Time to ReTH!NK, America

Back to previous page.

Home | Site Map | Site Info (straight) | Site Search Engine | How to surf this site ?

© Dec 2002 - Bill Moore YellowTimes.org Guest Columnist (United States)

Several weeks ago, the New York Times reported on the anti-war protest in Washington, D.C. in diametrically opposing ways. Its first account stated that the turnout for the rally opposing war with Iraq was "light" and that organizers were "disappointed." It estimated the crowd of protesters in the "hundreds".

Then by mid-week, it printed a second account of the rally, this one buried deep in the paper, reporting that more than a 100,000 people had turned out. Estimates from the U.S. Park Service and event organizers ranged as high as a quarter million, making it one of the largest peaceful anti-war demonstrations since the Gulf War. In what amounted to an unofficial correction of its weekend story, the Times noted that organizers were now overwhelmed and amazed by the size of the turnout.

In fact, the peaceful movement to protest any future war with Iraq appears to be gaining momentum. Peace demonstrations of this size during the Vietnam War didn't occur until four to five years after its official escalation. And the protests aren't just limited to the "radical" coasts of America. A crowd estimated at 450,000 turned out in London some weeks ago protesting Britain's intended role in any war in Iraq, while in Italy, an estimated 1.5 million took to the streets in peaceful demonstration against the war.

What is also clear is that a majority of the protesters have made the connection between oil and war, despite what White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer says. Many carried signs saying, "No blood for oil." Even British Petroleum's Chief Executive Lord Browne warned Washington not to "carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of any future war."

The Manchester Guardian noted that Browne's comments "serve to underline concern that the U.S. is primarily concerned with seizing control of Saddam Hussein's oil and handing it over to companies such as ExxonMobil rather than destroying his weapons of mass destruction."

The very fact that the oil question has been so obviously downplayed by the Bush administration only underscores its central importance in this debate, as more than one newspaper editorial in the U.S. has noted. Oil is the issue, not weapons of mass destruction.

North Korea admits it not only has the bomb but also missiles capable of possibly hitting North America, certainly Japan and China, and it gets a slap on the wrist. Iraq isn't even close to having a bomb and its one remote controlled MIG-21 has a range of a few hundred miles, yet the White House is ready to send 100,000 troops into deadly urban warfare with defective chemical warfare suits and little urban combat training.

All this serves to highlight a growing awareness that America -- and much of the rest of the developed world -- has become addicted to oil, and we're making little effort to break the habit. Last week, the E.P.A. released its latest fuel efficiency numbers for the 2003 model year. It turns out that the average fuel economy ratings for this shiny new fleet of car and trucks is now the lowest in 16 years! Tragically, like some freaked-out "crackhead," we now actually seem increasingly willing to kill people for it....

The original contains as well information about latest alternative energy applications for cars.

More reasons not to invade Iraq and the documentation for the above information can be found at http://www.yellowtimes.org/

Back to previous page.

Home | Site Map | Site Info (straight) | Site Search Engine | How to surf this site ?

kirsnellew - robots