This post is written on the premise that it is wrong to kill innocent people. The principle underlying the war on Iraq is simple: It is righteous when we kill innocent people, but it is terrorism if they do so. This is applied to several aspects of the war: patriotism, freedom, democracy and troops.
Terrorism is defined in U.S. Army Field Manual 100-20 as "the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological." To apply this verdict to America is inconceivable.
If we do apply this definition to America, then America is a far greater threat to Iraq than Iraq has ever been to the U.S. Thus, if we accept the logic of the supporters of the Iraq War, we should not only aid the insurgents' attacks against an occupying army (America), but, as the logic goes, also call on them to bomb and invade Washington. Furthermore, if we accept the doctrine of "preemptive war," then we should arm Iran, North Korea, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah and Hamas and encourage them to attack us.
If you praise Sept. 11, you are insane; if you praise the invasion of Iraq, you are patriotic.
Our love for freedom and democracy is apparent if we look at facts and not rhetoric. Estimates range from 100,000 to 1,100,000 civilians that we liberated to heaven. A study by the Iraq Body Count found that of the people killed by U.S. air strikes, 46 percent are women and 39 percent are children ("terrorists").
While acknowledging the civilian death toll, people claim that intent does matter, as defined in leaders' rhetoric. If this is true, then the intent of the hijackers who drove a plane into the Pentagon was to establish a religious utopia in the Arab world. Similarly, Hitler was defending the people of Germany from the partisans.
After invading the country, we installed an American viceroy, who appointed a temporary government to hold elections. The Ba'ath party, which would be the chief political opposition to the occupation, is still banned from running in elections ("democracy"). According to the 2009 United Nations Arab Human Development Report, "it is a crime to insult any public institution or official. It is also a crime, under Article 227, to publicly insult a foreign country or an international organization with an office in Iraq."
The report concludes: "Bad as Iraq's economic legacy was, it does not compare to the economic breakdown that followed the U.S.-led invasion. ... Standards of living are still lower than they were before the invasion." Any commentator will acknowledge Saddam's brutality - and after six years, the lives of most Iraqis are worse ("free").
A reporter framed this as, "The presence of the American military has also been a significant factor in the nation's stability" in "Bomb Kills at Least 76 in Baghdad Market" (New York Times, June 25). Meanwhile, an article in the NYT on Oct. 2, 2009 ("China Is Wordless on Traumas of Communist Rise,") lamented that China fails to acknowledge its culpability for a 1948 siege that killed 160,000 civilians.
To admit the war is for profit is still taboo. In a much-repeated campaign line by President Barack Obama, Iraq has a surplus of tens of billions of dollars. Despite this, last year the Iraqi government accepted a $744 million loan from the International Monetary Fund, which included the condition that Iraq would partially privatize its state oil sector.
Our country, the richest in world history, sometimes recognizes that it murders civilians and compensates families up to $2,500. As another measure of our generosity, of the 4 million refugees we created, we have allowed 17,000 to come here.
One Iraqi reporter said he "was roaming throughout the past years of the war in our scorched land, and I was seeing with my own eyes the pains of the victims and hearing the weeping of the grieving women and orphans. Shame was chasing me, like an ugly name for my helplessness." At a press conference, he threw his shoes at President George W. Bush, shouting, "This is your farewell kiss, you dog!" He was tackled, beaten with pipes, electrocuted, imprisoned for nine months and released as reported in "Freed, Shoe-Hurling Iraqi Alleges Torture in Prison" (NYT, Sept. 15, 2009).
The hell visited on the Iraqi people is also visited on Americans. According to "Suicide's Rising Toll" (NYT, Aug. 1, 2009), suicide levels for troops are at the highest level ever recorded. Another article, "For Veterans, A Weekend Pass from Homelessness" (NYT, July 25, 2009), notes that of the approximately 200,000 homeless veterans, 3,700 are veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan.
In "Generation Kill," Evan Wright describes an incident where U.S. soldiers fire on a civilian car and check the passengers: "(Pvt.) Graves sees a small girl of about three curled up in the backseat. ... Graves reaches in to pick her up - thinking about what medical supplies he might need to treat her, he later says - then the top of her head slides off and her brains fall out. When Graves steps back, he nearly falls over when his boot slips in the girl's brains."
One out of three returning soldiers reporting to Veterans Affairs hospitals is being diagnosed with mental illness, including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. And, as reported in Bob Herbert's "The Great Shame," female troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan faced 25 percent more sexual assaults in 2008 compared to 2007.
If defending one's country is brave and honorable, we must write odes to the brave and honorable Iraqi resistance, whose country actually was invaded.
The same leaders who say we should "Support the Troops" do exactly the opposite. They argue that pointing out the horrific consequences is somehow disrespectful. Or, criticism is invalid because of some irredeemable flaw in the newspaper, writer and so forth. The doctrine is the same: condemn violence from our government's official enemies and support violence that we carry out.
The Iraq War is an obscenity as measured by virtually any statistic that matters to human beings. For knowledgeable people who cringe at the horror of Sept. 11, while continuing to justify the invasion of Iraq, which is a far worse atrocity, there is one simple assumption: Iraqis are not human beings.
If there were such a thing as justice in the world, the group of arrogant and deluded men who prosecuted the Iraq War would be tried and imprisoned for their crimes.
At least we should stop lying about the Iraq War. We should say that our leaders are mass murderers, we are all guilty of subsidizing war crimes, and we do not care. But it is sheer ignorance to believe that the rest of the world does not see our hypocrisy or that our victims are unaware they are being abused.
Is Capitalism a Sin?
If capitalism's ethic is the maximization of personal greed, isn't capitalism a sin?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins
OWS and Conservative Media: Grasping at Demonization Straws
It's instructive to witness the 15% or so of Americans who supposedly worship free market capitalism as if it were the word of God defend the banks against people protesting the massive government bailouts by throwing any mud they can at the:
naive-elitist,
quixotic-dangerous,
...
impoverished-trust fund,
idealist-hypocrite,
communalistic-Jew hating,
nonviolent-warmongering,
selfish-redistributionist,
communist-anarchist-socialist-fascist-Nazi,
occupiers.
The OWS movement is very threatening to the people who own the country and their lapdogs are grasping at demonization straws.
naive-elitist,
quixotic-dangerous,
...
impoverished-trust fund,
idealist-hypocrite,
communalistic-Jew hating,
nonviolent-warmongering,
selfish-redistributionist,
communist-anarchist-socialist-fascist-Nazi,
occupiers.
The OWS movement is very threatening to the people who own the country and their lapdogs are grasping at demonization straws.
Occupy Wall Street: Moderate Demands on the Banks
The question of what is to be done is complex and nobody knows what will happen. No demands have yet been issued.
A preliminary list of demands was suggested by one person but has not been voted on:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/
I can make some guesses as to what will happen. Any official demands will almost certainly arise from the protesters on Wall Street. This can be a very difficult and long process. Decision-making is consensus-based, which means that any member of the group has veto power over any decisions that are made. It's critical to keep in mind that no official demands have been issued and will not be until consensus has been reached. This is true in the New Orleans chapter and presumably all other chapters as well.
The desired route to change seems to be through the national legislature and, to a lesser extent, the judiciary. The options for legislative reform are innumerable, but there are a number of steps that both would be looked upon favorably by protesters and could feasibly pass the Congress. I'll just list some that focus on the chief issues and that could have passed, except for #9, in a Democratic Congress of the type that was in existence in 2009. Many protesters, including myself, would like to see more structural reforms, but that is a broader topic that is being debated in groups all over the country. It is important to note that these reforms are pro-capitalist, so Occupy Wall Street, as with the Arab Spring, is a reform movement rather than a revolutionary one.
1. Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act.
2. Prosecute the bankers responsible for the financial crisis.
3. Use anti-trust legislation to break up the "too big to fail" banks.
4. Institute a financial speculation tax.
5. Increase income taxes on the rich.
6. Increase capital gains and estate taxes.
7. Decrease taxes for the non-rich.
8. Close corporate tax loopholes.
9. Minimize the influence of money in elections, by more fully incorporating public funding mechanisms into elections and/or passing a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United.
10. Institute consumer protections to prevent usurious lending practices.
11. Modify mortgages to mitigate the foreclosure epidemic.
There are many more issues, such as the wars, health care, minimum wages, social security, education, the environment, unemployment, and everything else, that will be discussed in New York and will hopefully produce an Economic Rights Act. Until then, we can hope that the changes listed above will go into effect as soon as possible.
Further reading on these demands can be easily found online.
A preliminary list of demands was suggested by one person but has not been voted on:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/
I can make some guesses as to what will happen. Any official demands will almost certainly arise from the protesters on Wall Street. This can be a very difficult and long process. Decision-making is consensus-based, which means that any member of the group has veto power over any decisions that are made. It's critical to keep in mind that no official demands have been issued and will not be until consensus has been reached. This is true in the New Orleans chapter and presumably all other chapters as well.
The desired route to change seems to be through the national legislature and, to a lesser extent, the judiciary. The options for legislative reform are innumerable, but there are a number of steps that both would be looked upon favorably by protesters and could feasibly pass the Congress. I'll just list some that focus on the chief issues and that could have passed, except for #9, in a Democratic Congress of the type that was in existence in 2009. Many protesters, including myself, would like to see more structural reforms, but that is a broader topic that is being debated in groups all over the country. It is important to note that these reforms are pro-capitalist, so Occupy Wall Street, as with the Arab Spring, is a reform movement rather than a revolutionary one.
1. Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act.
2. Prosecute the bankers responsible for the financial crisis.
3. Use anti-trust legislation to break up the "too big to fail" banks.
4. Institute a financial speculation tax.
5. Increase income taxes on the rich.
6. Increase capital gains and estate taxes.
7. Decrease taxes for the non-rich.
8. Close corporate tax loopholes.
9. Minimize the influence of money in elections, by more fully incorporating public funding mechanisms into elections and/or passing a constitutional amendment to repeal Citizens United.
10. Institute consumer protections to prevent usurious lending practices.
11. Modify mortgages to mitigate the foreclosure epidemic.
There are many more issues, such as the wars, health care, minimum wages, social security, education, the environment, unemployment, and everything else, that will be discussed in New York and will hopefully produce an Economic Rights Act. Until then, we can hope that the changes listed above will go into effect as soon as possible.
Further reading on these demands can be easily found online.
Interviews with the Occupiers: Occupy New Orleans
Interviews with the Occupiers
Forget what you've heard about the Occupy Wall Street protesters: the supposedly bohemian, bourgeois, disorganized, lazy, naive, pot-smoking communists who still live with their parents and want more government money.
In the New Orleans encampment outside of City Hall, veterans, musicians, students, nurses, the unemployed, unionists, Christians, teachers and pensioners started their vigil on October 6. They have little money. They have put their lives on hold to protest and sleep on the ground for no pay or personal recognition. They are ultra-democratic: each protester has veto power over any decisions made in the group. They are drug-free. They carry many different signs - wouldn't it be strange if they didn't? - "Tax the Rich," "End the Fed," "Bail Out Hospitals, Break Up Banks," but their politics are rigorously developed and highly critical.
Ask any of them why they are there and they will recite a litany of abuses at the hands of their banks, their employers, their government, their police, and anybody else with power.
The half-truth is that that they have no demands. The truth is that the demands are obvious and general. They want accountability for the bankers whose stated business ethic, the maximization of personal greed, collapsed the global economy, destroyed the lives of millions of people, and led them to sprint to the US Treasury with one palm outstretched and the other clutching a copy of Atlas Shrugged. The occupiers want the bankers to stop committing crimes.
To insure they and their fellow Americans are never fleeced again, they call on the lessons of the civil rights movement and Tahir Square. They believe in and practice nonviolence with ascetic devotion.
But they don't want your sympathy. They want you to join them.
POSTED FROM OCCUPY NEW ORLEANS
OCCUPY TOGETHER GROUPS NOW IN 954 CITIES
http://www.occupytogether.org/
Forget what you've heard about the Occupy Wall Street protesters: the supposedly bohemian, bourgeois, disorganized, lazy, naive, pot-smoking communists who still live with their parents and want more government money.
In the New Orleans encampment outside of City Hall, veterans, musicians, students, nurses, the unemployed, unionists, Christians, teachers and pensioners started their vigil on October 6. They have little money. They have put their lives on hold to protest and sleep on the ground for no pay or personal recognition. They are ultra-democratic: each protester has veto power over any decisions made in the group. They are drug-free. They carry many different signs - wouldn't it be strange if they didn't? - "Tax the Rich," "End the Fed," "Bail Out Hospitals, Break Up Banks," but their politics are rigorously developed and highly critical.
Ask any of them why they are there and they will recite a litany of abuses at the hands of their banks, their employers, their government, their police, and anybody else with power.
The half-truth is that that they have no demands. The truth is that the demands are obvious and general. They want accountability for the bankers whose stated business ethic, the maximization of personal greed, collapsed the global economy, destroyed the lives of millions of people, and led them to sprint to the US Treasury with one palm outstretched and the other clutching a copy of Atlas Shrugged. The occupiers want the bankers to stop committing crimes.
To insure they and their fellow Americans are never fleeced again, they call on the lessons of the civil rights movement and Tahir Square. They believe in and practice nonviolence with ascetic devotion.
But they don't want your sympathy. They want you to join them.
POSTED FROM OCCUPY NEW ORLEANS
OCCUPY TOGETHER GROUPS NOW IN 954 CITIES
http://www.occupytogether.org/
Lazy Media: The Coverage of Occupy Wall Street
Has anybody else been following the media coverage of Occupy Wall Street? If you read these stories it would seem the protesters are named Disparate, Disorganized, and Diffuse.
But why? Any 8-year-old could tell you that the protests target the investment bankers whose stated purpose is to maximize personal gain, whose actions destroyed the lives of millions of people, and who were rewarded for ...their greed with trillions of taxpayer dollars.
It must take a master's degree in journalism to ignore the most basic fact about these protests. This is because most journalists do not want to look at the facts. It is better for their careers if they are lazy and don't examine things too closely. It is much easier to selectively quote the young and the desperate than it is to ask tough questions of the people who own our country and determine its policies. The duties of journalists are to inform people and expose lies, not to ridicule people whose love for others and personal desperation drive them to act for democracy and justice.
But why? Any 8-year-old could tell you that the protests target the investment bankers whose stated purpose is to maximize personal gain, whose actions destroyed the lives of millions of people, and who were rewarded for ...their greed with trillions of taxpayer dollars.
It must take a master's degree in journalism to ignore the most basic fact about these protests. This is because most journalists do not want to look at the facts. It is better for their careers if they are lazy and don't examine things too closely. It is much easier to selectively quote the young and the desperate than it is to ask tough questions of the people who own our country and determine its policies. The duties of journalists are to inform people and expose lies, not to ridicule people whose love for others and personal desperation drive them to act for democracy and justice.
The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street Movements
The Tea Party was a creation of Fox News: in fact, the original name of the movement was "FNC Tax Day Tea Parties." The Tea Party essentially did not exist before FN became involved.
http://www.google.com/search?q=fox+news+tea+party&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
The point of the Tea Party is to focus the - legitimate - anger of the white working class, which has been hammered incessantly over the past thirty years, into getting out the vote for business-conservative Republicans. This is why more literal Tea Partiers such as Ron Paul, who enjoys great support among the Republican electorate, will not be elected president: they don't understand that when the greed and ineptitude of the bankers inevitably lead the global economy to a structural collapse, they have to sprint to the US Treasury with one hand out and the other clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Road to Serfdom. The brazenness of this move brought the normal operations of the so-called "free market" to the surface and it became intolerable for almost everyone. Bush was terrible for the Republican Party, so it was critical to invent a new narrative blaming Obama, communists, African-Americans, the poor, teachers, Muslims, unionists, and pensioners for the very real problems facing our country and created by the undemocratic alliance of the Democratic and Republican Parties with neoliberal business interests.
The Occupy Wall Street movement does not have the same origins, although it may yet be co-opted by powerful interests within the Democratic Party. OWS is very threatening to the criminals who own our country, so it is important that the movement be seized by more business-friendly interests who support the status quo and can give populist speeches in times of crisis while working behind closed doors to enshrine the same corrupt system, e.g., Obama or someone like him.
http://www.google.com/search?q=fox+news+tea+party&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
The point of the Tea Party is to focus the - legitimate - anger of the white working class, which has been hammered incessantly over the past thirty years, into getting out the vote for business-conservative Republicans. This is why more literal Tea Partiers such as Ron Paul, who enjoys great support among the Republican electorate, will not be elected president: they don't understand that when the greed and ineptitude of the bankers inevitably lead the global economy to a structural collapse, they have to sprint to the US Treasury with one hand out and the other clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Road to Serfdom. The brazenness of this move brought the normal operations of the so-called "free market" to the surface and it became intolerable for almost everyone. Bush was terrible for the Republican Party, so it was critical to invent a new narrative blaming Obama, communists, African-Americans, the poor, teachers, Muslims, unionists, and pensioners for the very real problems facing our country and created by the undemocratic alliance of the Democratic and Republican Parties with neoliberal business interests.
The Occupy Wall Street movement does not have the same origins, although it may yet be co-opted by powerful interests within the Democratic Party. OWS is very threatening to the criminals who own our country, so it is important that the movement be seized by more business-friendly interests who support the status quo and can give populist speeches in times of crisis while working behind closed doors to enshrine the same corrupt system, e.g., Obama or someone like him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)