W Is For WAR/M is for MADNESS

If you read the news, you'll see reports bragging about an American Murder rate being the lowest in 40 years. It's not easy to find reports about the civilians who got bombed to death immediately after the election in Iraq. That's the Media for you.

Pat Murphy reports in Geopolitical Implications of Peak Oil that in a typical colonial war, the kill rate is 1 to 50. That's a historical precedent. America has raised that figure to 1 to 90. It means for every one American casualty, there are, directly and indirectly, 90 Iraqi's dead. This implies that with the American military deaths at roughly 2000, Iraq has lost 180 000 people. Think about that number. That's from almost daily car bombs, suicide attacks and war related activity.
That really means that the American Murder rate is higher than ever...yes, for murdering people other than Americans. But the pendulum swings back.

Just recently America dropped a bomb on some civilians (they've dropped them on weddings before). I couldn't find much coverage.
But Google directed me to one source - the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation, and I found another in the Mail & Guardian Online, South Africa, and a Scottish paper. Very little coverage on US sites. Some, but not much.

I don't know about you, but if I wanted a country to have a good chance of getting a free and fair election, I'd concentrate on security, not bombing missions. I'd make quadruply sure no innocent civilians get hurt in any crossfire. Why? Because you're trying to promote and protecvt democracy.

People like Noam Chomsky and those familiar with Peak Oil and its implications know very well that the American elite do not want true democracy in Iraq, or Iran or Saudi Arabia. It's easier to buy off and control one or two puppets, than it is to negotiate with an entire voting population. More than that, a democracy will mean that the price of oil will be the market price(that's estimated at three times the current price, about $182 pb), not a market controlled price (which is entirely different).
You might say, Then W has my support. I'm not paying three times the price I could be for a full tank. Well, that's why you see posters saying: No Blood For Oil. That Cheap Oil that's going into your gas tank, was paid for in blood. Not ours, theirs. And they want payback.

What is reasonable and rational and fair, is to let oil finds its natural level, and let unrestrained, rampant consumption shrivel to a rational level. We are living irrational lives in a framework of lunacy, but because everyone around us is in the same framework, it seems normal. It's not. And our Classroom Mentality, where we only act under immient threat, where we onlu change our behaviour because someone bigger than us is holding a stick over us, or we've just been smacked, that attitude will get us exactly what we deserve. A thrashing for our laziness and stupidity. Not by someone holding a big stick, but by Life.



Carter made a speech years ago saying that the USA had the right to protect its access to Oil, even if that access was in foreign countries. But what he really said was the USA will enforce its right to maintaining Cheap Oil. It's a bit like putting a gun to a Nike factory manager's head in rural Thailand and saying, "Look, we'll pay you a handsome reward, just keep giving us all these sneakers for a tenth of what they cost in the stores." The manager consents, and sends two thirds of his staff back into the slums and poverty. Every second day a stone comes crashing through a factory window, but the man with the gun gets his sneakers, and his clients are all happy.

Bush doesn't care about Iraqi's or what is happening to their government. He cares about maintaining access to the oil fields, and holding onto a police station in the Middle East. Whatever happens around this issue is incidental, and unpredictable. Bush knows that the words 'freedom and democracy' are what we want to hear. It sounds like a good motivation. But why aren't the marines in Zimbabwe if they are really such supporters of democracy. Why didn't they invade South Africa at the height of Apartheid. America says they are supporters of democracy, the President says this, and the population endorses him. They're not. If a democracy comes into being in Iraq (and it's doubtful at this point), Bush will take credit for it. But believe this: the American strategists are doing everything in their power to destabilise and manipulate the democratic process until it is one of their own making - they're trying to hurry it along.
Whatever emerges will be a faux government, bought and bribed, which is just as good as disorder.



A lot of media attention is now on 'questionable yes votes', a tactic likely to stir up the bad losers amongst the Sunni's, who will take the bait and become enraged by a supposed 'conspiracy' against them. This is what Rumsfeld wants. They want to prolong the war. War = access and control. A democratic and stable country will also mean the US must get out. A real, democratically elected government would quickly demand the expulsion of US occupiers; troops and the companies they offer security for - wouldn't you? While things are unstable, Bush has the excuse to say, "we must first finish what we started." This idea is becoming more ludicrous by the day. And the giants are stirring. Iran is beginning to feel its toes burning, as is Syria. Russia is being nudged by all this too. And China is watching with unblinking eyes.



The Media supports Bush's agenda, either tacitly or otherwise. If you read many news articles, as I do, you'll find, especially in the closing sentences, soft support, and subtle backing for Bush. You might think The New York Times is providing an honest view. It's not. Neither is The Washington Post. Very powerful people control these publications. Very wealthy people. I will provide two articles as evidence of these distortions (of the same story) when I have time.

If you ever asked why do governments spend so much money on defence budgets when that money could go to schools, or libraries, the answer is that it pays. America spends by far the most on its military, especially now that W is in power. Since W was elected, Russia has responded by doubling or trebling its own military expenditures, and these have rippled through many other countries. Why spend billions on aircraft carriers? Because this military stuff allows America to keep those access lines open. The philosophy is this: It pays to have an expensive tank that can keep the all the stuff we want cheap. Throw away the tank, and start digging in your pockets (if you're American anyway).

If you have selective memory, here's what's important.
W/M. It's why the world is as it is right now.
W is for War.
M is for Madness.
But they're really one and the same. Don't accept the news at face value, make your own judgements.

70 Iraqis die after US bombs two villages

AMERICAN helicopters and warplanes have bombed two villages near the city of Ramadi, west of Baghdad, killing about 70 Iraqis.

The US military today said all of those killed were militants, but witnesses claimed at least 39 innocent civilians died in the attack.

Yesterday's violence came a day after the landmark Iraqi constitution was passed - despite opposition from many Sunnis.

The military statement said the crowd was setting a roadside bomb* in the location of a blast which killed Americans two days ago. F-15 warplanes hit them with a precision-guided bomb, killing around 20 people, described by the statement as "terrorists."

But several witnesses and one local leader said the people were civilians who had gathered to stare at the wreckage of the US vehicle or pick pieces off it, as often occurs after an American vehicle is hit.

The airstrike hit the crowd, killing 25 people, said Chiad Saad, a tribal leader.

The military said a group of gunmen opened fire on a Cobra attack helicopter that had spotted their position. The Cobra returned fire, killing around ten, and remaining gunmen ran into a nearby house, where weapons were seen to be unloaded. A warplane then bombed the building, killing 40 insurgents.

President Bush congratulated the Iraqis on the referendum and the fact no voters were killed as they went to the polls, and said: "The vote in Iraq is in stark contrast to the attitude, the philosophy and strategy of al-Qaida, their terrorist friends and killers."


*A crowd setting a roadside bomb? Who is dumb enough to believe a crowd would do that?