Saturday, November 17, 2007
Film about Fallujah by "Un Ponte Per..."
Angeli DistrattiLucky Red Distribution presents a film by Un Ponte Per...
"Angeli Distratti" (Distracted Angels) Fallujah: Opening the doors to hell.
Fallujah is a metaphor of war. War that takes civilians hostage. Entire families have been forced to leave their land, homes, their entire history.
The film will be distributed from 16 November in Rome, Milan, Turin and Florence. Hopefully soon, it will be available to a wider audience.
http://www.unponteper.it/informati/article.php?sid=1492
Labels: activism, film, Iraq, Italy
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Soldier Lozano is Saved - Calipari's Murderer will not face trial
by Claudio Fava (25 October 2007)The American soldier has been acquitted by the third Higher Court of Rome by entering a non suit. Hence, not only will he never be put on trial, no judgment will be expressed on his involvement in the murder of Nicola Calipari.
How should we consider the decision of the third Higher Court of Rome which strips Italy of any jurisdiction about Nicola Calipari’s death by letting a murder and its perpetrator go unpunished? Should we see it as a legal whim? As the extreme obedience to a literal interpretation of legal codes? As a mere jurisdictional flaw? And above all, who, according to our court, should now see to demanding justice and truth over the death of our officer? Maybe a US military court? The Iraqi justice system? Or our good Lord?
Let’s stick to the facts. The American soldier Mario Lozano has been acquitted with the decision of entering a nonsuit. Hence, he will never be put on trial nor judged for that murder. Therefore, the first meaningful fact is this: Nicola Calipari’s death is a crime that will go unpunished. No one is held accountable, there is no responsibility, no punishment, no judiciary memory. Period.
Second fact. The verdict by the Roman judges aligns itself with other very questionable decisions of political and institutional importance, that we have been collecting for the last twelve months as regards our relationship with the US Administration. Italian Minister of Justice Clemente Mastella decided to not demanding the extradition of the 27 CIA agents who have been accused by Milan’s court of abduction. The government raised a competence conflict with Milan’s Prosecutor’s office by demanding that trial to be called off. Prime Minister Prodi, emulating his predecessor Berlusconi, has renewed the State Secrecy that is in vigour around the whole issue of Abu Omar’s abduction by removing it from the democratic control of the Parliament and from the magistracy’s verifications. Sismi’s (note: Italian military secret services) Director Nicolò Pollari, defendant at Milan’s trial who is blatantly guilty of “intelligence” collusion with the secret services of a foreign country in violation of Italian sovereignty, was kept in office until the expiration of his mandate and at last he was rewarded with a consultancy job in the government’s employ. Let’s stop here, for our nation’s mercy.
If we place all these episodes together, from today’s verdict to yesterday’s State Secrets, all these facts, which are different between each other in form but all clearly questionable in the substance, we get the feeling that our government has a guilty conscience towards the Bush Administration. As if we should ask their forgiveness, in one way or another, for the malice of having withdrawn our troops from Iraq. Let’s be honest: when such an intertwined and articulated combination of functions and responsibilities, from Rome’s Higher Courts to the Minister of Justice and the Premier, takes place, we are far beyond a vague impression. Actually, it makes more sense to speak of a cultural and political submission that is unfolding in these nervous weeks by denying truth and granting impunity. Impunity for Marine Lozano, impunity for the CIA’s chiefs, who are convinced that Italy is nothing more than their own backyard, the home itself of the American secret services.
That’s why this verdict, beyond the pale of alleged law, bewilders and worries us. Because it shows the effects of a terrible atmosphere filled with conspiracy of silence. And also because it unveils a renewed tolerance towards crimes and criminals from an allied country in the name of an alleged raison d’état. The sense of which escapes us common citizens once again.
http://www.aprileonline.info/4741/salvato-il-soldato-lozano
Translated from Italian by Diego Traversa and revised by Mary Rizzo, members of Tlaxcala, network of translators for linguistic diversity.
Labels: absolute madness, Iraq, Italy, military, US, war
Friday, October 5, 2007
Fabio Mini (an Italian General) - "Operation Swarm"- War without End against Iran
Writing for Italy's l'Espresso, Italian General Fabio Mini has understood and explained the dangerous mechanisms of gaining consensus to wage war against "Enemies", which are variable and flexible according to the interests of hegemonic power. This enlightening article explains the manner in which War against Iran has been promoted in the West as well as the operative elements that will bring it about. A MUST READ! Translated from Italian by Diego Traversa and revised by Mary Rizzo for Tlaxcala and peacepalestine. (Also on peacepalestine by Fabio Mini: Even Escape is an Art, about the impossible disengagement from Iraq.Anyone who thought that the green light for the Israeli-American attack against Iran would come from the American Congress, was wrong. Equally wrong were those who thought that a president like Bush, so frustrated by the Iraqi chaos, the Afghan deadlock and the industrial lobbies’ pressures, would wind up making the decision on his own. The attack against Iran will take place thanks to the newly-appointed French Foreign Minister Kouchner. In these years of threats and counter-threats, of pretexts to make war, the only “revealing” words have been those from the laconic phrase “we must prepare ourselves for the worst.” Many have taken these words as a slip of the lip, others have regarded them as a bad luck-dispelling provocation, others as an instigation and still others as a submission to an ineluctable event. It could be that the sentence contains all of this, but the profound essence of Kouchner’s words is different.
Strange connections and affinities have come into being in these last 15 years of worldwide military interventions of different kinds. Armies have been integrated with private soldiers, visionaries with mercenaries, business with ideology, and truth has gotten so imbued with lies that the propaganda’s logic can’t account for either. And one of the most unusual connections is the one that has been established between military staff, humanitarian workers and foreign policy, to such an extent that each of the three components can pass itself off as the other two. The main cement of this union is the emergency concept. Foreign politics has lost its nature of continuity in the relations between states and in the sphere of international organizations. It has been devoting itself for a while to running emergency relations, meaning extemporaneous relations connected to temporary and changeable interests or positions that are transitory and changeable to variable geometries.
At the end of the day, emergency politics is the only kind that allows a limited and selective commitment. Moreover, it can be done or undone at one’s will, since the dimension of the emergency can be manipulated or interpreted. Following the same manner of reasoning, the armies of these last 15 years have exclusively devoted themselves to emergency situations, preferably abroad and for so-called humanitarian reasons, in order to guarantee themselves consensus and support. There are no longer any armies able to defend their own territories or to provide defence in case of war. It’s increasingly difficult to find a state threatened with war by another state and today all the world’s armies rely on a minimum 12-month notice allowing them to mobilise the resources for national defence. Therefore, they have become specialized in emergency in the respect of both the kind and the timing of the interventions.
When Kouchner candidly states that we “must prepare ourselves for the worst” he simply interprets a philosophy which doesn’t have as its objective the searching for the best, less traumatic solution, but which instead calls on the political class to manage the emergency, the military means and the humanitarian organizations which have by now become inseparable. It’s also about the recognition of the political class’s incapacity itself to think of and find enduring solutions. It is about the military instruments and their incapacity in managing conflict situations until their complete stabilization, and the incapacity of the humanitarian organizations in settling the problems of the people in more long-term perspective than the one offered by emergency. Finally, Kouchner also admits that the summation of these incapacities leads inevitably to war.
Then, war it will be.
It’s obvious that, under these conditions, some exaggerations are required in order to assure the accomplishment of the emergency and the intervention of the various components: something has to happen: what the observers call the “trigger” so that it may provoke the political emergency, there has to be an immediate danger for the security of everyone and a humanitarian catastrophe has to be in sight (the bigger, the better). There has to be, in other words, a manageable apparatus capable of “inventing” the emergency, as well inventing its conclusion that will allow disengagement and the end of the commitment whether or not there has been any solution of these problems. The attack against Iran falls perfectly within this scenario and, looking at it carefully, it’s by now a nearly completed picture.
There are multiple pretexts available for the attack. The idea that Iran intends upon developing a nuclear bomb and to destroy Israel is by now widely recognized by everyone. What’s missing are confirmations and evidence beyond poor empty boasting, but in the past we have witnessed terroristic boasting that has at any rate, come about and nobody is willing to run the risk of underestimating it, not even for truth’s sake. An Iranian or Iranian-supported attack against the American forces in Iraq, this too without a scrap of proof, has started to persuade even the most sceptical people. Sooner or later, after much speaking about it and evoking it, it will be taken as an invitation or a challenge and it will really be carried out. The support Iran gives to Hamas and Hezbollah makes Teheran extremely vulnerable. An excess or mistake by one of these formations is sufficient to set off an immediate military intervention.
The foreign policy of the most major nations, Europe included, is by now used to the idea that a military intervention is able to bring Iran back to the positions it was in 20 years ago. Moreover, what’s starting to be accepted is the idea that the purpose isn’t only that of preventing a nuclear power from rising but also that of terminating the country as a regional player which embodies oil and strategic interests in every part of south central Asia. Regarding the military planning aspect, everything has already been prepared for a while. The plans for the attack date back to 1979, at the time of the US embassy crisis, and they have been updated with new technologies and strategies ever since.
The thesis that it’s about an attack basically aimed at the atomic installations with no collateral damage for the civil population is only a miserable fantasy from those who have by now become used to telling lies. Even the idea that it may be restricted to Iranian soil is suspicious to say the least, since the end of the stubbornness and the boastfulness of the Ayatollahs, on one side, and by the Israeli-Americans, on the other, has to do with interests and ambitions which go far beyond the Persian Gulf.
Whatever the kind of attack it may be, it will produce heavy military and civil casualties regardless of whether or not a nuclear emergency fall-out or a radiation leak is triggered. Any kind of attack must have as its premise the destruction of defence structures: air and missile bases, deposits, mobile ramps, military ports, naval units, radars and anti-aircraft artilleries, land and armoured units, communication and command headquarters will have to be eliminated before or during the attack against the nuclear installations.
Many of these structures are located near the most densely populated areas. Even taking into account the most sophisticated cruise missiles, the “intelligent” bombs directed against the targets by the Israeli and American commandos, who have already been operative for some time in Iran, a quite high margin of collateral effects remains. Were mini nuclear fission bombs or neutron bombs to be used instead of the conventional “bunker busting” bombs, the damage percentage might rise, even thought not as greatly as many expect.
Also the thesis that precise attacks may be carried out with only one component, the aerial and missile one, is a deception. A complex operation, as they say they want to realize, that aims at bringing the Iranian bellicose potential back to the stone age, requires multiple attack actions, with many forces, from many directions and in short lapses of time in order to prevent, as colonel Boyd used to say, any capability of decision, reaction and counter-strategy by the enemy. The multiple action has to also prevent the direct retaliation by the Iranian air and naval forces against the oil installations and cargos in the Persian and Oman Gulfs. It has to neutralise the missile threats against the American military bases in Central Asia and the Middle East. It has to prevent indirect Iranian strategic operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, the Caucasus area and anywhere else a Shia may represent trouble. Moreover, Teheran controls the northern coast of the Hormuz Straits and closing this seaway to oil cargos might cause oil prices to skyrocket to levels between 200 and 400 dollars per barrel.
The same would happen if Iran turned sabotage actions and bombings against the oil installations of other countries in the area. The military strategy of the attack against Iran can’t therefore be entrusted to a surgical attack or to one single component. It can be nothing but that of “Swarm Warfare” (or Horde Warfare), unearthed by Arquilla and Ronfeld after the unmatchable realization by Gengis Khan. In modern terms, this strategy makes all the components of warland operative, naval, air, missile, space, virtual and information ones on multiple settings and levels. To achieve all this, it’s necessary that the “swarm” of the various components and actions, which develop by focusing on one place and then by spreading to other directions and places, be are at least sufficient enough in order to prevent any sort of reaction. The hordes entrusted with destroying the targets materially have to get integrated and to focus on targets along with the virtual hordes of diplomatic actions, of psychological warfare and with those of the manipulation of information.
The military actions have to be aimed at creating a humanitarian emergency that allows the international organizations to intervene in Iranian territory. Obviously, the responsibility for the catastrophe must be pinned on the Iranians themselves. Even in this respect, everything is ready or practically ready, not least after Kouchner’s exhortation. International agencies and NGOs are already looking forward to going to Iran to set women free from their chadors. If they are given the chance to intervene so as to gather refugees, to treat the wounded, to do the counts of the dead and to call elections every month, there will be a rush to bring democracy to Iran.
This scenario’s complexity shouldn’t lead one to think that it’s necessary to deploy a huge amount of forces. The Israeli and American flight formations’ bombing capacities are so high that they can cover multiple targets with a limited amount of jets. The naval missiles are by now technological weapons that don’t require mass interventions to carry out precise or wide-scale destruction. If anything, the variety of the plans and the kinds of intervention will bring about coordination, command and control problems, yet nothing out of the ordinary. The US and Israel have been cooperating for half a century and the matters of pseudo-authorizations from third countries about flying over or troops’ transit are by now overcome both by political accords with concerned countries and by the two powers’ inclination to ignore any objections.
What remains is the serious and important unknown of the post-emergency. The doubt about the future of a state which retains imperial origins and outlooks and which finds itself being turned from “rogue state” into “loser state” and being regarded as a political and strategic black hole after having been considered as aspiring to the role of regional power. Deep uncertainty remains not so much for the reaction to the defeat or the reduction of its aspirations but for the reaction to the humiliation. What can’t be ruled out is just what they want to avoid, that is, Iran’s nuclearization, still to be proved and implemented, which might instead be favoured with the help of foreign powers as a reaction to the humiliation.
Fabio Mini is an Italian General, former commander of the NATO forces in Kossovo.
Italian original: http://espresso.repubblica.it/dettaglio/Operazione-sciame-di-fuoco/1796788 Translated by Diego Traversa and revised by Mary Rizzo, members of Tlaxcala.
Labels: absolute madness, EU, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, military, NATO, propaganda, US, war
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Let's try partitioning the US - Linda Heard
Special to Gulf News 10/02/07 "Gulf News" -- -- As if they haven't done enough damage bombing and invading a country on false pretences, destroying its culture and leaving it a charred shell of its former self, they - American lawmakers who gave President George W. Bush authority to go to war - now want to divide Iraq up into easily manageable bite size entities.
Isn't Iraq supposed to be a sovereign nation with an elected government? If so, then why is the US Senate attempting to meddle in its affairs by overwhelmingly passing a resolution calling for the country's partition into three, which is tantamount to ethnic cleansing? Not to put too fine a point the shape of Iraq to come isn't their business.
Moreover, even if they had a stake in the country they are responsible for destroying, which they certainly do not, American senators who may or may not have enjoyed a two-day jaunt to Baghdad's Green Zone are not qualified to be the deciders.
The Iraqi government was quick to put a damper on the proposal. Its spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh said "It's the Iraqis who decide these sorts of issues, no-one else".
According to a recent ABC/BBC poll a mere nine per cent of Iraqis favour the break-up of their country.
The Arab League was equally condemnatory. Its Iraq representative Ali Al Garush called upon Arab nations to stand by the Iraqi people in their opposition to the proposal.
Secretary-General of the GCC Abdul Rahman Al Attiyah said partition would make the situation in Iraq more difficult and complicated. Official statements from Syria and Iran were even more scathing.
With so much Iraqi and regional hostility against the plan what are those 75 senators that voted in favour of it thinking? It was Democratic Senator Joseph Biden a presidential hopeful who initiated the vote.
Biden explained his rationale during a news conference. He maintains his proposal offers a way to bring home American troops while leaving behind a stable Iraq. It's evident that his thinking is based on a series of false premises.
First of all the future of Iraq should not be designed around a convenient exit for US troops. Biden and his fellows should understand a simple principle. American troops are the interlopers not the Iraqi people, who have suffered enough already.
Secondly, the partitioning of Iraq into a loose federation of Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish states will not bring stability as he suggests. There would have to be a massive displacement of people, many of whom would end up impoverished or homeless.
Such a division would also lead to friction over natural resources. For instance, Biden's plan calls for just 20 per cent of oil revenues going to Sunnis, who already feel hard done by after losing the political influence they once enjoyed. There is also the question of which mini-state would control oil-rich Kirkuk, an ethnically-mixed city strongly coveted by the Kurds.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that such insular states would not be mutually hostile, further exacerbating existing ethnic tensions.
Thirdly, although many Kurds are amenable to complete autonomy, their neighbours are most definitely not. If a Kurdish state became a reality it's probable that Turkey would invade.
Turkey fears that such an entity would unduly influence its own Kurdish population, which has its own separatist ambitions. Iran also has strong objections.
Fourth, such a break-up would stand as a worrying precedent for vulnerable countries in the region with multi-ethnic populations.
Either Biden is completely clueless and is unaware of the havoc such a breakup of Iraq would wreak, or he harbours a more sinister agenda.
Rendered toothless
If Iraq were to be broken into three, the nation would be rendered toothless for all time in the same way the former Yugoslavia is today.
The US would then have an excuse to stay around in some force "to protect" such tiny fledgling states from each other and from their neighbours. In fact, it would consolidate complete domination of their oil because such small entities would no longer have a voice.
The biggest winner from the partitioning of Iraq would be Israel, whose officials and journalists have long advocated such division.
On the Shalom TV website there is an interview with Joe Biden who refers to Israel as the "single greatest strength America has in the Middle East" and proclaims with pride "I am a Zionist". We should believe him.
Here's a suggestion for the Arab world. How about a vote on the break-up of America?
How about giving California back to Mexico, returning Hawaii to its indigenous islanders and Alaska to the Eskimos and Indians?
Let's restrict Caucasians to the East and West coasts, and package-up a few states in between for African Americans and Latinos. And while we're about it, let's invite foreign conglomerates to buy up the country's oil, gas and timber.
Outrageous ethnic cleansing that might be but that's exactly what Biden and friends think they have the right to do in Iraq. Surely if such uninformed nose-poking is good enough for Washington, it's equally appropriate for the rest of us.
Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at lheard@gulfnews.com. Response to this article may be considered for publication.
Isn't Iraq supposed to be a sovereign nation with an elected government? If so, then why is the US Senate attempting to meddle in its affairs by overwhelmingly passing a resolution calling for the country's partition into three, which is tantamount to ethnic cleansing? Not to put too fine a point the shape of Iraq to come isn't their business.
Moreover, even if they had a stake in the country they are responsible for destroying, which they certainly do not, American senators who may or may not have enjoyed a two-day jaunt to Baghdad's Green Zone are not qualified to be the deciders.
The Iraqi government was quick to put a damper on the proposal. Its spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh said "It's the Iraqis who decide these sorts of issues, no-one else".
According to a recent ABC/BBC poll a mere nine per cent of Iraqis favour the break-up of their country.
The Arab League was equally condemnatory. Its Iraq representative Ali Al Garush called upon Arab nations to stand by the Iraqi people in their opposition to the proposal.
Secretary-General of the GCC Abdul Rahman Al Attiyah said partition would make the situation in Iraq more difficult and complicated. Official statements from Syria and Iran were even more scathing.
With so much Iraqi and regional hostility against the plan what are those 75 senators that voted in favour of it thinking? It was Democratic Senator Joseph Biden a presidential hopeful who initiated the vote.
Biden explained his rationale during a news conference. He maintains his proposal offers a way to bring home American troops while leaving behind a stable Iraq. It's evident that his thinking is based on a series of false premises.
First of all the future of Iraq should not be designed around a convenient exit for US troops. Biden and his fellows should understand a simple principle. American troops are the interlopers not the Iraqi people, who have suffered enough already.
Secondly, the partitioning of Iraq into a loose federation of Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish states will not bring stability as he suggests. There would have to be a massive displacement of people, many of whom would end up impoverished or homeless.
Such a division would also lead to friction over natural resources. For instance, Biden's plan calls for just 20 per cent of oil revenues going to Sunnis, who already feel hard done by after losing the political influence they once enjoyed. There is also the question of which mini-state would control oil-rich Kirkuk, an ethnically-mixed city strongly coveted by the Kurds.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that such insular states would not be mutually hostile, further exacerbating existing ethnic tensions.
Thirdly, although many Kurds are amenable to complete autonomy, their neighbours are most definitely not. If a Kurdish state became a reality it's probable that Turkey would invade.
Turkey fears that such an entity would unduly influence its own Kurdish population, which has its own separatist ambitions. Iran also has strong objections.
Fourth, such a break-up would stand as a worrying precedent for vulnerable countries in the region with multi-ethnic populations.
Either Biden is completely clueless and is unaware of the havoc such a breakup of Iraq would wreak, or he harbours a more sinister agenda.
Rendered toothless
If Iraq were to be broken into three, the nation would be rendered toothless for all time in the same way the former Yugoslavia is today.
The US would then have an excuse to stay around in some force "to protect" such tiny fledgling states from each other and from their neighbours. In fact, it would consolidate complete domination of their oil because such small entities would no longer have a voice.
The biggest winner from the partitioning of Iraq would be Israel, whose officials and journalists have long advocated such division.
On the Shalom TV website there is an interview with Joe Biden who refers to Israel as the "single greatest strength America has in the Middle East" and proclaims with pride "I am a Zionist". We should believe him.
Here's a suggestion for the Arab world. How about a vote on the break-up of America?
How about giving California back to Mexico, returning Hawaii to its indigenous islanders and Alaska to the Eskimos and Indians?
Let's restrict Caucasians to the East and West coasts, and package-up a few states in between for African Americans and Latinos. And while we're about it, let's invite foreign conglomerates to buy up the country's oil, gas and timber.
Outrageous ethnic cleansing that might be but that's exactly what Biden and friends think they have the right to do in Iraq. Surely if such uninformed nose-poking is good enough for Washington, it's equally appropriate for the rest of us.
Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at lheard@gulfnews.com. Response to this article may be considered for publication.
thanks to Adib, Deb and Chris for pointing out this piece!
Labels: absolute madness, Arab countries, Iraq, military, occupation, US, war
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Gilad Atzmon - Taking the Piss Envoy
What a great day for peace enthusiasts! A new envoy to the Middle East has been appointed for the Quartet, and it’s no other than the former British PM, Tony Blair. Blair, the man who gave the Israelis the green light to flatten Beirut. Blair, the man who started an illegal war in Iraq. Blair, a man who, according to the Geneva Conventions, is to be held personally responsible for more than 700,000 dead in Iraq for failing to ‘protect civilian populations against certain consequences of war’[1]. A man who is supposed to be charged for genocide at The Hague. That’s right, a man who should end his life behind bars is now becoming a peace envoy.Maybe it isn’t such a bad idea. Seemingly, his partner from Washington may have sussed it all out. It is rather possible that when peace is at stake, it is actually the warmongers, the bloodthirsty criminals, the men who know no mercy and compassion who may provide the goods. At the end of the day, a rapist may know more about sex abuse than an innocent detached judge. We should never forget that for the Bushman, even Sharon, the mass killer from Sabra and Shatila was nothing less than a ‘Man of Peace’.
Who knows the truth of such complicated matters? It is rather possible that Bush is correct. It is feasible that pouring blood in such a vast quantity may have qualified Blair to be a peacemaker. Yet, there is a slight problem here. Just a marginal issue that should be addressed before Blair lands in Gaza International Docks or Ramallah’s busy Heliport. The democratically elected Hamas, the party who was voted by the Palestinian people isn’t really happy with the new envoy. If I could have a word with him, I would say, “You see Mr Blair, as things stand it is actually Hamas you have to talk to. And what about the Lebanese, did you think about them Mr Blair? Will they welcome to their country the man who just less than a year ago enthusiastically approved the total destruction of their country’s infrastructure, capital and southern regions.”
“Thus, I have a little suggestion for you, Mr. Blair. Just before you become a dove, just on your way to your first peace mission, pop over to The Hague for a few days, put yourself on trail. Prove to us and our brothers in the region that you are indeed a man of harmony and peace. You shouldn’t be too worried, you always believed in what you were doing. You always claimed to believe that liberating the Iraqi people was the right thing to do. You believed as well that destroying Lebanon’s infrastructure would bring stability to the region. You believed that dismissing the democratically elected Palestinian Government was an act of humanism.”
Don’t cave in, Mr. Ex-PM, you can have your two closest friends beside you. You will probably appoint Lord Goldsmith to fight your legal battle. He’d be on your side, when it comes down to it, he was the man who gave you the legal approval to start your ‘little’ illegal war. You shouldn’t worry about money either. Lord Levy, your No 1 Fundraiser will take care of the costs. Now when your New Labour’s under-the-table trading with those giving loans so that they could be nominated peers has become public knowledge, there is nothing to be afraid of.”
I am sure that by the time our dearly beloved, newly born dove will be vindicated by the international court of Justice, he will be far more effective as a peace maker. He may even be the first to bridge the gap between the foes in the region. This is an opportunity we cannot miss and even if he fails this shouldn’t be a major concern, Baba Bush can always appoint him as the new Iraqi Prime Minister. I do not think Blair will be missed but he will be remembered.
A further thought struck me while I was summoning up my words to Mr Blair: if it is true that he is really the new Middle East Peace Envoy, then I would like to apply for an appropriate roll for myself. I am hoping to become the Chief Rabbi of Britain.
[1]Geneva Convention, PART II-GENERAL PROTECTION OF POPULATIONS AGAINST CERTAIN CONSEQUENCES OF WAR, article 13-The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.
Labels: Atzmon, EU, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, UK, UN, US, war
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Cindy Sheehan's resignation from public activity
Good Riddance Attention Whoreby Cindy Sheehan
Mon May 28, 2007
I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called "Face" of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such "liberal blogs" as the Democratic Underground. Being called an "attention whore" and being told "good riddance" are some of the more milder rebukes..
I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me. The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a "tool" of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our "two-party" system?
However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the "left" started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of "right or left", but "right and wrong."
I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party.
Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don't find alternatives to this corrupt "two" party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland.
I am demonized because I don't see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person's heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?
I have also reached the conclusion that if I am doing what I am doing because I am an "attention whore" then I really need to be committed. I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace with justice to a country that wants neither. If an individual wants both, then normally he/she is not willing to do more than walk in a protest march or sit behind his/her computer criticizing others. I have spent every available cent I got from the money a "grateful" country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey's brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings.
I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times. The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however,was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried ever since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives.
It is so painful to me toknow that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.I have also tried to work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. This group won't work with that group; he won't attend an event if she is going to be there; and why does Cindy Sheehan get all the attention anyway? It is hard towork for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.
Our brave young men and women in Iraq have been abandoned there indefinitely by their cowardly leaders who move them around like pawns on a chessboard of destruction and the people of Iraq have been doomed to death and fates worse than death by people worried more about elections than people. However, in five, ten, or fifteen years, our troops will come limping home in another abject defeat and ten or twenty years from then, our children's children will be seeing their loved ones die for no reason, because their grandparents also bought into this corrupt system. George Bush will never be impeached because if the Democrats dig too deeply, they may unearth a few skeletons in their own graves and the system will perpetuate itself in perpetuity.
I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain someof what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.
Camp Casey has served its purpose. It's for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford, Texas? I will consider any reasonable offer. I hear George Bush will be moving out soon, too...which makes the property even more valuable.
This is my resignation letter as the "face" of the American anti-war movement. This is not my "Checkers" moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or any more people that I love and the rest of my resources.
Good-bye America ...you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can't make you be that country unless you want it.
It's up to you now.
Cindy Sheehan
Thursday, May 10, 2007
I love a man in a uniform
I don't navigate my own sidebar as much as I should (next week the BIG update.... will be a lot more complete, promise!). There are some great sites, and here is one that I find particularly interesting: Canadian Mind Products. One segment in particular, The Iraq War, is really excellent, and the posts about being an American (or British or Italian or any other of the various invading Western armies) soldier are particularly insightful. Here are three to check out: Don't Marry a Soldier, Don't Enlist and Do Enlist. The disclaimer on the Iraq War page reads:
The images on this website are gut-wrenching. They show both the suffering of Americans and Iraqis. This horror is what American senators unanimously voted to continue. Even if you are an American with a weak stomach, it would be cowardly to avoid looking at what you voted for. If you can't bear to look, skip the pictures and read the text, and remember if you cannot bear to even look at the suffering, how dare you insist anyone else bear the reality of it.
The Israel page is very good, well researched and full of quotes, including this one from the current Prime Minister of Israel:
“Israeli lives are worth more than Palestinian ones.” ~
Ehud Olmert, acting Prime Minister of Israel 2006- 2006-06-23
Nazi-redux here:
“In our country there is room only for the Jews. We shall say to the Arabs: Get out! If they don't agree, if they resist, we shall drive them out by force.” ~ Professor Ben-Zion Dinur, Israel's First Minister of Education, 1954, from History of the Haganah
“The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.” ~ David Ben Gurion, Prime Minister of Israel 1948-1963, writing to his son, 1937
“Israel should keep the Araboushim [derogatory slang for Arabs] on a short leash, so that they recognise a whip is over their head. As long as not too many people are being visibly killed, then Western humanists will accept it all peacefully, and even ask ‘What is so terrible?’." ~ Boaz Evron, Yediot Ahronot, 1982-12-02, Israeli writer and commentator.
The images on this website are gut-wrenching. They show both the suffering of Americans and Iraqis. This horror is what American senators unanimously voted to continue. Even if you are an American with a weak stomach, it would be cowardly to avoid looking at what you voted for. If you can't bear to look, skip the pictures and read the text, and remember if you cannot bear to even look at the suffering, how dare you insist anyone else bear the reality of it.
The Israel page is very good, well researched and full of quotes, including this one from the current Prime Minister of Israel:
“Israeli lives are worth more than Palestinian ones.” ~
Ehud Olmert, acting Prime Minister of Israel 2006- 2006-06-23
Nazi-redux here:
“In our country there is room only for the Jews. We shall say to the Arabs: Get out! If they don't agree, if they resist, we shall drive them out by force.” ~ Professor Ben-Zion Dinur, Israel's First Minister of Education, 1954, from History of the Haganah
“The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as a war.” ~ David Ben Gurion, Prime Minister of Israel 1948-1963, writing to his son, 1937
“Israel should keep the Araboushim [derogatory slang for Arabs] on a short leash, so that they recognise a whip is over their head. As long as not too many people are being visibly killed, then Western humanists will accept it all peacefully, and even ask ‘What is so terrible?’." ~ Boaz Evron, Yediot Ahronot, 1982-12-02, Israeli writer and commentator.
Labels: Iraq, Israel, military, war
