Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

imperialist shell game

Expand Messages
  • thekoba@aztec.asu.edu
    ... Dear Jim, The USA already answers to a higher power, the same higher power to which the UN answers, and that is the multinational (and disproportionately
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 27, 2002
      >The UN Security Council did approve of the original attack on Iraq. My
      >thrust is to make the US responsible to some higher authority. They don't
      >appear to want to listen to anybody. Also, we are expecting Iraq to submit
      >to UN Inspections when we just use it as a way to get targeting information?
      >The rest of the world is against us invading Iraq, it is wrong. Brazil
      >reacted angrily to our attack of Iraq in 1998, are they imperialist? If so
      >does it matter? I am tired of US support of and participation in aggression.
      >
      >
      >Jim Bronke
      >www.USACritic.com

      Dear Jim,

      The USA already answers to a higher power, the same higher power to which
      the UN answers, and that is the multinational (and disproportionately
      Jewish) imperialist grand bourgeoisie. Brazil, and most other third
      world nations (with the exceptions of those few branded as the "axis of
      evil"), have the misfortune to have governments that are effectively
      controlled by this class (through debts, threats of funding the opposition,
      arranged coups d'etat, sanctions, loss of trade etc.). When Brazil
      speaks at the United Nations, it is not the Brazilians who speak, it is
      the puppets of these international bankers and transnational corporations
      who have Brazil's leaders by the ***** who speak. If they say slightly
      different things, perhaps there are factions within the imperialist
      grand bourgeoisie, perhaps they are trying to convince Brazilians that they
      are really independent by saying something a little different, or perhaps
      they are just trying to confuse all of us into thinking there is pluralism,
      but the end result is the same and has been very bad for Iraq and any
      other country that won't kow-tow to the New York-Jerusalem axis.

      The UN didn't impose the "no fly zones" (i.e. aerial piracy) and the
      various bombing attacks since the end of the 1991 war. So what? They
      certainly didn't do anything to stop them, to impose sanctions on the
      USA and Britain, much less organise a war against these rogue nations.
      Further the UN has done even worse things. The UN has imposed sanctions
      against Iraq which BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION (UN study) have cost the lives
      of nearly two million Iraqis, mostly young children. If you want to
      measure objectively who is the worse criminal, the USA or the UN, in
      terms of body count, the UN wins hands down (and of course the USA is
      also guilty because the US Navy enforces this blockade and it was
      imposed at the bidding of the USA, Britain and Israel).

      When you want to throw your weight, however indirectly, behind giving
      the UN authority to act against Iraq instead of the USA alone, you
      are only helping even worse enemies of Iraq. You are also harming
      the anti-imperialist and anti-war movements by spreading the lie that
      the UN is somehow better than the USA or that destructive wars waged
      with the consent of the UN are somehow morally superior to such wars
      waged only with the participation of the USA. I can assure you that
      an Iraqi is just as dead and suffers just as much if those who bomb
      him and shoot at him do so under UN auspices and after sham inspections
      as if it is done by American forces alone.

      The peace movement must throw aside these sham UN solutions. Our
      message must be very simple: No war or sanctions against Iraq PERIOD.
      That is a very simple message to send to Congress. Let's send it.

      Comradely,

      Kevin
    • thekoba@aztec.asu.edu
      ... Mr. Bronke: It [the UN] can make mistakes too. ????!!! Mistakes???!!! You call the willful killing of two million civilians a mistake? Hello! I ve met
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 27, 2002
        >I appreciate your efforts. I've been trying to learn how Iraq didn't get
        >access to a simple substance like chlorine which is what I gather caused the
        >deaths of those children. I am not sure on how to feel about Congress
        >approving the attack in 98 without the UN Sec Council approval when we were
        >clearly orchestrating the inspections to gather information on non WMD
        >targets. Of course that info the Congress didn't have at the time. The other
        >argument which I feel is valid is that we keep pumping weapons in to Israel
        >when the UN Res 687 does appy reduction of weapons to the entire area. Some
        >of our advisors are in denial of that right now.
        >
        >I do feel that we just can't dismiss completely the UN. It can make mistakes
        >too.
        >
        >
        >Jim Bronke
        >www.USACritic.com

        Mr. Bronke:

        "It [the UN] can make mistakes too."????!!! Mistakes???!!! You call the
        willful killing of two million civilians a mistake? Hello! I've met
        you in person. I find it difficult to believe you are that callous or
        that stupid.

        As to your other statements, I have told you the UN does not represent
        the world's people, it represents imperialism. I don't care which branch
        of imperialism sanctions a crime or whether they coordinate with one another.
        The point of the peace movement is to stop the crime, not support one
        criminal over another. So, no, I don't give a rat's ass whether Congress
        asks permission of the Security Council before attacking Iraq or not.
        It will be no less wicked an act either way.

        What I want, and what every REAL member of the peace movement wants, is
        for there to be NO WAR, whether endorsed by the UN or just the USA.

        No peace activists endorse imperialist war. If you endorse the UN, you
        are endorsing imperialist war, and you are objectively in the camp of the
        war mongers, whether you know it subjectively or not. You and others like
        you who plug the UN in the name of peace and justice are either idiots or
        hypocrites and liars. Give me honest enemies like Bush rather than "friends"
        like you.

        --Kevin Walsh
      • thekoba@aztec.asu.edu
        ... There s the Korean War, that mistake that also cost two million lives. Still, even if we forget that little mistake , the Gulf War is quite enough. It
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 27, 2002
          >You are reading deeper in to my concepts than I am. I don't think the UN has
          >ever sanctioned a war except the Gulf War.

          There's the Korean War, that "mistake" that also cost two million lives.
          Still, even if we forget that little "mistake", the Gulf War is quite enough.
          It was no mistake to take on Iraq to secure cheap oil and the protection of
          Israel. It was an act of imperialist plunder to which the elder Bush and
          his allies were emboldened by the withdrawal of the USSR from the Cold War.
          When Brezhnev was rightfully pointing missiles at the imperialists, they
          wouldn't have dared pull a stunt like that, not in the Eastern Hemisphere
          anyway.

          Indeed, the whole reason the UN didn't sanction wars between the Korean
          War and the Gulf War was that the UN was divided between the imperialists
          and the socialists. Well the imperialists have won control over the UN,
          so it's only logical that the UN starts advocating imperialist wars and
          murderous sanctions to support imperialism.

          >some people are saying now that
          >Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "mistakes".

          The same people who dismissed Pearl Harbour as "random acts of vandalism".

          >I don't believe that war is
          >necessary or is the natural byproduct of the UN being involved. It is a way
          >of dodging the war bullet by forcing more diplomacy, however.

          The UN wants inspections of Iraq (but hypocritically not of Israel, Britain
          or the USA). Iraq shouldn't have to undergo that. This is in itself a
          crime against Iraq. If you endorse the UN position, you endorse crime
          against Iraq. The USA has admitted using inspectors as spies. Since the
          UN wants unconditional inspection, this will continue, and Iraq will
          essentially be forced to submit to having a hostile power have unlimited
          espionage privileges within its borders. If you endorse that, you are clearly
          an enemy of Iraq and of peace.

          Now suppose that the "inspectors" (American spies) decide to plant evidence
          of weapons of mass destruction or concoct some stupid incident where they
          try to enter a building on a weekend when no one's there and claim they
          were "denied entry" (which is what actually sparked the 1998 crisis).
          They then say President Hussein (or "Saddam" as they AND YOU disrespectfully
          insist on calling him) is not cooperating with the inspections. Continuing
          the inspections as they are becomes clearly impossible. Either the UN
          agrees to replace the inspectors with more neutral parties (which they
          wouldn't in 1998 and certainly won't now) or it has to find other means to
          try to get Iraq to "cooperate". Since they are already starving Iraq's
          children, more sanctions won't work, so there is only one option--WAR!

          Then suppose a miracle happens and they do send in more neutral inspectors.
          Bush won't be satisfied, and neither will the Democrats. The result is
          then--WAR!

          Pushing the UN resolution will not prevent war, just delay it and at a
          price of adding legitimacy to it as "international law".

          So I say, if you are interested in peace, don't tell people to endorse
          this criminal resolution promoting UN bullying of Iraq. Tell people to
          write their Congressperson or Senator and say:

          Dear bribed kike-lover,

          I can't match what AIPAC gives you, but I can vote you out of
          office, and I will if you vote for any warfare, sanctions,
          inspections or further hostile action against Iraq of any
          kind, whether done unilaterally or with a coalition or under
          the auspices of any international organisation, be it the UN,
          NATO, or any other group.

          Love and Kisses,

          A Real American (not a Jew lackey)

          If on the other hand you still insist that the UN deserves "another chance"
          desite its "mistakes", consider how likely you would be to be spared
          life imprisonment or the lethal injection booth if you made a "mistake"
          of much smaller magnitude than the UN makes everyday. Then again you can
          move to Jew York City and hope no one obliterates it with a well-merited
          hydrogen bomb...OOPS...just a little mistake.

          --Kevin
        • thekoba@aztec.asu.edu
          ... That tactic is very wrong. First, it isn t really a choice that is closest to us, as both are choices that are ultimately pro-war. The legislators who
          Message 4 of 4 , Sep 27, 2002
            >
            >Whenever I have talked to my legislators I have often raised the issue of
            >Middle East arms reduction. Referring to Israel as well. I refer to the
            >duality of it. I generally am not for inspections, really, yet it is still
            >better than war. Since we don't have much choice in who we have as
            >legislators at least we can support those who come the closest to not
            >getting the world and the US in more trouble. I'm sure you'll agree that
            >Bush is heading us down the path of more terrorism. The more oppresswive our
            >overnment gets, the more pissed off the rest of the world will be. Gee we
            >only let just about everyone in the door that wants in.
            >
            >
            >Jim Bronke
            >www.USACritic.com

            That tactic is very wrong. First, it isn't really a choice that is closest
            to us, as both are choices that are ultimately pro-war. The legislators
            who support the UN option are not going to get the USA and the world in
            any less trouble, they will just have a different entity endorsing that
            trouble. Second, even if you endorse a candidate who only wants to bomb
            Iraq and not invade, or only wants to starve with sanctions, you are still
            endorsing war and killing, and you have placed yourself objectively in
            the camp of the enemy. Would you really think highly about someone who
            supported gangster B who only wanted to break an innocent man's legs rather
            than gangster A who wanted to kill him?

            The correct tactic is to denounce imperialist war without equivocation,
            whether it's popular to do so or not, whether there are any congresspeople
            who agree or not. To do otherwise invariably results in opportunism and
            tailism. The movement loses its backbone and bends with every reactionary
            breeze. Politicians don't act; they react. Right now they are reacting
            to the Jew media and the bribes from AIPAC. When people stand up to both
            and they know they can't win elections on any kind of war or sanctions
            platform, we've won. If we back the candidate whose proposals sound slightly
            less harsh, we've lost. If we stand on principle even if we can't build
            the numbers to convince the congresspeople, at least we are still fighting
            the imperialist war mongers instead of joining them.

            This is a critical time, and there is no room for defeatism. If your attitude
            is "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em", even if it's those whose rhetoric is
            not quite as harsh, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution,
            and you should close down your site, get the hell out of the peace movement,
            and find a less destructive hobby.

            I have no patience for those who plug the UN for any reason or who want to
            vote for people who do, nor can real anti-war and anti-imperialist people
            afford to tolerate the likes of you.

            --Kevin
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.