"Liberation whether you want it or not"
April 3, 2003 - Sartre
------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Liberation whether you want it or not"



Now it's time to destroy your Muslim culture


Is anyone expecting a parade down the Avenue des Champs Elysées? Liberation for Iraq doesn’t include a homeland for the Kurds. Liberation from Saddam means Syria can be next. Liberation for Iraqis is not their option, it is their destiny, their cabarets need to be set free from their repressive culture. Regime change -  to elimination of weapons of mass destruction - into Liberation, whatever it takes to rationalize intervention. By now it should be apparent that this Blitzkrieg has stalled, not just in a military sense, but in its entire rationale for invasion.

When has bombing won the hearts and souls of people? Miscalculations that opponents to the Hussein despot, might fear and resist a foreign conquerer more than the tyrant they already know, should come as no surprise. Despite this obvious assessment, the political war planners, set the military into harms way to fulfill their vision of a Pax America for the Middle East region. The war for occupation will be won, but there will be no victory for the infidel. Is our cultural disconnect so complete that Americans are unable to accept that much of the rest of the world operates on a very different mindset than what is taught in our own domestic government schools?

The media’s coverage of the rush for Baghdad, has presented a unified theme. The official policy for broadcasting, requires reports to conform to the designed plan. It’s easy to condemn a Peter Arnett for an asinine transgression from news correspondence to editorial commentary, but his real sin was to grant an interview with the enemy. That’s all that matters for the general public. A clown like David Asman and that trio of buffoons on Fox and Friends can rant and rave for days and never fear being called on the carpet. Their message is approved!

With his resignation from Tony Blair’s cabinet, Robin Cook has stated the following:


We were told the Iraqi army would be so joyful to be attacked that it would not fight. A close colleague of US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted the march to Baghdad would be "a cakewalk".

We were told Saddam's troops would surrender. A few days before the war Vice-President Dick Cheney predicted that the Republican Guard would lay down their weapons.

We were told that the local population would welcome their invaders as liberators. Paul Wolfowitz, No.2 at the Pentagon, promised that our tanks would be greeted "with an explosion of joy.

These sentiments reflect a reality that you are not supposed to hear. Now read what Arnett said in that ill fated interview: 

"Clearly, the American war planners misjudged the determination of the Iraqi forces," Arnett told Iraqi TV. "That is why now America is reappraising the battlefield, delaying the war, maybe a week, and rewriting the war plan. The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance now they are trying to write another war plan."

Where is the difference or variance in conclusions between the two statements? The red herring surrounding Arnett, that his comments where made in support of the enemy, misses the validity in the appraisal. The intent is always to deflect the essential questions, and substitute a misinformation diversion. The uniform responses in the television media speak to the danger of limited and consolidated ownership. Britain's Daily Mirror did not waste any time and hired the controversial reporter. In his first statement Arnett said: "I report the truth of what is happening in Baghdad and will not apologize for it."

If the case for Liberation of Iraq is so evident, why can’t the American public hear the identical evaluation of Cook and Arnett?

The danger that Al-Jazeera might be broadcast and their coverage of the war be presented to the viewer is a risk that the mainstream media dreads. Hardly, can it be concluded that the story you are being presented represents the facts, all the facts. But most Americans are so parochial in their world view that they still trust what their government tells them to be accurate and sincere. If facts have a permanent quality of truth underpinning their validity, why is the conscious of the world press so opposed to this war?  The hard questions remain, if the United States doesn’t have its way in global affairs, honest opposition must be wrong - or so goes the mainstream message.

The real war that is being waged is one of information, what and who will you believe? When Pravda is more accurate in reporting than the networks, we are in serious danger of losing the battle for world opinion. Domestic polls are no more valid than international ones. Both can be manipulated and be wrong. However, when President Bush proclaims in his latest radio announcement:  “The Iraqi regime will be disarmed and removed from power. Iraq will be free," we need to ask, who did the focus group among the Iraqi people? It is time to be honest. The reason for this campaign has little to do with what is best for the population of this Muslim country. It has everything to do with projecting the will of the global community, defined within those interests of the dominate ruling coalition. Full Spectrum Dominance is the military means used to implement those objectives, and enforce how and which nations will be freed . . .

The illusion of self determination is sold under the guise of ‘democracy’. Cultures who have never been founded upon principles of equality or individuality are told that they will learn to practice representative government after they are Liberated. Such goals, may be held by some who are sincere; however, it only demonstrates the extent of the folly that Americans have about their own failed experiment in Liberty.

Muslim countries are artificial creations with intense internal tribal conflicts. Diversity is no virtue among warring factions. As long as U.S. policy makers are determined to impose their vision upon foreign peoples, no permanent peace is possible. World War I was the war to spread democracy. Universal agreement that such a system is the ideal has scarcely been proven, let alone accepted. This fact is not lost upon the governments in the region. Liberation of Iraq, without popular approval, can hardly be called democracy. Turkey is the only Islamic regime remotely approaching a western government. And look at the support they gave towards the Liberation of Iraq.

Robin Cook is dead on. “Washington got it wrong over the ease with which the war could be won. Washington could be just as wrong about the difficulty of running Iraq when the fighting stops.”  Remember that Parisians were subjugated by the fascist delusion of conquest, when the Americans Liberated the city of lights. Can anyone really demonstrate that the ‘so called’ coalition will be seen as anything different from a western Gestapo - American style? When the Iraqi version of the Marquis revolts after the Liberation, don’t be surprised. It’s not easy to force freedom on a people who know nothing of it. Just look at your country. Most Americans are unable to affirm their own status at the hands of their own government. It’s time to Liberate ourselves and leave the region to the natives.

SARTRE - April 2, 2003

...Suzerainty, Oil.