[eDebate] Iran into Iraq : A Call for Anti-American Terrorism
Sat Aug 10 08:31:04 CDT 2002
after the United States military slaughtered 20,000 Philliphinos in the now
forgotten event that un-read American history textbooks refer to as 'the
Spanish-American War', even Mark Twain, not a dissident by any stretch,
suggested that the stars and stripes of the US flag should be replaced with
the skull and crossbones.
though today's Americans often object to my application of the term 'empire'
to this hegemonic super-power, back then this was precisely what the federal
legislature debated: should the US become an empire, like the Brits?
the history of international geopolitics since 1945 provides a clear answer
to the question of American imperialism. ...
for instance, why did Dubya so ardently refuse to sign a treaty creating an
International Criminal Court? this tribunal could naturally try and convict
terrorists under widely-accepted ethical standards buttressed by
international law: why not a Nuremberg for the Oshama bin Ladens of the
well the answer, as is well known, is that US 'peace-keeping forces' would
also be subject to these same set of international laws, and the war
criminals that America harbors would also be caught and prosecuted. the
horrific military terrorisms of Vietnam and Nicaragua, many of which even
violated US laws (cross-reference: the article to impeach Nixon for the
bombing of Cambodia as well as the congressional restriction of military aid
to the Contras), just to name two, deserve to be dealt with in courts of
international justice. it goes without saying that if former and current
members of the executive branch were arrested and extradicted to Geneva,
this might negatively impact 'United State sovereignty', and since no empire
recognizes any law higher than its own self-interest, the mere idea of the
ICC must be vetoed by American imperialists and their apologists.
in this historical context, let's look at the history of the US military's
interventions in Iraq and Iran, and honestly ask whether the US is or is not
an accomplice to the atrocities committed in both countries.
the US supported and armed the shah of Iran, enabling him to establish his
brutal dictatorship for a good number of years. understandably, the Iranians
were a little upset. if Iran had provided crucial military support for a
David Koresh or a Timothy McVeigh, allowing such persons to overthrow the US
government, perhaps Americans might be a bit peeved as well. so the Iranians
were willing to promote any leader who stepped up to oppose this asshole,
and in walks the Ayatollah. Mr K turned out to be another dictator, but one
dedicated to showing Americans that they can't bully Middle-Easterns around
anymore. (of course, now Iranians have 'learned their lesson', that for
every American you kill, they'll find a way to kill a thousand of your
people, and they've since moved towards more moderate democratic governance,
not that Dubya noticed when he included them in his idiotic 'axis of evil')
well then the US committed another stupid and criminal act by supporting
Sadam Hussien in his 8-year-long war with Iran. the US military armed Sadam
with weapons of mass destruction which subsequently killed 100,000 Iranians.
the US state-planners considered Sadam a force of regional stability as well
as damn good for the oil and arms trade. this is nothing new, of course; the
list of dictators which the US has trained and armed is too many to mention
in this e-mail ... Noreiga, Suharto, Somosa, and so on ...
so now you know how Sadam first used chemical weapons, but what about
gassing of his own people? well that's an interesting story too. the
democratic rebellion forces, composed almost entirely of northern Iraqi
Kurds, were prepared to overthrown Sadam, and asked the US for assistance
(since the US was partly responsible for this dick staying in power as long
as he had). the US agreed to provide crucial air support, and then
straight-up, without prior notice, broke its promise. the Kurds attacked
thinking the empire was behind them, and Sadam responded with the weapons
the empire had supplied him with.
this makes the US military an accomplice to both of these atrocities, which
are now continually cited to justify further military invasions. but since
the Persian Gulf War, citizens of the world are more than a little skeptical
of the supposed benevolence of US strategic goals.
when the US rounded up a UN-backed coalition to oppose the Iraqi military's
breaking of international law (by unilaterally invading another country), it
gave Sadam an ultimatum of 'unconditional surrender'. in doing so, it failed
to consider two key peace proposals made by Sadam, which would have avoided
one said that Sadam would pull out if Israel pulled out of the occupied
territories of Palestine. though reasonable, it is easy to understand why
this one was ignored by a pro-Israeli administration.
but the second one should have been signed. you see, Iraq was in a recession
due in no small part to two things: Kuwait was stealing oil by 'horizontally
drilling' it out of Iraqi oilfields, and Kuwait was also breaking OPEC
quotas. also note that Kuwait was never 'a real country' in the eyes of most
Arabs. after the fall of the Ottaman empire, Britian and France took out
their crayons and re-delineated the Middle East without any consideration
for the people living there. (this is also why the Kurds don't have a state;
and since there is no Kurdistan, Turkey or Iraq or anyone can kill as many
Kurds as they like with little international reprisal. ... well they
couldn't if there was an ICC, but ... ah well.)
so Kuwait was created as a little European enclave, and is still one of the
richest countries on the planet, along with Luxenburg and Switzerland. this
naturally pisses the surrounding poor folk off something awful, and since
Kuwait was preventing Iraq's economic recovery from the Iran-Iraq war, Sadam
had a good deal of support for taking over this vestige of European
it is reasonable to assume that he had no idea the US would turn its back so
forcefully on its former ally, but empires will invent any excuse to go to
war, even when it means turning a blind eye to peace proposals. the one
Sadam offered right before the US tanks rolled in had three conditions, a.
if Kuwait would agree to stop horizontally drilling as well as b. agree to
stop violating OPEC quotas, and c. if the US would agree to pull the
air-ships out of the Persian Gulf, then Sadam would get out the hell out of
was he bluffing? well, we'll never know. see when confronted with
international actors who are willing to do anything to stay in power, it is
a good idea to not give the dictator any excuses for egregious aggression.
being a rogue state itself, the US almost never heeds this advice.
so the US invaded Iraq, destroying civilian infastructure left and right,
hospitals, roads, and so on, knocking out water treatment facilities in one
of most water-scare nations in the world. the sanctions on the Iraqi people
also haven't ended since that war, and in all, hundreds of thousands of
innocent civilians have died: no medical treatment for the infectious
diseases running rampant, no reparations for the tons of radioactive
uranium-bullets which have doubled the cancer rates, and so forth.
and obviously, this is all Sadam's fault - it is not like the US gave him
military aid or anything, right? it is not like the US didn't do everything
it could to avoid slaughtering civilians, right?
so what to do, what to do now? well it is doubtful the Kurds will take the
US's word any longer; and the shi'ites in Southern Iraq represented
precisely the type of 'islamic fundamentalism' the Bush amdministration is
not big on endorsing. and it is also doubtful that the UN General Assembly
will again support the US's legitimacy in war against Iraq, considering the
humanitarian disasters that always seem to ensue.
so the US will have to act unilaterally: invade, unseat Sadam, and pick a
new leader that will sell the US oil at a decent price. since the US
military fights like a coward, more willing to indiscriminately slaughter
civilians with ariel bombardment than to sacrifice soldiers in a massive
ground deployment, this will necessarily entail war crimes.
and once Sadam realizes that his downfall is imminent, it is reasonable to
assume he'll launch whatever he has been cooking up since he kicked out the
UN weapons' inspectors. so we could be talking a chemical attack on Tel
Aviv, or worse, the sparking of another world war, especially if the US
fails to persuade its allies in the Middle East to support regime change
(and they're already on record as saying that an attack on the Iraqi people
is an attack on all Arabs).
we see here that the US has done what it is best at: creating
insolvable problems to justify new military 'solutions' so the the US can
play the world's rent-a-cops and keep its terrorist network (#1 in
arms-selling since 1945) running smoothly - 'the best country in the world'
or the US could let the world community decide: it could work to lift
sanctions so that the Iraqi people know that the US isn't intent on their
demise and that the US and the world will help them, through economic trade
and humanitarian aid, to resist dictatorship with democratic openness. the
US could agree to begin talks with Sadam on letting weapons inspectors back
in, and play Sadam's games while keeping an eye on what he is planning.
the real trouble for this empire is that it has no threatening enemies, and
so it must create a few to justify its gargantuan military budget ... Iran?
North Korea? Iraq? c'mon on. compared to Germany, Japan, and Italy, this is
hardly an 'axis'.
anti-american terrorists are infiltrating every nation, even and especially
the US, and all the US's state-to-state weaponry is utterly useless in
fighting the new threat. quit worrying about Sadam and his hot air; he knows
that if he launches anything, the US won't hesitate in dropping the big one
on his head.
worry instead about whomever has the nuclear material missing from US
power-plants, and whomever has the loose Russian nukes. worry about whomever
can hack the Pentagon, shut down the internet, or generally cause economic
havoc with small acts of electronic disruption. worry about the terrorists
within your own borders, just like me.
after the Spanish-American War, a lovely anarchist guy was kind enough to
assasinate McKingly. now there's a new crowd of barbarians at the gate of
this empire. perhaps we'll all see Dubya taken down with a head-shot, LIVE
on CNN. in the words of his 'favorite philosopher':
"those who live by the sword,
die by the sword"
or to update it post-911:
"those who live by the nukes and cluster bombs,
die by the hijacked planes"
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
More information about the Mailman