Katie
on Isolate by Beseech
31 Mar 2003, 1:17 PM
Beseech don't listen to wink minded people like 'lark angel' just feel sorry for them since they have nothing better to do then to TRY and pray on people. I honestly Like this 9 :)
lol
1. Bush and Blair appear to be victims of their own propaganda: no `rising' v. Saddam and flowers for
the liberators, but anti-US anger and resistance to a colonial invasion. Why?
a) Bombing of civilians. The killing of 50-plus civilians in Basra (little reported) - a city that was not, but
has now become a `military target' - was an `accident'. The market bomb in Baghdad was another, so
was the bombing of the bus in Syria, the bomb that fell in Iran, etc. So we are told. Hundreds of
civilians have died and thousands injured. Bush and Blair knew that innocent people would be killed.
Bombing and shelling densely populated areas kills a lot of ordinary people. This has not made their
relatives, friends, fellow workers and neighbours support the killers. And we should not forget the
long-term effects of the Gulf War. Children in Basra are still being born with severe deformities as a
result of depleted uranium.
b) Sanctions. Blair says the suffering is caused by Saddam, but the UN and others point to the effect
of sanctions over twelve years. The US and UK wanted to keep sanctions in place (France called for
ending them) and blocked imports that have led to poverty, hunger and death among the population,
especially the most vulnerable, e.g. children.
c) Patriotism/nationalism. People are defending their country, their nationalised industries, their small
businesses, their sovereignty and independence, their towns, cities, communities, families. There is
still a strong sense of national identity, which was fostered by the Ba'ath Party over five decades.
Despite religious and other differences, ordinary working people feel and suffer together. Their
collective solidarity is strengthened when their whole existence is threatened. The Vietnam-war
phrase, `hearts and minds', has been revived like a bad joke. What the imperialists want is to break
down the Iraqis' national identity and collective solidarity by encouraging religious, `tribal' (?), ethnic,
regional, political, and other divisions - as their policies largely succeeded in doing in the Congo,
Somalia, Liberia, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. Ba'athism, though brutal and tyrannical, encouraged a
secular nationalism. Even those who hate Saddam are against the US/UK invasion. They know what it
will bring - not `freedom' or `democracy' but a fragmented wasteland whose resources have been
expropriated by a foreign invader. More poverty and inequality will result under a US military junta that
will oversee the sucking out of Iraq's oil wealth, that will privatise everything including essential
services like water, and will further reduce the Iraqi people to a humiliating dependence on foreign aid.
(Zambia was a one-party state. When Kaunda, one of the Saddam's closest friends, was voted out,
the new government proceeded to implement neo-liberal policies. In Iraq, these policies can only be
implemented through military force.)
d) The humanitarian crisis. The invaders of Iraq caused the humanitarian crisis in the first place and
now pretend they are being humanitarians. Does this not explain why even the recipients of these food
parcels and boxes of water tell the invaders to leave? However, if and when, through constant
bombardment, the weakening of armed resistance, and the physical liquidation of Ba'athist political
structures (i.e. `regime change', which flies in the face of international law) - if all this eventually
reduces a critical mass of the people to destitution, yes, then maybe some of them, simply in order to
survive, will get down on their knees and crave for help. Breaking the people's spirit will vindicate Blair's
fervent Christian morality. (In Africa the number of conversions to Christianity always shot up after the
colonising forces inflicted a military defeat on the indigenous people.)
2. Why did Blair fly to see Bush? To discuss the `post-Saddam reconstruction'? That was the cover
story. But was it not for crisis talks? They had expected Basra to fall in a day and the south to rise up
so the armoured columns could race up to Baghdad, and the whole show would be over in a couple of
weeks. It took five days even to open the port of Umm Kasr and even now there are so-called `pockets
of resistance' there. The US forces are so over- stretched that a further 120,000 troops are to be sent
in. Who could have predicted this? Hence the Bush/Blair crisis talks.
3. Splits in the regime. Richard Perle, chair of Bush's Defence Policy Board and the `brain' behind the
attack on Iraq who had been confidently predicting a pro-US rising and a short war, has resigned. (The
reason given, that of a conflict of interests, is spurious.) Differences over military strategy have been
exposed. What Bush and Blair said ten days ago is being contradicted today.
4. Why don't they just flatten Baghdad and `finish the job'? This `nuke 'em' line is pushed by members
of the Bush gang and those Neanderthals in Britain who read The Sun. The trouble with this course of
action, which would mean killing millions of innocent people, is that the Middle East would erupt -
regimes in Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are looking a bit shaky, and there's always Pakistan.
Following the `Nukemites' (one Pentagon spokesman for the `Shock and Awe' operation said "what we
want to create is bombardment with a nuclear impact") could be suicidal in view of the anti-war
movement generally. Revolted by the lies about weapons of mass destruction, the illegality of the
policy of `regime change', the racism, the civilian deaths, popular protest has never been higher -
thousands of British shcoolchildren on strike, blocking roads, etc. is unprecedented. This is holding
back the imperialists.
4. The alternatives. One alternative for the military strategists is `street fighting', hand-to-hand combat
in the cities. But this means high US and British casualties. Another would be the Israeli method - just
go in with the tanks and shell people's houses. Yet another, suggested in a recent statement by Colin
Powell to the effect that the battle of Baghdad could wait, is to dig in for a long, drawn-out war, a war
of attrition. The trouble with this is that the cost goes up: already Gordon Brown has had to allocate
another £1.25 billion on top of the £1.75 already allocated. Bush has asked for $75 billion. Will the
hard-pressed US and UK taxpayers stand for this? The US has indicated that it will use Iraqi oil to pay
for their war (so much for their stated intention to ensure that the profits from the oil go to the Iraqi
people).
5. Conclusion? The imperialists are facing a reversal of fortunes few could have predicted. The
divisions in the UN and Europe weaken Blair, as do the divisions in the Labour Party. Can Blair last?
He was counting on a quick, "clean" victory that would enable him to rebut his critics. A long, messy
war with significant American and British casualties plus continued anti-war protests throughout the
world, above all in the Middle East, makes a big dent in the unilateralist Bush-Blair agenda. The Iraqi
people have every right under international law to fight this unprovoked aggression by invading forces
that have overwhelming military superiority. Iraqis have no airforce and no navy. No sooner were their
Samoud missiles destroyed under the UN inspection regime than they were bombed and invaded. We
should support the Iraqis' resistance to colonial occupation. Anyone who says we should support "our"
troops, like Charles Kennedy, is supporting an illegal war, a barbaric aggression carried out by the
most powerful superpower the world has ever seen, an act carried out in defiance of the UN and world
opinion. Charles Kennedy supports a war he had opposed before it started, before it became a reality.
Now it's real he supports it! - as if you can support the troops doing the actual killing but oppose the
idea of them doing it - logically and morally an untenable position. We should defend the right of the
Iraqi people and the Iraqi armed forces to defend their country. We should also say: BRING THE
TROOPS BACK! Bush and Blair have no right under any known law to set themselves up as global
policeman, as moral supermen like heroes from a Hollywood Western or a teenage comic, ridding the
world of evil men. Those of us who have made a reality check will confirm that we are not living inside
a Superman comic.
6. Action. Demonstrate, protest, discuss, argue, write letters, send emails, etc. Next meeting: Wed
April 2 at 1 p.m. (Blair's phone number is 020 7270 1234 email is public@ministers.mod.uk)
!
dame, u need to stop writin this stuff and go fuck this person
I enjoyed reading this poem, I was able to fell the writers feelings, I like that!
good stuff, i think its better then your poem "sexy", i give it a 7
lol, i think u could write something a little less cliche, but im really not1 2 judge, >6
Try not to be offended by this. I'm going to be honest and blunt. If you just hate me and go on a spiteful rage that's ok, you wouldn't be the first one, but I'd rather you think about what I say. You are quite lacking as a poet. You have things to say, good first step. Now they need to be molded into something a bit more artistic. Mind you artistic words with no meaning aren't much fun either. We have more than enough of that on this site. Find the balence, come back and let us see. Try metaphor and similie. They help a lot. I'm looking forward to seeing an improvement from you. Good luck and happy writing.
Cack in a sack in a shack in Iraq.
why indeed. whine for a few more hours, maybe it will help.
8 is too much for this.....but i like the occasional punctuation of "Sex on the weightbench."
And that delicious mmm at the end!
oh ick. self-righteous as a prophet.
Goodness me what a winsome chart and an honour to be included. My fritters are touched !
damn. i read the title fast, and i thought it said, "unCOCKing happiness". it's that damn kthulah, and her prettycock poem, getting me mind on one track. sigh.
oh, my. this warmed me through and through. can i borrow, when you've done with him?
Nice. I like it. This style is fun to play with. 7.
could you describe the skin better, some more imagery could help a lot for me >7