MrFixitOnline - Power Tools for Gamers Help support MFO and buy the XBox through us!
Contact Me 2/22/2003 14:28

What is Libertarian Socialism?
The case against Patriotism
Noam Chomsky
The American corporate welfare state
New Society
Dismantling the Military
Short term solutions
Economics FAQ
Kuchinich in 2004
Who am I?
General FAQ section
Local Campaigns

On Capitalism:

"There were rising standards of living
under slavery. Slaves were better off in the 19th century than in
the 18th century. Is that an argument for
slavery? The same argument can be made for Stalinism. There
was a tremendous rise
in economic growth. Does this justify Stalinism?"

Noam Chomsky



Got News? Drop me a line

Welcome Message
June 4th| Nick

The Bush administration has given us numerous reasons why the conflict in Iraq should be waged(The Congress never declared war), for example the claim that Sadaam has connections to Osma Bin Laden, he possess massive stockpiles of WMD, that he poses a security risk to the region, and that the only way to allieviate the suffering of the Iraqi people is through violent American occupation. Bush's justification for violating international law and ignoring UN hence validating his statements of it's irrelevence was that the politics of France, Germany, and Russia would never allow for the freedom of Iraq. All of the claims above are patently false, and show either a massive line of errors from the Bush White House or a large campaign of deceit and intentional deception.

Contrary to what US implies, Sadaam has never supported Osma Bin Laden, and infact waged his own wars against Islamic Radicals(Kurds and the Iranians) The Kurds, a US ally, were actually the ones supporting a terrorist camp that the US claimed was proof of Sadaam's association with Osma Bin Laden. During Powell's Feb. 5th speech, numerous photographs of supposed terrorist camps were presented, and infact were disproven the following week by the BBC who actually went to the camp and found it was merely a Television studio. Why would an honest administration reference camps never even inspected? America built up Sadaam's regime and authorized his use of chemical weapons againt Iran in the Iran-Iraq war because he ran a secular government free of overtly religious overtones. Osma has even attacked Sadaam in some of the video tapes he has released through Al Jeezera. Sadaam is one of the few supporters of the Palestinian Liberation movement that uses terrorist actions out of desperation, because it does not have a major state to pay for sophisticated arms behind it like its adversary Israel.

The end result of the campaign in Iraq may be the growth of Islamic terrorism. Desperate Iraqis that are angry over American occupation might be willing to listen to radical Islamic mujahadeens and attack America. President Mubarak of Egypt even warned, "From this Iraq conflict there will no longer be a single Osma Bin Laden but 100." This attack is in reality forcing Sadaam into the arms of Islamic radicals like Osma Bin Laden as they may be the only forces that can save his dying regime. Already he has allowed arab terrorists into his country to aid his survival. No doubt a lengthy campaign will only serve as an advertisement to other would be terrorists from other countries as proof that the US is a Great Satan.

During the Iran-Iraq war Sadaam did possess a large stockpile of chemical and biological weapons to use against a largely superior Iranian army. Within the 8,000 pages that America censored out of the Iraqi weapons declaration, the American and British corporations that supplied Iraq with the chemical and bioligcal agents necessary for mass-production. After the majority of these munitions were expended during the Iran-Iraq war, UNSCOM verified it destroyed 90-95% of the remaining munitions and dismantled all the facilities needed to produce WMD. Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM specialist, said that while the period between 1998-2002(When UNSCOM was pulled out while America attacked Iraq during Operation Deserrt Fox until weapons inspections resumed) it would have been possible that Sadaam may have been able to rebuild WMD facilities, it would be impossible for him to do so without the United States Government knowing of it.

When UNMOVIC resumed inspections, they had full compliance with the Iraqi government, who allowed U2 flights over the country to verify that no WMD movement was going before UNMOVIC began inspections of possible sites. Random inspections was the rule, not the exception according to UNMOVIC's leader Dr. Hans Blix and it would have been impossible for the US government not to have smoking gun evidence if the Iraqi's did attempt to decieve the inspectors. No proscribed weaponry was found for the duration of the inspections. Iraq even went so far as to destroy Al-Soumud 2 missiles that were discovered by the Inspectors which were actually under the limit set by UNMOVIC when attached with a payload.

Powell also made the claims of "mobile" labrotories, yet provides no credible evidence for them. Neither of his two sources divulged the information on the mobile labs until interviewed for the 3rd time this winter. The weapons inspectors also declared the idea foolish as the mobile labs would be impossible to upkeep without the inspectors knowledge. Powell also advocated the falsified British Dossier as "an accurate assement of Iraq". The Administration also presented falsified claims of the Iraq's attempts to buy uranium. A single remote controlled Baghdad college project made headlines as an "Iraqi terror drone fleet which could deliever chemical and biological agents over America". It's wings were made of Balsa wood held together by duct tape and had a lawnmower engine. The American people are supposed to forget the mistakes(or outright propoganda efforts) of the Bush administration for the war and remember it is for the sake of the Iraqi people we march off to war.

Who authorized Uncle Sam to intiate wars of liberation world wide? The US has an abominable record of fighting for freedom around the world. Other illegal invasions such as this one have resulted in dictatorships and corporate exploitation. In Panama we intervened much to the Latin American people’s dismay and installed a US puppet government illegally, which brought no more freedom to the Panamanian people than Noreigo. In Chile we intervened and installed General Pinochet who murdered thousands. The CIA spent more money on the election effort of Pinochet then the two American candidates spent combined on the 1964 election. After supporting right-wing terrorists in Columbia to promote "freedom" the America won a condemnation by the UN General Assembly, a UN Security Council resolution with enough votes to pass but was veteod (Guess who) and a condemnation by the International Court of Justice. In Afghanistan we left the land scattered with 1 million tons of uranium(America classifies all documents relating to DU as "national security") and left the warlords to control Afghanistan outside of Kabul. This only scratches the surface of the US’s record on promoting freedom. Why should the United States be allowed to install its own governor over Iraq when it has failed to establish democracy in favor of the interests of its corporate clientele? Nevermind the fact that the US de facto dictator of Iraq has intricate connections to the Likkud party who despise Palestinian freedom and owns an arms manufacture corporation.

If Sadaam is such an imminent threat to the Arab world, why have none of the Arab governments supported our invasion? (Excluding the launching platform of Kuwait) The US military agreed in unison that his forces were much much weaker than during Gulf War I and would be annhilated by US airpower instantly if they exposed themselves by invading another country. Sadaam was not giving speeches threatening the US like North Korea until the assualt on his country began, and was not about to wage a pre-emptive strike on anyone..

True, even a US led regime would be better long term for the Iraqi people than a regime led by Sadaam and his sons. The prospects of a marginally more free society long term are not worth the enormous short-term cost of the war because the same improvement of living standards can be made without resorting to violence. Living standards could be improved vastly without resorting to violence by ending the economic sanctions that resulted in the death of 1.5 million Iraqi’s and the suffering of millions more. Fox News Commentator Bill O’Reilly believes that “America should starve them until they overthrow Sadaam, until they do they are as guilty as he and the enemy.” It is this policy that only led to the entrenchment of Sadaam Hussein in Iraq and massive anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab world. Instead of dropping bombs, which kill hundreds of civilians and irradiate land for 4.5 billion years, enraging the Arab world, why not distribute potable water and water purification systems that were targeted in violation of the Geneva Convention during the First Gulf War? War is not the only option and is indeed in every case the worst option contrary to the beliefs of the White House. Cooperating with the United Nations, the US could still threaten Sadaam Hussein with force if the humanitarian aid is not distributed immediatly, if human rights violations occured, and if the resumed weapons inspections reveal that Sadaam is reconstructing WMD facilities. With a policy of diplomatic benevolence the US would build up crediblity in the Arab world as a liberator and support for an eventual regime change would emerge throughout the Arab world.

The opposition in the Security Council members condemn an illegal unilateral strike for more than the reason of "internal politics". Just because French companies has some drilling rights in Iraq, does that authorize the US to violate international law and take the rights away to give to Bush's campaign contributors? France knows that a US/Britian invasion followed by a US occupation will violate international law and steal away legally purchased oil fields. The foreign owned oil-fields in Iraq are a minority as Sadaam nationalized the majority of the oil fields putting them under control of the Iraqi government. The Security Council can look past the duplicitous statements made by Bush and realize that American firms will control all of the oil fields because it is not US governemnt policy to allow nationalization of oil fields. If the US government truly wanted to allow the profits from the oil to benefit the Iraqi people, they would allow the new Iraqi provisional government to retain control of the oil fields and give the new government massive reperation payments to reconstruct what was destroyed in Gulf wars One and Two.

While the points addressed in this article are not mentioned by the American media outlets, they are common place among the international press. Even though America has the potential to have the most well informed populace ever in the history of the world, it's populace chooses not to inform itself to the maxium extent in favor of other activities like viewing massive asmounts of entertainment programming and the corporate advertising campaigns that are coupled with it. The only way Bush's administration could proceed with the unjustified war is because the American people are docile and uninformed about the facts.



What Really Happened
Palestine Remembered
O'Reilly Sucks
Stop the Bushit
Chicago Indymedia
Reclaim Democracy
Stand Down on 9/11
Ad Busters
Evanston Youth Action