From: "Glen Fuller" <g.fuller-AT-uws.edu.au> Subject: Re: Endless War Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:06:52 +1000 Judy, quick question, what is a 'blog'? I am not hip to this argot.;) Glen. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Judy" <jaw-AT-earthlink.net> To: <lyotard-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 11:01 AM Subject: Re: Endless War > >Judy/All, > > > >The good reports are from Televsion, mostly Administration officials, and > >sympathetic Congresspersons > >who have visited Iraq. Not being tortured or murdered by Saddam is a good > >thing. Children are back in school with new textbooks that don't glorify > >Saddam. Electrical power is said to be restored to pre-war levels and is > >increasing. The country north and south of Baghdad and Tikrete is said to > >be peaceful. > > > >Yes, it's difficult to know who to believe. If and when the killing of > >Americans and Iraquis by terrorists is stopped, there will be a chance of > >peace, > > > Maybe when Americans stop occupying Iraq, there will be a chance of > peace, but maybe it's necessary for Iraqis to fight the Americans > until it becomes costly enough and bloody enough that US domestic > legitimacy dries up. that is a different way of thinking about the > chance for peace, such as it is. > > > When i hear about 'terrorists' killing Americans and others who > support the occupation, I am always caught by the way in which the > portrayal is one in which if an Iraqi kills an American soldier, they > are by definition a terrorist. that bothers me. There's no thinking > involved, least of all about whether the killer may have had a good > reason for killing an American soldier (a reason one could identify > with if in the same position). That the American military is in some > way good, is presupposed in these discourses. Iraqis who oppose them > are presupposed to be bad, terrorists, evil. The Americans' behavior > and reasons for being in Iraq are beyond question, at least where it > might be suggested that Americans are terrorizing people, > slaughtering people. Somehow that is different, that is for a good > cause, "toppling Saddam", and it is not called "slaughtering" or > "terrorizing." But the people I read about in the blog from Iraq > sound rather terrorized (by the Americans and by criiminals liberated > by the Americans, including the one placed at the head of the "Iraqi" > government, Chalaby). I haven't yet heard the reports from the blog > of the improving conditions the administration claims. In fact, the > writer of that blog tells of how prior to the overthrow of Saddam, > women could move about freely in the country, holding good jobs and > being respected as human beings. Now, she says that the removal of > the repression of fundamentalists has resulted in women being driven > back into the home, forced to wear old fashioned coverings, and being > beaten for violations of these customs. I don't get the impression > that the writer is pro Saddam or approves of Saddam repression, but I > clearly hear that life was better in general before the US "toppled" > Saddam. the writer has contempt for Bremer and others who whitewash > the situation for home consumption. certainlly there are Iraqis who > are better off, but from these reports, it sounds like it would be > mistaken to generalize about most people being better off. > > I often hear on the 'news' from administration sources that the > reason the US has not been able to "rebuild" Iraq as quickly as the > public would hope, is because they didn't realize how bad the Iraqi > infrastructure had become under 25 years of Saddam rule, caused by > palace building and war on Iran in particular. The US sanctions are > never mentioned, during which the country could not import spare > parts to maintain infrastructure, nor is it mentioned that Iraq > received an award from the UN in the late 80s for the degree to which > the government had improved the quality of life for the masses of the > country, in terms of standard of living, health care, education, and > various cultural and social programs. It was by far in the best > shape of the Arab countries. The government did a lot for the > people. It's not a black and white picture, but it's a rare American > who's aware of that. The occupation has been extremely destructive, > and from the blog I'm reading, it's hard to see whether anything > constructive has happened, for Iraqis in general. It's been very > constructive for Haliburton, Bechtel, Israel, those folks. Iraqis > which never experienced suicide bombers in their midst before now > never know when a car or truck will blow up. Where once there was > public safety, now everyone is threatened by violent crime. > > Was the US administration "unaware" (as they say) that these things > would happen? How could they not be aware? They've had their > intelligence organizations operating all over Iraq since Gulf War > One. They would rather play dumb, figuring Americans will > understand, after all, none of us knew, who understands those crazy > arabs? The alternative to seeming dumb would be to fail to obscure > the fact that they were not concerned about the destruction of Iraqi > social fabric and material living standard because it was the price > that had to be paid for the realization of the goals of having > western corporate business and military dominance in that area. They > knew exactly what would happen. It's not rocket science. > > thanks for the Chomsky piece. I thought it was good. > Judy > > > > > but two years after the last terrorist attack in the U.S. the > >authorities expect more attacks. If and when Americans believe there will > >be no more attacks at home, > >they can save a bundle on homeland defense, or send the bundle to Iraq, or > >give more tax cuts to the wealthy. > > > >More and more people are saying the long-term goal of Republicans is to > >eliminate the social programs that began with FDR, and that the Bush > >deficits are a great way to do it. > > > >regards, > >Hugh > > > > > > > > > >> Hugh, > >> Where/what are the reports that there is progress in making the lives > >> of Iraqis better? last night I just read this the latest > >> installment in this weblog from Baghdad: > >> http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/ > >> Sounds as bad or worse than under the previous regime. > >> judy > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >Steve/All, > >> > > >> >Here is a quote from a long article by Chomsky on ZNet. > >> > > >> >"Since the mid-1940s, Washington has regarded the Gulf as "a stupendous > >> >source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in > >world > >> >history" - in Eisenhower's words, the "most strategically important area > >of > >> >the world" because of its "strategic position and resources." Control > >over > >> >the region and its resources remains a policy imperative. After taking > >over > >> >a core oil producer, and presumably acquiring its first reliable military > >> >bases at the heart of the world's major energy-producing system, > >Washington > >> >will doubtless be happy to establish an "Arab façade," to borrow the term > >of > >> >the British during their day in the sun. Formal democracy will be fine, > >but > >> >only if it is of the submissive kind tolerated in Washington's > >"backyard," > >> >at least if history and current practice are any guide" > >> > > >> >Chomsky has a great deal to say about US ability to strike almost > >anywhere > >> >and any time with space-guided missiles. > >> > > >> >He doesn't speak of the differences between conventional war and > >terrorist > >> >war. Iraq may be the counterpart of Palestine in a "Sharon Model" > >> > conflict - 50 years of mutual killings which neither side has the will > >to > >> >end.. > >> > > >> >The U.S. has supported Israel for 50 years - may not have the same > >> >enthusiasm for endless deaths of US troops. > >> > > >> >On the cheerful side, thre are enthusiastic reports of great progress in > >> >making life better for the Iraquis. > >> > > >> >regards, > >> >Hugh. > >> > >>
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005