http://www.marxist.com

Vandals of the 21st century

By Alan Woods

Baghdad lies shattered and bleeding. The bloody battle appears to be entering a decisive phase. The final result was never in doubt, but the time scale over which the military action would unfold and the cost in lives could only be revealed by the march of events. Just as in metallurgy the resistivity of steel can only be proved under pressure, so the power of resistance of the Iraqis to the American and British onslaught could only be revealed in combat.

The situation is quite clear. The Americans were alarmed by the unexpectedly fierce Iraqi resistance in the south and centre, which provoked a crisis within the administration, with angry attacks of the Pentagon against Rumsfeld for his gross underestimation of the potential for resistance. They demanded, and got, large troop reinforcements. At the same time, fearing a large number of deaths among the attacking forces inside Baghdad, the US high command decided to employ a massive amount of firepower, to bomb, smash and obliterate everything in its path, irrespective of the civilian casualties.

The tremendous firepower of the US army has been concentrated on the helpless Iraqi people, whose armed forces had nothing remotely comparable with which to respond. One event can serve as an example. In a move towards the Tigris from the north at least 50 Iraqi fighters were reported killed and two US soldiers were wounded. Iraqi commanders sent buses and lorries filled with fighters across the Tigris river to attack American troops guarding a main intersection. But US forces strafed the Iraqis from planes overhead and with mortar and artillery fire. The Iraqi troops launched a fierce counter-attack on enemy forces, which were steadily tightening their grip on much of the city centre but were thrown back by overwhelmingly superior numbers and firepower.

The superiority of US air power made this a very uneven struggle. Against this kind of military might, courage is not enough. As the US forces approached Baghdad there was still fierce resistance, though the US controlled media have tried to deny this. One US general is reported to have described the Iraqi soldiers as "cowards". But the real cowards are those who fight wars without ever seeing an enemy, dropping bombs from a great height, hiding behind colossal technological superiority - these so-called "heroes" who declare war only on the weak, who are very brave when fighting an enfeebled and largely disarmed Iraq, but are mortally afraid to take on North Korea.

These "heroes" were terrified by the Iraqi resistance in the south, and were not even prepared to set foot in Baghdad before it had been pulverised by vicious and indiscriminate air strikes. Even so, they have suffered an undisclosed number of losses before Baghdad. The fact that they are not prepared to give the casualty figures tells its own story. Even so, some details of Coalition losses have emerged. At least one A-10 tankbuster aircraft, one of dozens used to strafe Iraqi forces, was downed by an Iraqi surface-to-air missile. Another American fighter jet was reported to have been shot down near the northern Iraqi stronghold of Tikrit, the home town of Saddam Hussein, and a possible centre of continued resistance.

The Independent (April 9) reported that, "Whatever [the Americans] wanted to claim, it was clear that Iraqi forces had put up something of a fight, and indeed were still fighting last night - at least in the east of the city. The area surrounding the four bridges over the river Diyala has seen particularly fierce fighting in recent days. Two of the bridges visited yesterday by The Independent had been destroyed. The surrounding areas were littered with burnt-out vehicles and damaged buildings and the roads were covered in spent cartridge cases."

Imperialist lies

US forces advanced street by street, meeting sporadic but fierce resistance. But Iraqi small arms and rocket launchers were no match against bombers and tanks that blasted their way through the city with absolutely no regard for civilian lives or property. All the lies about "humanitarianism", "smart bombs" and "not targeting civilians" have been exposed before the public opinion of the world as so much disgusting hypocrisy and cynicism. Among the "non-civilian targets" destroyed by American bombs were the electricity supplies and water pumps that kept a city of five million inhabitants supplied with the minimum requirements of a semi-civilised existence.

The main hospital in Baghdad was attempting to cope with a massive flood of victims with no light or water. People were desperately struggling to bring water to the hospital in one-litre bottles. The doctors had already abandoned all attempts to count the numbers of casualties - the overwhelming majority civilians. Since there was no disinfectant, the stench from stale blood and open wounds was overpowering. Such are the first gifts which the humanitarian and civilised "liberators" of Baghdad have brought to the people of Iraq.

Nobody any longer believes that the imperialist forces do not deliberately bomb civilian targets. According to one report up to 25% of the buildings of Baghdad have been either damaged or destroyed. Yesterday they bombed the building where Al Jazeera television was based. This television channel has kept the world informed about the reality of this brutal war of aggression against Iraq. It has now paid the price. The Americans clearly regarded it as a fair military target. They killed at least one journalist, who, by coincidence, had previously worked for CNN. Robert Fisk, a fearlessly honest reporter, confirmed that the Al Jazeera offices were deliberately targetted by an American tank, which continued firing even after the building was destroyed:

"Just an hour later, one of the tanks on the Jumhuriya Bridge fired a shell into the wreckage. Eighteen civilians - 15 of them women - were reported to be still hiding in the basement last night with no immediate hope of rescue." (The Independent, April 9)

Nor did the attack on the press cease there. The office of Abu Dhabi television was also bombed, and the Palestine hotel where most of the press corps was based was shelled by an American tank. At the subsequent official "press briefing", brigadier general Vincent Brown denied that this was deliberate targeting. But the value of these denials was exposed in the question and answer session that followed.

When asked why the hotel had been shelled, Brown replied that "Coalition forces had been fired on from the hotel lobby." The next question was: if the shots were fired from the lobby, why did the tank fire at an upper storey? And what does this say about the accuracy of the shooting by Coalition forces, and what implications did this have for civilian casualties? The general replied that, well, maybe he was mistaken about the lobby, and maybe the shots were fired from another place. However, another journalist pointed out that those inside the hotel insisted that no shots had been fired. At which point, the general proceeded to other business.

The cold cruelty of the imperialists was shown by Robert Fisk, who reported that the International Red Cross had tried to arrange a convoy out of Baghdad; but that, inexplicably, the Americans had refused it passage from the city: "At one point, Red Cross workers hoped to take a severely wounded Spanish television reporter with them - his leg had been amputated after the tank shell exploded below his office in the hotel - but he died during the afternoon. The American infantry divisional commander issued a statement that suggested the Reuters cameramen were sniping at the US tank, a remark so extraordinary - and so untrue - that it brought worldwide protests from journalists."

Fisk continues: "Was it possible to believe this was an accident? Or was it possible that the right word for these killings - the first with a jet aircraft, the second with an M1A1 Abrams tank - was murder? These were not, of course, the first journalists to die in the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Terry Lloyd of ITV was shot dead by American troops in southern Iraq, who apparently mistook his car for an Iraqi vehicle. His crew are still missing. Michael Kelly of The Washington Post tragically drowned in a canal. Two journalists have died in Kurdistan. Two journalists - a German and a Spaniard - were killed on Monday night at a US base in Baghdad, with two Americans, when an Iraqi missile exploded amid them.

"And we should not forget the Iraqi civilians who are being killed and maimed by the hundred and who - unlike their journalist guests - cannot leave the war and fly home. So the facts of yesterday should speak for themselves. Unfortunately for the Americans, they make it look very like murder."

The purpose of this barbarity is quite clear: the butchers of Baghdad do not want any witnesses to their crimes. As retired Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard E. Trainor put it, "There's nothing sacrosanct about a hotel with a bunch of journalists in it." (April 9, 2003, MSNBC)

According to Bush, "Our armed services are conducting themselves with great courage and, at the same time, great humanity. I'm proud of our forces. I'm proud of the British forces." (speaking in Northern Ireland, April 8, 2003). He continues to peddle this idea of the "humanitarian" approach of the US military, but some of his own officers and soldiers are more open about what they are really doing. Captain Chris Wachter, B-1 Pilot, when he was asked about what goes through his head when he is ordered to bomb, replied, "As to who the target is, we don't necessarily care about that. We follow the orders that we're given, drop the targets that we need to hit." (April 8, 2003). That is what the US army, like all armies, is trained to do - kill! They are not trained to help old ladies cross the road. Stephen Eagle Funk, 20 years old, was the first American conscientious objector, and he explained the kind of training he recieved: "Every day in combat training you had to yell out 'Kill! Kill!' and we would get into trouble if you didn't shout it out." (April 1, 2003)

Is guerrilla war possible?

The continuous and devastating bombardment of the city centre compelled the defending forces to retreat. The prospects for the war itself are now uncertain. The Iraqi army has received a body blow from which it will be difficult to recover. Whether they have been entirely eliminated as an effective fighting force remains to be seen. But any prospect of open warfare now seems remote. If the resistance is able to regroup, its actions will consist of small-scale guerrilla strikes, bombings and ambushes. However, the experience of the US army in Lebanon and Somalia means that this is a disturbing prospect. Not for nothing is Washington continuing to warn that unforeseen dangers may lie ahead.

The regime evidently calculated that it could wage a guerrilla campaign from inside the cities. The Americans and British certainly took this threat very seriously, and it is still possible. The whereabouts of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi leadership are still unknown. And the Americans can still meet with what they call "pockets of resistance" that can last some time and cause them more losses than they have suffered so far.

It is difficult to imagine what is going on in the minds of President Saddam's inner circle as US soldiers penetrate the heart of Baghdad. The great siege promised with the Special Republican Guard fighting it out to the last bullet has not materialised. Whether that signifies that the regime has collapsed, or is regrouping for another type of conflict, it is too early to say. But it is clear in any event that the first phase of the war is over, and a period of great uncertainty and instability has begun. The decisive question here, as always, is the question of morale. So far, it seems the leading group has held together. But in the present circumstances it is always possible that a section of the ruling elite might choose to save its skin by an act of betrayal. The CIA is betting on this, but in the past they have always been disappointed. Meanwhile there is still no sign of Saddam Hussein.

The Americans are still pursuing their aim of removing their hated enemy by the simple expedient of murder (or "taking out", as they say in the latest Washington newspeak). Four 2,000lb bombs obliterated a restaurant believed to be used for a meeting by Saddam Hussein. Although British intelligence sources said he escaped "by minutes," US officials were unable to confirm last night whether he was killed. But the Iraqi authorities say at least nine people, including a child, were killed and four wounded. At least four houses were flattened. It is clear from pictures of the damage that nobody in the wrecked building could have survived Monday's deep penetrating bombing which left a 20 metre crater. There were local reports of surrounding homes being destroyed and several civilian bodies being pulled from the rubble. Iraqi rescue workers said up to 14 civilians were killed, including a child.

That the regime is not yet extinct is shown by the fact that they still have the possibility to broadcast, at least over the radio. The state television station had failed to broadcast a morning news bulletin, showing only old film of President Saddam being cheered at rallies. The radio also went silent briefly, but returned with songs praising President Saddam. This suggests that some elements of the regime still exist. There has been no surrender, and a significant number of Republican guards and other elements have melted into the population. It is possible that they will resort to urban guerrilla warfare, or it may be that the shattering blow dealt by the invading forces has caused so much demoralisation that effective resistance is no longer possible. However, even in that case, the occupying forces will face low-level guerrilla activity and the possibility of terrorist acts, assassinations and suicide bombings, not for months but years.

As we are writing there are still reports coming in of fierce resistance in West Baghdad. The most striking things about the last couple of days has been the melting away of regular army and Republican Guard divisions. It is also clear that the central command was no longer guiding the forces on the ground. In spite of this resistance has continued. This would indicate that are pockets of spontaneous resistance by isolated groups of soldiers or even ordinary people. According to an Italian Indymedia reporter stationed in Baghdad in the early hours of this morning renewed fighting had broken out in different parts of the city, and it is worth quoting one important thing that she says: "…Hard, but one-sided clashes. The marines are facing men and boys, armed with light weapons and even Molotov cocktails. They [the marines] reply with cannons and machine gun fire that spray the fronts of the buildings with thousands of bullets that smash the windows that have been pointlessly covered in tape."

The attitude of the population

This detail is important. The decisive question is the attitude of the Iraqi population. The imperialists talk of "winning hearts and minds". But after the terrible injuries they have inflicted upon the people of Iraq, this is a dream. The brutality of the imperialists, their complete unconcern for human life, has earned them the hatred not just of the majority of Iraqis but of the peoples of the whole Middle East and of civilised people everywhere. The feelings of millions were summed up by Dima Ayoub, the widow of the dead Al Jazeera reporter, who warned that "hatred breeds hatred".

Systematically, remorselessly, the occupying forces are destroying everything in their path. In so doing they are creating the conditions for anarchy. The last remaining fabric of a semi-civilised existence is being smashed to pieces. In some suburbs of Baghdad there have been scenes of chaos, anarchy and looting. Also in Basra British forces struggled to control looting and civil disorder. There are reports that government offices, shops and the UN building were being raided by civilians who took away furniture and food. TV pictures showed looters emerging from official buildings in the centre of Baghdad clutching furniture, fridges - anything they could carry. The hungry and desperate city poor are taking advantage of the collapse of order to seize anything and everything that can be sold to obtain the necessities of life. Among these are the usual lumpenproletarian and criminal elements who always rejoice at the prospect of social breakdown and looting.

In the middle of all this, however, there is also a little private initiative on the part of some of the US "liberators", as the following quote clearly shows, "American soldiers who reached the gold- and blue-domed palace used the toilets, rifled through document in the bombed-out compound and helped themselves to ashtrays, pillows, gold, gold-painted Arab glassware and other souvenirs." (MSNBC News, April 7, 2003).

The British and American occupying forces have attempted to present these scenes of "rejoicing" as proof that the ordinary people are welcoming them. This is nonsense. The people are desperate for an end to the bombing and shelling that has turned their lives into a hell. They are in urgent need of food and water. Since the Americans and British are the only ones who can provide these things, they must necessarily go to them, and if necessary put on a friendly face, or at least conceal their real feelings. But when some American soldiers foolishly tried to raise the American flag in Baghdad they were met with noisy protests by the local people who demanded that the Iraqi flag be flown.

The propaganda of the American and British invaders to the effect that they are being welcomed as liberators by the Iraqi people is utterly false. If you wish to see how people really welcome a liberating army, just look at the old film coverage of the French or Italian people welcoming the Allied forces in 1944-45. Practically the whole population of city after city was out to welcome the incoming troops. The streets were crowded with cheering people, happiness and enthusiasm written all over their faces, there was dancing in the street, and the victorious soldiers were garlanded with flowers.

None of these things can be seen in Iraq. It is interesting to note what we are actually being shown on our TV screens. We have no camera shots from high up panning out over squares or main highways. The pictures are always of small areas. If there were scenes like those we quoted from the Second World War you can be sure that they would show us.

This leads us to believe what the Italian Indymedia journalist (quoted above) had to say about the so-called "celebrations" and the pulling down of the statue of Saddam Hussein. She says: "The Party is over. The "liberators" have climbed back into their tanks and armoured vehicles… The 150/200 Iraqi youths, who had served as extras for the celebrations in Paradise Square that had just been transmitted worldwide, have vanished. They have gone back to their homes where there is no water or electricity, but with the food parcels that had been given to them by the US army storekeepers."

This Italian journalist was not satisfied with simply watching the events in the square. She decided to go down the back streets and see what the mood was there. She found a completely different picture: "The armoured vehicles and tanks were positioned to block the road and their cannons were aimed against hundreds of civilians who were not at all keen on joining the "celebrations". A little further down the road she witnessed an exchange of fire, with US soldiers chasing men and women, and opening fire with their machine guns. She saw tanks rumbling onto the pavements crushing everything in front of them, cars, bicycles, carts, etc.

Thus what we see in Iraq today is the reluctant acceptance of the inevitable and a desire on the part of a section of the population to please the stronger side. Men and women must eat, and they must feed their families. This is a reality of life. Of course, Iraqi society is very heterogeneous and contradictory. The repressive and corrupt nature of Saddam Hussein's regime means that many will welcome his downfall. The first reports that Iraqi civilians were showing their defiance of the regime came from Saddam City, a poor Shiite district in the east of the capital. Iraq's Shiites have suffered persecution at the hands of Saddam's regime. Yes, these people have no love for Saddam Hussein, but that does not mean that they like the idea of American occupation any better.

A conquering army will also always find collaborators. There are always those elements who are always on the winning side. Many members of the old regime will change their jackets and put themselves at the service of the new power. Many middle class and professional people will hope that the change of regime will bring something positive. Many more will just wait and see.

About a week ago British television showed the scene of a British army officer entering a doctor's clinic in a small town near Basra. The doctor was clearly terrified, as the British officer curtly announced that he had come to liberate him. The officer then climbed on a chair and took down the portrait of Saddam Hussein that was hanging on the wall. The doctor tried to smile nervously but this only made him seem even more terrified than before.

It is quite possible that this doctor was no supporter of Saddam Hussein. But at that precise moment, the sight of a foreign soldier climbing onto his chair and removing a portrait from his wall his inner feelings must have been a mixture of fear, anger, humiliation and impotence. These feelings must now exist in the hearts of many Iraqis.

Serious commentators are under no illusion about the significance of this "welcome". The Independent comments: "What do the Iraqis really think of the arrival of the Americans? General Mattis said he had been delighted to see the crowds of cheering civilians, but then again the people of Cambodia had initially cheered the Khmer Rouge when they rolled into Phnom Penh. Are they really cheering when the troops are not there to watch?"

The attitude of many Iraqis was summed up in the following quote from The Independent: "Saddam is no good. We want freedom," Casir Hassan, a young mechanic, said. A slightly older man, Shaqir Ayyad, a teacher, said: "Short time, America OK. Long time, no."

The vultures are circling

But once the big US corporations get their claws into the riches of Iraq they will not leave in a hurry. The stage will be set for a renewal of the anti-imperialist struggle. When the crude realities of US occupation begin to dawn on the people, the mood of suppressed anger will find its expression in hostile acts. The Americans have had some experience of this sort of thing in Lebanon and Somalia. In Afghanistan the fighting is still going on, like a nagging toothache - and with no end in sight. The future of the US occupying forces in Iraq is even more uncertain.

The imperial forces that have now entered Baghdad behave like arrogant conquerors, not liberators. The Bush administration has already distributed the spoils of conquest. The contracts for rebuilding what they themselves have torn down in Iraq were awarded to American construction companies many months ago. The oilfields, which they were quick to grab in the first days of the war, will be divided up among American oil corporations, who will kindly keep them "in trust" for the Iraqi people. The latter will get them back again - once all the bills have been paid. But this will take a long, long time. In the meantime, Iraq's considerable oil wealth will be entirely at the disposal of the Americans.

The vultures are already circling over the bleeding body of Iraq even before it is dead. The Americans intend to take the lion's share for themselves. It is not even clear to what extent they will be prepared to share this wealth with their British "allies". Having loyally served the interests of US imperialism, the poodle Blair will receive a kick in the teeth for his reward. The old saying holds good: friendship is friendship, but business is business.

Behind the scenes there is a furious struggle between the US and European imperialists. The French and Germans (and also the British) do not want to be frozen out of the lucrative profits that will be made out of Iraqi reconstruction. Therefore they are frantically waving the flag of the United Nations, which, they insist, must play a "key role" in postwar Iraq. This is code for saying: "We want to have a little bit of the loot, too."

Puffed up with their sense of power, the US imperialists answer with a cynical smile: certainly, dear friends, the UN can play SOME role in postwar Iraq - it (i.e. YOU) can pay all the bills. But WE will be in complete command and will take all the profits. The stage is set for further bitter quarrels, as the rival gangs of imperialist robbers argue over the division of the world, while millions of people suffer the consequences.

Vandals of the 21st century

When the Taliban destroyed some ancient Buddhist statues with artillery, the western world expressed shock and outrage. This kind of behaviour was said to place the Afghan regime beyond the bounds of civilised nations. We do not yet know what damage has been done to the priceless historical monuments of Iraq - one of the world's oldest civilisations. We do not know how many museums have been reduced to rubble, how many valuable artefacts and works of art have been destroyed. We do not know how much of the cultural heritage of the world has vanished forever.

But this we do know: that by its actions American imperialism stands exposed as the most barbarous and counterrevolutionary force on the face of the earth. Beneath the smiling mask of "civilisation" and "democracy" lies a vicious and rapacious dictatorship of the banks and big corporations whose only aim in life is to plunder and rape the entire world. We know that behind all the saccharine lies about "peace" and "humanitarianism" lies a monstrous military-industrial complex that grows fat on the wealth produced by society which ought to provide the basis for universal prosperity and happiness, and is instead wasted on wars, murder and destruction. These people care nothing for the lives of human beings, either from their own country or other nations. Why should they care about the achievements of thousands of years of culture? Compared to Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell and their generals, the Taliban were innocent little children.

The American General Blount boasted just over a month ago that his crews would be using depleted uranium munitions - the kind many believe to be responsible for an explosion of cancers after the 1991 Gulf War - in their tanks. They have also used cluster bombs against civilian targets, which is supposed to be illegal. And these same gentlemen who torture prisoners and keep them in barbarous conditions in Guantanamo Bay had the brazen insolence to accuse the Iraqis of "violating the Geneva Convention" when they showed some Coalition prisoners on television. Surely, the hypocrisy of these people knows no bounds.

One other striking fact. Of the famous "weapons of mass destruction" there is no sign. The American controlled media make a big fuss about the discovery of chemical weapons suits and gas masks. But these are for defensive purposes and are issued to virtually every army in the world. If no evidence of these weapons has been produced, then the whole justification for the present military adventure falls to the ground. And after so much time, even if some such evidence is produced, there will be the suspicion that it has been conveniently planted by the CIA. Nobody will give any credit to the lies from London and Washington. The liars have overreached themselves too often in recent weeks and months. Nobody is fooled any more. The whole affair stands exposed for what it is: a naked act of imperialist aggression against a weak Middle Eastern country.

The appetite of the imperialists for foreign markets, raw materials and spheres of influence is insatiable. This is an expression of the impasse of capitalism on a world scale, which compels them to struggle for every market like dogs fighting over a bone. In the present epoch wars are inevitable, and they will succeed each other at regular intervals. To complain about this and to issue tearful pleas for peace is a waste of time. It is like trying to persuade a man-eating tiger to eat grass. The only way to prevent war is by disarming the capitalist class, and this can only be achieved by revolutionary means. The anti-war movement must be transformed into a mass movement against imperialism and capitalism, or it will be doomed to impotence.

In the first decade of the 21st century the wheel of history has turned full circle. The methods of the imperialists resemble the policy of war, conquest and plunder pursued by the Roman Empire, only on a vastly greater scale. In the words of the Roman historian Tacitus: "And when they have created a wilderness, they call it Peace."

Vienna, April 9, 2003.

See also:

Baghdad - a second Beirut? By Roberto Sarti (April 9, 2003).

What is to be done?- The current situation and the tasks of the Marxists. By Alan Woods (April 3, 2003).

Iraqi resistance is turning into an anti-imperialist war. By Fred Weston (April 3, 2003)

"Democracy" in America. By John Peterson, editor of Socialist Appeal USA (April 1, 2003).

The war is not going according to plan. By Fred Weston (March 26, 2003)

The Ministry of Truth (on watching the "news" on CNN). By Alan Woods (March 21, 2003)

On the outbreak of war - The hounds are unleashed. By Alan Woods (March 20, 2002)

The Americans destroyed Badhdad, including its water system, the same way that the Mongol invaders did during the Middle Ages. Of course, the Mongol soldiers were ignorant barbarians, while the US troops are .... well, ur, maybe we ought to leave it right there.

Damage may be done to Baghdad, but what other nation would stick around to help clean up and restore what has been ruined?

"The Americans destroyed Badhdad, including its water system,"

Of course Baghdad isn't destroyed. Unless your talking about Sadams palaces.

The very fact that Americans are even present in Baghdad has raised the standard of living there 1000%.

Only for pimps, prostitutes, and drug dealers - which is true for any country where US troops are stationed. That is one reason why they were kicked out of the Philipines and France.

Can you spot what the fuck is totally illogical in your thinking.? If you cannot, please get help quickly. I laughed out loud when I read what you wrote. Then I realized how pathetic it is that anyone could possibly think that way.

What you are saying just like the 6th grade bully who beats the shit out of a first grader - but it's alright cuz the big bully then stays around to make sure the little kid gets stiches. Your logic is totally fucked up!!! Think BEFORE you open your mouth. We have NO business being in Iraq. And PLEEEEEA-SAH don't give me that BS about the WMD. If Saddam had them, he would have used them. Get a clue. Please don't grow up to be another embarrassment like Fresca.

Who says they are cleaning up? The US thugs, I mean troops, are helping with the looting.

SO, give me some facts. Where was my post illogical?

Other than that, it's good to know I was able to put a smile on your face;-)

Again, clarify would you! How exactly is the US helping the looting?

Make a point here, please.

Guess you don't read the papers much, do you?

Think about it, Ana:

Your position is that it is OK for the US to invade another country who has not attacked us and who poses no threat to us (hint: there are no WMD), to literally assasinate their leader, change their government, kill their civilians, take their oil, ruin their infra-structure....and it's OK because WE ARE GOING TO HELP THEM RE-BUILD!?!?!?!?!?!

That is almost like a skit out of SNL. We go to a place we have no business being, destroy it , take it over and then put up a few buildings and that makes the boo-boos all better. So..what are we gonna do about the children we maimed and killed, the children who are now orphans? Are we just gonna throw money at that, too, and that makes it OK?

Ana: MIght does NOT make right. Because you have done something wrong, it is some times not enough to just pay for the damges. That is little help to the emotional scars. It also does nothing to make up for how badly we look to the rest of the world. Except England...and they don't count. You know how fucked up that country is.

Your thoughts are so simplistic about the morality of war, you are kind of scary. The destruction of war is not just an oooopsy we kiss later and make better.

"Can you spot what the fuck is totally illogical in your thinking.? "

I know you think you caught her in a logical conundrum but you haven't. In your hurry to jack off all over yourself in excitement you've spoken too soon. You think it's crazy that she claims that America should be commended for sticking around to rebuid what it's destroyed.

But here's the deal.

A) By all accounts VERY little infrastructure has been destroyed.

B) Baghdab left much to be desired even before the 91 war.

C) Our efforts of rebuilding will raise that level far above what it's ever been.

Now name ONE OTHER COUNTRY which has EVER gone to war, defeated an enemy and rebuilt the country.

Now. I'm sure you're embarrassed so I don't expect you to respond right away, but just take it all in an think about it.

fresca you are a complete idiot. Get a life!

You must be a very lonely person to spend so much time staring at the computer...but I guess thats what happens to sheep who swallow the pablum unquestioningly. No friends. No one to talk to. No real life outside of your misshapen ego. Very sad indeed.

This area now becomes another killing field

while providing a platform for weapons consumption.

The sound of saliva dripping from the mouths of

pigs following the pentagon is like rain.

Now that we've stirred up the hornets nest, we can

now call in the exterminators. We pay, they profit.

Our lives are being squeezed dry while they grow fat.

I find it funny, that while America is LOSING billions of dollars a day in this war on Iraq, you think that the government agencies are somehow magically getting more money... You created the idea that the government was in this only for money, when it is you in fact who cares nothing for money. If I have to pay even a couple thousand dollars more for my security or for the liberation of an enslaved people, I choose to do so, STOP being such a greedy pig, your money means nothing if youre dead.

First off, I never said that "might makes right." Also, I don't think that anywhere in my post did I even attempt to make an argument for the war in Iraq. (But, I do think we're doing the right thing. . .) I just said that the US is the only country that sticks around to clean up the mess it's made (with a few exceptions.)

Anyhow, I think it's quite humourous of you to take one fact that I pointed out and extrapolate all of these other "statements" that I made from it. It just proves that leftists can take one single strand of information and morph it into whatever they want it to be, bad or good.

You are the one who is scary, sweetheart, not me.

Thats the only way they can win their arguments now, if they lie about what others say. They have too much pride and can't admit they are wrong unfortunately.

And by your lame reply I can assume you don't read much either.

Prove me wrong.

Do you have a little riding crop in your hands?

Nope. Why? Do you like to get smacked around?

Sheepdog, do you have Hussein's cock in your hand? HUH? DO YOU?! Hussein supporter?!

Hitting air and puffing.

Could you give me an example of a situation in which

it would be correct for a citizen of the united states

NOT to follow the presidents orders?

Presidential orders?

He works for us.

You are confused.

If you are not a DoD employee or member of the service and are not breaking any laws (ie murder, theft, rape, ect) then I don't see any problems disagreeing with the president.

Good enough?

If Bush wanted me to drop nukes on some innocent country or even on America, i would disobey orders.....but in this case, as in most, Bush is fighting for good, and I would support him in everything, PRAISE BUSH!!!!!!

Funny! I like to watch the same!! Getting plenty of it here watching you, buddy.

That's great when you scratch me near my but!

I like anal probing anastasia, because I'm GAY! Intensely gay that is, esp. with Hussein, because he is so hairy and sexy like other gays!

Enough play time today. Must break away for awhile and get back to real life with the fam.

Maybe I'll come back tomorrow and see what you're up to. Might be funny.

For a CITIZEN to not follow a Presidential Order? You are asking when this is wrong?

Excuse me....I am a citizen - NOT IN THE MILITARY. Bush - or any other President of the US - has no authority to order me around. All I am responsible to do is to follow the law. Bush cannot "order" me to do a fucking thing. Got it?

Well then,

When would it be proper for a citizen of the United States to protest

the actions of thier country ?

If a citizen determined it to be "unconstitutional"

or should they wait for a decision in a court of law?

Ginny

The citizens claim their own rights.

What are you talking about?

...in a Free Society you are responsible first to your own conscience. The Constitution exists to LIMIT the powers of government. The Founding Fathers were quite clear on this - the government only has those powers delegated to it by the people.

"...deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed." Thomas Jefferson Declaration of Independence (Emphasis mine.)

You as a sovereign individual not only have the right to not obey an unjust government it is arguable that the most ethical course of action is to fight it. That was the choice made by the men and women who founded this country with their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

As for Anastasia: Get a clue woman. How much money was in the Bush Budget for the reconstruction of Afghanistan? You remeber Afghanistan don't you? You know Unocal, Pipeline, Taliban, Hamid Karzai (former Unocal Negotiator with the Taliban?

The U.S. will make the Iraqi's pay for their own conquest. Just as your beloved Fuhrer is using our money to cement his power and shit on the Constitution.

GET A FUCKING CLUE!

For me "the line" exists at the point where our government's actions will have irrevocable repurcussions on people unrelated to the politics of the moment. For instance, the innocent children of iraq.

To me, people not of america have a higher priority in this regard than american's. This is why i was not out protesting the government immediately after sept 11th, when I first came to the conclusion that shenanigans were at hand and that our government was playing games. Basically, if the potentially protestable events only effect us, we can "work it out" whenever.

But when people totally unrelated to our grievance suffer damages that cannot be undone (death, dismemberment, etc), immediate steps must be taken to discourage the government from proceeding along it's chosen course of action.

BTW: in no particular order, daveman, fresca, simon, and the dumbass that is too cowardly to sign his/her posts with other than the subject of the same, and all you other freeper idiots - Fuck you assholes. You are the lowest, cruelest, most cowardly murdering bastards of existence and your blind complacency with the events of the day and ceaseless fascist browbeating have directly poured hundreds of gallons of blood all over the american people, and just because most were too busy reclining in their barcaloungers does nothing to lessen the impact that the events you helped bring about have had on those of us that are awake to the tyranny our government imposes on the world. You have no heart, no decency, and you will never be welcome in my home. Truly there is no one lower than those who would knowingly commit terror in the name of justice and honor.

We would all be so much better off if you would all just crawl off somewhere and die.

To the people that currently support GW Bush....

When is it the duty of an American citizen to protest the actions

of thier president?

Is it when they dont follow the constiution?

Or since they are "elected representatives", should we follow what they say

...no matter what....?

thanks

"v"

But we won't because we are here to teach your deluded redneck asses. And, failing that, to mock your innanity, which you've just displayed so eloquently again.

You're all targets. LOL.

You guys are great. Whenever I need a laugh I log onto indymedia!

you've got to be kidding! "irrevocable reprocussions on people unrelated to the politics of the moment". Unrelated to the politics of the moment? Do you mean to suggest that because they are children and to young to comprehend their situation that they will not be affected by living under a dictator like Saddam Hussein?

I think that is a very narrow minded point of view. I guess I should state the obvious. What about their parents? These are people who are scared and have been factually shown to be murdered for things as trivial as having a point of view. Now, do you mean to suggest that children losing parents is no big deal? Would you be the same today if your mother was killed in front of you when you were five? These things happen reguarly in Iraq, you cannot dispute it, it is proven. Try to deny it! I think it is safe to say that Iraqi children, no matter their age, will be affected by the politics of the moment.

So, I guess you can go ahead and add me to your list of people that have different point of views that you seem to be harboring quite a hatred for. Think about it, you're suggesting that they "crawl off and die" simply for having opinions. Sound familiar? Thought so. Imagine what you'd be capable of if you ran a country. Now that is scary.

...is great! He should write fiction!

Oh. He already did. One small example:

"Robert Fisk, a fearlessly honest reporter..."

HA HA HA HA!

Of course I remember Afghanistan. I'm in the military!

What are you saying? That you want the U.S. to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq?

We will pay.

We always pay. Some pay more, some pay less.

Some people never pay. You know, the ones who

see dollar signs at the prospect of new contracts and

never have to feel the results of their little deals.

So who cares if innocents suffer?

This isn’t over by a long shot.

The beast is still hungry.

Of course I care about the innocents. I do not like to see people suffer, which is exactly why this regime needs to be overthrown (Saddam's not Bush's.)

Sheepdog, how many hits of acid do you take before you get on the computer in the morning?

Sheepdog, how many hits of acid do you take in the morning before you feel you are functional?

Of course I care about the innocents. This is exactly why Saddam should be overthrown.

Of course I care about the innocents. I do not like to see people suffer, which is exactly why this regime needs to be overthrown (Saddam's not Bush's.)

Sheepdog, how many hits of acid do you take before you get on the computer in the morning?

“Of course I remember Afghanistan. I'm in the military!” That’s nice. Now let us see if we can tax your knowledge of foreign affairs.

Remember all those glowing promises coming from the Bush Junta about how we would not forget Afghanistan this time?

Total Budget Allotment in the Bush Junta Budget for Afghanistan: 0

As for wearing a Uniform don’t expect it to intimidate me. Been there. Done that.

“What are you saying? That you want the U.S. to pay for the reconstruction of Iraq?”

Actually the Bush Junta has already allocated money to the job, and has mouthed pledges to do so. It would be the minimum honor dictates, if Bush had any honor, but is nevertheless the least we should do in light of the U.S.’s unprovoked aggression. Of course I am sure it will ultimately be born by the Iraqi people - by the Oil Wells we are there to take over. It is a FACT that the first military objective was to Secure The Oil Wells.

The Bush Junta is already reported to be privately planning to “Privatize” the Iraqi Oil Fields. Translation: Turn them over to their Cronies at “Fire Sale” Prices.

And once again, just as he tried to do in this budget, the Vets who fought and died so that the Bush Family could enrich themselves and pay their debts to their masters with our Soldiers Blood, and the blood of thousands of innocents, will turn his back on the Veterans other than to make placating noises. He is a male, a deserter, and wholly without honor or decency.

Yeah, we always pay. So what's the problem? According to you, we're paying already. Make up your mind, for goodness sake.

...light up the room with your intellect. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha,ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haha, ha, ha, ha, ha, haha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Who will pay for the children's new arms and legs?

"It is a FACT that the first military objective was to Secure The Oil Wells. "

But it is not a FACT that they are the only objective...anywhere outside your head, that is.

Why don't you ask Saddam where the money was to pay for all the victims of the gassing of the Kurds? Where's the medical care for all the massive birth defects suffered by children there? Where's the infertility treatments for the people who were made sterile? Where's the life insurance payment for all of those who died in that attack?

I'm sure, with enough time, he would have broken down and paid them their dues! (Sarcasm)

But hey, thanks for the compliment! I've been told I have a certain glow about me. . .

Radioactive. The shining glow of Marie Medici, the fulsome warmth of Lucretia Borgia.

These weasels sure are on the walls today.

Painting the usual deriding, arrogant and

cold banal spin to the obscene truth of criminal aggression

and destruction..

They are so happy now that their rampage

is rolling. Like a pack of feeding vermin on the smashed

and bleeding body of prey.

But we will hear the spin.

It didn’t happen

We didn’t do it.

They had it

coming.

. . .to do with Mary Kay. (hee hee!)

Let them have their moment of self congratulation. They prove nothing other than they are complete asses.

Oh, And Ana - I would rather think Tammy Fay is probably your style.

She wears too much eye makeup. I go for a more natural look.

What about you?

Gnarly, natty, unwashed dreads more your style, huh?

You never answered my question. What about the Kurds?

I think you were speaking to me up there when you addressed Ginny.

"Do you mean to suggest that because they are children and to young to comprehend their situation that they will not be affected by living under a dictator like Saddam Hussein?" <-- well at least they were living, period. Then we started dropping cluster bombs on them and thats were these irrevocable repurcussions come in. This was a matter for the politicians to handle peacibly. Our military never should have been involved as more than a threat. 1000+ dead civilians is not 'acceptable collateral damage' no matter what those scummy assholes in washington say.

"I think that is a very narrow minded point of view" - Thats fine.

"What about their parents? These are people who are scared and have been factually shown to be murdered for things as trivial as having a point of view. Now, do you mean to suggest that children losing parents is no big deal? Would you be the same today if your mother was killed in front of you when you were five?" - We are killing them in mass right now. Whole families at a time. I'm sure they're real appreciative. Again, this was a matter for our politicians, our military never should have been involved as more than a threat.

"These things happen reguarly in Iraq, you cannot dispute it, it is proven. Try to deny it!" - So, bush kills mass people too. Killingest governor in history if I recall correctly (300+ in his 8 years in texas). Does that justify saddam's heinous acts? Hell no but it does go to show that no one gets to power and stays there as a lily white virgin. And for that matter, death as justification of death is just stupid. Your arguement is stupid. I believe you are stupid; case in point, you couldn't figure out who to reply to with your comment, and your reply is riddled with politico-double-speak. ("They're dieing! Quick, bomb them into freedom! In death, they shall be free, hallelijah").

"I think it is safe to say that Iraqi children, no matter their age, will be affected by the politics of the moment." - Affected, yes. Alive at the end of that affect, most likely. Certianly saddam was killing less people daily than we are now. And don't bother rehashing that same shit about the kurds. We knew about it then, we approved of it then, and we continue to fuck over the kurds to this day so spare my your false sympathy for them because you clearly couldn't give a rats ass about them, you just want some sort of justification for war.

"So, I guess you can go ahead and add me to your list of people that have different point of views that you seem to be harboring quite a hatred for. " - People can disagree with me all they want and thats fine, indeed many people disagree with me. That is typically a direct result of their ignorance on these matters and I don't hold it against them. But when people like yourself seek to attack others for their attempts to foster peace and end the atrocity of war then you have officially made my shitlist. Welcome to it.

"Think about it, you're suggesting that they "crawl off and die" simply for having opinions." - Read the above. Then go crawl off and die please. Thanks.

"Imagine what you'd be capable of if you ran a country. Now that is scary." - Maybe to you. But look at who you are. I think it would be rather pleasant personally.

After you wash off the blood.

...pay particular attention to the corners of your mouth it makes you look like a Vampire.

So, I take it you're against the death penalty. Have you ever had a loved one taken in a violent crime? Just wondering. . .

Anyhow, I don't think, even on a bad day, you could make a comparison of Bush to Saddam. He may have ordered the execution of covicted felons while the governor of Texas, but I think that's a far cry from the deaths and torture committed by Saddam's Ba'ath party.

And PLEASE, don't try to tell me YOU give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people. If you did you woulndn't be concerned just about them surviving, but enjoying their lives and LIVING.

...destroy the Village in order to save." Unknow U.S. Military Officer in Vietnam after wiping out a Vietnamese Village.

You guys are funny! Tell me some more about myself!

What, in your minds, do you think I am? I want to know. I think you analysis would be very interesting.

You're not very interesting.

Just a hooker for the enemy.

...a scene enshrouded by clouds of Brimstone, the floor littered with the bones of children, and a thin figure, long flowing hair, a sharp chin, and even sharper fangs, almost attractive - if your taste runs to corpses splattered in blood.

Well, that was interesting! Thanks for your input!

Of course I care for the iraqi people. I care for everyone. I'm sure that sounds idealistic and improbable but its true. People are people to me and I don't want to see any of them die at the hands of another. And I'm certainly not interested in paying for the bullets.

As such, yes I am against the death penalty. The government should not be killing people. Perhaps there are circumstances where it is potentially justifiable but those circumstances are damn rare, and the precident the death penalty sets is scary. Would you like to be sentenced to death by a jury of your peers for crimes you didn't commit? If someone has commited such a heinous act that we feel they must disappear forever, let us have them bust rocks all day, or clean highways, or perform some other menial task to justify the expense of jailing them for the rest of their life.

"He may have ordered the execution of covicted felons while the governor of Texas, but I think that's a far cry from the deaths and torture committed by Saddam's Ba'ath party" <- You say tomatoes, I say tomatoes. Speaking of torture, how about those wooden bullets being fired at peaceful protesters eh? When is someone going to come save us from this tyranny. Again, I offer no apologies for saddam's acts but the people he slaughtered were technically in the middle of a violent rebellion against him. What do you think Fuhrer Bush would do in such a situation? Open fire? You bet your ass he would, in a hurry.

Oh and in regards to losing a loved one via violent crime... No, thankfully i have not, but even if i did i wouldn't be interested in killing the perpetrator for vengence. That perspective comes from having direct attempts made on my life. And there have been several. Even if I was killed by violent criminal act I would not encourage my loved ones to take vengence, if I was so able to communicate that message beyond the grave. To kill a man is a hell of a thing. It changes you forever and I wouldn't want to see the guilt associated on any of my loved ones shoulders.

And in the end, anyone who would gain solace from watching their victimizers squirm under 50,000 volts is just as bad as those being killed.

OK, I see your point. About the death penalty. To me, I would much rather have them suffer in jail for the rest of their lives, wondering about their fate after it's all said and done. Plus, if I was on a jury and had to decide if someone lived or died, I just don't know if I could commit someone to death. So, I smell what you're stepping in on that one.

As for what Pres. Bush would do in the event that a group was trying to rebell against him, who knows? Gassing them wouldn't be the way though, so the comparison to Saddam is still null and void to me.

But thanks for an intelligent post. I like disagreeing with someone amicably as opposed to just yelling at each other.

"Speaking of torture, how about those wooden bullets being fired at peaceful protesters eh?"

Jeez! A bruise is hardly on the same line a being shocked with a car battery, or being forced to eat your own eyeball. Get real.

"When is someone going to come save us from this tyranny." Yes, the horrible abuse of being able to freely state your opinion all day long.

What amount of torture is acceptable for U.S. security forces to use against peaceful protestors? And does freedom of speech now come with a mandatory side order of wooden/rubber bullets? You seem to think the use of force is acceptable against non-violent people. Do you beat your wife and kids, too?

...your definition of torture.

I don't know all the details of the Oakland protests. Not really concerned about it, actually; the anti-war crowd has done some pretty stupid stuff.

If they were getting out of hand, the non-lethal force was justified. If they were demonstrating peacefully, the use of non-lethal force was not justified.

Many on the left confuse freedom of speech with freedom of action. You may say what you like. You may not do what you like.

I plan to discredit everything you said.

First of all, I'd like to ask a question about the last part of your last post when you said "attack others for their attempts to foster peace". If you are trying to avoid these so called "attacks", then you should obstain from writing posts to this page.

Second, When you said "Bush kills too, 300+ in 8 years as Governor of Texas" If you are trying to make a connection between Saddams murderous tendencies and Bush than you are reaching at best. That argument is simply elementary.

Third, "Saddam kills less people daily than we are now". This remark dispalys precisley what I've expected about you all along. You have no perspective of the entire reign of Saddam Hussein. Have you forgotten the Gulf War 91'? If you think this entire campaign and all the reasons for it can be summed up on a daily body count, one side vs. the other, than again, you are wrong. Look at the whole picture.

Next, the whole stupidity issue. "case in point-you can't even figure out who to address your post to". Now come on, that is just silly. Take your my Dad can beat up your Dad juvenile garbage back to the playground.

As for the rest of your post. Forget it. I'm bored with you. You cannot even have healthy debate without resorting to personal attacks and angered words. Which speaks volumes about your character. I'm done expending energy on you. Best wishes, JEFF