Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

War on Iraq?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

>>Is there a need?

Why Can't pople live peacefully?<<


each side feels a need.

one said wants to make WMD.

and has an ideology that cannot tolerate any one except a muslim. god gave him gas and sand only.

if he wins a war, he causes total destruction of the enemy and enemy's culture. even the bodies of dead enemies are not kept in one piece, per koran.


the other side has a culture of cars but no gas.

gas is understood by all the countries as a strategic commodity. that means that any country without gas will loose militarily as well as economically.

he has not interest to kill people, but wants his wishes honored. if he wins, he rebuilds the defeated country.


each side is more or less greedy, with different needs.

so fight/ war cannot be avoided.


there is a solution given in isopanishad:


isAVaSya idam sarvam

yatkincha jagatyaam jagat

tena tyaktena bhunjithaa

maagridhah kasya swid dhanam


the solutuon will work when

all the people of the world understand it and live by it.


till then yes, some people would want wars,

and others could avoid it.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

WEll whatever the reasons for the war,be it oil or terrorism, if saddam uses chemical weapons against usa soldiers and the yankees nuke him ( as they said they would if saddam uses chemical weapons) then the world is coming pretty close to extinction.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>get your kartalas ready! <<


yes, if one is a brahmana.

he however helping only to himself.

if asuras win, he (the kafir) will not remain alive,

or will never have chance to use kartala or chant hare krishna any more.


a kshatriya would choose to fight asuras.

a vaishya should make money selling to suras and not to asuras.

a shudra has to do serve suras only.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

This Impending Attack on Iraq is another bogus ploy.

We need a World Wide War on Sense Gratification.

A War on Gas-guzzling SUVs.

A War on inefficient transportation.

A War on inefficient architecture.

Amerikan Architecture is thousands, millions of miles inferior to stupidity.

Amerikan Capitalism is just that: Kapi-tal ism = Monkey Business.

So what to do? Learn from villagers?

No, of course not. Better we bomb them.

Horrendous maniacs in charge. Random's favorites.

SP said this Earth can easily support 30 billion or more.

No scarcity, only hoarding.

3 impediments: kAma, krodha, lobha, that's all.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

If You're Happy And You Know It Bomb Iraq


by John Robbin



If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.

If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.

If the terrorists are frisky,

Pakistan is looking shifty,

North Korea is too risky,

Bomb Iraq.


If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.

If we think that someone's dissed us, bomb Iraq.

So to hell with the inspections,

Let's look tough for the elections,

Close your mind and take directions, Bomb Iraq.


It's pre-emptive non-aggression, bomb Iraq.

To prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.

They've got weapons we can't see,

And that's all the proof we need,

If they're not there, they must be there,

Bomb Iraq.


If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.

If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.

If you think Saddam's gone mad,

With the weapons that he had,

And he tried to kill your dad,

Bomb Iraq.


If corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.

If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.

If your politics are sleazy,

And hiding that ain't easy,

And your manhood's getting queasy,

Bomb Iraq.


Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.

For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.

Disagree? We'll call it treason,

Let's make war not love this season,

Even if we have no reason,

Bomb Iraq.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Preparing for World War Three &#8211; Morning Walk recorded on the 4th of


1975 in Mayapur, India.


Prabhupada: Next war will come very soon. Your country, America, is


much eager to kill this communist. And the communists are also very


So, very soon, there will be war. And perhaps India will be the


sufferer. Because America is planning to start the war from India.


India, Russia, they are side by side. If the war is started from India&#8230;


Russians are ready already with soldiers, not soldiers, how do you say?



Devotee: Will that help out preaching Prabhupada?


Prabhupada: Preaching will be very nice after the war, when both of


especially Russia, will be finished.


Devotee: They want to make India the battleground? Also Prabhupada, a


said that the Arabs are preparing for the war. They&#8217;re buying billions


billions worth of missiles and jets and tanks from America.


Prabhupada: So that&#8217;s being prepared. The war will soon start.


Devotee: The Arab men, all go to America to be trained in the Armed


there. In all the Armed Forces centres there, they train the Arab

nations to

fight. They let the young men come into the USA to learn how to use the

missiles and everything.


Devotee: Recently, this Bhuto of Pakistan, he was very happy because


were talking about lifting a ten-year holding on arms from the United

States. And now they say Pakistan will soon get arms from America.


Prabhupada: Yes, they are getting. They are already getting. Pakistan


start the war with India, and then everything...


Devotees: Again? They have started the war maybe eight times. What will


devotees do while the war is going on?


Prabhupada: Chant Hare Krsna. We have got only business.


Devotees: Jaya! Devotees laugh


Devotee: Will we stay in the cities?


Prabhupada: We can stay anywhere. We have got our Mayapur, Vrndavana.


the danger is the government will say that all Americans go away. That


the danger. I am thinking of that position. What shall I do.


Devotee: Indian citizenship?


Prabhupada: If you take it is very nice. Then they ask you to go to



Devotees laugh


Devotee: Will this war spread through many countries and continents?


Prabhupada: The actual war will be between American and Russia.


Devotee: What about British devotees? British citizens? Will the

British be

asked to leave? British citizens? Commonwealth citizens?


Prabhupada: British are now finished. They have no importance.


Devotee: He means if British devotees came to India would they be asked




Prabhupada: No, no. I want to say, when speaking of politics&#8230;


Devotee: You said the Americans might have to leave. What about the



Prabhupada: Generally during wartime they ask all foreigners.


Devotee: What would be the position of the Chinese?


Prabhupada: Well, I&#8217;m not a politician.


Devotees laugh


Prabhupada: China does not want war. They want to construct. They are


very much interested in war.


Devotee: Srila Prabhupada, you said that this war will destroy the


civilisation. Does that mean that it will destroy all the cities and

all the



Prabhupada: No, war means destruction of all cities. It is natural.


verse), If you know Krsna, then you understand everything. That is


injunction. If you simply understand Krsna&#8230;

Krsna consciousness is such a great science, that if one becomes


then he knows everything.


Devotee: So, Prabhupada, is there something we should do to prepare

ourselves for this disaster?


Prabhupada: You should simply prepare for chanting Hare Krsna. That&#8217;s




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have the book "A Higher Taste"? It is kind of a cookbook and it is about a vegetarian diet. I am reasonably sure it used to be distributed at the Krishna Temples in USA.


In it is says something to the effect that war is a karmic repercussion of slaughterhouses. That as long as man is cruelly killing animals he will turn upon himself and die painfully in war.


I think of it alot when there are wars and would very much like to see the quote again if any have it.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I am talking to myself. I found it:


"In this age the propensity for mercy is almost nil. Consequently there is fighting and wars between men and nations. Men do not understand that because they unrescrictedly kill so many animals, they must also be slaughtered like animals in big wars. This is very much evident in the Western countries. In the West, slaughterhouses are maintained without rescriction, and therefore every fifth or tenth year there is a big war in which countless people are slaughtered even more cruelly than the animals. Sometimes during war, soldiers keep their enemies in concentration camps and kill them in very cruel ways. These are reactions brought about by unrestricted animal killing in the slaughterhouse and by the hunters in the forest."

Srila Prabhupada




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

U.S. National - AP

Lawsuit Challenges Bush on War With Iraq

1 hour, 33 minutes ago Add U.S. National - AP to My

By DENISE LAVOIE, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - Six House members, members of the military and parents of servicemen went to federal court Thursday to try to prevent the president from launching an invasion of Iraq without an explicit declaration of war from Congress.

AP Photo

Latest news:

Bush Urges U.N. to Confront Iraq

AP - 7 minutes ago

'Human Shields' Gathering in Baghdad

AP - Thu Feb 13, 1:59 PM ET

Rights Groups Criticize Iraq War Planning

AP - Thu Feb 13, 4:06 AM ET

Special Coverage

Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., and the other plaintiffs said the October 2002 congressional resolution backing military action against Iraq did not specifically declare war and unlawfully ceded the decision to President Bush (news - web sites).


Conyers cited the passage from the U.S. Constitution that states, "Congress shall have power ... to declare war."


"Get it? Only Congress," Conyers said at a news conference in Washington.


John Bonifaz, the Boston lawyer who filed the lawsuit, said Bush is rushing to war without seeking approval or even a thorough debate by Congress.


"The president is not a king," he said. "He does not have the power to wage war against another country absent a declaration of war from Congress."


The other members of Congress named as plaintiffs are: Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill.; Jim McDermott, D-Wash.; Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.; and Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas.


Other plaintiffs include a member of the Massachusetts National Guard who was recently activated, an Air Force reservist from Massachusetts, and a Marine stationed in the Persian Gulf, Bonifaz said. Their identities were not released.


"I would imagine that they're aware the lawsuit is a very long shot, an extremely long shot," said Taylor Reveley, dean of the William and Mary School of Law and author of the book "War Powers of the President and Congress: Who Holds the Arrows and Olive Branch?"


"But they're probably interested in doing anything they can to throw sand in the wheels of American military action in Iraq."


Reveley said majorities in both houses of Congress approving a resolution authorizing military action — as the House and Senate did in October — would pass constitutional muster and provide wide presidential discretion.


The congressional resolution states: "This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq.'"


Congress has not formally declared a war since World War II. The War Powers Act, passed in 1973 in response to the Vietnam War and the actions of President Nixon, requires the president to seek congressional approval before or shortly after ordering military action abroad. It also requires the president to report to Congress.


A similar lawsuit filed against Bush's father before the Gulf War (news - web sites) by 54 members of Congress was rejected by a federal judge in 1990.


That judge said he agreed in principle that the president must seek congressional authorization for war, but said the elder President Bush had not clearly committed the country to a course of action. The judge also noted that only about 10 percent of the Congress had asked for the injunction — a percentage he said was not representative of the entire body.


Bonifaz said the new lawsuit is different because in addition to the six members of Congress, members of the military have asked for the injunction. "They are facing the possibility of death," he said.


One of the plaintiffs, Nancy Lessin, said she has 25-year-old twin stepsons, one of them a Marine.


"We'd like to challenge George Bush to send one of his twins to war. Then let's have a discussion about whether or not we should go to war," she said.


Bonifaz said several similar lawsuits filed by soldiers during the Vietnam War were unsuccessful. But he said those lawsuits failed because the courts found Congress had taken concrete steps to authorize a war, including appropriating money and authorizing the draft.

Email Story

Post/Read Msgs (2335)

Print Story

Ratings: Would you recommend this story?

Not at all 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 Highly

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

EDITOR'S NOTE: What follows is a letter of resignation written by John Brady Kiesling, a member of Bush's Foreign Service Corps and Political Counselor to the American embassy in Greece. Kiesling has been a diplomat for twenty years, a civil servant to four Presidents. The letter below, delivered to Secretary of State Colin Powell, is quite possibly the most eloquent statement of dissent thus far put forth regarding the issue of Iraq. The New York Times story which reports on this remarkable event can be found after Kiesling's letter. - wrp


Go to Original

t r u t h o u t | Letter

U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling

Letter of Resignation, to:

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell


ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003

Dear Mr. Secretary:


I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.


It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.


The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America&#146;s most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.


The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government. September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of American society as we seem determined to so to ourselves. Is the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the name of a doomed status quo?


We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to follow where we lead.


We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and allies this Administration is fostering, including among its most senior officials. Has &#147;oderint dum metuant&#148; really become our motto?


I urge you to listen to America&#146;s friends around the world. Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it was, a beacon of liberty, security, and justice for the planet?


Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character and ability. You have preserved more international credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged something positive from the excesses of an ideological and self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an international system we built with such toil and treasure, a web of laws, treaties, organizations, and shared values that sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever constrained America&#146;s ability to defend its interests.


I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process is ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better serve the security and prosperity of the American people and the world we share.


John Brady Kiesling


Go to Original

U.S. Diplomat Resigns, Protesting 'Our Fervent Pursuit of War'

By Felicity Barringer

New York Times

Thursday 27 February 2003


UNITED NATIONS &#151; A career diplomat who has served in United States embassies from Tel Aviv to Casablanca to Yerevan resigned this week in protest against the country's policies on Iraq.


The diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, the political counselor at the United States Embassy in Athens, said in his resignation letter, "Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson."


Mr. Kiesling, 45, who has been a diplomat for about 20 years, said in a telephone interview tonight that he faxed the letter to Secretary of State Colin L, Powell on Monday after informing Thomas Miller, the ambassador in Athens, of his decision.


He said he had acted alone, but "I've been comforted by the expressions of support I've gotten afterward" from colleagues.


"No one has any illusions that the policy will be changed," he said. "Too much has been invested in the war."


Louis Fintor, a State Department spokesman, said he had no information on Mr. Kiesling's decision and it was department policy not to comment on personnel matters.


In his letter, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times by a friend of Mr. Kiesling's, the diplomat wrote Mr. Powell: "We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners."


His letter continued: "Even where our aims were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image and interests."


It is rare but not unheard-of for a diplomat, immersed in the State Department's culture of public support for policy, regardless of private feelings, to resign with this kind of public blast. From 1992 to 1994, five State Department officials quit out of frustration with the Clinton administration's Balkans policy.


Asked if his views were widely shared among his diplomatic colleagues, Mr. Kiesling said: "No one of my colleagues is comfortable with our policy. Everyone is moving ahead with it as good and loyal. The State Department is loaded with people who want to play the team game &#151; we have a very strong premium on loyalty."


Organized religion fares no better.

Shocking to see how many self-proclaimed devotees r neither Buddhist, Christian or Jew, i.e., NOT EVEN as in HAVE NOT YET ADVANCED TO THE LEVEL OF true Buddhists, Christians or Jews. And what to speak of vaisnavas.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Who are the Crooks?


The Dollar and Oil are the Motives for WAR!


After reading tons of articles and books in order to find out the truth about previous events and what is now really happening and why, I've found some sources of high credibility, extensively researched and logically fitting in with known facts A few of the most comprehensive and well written are the following and I'd be willing to bet that if you don't have time to wade through such things daily, if you manage to take in these, you'll know and understand more than most of our politicians and media seem to do.


The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq, A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth

by W. Clark

which can be found on: Ratical Org (21 pages in Word 12pt).

The article from January 2003 argues that US main reason for wanting a war on Iraq is its need to maintain the hegemony of the Dollar as a dominating currency for trading, investments and oil-contracts as some countries, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are converting to Euro in their oil and trading and Venezuela avoid the dollar much by bartering some oil. Many others seem set to follow. This has to be stopped. At any cost!


Special Issue, Nos. 33 & 34, 2002: Behind the Invasion of Iraq

by Aspects of India/R.U.P.E.

which can be found on: R.U.P.E.'s website (fills 85 pages in Word 12pt).

Published Dec. 2002, it's a collection of articles published in a special issue by the political/economic magazine in Bombay, India. It covers the current US strategic agenda and its implications for the rest of the world and has some Asian aspects on the war plans. Good history of Iraq's colonial past and earlier US/UK interventions in middle east. This also reasons a lot on the economic and Euro themes as the motive for US "new world order".


Rogue State, A Guide to the World's Only Superpower

by William Blum

Excerpts from the book can be found on: Blum's Homepage

I've written about Blum's book earlier on this site (Politics, A book to shake you out of your ignorance, May 2nd, 2002). It treats US history of interventions, wars and aggression since WWII. A well researched list of where, how, when and why US has interfered in the internal affairs of other countries, with or without the use of military force or other violent means. Written by a man who saw the State Departement from the inside. Excellent!!





What I find especially valuable in both the book and the articles is that though different writers may put different weight and emphasis on different theories and scenarios, by and large they all agree on the general agenda and goals of US strategy and the history leading up to the current situation. If oil, strategic hegemony, covering up domestic problems or petro-dollar hegemony are the main motive behind the announced war one can have different opinions, but very certain is that US is the world's largest consumer of oil, the nation most determined to have its own way without regard to the rest of the world, and the nation that intends to have no serious economic competition now or in future. I think all the writers agree on this and may I in all sincerity add my agreement to theirs. To sum it up: If you read the book and the articles, you'll have a very good perception of how the future may look if the American administration is allowed to stay in power and realise their agenda. The ones who can do most to prevent that are the decent and just Americans, of whom there are many more than media give credit for and who would be millions upon millions more if told the truth by their leaders, papers and TV channels.


Below comes a few excerpts from the articles. I strongly recommend them to be read in full even if isolated parts too can shed light over many questions.





The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq

by W. Clark



Although completely suppressed in the U.S. media, the answer to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking -- it is an oil currency war. The real reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the 'petro-dollar' and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency."


From the Article:

"....This lengthy essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the 'petro-dollar' and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The following is how an astute and anonymous friend alluded to the unspoken truth about this upcoming war with Iraq:

"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 80 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)....."


.....Unfortunately, neo-conservatives such as George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle fail to grasp that Newton's Law applies equally to both physics and the geo-political sphere as well: "For every action there is an equal but opposite reaction." During the 1990s the world viewed the U.S. as a rather self-absorbed but essentially benevolent superpower. Military actions in Iraq (1990-91 & 1998), Serbia and Kosovo (1999) were undertaken with both U.N. and NATO cooperation and thus afforded international legitimacy. President Clinton also worked to reduce tensions in Northern Ireland and attempted to negotiate a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


....However, in both the pre and post 9/11 intervals, the `America first' policies of the Bush administration, with its unwillingness to honor International Treaties, along with their aggressive militarisation of foreign policy, has significantly damaged our reputation abroad. Following 9/11, it appears that President Bush's `warmongering rhetoric' has created global tensions -- as we are now viewed as a belligerent superpower willing to apply unilateral military force without U.N. approval. Lamentably, the tremendous amount of international sympathy that we witnessed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11th tragedy has been replaced with fear and anger at our government. This administration's bellicosity has changed the worldview, and `anti-Americanism' is proliferating even among our closest allies. [8]....."


"One of the dirty little secrets of today's international order is that the rest of the globe could topple the United States from its hegemonic status whenever they so choose with a concerted abandonment of the dollar standard. This is America's preeminent, inescapable Achilles Heel for now and the foreseeable future."... (unnamed expert's quote)






Aspects of India, Behind the Invasion of Iraq

by R.U.P.E.



"This special issue of Aspects of India's Economy, then, is not only about Iraq, west Asia, or oil. It is about the current US strategic agenda and its implications for the rest of the world. As the Indian rulers have placed India within that US agenda, it is necessary for us to understand its implications in depth.


Aspects of India's Economy is edited and published by Rajani X. Desai on behalf of R.U.P.E. All material © copyright 2003 by R.U.P.E. We welcome use and reproduction of these materials by non-profit groups and individuals; however, we ask that quoted and reproduced materials be accurately rendered and fully credited to R.U.P.E., including issue number and Internet URL as appropriate".


From the Issue:


"A Summary

Behind the Invasion of Iraq

The following is a brief summary of the themes explored in this issue. US imperialism has announced its intention to launch an invasion of Iraq and to change the regime there. The impending invasion is the culmination of US efforts for the last decade.

The 1991 US attack on Iraq in the name of evacuating Kuwait not only caused a terrible immediate loss of life but systematically and deliberately devastated the entire civilian infrastructure of Iraq. Eleven years of sanctions already have wreaked unparalleled devastation in the country's economic life and effected what a senior UN official termed "genocide" by systematically starving the country of elementary needs. Iraq is not free to spend the earnings from sale of its own oil in the way it wishes. 'No-fly zones' and repeated bombings devoid of all legal cover have violated the country's sovereignty and security. Under US-UK protection, pro-US Kurdish forces hold sway in northern Iraq. In the guise of 'weapons inspection', brazen espionage has been carried out by the US, UK and Israel.

Now, however, we are about to witness a major new development, with far-reaching consequences: the direct imperialist occupation of the whole of Iraq. Further, it is widely reported in the American press that the United States plans to use the invasion of Iraq as a launching pad for a drastic re-shaping of West Asia. The Bush administration is actively considering invading various countries and replacing regimes in the entire region-Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Lebanon are among the countries to be targeted. This is to be accompanied by Israel carrying out some form of 'final solution' to the Palestinian question-whether in the form of mass eviction or colonisation. The justifications US imperialism is advancing for the impending assault on Iraq are absurd, often contradictory. Unlike in the case of the 1991 Gulf War or the 2001 bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, this time the US lacks even the fig-leaf of an excuse for its aggression. The major American and British media corporations have once again come forward as footsoldiers in the campaign.


.....It is more or less publicly acknowledged that the immediate reward is a massive oil grab, of a scale not witnessed since the days of colonialism. Caspian prospects pale in comparison with Iraqi oil wealth. Iraq has the world's second largest reserves (at present 115 billion barrels, but long-delayed exploration may take that figure to 220-250 billion barrels). Moreover, its oil is, along with that of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran, by far the cheapest to extract. The US is quite openly offering the French and Russians, who have giant contracts with the present regime that cannot be realised under sanctions, slices of the post-invasion cake in exchange for their approval in the Security Council.


.....The global crisis of overproduction is showing up the underlying weakness of the US real economy, as a result of which US trade and budget deficits are galloping. The euro now poses a credible alternative to the status of the dollar as the global reserve currency, threatening the US's crucial ability to fund its deficits by soaking up the world's savings. The US anticipates that the capture of Iraq, and whatever else it has in store for the region, will directly benefit its corporations (oil, arms, engineering, financial) even as it shuts out the corporations from other imperialist countries. Further, it intends to prevent the bulk of petroleum trade being conducted in euros, and thus maintain the dollar's supremacy. In a broader sense, it believes that such a re-assertion of its supremacy (in military terms and in control of strategic resources) will prevent the emergence of any serious imperialist challenger such as the EU. In that sense the present campaign is in line with the Pentagon's 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, which called for preventing any other major power from acquiring the strength to develop into a challenger to the US's solitary supremacy.

(A European foothold even in Iran could bring about a euro-based oil economy; this perhaps explains the puzzling inclusion of Iran in the 'axis of evil.')


.....Although certain circumstances have led the US to navigate a resolution on Iraq through the UN Security Council, the US has now openly declared the death of the UN system, for what it was worth: this was the content of Bush's speech to the UN, where he declared that it would be irrelevant unless it rubber-stamped US supremacy. The new doctrine is contained in the US National Security Strategy document, which declares the right of American pre-emptive strike against "emerging" or potential threats, and warns that it is willing to act unilaterally if other imperialist powers do not follow its lead. In line with the new doctrine, the US is systematically revising the existing international consensus on use of nuclear weapons.






Rogue State

by William Blum


As I have earlier written about this book, I recommend readers to go to the above URL to get an idea of the contents, and then order the book. I know that Amazon has it in Germany and you should have no trouble finding it at least in English.


From the Book:



This book could be entitled: Serial chain-saw baby killers and the women who love them.

The women don't really believe that their beloved would do such a thing, even if they're shown a severed limb or a headless torso. Or if they believe it, they know down to their bone marrow that lover-boy really had the best of intentions; it must have been some kind of very unfortunate accident, a well-meaning blunder; in fact, even more likely, it was a humanitarian act.


For 70 years, the United States convinced much of the world that there was an international conspiracy out there. An International Communist Conspiracy; seeking no less than control over the entire planet, for purposes which had no socially redeeming values. And the world was made to believe that it somehow needed the United States to save it from communist darkness. "Just buy our weapons," said Washington, "let our military and our corporations roam freely across your land, and give us veto power over who your leaders will be, and we'll protect you."


It was the cleverest protection racket since men convinced women that they needed men to protect them -- If all the men vanished overnight, how many women would be afraid to walk the streets?


And if the people of any foreign land were benighted enough to not realize that they needed to be saved, if they failed to appreciate the underlying nobility of American motives, they were warned that they would burn in Communist Hell. Or a CIA facsimile thereof. And they would be saved nonetheless.


.....the many US interventions -- summarized numerically above, and detailed in the "Interventions" chapter -- shows clearly that the engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, nor even simple decency, but rather by the necessity to serve other masters, which can be broken down to four imperatives:


making the world open and hospitable for -- in current terminology -- globalization, particularly American-based transnational corporations;

enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of Congress and residents of the White House;

preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;

extending political, economic and military hegemony over as much of the globe as possible, to prevent the rise of any regional power that might challenge American supremacy, and to create a world order in America's image, as befits the world's only superpower.

. . . ."




To conclude:

All the talk from the American hawks and Blair about the motives for the planned war on Iraq is nothing but lies. It is not about weapons of mass destruction (first argument). It is not about Iraq's links to terrorists ( second argument). It is not about "liberating" Iraq's poor people (third argument). Those arguments have been fielded, exposed as lies and subsequently abandoned or modified. One by one. With the exception of the last that Blair still tries to get some mileage out of.


The recommended reading above will give you more truth in 2 pages than all the speeches so far held by Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney and Blair taken together. To make it even better you don't have to endure the smirking, the selfrighteousness or the pretended concern.

I can the reveal one thing. It isn't the butler who's the murderer!




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the French and Russian and Germans as well have huge financial contracts with Iraq. Not just oil but weapons systems as well.


Remember that it was the French that built the weapons grade nuclear reactors in Iraq that the Israeli's took out years back.


But I don't seek to change your mind. It might be worthwhile to learn about the other side of the argument though. Maybe by hearing the horror stories from those Iraq's that have escaped and are speaking out in favor of the US/UK position.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gujarati SrIpAd MahA-viSNu SwAmI explains how Kaliyuga means that by embracing technology's comforts, we become more & more dependent... and diseased.

"Throw that _____ out the window!!" he often yells, and rightly so.

In His Holiness' village not a single rupi would leave: total self-sufficiency.

Exactly the opposite of ENRON. (and friends)

Steal energy, produce nothing, charge more.

We Amerikans r dedicating our foreign policy to destroy all forms of culture & village life worldwide...

in favor of hog-like consumption.

Neo-conservative Pork-belly Republicans want to keep those pigpens full... with their reincarnating associates & supporters for future bacon sales.

Many advantages => next birth they'll already know the turf.

Carl Ehmer conservative types - GO FOR IT!

Liberals still consuming slaughterhouse flesh - EAT YOUR HEART OUT!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest


Yes the French and Russian and Germans as well have huge financial contracts with Iraq. Not just oil but weapons systems as well.



The ex-presidents' club


Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger

Wednesday October 31, 2001

The Guardian


It is hard to imagine an address closer to the heart of American power. The offices of the Carlyle Group are on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC, midway between the White House and the Capitol building, and within a stone's throw of the headquarters of the FBI and numerous government departments. The address reflects Carlyle's position at the very centre of the Washington establishment, but amid the frenetic politicking that has occupied the higher reaches of that world in recent weeks, few have paid it much attention. Elsewhere, few have even heard of it.

This is exactly the way Carlyle likes it. For 14 years now, with almost no publicity, the company has been signing up an impressive list of former politicians - including the first President Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker; John Major; one-time World Bank treasurer Afsaneh Masheyekhi and several south-east Asian powerbrokers - and using their contacts and influence to promote the group. Among the companies Carlyle owns are those which make equipment, vehicles and munitions for the US military, and its celebrity employees have long served an ingenious dual purpose, helping encourage investments from the very wealthy while also smoothing the path for Carlyle's defence firms.


But since the start of the "war on terrorism", the firm - unofficially valued at $3.5bn - has taken on an added significance. Carlyle has become the thread which indirectly links American military policy in Afghanistan to the personal financial fortunes of its celebrity employees, not least the current president's father. And, until earlier this month, Carlyle provided another curious link to the Afghan crisis: among the firm's multi-million-dollar investors were members of the family of Osama bin Laden.


The closest the Carlyle Group has previously come to public attention was last May, when a Seoul-based employee called Peter Chung was forced to resign from his £100,000-a-year job after sending an email to friends - subsequently forwarded to thousands of others - boasting of his plans to ". every hot chick in Korea over the next two years". The more business-oriented activities of Carlyle's staff have been conducted much more quietly: since it was founded in 1987 by David Rubenstein, a policy assistant in Jimmy Carter's administration, and two lawyer friends, the firm has been dispatching an array of former world leaders on a series of strategic networking trips.


Last year, George Bush Sr and John Major travelled to Riyadh to talk with senior Saudi businessmen. In September 2000, Carlyle hired speakers including Colin Powell and AOL Time Warner chair Steve Case to address an extravagant party at Washington's Monarch Hotel. Months later, Major joined James Baker for a function at the Lanesborough Hotel in London, to explain the Florida election controversy to the wealthy attendees.


We can assume that Carlyle pays well. Neither Major's office nor Carlyle will confirm the details of his salary as European chairman - an appointment announced shortly before he left the House of Commons after the election - but we know, for the purposes of comparison, that he is paid £105,000 for 28 days' work a year for an unrelated non-executive directorship. Bush gives speeches for the company and is paid with stakes in the firm's investments, believed to be worth at least $80,000 per appearance. The benefits have attracted political stars from around the world: former Philippines president Fidel Ramos is an adviser, as is former Thai premier Anand Panyarachun - as well as former Bundesbank president Karl Otto Pohl, and Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the SEC, the US stock market regulator.


Carlyle partners, who include Baker and the firm's chairman, Frank Carlucci - Ronald Reagan's defence secretary and a former deputy director of the CIA - own stakes that would be worth $180m each if each partner owned an equal slice. As in many areas of its work, though, Carlyle is not obliged to reveal the details, and chooses not to.


Among the defence firms which benefit from Carlyle's success is United Defense, a Virginia-based contractor which makes vertical missile launch systems currently on board US Navy ships in the Arabian sea, as well as a range of other weapons delivery systems and combat vehicles. Carlyle's other holdings span an improbable range, taking in the French newspaper Le Figaro and the company which bottles Dr Pepper.


"They are big, and they are quiet," says David Mulholland, business editor of Jane's Defence Weekly. "But they're not easy to get information out of, [but] United Defense are going to do well [in the current conflict]." United also owns Bofors, a Swedish munitions manufacturer.


Carlyle has said that it does not lobby the federal government, thus avoiding a conflict of interest when, for example, Carlucci met Rumsfeld in February when several important defence contracts were under consideration. But critics see that as a matter of definition.


"It should be a deep cause for concern that a closely held company like Carlyle can simultaneously have directors and advisers that are doing business and making money and also advising the president of the United States," says Peter Eisner, managing director of the Center for Public Integrity, a non-profit-making Washington think-tank. "The problem comes when private business and public policy blend together. What hat is former president Bush wearing when he tells Crown Prince Abdullah not to worry about US policy in the Middle East? What hat does he use when he deals with South Korea, and causes policy changes there? Or when James Baker helps argue the presidential election in the younger Bush's favour? It's a kitchen-cabinet situation, and the informality involved is precisely a mark of Carlyle's success."


The world of private equity is an inherently secretive one. Firms such as Carlyle make most of their money buying firms which are not publicly traded, overhauling them and selling them at a profit, so the process by which likely targets are evaluated is much more confidential than on the open market. "These firms certainly don't go out of their way to get into the headlines," says Steven Bell, chief economist at Deutsche Asset Management. "They'd rather make a splash in Institutional Pensions Week. The aim is to realise very high returns for your investors while exerting a high degree of control over the company. You don't want to get into the headlines when you force the management to fire a director."


The process has worked wonders at United, and this month the firm announced plans to go public, giving Carlyle the chance to cash in its investment.


But what sets Carlyle apart is the way it has exploited its political contacts. When Carlucci arrived there in 1989, he brought with him a phalanx of former subordinates from the CIA and the Pentagon, and an awareness of the scale of business a company like Carlyle could do in the corridors and steak-houses of Washington. In a decade and a half, the firm has been able to realise a 34% rate of return on its investments, and now claims to be the largest private equity firm in the world. Success brought more investors, including the international financier George Soros and, in 1995, the wealthy Saudi Binladin family, who insist they long ago severed all links with their notorious relative. The first president Bush is understood to have visited the Binladins in Saudi Arabia twice on the firm's behalf.


The Carlyle Group does not employ anyone at its Washington headquarters to deal with the press. Inquiries about the links with the Binladins (as most of the family choose to spell their name) are instead referred to someone outside the company, on condition he is referred to only as "a source familiar with the relationship". This source says: "I can confirm the fact that any Binladin Group investment in Carlyle has been terminated or is being terminated. It amounted to a $2m investment in the Carlyle II Fund, which was anyway a very small portion of a $1.3bn fund. In the scheme of the investments and in the scheme of the business of either party it was very small. We have to get this into perspective. But I think there was a sense that there were questions being raised and some controversy, and for such a small amount of money it was something that we wanted to put behind us. It was just a business decision."


But if the Binladins' connection to the Carlyle Group lasted no more than six years, the current President Bush's own links to the firm go far deeper. In 1990, he was appointed to the board of one of Carlyle's first purchases, an airline food business called Caterair, which they eventually sold at a loss. He left the board in 1992, later to become Governor of Texas. Shortly thereafter, he was responsible for appointing several members of the board which controlled the investment of Texas teachers' pension funds. A few years later, the board decided to invest $100m of public money in the Carlyle Group. The firm's magic touch was already bringing results. Today, it is proving as fruitful as ever.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest



Letting George Do It


Pondering The World's Mother-In-Law


I'm trying to understand American foreign policy. It's like oil-painting on a trampoline, but makes less sense. I'm not sure anybody could do it--not even if you took St. Augustine and Jimmy the Greek and Carl Friedrichs Gauss and wired them together in parallel.


It seems that we're going to blow up Iraq. Some folk will call it a war, but it'll be more like drowning a litter of puppies. Iraq is a primitive country and hasn't got a chance. That's convenient, and lots of fun, but it ain't war.


Now, understand: I'm patriotic, and believe in blowing up as many people as possible, wherever we can find them. But&#8230;why Iraq? It's mysterious. Sure, Hussein is a good, serviceable, every-day sort of monster and ought to be shot. So are about half the rulers in the world. Why this one? Bobby Mugabe needs it more, I reckon. Have we thought about Zaire?


Explain it to me. A ratpack of Saudis blew up New York, so we're going to wreck Iraq. We're going to do it because Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction, except that he doesn't, as far as anyone can tell. The more he doesn't have them, the more we want to blow him up because he does, or doesn't, or would if he did. Maybe.


I don't understand Weapons of Mass Destruction either. Actually, I do. They're a PR package, nice ribbon, pretty wrapping paper, but with nothing inside, to make it sound like we have a reason for attacking. Americans fortunately don't distinguish between a bumper sticker and a policy.


Now, if Iraq had nuclear weapons, blowing them up might be reasonable. But it doesn't. I don't care whether it has chemical weapons, and if it has smallpox, bombing won't help. So why do it? To grab the oil? Make the world safe for Israel? Historical codpiece for George? What's the scam, really?


It never stops. We're always bombing, invading, meddling, or embargoing. Nobody else does. Grenada, the Philippines, Panama, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan twice, Laos, Lebanon twice, Somalia, Sudan, Haiti, Iraq almost twice, Yemen, Angola, Kosovo, Cuba, Libya. We're maybe about to get into a war with North Korea. In fact we have troops there as a tripwire, to be sure we get involved. What could be a better plan?


Why? Why always us? Can't we just, you know, spend an occasional Saturday night at home? North Korea is South Korea's problem, not ours, and South Korea is an industrial power. If it wants to defend itself, fine. If it doesn't, I don't care. Is Japan upset about North Korea? Then let Japan do something about it. Why are we always the International Mother?


What possible reason did we have for bombing Yugoslavia? Last I heard, Yugoslavia was in Europe. Granted, I haven't looked for a while. Maybe it moved to Mississippi or the outskirts of Detroit. Continental drift is like that. But if it's in Europe, I say it's Europe's problem. Let them bomb Yugoslavia till it squeaks. Or not. Why do I care? It's time Europe learned to diaper itself.


For that matter, why do we have troops in Europe? I don't get it. NATO was supposed to fight the Soviet Union, I thought, which we don't have one of.


Could we stop meddling for even a week? We're in Colombia and Mexico and Peru and God knows where because these folk work in the drug trade, and we have A Drug Problem. We have a drug problem because Americans want drugs. It's not Colombia's problem. It's our problem. Why don't we leave Colombia the hell alone?


Think about it. Suppose a Colombian crept up to you in a raincoat, peering around furtively, and whispered, "Hey, Meester, wanna buy some really good polio virus? Great stuff. You'll never walk again. Iron lung, guaranteed. Five bucks."


You would probably indicate that you didn't really need any polio just now. The Colombian would run off and starve, or jump his visa and get a job in construction. You can't sell what people won't buy. It's an economic law. (Unless you're the federal government, which consists of the compulsory sale of unwanted services. But Colombia isn't.)


Americans love drugs. Middle-schoolers through assisted living, black, white, blue collar, guttural lawyers in pricey turtle-neck sweaters, funny-looking urbanites, suburbanites with the little bag in the closet, country boys cutting ditchweed, growing hydroponic, cooking that righteous crank.


It's one of the biggest businesses in America. We'll pay any price, risk jail, do anything for our drugs. The cartel is just a service industry. Half the country wants them, and the other half doesn't have to take them. Why do we expect other countries to let us bomb their peasants to solve our problem?


If we have to poke our nose everywhere, could we at least stop being the Moral Nanny? Somebody said (me, actually) that the Brits fight for empire, the French for la gloire de la France, the Russians to steal watches from the wounded, and the Americans for mommyish moral causes. Spare me.


It's embarrassing. Europe fought world wars to get the Germans off its back. We fought The War to End All War, and then to Make the World Safe for Democracy. The Soviet Union was the Evil Empire, and now Iraq and Korea are the Axes of Evil. (Whether this refers to malintentioned hatchets or indicates that the White House doesn't know that points can't be lines is unclear.) I don't want to be a Manichean baby-sitter.


Americans may need to get out more. I recently heard that ferret-like little man in the White House trying to give a speech about Iraq and how we're going to liberate Iraqis and it's for their own good and they ought to welcome us like rich relatives bringing free stuff. Any day now. Can't we put George back into his storage box in Roswell? Last time we were in Iraq, we killed 125,000 of their men, or some other wholesome number, wrecked the country, set up an embargo that starves 60,000 of their children to death a year, and established an aerial occupation of lots of their country.


But they're going to welcome us because George has good intentions. We're from the government, and we're here to help you&#8230;.


Why are we embargoing Cuba? When the Soviets wanted to put runways and missiles there, it made sense. Now we're making life miserable for perfectly decent Cubans because we don't like that tiresome gas bag with the beard. Yes, I know. We're really doing it because Castro runs an oppressive communist tyranny. Like China, with whom we trade like starving encyclopedia salesmen. Consistency and churchy moralism go so well together.


I give up. It's beyond me.


©Fred Reed 2003

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Create New...