malfeasance, now dine with the Swine and lick up slop fallen from their lips. THAT (only slightly digested) becomes our breakfast news. But we demand full disclosure, by force if necessary, and (as always) array ourselves against the forces of miserablism and the trivialization of desire. So, we are suspended in permanent crisis by our Invaluable Monsters. It is past time to return to our senses and reason our way our of this mess. SO WE HAVE SOME GENTLE PROPOSITIONS FOR THE PIMP AND ITS TARTS! BEING THAT… …Complacency and obedience are untenable positions when war is prospected; …War on Iraq is not inevitable unless the U.S. demands it be; The U.S. is contemptuous of any peace which threatens profit and power; …The U.S. breathes war, being the largest arms dealer in the world, being the world’s strongest military force, being an economy that relies on military spending for the development of its technology sector, and being the club-happy cop that readily employs violence to expand the economic prospects for itself and its partners-in-crime; …The U.S. has a bloodlust for Iraq, having made it the first spectacular casualty of the New World Order, crushing it underfoot for a decade, and mechanically plotting to rain yet more horror on its people; …The U.S. is deceitful, having opportunistically presented Saddam Hussein as a friend and then again as a monster, having exploited and brutally dashed the hopes of Iraq’s Shi’ites and Kurds, having sabotaged the UNSCOM weapons inspection team by loading it with spies, and having supplied disinformation to its own media for the sole purpose of advancing war; …The U.S. has perversely accomplished all this while claiming to command a moral high ground; …America’s sidekick Britain is just as reprehensible; …Australia or any other country which fails to oppose the war does so to their escalating disgrace; …Bush and Blair pretend to hold the positions of ultimate responsibility and so should be held responsible even though they are puppets of their respective political machines; WE DECLARE that it is no longer enough to denounce the murderous policies of Bush and Blair. We demand these men be bodily dragged from their seats of power, weighed down with a red stone for every lost life that can be laid at their feet, and thrown into the most unforgiving depths of the sea. And then the free radicals of imagination shall refresh that sea. Authors : John Quincy Adams(USA), Hannah Cadaver(Australia), Thomas Clarkson(USA), Barrett John Erickson(USA), Brandon Freels(USA), Parry Harnden(Canada), Dale Houstman(USA), Stuart Inman(UK), Rob Marsden(USA), Vernon Masterson(Germany), Evi Möchel(Austria), Pierre Petiot(France), Ribitch(USA), M.K. Shibek(USA), Andrew Torch(USA), Jay Woolrich(UK), Xtian(Australia) To sign our statement please go to : http://www.zazie.at - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net