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 on trial).

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.


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