George W. Bush's position is exactly opposite to that of F.D.R.: 
President Roosevelt, since '41,  was fighting against fascist, expansionist aggression. 
ENRON'S lovely friend is out for oil, like Hitler was out for space ("Lebensraum", he called it - a synomym for torched earth and millionfold death). 

How many of Baghdad's millions will survive if Bush's army attacks with hundreds of cruise missiles? 
Will it simply be another Grosny? 

And what if he cyncically opts for nuclear warheads, 
in response to alleged poison gas attacks? Do you have to resort to  nuclear 
arms in order to get rid of one dictator, Saddam Hussein, especially after so many American presidents have supported so many dictators, from Synghman Rhee to Suharto, from Pinochet to the killers of Catholic nuns in Guatemala? 
Even Rumsfeld, only a few years ago, supplied Saddam Hussein's Iraq with anthrax, 
in order to encourage the Iraqi regime to wage war against then hated Iran. 
How cunning, and how sure we don't memorize things at all, these oil mafiosi are! 

I think it is important that we get the facts right: 

To assume that a tiny Third World country with a population the size of Taiwan or Holland poses a threat to the US is simply ridiculous. 

To assume that they are in league with radical "Islamists" of the El Quaida kind is equally ridiculous. Iraq is a secular, westernized country - perhaps the most westernized of the Arab world. Saddam Hussein has been labelled a "non-believer" by so-called fundamentalists. 

It is a dictatorship for sure, but shall we make its population pay for the burden they bear? 

If they are guilty of anything, it is that they have "our oil." 
Does that warrant the death penalty? 

 back to URBAN DEMOCRACY, special issue, SPRING 2003, CONTENTS