Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Great Researcher/General Interest Book, 29 Dec 2000
By A Customer
I bought this book after reading a review of it in the NEW STATESMAN. It is very informative and inferringly points a finger, rightfully, to the West and accuses it of Genocide in Iraq. These accusations are by no means baseless and therefore the book presents to us a series of articles, with inclusion of some great writers, which prove that all damage done in Iraq is intentional and currently to a scale so grand and deep that it is immeasurable. Worth all the money spent on it.
|
|
|
2 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
The US uses International Law to further her hegemony..., 15 April 2000
By A Customer
"We have to steel ourselves and be determined that the will of the International Community, expressed in the United Nations Security Council resolutions (International Law) will have to prevail", President Clinton said, as the second American warship, USS Washington, set sail towards the Persian Gulf to address Saddam Hussein. America presents herself, yet again, as merely a simple servant to the common good of all nations. At least, that is what she says. That is why, the world was again witness to the demonisation of Saddam Hussein. After all, is he not a despotic dictator? After all, is he not a savage oppressor of his people? After all, is he not a threat to the good of all nations? That is why America preaches that the will of the 'International Community' must be brought to bear upon him. So, why, whilst in such loyal servitude, has it escaped America's attention that Hafiz al-Assad, of Syria is also a despotic dictator? He, like Saddam, was a Ba'athist who came to power by force. He has a large record of savage oppression, some acts even dwarfing the barbarism of Saddam. Assad ruthlessly massacred the entire town of Hama for their opposition to his rule. So why oh why is Assad not the subject to the 'will of the International Community'? Or, for that matter, other despotic dictators such as Mubarak and King Fahd? Why, indeed! In reality, America's servitude is for only one master, her interests and hers alone. The charade of the 'will of the International Community' is just a means to create credibility for America's actions. A veil beneath which to hide her real motives. So, if at one time, Saddam stood in America's way, she would act accordingly. If at another he stood with her, she would, again, act accordingly. In either case, whether America presents him as a 'saint' or a 'demon' is a means not an ends. Means are selected according to their efficiency at prodding the 'International Community' in America's favoured direction. This can be seen clearly from the events in Iraq in 1996. At that time Saddam clearly stood in America's way. His regime was an obstacle to American designs to establish an agent state in the lands of Kurdistan, carved out of Iraq. In April, 1996, America sent her delegates to bring a reconciliation between the two rival factions of PUK (Patriotic Union of Kurds) and KDP (Kurdish Democratic Party) and establish a nucleus for a separate Kurdish state. America did not hide this association. Her press reported recently the full extent of CIA funding for Kurdish separatist groups. "In the first years after the 1991 Gulf War, the CIA funnelled tens of millions of dollars to the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella group for members of Iraq's Sunni and Shiite Muslim and Kurdish communities. From bases in Salahuddin and near Irbil, in northern Iraq, the congress operated radio and television stations, published a newspaper and conducted military raids into government-held territory." [The Washington Post, November 16th 1997] Naturally, this put her on a collision course with Saddam, who could not accept the division of his dominion. Accordingly, the American plan to schedule a cease-fire in August, 1996, was thwarted. Saddam aided the KDP in seizing the PUK strongholds of Irbil and Suleimaniya. America's covert CIA operations were not subject to the scrutiny of the 'International Community', let alone subject to her 'will', as Clinton would put it. For America is not taken in by the lie she sells to the rest of the world. She knows that to believe this lie, would be to accept an impossibility. To have a single will, all the members of the 'International Community' would have to have shared goals in all matters. Impossible, as America has herself proved, by trying to exercise her own will in Iraq. So, why are other nations not to have their own divergent, independent wills? Then again, America would argue that she wishes that all nations one day will have a single will. Hers.As a slap in the face of UN and its bodies claiming to depopulate the Muslim world, 'Iraq' is a clear example of the productivity of man under the Islamic system. In the 8th and the 9th centuries the land of Iraq had a population of 30 million (compared to 18m today). Eighty percent of the population were farmers, there were modern irrigation systems from the Tigris and Euphrates, the Kharaj tax upon irrigated land was 5% versus 10% for land not mechanically irrigated (thereby encouraging agricultural investment). The ratio of yield to seed for Wheat in the Muslim world was 10 to 1 compared to 2.5 to 1 in Europe at the time of Charlemagne."
|
|
|
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
What is the alternative?, 28 Mar 2000
The synopsis does not include any recommendations or alternatives to sanctions regimes in containing the aggression of ruthless regimes such as the Iraqi one. Also knowing Pilgers argument from his recent articles in the Guardian and his documentary in ITV, he accuses the sanctions to be illegal in the international law spectrum. Such claim is not correct, all the United Nations Seucrity Councils resolutions passed in relation to Iraq, were passed with the consent of the members, therefore they stand legal. As for the human suffering in Iraq, the regime must (I emphasis) must be held responsible first. the human rights of the people in Iraq is the responsibility of their government before anyone ells. The regime is using the peeple delibrately to win international public support. What happens when the sanctions lifted? All the westren companies are already awaiting on the Iraqi borders ready to jump in to deal with Saddam again. Do we really want to sell him arms and let him to kill thousands more once again?
|
|
|
|
by Mark Curtis
by John Pilger
by John Pilger
by John Pilger
by Naomi Klein
