the appeal of Satan

[prozak at anus.com]

Satan: he's out of band for the world in which we live, a 
consolidation of all that is random or negative to us into a single 
force, an authority and personality, like a God. Thus we seek 
deliverance from randomness and project our mythos onto a creature.

Much like Hussein.

Let Us Reject Empire
12 Reasons to Oppose War on Iraq 
22/02/2003


By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman* 

Millions of people around the world last weekend demonstrated against 
a war on Iraq.
There was no mistaking the message: No war. 

But, particularly with the airwaves and op-ed pages dominated by war-
mongers who mock and mischaracterize the burgeoning peace movement, 
there remains a need to continually reiterate the common-sense 
reasons to oppose a war. Here are a dozen:

1. Iraq is no threat to the United States.

With one of the weakest militaries in the region, Iraq is surely no 
threat to the world's lone superpower. There is no evidence it has or 
is close to having a nuclear capacity. There is no evidence that it 
has the means to launch a chemical and biological attack against the 
United States, if in fact it has such weaponry. There is no evidence 
of any Iraqi connection to al-Qaeda.

2. Iraq is deterrable.

Even if it had the means to threaten the United States, Iraq would be 
deterred by the certainty of an overwhelming military response in 
event of any attack on the United States. That Iraq is deterrable is 
shown by its decision not to use chemical or biological weapons (CBW) 
against the United States or Israel in the Gulf War.

3. Iraq's only conceivable threat to the United States is in event of 
war.

"Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting 
terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United 
States," wrote CIA Director George Tenet in an October 2002 letter to 
Congress. "Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no 
longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in 
adopting terrorist actions."

4. Other terrorist risks rise in event of war.

A U.S. attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq will provide new 
inspiration -- and new recruitment fodder -- for al-Qaeda or other 
terrorist groups, and will stimulate a long-term increased risk of 
terrorism, either on U.S. soil or against U.S. citizens overseas.

5. U.S. soldiers are vulnerable to chemical or biological attack in a 
war.

Although there is little reason to doubt the U.S. military will 
triumph relatively quickly in event of a war, U.S. soldiers face non-
negligible risk of casualty. House-to-house fighting in Baghdad would 
be perilous.

If Bush administration accusations that Saddam maintains a CBW 
capacity are true, and if its claims of intelligence showing Iraqi 
plans to use CBW in event of war are both non-fabricated and 
accurate, then U.S. soldiers are at major risk. Last Sunday, 60 
Minutes reported that army investigations show between 60 and 90 
percent of its CBW protective gear malfunction. A Pentagon 
spokesperson actually suggested that holes in gas masks could easily 
be covered by duct tape.

6. Inspections can work.

To whatever extent Iraq maintains weapons of mass destruction, it is 
clear that the previous inspections process succeeded in destroying 
the overwhelming proportion. Iraqi intransigence notwithstanding, 
inspectors are now making progress. Despite the histrionics of the 
administration, past experience suggests the inspection process can 
work and finish the job.

7. Common sense says: Err on the side of non-violence.

Since Iraq poses no imminent threat to the United States nor any of 
its neighbors, it makes sense to continue to give inspections a 
chance. War can always be resorted to later. But once a war is 
commenced, the opportunity to achieve legitimate objectives without 
violence are lost. In addition to the obvious costs, the use of 
violence tends to beget more violence, spurring a highly 
unpredictable cycle.

8. The doctrine of preventative war is a threat to international law 
and humanity.

Conceding there is no imminent threat to the United States, the 
administration has sought to justify the war under a doctrine of 
preemptive, or preventative, action. But if it were legitimate to 
start a war because of what another country might do sometime in the 
future, then there would be very little legal or moral constraint on 
war-making. This proposition is dangerous and immoral.

9. Reject empire.

Many of the leading proponents of a war are motivated by desire to 
demonstrate U.S. military might, and commence an era when U.S. 
military power is exercised more routinely to satisfy the whims of 
elite U.S. factions. Many proponents now overtly defend the idea of 
U.S. imperialism, justified on the grounds that the United States -- 
apparently unique among all previous aspirants to imperial authority -
- is motivated by promotion of democracy and human rights. But all 
empires have proffered such self-serving rationalizations to 
legitimize narrow self-interest. The present case is no different. 
Imperialism is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

10. Revenge is not a legitimate motive for war.

There seems little doubt that part of the Bush administration 
motivation for war is the desire to "get" Saddam, since he refused to 
go away after the Gulf War and allegedly targeted the president's 
father. Saddam is an awful and brutal dictator, and an assassination 
attempt, if there was one, is a heinous act. But revenge should be no 
basis for war.

11. There are better solutions to our energy problems.

It overstates the case to say a war with Iraq would be a war for oil. 
There are too many other contributing factors to the rush to war. At 
the same time, it is not credible to claim designs on Iraqi oil are 
not part of calculus. And it is hard to see the United States caring 
much about Iraq if 
the country did not sit on the world's second largest oil reserves. 
But it is past time for the United 
States (and the rest of the world) to move beyond oil and carbon-
based sources of energy. 
Existing efficiency technologies and renewable energy sources, if 
deployed, could dramatically 
reduce reliance on conventional energy sources; and modest 
investments in renewables could 
soon move us away from an oil-based economy.

12. Iraqi lives are at stake.

Unless a war brings immediate abdication by Saddam, military action 
is sure to cause massive 
casualties among Iraqi conscripts and especially among Iraqi 
civilians. Solidarity with the Iraqi 
people -- not their brutal government, but the people -- requires 
opposition to a war almost certain 
to cause them enormous suffering.




----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------


*Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate 
Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-
based Multinational Monitor, and co-director of Essential Action. 
They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits 
and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 
1999.)

**http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber02212003.html -- 
Backup Rider of the Apocalypse
www.anus.com/metal/
DEATH AND BLACK METAL