Now Turkey says no! This people power thing is really picking up steam.
Today, your thoughts on the state of play.And again, sorry in advance if your piece hasn’t got a run – I’m overwhelmed with war emails and can’t even read all of them. If I’ve missed a pearler, please resend.
I’ve been thinking about John Wojdylo’s statement that the Iraqi people want to be liberated, regardless of the cost in human life. Is this true? Some refugees exiles seem to think so, although they, of course, aren’t at risk, and others are against the war. The only Iraqi voice so far on Webdiary is Zainab Al-Badry, who wrote in Saddam’s will to power last September:
“Like any Iraqi, nothing is dearer to my heart than to live long enough to witness the day my country and my people are set free from this dictator and his regime. However, can anyone blame us if we do not trust the US and back its efforts to oust Saddam? I have been in Iraq during the Gulf war and witnessed how the American troops abandoned my people and left them to the mercies of Saddam and his thugs. Why would I trust the US again? I have no doubt now that the US wants to get rid of Saddam – what I don’t accept (and indeed I find it insulting to my intelligence) is someone telling me (or the whole world for that matter) that the US is doing so for all the good reasons in the world, or that oil is a “secondary factor”. Would the US or any of its allies send their armies and incur all those heavy expenses if Iraq didn’t happen to float on oil?”
If John is right, then there is a moral case for war. It’s hard to imagine a people wanting to be invaded to be liberated, but after reading John’s several pieces on Saddam’s brutality, I can believe it. But we would need to be sure it’s true before we’d go in, and you’d think the Iraqi people would want some assurances that civilian casualties would be minimised.
The ten most read Webdiary entries in February were:
1. Disrobe to disarm, Feb 4
2. Anti-Gravity and us, January 28
3. Murdoch: Cheap oil the prize, Feb 13
4. Sydney walks in numbers too big to ignore, Feb 16
5. The D’hage report, Feb 16
6. Spiders spread in all directions, Feb 20
7. Do you believe George Bush? Feb 27
8. Collecting the debris, Feb 3
9. Waiting for war, Feb 10
10. Shroud over Guernica, Feb 5
The top five referring websites were dailyrotten, clothesfree, yahoonewsantiwarmovement, timblairblogspot and whatreallyhappened.
Correction: I stuffed up the other day when I said I couldn’t link to the Wall Street Journal for John Howard’s comment piece called ‘You Can’t ‘Contain’ Saddam’. The link is wsj
Recommendations
Daniel Frybort: “I’m a big fan of Webdiary and your bold, straightforward style and this is the first time I’ve written you. I wanted to recommend this article in The Observer – proof that the US government is spying on and bugging the smaller security council members to gain influence in their decision on the Iraq decision. It shows the sly underhandedness of the US government, trying to gain information illegally at the same time as bullying these countries with economic might. I think this story should come out as loud as possible – it’s not often the NSA puts their foot in it and leaks a significant spying story like this.” Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war – plus the full text of the leaked memo.
Lynette Dumble: “Michele Landsberg’s latest column in the Toronto Star is another of her gems: Highlights the abysmal failure of US-designed operations in Afghanistan; provides viewing details for the premiere of Sally Armstrong’s latest documentary The Daughters of Afghanistan (CBC Newsworld at 10 PM, Sunday March 2); and offers some excellent advice to one of Bush Jnr’s media lapdogs, The National Post, re the oily motivations of American wars in Central Asia and the Middle East. star.
Peter Kelly: See latimes for the Russia angle. It’s an example of how the coalition of the “willing” is built. Coercion, bribery and blackmail – all the qualities of “freedom”.
George Crones: Here’s something for everyone to keep track of no matter what their position is on the looming war: iraqbodycount. Not sure how accurate it will end up being, but it is an interesting concept.
Scott Burchill recommends Michelle Grattan’s piece A powerful group of advocates! on the personnel of a new backbench committee to spin for Howard on the war.
Sarah Moles recommends William Rivers Pitt’s Blood Money, which sets out the ideological underpinnings of Bush’s speech last week.
Jon Moore: “Here is an interesting little quiz for your readers edification that was sent through the Quaker Peacenet by an American Quaker (jesuschristians).”
Do you know enough to justify going to war with Iraq?
1. What percentage of the world’s population does the U.S. have? 6%
2. What percentage of the world’s wealth does the U.S. have? 50%
3. Which country has the largest oil reserves? Saudi Arabia
4. Which country has the second largest oil reserves? Iraq
5. How much is spent on military budgets a year worldwide? $900+ billion
6. How much of this is spent by the U.S.? 50%
7. What percent of US military spending would ensure the essentials of life to everyone in the world, according the the UN? 10% (that’s about $40 billion, the amount of funding initially requested to fund our retaliatory attack on Afghanistan).
8. How many people have died in wars since World War II? 86 million
9. How long has Iraq had chemical and biological weapons? Since the early 1980’s.
10. Did Iraq develop these chemical & biological weapons on their own? No, the materials and technology were supplied by the US government, along with Britain and private corporations.
11. Did the US government condemn the Iraqi use of gas warfare against Iran? No
12. How many people did Saddam Hussein kill using gas in the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988? 5,000
13. How many western countries condemned this action at the time? 0
14. How many gallons of agent Orange did America use in Vietnam? 17million.
15. Are there any proven links between Iraq and September 11th terrorist attack? No
16. What is the estimated number of civilian casualties in the Gulf War? 35,000
17. How many casualties did the Iraqi military inflict on the western forces during the Gulf War? 0
18. How many retreating Iraqi soldiers were buried alive by U.S. tanks with ploughs mounted on the front? 6,000
19. How many tons of depleted uranium were left in Iraq and Kuwait after the Gulf War? 40 tons
20. What according to the UN was the increase in cancer rates in Iraq between 1991 and 1994? 700%
21. How much of Iraq’s military capacity did America claim it had destroyed in 1991? 80%
22. Is there any proof that Iraq plans to use its weapons for anything other than deterrence and self defence? No
23. Does Iraq present more of a threat to world peace now than 10 years ago? No
24. How many civilian deaths has the Pentagon predicted in the event of an attack on Iraq in 2003? 10,000
25. What percentage of these will be children? Over 50%
26. How many years has the U.S. engaged in air strikes on Iraq? 11 years
27. Were the U.S and the UK at war with Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999? No
28. How many pounds of explosives were dropped on Iraq between December 1998 and September 1999? 20 million
29. How many years ago was UN Resolution 661 introduced, imposing strict sanctions on Iraq’s imports and exports? 12 years
30. What was the child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1,000 births)? 38
31. What was the estimated child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1,000 births)? 131 (that’s an increase of 345%)
32. How many Iraqis are estimated to have died by October 1999 as a result of UN sanctions? 1.5 million
33. How many Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to Sanctions since 1997? 750,000
34. Did Saddam order the inspectors out of Iraq? No
35. How many inspections were there in November and December 1998? 300
36. How many of these inspections had problems? 5
37. Were the weapons inspectors allowed entry to the Ba’ath Party HQ? Yes
38. Who said that by December 1998, Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history? Scott Ritter, UNSCOM chief.
39. In 1998 how much of Iraq’s post 1991 capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction did the UN weapons inspectors claim to have discovered and dismantled? 90%
40. Is Iraq willing to allow the weapons inspectors back in? Yes
41. How many UN resolutions did Israel violate by 1992? Over 65
42. How many UN resolutions on Israel did America veto between 1972 and 1990? A: 30+
43. How much does the U.S. fund Israel a year? $5 billion
44. How many countries are known to have nuclear weapons? 8
45. How many nuclear warheads has Iraq got? 0
46. How many nuclear warheads has US got? Over 10,000
47. Which is the only country to use nuclear weapons? The US
48. How many nuclear warheads does Israel have? Over 400
49. Has Israel ever allowed UN weapons inspections? No
50. What percentage of the Palestinian territories are controlled by Israeli settlements? 42%
51. Is Israel illegally occupying Palestinian land? Yes
52. Which country do you think poses the greatest threat to global peace: Iraq or the U.S.? ????
53. Who said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter”? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
***
Mr M Mercurius in Summer Hill NSW
Words or deeds? How activist are Web Diary readers and writers?
Webdiarists (and, I presume their readers) seem to me a pretty impassioned, committed lot, at least on paper. But I would like to know what else Webdiarists do to pursue the positions they espouse through other forms of activism? This is not to belittle the written word, as writing to Webdiary is a public act and a form of activism in itself. Rather, I am interested to know how we complement our words with action.
This question arises from a personal belief that, if I hold a particular view, I should take practical steps to back it. I should get my hands dirty, lest Paddy McGuinness brand me a member of the chattering classes. And I am active on a range of issues, although not in the high-profile, public manner of marches and speeches. I prefer grass-roots activities and I espouse the think global, act local philosophy. I hope that the little contribution I make as an individual improves the world a little, and makes my life more meaningful than just being a passive receptacle for events.
Activism can take many forms, some public, like marches or writing to Webdiary. Others require privacy and secrecy to be effective. I cite the French Resistance or the so-called underground railroad that smuggled Negro slaves out of southern U.S. states.
Activism can also be more, or less, direct. There are direct forms, like lobbying, working in a soup kitchen, or chaining yourself to a tree. Then there are less direct forms, like donating to causes you like, sponsoring a child through a program, etc.
Would other Webdiarists like to share how they pursue their causes and why they think the particular form of activism they take is worthwhile? I’m not asking you to out yourself as belonging to any particular group or lobby, especially if this would compromise the effectiveness of what you are doing – merely hoping you will describe whether (and how) you back up your Webdiary writings with other kinds of action. Conversely, if you don’t act, why not?
I would like to return to this point, via a meandering path that touches on the arguments of Why the peoples instinct can be wrong. (An aside – congratulations to John Wojdylo and David Makinson on their latest contributions. They are always must-reads for me and I find myself agreeing with about 95% of what both have to say, so I don’t know why they continue to find themselves in conflict)
A reflection on John W’s piece. Of course the people can be wrong, nobody ever said they were infallible. A person is clever, but people are stupid. I delight in the quote of the unknown statesmen of ancient Athens, who asked “Have I said something foolish?” upon being cheered by the crowd!
But seriously, there is the inherent danger for a democracy to become in effect a tyranny of the majority. The simplistic idea of majority rule is indistinguishable from might makes right. The Westminster system anticipates this risk, which is why our democracies are so successful, so lasting, so garrulous, so prone to delay, so susceptible to lobbyists, splinter-groups and farce. Because we dont allow a simple fast-track of whatever the people want.
Now to illustrate what the people might do with the knowledge they are, or were, wrong. The German people, for example, have taken ownership of how wrong they were from 1933-1945. Their ability to recognise, own and remain mindful of their wrongdoing finds its physical manifestation in the Holocaust Museum.
There is yet to appear in Australia any comparable edifice to house the Australian peoples recognition of our own First People. The National Museum of Australia comes closest, but even now is facing review and downsizing of its indigenous peoples display. How long will it take to heal this amnesia in our national psyche?
And although I did not join the anti-war marches, largely for the reasons outlined by John W, I nevertheless rejoice that so many Australians marched for anything at all. I delight in the unruliness and untidiness of popular activism, because I find it preferable to a passive and inert populace, and the clinical hyper-rationalism of modern political discourse. I want to see as many people marching, reading, writing and acting as possible, on as many issues as possible, especially if I disagree with them, because such is the vigour on which our democracy thrives. I will always march or write or act in opposition if I disagree.
Existentially, the only way to know if something is worth doing is to ask yourself whether it would still be worth doing even if nobody else ever knew about it. This automatically excludes all public forms of activism (including writing to Webdiary), but it reaches to the heart of the private, personal choices we all make on a daily basis. From the soft-hearted anonymous donations we make from our comfortable homes, to the bravery of political prisoners who suffer torture and die because they wont give up their cause, yet are utterly forgotten by the outside world.
The whole edifice of human rights has been centuries in the making, and is comprised of countless unknown and unsung actions by forgotten individuals. Only by acting to preserve and add to this inheritance can we honour their deeds. Now, which brick in this wall are you?
***
Alan Kelley
Your comment piece in Incompatible Values seems to be incompatible with reality. Some time ago, those who currently control US policy decided that they wished to attack, invade and then either occupy Iraq or set up a compliant regime. The American forces will be accompanied by those of its two vassal states, Britain and Australia.
The UN is almost certainly unable to prevent this action, but to endorse it, I believe, would be folly.
If the Security Council does give the seal of approval to the US invasion of Iraq it will change nothing. It will still be the US invasion of Iraq. The military will not be under UN control. The war will be no kinder. There is no reason to think the number of dead will be fewer. The fact of UN compliance will do little to minimise or placate the Arab response.
And the ability of the UN to materially influence what the Americans do afterward will be minimal. Your What if? in relation to the idea of trading UN support for war with a genuine US support for a Palestinian state is simply fanciful, and your confidence in the Bush speech rather naive.
For a succinct comment on that I’d refer you to Robert Fisk’s latest, America Uses Israel’s Words To Justify Occupation.
It’s essential that what happens next should be seen by the World and by history as America’s war and Blair’s war – and, to the extent that the atrocious little man is actually remembered by history, John Howard’s war.
***
Daniel Maurice
What do I think og George Bush’s speech? I don’t think Bush Jnr is any brains trust, but the left liberal view of him as evil, mad and/or a creature of his dad’s Texas oil cronies is also overblown.
Is the world better of with a dominant power or not? It depends. For all its faults the US is a startlingly open and vibrant political, economic and cultural system (which is why it got to be the world power it is today in the first place). I think that having the USA as the dominant global power is better than just a gaggle of pint size nation states which will always be a rabble of conflicting self interests and back-room deals when it comes to dealing with major international issues.
I’d also vastly prefer an American superpower to a world dominated by the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany or modern day China, India, Britain, France or any Islamic state (the latter because of Islam’s subjugation of women and its aggressive and profound intolerance of other societies and values).
Clearly Bush is articulating an heroic and ambitious view of a post-Saddam world because of the international community’s sceptical response to earlier arguments put for Saddam’s removal, as well as the perceived need to counter the loopy left’s paranoia about his (and the USA’s) “real” agenda. The latter will, of course, never change their views as they are blinded by self-righteous hatred of their political opponents.
However I’m prepared to take at face value that Bush truly does want democracy and liberation for the Iraqi people and that he perceives the opportunity for a change in Iraq to provide a circuit breaker in the Israeli/Palestine conflict. Could this happen? Yes, but you wouldn’t put money on it.
The strength of the Jewish vote in the US (combined with a lingering sense that the West “owes” the Jews because of their extraordinary suffering in WW2), the absolute intransigence of both Israel and the Palestinians/Arabs and the legacy of atrocities on both sides makes it just about impossible to see how this problem will be solved for generations.
But this is not a reason to resile from military action against Saddam. I agree with Bush that any realistic outcome of such action will leave ordinary Iraqis (and the world generally) better off. There is no alternative, unless you believe in fairy stories, and I don’t.
Finally, I thought that Bush’s remarks were very powerfully crafted. Depending on how things go in Iraq, I share your assessment in Bush vision that it truly could become one of the defining speeches of the new century.
***
Rod Lever
Do we not see that George W Bush is simply dumber than dumb? He is being played for a sucker by Saddam. The longer those 250,000 troops hang around the Gulf with nothing to do the more it’s costing the US and the more restive and bored they will become. He has to start the war, and soon. The moment he does trouble will break out elsewhere, probably Afghanistan. A massive assault on Kabul, say, by the re-emerging warlords.
But by then Bush will have lost all his credibility and world opinion will have hardened even more against the US. Osama bin Laden announced in one of his audio tapes a while back that his next assault would be on the US economy. A fine way to do this is to split his war machine and make him keep moving it around the world. This is not to say that Osama and Saddam are necessarily working together. They just have similar objectives.
***
Chris Munson
So the US topples Saddam and relaces him with a “friendly” government. then what? What happens afterwards when there is an internal uprising, or the Iraqis vote for a non secular government? Will the US continue to impose the standards it espouses today?
As a beginning of the New World Order, the “Alliance of the Willing” or “Fellowship of the Ring” will install freedom and a new government (but perhaps not democracy) in Iraq after it removes Saddam from power.
But I wonder, what does the Fellowship do, when another Iraqi political or military group topples the new leadership in one or two or five years time – Does the Fellowship invade again?
The argument of “change of government for world peace” simply cannot hold up over time. They (or we) cannot forever topple governments which are judged by remote western standards as being “unjust” or “belligerent”, or perhaps The Fellowship may simply not like that country for assisting rebellious groups, just as Cuba, Libya and China assisted Nelson Mandela.
I also wonder which country is next? Perhaps The Fellowship will continue along the axis of evil, and then settle all the other contentious world issues. No, I don’t think so, not while Israel still refuses to comply with 20 or so UN orders and the US stands back and says nothing.
But now, I’ll stop wondering for a while, because I think there may be another reason behind this Iraqi invasion scenario. I’ll let you know when I find proof.
***
Barry Preston in Europe
It was France who supplied all the tech’ know-how for Iraq’s nuclear ambitions 20 years ago at Tamuz. All Saddam’s neighbours must be bloody happy that Isreal broke all the rules by blowing it to pieces. The French are still waiting to be paid millions of dollars by Iraq! That’s why Chirac is keeping sweet by vetoeing the any new UN moves: He hopes Saddam will appreciate the French treachery and pay the long overdue bill.
***
Colin McKerlie in Perth, Western Australia
As usual the compliant media has avoided insight in favour of sensation and compliance with their bosses in the “analysis” of what is happenning in Iraq. While the ridiculous comparison of Saddam to Hitler is daily repeated, the more apt role model is carefully ignored.
There is no modern leader more like Saddam than Tito, and Tito’s Yugoslavia is the historical forerunner of what is about to play out in Iraq. Of course Tito ruled Yugoslavia during an age when world leaders were trying to avoid wars rather than start them, so he was left alone.
For forty-five years, Tito ruled Yugoslavia with an iron fist, and so successful was his rule the before he died Western tourists were making the economy of Yugoslavia viable. Once his iron grip was lost, the ethnic divisions which had been kept in check were quickly inflamed.
There are now four armies based on ethnic groups in Iraq either already in the country or waiting in Iran for the opportunity to sweep into Iraq and take power in the chaos which will follow an American invasion. Only a fool would have any hope of peace in post-war Iraq.
If Saddam Hussein is deposed by an American invasion, Iraq will be plunged into a decade of warfare which will make the bitter wars in the Balkans look tame. The weekend’s debacle at the Arab League meeting shows us there is no Arabic NATO to control what will happen in Iraq.
The Americans have almost never taken on the role of peacekeepers in any country. They put troops into Somalia, until they took a few casualties, and they did take control of Granada and Panama, but those tiny dots of countries are nothing like an ethnically diverse Iraq.
Tito was never portrayed as an “evil dictator” by the West, but a dictator he was and his capacity for brutality demonstrated during the War against the Germans and the Chetniks was what gave him the power to rule an artificial country created by the great powers, just like Iraq.
While in every other country on Earth, groups like the Kurds in the north or the Shia armies already in Iraq or on the Iranian border would be declared terrorist groups, the new universal tag for the people many would still call freedom fighters. But in Iraq, America arms them.
It is interesting in itself trying to find words for the Axis of Anglo Evil now formed by the three countries willing to launch an illegal invasion of Iraq. Exactly how do you characterise this group. You can’t call them “Western” or “English speaking” or “NATO” or even “Anglo”.
America, Britain and Australia constitute a very strange little group that defies classification, not because of any characteristic they share, but because so many other countries refuse to join them. There are many Western, English-speaking, Anglo countries who aren’t there.
But then, if you take Canada out – polluted by all those French Canadians, and if you leave out Ireland and New Zealand – too small to matter, and if you regard South Africa’s English speaking status as questionable, given all those Afrikaaners, “Anglo” is about right.
We are very close to creating a situation where all the hatred and all the terror which will be generated by an invasion of Iraq will be focussed on the three Anglo countries which now have troops in the Gulf. Being Australian is going to become a very dangerous status.
We are going to be at the centre of the great revival of racism in the 21st century. Being white, speaking English, with a Union Jack on our backpacks, Australians make exceptionally easy targets. Being an Aussie will become like being an Israeli. Bombings will become standard.
***
Tony Kevin
To the Ambassadors to the United Nations of France, Russia, China, UK, Bulgaria, Cameroun, Guinea, Mexico, Syria,Angola, Chile, Germany, Spain, Pakistan: Email dated 3 March 2003 from former Australian diplomat Tony Kevin.
Your Excellencies:
Very large numbers of Australians do not support Prime Minister John Howard’s reckless and unthinking support for the US and UK preparations to make war on Iraq. We do not believe the case for war has been made.
A design fault in a missile allowing it to make a strategically irrelevant 33 km overflight beyond the UN-permitted 150 km range is a derisory pretext for a war that will kill 500,000 Iraqi people and render 900.000 homeless. The stated political objectives of this war are not comrnensurate with the huge human suffering it will bring to the Iraqi people, which cannot be compensated by any restitution afterwards. One does not make peace through making war. The risks to our own children’s security will be greatly increased if Australia takes part in this unprovoked aggressive war.
Such views are shared not only by ordinary respectable Australians of all ages but also include leading community figures like former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, retired senior Australian military leaders eg former chief of the defence forces General Peter Gration, retired former senior diplomats like former Foreign Affairs head Richard Woolcott and former ambassadors Richard Butler, Ronald Walker and myself, and senior members of Mr Howard’s Liberal Party. There is a remarkable consensus against this war spanning all parties and war veterans’ groups, that I have not seen in my lifetime and I am 60.
The UN Security Council must maintain the integrity of its responsibilities under the Charter. If this unprovoked aggression goes ahead no country will be safe from great power bullying in future. I am no defender of Saddam’s regime but the UNSC must look to its global responsibilities for peace and security. Please advise your governments not to be browbeaten by the US and UK into giving any kind of endorsement to this war. Stand firm on the wisdom of the UN Charter, and make these powers wear the full opprobium of being aggressors in this war. The precedent is vital for world peace in future.
And please understand that the Australian Ambassador Mr John Dauth, who I am sure is doing a diligent professional job of lobbying your Excellencies in support of the Anglo-American position under Mr Howard’s instructions, does not represent the majority views of the Australian people.
I have no doubt – and opinion polls in Australia support this – that if there was a referendum on whether Australia should join an Anglo-American attack on Iraq without a clear UNSC endorsement, the referendum would produce a decisive No vote. There is still time for sanity to prevail. Please urge your governments to stick to the UN principles and defend the only international system of peace and security that the world has.
As to my credentials, I was Australia’s First Committee (peacekeeping and disarmament) representative at the UN from 1974 to 1976, under Ambassadors McIntyre and Harry . For the first year, Australia was on the Security Council. I was an Australian diplomat for 30 years and retired honourably in 1998, after six years as Ambassador to Poland Czech Republic and Slovakia, and finally to Cambodia.
***
Max Phillips
Disclosure: Max is a member of the greens
You wrote: “The thought of a US attack without UN sanction scares me to death. I’m desperate for a resolution to this nightmare which doesn’t split the free world, gives Muslim nations cast iron assurances that it’s not a war on Islam and that the US isn’t guilty of appalling double standards, and reassures the Iraqi people that freedom is a real prospect.” (Do you believe George Bush?)
I think the problem would be if the UN rubber stamped a US attack (which most intelligent, openminded person – not necessarily the great vacilators of Webdiary – must agre is unjustified and aggressive). If the UN capitulated to US bullying then it really would lose its credibility (exactly the opposite of what Bush’s doublespeak!), especially in the eyes of the Islamic populations.
As for the “free world”, I’m not sure what that is? Sounds like a simplistic Dubya propaganda phrase. Perhaps he’s referring to the masters as opposed tothe slaves?
The great irony is if the UN actually stops the Anglo imperial war it might actually strengthen its role and importance!
Check out the background of your beloved Blair’s Spanish friend at Aznar: Bush’s Best Friend in Continental Europe. Not very pretty. I guess today’s holocaust deniers and “reformed” facsists are also the saviours of democracy and human rights? An extract:
Aznar himself is a son of a prominent Francoist family and during the fascist dictatorship was a member of the fascist party. When democracy was reestablished in Spain, Aznar advocated against approving the new Democratic Constitution. In the right-wing press, he once criticized the Basque town of Guernica (destroyed by Nazi aviation, as immortalized in the Picasso painting that carries its name) for renaming its main square: newly democratic municipality changed the name from Caudillo Franco’s Square (the name every Spanish town had to give to its main square during the fascist regime) to Liberty Square. Aznar accused the Guernica municipality of revenge. He wanted the main square to retain Franco’s name and Franco’s statue. Aznar has never condemned or even criticized the Franco regime, and his cabinet also contains several ex-members of the fascist party – who also have never denounced that regime.” (Margo: For an analysis of why the UN took down Picasso’s Guernica masterpiece on the horrors of war before Colin Powell addressed the security council, see buzzflash.)