[R-G] [P] Convenient Alibis
adar at bsdshell.dyndns.org
Wed Feb 12 18:25:33 MST 2003
(No war in Iraq - http://pnews.org/)
A very convenient alibi for INTERVENTIONISM is the "War on Terrorism."
It is the the mission of the United States for the post-Cold War era.
It is the major function of the U.S. military.
"Whenever an excuse is needed (for interventionism), Washington can
arbitrarily declare certain nations to be engaged in international
terrorism, though their behavior of many other nations, including those
close allies or even the United States itself. If a foreign crisis is
needed to generate votes for hte party in power or to distract attention
from domestic policies that depress the real wages of most Americans,
there is nothing like terrorism to provide the justification. If the
profits of military contractors need to be increased or if the
independence of Third World leaders needs to be squelched, the fight
agaisnt terrorism can serve as a rationalism." [Stephen Rosskamm Shalom,
"Imperial Alibis", 1993]
>From - > FACT SHEET ON IRAQ AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
-- Source: FoE Sydney - Nuclear Campaign - <nonukes at foesyd.org.au>
OTHER ISSUES ARISING FROM A POSSIBLE ATTACK ON IRAQ
There is significant risk of destabilisation in the middle east and in
Egypt and Saudi Arabia have both expressed extreme concern over the effect
of a US led attack on Iraq on their own stability. An attack on Iraq
ESPECIALLY IF SUCCESSFUL, could lead to 'regime change' of the opposite
kind to that hoped for by George Bush for Iraq. The effects in Iran,
where western democracies have hoped tro strenghen the hand of the moderate
elements, will be to do the opposite and to strengthen the fundamentalist
If 'regime change' of this kind were not the immediate result, it will lead
to an increase in anti-american sentiment of the kind that fuels the
operations of Al Queda, with a medium/long term reduction in securuty for
the US and with an increased likelihood of events similar to 9/11.
The possibility of a nuclear 9/11 cannot be discounted.
The double standard on weapons of mass destruction is so obvious that this
alone leads to a reduction in US moral stature and widespread perceptions
of dishonesty and bullying worldwide. This double standard also
strengthens the hand of nations such as North Korea in flouting the NPT and
proceeding with the development of their own nuclear deterrents.
The threats by Israel to use nuclear weapons - against Iraq - should Iraq
use scud missiles against Israel- must be taken seriously and, unless
there were to be war between India and Pakistan in the near term, would
lead to the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945.
WHAT MIGHT HELP?
-A sense of proportion would help!
Iraq HAS evaded UN weapons inspections and has a desire to obtain the same
deadly toys as the US, Russia, France, China, the UK, India, Pakistan,
North Korea, and Israel have.
It did not theaten to invade Nevada last time the US performed a nuclear
-weapons related test there, and has not called for regime change in
The proliferation of WMD is an issue that is utterly vital - the use of
large nuclear arsenals such as those held by the US and Russia would
destroy civilisation, might end the human race, and would wipe out most
land- based plants and animals.
But the vast preponderance of WMD are those held by the established nuclear
weapons powers especially, again, the US and Russia. If we are to talk
about WMD - yes, lets talk about WMD!
--It would help if the established nuclear weapons powers would get rid of
their bloated and deadly nuclear arsenals as per their NPT article VI
obligations over the last 30 years. This reasonable request is also
legally binding under instruments signed by every government with the
exception of India, Pakistan, Israel (and now North Korea). Failure to
enfore international law in this area leads to a diminution in the respect
for the rule of international law generally, as well as posing a threat to
life in general worldwide.
--Continued UNMOVIC and IAEA inspections are essential, as is clear from
the recent reports by Blix and El Baradei. The US should cease to try to
undermine the credibility of the inspectors and should give them its full
--The replacement of the current sanctions regime by one more clearly aimed
at the regime itself and its WMD ambitions would be helpful.
--Finally it would be helpful if the US were to persue policies that were
more clearly aimed at bringing about a more just world in which the
resentment that feeds groups such as Al Quaeda and that feeds anti-american
sentiment in general, did not have a foundation.
The El Baradei (IAEA) report to the UN Security Council was clear that
Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. The U.S. does have 12,000 nuclear
warheads (or more). Russia has about 22,000 warheads. France has 450
warheads. China has 400 nuclear warheads and Britain has about 250 nukes.
Israel may have as many as 400 nuclear warheads and India has 150,
Pakistan has 35-70, North Korea has between 5 and 15. Iran has several.
But the bottom line is IRAQ has NONE...............
Hank Roth (TheGolem)
P.S. is the U.S. preparing to attack Pyongyang, Tel Aviv, Moscow? Has the
U.S. demanded weapons inspections and destruction of those weapons in
Britain, Pakistan, France? Of course not.......
/ o o \
TheGolemsPlace (Where everything REALLY begins)
West Server -: http://pnews.org/ East Server -: http://g0lem.net/
Vortals: http://pnews.org/NWO/phpnuke/ (New World disOrder)
http://g0lem.net/PHP/phpnuke/ (Progressive News and Views)
http://g0lem.net/HTH/phpnuke/ (Health and Veterans)
NO BLOOD FOR OIL - DROP BUSH, NOT BOMBS! - PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITS!
Subscribe or Unsubscribe to PNEWS ("progressive" news and views) forums
(on internet since 1982): --- http://pnews.org/signup.shtml
More information about the Rad-Green