The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
"Liberate" is Orwellian doublespeak for _invade and occupy_. It's used to make wars of conquest palatable to the public. To me, using the terms "liberate" or "collateral damage" signifies utter insensitivity. Sorry, but that's how I feel. Mark Twain hated "liberate" too. If he were here today, he would heartily denounce Bush's proposed "liberation" of Iraq. It would remind him of Cuba's liberation by US guns in 1898 - and of many other "liberations". Cuba's "liberation" is a well-established US myth. In a speech on Cuba in May last year, Bush ranted lustily about "freedom" and "liberation" for Cuba. He proposed to put Cuba (once again) on the "path to liberty" - ie, in the arms of American business. Unwisely perhaps, Bush referred to the previous attempt when "Cuba's independence was achieved" with US support. This US "support" was in fact an interference with the Cuban people's strive for independence from Spain: The US waged war against Spain in 1898 to gain control of Cuba. As the winner, the US did then "liberate", ie, invade and occupy, Cuba and made it a US protectorate. (In this neat little war the US also grabbed Guam, Porto Rico, and the Philippines.) Cuban aspirations for independence were further thwarted by the Platt Amendment in 1901. A student and workers revolution in 1933 replaced dictator Machado with Grau San Martin. Quickly the US arranged for San Martin's ouster and installed dictator Batista. For 25 years Batista carried out US orders, making the Cuban people suffer hardship, oppression and torture. But US business concerns flourished - until Batista fled in 1959. Witnessing the US exploitation of Cuba and the Philippines, Mark Twain became a self-declared "anti-imperialist" - and opponent of war. (In the Philippines they put up a Mark Twain memorial and in Cuba too, I believe. He is their hero.) In _The Mysterious Stranger_, he made some shrewd observations on war propaganda, anti-war support - and courage. (I often feel disheartened when I see people caving in to the current onslaught of propaganda. Reading Mark Twain's words makes this a little easier to accept.) Anti-war support wanes quickly, Twain felt, because of the individual's "desire, for safety's or comfort's sake, to stand well in his neighbor's eye". This need to be accepted still exists. But today peace proponents can encourage one another worldwide - thanks to the internet. So the anti-war support for Iraq has actually gained momentum, especially in the US. And if public resistance together with Francis Boyle's plan succeed, Bush will never make a speech about Iraq's "liberation" - by US daisy cutters and 'smart bombs'. Just for once, Iraqis may get a chance at determining their destiny. bon courage, Elga Sutter Here are some excerpts from _The Mysterious Stranger_, chapter nine: [Satan's observations on the human race] '"Oh, it's true. I know your race. It is made up of sheep. It is governed by minorities, seldom or never by majorities. It suppresses its feelings and its beliefs and follows the handful that makes the most noise.' .... 'I did not like to hear our race called sheep, and said I did not think they were. "Still, it is true, lamb," said Satan. "Look at you in war--what mutton you are, and how ridiculous!" "In war? How?" "There has never been a just one, never an honorable one--on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful-- as usual--will shout for the war. The pulpit will--warily and cautiously--object--at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the [anti-war] speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers--as earlier--but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation--pulpit and all--will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."' ### _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email email@example.com All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk