|24 Sep 2002 @ 18:10, by John Finn|
Other NCNers may wonder why I'm seemingly single focused on the more overtly political. Well, several reasons, with the so-called "War on Terrorism" most peoples focus is on secruity not enviornmental/social or spiritual issues. Unless Bush and his croonies are stopped, there is slim hope for a meaningful survival of humanity and ecosystems. Bush's adminstration is the most blantantly anti-environment, anti-democratic and anti-alternative energy regime the mordern world has seen. Here at NCN I'm probably preaching to the converted mostly, but I think that lots of news is just not reported, and the below article comes from a NZ publication, namely "The Listener". It simply and logically states the blatant disregard for peace the US administration has. Perhaps some here will pass it on.
Tony Blair today officially released the "evidence" that Iraq has biological weapons on mass destruction and the delievery systems needed. If this really is the case, then when would they be most likely to use them. When they are under attack and have nothing to lose seems logical.
A factor that is completly ignored in this whole issue is that Iraq has four, yes FOUR times the oil reserves of the USA.
It took me two hours to copy this.
DEATH AND DISHOHOUR by Gordon Campbell
Ten Reasons Not To Support A War On Iraq.
As the war drums on Iraq beat louder, it's worth recalling why this war is so foolhardy and immoral. It will kill many innocent people, and make the world a far more dangerous place.
1. Hundreds Of Thousands Could Die. To minimise US casualities, there will be a massive aerial bombardment of Iraqi cities and towns. This time, the Iraqi forces will not be fighting out in the desert, but digging in to defend their own cities and towns. Massive civilian casualities will ensue...expect the usual propaganda about "pinpoint" bombing, followed by "accentental" hits on hospitals and fefugee centres. Expect the Iraqis to be blamed for the civilian casualities.
2. The War Is A Cynical Diversion. Saddam Hussein is not even the biggest threat to the region, let alone the world. The Israel/Palestinian conflict is the key issue destabilising the Middle East, one that could be readily solved by peaceful pressure on Israel by the US. As NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark says: "I think it [a US attack on Iraq] will trigger a lot of instability in the Middle East...and make it harder to get an Israeli-Palestinian settlement." however, a diversionary war on Baghdad suits the Bush administrationm extremely well. The Palestinians have been driven off the news bulletins. At home, the war talk all but exempts the President and Republican candidates in the November elections from criticism, at a time when the media was homing in on Dubya's dubious dealings with Harken Energy, and on vice-President Dick Cheney's tenure as chief executive of the Halliburton company. Moreover, the US economy has been faltering all year, and Bush's ineptitude as an economic manager (the same failing that sank his father's presidency) has been exemplified by the huge tax cuts he pushed through for the rich. This has speedily transformed the healthy surplus he inherited from Bill Clinton into a massive deficit. No matter, now the nation has been safely diverted by the Saddam bogey.
3. One At A Time, Please. Before September 11, Dubya's presidency was collapsing into a national joke and the war on terror has been manipulated to extend his lucky state of grace. Stability within Afghanistan remains elusive. The US failed to catch Osama bin Laden (remember him?) and Mullah Omar. The authority of the Afgan puppet president Hamid Karzai barely extends beyond Kabul, and Karzai, who was nearly assassinated a fortnight ago, is having power struggles with the Tajik ethnic minority who dominate his government. Obviously, a major US military and financial presence in Afgahanistan will be necessary for years to come. Wouldn't it be wise to finish one war before starting the next?
4. Where's The Evidence? By 1998, UN arms inspectors had destroyed 95% of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destrution and...crucially...had also destroyed factories needed to make them. Such weapons require an industrial infrastructure readily detectable by the intellegence and surveillance resourses of US and Britain. Because of the extensive bombing in the past, some of Iraq's infrastructure is being legitimately rebuilt, but it should be possible...again, given the US detection resourses..to discern the purpose involved. Strangely, US and British spokespersons have largely relied upon an International Atomic Energy Agentcy report that contains evidence of some rebuilding, but the report concedes it cannot confirm that the relevant contructions have a nuclear purpose. Otherwise the US has claimed that Iraq has gone shopping for aluminium casings, that might concievably be used someday to make an atomic bomb. Pathetic stuff. The manufacture of nuclear weapons emits gamma rays, easily detectable. Chemical and biological weapons-making emits other gases, readily detectable. Where is the evidence? Of the three main nerve agents; sarin, tabou and VX, the first two have a half live of five years, so if Iraq had any hidden away from inspectors in 1998, the would be now be almost useless. Iraq's VX factory was destroyed on January 23, 1991 and a 1997 attempt to import fresh manufacturing components from Europe was intercepted in its crates and destroyed. As former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter says, the Bush administration is really dealing in "heightened speculation and rhetoric, not fact..." Moreover, the invasion logic doesn't make sense. Tp prevent Saddam Hussein from having (or using) weapons of mass destruction, a US invasion would create the very conditions under which he is most likely to use them! The fact that an invasion is being mounted thus serves as a good circumstantial evidence that Suddam Hussein does not possess weapons of mass destruction, since the Americans clearly beleive they face little risk of retaliation along those lines.
5. Peace Is Getting No Chance. The declared US priority is regime change, not getting arms inspectors back in. Why is this so? Werll in 1998, the Republican controlled Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which makes Hussein's overthrow mandatory. Also, as Ritter says, the UN doesn't want it to be discovered that Iraq poses no genuine threat. Once UN arms inspectors did returnm and certified that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, the UN would have to keep its share of the bargain and lift economic sanctions, thus ending Iraq's isolation. That is why, as White House spokesman Ari Fleischer stated in early September, the US priority would be a regime change, even if arms inspectors recommenced. Clearly, this issue is not about Iraq's arsenal, real or imaginary. That being so, the diplomatic challenges facing the US is to look as if it supports the resumption of arms inspections, whilst doing its best to torpedo them. The war talk serves this purpose admirably. Afterall, Iraq's compliance with arms inspections is supposed to be unconditional, so they can be blamed for resisting any demand, however outrageous. In reality, the UN muddied these waters in the 1990s by using UN arms inspections for espionage purposes that went beyond the disarmanent mandate. This espionage was used by the US to guide its Desert Fox bombing campaign of December 1998. Quite legitimately, the Iraqis seek reasonable reassurances from the UN that this will not happen again. Fat chance. The UN seems to be colluding with the US in pushing Iraq into a lose/lose situation. Admit Un arms inspectors, even if we choose to stack those teams with spies who will either try to assissanate your leader, or guide others to do so. Even if you agree to these terms, we may well invade you anyway. Fail to agree with any of these demands...and your compliance must be unconditional...and we will regard that as evidence that we should bomb you.
6. There Is No Exit Strategy. Okay assume that we have killed Saddam Hussein and thousands of ordinary Iraqi men, women and children and inflamed the entire Middle East. Then what? The Iraqi population is 60% Shi'ite, 23% Kurdish and 17% Sunni. Over recent years, the Kurds have won a stable and lurative co-existance with Iraq and Turkey, which explains why neither of the rival Kurdish factions support an invasion. Washington plainly envisage the Kurds playing the surrogate role that the Northern Alliance perform in Afghanistan, but Turkey would never tolerate this. Would democracy be installed in Iraq? Hardly. The prospect of Shi'ites gaining power in Iraq...alongside their revolutionary Shi'ite neighbours in Iran...would send shock waves through those Middle East nations (Bahrain, anyone?) where Shi'ites comprise either an oppressed majority or a sizeable minority. So the likely outcome from toppling Hussein would be a puppet ruler of much the same type, drawn from the same Sunni tribes. Differebnt person, same style. Medium term, the door will have been opened for the rise of revolutionary Islam within Iraq and throughout the region. So in the name of fighting Islamic fundamentalism, a Bush victory in Iraq will have destroyed the most secular regime in the Middle East, and presented revolutionary Islam with its biggest chance for advancement in two decades. Ayatollah Khomeni must be smiling in his grave at the prospect.
7. Saddam Hussein Was Our Monster. As Dubya says, Saddam is the kind of leader who has used poison gas against his people. True, but Bush fails to add tghat the US was supportibng him politically and militarily at the time and afterwards...to the point where he thought he had been given the green light by US ambassador April Glaspie to invade Kuwait. Since then, the US has boxed itself in from engaging constructively with Iraq, despite it being the region's strongest opponent of religious extremism.
*. Iraq Is Not The Terrorist Threat. By the US State Department's own estimats, Iran is the prime supporter of global terrorism, not Iraq. To bolster it's case for invasion, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has claimed that al-Qaeda remnants are hiding in Norther4n Iraq...a "ludicrous" claim says Alex Standish, editor of Jane's Intellegence Weekly, not the least because Saddam Hussein doesn't control northern Iraq. The US and Britain do. Hussein and al-Qaeda are also bitter ideological enemies.
9. It's Not About Trade. Lets see...the death of how many thousands of innocent Iraqis should we (NZ) support in order to nudge a bit closer a trade deal with the US. Whatever the current government's current failing, its stance on Iraq (so far) has been infinitely preferable to the craven foriegn policy postures being urged by the centre right.
10. Who's Next? If bad behaviour and the potenial to aquire nasty weapons justify invasion, then where will the forces of freedom strike next...North Korea? Iran? Venezuela? Along the way, the UN and international law are being corrupted. They exist to be the guardians of weak nations, not merely to licence the whims and ambitions of the powerful.
24 Sep 2002 @ 18:31 by : We like much alike on this one
I made my log public a few weeks ago And somewhere in there I must have posted my email or something because I have gotten some emails thanking me for the posts about the Full Disclouser links as well as Moveon.org and all the links I posted to current events. No one from NCN has read the last few entries but the people out there in the world do. So take Heart Finny. If your log is public then it is read. Oh and if the logs are public there are a couple of website that gather public logs and post them. so you can pretty much be certain that you are being heard. I will try and find those links.
24 Sep 2002 @ 20:12 by : Yo finney...
No one cared about Aushvitz, Trblinka, Daschau...either. THe same people are still in power. Wake up! It is not totally about oil! That is the facade...read the below link if you get a chance and make a few notes. An ancient war is being fought tooth and nail to its' bitter end.
"How fortunate for leaders that the masses do not think." ---Adolph Hitler
"OK Vaxen, I have never said that's its totally about oil. I merely mention that which mainly remains unsaid. Afghanistan there was the oil pipeline from the Baltic Sea (wonder what's happening with that?). Iraq has four times the oil reserves of the USA. That we are being deceived I take as a given, that Bush and his administration are involved in the occult, well I need more evidence. I read "The Spear of Destiny" years ago. Hitler was not compedent in the occult, one or two around him may have been. Hitler was obsessed with certain occult symbols and artifacts, had a gift for oratory, and was propably a psychopath (certainly towards the end). But he was no magician." What I'm endeavouring to do is present what the mainstream mostly seams to be failing to do. I have conspiarcy ideas too, however, I mostly don't metion them as it turns too many people off. Don't get me wrong brother Vaxen, I'm not discountinmg what you offer me, I want more concrete evidence. Evidence that would be compelling enough for a large number of people, and not simply written off as yet another hair brain conspiracy theory." Finny
25 Sep 2002 @ 01:20 by : Power Games
Thanks for posting it, Finny. It is important.
Vax, if we assume a deliberate long-term cabal/conspiracy/secret society/blood line kind of thing to be key players in all of this - what would be the best antidote? More precise information about its nature? Better intelligence?
Kay, anything I can do to help any of you get more exposure for your newslogs, let me know. Some of it is in the Syndication section of newslog configuration, and some of it would be accomplished by submitting your RSS news feed link to various aggregation services on the net.
25 Sep 2002 @ 01:36 by jstarrs : Personal sites
Finny, it's so important even though you're preaching to the coverted,as you say, for a sense of solidarity and a growing awakening of the ordinary man, woman & child who are beginning to see through the thin veils, and who wish to live peacefully and honestly without beings pawns. The net and specifically, this site, are helping that.
I was wondering what effect a simple thing like asking each person who has a site (www.multimania.com/jeffstarrs), to put a phrase like 'I do not support ANY war, on Iraq or anywhere else'. Imagine if little by little, all the sites in the apart from the Coca Cola and the Total Elfina Corporuptions, had this message on their welcome page? Maybe naif but it's an idea.
For the cabal, conspiracy angle, even though the monster is capable of disguising itself and metamorphosing, for me there's no one antidote but as many as there are people fighting it, working in as many 'dimensions' as possible. Does fighting in dreamtime count?
25 Sep 2002 @ 06:37 by shawa : For Ming :
Not a "better" intelligence, a NEW intelligence (=consciousness).
25 Sep 2002 @ 06:38 by shawa : For Finny :
Thanks for the good work!
I think people read, and listen, and think. They may not be very open about it, sometimes - but people are thinking.
26 Sep 2002 @ 21:40 by : Wow jeff...
Indeed it counts...even more so! THey are fighting there and have been for a very long time. As all forms of war come from within then it stands to reason that its' purveyors must be approached multidimensionally. PSYOPS, Remote Viewing, Astral Projection, Psychotronic Warfare etc., etc., are all being used to pursuade and dissuade the masses...who do not think. Their 'Soft Weaponry' has grown infinitely grotesque both in applications and developement. I guess a simple yes would have sufficed eh? I like your idea about the web sites. In tel > telos or teleos = from afar, (i) gen = creation (ce) SO better and newer equates with 'Star War Technology.' Killer stuff!
Other entries in Articles
13 Apr 2003 @ 21:48: REBUILDING IRAQ by: Naomi Klein
10 Apr 2003 @ 19:35: My Oscar "Backlash"
9 Apr 2003 @ 22:50: IRAQ IS A TRIAL RUN by Noam Chomsky
23 Sep 2002 @ 19:23: The New Ugly Americans by: George Ochenski
15 Sep 2002 @ 18:29: Afghanistan Is On The Brink Of Another Diaster: by Robert Fisk
7 Sep 2002 @ 21:21: "Against War"
29 Apr 2002 @ 01:48: The Machine by Edwardo Galeano
22 Apr 2002 @ 16:57: A Different Kind of Devastating:
1 Feb 2002 @ 18:56: The Great 9/11 Deception! Parts 1 and 2.
31 Jan 2002 @ 17:28: Bush's Colder War; by John Pilger