What Iraq "War?"
Sunday, April 22, 2007
"Insurgent":" "A person who takes part in forcible opposition or armed resistance to an established government or authority."
"Insurgency": The state or condition of being insurgent." (Webster's College Dictionary, 1991)
Let's start from the beginning. Who invaded Iraq in 2003? Men in United States military uniforms ordered by George W. Bush. Given the legitimacy of humanity - "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights; they are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights - they were "insurgents" and, with Bush, merited indictment before the International Criminal Court as such.
This insurgency was illegal and violated fundamental human rights not to mention all treaties between sovereign states going back to St. Petersburg in 1868.
The language was then perverted. The insurgency ordered by Bush was declared a "war."
"War" "Armed conflict between nations or factions within a nation."
But there was no enemy. Iraq was not the "enemy." The Iraqi people were not the "enemy." Sadam Hussein was not the "enemy." al Qaida was not ever there. No enemy: no war.
So the chief insurgent, George Bush and his advisors, publicly declared it a "war against terrorism." But there cannot be a "war against terrorism" as "terrorism" is "the use of violence and threats to violence to intimidate or coerce." Again, no enemy! Only a condition. And what is the condition which allows "terrorism" to occur?
When Bush ordered his citizen-soldiers to become "insurgents" against the Iraqi nation, he acknowledged and condoned the condition of anarchy between the United States and Iraq. Otherwise, his "insurgents" could not operate outside the continental limits of the United States from which to invade Iraq.
So there was in fact a unilateral "invasion" by U.S. citizens in United States army uniforms as "insurgents" of the people of another sovereign state. But by calling the Iraqi invasion a "war," Bush invoked the words "winning" or "losing" to define the outcome. A foreign insurgency, however, doesn't "win" or "lose" an invasion. It simply becomes an occupier from which the populace invariably rebels. Following those definitions, flow the further delusions of "national patriotism," "loss of face," the "fighting troops," and such characteristics as "morale," "courage," and for the insurgent's families at home, "dedication," "patience," "approval." and so forth. The public and private mind thus is closed to the reality both of what happened and what is today happening on the ground.
The Congress of the United States thereby is trapped in the dilemma of "supporting the 'troops' or "stopping the 'war.'" A non-sequitor. Senator Harry Reid himself, the majority leader, sanctioned the delusion Thursday, by declaring, "The war is lost," thus unleashing a storm of protest by Republicans - particularly Vice-President Cheney - of defeatism and disloyalty to the troops in the field and to those already dead. (The disclaimers didn't mention the dead Iraqis.)
Underlying this delusional drama is the blind allegiance to the dysfunctional nation-state system itself as the only outlet for civic life and morality. Hence the dilemma within the Iraqi government unable to function under the insurgency from without and that within between internal factions of long-standing.
Last week, for instance, the Vermont Senate voted to "impeach" President Bush. The emphasis was on his violating the U.S. Constitution by starting an "illegitimate war" against Iraq. At an outdoor meeting before Burlington's City Hall where the impeachment crowd of citizens gathered, I took the mike at the end and reminded the crowd that George Bush was indeed a "war criminal," not only for his so-called preemptive war policy, i.e. insurgency, but particularly for his first-strike nuclear option declared illegitimate by the International Court of Justice at The Hague in 1979. and merited indictment before the International Criminal Court for violating the Nuremberg Principles.
The Vermonters there applauded this solution enthusiastically.
We, the citizens of the world, are the plaintiffs, but where oh where are the counselors to represent us?
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The barbarous race is on again! Hillary Clinton has raised $26 million; Obama has raised $25 million; Gov. Romney, $20.6 million, Guiliani, $14 million, McCain $12.5. Total so far: $127 million. The Democrats have raised $78 million; the Republicans $51 million.
But that's just the beginning. Chicken-feed. So you may well ask: Where's this loot going? Mostly into TV political commercials. What for? To blare ad nauseam into the US citizens' reluctant ears and fractured minds their alleged programs. (Typical example: Today's-4/11-NYT headline: "Romney Says He'll Expand Armed Forces by 100,000." His good Mormon reasons: "Our objective is a strong America and a safe world." The classic national contradiction.) And what exactly are these programs? The elimination of war itself by outlawing it with world law? To resolve the global warming problem with global environmental and enforceable laws? To create a global currency so as to eliminate the divisive and crippled national currency chaos? ? To clean up space or the oceans which belong to humanity and not any one nation? To help the millions of nobodies, citizens of nowhere, forgotten or neglected by governments: the world's stateless? Or to preserve the world's forests?
Not on your life. Or theirs.
The candidates already know these problems are outside the scope of the nation-state. But what is more insidious, they also know that a U.S. president is TOTALLY POWERLESS to address much less solve these or ANY global problems.
So what's the election all about? Does it REALLY matter who you vote for as U.S. president? Or for that matter any national president? Aren't they ALL on the wrong political level? OUR problems are global whereas the U.S. elected candidate's first duty is to swear to "defend the Constitution (mind you, not the world's people) against all enemies, foreign and domestic." (Tom Paine wrote that "government was for the living, not the dead.") "Defending the national Constitution" in a nuclear world where any psychopath can literally push THE BUTTON is to live in a fantasy world of TOTAL DENIAL
The exclusive nation-state IS the enemy! And it wars against US, humanity.
In brief, an election for a national president in a world of anarchy is the greatest scam in modern history. It's like sheep voting for the next butcher while lining up outside the slaughterhouse. If you don't believe me, write a letter to any candidate demanding to know what is their program to OUTLAW WAR.
I myself ran for U.S. president in 1988, along with George G.W. Bush and Dukakis but as a World Citizen! There were over 200 of us "minor candidates," as the media dubbed us. My global platform is still online at www.garrydavis.org. Check it out.
Two years before that, I ran for mayor of Washington, D.C. This was a little more serious as, on the municipal ballot, I was actually and legitimately among only six candidates, Mayor Barry among them. My platform was "To protect One world for the 'world city,' Washington, D.C. (targeted by the Soviet Union as Moscow was targeted by the U.S. AND THEY STILL ARE!) where no one was represented in Congress anyway." (Check D.C. license plates still). My only campaign expense was a round pillow in the shape of the planet Earth: $20. I received 585 votes!
Thank you, oh enlightened ones!
In my second book, World Government, Ready Or Not!* I refer to the national vote for presidency as a "suicide vote." "Contemporary problems beginning with war itself are in large part generated by the very institution, the sovereign-state, that controls the elective process." On the contrary, I concluded, the only election which made sense in our global village was for world citizens voting for a candidate for world president (which I just happened to be!) and/or for a world parliamentarian.
This I call a "power vote."
That will be the subject of a future blog. Stay tuned.
I Interview Water
Friday, April 06, 2007
Me: Given the hoopla over 'international water' these days, I have a few questions directed to the source, that is, you.
Water: Be my guest.
Me: First off, what is your opinion of that phrase, 'International water.'
Water: It's a washout. Doesn't compute. I'm me, indivisible and global. Anyone who tries to divide me is nuts. As one of your more intelligent humans, Jacques Cousteau, said "There's only one ocean."
Me: But then, why do you think certain humans use that word "international" to define you?
Water: Listen, I've been on this planet a few billion years. You humans are a drop in the bucket, I mean the earth bucket. Your words are totally irrelevant to reality. You think you own the planet. You split it up into itsby-bitsy sections which you then claim as 'yours' even while I drop on you bigtime or wash over your coastlines from time to time In short, I own you. You're 70% me. Even Tony Blair, George Bush and Ahmadinejad, not to forget Renee Zellweger. Your ancient brothers even named me an earth god: Neptune. I like that. Fits.
Me: OK, OK, we 're all very grateful for your august presence but there's a grave political problem at this very moment. People are beginning to fight over you. It could get serious what with the weapons spread around the human community.
Water: Your fight's not over me! What do I have to do with your stupid politics? Couldn't care less. I've been hearing about your problems from Babylonians, Carthaginians, Mesopotamians clear back to cavemen. Nothing new there. But like the song, I jest keeps rollin' along.
Me: That's a comforting thought. But you've gotta help us. We're in deep trouble. A few of these national politicians can blow us all up over this "international water" business.
Water: You people are so short-sighted. You don't even know who you really are. Listen. I'll give you a for instance. You humans go to sleep every night, right? Just like all the other species on the planet. Then when your minds blank out, gone are the nationalities, religions, exclusive tribes and regions, pagan or superior cultures, rich or poor, aliens or citizens, enemies or friends, a big nothing, nada, zip. Then energy, or what some of you call 'synergy,' starts flowing in from the cosmos to your outer etheric body and finally settles where? Inside me which is mostly you. Then you wake up, your batteries recharged, totally unaware of what really happened, that, in spite of your great god brain, you all still depend on me for life on earth. All of you. Then, you start your same divisive B.S. the next day. Why do I even try?
Me: I said we were grateful, at least some of us are. But what advice can you give us to overcome our stupidities which have already in the past become very dangerous for all of us?
Water: It's simple. Wake up, man! I mean, really wake up! Listen, aeons ago I made this place livable for you. How many planets do you think have 70% surface water? So grow up already! Mature! You're a race, a species for God's sake, that's what. Get used to it, and soon! But with all your CO2 and radio-active pollution, you're making it rough for the planet itself, not to mention the other species out there who have been here a helluva lot longer than you. Besides they came first. After all, I've got to take care of my own. You're way down on the list. Last in, first out. And believe me, it's later than you think.
Me: OK. I'll pass the word. Thanks a mil.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]