Britain's six days of shame

No doubt there will be a lot of character assassination of this report because it is by a reporter with a history of uncovering unpleasant realities behind the sanitised versions of war you will see on your tv. Nothing like hearing the truth from an independent source who is actually on the ground though:

SIX DAYS OF SHAME

Mar 26 2003

John Pilger

TODAY is a day of shame for the British military as it declares the Iraqi city of Basra, with a stricken population of 600,000, a “military target”.

You will not read or hear those words in the establishment media that claims to speak for Britain.

But they are true. With Basra, shame is now our signature, forged by Blair and Bush.

Having destroyed its water and power supplies, cut off food supply routes and having failed to crack its human defences, they are now preparing to lay siege to Iraq’s second city which is more than 40 per cent children.

What an ignominious moment in British history. Here is an impoverished country under attack by a superpower, the United States, which has unimaginable wealth and the world’s most destructive weapons, and its “coalition” accomplice, Britain, which boasts one of the world’s best “professional” armies.

Believing their own propaganda, the military brass has been stunned by the Iraqi resistance.

They have tried to belittle the militia defending Basra with lurid stories that its fighters are killing each other.

The truth is that the Iraqis are fighting like lions to defend not a tyrant but their homeland. It is a truth the overwhelming majority of decent Britons will admire.

The historical comparison Tony Blair and his propagandists fear is that of the British defending themselves against invasion. That happened 60 years ago and now “we” are the rapacious invaders.

Yesterday, Blair said that 400,000 Iraqi children had died in the past five years from malnutrition and related causes. He said “huge stockpiles of humanitarian aid” and clean water awaited them in Kuwait, if only the Iraqi regime would allow safe passage.

In fact, voluminous evidence, including that published by the United Nations Children’s Fund, makes clear that the main reason these children have died is an enduring siege, a 12-year embargo driven by America and Britain.

As of last July, $5.4billion worth of humanitarian supplies, approved by the UN and paid for by the Iraqi government, were blocked by Washington, with the Blair government’s approval. The former assistant secretary general of the UN, Denis Halliday, who was sent to Iraq to set up the “oil for food programme”, described the effects of the embargo as “nothing less than genocide”. Similar words have been used by his successor, Hans Von Sponeck.

Both men resigned in protest, saying the embargo merely reinforced the power of Saddam.

Both called Blair a liar.

And now Blair’s troops are firing their wire-guided missiles to “soften up” Basra.

I have walked the city’s streets, along a road blown to pieces by a US missile. The casualties were children, of course, because children are everywhere. I held a handkerchief over my face as I stood in a school playground with a teacher and several hundred malnourished youngsters.

The dust blew in from the southern battlefields of the 1991 Gulf War, which have never been cleaned up because the US and British governments have denied Iraq the specialist equipment.

The dust, Dr Jawad Al-Ali told me, carries “the seeds of our death”. In the children’s wards of Basra’s main hospital, deaths from a range of hitherto unseen cancers are common and specialists have little doubt that up to half the population of southern Iraq will die from cancers linked to the use of a weapon of mass destruction used by the Americans and British - uranium tipped shells and missiles.

ONCE again, the Americans are deploying what Professor Doug Rokke, a former US Army physicist, calls “a form of nuclear weapon that contaminates everything and everyone”.

Today, each round fired by US tanks contains 4,500 grams of solid uranium, whose particles, breathed or ingested, can cause cancer.

This, and the use by both the Allies of new kinds of cluster bombs, is being covered up.

Once again, the British public is being denied the reality of war.

Images of bandaged children in hospital wards are appearing on TV but you do not see the result of a Tornado’s cluster bombing.

You are not being shown children scalped by shrapnel, with legs reduced to bloody pieces of string.

Such images are “not acceptable”, because they will disturb viewers - and the authorities do not want that. These “unseen” images are the truth. Iraqi parents have to look at their mutilated children, so why shouldn’t those of us, in whose name they were slaughtered, see what they see?

Why shouldn’t we share their pain? Why shouldn’t we see the true nature of this criminal invasion?

Other wars were sanitised, allowing them to be repeated.

If you have satellite TV, try to find the Al Jazeera channel, which has distinguished itself with its coverage. When the Americans bombed Afghanistan, one of their “smart” bombs destroyed the Al Jazeera office in Kabul. Few believe it was an accident. Rather, it was a testimony to the channel’s independent journalism.

Remember, it is not those who oppose this war who need to justify themselves, regardless of Blair’s calls to “support our troops”. There is only one way to support them - bring them home without delay.

In 1932, Iraqis threw out their British colonial rulers. In 1958, they got rid of the Hashemite monarchy.

Iraqis have shown they can overthrow dictators against the odds. So why have they not been able to throw out Saddam?

Because the US and Britain armed him and propped him up while it suited them, making sure that when they tired of him, they would be the only alternative to his rule and the profiteers of his nation’s resources. Imperialism has always functioned like that.

The “new Iraq”, as Blair calls it, will have many models, such as Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua, all of them American conquests and American ruled until Washington allowed a vicious dictatorship to take over.

Saddam only came to power after the Americans helped install his Ba’ath Party in 1979. “That was my favourite coup,” said the CIA officer in charge.

Keep in mind the cynicism behind these truths when you next hear Blair’s impassioned insincerity - and when you glimpse, if you can, the “unacceptable” images of children killed and mangled in your name, and in the cause of what the Prime Minister calls “our simple patriotism”.

It’s the kind of patriotism, wrote Tolstoy, “that is nothing else but a means of obtaining for the rulers their ambitions and covetous desires, and for the ruled the abdication of human dignity, reason and conscience.”

6 days a week I guess 1 day of humiliation thrown in.

The Anerican's have concentrated on leaving the most difficult battles to the British while they charge forward like cowboys, and this has meant the Brit troops being put in these humiliating circumstances. At the end of day 1 the American's had boasted they had taken the port town of Umm Qasr, just 1 km from the Kuwait border, but then they cam under ferocious attack from the Iraqi resistance. They left the town and the fighting to the British, and here we are on day 7 of this illegal war and the Brits are still having trouble controlling the town - that is humiliating.

The southern and northern part of Iraq were already No-Fly zones maintained by US and UK without any UN mandate.. it's really strange that despite years of 'control' over these areas they are struggling to 'secure' them.

What sort of freedom are you Americans giving the Iraqis with your DU weapons?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by PakistaniAbroad: *
The southern and northern part of Iraq were already No-Fly zones maintained by US and UK without any UN mandate.. it's really strange that despite years of 'control' over these areas they are struggling to 'secure' them.
[/QUOTE]

They did control. If they hadn't bombed Iraqi airports with this strategy, they would be facing Iraqi planes too.

That is an amazing column - the kind of literature that only Pilger can write. :k:

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
They did control. If they hadn't bombed Iraqi airports with this strategy, they would be facing Iraqi planes too.
[/QUOTE]

Iraqi planes wouldn't have made a difference. If you recall in the first Gulf war, Iraqi planes were flying to Iran to avoid conflict.

Iraqi Air Force has 300 planes, but sadly, hasnt flown a single one since the begining of this war :(:(:(

Here is a good link about the history and current status of the Iraqi Airforce.

The US has asked the UK to send 4000 more troops to fight in Iraq, as they also send tens of thosuands more to take on the Iraqi resistance. It's fast becoming mission creep..a la Vietnam.

**Once again, the British public is being denied the reality of war.

Images of bandaged children in hospital wards are appearing on TV but you do not see the result of a Tornado's cluster bombing.

You are not being shown children scalped by shrapnel, with legs reduced to bloody pieces of string.

Such images are "not acceptable", because they will disturb viewers - and the authorities do not want that. These "unseen" images are the truth. Iraqi parents have to look at their mutilated children, so why shouldn't those of us, in whose name they were slaughtered, see what they see?

Why shouldn't we share their pain? Why shouldn't we see the true nature of this criminal invasion?**

Pilger asks a good question here. And basically what he's saying is that the reason that these pictures aren't shown is because decent British people couldn't stomach them. But what about Americans and other peoples of the world? Are they broadcast on CNN?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
The US has asked the UK to send 4000 more troops to fight in Iraq, as they also send tens of thosuands more to take on the Iraqi resistance. It's fast becoming mission creep..a la Vietnam.
[/QUOTE]

The US also wants to double it's forces in the Gulf.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
The US has asked the UK to send 4000 more troops to fight in Iraq, as they also send tens of thosuands more to take on the Iraqi resistance. It's fast becoming mission creep..a la Vietnam.
[/QUOTE]

US is sending 30 thousand more troops.... I am sure they will bog down...

Actually, it’s 100,000 more troops to make a total of 200,000.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Judge^MentuLL: *
**Once again, the British public is being denied the reality of war.

Images of bandaged children in hospital wards are appearing on TV but you do not see the result of a Tornado's cluster bombing.

You are not being shown children scalped by shrapnel, with legs reduced to bloody pieces of string.

Such images are "not acceptable", because they will disturb viewers - and the authorities do not want that. These "unseen" images are the truth. Iraqi parents have to look at their mutilated children, so why shouldn't those of us, in whose name they were slaughtered, see what they see?

Why shouldn't we share their pain? Why shouldn't we see the true nature of this criminal invasion?**

Pilger asks a good question here. And basically what he's saying is that the reason that these pictures aren't shown is because decent British people couldn't stomach them. But what about Americans and other peoples of the world? Are they broadcast on CNN?
[/QUOTE]

They are not broadcast on CNN as far as I know because the US State Dept has warned them against doing so. The US-UK media is quite deliberately being used as propoganda tools for the Anglo-Saxon war, and the American and particularly British people can see the full gory reality of the war on foreign sattelite channels, and that is causing quite a few to ask very uncomofortable questions to these governments.

The following article points to the humiliating state of the British army outside Basra at the moment.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030330/80/dwlhs.html

Iraqis stream back into Basra

British troops manning a road into Basra have abandoned efforts to control the flow of Iraqis into the southern city after an angry tide of 2,000 people threatened to overwhelm their checkpoint. A line of Irish Guards, backed by four tanks, had tried to block men of fighting age from entering the besieged southern Iraqi city of 1.5 million people. But faced with growing anger from people demanding they be allowed to take food to their hungry families, they appeared on the verge of losing control “Keep back,” shouted one soldier manning the checkpoint on the two-lane highway, about half a mile south of a bridge crossing into Basra, hurling a volley of expletives at the crowd.

“The army is very, very bad. I want to go to Basra. There is no food in Basra. We want to take food into Basra,” said Karim, a 29-year-old bringing a donkey and cart laden with tomatoes to his wife and three-month-old baby inside the city. He was speaking just before the soldiers gave up their increasingly chaotic attempts to hold back the pressing crowd and allowed a flood of people, cars, trucks, taxis and carts to surge towards the bridge. The troops had been letting women and children through but had been stopping adult men and arresting any who tried to enter or leave the city with weapons or any sign of military links. At another checkpoint across the bridge, Captain Alex Cosby of the Irish Guards said four or five Iraqi men had been stopped on Sunday morning and were being held as prisoners of war.

About time the rats crawl back into the hole they came from.

Basra’s bewildered refugees hurl abuse and stones at Desert Rats
From David Sharrock in southern Iraq

SHAKING his fist at the British armoured column speeding past him, Abdiraza Jeri and his friends spat out a volley of insults as others in the weary trail of refugees threw stones at the Desert Rats.
The 42-year-old haulage contractor had been walking for three hours to escape the siege of Basra. Courageously, he was intending to return with his fleet of lorries filled with water so that his family, neighbours and some of the city’s other 1.4 million parched residents had something to drink.

But he and thousands more tramping along this main road could not understand yesterday why such a formidable array of British tanks was parked on the edge of his city while gangs of Saddam loyalists slowly strangled Basra.

British soldiers sitting on their Warrior vehicle looked stunned when a couple of packets of sweets that they had thrown to some children were hurled back at them by their fathers, together with a stream of abuse.

The Pentagon and Whitehall can claim that this campaign is going precisely to plan, but on the bridge from Basra there was no doubt that coalition forces do not have the faith or confidence of these people. A week ago they were fêted as liberators but many are now asking what this British force is doing to help them.

Clenching his fists in frustration, Mr Jeri apologised for his outburst. “I have no love for Saddam, but tell me how are we better off today when there is no power, nor water. There are dead bodies lying in our streets and my children are scared to go to bed because of the shelling.”

A crush of several thousand people was trying to flee, many faint with heat and dehydration, but they were hemmed in by British sentries who were allowing them through in single file. The troops have no translators with them to explain that they are doing this to ensure that Iraqi gunmen are not infiltrating the refugees. Yet neither has any provision been made at these roadblocks to ease the misery of those caught up in this siege.

For five days the numbers leaving have been growing and still these troops had no water tankers waiting for the women and children who are made to walk miles in wilting heat before family and friends are allowed to pick them up in their vehicles. There are no doctors, nor food, and yesterday a team of Red Cross volunteers sat locked inside their air-conditioned four-wheel drive vehicle admitting that they were simply overwhelmed by the hordes surging towards them.

Flanked by a half-dozen of his drivers, Mr Jeri told how they had had to leave their families cowering in basements because intermittent exchanges of mortar and artillery fire yesterday made it too dangerous to let them walk this road. The coalition had promised not to shell a civilian centre such as Basra. Yesterday they were doing just that. As a mortar shell exploded just beyond the main road, sending up a shower of dirt and sand, many in the crowd flinched and dropped to their knees.

Mr Jeri pointed to a modern, mustard-coloured building at the edge of an industrial estate on the outskirts of Basra and said: “This is where Saddam’s militia are shooting.”

The distance could be no more than three quarters of a mile from where two Warriors sat monitoring this human traffic jam trying to flee Basra. “We know the risks if the Army go in,” he added. “Some people will die, but what is the alternative — sit here forever?” One young platoon commander, his face caked with grime, stared at the silent procession filing morosely past him and said: “It wasn’t supposed to be like this. We have to get into that city.”

Snatch squads of Irish Guards are reported to have dashed to one part of the city to grab a handful of Baath party grandees, and shot up a statue of Saddam while they were there. But if the flow of people out of Basra is to be stemmed, tactics will have to change. One girl who could have been no more than eight burst into tears as she came within 10ft of three British soldiers, rifles pointing at the approaching crowd. Her father stopped, put down the heavy bundle of clothes that he was carrying and scooped her up in his arms to pass the checkpoint.

A week ago everyone here waved at any allied soldier they passed. Not any more. Twenty miles away, Ministry of Defence spin doctors had invited TV crews to show them laying a water pipeline to the border town of Umm Qasr and watch Royal Marines hand out food-ration packs. No one in Basra knew that was going on: they have no power for television.

*British soldiers sitting on their Warrior vehicle looked stunned when a couple of packets of sweets that they had thrown to some children were hurled back at them by their fathers, together with a stream of abuse. *

How humiliating for the British.

Aarghhhhhhhhh!!! These childrens were obviously Baath party activists or they could be feedayeen or part of the Republican guard, because the civilians are overjoyed at the arrival of the British forces. It could also be that because the children’s mother could not arrange a garland for the liberators, so the children were giving the sweets back to them as a token of their appreciation for what the great liberators had done for them. :hehe: