Archive for July, 2005

End The War, Impeach Bush and Seek a Political Solution Out Now!

July 11, 2005 1 comment

During WW2 – when it was clear we would be the victors – the U.S. State Department turned its attention onto the Middle East. There is a State Dept memo that mentions the “material prize” and “stupendous source of strategic power” that comes from controlling that oil. From the earliest days of U.S. involvement in the region it has been obvious what our interests were there: oil. Now, I am going to draw strictly from inside sources to prove this point.

• In 1944 a U.S. State Dept. memo says: “…oil resources constitute a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history.”

• An August 1990 memo – National Security Directive 45 – spells out the U.S. interests in the region: “U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf are vital to the national security. These interests include access to oil and the security and stability of key friendly states in the region.”

• A 1996 study by the RAND Corporation – a federally funded research company known for it’s studies to justify U.S. policies – stated that a nuclear presence in the Gulf helps secure our interests there: “The dependence of the West and Japan on Persian Gulf oil and the power and wealth that come from controlling that oil guarantee U.S. interest in that part of the world for as far into the future as anyone can see.”

• Not long after the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq, former National Security Adviser to President Carter (who oversaw the initial training for the Mujhadeen to provoke Russia into invading Afghanistan. The Mujhadeen were the “Afghan trap” to lure Russia into their “Vietnam”) publicly stated that control over Iraq’s oil fields “gives it indirect but politically critical leverage on the European and Asian economies that are also dependent on energy exports from the region.”

None of these sources above were concerned with international law or terrorism. They were, however, concerned about our “interests”: oil. Why? Because foreign markets depend on it and we get indirect political influence over them. How about that! We use military domination as a way to control resources the world’s insutrialized nations depend on in order to have political influence over them.

Remember, terrorism is a tactic. It is not something that can be fought anymore than the tactic of ambush, fighting at night or guerilla warfare.

In late November 2002, a retired U.S. Army general, William Odom, told C-SPAN viewers:

“Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It’s a tactic. It’s about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we’re going to win that war. We’re not going to win the war on terrorism. And it does whip up fear. Acts of terror have never brought down liberal democracies. Acts of parliament have closed a few.”

Now, the word “terrorism” constantly appears without adhering to A) a definition and B) universal application that applies to all parties (and not just our “enemies).

Terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Regime change is terrorism. Closing down and blocking aide to hospitals is terrorism. Announcing to towns and villages that they must turn over who we see as the enemy or be bombed is terrorism. Shooting unarmed protesters is terrorism. Targeting water and electricity facilities is terrorism. All of these tactics and more have been utilized by the U.S. military in Iraq and constitutes acts of terrorism.

Point: We are not fighting terrorism, especially when we too use it as a tactic.

Also remember, that the U.S. war on Iraq was just as illegal as Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. There was an indirect notice to U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie in 1990 from Saddam that he was interested in invading Kuwait but nothing like the long planned and publicly announced invasion of Iraq.

We violated the U.N. Charter, subsequently the U.S. Constitution (article VI states: “all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.”) and the Nuremberg Principles. Remember, that the U.S. had a lead role in shaping the U.N. Charter and the Nuremberg principles.

Point: We are not upholding the law.

Tens of thousands of people have died (not to mention the more than a million who died from the last two wars we were involved in and the sanctions) since this illegal invasion and let us not forget the “single issue” for which we launched this illegal war: alleged WMD’s.

The evidence was thin to begin with. So thin that former U.S. Marine and UNSCOM weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, was pro-actively criticizing and calling out the claims of WMD even before Bush came into office. Let’s also not forget the UNMOVIC and IAEA inspection reports before the war on 03/07/03 reported that there was no evidence of an ongoing program or any evidence of weapons. They looked at satellite imagery, water/vegetation/air and particle testing, used radar for underground bunkers and evaluate the plausibility of unmanned aerial vehicles and biological mobile units and found no supporting evidence for our claims. They dismissed the yellowcake, aluminum tubes and etc., one by one.

Most of all, let’s not forget the pre-war planning document known now as the “Downing Street Memo” that highlighted our intent for war even before Congress was spoken to. That is another felony violation of our U.S. constitution. And, remember that they made it clear that the U.S. was going to “fix the intelligence and facts around the policy.” Which they clearly did.

Even U.S. generals on the ground acknowledge that the war will not be won. As the above retired General noted that we cannot fight and win against a tactic, also we cannot defeat this insurgency with military solutions:

“I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that … this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations,” Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say. “It’s going to be settled in the political process.”

To summarize again: the war was illegal, unjustified and built on lies. This constitutes a severe breach to the U.N. Charter, U.N. Security Council resolutions relevant to Iraq, Nuremberg principles and thus a violation of the U.S. constitution, actually the “supreme law of the land.” The longer we wait to make a political solution the less likely it is to happen. How much more blood must be spilled until we put an end to our aggression?

G-8 Summit: U.S. Trips Up Climate Agreement

Military Action Won’t End Insurgency, Growing Number of US Officers Believe

Blowback Hits Britain
Londoners Pay Heavy Price for Blair’s Deception

Blair’s Alliance with Bush Bombed
by Robert Fisk

From Iraq To The G8
The Polite Crushing Of Dissent And Truth
By John Pilger

Terrorism, “the War on Terror” and the Message of Carnage
by Norman Solomon

The Judy Miller Media Hug-Fest

Categories: Uncategorized