US and British Imperialism - Killing Iraqis to Steal Their Oil and Plunder their
Open Discussion Collective,Milton Keynes. | 30.11.2004 15:34 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | London
Leaflet from Anti-war demo 27 November,Whitechapel,London.In their own words,and juxtaposed to UN Charter, US and Iraqi politicians,show the privatisation and plunder agenda at work behind the occupation of iraq.UN principle of self-defence accompanies voices from the Resistance.
S and British Imperialism - Killing Iraqis to Steal Their Oil and Plunder their Economy
UN Charter-Chapter 1, Article 2. Paragraph 4:
"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations".
Fallujah: "For this operation we took the gloves off" - Head of US Ist Infantry Task Force on firing white phosphorous rounds that burn and cannot be extinguished with water.(Washington Post,10 Nov.2004).
"It's a great thing blowing stuff up. We're getting the city free." (Sgt. Fladymir Napoleon, Washington Post, Nov 2004)
"From a humanitarian point of view, it is a disaster, there is no other way to describe it" (Red Crescent, Times 11Nov.2004).
Not Democracy but plunder and privatisation.
"When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels (per day) of production to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy" (Larry Lindsey, Bush's economic adviser, Observer Nov.3, 2002)
‘the new Iraqi government’s sovereignty [sic]…rest[s] on a foundation of US military force and money’ (US officials speaking to the LA Times, 28 Dec 2003).
‘the new Iraqi government would be … unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval’
(US officials speaking to the Wall StreetJournal,13 May 2003).
“You set up these things and they begin to develop a certain life and momentum on their own — and it’s harder to reverse course,” exiting US administrator Paul Bremer on the 100 laws, from the wholesale privatisation of Iraq’s non-oil industries to regulating traffic, that the US imposed prior to the 28 June 'handover' (Washington Post, 27 June 2004).
Bremer, explained that while there was “no blanket prohibition” against self rule “I want to do it a way that takes care of our concerns … Elections that are held too early can be destructive. It’s got to be done carefully.” “If you start holding elections, the people who are rejectionists tend to win,” he explained. Iraqis would have to satisfied with “baby steps”, the US Sergeant charged with running Samarra told the Post. (Washington Post, 28 June 2003).
The appointed electoral commission's power to eliminate political parties or candidates for not obeying laws would allow it “to disqualify people someone didn't like” Iraq expert and Professor of History at the University of Michigan Juan Cole (Washington Post, 27 June 2004).
On October 17th the director of private sector development for the CPA, Thomas Foley (who also happens to be one of George W Bush’s biggest fundraisers) told AP that ‘an overall plan for privatisation [would] be submitted … in the next several weeks’ though he anticipated that ‘the majority of privatisations would be carried out by a sovereign government’ in a process that would probably take ‘three to five years’ (AP, 17th October 2003).
‘Iraq is preparing plans for the privatisation of its giant oil sector’ though ‘a decision would not be taken until after elections’ (FT, 5th September 2003). “The Iraqi oil sector needs privatisation, but it’s a cultural issue,’ Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum told the paper, explaining that it would ‘require ‘a lot of effort,’ to educate [sic] the public, and should begin with refineries and other downstream operations, while leaving the oilfields in the hands of the “Iraqi people"
UN Charter-Chapter VII.
Article 51:"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations…"
"Where do you come from? Scotland? So what do you do if someone comes to your land, to occupy your country? How would you feel if someone came and destroyed your homes, killed your families?…It would be better for you to go. If you go no one will attack you" (Iraqi engineer to Black Watch soldiers, Daily Telegraph Nov.6, 2004)
"As the time passed by and as the occupier became more visible, more patriotic feelings grew bigger and bigger. Every time I saw the Americans patrolling our streets I became more humiliated…we just wanted them to leave our cities. In the beginning I had a job every month, setting IEDs (improvised explosive devices) or firing mortars…But then I realised I can't do anything…as long as the Americans occupied my country" (Fallujah resistance fighter, Guardian Nov 9, 2004).
A nation that oppresses another nation cannot itself be free
Open Discussion c/o Peace and Justice Centre, 300 Saxon Gate West, Milton Keynes MK9 27th November 2004
More info available from www.voicesuk.org www.justinalexander.net/iraq www.iraqoccupationfocus.org.uk
UN Charter-Chapter 1, Article 2. Paragraph 4:
"All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations".
Fallujah: "For this operation we took the gloves off" - Head of US Ist Infantry Task Force on firing white phosphorous rounds that burn and cannot be extinguished with water.(Washington Post,10 Nov.2004).
"It's a great thing blowing stuff up. We're getting the city free." (Sgt. Fladymir Napoleon, Washington Post, Nov 2004)
"From a humanitarian point of view, it is a disaster, there is no other way to describe it" (Red Crescent, Times 11Nov.2004).
Not Democracy but plunder and privatisation.
"When there is a regime change in Iraq, you could add three to five million barrels (per day) of production to world supply. The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy" (Larry Lindsey, Bush's economic adviser, Observer Nov.3, 2002)
‘the new Iraqi government’s sovereignty [sic]…rest[s] on a foundation of US military force and money’ (US officials speaking to the LA Times, 28 Dec 2003).
‘the new Iraqi government would be … unable to make major decisions within specific ministries without tacit U.S. approval’
(US officials speaking to the Wall StreetJournal,13 May 2003).
“You set up these things and they begin to develop a certain life and momentum on their own — and it’s harder to reverse course,” exiting US administrator Paul Bremer on the 100 laws, from the wholesale privatisation of Iraq’s non-oil industries to regulating traffic, that the US imposed prior to the 28 June 'handover' (Washington Post, 27 June 2004).
Bremer, explained that while there was “no blanket prohibition” against self rule “I want to do it a way that takes care of our concerns … Elections that are held too early can be destructive. It’s got to be done carefully.” “If you start holding elections, the people who are rejectionists tend to win,” he explained. Iraqis would have to satisfied with “baby steps”, the US Sergeant charged with running Samarra told the Post. (Washington Post, 28 June 2003).
The appointed electoral commission's power to eliminate political parties or candidates for not obeying laws would allow it “to disqualify people someone didn't like” Iraq expert and Professor of History at the University of Michigan Juan Cole (Washington Post, 27 June 2004).
On October 17th the director of private sector development for the CPA, Thomas Foley (who also happens to be one of George W Bush’s biggest fundraisers) told AP that ‘an overall plan for privatisation [would] be submitted … in the next several weeks’ though he anticipated that ‘the majority of privatisations would be carried out by a sovereign government’ in a process that would probably take ‘three to five years’ (AP, 17th October 2003).
‘Iraq is preparing plans for the privatisation of its giant oil sector’ though ‘a decision would not be taken until after elections’ (FT, 5th September 2003). “The Iraqi oil sector needs privatisation, but it’s a cultural issue,’ Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum told the paper, explaining that it would ‘require ‘a lot of effort,’ to educate [sic] the public, and should begin with refineries and other downstream operations, while leaving the oilfields in the hands of the “Iraqi people"
UN Charter-Chapter VII.
Article 51:"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations…"
"Where do you come from? Scotland? So what do you do if someone comes to your land, to occupy your country? How would you feel if someone came and destroyed your homes, killed your families?…It would be better for you to go. If you go no one will attack you" (Iraqi engineer to Black Watch soldiers, Daily Telegraph Nov.6, 2004)
"As the time passed by and as the occupier became more visible, more patriotic feelings grew bigger and bigger. Every time I saw the Americans patrolling our streets I became more humiliated…we just wanted them to leave our cities. In the beginning I had a job every month, setting IEDs (improvised explosive devices) or firing mortars…But then I realised I can't do anything…as long as the Americans occupied my country" (Fallujah resistance fighter, Guardian Nov 9, 2004).
A nation that oppresses another nation cannot itself be free
Open Discussion c/o Peace and Justice Centre, 300 Saxon Gate West, Milton Keynes MK9 27th November 2004
More info available from www.voicesuk.org www.justinalexander.net/iraq www.iraqoccupationfocus.org.uk
Open Discussion Collective,Milton Keynes.
Comments
Display the following 2 comments