|Last night, before the morning of March 20, 2003 dawned
in Iraq, war has broken out.
An illegal, aggressive, "pre-emptive" war. The last preemptive
war conducted by a big power may not have been the war
waged by Hitler-Germany against Poland, but this war
is as inexcusable.
The German fascists effectively sabotaged the League
of Nations which lead to its demise.
The Bushists are now in the process of destroying the
United Nations, subverting its power to define legitimate military action.
The "right" of the bully to suppress a weaker antagonist
is however no right.
In the case of the US- Iraqi conflict, a selfish, egoistical
clique drowsy in view of the military might it commands is getting even
with a selfish, egoistical little dictator running a technologically backward
Third World country twice the size of Idaho and with a population merely
the size of Taiwan's. A threat posed by Iraq? It is ridiculous. Concern
about democracy and human rights? Even more ridiculous. US governments,
during the past 50 years, have sided with any bloody dictator who supported
them. Often enough, they installed them - overthrowing legitimate and democratic
presidents (Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in Chile, the
Conservative Greek prime minister in Greece when the election victory of
a Social-Democrat, US-educated Andreas Papandreou, was in sight...)
The real reasons for war may be manifold but none of them
is put on the table by the US government.
Connections with Al Qaeda? More than unlikely.
A non-believer, head of a secular Arab state, in league with these religious
fanatics propped up for decades by the CIA, in order to make life difficult
for the Russians in Afghanistan? And if the Iraqi dictator would
suddenly try to establish contacts with them, it would be plausible
to claim that in fact US military pressure pushed him in that direction.
By the way, he would be no more guilty of the crime of association with
terrorists than various US governments in league with the terrorist UNITA
in Angola for years, with the terrorist RENAMO in Mozambique for years,
with Arab extremists sent to Chechnya and Bosnia and Afghanistan for years...
While today the US government denounces Chechnyan nationalist fighters
as terrorists, it is not long ago that it covertly supported them while
a US ally, Saudi Arabia, provided financial backing and a field of recruitment.
And as far as Al Quaeda and similar groups in Afghanistan are concerned,
who supplied them with Stinger missiles? Was not the Bush family intricately
involved in financial dealings with the Bin Laden clan?
So, to come back to the pretended reasons for war, we
can be fairly certain that Iraq has less reason to be afraid of any accusation
of terrorist contacts than Mr. Bush.
Secondly, we can be absolutely certain that the weapons
of "mass destruction" Iraq possesses are of negligible importance
and pose no threat whatsover to the US. The anthrax spores supplied by
Rumsfield himself to the Iraqi government at the time of the first Gulf
War (when Iraq aggressively attacked Iran, thanks to US prodding) should
be handed to UN inspectors of course for destruction. The same goes for
US antrax spores and other US biological weapons. They deserve immediate
destruction, posing a threat not only to mankind generally, but specifically
to US citizens at odds with the Bushist camp, to journalists, to Senators
like Daschle (who became so much more careful about what he says, since
the suspicious antrax attack the perpetrator of which has never been put
There is another queer aspect to this illegimate, illegal,
immoral war. The Bushists are apparently responsible for the creation of
a special unit called Delta Force, trained to "kill Saddam." Now this totally
contravenes international law. No head of state can lawfully order
the assassination of another head of state. If the war was legally conducted,
that is to say in accordance with international law and with the blessings
of the United Nations, politicians and soldiers involved in war crimes
could of course be arranged before an international court. The Geneva convention
protects combattants, however, from willful and biased actions, such as
being murdered after capture, tortured, etc. To kill an unarmed civilian
person (even a dictator) except as an unintentional consequence of
combat action directed at army personnel of the "enemy" or strategically
important targets (such as rail connections, bridges, etc.) is totally
illegal. Any order "to kill Saddam" constitutes in fact a crime. But the
entire "preemptive war" amounts to nothing else but the kind of criminal
war of aggression the fascists tried in Nuremberg and the military commanders
of Japan were hanged for after World War II. UN inspectors said there was
reasonable hope to disarm Iraq peacefully. The majority of the international
community concurred with them. The people of the world, millions of whom
went out into the streets in protest against Bushist recklessness,
supported the governments who argued in favor of a peaceful solution up
to the very last moment.
We can only add our voice to the voice of the many democratic
people, conservatives, liberals, leftists, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists
and other believers, as well as agnostics and atheists who in these last
few months have joined the chorus of protest reverberating around the world.
As a consequence of the outbreak of war and Bush's apparent
determination to "kill Saddam," we have received several satirical texts
which we don't want our readers to miss.