war

"Clear need to improve the transparency and accountability of government decision-making in relation to armed conflict.' "Require a written statement to be published and tabled in the Parliament setting out the objectives of major military operations, the orders made and legal basis"; "Facilitate debate ..."
 

Australia's decision to add weapons [1] to the Ukraine pyre shows our government is unable to critically formulate foreign policy.

While westerners are sending money to help Ukrainians, their elites are joyfully raiding Russian assets. This article is partly to explain a cartoon I recently published which apparently mystified a number of people. It pictured a pirate galleon called US-NATO with a crew talking about the treasure they had stolen from Russia, where a cartoon Biden asks a cartoon Victoria Nuland: "How much have we shaken Russia down, so far, Mrs Nuland?" and Nuland replies, "Well, let’s see.

Clare Daly is an Irish Member of the European Parliament (MEP). Here is a transcript and video of her speech of 6 April 2022.

(See Alex Christoforou's video commentary inside.) Why did Ukrainian President Zelensky appear before the Greek Parliament, with a Nazi soldier from Ukraine's Azov Batallion? Have Ukrainian Nazis grown tired of fighting a hopeless war in the background, while Zelenski is lionised, and now seek the limelight and recognition for their sacrifices? Zelensky described the soldiers appearing with him as courageous, noting the Greek origins of one of them.

We have repeatedly mentioned facts about the atrocities of nationalists terrorizing civilians for any disobedience or attempts to leave settlements.

Today, footage of civilians killed in Chernihov, who were supposedly “shot by Russian servicemen,” was circulated on all propaganda resources of the Kiev regime. It was stated that all victims were allegedly queuing for bread.

I would like to stress the absence Russian servicemen in Chernihov.

Interesting and informative speeches from all over the world. Speakers: Joe Lombardo (UNAC), Patricia Gorky (ANSWER Coalition), Rhonda Ramiro (BAYAN USA), Jacqueline Luqman (Black Alliance for Peace), Rick Sterling (Task Force on the Americas, Veterans For Peace), Judy Greenspan (International Action Center), Jeff Macker (UNAC West Coast)

Video inside with Ian Lowe talking on the impact of war on carbon gas production, and Peter Catt asking for people's views on the connection between war and refugees. The general public is invited to give their opinion in this democratic inquiry. The Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN) is a national network of community, peace and faith organisations, environment groups, trade unions and individuals concerned about the social, economic, environmental, military and political costs of Australia’s involvement in US-led wars. IPAN advocates an independent and peaceful Australian foreign policy. IPAN is conducting a broad People’s Inquiry examining the costs and consequences of Australia’s involvement in US led wars and the US alliance.

The Inquiry aims to give a voice to the community and increase public discussion on the social, economic, financial, environmental and political impacts. It seeks to inform and promote debate in the Australian community. The national Inquiry invites organisations and community members to make submissions on their views and concerns. We also invite submissions offering alternatives for the future. We are keen to develop a coherent and persuasive case for an independent and peaceful Australian foreign policy, and military and defence spending priorities. (See here for earlier information about the inquiry.)

The Inquiry deals with 8 key areas:

• Impact on First Nation Peoples

• Social and Community (Health, Education, Community & Welfare, Housing)

• Union and Workers’ Rights (Job security, workers’ rights, defence and sustainable industries)

• Environment and Climate Change

Military and Defence
Foreign Policy
Economic
Political, including Democratic Rights
For more information about the Inquiry, How to submit, Inquiry Background Paper, Terms of Refence please go to the People's Inquiry webpage: https://Independentpeacefulaustralia.com.au/

We are also offering you/your organisation a face-to-face or online presentation and discussion on the Inquiry and how to submit. If you are interested please feel free to contact us to arrange a time.

Submissions to the Inquiry will be reviewed by a panel of experts chaired by lawyer and investigative journalist, Kellie Tranter, and used to prepare a report on the impact to Australians, of the military alliance with the United States and involvement in wars of the past 70 years, from Korea to Afghanistan (where Australian personnel are still deployed). This report will be widely promoted and publicised in the community, the media, in parliament, amongst politicians and public figures.

With the escalating US-China tensions, the Inquiry report will share your views and suggestions for alternatives to our current predicament.

A submission can be one paragraph or up to 5,000 words. Please also pass this on to anyone whom you think may be interested.

We very much hope that you will be able to fit this important task into your busy schedule.

With best wishes,

IPAN-Victoria Representatives

On behalf of the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the meeting in Moscow between Russian President Putin and Turkey's Erdogan. Erdogan made many outrageous claims, including that Turkey had killed over 2,500 Syrian troops during fighting in Idlib's surrounding areas...a claim which is ridiculous on its face, and exposes how out of touch the Turkish leader is when it comes to this reckless invasion of Syrian sovereignty. See more at The Duran: https://theduran.com

Russian President Vladimir Putin met his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad in Sochi on 21st November 2017. The last time Assad visited Russia was at the beginning of the Russian campaign in Syria in 2015. According to the Syrian president, in two years of the Russian campaign the successes achieved have been evident and many residents of the country were able to return to their homes. He noted that thanks to Russia, Syria was saved as a state. (Text by Inessa S.)

The Chief of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff, Valeri Gerasimov, said conditions have been created for the return of refugees to Syria, during the trilateral meeting with his Turkish and Iranian counterparts in Sochi. "The main thing is that the sovereignty, the territorial integrity of the country has been preserved, the civil war was stopped, conditions were created for the restoration of peaceful life and refugees' return," said Gerasimov.

President Putin similarly told his Czech counterpart, Milos Zeman, that "over 98% of the territory of Syria is under the control of Syrian government troops, during their meeting in Sochi. Zeman congratulated Russia for its role in the outcome in Syria, saying: "you have won in Syria, because he [Assad] now controls almost the entire Syrian territory."

The Russian military campaign in Syria began in late 2015, by invitation of the Syrian government. Meanwhile, the Western coalition was carrying out military activity there almost two whole years beforehand, illegally. Under the guise of fighting ISIS, they were simultaneously targeting Assad’s government forces, as well as letting ISIS spread like wildfire.

President Assad and President Putin met on 21st of November to celebrate the defeat of Daesh in Syria, but we hear little of this in the western media, which is distracting people with Hollywood scandals. In this brilliantly documented episode of The Debate, Iranian Press TV has conducted an interview with Janice Kortkamp, a journalist from Washington, and Jonathan Fryer, a London-based writer and lecturer, to discuss "the end of Daesh" terrorist group in Syria and Iraq.

Inside, two interviews with Dr Tim Anderson, Sydney academic, on Syria. The first is by Channel 7 on 24 January 2014 and shows incredible bias. The second is by Journalist Joshua Blakeney, who interviewed Anderson and Hands Off Syria's Jasmine Saadat about their recent visit to Syria where they met with Syrian officials including the President of Syria Bashar al-Assad. The interview was conducted at a time when the pro-war Australian press was attempting to discredit members of Hands Off Syria Australia for meeting with members of the Syrian government. See inside for videos.

This is supplied to readers of candobetter.net in order to balance Channel 7's ridiculously biased interview with Tim Anderson, which you may access here.

The second (larger picture) is the link to the longer and more intelligent interview.

The interview was recorded on January 12, 2014 and can be found archived on The Real Deal radio show's blog: http://radiofetzer.blogspot.ca

There's an excellent article by the ever-reliable McClatchy News, analysing the various 'inconsistencies and hinges' in the Obama administration's 'red line' case against Syria. In the light of the latest allegations by French intelligence services, it raises several unanswered and often unasked questions:

by Matt

1. Why would Syria carry out a chemical weapons attack in its capital, within 72 hours of the arrival of the UN Inspection Team, which it had invited to the country to investigate the earlier alleged use of chemical weapons?

2. Which of the UN Security Council members agreed to limit the mandate of the Weapons Inspection team to investigating whether chemical weapons attack had taken place, but not their provenance?

3. According to the case presented by Kerry, the US had 'collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence”' that showed the Syrian regime preparing for an attack three days before it took place. Why didn't the administration issue a public warning beforehand in an attempt to prevent it?

4. Why did the US immediately seek to undermine the UN Weapons Inspection team when news of the Ghouta attack first became public, by declaring that any further investigation would be irrelevant and 'too late'?

5. Sarin gas traces can last not only for months, but for years. Why have the US, Britain and France insisted that any evidence at Ghouta will have been destroyed by the regime or become 'degraded' and therefore useless to the UN Inspectors - a barefaced, flat out lie?

6. The US and France claim to have collected traces of sarin in samples of hair and blood from first responders that were 'provided to the United States.' How were these samples collected and why were they provided to the US and not the UN?

7. What explains the huge discrepancy between the alleged casualty figures provided by the US, Britain and France?

8. Why has the US insisted that the rebels have no chemical weapons capability, even though Carla del Ponte, a senior member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria claimed in May that UN investigators in May had found ' strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof' that rebel forces may have used them?

9. Is there any truth in the reports by the MintPress News that Saudi-backed rebels may inadvertently have set off a sarin gas explosion?

10. Do the US and its allies actually want a full, scientifically-based, independent investigation into what happened at Ghouta, or are they merely ignoring any contrary facts that contradict their allegations and using stitched-up 'intelligence' information as a pretext for 'humanitarian' bombing?

Matt | September 3, 2013 at 8:22 am | URL: http://wp.me/p1wQsg-IJ

As a result of the wars and sanctions against Iraq since 1990, found by the UK Government's own Chilcot Inquiry in 2012 to have been illegal, 3.3 million Iraqis have died and many more have fled, including 1.2 million to Syria, according to Wikipedia. Knowing that the same people who invaded Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya are now arming, supplying and paying the so-called "Free Syrian Army" (FSA), Syrian patriots are fighting hard against the FSA killers -- and winning.

Please attend a public meeting at 7.30PM on Wednesday 6 March for peace in Syria at the Unitarian Church, 110 Grey Street, East Melbourne. (The previously advertised time of 6.30PM was wrong. Our apologies.)

In order to boost the numbers of fighters, sadly depleted by almost two years of savage fighting, Syrian women are now being enlisted into the armed forces as shown in this YouTube video on the Syrian Girl Partisan's YouTube channel. This channel is an excellent resource with which to arm yourself against lies from the mainstream media such as the Guardian article Brothers in arms: the 10 brothers fighting for the Syrian uprising of 22 February by Martin Chulov.

How you can help save lives and help Syria save itself from the New World Order

If you live close to Melbourne Victoria, please attend a public meeting for Peace in Syria.

Venue: Melbourne Unitarian Church Hall, 110 Grey Street, East Melbourne

Date: Wednesday 6 March

Time: 6:30PM

Originally published on Global Research TV (http://tv.globalresearch.ca, grtv) on 28 Feb 2013

They say that big ideas start from humble beginnings. In the pantheon of ideas, perhaps there is none bigger than the quest to criminalize war. The concept itself is difficult for many to process at first. It does not mean to uphold some mere code of war conduct, making certain atrocities committed during times of war punishable as “war crimes,” as in the Geneva Convention. Instead, the concept of criminalizing war seeks to make warfare itself a crime, punishable as an offense no matter when or how it is waged or under what pretext.

Originally published on Global Research TV (http://tv.globalresearch.ca, grtv) on 28 Feb 2013

They say that big ideas start from humble beginnings. In the pantheon of ideas, perhaps there is none bigger than the quest to criminalize war. The concept itself is difficult for many to process at first. It does not mean to uphold some mere code of war conduct, making certain atrocities committed during times of war punishable as “war crimes,” as in the Geneva Convention. Instead, the concept of criminalizing war seeks to make warfare itself a crime, punishable as an offense no matter when or how it is waged or under what pretext.

For many in the anti-war movement in the Western world, completely demoralized by the utter abandonment of the movement by many on the pro-war left who are unwilling or unable to criticize Obama’s avid pro-war policies, the idea of criminalizing war will seem a pipe dream, no more realistic than the idea of stopping all violence in the world or making everyone a millionaire. This is precisely the problem. The long-time activists and campaigners have become so disillusioned that they no longer even try to implement the changes they would really like to see take place in the world. The weight of their experiences has taught them to be grateful for small advances here and there, and to expect that big changes can never happen.

In stark contrast to the jaded views of older generations stands the idealism of youth, an idealism that the older generation, predictably enough, tends to dissuade by urging those youth to “grow up” and “face reality.” However, late last year the first seeds of a new anti-war movement were planted in Malaysia, a movement that seeks to shape the world in the image of that ideal society not by dissuading youthful idealism, but by fostering it.

The concept was unveiled at the International Conference on War-Affected Children which took place at the Putra World Trade Centre on November 22nd last year. Attended by dignitaries including former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and current PM Najib Razak, the event sought to draw attention to the plight of children in war-torn countries around the world.

The event also saw the launch of a new initiative by the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalize War. Called “Criminalise War Clubs,” the aim is to encourage the development of independent, student-run organizations around the idea of criminalizing war. The organization’s charter was formally signed by the Prime Minister and other dignitaries, and the first two chapters of what is planned to be a global phenomenon were started with a reading of the charter.

The charter calls for wars of aggression to be criminalized, for states and governments to protect children in armed conflicts, and for banning the participation of children in wars.

In an exclusive interview with Global Research TV, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad talked about the clubs, and what they hope to achieve.

The clubs are just one program spearheaded by the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War, the non-governmental organization founded by Mahathir Mohamad in 2007. Its other initiatives include the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission, comprised of scholars, lawyers and high-ranking officials from around the world, and the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal, which successfully prosecuted George Bush, Dick Cheney, and others last year for their participation in war crimes in the war on terror.

Last November I talked to G.S. Kumar, the Editor of Criminalise War, about Mahathir Mohamad’s vision, and the promise that initiatives like the Criminalise War Clubs offer.

There is, of course, no guarantee that initiatives like these will pay off in the future. Whether or not human civilization will ever be able to envision a way to resolve their differences without recourse to war is a question that has yet to be definitively answered. But if we do not continue to pose that question, then surely no answer will be possible. And given the stakes of the conflicts raging across the globe today, and the possibility of nuclear war, or war waged with even more advanced technologies, the need to answer this question has never been greater.

To be sure, there is a vast chasm between the world we currently live in and one in which war itself is outlawed. No one is pretending otherwise. But it is clear at this point that if that ideal is ever to be realized, it will not be presided over by the current generation of disillusioned cynics in the burnt-out wreckage of today’s demoralized anti-war movement, but by a generation yet untouched by that disillusionment.

If it is indeed true that big ideas have humble beginnings, then it would be harder to think of a bigger idea, or a more humble origin.

Permission to publish this eloquent and magnificently drawn cartoon gratefully acknowledged to the artist, Keith Nesbitt of Sustainable Population Australia, South Australia. The original drawing was done in black and white. Jill Quirk (President of SPA Victoria and Tasmanian Branch) coloured it electronically.

News is still filtering out today about a US Army Staff Sergeant who allegedly yesterday (Sunday) left his barracks in southern Afghanistan before dawn and walked to the rural villages of Balandi and Alokzai in Afghan's southern Panjwai district and went on a shooting rampage, murdering sixteen unarmed civilians in their homes. Reportedly mostly women and children are among the dead. The number of wounded is still not known.

The male soldier was apparently by himself as he walked from house to house opening fire Sunday on the Afghan villagers as they slept. Apparently some bodies have also been burned.

"No Taliban were here. No gunbattle was going on," cried out one woman, who said four people were killed in the village of Alokzai, all members of her family. "We don't know why this foreign soldier came and killed our innocent family members. Either he was drunk or he enjoyed killing civilians."

The other 12 dead were from Balandi village, said Samad Khan, a farmer who lost all 11 members of his family, including women and children. Khan was away from the village when the attack occurred and returned to find his family members shot and burned. One of his neighbors was also killed, he said.

"This is an anti-human and anti-Islamic act," Khan said. "Nobody is allowed in any religion in the world to kill children and women."

One woman opened a blue blanket with pink flowers to reveal the body of her 2-year-old child, who was wearing a blood-soaked shirt.

"Was this child Taliban? There is no Taliban here" said Gul Bushra. The Americans "are always threatening us with dogs and helicopters during night raids."

U.S. forces have been implicated before in other violence in the same area. Four soldiers from a Stryker brigade out of Lewis-McChord, Washington, have been sent to prison in connection with the 2010 killing of three unarmed men during patrols in Kandahar province's Maiwand district, which is just northwest of Panjwai. They were accused of forming a "kill team" that murdered Afghan civilians for sport — slaughtering victims with grenades and powerful machine guns during patrols, then dropping weapons near their bodies to make them appear to have been combatants.

[Read More: 'American opens fire on Afghan Villagers - kills 16']

Australia is the world's second largest arms importer, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Yet there are no armed wars in Australia and our local crime industry could not possibly use $1,677,000,000 worth of military weapons as estimated to be our imported value in 2010. Are we on-selling and who is involved?

Okay, we're involved in a number of international 'peace-keeping' exercises, but how do we manage to make second in the world imports with India the first? What is going on? Are we on-selling and disguising the world traffic of these arms? Are we a middle-man for international war-mongerers? Makes little old John Howard's amazing popularity coup when he banned gun ownership for Australians look just a tad hollow.

Socialist Hamish Chitts writes,

"Australia’s rich want a greater share of this global industry. Particularly the governments of Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory are vying with each other to be the most arms industry-friendly place in the Asia Pacific. Promoting the Asia Pacific Defence and Security Exhibition (since cancelled due to planned protests), organisers of this arms fair proudly announced in a press release in September 2007, that between 1994 and 2006 the Asia Pacific was the only region with increased defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP. It has been forecast that the Asia Pacific will overtake Europe and the Middle East, becoming the world’s largest arms market with US$104 billion of military projects scheduled in the next 10 years, of which US$25 billion is projected from Australia. Threats of instability and future conflict, real or imagined, caused primarily by the US “war on terror”, are driving this arms race." Source, "Dollars from Death, The Arms Industry in Australia, on the Direct Action site. (Direct Action sprang from what is referred to as Green Left which is the website of the party known as the Democratic Socialist Party (itself renamed from the Socialist Workers Party as it was known in the 1970s and 1980s, during which time it labelled itself Trotskyist. More on candobetter and socialism here.)

In 2003-07 Australia was [only] the eighth largest arms importer, accounting for 3.08% of world deliveries. Hamish Chitts writes "Most of this spending in was a result of Australia’s involvement in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, but there has also been lavish spending securing Australia from the threat of mythical terrorists, and the big players in the arms industry have been quick to exploit this market."

Australian arms imports

Trading Economics reports:

"Arms imports (constant 1990 US dollar) in Australia

The Arms imports (constant 1990 US dollar) in Australia was last reported at 1,677,000,000.00 in 2010, according to a World Bank report released in 2011. The Arms imports (constant 1990 US dollar) in Australia was 684,000,000.00 in 2009, according to a World Bank report, published in 2010. The Arms imports (constant 1990 US dollar) in Australia was reported at 384,000,000.00 in 2008, according to the World Bank. Arms transfers cover the supply of military weapons through sales, aid, gifts, and those made through manufacturing licenses. Data cover major conventional weapons such as aircraft, armored vehicles, artillery, radar systems, missiles, and ships designed for military use. Excluded are transfers of other military equipment such as small arms and light weapons, trucks, small artillery, ammunition, support equipment, technology transfers, and other services.This page includes a historical data chart, news and forecasts for Arms imports (constant 1990 US dollar) in Australia."

Below is a record of the value of Australia's arms imports since 1960. The source of these figures was Indexmundi

Australian arms exports

The The Medical Association for the Prevention of war (Australia) ascribes a rise in Australia's arms exports to the privatisation of our arms manufacturing industry. State-owned enterprises such as Australian Defence Industries (ADI), used to serve and supply the Australian armed forces. "Because of the program of liberalisation, the sector is now dominated by private, often multinational, corporations. The former ADI is now owned by Thales Australia, the local branch of the French-based Thales Group."

"After a protracted process ADI Ltd was privatised in 1999 passing from government ownership into the hands 50:50 partners Transfield of Australia and French defence company Thompson-CSF, later to become Thales." (Source: http://www.australiandefence.com.au/C89E4250-F806-11DD-8DFE0050568C22C9

The Medical Association for the Prevention of war (Australia) states, "A privatised military sector cannot be counted on to place national security, peace or human rights interests above the pursuit of profit. Ironically, a sales-driven arms industry is best served by the undermining of these very concerns." According to the same source, this Australian export arms industry had an estimated worth of $US45.6 billion in 2006."

Your views and knowledge sought to increase ours. Please comment.

This article, by Frosty Wooldridge, is simply the best damn summation of the human costs of the Iraq War I have yet read. IMHO, Wooldridge is the best writer in the business. He has three things going for him. A firm grasp of reality, a command of the facts, and the creativity to write about them---- driven by the rocket fuel of rage and passion. Say no more. Tim Murray

This month, our combat troops of United States military withdrew from Iraq after nearly a decade of killing 100,000 Iraqi citizens of all persuasions, being murdered themselves by insurgents who infiltrated past check points, thousands were killed or maimed by countless IEDs, and, as time plays out over 100,000 American combat troops are predicted to commit suicide from their brains being scrambled by the horrors of war. Thousands of marriages will fail and countless children will suffer the horrors of war as their fathers live in Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome purgatory.

As to the first question of who won: no one. As to the second question of who lost: everyone. As to the third question of who got screwed: America’s military and America’s sons and daughters that served.

Of all the stupid, needless, meaningless and painful wars the United States has created, George W. Bush and the Military Industrial Complex, along with other war profiteers should be sent to prison for their lies, fraud and deception against the American people. “Weapons of Mass Destruction” will become the poster-phrase for our leaders lying, cheating and swindling the American people. George W. Bush cajoled, coaxed and coerced us into war with Iraq.

The German Nazi beast Hermann Goring said it 60 years ago:

“Naturally the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Vietnam killed 58,300 kids, wounded 350,000 young men and created havoc across our country. It started our national debt into the trillions of dollars. It split families and it too was based on a lie: the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave President Lyndon Baines Johnson the “reason” to massacre over 2.1 million Vietnamese in 10 years of war. No negotiation, no conversation, no attempt at understanding—just go in to Nam and blast them back into the stone age. Trouble was—they pretty much lived in the Stone Age in the first place. Because of his sickening choice, Johnson died of depression and a very sick and sad man the last years of his life. He actually “got it” as to what he did. It will be interesting to see if former President George W. Bush ever “gets it” as to the astounding amount of death and horror he created. He may end his life inside a bottle of booze where he started it.

From the war in Vietnam, I wrote a piece showing a doctor’s research whereby somewhere over 175,000 to as high as 225,000 American combat troops that left Vietnam in one piece, killed themselves from their emotional wounds from their service in Vietnam. The alcoholism and drug addiction from that war grew beyond imagination. It continues today in veteran homelessness, poverty, broken families, drug and alcohol use and nameless children that never enjoyed a healthy father.

The human misery that George W. Bush created in Iraq and Afghanistan may go much higher than 225,000 suicides of U.S. troops. If you start counting the human misery of 2.5 million Iraqi refugees and incredible displacement of their society, the human misery factor extends off the charts.

As you noticed this past week, the Sunni and Shiites are already bombing each other into more violence. One bomb in Baghdad killed 69 people and wounded over 100 others. Sectarian violence will continue.

Our “moment” (10 years) over there might be likened to a person sticking his or her hand into a bucket of water. While our hand remained in the water, the level of the water changed and we created cause and effect. When we withdrew our hand, it all returned to the same as before we left. As Richard Engel said to NBC’s Brian Williams on Friday, “Their sectarian violence is just beginning and will implode Iraq. Iraq’s President Maliki cannot control what’s coming.”

In other words, their endless tribal wars will re-convene. Which means, all our nearly $1 trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money will have gone for all the death and destruction—for nothing. In the meantime, our own country’s educational systems, infrastructure and cities crumble before our eyes.

Saddam Hussein was no more a threat to the United States than a baby in a sandbox 10,000 miles away. To remain in Afghanistan for 10 years defies logic, reason and common sense. If we are to be the police-nation of the world to bring all the dictators to justice, we would have to attack, occupy and dominate North Korea, China, Pakistan, Republic of Congo, Somalia, Sudan and two dozen other countries around the world. It’s absolutely absurd what we allowed the Military Industrial Complex to perpetrate on our citizens and our country.

But because we now support an all volunteer army, no one blinks at the deaths and costs. More disturbing, we spend more money on war than most of the rest of the world combined. In the meantime, we suffer 42 million functionally illiterate Americans, 46 million Americans living on food stamps, another 15 million unemployed and 13 million children living in poverty. We’re losing the middle class while our prisons house 2.3 million suffering souls. We have millions of foreclosures of homes for Americans and we can’t pay our teachers a decent wage while our schools fail.

When will this president address America’s rebuilding? When will this Congress “attack” America’s problems? When will Americans speak up for America’s future?

When will 535 members of Congress grow a brain, spine and conscience to represent peace, common sense and reason? When will we elect presidents that studied history, learned critical thinking and understood logic? When will America become an instrument of peace in the world?

If I were a betting man, some president in the future will “create” another war guided by the Military Industrial Complex that creates another generation of suicides, fatherless families, plastic legs, arms and PTSD military veterans. And the American people? Too apathetic to get off the couch to speak up against war!

Frosty Wooldridge

Once again, we come upon another poignant anniversary. December 7, the day that the Japanese Imperial Navy attacked Pearl Harbor some 70 years ago. Like 9/11, it is traditionallly marked as a significant historical event. But I believe that it is significant for entirely different reasons than what we have been given. On December 7, 1941, the Japanese government undertook a desperate gamble. The questions we need to ask are several. What made them desperate? What would make nations desperate today? What do desperate nations and desperate people do when they reach desperation? And what do we do when these desperate nations and people are armed with nuclear weapons?

Whose lesson will YOU follow?

We are often told that if we don’t learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. The problem is, however, that history often teaches lessons quite different from those that the puppeteers of patriotic propaganda would have us believe. Such is the case whenever December 7th approaches. That is the day when my life experience collides with the official narrative. Let me tell you why.

Fiction That Told The Truth

Nevil Shute's book On The Beach was mandatory reading for my generation. It was read by school-children across the province (B.C.). Subsequently, of course, we were subjected to a raft of movies about nuclear war and what it would mean. Two stand out for me.

"Testament" with Jane Alexander in a lead role, was unique in that it did not depict a blast or even a hint of what lead up to the war. Instead, it showed how a typical middle class suburb would try to cope with nuclear fallout, and how inexorably, people would die off to the point that the community would collapse. Like "On the Beach", the audience was left with an over-powering sense of futility, made more powerful by the absence of infrastructure damage, firestorms and bodies trapped in rubble.

We can't hide from scarcity

These movies actually simulate our predicament too. We face a threat----scarcity----which will breech every wall, border or nuclear umbrella. The virtue of the analyses like those of Jack Alpert and Chris Clugston is that they remind us that we are all tied into a global resource base. The depletion of the minerals and metals and fuels (NNRs) which Chris has inventoried will affect everyone on this planet as surely as the radiation did in Nevil Shute's book (and movie) and in "Testament". We can hide behind our gated communities, or behind militarized borders, but scarcity will come calling and will not be kept out. Not even a trillion dollar-a-year military budget can save us.

This in fact, was the case with the walled cities, fortresses and castles that were beseiged by Alexander, by Caesar, by the Crusaders (and their adversaries) by the Mongols and countless other intruders throughout history. Hiding behind walls gives you respite from privation and death, but not permanent sanctuary. Typically, the besieged end up eating each other. Don't get me wrong. I am an immigration-reductionist. I believe that unfettered mass migration will accelerate our collective demise. (cf. Bill Rees' "Globalization, Migration and Trade"). But strong borders in the context of remorseless global scarcity will be like speed bumps. I want speed bumps in my neighbourhood to discourage commuter traffic----but they will not address the problem of overwhelming traffic volume in the city. We can act locally---as is our responsibility----but Chris Clugston and Jack Alpert remind us that the problem we face is beyond local solutions. Its global or bust. And that was the case during the Cold War. The effects of a nuclear exchange could not have been quarantined to one region, or avoided by finding a secluded haven. My mother understood this.

The trauma of growing up under a nuclear shadow

I remember, as a boy, begging my parents to build a bomb shelter. I firmly believed that Russian bombers would one day appear over the horizon. After all, the air raid siren just two blocks away would sound off at random just to keep us on our toes. On one occasion, I was walking home from school with a group of other 6 year old kids---including my classmate Daphne---- when it sounded off as we were walking by it. We sprinted home in panic and Daphne was in hysterics by the time she reached her mother.

The school authorities too did their part in fostering this tension. We practiced duck-and-cover drills which today are often the subject of humour among those who did not live through it. I don’t remember laughing. It didn't help when Sputnik was launched either. To hype the fear of Russian military and scientific dominance, the Vancouver Sun featured a front page photograph of Soviet children all raising their hands in a science class to show that they all had the correct answer. Our teachers waved the newspaper in our faces to impress us with the need to "keep up" with the Russians. School curricula was beefed up and we all felt the pressure to pack our brains with knowledge. In those years, the stress was such that I could not eat breakfast until well after Christmas. Trust me, if you are going to traumatize people, best to scare the Beejesus out of them when they’re young. I never needed to read Stephen King.

There are no personal escape hatches

My folks were endowed with much common sense. I remember my mother asking me, "Tim, suppose we build a bomber shelter, and the Russians drop an atom bomb on Vancouver. What if other parents didn't build a shelter, or stock it with food and water. How would we keep them out? And if we could, would you want to? Would you keep your friends out? Would you keep Ronnie, Doug, Daphne and her sister out? And if we survived, how long would our food and water last? When it ran out, where would we get our vegetables and milk?" I was about 7 or 8 at the time, and Mom always used the Socratic approach with me--- she was my best teacher. I learned, very early, that we are all in this thing together. There are no personal escape hatches. And if there was, I don't think I would want to survive anyway. I don't own a gun, and I am never shot anyone (or any animal for that matter). In the face of starvation, I do not believe that the better angels of our nature will prevail. Starving marauders will kill without mercy. If murder is the price for living, count me out. In fact, if an upheaval of that order unfolds, I'd like to get my hands on the pill that Australians used in "On The Beach". Stuff your Second Amendment. Guns won't grow food. But I am a Canadian, and I guess that is a typical Canadian attitude.

Nuclear war still the ultimate disaster

The other movie of great poignancy was the 1984 British docudrama "Threads", about a nuclear attack on the city of Sheffield. It is simply the best dissection of the aftermath of nuclear war ever made. It should have been required viewing for every Congressman in the United States and every politician in the Warsaw Pact. See that movie, and you will understand that nuclear war is, always was, and always will be the ultimate disaster for humanity. I am sorry, but climate change doesn't even come close. In fact, I find it ironic that Severn Suzuki’s generation should assume the mantle of being the first generation to actually face the prospect of species extinction in their lifetime. Generation Y did not invent doomsday. Boomers lived with it.

Setting the stage for war

I cannot understand why the possibility of nuclear war is virtually off the radar screen. In the desperate scramble for scarce resources governments will do desperate things. Think about what Japan did in December of 1941. They provoked a war with a superpower that was many times its industrial superior, all because its oil supply source was cut off. I can’t believe that Pakistan, India, Israel, Iran .....among others, would stand still and watch their citizenry starved to death. I can't believe that the United States would stand by and watch the Chinese commandeer our oil. How is this for setting the stage for conflict: We are determined to build one crude oil pipeline to Kitimat (the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project) to serve the Chinese market and another---Keystone-- for the US market, after the Chinese recently launched their first aircraft carrier. So much for Canada the Peacemaker. If you think oil spills would be an environmental disaster, try nuclear winter.

The real lesson of Pearl Harbor

The conventional lesson that Americans drew from the Pearl Harbor attack was “Never again should we let our guard down, we must always be prepared”. And 9/11 has been served up as a refresher course. But we can never defend ourselves from the consequences of growing scarcity. Desperation breeds desperados, and this time, they have WMD.

Scarcity is the trigger

It seems like we are at a carnival show watching a shell game. There are four peas---one representing Peak Oil and non-renewable resource scarcity, one representing biodiversity collapse, one representing climate change, and one representing a holocaust from nuclear/biological/chemical war---all hiding under four different shells. Environmentalists seem to be fixated on the third shell, the one that conceals climate change. I think that is a dangerous fixation. I think that the most imminent and lethal danger is scarcity, because as Jack Alpert has tried to tell people, scarcity leads to conflict. And conflict in turn leads to scarcity, as the haves will invest precious resources trying to protect what they and the have-nots will spend resources in trying to get it. This is what Jack calls "The Death Spiral of Civilization". Scarcity is the trigger.

The question that confronts us then is, "How do we solve Scarcity?", or if we can't---as Chris Clugston would argue---how do we mitigate it to reduce the carnage? My answer is that since the economic pie will shrink dramatically, we must dramatically reduce the number of people who demand slices, for contrary to eco-socialist mythology, there is not enough to go around to indefinitely support our population. If we could manage the descent in a graduated fashion, we might avoid the conflict which would ignite Armageddon. I know it is a faint hope, but I rather like civilization. I'd like to hang on to it as long as possible.

That is the lesson that Pearl Harbor teaches me. What about you?

Tim Murray
December 2/2011
PS

If you want to see Threads the movie, try this link.

A better way to view it would be to obtain the DVD and see it without breaks.

Despite the near daily news coverage of many poor countries suffering conflict and disaster, critical, underlying issues are almost never mentioned by journalists reporting endless symptoms and predicaments. The issues covered in this article add insight into the key development challenges facing the countries concerned and, by implication, the policies of countries like the US, UK, Australia and Canada, where billions are being spent in aid and military interventions to try and stabilise failing states.

To News editors: Raising news awareness on driving forces behind failing states

Click on picture for film from the Population Media Center - http://www.populationmedia.org

By Brian McGavin, writer and analyst. August 2011.

Below I give some interesting and generally unreported facts that provide important background on many of the failing states regularly in the news. For example, Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, Palestinian Territory and Afghanistan. It also includes Pakistan and Iran.

Despite the near daily news coverage of these countries, critical, underlying issues are almost never mentioned by journalists reporting endless symptoms and predicaments. These issues add a great deal of insight into the key development challenges facing the countries concerned and by implication the policies of countries like the US, UK and Canada, where billions are being spent in aid and military interventions to try and stabilise failing states.

The aim is to give journalists more balance and context to reports. A simple one or two-sentence addition of data gives a far better understanding of the significance of demographics to a country’s geo-political profile, its aid dependency and social and economic future.
(See table below*)

Through 2011 we have seen almost daily coverage of the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ and armed conflict. While some underlying factors of high youth unemployment, rising food prices, water shortages and fears of growing Islamic fundamentalism are mentioned, the media has decidedly not focused on the troubling demographic realities the Middle East and other crisis-ridden countries face. Good news coverage is not just about immediate events, but fundamental causal symptoms. Here are some examples.

1) Egypt. Hardly any mention has been made of the large and rapidly growing population of Egypt, its extremely small arable land area of just 3 per cent, food imports of 40 per cent and the total dependence now on food imports and aid to sustain the population.

Egypt’s population almost quadrupled in just 60 years, from 21 million in 1950 to 81 million in 2010 and at its current 1.8 per cent annual increase in population, the population could hit 150 million before 2050, unless the birth rate declines. (UNPD data). Consider the potential for endless and costly food aid and the rapidly growing numbers of unemployed and disaffected young people attracted to violence and extremism.

2) Afghanistan. On December 23, 2009, UK Channel 4 TV news ran a 20-minute lead on selling children and kidnapping people in Afghanistan. The father selling two of his children was portrayed as a ‘victim’ of poverty in being unable to feed or care for his family. The size of his family was not mentioned – but he had a lot of children.

The reporter asked what would happen to the child and was told it was an opportunity for a better education, but no more was asked about the child’s fate. Various ‘experts’ including Joe Klein of the New York Times and the CEO of Oxfam UK were asked for their view. Corruption, poverty and criminality were discussed, but what was not mentioned was the country’s demographic trajectory that would add a great deal of context to the discussion.

The UK Guardian newspaper on 14/9/10 ran a four-page spread on progress in Afghanistan towards meeting the UN Millennium Development Goals by 2015. The prognosis was gloomy, but in all this verbiage, there was just one minor mention of a 'rising population in Afghanistan' as one of several environmental factors that may see the country not being able to produce enough food to feed its people. In fact, several interesting factors were mentioned in the article, but does any of this important information get covered in the almost daily news reports of more coalition troops being flown home in coffins?

Among the largely unreported gems was that remaining forests were being chopped down for firewood; water shortages and contamination was growing, with thousands of hungry people fleeing the countryside to cities - particularly Kabul, which at 5m people is now the fastest growing capital city in the world. It is also one of the only capital cities without a proper sewage system. Yet Coalition forces have spent years and billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money in the country without these issues being reported in mainstream media.

3) Haiti, like many of the poorest countries in the world, has one of the lowest per person consumption footprints in the world. In Spring 2010 a world-wide media bonanza descended on the earthquake-stricken island, bringing daily live reports of a human disaster: Almost 98 percent of the forests cut down; raw sewage flushing into the ocean; large-scale illiteracy; lack of fresh water, and not enough food for an island on permanent food aid.

But the media reports never mentioned this was happening on an island that possesses the carrying capacity for perhaps 500,000 people, but the culture of Haiti and the Catholic Church ‘encouraged’ it to grow to over 10 million and counting. Haiti has already wrecked much of its ecological assets and relies on exporting people to USA, Canada, the neighbouring Dominican Republic and even the Bahamas as a safety valve for its extreme population pressures.

US Census Bureau records give the legal Haitian population in the United States exceeding 850,000. In Canada the Haitian diaspora is estimated to be around 1 million. There are also estimated to be over 800,000 illegal Haitians living in the neighbouring Dominican Republic, which accounts for about 10% of its national population. (Wikipedia).

While an increase of rape cases has been mentioned in some news reports since the disaster, a reproductive health survey, conducted by UNFPA Haiti in October 2010, found that the fertility rate in urban areas has tripled from four per cent to 12 per cent. But this was never mentioned in on-going media coverage of the disaster or in NGO aid appeals.

4) In Gaza, around 1.5 million people are crammed onto an arid strip of land 40km (25 miles) long and 6 to 12km wide. Many people live in poverty, with unemployment at 45 percent in late 2010, one of the highest in the world according to the UN. The population has grown by 40 per cent in the past 10 years and is rising by about 5% every year. It is expected to double by 2030 – with family sizes of eight or more not unusual.

5) In Libya, repeated stories of ‘refugees’ - alternatively described as ‘migrant workers’ trying to leave the country were shown on TV, many of them sub-Saharan Africans. What was not reported is that an estimated one in six of Libya’s population is made up of illegal sub-Saharan immigrants trying to reach Europe. Italy eventually paid the Libyan Government to help stop them moving on to Italy. With the chaos, where are these illegal residents heading now, aided by International Refugee Agencies and how did the Libyan Government suddenly acquire so many sub-Saharan mercenaries to brutally attack its own people?[1]

6) Pakistan. The media spent weeks looking at the late 2010 disaster in Pakistan, where one-fifth of the country was flooded by the Indus River. But you don’t hear any information that Pakistan is housing 174 million people on a flood plain and at its current birth-rate the population is set to more than double over the next forty years. That ‘core’ challenge never crosses the lips of CNN, NPR, NBC or the BBC.

7) In Yemen, a nation of 22 million and rising rapidly, grain production has fallen by two thirds over the last 20 years and 19 of Yemen’s 21 aquifers are severely stressed. Yemen now imports 89 per cent of the food it needs according to a recent EU report. World Bank projections say the area around the capital, San’a’ - home to 2 million people and one of the world’s fastest growing cities, may be pumped dry in a few years.

In October, we will have seven billion people in the world. I am sure you will agree that these core issues on huge challenges we are facing need to be brought fully to the public's attention. I hope you will cascade this information round your teams and let me know. I can add much more.

Sincerely,

Brian McGavin,
(UK-based writer, geo-political and environmental analyst)

*The UNPD 2010 population data gives population in 1950, 2010 and projected in 2050 and current average number of births per woman (total fertility rate TFR). The table also shows the potential self-sufficiency or bio-reserve deficit exposure for these countries, taken from the Ecological Footprint Atlas 2010 (appendix F, Table 1) - based on most recent 2007 data.

• Bio-capacity reserves or deficits are in global hectares (gha) per person. Plus (+) is current reserve bio-capacity. Minus (-) is a biocapacity deficit. (Rounded to nearest decimal and percentage).
• Climate change impacts will likely increase pressure on many countries’ bio-capacity.
• The 2010 UNPD population data shows ‘medium variant’ estimates of population growth This assumes an often quoted presumption that total fertility rates will fall to the lower levels of many developed countries and the population will reach 9.3 billion by 2050 and then hold steady. (2.1 children is replacement fertility). So far, this shows little sign of happening in most African countries and many areas of the Middle East.
• If the global Total Fertility Rate continues at its current path, population projections will be far higher and the impact on people and the planet in just 39 years will be immense. (See the constant fertility projection in the table). A UN news release issued on March 11, 2009 warned that if fertility rates don’t fall, the medium variant projection of around 9.3 billion people by 2050 would instead rise to 11.1 billion people by 2050. In addition, many developed countries are now offering ‘baby bonuses’ to increase their populations.
• Projections for 2100* are shown for Nigeria, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, to demonstrate the frightening demographic position in the lifetime of many of our children if current birth rates persist. (Rounded to nearest million).
• Because Pakistan has not conducted a census since 1998, the country’s population size is conjectural. The government estimates the 2010 figure at about 175 million people, while the United Nations believes the number is around 185 million.

The Washington-based Population Reference Bureau (PRB) latest 2011 data shows more pessimistic projections on fertility decline in many developing countries, so they use the High Variant projection. Note PRB’s 2050 projections for Nigeria, at 433m as against UNPD 390m and Pakistan at 314m as against UNPD 275m.

[1] Ed. The remark about Libya is based on a perspective contested in some quarters, e.g. global research and ”candobetter.net – libya”, due to the lack of objective evidence for Gaddafi attacking his own people, their apparent willingness to defend him, and the conspicuous motives of the US, the UK and France to preserve first-world hegemony in the oil-producing region against China and coalitions of the third world with Gaddafi, the brilliant originator of OPEC in the 1970s.

Some, who present themselves as opponents of war, have spent more time cataloguing Gadhafi's past real or alleged shortcomings than rallying people to oppose the current, all-out military attack on the sovereign nation of Libya by the United States and its NATO allies. Their influence would be small, except that it coincides with the opinions of the U.S. ruling class. Thus it is important to thoroughly answer their arguments.

Article re-published from original of 25 Jul 2011 by Sara Flounders in Global Research. See also: Washington’s Allies Run Amok: Saudi and Emirati Forces Open Fire on Unarmed Protesters in Bahrain of 24 Jul 11 by Finian Cunningham, BAHRAIN - National General Strike - Demand for Representative Democracy in an immigrant overloaded state of 21 Feb 11.

If you went to a shopping center, a street corner or a graduate school of a top university in the U.S. and conducted a pop quiz asking who are the kings or crown princes of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco and Bahrain; the emir of Kuwait, Qatar or Dubai; and the sultan of Oman, most people would not be able to name any of them.

These dictators and feudal monarchs hold absolute control in corrupt and brutal regimes. Their rule is kept in place by U.S. arms, troops and mercenaries, but they are anonymous to the U.S. population and to most of the world's people.

But if you went anywhere in the U.S. today and asked who lives in Libya, there is only one name that a large part of the population could tell you: Gadhafi. Many people, even if they do not know that Libya is in Africa, might tell you that Gadhafi is an evil man who "must go."

The corporate media can demonize the leader of a country targeted by the Pentagon to the point that the consequences of using the most deadly weapons against a totally defenseless population are hidden and dismissed.

No other country in history has the capacity to wreak such havoc, using cruise missiles, bunker busters, drones, depleted uranium and dense inert metal explosive bombs, anti-personnel razor shredding bomblets, and anti-personal mines.

What should be the response to this terror?

Unfortunately, a minority of groups or individuals who present themselves as opponents of war spend more time cataloguing Gadhafi's past real or alleged shortcomings than rallying people to respond to this criminal, all-out U.S. attack. Their influence would be small, except that it coincides with the opinions of the U.S. ruling class. Thus it is important to thoroughly answer their arguments.

Whatever mistakes made by the leaders of a small, underdeveloped country facing U.S. sanctions, sabotage and assassination attempts, they are not the reason the U.S. is hell-bent on destroying Libya today.

What is at stake?

U.S., French, British and Italian imperialists are determined to lay hold of Libya's now well-developed infrastructure of oil refineries, pumping stations, gas lines, ports and pipelines directly into Europe, as well as billions of dollars in gold reserves, oil reserves — the largest in Africa — and Libya's other rich assets. All of this has been built up over the four decades since U.S. and British imperialism were kicked out of the country.

The imperialists are especially determined to stop Libya's assistance in the development of other African countries. The plans for a United Federation of Africa, which were put forth by Libya and backed with $90 billion in investment funds, deeply threaten the continued multinational corporate looting of the continent.

The people of Libya have resisted more than four months of nonstop aerial assault. The bombing has united the population. Their cohesion has grown. More than 1 million people hold giant rallies in Tripoli.

A government in fear of its population would never hand guns to the public, but Libya's government has distributed more than 3 million weapons in a country of 6.5 million people to enable them to resist occupation.

Incredibly, it looks like the imperialists are facing still another failed war. A falling out among thieves seems to be taking place as NATO's frustration mounts.

The response to this colonial war of aggression should be the same as the response to a racist mobilization, a racist lynch mob or a police attack on an oppressed community: Mobilize all possible forces to stand up to the crime and say "no!" Refuse to take part in the orchestrated campaign of vilification.

This may not be an easy position to take. But it is essential to reject the racist political onslaught that accompanies the military onslaught.

Demonization is meant to disorient and put the massive, criminal destruction planned by U.S. imperialism beyond debate. Enormous pressure is placed on every level of the U.S. population to accept the premise that the targeted country and its leadership are to blame. The attacks are presented as if only one person lives in Libya, and not 6.5 million people.

In preparation for a war of conquest, the role of the corporate media is to endlessly repeat every charge and statement made by the institutions of U.S. power. An almost frenzied level of lies, wild fabrications, racist stereotyping and ugly caricatures saturates all political discussion.

The corporate media spread the demands that the Pentagon death machine must act in the name of "humanity" in order to "save lives." The war itself is cloaked in neutral terms. In the case of Libya, more than 16,000 bombing sorties against people are described as implementing a "no-fly zone." The White House has assured the population that this bombing is not an act of war. The administration won't even discuss it with Congress.

The response to media demonization in the midst of a war mobilization must be to focus on the outrageous crime being committed and refuse to accept or give weight to any justification for it.

Despite an ocean of propaganda, poll after poll has confirmed that from 60 percent to 65 percent of the U.S. population is against the U.S. war on Libya. This should give all opponents of this imperialist war great hope and confidence.

But the demonization and racist war propaganda have seeped down into a layer of the progressive and anti-war movement.

In every imperialist war for decades, a whole series of writers, commentators and political organizations considered to be progressive have buckled under enormous social pressure. While claiming to be against U.S wars, they allocate their greatest energies to focusing on and discussing every shortcoming, mistake and inconsistency of the targeted country — in the very same condemnatory tone as the corporate media.

They have said "neither NATO nor Milosevic," "neither Bush nor Saddam," "neither Israel nor Hizbollah," thus helping to weaken the anti-war forces.

The responsibility of progressive intellectuals and groups in the United States is to utilize their considerable research skills to extract every piece of information that could explain the corporate stakes — the anticipated profits behind the imperialist war. And never to echo in left terminology the charges made in the imperialist media.

Working people need to know the real reason behind the attack. Thus every effort must be made to avoid reinforcing government propaganda. Progressives should look to build the broadest possible unity in order to speak with one voice against the war.

Of course, such misguided groups are a small minority in the progressive movement. But there are those political organizations, which six months ago had not bothered to mention Libya, that now suddenly seek out respectable venues to add their own reasons that the dictator Gadhafi "must go" — an echo of the imperialist demand. Some even insist that in order to be part of the political discourse, every anti-war voice must first join in condemnation of Gadhafi.

In a few places this chorus on the sidelines has even disrupted anti-war meetings, calling on the anti-war movement to fall in line and echo the racist ruling class.

The Cynthia McKinney tour

In their determination to join with all the "respectable voices" condemning Libya, some groups have even sounded just like the imperialist media by seeking to silence the courageous voice of former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney. This is how arrogant and offensive those who demand collusion in U.S. wars have become.

McKinney risked her life to visit Libya with a U.S. delegation in the midst of the U.S./NATO bombing. She deserves respect.

McKinney was first a target of national media condemnation as a young, first-term state representative in the Georgia Assembly, when she dared to speak out against the U.S. war on Iraq. The entire chamber of representatives stood up, turned their backs on her and walked out.

When elected to the U.S. Congress, her outspoken opposition to and questioning of the orchestrated national frenzy surrounding the Sept. 11, 2001, attack; her clear opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement; her defense of political prisoners; and her support of the Palestinian people generated national campaigns to pour funds into opposing candidates in her small Georgia congressional district. Again and again the district lines were redrawn in an attempt to disqualify McKinney from the U.S. Congress. She has earned international acclaim for her candidacy for president on the Green Party ticket, for her participation in humanitarian convoys to Gaza and for being jailed by Israel.

McKinney's tour to six cities organized by the Answer Coalition, and now to 15 cities organized by the International Action Center — all of which have successfully mobilized forces against the U.S./NATO invasion of Africa — have also come under criticism and cowardly attack. Some of these elements are even writing and speaking against McKinney's right to speak against the war in Libya.

Even more arrogant and insensitive are their attacks on the Nation of Islam and Pan-African voices opposing the war.

For more than three decades many Pan-African activists, African people and Muslims have followed developments in Libya with great interest and enthusiasm. Many people traveled to Libya and favorably compared the social accomplishments in Libya — which, according to the U.N., scored highest in Africa on the Human Development Index in education, housing, length of life, nutrition and infant mortality — to the enormous poverty and glaring underdevelopment of most of the continent. They have spoken out forcefully against the looting of Africa and defended Libya as a country that, although sanctioned, sabotaged and under continuing attack, managed to maintain a level of independence from imperialism.

It is criminal to dismiss those actually mobilizing, writing and speaking against war as just pro-Gadhafi.

Pentagon lynch mob

What should be the attitude toward a family or a town seized by a lynch mob?

How does one respond if a racist gang of thugs, with torches and gasoline, is ready to set fire to a home with children inside, or is determined to capture someone who they felt had not shown proper "respect?" Is that a time to wander off into analysis of the targeted victims' credit card payments, driving record or other possible past mistakes or personal shortcomings?

Bombs are falling on Tripoli. Isn't that a Pentagon lynching?

In the face of a criminal terror campaign against a whole country, it's imperative not to do anything to support the attack. It's essential to do everything in your power to mobilize people to resist.

To use every possible argument of defense, and not give a shred of legitimacy to the racists who are attempting to burn the whole country down, along with all of its proud accomplishments.

Don't allow yourself to be on the same side as the imperialist war makers.

Leave it to the Libyan people to decide their own future without U.S./NATO bombs. Leave it to African, Arab and especially Libyan people to discuss and debate, without outside interference.

But here in the center of the U.S. empire, it is important to refuse to join in the demonization and attacks used to justify atrocities committed by corporate power. Most important: Don't echo imperialist propaganda in the midst of a war of aggression. Don't join in a lynch mob being organized by the Pentagon!

Unite behind one clear slogan:

Stop the U.S./NATO war on Libya.

Sara Flounders is Co-Director of the International Action Center

This article argues that Australian Refugee Activism has been used to divert the public eye from attacks on Australian democracy and away from questioning the very wars that cause refugees. If we judge this political movement by its outcomes, then the Australian "refugee rights" activism has been worse than a total failure for all but a very few international refugees, specifically those who arrive clandestinely on boats.

See also: UN's outdated Refugee Convention - an immigration smoke-screen

A defense might be raised by refugee activists that the absence of serious discussion of the causative issues is the product of biased mainstream media reporting. A look at the blogs strongly associated with the movement, however, reveals that they also fail to seriously confront the causes. See for example socialist-alliance.org and directaction.org.au and greenleft.org.au

The writer contends that Australians and the rest of the world have had to put up with very poor coverage and discussion of the events described below which have given rise to huge numbers of refugees:

* The Hawke 'Labour' Government's support for the 1991 war against Iraq, based upon fraudulent pretexts including the "incubator babies" lie and the set-up of Saddam Hussein by then US Amabassador to Iraq April Glaspie.

This war and the 2003 wars which followed it produced many Iraqi refugees and continue to do so. The focus of refugee activists helped to disorientate Australians politically because it concentrated on only a few landed asylum-seekers rather than protesting against the causes, which lay in war. This probably made it easier for government to wage these wars.

* The Howard Government's re-election in 2001 in spite of broken 1998 election promises, its failed attempt to break the Maritime Union of Australia in 1998 using mercenary strikebreakers and the imposition of its regressive and unpopular Goods and Services tax (GST).

Howard's re-election in the face of all these handicaps was only made possible because of the political disorientation caused by the Tampa 'boat people' incident of 2001, combined with 'refugee rights' activism.

Here is how it happened: When the election was approaching there were a lot of things the Government had done since its election in 1998 that the Australian public should have been thinking critically about. Instead, everything preceding was sort of swept away with the blow-up over the Tampa incident just before the election. This focus on one event allowed the media to ignore many other issues which would have done the Howard government a huge amount of damage if canvassed in the election.

* The Howard Government's support for and participation in the invasion of Afghanistan based on the fraud of the September 11 false flag terrorist attack.

This illegal invasion has cost the lives of 27 Australians and of considerably more Afghanis so far. It has also helped increase to record levels Afghan production of opium, which the overthrown Taliban regime had tried to stop.

Press coverage of the activities of refugee activists distracted people from the really important issues of the time, which included the fraudulent use of the false-flag terrorist attack of September 11 to start the Afghanistan war. The upshot was a whole nation of people turned into a basket case, of which many could qualify as refugees.

* The Howard Government's support for, and participation in, the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The main pretext for the invasion, the claim that Iraq was attempting to build nuclear weapons has been shown to be a lie. The truth about the WMD lie can be found in the Hollywood movie Fair Game which concludes with live footage of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, (played by Naomi Watts in the movie), testifying to US congress about the WMD lie. Howard's election in 2001 was helped by press diversion onto refugee activism.

The same thing happened again in 2004 when the press should have been drawing public attention to the WMD and Iraq invasion fiasco and international debacle, which itself has also produced many refugees, quite a few of whom have arrived on Australian shores.

* The re-election of the Howard Government in 2004 with outright Senate and House of Representatives majorities, in spite of the most massive anti-war demonstrations since the 1960's demonstrations against the Vietnam war, prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

This re-election left the Howard Government free to pursue its participation in the Iraq war and to pursue other regressive domestic policies. The ongoing issue of refugee and asylum-seeker procedures, as represented by refugee activists, continued chronically to hold the front pages, again dwarfing a major world conflict and creator of many refugees.

* The 'Labor' governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard continue the Howard Government's Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

This is an ongoing consequence of the Australian media's failure to adequately question the rationales of these wars, whilst continuing to feature refugee activism day after day.

* The current 'Labor' Government of Julia Gillard further fanning the flames of civil war in Libya by, at one point, recognising the US/NATO backed National Transitional Council as the legitimate government of Libya.

Australian procedures for dealing with asylum seekers continue to overshadow the necessary public debate and press coverage of our poorly justified recognition of and support for the dubious representatives of the National Transitional Council.

Over the period that 'refugee rights' activists have been able repeatedly to reach large sections of Australian public opinion with their message, the Australian Government has succeeded in helping its US, UK and other allies inflict unprecedented harm in the world, causing the world population of refugees to rise by many millions.

It is not the intention of this article to disparage the cause of individual refugees or the good work of people who help them. The author wonders, however, why the refugee action movement has so little to say about the wars that give rise to much of its existence. Why is it so uncritical and apparently disengaged in regard to the wider political issues that produce refugees?

This extraordinary news report (available on YouTube Obama 'ignore' button: Congress has a say? (also embedded within this article) describes U.S Congress's challenges to President Obama's powers to make war against a foreign nation without approval from congress.

See also: Libya conflict: Backlash ensues to Obama's refusal to seek Congress's nod of 18 Jun 11 by Cheryl Sullivan on Christian Science Monitor, US-NATO are Planning a Ground War in Libya, Military Intervention in Syria of 18 Jun 11 by Bob Chapman on Global Research.

The YouTube broadcast Obama 'ignore' button: Congress has a say? (also embedded below) describes U.S Congress's challenges to President Obama's powers to make war against a foreign nation without approval from congress. Near the end of the broadcast (3' 46" into the 4' 22" broadcast) Author David Swanson remarked:

Congressman Dennis Kucinich was debating a former lawyer from the Reagan White House who was defending Obama and he asked this guy twice -- never got an answer -- "If there were 2,000 missions over the United States by a foreign nation and many of them were dropping bombs, would that be war? Would that be hostilities?"

See also: Libya conflict: Backlash ensues to Obama's refusal to seek Congress's nod of 18 Jun 11 by Cheryl Sullivan on Christian Science Monitor, US-NATO are Planning a Ground War in Libya, Military Intervention in Syria of 18 Jun 11 by Bob Chapman on Global Research.