Un messaggio per tutti i pacifisti MIOPI

***Punk84*** · 16-02-2003, 15:32:00

questo è anche il mio pensiero... io inizialmente non sono per la guerra ma se questa può essere l'unico modo per eliminare la cagione dei mali di molta gente e quindi eliminare un pericolo pubblico allora sono daccordo con le azioni militari....che ripeto non devono essere un capriccio o un pretesto di vendetta

**jesahel** · 16-02-2003, 16:06:28

quello che scrivi è tutto giusto,anche io tollero poco i pacifisti
tout court.il regime di saddam è abominevole.
nella crudele realtà di questo nostro mondo,pero' ,caro boss,devi ringraziare il petrolio.eh si ',l'oro nero.perche ' senon ci fosse codesto portentoso petrolio,il caro bush vi lascerebbe a cuocervi nel vostro brodo di processi sommari e di ''pulizia etnica''.

**goku77** · 16-02-2003, 16:22:31

Incredibile, non avevo letto questo Thread e ne ho aperto uno molto simile, ma sulle mie rifllessioni e non su voci da parte di iracheni, che molti comunque possono considerare guidate.
Potrebbe esserlo ma al mondo d'oggi è facile invertire bianco e nero.
Ciao

**Magnetuss** · 16-02-2003, 16:45:04

Gentile Dottor Khalaf,
si chiama "guerra contro l'Irak", perchè se si andasse semplicemente a prendere Saddam a casa sua si potrebbe chiamare "Guerra a Saddam". Ma pare che invece 200.000 soldati, oltre 1.000 aerei ecc. ecc. abbiano altre intenzioni. Insomma, qualche petardo, in Irak, mi sa che lo tireranno. O no?

Vorrei rispondere alla sua domanda: "Dove eravate quando Saddam stava uccidendo migliaia di iracheni a partire dai primi anni settanta?"

Io ero a casa mia. E vorrei che lei rivolgesse la stessa domanda al governo americano, e in particolare al ministro della difesa Donald Rumsfeld (di cui allego foto in cordiale colloquio con Saddam quando Rumsfeld, in qualità di inviato dell'allora presidente Reagan si recava a Bagdad da amico. Era il dicembre 1983, si era nella fase più cruenta della guerra con l'Iran, e Saddam era già da tempo ilonoto gentiluomo che tutti conosciamo.)
Siccome forse il signor Rumsfeld non le risponderà, ci provo io, allegando un'intervista al giornalista americano Jeremy Scahill alla rete radiofonica californiana KMUD radio.

DAVID ROSS: You’ve recently posted an article at zmag.org and counterpunch.org called “The Saddam in Rumsfeld’s Closet.” Can you start from the top and explain what you found in your research?

JEREMY SCAHILL: An article came out in the New York Times on August 18 detailing what it calls an American covert program during the 1980s that helped Iraq plan battles at a time when U.S. intelligence indicated Iraq would use chemical weapons against Iran. This follows my article on August 2 called The Saddam in Rumsfeld’s Closet, in which I wrote about the relationship between Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld, the current U.S. Defense Secretary. You have to go back some 20-plus years, to a time when Ronald Reagan was president and the Iran-Iraq war was escalating dramatically. The United States was giving aid and weapons to both Iran and Iraq with the understanding, as Henry Kissinger put it, “that it’s best to let them kill each other off,” and, “oil is too valuable a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs.” The Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 shook the foundations of power in Washington so the United States began actively backing Iraq. In 1982, Ronald Regan moved to take Iraq off the list of nations that sponsored terrorism. That allowed a floodgate of U.S. “aid” to go into Iraq. The Reagan administration was actively encouraging manufacturers to sell to Iraq and Saddam Hussein was aggressively buying everything he could get his hands on from the United States. That included the sale of helicopters that had been “demilitarized.” Ronald Reagan dispatched his special envoy to Iraq with a hand-written letter from Reagan to be given to Saddam Hussein, with a clear message that what Washington wanted was to restore normal relations. They had been severed in 1967 during the Arab-Israeli War. Iraq broke them off in protest of U.S. policy. So when this envoy arrived in Baghdad, not only did he have a hand-written letter, but he also gave Saddam Hussein a pair of golden cowboy spurs, as a present from Ronald Reagan. He shook Saddam’s hand, called him “Mr. President,” and had a meeting that the Iraqi foreign ministry described at the time as being about “topics of mutual interest.” That envoy, who began the process of restoring relations between Washington and Iraq, a man who stood with Saddam Hussein in 1983, was Donald Rumsfeld, the current U.S. Defense Secretary. Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the U.S. was aggressively selling to Iraq, and just a short time after that visit, some allegations started to emerge about Iraq’s use and possession of chemical weapons. On March 5, 1984 (Rumsfeld’s visit was in 1983), the U.S. State Department issued a public alert, saying that it had evidence that Iraq was using chemical weapons against Iranian solders. A couple weeks after that report came out, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad, meeting with Tariq Aziz, then Iraqi Foreign Minister. The day that Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad, the United Nations issued a report saying that a team of UN scientists on the ground in the front lines of the Iran-Iraq war had determined that chemical weapons had been used multiple times against Iranian solders. Donald Rumsfeld was in Baghdad when the United Nations had said yes, we have proof from our scientists that chemical weapons had been used against Iran and Rumsfeld said nothing. He was in the prime position to address the alleged Iraqi threat when it first emerged.

D.R.: According to an article in Covert Action Quarterly a number of years ago, the U.S. government provided the elements for Saddam’s chemical weapons through the U.S. Agricultural Department.

J.S.: Not only that, it was at a time when the Reagan administration was faced with the prospect that the American economy was in trouble and so he viewed the wealthy economy of Iraq as an open market for U.S. corporations. It wasn’t so much a covert thing, there were companies in Maryland selling components that were used to make chemical weapons. It wasn’t just the United States. It was German, French, and British companies—all of the major western powers in Europe and the Western hemisphere were bolstering Saddam Hussein’s military capacity.
Western so-called democracies were major supporters of Saddam Hussein’s chemical weapons program. You can also find receipts on the Internet from U.S. companies that sold these chemical components to Iraq. The whole story of U.S. sales to Iraq was openly talked about under the Reagan administration and at the beginning of Bush, the Elder’s administration. It wasn’t something that Washington was ashamed of. Remember, Saddam Hussein was considered an SOB, but he was considered Washington’s SOB.

D.R.: Why does the U.S. government want to attack Iraq again?

J.S.: When I was in Iraq this past May and June, Iraq celebrated the 30th anniversary of its nationalization of foreign oil companies. They celebrated it with a jolting announcement, if you’re an oil dictator in Washington. The country’s oil minister, Mohamed Rashid, announced on national television in Iraq (and it was something that was carried all over the Arab world on al Jazeerra and other outlets) that Iraq was going to begin oil exploitation in two of the largest untapped oil and natural gas reserves in the world—two fields in Iraq: one called West Qurnan and the other called Majnun. These two fields had been allocated to two companies, one a French and one a Russian company, but because of U.S. pressure and U.S. sanctions, the Russians and the French never began drilling in those oil fields. So Iraq was not going to wait for the Russians and the French to stand up to America. It was not going to wait for a time when the sanctions were lifted. Iraq said that they could nearly double their oil production in the next three years. Iraq could theoretically surpass Saudi Arabia as the number one producer of oil in the world. Already they’re number two and they’re under economic sanctions. Saudi Arabia, which is now being attacked in the U.S. press by the government, has an enormous border with Iraq. If that border was erased and the U.S. controlled those two countries—the U.S. would control the world oil markets. Saudi Arabia is now saying it doesn’t want to provide the U.S. the use of its airbases or its territories to attack Iraq. It’s one of the countries that is leading Iraq’s normalization within the Arab world. Another reason is the way in which Iraq has completely normalized relations with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and other nations throughout Africa. The trend in the Middle East is to say, “Yes, Saddam Hussein is a dictator; yes, he’s a ruthless tyrant, but the people of Iraq deserve to live.” So what the United States has done to punish countries like Saudi Arabia is to begin floating stories about how the Saudis support terrorism, how the Saudis are the biggest enemy of America in the region. There was a meeting of the Defense Policy Review Board, which is an advisory clique to Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, headed by Richard Pearle. They had a meeting around mid-July and the story came out in the beginning of August in which the RAND Corporation did a briefing on Saudi Arabia, calling it the greatest threat to America in that region. The United States is using the Iraq example almost like a crucifix at the gates of Rome, to say that, if you defy the empire, if you stand up against America, you will pay a price, like the 5,000 to 6,000 Iraqi children who die every month. Iraq is the crucifix of the Middle East, and Saudi Arabia is aware of that, so I think it will be interesting to watch what countries participate in a U.S. attack. Just in late June, new satellite imagery was published by globalsecurity.org that showed that the U.S. was building a massive air base and central command center in Qatar. That’s because the Prince Sultan Air Base has been declared off limits by the Saudis to use as a base from which to launch an attack on Iraq, so the U.S. is moving all of its operations to Qatar and that will, I would imagine, become the staging grounds for the attack.

D.R.: Whoever controls the oil of the world, controls the world, basically. Is that true?

J.S.: During the Yugoslavian bombing a lot of people on the Left in America wanted to focus on the importance of the Caspian Sea, which is one of the single greatest reserves of natural gas in the world. There were plans to build a pipeline through Yugoslavia, particularly Kosovo. While I think oil played a significant factor in the Yugoslavia bombing, one has to be much more cynical in analyzing U.S. foreign policy. Dominating oil is a central aim of U.S. interests, but it’s not the only aim. What the United Sates is doing right now with its policy in Iraq, as well as in Palestine, is attempting to create utter chaos in the Middle East. Look, if Saddam Hussein takes a bullet in the head, which I think is extremely unlikely, or is overthrown in a military coup or is hit by a “lucky strike” by a U.S. missile, do you think that everyone in Iraq is going to somehow rally behind whoever assumes power? The people in Washington—either they’re incredibly ignorant of the religious, ethnic, communal, and tribal makeup of Iraq, or they’re trying to create a massive bloody civil war in Iraq, on top of what will undoubtedly be a large U.S. bombing campaign as well. In Iraq, you have three million members of the Baath party, Saddam’s political party. Those people are going to be attacked by their neighbors. There’s going to be communal violence. We saw that in 1991, when Bush the elder told the Shiite Moslems in the south of Iraq after the Gulf War, to rise up against Saddam Hussein. They slaughtered, tortured, hung, and executed hundreds of people from the Baath party in a three-day blitzkrieg. Afterwards, Saddam Hussein’s forces mercilessly crushed that rebellion as Norman Schwarzkopf and his forces stood by. If Saddam Hussein is taken out, there will be numerous warlords of sorts, either generals, clan leaders, or tribal leaders, who will be engaged in power grabbing and will also threaten the stability of Saudi Arabia and potentially Kuwait. Iran is very nervous about the prospect of Saddam Hussein being assassinated or killed, even though Iran has actively tried to get rid of him for many years.

D.R.: During Bush I rule, the U.S. government destroyed the public infrastructure of Iraq. What sort of human toll have these sanctions had on the people of Iraq?

J.S.: These sanctions are unprecedented in world history. Never has a country been put under such severe economic sanctions as Iraq has lived under for the last 12 years. Iraq was a very modern country prior to the U.S. massacre that’s now referred to as the Gulf War, where the water treatment facilities were targeted, where the entire public infrastructure of Iraq was destroyed. At the time when there was proof, according to Washington, which there isn’t now, that Iraq had, or was using, chemical weapons, our government had no problem. They would sell Iraq anything they wanted. Now, Rumsfeld has provided us with no evidence. Bush has provided us with no evidence, and they’re banning the sale of vitamin K. It’s unconscionable.

D.R.: What can people do to stop the sanctions on Iraq and the threatened invasion by the U.S. government?

J.S.: There are a number of things people can do. I’m not a big fan of lobbying Congress. I think it’s like urinating in the ocean and hoping to find the urine somewhere else again someday. It’s not going to happen. But the fact of the matter is, that Congress right now—not everyone, despite how it looks in the media, is on board with this. In particular, the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should be targeted and called and asked to hold honest and open hearings in which people like Dennis Halliday, the former head of the UN humanitarian program in Iraq, is called to testify. Also people like Hans Von Sponeck, the person who followed and also who resigned his position in protest, calling the sanctions genocide. The other is to get involved with groups like the Iraq Peace Team. This is a coalition of groups spearheaded by Voices in the Wilderness, the Chicago based anti-sanctions group. They are organizing delegations right now, going to Iraq—Americans, British, people from all over the world—taking up residence in anticipation of a U.S. attack on Iraq, to say “we are going to stand with the Iraqi people if the United States attacks.” Also on Voices of the Wilderness website there’s a great number of resources and suggested actions people can take.

D.R.: Is there anything else you’d like to add?

J.S.: One of the things that’s interesting is why do articles like the one in the New York Times and in other papers appear at this time? Why is it that people within the Pentagon, who I’m sure have no problem with war and bombing, are very nervous about what the Bush administration is doing? What that indicates to me is that not all is well in Washington. I think that it’s very important to connect the dots and ask why is it that some of the top people in the military are leaking to the media war plans that are being discussed in Washington? Is the use of a nuclear bomb being discussed? Quite possibly. Israel is talking about it openly, saying, “If the U.S. attacks Iraq, Israel will be a good soldier.” Sharon Perez, the Israeli foreign minister who’s referred to as a moderate, was on CNN this fall, saying that the U.S. is waiting too long to attack Iraq and also saying that if Iraq hits Israel with anything—a scud missile, a conventional weapon—not nuclear, biological or chemical—Israel will consider dropping a nuclear bomb on Iraq. I think the most likely country to use a nuclear weapon in the next five years is not the United States and it’s certainly not Iraq. I think it’s Israel. People need to be very concerned about Sharon that the U.S. has bolstered and built up. He has 200 nuclear weapons and has his people on national and international TV threatening to use them against Iraq. Bill Clinton has said, “If the Iraqi army crosses the Jordan River, I’ll die for Israel.” What is going on in this country? Why is everyone running to this war game right now with this unquestioning support for Israel, who is threatening to use nuclear weapons? Can you imagine if an Arab country threatened to use a nuclear weapon in a regional conflict what would happen? It’s incredible.

Se le basta, dottor Khalaf, mi fermerei qui.
Cordialmente.
Magnetuss

File Allegati

**Ippo** · 16-02-2003, 17:29:05

beh, forse bisogna inquadrare la scena un po' più con un'ottica larga...

Perchè non ci sono marce di pace pro cecenia, korea, paesi del centro america e africa? filippine? Perchè?

Forse perchè non è coinvolto il NEMICO GLOBALE la repubblica presidenziale per eccellenza, gli STATI UNITI DI AMERICA!!!! Il nemico pubblico numero uno, per certe correnti politiche, forse particolarmente invidiose per non essere al governo (!!!)
E' facile sparare sugli usa che intervengono. Certo sono sempre stati spocchiosi, arroganti, prevaricatri, profittatori e via dicendo.
Non dimentichiamo però che loro il leader lo eleggono...

Il leader Saddam è stato realmente democraticamente eletto? ci credete?

E del fatto che ci siano collusioni con BinLaden? Piacevole, no?

Allora o i pacifisti "pacifizzano" per tutto ciò che è da pacificizzare o si risparmino sti comportamenti da salvatori del mondo. Stanno solo facendo il gioco di chi alla fine non ci vuloe troppo bene e non va troppo per il sottile per dimostrarlo.

Non ho parlore per queste miopie.

Love always

ippo

**Magnetuss** · 16-02-2003, 18:30:55

Originally posted by Ippo
beh, forse bisogna inquadrare la scena un po' più con un'ottica larga...

Perchè non ci sono marce di pace pro cecenia, korea, paesi del centro america e africa? filippine? Perchè?

Forse perchè non è coinvolto il NEMICO GLOBALE la repubblica presidenziale per eccellenza, gli STATI UNITI DI AMERICA!!!! Il nemico pubblico numero uno, per certe correnti politiche, forse particolarmente invidiose per non essere al governo (!!!)
E' facile sparare sugli usa che intervengono. Certo sono sempre stati spocchiosi, arroganti, prevaricatri, profittatori e via dicendo.
Non dimentichiamo però che loro il leader lo eleggono...

Il leader Saddam è stato realmente democraticamente eletto? ci credete?

E del fatto che ci siano collusioni con BinLaden? Piacevole, no?

Allora o i pacifisti "pacifizzano" per tutto ciò che è da pacificizzare o si risparmino sti comportamenti da salvatori del mondo. Stanno solo facendo il gioco di chi alla fine non ci vuloe troppo bene e non va troppo per il sottile per dimostrarlo.

Non ho parlore per queste miopie.

Love always

ippo

Immagino tu stia scherzando: hai sentito qualcuno fare l'elogio di Saddam? Io no.

C'è una guerra in Korea? Non mi pare.
C'è una guerra nelle Filippine? Non che io sappia.
Ci sono sì guerre locali in Africa, ma ti pare che abbiano la stessa dimensione di quella che potrebbe scoppiare con l'Irak, con le implicazioni di destabilizzazione di tutta l'area mediorientale che già è una polveriera?

Non so, se ti basta dire che è "antiamericanismo", non ti dovresti chiedere cosa ci facevano 500.000 americani ieri a New York in piazza?

**bear** · 16-02-2003, 18:55:50

Ma pensate veramente che agli americani freghi qualcosa del popolo irakeno?!?!Cosi' come non gliene frega niente ne' alla Russia ne' alla Francia ne' alla Cina che pure sono contro un attacco.

Se ci fosse un attacco altra gente morirebbe.Levato Saddam(che poi non si capisce che cosa hanno in mente di fare:fucilarlo sul posto?Portarlo in una base americano?Consegnarlo al tribunale di Strasburgo?) che succederebbe?
Vai con un governo fantoccio e chi stava male continuera' a star male,per loro non cambiera' niente.

Vedi l'Afghanistan.

Prima non gliene fregava niente a nessuno,poi vene un governo non religioso di sinistra.Un passo avanti.

I talebani fecero un colpo di stato e allora questo governo(appena insediato in un paese con istituzioni piu' che vacillanti) chiamo' in aiuto la potenza piu' vicina anche come stampo ideologico,l'unione sovietica.

Pero' allora,si era in piena guerra fredda,algi americani venne il sospetto che l'altro blocco potesse aumentare l'aera di influenza.Allora giu' appoggio logistico e armi ai talebani.Ci fu la guerra.
Tuta l'opinione pubblica scadalizzata:i comunisti invadono un paese,scandalose ingerenze in degli stati liberi etc etc.

I russi si ritirano.I talebani al governo.Finche' c'era i russi le donne potevano andare a scuola e avere una vita civile,pero' erano il male quindi.....con i talebani...tutti lo sapete.Pero' che volete fare e il mondo si dimentica dell'Afghanistan.
Intato in quel pese vanno avanti massacri,impiccagioni,pulizie etcnica ma occhio non vede cuore non duole.

Il mondo va avanti inconsapevole o poco curante del mondo arabo.
Ad un certo punti dalla meta' degli anni novanta in poi(c'era gia' stata la prima guerra del golfo:ve la ricordate la sindrome da desert storm?A tantissimi soldati che vi hanno partecipato sono nati figli gravemente malformati ) il mondo occidentale riscopre il mondo religioso islamico con le sue nefandezze.
Spuntano i terroristi.Nel 1998 viene danneggia una nave da guerra americana.Poi l'ambasciata.bin laden.
I talebani distruggono i due buddha di pietra:il mondo prende coscenza che esistono.
Pero' ancora il clamore e' poco,gli americani incassano e zitti.

Poi l'11 settembre.
Attraverso bin laden si riscopre l'afghanistan dimenticata da circa 10 anni:le donne con il burka senza una dignita',lo stadio delle impiccagioni,le galere etc.........
I talebani da fieri alleati delgi americani contro l'espensionismo sovietico diventano il demonio.
La popolazione dell'afghanistan oppressa ha bisogno di aiuto.
Bombardamenti vari(si riporta che l'avazione americana bombardasse quello che si muoveva,hanno preso anche dei soldati canadesi)
La losca storia della rivolta alla prigionedove tenevano i talebani (non so come si srcive il nome) dove non si sa se c'e' stata una rivolta o e' stata una esecuzione.E'stata trovata gente uccisa con mani e piedi legati.

Ora la popolazione dell'Afghanista e' finalmete libera?!??!
Che ne sappiamo??Non se ne parla piu'.Cosa sta succende in quei posti.Ci sono governi democraticamente eletti?
Oppure si scannano ancora fra etnie??

@ · 16-02-2003, 20:56:48

Re: Un messaggio per tutti i pacifisti MIOPI

Originally posted by The Boss

La vostra campagna anti-guerra e' divenuta isteria di massa e
non siete piu' in grado di vedere le cose come stanno.

Inquietante...

**Daniele2636** · 16-02-2003, 20:56:57

Io non la chiamerei guerra perchè nella guerra si fronteggiano 2 fazioni con perdite piu o meno ingenti da entrambe le parti.
Quello in Iraq sarà semplicemente uno sterminio:l'EROICO MARINES standosene al sicuro azionerà i missili sugli Iracheni.
Tanto si sa che un americano vale piu'di un Iracheno.
Poi voglio vedere la democrazia irachena dopo Saddam,fate un indagine in Nicaragua in Brasile in Cecenia e chi piu ne ha piu ne metta

**akillez** · 16-02-2003, 21:06:08

Re: Un messaggio per tutti i pacifisti MIOPI

...

**MISTER X** · 16-02-2003, 21:53:51

il 3D fa davvero pensare.

ma è il pensiero di molti irakeni davvero?

io non lo so,mi pongo un'infinità di dubbi in questo periodo.

il problema di quel popolo non c'è dubbio è SADDAM,un dittatore di una ferocia inaudita,senza pietà.
ma davvero l'unico modo per eliminarlo è la guerra?

io mi chiedo solo questo....se la sola risposta è sì,perchè sì?

**akillez** · 16-02-2003, 22:04:44

...

**MISTER X** · 16-02-2003, 22:14:32

Originally posted by akillez
Se fanno fuori saddam questo non cambierà niente!
Ne verrà un altro.....
Bisogna ccambiare prima il sistema .....
poi occhio che la tv ha interesse a fartelo vedere così

sì è un'utopia la tua.
come fai a cambiare il sistema su cui si basa tutto il mondo?
cerchiamo soluzioni + realistiche.