Saturday, March 29, 2003

The massacre, continued:

  1. Some people believe that one of the main reasons for the ignominious defeat of the Americans in Vietnam was the over-reliance on one particular piece of technology, the helicopter. Helicopters are very popular with American military strategists, not because they help to win wars, but because they are so easily destroyed and cost many millions of dollars to replace (and it's so much fun to play God, zipping along to the imaginary strains of Wagner while using your machine guns on civilians). In the corrupt military procurement system, these factors are considered to be advantages, as more money can be extracted from the taxpayers to go to the military-industrial complex. Helicopters can be felled by the technology available to peasants (the Vietnamese found they could entangle the rotors, and hunting rifles seem to work well too), drop like a rock with few survivors when they fall, and are particularly unsuited to conditions where there is a lot of sand, like Iraq (or Iran - remember Jimmy Carter's failed hostage rescue mission; some conspiracy theorists believe that the military intentionally sabotaged that operation by using helicopters it knew were likely to fail in order to embarrass Carter and ensure the election of the more military procurement-friendly Reagan). Use of helicopters means lots of dead Americans and a constant drain on the U. S. treasury, both of which eventually add up to defeat. This crony-capitalist chickenhawk 'war' is being micromanaged by people whose first goal is enriching their military contractor friends, and whose secondary goal is winning.

  2. The War Street Journal has got its panties in a knot over the fact that Saddam is allegedly massing his military resources around historically important architectural sites, as if this were some kind of war crime. I hate to have to keep returning to the obvious, but this isn't a traditional war, it is an Anglo-American massacre. The attack on Iraq has not the tiniest justification in international law or morality. Saddam can, and should, do everything he can to stop the Crusaders from enslaving his country and stealing its assets. If the Americans destroy world-historically important archeological sites because of their greed and evil, the moral opprobrium of the world will forever lie on the United States, not on Saddam.

  3. Here is a list of some of the media lies on the attack on Iraq (and a good analysis of some of the lies here). The BBC has admitted its complete incompetence ("heralding the fall of Umm Qasr at least nine times" - HA!), but it is infinitely better than any American source. Claims about Iraqi weapons have been particularly bungled, leading me to the inescapable conclusion that this is not just utter incompetence, but active media participation in the Pentagon propaganda effort.

  4. The Americans have killed another 50 or so Iraqis in another 'accidental' attack on Baghdad (in a neighborhood called 'Shula'). It is quite apparent that these are not accidents (here is a report on the previous incident in a neighborhood called 'Shaab'). Intentionally bombing civilians may be an attempt to soften up Baghdad in anticipation of the American battle to capture it, or it may be a symbol of the frustration of the Crusaders who express their emotions by proving they can still kill, or it may just be another attempt to stir up the Muslim world to provoke more terrorism and thus more excuses for American colonialist wars. In any event, the American leadership is completely insane.

  5. Two quotes from an article by Stephen Zunes:

    " . . . the Bush Administration is already attempting to inoculate itself from criticism by claiming that Saddam Hussein is using 'human shields,' though virtually all the Iraqi civilians killed so far have been ordinary people in or near their homes."


    "The Pentagon claims that such civilian casualties are 'unavoidable.' This, however, is patently false. Civilian casualties are unavoidable only if the war is unavoidable. This war was not unavoidable. As a result, such efforts to relieve the United States from moral responsibility will likely fall on deaf ears."

  6. If the Americans want to commit a massacre, they have to accept the consequences of their immorality. Because this war is both immoral and illegal, the Americans are responsible for both their own war crimes and any war crimes committed by the Iraqis in trying to defend themselves. I keep harping on this point, but it needs to be repeated as most American arguments about this 'war' are based on the assumption that it is not both immoral and illegal.