I'm tired ... and I got some harsh financial news (ten years at less than US$6K a year, things get tight) ... but it's been a day of marvels.
Here's the full text of something from Richard K. Moore:
I received an email from a Russian web-zine, "The Polar Star" - http://zvezda.ru. They sent me a list of questions and explained that they are "gathering views and opinions among a wide range of non-conformist European thinkers". Here is the Q&A:
1. How deep has the contradiction between the positions of US and Europe become? Does it now have a systemic nature, or is it only temporary friction bound to disappear simultaneously with the beginning of military operations in Iraq?I don't see any significant contradiction or conflict between the US and European governments over Iraq. They agree on the major fictions: that Saddam is a threat, that he must be "disarmed", and that Iraq's national sovereignty can be ignored. If there were a contradiction, then Europe would be threatening sanctions against the US in case of an invasion. Instead they are merely debating whether or not to ally the UN and NATO with the aggression. When the genocide is over, or at least the part CNN wants to show us, then Europe will be happy to participate in whatever new oil regime is established. And the "victors" will write the story of what happened in Iraq. They will, perhaps, be able to find five or six surviving Iraqis willing to smile for the camera, and that will "prove" that the Iraqis are thrilled to be rescued by Uncle Sam and his cruise missiles.
The apparent opposition shown publicly by France and Germany probably reflects two factors. First is indignation at Washington's eagerness to pursue unilateral action. However this response is limited to indignation; it does not extend to any intention to challenge Washington's self-assumed prerogatives. The second factor is the desire to cater to public opinion. Since public opposition to war is overwhelming in France and Germany, it would be political suicide for those leaders to support the war. Washington has no need of French or German assistance, so the French and German "opposition" costs the overall program nothing.
The real question is, "Why is the US bothering with seeking UN approval? Why not just go ahead on its own as it has countless other times since 1945?". I think we see a deeper game here, having to do with discrediting the UN and redefining international "law" to suit Washington.
2. Do you think that the deepening of such conflict might damage some of the existing relations between Europe and the US, and if so, to what extent? In particular, to what extent will this be reflected in the already difficult economic relationship between Europe and the US?I think that the economic relationship between Europe and the US, in the sense you probably intend, is of only secondary importance. The primary economic shift under globalization is the de-nationalization of economics - the corporatization of economics. European and US "leaders" publicly haggle with one another, and blame one another, so as to detract attention from what is really destroying economies and driving down quality of life in the West. These "leaders" are all stooges for corporate elites, and their job is to preside over the dismantlement of their national economies. They are fully aligned in this treasonous activity, not in conflict.
3. What kind of position should Russia assume in the developing opposition between Europe and the US? What should be the best tactical behaviour for Russia to gain the highest political dividends?That depends entirely on Russia's goals and objectives. If you want greater access to the global oil markets, you might consider making a secret deal with Washington and supporting the imperialist invasion. If you want to encourage a split between the US and Europe, then you might use this opportunity to introduce new proposals for international cooperation that explicitly do not include the USA, due to its status as a rogue nation which makes first use of weapons of mass destruction on helpless populations.
But if I were Russia, I'd be thinking in terms of self defense. The massacre in Iraq will have nothing to do with any Iraq-related objectives. It will be primarily a field test of weapons designed for use against Russia and China. Iraq is to Bush & Blair what Spain was to Mussolini & Hitler. (In fact the US and Britain both supported Hitler and Mussolini in that earlier episode.) The US has indicated it may use nuclear weapons in Iraq, and in populated areas. This is drastic overkill in the Iraqi theater, but might make military sense against a more formidable adversary with large ports and military facilities. The US acceleration of its Space Command program and its missile defense systems are clearly not about North Korea. Those systems become cost-effective only in full-scale warfare against major powers.
Indeed, it may be that one reason the US wants to occupy and control the Middle East at this time is to ensure that adequate fuel is available for a planned future major war. They don't want another boycott declared in the midst of hostilities. Best to control the flow tightly all the way from the well to the wing tank.
The positions of Russia and China are strategically parallel vis a vis US plans for global domination on behalf of global capitalism. You might want to look at my article, "China vs. Globalization - the Final War and the Dark Millennium". You can find it at http://cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/ND/jul97NWOChina.shtml
Good luck with your work,
International Days of Action - February 15 and 16
United for Peace & Justice Solidarity Statement - List of International Events and Links by City
Global Justice and Ecumenical Relations - Church leaders of Europe, North America and the Middle East agreed upon the following declaration concerning a pending war against Iraq on February 5, 2003 at an urgent meeting in Berlin. "For us it is a spiritual obligation, grounded in God?s love for all humanity, to speak out against war in Iraq. ... We invite all churches to join us in this act of witness and to pray for and encourage participation of all people in the struggle for a peaceful resolution of this conflict." Listing of events in Canada
From Alternatives to War Against Iraq by the Friends' Committee on National Legislation; five easy questions: What is the problem? Why is war not the answer?; What are some alternatives to war?; What about the advancement of democracy and human rights in Iraq?; Is it too late to stop the war?
" The 9-11 bombings Are Not Acts of War, The 9-11 bombings Are Crimes Against Humanity" ... an impressive site. Gore Vidal's "Enemy Within" is here; I've read a lot of think-pieces in my time ... this one is sterling.
"By positing God as the force "behind all of history" the President invites us to look upon him as simply His humble instrument, to feel the hand of God as it works through the President. The problem with this, of course, is that part of "the liberty we prize" is the concept of freedom of religion and the recognition of the primacy of individual conscience that underlies our legal system. By offering the ringing endorsement, if not outright authorship, of the Almighty for his policies, the President is casting his opponents and critics as heretics and his policies as beyond debate.
This is not the way things work in a democratic society. Many people of good conscience disagree with the President on a great many issues, particularly his unprecedented preparations to make war on a foreign power that has not attacked us in any way ..."
momentum is building for a broader appeal to Americans beyond their own obvious self-interest, toward a broader opposition to the destructive policies of a government gone off the deep end.... yaaa!
The fact is that even if it does 'end quickly,' (the best case scenario alluded to in the ads) an attack on Iraq will result in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, mass murder by any reasonable standard. Aside from the sheer inhumanity of such an act, Americans need to make opposition to this horrific disregard for human life a centerpiece of the opposition campaign."
A friend just pointed me to this, from Channel 4 - "Between Iraq and a Hard Place" ... it aired last month but is now online.
"If you were to spend 26 million dollars every day since the birth of Christ, you'd have spent less than the Americans have spent on "defence" since the end of the Second World War."
The American's jingoism is not benign. At a time when otherwise sensible legislators are soberly suggesting that passenger aircraft be fitted out with anti-missile defense systems, this sabre rattling has a real effect on the body politic. Like the infamous "go pills", it leaves people with an unfortunate tendency to go off half-cocked.
Is our thinking at the beginning of the new millenium that we must be rash, lest events surpass us?