In London, the war against Iran has started
CJB - 21.07.2005 20:48
His name was Jack. Or Robert. Or Hassan. He was against the war and he hated Bush & Blair. Just as many Londoners who were going to work on that Thursday morning. But he didn?t know that this was going to be the last trip he ever took.
In London, the war against Iran has started
MICHEL COLLON
(11th of July)
A majority of Londoners is against the occupation of Iraq and Londoners had voted in an anti-war mayor. Many of the other victims, misled by their own domestic media, simply did not understand the economic nature of the Iraqi war.
To defend the memory of these victims means to condemn the barbaric act committed in London. Because Blair and Bush are going to try to use these deaths as a pretext for further attacks and inflicting more suffering. Here and there. On the same day, Bush theatened Iran.
Victims of terrorism? Yes. But especially of State terrorism. It is the terrorism of the strongest, those who, in order to remain the strongest, bomb and torture other peoples. Whose only fault lies in the fact that they want to remain the masters of their own soil, their own lives, and the future of their children.
While, in Baghdad, it is King's Cross every day. Because of Blair.
Disturbing Questions
In moments like these, whith political and mediatic manipulation of the emotions, it is important to stay calm and to ask two questions: 1) What are they hiding? 2) Who is benefiting from the crime?
What are they hiding ? On Friday, a leading official of the London constabulary declared that there was no way of anticipating that something like this would take place. (Reuters, July 8). Really? The whole world knew that London would be next after New York and Madrid. The G-8 meeting had been announced months in advance, and it provided a convenient opportunity. Now, strangely, in June, British intelligence lowered the "threat level" from "grave,
general" to "important ».
US intelligence also claimed immediately after 9/11 that it had not anticipated any attacks. But several inquiries have demonstrated that they knew many things and had shown themselves to be curiously irresponsible, to say the least. (See "September 11: Why They Didn't Stop
the Hijackers ", by Peter Franssen and Pol De Vos,
 http://www.epo.be/international/bookinfo.php?isbn=3-935249-23-3, 2002)
Who Benefits?
The London bombing comes at the right time for the hawks. Bush was getting into more and more trouble because of the blatant failure of U.S. policy in Iraq. Members of his own party began calling for a withdrawal. His last speech on "a more secure world and more freedom" convinced no one at all. And Blair was isolated in Europe about this war.
The solution? "We need a common enemy to unite us," recently said Condoleeeza Rice. And how is it being done? Here is what David Rockefeller (director of Esso, the Chase Manhattan Bank, but also of the powerful Council on Foreign Relations, where the ruling business elite and politicians are developing a strategy to rule the world) has to say: "We are on the eve of a global transformation. All that we need is the right major crisis, and nations are going to accept the New World Order."
Bush & Blair need terrorism; they want their people to feel that they are in danger. To spread their global war, and to conceal the fact that it serves only multinational corporations, it is necessary to instill fear among the people so that they will support the violent policies of their government, as shown by Michael Moore in his film, « Bowling for Columbine ».
Where does Poverty come from ?
Right after the London attacks, we saw Bush in Glenneagles facing the cameras with his tremored voice saying : "The people gathered here in the G-8 are trying to find solution for the Poverty in Africa"
The truth is, if there is a child dying every 3 seconds, it's because of Bush and the multinationals.
The poverty of the third world didn't come out of no where, It's the consequence of five centuries of robbery of natural ressources, and still today, with the economic relations imposed to the colonies. Through this unfair relations, the multinationals are still sucking the third world 's richnesses and keeping the gap deeper and deeper every day in a dramatical way.
And whenever any country try to pursue it's development independently or try to get profit from it's own oil, natural ressources or it's labour force, how do the great powers react ?
First, they try to drag this country to full submission through the blackmail of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, in order to make it give up its industries, public services toward it's population and to become docile to the multinationals.
Once it's not enough, they pass to the economic embargo, to civil wars, excited or imported. And finally they get to the Bombardments or the Coup d'Etat executed by the CIA.
The War of The Hundred Year
After the fall of the Wall, the victorious Capitalism, promissed us a New World Order where Democracy and Peace would rul.But the first Human Right, the right to eat, is still denied to a great part of the humanity. And the US wars spreaded all over : Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Congo, Caucasus. And tomorrow's targets are already precised by Washington : Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Zimbabwe etc.
The truth is, after the fall of the URSS, and the turn upside down of the International balance of powers, the USA launched a war of a hundred year. Each war is a step to achieve three closely related goals :
1- Control of the natural ressources, specially "energy". And be able to deny it to other powers.
2- Break every independent country of the third world.
3- Submit the other great powers : Europe, Japan, Russia...
This hundred war year is to recolonize the planet. The militarisation of the international relations is the only" way" for the US multinationals to escape the crisis they created themselves.
How did they create that crisis ? In one hand by making their working class poorer and on the other hand by making these of the third world colonies also poorer. Which make the gap deeper between the rich and the poor and ruin those who are supposed to buy their goods. Vicious Circle.
This structured crisis, which has no economic solution, is due to the gap between rich and poor. It's the inevitable crisis of an unfair system. The war is not due to Bush's nature and his administration, it's a strategy to "get through the crisis" by empowering the domination over the world and over his ressources. The military war is the consequence of the economic war laws.
Taking control of the natural ressources, gives the upper hand in the competition between the multinationals. And those who give up this control can never survive through the economic war. And, as the ends justifies the means, no morals involved, the war can be one of the means to get the upper hand.
Why Iran is to be attacked ?
Why is Iran the next target? Because it has an important Petrolium Stock. Because it's the biggest power of the region still refusing to submit to Israel. Because the recent efforts to control Tehran have failed.
The attack of Iran is part of the strategy to take a full control of the Middle East Oil and the Oil of the whole planet. It would give the USA the possibility of blackmailing the other powers - Europe, Japan, China - about their needs of Oil. In order to control the world, the USA has to control all his energy sources.
But it also consists of the prevention of any alliance between the resistant powers in Asia. In "The "global war has started", after the September 11th, we wrote " Of course, the highest principle of each and every imperial politic remains "Divide and Rule". On the Asian Continent, here is what the USA fears above all, as explained by Brzezinski : "China could be the pillar of an anti-hegemonic alliance : China-Russia-Iran."
China is the ultimate target of the Global War, as it represents the biggest market for the future and the most powerful of the independent countries. So the USA, in order to remain the one and only superpower, has decided that China is its number one enemy. And every act the USA does on the Asian Continent is to be explained through that perspective. Specially the acceleration of surrounding China by the military bases installation in Afghanistan. Which will be pursuit through every part of the Global War.
Each War is against all of us
Bush & Blair are trying to convince us that by making this wars, they are defending our standard of life in Europe and through the USA. That we have the same interests as them in face of the "rogue" countries.
Wrong. Attacking Iraq was only for the profit of the multinationals of Oil, of Armement, of Building and of Finance. The same thing goes to Yugoslavia. If we pass beyond the pack of Media-lies, we're going to find out that it was not a humanitarian act, but a kind of privatisation by bombs.
The real goal of the great powers - as proven by their own strategic documents - was to take control of an economy remaining independent away from the multinationals and to take control of a working class who wanted to keep its social rights and its self - administration.
By breaking this independency dream, a shaking warning was sent to Eastern Europe and Russia : to make them forget any dream of escaping the multinationals. This could be done by taking control of the workers of the East, either by the delocalisation of factories, either by importing a huge number of "plumbers from Poland" to compete with the workers over here, in order to reduce salaries and so to raise benefits.
That's why the globalisation and the war are the two faces of the same coin. The globalisation is the mean to put the countries of the whole world under the maximum pressure of the multinationals, under a general blackmail, specially concerning the work conditions. And the war is the hammer whenever any people rejects this blackmail.
All of this leaves no doubt that any war of aggression lead by Bush & Blair (Or, may be tomorrow by the EU ?) is not for the interest of the working class, US or European. In the contrary this working class is the one who pays. First by producing the victims, whether soldiers or targets of the attacks, but also by becoming victims of an anti-social blackmail which will put them all in either unemployment, either hyper-precarious work.
The conclusion is that the Bush & Blair's war is a war of the rich against the poor. It' s a war against the future of the humanity. Making end to poverty, making end to war is to fight Bush & Blair. And it's either one choice or the other, nothing in between.
Next Stop Tehran :
Right after the London attacks, Bush was in a hurry to denounce the "Iranian Threat". Though he was preparing for war against Iran already a long time ago. Because wars are not launched by bombs. It needs to have preparations :
- Military wise : Logistics, military bases to support the attack. (we'll get back to that )
- Media wise : Prepare the public opinion by evil-making the country in target.
This Media preparation is a high war propaganda on both levels conscience and non conscience.
Theme N° 1. The Weapons of Mass Destruction. YES, again! Now for months the Western media has been putting the spotlight, as Bush, on the "Iranian Nuclear Threat". While Israel already has two hundred nuclear heads in secret. And Israel has already attacked all its neighbours. Yet, the only danger that they still want us to fear is Tehran.
Of course, the nuclear weapons are a huge danger which must be eliminated. But why should we trust more the nuclears in Bush's or Sharon's hands ? How can we deny the right of a country to defend himself against aggression ? When we all know that Baghdad and Belgrad were attacked without risk for the aggressors, just because they didn't have anything to defend themselves even a little bit !
Theme N° 2. The "Islamic Terrorism". After the WMD issue have made Bush look like a fool, in the Iraqi case, they had to add another threat which is the "Islamic Terrorism". This issue yet still has the advantage of intimidating us "In Here". Tomorrow, probably, other pseudo-revelations of the US or British secret services will try to convince us that Tehran was behind the London attacks. Just like Bush tried to make a liaison between Saddam and Al-Qaida.
Theme N° 3. The "Democracy". Due to the failure of theme N° 2 in the Iraqi case, the writers of Bush's speeches are trying to sell us the war with another marketing argument: The Democracy. As if the idea was to bring liberty to all the aggressed countries. Ridiculous, when we know that the family Bush has made his fortune by collaborating with Hitler, then Ben Laden. And that George Bush Senior, while he was the head of the CIA, protected the worst dictators of Latin America and elsewhere. But if the media keeps on neglecting this black past, the Democracy issue may still be effective once more.
Concerning Liberty, every one may think whatever he likes about Iranian Governments. But yet there is something we must be sure of, liberty is not the real issue. It's not for Democracy's eyes that Bush wants to put his hands on this country, it' s for its Black Gold and only for it (Oil).
By the way, do the USA have any credibility, when they pretend that they want to import Democracy to Iran ? In 1953, a Coup d'Etat was arranged by their CIA against the Prime Minister Mossadegh. Because he was too independent in the Oil issue. Then, six following US presidents imposed to the Iranian people, the fascist dictatorship of the "Shah" Pahlawi and the terrible thugs of the Savak. 300 000 were tortured in twenty years. Too amnestic, those who want to teach us a lesson !
Let's stop this nonsense of the "Neither, Nor " and about the "War for Democracy !
"Neither Bush, nor the Ayatollahs". Will we hear again this motto spread all around among the soft Left ? After causing so much pain about Iraq and Yugoslavia !
In 2001, we denounced the negative effect of the slogans "Neither Bush, nor Saddam", "Neither Nato, nor Milosevic ", "Neither Sharon, nor Arafat". "For the last twelve years, this highly dominant position among the European Intellectuals leftists, has condamned the Anti-War Movement to passivity. Because it used to put on the same level the Aggressor and the Aggressed. If they were all as equally bad, we wouldn't need to do anything to stop the aggression.
The "Neither, Nor" is the cancer of the Anti-War Movement. It must come to an end. It's not Saddam or Milosevic who are threatening the whole world. It's Bush. It's not Iraq or Yugoslavia who are condemning to death 35000 children of the Third World, every day, it's the Multinationals.
The USA is threatening the peace worldwide. By putting over all the reproach, whether it's wright or wrong, to the countries who dare to resist them, you just favour the Aggression. It's not the role of the Western governments to decide who rules this or that country of the Third world, or to decide for whose interest it is done. It's the role of the peoples of these countries to decide. But if we allow Washington to occupy these regions, no struggle whether Social or Democratic would get easier. In the contrary. Only the Multinationals will benefit out of it ". End of quote.
(Source : Where is Yugoslavia ? :
http://www.michelcollon.info/articles.php?dateaccess=2002-11-01%2017:05:32andlog=articles
Now we have one more proof with the occupation of Iraq, Did it solve any of the problems of this country or did it just make the whole thing dramatically worse ? Let's hope not to hear this demobilizing litany of "Neither, Nor " ever again !
The Opposite Example of Venezuela :
Does the "war for Democracy" still have the slightest credibility ? To have a clear conscience let's take a closer look to Venezuela. We have here a president : Hugo Chavez, who won nine elections in six years. Increasing his votes. So what is Bush doing ? He gives tens of millions of dollars to the CIA (accordind to US documents ) to get rid of this democratically elected president. By all possible means... 2002 : attempt of Coup d'Etat. Failure. 2003 : sabotage of the Petrolium Industry. Failure. 2004 : huge budget campaign to try to kick him out of power by a forced, under pressure, referendum. Failure.
2005 or 2006 ? Mad as hell, Bush is dying to invade Venezuela. Under any pretext. For example by "discovering " some terrorists or by pretending that Colombia is " threatened ". But he can't do it as long as he is still involved in Iraq. So the actual Iraqi resistance is saving the other threatened countries.
What Bush is reproaching to Chavez, is not the lack of democracy (because you have to be there to judge how the simple people are personnally involved in all the problems of their daily life and future ). No, what really Bush is reproaching to Chavez is that the oil revenue is "diverted" to be used to finance the projects of alphabetisation, struggle against misery, health care for all, instead of serving the enrichment of Esso and Shell.
This example of Venezuela prooves, if necessary, that US wars do not have as a goal freedom or democracy, but only black gold and world domination. Let us suppose that tomorrow the Iranian leaders would accept the will of Esso or Shell, like Arab "friendly" regimes (Kuweit or Emirates) are doing, would we then still hear these campaigns of criticisms about their armament or the women rights in Iran ?
Divided By The Religion?
Anyway, none of the issues of the actual war propaganda - Nuclear, Terrorism, Dictatorship - could resist as an argument for war in front of an objective analysis. That's why the war propaganda is targeting the inconscience.
Speaking about "Islamist Terrorism" is manipulating the public. Making him think that a particular religion is dangerous. Even if they keep on saying in words that Muslims are good decent people etc... Yet the expression itself of relating terrorism to a certain religion is a trap.
Let's for instance imagine that, considering the aggressions committed by Bush & Blair in regular violation of the International Law, and which could be legally described as "State Terrorism", what would we say if the Muslim countries press called it " Christian Terrorism"? We're going to reply that most of the Christians worldwide condemn Bush. So it must not be called like that.
Therefore the Global War is not a war of religion, but it's an economic war. It's only Bush & Blair who have the interest of dividing their opponents by evil-making a certain religion. If the terrorism was "Islamist" then every Muslim would be a suspect. In the plane, in the underground, or in the mosque. No need to add anything more. Centuries of colonial hatred, tens of years on the issue of the "Arab who comes to take our work" (While we are the ones who stall their ressources ), all of this represent an assault base ready for evil-making of the Muslims. Like with the Jews during the 30s.
The issue of "Dangerous Religion" helps to divide people worldwide. Helps to drag the attention to this or that particular phenomenon, in order to hide the general nature of the Global War. But Venezuela, a very christian country, is yet one of the Bush's Targets ! What then ?
The War Against Iran has Already started
Maybe tomorrow Bush & Blair will "discover" the proof that Tehran was involved in the attacks. They will pretend that they are moving "in response". But this would only be the psychological campaign towards the public opinion, according to the classical rules of the war propaganda. In fact, the war against Iran has already started like it is shown by the US Former Officer Scott Ritter, who became a military analyst :
" The 16th of October 2002, President Bush said in his speech to the US People: "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope it will not become necessary." We know now that this statement was itself a lie, that the president, by late August 2002, had, in fact, signed off on the 'execute" orders authorising the US military operations inside Iraq. In September 2002, the US Air Force assisted by the British Royal Air Force, began expanding its bombardments of targets inside Iraq to degrade Iraqi Air Defence and command or control capabilities. In the Spring of 2002, president Bush had signed a covert finding which authorised the CIA and US Special Operations forces to dispatch clandestine units inside Iraq."
Does the same go for Iran today ? Yes. As Ritter writes : "As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place. The violation of a sovereign nation's airspace is an act of war in and of itself. With the help of planes without pilot and other more sophisticated equipments. The violation of the air space of a country is already an act of war."
In the north of the neighbouring Azerbaidjan, the US Army is preparing an operation base, for a massive military presence which announce a major land campaign, in order to take control of Tehran. The US Aviation, by going right from these bases in Azerbaidjan, has shortened the distance to make for attacking targets in Tehran. "In fact, once the offensive starts, the US Aviation would have a possibility of 24 hours a day presence in the Iranian Air Space".
(Published on the site of Al-Jazeera).
Strategically, now Iran is surrounded by US military bases on three sides : 1. Afghanistan. 2. Iraq. 3. Azerbaidjan. East. West. North. Very Interesting : the implantation in Azerbaidjan had started a long time ago. In 2000, the very next day of the war against Yugoslavia, we wrote : " An US Attached Secretary for Foreign Affairs is taking care of the Caucasus only. An important visit of Javier Solana has shown that the Nato is highly interested in this strategic region. The Nato is expanding in the Caucasus, in order to kick out Russia. The main basis for the USA in the Caucasus is Azerbaidjan. Washington can't have a direct military intervention there (but) they give Turkey the ability of taking care of the formation of the Azerbaidjanian army."
(Michel Collon, Monopoly, p.114-116, http://www.michelcollon.info/monopoly.php)
Five years later, we can see that the installation of US military bases and the transformation of Azerbaidjan into a kind of Israel of Caucasus was targeting Russia, but maybe even more Iran. The US strategists calculate for a long term and prepare for many strikes in advance.
The Wars Always Start Before the Official Date
Ritter is right : A Washington war always starts a long time before it's officially declared. It's interesting to analyse the official speeches, declarations or the mediatics around the previous wars.
First Example : Officially, the first war against Iraq started in August 90. When Saddam invaded and occupied the Kuweit. In fact, a year before, the Congress had launched an embargo on Iraq (an act of war without been called so). In fact, the war decision came out after Saddam's speech, where he called the Golf Area Countries to be united in order to be more independent towards the USA. The Middle East was then about to escape out of their hands. So the rest of the Operation was only a military and mediatic preparation.
Second Example : Officially, the USA and the Nato have launched the war against the Serbs in 1995, Four years after the start of the local combats. In fact, since 1979, Germany had sent his secret agents in order to blow the situation in Yugoslavia and to take control of the Balkans. As for the USA, it had imposed sanctions on Yugoslavia since 1990.
Third Example : Officially, Bush decided to attack Afghanistan after September 11. In fact, a year before, the strategists of the Pentagone decided that it was necessary to "change the regime " in Kaboul, because the Talibans refused to sign an agreement for a US strategic pipeline towards South Asia.
The war against Iran also has already started, long before will be declared.
Are The Media Helping Bush?
Each war is related to a war of information, with a decisive role, which consists of pushing, by all means the citizens to support the politic of their government. One of the means consists of treating the victims in different ways.
For the big Media, the dead people don't have the same weight. Of course a Londoni employee hit by a bomb while going to work is much more valuable, even thousand times more, than the simple Baghdadi bread seller killed by an US missile while cooking his bread.
The first day of last July, a US-B52 fighter plane bombarded with tele-guided missiles a block of houses in the province of Kunar in Afghanista. Killing at least 17 persons. Most of them women and children. Whom of the European Leaders has protested this barbaric act ? Which Media has given the Afghans agony, the same value they gave to the Londonies agony?
It's a very stable and well known journalistic principle, the famous "Principle of Death Kilometer", will answer the Media. You are supposed to be more interested in one death in your street than ten in the neighbourhood, or thousand on another continent. But what they forget to mention here, is that a lot depends on the value given to those dead by the media presenting them to you... If they show you a deeply touching image of the victim, if his life and death are described in a concrete way, if the suffering of his family is taken into consideration, so a faraway victim can become a closer person. An example...
When the Western media decided in 1991 to make us cry over the" victims of Saddam", they have shown us the abundant cries of that young Kuweiti nurse, telling how the Iraqi soldiers have stallen hundreds of incubators for premature babies in Kuweit city, murdering those babies. We all cried even though we were faraway.
Then later we learned that the young girl had never been a nurse, had never worked in that hospital and that it was a big lie, directed in the Hollywood style. Just because these growth incubators were never stallen. Yet this Media-lie made the Bush Senior have the international public opinion for war with its huge impact on viewers. So this prooves that it's not a matter of kilometers, but mainly the Media decision to make some victims worth more than others.
During the war times, whether warm or cold, our dead "friends" have thousand times more weight than those of our enemies. Those who resist our multinationals. These "Double weight, Double standards" are in fact the consequence of an education "ethno-centric" which makes of Europe and the USA, the center of the world, having for role to bring Democracy and Civilisation to the rest of it. To those far behind who must catch us. This plan of course hides the colonialism and our imperial domination over the world.
We won't discuss more this issue, about the important fighting role of the Media. The text on the principles of War Propaganda : The right to information, a combat. (in French or Spanish)
http://www.michelcollon.info/articles.php?dateaccess=2004-01-01%2020:34:14&log=articles
There is No Fatality
It's a fact. We couldn't prevent the war against Iraq or against Yugoslavia or against Afghanistan, no need to mention Palestine or Congo. Are we, as a movement for peace, meant to be always loosers ?
No, there is no fatality. In 2003, the Anti-War Demonstrations organised worldwide have gathered more people than anything ever done before. And where ever we go in any country, we find out that Bush is causing more and more worries, that the hypocrisy of his pretexts are more and more disclosed, that the anger gets higher and higher. Enough Wars ¡
Of course, everybody is asking : Who gets the profit from the London Attacks ? And the attacks which might happen in Rome, Copenhagen or Amsterdam? Even in Brussels if we let the NATO get more involved in complicity with Bush in Iraq.
Who's getting the profit from these attacks ? Will Bush & Blair benefit from it by getting everybody behind them and launch more and more wars without end ? Or the peace forces who will be able to show that there was enough deaths in London as in Baghdad. And that the occupation for Oil must have an end because the terror produces terror. And that without justice, the world will never be in peace.
Who's going to be stronger ? Their media, or ours ?
The aggressivity of Bush & Blair shouldn't deceive us. It's a sign of weakness. Their only chance to pursue their wars is by dividing the peoples. Their "power" is based on false informations, the Media-Lies for evil-making, the hiding of economic interests. Then, it's their weakness if we all participate in the battle of Counter - Information. The construction of an alternative information through Internet, by discussions around us, in a patient, concrete, argumented way, if we can do it on a high scale. Then we would have done the antidote to the war propaganda. It's our role to build the peace propaganda.
This Counter - Information is indispensable for saving lives. Because the London victims are victims of a war launched in their names. And of the fact that the Western populations didn't understand enough yet the criminal nature of this robbery-occupation of Iraq. The day they will understand it, the conscience will be stronger and will stop this war as it did in the Vietnam War.
Are they "too strong" in the opposite camp ? Three recent examples proove that they are not :
1- Aznar tried to cheat in the Spanish elections in 2004 by evil-making the ETA movement in the Madrid Attacks. He was defeated through basic popular information : Internet and SMS.
2- During the Coup d'Etat against Chavez in 2002, the pro-USA monopolistic media supported the plotters, by hiding the resistance of the people of Caracas. But the information went through by Internet, SMS and even by motorcycles going from one neighbourhood to another...
3- All the French Media were supporting the "Yes" in the referendum on the European Constitution, by the way violating all the principles of duties of journalistic profession. But they lost through a large rank and file mobilisation and on Internet.
These recent examples show that the media of the system can be defeated. People's information can be stronger.
In this sense, the Belgian peace movement Stop USA, in which I am taking part in Brussels, recently launched a campaign with petition cards, to be sent to the Belgian prime minister. With a remarkable cartoon made my Matiz. The text : « I do not agree with Bush's wars, either for oil, either for world domination. I refuse to be accomplice. By silence or participation, even indirect, of Belgium. »
Collecting signatures for this petition, everywhere with the local groups of Stop USA, we meet very good reactions. But state also that the people are low-informed. Very few know that Belgium is giving Antwerp harbour for transit of Bush's armaments towards Iraq. Very few know that US nuclear weapons are stored, secretly, in Belgium. And that Belgian troops are present in Afghanistan to make US troops available to attack Iraq. But when they get informed, we find a general will to become more active against Bush's wars.
Hence our responsability here, to all of us. Here in Europe, everything must be done to increase the pressure in order to isolate Bush & Blair. Spanish people could impose the withdrawal of Spanish troops out of Iraq. We have to go further, with a work of information, discussion, petition. Concretely : that no European government does support the war in Iraq, even indirectly. A campaign « I do not accept to be accomplice » should be organized at European level.
If, all together, we engage ourselves like that, then the dead of Jack, Robert or Hassan will not have been in vain.
Michel Collon
Brussels, July 11, 2005
Thanks to Suzanne Esmat for translation!
PS. To contact this Stop USA campaign, or look at the cartoon by Matiz :
http://www.stopusa.be/home/index.php?langue=1
MORE (in French) about medialies during previous wars :
http://www.michelcollon.info/archives_testm.php
If you read French, you may subscribe (free) for French Newsletter (faster) at
http://www.michelcollon.info/mailinglist.php
 E-Mail: info@cjb.nu  Website: http://www.cjb.nu
|
