By Howard Zinn (originally published on November 13th, 2002):

Veterans Day used to be called Armistice Day, because it was November 11, 1918, at 11 AM - the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, that the first World War came to an end.

It would be good to remember a few things about that war as this country is about to embark on still another war. First, that you don’t "win" wars. We "won" World War I, but sowed the seeds of another world war. War is a quick fix, like crack. An exultant high - we won! - and soon you’re down again, and you need another fix, another war.

In World War I. the German Kaiser was presented as the epitome of evil - a threat to the world,, who must be eliminated for our safety. In truth, he was bad, but his danger to us was enormously exaggerated, as with Saddam Hussein. So the Allies defeated Germany, got rid of the Kaiser, and ten million men died on the battlefields.

We can get rid of Saddam Hussein. Iraq is a fifth-rate military power, with no Air Force to speak of, its army a remnant of what it was ten years ago, the country still in ruins, its infrastructure devastated by two wars, its people weakened by ten years of sanctions depriving people of food and hospitals of medicine, and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. And the U.S. with its invincible Air Force, will win.

In the course of that, tens of thousands of Iraqis will die, many of them innocent civilians, others poor, miserable conscripts in the Iraqi army. We will be killing the victims of Saddam Hussein. . Because of its high tech weaponry and overwhelming military superiority, America will lose few soldiers. But it will lose its soul.

World War I, presented to the public as a war for democracy, for freedom, was in fact a war fought by imperial powers (France, England, Russia) against an imperial rival, Germany. It led, not to the freedom of colonial peoples, but to a change in who dominated the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe.

Now, the war in Iraq is presented as a moral crusade to end the menace of "weapons of mass destruction", the evidence for which is far from clear. The assumption that Saddam would use them and invite annihilation (since most weapons of mass destruction in the world are held by the United States) makes no sense.

As in the first World War, there are imperial motives at work, and the defeat of Saddam will lead to a change in who controls the precious oil reserves of Iraq. Deals will be cut with Russia, France and England to divide the booty. The talks are going on right now.

The first World war was sold to the American public as "the war to end ll wars". But twenty-one years later came World War II, in which fifty million people were killed. The United Nations was formed, as its Charter says, "to end the scourge of war which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind".

But no, it’s been war after war for the United States: Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Yugoslavia. All accompanied by claims that we were at war for some good cause, all resulting in the loss of human life, all demanding acceptance of the government’s reasons for war, most of which turned out to be lies. We should have learned from Vietnam that true patriotism does not mean marching off to war just because the government tells you to. Those 58,000 names on the Washington memorial should make that clear.

As a veteran of World War II, as a student of the history of our wars, and contemplating still another war, I suggest we keep certain things in mind. First, that we must be extremely skeptical of whatever government officials tell us about the reasons for going to war. Second, that what is certain about war is that large numbers of innocent people will die, including many children, and what is uncertain about war is that any good will come of it.

Finally, that when you go to war, you assume that the lives of people in another country are not as valuable as the lives of your own countrymen. If we really believe, as our most fundamental moral principles demand we believe, that the children in other countries have as much right to live as our children, then we must refuse the call to war. It is time, by public demand, by general outcry, to end "the scourge of war" .

The best thing we can do for Veterans Day is to pledge: "No more war veterans".

A Vicenza, c'e' chi non scherza. Vorrei esserci anch'io!

Obiettivo raggiunto. C'è soddisfazione tra le centinaia di cittadini che da martedì notte stanno presidiando le entrate dell'aeroporto Dal Molin. Ieri i lavori di bonifica del terreno non ci sono stati. Bloccati. Nessun lavoratore impegnato nello sminamento si è presentato ai cancelli. I cittadini avevano del resto rivolto un invito preciso ai lavoratori: non venite al Dal Molin. L'invito è stato raccolto. Martedì notte c'era euforia e anche un po' di nervosismo al termine dell'assemblea al presidio permanente in cui si è deciso di cominciare i blocchi. «Del resto - dice Marco, uno dei presidianti - nessuno di noi ha mai fatto blocchi prima. Praticamente nessuno ha mai organizzato picchetti. Insomma, non siamo molto preparati in materia». Eppure con la fantasia e la determinazione che ha distinto il movimento no Dal Molin fin dall'inizio della protesta contro la nuova base militare Usa, i cittadini hanno saputo allestire dei blocchi da fare invidia ai migliori picchetti operai degli anni passati. Bandiere no Dal Molin ovunque, tende, gazebo, tavole e panche. Ci sono anche i bidoni con il fuoco. Perché la notte fa freddo qui a Vicenza. Qualcuno ha improvvisato anche delle barricate davanti a una delle entrate. «Per la notte - ironizza un ragazzo - giusto per evitare che ci cogliessero di sorpresa». I cittadini, oltre cinquecento all'assemblea del presidio, si sono divisi in due gruppi. Un primo gruppo ha occupato l'ingresso civile dell'aeroporto che dà su via Sant'Antonino, mentre il secondo si è fatto carico di bloccare l'ingresso dell'ala militare su viale Ferrarin.

Avviso: C'e' un appello per una mobilitazione europea a vicenza nei giorni 14, 15 e 16 di Dicemb. Mannaggia, li manco per un paio di giorni!

From Reuters:

Ecuador's leftist President Rafael Correa said Washington must let him open a military base in Miami if the United States wants to keep using an air base on Ecuador's Pacific coast.

Correa has refused to renew Washington's lease on the Manta air base, set to expire in 2009. U.S. officials say it is vital for counter-narcotics surveillance operations on Pacific drug-running routes.

"We'll renew the base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami -- an Ecuadorean base," Correa said in an interview during a trip to Italy.

"If there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States."

Well Said!!!

The U.S. embassy to Ecuador offers a fact-sheet on the base here.

You can get more information about the empire of US military bases at the National Priorities Project

From the NY Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — The United States maintained its role as the leading supplier of weapons to the developing world in 2006, followed by Russia and Britain, according to a Congressional study to be released Monday. Pakistan, India and Saudi Arabia were the top buyers.

The study makes clear also that the United States has signed weapons-sales agreements with nations whose records on democracy and human rights are subject to official criticism.

In 2006, the United States agreed to sell $10.3 billion in weapons to the developing world, or 35.8 percent of these deals worldwide, according to the study. Russia was second with $8.1 billion, or 28.1 percent, and Britain was third with $3.1 billion, or 10.8 percent.

Here is a question for all Democratic presidential candidates: Will you keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely? For the next ten years? Do you plan to build and maintain a permanent military base in Iraq? Who - other than Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel would make a clear statement that the US will NOT maintain any kind of military presence in Iraq?

That's what Bush is now openly talking about...

Bush Team Ponders Long Support Role in Iraq

WASHINGTON, June 2 — For the first time, the Bush administration is beginning publicly to discuss basing American troops in Iraq for years, even decades to come, a subject so fraught with political landmines that officials are tiptoeing around the inevitable questions about what the United States’ long-term mission would be there.

President Bush has long talked about the need to maintain an American military presence in the region, without saying exactly where. Several visitors to the White House say that in private, he has sounded intrigued by what he calls the “Korea model,” a reference to the large American presence in South Korea for the 54 years since the armistice that ended open hostilities between North and South.

[...] Administration officials and top military leaders declined to talk on the record about their long-term plans in Iraq. But when speaking on a not-for-attribution basis, they describe a fairly detailed concept. It calls for maintaining three or four major bases in the country, all well outside of the crowded urban areas where casualties have soared. They would include the base at Al Asad in Anbar Province, Balad Air Base about 50 miles north of Baghdad, and Tallil Air Base in the south.

Al Jazeera reports that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis gathered peacefully in Najaf to demand an end to the US occupation.

This is consistent with every survey of Iraqi public opinion, which overwhelmingly wants US troops to leave as soon as possible.

THE PEOPLE'S RALLY FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE

Saturday, March 24

12 noon

Essex County College Gymnasium

Stop the war! Bring the Troops home now! Fund Education, Health Care, Jobs, and Housing not War and Occupation! Stand up for Peace and Justice! Stop the War in Iraq, Stop the War in out Streets!

Is that "w" for "woman" or "warmonger"?

From the New York Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military. [...]

She said in the interview that there were “remaining vital national security interests in Iraq” that would require a continuing deployment of American troops.

The United States’ security would be undermined if parts of Iraq turned into a failed state “that serves as a petri dish for insurgents and Al Qaeda,” she said. “It is right in the heart of the oil region,” she said. “It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel’s interests.”

All doubts are gone. Hillary is just as much an imperialist as anybody else. And how ironic that she at least has the decency to acknowledge the role of oil, and Israel, in forumulating US policy.

So, who should someone opposed to the war and the extension of the US empire of bases around the world support in the Democratic primaries? Obama? oops,

Senator Barack Obama, a rival of Mrs. Clinton, has said that if elected president, he might keep a small number of troops in Iraq.

While we wait for something definitive from Edwards, let's just roll up our sleeves and start talking about Kucinich.

Voi c'eravate?Foto tratte da www.altravicenza.it

Spesso si parla tanto a vanvera, e io sono un deciso sostenitore della lettura dei documenti originali.

Questi sono i link per:

il sito internet della commissione del parlamento europeo che ha redatto il testo sul ruolo dei governi europei nel programma di rapimento-con-tortura degli stati uniti (e' in inglese, ci dovrebbe essere il verso di trovarlo in italiano)

il resoconto della commissione (in formato .pdf in inglese)

la risoluzione del parlamento europeo (in italiano)

Altre ragioni per ANDARE A VICENZA SABATO 17 FEBBRAIO

Dal sito AltraVicenza:

PETIZIONE ONLINE PER FERMARE IL RADDOPPIO DELLA BASE USA A VIVCENZA.
SUPERATE LE 3900 ADESIONI IN 48 ORE, FIRMA ANCHE TU

Quando firmate la petizione, fatemelo sapere! Io l'ho gia' fatto!

Ci sono molti motivi per i quali mi oppongo all'installazione di una ulteriore base militare statunitense in italia. La piu' importante pero' l'ho maturata durante i miei anni d'insegnamento a Newark. Come mai i soldi dei contribuenti statunitensi devono andare al mantenimento di un costosissimo impero di basi militari all'estero, quando la guerra fredda e' finita, mentre qui ci sono intere citta' piene di poveri, in cui le scuole non funzionano, e con milioni di persone prive di alcun tipo di assicurazione medica?

Quindi firmare questa petizione non significa solamente opporsi a una ennesima violazione della sovranita' italiana (ci sono basi militari italiane negli USA?) e opporsi a una base il cui scopo e' proiettare l'egemonia militare degli stati uniti nel medio oriente e verso la russia, ma anche schierarsi a favore di tutti coloro che, negli stati uniti, si oppongono allo sperpero delle risorse nazionali in un militarismo senza fine.

The Star Ledger today published an op-ed by former secretary of defense Melvin Laird. He draws parallels between Iraq and Vietnam (saying that it would have been a disaster if the US had pulled out of Vietnam) and calls for an increase in the 'Defense' budget.

Some of my thoughts on the matter i wrote to the paper, some i didn't.

Exactly what would have been devastating if Congress had cut the purse strings on the Vietnam war? isn't the death of almost 60,000 soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians 'devastating'? Exactly what could have been MORE disastrous than what actually happened?

Laird says that 'a bloodbath' was the result of US withdrawal. wasn't the war itself a 'bloodbath'? 

It is preposterous to propose that 'defense' spending should be substantially increased, as Mr. Laird (and Democratic leader Harry Reid) propose. Our government already spends more than all the rest of the world COMBINED on 'defense' - a staggering $500 billion dollars, much of it directed to programs (to name two, the F-22 and national missile defense) that have little to do with 'national security' and essentially amount to subsidies to the 'defense' industry.

Laird uses the ridiculous argument that our 'defense' spending is an insufficient percentage of GDP. But it's a ridiculous benchmark to use! isn't spending five times more than the closest competitor enough?

Furthermore, it has been recently pointed out [in the NY Times, as i posted previously] that the $200 billion we spend yearly in Iraq would be more than sufficient to provide health insurance to everyone in the United States - and in the face of more than 40 million people, many of them children, who have no health care coverage, Mr. Laird should be ashamed of himself.

There is a fascinating article in today's NY Times about what how the money being spent to occupy Iraq could be spent to serve human needs. But it has two flaws: it's almost four years too late, and it was published in the Business section. The Times is already a pretentious publication, targeted at the upper middle class (have you seen its ads?), and its business page is about as far removed from the attention of the average taxpayer as front row seats for the superbowl.

The article draws on sources here and here.

The human mind isn’t very well equipped to make sense of a figure like $1.2 trillion. We don’t deal with a trillion of anything in our daily lives, and so when we come across such a big number, it is hard to distinguish it from any other big number. Millions, billions, a trillion — they all start to sound the same.

The way to come to grips with $1.2 trillion is to forget about the number itself and think instead about what you could buy with the money. When you do that, a trillion stops sounding anything like millions or billions.

For starters, $1.2 trillion would pay for an unprecedented public health campaign — a doubling of cancer research funding, treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged and a global immunization campaign to save millions of children’s lives.

Combined, the cost of running those programs for a decade wouldn’t use up even half our money pot. So we could then turn to poverty and education, starting with universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year-old child across the country. The city of New Orleans could also receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds.

[...] All that would be one way to spend $1.2 trillion. Here would be another:

The war in Iraq.

The article goes along with this graphic (click to see the whole thing) that compares just the straight yearly spending to other things like health care. My reaction to that picture is: yes, that's all true. But did you know, Mr. Leonhardt, that our yearly military budget (much of it spent on subsidies to high technology industries) is TWICE the cost of the war in Iraq? and that the precious democrats are proposing to increase it - and have not (yet) been forced to take the stand that they will stop paying for it?

At any rate, this was my message to the Times.

Editor,

There are few matters more central to the political debate, and indeed our future, in this country, than the war in Iraq. I have felt from the beginning that the discussion of the issue has been insufficient at best, and dominated by the voices of leaders whose reliability was questioned from the beginning -
rightfully, but not as energetically as would have been necessary.

[I wanted to indict the Times itself, given that it published the shameful articles by Judith Miller that fanned the WMD craze, but I keep hoping they'll publish me...]

So why was the profoundly important article by David Leonhardt about the cost of the war placed in the Business section of your paper, and not, say, on the front page?

By the Associated Press:

[...] So far, Newark has recorded at least 104 murders this year. The county prosecutor's office puts the tally slightly higher — at 110 — because it includes several victims whose bodies were found in Newark but who had not obviously been killed in the city. The city does not include them in its own count.

[...] "The number one thing we're seeing is people settling disputes using guns," she said. "It's become the norm for everybody to pack a gun. That sense in the community that guns are an acceptable way of doing business and living has its impact on crime here in Newark."

Glorious King Sau, a spokesman for the Street Warriors, a group that tries to steer teens away from gangs and violence, said many of the city's youths are brazen and armed to the teeth.

"Newark is rough, man," he said. "These kids have some of the best weaponry, and they're quick to kill. You get into an argument with a 14-year-old, and they're strapping," he said, using a street term for carrying a gun.

"These guys are ruthless," he said. "They're quick to shoot. They don't fear the police. They're all about instant gratification. In our community, education gets a bad rap because they think they can hustle and get by without it."

Sau said a lack of proper role models has a lot to do with kids gravitating toward gangs and drug dealers.

And in the meanwhile, I have to try to stop myself from puking after reading this in the Times:

The Pentagon is seeking nearly $100 billion for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, a request that, if approved by Congress, would set an annual record for war-related spending.

The $99.7 billion request, detailed in a 17-page internal Defense Department memorandum dated Dec. 7, would be in addition to $70 billion appropriated in September. The request would push the total for the 2007 fiscal year to nearly $170 billion, 45 percent more than Congress provided for 2006.

[...] some experts questioned whether the services were exploiting the must-pass nature of the supplemental bill to seek money for other purposes like the modernization of aircraft rather than just wartime replacements. Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, a policy analysis organization in Virginia, pointed to the Air Force request for $62 million for ballistic missiles, a weapon not being employed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Since 2001, Congress has approved $507 billion for Afghanistan, Iraq and other operations deemed part of combating terrorism. Even with the Democrats in control, there is unlikely to be much appetite for cutting the war-related spending requests, Mr. Kosiak said.

WASHINGTON, Nov 15 (Reuters) - Newly-elected U.S. Senate majority leader Harry Reid [...] said in the interview in Wednesday editions of The Washington Post [that] one of the first acts of the new Democratic-led Congress will be a $75 billion boost to the military budget to try to get the Army's diminished units back into combat shape, Reid told the newspaper.

Our country already spends more than the rest of the world COMBINED on "defense", our schools are failing, people get killed in the streets, there's no money for people to have jobs, and the democrats want to INCREASE THE MILITARY BUDGET?

National Missile Defense ("star wars") has an estimated costs of $30 billion over its lifetime. The total cost of the F-22 raptor jet over its lifetime has been over $60 billion.

The proposed Defense Department budget for 2007 provides $439.3 billion — a 7-percent increase over 2006 and a 48-percent increase over 2001. That may NOT include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also does NOT include the cost of the US nuclear weapons programmed, financed under the department of Energy.

It is estimated that the war on Iraq has cost over $340 BILLION dollars.

In 2004, the US actually spent $466 Billion on "defense" (which includes the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan) - and the WHOLE REST OF THE WORLD was estimated to have spent $500 billion. China - "the next big threat" - spent an estimated $65 billion.

All of this - while the NJ public schools are facing budget cuts, and people in Newark can't go into homeless shelters because of cuts in welfare payments - and the newly elected democratic majority of the senate wants to RAISE THE MILITARY BUDGET?

FUCK THAT.

C'e' stato il voto del Consiglio Comunale di Vicenza, che approva la nuova base militare statiunitense, e rifiuta il referendum popolare sull'argomento. Leggo sul Giornale di Vicenza:

21 a 17. Più due consigliere che si astengono. Più un assente da calcolare per chiudere il conto dei 41. In sala Bernarda è finita come doveva finire, senza sorprese. Risicata ma compatta, la maggioranza di centrodestra ha votato il suo “via libera” alla super-caserma Usa al Dal Molin

L’ha dato con tanti “se” (quelli legati alle condizioni chieste a Roma) e però scavalcando il doppio “ma” tornato ad aleggiare negli interventi dell’opposizione: «Ma se fra qualche anno gli Usa chiederanno anche le piste dell’aeroporto? Ma se né loro né il governo italiano pagheranno tutto quello che Vicenza richiede?». L’ha dato - questo okay al raddoppio della Ederle con una nuova cittadella a Stelle & Strisce in viale Sant’Antonino - affidandosi a due cose: le rassicurazioni dei generali statunitensi e del capo di gabinetto del ministero della Difesa sull’intangibilità dell’aeroporto civile; e le sensazioni riportate a Vicenza dal sindaco Enrico Hùllweck, dopo l’incontro nella capitale con Arturo Parisi. Soprattutto l’ha dato proteggendosi dietro lo scudo su cui sta scritto: «Noi diamo solo un parere, a decidere sarà il governo, che comunque dirà Sì per rispettare gli obblighi di alleato e le convenienze nei rapporti con gli Stati Uniti».

il centrosinistra [...] ha tentato di spostare in avanti la resa dei conti: «Serve un referendum, solo così il parere di Vicenza sarà completo su un tema che non è mai stato scritto nei programmi elettorali di nessuno». Una linea condivisa dalle consigliere dissenzienti.
Il centrodestra - che teme l’esito del voto popolare e l’ha detto chiaro nelle scorse settimane proprio con Hùllweck – ha avuto tre reazioni. [...] Ma la discussione e il voto ottenuti dall’Unione sono serviti solo per far decidere al centrodestra – con il ricompattamento della coalizione - che il referendum non si deve fare.

CI sono stati movimenti anche a livello nazionale:

Poche ore prima del consiglio comunale chiamato a decidere sull’ampliamento della base americana a Vicenza, è cominciato un singolare fuoco incrociato, portato da alcuni senatori dell’Ulivo, Rifondazione Comunista e Verdi-Pdci contro il governo ed un eventuale “si” del Comune al progetto Dal Molin.
La prima pallottola è stata sparata da alcuni senatori della maggioranza che in Senato hanno presentato un ordine del giorno con il quale chiedevano al Governo di ignorare un eventuale “sì” alla base espresso dal Comune e di tenere conto della volontà popolare vicentina schierandosi a favore di un referendum popolare sulla questione.

Il Programma dell'Unione ha soltanto questo da dire, sotto la voce Stati Uniti:

dobbiamo proporre per il nostro Paese una collocazione strategica che lo veda saldamente inserito in Europa, come protagonista delle politiche di integrazione europea nonché come alleato leale degli Stati Uniti.

Bella roba. Alleati leali, vabbene, anche quando usano le basi imperiali che hanno sul nostro territorio per trasportare personale e armamenti verso conflitti illegali e ingiusti? Anche quando il nostro territorio nazionale viene usato come zona di passaggio per persone che poi vengono torturate, oppure quando cittadini italiani vengono rapiti dalla CIA per poi essere torturati all'estero?

Bella roba. Alleati leali, vabbene, anche quando usano le basi imperiali che hanno sul nostro territorio per trasportare personale e armamenti verso conflitti illegali e ingiusti? Anche quando il nostro territorio nazionale viene usato come zona di passaggio per persone che poi vengono torturate, oppure quando cittadini italiani vengono rapiti dalla CIA per poi essere torturati all'estero?

Capisco che a Vicenza ci sia gente che lavora grazie alle basi militari degli Stati Uniti. Ma questi politicanti mi fanno abbastanza schifo.

Si avvicina finalmente il momento del voto finale sulla questione della base militare statunitense a Vicenza. Sul Giornale di Vicenza si legge che

La data è fissata: giovedì 26 ottobre. La sede anche: sal a Bernarda, palazzo Trissino. Sciolte le ultime riserve, il consiglio comunale si prepara ad andare al voto sul progetto presentato dagli Usa per potenziare la Ederle costruendo una nuova caserma all’aeroporto Dal Molin. Si discuterà a lungo su quello che si sono detti realmente il ministro della Difesa Arturo Parisi e il sindaco Enrico Hüllweck nei 105 minuti di colloquio riservatissimo: agli annali della piccola storia vicentina, però, passerà la decisione di convocare un Consiglio monotematico e di esprimere un giudizio di accettabilità che il Governo invoca dalla scorsa estate.

Rimane comunque il fatto che il ministro della difesa, a quanto diceva il GdV, abbia convinto il sindaco a premere a favore della base.

Prodi o Berlusconi, la ricetta a quanto pare e' la stessa: rimaniamo supini difronte all'impero di basi militari degli Stati Uniti.

e' stato fatto un sondaggio sull'opinione dei vicentini riguardo alla base militare USA all'aereoporto Del Molin.

Qui ci sono i risultati.