Category: Imperialism
Cuba spending by U.S. imperialism hovers around $1 billion
| April 8, 2015 | 7:53 pm | Cuba, Imperialism, political struggle | Comments closed

April 8, 201

Source: Progresso Daily
The State Department, the Agency for International Development and the National Endowment for Democracy have spent $304,300,000 on Cuba-related democracy programs since 1996.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees Radio & TV Marti­, has spent another $700 million or so. That brings the total to around $1 billion.
USAID and the State Department have spent nearly 90 percent of the Cuba money since 2004. That was a year after then-President George W. Bush created the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba and declared that he was ready for “the happy day when the Castro regime is no more.”
George W. Bush
George W. Bush
Fidel Castro was president of Cuba back then. Roger Noriega, then assistant secretary of state, said, “The United States..will not accept a succession scenario.”
More than a decade later, the democracy programs endure. The State Department plans to spend $20 million on the programs in 2016. That’s a tiny fraction of the federal government’s proposed $1,168 trillion discretionary budget, which excludes Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
But the money has outsized impact in Cuba, where the socialist government demands that the U.S. end such programs as the two nations restore diplomatic ties.
The thin - really thin - blue line
The thin “really thin” blue line
When I traveled to Cuba in December, some Cubans asked me how it is that the U.S. government runs democracy programs that Cuban officials see as provocative and illegal while negotiating to restore diplomatic relations.
I tell them it’s democracy in action. Strong political interests demand that the U.S. pressure Cuba to adopt democratic reforms. At the same time, many Americans press for normalized relations with Cuba. The U.S. government’s response is to push for both democracy and restored ties.
Some Cubans have told me the U.S. approach seems contradictory and maybe it is, but it’s also an example of the squeaky wheel getting the grease.
It reminds me of what I saw while covering immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border in the ’90s. The U.S. beefed up border enforcement while failing to crack down on employers who hired undocumented immigrants. It was a schizophrenic approach, but it underscored how the political system responded both to employers who wanted cheap labor and citizens who demanded an end to illegal immigration.
U.S. Interests Section
U.S. Interests Section
The U.S. government operates Cuban democracy programs under Section 109 of the 1996 Helms-Burton Act.
The act seeks a transitional government that would lead to “a democratically elected government in Cuba.”
It also forbids the U.S. president from ending sanctions unless he decides that Cuba has met a series of requirements. These include:
  • Agreeing to free and fair elections within 18 months after a transitional government takes power.
  • Forming a government that does not include Fidel or Raul Castro.
  • Legalizing all political activity.
  • Dissolving its state security forces.
  • Releasing all political prisoners and opening prisons to human rights investigators.
  • Allowing multiple independent political parties equal access to the media.
  • Ending jamming of Radio and TV Marti broadcasts.
  • Taking steps to return property seized from U.S. citizens after the 1959 revolution.
Supporters of U.S. policy tell me that the American government has the right to impose its will because the Cuban government is a dictatorship that has no moral authority and no right to deprive its citizens of universal human rights.
Critics of U.S. policy say that the U.S. has always tried to control Cuba’s fate. They cite then-Secretary of State Colin Powell’s first report to the Free Cuba commission in May 2004. It showed U.S. officials were planning every last detail of Cuba’s future. The report said that if Cuba’s transitional government requested help, the U.S. government was prepared to:
  • Provide dam safety training, in Spanish
  • Simplify the sale of refurbished U.S. locomotives to Cuba
  • Help map coral reef systems and assess fish habitat
  • Give advice on how to add trails and other infrastructure to prime bird watching spots
As the U.S. and Cuba negotiate, I wonder what has become of the U.S. government’s many transition plans for Cuba.
USAID’s Cuba programs are scheduled to end in September. The agency has three current partners:
  • Grupo de Apoyo a la Democracia
  • International Republican Institute
  • New America Foundation
The Pan American Development Foundation finished its work in March, according to USAID. I filed a Freedom of Information Act request for information on PADF’s work 1,278 days ago and still have not gotten a response from USAID.
Following the money isn’t easy. USAID’s partners funnel 40 percent of their funds, on average, to subcontractors.
USAID does not reveal the names of subcontractors, despite President Obama’s promise that the U.S. government would begin naming subcontractors.
USAID’s partners use an average of 12 subcontractors each. One partner had 38 subcontracts for a single Cuba contract.
usaid2The partners pay subcontractors anywhere from $5,000 to $300,000.
From 1996 to 2012, USAID and the State Department awarded 111 Cuba-related contracts and grants to 51 partners.
If there were 12 subcontractors for each contract and that’s the average that means there were 1,332 Cuba-related programs from 1996 to 2012.
USAID’s penchant for secrecy makes me wonder whether the agency will try to keep a hand in Cuba off the books,  perhaps through its Office of Transition Initiatives. (See “Another window of opportunity for OTI?“).
The State Department has not been any better than USAID in responding to FOIAs. The department passes along most of its Cuba money to the NED, which recently stopped disclosing its grant recipients. (See “Sudden Secrecy at NED“).
USAID and the State Department spent $264,300,000 on Cuba programs from 1996 to 2014. They set aside $20 million for 2015. The NED spent another $20 million or so from 2006 to 2014. That totals $304,300,000.
Add the $20 million planned for 2016 and it’s $324,300,000.
Less than 15 percent and that’s a generous estimate reaches the hands of Cuban dissidents and human rights activists who put their lives and their freedom at risk.
Most of the money goes toward salaries, office expenses and travel, tax records show.
Panamanian Citizens Denounce Plot against Cuba, Venezuela
| April 7, 2015 | 8:17 pm | Imperialism, political struggle, Venezuela | Comments closed

Please notice (in the article below) that these progressive groups in Panama raise the issue of compensation for the death and destruction wreaked by the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989.  See my homepage for the historical context of that invasion:  Panama: Background to the U.S. Invasion of 1989

Jane Franklin

http://www.janefranklin.info

NYC Havana Blog, April 7, 2015

Panamanian Citizens Denounce Plot against Cuba, Venezuela

Imagen activa
Panamanian social organizations denounced today that Venezuelan and Cuban counterrevolutionaries aim to use the Panamanian nation as a platform to plot against those nations during the 7th Summit of the Americas.

During an open letter sent to Foreign Minister Isabel de Saint Malo, members from 15 union, student, grass-roots and solidarity groups expressed their deep concern for “the meetings, activities and mobilizations of protests convened by opposition sectors and dissidents from the Republics of Cuba and Venezuela.”

With this acting, they aim to use the country as a platform to coordinate actions to interfere in the internal affairs of these two nations, in addition to offend and denigrate the dignity of the heads of States and the official delegations from Cuba and Venezuela.

The text also refers to the dialogue started between Cuba and the United States for the possible restoration of diplomatic relations, “a process all international community approves and waits, at least, the lifting of the disgraceful economic blockade on Cuba.”

Another issue that captures the attention is the U.S. presidential decree stating Venezuela as a threat for its national security and that of the continent, a measure rejected by all Latin American and Caribbean peoples, the document states.

However, there are some people who seek to plot to become environment rarefied and produce an interventionist statement against the South American nation. Infamous figures of the Cuban counterrevolution and Venezuelan opposition, sponsored by the United States and other extreme rightwing sectors from the continent and Europe, are already arriving for such effects, the letter states.

Despite we will not carry out demonstrations against President Barack Obama, as the national government requested, we will send the demand for the just compensation to the victims of the 1989 invasion, cleaning and decontamination of former military bases, the signatories say.

For such purposes, we respectfully request the national government, to take the appropriate measures, otherwise, Panamanian grass-roots organizations will respect our country, while we held them responsible for any lamentable situation that may arise, the letter concludes.

The Cuban Workers Federation denounced yesterday the exclusion of which it was subjected by the organizers of the Civil Society Forum, one of the four events taking place prior to the Summit of the Americas.

Articles from the Communist Party of Canada
| April 7, 2015 | 8:14 pm | Communist Party Canada, Imperialism, political struggle | Comments closed

Communist Party of Canada
Parti communiste du Canada

04/07/2015

No to the expanded Canadian military mission in Iraq and Syria

The Communist Party of Canada condemns the Harper government’s one-year extension of Canada’s participation in the latest imperialist war in Iraq, which will expand this military mission into neighbouring Syria without the agreement of the elected government of that sovereign country. This is a clear violation of international law and the UN Charter. As with […]
Read in browser 
Vous voulez en savoir plus ?
share on Twitter Like No to the expanded Canadian military mission in Iraq and Syria on Facebook

Still no alternative: Scrap Bill C-51

Visit our stop C-51 website Growing public pressure has compelled the Harper Conservative government to make a handful of minor amendments to Bill C-51, while rejecting all changes proposed by the opposition parties in Parliament. This tactical retreat shows that further mass opposition outside Parliament can help slow the anti-democratic and pro-war “security state” agenda […]
Read in browser 
Vous voulez en savoir plus ?
share on Twitter Like Still no alternative: Scrap Bill C-51 on Facebook

Recent Articles:
Pour lire l’article, cliquez sur le titre

After a successful day of action — keep up the struggle to stop Bill C-51!
Photo Gallery: CPC joins Stop C-51 protests
An unjust attack re-writing history: Ottawa’s Victims of Communism memorial

Copyright © 2015 Communist Party of Canada, All rights reserved. 
We send newsletters to contacts who opted in through our website or contacted us directly. 

Our mailing address is: 

Communist Party of Canada

290A Danforth Ave

Toronto, Ontario M4K1N6

Canada
War is a racket
| April 4, 2015 | 8:24 pm | Analysis, Imperialism, political struggle, Veterans issues | Comments closed
War Is A Racket
By Major General Smedley Butler
Contents
Chapter 1: War Is A Racket   
Chapter 2: Who Makes The Profits?   
Chapter 3: Who Pays The Bills?   
Chapter 4: How To Smash This Racket!   
Chapter 5: To Hell With War! 

Smedley Darlington Butler

  • Born: West Chester, Pa., July 30, 1881
  • Educated: Haverford School
  • Married: Ethel C. Peters, of Philadelphia, June 30, 1905
  • Awarded two congressional medals of honor:
    1. capture of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 1914
    2. capture of Ft. Riviere, Haiti, 1917
  • Distinguished service medal, 1919
  • Major General – United States Marine Corps
  • Retired Oct. 1, 1931
  • On leave of absence to act as director of Dept. of Safety, Philadelphia, 1932
  • Lecturer — 1930’s
  • Republican Candidate for Senate, 1932
  • Died at Naval Hospital, Philadelphia, June 21, 1940
  • For more information about Major General Butler, contact the United States Marine Corps.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

CHAPTER ONE

War Is A Racket

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few — the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep’s eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other’s throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people — not those who fight and pay and die — only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell’s bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in “International Conciliation,” the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

“And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. . . . War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it.”

Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war — anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter’s dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the “open door” policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war — a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit — fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn’t they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn’t own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became “internationally minded.” We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington’s warning about “entangling alliances.” We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.

It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people — who do not profit.

CHAPTER TWO

Who Makes The Profits?

The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven’t paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children’s children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits — ah! that is another matter — twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent — the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let’s get it.

Of course, it isn’t put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and “we must all put our shoulders to the wheel,” but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket — and are safely pocketed. Let’s just take a few examples:

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people — didn’t one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn’t much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let’s look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump — or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

Or, let’s take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let’s look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.

Let’s group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.

Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren’t the only ones. There are still others. Let’s take leather.

For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That’s all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

International Nickel Company — and you can’t have a war without nickel — showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.

American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.

Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.

And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public — even before a Senate investigatory body.

But here’s how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.

Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought — and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.

There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn’t any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it — so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.

Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches — one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!

Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.

There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.

Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 — count them if you live long enough — was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.

Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them — a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers — all got theirs.

Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment — knapsacks and the things that go to fill them — crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them — and they will do it all over again the next time.

There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.

One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.

Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn’t ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.

The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn’t float! The seams opened up — and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.

It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.

The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.

Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying “for some time” methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee — with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator — to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn’t suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.

Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses — that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.

There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.

Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.

CHAPTER THREE

Who Pays The Bills?

Who provides the profits — these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them — in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us — the people — got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par — and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.

But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.

If you don’t believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran’s hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men — men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.

Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to “about face”; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another “about face” ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers’ aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn’t need them any more. So we scattered them about without any “three-minute” or “Liberty Loan” speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final “about face” alone.

In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don’t even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.

There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement — the young boys couldn’t stand it.

That’s a part of the bill. So much for the dead — they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded — they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too — they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam — on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain — with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.

But don’t forget — the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.

Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share — at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn’t bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn’t.

Napoleon once said,

“All men are enamored of decorations . . . they positively hunger for them.”

So by developing the Napoleonic system — the medal business — the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.

In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn’t join the army.

So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side . . . it is His will that the Germans be killed.

And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies . . . to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.

Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the “war to end all wars.” This was the “war to make the world safe for democracy.” No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a “glorious adventure.”

Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.

All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill . . . and be killed.

But wait!

Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance — something the employer pays for in an enlightened state — and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.

Then, the most crowning insolence of all — he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.

We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back — when they came back from the war and couldn’t find work — at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!

Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly — his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.

When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too — as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.

And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.

CHAPTER FOUR

How To Smash This Racket!

WELL, it’s a racket, all right.

A few profit — and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can’t end it by disarmament conferences. You can’t eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can’t wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation — it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages — all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers — yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders — everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

Why shouldn’t they?

They aren’t running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren’t sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren’t hungry. The soldiers are!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket — that and nothing else.

Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won’t permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people — those who do the suffering and still pay the price — make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn’t be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant — all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war — voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms — to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.

There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide — and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.

A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don’t shout that “We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation.” Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon’s shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can’t go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.

  1. We must take the profit out of war.
  2. We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.
  3. We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.

CHAPTER FIVE

To Hell With War!

I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.

Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had “kept us out of war” and on the implied promise that he would “keep us out of war.” Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.

Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?

Money.

An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:

“There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.

If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money . . . and Germany won’t.

So . . . ”

Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a “war to make the world safe for democracy” and a “war to end all wars.”

Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.

And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.

Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don’t mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?

The professional soldiers and sailors don’t want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.

The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.

There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.

The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.

Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.

But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.

If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war — even the munitions makers.

So…I say,

TO HELL WITH WAR!

Bloodbath and the U.S. Presidential Campaign
| April 3, 2015 | 9:07 pm | Analysis, Imperialism, political struggle | Comments closed

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_28163.shtml

By Arthur Shaw Exclusive
Axis of Logic
Tuesday, Sep 9, 2008

Editor’s Note: Axis of Logic Columnist, Arthur Shaw’s meticulous research pulls back the curtain on the ongoing genocide being perpetrated on the people of Iraq. His anguish over the unspeakable suffering of the Iraqi people is transparent. His indictment of the U.S. government and the only two viable political parties in the current presidential campaigns and their corporate media arm is damning.

– Les Blough, Editor


The great mass of US people … this mass consists of a mix of liberals and independents … look at the aggression/occupation by the US regime against the Iraqi people from a number of different angles.

  • Is this war good or evil?
  • Is this war profitable or costly financially?
  • Is the US regime winning or losing this war?

Growing elements of the US people see this war as an evil thing because this war grew out of an unscrupulous and imperialist greed for oil, camouflaged by a bunch of filthy lies from the US regime about Iraq’s WMDs and Iraqi’s complicity in 9/11 and these elements of the US people see this war as evil because the US regime prosecutes this war with genocide.

So, the US regime … now run by lying and vicious GOPs … should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq immediately and unconditionally.

Outside and apart … politically, ideologically, and morally … from the great mass of the US people is a sector of  bestial US reactionaries [mostly GOPs but not entirely GOPs] … about one-third of the US people … who love this war against the Iraqi people whom the US regime and US capitalist press lie on so much.

US reactionaries, utterly brutal and inhuman, love this war because it is a bloodbath.

In this piece, we shall first look at the reality of the bloodbath, then talk about who is responsible for the bloodbath, and, finally, talk about the relation between the bloodbath and the US presidential campaign.

CONCEALING THE IMPERIALIST BLOODBATH IN IRAQ

The US regime does not officially report Iraqi fatalities, whether military or civilian … pro-imperialist or anti-imperialist. The Bush regime apparently believes official US reports about Iraq’s casualties aren’t newsworthy or harmful to US imperial interests. Although such reports are unpublished, the US regime keeps a precise and detailed body count of the Iraqi victims who have perished from this war the US regime started.

The Bush regime however uses unofficially a number of front groups and reactionary fellow-travelers to spread lies about Iraqi casualties, grossly belittling the magnitude of Bush’s bloodbath in Iraq.

The most prominent of such Pentagon front groups or fellow-travelers is the Iraqi Body Count (IBC) which the US capitalist media most often cites as their source for Iraqi deaths.

There are about hundred of these Pentagon front groups and reactionary fellow travelers, including the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count and Brookings Institution Iraq Index, as two of the more prominent ones relied on by the capitalist press. The US capitalist press, the Pentagon, and the front groups are the key participants in the cover-up of the ongoing bloodbath in Iraq.

The Iraqi Body Count (IBC) undercounts the number of dead Iraqi bodies by something like 90 percent if their  deaths were occasioned by the US aggression/occupation.

On its website, IBC says this about itself:

“IBC’s documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.”

IBC says it uses “media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians.”  So, if IBC doesn’t see a “media report” about somebody being killed on TV, in newspapers, or other capitalist media, IBC doesn’t count the person as dead, perhaps missing, but not dead.

IBC says it counts the “death of civilians.”  So, IBC ignores the deaths of Iraqis who are anti-imperialists and pro-imperialist who serve in the military forces on either side.  These “miltary” Iraqis are still dead but IBC doesn’t count them as dead. Many Iraqi who are killed are deemed “insurgents” which removes them from the category of “civilian.” IBC doesn’t count  dead “insurgents.” Insurgents don’t carry insurgent ID. So, any dead Iraqi can be called an insurgent, especially victims of US air bombings, and not counted by IBC.

IBC counts “bodies being found,” it says.  Genocide operational units of the regular imperialist military and imperialist mercenaries units, which are unbelievably brutal and inhuman, throw bodies on flatbeds or into garbage trucks, then dump and bury them in mass graves dug by bulldozers. Often genocide operations go to great length to assure that bodies aren’t found. Some used powerful acids that leave almost nothing of the bodies and others, like the Nazi, preferred ovens, leaving only ashes.

IBC says it reviews “hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.” Since the hospitals, morgues, NGOs [like, for example, IBC], and officials are directly controlled [while in Iraq] by the US quisling regime in Baghdad under Nouri al-Maliki and indirectly controlled by George W. Bush who exercises a military and murderous dictatorship over Iraq, the “figures” of these hospitals, morgues, and officials  are either suspect or worthless.

In Dec. 2003, “Iraq’s Health Ministry ordered a halt to a count of civilians killed during the war and told its statistics department not to release figures compiled so far …”, USA today reported. Since 2003, the US quisling regime in Baghdad changed its mind a number of times about releasing death figures. The quisling regime stops releasing death figures, then resumes, stops again, and resumes again, then stops … so on and so forth.

Given the rigged methodology of IBC,  no wonder IBC, other Pentagon front groups and fellow-travelers and the US capitalist media … which almost always echo IBC extreme undercounts … generally find less than 100,000 war-related fatalities in Iraq after 2003, the year the US regime began its aggression/occupation.

The true number of war-related deaths in Iraq since 2003 is at least in the vicinity of 1,500,000, carnage of historic proportions even by standards set by the “only good redskin is a dead redskin”  US regime.

Today, the US regime follows a macabre policy based on the maxim that the only good Iraqi is a dead one. Today, about 1 out of every 25 Iraqis is good.

UNCOVERING THE US IMPERIALIST BLOODBATH

To uncover the magnitude of the bloodbath the US regime and US imperialists have introduced, we’ll look at four major studies on the war-related deaths in Iraq:

  1. John Hopkins I survey released in Oct. 2004, finding over 100,000 war-related Iraqi deaths
  2. John Hopkins II survey released in Oct. 2006, finding over 650,000 deaths
  3. WHO [or, more correctly, the US quisling regime in Baghdad] survey, Jan., 2008, finding 151,000 deaths
  4. Opinion Research Business survey, Sept. 2007, finding over a 1,000,000 Iraqi war-related deaths.

John Hopkins I Survey, Oct. 2004

The first major study of Iraq’s war-related mortality was conducted by a team of US and Iraqi researchers associated John Hopkins University, one of the most prestigious schools in the USA and the world.

The study, often referred to as John Hopkins I or JH I, was published in the UK medical journal “Lancet” in October 2004.

John Hopkins I or JH I found, as of Oct. 2004, over 100,000 people had perished from war-related causes after March 2003. JH I was interrupted before completion by an escalation in hostilities in Iraq in the summer of 2004. So, the premature termination of the JH I body count indicates that the actual body count, as of 2004, was above 100,000 fatalities.

We’ll still use JH I’s 100,000 number for the body count, as of Oct. 2004, because it’s the best number we have for 2004.

US capitalist press noticed the JH I story about over 100,000 Iraq deaths by 2004, but the capitalist press buried the story in the back pages or as the closing item on news broadcasts. After less than a week of scanty coverage, the capitalist media dropped the JH I story entirely.

John Hopkins II Survey, Oct. 2006

John Hopkins II (or JH II) found, as of Oct. 2004, over 650,000 people had perished from war-related causes in Iraq since March 2003.

JH II was published in Oct. 2006, also by the UK medical journal “Lancet.”

While IBC read media reports about fatalities, refused to count the deaths of enemy and friendly combatants, searched for dead bodies still lying in the streets, and reviewed the figures of morgues and hospitals, both John Hopkins studies, I and II, relied principally on house-to-house interviews.

In JH II, researchers asked households, claiming a war-related death after 2003, to show a death certificate  for the deceased member of the household; 92 percent of households presented a death certificate for the deceased.

So, applying the 92% rate of death certificate presentation from the survey sample of 1800 households to the 650,000 deaths the survey found, we get 598,000 Iraqi deaths from war-related causes after 2003 documented by death certificates.

The JH II study, unlike its predecessor JH I, was completed despite the hostilities.

JH II stunned the mass of the US people who morally recoiled in horror from the evil and savagery of US regime, US reactionaries, and US imperialists in Iraq.

The vile US reactionaries … many of whom, but not all, are GOPs … upon hearing the news about 650,000 Iraqi casualties seem to rejoice and celebrate that the US regime has either slaughtered or caused the slaughter of so many people.

About this time, one of the most prominent of the US reactionaries, US Sen. John McCain, a GOP, seem distressed and suggested, using very polite language, that this war wasn’t evil enough. He implied 650,000 Iraqi deaths wasn’t enough. He said the war badly needed a “surge” in the US troop level, but McCain really meant a “surge” in the genocide rate or the terror the US regime inflicted on the Iraqi people.

The next month after JH II’s Oct. 2006 release, an indignant mass of the US people …  a mix of liberals and independents … voted out, in Nov. 2006, a number of pro-war lawmakers in the US Congress, forcing Bush, to fire Donald Rumsfeld, a vicious reactionary who then supervised the application of the genocide policies of the US regime in Iraq.

JH II marked a new stage in the exposure of genocide that the US imperialists perpetrate in Iraq.

The imperialist US regime and animalistic US reactionaries … about a third of the US people … see no essential difference between combat casualties and casualties resulting from imperial genocide. To these imperial reactionaries, the deaths that result from imperial genocide are just another form of combat casualties. Some US reactionaries shamelessly argue that genocide — the systematic extermination of defenseless and helpless people without justification or provocation– is superior to combat, that is, the fighting between enemy forces.

By the middle of 2006, a few few months before the release of JH II. combat between the heroic forces of the Iraqi patriotic resistance and the occupying US imperialist forces was at its all time peak at about 200 daily clashes throughout Iraq.  A UN tally found that the death toll for civilians was about 100 per day.

So when JH II came out in October, we all knew that the US imperialists and their military forces — US Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force, CIA, and US mercenaries — were cowards who had resorted to genocide along side other imperialist forces in Iraq.

The heroic forces of Iraqi patriotic resistance generally fight in small units of less than 20 soldiers and rely heavily on explosives and snipers to limit their casualties. There is no way that the US imperialists could kill enough fighters of the patriotic resistance to make up a sizable portion of the JH I’s100,000 death as of 2004 or, not to mention, JH II’s 650,000 deaths as of 2006.

Take the UN’s summer 2006 tally of civilian deaths at 100 per day. If the daily civilian toll remained at the summer 2006 peak, that’s 36,000 deaths per year.

Where did the 100,000 bodies in the incomplete Oct. 2004 JH I or, not to mention, the 650,000 bodies in the Oct. 2006 JH II come from?

The only way to get to get those numbers of kills is to round of people Nazis style and slaughter them.

This is what the US imperialists did and does.

At the Oct. 2006 release of JH II, the Bush regime, the US capitalist press, and the repulsive reactionaries rats who often infest the top positions of academia summoned their experts on survey-taking to nitpick JH II and its shocking number of 650,000 Iraqi deaths since 2003. But the experts from John Hopkins University easily blew away the nitpickers … sent them running for their lives with their tails flying behind them.

After several months, the “see no evil” US capitalist press more or less dropped the JH II story, but the internet talking shops and continuing and intensifying academic interest kept the story about 650,000 deaths alive.

The only candidate for Democratic presidential nomination who publicly urged the public to study JH II was US Rep. Dennis Kucinich whose campaign never got off the ground, similar to most of the other Democratic hopefuls.

US Rep. Ron Paul, a candidate for the  GOP presidential nomination, also publicly called attention to the John Hopkins II study. His campaign was also stillborn.

For the JH II study to get some traction, it needed a frontrunner on either the Democratic or GOP side to take an interest for or against the study or for the public spontaneously to pick up the story and run with it. But the front runners  passed on the controversial JH II’s finding of a huge bloodbath in Iraq, preferring at the time to debate whether the US regime was winning or losing the war. In the main, the public didn’t pick up on the JH II story, the mass of the US people followed the debate about whether the US regime was winning or losing the war or whether the “surge” was working.

“WHO” Survey, Jan., 2008

The World Health Organization (WHO) is an agency of the United Nations that acts as a coordinating body on international public health issues. Before the March 2003 invasion, US imperialists gave WHO “… the role of leading the Health Coordination Group, also known as the UN Health Cluster, a planning and implementing umbrella under which UN agencies, governments, international organizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)  teamed up to provide a
coordinated response to health risks in Iraqduring the US aggression/occupation.

Two years after Oct, 2006 release of John Hopkins II, WHO, acting as the two-faced mouthpiece for the ministry of health of US quisling regime in Baghdad announced the results of a survey conducted solely by employees of the health ministry. In January 2008, the Health Ministry survey found that as of 2006 “151,000 Iraqis died from violence between March 2003 and June 2006.” 

The households interviewed reasonably feared giving information about war-related deaths to government interviewers who represented one of the belligerents in the war. This was a conflict of interest that not even WHO could missed. To deal with conflict of interest from a PR point of view, the quisling regime brought in WHO to speak for and to legitimize the ministry’s survey because nobody would believe the lies of the Iraqi quislings.

Remember that the health ministry of the US quisling regime in Baghdad is the same agency, as earlier mentioned, that ordered a “halt to a count of civilians killed during the war and told its statistics department not to release figures compiled so far …”, USA today reported in Dec. 2003.

The so-called “WHO” survey was a masterpiece in disinformation, killing at least three birds with one rock.

Among other things, the “WHO” survey:

  1. gave apparent corroboration to the lies of Pentagon front groups and fellow-travelers, like IBC, that minimized the Iraqi body count to a number around 100,000.
  2. contested John Hopkins II which found over 650,000 war-related casualties as of 2006
  3. promoted the false impression that the body count as of 2008 … not the 2006 cut-off year of the “WHO” survey … was 151,000.

Again, “WHO” survey found about 151,000 Iraqis died from violence between 2003 and 2006 and John Hopkins II found over 650,000 Iraqis died from war-related causes between 2003 and 2006.So, there is a gap of about 500,000 fatalities between the findings of WHO and John Hopkins II for the period between 2003 and 2006.

“When interviewers asked to see a death certificate at households reporting a death, it was presented in 92 percent of instances,” John Hopkins II says.

So, applying the 92% death certificate presentation rate from the JH II sample of 1,800 households to the 650,000 value for Iraqi fatalities as of 2006, we get about 598,000 Iraqi war-related fatalities, as of 2006, documented by death certificates issued by the quisling regime in Baghdad with which WHO collaborates to deceive the world about the terror and inhumanity of the US occupation of Iraq.

WHO survey is silent about whether it asked households claiming a war-related death between 2003 and 2006 to present a death certificate.

But as long as JH II documents by death certificates 92% of the 650,000 fatalities as of 2006, it doesn’t matter whether WHO survey was diligent enough to ask for death certificates.

The capitalist press, both US and foreign, manipulatively stretched the 151,000 number that “WHO” survey said applied to 2006 all the way to 2008.

The BBC, on Jan. 10, 2008, brazenly lied about the WHO survey in its headline and lead.

“One of the biggest surveys so far of Iraqis who have died violently since the US-led invasion of 2003 has put the figure at about 151,000”, the BBC said, avoiding all reference in its headline and lead to the 2006 cut-off date for the survey.

The Washington Post, on Jan. 10, lied like the BBC in its headline, but the post was more sly than the BBC in its lead.

“A new survey estimates that 151,000 Iraqis died from violence in the three years following the U.S.-led invasion of the country. Roughly 9 out of 10 of those deaths were a consequence of U.S. military operations, insurgent attacks and sectarian warfare.”

The Post didn’t mention 2006 as the cut-off for the WHO study, but the Post did say ” three years following the U.S.-led invasion” if the reader took time to figure out that this meant 2006.

These two examples are typical of the manipulative tactics used by the capitalist press on the “WHO” survey story.

Opinion Research Business Survey, Sept. 2007

In September 2007, the Opinion Research Business, (ORB ), survey  found about 1,200,000 war-related Iraqi fatalities since 2003.

ORB is an British polling firm based in London that had tracked public opinion in Iraq since 2005.

In January 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken and as a result of this ORB’s death estimate was reduced from 1.200,000 to 1,033,000.

Here is ORB’s statement on the revision lowering the body count:

“Further survey work undertaken by ORB, in association with its research partner IIACSS, confirms our earlier estimate that over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have died as a result of the conflict which started in 2003.

“Following responses to ORB�s earlier work, which was based on survey work undertaken in primarily urban locations, we have conducted almost 600 additional interviews in rural communities. By and large the results are in line with the �urban results� and we now estimate that the death toll between March 2003 and August 2007 is likely to have been of the order of 1,033,000.”

MONTHLY RATE OF GENOCIDE

To get a better look and a better feel for the tempo of  US imperialist savagery in Iraq, we can break-up the war into four periods based on the two John Hopkins  studies and ORB survey. Then we can divide the estimated number of casualties for each period by the number of months the period contains. This will give us the average number of people killed per month for each of the periods based on the survey estimates or, in other words, the monthly genocide rate.

The first period of the war is between the March 2003 beginning of the war and the Oct 2004 release of JH I, with an estimated 100,000 fatalities. When the 100,000 deaths are divided by the 19 months in this period, we get about 5,200 deaths as the monthly genocide rate the US imperialists inflicted, during this period, on the Iraq people.

The second period begins just after the Oct 2004 release of JH I finding 100,000 deaths and ends with the Oct 2006 released of JH II, finding an estimated 650,000 deaths. First, we reduce the total estimated casualties as of Oct 2006, that is, 650,000, by the 100,000 deaths that occurred before the second period to get 550,000 deaths for the second period. Dividing the 550,000 deaths of the second period by the 23 months the second period contains, we get a monthly rate of genocide of about 24,000 a month.

It’s unclear whether the almost 500% increase in Iraq casualties between the first and second periods was a response to programmed  genocide objectives or a response to stepped-up attacks by the Iraqi patriotic resistance.

The third period coincided with a phase of the war known as the “surge.” The “surge” was [and is] not a rise in US troop levels, as advertised. Rather, the “surge” was a huge leap in the monthly genocide rate achieved chiefly with about 50,000 animalistic US mercenaries already in Iraq, playing an expanded role in the execution of the US genocide program.

Third period begins just after the Oct. 2006 release of JH II, finding an estimated 650,000 deaths and ends with the Sept. 2007 release of the ORB survey, finding over 1,000,000 deaths. We first reduce ORB’s 1,000,000 deaths by JH II’s 650,000 to get 350,000 deaths for the third period. Then we divide the 350,000 deaths by the 9 months the third period contains to get about 39,000 deaths, as the monthly genocide rate.

So, the the genocide rate “surged” from about 24,000 deaths to a horrifying 39,000 deaths per months during the third period.
War-related deaths in Iraq on this monstrous scale has very little to do with the intensity of combat operations, suicide bombers, and assassinations. In Iraq, a monthly genocide rate of 39,000 requires a  Nazi-styled systematic and highly organized genocide project.
There has been many casualties in Iraq after the Sept. 2007 ORB found 1,000,000. But we don’t have a credible study that updates after the ORB.

WHO IS ORGANIZATIONALLY, MORALLY, AND LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BLOODBATH

The people responsible for the bloodbath are those who started the genocide, do it, and prolong it.

Remember, US reactionaries and some other people, fooled by the reactionaries and the indifference of all sectors — liberal, centrist, and reactionary — of the capitalist press toward the genocide, deny the reality of a bloodbath.

Who started the bloodbath?

The US regime, as early January 2001, decided to steal Iraq’s oil and later told the US people and the whole world a lot of lies about Iraq dealing with WMDs and 9/11 complicity to supply a pretext for aggression, occupation, genocide, and oil stealing.

All sectors of the mainstream of the US capitalist press —  reactionary, centrist, and liberal — not only reported the lies of the US regime about Iraq, but also the capitalist press, especially the liberal sector, pitched and sold the lies that the US regime used as a pretext for aggression against Iraq.

Of course, US reactionaries, especially their vanguard of mercenaries, wanted most an opportunity to exercise their bestiality by killing humans and didn’t care and still don’t care, in the least, whether the reports about Iraq’s WMDs and 9/11 complicity are true or false.
Who prolongs the bloodbath?

US regime and its mercenaries prolong the bloodbath by their refusal to pullout of Iraq.

Who commits genocide?

Most by far … but, of course, not all … of the casualties, found in credible studies, have been caused by the US regime and its allies, including degenerate and deranged mercenaries who are the second largest coalition armed force in Iraq after US troops.  In other words, the most important ally of the US regime in the field are mercenaries.
Again, the US regime, much of the US capitalist media, and the reactionary sector of the US electorate deny that they either started or do or prolong the bloodbath. Indeed, they deny that a bloodbath has even taken place and argue that the occupation by US imperialist forces prevents a bloodbath from taking place.

But all three — the regime, press, and conservative base — are confirmed and habitual liars about Iraq. Hardly anything they say can be believed.

In this war, a kind of precedent or paradigm is being set for future wars of imperial aggression, occupation, genocide, and pillage.  

Here is the moral and legal presupposition that underlies the bloodbath.

Either US regime morally and legally EQUATES its conquest of Iraq to the resistance of Iraqi people to the US conquest or the US regime judges its conquest morally and legally SUPERIOR to the Iraqi resistance to the US conquest. In other words, the US regime argues that murder and self-defense to prevent murder are the same thing morally and legally. The murderer, threatened by the self-defense of his intended victim, believes he, although a murderer, kills in self-defense, too.  

When unprovoked conquest is seen as either the moral and legal EQUIVALENT of national defense against conquest or, much worse, when unprovoked conquest is deemed morally and legally SUPERIOR to national defense against conquest, then we know we’re dealing with evil … not just with everyday moral weakness … with regard to the conqueror, in this case, the US imperialists.

Moral weakness is when we do wrong and enjoy it often very much, while we still believe in the difference between right and wrong and further believe in right over wrong, but we are just not strong enough to do right either all the time or most of the time or some of the time. Often propelled by an irresistible desire for the foulest pleasures, we do or pursue wrong contrary to our belief in what’s right.  

Evil is something very different from moral weakness. With evil the right principle is corrupted or perversely transformed into its opposite. Evil believes right is wrong and wrong is right. Evil does wrong and often delights in it, but unlike moral weakness, evil believes or believes absolutely that it is right to do wrong and to do only wrong to some people.

In this sense, the US regime under Bush, much of the US capitalist media, and almost all of the vile reactionary base of support for Bush are evil, not just morally weak.

Evil, as defined, started, performs, and prolongs the bloodbath.
This evil that resides in the reactionary sector of US politics is a problem not only for Iraq, but also for the whole world, including allies of US imperialists. Again, the November 2008 is about whether genocide committed either by US troops or US mercenaries or both is a legitimate tool for US foreign policy.

US PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

In 2007-2008, US Sen. Barack Obama  rose in the opinion polls and won in primaries largely because he said or once said the US regime can’t win the war; so, the US regime should pull out. Obama opposed the war mostly on pragmatic grounds of winning or losing.

As a result of the bloodbath or, more correctly, as a result of the escalation of inhuman genocide known as the surge, the US regime is doing better in the war than the regime did in 2007 when Obama’s pragmatic argument for a pullout of US military forces gain traction with the public.

Now that the balance of forces on the field of battle has apparently and temporarily shifted, Obama’s choices are:

  1. say pullout now whether the US regime is winning or losing because the war is morally and legally wrong

  2. say pullout now because the US regime isn’t winning

  3. flip-flop and say don’t pullout now because the US regime may be winning.

  4. say nothing or almost nothing and play rope-a-dope against McCain’s blows.

[The rope-a-dope is a boxing style which a boxer employs by assuming a protected stance, lying against the ropes and allowing their opponent, at will, to hit him in the hope that the opponent (in this case, McCain) will become tired.]

Choice (2), denying the effect of the surge, is  difficult to support and (4), the rope-a-dope is political suicide. Although we can’t rule out (2) or (4),  Obama will most likely pick either (1) or (3).

If Obama picks (3), that is, the flip-flop, he will lose in November. If he picks (2), that is, take the high ground, he may win or lose.

The pick that Obama will make from among these four choices is not just a matter of morality or legality, rather the pick is chiefly a matter of politics. What effect will picking (1) or (2) or (3) or (4) have on the liberal, independent, and reactionary sectors of the US electorate?

The reactionaries, who are about a third of the US electorate, are lost to Obama and none of the four picks will win them over, including the flip-flop. Face it, the reactionaries are evil, worthless, and rotten.

Obama has already won over the liberals who are also about a third of the US electorate. The liberals  oppose the war mostly on moral grounds of right or wrong, not pragmatic grounds of whether the US regime is winning or losing. But Obama can still lose the liberals or a chunk of them if he picks wrong, that is, if he picks (3), the flip-flop or (4), the rope-a-dope.

The Democratic Party convention in Denver was largely a quasi-rope-a-dope affair.

The most likely outcomes of picking (3), the flip-flop, is Obama will NOT win over any of the vile US reactionaries who love the war because it’s evil and Obama will lose some or most of the liberals who hate the war because it’s evil.

So far with very modest success, McCain chiefly follows a strategy and tactics of pushing Obama toward (3), a flip-flop, to separate Obama from his liberal base or from a big chunk of it. McCain wants Obama to pick, at least, either (3), the flip-flop, or (4), the rope-a-dope, because McCain wants to show the great mass of the US people that Obama, by picking either (3) or (4), lacks the guts to defend the principle he professes in circumstances of probable political adversity.

Apart for the morality and legality issues, two key tactical concerns are: First, what percentage of independents oppose the war on any grounds? And, second, do the independents who oppose the war  chiefly oppose it on moral grounds of right or wrong or on pragmatic grounds of winning or losing?

To win, Obama of course has to pick (1), this is, the US regime must pullout now whether the US regime is winning or losing because the war is morally and legally wrong. But he has to finesse it until the public, especially his liberal base, enters the discussion about the bloodbath. The problem is this liberal base follows and reacts only to the content in the capitalist media which largely ignores the bloodbath in Iraq, except to argue that the US regime must not pullout now because a bloodbath WILL ensue, not ALREADYoccurred before the pullout.

McCain (See the You Tube video) himself gave an opening to Obama or Obama’s surrogate to bring the bloodbath into the campaign when McCain in April 2008 talked about “hundreds of thousands” of Iraqi casualties since 2003. If Obama can set the record straight, he will likely expose the evil nature of the war, forcing the mass of the fuzzy independents to recoil in horror from war of evil and imperial terror.
The initial step is for Obama or his surrogate to skillfully and authoritatively document the reality of the bloodbath and when the bloodbath is established as an incontrovertible fact for liberals and most independents [don’t worry about or waste any time on reactionary garbage], then Obama can argue the bloodbath makes the pullout of US military fiorces morally and legally mandatory.

Bloodbath will give Obama the win in November on a silver platter, if he has the brains and the guts to use it.

Finally, the ultimate question in this struggle is whether the USA remains a nation under law or under the commander-in-chief who is above the law.

Bush says as commander-in-chief of the USA, he has the power and the right to lie the United States into war no matter how unjust the war or how big the lies. Bush says he can and will disregard any domestic US law or US treaty that interferes with his exercise of the war powers, including laws and treaties that ban torture and genocide. Bush says the “The Constitution is nothing but a Goddamn piece of paper.”

The new military doctrine that Bush presents is that the commander-in-chief of the USA can start wars without regard for morality or legality and US military forces don’t have to withdraw unless they’re lose. And to avoid losing, US military forces, with authority from the commander-in-chief, can practice torture and genocide.

If this doctrine prevails in November 2008, we must expect many US imperialist wars in the near future.

“Bush is right,” McCain says.

McCain often sounds like he has already picked the countries he intends to attack and the lies he intends to tell about these countries.

So, November 2008 is really about whether the rule of law or only what US Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls the “cloak of legality” prevails over the USA.

Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a “live link” to the article. Thank you!


Read his bio and additional, hard-hitting articles by Arthur Shaw, Axis of Logic Columnist

WFTU Supports World Day in Solidarity with Venezuela
| April 2, 2015 | 8:16 pm | Action, Imperialism, International, political struggle, Venezuela, WFTU | Comments closed

The World Federation of Trade Unions -WFTU-, international organization representing 90 million unionized workers in 126 countries worldwide and represented to the International Labor Organization (ILO), the United Nations (UN), UNESCO and FAO, closely committed to the advancement of the peoplses in search of the society they deserve, since the very beginning has been in solidarity with the people of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela against imperialist interference.

Throughout the 70 years of its existence, the WFTU has expressed solidarity with the struggles of the Venezuelan people and the peoples of Latin America against political and military interference of imperialism. We repeat our rejection to the Executive Order issued by the President of the United States against the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in which aggressive and absurd way, this country qualifies as a “threat to US national security.”

Today, we reaffirm our solidarity and support for the Venezuelan people and their democratically elected government. The WFTU supports the initiative of Venezuelan and international mass organizations for an International Day of World Solidarity with Venezuela on 19 April 2015. The international solidarity will launch a clear, forceful and immediate message that Venezuela is not alone in defending its sovereignty, peace and democratic gains, but is accompanied by all the class oriented , anti-imperialist, democratic, popular and revolutionary forces of the world.

In the context of practical solidarity with the people of Venezuela and the world’s peoples against imperialist maneuvers, the FSM has already called International Trade Union Conference in Brussels – Belgium this June 1-2, 2015, themed “The embargoes, blockades and sanctions of the US, NATO and the EU are a blow to the rights of workers” who will discuss the response of the workers of the world to the maneuvers of imperialism.

The FSM, consistent with one of its principles; full respect for the sovereignty and self-determination of all peoples to decide for themselves about their present and future demands to end now the imperialist interference against Venezuela.

Response to “Over 5 million signatures gather against imperialist decree”
| March 30, 2015 | 8:04 pm | Imperialism, political struggle, Venezuela | Comments closed
By A. Shaw
The petition for the repeal of the March 9th US imperialist executive order that threatens the sovereignty of Venezuela has so far gathered a staggering 5 million signatures in only 20 days of signature-collecting.
Jorge Rodriguez, master political consultant and campaign manager, is chief of the signature-collecting operation.
At the beginning of the operation, the staff would have been pleased if the campaign gathered only million signatures. Then a million signatures poured into campaign HQ almost instantly. Emboldened by early success, the campaign set a new goal of seven million signatures. In only five days, the tally leaped from one to three million. The campaign then raised the goal to ten million.Today, five million signatures have been gathered.
The sovereignty of the state in democratic circumstances is the exclusive right, delegated by the body of citizens entitled to vote, to exercise supreme power over a people and territory.
In other words, the state exclusively exercises supreme power over a country.
When the exercise of power is not exclusive, two or more states somehow run the country.
The March 9 executive order signed by Obama  signifies that his bourgeois regime in Washington presumes to exercise supreme power over Venezuela. The U.S. executive order attempts to reduce the emerging proletarian state in Venezuela under Maduro  to a vassal state that serves and bows before the imperialist regime in Washington under Obama.
The body of Venezuelan citizens entitled to vote under pristine democratic circumstances delegated by free and fair election, held April 14, 2013, the exclusive right to exercise supreme power over Venezuela to the Maduro Government, not to the rogue regime under Obama..
The rogue regime in Washington under Obama  attempts to usurp the democracy of the Venezuelan people and the sovereignty of the Venezuelan state
The slimy Obama regime presumes to punish Venezuelan officials if they refuse to exercise state power in Venezuela as the Obama regime in the USA instructs .
The five million signatures of the Venezuelan people, so far collected, testify that Venezuelans are telling Obama and his rogue regime:
“RUN YOUR OWN COUNTRY, NOT OURS.”
Or,else,
“GO TO HELL, WHERE YOUR PREDECESSOR ORIGINATES .”