imperialist shell game
>The UN Security Council did approve of the original attack on Iraq. MyDear Jim,
>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.
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.
>I appreciate your efforts. I've been trying to learn how Iraq didn't getMr. Bronke:
>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
"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
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"
>You are reading deeper in to my concepts than I am. I don't think the UN hasThere's the Korean War, that "mistake" that also cost two million lives.
>ever sanctioned a war except the Gulf War.
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
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 thatThe same people who dismissed Pearl Harbour as "random acts of vandalism".
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "mistakes".
>I don't believe that war isThe UN wants inspections of Iraq (but hypocritically not of Israel, Britain
>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.
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
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.
>That tactic is very wrong. First, it isn't really a choice that is closest
>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.
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.