|
Talk is accumulating on the site here about what's going on in the Middle East and the repercussions it has around the world. This is a page where all of that will be talked about rather than scattered about on 'Belmont Street'.
A Statement from Bruce Springsteen
Posted: Apr 22, 2003 7:29 AM
(from Brucespringsteen.com) |
|
The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves. To me, they're terrific American artists expressing American values by using their American right to free speech. For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American.
The pressure coming from the government and big business to enforce conformity of thought concerning the war and politics goes against everything that this country is about - namely freedom. Right now, we are supposedly fighting to create freedom in Iraq, at the same time that some are trying to intimidate and punish people for using that same freedom here at home.
I don't know what happens next, but I do want to add my voice to those who think that the Dixie Chicks are getting a raw deal, and an un-American one to boot. I send them my support.
Bruce Springsteen
(April 25, 2003)
|
Tim Robbins gave a speech at a recent gathering at The Press Club in Washington that deserves a read by the open minded. (April 25, 2003)
Scientists urge shell clear-up to protect civilians Royal Society spells out dangers of depleted uranium Paul Brown, environment correspondent
Thursday April 17, 2003
The Guardian
Hundreds of tonnes of depleted uranium used by Britain and the United States in Iraq should be removed to protect the civilian population, the Royal Society said yesterday, contradicting Pentagon claims it was not necessary.
The society's statement fuels the controversy over the use of depleted uranium (DU), which is an effective tank destroyer and bunker buster but is believed by many scientists to cause cancers and other severe illnesses.
The society, Britain's premier scientific institution, was incensed because the Pentagon had claimed it had the backing of the society in saying DU was not dangerous.
In fact, the society said, both soldiers and civilians were in short and long term danger. Children playing at contaminated sites were particularly at risk.
DU is left over after uranium is enriched for use in nuclear reactors and is also recovered after reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. There are thousands of tonnes of it in stores in the US and UK.
Because it is effectively free and 20% heavier than steel, the military experimented with it and discovered it could penetrate steel and concrete much more easily than convential weapons. It burns at 10,000C, incinerating everything as it turns to dust.
As it proved so effective, it was adopted as a standard weapon in the first Gulf war despite its slight radioactive content and toxic effects. It was used again in the Balkans and Afghanistan by the US.
DU has been suspected by many campaigners of causing the unexplained cancers among Iraqi civilians, particularly children, since the previ ous Gulf war. Chemicals released in the atmosphere during bombing could equally be to blame.
Among those against the use of DU is Professor Doug Rokke, a one time US army colonel who is also a former director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project, and a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University. He has said a nation's military personnel cannot wilfully contaminate any other nation, cause harm to persons and the environment and then ignore the consequences of their actions. He has called on the US and UK to "recognise the immoral consequences of their actions and assume responsibility for medical care and thorough environmental remediation".
The UN Environment Programme has been tracking the use of DU in the Balkans and found it leaching into the water table. Seven years after the conflict it has recommended the decontamination of buildings where DU dust is present to protect the civilian population against cancer.
Up to 2,000 tonnes of DU has been used in the Gulf, a large part of it in cities like Baghdad, far more than in the Balkans. Unep has offered to go to Iraq and check on the quantities of DU still present and the danger it poses to civilians.
Professor Brian Spratt, chairman of the Royal Society working group on depleted uranium, said that a recent study by the society had found that the majority of soldiers were unlikely to be exposed to dangerous levels of depleted uranium during and after its use on the battlefield.
"However, a small number of soldiers might suffer kidney damage and an increased risk of lung cancer if substantial amounts of depleted uranium are breathed in, for instance inside an armoured vehicle hit by a depleted uranium penetrator."
He said the study also concluded that the soil around the impact sites of depleted uranium penetrators may be heavily contaminated, and could be harmful if swallowed by children for example.
"In addition, large numbers of corroding depleted uranium penetrators embedded in the ground might pose a long-term threat if the uranium leaches into water supplies.
"We recommend that fragments of depleted uranium penetrators should be removed, and areas of contamination should be identified and, where necessary, made safe."
He added: "We also recommend long-term sampling, particularly of water and milk, to detect any increase in uranium levels in areas where depleted uranium has been used. This provides a cost-effective method of monitoring sensitive components in the environment, and of providing information about uranium levels to concerned local populations."
(April 22, 2003)
Recently I watched an article on a Canadian newsprogram on CBC called "The Fifth Estate", in which it discussed a missed opportunity for the U.S. and its allies to rid the world of Saddam Hussein's regime back in the last Gulf War of '91. It's a heartbreaking end to a very indecisive war. The allied troops did indeed rid Kuwait of a possible takeover by Hussein, but they didn't finish the job.
The Iraqi Kurds, basically ostracised by Hussein and his government from the core of Iraq, rebelled against Saddam's dictatorist ways, and were actually helped by the allied forces in fighting against the regime. President Bush Sr. backed up the Kurds and encouraged them to fight against their government, assuring them they're dedicated to the same cause. When the threat to Kuwait was eliminated and the U.S. seemed apparently tired of trying to find Saddam Hussein, the forces pulled out of the area and teh Kurds were left to fend for themselves. Subsequently, Hussein sought out the Kurds with mustard gas and chemical weapons, killing thousands, and the virtually defenseless Kurds could only hide in caves and just wait to die as the gas seeped in through their limited protective stone walls.
Now that the U.S. is back in Iraq to throw Saddam out again, the Kurds doubt their motives. Why come back now? What happened twelve years ago? Why did you desert us? Why should we trust you now? Just a few questions the Kurds are asking the coalition forces as they mow down Iraq with overrated Patriot missiles and hundreds of thousands of troops. Now comes word in the following article from CBC of yet another "friendly fire" incident that killed more Kurds in their own territory. You likely won't hear much about this on CNN, if anything. Donald Rumsfeld would rather recite numbers of bombs and Iraqi soldiers being killed than relate to the human faces of this miserably tragic war. The "friendly fire" excuse (take the "r" out of "friendly" and it's a better description) is running pretty thin these days.
Kurdish troops killed in U.S. air attack
Last Updated Sun, 06 Apr 2003 12:10:32
IRBIL, IRAQ - An estimated 17 Kurdish soldiers have been killed in an apparent "friendly fire" bombing in northern Iraq, a Kurdish party spokesman said.
U.S. aircraft bombed a joint convoy of Kurdish fighters and U.S. Special Forces Sunday near the town of Makhmur, in Kurdish territory about halfway between the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Kirkuk.
The explosion and fire injured at least 45 others, including Wajeeh Barzani, the brother of a senior Kurdish political figure. He is reported to be in critical condition.
The convoy had stopped moving when the missile struck, said CBC reporter Margaret Evans, who was in one of the vehicles but wasn't injured.
"People were just getting out of their cars. I heard a very loud noise coming from over my left shoulder. I looked up, thinking a plane was flying very low, but it was actually a missile. It hit right in the middle of the convoy."
The bomb exploded in the middle of the road, sending up flames, she said. "The window in the car I was travelling in was completely shattered and people basically ran for cover."
BBC reporter John Simpson, who was also with the convoy, said he saw several vehicles on fire, and "bodies burning all around me."
U.S. Central Command originally reported that three Americans had been killed and five wounded in the "friendly fire" attack by an F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft.
But it then retracted that statement, saying that was actually from an April 3 incident.
Simpson suffered shrapnel wounds to his leg and his translator was seriously injured in the attack.
"An American plane dropped the bomb right beside us. I saw it land about 10 feet away," Simpson told BBC television.
Written by CBC News Online staff
Monkey's Business
To anyone who ever visits this particular page on the site, I'm sure you've expected me to tackle this subject sooner than later. Everyone has an opinion on the war going on in Iraq at the time that I write this. But not every opinion is an informed one.
This comes to my attention when my nephew was over last night, and we had a brief discussion about the goings-on in the Middle East. He asked me if I'm for or against the war. Of course I voiced my opposition to it, but what took me aback a little was his rather gung-ho attitude for it. When I asked why, I got the usual response from anyone who pays attention to only one side of the story: That Saddam Hussein is a madman, look at what he does to his own people, that ruthless dictator should die, etc. I agree with a lot of that. Hussein is a nutbar through and through. He's certainly a megalomaniac and a narcissist who appreciates an audience of mirrors more than glass. But that can be said for so very many countries' leaders in the world. Namely Kuwait, Iraq's next door neighbours with whom they've been at odds with for much of recent history. Kuwait is a dictatorhip-run country. Did you know that? Not a lot of people do who support the war in Iraq. This is what I mean by those who don't have informed opinions. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in a power struggle which ignited the Gulf War back in the early nineties, the U.N. entered the fray spearheaded by the U.S. and the British and proceeded to just about obliterate Iraq as a country. They have to defeat this ruthless dictator and save...well, the other dictator from his wrath. Oh, and there's lots of oil in Kuwait, let's not forget that. A minor detail? You decide.
CNN is the most trusted news network in this hemisphere. And what a shame that fact is, isn't it? Especially in circumstances like the current ones concerning the war in Iraq, where the U.S. forces along with the British are going in against the wishes of the United Nations to oust the regime governed by Hussein ruling the country. I'm proud and thankful as a Canadian that our government took the braver stance in not caving in to our big brother down south. Nothing against the common American, as by and large, America's own citizens oppose the invasion of Iraq also. But now Canada, via our own ruling government (and thank God we don't have Duschebag Steven Harper as a leader, who's all for sending our people into the heart of hell itself in the midst of the war) has taken on a responsibilty to oversee things as a neutral onlooker, and we're more likely to see the mistakes and atrocities being made from both sides in this pointless battle. Last night I flicked the TV over to CNN to see what they were saying, and they were showing repeated coverage of anti-war protesters getting out of hand in San Francisco, with the anchorman verbally reprieving those involved for their actions. They hung onto this. They drilled it into viewers heads that this is what represents the antiwar movement. How silly is this! CNN is attempting to stereotype people who are against the war in Iraq as mindless idiots who'd just as soon fight those who are for the war as much as oppose the one actually going on. I've said this to a lot of people...if you want coverage on what's happening with this miserable and meaningless fight, tune in to CTV or CBC, or a neutral country, as the Iraqi news and the American newschannels are going to be very busy writing and reporting their own versions of history. Canada is in a position to view this thing unbiased, and our media will do so, hopefully.
Just before war broke out, I was watching on CTV NewsNet as weapons inspectors were on their way out of Iraq, along with other countries' diplomats and ambassadors, and they were saying what very probably will be their final goodbyes to their comrades that they're forced to leave behind and be subject to the bombs and gunfire that will overrun their home country. Tears of sadness and embracing during their farewells were heartbreaking to witness. Kids, mothers and fathers who are just trying to get by thanks to the sanctions imposed by the likes of Great Britain and the U.S. now have to endure another onslaught while they're being told by their invaders that they're supposed to hate their leader. When asked honestly on the streets of Baghdad, you couldn't find anyone to denounce Hussein. On the contrary, they were standing behind him. That leaves a burning question: What Right Does Any Other Country Have To Impose Their Way Of Life On Another Unwilling Country? Who wrote the rules that if the most powerful country on earth doesn't like the way things are run somewhere else, they have the right to go in there and change the rules to suit themselves? Even if the people in said opposing country are content with the status quo?
I'll tell you this: Washington is intent on making Iraq a democracy even if it's against the will of its own people. The reasons for it are clear. Iraq's oilfields are immense. They have a wealth of natural resources that frustrates a lot of people in the Republican congress that they just will never have control over unless they go in there and fight for control of it. Reportedly, Hussein has rigged his refineries to be set ablaze should the U.S. and Great Britain invade. The explosions will create an enormous headache for the attackers because the treasure chest now has a lock on it that's going to make it a lot tougher to get in. CNN is giving us lots of updates and coverage now on Saddam the Madman's evil intent to currupt the world environment by sending massive plumes of black smoke billowing into the sky from his selfish self-destruction of his country's most precious asset. The fact of the matter here is, folks, that if you have a beautiful house that belongs to you and crooked lawyers come along to take it away from you and send you into the street, you'd rather set the house on fire than let the people who took it away from you have it. Am I right? But these lawyers would surely would say you were so evil for putting firefighters in danger for setting the blaze, the people around the fire are suffering effects from the smoke, yada yada yada.
One watchdog in the U.S. is a newsprogram called "60 Minutes", which I'm sure you've all seen before. They had a story recently that exposed perhaps one of the more darker sides of their government than I've known. After the September 11 tragedies, there was a spike of enrolment for the U.S. Marines, Army and Navy. The reserves were growing. People were so angry with what happened in New York, Pittsburgh and Washington that they wanted to do their part in fighting the enemy personally, if they could. Rightfully so. Prick us, do we not bleed? Wrong us, do we not revenge? Understandable, completely. The reserves ballooned by the thousands. People wanted in on the war on terrorism. Osama bin Laden is still loose and has to be found, and Al Qaeda must be rooted out and destroyed. Terrorist cells everywhere must be found and exterminated. Let's do it! Okay, ladies and gentlemen, now we're going to deliver a fatal blow and invade.............Iraq. Deja vu. Iraq? What happened to the war on terrorism? Was the Gulf War that fun that we're gonna go back for seconds? Is bin Laden over there? The answers: The war on terrorism is sorta kinda shifted for now folks, see, daddy Bush didn't finish the job last time so Junior's gonna try now; and yeah, the first Gulf War WAS great wasn't it? Remember the approval rating soaring for Bush Sr. when that went on? Oh wait, by the way, there's an election on the horizon, so this is a GREAT time to try this and get the approval rating back so a second term can be locked in---fantastic idea!; and heck, sure, bin Laden could be there. Oh wait, he's not a big fan of Hussein's either. But they have a common enemy. WAIT...that's it!! Common enemy! Okay, so he MUST be there then! LET'S GO!!
Was there really any doubt that a war was going to happen no matter what? Bush sent a quarter of a million of his people, willing or not, over on Iraq's doorstep and had them cocked and loaded and ready to go as soon as the U.N. fell in line. The U.N. did not fall in line, but hell, it's costing a shitload of cash to keep our people there......let's see..........K, hell with it, screw the U.N. and the interests of the rest of the world, we're already there, so let's finish the deal. Oh, and "60 Minutes" blew the whistle on this one, that Washington has every intention of keeping up to 200,000 of its troops in Iraq after the coup (that's really what this is, make no mistake) to occupy the country. "Occupy"? What the hell's that mean? It means "take over". That's the idea here. And that's the motive.
I can not say that the Americans are guilty as charged of their own kind of democratic communism with this war; but I can say that Washington is. I think there's a distinct difference. So often countries' governments don't represent the interests of their people. That's the case with the United States here and with Great Britain, who vastly, largely opposes the war as much as the rest of the world's societies.
All I can pray for is, God be with those who were suckered into being part of the military and fighting a war they may not want to be a part of, and God be with any families involved on both sides of this sure-to-be-bloody conflict. History is taking place......but let's keep an eye on the pens that are writing it.
(March 21, 2003)
|
