Bomb Texas

[p. 37]

The Fourth Reich

In 2003, the Bush Government circulated its latest ideas on how to make the earth a safer place for everybody, meaning for Americans, of course. The latest White House national-security decree prior to the Iraqi War read, ‘we seek to create a balance of power that favors freedom: conditions in which all nations and all societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of political and economic liberty... We will preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers... The us national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests.’

Americans are self-righteously convinced that they have established the most supreme and globally acceptable social, economic and political system in the world. Hence, it's their conviction that only American values and the American way of life, is the ideal way of bringing prosperity and happiness to humanity. Americans have embarked on what they themselves imagine to be an unselfish and humanitarian crusade to bring Yankee joy and wealth to all. It never seems to occur to the Bushites and their followers that billions of people have no inclination towards the American way of life and refuse to become pseudo-Yankees.

One story we often hear repeated these days is that Americans helped to free the Old Europe and then bequeathed Marshall Plan Aid out of the goodness of their hearts. How ungrateful of Europeans to now be against us plans to conquer Iraq. One has to be extraordinarily naive to concede Santa Claus qualities to the White House. Americans love to portray them-selves as having landed on the beaches of Normandy out of affection for the French. What Washington really aimed at in 1944 was to establish a fortified Atlantic bridgehead on the Western European peninsula. Washington entered, with the defeat of the Axis powers in 1945; the next phase in its strategy to acquire world domination. The us aim all along was to bring down America's next strongest and most feared mortal enemy, a nuclear armed Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

It took Washington and nato countries half a century to blockade, to undermine and to defeat Marxism-Leninism and thus to destroy the communist dream of creating a collectivist socialist economy in which the means of production and distribution would be owned and controlled by the people. The fall of the ussr further speeded up the global dollarization of the world. Washington made a further step into the direction of the Fourth Reich. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations are already operating in the us. When the un was founded in 1945 in San Francisco, five major powers, China, the ussr, the us, the uk and France received veto powers. In 1945 India and Indonesia were still lingering in colonialist limbo, and Africa still found itself in colonial coma.

Half a century later the undemocratic nature of the present un has finally entered the conscience of the world. Influential

[p. 38]

pre-World War II states like the uk and France should have been replaced long ago by India and Indonesia totaling together 1,5 billion people lives. Talk about extending veto privileges to Japan and Germany perhaps do reflect the strength of Tokyo and Berlin bank accounts, but have little to do with the further democratization of the planet overall. If Washington means what it says, that it intends to bring democracy to, for instance Iraq, it would mean the introduction of the electoral system of one man one vote. It can be expected that following the handling of the Iraqi crisis in the Security Council in 2003 will lead eventually to fundamental changes, both in the text of the Charter of the un as in the structure of the Security Council.

At the dawn of the 21st century we witness the rise of a Fourth Reich mentality steered by the neo Nazis who make up the bosses of the Project of the New American Century clan and their Texan and Israeli partners. American minds are clearly Mafia orientated. In The Caine Mutiny it was the business with the strawberries that finally convinced the doubters that something was amiss with the captain. ‘Is foreign policy George W. Bush's quart of strawberries,’ asked Paul Krugman in The New York Times. (March 15, 2003). He continued, ‘Bush is the wrong man for the job. And more people than you would think - including a fair number of people in the Treasury Department, the State Department and, yes, the Pentagon - don't just question the competence of Bush and his inner circle (ed. of pnac'ers): they all believe that America's leadership has lost touch with reality.’

Krugman warned of the debacle to come ‘stirred by awesome arrogance and a vastly inflated sense of self-importance.’ Bush's inner circle, the fascist pnac'ers, claimed repeatedly, that they had sufficient votes on the Security Council to get the war against Baghdad approved. In the end, it turned out to have been all lies and more lies. The Secretary of State, and his British counterpart, did not offer any proof for their malicious allegations against the government of Iraq. They were caught redhanded trying to deceive the members of the Security Council with massively faked proof concocted by western intelligence services. Powell looked ridiculous. Even his face betrayed him when trying to deceive the world. In the end, in the face of total humiliation, since few members of the Council were prepared to be taken for a ride by Bush and Blair, the duo unchivalrously did not dare to introduce a second un resolution knowing it would not pass. They went to war anyway. New York Times journalist Krugman spoke of the irresponsibility of Bush and his team and ‘their almost childish un-willingness to face up to problems they don't feel like dealing with right now.’

Journalist Jonathan Rauch rendered an apt description of the basic problem with fundamentalism, not referring to religious movement, but the intellectual style. Rauch quoted Ayatollah Khomeini as perhaps the most implacable fundamentalist of the past century, who said in 1979 to an interviewer, ‘I do know that, during my long life-time, I have always been right about what I have said.’ Rauch further reminds us of John Locke's portrait of fundamentalism, which he called ‘enthusiasm.’ Enthusiasts like the pnac'ers in today's Washington are convinced

[p. 39]

they are not mistaken. They are unable, in Lockean terms, to infuse light into their understandings. They have the proof and need no further evidence. In the case of junior, on top of his fundamentalist approach, he feels impulses of the Spirit and the hand of God moving from within.

Rauch: ‘Some people are capable of clinging to a belief despite all the contrary evidence and all the ridicule in the world, sometimes admirably, sometimes not. One man, who devoted his life to arguing that the Nazis had no policy of exterminating Jews, wrote, ‘I get up in the morning, I go to the typewriter and write down the simplest things which have the most tremendous implications. I write about how all historians are wrong, how the scholars and the intellectuals and the universities are wrong and I am right'.’ (Kindly Inquisitors, University of Chicago Press, 1993, Chapter 4, pp. 89-111). Bush and Blair display similar convictions to be right about Iraq and Saddam. They are not.

Fundamentalist thinking is the trademark of the pnac White House. The gang of four seems convinced, for instance, that the present huge international controversy is primarily about us policy towards Iraq and Mid East problems in general. In reality, what did cause the current impasse in us-world relations is the future place of America in the family of nations. Iraq, as The Guardian wrote, is a subplot in a post Cold War world. Iraq has become the catalyst of the draining power from the un, the European Union and the nato Alliance. Humanity is moving into another kind of civilization. History seems to be accelerating into Marshall McLuhan's concept of a global village. There will be no room for pnac aspirations to establish a Fourth Reich controlled by oil barons in collusion with the us military industrial complex or the considerably enlarged us version of Hitler's Krupp and ig Farben's war industries. In 2003, America resembles evermore the situation of Germany under the Nazis in the late thirties. Increasingly since 1945, the us economy has developed into a gargantuan war industry. When leaving the White House even general Dwight Eisenhower felt obliged to warn of the dangerous tentacles of the military, steadily usurping more and more power, which under the Constitution should not be allowed. As former uk minister of Defense Lord Chalfont once assured me, ‘One cannot continue to produce and develop new weapons systems without sooner or later using them.’

Billions of earth dwellers in the developing world survive in dire poverty. Millions more have remained illiterate. American futurologist Herman Kahn sarcastically assured me in 1971, that we had to accept the plain fact that there would always be ‘the chronic poor.’ Yet, in this 21st century, the far majority of fellow human beings are hardly aspiring to be annexed by pnac good-doers and their crazy notions of what they might feel to be ‘good’ for them. If gi's march like Nazis into other countries bringing them so-called liberation and the blessings of the Yankee way of life, they should surely be greeted by cheering crowds, they are not, and this demonstrates how out of touch they are with the realities of the world.

I visited Baghdad twice in 2002. I drew two conclusions by

[p. 40]

investigating conditions first hand. An attack on Iraq would be unwarranted, illegal and would never pass the Security Council in New York. I was proven wrong, because I never thought the us and uk would directly and unashamedly violate the Charter of the un and rank themselves with outlaw states like Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, who did the same in the 30's .

Secondly, I concluded that if a military conflict would erupt, this would openly place the Iraqis on the side of the Palestinians in their guerrilla resistance against us-Israeli control and illegal occupation of Palestine. An Iraqi-Palestinian Jihad against us-uk imperial ambitions in the Middle East would undoubtedly and simultaneously be directed at the state of Israel. This would further heighten tensions and increase the dangers in a very explosive part of the world.

Bush feels ordained by humanity, which allows his crusade into Baghdad to be a legitimate way of applying us military might. He is not even aware of how close his mind resembles that of a classic Nazi. When Hitler annexed most of Europe in an effort to create one happy Nazi family on the Western European peninsula, nobody bought his message. When Hermann Goring bombed Rotterdam to force Holland to surrender, his mind was functioning as that of an ordinary war criminal. Following the Nuremberg trial, he was hanged for it. While writing these lines, Bush is doing exactly the same with Baghdad. Why should Bush not be hanged for his war crimes? Or Blair? Or will they be victorious in establishing a global Fourth Reich? Then there will be no Nuremberg type war crimes trials and Bush and Blair, who have committed the same war crimes, will escape the fate of the Nazi bosses.

We in Holland did not receive Hitler's troops with flags and flowers. We went underground to fight the Nazi invaders with everything we had. Nor did the Iraqis receive the us & uk hordes with cheers or jubilation. On the contrary, the us and uk occupiers will meet the same fate as the Israelis have experienced in the occupied territories in Palestine. Iraq will become an ideal new battleground for Islamic freedom fighters that will also further endanger the entire region of us Arab puppet regimes.

Hitler appointed a Reichs Komissar for Holland. In true Nazi tradition, Washington and London feel entitled as the conquerors of Baghdad to establish their own puppet regime. They have selected one of their own generals as governor-general. He will have to oversee a bunch of Quislings chosen from amongst Saddam's enemies. It's a classic recipe for more trouble to come. The global concept of the current us Administration could even amount to a prelude to World War III. Islamic guerrilla movements are, in this concept, the avant-garde for a collision between the world's religions and civilizations.

Richard Bernstein warned in The New York Times (March 24, 2003) that Bush's America intends to use its overwhelming military power ‘to reshape the world, to chart a new political, economic, even psychological direction for many states and many millions of people, and to do so with much of the world looking on in skepticism and disapproval.’ It's a fact, that following World War II, America was able to obtain astonishing

[p. 41]

results in transforming some important aspects of the international order. With us assistance and encouragement former Axis powers, Japan, Germany and Italy rejoined the democratic family of nations. To some extent this happened in Russia after the collapse of communism.

However, us efforts to reshape Afro-Asian nations have proven to be quite a different matter. The founding in 1955 of the bloc of non-aligned nations in Bandung, Indonesia was a clear signal to the former imperialist world, that billions of people on this planet were not prepared to become fake Yankees.

Washington's efforts to reshape the world's largest Muslim nation, Indonesia by way of a fascist military coup in 1965 totally boomeranged. America's puppet, fascist general Suharto, crony of Paul Wolfowitz, turned out to be the most notorious mass killer in the history of Southeast Asia. Only to be later upstaged by Pol Pot in Cambodia. Bill Clinton brazenly called Suharto ‘our boy.’ Pol Pot and Suharto slaughtered millions of Asians between them. While Washington screamed murder (!) concerning Pol Pot, it observed total silence about its own Quisling Suharto. Therefore, those, who know their history, fully understand that the us applies double standards. The bloc of more than one hundred non-aligned nations, amongst them Iraq is fully aware of America's true face. The non-aligned nations unanimously oppose Bush's war against Baghdad.

Billions of people in the Third and Fourth Worlds know that they are considered in Washington and London as third and fourth-class citizens. They know, that 3.000 us casualties in New York apparently justified mobilizing the entire us-uk war machine to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, while other ‘evil nations’ are candidates to be next in line. To avenge the loss of American lives in Manhattan is therefore fully legitimate. Israel suffers from identical racial and Übermensch misconceptions. The life lost of one Israeli has to be immediately avenged by slaughtering dozens of Palestinian freedom fighters. And if women and children are caught in the crossfire, and torn apart as a result, well, too bad. Collateral damage, it is said, is unavoidable in any military conflict. Another argument Americans and Israelis repetitiously advance in their discussions is that Hitler gassed thousands of innocent Jews. As if, Palestinians are responsible for German war crimes. In our time, Palestinians are the victims of Sharon's war crimes supported and obviously fully underwritten by George Bush.

At least Bill Clinton spent weeks on end with Prime Minister Ehud Barak and plo leader Yasser Arafat in order to find a suitable and peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Bush apparently gave Sharon the green light to live up to his reputation of butchering Palestinians at will. Madeleine Albright informed the press after Clinton had nominated her Secretary of State that she had never known she was a Jew until journalists told her that she came from a Jewish family. She nevertheless made a serious effort to find a solution for the conflict. Bush has been for 2,5 years president of the United-States and has never even bothered to meet, let alone to talk to Arafat. This president is a moron with a completely closed mind.

In his memoir published at the time he ran for president, he

[p. 42]

stressed, that as an undergraduate at Yale, he and his friends always ignored visitors to the New-Haven campus, who came to talk to students, and who were critical of the of the war in Vietnam. (A Charge to Keep: My journey to the White House, Harper Collins, New York, 1999, pp. 50). This says it all. Junior likes to see life in black and white, right or wrong, good or evil. Friederich Nietzsche wrote in 1886 a treatise on the subject. This president never heard of Nietzsche. What would junior make of Nietzsche's observation that good and evil were not always distinguishable to the naked eye? (Beyond Good and Evil, Henry Regnery, Chicago, 1955).

Bush is a president, who knows virtually nothing, but keeps stressing how sure he is of himself and the righteousness of his fatal decisions. As David Brooks warned in the Times (March 7, 2003), ‘The us is in the grip of a certainty crisis.’ Brooks: ‘The us press is filled with psychologizing. Two explanations have re-emerged. First, Bush is stupid. Intellectually incurious, he is unable to adapt to events. Secondly, he is a religious nut. He sees the world as a simple battle of good versus evil. His faith cannot admit shades of grey.’

What would the 43rd President of the United-States answer, when a journalist would read on a press conference the following sentence to him? Nietzsche: ‘Even today there are still harmless self-observers who believe in ‘immediadiate certainties’, such as, ‘I think’ or, in the formulation of Schopenhauer's superstition, ‘I will’.’ Junior would not know what hit his brain and stammer an unintelligible reply. Brooks further wrote, ‘Why does Bush seem so certain, decisive and sure of himself, when everybody knows that anxiety and anguish are the proper poses to adopt at such times?’ Of course, he does, because this us president is an imbecile.

Was the handling of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis too much for him? Much in the same way as in his student days he preferred not to listen to arguments that opposed the war in Vietnam? Perhaps he does not want to consider the fact, that Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon have replaced their old Katyusha rockets with Fajr-3 and even Fajr-4 projectiles imported from Iran. These have a 70 kilometer range and could reach Haifa and even Tel Aviv. According to the Israeli Army the Hezbollah's have already imported 8.000 of these deadly rockets with the assistance of the mullah's in Teheran. Shipments went via Damascus. Writer Larry Collins reported in the Herald Tribune, that Sharon let it be known to president Bashar Assad, that Israel would hold Syria responsible in case the Fajr rockets were ever fired at Israel (March 12, 2003). Junior in DC leaves the handling of these dangerous matters entirely up to Sharon, the current rogue prime minister of Israel.

Whenever I hear Bush, blasting president Saddam for cruelty and the behavior of a war criminal, I recall attending Patrice Lumumba's last press conference in 1960 in Leopoldville, later Kinshasa. It was the us and Belgium who ordered the first freely elected Prime Minister of the nation to be hacked to pieces. Next, in true Nazi tradition, Washington appointed its own Reichs Kommissar, marshal Mobutu in charge of that mineral rich country. Mobutu had been trained in Israel, like Ge-

[p. 43]

neral Suharto had attended us military schools. Both martial dictators were kept in power for 32 years through Washington's protection and good offices with billions of dollars and shiploads of armaments. In Chili, the freely elected president Salvador Allende was overthrown and killed in 1973 with Henry Kissinger's personal blessing. Washington, once again, instated a fascist general, Augusto Pinochet, who became another Washington Quisling specializing in terrorism against his own people.

All American presidents looked the other way, when these us protected war criminals were slaughtering their citizens and were building concentration camps to make their enemies disappear. Now, the world is told by Washington and London, that Iraq, too, is ruled by a monster. However, president Saddam Hussein's record of human rights violations pales in comparison with some of the mass murdering brutes purposely placed by the White House, the Pentagon and the cia in dictatorial positions in the developing world. It should be realized by the pnac'ers that little love remains for America shameful lies constantly repeated by Bush, Blair and other pnac gangsters. Their present spokesmen at military headquarters in the Middle East illustrate the dictum, that lies and perfidy are the refuge of fools and cowards. Peter Preston forewarned in The Guardian (October 8, 2001) that Bush's callous War on Terrorism would end up becoming ‘a festival of lies.’ ‘Truth is the first casualty of conflict. Military briefers will become wholly unreliable by design,’ Preston cautioned. He could not have been more right. We now hear a us official declaring with a straight face, that the us did not target a Baghdad market, and that the monster Saddam must have targeted his own people with a missile.

Surely, the far majority of the western world and most people in non-aligned nations are fully aware of the dirty games being played by the White House and 10 Downing Street. The present London-Washington Axis is identical to the BerlinRome Nazi Axis. We are right; the rest of the rest of the world is wrong. The Nazis and the pnac'ers both practiced the doctrine of pre-emptive military strikes. In doing so, they both dumped international peace organizations in order to wage their aggressive wars, and conquer the territory of others.

The reverberations of the Nazi go-it-alone policies led mankind in 1939 directly into World War II. The world community did not accept Hitler and Mussolini's pre-emptive strike strategies outside accepted international law and order. In 2003, the us and uk launched their first solo strike into the oil rich Mid-East in direct violation of un rules. Fairytales about a 48nation coalition of the willing against Iraq are simply Joseph Goebbels tactics used by the current pnac government in Washington. Bush and Blair are returning to 19th century colonialism and imperialism, to safeguard the delivery of energy to the Anglo-Saxon industrial engine for the next half century.

America alone is importing 60 per cent of its oil needs. That share is expected to grow to as much as to 90 per cent by 2020. The Bush II Administration is literally entwined with the global oil industry. In 2001 vice-president Dick Cheney unveiled a

[p. 44]

national energy policy with emphasis on a greater diversity of oil supplies. Oil remains the key to the us economic colossus and its almighty dollar. The Nazis were en route towards the Caucasus to lay their hands on Soviet oil resources, but were thwarted in their strategy at Stalingrad. Will Baghdad indeed become Washington's Stalingrad on the way toward complete control of Arab oil reserves? The Observer (January 6, 2003) carried a headline, ‘Scramble to carve up Iraqi oil reserves lies behind us diplomacy.’ ‘Operation Freedom’, as Bush and Blair euphemistically call their sacred mission towards Baghdad is also a classic neo-imperialistic struggle between Anglo-American oil interests on the one hand, and Russian-French energy demands on the other.

Since his early days, the president's heart belongs to the oil industry. His own dabbling in black gold was a mild fiasco. Hence, his family bought him a baseball team. However, they also dangled into the venture capital business. Dad's friends, former Secretary of State James Baker, Dick Cheney, Frank Carlucci, Donald Rumsfeld, and even former British Prime Minister John Major, all joined the Carlyle Group. Its multibillion dollar funds grow fat on the back of global conflict. Jamie Doward wrote in The Observer (March 23, 2003) that Carlyle also built up the Saudi National Guard from 26.000 to 70.000 troops. Carlyle likewise purchased the United Defense Company. It developed the huge 40-tonne howitzer named the Crusader, which despite strong opposition from the us Army was commissioned by the Pentagon anyway. The guns cost 665 million dollars. The contract was signed two weeks after 09-11. Carlyle - meaning the Bush cronies - made 240 million dollars on the deal.

In the mean time, the rat race to sign lucrative Iraqi oil contracts, once Saddam has been defeated is in full swing. British Trade and Industry Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, has been pressing the White House for billions of dollars of oil industry and reconstruction contracts, because, after all, British soldiers are also dying in the Iraqi desert. Therefore, British companies should share in the after war profits. Richard Perle, driving force behind the pnac and chairman of the Pentagon Advisory Board came first under sharp attack and was under investigation for cashing in 725.000 dollars for a job on behalf of telecommunications giant Global Crossing Fiber Optics. He also had dubious dealings with Hutchison Whampoa Ltd, controlled by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing and Singapore Technologies Telemedia Pte, another phone company controlled by the Singapore government. Perle was jumping the gun before everybody else. The New York Times published a disapproving editorial that Perle was trying to enrich himself by using his Pentagon office for private gain (March 25, 2003). Perle was forced to resign.

Halliburton, the Texas Company of which vice-president Dick Cheney used to be the boss, was awarded another Pentagon contract to put out fires on Iraqi oilfields. The Vice-President is still cashing in a million dollars yearly from his former company. Provided, of course, that he continues to use his White House power and influence to award them profitable

[p. 45]

contracts.

Top future ‘liberators’ of Iraq were already figuring out how to up their private bank accounts and forge the most profitable deals after the Iraqi government was defeated. Bush was totally convinced that the march on Baghdad was going to be a cakewalk. The pnac'ers had been deluding themselves, even more so after 09-11, that the Iraqi leader was indeed a monster, and undoubtedly was hated and despised by the Iraqi masses. Bush and Blair were convincing the us and uk public that their troops would be welcomed by cheering crowds. Bush told his White House staffers in February 2003 that he already considered Saddam Hussein ‘irrelevant’ because he would be soon destroyed.

British Defense Chief, Geoff Hoon, assured James Blitz of The Financial Times ( March 1, 2003) that the invasion of Iraq would be ‘very short.’ The British planned a round-the-clock invasion to topple Saddam. President Bush said a few days later, ‘The attack will be short and awesome.’ Following a meeting with Donald Rumsfeld, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, general Richard Myers, and ‘Wunderkind’ Paul Wolfowitz, the president repeated, that the us and Britain envisaged ‘a Blitzkrieg style onslaught against Saddam’ lasting perhaps a week.(The Independent, March 6, 2003). Vice Prime Minister Tariq Azis, a close collaborator of Saddam since the 50's, was sounding a serious warning to the contrary. No-one listened in Washington and London. I met him twice in 2002 in Baghdad, and became persuaded that he was a man to take very seriously.

A contingent of western writers, experts and journalists likewise contributed to raising false hopes and expectations for an expected short fast military campaign. Craziness was on the loose everywhere, especially in America. William Safire, columnist of The New York Times published an article, ‘Let's finish off Saddam’ ( March 7, 2003). ‘We are launching this attack, already too long delayed, primarily to defend ourselves,’ Safire wrote, ‘This is a response to reasonable fear... This campaign will make us safer, allaying our fears; it has the potential of making the world freer, justifying our hopes.’ It was whacko talk, which had no relation to reality. Nevertheless, the claptrap was printed in America's most authoritative daily paper.

Bush, Safire and other believers in pnac war aims were intentionally misleading the public by talking of an Iraqi threat to America. While North Korea openly declared that its nuclear missiles were ready to be fired, Bush and Blair were planning to destroy weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which this country obviously did not possess. The un inspectors declared in chorus that Baghdad had no nuclear arms and would not have them in a near future. Yet Bush and Blair rushed into an illegal criminal attack on another member of the United Nations, ignoring their international legal obligations and clearly lowering themselves to standard Nazi behaviour.

Charles Krauthammer, echoing the rubbish of Richard Perle, published a column in the Washington Post titled ‘Ignore the un.’ Addressing himself to President Bush, he wrote, ‘Don't go back, Mr. President. You walked away from the United Nations at great cost and with great courage. Don't go back.’

[p. 46]

Krauthammer has also been for many years a prominent writer for Time and other publications. Nevertheless, the 09-11 events seem to have caused a widespread foolishness in the us, which prevents the Krauthammer's to function calmly and objectively. The first time I visited the un in the old building at Lake Success was in 1949. I became accredited as a correspondent at the new East River skyscraper in 1957 and worked there through the mid seventies. If anyone recognizes the importance of the world organization as an international tool of diplomacy, it is I. It's therefore objectionable to see Bush and the pnac'ers making incurable fools of themselves as they set about destroying the un.

Dachau concentration camp specialist, Joshua Greene presented suggestions in The New York Times (March 21, 2003) about what Washington should do with Saddam after he was captured. Green's first and foremost advice was to follow the Nazi method, ‘Shoot him.’ This, he wrote, was hero General George Patton's way to deal with captured Nazi's. Line them up, tell them what they did, and pull the trigger. Advice number 2: Try Saddam before a Nuremberg type international court. Number 3: Turn him over to his own people. Number 4: Try him for a military tribunal. Reading these recommendations by a Dachau specialist 60 years after Hitler's extermination camps were liberated, made me think of a line from Mein Kampf, ‘Hate is more lasting than dislike.’

Perhaps Joshua Greene should have given more thought to the question of how first to capture president Saddam and then philosophize about what to do with the prisoner. General Patton's manner of carrying out us justice did not differ too much from the way the Waffen SS operated. At the time of this writing, the 10th day of the us-uk ‘liberation’ campaign the entire world realizes that Bush, Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks have been the victims of their own nutty fairy tales about Iraq. President Chirac, President Putin and Chancellor Schroeder of Germany made every effort to slow Washington down. They were promptly called cowards by the maniacal pnac clique in Washington. Even serious members of Congress were demonstrating their silliness by ostentatiously pouring expensive bottles of French wines into sewers of the city's sidewalks.

Americans were quick to lambaste the French ‘un-grateful traitors’. ‘They would be speaking German had we not come to free them from Hitler,’ was a standard televised complaint. Perhaps many Americans do sincerely assume that the invasion of Normandy in 1944 was carried out in a godlike spirit of true us altruism.

John Brown, a State Department career officer resigned after twenty years of service in protest over current us foreign policy. He warned, ‘The 20th century was the American century, but is the 21st century becoming the anti-American century’. (The Times, March 15, 2003). The same day on the same page polls indicated that 67% of the British public, 86% of the Germans, 85% of the Italians, 75% of the Poles, 87% of the Russians, 93% of the Spaniards, 94% of the Turks, 84% of the Japanese were opposed to us-uk war plans against Iraq.

[p. 47]

Why Bush and Blair did not honor the overwhelming majority opinion in the world is for historians and Bushologists to decide. It was to be expected that this man from Texas was behaving the way he did. He never gave a hoot about democracy to begin with. Had he been a fair political player, he would have offered Al Gore a re-run. But his family and their cronies in the pnac and oil industry simply hijacked the 2000 democratic election with the clear aim of grabbing the White House and thus us hyper power in the world. Now they could ensure the import after 90 per cent of needed oil supplies by 2020.

Daniel Henniger choose to ridicule the French and the Germans in The Wall Street Journal (February 17, 2003) because they were warning the Bush Administration in the Security Council not to walk open eyed into a prearranged Saddam Hussein prepared guerrilla war. By embarking on this war, Bush and Blair gained from day one an entirely unintended disastrous result. They succeeded in raising Saddam's standing to near mythological heights. The much maligned evil tyrant suddenly became a heroic figure in the entire Muslim world. In Indonesia hundreds of thousands demonstrated carrying placards, ‘Bush global terrorist.’ All over the Arab world, including Iran, fatwa's were proclaimed prohibiting cooperation with us and uk forces. Religious decrees like these made it impossible for Shias in southern Iraq to revolt against Baghdad. Bush and Blair were misled by Iraqi dissidents. They were ignorant of Iraqi realities and became the victims of their own misguided propaganda.

France, Germany and Russia had gathered accurate information. That's why they endeavored to delay the Bush-Blair rush to battle. The Wall Street Journal, as usual reflecting the attitudes the us business world, including the pnac, printed Henniger's report trying to portray the French and the German's as fools. He wrote, ‘In recent weeks, what had been a difficult but manageable relationship between us European policy elites was driven into the streets,’ referring to large scale European demonstrations against the war. Henniger added, ‘Inevitably, the quality of the us-European debate becomes: ‘Bomb Texas, they have oil too‘.’ (Wall Street Journal, February 17, 2003).

What the White House, the pnac and Wall Street seem unable to understand is that Europe, after two devastating World Wars with an estimated 50 million dead, have sharply different views on conflicts as compared to the Bushe's, Cheney's, Roomfeld's, Wolfowitze's and ostensibly the Blair's and Straw's. As Hala Jaber reported in The Sunday Times (March 30, 2003), ‘Honour is Iraq's Secret Weapon.’ Why were allied troops not received with open arms and flowers?

For Iraqis and Arabs, whether they are for or against Saddam, the us-uk invasion desecrates Arab honor and dignity. ‘This is an unforgivable sin in Iraqi culture. Nation and territory are as sacred as the honour of women, and occupation is as vile, shameful and abominable as rape,’ Jabber wrote. These are values for which Muslims are all too ready to sacrifice their lives. These are for Muslims vitally important religious imperatives. For White House or Wall Street environments, the Islamic honor code is seen as Eastern pathology. How to counter this madness other than by raining cruise missiles on them?

[p. 48]

On the 11th day of the invasion the first Iraqi suicide bombing killed four American Marines. The first Iraqi martyr was a young Army officer. Many more will follow him. America, by militarily intervening in the Arab world, unwittingly entered a second Vietnam type guerrilla war. It's a conflict that cannot be won. Vietcong guerrillas, clad in black pyjamas finally entered the us embassy in Saigon. It had taken them 15 years to do it, and Americans had to flee by helicopter from the rooftop. Bush says, that the us will take the time it needs, to conquer Iraq and defeat Saddam Hussein. The question is: Will Iraqis not likewise take their time to chase the invaders from their sacred homeland?