WAR IS PEACE

[Jcrowley]

Cost of America's War in Iraq:
$410,802,574,152

War is Peace

1984

To understand the nature of the present war -- for in spite of the regrouping which occurs every few years, it is always the same war -- one must realize in the first place that it is impossible for it to be decisive. None of the three super-states could be definitively conquered even by the other two in combination. They are too evenly matched, and their natural defences are too formidable. Eurasia is protected by its vast land spaces. Oceania by the width of the Atlantic and the Pacific, Eastasia by the fecundity and industriousness of its inhabitants. Secondly, there is no longer, in a material sense, anything to fight about. With the establishment of self-contained economies, in which production and consumption are geared to one another, the scramble for markets which was a main cause of previous wars has come to an end, while the competition for raw materials is no longer a matter of life and death. In any case each of the three super-states is so vast that it can obtain almost all the materials that it needs within its own boundaries. In so far as the war has a direct economic purpose, it is a war for labour power. Between the frontiers of the super-states, and not permanently in the possession of any of them, there lies a rough quadrilateral with its corners at Tangier, Brazzaville, Darwin, and Hong Kong, containing within it about a fifth of the population of the earth. It is for the possession of these thickly-populated regions, and of the northern ice-cap, that the three powers are constantly struggling. In practice no one power ever controls the whole of the disputed area. Portions of it are constantly changing hands, and it is the chance of seizing this or that fragment by a sudden stroke of treachery that dictates the endless changes of alignment.

All of the disputed territories contain valuable minerals, and some of them yield important vegetable products such as rubber which in colder climates it is necessary to synthesize by comparatively expensive methods. But above all they contain a bottomless reserve of cheap labour. Whichever power controls equatorial Africa, or the countries of the Middle East, or Southern India, or the Indonesian Archipelago, disposes also of the bodies of scores or hundreds of millions of ill-paid and hard-working coolies. The inhabitants of these areas, reduced more or less openly to the status of slaves, pass continually from conqueror to conqueror, and are expended like so much coal or oil in the race to turn out more armaments, to capture more territory, to control more labour power, to turn out more armaments, to capture more territory, and so on indefinitely. It should be noted that the fighting never really moves beyond the edges of the disputed areas. The frontiers of Eurasia flow back and forth between the basin of the Congo and the northern shore of the Mediterranean; the islands of the Indian Ocean and the Pacific are constantly being captured and recaptured by Oceania or by Eastasia; in Mongolia the dividing line between Eurasia and Eastasia is never stable; round the Pole all three powers lay claim to enormous territories which in fact are largely unihabited and unexplored: but the balance of power always remains roughly even, and the territory which forms the heartland of each super-state always remains inviolate. Moreover, the labour of the exploited peoples round the Equator is not really necessary to the world's economy. They add nothing to the wealth of the world, since whatever they produce is used for purposes of war, and the object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war. By their labour the slave populations allow the tempo of continuous warfare to be speeded up. But if they did not exist, the structure of world society, and the process by which it maintains itself, would not be essentially different.

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/17

We have passed an “Anti-war” bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have passed an emergency spending bill that grants the Bush administration’s request for over $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This bill of peace will not halt the essential military escalation in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and will allow upwards of 75,000 US troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely thus bringing peace to the region.

The bill proves we are opponents of the Iraq war while ensuring its continuation in the march towards peace.

We emphasize our support for the US military and the “war on terror,” with this bill being “a giant step to end the war" and responsibly redeploy some of our troops out of Mesopotamia so they can concentrate on Eurasia “where the war on terrorism is.”

[Jcrowley]

1. War equals peace? I don't think so.

From the office of Congressman Dennis Kucinich

WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 23) - Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) gave the following speech on the floor of the House of Representatives today:

"Four years ago Congress was told we have no alternative but to go to war. That was wrong. Now Congress is telling the American people we have no alternative but to continue the war and that by continuing the war for just another year or two, will then be able to end the war.

"War equals peace? I don't think so.

"This war will achieve the momentum that is swept up into a momentum that is swept up into its tragic hold people of otherwise goodwill--who will vote to continue a war when they really want peace and when the American people want peace.

"I believe you cannot say that you are for peace and vote to keep this war going. You cannot say you are for peace and facilitate the theft of Iraqi oil. You cannot say you are for peace and give the President enough money not just to keep this war going, but to attack Iran if he so chooses.

"If you want peace, vote for peace now. If you want peace, stop funding this war. If you want peace, stand for the truth. What America must do and what Congress has the power to do is to stop the war now, use the money in the pipeline to bring the troops home, set in motion a diplomatic process that would involve the world community in moving into Iraq as our troops move out.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/20403

[Jcrowley]

2. Continued War Does Not Equal Peace Unless You Go

All sectors of society and the corporate media agree that the people voted the Democrats into power last November for the express purpose of ending the war in Iraq. The Democrats and Republicans then colluded to continue the war with their absurd claims that they could not end the war now because of their responsibility to "protect the troops" and to protect Iraqis from themselves by averting a civil war. The Democrats - in control of the House and Senate even claimed that their hands are tied and they are powerless to stop the war. All 3 of these claims are an affront and insult to those who put them in office last November. Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha presented their decision to continue the war. Pelosi shamelessly stated, "Proudly, this new Congress voted to bring an end to the war in Iraq". John Murtha put this face on the death-vote: "We are going to make a difference with this bill. We are going to bring those troops home. We are going to start changing the direction of this great country." Then the Boston Globe gave them cover, offending every anti-war protester since the first invasion calling Murtha, that crusty old killer in Vietnam - "a key anti war leader".

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_24170.shtml