bucketFountain

The end of my anti-war March.

We may not know the real reason for the war for decades. It will become obscured in the fog of history. But I assume that the US will achieve its primary aim and fend off the euro, ensure a stable source of oil for itself, help to support Israel by providing a new and friendly neighbour, give US economy a shot in the arm with the contracts for rebuilding Iraq, and no doubt many other reasons that haven’t occurred to me.

I think that the ‘formal’ fighting (as it has been called) will be over within a couple of weeks, but the US will maintain a presence in the country for decades. And hopefully the situation won’t get any worse.

Pre-emptive News – the news reporting technique that has been used by several newspapers in reporting the war. Take the following stories:

• Two British soldiers being executed by Saddam’s forces
• The reports of a civilian uprising in Basra
• The discovery of a huge chemical weapons plant
• The biggest tank battle since the second world war involving 130 Iraqi tanks

All these stories were reported in newspapers. All turned out to be untrue. Is this a form of propaganda? Or are the press desperate to print the best headlines to increase sales? And more disturbingly, why are newspapers failing to verify their sources?

The Ministry of Defence confirmed that the armoured column of 130 tanks was in fact only 3; Tony Blair had to apologise to the family of the serviceman he claimed had been executed by the Iraqis as they had in fact been killed in action, the weapons plant has yet to be verified, and it is unlikely that it can be verified as it does not exist, and the Basra uprising never happened.

Interesting to note the guilty newspapers are my old friends The Daily Telegraph, The Evening Standard and its sister the Daily Mail (which I in an earlier blog I mistakenly called the Daily Express).

I can only hope that the papers using pre-emptive reporting techniques learn a lesson and return to more traditional forms of journalism.

In saturdays mornings Guardian ‘Weekend’ magazine :

“Spectre orange – Nearly 30 years after the Vietnam war, a chemical weapon used by US troops is still exacting a hideous toll on each new generation.” It is accompanied by some awful pictures of horrifically deformed children. The photos are not on the web site. Bush and Blair would have me believe the war is about stopping monsters using chemical weapons. We have short memories.

From surgenet.org:
A knower of truth does what is called for,

then stops

He uses his strength but does not force things

fully choose to do what you must do

….this is to live without forcing

to overcome without conquering.

–Lao Tzu

I checked my site messages yesterday and Ben Poole had left a particularly nice one. All I can say is “Ben – you’re great!”.

How do I miss such obvious double standards? The Guardian today points out that the US have scant regard for international law and yet when captured US servicemen are shown on TV they start quoting the Geneva Convention? Hmmm. Why am I surprised?

I think I’ve recovered from the weekends party – I’m still trying to remember what the fuck was happening for half the night.

The other day I said that the war was about securing oil for future generations. That was before I found a rather interesting line of reasoning that argues that the motives are more about an economic conflict between the US and Europe. It’s a long article. So, in a nutshell, it is related to a potential economic shift of power away from the US to the EU. Interestingly, a few years ago Iraq began trading oil in Euro’s, which due to the exchange rate, resulted in an unexpected economic windfall. As other oil producing nations (including Iran and Venezuela) began to consider the shift to the Euro, the US had to act. Could this be the reason for the peace policy adopted so staunchly by France and Germany?

I believe that there are a number of reasons for this war. While getting rid of an aggressive and powerful dictator may be considered a good reason for a war, I know that it is not the real reason for the war.

The reasons for the war include the above EU/US conflict; securing a stable and long term source of oil; allowing for the domestic economic benefits of US private sector investment in rebuilding a shattered Iraq; and arms contracts (how much is that worth?). All of this has got to be good for the US economy.

I’m beginning to remember some of what happened on the weekend. I haven’t had such a long memory blank from partying for ages. I was trying to remember bright lights or little grey fella’s that might have been the cause for the ‘missing time’. Maybe I need to check for evidence of an implant/anal probe?