there is no war in iraq

I am not against the War in Iraq, because it is not happening. Shocking words perhaps, but let’s not forget that the actual War part of the War in Iraq ended on the first day of May, 2003 when Bush landed on an aircraft carrier off the coast of California. Since then, America has been executing operations “In Iraq” in an occupational capacity, as it were.

I also do not really care about the 2,838 dead American soldiers (up to November 10, as confirmed by the U.S. Department of Defense) whose ashes are being sprinkled throughout our cultural landscape. First it was with every newscast that we got used to the saying along the lines of “2,838 American soldiers killed in Iraq so far..." Since then, dramas and comedies have taken up the cause, talking about “our heroic dead”. Talk shows tell us that the war is going badly because the number of American soldiers who have been killed is on the rise. Furthermore, Democrats have been using the tragedy of “our heroic dead” as a means to gain votes and win America’s favour away from the Republican party. I don’t want to suggest that I wish soldiers who die in war their deaths, but focussing moral outrage on the tragedy of American deaths is akin to giving honour to the invasion itself.

The main reason that I disbelieve in an Iraq War is the fact that there is no way to bring the conceptual and logistical focus of the hostilities that the American occupation of Iraq to the American populace in a direct manner. Soon after 9/11, American voters needed to be convinced that their country had found itself “in a time of war”, and thus should follow their leadership without question. That the American government successfully convinced Americans that they were at war when not a single shot was fired on U.S. soil has proven to be one of the most successful propaganda campaigns since Big Oil hired a few “climatologists” to show how normal our climate is these days.

My father was born in England in 1941 and entered life knowing that his country was at war. Enemy planes flew over his head and dropped bombs throughout the southern part of the country. Schools, factories, and offices held bomb drills because they were actually being bombed. Many families had learned the extent to which war would affect their lives, and exactly why their soldiers were losing their lives to defend the country. Step forward two generations, and we witness an entirely different situation. Despite the fact that not a single Iraqi military unit ever came close to American soil, that country was demonized to the point where most Americans seemed to actually believe that it posed a very grave and immediate threat to their existence.

In fact, it turns out that the direct opposite was true. Iraqis live daily with hostile planes flying overhead, with daily bombings, with soldiers who break into their homes for random patrols, and with military prisons full of “non-combatants” who are tortured for information that they quite likely do not possess. It is they who are truly living “in a time of war”. We are not in fact hearing their stories or documenting their lives – or even counting the number of deaths that have occurred since the invasion began. Consequently, for those of us in the West the war is not really happening; there is no zero degree of immanence with warfare.

We need to legitimately talk about the fact that deaths within the Iraqi population are not being tracked. We need to talk about the studies on Iraqi casualties which have been released by various organizations which suggest that the death toll for the Iraq occupation ranges from about 75,000 to over 600,000. When the number of dead in Darfur reached 400,000 we began to talk of genocide. So what then of Iraq? Until we can begin to honour the deaths of the untold number of Iraqi dead, I do not want to hear another word about the tragedy of 3,000 dead American soldiers. Frankly, complaining about American casualties during an American occupation is akin to complaining about running out of bullets while simultaneously firing the gun.

We hear things like the U.S. infusing a half-billion dollars into Iraq’s healthcare system and we are to assume that the American government is itself generously offering its funds for reconstruction efforts. Corporations such as Bechtel (who recently announced that they will be leaving Iraq), Halliburton, Dyncorp, and Research Triangle Institute, have greatly expanded their portfolios:

✓ Running the Los Alamos National Laboratory
✓ Gas and oil field development in Russia and elsewhere
✓ Products and services for the oil industry
✓ Drug discovery and development
✓ Reaping billions from the untold suffering of the Iraqi people.


Since 2003, America has attempted to expand its economy using another country’s seeming instability as a pretext. Industry analysts have repeatedly stated that America’s economy is tied to its energy resources. Given that these resources are in decline as compared to demand, you can begin to see that future growth is not possible under the traditional economic model. An infusion of resources is required, and thus we come to the Invasion of Iraq. All of the so-called reconstruction efforts have surrounded Iraq’s oil infrastructure, which is now controlled by American corporate interests.

The recent congressional victories by the Democrats will hopefully end any Neo-Con hopes to further expand into Iran. This is a shame, really, as I personally wanted to see the Greatest Hits of the Twentieth Century, as performed by the American government in a single decade. We had covered the Gulf War and the preliminaries of Vietnam (Iraq being Cambodia to Iran’s Vietnam). With a return to the Korean war and the second Great War of human civilization, my hopes were rested on one man: George W. Bush. Sadly sir, you let me down last Tuesday. Hang your head in shame. Your Risk-like attempt to take over the world is being delayed.

I find that it is not simply my cynicism that suggests that the Democrats will in fact do little to change the situation in Iraq. Surely the John Kerry-era talk about bolstering the soldiers’ armour remains key to Democrat strategy two years later. If the Dems ably demonstrate that they support the troops more than the Republicans, then they have a chance at the Presidency and their own Thermidor. The GOP must be hoping that the occupation turns considerably against American interests. Catastrophic violence in Iraq is exactly what will allow a Republican president in 2008.

Let me be clear about one thing: if the Democrats don’t force the Bush White House to bring the soldiers home by Christmas, then they aren’t fulfilling their potential. Forget the bullshit about how staying the course in Iraq will keep the country from the horrors of sectarian violence. The line of thought that includes the notion that peace will be found in Iraq only by means of the U.S. military is exactly what led to the invasion in the first place.

Hopefully, the Democratic mantra reflects a newfound sense of conviction and determination. If they really and truly wish to present America as distinct from the unruly, arrogant philistine that it has demonstrated itself to be ever since the right-wing coup in 2000, they can begin with the following: kindly and immediately get the hell out of Iraq. Furthermore, maybe last week’s Democratic victory will transform the party from one of excuses into one of material reality. This past weekend was one of the most bloody since the occupation began; Mrs. Nancy Pilosi, the ball is in your court.

torture guardin'

I recommend listening to the following while reading this article:
MP3: Meira Asher + Guy Harries, "Torture -- Bodyparts"

Ah, torture in the fall.

With all the recent talk about the United States Senate legally authorizing the use of torture for the continued execution of the War of Terror (oops, that’s a typo; there should be a colon after “War”) as well as the renewed public interest in the Maher Arar case, my thoughts have moved to a new place: are we at the end of history as we have known it so far? I do not mean to suggest that the human experience of life will stop or that the world will be uninhabitable or anything quite as apocalyptic as all of that. While all of the proceeding is true, if not likely, I am presently talking about a change in the zeitgeist and not the material conditions of human civilization. Instead, the course charting, over many centuries, the emergence of the modern individual from the bondage of despotism is itself altering in a rather dramatic fashion.

It appears as though a certain regression is emerging as the dominant philosophy of the modern subject. Insular, self-reflexive, and superstitious to the point of being totemismistic. Solutions to problems have become things that you buy, and so far the War on Terror has cost America around $400 billion, and some people are going so far as to suggest that the war in Iraq alone will cost the US economy over $2 trillion). On the point of totemism, I’ll leave the last word to the American government, which has again proven a certain arrogant disregard for the international community. On helping to pass the Detainee Interrogation Bill, which allows the White House to suspend what most people call human rights at its discretion, Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo, said: "Some want to tie the hands of our terror fighters. They want to take away the tools we use to fight terror, to handcuff us, to hamper us in our fight to protect our families." Sometimes I too think that my family will only be safe when enough people have been waterboaded into making up yet another Arabic-sounding name.


waterboarding in Antwerrp, 1556

The public sphere has been relatively clean and gore-free since the end of the Second World War. Only occasionally and in isolation have events of significant violence occurred. In the decades that followed the 1940s, however, there was not a sense that violence pervaded the dominant culture in an open manner. McCarthyism, Vietnam, the October Crisis, and other forms of localized and violent division can be seen to be more akin to the residue rather than a reanimation of prior horrors. Many of the institutions that have kept the world relatively peaceful despite occasional lapses of barbarism, such as the United Nations and the concept of human rights, came about as a direct response to the horrors that much of the world experienced in the 1930s and 40s.

However, it seems as though this generation, which has not seen the full extent of human misery except though media reconstruction, is seeking a more intimate association with violence. This trend is occurring on two levels. The first is among those who understand that the true power of the modern subject is to realize existence as they imagine and then by means of technological access drastically alter their environment. Witness not only the rise in school shootings and other acts of urban guerilla violence, but also the tactics employed in terrorist deployment including the planes that were flown into the World Trade Center (9/11 is the remix album for the aviation industry). In each case, small groups of people using readily-available consumer technology and services caused a significant amount of political and social disruption.

The second level of the modern desire for violence is an issue of representation. Torture-as-entertainment is certainly not new, however the entertainment industry moved from gladiatorial fights to horror movies at about the same pace that society moved from despotism to democracy. However when you begin to analyze the manner in which violence is being represented in contemporary media, it becomes clear that the public’s bloodlust is rising. Computerized depictions of violence, usually in microscopic biological detail, in video games, films, and television are increasingly common. More screen-time is being given to close-ups of wounds, and many acts of violence are depicted in slow-motion so that the viewer can more casually receive all of the visual information.

Torture has become a common thematic device in cinema and television these days. Many horror movies are realistically depicting the violence of torture rather than the fantastic and supernatural gore that was previously quite popular. Torture has even entered into mainstream tastes through shows like Lost and 24. The war in Iraq has itself become a remix project, as YouTube documents many attempts to turn war footage into music videos and reality-style television.

Let’s get back to the American government for a second. First and foremost is the White House’s often-noted disregard for the international community, and with the United Nations in particular. Arguably, when America usurped the UN’s authority it demonstrated to every other nation that strength can legitimize any ideological position. We are still waiting for answers as to why Israel bombed the UN observation post in Lebanon.

In relation to the DI Bill, President Bush said: "The American people need to know we're working together to win the war on terror." With all due respect given to discretion, that’s the fucking scariest statement by a human that I have ever read. The American government is allowing violence to escalate because, deep within the conditioning of many of their officials, they truly believe that America is strongest when it is applying strength to others. The American people, consciously or not, want torture to become an authorized ritual meant to release insecurities about their national/personal security.



How do I know this? Rather than examine in detail the extent to which the DI Bill undermines the foundations for civil governance that most of the world’s nations have utilized since last hacking themselves to pieces, the media has taken upon itself to focus on the case of a Republican Congressman who sent dirty messages to pages. You are supposed to feel safe now that an aggressive, manipulative predator is out of power: Fox News is both ecstatic and confused (Foley is a Republican) now that he can no longer touch the body politic with his filthy pedophile hands. Thanks to the implications of the DI Bill however, the government will indeed be touching us all, and in ways that can at best be described as Guantanimaginable.


America is, apparently, a Christian nation

And it is here where history for the modern subject ends. As of September 27, 2006, the American government can officially attach electrodes to your genitals. Mark Foley did leave his mark on government after all. A new history will emerge as necessary – in this capacity, Gabriel Range’s “fictional documentary” Death of a President, which screened at this year’s TIFF, is a significant development – but that is beside the point. Historically speaking, it is during these interregnum periods that violence has proliferated and become accepted by an increasing percentage of the population as the principle means to ensure survival. Hopefully, the upcoming elections in America will allow a more rational government to reorder its international associations in a positive direction. Only with the major countries united under international law will chaos be avoided. Truly, it is not a precipitous drop from officially-sanctioned torture to even more absolute and widespread horrors.

here we go again, or: how i learned to stop worrying and love the bomb

MP3: Sun Ra Arkestra - Nuclear War

There has been quite a lot of talk about Iran in the North American media these days. We hear many things: that they are bellicose fundamentalists intent on destroying the west; that they have nuclear ambitions which threaten every nation on earth; that they harbour terrorists and train them for future activities. The new mantra down south seems to be one of preemption, a get 'em before they get us attitude.

It might seem dreadfully obvious, but such talk in the media would likely convey to Iran an idea that the only way to defend itself against American aggression would be a strong nuclear arsenal. You really do have to love catch-22 situations, especially in regard to lobbing nukes around. The seeming inevitability of the situation evokes an almost religious fatalism, and that is precisely what hardline American and Iranian officials are exploiting in their separate camps. According to an article published in the New Yorker, President Bush is absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb" if it is not stopped, and that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do ... saving Iran is going to be his legacy." Since it is highly unlikely that George Bush was actually elected in either 2000 or 2004, this statement is perhaps the most disturbing bit of information ever to emerge from the White House.

The U.N. Security Council is also concerned with Iran, as it is concerned with any member nation which seems to be pursuing nuclear ambitions (except the US of course, which has had free reign to develop weapons of mass destruction; will we one day see America sanctioned for its militarism?). President Bush has repeatedly stated that his administration is pursuing every diplomatic means at its disposal (importantly, the CIA describes this as "inaccurate", but doesn't elaborate). It should here be noted that currently the US military is staging a continual series of military training exercises - such as strategic nuclear bombing simulations - within arms' reach of Iran. Of course, then there's that grand military exercise which is the occupation of Iraq.

Interestingly enough, Iraq seems as a quasi-ironic precursor to a more open form of regime change, ie nuclear war. Talk about Saddam Hussein and his government has adequately diluted the debate surrounding American involvement in the Middle East. No longer is the Palestinian-Israeli issue at the forefront; similarly pushed aside is the influence of American foreign policy on Lebanon and Syria, among others. We now have the great and secret show which is the trial of Saddam Hussein to occupy the foreign correspondent sections of our newshours and RSS feeds. What we are in fact getting is the classic bluff-and-swap manoeuvre. The White House is not filled with idiots, despite the child-king who is their leader. It was known for a long time that Hussein posed little threat to world peace. After all, it was America which sold Iraq much of its military arsenal. It seems much more likely that Iraq was invaded to secure a large oil deposit while simultaneously granting a second strategic foothold (after Israel) in the Middle East.



Seymore Hersh stated that in conversation with several high-ranking civilian staffers at the Pentagon, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was repeatedly described as "the next Adolph Hitler". Here's the switch after the bluff. Public debate concerning tyrants and monsters such as Hussein and Hitler, when breathed in the same utterance as Ahmadinejad, serves the purpose of rhetorical contingency that most listeners find captivating. Of course Ahmadinejad is bad, the public will say, lacking all proof to that effect other than I don't like Hitler.

According to several Pentagon-affiliated sources, America is quite advanced in the planning stages for military operations in Iran. We should not assume this operation to be as 'bloodless' as Iraq (to the 50,000 dead Iraqis, please pardon the use of this term). After all, after wiping out Iraq's army in 1991, military strategists knew full well the extent of Iraq's military capacity - none. In regard to Iran, the question is a lot more open. Iran does indeed have a standing army which is decently equipped. As well, there can be no denying that Iran has the potential for nuclear deployment.

In light of this, Pentagon strategists have come up with an all-or-nothing solution. Conventional and chemical weapons, such as those currently in use in Iraq, will not be able to decisively annihilate Iran's geographically dispersed nuclear processing facilities, nor will they be able to penetrate Iran's purported underground uranium enrichment facilities. Some estimates posit that more than five hundred distinct sites would have to be rapidly destroyed to ensure Iran's submission to American nuclear authority. Consequently, only the nuclear option remains to ensure that Iran doesn't respond to a military strike with a nuclear counter-attack.

In light of this might we surmise about a statement in the Project for a New American Century - that wonderful and terrifying in situ holocost museum - released a little more than a week after the 9/11 attacks. To ensure American hegemony over key material resources, namely oil, water, and uranium, and continue the war on terrorism, the country would have to escalate warfare considerably. Winning the war on terrorism would likely "require the United States to engage a well-armed foe". Just to remind you, the signatories and principal architects of PNAC are currently members of George W. Bush's administration.

Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is quoted in the New Yorker as saying that "we have to be ready to deal with Iran if the crisis escalates....This is not like planning to invade Quebec." So the waters of an invasion into Iran don't get diluted by another bluff-and-switch potential, I'll leave that last somewhat ominous Freudian slip for a future article.

George Bush hates people

There’s something pointedly touching about the notion of an otherwise cocky popular musician at the top of their game twitching nervously before their first ‘political’ statement. When Kanye West went off script during an NBC telethon a week and a half ago, the American media presented the first authentic emotional response to Katrina. The second came the following week when, during a live interview on CNN, a passerby told Dick Chaney to go fuck himself. This earnestness spoke volumes about the power and influence of traditional media. It was almost as though the media outlets had opened themselves to become the voice of the people. Almost.

Let’s not blame the Bush administration wholly for this little debacle, even though his evil policies are destroying the country. I’ll be the first to point out that this may sound a little hypocritical coming from a person who published an article with the title George Bush Isn’t Evil. And I stand by this comment to this very day. Once again, he is merely a figurehead, a symbol of the collective ideologies that are driving America into the void. There was little public outcry as the White House slashed the budget of the Army Engineer Corps – you know, those guys who keep the levees operational in New Orleans. Neither did anyone complain when the Environmental Protection Agency had its mandate changed, as private companies decimated thousands of square kilometres of Louisiana’s wetlands, which would have served to absorb a great deal of the flooding (Google “Mr Bill + wetlands”...). Few Americans seem to be questioning the environmental repercussions of their consumptive lifestyles, which serve to promote climate change and increase the likelihood of extreme weather effects like hurricanes. And nobody questioned the intelligence of cutting governmental programs like disaster management. People enjoyed their tax cuts and their ability to buy bigger cars and more stuff.

In retrospect, all that so called ‘conservative’ fiscal policy smells of so much shit from a dying bull. The public as a political concept is indeed an important thing. Cities get built by people in unison, however randomly and sporadically that may occur. Contrary to the current political zeitgeist of much of North America, they do not get built by corporate strategic policy. On the contrary, corporate policies of late have centred upon raiding the public purse as the last exit strategy for profit margins.

Of course natural disasters can and do happen and are largely outside of our control, and the suffering that precipitates can indeed be tragic and long-lasting. Since civilization tends to operate akin to an archive of information, it seems appropriate to use the wealth of such knowledge and productivity to mitigate against the consequences of such disasters when they do happen.

There has been much talk in the press about why state and federal authorities did not adequately prepare for Katrina, a storm which had been well tracked by meteorological officials for several days. It was widely known that an exceptionally massive category 5 hurricane would hit the Gulf coast and make landfall. And yet no preparations were made. No sandbags or national guardsmen were deployed. No emergency food or medical supplies were stockpiled for rapid dissemination. Instead, the citizens of Louisiana were given the gold ol’ American spirit of independence. Official strategy: good luck and god bless, but to each their own.

When that strategy of independence, ie: brute survival, turned on the American dream of law and due process, adherents were called “looters” and criminals, and were immediately placed under martial law. How dare they take what is not their’s, we were told by the news media. The consequence of this action was not solely the deaths of several looters – ie black people, white looters being called ‘scavengers’ and ‘finders’ – but also Kanye West’s vitriolic response. Hey, desperate people do desperate things; that’s the reason why public institutions are needed. If funded properly, they serve to keep people from being as desperate as they might be on their own.

Ah, looting; there’s the rub. Remembering the joyful operations in Iraq, Louisiana governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco – hey, Blanco likes black people, right? – issued the following warning to ‘looters’: “These troops are fresh back from Iraq. They have M-16s and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary.” That’s right. While every public service that citizens depend on has been cut back to the gristle, Americans should feel secure in the knowledge that their National Guard will protect them.

After the political fallout of governmental inaction, the horrors that the Bush administration has in store for Louisiana are becoming ever more clear. First volley: the biggest reconstruction contracts are going to the Shaw Group and Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. The companies who are “reconstructing” war-torn Iraq are also going to make millions of dollars reconstructing Louisiana and Mississippi. Nobody should second-guess the priorities of this administration when it was announced that the first projects of reconstruction are naval bases and corporate properties.

Second volley: Bush suspended a Depression-era bill which protects worker wages for governmental contracts. This would allow the companies mentioned above to pay their workers minimum wage for their services, rather than the market rates for construction and related projects.

So to summarize: the Bush admin thinks that the free market is the best solution to governmental projects and consequently guts public institutions, then uses its power of legislation to alter the free market to ameliorate the profit potential of the companies involved. Can you guess who are the winners in this strategy?

Maybe I’m woefully amateur to be saying so, but how about a program which provides the people of Louisiana the resources to build their own communities back up. If they are being fed and sheltered, they would probably jump all over the employment opportunity. Obviously not everyone can help, but I’m sure that many among the hundreds of thousands of newly dispossessed would be willing to help reconstruct their cities as best as they could.

Instead, a few private companies get to gain; their commission is the misery of half a million people. The enormous costs of reconstruction are being added directly to the deficit, already bloated beyond belief by the cost of military operations in the Middle East. My own cynical armchair interpretation of the economic situation in the States is that the Bush administration wants to force the country into a recession. As the economic situation worsens in America, fewer people might be in opposition to the possibility of conscription into military theatres.

But again, that’s me flying off the handle. Bush is doing the best job that he can, which is to be the mirror-as-leader for America. People don’t want to pay taxes. They distrust governmental programmes and want the best opportunities to improve their own economic situations, community spirit be damned. That spirit of America was shown in full force with the preparedness and response to Hurricane Katrina, which the day after the hurricane saw the President strumming his guitar like Nero while Rome burned.

As a fun non-sequitur, Katrina is serving as a nice media diversion from the fact that a little piece of paper entitled “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations” is reaching final approval from Donald Rumsfeld. It would allow a preemptive nuclear strike against whoever the White House deems a threat, and “revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations.” Maybe they’re thinking that the use of nuclear arms would deter further hurricanes from stupidly and arrogantly threatening the U.S. Take that, Hurricane Iraq!

regime change

It seems that the new president elect of Iran may have taken part in the 1979 US hostage situation. That is if we are to believe some of the captives who are making the claims. According to the Associated Press, four ex-captives are claiming that upon seeing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the newly-elected president of Iran, on television, they are now convinced of his association with their detainment in 1979.

As a side note, check out how the various news networks are quoting the AP, found in its original form here .

CNN's take

Fox "News"

One such hostage, William Dougherty, said: "You know how [President Bush] said, 'You're either for us or you're for the terrorists.' Well, now the leader of Iran is a terrorist."

Funny. I would have thought that 25 years would dilute the memory a little. More importantly, how could these captives know unless they met Ahmadinejad in a more personable manner than on CNN?

Then there's a statement from one of the other hostages: "...Take 20 years off of him. He was there. He was there in the background, more like an adviser." So now Ahmadinejad was there in the background, maybe making some popcorn for the boys or something.

Next we'll hear that Ahmadinejad caused the World Trade Centre attacks, and was a key participant in the bombing of Pearl Harbour. Yes, our man Ahmadinejad is a veritable Where's Waldo through recent American history.

I'd like to think that the US is not going to seek regime change everywhere it wishes to impose colonial rule. Calling a foreign leader "evil" and then using his "evilness" to justify an invasion and occupation of the country? Priceless, and a true component of civil democracies.

Then again maybe the whole "we're doing the same thing each time" strategy would have the intended effect of confusing the masses into thinking that such absurd logic as "hey, there's another evil leader" is indeed representative of how international politics is played.

Not only does such simplistic logic undermine any concerted effort at geo-political analysis on the part of the media, but it also ignores any debate about the taking of the US embassy in Tehran in 1979.

We're learning from the current White House that debate is for pussies. Men of greatness require action. Let hellfire fall from the sky, they say. Evil will be corrected.

So what about those of us who have expanded our notions of good and evil since grade two?

when you declare a state of war you get a war state

when you declare a state of war you get a war state

On Thursday March 10, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein threw out of court a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of roughly 4 million Vietnamese people who have suffered birth defects, ailing health, and a poisoned rural economy as a result of American use of Agent Orange during the Vietnam war. "There is no basis for any of the claims of plaintiffs under the domestic law of any nation or state or under any form of international law," he wrote in his verdict. Furthermore, he outright dismissed the links between Agent Orange and the health problems of the Vietnamese represented in the lawsuit.

Wait a minute here. Wasn't Agent Orange supposed to poison organic life? It was devised as a means not only to "remove" the dense jungle that the Vietnamese used for cover against an invading army, but also to destroy farmland and otherwise demolish the moral and economic resistence of the Vietnamese population. It was a chemical engineered to destroy organic life. Arguably, it figured in a policy of chemical warfare which has yet to be matched on the planet. Dow Chemical, Monsanto Co., and others knew the effects of dioxin in AO, and indeed engineered these effects. Isn't that alone cause and support for the "claims" of the plaintiffs? Judge Weinstein’s decision argues that these companies were operating in effect under direct orders from the pentagon and other chiefs of staff. That they were operating under orders can no excuse, as the Neuremburg Trials following WWII demonstrated culpability even (and perhaps especially) during times of war.

You might counter that maybe the Vietnamese deserve their suffering for attempting to counter American imperial intentions. How dare they defend their own country and indeed their own health made deleterious as a consequence of this invasion, and then use the international and US courts to further this cause. It was war after all, and therefore wasn't it a time when much of what we, under peace, call human compassion disappeared like so much hot air?

Maybe it’s a given then, that countries will not allow their histories to burden their present budgets, although both Germany and Japan were held accountable for their aggression after the second World War. The American government certainly does not want to pay for the actions of a previous generation, and most certainly does not want to have to side with a group of foreign complainants against the interests of contributing members important to the military-industrial complex. At the very least, the transfer of wealth from American corporations to foreign citizens as represented by this lawsuit is definitely not allowable given the current state of the American economy.

More to the point however, the dismissal of this lawsuit seems aimed more at diverting corporate involvement in possible war crimes violations levelled against American forces that are currently operating in Iraq, Cuba, and Afghanistan. The last thing that many in the Bush government want to see happen is the imposition of a legal framework with which to judge or otherwise curtail their actions. For this reason, America has routinely avoided joining international courts, and rescinded their involvement in international arms control treaties. It seems likely that the Bush “everything’s on the table” strategy for foreign policy will only increase American military involvement in the Middle East, with the obvious consequence of an even higher number of human rights violations occurring.

With the knowledge that the events normally classified as war crimes will only continue, and may indeed escalate beyond all reason in the coming year, then the attempts by the Bush government to move the legal system in their direction seem logical enough. If, for example, Dow and Monsanto were indeed found guilty of war crimes(or even war profiteering, a crime which has become virtually a non-issue since WWII) for their involvement in the Vietnam war, then so too would Haliburton and its subsidiaries, who are building and supplying the ever-so-friendly prisons in Iraq where torture and murder has been normalized and systematized. So too would Lockheed-Martin, one of the principal contractors for the development and manufacture of real weapons of mass destruction, ie: the bombers and their bombs (which have to date killed roughly 120,000 Iraqi civilians), as well as the long-range tactical and ballistic weapons that the US seems poised to deploy in the Middle East.

It seems apparent enough that the American government is trying to legalize the actions that tend to be classified as war crimes. The first shot in this particular battle was the labelling of prisoners of war captured in Afghanistan as "Illegal Combatants", thus ostensibly removing from these POWs their rights as outlined in the Geneva Convention (if one were to follow the Bush train of thought, that is bureaucratic nomenclature supercedes rights to humanity). We might be able to interpret the Patriot Act as a secondary phase, by provisioning state authorities with the tools to control the domestic US population should any coming aggression against foreign populations foment Ukraine-style civil disobedience.

Vice President Dick Cheney used to control Haliburton, and so the circle of accountability seems to close in upon itself. Any rational observer might question a government’s simultaneous involvement in both corporate and military concerns, and wonder whether a corporate autocracy is indeed the way to allow the functioning of a state which calls itself democratic. In previous generations, it took major conflicts to separate those interests and impose restraints on the system; Japan, for example was forced to accept a new constitution to remove the power over government, economic, and military systems from one controlling interest. The Republican Hawks have a similar control over government, much of the legal process, and of course the military; this is course in addition to the corporate interests they either control directly or represent by proxy.

Allowing a legal framework for escalating violence, repression, and inhumanity can be interpreted historically as a prelude to the outbreak of a fairly major conflict. I myself think that the entire Middle East should seriously consider itself as game for the PNAC (www.newamericancentury.org) strategy. That alone should be regarded as the end of modernity as we know it.

no war tape

iraq? eye-wreak

Why does America think it has the right to dictate terms to the international community. The UN is the only forum for civil negotiation between countries. That Bush said "if the UN doesn't follow our lead, it will be irrelevant" simply reinforces the beliefs many non-Americans have concerning America: gung-ho, ignorant, blindly nationalistic, and very dangerous when provoked. None of these characteristics are positive; don't think that you need to look "tough" to the international community, as such prexsentations are immature and emotionally insecure.

War should never be taken lightly; neither should it be precipitated by simple emotional reactionism. Iraq has done no harm to the international community, but rather the reverse is true, as sanctions have decimated the poor and vulnerable within the country. There has been absolutely no proof provided to the international community to demonstrate the contrary. Weak appeals such as "Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction" ignores the fact that most western nations, especially the US, already *have* weapons of mass destruction. A bit hyprocritical, no? Once again, America demonstrates that it only likes playing by its rules, and then doesn't play fairly within them. If nuclear and chemical weapons exist, then either everyone has them or no one has them, from a nationalistic point of view. Anything else will be deemed violent action by the have-nots.

Violence will not solve this or any other issue, it will just lead to more hate, isolationism, and more violent action. NO WAR IS EVER JUST

The US needs the UN precisely to check the greed, ignorance, and arrogance which many American leaders display. America does not run the planet. America is not morally or ethically superior to the rest of the planet. America's "freedom" is neither free nor universal, and consequently many people in the world reject American imperialism. Just the other day Prime Minister Chretien publicly spoke out against the greed which the West demonstrates -- and which leads to desperate actions by poorer people who are humiliated and oppressed by the West -- and was lambasted for it. We need more such talk within public discourse.

If America leads the world into violence, we need to hit them where they will most feel it: the pocket book.
DO NOT BUY AMERICAN PRODUCTS. Check your food, your clothing, your electroncs, and your cars for their origins. Do not allow the only democratic power available to the average person in western 'democracies' -- namely the use of your money -- to be paid in taxes to this violent and greedy government.

WHAT AMERICA CALLS FREEDOM OTHERS CALL GREED
Watch out that your facts are indeed "facts", whether any such truths ever hold relative meaning.

As for the wars that were ennumerated in a grocery list manner, try not to forget that their "justness" was written by those who emerged victorious. Viewed objectively, there is no "justice" by killing others. (By the way, it was the Russians who helped France more than the US, try some more research...)

Interestingly, some have pointed out that my pacifist attitudes are in fact hate filled pedantisms; perhaps these people should question their notions of hate and love, for the people of Iraq will not be saved by bombs. Even more astonishing is the violent reaction to violence: does that not appear ontologically hypocritical? More importantly, what right do countries like the US and others have to dictate terms to countries in which their legislatures do not apply? For not having "legal" governments, perhaps? Or for not agreeing to outside trade terms on products such as oil. Or maybe that the people of such countries are too ignorant to understand their plight; maybe they shouldn't even be allowed to vote until they can vote in *the right people*.

Let's not forget that good ol' Dubya was illegally voted into office and the recount which was published in the NY Times on Sept 15 demonstrated that the democrats won. (Not that they are better than the republicans, but frankly their recent history has been much less tarnished by corruption and immorality, presidential sexual lives excepted...)

It's sad that the most violent country on the planet wishes to export its "freedoms" in a violent manner to those it deems inferior. Let the voices of the 85 million poor and homeless in America be counted. Let the 70% non-white prison population have a voice. Let those who fall through the porous cracks in the health and educational systems have a voice. The only agendas that mainstream Americans listen to anymore are the news media, which are controlled by 0.00004% of the population. Maybe some "facts" on this conflict need to be gathered from sources other than CNN or NBC.

How many still believe desert storm and the present day situation in the Middle East have "justice" as their aim and not hegemonic control over oil reserves. Buy another SUV ignorant American and drive until the planet chokes (in the instance of commodity fetishism, we're all American on this continent, north, south, and south again).

Maybe we need a war on our own soil in order to learn what war really is, and what are the resultant consequences. Death is not pretty, violence even more abhorant. Violence is mutually destructive; there are never any victors, as those who emerge from the fighting as just as scarred as those they killed.

Freedom = Democracy

the problem with this argument is that the exemplification is outside of what you wish to say. what i mean is that you are indeed correct in your relation of freedom to human dignity and achievement, but you do not address the issue of its application. Therefore you convince yourself of the validity of the first statement "freedom" and equate that with a positivce correlation to American capital democracy. That's called a CNN napalm death, mi amigo.

Where does this mystical "freedom" exist? Not within western democratic states, although they have come the closest to perceived ideals. Neither is it extant whithin the "less powerful" nations, which are almost universally economic colonies controlled by certain imperialist impulses within governmental policy. Freedom does not exist in a country in which there is poverty, for we are all bound by its repressive claims upon certain segments of our population. Do the rich not modify their behaviour in relation to the poor? Crime invariably follows the centralization of wealth, and the poor in relation to the rich within such circumscriptions may react in desperate manners. And so can the rich, as I hope you might see from whats emerging as corporate criminality within popular discourse. Nothing has chaned except the means to dissipate wealth more efficiently to every member of a population. If such is what creates robust and healthy economies, then it seems natural to desire a state-politik in which such conditions are formed.

Is American-of-anywhere-or-anything-else free? Not to muddy the discussion with philosophical debate, but freedom certainly cannot exist within a consumerist culture in which the vast majority of people spend their time working to buy cars to get to work.
(N.) American freedom should include:

1. The freedom to achieve the greatest developmental potential during youth; universally accessible education does not exist in America.

2. The freedom to bear tides of uncertainty when the immediate needs of the individual can be averaged amongst the population, thus greatly reducing their statistical occurence. I mean in this manner an insurance of food, health, education, and shelter despite exterior fluctuations such as job loss or personal crises.

3. The freedom to study any information which impacts the greater culture. Films, books, plays, radio, games, music, televison, are all censored by hegemonic and closed cultures which exclude broader democratic inclusion.

4. The freedom to denounce any public object-subject which threatens the stability of the political system. This would allow critisism of personal as well as governmental institutions. Capitalist culture as reified by corporate hegemonic exclusionism procludes the possibility of criticism and the exchange of free information.

5. The freedom from violence and imprisonment, which are themselves mutually inclusive in an ontological manner.

6. The freedom to allow difference of opinion and representation. Most North Americans have interiorized the institutional racism, sexism, and "otherness"-ism which proliferates amongst hegemonic political structures.

7. Freedom for open discussion.

Peace and understanding,
"Annabelle Partager"