Skip to comments.
Part I: The Case for War with Iraq and Why We Must Go In.
The Connecticut College Voice
| To Be Published Fed. 1st
| Yoni Freeman
Posted on 01/29/2003 1:44:04 PM PST by yonif
Spurred by Mondays anti-War on Iraq vigil, I decided it was necessary that I presented the viewpoint concerning Iraq and what the truthful reasons for military action were. Furthermore, in this three part series, I will put forward what our goals will be in Iraq once Saddam is gone, and finalize my series with a column outlining who exactly these peace organizations are.
A REPRESSIVE DICTATORSHIP
The first and foremost attribute of Saddam Husseins Iraq, that supports why we must go in, is that his rule of Iraq is done in a dictatorial and repressive way. He tortures his people and his opponents. He keeps his people in a prison camp setting. His regime does not allow freedom of any kind, apart from those freedoms which bolster his regime and iron fist rule. He has a wide range of secret police institutions who daily kill and imprison those unfortunate souls Saddam feels are hostile to his reign. Saddam Husseins Iraq is basically one big concentration camp whose inhabitants are daily propagated with lies and deceit by Hussein while at the same time murdered. Let me quote some of the torture methods from the Foreign Ministry of Britains report on Saddam Husseins human rights abuses, eye gouging eyes are gouged out and the empty eye sockets stuffed with paper, mock executions, suspension from the ceiling, acid baths, and the piercing of hands with electric drills. The opponents of a war on Iraq know these facts, yet they continue to state they oppose war, operating on a platform which claims to be in protection of Iraqs citizens. How can they say they care about the citizens, if they dont mind these citizens living under these conditions?
A HUMANITARIAN DISASTER
Iraq is also in a desperate humanitarian state of things. Its population faces starvation, malnourishment and disease on a daily basis. Food and medicine are not widely available. The sanctions are not, as opponents and Iraq state, the reason this is happening. Before the Gulf War, Saddam used most of his oil revenue to buy weapons and other luxuries for his family, himself and his army. This was BEFORE the sanctions. During this time, his people WERE starving. Now, after the sanctions were put on, he had MORE money to spend as oil revenue was no longer allowed for use to buy weapons (in the legal sense of course). However, even with the increased revenue in his hands, his people continued to starve, and they still do. The sanctions are not the reason for this, HE IS. Removing Saddams tyranny will indeed be a victory for Iraqs suffering men, women and children.
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
The next and widely known issue concerning Iraq is Saddams weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and he continues to PURSUE them. He has used them in the late 1980s against his own citizens. He had a period in the years 1998-2002 when no inspectors were allowed into the country, to widely increase their strength. He continues to hide them in various parts of the country and in like-minded countries such as Syria and Libya. He does not intend on disarming and the current inspections show this. The inspectors do not have a chance of finding these weapons due to many reasons such as his transportation of them to countries such as Syria, his scattering of them in various houses and other unnoticeable buildings, the fact he has germ laboratories on wheels who simply move around with each inspection, and his refusal to allow usage of U2 spy planes to search his landscape. Furthermore, the interviewing of Iraqi scientists is unproductive due to the fear the scientists have of being killed if they comply, or because the scientist is nothing more then an undercover Iraqi agent.
Evidence has also been found to support the notion that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. The finding of 16 empty chemical weapon canisters is just one example. It does not only show he has weapons of mass destruction, but also shows that Iraq has been LYING on the question as it has stated many times to the world that it had none of these weapons which were found. The Iraqi regime has been lying all along. On the one hand Iraq states it has no weapons of mass destruction but on the other hand you have Saddam Husseins brother, Uday, saying that, "If they (USA) come, Sept. 11, which they are crying over and see as a big thing, will be a real picnic for them, God willing." Iraq is basically saying If you attack us we will attack you with weapons of mass destruction we dont have. What other evidence do you need?
A LAUNCH PAD FOR TERRORISM
The last and not least reason we must go after Saddam Hussein is terrorism. Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism (not just according to me, ask the State Dept). It harbors terrorist groups who want to destroy America and its allies. It funds and supports terrorist organizations and provides them with access to training camps in the country; groups such as the Mujahedin-e-Khalq, Kurdistan Workers Party, Palestine Liberation Front, and the Abu Nidal. Saddams regime funds such entities as Palestinian terrorist organizations and their activities. He hands over a check of $25,000 to each Palestinian suicide terrorist bombers family, those terrorists responsible for bombing pizzerias, discos, and cinemas. Iraq was the only Arab-Muslim country that did not condemn the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 2001. Iraq is an infestation of both domestic and international terrorism. It must be cleansed for the sake of our children and Iraqs children.
As you can see, Saddam Hussein is a ticking time bomb. The threat from Iraq is there and we must go after him before it is too late. The inspectors have failed and they will continue to fail. We must not leave the responsibility of our national security up to a failed organization such as the UN. There may be no imminent threat from Iraq, but as Bush said in his State of the Union Address, since when do terrorists and tyrants tell us when they are going to do us harm?
The time is here, the time is now. The evidence is clear. The reason is apparent. It is time for us to militarily engage and defeat Iraq, overthrow Saddam, dismantle its terrorist plague, destroy its weapons of mass destruction, and LIBERATE the Iraqi people. We will be victorious!
Until next time, YF
TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dictatorship; humanitarianism; iraq; starvation; terrorism; wmd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
1
posted on
01/29/2003 1:44:04 PM PST
by
yonif
To: yonif
My column for this week.
2
posted on
01/29/2003 1:44:43 PM PST
by
yonif
To: yonif
Very well written, yonif. Good work. Since you are interested in the topic, as we all are, the book The Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack is an excellent read and widely supports the facts you have written here. Pollack is previous CIA agent who is one of three who advised that Hussein would invade Kuwait, at a time all others were saying he would not. The book is endorsed by the Council on Foreign Relations, a rare honor. Freep regards, Peach
3
posted on
01/29/2003 1:52:44 PM PST
by
Peach
To: Peach
Thanks. I will be sure to get a hold of that book.
4
posted on
01/29/2003 2:01:25 PM PST
by
yonif
Comment #5 Removed by Moderator
To: somthngcool
DAVID BROOKS: I just want somebody to say to those people and I wanted to go down there and say here's a regime that has professional rape teams in their military where they rape women and send the videotapes to the fathers. Here's a regime that imprisons mothers and babies in the next cell and forces them to watch their babies starve to death. You know, what is the defense? Maybe we don't want to take out this regime, but is that the moral high ground? What is your defense for preserving that regime? You OK with raping women and forcing them to watch their children starve to death? You OK with mass exectutions to make more room in prison? You OK with using power drills, hot oil and torture on your political enemies? You OK with summary beheading of prostitutes in public? You OK with not only killing scientists for talking, but killing their family, women and children alike, out to the 6th relation?
What kind of man are you?
6
posted on
01/29/2003 2:57:09 PM PST
by
copycat
(Ridicule Hillary!™ to someone you know TODAY!!)
To: yonif
Great job. It's time for the world to hear what kind of "man" Saddam Hussein really is. I wonder what kind of feedback you'te getting in a university setting?
7
posted on
01/29/2003 2:58:35 PM PST
by
copycat
(Ridicule Hillary!™ to someone you know TODAY!!)
To: somthngcool
And in all honesty (and I am going to catch all kinds of it for this) we can't blame Osma and his bunch for what they did, we have our troops occupying their holy ground, wouldn't we attack them for the same?You deserve everything you get for this asinine comment...
To: somthngcool
Is Saddam a dictator, yes, is it our job to overthrow him, no.
SADDAM HUSSEINS REPRESSION OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE
UNSCR 688 (April 5, 1991) 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
Will you sit back and let this go on when we have the chance to stop it?
9
posted on
01/29/2003 3:02:37 PM PST
by
copycat
(Ridicule Hillary!™ to someone you know TODAY!!)
Comment #10 Removed by Moderator
To: somthngcool
If they want freedom from his operssion let them pay the price, or at least have the courage to try to pay it.Rather easy for you to say this, isn't it? I assume you live in a free country. Can you grasp how difficult it is (or would be) to voice dissent in Iraq, let alone stage a coup or revolution?
To: yonif
Another good book is "Republic of Fear" I don't remember the author though.
Good column, it's what is needed.
12
posted on
01/29/2003 3:12:34 PM PST
by
tet68
Comment #13 Removed by Moderator
To: copycat
My articles usually receive negative comments.
The latest one was a huge letter to the editor (the only one in the paper that day) against me and my articles. He called it "The Gospel of Yoni Freeman"
14
posted on
01/29/2003 3:13:31 PM PST
by
yonif
Comment #15 Removed by Moderator
To: somthngcool
Comments:
1. If Pearl Harbor never happened etc., would you have supported the US going into WWII to save the millions of Jews who were being slaughtered?
2. You talk of "national security" that the terrorists are defending. Maybe I am wrong or something, but I believe there are more terrorist groups operating on a "country-less" scale, then those terrorists operating with a country support.
16
posted on
01/29/2003 3:15:53 PM PST
by
yonif
To: yonif
This is in the wrong order.
It should be:
1) terrorism
2) Weapons of Mass Destruction
3) humanitarian disaster & repression
3) Is not usually a reason for us to go into a country. It's better to let the country resolve that, because until they are ready to stand up and fight for their rights, there is really little we can do anyway.
2) Is a reason if the country is a terrorist or agressive country.
1) Is what we have more than enough evidence of to justify the war.
17
posted on
01/29/2003 3:16:33 PM PST
by
DannyTN
(Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
To: somthngcool
What is so different between what they have done and what we are doing? One of the main things is that they are targeting civilians and innocent people who have nothing to do with what you call "us doing". If they were really mad at the US government, etc.? Why don't these terrorist groups target mainly US and Israeli government entities such as soldiers? Why do they chose to go after those who cannot defend themselves? What does a 5 year old got to do with what you call "us doing"?
18
posted on
01/29/2003 3:18:52 PM PST
by
yonif
To: yonif
"would you have supported the US going into WWII to save the millions of Jews who were being slaughtered?I would have.
Maybe I am wrong or something, but I believe there are more terrorist groups operating on a "country-less" scale, then those terrorists operating with a country support.
I think they have state sponsors, it's just hard to identify them and prove it. But there is a lot of evidence pointing towards Iraq.
19
posted on
01/29/2003 3:19:33 PM PST
by
DannyTN
(Note left on my door by a pack of neighborhood dogs.)
To: DannyTN
"3) Is not usually a reason for us to go into a country. It's better to let the country resolve that, because until they are ready to stand up and fight for their rights, there is really little we can do anyway"
So, without Pearl Harbor occuring, your saying we would have no business attacking Germany to save millions of Jews?
20
posted on
01/29/2003 3:20:19 PM PST
by
yonif
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson