PEACE WOULD WRING THEIR NECKS

How the hell do you interpret this interview, clearly heavily edited? Note again Bush speaking about those “awfully difficult decisions”, previously mentioned here, and the nonchalant reference to “World War III”, suggesting its a term Bush and his ilk bandy about a lot.

Me, I just can’t help anticipating another Gulf-of-Tonkin-type* incident, doubling as another Reichstag fire, providing the neocons with an excuse to launch an attack upon Iran and at the same time use the mass protests against it – which I imagine it would spark – as a means to impose some form of martial law.

I’m just so mindful of that incident in the Straits of Hormuz, on the eve of Bush’s trip to the Middle East to drum up support for tougher action against Iran, a move to create another “alliance of the willing”. And I’m mindful, too, that he went there with the CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) fresh off the press and dismissing Washington’s line that Iran was an inch away from a nuclear capability. He told Israel that he doubted the report’s reliability and Israel concurred, cautioning that they could go it alone, launching an Osirak-like attack against Iran’s fledgling nuclear installation - and which brought no condemnation from Congress.

And if Bush doesn’t attack Iran, then his successor will.

Many US “liberals” I’ve argued with in recent weeks (in chat rooms and via emails resulting from posts I've made on Yahoo Answers) seem to think presidential hopeful Barack Obama signifies the changing tide of US politics, that he’ll not be the war monger Bush is. However, in a speech delivered before AIPAC lobbyists in Chicago, his language was clearly jingoistic. He stands, like the neocons in Washington, on a strong pro-Israel platform. He argued that the US must preserve ‘total commitment to a unique defence relationship with Israel’, that it must work to stop Iran’s nuclear program even if military action is necessary. He said that “no option, including military action, (should be taken) off the table” in the effort to stop Iran gaining a nuclear capacity. The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy.”

On the Sunday before the Florida primary, John McCain sounded off just like Bush: “It’s a tough war we’re in. It’s not going to be over right away. There’s going to be other wars. I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.”

Prior to the the New Hampshire primary, January 3rd, McCain was asked how he felt about Bush’s remarks that the US would be in Iraq for 50 years. His reply: “make it 100 [years]".

McCain, himself a veteran of the Vietnam War, shot down after a murderous bombing run over Hanoi, has, for many years argued for unleashing hell on countries from Serbia to Iraq and Sudan to Iran. Indeed, Matt Welch , in his new book The Myth of a Maverick, argues McCain “envisions a more militaristic foreign policy than any US president in a century."

Not only would he let loose the US war machine on large parts of the world, he’s all for the militarization of US society too. Check out this piece of writing from The Washington Monthly, back in 2001, entitled Putting the “National” in National Service.

In the meantime, Bush is making sure that if he doesn’t flatten Iran and similar defiers of US hegemony, then whoever succeeds him as president has the weaponry at their disposal to pursue US interests for a few years to come. His demand for $515.4 billion for the Defence Department is minus the expenditure of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which accounted to nearly $200 billion over the last budget year and which is estimated to cost $140 billion in 2009. Then append to those sums $17.1 billion for the Department of Energy's weapons program and over $40 billion for the Department of Homeland Security and other national security initiatives spread throughout the federal government, and you begin to realise just how obsessed with militarism, at home and abroad, the forces of reaction are in the US. This is one huge amount!!

Remember also that the $3 trillion budget, released Monday, includes $2.55 billion in defence assistance for the US Middle East satellite Israel and which increases in increments until 2013, when it will settle at $3.1 billion a year until 2018.

Call me a panic merchant, but maybe it’s because I’m all too aware of the nature of the beast! What was that line from Bertolt Brecht’s Mother Courage, the one where the protagonist, who traipses her family around with her, as she makes a living from trading with Europe’s war machines of the 1600s, despairs at the cessation of hostilities? Oh yes, “Peace will wring my neck.”

__________

* The Gulf of Tonkin incident was an alleged attack by North Vietnamese ships upon American boats. As a result of this alleged aggression, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving President Johnson permission to expand the Vietnam War.

George W Bush - Middle East peace advocate or just plain gangster for capitalism?

Tomorrow sees Dubya Bush jet off for Israel – perhaps the only country where his visit would not result in angry demonstrations – and ostensibly in an attempt to shore up perhaps the most catastrophic foreign policy legacy of any US president and a popularity at home that has saw republican supporters leave in droves. It’s perhaps no accident that his 9 day departure for the Middle East coincides with the important early stages of the US election campaign – the imbecile is quite simply perceived to be one huge and embarrassing liability at the moment and someone no repuke candidate wants to be seen acquainted with.

Few if any have any confidence in Bush personally pulling off anything remotely resembling an agreement between Israel and Palestine, this being a pledge he made at the Annapolis conference back in November. Said Bush:

"I am looking forward to sitting down with friends and allies to assure them of my commitment to the Middle Eastern peace and to work with them to make sure they are committed to Middle East peace."

Not only are Bush’s plans seriously hampered because of the split in the Palestinian leadership and which has left Hamas in power in Gaza and the West Bank controlled by the Palestinian Authority, lead by the President Mahmoud Abbas, more importantly he underestimates the level of support in Palestine for Iran, a country he quite obviously intends to attack.

As Uzi Mahnaimi wrote in yesterday’s Times: “Israel security officials are to brief President George W Bush on their latest intelligence about Iran’s nuclear programme - and how it could be destroyed - when he begins a tour of the Middle East in Jerusalem this week.”

Way to go, George. What better way to promote Middle East peace than to start another war there! Sheesh, why didn’t I think of that?

Muhnaimi continues: “Ehud Barak, the defence minister, is said to want to convince him [Bush] that an Israeli military strike against uranium enrichment facilities in Iran would be feasible if diplomatic efforts failed to halt nuclear operations. A range of military options has been prepared….While security officials are reluctant to reveal all their intelligence, fearing that leaks could jeopardise the element of surprise in any future attack, they are expected to present the president with fresh details of Iran’s enrichment of uranium - which could be used for civil or military purposes - and the development of missiles that could carry nuclear warheads.”

In response to this fresh “intelligence”, Bush said: “I read the intelligence report carefully. In essence, what the report said was that Iran had a secret plan to develop nuclear weapons. I’m saying that a state which adopted a non transparent policy and had a secret plan for developing nuclear weapons could easily develop an alternative plan for the same purpose. So to conclude from the intelligence report that there is no Iranian plan to develop nuclear weapons will be only a partial truth.”

Maybe Bush should start reading reports by his own people, such as last November’s CIA National Intelligence Estimate, which states:

“We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

“We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.

“Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005.”

The report can be downloaded in pdf format here.

And, back to Bush again: “My message to all countries in the region is that we are able to solve the problem in a diplomatic way, but all options are on the table.”

In a “diplomatic way”, George? Like when Saddam bent over backwards for a diplomatic way out of the invasion of Iraq, bending over backwards to comply with UN Resolutions and to prove he had no WMD?

Anxious for some “false flag” incident to revive support for an assault on Iran after the NIE upset plans for an attack on the country, the Pentagon coincidentally kicked off at the weekend over the “hostile intent” of Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats after an alleged incident in the Strait of Hormuz this weekend.

“In what U.S. officials called a serious provocation, Iranian Revolutionary Guard boats harassed and provoked three U.S. Navy ships in the strategic Strait of Hormuz, threatening to explode the American vessels, reports the Associated Press.

“U.S. forces were on the verge of firing on the Iranian boats in the early Sunday incident, when the boats turned and moved away, a Pentagon official said. ‘It is the most serious provocation of this sort that we've seen yet,’ said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record.”

Click here for the MSNBC TV report of the incident.

Writing on the Counterpunch website today, Gideon Levy says:

“A man is coming to Israel this week who has left a trail of killing, destruction and global hatred. Never has the U.S. been so despised as during Bush's seven years in office, which abruptly brought his county back to the not-so-merry days of Vietnam.

“He led the U.S., and the free world in its wake, into two brutal and completely futile wars of conquest, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. He sowed mass killing in these two wretched countries under the false pretext of a battle against global terror.

“In Western Europe, in South America, in Asia, in all parts of the Arab and Muslim world and in parts of Africa, the sole global superpower has come to be viewed as a hostile, arrogant and ostracized entity…. The Middle East has only moved further away from peace during Bush's tenure.”

Make no mistake about it, the last thing on Bush’s mind during his trip to the Middle East is peace. He is the ambassador of powerful oil interests, not only concerned about US oil security but, more importantly, anxious which aspiring superpowers will have future access to world oil supplies and thus emerge as a serious contender on the world capitalist stage. Expect war to be high on the real Bush agenda over the enxt nine days!

Poverty in the USA

The US Conference of Mayors’ 23-city Hunger and Homelessness Survey, released in late December shows that the number of homeless and hungry people in the US rose again in 2007 (pdf available here ).

This report documents the problem of hunger and homelessness during the period of November 1, 2006 through October 31, 2007 based on information provided by the following U.S. cities: Boston, MA; Charleston, SC; Charlotte, SC; Chicago, IL; Cleveland, OH; Denver, CO; Des Moines, IA; Detroit, MI; Kansas City, MO; Los Angeles, CA; Louisville, KY; Miami, FL; Nashville, TN; Philadelphia, PA; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; Providence, RI; Salt Lake City, UT; San Francisco, CA; Santa Monica, CA; Seattle, WA; St. Paul, MN; and Trenton, NJ

Notably, the report cites high housing costs and the lack of affordable housing as a chief cause of homelessness in households with children, as well as a major cause of hunger. The survey also notes the recent spike in foreclosures, the increased cost of living in general and the increased cost of food as major causes of hunger in America. In other words – as in the US, as elsewhere on the planet, the golden rule applies can’t pay, can’t have. If you’re poor then you don’t constitute a market.

Unlike past reports, this year’s report contains individual profiles of hunger and homelessness for each city that participated in the 2007 survey, as well as contact information for service providers in those cities. Overall, cities reported that they are not able to meet the need for providing shelter for homeless persons. Indeed, twelve cities (52 percent) stated that they turn people away some or all of the time. And this in a land where there are millions of acres of vacant office space and hundreds of thousands of empty homes.

Additionally, cities reported a limited ability to meet the need for emergency food assistance. Across the survey cities, 17 percent of all people in need of food assistance and 15 percent of households with children are not receiving it. Nineteen cities expect demand for food assistance to increase in 2008. Again, this in a land that pays farmers to take land out of production and pays others to grow crops for bio-fuel production

Meanwhile, Information Clearing House today carries a story entitled Welcome to Third World USA.

The piece commences with a quote Paul Krugman that appeared in the New York Times, Feb. 27, 2006:

"What we're seeing (in the U.S.) isn't the rise of a fairly broad class of knowledge workers. Instead, we're seeing the rise of a narrow oligarchy: Income and wealth are becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small, privileged elite ... It's time to face up to the fact that rising inequality is driven by the giant income gains of a tiny elite, not the modest gains of college graduates."

Say the writers, commenting on the USA’s poor ranking in the last UN Human Development Index, which positions countries in terms of life expectancy, literacy, education and standard of living

“…the U.S. today has many more features in common with Third World status than Canada ever did back in the mid-1990s.

”What is usually meant by a Third World economy? A half-century ago, the term was associated with the economically underdeveloped countries of Africa, Asia, South America and Oceania. The common characteristics of these Third World countries were high levels of poverty, income inequality, high birth rates and an economic dependence upon the advanced countries. Third World countries were simply not as industrialized or technologically advanced as Western countries.

”But what are some of the distinguishing characteristics of contemporary Third World countries? They go beyond these nations' fiscal position or undue concentration on natural resource exports.

”The glaring features today include poverty, lack of democratic institutions, controlling oligarchies and the unequal distribution of income and wealth. In other words, the few enjoy a rich lifestyle while the many share subpar incomes and poverty.

"Another characteristic of Third World countries is that a major portion of their fiscal expenditures is allocated to the military. In many Third World countries, the military is controlled by an elite or a small collection of the wealthy.

"Finally, in many Third World countries one finds that leadership is passed from one generation to the next, often via a close relative.”

The sad fact is that if such findings, as listed above, were reported on every TV and in every paper in the US, come election time the workers would still be arguing over the merits of voting for the democrats or the repukes, failing to acknowledge that whichever party gets into power their first duty is to the master class, to ensure the profits keep rolling.

The ‘American dream’ exists alright, unfortunately for many it means the right to dream about not being on the streets or knowing where your next meal is coming from.

Sexual Resources for the US Military Machine

Fact: instances of men raping women and sexual abuse are three times higher in the US military than in civilian life. When Suzanne Swift, a 20 year old MP serving in Iraq, was raped and sexually harassed, she suffered a mental breakdown and went AWOL, refusing to be reposted there. She is now in prison.

This is a YouTube video of her mother speaking at the Veteran’s for peace National Convention on 12th August.

Revolutionary Act covers this story because of its insight into the mentality of the male-dominated US war machine which sees its female personnel, as one speaker comments, as “a sexual resource for men”. Another speaker tells of how “military training dehumanises half the population.”

Five more chunks of the worth watching video footage of the Convention, with personal acounts of rape and sexual abuse, can be found at:

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQSZZStxpk0&mode=related&search=

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=210VOcC72cg&mode=related&search=

3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxkXIVTfIz4&mode=related&search=

4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhAztD8XwjY&mode=related&search=

5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPP_PBD6BN0&mode=related&search=

Police Brutality - UCLA Student gets tazered

An Iranian-American UCLA student was shot by UCLA'S UCPD November 14th 2006, because he could not show his Student ID. He was shot 5 times with a taser gun. Trigger-happy cops threatened to shoot students who got too close. The Student yelled out that he had a medical condition, but to no avail - zap!

"This is a long-standing library policy to ensure the safety of students during the late-night hours," said UCLA Police Department spokeswoman Nancy Greenstein.
She said police tried to escort Mostafa Tabatabainejad, 23, out of the library after he refused to provide ID and would not leave. Tabatabainejad, who was arrested for resisting and obstructing a police officer, was later released on his own recognizance."
Lessons to ber learned?


1) Carry your student ID card.
2) Join the World Socialist Movement

Abu Ghraib photos

Those photos that Washington didn't want us to see! Or did they? I mean, with the US intent on bombing the shit of Iran (see "Real men want to go to Iran", below) and seizing control of its oil fields, what better way to start off than to prod once again at the sensitivities of militant Islam, showing their fellows being beaten, tortured and sexually assaulted in a US prison, and in so doing prompting that anti-US backlash that will then give the US the pretext to carry its War on Terror to Tehran? And these coming at a time when the Islamic world is still riotiong over the offensive Danish cartoons and the British press and TV are showing film and photos of Iraqi teenagers getting a beating at the hands of British troops!

Update on 17th February

Abu Ghraib leaked report reveals full extent of abuse

1,325 images of suspected detainee abuse· 93 video files of suspected detainee abuse· 660 images of adult pornography· 546 images of suspected dead Iraqi detainees· 29 images of soldiers in simulated sexual acts. And this is just the stuff they bothered to film. If this is what is happening in Abu Ghraib, then just what the fuck is going on in Guantanamo Bay?

And of the response in Britain? Well, Tony Blair refers to conditions at Guantanamo Bay an "anomaly." I'll give you 'anomaly', you gormless bastard!!

Human Rights report lambasts the US

The 500 page Human Rights Watch Annual Report 2006 is now available for download.

The report shifts its usual emphasis on countries well known for human rights abuses and this time around focuses on the USA and European countries, the former for its hypocritical defence of torture.

From the Intro:

“Today, the willingness of some to flout basic human rights standards in the name of combating terrorism has deeply compromised the effectiveness of that commitment. The problem is aggravated by a continuing tendency to subordinate human rights to various economic and political interests.

“…Key U.S. allies such as Britain and Canada compounded the leadership problem in 2005 by seeking to undermine certain critical international rights protections. Britain sought to justify sending terrorist suspects to countries that torture, and Canada worked aggressively to dilute key provisions of a new treaty on enforced disappearances. These governments, as well as other members of the European Union, also continued to subordinate human rights in their relations with others whom they deemed useful in fighting terrorism or pursuing other goals.

“…even when the [US]administration spoke out in defence of human rights or acted commendably, its initiatives made less headway as a result of the credibility gap. European and other powers, meanwhile, had their own credibility problems or did far too little to correct the balance. The result was a global leadership void when it came to defending human rights.

“…torture and inhumane treatment are forbidden unconditionally, whether in time of peace or war, whether at the local police station or in the face of a major security threat. Yet in 2005, evidence emerged showing that several of the world’s leading powers now consider torture, in various guises, a serious policy option.

“Any discussion of detainee abuse in 2005 must begin with the United States, not because it is the worst violator but because it is the most influential.
“…President Bush continued to offer deceptive reassurance that the United States does not ‘torture’ suspects, but that reassurance rang hollow.

“…Moreover, President Bush’s pronouncements on torture continued to studiously avoid mention of the parallel prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.“Needless to say, this embrace of abusive interrogation techniques—not as an indirect consequence of official policy but as a deliberate tool—has significantly weakened the U.S. government’s credibility as a defender of human rights.”

And as for British Complicity in torture:

“…Britain has adopted policies that would make it complicit in torture. In 2005, Prime Minister Tony Blair proposed sending terrorist suspects to governments that have a history of torturing such people—a policy that the United States had already adopted in a practice sometimes referred to as “extraordinary rendition…Following precedents set by the Bush administration, the Blair government proposed sending terrorist suspects to places such as Libya, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia—all governments with notorious records of torturing radical Islamists.”

500 pages later the Report focuses again on the USA:

Incarceration

“The United States incarcerates people at a greater rate than any other country, 724 per one hundred thousand residents. Seven million people—or one in every thirty-one persons—is in prison, or on probation or parole. Black men between the ages of twenty-five and twenty-nine are seven times more likely than their white counterparts to be in prison or jail. More than six hundred thousand people annually leave prison, most of them to return to distressed minority neighbourhoods, facing formidable barriers to successful re-entry, including laws that limit their access to education, housing, and jobs."

Death penalty

“As of November 4, forty-eight people had been executed in 2005. Evidence of the arbitrariness and procedural flaws in the imposition of the sentence continue to grow. Since 1973, 121 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence, including one in 2005.

Child prisoners

“While U.S. child offenders no longer face the death penalty, they do face the possibility of life without parole sentences. There are at least 2,225 child offenders sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison in the United States, an estimated 59 percent of whom received the sentence for their first criminal conviction. The United States is one of fourteen countries in the world known to permit such sentences and research suggests that there may be no more than twelve child offenders outside the United States serving life sentences without possibility of release. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by every country in the world except the United States and Somalia, forbids sentencing child offenders to life without parole.”Well worth downloading!

Venezuela - overspending on defence?

Venezuelan military spending is upsetting the US at the moment. The State Department is concerned at the country’s “outsized military build-up.” Venezuela will spend just over $1 billion this year on defence and is thus considered to be a threat to regional stability.

I really don’t know whether to laugh or cry. The country making this claim is the US, which this year has a military budget of $441 billion. Venezuela thus has 0.25% the military budget of the US, yet is considered to be over-spending!

And which country has created more instability in Central and Southern America than the USA? Just having a cursory scan through one file for Central and Southern American countries in which the US has intervened (for regime change) – and never for the better - I come up with:

Panama (1918), Honduras (1924), Argentina (1946), Colombia and Peru (1948) Bolivia (1951), Guatemala (1954), Argentina (1955), Chile (1958), Ecuador (1960), Brazil (1962), Honduras and Ecuador (1963), Brazil, Bolivia, Chile (1964), Bolivia (1966), Panama (1969), Chile & Bolivia (1970), Bolivia (1971), Uruguay (1971),El Salvador (1972), Chile (1973), Uruguay (1976), Panama (1981 & 1984), Nicaragua (1984), Panama (1989), Nicaragua (1990), El Salvador (1994), Ecuador (2000), Nicaragua (2001), Bolivia (2002), Brazil and Venezuela (2002 to date).
When it comes to instability, the suppression of democracy, human rights abuses, no country on the planet surpasses the USA in creating upset in South America, yet Washington pontificates about Venezuela being a threat?

Now, right next door to Venezuela is Colombia. Colombia, a close friend of the US, is one of the most violent countries in the world. For 40 years the country has been torn apart by a three-sided civil war that has claimed 200,000 lives. Hundreds are disappeared each month. Colombia is also the largest recipient of military aid in South America.

Despite the Colombian government’s appalling human rights record, its support for the vicious paramilitary group United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia, it has received $billions since the start of Plan Colombia in 2000. The country is also to receive a new squadron of fighter jets by 2007.

Back in 2004, the first country Dubya Bush (pictured above with President Uribe) visited upon re-election was Colombia. He praised the government’s anti-narcotics and ant-drugs policies and promised another $500 million for the noble cause – it was after all helping the US in a big way. Well, not really. In fact, a study by the Washington Office on Latin America found that cocaine is 31% cheaper on the streets of the United States than it was before Plan Colombia was initiated.

With the amount of crap Venezuela has had from the US in recent years - what, with a coup attempt against Chavez and the stirring up of hostility between Colombia and Venezuela – I’m rather surprised the country’s military budget is so small, especially as Venezuela has sizeable oil resources and Washington has all but announced that it has a divine right to all the oil in the world and will control it by hook or by crook. Maybe Chavez just thinks $1 billion is more than enough to defend the interests of the country's corporate elite?

1000 Days of War

Thus ran the huge headline in this morning's Independent. One thousand days! It really does not seem that long ago that Darren and I were at the gates of Hyde Park on a freezing morning in February 2003 , handing out leaflets to the multitudes who had turned up for the biggest political gathering in British history (estimates for the number who turned up that day range from 1-2 million). If I remember that day for anything, the masses apart, it is for the lack of toilets and the fact that I was busting for a pee for hours, my discomfort not helped by the biting, bladder-chilling weather (Darren, like the typical Glaswegian, has a 20 litre bladder capacity so was unaffected).

But I digress. 1000 days of post invasion occupation! And it must be close on 1000 days since Bush nonchalantly strolled to the presidential podium to announce "mission accomplished", for the official "war"lasted only weeks.

And of the allied 'victory'? The Independent provides some painful statistics that ought to be carved on stone tablets and rammed down Bush's throat:

$204.4billion: the cost to the US of the war so far. The UK's bill up until March 2005 was £3.1 billion

2,339 Allied troops killed

98 UK troops killed

30,000 Estimated Iraqi civilian deaths

0 Number of WMDs found

8 per cent of Iraqi children suffering acute malnutrition

$35,819m World Bank estimated cost of reconstruction

53,470 Iraqi insurgents killed

67 per cent Iraqis who feel less secure because of occupation

$343 Average monthly salary for an Iraqi soldier.

Average monthly salary for an American soldier in Iraq: $4,160.75

66 journalists killed in Iraq. Journalists killed during Vietnam war: 63

5 foreign civilians kidnapped per month

47 per cent Iraqis who never have enough electricity

20 casualties per month from unexploded mines

20 per cent Inflation rate 2005

25-40 per cent Estimated unemployment rate, Nov 2005

251 Foreigners kidnapped

70 per cent of Iraqi's whose sewage system rarely works

183,000 British and American troops are still in action in Iraq. There are 162,000 US troops

and 8,000 British with 13,000 from other nations

90 Daily attacks by insurgents in Nov '05. In Jun '03: 8

82 per centIraqis who are "strongly opposed" to presence of coalition troops

15,955 US troops wounded in action

I could add another statistic - the number of times I wrote letters to the local press before, and indeed since, the war started, voicing my socialist objection, only to have those letters binned.
There are perhaps other important statistics to consider. For instance, the number of people who became totally disillusioned by politics in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. After all, over 1 million had turned up that cold day in February to voice their objection to the invasion (and many more around the world) only to have Blair and Bush totally ignore their protests. Many on the left thought this day would be a catalysts of sorts - that this day of action would result in the swelling ranks. Christ, how they were mistaken.

And another statistic - the number of reasons that Bush and Blair cited for invadingIraq and staying there: that Saddam had WMDs, that Saddam could lob a missile at the UK within 45 minutes, that they were restoring democracy in Iraq, that Saddam had helped Al Qaeda with the attack on 9/11 and that this was all about rooting out terrorism.

I feel a PhD thesis coming on so will say no more.

Stop the Warbiz (book review)

Stop the Warbiz by Ben Peri, (Authorhouse 2005), is one of those books you just wish you could mass produce and post through every letterbox in the country. In 357 well-sourced pages, Peri takes on the US war-for-profit machine like a rabid rottweiler might a postman. From Chapter 1 (the unbearable truth about the fabricated Pearl Harbour of the 21st Century) to Chapter 10 (the 2004 boxing day Tsunami), Peri unleashes a barrage of questions – and indeed offers many answers – about the White House’s war abroad and at home.

Stop the Warbiz strips away the web of mystery surrounding 9/11 and the consequent ‘war on terror’; it looks at rigged elections, the Patriot Acts and the increasing surveillance and invasion of privacy in the USA, the 800 camps that make up the hidden "American Gulag," and the red and blue lists of citizens to be executed when the green light is given from on high.
The book reveals how the government and media have created a culture of fear that is gnawing away at US civil liberties; how behind the “warbiz” is the oil-military-industrial complex - prepared to use any means to instigate their New World Order

The book is a mine of traceable facts – web links abound – and includes over 70 pages of appendices that cover the CIA, the little known of remote control anti-hijacking systems in aeroplanes, Bilderberg, Warbiz contributors to political parties and the contributions of the oil and gas industry to the US political system.

Ben Peri is an international analyst, consultant, journalist, reporter, columnist, and an advocate of free speech. Ben is a neutral, acute, and unbiased observer of the international political scene.
A man of no concession, Ben believes evidence supported by facts speaks louder to the truth than often shaky, mischievous, misleading, or influenced declarations and testimonies.

Ben's passion for ending wars and putting the business of wars “out of business” runs deep and has fueled his efforts on The Fingerprint of the Devil and Stop the WARBIZ for the past four and a half years.

Bush and freedom

Sent to the Shields Gazette, 22nd January 2005

Dear Sir,


Speaking at his inauguration on January 20th, President Bush declared that freedom overseas was a precondition for freedom in the USA. He certainly never elaborated on this theme and made no reference to the utter misery the US has, in the last few years, brought to Afghanistan and Iraq. He moreover, in his short speech, used the words “freedom” and “liberty” 42 times.


I can only presume these two words have taken on new meanings in the White House dictionary. History testifies that as soon as the US takes an interest in your country then you can say goodbye to freedom. Since 1945 the US has leant its support dictators and tyrannical regimes on every continent, from Pol Pot and Suharto to Saddam Hussein and Pinochet. Since 1945, this same defender of the global well-being toppled 40 governments and helped crush 30 populist movements, assassinated scores of prominent individuals and perverted elections in every corner of the globe, turning a blind eye to the most horrendous affronts to the democratic process. During this same period the US has armed terrorists, trained right-wing guerrilla movements in the art of torture and financed armies intent on overthrowing democratically elected governments.


Perhaps Bush was telling the truth, considering the growing restrictions on personal freedom in the USA – ie the Patriot Act. If freedom is not allowed to thrive overseas, then why should it be allowed to exist in the USA?

Iraq - Liberation or Occupation

From a leaflet that was handed out at the "Stop the War" demonstrations in London on 27 September 2003.

The million anti-war demonstrators who poured into London at the beginning of the year have since been proved right on a number of issues. The people in Iraq did not roll out the red carpet for the “liberating” US and British troops as they overran the country. The war did provoke more anti-Western resentment. There was never any threat to the USA. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were never the issue and so far have proven not to exist, except in the warped mind of US neo-cons and the Blair junta in Britain. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11¾at last admitted by George Bush on 17 September¾and neither was there any link to Al Qaeda. The US war machine is up to its neck in a mess of its own making, which worsens daily, while Bush’s corporate buddies are now raking in huge profits from contracts awarded for the reconstruction of Iraq.


The killing continues

It is now six months since Bush informed us that Iraq had been liberated. If this is liberation, then what is oppression? Iraqi infrastructure is virtually non-existent, crime is out of control, and the “liberation” has turned into guerrilla war in which daily Iraqi deaths from gunfire outnumber those of the occupying forces by 20-1. Widespread resentment against US occupation is the norm. The common consensus worldwide is that the US has failed miserably in Iraq, creating only greater regional problems. Millions of Iraqis now accept that whilst


Saddam might have been a tyrannical dictator, his regime did ensure relative stability.
The recent US “liberation” of Afghanistan is perhaps analogous. Since the ousting of the Taliban, unaccountable American-paid warlords have been free to rape and murder at will. People are being murdered at the rate of 100 a week. Women are still fearful to walk out without burqas. Opium production is now back to normal and every organisation reporting from Afghanistan makes the same claim – human rights abuses are greater than under the rule of the Taliban


Indeed, the only significant US achievement in Iraq lies in the fact that the US has turned the only Arab country with no Al Qaeda base into a recruiting ground for Islamic terrorism. You could be forgiven for thinking this was part of the US game plan insofar as it provides the US with a further pretext for its “war on terror” as it currently calls its imperialist foreign policy. What an amazing feat Washington has performed. What a mess Bush now realises he has created.


A recent Washington proposal now under consideration is for the establishment of a UN multilateral military force to join U.S. occupation troops in Iraq. It would operate as a separate, parallel force with a separate command composition, but under the overall command of the US and accountable to the Pentagon. Furthermore, the arrangement would not include the US sharing authority and information with the UN or the countries providing assistance. This was in fact US practice during the Clinton administration in Somalia and Haiti, for instance.


Interestingly, when the UN Security Council opposed the US invasion of Iraq, arguing there was no reason to resort to violence, it was Bush who dismissed the UN as a mere “talking shop”. Now after starting an “illicit” war¾if a war can ever be called licit¾which marginalised the UN Security Council, a war that has not gone Bush’s way, the US seeks the help of the Security Council to internationalise the economic and human costs of their occupation of Iraq. Perhaps Bush thinks Indian, Pakistani or Nigerian mercenaries of the United States will receive a more amicable reception in Iraq than US forces.



US,UN, same difference


One wonders whether Washington is oblivious to the recent attack on the UN base in Baghdad with the loss of 21 lives. For many Middle Eastern militants, the UN is seen as simply another branch of US imperialist foreign policy and thus a legitimate target. Back in the early 1990s, it was the UN which put in place the US-sponsored sanctions regime which wrought havoc on Iraqi society – a society recovering from a 10-year war with Iran and a murderous war with the US, Britain, France (yes) and others. Such sanctions left 500,000 Iraqi children dead from disease and malnutrition and crippled Iraq’s infrastructure. More recently, it was the UN Security Council which approved the US-installed puppet government and in effect approved the occupation by opening a UN mission office to help make it successful. So any idea that the UN could carry through something the US could not is wishful thinking. UN forces would fare no better than US troops.


Clearly the Washington warmongers did not count on the post-invasion expenses they would encounter, or the number of troops they would need for the job. The US war-for-profit machine has clearly bitten off more than it can chew. Following on from the $79 billion that was released in April 2003 for the cost of the occupation of Iraq, Bush has since allocated an extra $87 billion and Vice-President, Dick Cheney, has indicated even that will not suffice. Meanwhile, in Britain, chancellor Gordon Brown is to announce a further £1 billion for the British part in the occupation next month.


Sixteen of Americas's 33 combat brigades are now in the quagmire of Iraq, which means that Bush's pre-emptive wars have placed 160,000 American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Still, Bush wants to send more troops and Blair has also indicated that he is prepared to send thousands more young men and women into the cauldron of hate.


And the beneficiaries? The Iraqi people? No. So far the only ones smiling are the corporate elite close to the White House, the likes of Halliburton and Bechtel, Parsons Group and Stevedoring Services of America, which are earning billions of dollars out of the reconstruction of Iraqi society.


There was always the risk that once Saddam was removed from power extremist groups would come to the fore and make Iraq far more unstable than under Baathist rule. This much had been acknowledged by President Bush senior during the first Gulf War and lay behind Washington’s decision not to support US-inspired revolts of the Iraqi Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. It made sound US sense to have Saddam crush these revolts mercilessly rather than have him removed and the country fragment and the region destabilise. The very forces the US feared would be unleashed following the toppling of Saddam are now on the rampage – they might have loathed Saddam, but they hate the US more. As the guerrilla war spirals, tens of millions across the world look on in despair, their worst fears confirmed.


Protests without end?


Today, well-meaning people from across Britain have again travelled to London to protest their outrage at the policies of Bush and his sidekick Blair in the pursuit of US global hegemony and the destruction created en route, particularly in Iraq. Most will believe the malaise can be sorted out within the usual channels capitalism offers – either a UN force moves in or the US and British troops come home. The former, though more likely, will only compound the problem and the latter can only leave the region further unstable, with war lords and the varying shades of the region’s religions vying for political power. Whilst Bush would welcome a UN effort, a US retreat would be unthinkable.


As on previous demonstrations, placards and banners will carry myriad messages, some demanding “Bush Must Go” and “Bring the Troops Home”, with others screaming in assorted bright inks “No War for Oil” and “End the Occupation.”


Few, if any, will address the root of the problem¾the capitalist system itself and its inherent and vicious competition for profits¾and how the problems of capitalism can only be solved when we abolish the system itself. On previous occasions we have advised demonstrators who protest against war, without setting it in its true context, to invest in a sturdy banner. If you are opposed to war and its effects, yet are prepared to support capitalism – and many left wing groups actually are despite what they say, usually in the form of a state-run capitalism – then settle down to a life of campaigning.


While it is important that workers oppose war, it is just as important that we recognise just why armed conflicts between states break out and in whose interests wars are waged. If you think about it you’ll be hard-pressed to think of a single war that did not have its roots in the desire of small elites to make profits. All wars, even small-scale conflicts¾and the ongoing conflict in Iraq is no exception¾tend to be fought over mineral wealth, foreign markets and areas of influence, trade routes or the strategic points from which the same can be defended.


To end war¾and the need to demonstrate against each war as one war succeeds another (were you on the demos against the war in Afghanistan and before that against the war in Kosovo?)¾capitalism has to be ended and replaced by a global system where the resources of the Earth have become the common heritage of all Earthpeople. That way, competition and conflict between elites over resources can give way to co-operation between peoples in different parts of the globe to use the world’s resources for the benefit of all its inhabitants.


If you lend your support to a political party or organisation that fails to question the real nature of capitalist society, how our world is organised for production and how power is distributed, then you are in effect supporting a system that bred this war¾and will breed future wars. We urge you to think seriously and reconsider your position. Capitalism and the war and uncertainty that comes with it, or world socialism and global peace and security? Protest endlessly against each new war as it arises or campaigning for a new world of common ownership, democratic control, peace and human welfare.

Lies, Half-Truths and WMD

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." George W. Bush, September 12, 2002

“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” George W. Bush, January 28, 2003

“We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction and is determined to make more.” Colin Powell, February 5, 2003

“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons - the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.” George Bush, February 8, 2003

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” George Bush, March 18, 2003

“I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.” Kenneth Adelman, US Defense Policy Board , March 23, 2003

“We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.” Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

“We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.” George Bush April 24, 2003

“Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.” Tony Blair, 28 April, 2003

“I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.” Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

“I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago - I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago - whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.” Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne May 13, 2003

“Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.” Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, May 26, 2003

“For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.” Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003

"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons." Donald Rumsfeld, May 14, 2003

"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003

In the months leading up to the US-led invasion of Iraq, the Bush-Blair regimes produced reams of documents to prove Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction and how Saddam could realistically fire them within 45 minutes. As they geared up for ‘war’ they reiterated time and again that their intention was solely to rid Iraq of its WMD and make the world a more stable place for decent and god-fearing people to live in. They campaigned long and hard for their war – for the support of their peers in governments and for the backing of the US and British electorates and, convinced they had the mandate for war, invaded Iraq in March. Three months after the end of the fighting no ‘illegal’ weapons have been found and the odds of finding any diminish greatly as the days go by.

The recent admission from a British security chief that the 50 page "intelligence" report on Iraq's WMD presented by Tony Blair to Parliament on 24 September last year - and used as the Labour government’s evidence for Iraq’s illicit weapons inventory - was spiced up on the government’s instructions came as no real surprise for those who have scrutinised the unfolding of the US-UK war with Iraq and the Labour government’s desperation to be part of it. Since the transatlantic plan to invade Iraq was hatched it was apparent that Truth would again be the first casualty of war.

For their part, the CIA and their British counterparts have tried to distance themselves from their respective governments these past few weeks, with unprecedented briefings and leaks to the press, desperate to avoid the backlash that has lead to some serious questioning in London and Washington.

On a visit to Poland on 30th May, Tony Blair told a press conference that finding the weapons in Iraq was "not the most urgent priority". And yet, according to the claims of the dossier that he defends, Saddam Hussein "has a useable chemical and biological weapons capability" and that his "current military planning specifically envisages the use" of these weapons. For months we had the Blair government ramming the WMD issue down our throats, pleading for our support for his war with Saddam, who threatened the civilisation we cherished Yet as Saddam and his military top brass, who presumably know about these WMD, which are yet to be found, are still on the run, we are told that finding the weapons is not is not an urgent priority?

Also now discredited by the CIA is the evidence US Sec of State Colin Powell eagerly displayed to the UN Security Council at the beginning of February. Powell provided explicit particulars of the key players in Iraq’s WMD programme as well as the sites that are now under US military control. Nevertheless, the biologically-armed "missile brigade", which he claimed was situated outside Baghdad has proved to be a figment of his imagination and the weapons scientists he informed the world were afraid of talking because of Saddam’s reach have not yet disclosed any secrets. As with the alleged "poison camp" near Khurmal, its labyrinth of tunnels and complex chemical communication network, so too with the photos of twenty or so Baghdad-based al-Qaeda members the UN was presented with. No evidence whatsoever.

In spite of every quality newspaper demanding answers from Blair in the wake of the secret services admission, Blair, it seemed, was learning nothing. Rather than running for cover he began blurting more lies, claiming that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from the African state of Niger. The documentary evidence this fresh allegation was based on has since been confirmed a forgery by the International Atomic Energy Authority. Indeed, the Bush administration was aware that this evidence was bogus a year earlier – something Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice have since admitted. Moreover, early last year Vice President Dick Cheney sent a former US ambassador in Africa to Niger to look into the story. Although the latter brought back word that the documents were not genuine, this was not sufficient to prevent the use of these documents as part of Bush’s rationale for the invasion of Iraq.

The sorry situation becomes more pathetic. US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld has lately offered that the reason Saddam’s WMD can’t be found is because they were destroyed before the war started. In other words the US-Britain invaded Iraq to rid the region of weapons Saddam never had and indeed that Saddam claimed he never had and which the UN weapons inspectors suggested he never had. If this was the case, then Saddam could never have been in breach of the famous resolution 1441, which was the justification for war.
Critics might consider that in light of recent revelations Blair should resign and that Bush should be impeached. Surely politicians should not be allowed to lie like this! But hold on. Lying is the trade of politicians under capitalism.

Back in 1925, Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: “This broad mass of a nation…will more easily fall victim to a big lie than a small one. ” Blair and Bush are fully aware of the power of the big lie, so little wonder they thought they could get away with it. Moreover, they are fully aware their support base swallow lies every living moment of the day. For the workers’ part they are lied to from the cradle to the grave: at school with distortions of history and the myth about a God up above; in the workplace, as producers, lied to by their bosses and at home as consumers bombarded with the myths perpetuated by the advertising industry.

To be sure, the entire capitals edifice depends for its continued survival on the promotion of lies, half truths and the distortion of facts. So powerful is the capitalist distortion machine that it takes all our powers of concentration, memory recall and skills of research just to separate the simplest of lies from fantasy. This constant digest of misinformation perhaps explains the amnesia the majority of workers appear to suffer from. And what is exasperating is that in spite of all the evidence revealing the architects of war to be the conniving and scheming rapscallions we always knew them to be, it is a fair bet that workers will again be ready to believe their lies when Iran is found to be stockpiling WMD, to be aiming for a nuclear capacity and harbouring al-Qaeda terrorists.

It’s a fair bet now that WMD will be found in Iraq – planted there by corrupt western regimes desperate to justify their invasion of Iraq. And this evidence will likely be used not only to prop up the discredited Messrs Bush and Blair but also to malign the anti-war movement - which claimed this was a war for oil - and to further strengthen their case for a continuation of the “war on terror”.

In the months ahead be careful what you swallow

Curbing China's Designs on Oil

Make no mistake about it – the hell about to be unleashed in the Middle East has far less to do with transatlantic designs to curb Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction and everything to do with US control of the region’s oil supplies.

The US has long been aware that its own oil supplies were not going to last forever. Indeed, it is now estimated that existing US oil deposits will be exhausted within 25-30 years, which is about the time that China will have the same oil demands as the US. With this realisation the US is now securing its future control of the world’s oil supplies – hence its operation since 9/11 to surround Asian oil supplies with US military bases, a move that also puts US bases within striking distance of China.

Having already installed its military throughout Central Asia, the US is now in the process of doing the same in Western Asia. As China endeavours to arrange its future supplies of oil and gas, it finds itself everywhere blocked by the US. This much was hinted at in the recent US National Security Strategy with Bush announcing America’s right of defence (with military action) to any threats to its interests.

How does China enter the equation you may ask? Aside from the fact that China will become a leading oil importer within the next decade, the US has long since recognised China as a likely threat to its plan to dominate the markets of East and South-East Asia. But for the moment, curbing China’s designs on oil is a chief concern of the US. It can sort out the problem of China as a commercial rival in time.

China has been yearning for a gas pipeline from the Caspian region to China since around 1995. Intent on creating a security-cum-economic organisation for the planned pipeline, China took steps to initiate a group called the “Shanghai Five” (later six) consisting of China, Russia, and the significant Central Asian states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and later Uzbekistan). Ostensibly, the idea for the group was to control fundamentalism and terrorism in the region (stretching to China’s westernmost Xinjiang province). Conversely, with the US’s invasion of Afghanistan, and the setting up of its military bases in the very countries who were to be in the Shanghai grouping, China’s plan was sabotaged. Later, during a trip to Iran, Chinese president Jiang Zemin stated that “‘Beijing’s policy is against strategies of force and the U.S. military presence in Central Asia and the Middle East region’.... Beijing would work together with developing nations to counter American ‘hegemonism.’”

Last year, Chinese firms purchased two Indonesian fields for $585 million and $262 million, respectively. Moreover, Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri has visited China twice since 2001, hoping to bag a $9 billion contract to supply liquid natural gas to power industries in southern China. In time with this the US increased its activities in the Indonesian neighbourhood, coercing the Philippines into accepting US “help” in rooting out fundamentalists, patrolling the Malacca straits with the Indian navy, and forcing Indonesia to accept US ‘cooperation’ in containing Al Qaeda elements in Indonesia itself. Back in December of 2001, a RAND Corporation presentation to a US Congress committee on “threats to the security and stability of Southeast Asia and to US security interests in the region,” outlined a chief area of concern as being “China’s emergence as a major regional power.” It argued that “China’s assertiveness will increase as its power grows.” It conjectured that “conflict could be triggered by energy exploration or exploitation activities”, and suggested the formation of a “comprehensive security network in the Asia-Pacific region.” Departing from the line that it was hunting for a handful of Abu Sayyaf guerrillas in the Philippines, the RAND Corporation says that “the US should provide urgently needed air defence and naval patrol assets to the Philippines to help Manila re-establish deterrence vis-a-vis China and give a further impetus to the revitalization of the United States-Philippine defence relationship.... the US should expand and diversify its access and support arrangements in Southeast Asia to be able to effectively respond in a timely way to unexpected contingencies. After all, six months ago, who would have thought that US armed forces would be confronted with the need to plan and execute a military campaign in Afghanistan?” Like the US, China simply cannot ignore its reliance on west Asian oil. China has oil field development contracts with those very countries in west Asia targeted by US sanctions—Iraq, Iran, Libya and Sudan. With this entire region now to be besieged with the invasion of Iraq, China’s deals are destined to be dealt the same severe blow as its plan for a central Asian pipeline. Scarcely startling, then, that “Chinese leaders believe that the US seeks to contain China and [the US] is therefore a major threat to its [China’s] energy security”, as the US-China Security Review Commission’s report points out. (“China digs for Middle East oil, US gets fired up”, Reuters, 24/9/02).

Who's Looting Who? The further destruction of Iraq

As riotous mobs pillaged Baghdad's Archaeological Museum and put to the torch the National Library, buildings housing the relics thousands of years of Mesopotamian culture, US troops sat back and did nothing, as if urging Iraqis to destroy their own past, in order for Washington to control their present and future, in true Orwellian fashion. The forces of globocop also held back while these same liberty-seeking Iraqis dealt the same destructive blow to the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information, indeed the entire remnants of a state structure crippled since the last Gulf War. Significantly, US troops could be found protecting the HQ of Iraq’s secret police, the Oil Ministry as well as the North Oil Company, a state owned enterprise responsible for the country’s northern oil fields.

Colonel William Mayville, informed the assembled international press that the US wanted to impart an even simpler message: "Hey, don't screw with the oil."

The verbose Donald Rumsfeld, US Sec for Defence explained away the carnage in simple terms: “It’s untidy…And Freedom’s untidy and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes.” Rumsfeld should certainly know, representing one of the biggest criminal gangs in political history.

The west may despair at the looting of museums and libraries in Baghdad, but is it not the case that this is just what the Bush-Cheney regime have been doing back home since they hijacked the White House? While the law has been distracted, they have raided the treasury, ransacked the environment and demolished civil liberties. And what were Enron, WorldCom and Xerox doing if they were not looting? In the biggest heist in the annals of corporate robbery, CEOs and finance officers borrowed many millions from cooperative banks, using the money to force up company stock prices, and in so doing increasing the value of their options. Between 1994 and 1999, inclusive, $1.22 trillion was borrowed by non-financial corporations. Of that figure, corporations used just 15.3 per cent for capital expenditures. They used 57 per cent of it, $697.4 billion, to buy back stock and thus enrich themselves. Corporate USA could surely show the looting hoards of Baghdad a thing or two. And who do we find heading the Iraqi National Congress? A US puppet, now back in Iraq and set to wheel and deal on behalf of Uncle Sam. None other than Ahmad Chalabi who, in 1992, was tried by a Jordanian court in his absence, on 31 charges of embezzlement, theft, misuse of depositor funds and currency speculation and sentenced to 22 years' imprisonment. Just the man for the job.

Like a faint voice crying beneath the rubble, the International Committee of the Red Cross could be found remonstrating about the violence and unconstrained looting which has prohibited it distributing desperately needed humanitarian aid. It pointed out how US unwillingness to attempt to bring the chaos and destruction to a halt was in breach of the Geneva Convention. However, if you can dismiss other international treaties with a wave of the hand, invade countries without UN support, refuse to acknowledge various international principles and agreements then why give a fuck for the Geneva Convention? The US had already announced its intention to rubbish the GC when it began imprisoning Moslems on spurious 9/11-related charges in Guantanamo Bay, depriving them of legal advice, even using sensory deprivation and beatings. And isn’t there something in the GC about cluster bombs and similar weaponry, the beating of Iraqi prisoners and the parading of the same unfortunates naked through the streets of Baghdad?

Contracts
No sooner is Baghdad ‘secure’ than the US awards a huge reconstruction contract to Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Halliburton, and a company headed, three years ago, by vice president Dick Cheney. Haliburton, incidentally, still pays Cheney a $1 million retainer per year and he’s worth every dime.

Two years ago, the Pentagon awarded Kellogg, Brown and Root a 10-year contract known as the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) - a "cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity service" or, in other words, a situation now exists whereby the federal government has unrestricted directive and resources to send Kellogg, Brown and Root anywhere in the world to run military operations for a profit.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq Halliburton (or rather 1,800 Kellogg, Brown and Root employees) could be found working beside US troops in Kuwait and Turkey under a deal worth close to a billion dollars. US Army sources claimed they were constructing tent cities and providing logistical support for the invasion as well as to other hot spots in the "war on terrorism.”

The Cheney-Halliburton-US war machine saga is the typical military-industrial-political menage-a-trois . As Secretary of Defence under Bush Snr. (that’s the Bush with a few more brain cells), Cheney paid Brown and Root services (now Kellogg, Brown and Root) $3.9 million to detail how private corporations could assist the U.S. Army as Cheney eradicated thousands of Army jobs. Then Brown and Root were awarded a five-year contract to provide logistics for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers all over the globe. When, in 1995, Cheney became CEO, Halliburton jumped from 73rd to 18th on the Pentagon's directory of top contractors, benefiting - according to the Centre for Public Integrity - from at least $3.8 billion in federal contracts and taxpayer-insured loans.

Fundamentalist resistance
The US State Department, acknowledges the level the anti-American feeling across the Middle East and the resistance its corporations will meet as they enter Iraq and further foresees that it will have to maintain a presence in Iraq for quite some time – already 4 military bases are being planned in the country. On Newsnight recently, Rumsfeld crony Ken Aldeman stated that the US wanted democracy right across the Middle East. One Arab commentator countered the assertion, stating that if the oppressive regimes of the Middle East were ever to undergo regime change and hold democratic elections, then this would surely mean increased opposition to US presence and the designs of its corporations. Rather than have Arab leaders silence US opposition, the US presence would instead fan the flames of Arab fanaticism. Already there is a growing radicalism, with mass meetings of the Shia community in the country’s mosques.

Back in 1991, and the defeat of Saddam following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the US purposely held back from going the full hog and overthrowing the Ba’athist regime, even withdrawing their support for the Northern Kurds and the Marsh Arabs once they had promised to back any rebellion against Baghdad. The reason was simple, Saddam’s ruling shia clan held the country together. Were he to be toppled the country would fragment into warring factions, leaving the shia (who make up the bulk of the Iraqi population) in control. It is this threat of an anti-American shia backlash that necessitates a continued US presence in defence of its regional oil and gas interests. The US control over Iraq will become so intense the country will mirror a US state.

Bush and his architects will undoubtedly strive to build a new Iraq now that the museums and national archives can no longer remind them of their culture and heritage. In the proverbial wings a new US-style culture awaits the Iraqi working class - a McDonaldised Iraq ruled by westernised marionettes and serviced by US corporations. In years to come expect to glance down into your trainers to find a label saying “Made in Iraq” and to watch TV crews filming in Iraq setting interviewers against the backdrop of a Starbucks coffee house.

Lets get one thing straight. This invasion had nothing to do with ridding the world of weapons of mass destruction or liberating an oppressed people from a tyrannical regime. After all Saddam not only came to power in a CIA backed coup; he was then provided with his chemical weapons by the US, keen he should serve as a buffer to the spread of Iranian-style militant Islam which threatened the regions oil supplies and trade routes.

The US did not wage war with Saddam simply to leave once he was toppled. They mean to stay put for a long time, even if they succeed in setting up a stooge, US-friendly regime. Globocop is in Iraq to strengthen their control over the region’s oils reserves and to further use the region as a base from which the Arab world can be policed. Indeed, logic dictates the US cannot leave. Devoid of an American military presence, Iraq would fragment. The old religious, ethnic, regional and tribal divisions would only intensify if an American-appointed puppet government were to establish "democracy".

It is just this threat of instability the US thrives on – the never ending pretexts for the overt use of US force in pursuit of the interests of its corporate elite. The world is being looted like never before by a criminal gang who rationalise their crimes with a newspeak the gullible are all to keen to digest– “the war on terror”, “bringing democracy to the world”. In truth this is the US saying “the world is ours. Interfere and we’re coming for you.” In this new AMERICAN CENTURY there are certainly looters and looters. Be afraid.

Manifest Destiny

At the end of his State of the Union address, a speech hypocritically punctuated with references to the US as the champion of liberty and democracy, the saviour of oppressed people everywhere, President Bush declared that “the liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, but God’s gift to humanity.”

The message is simple. The US is enacting God’s will with its constant invasions of far away countries. It’s right to intervene anywhere it sees fit is conferred by divine right. This is hardly a new idea. Defending the US annexation of Texas in 1845, John O’Sullivan asserted that the US was simply fulfilling its ‘manifest destiny’ with ”the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government.”

References to God and the US’s divine mission now fuse every speech Bush makes with reference to Iraq. His unique brand of divine right imperialism - his promise to bring democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq - now accompanies the usual rhetoric about ridding the world of a mad man.

We can only assume the writers of Bush speeches suffer massive bouts of historical amnesia, for this journal has several times in the past had cause to quote comments by senior US officials in relation to Iraq.

We need only observe Madeline Albright’s (former UN Ambassador) comment, when asked her opinion of the 500,000 Iraqis who had died since sanctions were imposed. She replied it was a “price worth paying.”

Colin Powell, now seated on the right hand of Bush, was once asked his opinion of the number of Iraqi civilians killed during the Gulf War. He replied: “Frankly, that’s not a figure that bothers me.” Indeed, the number of civilians killed overseas never bothers US policy makers. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia to put an end to Pol Pot's bloody massacre of 2 million civilians, it was the US who supported a Chinese invasion and the US who sided with the Khmer Rouge. And where was the US when 1 million civilians were being butchered in Rwanda? Again it was the US who propped up other murderers who massacred their own people in their tens of thousands - Noriega, Pinochet Mobuto, Sukarto, Sukarno, Amin, Trujillo, Marcos, Papa Doc and Savimbi. On top of this the US has helped topple 40 governments since 1945 and subverted elections in another 23 countries. Always to further the interests of their corporate elite and always to the detriment of human rights and civilians who desire only peace. Whilst Bush is keen to find a link between Saddam and Islamic terrorism it is to be remembered that during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the US funded islamic zealots to the tune of $6 billion; training the terrorists of the future - some now prisoners of the US in Cuba - in US military bases such as Camp Peary, Camp Picket, Harvey Point and Fort Bragg. When it comes to human rights abuses and terrorism, the USA is top of the premiere league of rogues states. Bush's grievance with Saddam has nothing to do with saving lives and everything to do with securing US access to the region's oil and gas supplies

Madmen and Specialists

Remember the 11,000 page report that Iraq handed to the UN and which pertains to its weapons of mass destruction? As we have previously reported it was immediately seized by the United States and vetted before being distributed to the other 4 permanent members of the security council, with an edited version being given to the remaining members of the UN Security Council two weeks later.

Not much has been heard of the report and little wonder, for it names names. It lists the 150 plus western companies that assisted with Iraq’s WMD programme, including some who were still helping build up Iraq’s conventional arsenal a year ago. Some eighty German and twenty-four US companies are reported to have provided Saddam with the equipment and know-how to build his weapons arsenal from 1975 onwards.

It is not certain who leaked the document to Germany’s Die Tageszeitung newspaper, but it’s a fair bet it came from Baghdad which is keen to humiliate the alliance massing against it. Perhaps Saddam is all too aware of the hypocrisy and fork tongued cant of the Bush-Blair coalition. Certainly he is aware that the west armed Iraq to the teeth during its war with Iran, when Iraq was seen as a buffer to the spread of militant Islam from Iran and a threat to western oil interests in the region.

Die Tageszeitung reports: “From about 1975 onwards, these companies are shown to have supplied entire complexes, building elements, basic materials and technical know-how for Saddam Hussein’s programme to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction…They also supplied rockets and complete conventional weapons systems.”

And who are these US companies? I provide a list below and the category of military know-how they assisted with (A-nuclear, K-Chemical, B-biological and R-Rockets):

1. Honeywell (R,K). 2. Spektra Physics (K), 3. Semetex (R). 4. TI Coating(A,K).
5. UNISYS (A,K). 6. Sperry Corp (R,K). 7. Tektronix (R,A). 8. Rockwell (K).
9. Leybold Vacuum Systems (A). 10. Finnigan-MAT-US (A). 11. Hewlett Packard (A,R,K). 12. Dupont (A). 13. Eastman Kodak (R). American Type Culture Collection (B). 15. Alcolac International (C). 16. Consarc (A). 17. Carl Zeis-U.Ss (K). 18. Cerberus Ltd (A). 19. Elkectronic Associates (R) 20. International Computer Systems. 21. Bechtel (K). 22. EZ Logic Data Systems Inc. (R). 23. Canberra Industries Inc. (A). 24. Axel Electronics Inc. (A).

With Bush now fully intent on spreading his war on terror around the world and seeking to forge ahead with his Star Wars programme we can expect none of the above will be called upon to account for their relationship with a tyrannical regime. For one thing they will be busy supplying their own. Bush has already increased US military spending to unprecedented limits - $380 billion this year. Within 5 year it is set to increase to $500 billion per annum. Indeed, the US military industrial think tanks have been highly instrumental in providing the rationale for a ‘war’ with Iraq and developing concepts such as a ‘pre-emptive war’. And, as you have guessed, many a former defence company executive and consultant are well represented in the Bush administration, wielding immense influence on behalf od weapons manufacturers. And why not? War and hyped threats to the national security means bigger expenditure on weapons and massive profits.