Moron Media Ignores Iran War Build-Up

New York Times Iraq War
Where Is The Free Press?

It was pretty clear, except perhaps to morons, that Bush and Blair were building up for their attack on Iraq long before war was declared in March 2003. Most people will still remember the huge global day of protest in February 2003. Most populations, with the notable exceptions of Israel and the US, were strongly against the war, and most people were well aware that the Iraqi “threat” had been concocted. People were also unconvinced that Saddam’s “evilness” constituted a reason for war, especially since he had been armed and supported by the US for years before he was identified as a “bad guy”.

London’s march on 15 February 2003 was the largest protest in British history: over a million people demonstrated against the war. However, that protest was not the first; 400,000 Londoners marched against an attack on Iraq in October 2002 – itself one of the largest marches ever seen in the UK. Already in October, most intelligent observers knew that the decision had been made, despite the Bush/Blair lie machine claiming that our leaders were still “hoping for a peaceful resolution”. Years later, we discovered we’d been right: Blair had already given his backing to the neo-con war plans in March 2002, a full year before the war began.

We weren’t fortune-tellers or mind-readers; we simply knew some history, and could see that the public was being softened up with scare stories about Saddam Hussein. Likewise, we already knew in 2002 that the neo-cons planned to attack Iran. On a successful “liberation” of Baghdad, they would continue on to Tehran. Fortunately, the Iraq war was incompetently handled, and the US became bogged down, preventing a new front from being opened. But the war on Iran wasn’t cancelled, just postponed.

As I’ve observed repeatedly over recent years, the only reason Iran hasn’t been attacked is that, with wars underway in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US doesn’t have enough military capacity. It’s no coincidence that, alongside the recent US troop withdrawal from Iraq, America has also opened dialogue with the Taliban (yes, those same evil-doers that they were going to wipe out in 2001, remember?) The US now has plenty of capacity for a new war – and when in recent history has it ever failed to take advantage of such a position?

The excuses for attacking Iran are as patchy as those for attacking Iraq. They may be developing WMD (in the form of nukes)… but the US has been saying that for years, and there’s still no firm evidence. Even if they are, there is nothing in international law to prevent Iran from owning nukes – Pakistan and Israel both developed the bomb in secret, resulting in relatively little fuss. There are simple lies aimed at the most gullible morons: Iran says it wants to wipe Israel from the map? False. Iran denies the Holocaust? Also false. Then there are truthful claims about Iran’s human rights record; yet Iran is no worse than many US allies: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Uzbekistan to name a few. The US never – repeat Never – goes to war in order to defend human rights (in any case, wars can only make the situation worse for the people of Iran, and make it impossible for them to rise up against the regime).

You’d hope that enough Americans would have learned the hard way, from Iraq, or Vietnam before it. But most Americans rely on the US mass media for facts, and (as we saw in Iraq) the US mass media is incapable of holding the military-industrial complex to account. The New York Times famously apologised for its Iraq coverage; most US newspapers and TV channels were even worse, but failed to apologise.

Now, here we go again. We can see there is a war coming, because US troops are being deployed, rapidly and in large numbers, to the region. This is hardly a secret. Russia Today reported on January 5th that thousands of US troops were being deployed to Israel. The latest edition of The Economist confirms that 9,000 troops are in Israel, and a further 15,000 on their way to Kuwait. Western-backed terrorists – probably Mossad or the CIA – have already been carrying out attacks against Iranian military facilities, and have murdered at least four scientists.

The case against an Iran war is even simpler than the one against Iraq. Unlike Iraq, Iran has never attacked its people or neighbours with WMD. Indeed, it was Iraq that attacked Iran with chemical weapons in the 1980s; weapons that were supplied by the Reagan administration. Yet morons seem to never learn; and the moron media in the United States seems no more willing to tell the truth about this coming war than they were in 2002/03. Iran’s huge reserves of high quality oil hardly need mentioning.

The UK government is making supportive noises of the coming American war; Cameron will undoubtedly follow, but without the support of the population, just as Blair did. This time, much of the EU is also on board. The Obama administration may be no less warlike than the Bush regime, but it’s clearly more skilled at diplomacy.

When Blair took us to war, MI5 told him we would likely experience terror as a result. on 7 July 2005, 52 Londoners were killed on public transport, and hundreds injured. If we attack Iran, we expose ourselves to new terror – which in turn will create new justifications to continue this eternal American war. The next war is coming soon; our leaders are terrorists, and are inviting terrorism upon us; mass-murder will, yet again, be done in our name. And we have no choice but to resist.

Is Capitalism Amoral Or Immoral?

It was fashionable (and desirable) until the mid-80s to question how well capitalism worked as a basis for running society. Then the social “greed is good” changes brought about by the Reagan/Thatcher revolution began to take hold of the Western (or at least the Anglo-Saxon) psyche, and it became a form of sacrilege to question the magic power of the free market to fix any problem, anywhere. That superstition gradually became established fact – until, of course, the system began to show its deep flaws in 2008.

Saturday’s Guardian carries a comment article from Tim Montgomerie (editor at the ConservativeHome web site) titled Capitalism is amoral – we’re our own worst enemy. The piece tries to make the case that the ills of recent years have been caused by “extraordinary government activism”, not by out-of-control markets. However, the examples supplied are weak – the author seems to accept, for example, that the main problem with Obama’s $787bn stimulus is that it was too small, given the scale of the crash. Another example given is the Iraq War, seeming to forget the huge profit motive of the oil, arms and reconstruction industries to make that senseless war happen.

But let’s challenge the core assertion, one that is so often repeated without challenge: Montgomerie repeats the popular idea that “Capitalism is not immoral but amoral. It does what its users demand of it”. Is that true? Does the profit motive always work for consumers? Montgomerie gives food and transport as examples, so let’s examine these industries: amoral or immoral?

Food Industry

It’s true that competition has given us more food choices that ever before. That applies to the wealthier parts of society, at least. In young markets, competition creates an explosion of choice, which is certainly a good thing. But once corporations became established in the food industry, strategies changed. Choice is just one way to attract a customer base, but there’s an easier way: make your customer dependent on your product. This is where the needs of the market and the needs of the consumer diverge. Humans are designed to seek out rare ingredients that we need. Meat fat was such a rarity in pre-history (before hunting tools were developed) that we find it highly attractive and addictive. Refined sugar is an addictive drug, only discovered in recent centuries. Salt is a generally rare and necessary substance that, again, we have a natural addiction to. So in the amoral world of the market, it makes sense to add increasing amounts of these ingredients to food, not because users are demanding them, but because profitability naturally rises as a result.

So far, as suggested by Tim Montgomerie, this is amoral behaviour, not immoral. No harm is intended. The next stage is this: scientific researchers (state-funded usually) begin to notice that people are getting fatter; that tooth decay is increasing; that diabetes and other diseases are rocketing. This information starts to spread to the consumer. It’s at this stage that markets lose their claim for amorality. The food industry now has three options:

Moral: listen to researchers and make food healthier, even if that hurts profits.

Amoral: continue to address the evolving desires of the market as consumer demand dictates. Of course, this does happen, but as the history of the food industry suggests, it’s far cheaper (and thus more profitable) to use healthy-sounding language than it is to take addictive substances out of your products.

Immoral: begin propaganda operations to counteract scientific research that might hurt profits. Most markets end up here. Once you have a consumer base hooked on your product, the logic of profit is remorseless: attack anyone or anything that threatens your bottom line.

In a young market, amorality (following consumer needs) is the way to go; but in mature market, the immoral choice is often the most profitable. Rather than simply track consumer demands, it’s more profitable to control them. Many examples can be found of immoral behaviour by the food industry in pursuit of profits: in the US, private corporations have often won contracts to supply schools with food and drink. The result is a fall in the quality of food eaten by children. Now they can get consumers addicted to junk ever younger, and resist the pressure to educate children about food and health, thus crushing future consumer demands for better food. In a perfect example of market immorality, in 1998 Oprah Winfrey ran a show exposing the appalling way the American beef industry was rearing cattle. The amoral response would have been to track any change in consumer attitudes, and change production techniques; but that would be hugely expensive. Far cheaper to shoot the messenger, as Oprah found to her cost. She immediately lost advertising and faced action, both legal and propaganda to discredit her. She backtracked quickly, providing a non-critical “interview” with a beef industry rep. to “set the record straight” (i.e. lie without interference). Examples like this are legion: the food industry will viciously attack anyone that questions the health of its products (remember McLibel?)

Transport Industry

We can apply the same approach to transport. Mass transit (when not starved of investment), offers the fastest, cheapest and most fuel-efficient way to carry large numbers of people and goods. From the 1940s, the car provided an alternative that was more glamorous but slow, expensive and fuel-hungry. Sure, people desired cars, but they wouldn’t trash superior transport systems for an inferior one. Given that cities only had the space for a fraction of their population to use cars, would people destroy their environments just to own cars?

Enter the car mafia, comprising several industries: car manufacturers, tyre manufacturers, road builders, and of course, oil producers. Car transport requires far more resources than rail, trams and buses: huge, multi-lane highways which require vast amounts of space. More space still needed for parking (most private cars spend most of their lives wastefully parked). And most important of all, cars burn far more fuel than mass transit to move the same numbers of people. Would consumers abandon cheap, fast transport for slow, expensive transport? Of course not; but they were never given the choice.

The car mafia set about destroying mass transit, which they could never have competed against in a free market. Across the US, between 1936 and 1950, mass transit systems vanished as the car mafia went into action, destroying electric transport infrastructure. History tells us how happy post-war consumers jumped at the chance to own cars, and that’s undoubtedly true; less is said about the abolition of transport choice. Free market fundamentalists claim markets create choice, but the opposite is often true.

In the UK, the world’s greatest rail system was cut to pieces; between 1950 and 1975, the railways were slashed from 21,000 miles to 12,000. The most significant steps were taken in the 1960s by Dr Richard Beeching, Chairman of British Railways. Beaching was encouraged to cut the railways by Ernest Marples, the Conservative Transport Minister. Marples also happened to be a major shareholder in a construction company that made huge amounts of money from motorway construction. This story is an important part of modern British history, and the name Ernest Marples should be remembered as one of Britain’s best known crooks. But the car mafia, and their tame media, have ensured the British people have forgotten what happened to our transport system

The transport market has failed; we make ever slower journeys for ever higher cost, and most people use the car not by choice, but because choice was taken away to increase profits.

And The Rest

Given the choice of being amoral and following consumer needs, or immoral and crushing competition, the car mafia did what any market does: follow profit at any cost to society. The consumer doesn’t lead; he takes what corporations offer, which is often the most inefficient and expensive (and hence profitable) option. Markets do work, when they’re young and genuinely competitive, but that is a temporary phase. Endless examples can be found of market immorality: the Iraq War was fought so that the US taxpayer could be fleeced of $trillions by US corporations; the millions spent on climate change denial have shored up billions in oil industry profits; the tobacco industry likewise denied the cancer link for decades after the evidence was available.

Markets are good at creating and incubating fresh ideas and new technology. They liberate individuals and societies from bureaucracy and make societies more creative. But this is always a temporary effect. Established markets will support literally anything – murder, slavery, war – to hold on to their privileged positions. So Tim Montgomerie and other “markets are amoral” fundamentalists are disingenuous, only telling half the story. Markets are immoral; only a strong, well-funded democratic state can hope to keep them in check.

A Tale Of Two Terrorist Attacks

Moronic Response To 9/11

The First Attack

Like most people aged over 20 in the Western World, my memories of the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks are strong. It was obvious from the day of the attacks that America’s retaliation would be huge and violent; my memory of the carnage inflicted globally by the Reagan regime had taught me the lesson of what savagery a Republican government with an excuse for war could be capable of. As a user of Usenet (a collection of early global discussion groups pre-dating web forums or Twitter), I could take the US pulse and watch the rage grow. The near-unanimous response – at least, the one that was heard internationally – was a scream demanding revenge. Almost no American I encountered tried to understand bin Laden’s motivations, and none cared anyway. Those who wanted to understand were called “appeasers”. The Bush regime fed the climate of hate-filled ignorance by providing a moronic non-explanation that satisfied morons: “They hate our way of life.”

The American moron already knew everything he needed to know: America had been attacked; the attacker was a brown-skinned Muslim currently believed to be resident in a country of brown-skinned Muslims. Afghan? Saudi? What’s the difference? And who cares? Donald Rumsfeld provided the final required piece by claiming that Al Qaida had 100,000 followers around the world and constituted a declaration of war. Morons didn’t pause to consider that they hadn’t heard of Al Qaida prior to the attack. It didn’t dawn on them that Rumsfeld may have inflated the size of the “enemy” by well over a hundred-fold. They didn’t stop to question when the religious-conservative Pashtun Taliban was conflated with the dissident terrorist Saudi group Al Qaida. Never did they ask why thousands of US troops were already resident in Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, or how Arabs might feel about that presence.

The online response was tragic but predictable. People wanted Afghanistan “bombed to a sheet of glass” (never minding that it already had been, by American and Soviet weaponry). Maps circulated showing “Lake Afghanistan” in place of the country. The rage allowed the attack on Afghanistan in 2001, and continued into 2003 to allow the attack on Iraq. It was still present in 2004 when Bush was re-elected. Only in 2005 did the American mainstream begin to question the slaughter being conducted in their name – or more accurately in the names of the almost 3,000 people who had died on September 11.

The Second Attack

I’d been on the huge anti-war demo in London in February 2003: the largest demonstration ever seen in the UK. I knew that the UK mood was angrily against the Iraq war, and was turning against Tony Blair, who had committed support to Bush without the backing of the British people. I also spent a few days in Barcelona in April 2003, during the initial Iraq invasion, and the Spanish anti-war mood was even more militant – there were several protests per day around the city, including, every evening, the Argentine-style beating of pots and pans to make noise that echoed across Barcelona. While over 60% of Brits opposed the Iraq War, in Spain opposition topped 90% (but José María Aznar, the Prime Minister, had also committed his support to Bush).

On March 11 2004, 10 bombs exploded on four trains in Madrid, killing 191 people and injuring almost 2,000. As with America’s attacks, the initial response was shock and outrage. But from there, the two cultures couldn’t have behaved more differently. In the following two days, an estimated 11.4m people (28% of Spain’s population) came out onto the streets to demonstrate not just against terrorism but against war as well. This was the striking contrast between the US attacks and the Spanish attacks: Americans shouted for vengeance, the Spanish called for peace.

The war party have smeared the Spanish people as cowards for voting Aznar out of office a few days after the Madrid bombings, but this doesn’t reflect reality. The Spanish people didn’t turn on Aznar immediately after the bombings, but after he was caught lying about the perpetrators; he had blamed the domestic terrorist group ETA, thinking that would aid his electoral chances, although he’d already been informed that the attacks had most likely been committed by Al Qaida.

As someone who has visited both Spain and the US many times, the difference in responses isn’t a surprise. The US is quite obviously an overall more frightened and more violent society than Spain. As to why the two cultures are so different? My guess is that Spain is more advanced in terms of its relationships with the rest of the world. The Spanish Empire had mostly died by 1900. The British Empire faded in the 1950s and 1960s. In 2001, the US Empire was at the height of its powers (though in 2011 it appears to be in the early stages of decline). Post-imperial societies seem to have stronger belief in fairness and the rule of law, while imperial societies clearly have much to gain by ignoring it. The US, perhaps, will go through a re-evaluation of its role in the world as it loses the impulse to control everything, everywhere. And if Spain and the UK are anything to go by, this will create a better America.

Morons, War and Oil Reserves

Sometimes it’s hard to keep track of which countries the US is at war with, or to guess who might be next. Without understanding the global picture, morons often believe the justification for each war individually: Afghanistan was because of 9/11; Iraq was about WMD; Libya was about protecting civilians… and so on.

Last week’s Economist magazine (a great read if you haven’t tried it) included a handy little table showing known oil reserves by country. Surprisingly (for morons anyway), the table correlates tightly with US foreign policy. As well as the bar showing the absolute number of barrels, the number on the right shows how much longer the oil will last, based on current rates of extraction.

A key statistic here is the size of the US reserves: only 11.3 years of home-produced oil left. Given that the US is hopelessly addicted to oil, and is by far the world’s largest consumer, it becomes easily understandable why America spends so many dollars (and military lives) on securing those territories that have most of the remaining oil.

Let’s run through the top ten countries in the list:

  1. Saudi Arabia: the US maintains a conservative Islamic dictatorship with a terrible human rights record. The presence of 5,000 US troops in Saudi Arabia led to the 9/11 attacks (15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi).
  2. Venezuela: as every moron knows, Hugo Chavez is an evil dictator. Except in reality he’s been elected repeatedly in free and fair elections. In 2002, the Bush Administration attempted (and failed) to have Chavez removed in a military coup. America can’t tolerate a democratic regime outside its control sitting on 200bn barrels of oil – watch this space.
  3. Iran: they’re trying to make nuclear weapons! And the free world can’t have that, can we? Iran’s last democratic government was toppled by a CIA-backed coup in 1953. Sorry Iran, we simply can’t afford to let you have democracy.
  4. Iraq: over 100,000 civilians and 4,780 US troops have been killed to secure these 100bn barrel reserves.
  5. Kuwait: a US “ally” like Saudi Arabia (meaning a dictatorship backed by US military). Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 triggered the first US Gulf War).
  6. United Arab Emirates: another US “ally” (two of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE).
  7. Russia: these reserves are probably beyond US military reach. Sorry America!
  8. Libya: we’re only bombing to defend the poor civilians, honest! (On the other hand, civilians in Syria, Palestine, Sri Lanka, Bahrain and elsewhere will just have to look after themselves).
  9. Kazakhstan: borders both Russia and China. Perhaps this reserve partly explains the long-term US presence in nearby Afghanistan.
  10. Nigeria: a country corrupted almost beyond repair by its large oil reserves. Other West African countries such as Ghana are also finding large amounts of oil. Watch out Africa, China and the US like the look of your oil!

The Moron Guide to Uprisings

Morons love a world of simple black-and-white facts. So when the world does unpredictable things, this can cause great trauma and distress. For example: when you’ve been brought up believing that the US or Britain are the defenders – no! the creators – of democracy, then actual events in the real world may seem somewhat confusing.

So here is a short guide advising morons as to where they should stand on the various uprisings taking place in the Middle East and North Africa.

Iran

We’ll start with an easy one. Since the Iranian revolution of 1979 overthrew the Western-backed murderer known as the Shah, Iran has created a theocratic system that’s hostile to Israel and Western interests in the Middle East, as well as suppressing and brutalising its own people.

Score (out of 10): Brutality: 10, Islamist: 10, Oil reserves: 10, Hostile to Israel: 10, Hostile to US/UK: 10, Crazy leader: 10, Exporting terror: 3

Summary: you can totally support this uprising.

Iraq

Much trickier. Having overthrown a genuinely brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein, the US established a colonial authority in Iraq, and gradually hand-built a puppet “democracy” that the old British Empire would have been proud of, while allowing the country’s infrastructure to gradually collapse. The Iraqis are now protesting against the corruption, nepotism and brutality of their new regime! Yes, the one that cost the US taxpayer almost $1tn! Ungrateful wretches!

Score (out of 10): Brutality: 5, Islamist: 3, Oil reserves: 10, Hostile to Israel: 3, Hostile to US/UK: 4, Crazy leader: 2, Exporting terror: 1

Summary: although the people of Iraq may think they deserve a real democracy, they don’t. We paid for it, so it’s ours now.

Egypt

The overthrow of Mubarak greatly confused morons. On the one hand, yes he did rob, torture and kill his own people. On the other hand, the Muslim Brotherhood sounds really scary.

Score (out of 10): Brutality: 9, Islamist: 1, Oil reserves: 0, Hostile to Israel: 1, Hostile to US/UK: 1, Crazy leader: 9, Exporting terror: 1

Summary: Besides him being a complete bastard, there seems no other good reason to support the overthrow of Mubarak. However, it’s already happened, so best pretend you support democracy in Egypt (while warning that the Brotherhood will eat Christians’ babies).

Tunisia

See Egypt.

Libya

Very tricky – on the one hand, we’ve been told that Gaddafi is a crazy, evil Muslim dictator for decades, and he seems to have had a hand in the Lockerbie bomb/plane crash. On the other hand, Tony Blair suddenly decided that we like him after all, which had nothing (I repeat, nothing) to do with BP wanting to get their grubby hands on Libyan oil.

Score (out of 10): Brutality: 10, Islamist: 3, Oil reserves: 10, Hostile to Israel: 8, Hostile to US/UK: 7, Crazy leader: 10, Exporting terror: 10

Summary: There’s no good reason not to support this uprising. However I’m sure our leaders will suddenly discover an Islamist threat lurking behind the scenes (in other words, they want the oil, and Gaddafi will give it to them).

Bahrain

Nasty, oppressive regime that took the first possible opportunity to shoot protesters, even while sleeping. Sounds easy right? Wrong – the US Navy has a huge base there.

Score (out of 10): Brutality: 10, Islamist: 9, Oil reserves: 10, Hostile to Israel: 5, Hostile to US/UK: 3, Crazy leader: 7, Exporting terror: 1

Summary: although this seems easy, this is a major oil state and host to the US Empire. You need to sit on the fence, and just pretend you support whatever happens next.

Saudi Arabia

There is no sane reason to support the Saudi regime. It seems to represent everything that freedom-lovers everywhere should despise. It is the birthplace of extremist Wahhabi Islam, which has led to the creation of Al Qaida and to the events of 9/11. There are few human rights, and women’s rights are non-existent. So this should be easy…

Score (out of 10): Brutality: 10, Islamist: 10, Oil reserves: 10, Hostile to Israel: 6, Hostile to US/UK: 6, Crazy leader: 8, Exporting terror: 10

Summary: Despite everything, maintaining the vile, terrorist regime in Saudi Arabia is highly important to the US Empire in the Middle East and elsewhere. The fall of the Saudi regime may be as critical to America as the loss of India was to the British. Do NOT support this uprising. If anyone asks you why, call them a Commie asshole.

Moron Alphabet: H-J

(This is the second in a series. Click for part one, Moron Alphabet A-G)

H is for High Speed Rail

A while back, I was staying in New York and had to travel for a meeting in Washington. The train is my favourite mode of transport, so I decided to travel that way, rather than fly or rent a car. The ticket wasn’t cheap, but the carriage was very comfortable, and almost empty. We passed through some nice scenery, and I got a chance to read, but I was surprised how slowly we travelled. A journey of about 200 miles took four hours each way.

Trains have been with us for about 200 years, and revolutionised transport – first in Britain, then around the world. America’s railroad system, in its day, changed the face of America forever, and was the world’s most advanced; but as oil and car companies became more powerful, they lobbied for governments to invest in freeways rather than rail, and rail investment, particularly in the US but also in the UK, was sidelined. While Japan, mainland Europe and eventually even the UK and China invested in faster, more efficient rail technology, US transport has become slower and more expensive in recent decades. Sitting in traffic jams has become a way of life – and of course innovation has come to the aid of the motorist; in the form of more comfortable seats, better music systems, and drive-thru restaurants. But no actual solution to reducing journey times.

In France meanwhile, trains have run at up to 357mph (in test conditions) and can complete scheduled journeys at average speeds of up to 173mph. Modern electric trains use far less energy per passenger/mile than cars. So switching people and goods from road to rail, especially as oil prices rise, should be a no-brainer, right?

Sadly the oil industry doesn’t see it that way, for obvious reasons. And since Congress is so generously supported by oil “donations”, Congressmen don’t see it that way either. So American cities grind to a halt, and people flee to Exurbia (aka the-middle-of-nowhere) to escape traffic and air pollution.

Finally, America has a President who values rail, and seeks to invest an initial $53bn. Which predictably has morons screaming about the outrageous cost (with encouragement of course from the pro-oil media).

So let’s look at some numbers: America uses about 21m barrels of oil daily, of which 45% is used to run cars. At a price of $87.11 per barrel, that costs $1,829,310,000 a day, or $667,698,150,000 a year – well over ten times the amount proposed for investment high-speed rail. Now you add hidden costs: oil wars, “aid” given to Middle Eastern states, terrorism generated by support for Middle Eastern dictatorships (and resulting homeland security costs), the cost of damage from oil spills, the health care costs of air pollution from cars, the economic hit of slow journeys and many other factors – not to mention climate change, which has huge costs of its own. Economically, it’s insane not to invest $billions, even $trillions in modern rail technology.

Like I said, it’s a no-brainer; however, brains seem to be in short supply in government.

I is for The Iraq War

Perhaps this subject’s been done-to-death… but given some of the discussions I have on Twitter, it seems the facts still haven’t sunk in yet. So here’s an eight-point quick summary of known-knowns, just as a refresher.

  1. Saddam was certainly an asshole. He was America’s asshole.
  2. Saddam’s chemical weapons were partly supplied by his good friend and ally: Ronald Reagan (with Donald Rumsfeld assisting).
  3. From 1991 to 1998, UN weapons inspectors spent years finding and removing WMDs from Iraq. They were confident that all significant capacity was gone by 1998.
  4. In 2002, as the Bush administration tried to build the WMD case, the chief UN inspector Scott Ritter (a Republican who’d voted for Bush), pointed out that the WMD case was fabricated. And if he didn’t know about Iraq’s WMDs, who did?
  5. In November 2002, the UN inspectors returned to Iraq. They toured all known sites for several weeks and found nothing of significance. In response to US claims that they have “intelligence” of WMDs existing, they asked the US for the locations they should inspect, and were refused this information. This is the single most compelling evidence that Bush/Blair had already decided to go to war, and that the WMD claim was false.
  6. Robin Cook, UK government minister who (as former Foreign Minister) had access to secret intelligence, resigned over the war on 18 March 2003. His resignation speech (12 min video) summarises well the reasons why the war was unjustified.
  7. Ultimately, Bush’s “coalition of the willing” comprised one true partner: the UK. And the UK was led to war against the will of the population by Tony Blair – which ultimately led to the end of his political career. The only population involved that backed the war was the US (Israel was also reportedly on-side, but they’re guaranteed to support any action that involves killing Arabs).
  8. Long-term damage from the war is widespread and ongoing. The most conservative estimate of war-related deaths comes from Iraq Body Count, with a low estimate of at least 99,711 Iraqi lives lost. Iraq’s infrastructure is still not at the level it was pre-war. The financial cost was huge; the cost to American and British standing in the Middle East was also large, at a time when China needs oil and is making new friends around the world.

J is for Judgement Day

Having created us all (some time between 6,000 to 12,000 years ago), God sat back and watched us fuck up. From time to time he gave us a little guidance, usually in the form of killing everything that moved. Having obviously received some kind of anger-management therapy, God later sent his son Jesus to guide us. For someone whose Father was best known for flying into genocidal rages, Jesus turned out to be a Really Nice Bloke. Sadly, the Romans didn’t appreciate nice blokes, so they killed him. But the Bible is pretty clear that Jesus will return, and this time his coming will herald Judgement Day. Strange as it may seem, the entirety of history turns out to be a very difficult test, and Judgement Day is when we get our results.

In the light of modern science, this seems unlikely to many of us. Luckily, God foresaw our skepticism, and so he created the Bible Belt to keep his word alive. Thanks to the good Evangelists of the Southern US, we know that sometime soon, believers will float up naked into the sky, and then Jesus will return (there seems to be disagreement about the timing of this – it could take up to seven more years), at which point the Last Judgement will take place.

Given that Evangelical Christians have spent their time abstaining from sex and listening to crappy music in readiness for the Rapture, it’s understandable that they’re impatient for this to happen, so it’s unsurprising that predictions of the End Of Days come frequently. Enter Harold Camping, an 89 year-old Christian radio broadcaster, who is predicting the second coming will take place on 21st May 2011. His web site makes for entertaining reading, and he appears to have at least some followers. So pencil 21 May into your diaries – we’ll catch up on 22nd to review progress.

See also:
Moron Alphabet A-G
Moron Alphabet K-M