Before dismissing it, please note that the website (http://www.bevin.de) also contains a heap of references backing up what the essay argues.
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.
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!
Disagree. Destabilizing areas that support terrorists makes it more difficult for terror cells to operate. Keep in mind cells in the US draw upon support activities from areas in the Mideast.
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 still doubting that oil is a motive behind the war need only consider the Bush Administration's deep ties with the oil industry...
If this is about oil, why has the Administration done nothing to end the general strike in Venezuela? That would have a more significant and immediate impact on oil prices than war with Iraq. What's more, the President's "oil buddies" would likely benefit more by drilling right here in America versus in Iraq. Your argument makes no sense.
There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda.
This is also somewhat problematic for me. However, reasonable inferences can be made about the WMD Saddam has pursued, and his willingness to supply terrorists with these weapons.
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? 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 more accurate reason is because Saddam has directed available funds away from building infrastructure to help Iraq's citizens, and toward building a military. Saddam himself to is blame for the deplorable conditions in his country.
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).
The difference is Saddam's willingness to use his WMD on civilians, even if it means delivering them through terrorist attacks.
And that's a beautiful thing......
Terror is not new.
When the consequences of using terror exceed the hoped for gains, the terror will stop.
When you look at what terrorists hoped to gain by summarily executing 3000 civilians working in our financial center, you have to conclude that THEY BELIEVED THEY COULD TAKE OUR ECONOMY DOWN, and thereby our country. The zeal of the suicide pilots would not have been possible without this belief. It has now become painfully obvious to potential suicide bombers that no such outcome is possible.
The rout in Afghanistan was the first in a series of psychological blows which will eliminate terror as a weapon to be used against the US. Remember, our enemy is terror, and the potential perpetrators reside in the entire Middle East, not just within al-Qaeda. When Iraq falls, the US will no longer need to beg (and pay billions) for a base in Saudi Arabia, as we will have one in Iraq.
When Iraq falls, ten percent of the world's oil will be under the control of the Great Satan, dealing a death blow to OPEC. No small consequence for the region's leaders who stood back and watched the celebrations in "the arab street" and did nothing. With the death of OPEC, the engine of the US economy becomes fuel injected, a deserved touche to the choice of targets on the part of our enemy.
The Arab world will wake up to a new dawn, as the presence of their new neighbor will bring humiliation and the knowledge that they have only the terror masters to blame.
Meanwhile Saddam has built himself 19 palaces? Meanwhile Saddam is buying high quality aluminum tubing for his weapons program?
Sorry, not buying the "it's not Saddam's fault children are starving" bit. He has taken hold of Iraqi wealth and is using for himself, like all good despots do.
Oh, BTW, here is how Saddam treats "his people"...
SADDAM HUSSEINS REPRESSION OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE
UNSCR 688 condemns Saddam Husseins repression of the Iraqi civilian population -- the consequences of which threaten international peace and security. UNSCR 688 also requires Saddam Hussein to end his repression of the Iraqi people and to allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to help those in need of assistance.
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated these provisions and has: expanded his violence against women and children; continued his horrific torture and execution of innocent Iraqis; continued to violate the basic human rights of the Iraqi people and has continued to control all sources of information (including killing more than 500 journalists and other opinion leaders in the past decade).
Saddam Hussein has also harassed humanitarian aid workers; expanded his crimes against Muslims; he has withheld food from families that fail to offer their children to his regime; and he has continued to subject Iraqis to unfair imprisonment.10
REFUSAL TO ADMIT HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORS
§ The UN Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly issued a report that noted "with dismay" the lack of improvement in the situation of human rights in Iraq. The report strongly criticized the "systematic, widespread, and extremely grave violations of human rights" and of international humanitarian law by the Iraqi Government, which it stated resulted in "all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror." The report called on the Iraqi Government to fulfill its obligations under international human rights treaties. § Saddam Hussein has repeatedly refused visits by human rights monitors and the establishment of independent human rights organizations.
From 1992 until 2002, Saddam prevented the UN Special Rapporteur from visiting Iraq.11 § In September 2001 the Government expelled six UN humanitarian relief workers without providing any explanation.12
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
§ Human rights organizations and opposition groups continued to receive reports of women who suffered from severe psychological trauma after being raped by Iraqi personnel while in custody.13 § Former Mukhabarat member Khalid Al-Janabi reported that a Mukhabarat unit, the Technical Operations Directorate, used rape and sexual assault in a systematic and institutionalized manner for political purposes. The unit reportedly also videotaped the rape of female relatives of suspected oppositionists and used the videotapes for blackmail purposes and to ensure their future cooperation.§ In June 2000, a former Iraqi general reportedly received a videotape of security forces raping a female family member. He subsequently received a telephone call from an intelligence agent who stated that another female relative was being held and warned him to stop speaking out against the Iraqi Government.15
§ Iraqi security forces allegedly raped women who were captured during the Anfal Campaign and during the occupation of Kuwait. 16
§ Amnesty International reported that, in October 2000, the Iraqi Government executed dozens of women accused of prostitution.17
§ In May, the Iraqi Government reportedly tortured to death the mother of three Iraqi defectors for her childrens opposition activities.18
§ Iraqi security agents reportedly decapitated numerous women and men in front of their family members. According to Amnesty International, the victims heads were displayed in front of their homes for several days.
19 TORTURE § Iraqi security services routinely and systematically torture detainees. According to former prisoners, torture techniques included branding, electric shocks administered to the genitals and other areas, beating, pulling out of fingernails, burning with hot irons and blowtorches, suspension from rotating ceiling fans, dripping acid on the skin, rape, breaking of limbs, denial of food and water, extended solitary confinement in dark and extremely small compartments, and threats to rape or otherwise harm family members and relatives. Evidence of such torture often was apparent when security forces returned the mutilated bodies of torture victims to their families.20
§ According to a report received by the UN Special Rapporteur in 1998, hundreds of Kurds and other detainees have been held without charge for close to two decades in extremely harsh conditions, and many of them have been used as subjects in Iraqs illegal experimental chemical and biological weapons programs.21
§ In 2000, the authorities reportedly introduced tongue amputation as a punishment for persons who criticize Saddam Hussein or his family, and on July 17, government authorities reportedly amputated the tongue of a person who allegedly criticized Saddam Hussein. Authorities reportedly performed the amputation in front of a large crowd. Similar tongue amputations also reportedly occurred.22
Am I to assume all your objections would vanish, if the UN were to back military action in Iraq?
What a hypocrite. If you'd said you would NEVER support a war on Iraq for any reason, you'd at least get points for consistency from me.
But your very first point was that the UN hasn't given "permission", as if we needed it in the first place. If all the pampered thugs in the UN were in favor of this, I suppose you'd go along with them? Hmmm?
I agree. It is as tiny as the smallpox virus, a molecule of VX gas or the Plutonium atom itself.
Then they have already won.
If the aim of terrorism is to influence behavior through the threat of violence and we do nothing to oppose it, then they are now in control of our foreign policy and defense policy. There is now only one way remaining to show them that they are not...
We don't care one way or another if you are convinced of the need to go to war; indeed, I assume that there is nothing which would convince you to go to war. And we can assume that there is nothing that would convince you to intervene if you saw a person getting mugged or raped in a side street. Intervention might cause more muggings and rapes, after all...namely YOURS.
Yours is the mentality of a person who has already tasted defeat and found the flavor of boots more tolerable than the feel of scraped knuckles. You believe that because you find defeat palatable, that others should, too.
The simple FACT of the matter is that we have been at war now since Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 90s. Iraq started the war, and we opted not to finish it because the liberals whined then about how "brutal" we were to those who had raped and pillaged Kuwait, to those who had set fire to what remained of her wealth, to those who in an act of spite wasted a nation's precious resources by pumping crude into the Gulf; how terrible we were to those who hoped to foul nations' water supplies with oil before fleeing northward with their weapons and captives so as to live and fight another day against a weaker enemy. And now, after about 12 years of continuous Iraqi cease fire violations, Iraqi bribery, blackmail, threats, and stalling, all accompanied by the steady repetitious cicadalike whining of liberals that the sanctions were killing the children... we now have liberals wanting the sanctions to continue while an endless circle-jerk of inspections accomplishes exactly nothing other than to give Hussein more time to kill.
Now we are resolved to finish that which should have been finished not in the name of the UN but in the name of something higher, our country, our names, the only names that ever count. And the average Iraqi is going to be very glad to see us.