Annual Fundraising Appeal

Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
BARBARA EHRENREICH…

BarbaraE

Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle.  We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.

Day8

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
button-store2_19

or use
pp1

 To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

And still they talk of going on because he has "weapons of mass destruction". Even if he does, they’re useless if he can’t deliver them. Economic sanctions have driven the population into misery. Before 1990 the country had a per capita GNP of over $3,000. Today it is under $500, making Iraq one of the […]

Attacking Iraq Brings Nuke Holocaust Closer

by Early 2001, The Bombing Of Iraq Had Lasted Longer Than The US Invasion Of Vietnam.

And still they talk of going on because he has "weapons of mass destruction".

Even if he does, they’re useless if he can’t deliver them.

Economic sanctions have driven the population into misery. Before 1990 the country had a per capita GNP of over $3,000. Today it is under $500, making Iraq one of the poorest nations.

What justification is offered for this?

THAT Saddam’s regime is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Thus the civilized world – read Israel – can never rest until Saddam is killed.

The argument is hollow.

The deadly threat from Iraqi weapons was never a problem as long as the regime in Baghdad was regarded as a friend in Washington and London.

As Iraq crushed Communists at home and fought Iranian mullahs abroad, few apprehensions about its weapons were expressed.

Once the Iraqi regime had turned against Western interests in the Gulf, of course, the possibility of it acquiring nuclear weapons suddenly became an apocalyptic danger.

But this is no longer a valid view. Today the nuclear monopoly of the big powers has collapsed with India and Pakistan getting the weapons.

And Iraq’s own nuclear programme has been thoroughly eradicated.

Even the super-hawk Scott Ritter, the UNSCOM inspector now says there is no chance of its reconstitution. He says the blockade should stop and a new war would be a disaster.

That the Ba’ath regime is a tyranny no one could doubt. That it is unique in its cruelties is an abject fiction.

Turkey, where the Kurdish language is not permitted in schools, has displaced 2 million Kurds from their homelands.

This is much worse than Iraq, where – whatever Saddam’s other crimes – there has never been any attempt at this kind of annihilation. Yet, as a valued member of NATO and candidate for the EU, Turkey suffers not the slightest measure against it.

And the Saudi kingdom makes not even a pretence of keeping human rights. Yet no state in the Arab world is more toasted in Washington.

In killing and torture, Saddam was never a match for President Suharto, whose massacres in Indonesia far exceeded Iraq’s.

But no Third World regime was more prized by the West.

Not a single part of the argument for war stands up.

So what? I’ve heard it said. Blair’s favourite foreign policy man, ex-diplomat Robert Cooper, has said: "We need to get used to double standards."

The maxim underlying this view is that we will punish the crimes of our enemies and reward the crimes of our friends.

This moral blank cheque will increase terrorism.

If Iraq is attacked, the instability in the region will be accompanied by a desire to punish the US and its allies.

The worst-case scenario of a nuclear explosion in the US might well come true.

That’s why a political solution is needed. A war could end badly for all sides.

Tariq Ali is a frequent contributor to CounterPunch. His most recent book is The Clash of Fundamentalism, published by Verso.



















 

And still they talk of going on because he has "weapons of mass destruction". Even if he does, they’re useless if he can’t deliver them. Economic sanctions have driven the population into misery. Before 1990 the country had a per capita GNP of over $3,000. Today it is under $500, making Iraq one of the […]

Attacking Iraq Brings Nuke Holocaust Closer

by Early 2001, The Bombing Of Iraq Had Lasted Longer Than The US Invasion Of Vietnam.

And still they talk of going on because he has "weapons of mass destruction".

Even if he does, they’re useless if he can’t deliver them.

Economic sanctions have driven the population into misery. Before 1990 the country had a per capita GNP of over $3,000. Today it is under $500, making Iraq one of the poorest nations.

What justification is offered for this?

THAT Saddam’s regime is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Thus the civilized world – read Israel – can never rest until Saddam is killed.

The argument is hollow.

The deadly threat from Iraqi weapons was never a problem as long as the regime in Baghdad was regarded as a friend in Washington and London.

As Iraq crushed Communists at home and fought Iranian mullahs abroad, few apprehensions about its weapons were expressed.

Once the Iraqi regime had turned against Western interests in the Gulf, of course, the possibility of it acquiring nuclear weapons suddenly became an apocalyptic danger.

But this is no longer a valid view. Today the nuclear monopoly of the big powers has collapsed with India and Pakistan getting the weapons.

And Iraq’s own nuclear programme has been thoroughly eradicated.

Even the super-hawk Scott Ritter, the UNSCOM inspector now says there is no chance of its reconstitution. He says the blockade should stop and a new war would be a disaster.

That the Ba’ath regime is a tyranny no one could doubt. That it is unique in its cruelties is an abject fiction.

Turkey, where the Kurdish language is not permitted in schools, has displaced 2 million Kurds from their homelands.

This is much worse than Iraq, where – whatever Saddam’s other crimes – there has never been any attempt at this kind of annihilation. Yet, as a valued member of NATO and candidate for the EU, Turkey suffers not the slightest measure against it.

And the Saudi kingdom makes not even a pretence of keeping human rights. Yet no state in the Arab world is more toasted in Washington.

In killing and torture, Saddam was never a match for President Suharto, whose massacres in Indonesia far exceeded Iraq’s.

But no Third World regime was more prized by the West.

Not a single part of the argument for war stands up.

So what? I’ve heard it said. Blair’s favourite foreign policy man, ex-diplomat Robert Cooper, has said: "We need to get used to double standards."

The maxim underlying this view is that we will punish the crimes of our enemies and reward the crimes of our friends.

This moral blank cheque will increase terrorism.

If Iraq is attacked, the instability in the region will be accompanied by a desire to punish the US and its allies.

The worst-case scenario of a nuclear explosion in the US might well come true.

That’s why a political solution is needed. A war could end badly for all sides.

Tariq Ali is a frequent contributor to CounterPunch. His most recent book is The Clash of Fundamentalism, published by Verso.