-Caveat Lector-

Robert Fisk: The case against war: A conflict driven by the self-interest of
America
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=378428
15 February 2003

In the end, I think we are just tired of being lied to. Tired of being talked
down to, of being bombarded with Second World War jingoism and scare
stories and false information and student essays dressed up as
"intelligence". We are sick of being insulted by little men, by Tony Blair and
Jack Straw and the likes of George Bush and his cabal of neo- conservative
henchmen who have plotted for years to change the map of the Middle
East to their advantage.

No wonder, then, that Hans Blix's blunt refutation of America's
"intelligence" at the UN yesterday warmed so many hearts. Suddenly, the
Hans Blixes of this world could show up the Americans for the
untrustworthy "allies" they have become.

The British don't like Hussein any more than they liked Nasser. But millions
of Britons remember, as Blair does not, the Second World War; they are
not conned by childish parables of Hitler, Churchill, Chamberlain and
appeasement. They do not like being lectured and whined at by men
whose experience of war is Hollywood and television.

Still less do they wish to embark on endless wars with a Texas governor-
executioner who dodged the Vietnam draft and who, with his oil buddies,
is now sending America's poor to destroy a Muslim nation that has nothing
at all to do with the crimes against humanity of 11 September. Jack Straw,
the public school Trot-turned-warrior, ignores all this, with Blair. He brays
at us about the dangers of nuclear weapons that Iraq does not have, of
the torture and aggression of a dictatorship that America and Britain
sustained when Saddam was "one of ours". But he and Blair cannot discuss
the dark political agenda behind George Bush's government, nor the
"sinister men" (the words of a very senior UN official) around the
President.

Those who oppose war are not cowards. Brits rather like fighting; they've
biffed Arabs, Afghans, Muslims, Nazis, Italian Fascists and Japanese
imperialists for generations, Iraqis included � though we play down the
RAF's use of gas on Kurdish rebels in the 1930s. But when the British are
asked to go to war, patriotism is not enough. Faced with the horror
stories, Britons � and many Americans � are a lot braver than Blair and
Bush. They do not like, as Thomas More told Cromwell in A Man for All
Seasons, tales to frighten children.

Perhaps Henry VIII's exasperation in that play better expresses the British
view of Blair and Bush: "Do they take me for a simpleton?" The British, like
other Europeans, are an educated people. Ironically, their opposition to
this obscene war may make them feel more, not less, European.

Palestine has much to do with it. Brits have no love for Arabs but they
smell injustice fast enough and are outraged at the colonial war being
used to crush the Palestinians by a nation that is now in effect running US
policy in the Middle East. We are told that our invasion of Iraq has nothing
to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict � a burning, fearsome wound to
which Bush devoted just 18 words in his meretricious State of the Union
speech � but even Blair can't get away with that one; hence his
"conference" for Palestinian reform at which the Palestinians had to take
part via video-link because Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, refused to
let them travel to London.

So much for Blair's influence over Washington � the US Secretary of State,
Colin Powell, "regretted" that he couldn't persuade Sharon to change his
mind. But at least one has to acknowledge that Sharon � war criminal
though he may be for the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacres � treated Blair
with the contempt he deserves. Nor can the Americans hide the link
between Iraq and Israel and Palestine. In his devious address to the UN
Security Council last week, Powell linked the three when he complained
that Hamas, whose suicide bombings so cruelly afflict Israelis, keeps an
office in Baghdad.

Just as he told us about the mysterious al-Qa'ida men who support
violence in Chechnya and in the "Pankisi gorge". This was America's way of
giving Vladimir Putin a free hand again in his campaign of rape and murder
against the Chechens, just as Bush's odd remark to the UN General
Assembly last 12 September about the need to protect Iraq's Turkomans
only becomes clear when one realises that Turkomans make up two thirds
of the population of Kirkuk, one of Iraq's largest oil fields.

The men driving Bush to war are mostly former or still active pro-Israeli
lobbyists. For years, they have advocated destroying the most powerful
Arab nation. Richard Perle, one of Bush's most influential advisers, Douglas
Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton and Donald Rumsfeld were all
campaigning for the overthrow of Iraq long before George W Bush was
elected � if he was elected � US President. And they weren't doing so for
the benefit of Americans or Britons. A 1996 report, A Clean Break: A New
Strategy for Securing the Realm
(http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm) called for war on Iraq. It was
written not for the US but for the incoming Israeli Likud prime minister
Binyamin Netanyahu and produced by a group headed by � yes, Richard
Perle. The destruction of Iraq will, of course, protect Israel's monopoly of
nuclear weapons and allow it to defeat the Palestinians and impose
whatever colonial settlement Sharon has in store.

Although Bush and Blair dare not discuss this with us � a war for Israel is
not going to have our boys lining up at the recruiting offices � Jewish
American leaders talk about the advantages of an Iraqi war with
enthusiasm. Indeed, those very courageous Jewish American groups who
so bravely oppose this madness have been the first to point out how pro-
Israeli organisations foresee Iraq not only as a new source of oil but of
water, too; why should canals not link the Tigris river to the parched
Levant? No wonder, then, that any discussion of this topic must be
censored, as Professor Eliot Cohen, of Johns Hopkins University, tried to
do in the Wall Street Journal the day after Powell's UN speech. Cohen
suggested that European nations' objections to the war might � yet again �
be ascribed to "anti-Semitism of a type long thought dead in the West, a
loathing that ascribes to Jews a malignant intent." This nonsense, it must
be said, is opposed by many Israeli intellectuals who, like Uri Avnery, argue
that an Iraq war will leave Israel with even more Arab enemies, especially if
Iraq attacks Israel and Sharon then joins the US battle against the Arabs.

The slur of "anti-Semitism" also lies behind Rumsfeld's snotty remarks about
"old Europe". He was talking about the "old" Germany of Nazism and the
"old" France of collaboration. But the France and Germany that oppose
this war are the "new" Europe, the continent which refuses, ever again, to
slaughter the innocent. It is Rumsfeld and Bush who represent the "old"
America; not the "new" America of freedom, the America of F D Roosevelt.
Rumsfeld and Bush symbolise the old America that killed its native Indians
and embarked on imperial adventures. It is "old" America we are being
asked to fight for � linked to a new form of colonialism � an America that
first threatens the United Nations with irrelevancy and then does the same
to Nato. This is not the last chance for the UN, nor for Nato. But it may
well be the last chance for America to be taken seriously by her friends as
well as her enemies.

In these last days of peace the British should not be tripped by the oh-so-
sought- after second UN resolution. UN permission for America's war will
not make the war legitimate; it merely proves that the Council can be
controlled with bribes, threats or abstentions. It was the Soviet Union's
abstention, after all, which allowed America to fight the savage Korean war
under the UN flag. And we should not doubt that � after a quick US military
conquest of Iraq and providing 'they" die more than we die � there will be
plenty of anti-war protesters who will claim they were pro-war all along.
The first pictures of "liberated" Baghdad will show Iraqi children making
victory signs to American tank crews. But the real cruelty and cynicism of
this conflict will become evident as soon as the "war" ends, when our
colonial occupation of a Muslim nation for the US and Israel begins.

There lies the rub. Bush calls Sharon a "man of peace". But Sharon fears he
may yet face trial over Sabra and Chatila, which is why Israel has just
withdrawn its ambassador to Belgium. I'd like to see Saddam in the same
court. And Rifaat Assad for his 1982 massacre in the Syrian city of Hama.
And all the torturers of Israel and the Arab dictatorships.

Israeli and US ambitions in the region are now entwined, almost
synonymous. This war is about oil and regional control. It is being cheer-
led by a draft-dodger who is treacherously telling us that this is part of an
eternal war against "terror". And the British and most Europeans don't
believe him. It's not that Britons wouldn't fight for America. They just don't
want to fight for Bush or his friends. And if that includes the Prime
Minister, they don't want to fight for Blair either.

15 February 2003 13:10



 Printable Story








Legal | Contact us | Using our Content | Advertise in print | Subscribe to
the print edition |



Sign up for our free daily news update | Other Digital sites

? 2002 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
Forwarded for your information.  The text and intent of the article
have to stand on their own merits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do
not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera-
tions.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and
rumoured by many.  Do not believe in anything simply because it is
written in Holy Scriptures.  Do not believe in anything merely on
the authority of teachers, elders or wise men.  Believe only after
careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief,
from the Kalama Sut

<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please!  These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
 <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
 <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om

Reply via email to