4 -— Wednesday, February 20, 1991 - North Shore News Little Joe lost in the Gulf War of attrition THIS COLUMN is written the day after the otherwise routine night attack on Baghdad that resulted in a Stealth bomber-launched, laser-guided smart missile killing possibly as many as 500 women and children in an air raid shelter that the Americans say was a military command and control centre and the Iraqis (and most correspondents on the ground) say was used strictly by civilians. Tie debate will no doubt go back and forth, with the hawks on - Bol SERVICE PLUS PEMBERTON PLAZA POSTAL OUTLET Business Cards SONY Laminated 7120 VHS VIDEO TAPE 3.5” High Density Computer Diskettes Key Cutting ‘1 99 f 10 69° ea. Printed Sweatshirts Multiples of 4 please Printed T-Shirts the Allied side dismissing the mas- sacre as being part of yet another evil scheme on the part of Saddam Hussein, deliberately using his own people as shieids or missile- fodder to score propaganda points. The Iraqis were quick to lift censorship restrictions to allow reporters in Baghdad to cover the scene freely, thereby scoring ex- actly the propaganda victory Hus- sein presumably wanted In fact, the swiftness with which Iraqi censors reacted suggests to me that they have been waiting for just this situation, which gives the accusation against Saddam more weight than anything else I can imagine. These fellows are crude in their propaganda efforts, a Se Postage Stamps Reg. $4000x40¢ stamps Adult 99 Now $37H00x40¢ stamps Sizes with this coupon S\M,U,XL FREE! Helium Balloons for kids or the young at heart One balioon per coupon Children Size 4-6x Size 710 Adult Sizes * Sale ends 2/23/91 § p.m. * Coupons required for special prices * We reserve the right to limit quantities 1268 Marine Drive, N.Van. (peste save-on) 9GB3-2032 STRICTLY PERSONAL no doubt about it. Yet the deaths themselves were as real as they were utterly pre- dictable, despite the repeated assurances from George Bush that civilians aren’t the targets in his attack upon Iraq. How can anyone — even an American president equipped with the highest-tech weapons ever in- vented — seriously fantasize that he can drop the equivalent in ex- plosive tonnage of a Hiroshima bomb every day on a country and not kill a whole mess of non- combatants? And then there’s silly little Joe Clark, scurrying about, bleating that ‘‘Canadians have a right to know if there was an error.”’ There was an error, all right, Joe. And you and your totally- out-of-touch-with-reality boss made it, namely by committing Canada’s armed forces to a war against Iraq that didn’t need to be fought. No one will ever know for sure how long it would have taken for sanctions to force Saddam out of Kuwait, but at the time the Allied attack was launched, the sanctions had managed in a few short months to cut off 90 per cent of iraq’s trade with the warld. At that point, they were the most effective sanctions ever ap- plied against a country in history. And in the meantime, Iraq’s cam- paign of aggression had been halted in its tracks. What is going on now is a slaughter, not a war. It bears no more resemblance to a traditional “war’? — soldiers fighting soldiers — than the killing of seal pups ever deserved to be called a “hunt.”” Iraq’s foreign minister said, after the bombing of the bunker, that ‘‘the Iraqi people hold all the parties involved in these crimes responsible.”’ That strikes me as perhaps the first fair comment from the Iraqi side since the war began. Until now, Pentagon briefing officers have been getting away with using the horrific euphemism “collateral damage’’ to describe the impact of the war on non- military targets, i.e. ordinary human beings. Hundreds of women and children burning to death in an underground inferno cannot be called ‘‘collateral dam- age,’’ except by a monster. Nor can any missile used in such an attack, no matter how packed with solid state computers, be called ‘‘smart.”’ As for us smug and/or indif- ferent Canadians sitting safely at home, watching ihe war on televi- sion or reading about it over cof- fee, 1 hope the massacre, if it does nothing else, at least wakes us up to the fact that we are as guilty collectively as is the pilot of the Stealth that delivered the bomb. Who mass-murdered those in- nocent women and children? Brian Mulroney did, along with little Joe and the Tory hacks, in- cluding defence minister Biil McKnight and the North Shore’s own Mary Collins. Good work, warriors and warrioresses! Hope you're sleeping well, wrapped in visions of Maple Leafs flying proud and high. Who else murdered those Iraqi women and their sons and daugh- ters? Let’s see. There’s Jean Chretien and his Grit hacks, who started off having the gut sense to oppose the war, but then turned and blew with the winds of propaganda- whipped opinion, rather than stick to a principled stand. The decision by George Bush to continue the aerial bombardment of Iraq and Kuwait is based, he says, on the desire to minimize Allied tosses in a ground war where Saddam’s shockingiy-for- midable army could wreak havoc. I use the word ‘‘shockingly”’ because nearly half of Iraq’s ar- maments were supplied by the same Western and Arab powers that are now arrayed against him. From an American perspective, bombing the enemy instead of fighting him man-to-man makes plenty of sense, even if there is no way it can be described as heroic. It is about as ‘‘heroic’’ as crushing hird’s eggs under your doots. (Frankly, | can’t imagine any- thing more cowardly than carpet-bombing a city from high- altitude B-52s, especially when there are no fighter jets to deal with — unless, of course, it is to fly sweep-and-escort missions for such flights.) There are persistent reports (who knows if they’re true or not?) that the Iraqi military has been drafting 17-year-olds and sending them to the front in Kuwait, where, if they attempt to desert, they are shot by the so- called ‘‘elite’’ Republican Guards, and if they do not desert they are bombed day and night by high- flying Allied quasi-spaceships equipped with infra-red sensors. The whole thing is obscene. Our role in it — I’m talking about Canadians — is obscene. Saddam is, of course, obscene. A LT TD The recent approval of pension reforn legisiation means that, starting in the 1991 taxation year, there will be a more flexible system with uniform limits for all Canadians who contribute to pension and RRSP savings. It does not affect RRSP limits for your 1990 return. What are the limits for my 1990 return? As in past years, if you participate in a pension plan or deferred profit-sharing plan, the RRSP contribution you can make is 20% of your eared income up to a maximum of $3,500, minus your contributions to your pension plan. All others can contribute 20% of their earned income up to a maximum of $7,500. You have until March 1, 1991 te make your contribution for your 1990 return. What are the changes for the 1991 taxation year? First, your 1991 contribution limit is based on your 1990 eamed income. The new limit for the 1991 taxation year is 18% of your 1990 earned inccme up to a maximum of $11,500 minus an amount called “PA" for those participating in a pension plan or deferred profit-sharing plan. For ail others, it's 18% of 1990 eamed income up to a maximum of $11,520. If you can't use the full amount in one year, it isn't fost. You can carry forward the balance until you use it, for up to 7 years. What is “PA”? “PA’, in Box 52 of your 1990 T4 slip, stands for pension adjustment. You do not need this number to complete your 1990 tax retum. Revenue Canada Taxation will use the “PA” number to calculate trow much you can contribute tax-free to an RRSP for your 1991 fax retum. Revenue Canada will send you a statement in the fall that lets you know how much that contribution can be. Your employer can tell you how your “PA” was caiculated. Where can I find out more? For more details, contact your district taxation office and ask for a copy of the Pension and RRSP Tax Guide. Revenue Canada Taxation — People With Answers.