Posted on 02/19/2003 4:20:58 AM PST by Michael B
Edited on 02/19/2003 6:30:17 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Five important reasons why I don't support a non-UN-backed war on Iraq:
1. Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism. The Iraqis, arabs and muslims around the world will see such a war not only as a war on Islam, but also for what it mostly is about - an imperialistic grab for oil. Anyone doubting this need only consider Iraq's history. The CIA played a hand in overthrowing the government in Iraq in 1963 which led to Saddam's party and thus Saddam himself coming to power. The reason was that the government had moved to nationalise oil (exactly the same thing also happened in Iran). Going back further also gives a long history of the colonial power Britain treating Iraq atrociously in order to control their oil.
Anyone still doubting that oil is a motive behind the war need only consider the Bush Administration's deep ties with the oil industry, read about the English and US oil companies already lobbying over who gets to drill the Iraqi oil (Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world), or consider that a result of the war in Afghanistan was the US finally getting to build a pipeline through the country, or that high oil prices are currently threatening the US economy and could be reliably kept significantly lower if the US were to control Iraq's oil.
2. There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda. The best intelligence agencies (those of the US and Britain) in the world have been working flat out to try and find one, yet both reported no link (despite this fact, both Bush and Blair repeatedly cite information discredited by their own intelligence agencies as evidence of a link - if they are so convinced of the case for war they shouldn't need to lie in presenting it). British intelligence reports that even the possibility of a substantial link is unlikely, given that Osama is in ideological conflict with Saddam (in a recent tape Osama termed Saddam and his regime 'infidels').
3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. At least for his own people he had thus done a better job than most other Middle Eastern leaders, and now we're supposed to be saving his people from him? I'm not saying Saddam is all good, far from it, but he is far from the evil tyrant Bush depicts him to be (i.e. he did not gas his own people as Bush repeatedly claims).
Worth also noting is that the reason an estimated 5000-6000 children die due to starvation and lack of water and medication in Iraq every week is not Saddam or even the UN sanctions, but the fact that the US and UK have blocked the efforts of the oil-for-food program. The two successive UN leaders of the oil-for-food program resigned due to this fact, saying that Saddam had done his best to provide his people with food, and calling what the US and UK were doing 'genocide'.
4. The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny. Iraq probably still has some 'weapons of mass destruction' of course, but an insignificant amount which pales in comparison to that of many other countries (including of course the US and Britain, but also less stable places such as Syria and the nuclear states of North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel).
Saddam has never been a threat to or threatened the US. This brings into question not only the motives for the war but also whether there is any right by international law to initiate one. Saddam's army was pathetic in the Gulf War and is much weaker now. Even CIA Director George Tenet's believes that the probability of Saddam Hussein initiating an attack on the United States is low, however 'should Saddam Hussein conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions'.
Saddam gives no evidence to being the irrational madman that Bush paints him to be (except perhaps when pushed into a corner as mentioned above and as evidenced by him firing missiles at Israel during the first Gulf War). His war on Iran was backed by the US, as was initially his invasion of Kuwait. If we are truly concerned about chemical and biological weapons, we might ask why the US has recently undermined the Chemical Weapons Convention by restricting inspections in the US, killed the Biological Weapons Convention and refused to sign an International Treaty banning germ warfare. We might also ask why the US had to edit Iraq's weapons declaration before releasing it to the public, removing 150 American, British and other foreign companies from it who illegally supplied Iraq's WMD in the first place.
5. The US has a deplorable record of foreign intervention over the past 50 years. One need only look at all the well documented case of democratic governments that have been overthrown by CIA covert action and replaced with dictators (i.e. Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, Iran, Indonesia), or the US's blatant ignoring of the World Court (i.e. in the case of the World Court's ruling of $17 billion in damages to Nicaragua for damages incurred in the US's illegal war on it) and other world organisations' rulings or treaties. Such a country has no right to be playing global cop, and when it does we all end up worse off.
[AM here: I recommend this piece as a rebuttal.]
Failing to confront a demonstrated tyrant with a history of violating his own people's human rights is equivalent to ignoring Kitty Genovese's cries for help. Failing to deal with a demonstrated threat to this country's welfare is to shirk our responsibilities to our people. Failing to enforce the conditions of the 1991 surrender terms is to piss away that victory. Failing to deal with foreign threats to our domestic tranquility is to surrender to petty tyrants and terrorists.
by Patrick Henry.
Quick and Dirty Leftist's Guide to Arguing against the War on Terrorism
Michael B signed up 2003-02-19. This account has been banned.
1. Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism. The Iraqis, arabs and muslims around the world will see such a war not only as a war on Islam, but also for what it mostly is about - an imperialistic grab for oil. Anyone doubting this need only consider Iraq's history. The CIA played a hand in overthrowing the government in Iraq in 1963 which led to Saddam's party and thus Saddam himself coming to power. The reason was that the government had moved to nationalise oil (exactly the same thing also happened in Iran). Going back further also gives a long history of the colonial power Britain treating Iraq atrociously in order to control their oil.Anyone still doubting that oil is a motive behind the war need only consider the Bush Administration's deep ties with the oil industry, read about the English and US oil companies already lobbying over who gets to drill the Iraqi oil (Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world), or consider that a result of the war in Afghanistan was the US finally getting to build a pipeline through the country, or that high oil prices are currently threatening the US economy and could be reliably kept significantly lower if the US were to control Iraq's oil.
Oh, gee, if we defend ourselves, we might be attacked by terrorists!
Someone might attack the World Trade Center!
Our involvement in a Baathist coup in 1963 (the Baath had already taken over in 1957) is incidental to the present crisis.
In fact, it has nothing to do with it.
BTW, if this were about oil, we would have invaded Venezuela. Oil is fungible and can be had anywhere. This is about Saddam's possession of WMD and his ability to hand them off to Al Qaeda cutouts.
If it were only about oil, we would have made a deal with Saddam a long time ago.
Your raising of the Afghan pipeline issue is yet another canard: the fact that some companies want to build a pipeline in Afghanistan does not deny the virtue of our war on terrorism. Remember, we were attacked.
2. There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda. The best intelligence agencies (those of the US and Britain) in the world have been working flat out to try and find one, yet both reported no link (despite this fact, both Bush and Blair repeatedly cite information discredited by their own intelligence agencies as evidence of a link - if they are so convinced of the case for war they shouldn't need to lie in presenting it). British intelligence reports that even the possibility of a substantial link is unlikely, given that Osama is in ideological conflict with Saddam (in a recent tape Osama termed Saddam and his regime 'infidels').
Don't be a stupid git.
It is in AQ's interest to cooperate with a state. They get more goodies that way. Both Bush and Saddam have indicated extensive meetings between Saddam's Mukhabarat and AQ. You just don't want to believe what is in front of your lying eyes. Stating that its a conflict between secularists and fundamentalists doesn't alter the fact that the two sides have a confluence of interests.
You know, it was rather silly of you to raise this point.
3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. At least for his own people he had thus done a better job than most other Middle Eastern leaders, and now we're supposed to be saving his people from him? I'm not saying Saddam is all good, far from it, but he is far from the evil tyrant Bush depicts him to be (i.e. he did not gas his own people as Bush repeatedly claims).Worth also noting is that the reason an estimated 5000-6000 children die due to starvation and lack of water and medication in Iraq every week is not Saddam or even the UN sanctions, but the fact that the US and UK have blocked the efforts of the oil-for-food program. The two successive UN leaders of the oil-for-food program resigned due to this fact, saying that Saddam had done his best to provide his people with food, and calling what the US and UK were doing 'genocide'.
I see. The attack on Halabja never occured.
Saddam has built a regime of terror. He attacked two neighboring countries. Over a million of his people have died as a direct result of his rule. Thousands of people disappear in Iraq every year.
The OFF program continued throughout the nineties. I strongly suggest that Saddam, like his contemporary in Pyongyang, uses his resources for palaces and weaponry. His responsibility is to feed his people. He abdicated that in favor of a regime of terror some time ago.
Your defense of Saddam, like you, is beneath contempt. You should be flogged, sir.
4. The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny. Iraq probably still has some 'weapons of mass destruction' of course, but an insignificant amount which pales in comparison to that of many other countries (including of course the US and Britain, but also less stable places such as Syria and the nuclear states of North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel).Saddam has never been a threat to or threatened the US. This brings into question not only the motives for the war but also whether there is any right by international law to initiate one. Saddam's army was pathetic in the Gulf War and is much weaker now. Even CIA Director George Tenet's believes that the probability of Saddam Hussein initiating an attack on the United States is low, however 'should Saddam Hussein conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions'.
Saddam gives no evidence to being the irrational madman that Bush paints him to be (except perhaps when pushed into a corner as mentioned above and as evidenced by him firing missiles at Israel during the first Gulf War). His war on Iran was backed by the US, as was initially his invasion of Kuwait. If we are truly concerned about chemical and biological weapons, we might ask why the US has recently undermined the Chemical Weapons Convention by restricting inspections in the US, killed the Biological Weapons Convention and refused to sign an International Treaty banning germ warfare. We might also ask why the US had to edit Iraq's weapons declaration before releasing it to the public, removing 150 American, British and other foreign companies from it who illegally supplied Iraq's WMD in the first place.
What a series of lies and half truths.
First, Saddam can, if he so chooses, peddle WMD to Al Qaeda. This is what this war is about. Your inability to see that has less to do with the facts at hand than your denial of the truth.
I would go through your catalogue of lies, but let me cite two that are manifestly not true:
1. There remains vast quantities of unaccounted for WMD that Saddam produced in the nineties. We've only been told about the stuff that Saddam admitted to the inspectorate back in the nineties.
2. We did not approve of the invasion of Kuwait. It was April Glaspie's mistake not the warn Saddam off, but it was not our "plan" to have Saddam conquer Kuwait. This is a lie. You know it's a lie, but you peddled it anyway.
5. The US has a deplorable record of foreign intervention over the past 50 years. One need only look at all the well documented case of democratic governments that have been overthrown by CIA covert action and replaced with dictators (i.e. Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, Iran, Indonesia), or the US's blatant ignoring of the World Court (i.e. in the case of the World Court's ruling of $17 billion in damages to Nicaragua for damages incurred in the US's illegal war on it) and other world organisations' rulings or treaties. Such a country has no right to be playing global cop, and when it does we all end up worse off.
Pardon me, but so the f$#k what?
Whatever we did in Guatemala or Iran has nothing to do with this conflict, save in your addled mind.
You don't want us to see to our national interests? Okay. Maybe you should wish away the results of World War II. Then go practice your German.
You on the left disgust me. Your appeasement of evil is grounded in a hatred of America. You only love America when you rule America, and that will not be happening for a very, very long time.
Now go back to DU and play in your intellectual sandbox. It's all you deserve.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Target practice? yeah, that's it.
anybody remember the name of the nearsighted clown on F Troop who couldn't hit the side of a battleship with a bb?
3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.At least in part by invading and pillaging a small neighbor. Before the Allied "sanctions" Mussolini made the trains run on time.
-Eric
Chowderhead, the act of publicly enumerating (Whoops, better use smaller words for you) paying terrorists' families tens of thousands, to, of course, promote terrorism, is a threat to any thinking person on the face of this planet. Wish away unpleasant thoughts, spend a Saturday or Sunday in a park in concert with others hating america, and chant over and over "No blood for oil" until you are sure it must be the truth.
Besides needing a proofreader, might it be advisable to bring back the Dead Indian Test Pattern when doing a zot?
Thanks for considering. I know that our friends at DU have no lives, and live vicariously through this website.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
This approach at first blush seems to be cowardly and, even if it isn't what it seems, as a principle it makes us defenseless. It plays right into the hands of terrorism. So, if someone murders your family you will do nothing for fear of making their attackers even angrier. You're losing credibilty fast with your first premise.
2. There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda.
I don't care, Saddam is still a huge menace and a resource for all manner of terrorists. What is it about his WMD that you missed? You wait until its proven and the world will be a happier place---not really.
3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.
Before attacking Kuwait Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. Such are vicissitudes of making war...Saddam has brought ruin upon his country.
4. The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny.
We should wait until it gets larger, such as when he nukes Israel.
5. The US has a deplorable record of foreign intervention over the past 50 years.
No it doesn't. You omitting all the good we do daily and have done since WWII. We are the world's largest benefactor, by far. Name one country that has approached the level of our foreign aid program.
In sum, your five points are cowardly, unrealistically idealistic and based upon dangerously false assumptions which do not look at the big picture.
Give war a chance!
Private Vanderbilt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.