Letter to the Editor of The Journeyman newspaper
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:24:36 -0800
Description: The Journeyman newspaper is the official publication of the
Building and Construction Trades Council of Alameda County AFL-CIO, CA.
There are typically six trades that are allowed column space. There are
several articles included in each issue that effect trade unions and working
people in general. On the back of each issue are monthly meeting notices to
26 different trades, from Asbestos Workers to Teamsters. I don't know the
The editor dropped just one paragraph, which was a quote, that wasn't
vitally important. Also not appearing in the published version are the end
note numbers and end notes. The letter filled a half page below an article
with this title: "Unionist join 10 million worldwide to oppose war in
The Editor gave my letter this heading:
Reader "proud" of Journeyman's coverage...adds his own points
I just received the February issue and I want to let you know that I'm
pleased and proud that the editorial board and others in the union movement
have been able to see through the Bush oiligarchy's propaganda campaign. I
tip my hat especially to the Roofer and Waterproofers rep. Tim McCarthy. His
is one of the best, most concise, and most accurate explanation of what this
war is really about. Thanks Tim.
Last month's front page feature "Remembering Martin Luther King," was
wonderful. Previously, I hadn't read more than a single quote at a time of
By the way, I'd like to make some points that need emphasizing. Isn't it a
fact that the Bush regime is terrorizing the Iraqi nation? Doesn't this fact
make the Bush people terrorists? If not, why not? Iraq has never bombed the
U.S., while our government has bombed them almost continuously for twelve
years. The U.N. didn't impose the no fly zones, they were imposed by the
U.S., Britain and France in violation of Iraq's sovereignty. France has
since condemned them. They are in violation of international law.
Article 51 of the UN charter says: "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,... ."
The weapons of mass destruction that Iraq has, or had, were sold to them by
the U.S. One American political comedian (I don't recall who) quipped
"We know they have weapons of mass destruction--we have the receipts."
At the time these awful weapons were sold to them they were known by our
State Department to be intended to be used against the Iranians. Supposedly,
that was okay, and nothing to shout about, because the Iranians were our
enemies at that time. If we want to use the argument that we should attack
Saddam because "he gassed his own people," we should first read Stephen C.
Pelletiere's "A War Crime or an Act of War?" (New York Times, Jan. 31,
2003). Pelletiere, a former CIA senior analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq
war was privy to what was known among intelligence circles and he doubts
that Iraq is guilty of this charge.
One of the arguments that the U.S. has used for creating a stockpile of
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, is that they are a deterrent of
others from attacking us and our interests. If this argument is good for us,
than why not those who are not our allies? Have they no right to obtain
whatever means available to deter greedy people/corporations from attempting
to replace their political leadership (nominal democracy or outright
dictatorship) with a leadership that serves foreign interests?
The talk of replacing Saddam Hussein's dictatorship with a democracy is just
that--talk. Here is what San Mateo's Representative Tom Lantos was found to
say about such matters in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:
"My dear Colette, don't worry," said Tom Lantos, the California congressman,
as he tried to calm MK Colette Avital of the Labor Party, who was visiting
Capitol Hill last week as part of a delegation of the Peace Coalition. "You
won't have any problem with Saddam," the Jewish congressman continued.
"We'll be rid of the bastard soon enough. And in his place we'll install a
pro-Western dictator, who will be good for us and for you." ...
From the first week after 9/11 there were those in the Bush cabinet intent
on claiming that there is evidence that Saddam Hussein is connected with
Osama bin Laden's group. These claims have never stood up to scrutiny. Take
a look at the following commentary:
US/UK peddle Iraq, Al-Qaeda Links
The BBC reports that British Prime Minister Tony Blair said:
"We do know of links between al-Qaeda and Iraq. We cannot
be certain of the nature of these links," Mr. Blair said,
marking the first time the UK has said it believes there
is such a connection.
Yes, links of undetermined nature between a religiously
fanatical organisation led by a man trained by the US and
a secular despot once supported by the US. What could be
the connection? Not surely, the US?
I guess at this point of the proceedings, any lie will do.
Seyed Razavi | January 29, 2003
That both Saddam and Al-Qaeda used to work for America as terrorists is
no lie. Just a deceptive way of putting it, but no less honest than usual.
Frankly people ought to simply assume this is the level of honesty of the
The bottom line is, it is in labor's interest to oppose this war for oil
profits for Bush's buddies, and not be foolishly led into a mess that
already has much of the world hating Americans for our arrogance, hypocrisy
See you all at the anti-war protests.