 |
| 
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/20/2003 3:33 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
The following article was posted on the same site as this photograph of a Kurdish father and his infant, who were gassed by Saddam Hussein in 1988.
Helping Iraq Kill with Chemical Weapons:
The Relevance of Yesterday's US Hypocrisy Today
by ELSON E. BOLES
Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
…The US not only helped arm Iraq with military equipment right up to the time of the Kuwait invasion in 1989, as did Germany, Britain, France, Russia and others, but also sold and helped Iraq to integrate chemical weapons into their US-provided battle plans while fighting Iran between 1985-1988.
According to a New York Times article in August, 2002, Col. Walter P. Lang, a senior defense intelligence officer at the time, explained that D.I.A. and C.I.A. officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" to Iran. "The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," he said. One veteran said, that the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas." "It was just another way of killing people—whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference."
…In late September spokesman Ari Fleischer said that British Prime Minister Blair's dossier of evidence is "frightening in terms of Iraq's intentions and abilities to acquire weapons." A few days later, while making his case against Saddam, President Bush said "He's used poison gas on his own people." Bush deceives because he hides the fact that US officials, including his father, had no qualms about helping Saddam gas Iranians. What is truly frightening are the US policies toward Iraq, the cover ups of those policies, and the US officials who personally profit in the millions of dollars from those policies. To whatever degree Saddam is a tyrant, he would not be that without the US government.… Read the entire article
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 03/20/2003 8:34:27 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/20/2003 3:49 PM (GMT -6) | | BJS:quote:
there is a legitimate argument that this military operation has as its goal the long-term (and even short-term) protection of innocent human life.
This is a legitimate argument, but I do not find it convincing in this case. It would have been more persuasive if we had rushed to “liberate” the Kurds when Saddam used chemical weapons against them in 1988. Our sudden interest in these human rights violations seems opportunistic and our championing of the Kurdish cause seems rather shallow in light of the fact we were willing to pay their Turkish oppressors 30 billion dollars to assist us in our “liberation.” It disturbs me very deeply that this invasion is being cloaked under the guise of liberty and freedom.
“Selective and opportunistic attention to human rights serves only to undermine international human rights standards.” Amnesty International
Find out about the challenges facing Iraqi refugees displaced by the US invasion, including disease, starvation, and torture.
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/20/2003 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | | A Kurdish Perspective on the Prospect of “Liberation” via American Invasion of Iraq
The Dictates of Nonviolence, the Kurds, and the Coming War
by Kani Xulam
St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota
January 29, 2003
In my case, a Kurd, I come to you as a patient, afflicted with violence, inflicted by the Turkish government, supported by your administrations, with your tax dollars, in the form of all kinds of military aid, most notably helicopters and jet fighters. It is an enforced life style, one that I would not wish on my worst enemies. It can kill you prematurely like AIDs, debilitate you like cancer, or turn you into an abject simpleton, happy go lucky zombie, the quintessential aim of our adversaries.…
We endure wrongs from a slew of tyrannies that, at one time or another, have had cozy relationships with your government,whose officials often roam in your streets, and one country, Turkey, is now cultivated as a bulwark in the war against terrorism. This is a monstrosity that should have never seen the light of day. It behooves you to stop it in its tracks.…
The most troubling part of our struggle, of course, is to find your own government aiding and abetting our adversaries who have turned the killing of the Kurds into a sport. The Turkish leaders, our most implacable foes, often compare themselves to you, noting that both societies are immigrant nations, spreading the gospel of civilization to lesser creatures, meaning the Natives in your case and the Kurds in theirs. This is something for you to think about as well as to find ways to distance yourselves from such compliments. Here I am reminded of Senator Patty Murray’s remarks, last December, which riled up the conservative groups in this country, some asking for her immediate resignation. She had said that Osama Bin Laden is popular in many of the poor Arab countries partly because he had built schools,hospitals, and roads for them and that perhaps we should have been there first. I don’t know if Mr. Bin Laden has built anything in the poor Kurdish villages, but I do know for a fact that nearly 4000 Kurdish communities, including my own village, were destroyed by Turkish piloted American cobra attack helicopters and F 16 jet fighters. Millions of Kurds found themselves reduced to abject poverty, and most dangerous of all, hopelessness, not because your government was not there first, but because it aided and abetted a tyranny that destroyed those things. I cannot help but share with you the immortal lines of your third president, Thomas Jefferson, who noted, “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever.” On the morning of 9/11, I shuddered thinking of what went through the little minds of Kurdish children whose homes were destroyed by your missiles supplied to the Turkish government.
Disturbing as these musings of mine are, you as children of freedom, I as a child of tyranny, must consider another question that has been troubling me lately. Is it right for the Kurdish children to associate your good name only with Cobra attack helicopters or F 16 fighter planes? Would not Tom Paine, Nathan Hale, or Patrick Henry offer better role models or my favorites, Henry David Thoreau and Dr. King? Do you know how many 9/11s we have endured in Turkey? How about Iraq? And Iran? Unlike Osama bin Laden, the Turkish leaders are not hiding in caves, no; wait until you hear this: they are hailed as role models for the Muslim world by some of your highest-ranking un-elected officials, such as Paul Wolfowitz. Saddam Hussein, the Osama Bin Laden of the Kurds 83 times over and sometimes with chemical and biological weapons to boot, is now the target of your guns. Am I happy about this? President Bush has made a new discovery at the White House, surprise, surprise, the dead of Halapja, and trumpets them constantly to drum up support for the war. What do the Kurds think of this?
Speaking for myself, I resent the use of our dead, for a war aim that will bring the surviving Kurds nothing good. I also think we do the dead no service by adding others to their list. While no Kurd has pity for Saddam Hussein and a vast majority wishes him ill and right away, this Kurd believes that every effort should be made to declare him a war criminal and cut him off from the society at large. If the Kurds are lucky and he is arrested -- who ever thought Milosevic would -- the graveyards of close to 100.000 missing Kurds could be located. Imagine the closure that this would bring to the lives of thousands of Kurdish families. On Saddam watch, out of a population of five million Kurds, some 250.000 have been murdered or disappeared. That is like saying one in twenty Kurds is missing or has met a violent end. If the same numbers were to be applied to the United States, it would mean the death of close to 14 million Americans. Imagine a man made calamity in which the entire population of New York is subjected to excruciating deaths or disappearances. And the irony of it all, all these Kurdish deaths occurred when Baghdad and Washington enjoyed the best of relations, or as some have quipped, were on their honeymoon.
The violence that has been crippling entire generations in the Middle East finally found its way to your shores on 9/11. You were shocked to discover that innocence could be targeted so mercilessly. Those who had looked the other way when Saddam had gassed the Kurds began talking about our unbearable deaths as if it had just happened. Our dead got more coverage in your media in year 2002 than all the previous 14 years combined. But the coverage did not come without its bitter aftertaste or mind boggling gaffes. To this day, your president refers to us as Saddam’s property, his immortal line is: “The man has gassed his own people”. I have seen Kurds throw their remote controls on President Bush for engaging in this sacrilege. A cold shiver takes over my body every time I hear it. Mr. Hussein is an Arab and we are Kurds. He does not own us and we resent being viewed as his chattel. Now that he is the target of your guns, most Kurds are wondering if President Bush will deliver on his threat. Let me be the first to tell you that a vast majority would welcome the news. But the news of his demise will not put us on the course of redemption, salvation, and self-determination. The White House, out of respect for the territorial integrity of Turkey, has decided to consign us to the misrule of the emerging government that will take over in Baghdad.
Now that I have, hopefully, made some inroads for you into the Kurdish world, it is perhaps apt that, at this time, I also share with you where I stand on the coming conflict. I oppose it. Eleven days ago, I joined as many as a quarter million people in the Mall, in Washington, DC, carrying a banner that said, “Bush Trumpets Kurdish Dead for Oil War, Saddam Loves Kurds Like Osama Loves Americans, Free Kurdistan Now, www.kurdistan.org”, and holding a sign that read a quote from Mahatma Gandhi: “I oppose violence. The good it does is temporary. The damage it causes is permanent.” I did so knowing that the way to increase happiness in the world is not by adding more pain to it but by adding more happiness to it. I also realize that there is another school of thought out there, more popular than the nonviolence that some of us subscribe to in this hall, called military science that specializes in the application of a little of bit of death now with the hopes of a lot of good later. That is exactly a page of out of Saddam Hussein’s book relative to the Kurds. But he has only earned our everlasting hatred. Is the United States going to do the same relative to Arab world? In the first Gulf war, your losses were 146 and the Iraqi losses stood at 158 thousand. What will the ratio be like this time? Have deaths ever brought peoples together?
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 03/20/2003 8:54:03 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/20/2003 4:17 PM (GMT -6) | | US Anti-War Protests Flare, More Than 1,000 Arrests
Reuters - Police arrested more than 1,000 people in San Francisco on Thursday -- the most demonstrators taken into custody on a single day in the city in 22 years -- as tens of thousands protested across America against the U.S. war in Iraq. Read more
Hundreds in U.S. Protest War With Iraq
AP - Thu Mar 20, 2:56 PM ET -- Anti-war protesters blocked morning traffic in Washington, San Francisco and Philadelphia and chanted "no blood for oil" outside the White House on Thursday in reaction to U.S. military strikes against Iraq. Read more
US Exaggerates Relative Size of Iraq Alliance
Reuters - Thu Mar 20, 4:16 PM ET -- U.S. leaders say they are proud of the alliance they have assembled against Iraq, even in comparison with the broad alliance the United States assembled for the war to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait in 1991. Read more
Third U.S. Diplomat Resigns Over Iraq Policy
Reuters - Thu Mar 20, 2:58 PM ET -- A third U.S. diplomat has resigned partly because of opposition to U.S. policy toward Iraq, a State Department official said on Thursday. Read more
For Much of World, War Brings Protests and Nervousness
The New York Times - Thu Mar 20, 3:02 PM ET -- The start of the war in Iraq drew a wave of condemnation, a degree of resignation and little support from many governments and people in much of the world. Read more
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 03/20/2003 9:19:24 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/20/2003 6:00 PM (GMT -6) | | This is just a little off topic. But I like it.
www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/pittman_20030320.html
Also, Electra, could you respond with a little more about the "luuuuve question?"
Lastly, on the question of using children for political purposes? I don't think pro-lifers should do it? I don't think anti-war protesters should do it. If our "grown-up" fights IN THE HOME are too complex for little ears, (not to mention emotionally harmful), how much more so in the global village?
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/20/2003 6:16 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Helping Iraq Kill with Chemical Weapons:
The Relevance of Yesterday's US Hypocrisy Today
Read the article. Have you ever heard of the cliche, "ANY PORT IN A STORM?"
And I think I would have to agree with the Maha Rushie  :
quote:
"If this were 'all about oil,' we could just declare victory in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia and go home. Who's going to stop us? Our troops are already there!" -Rush Hudson Limbaugh III
Think of it. In '91 the US could have just said to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? "Buh-Bye." But I remember the pics of those tanks and jets achieving their objective: liberate Kuwait. Not to invade Iraq. Not to put a new regime in Iraq. If you guys wanted to? All you would need to do is say, "We OWN Kuwait," "We OWN Saudi Arabia," "We OWN Iraq."
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/20/2003 6:18 PM (GMT -6) | | "It's all about oil," truly a port in the storm...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/20/2003 6:34 PM (GMT -6) | | BTW, its great that the military action (to the uninformed, which evidently includes most of the media, this is not a war. Only Congress can offically declare war and they only approved military action)is going so well. So far so good.
I for one am certainly glad such firepower is in the hands of my country.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/20/2003 6:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Anti-war protestors arrested? Thank goodness. Its time someone got those nuts off the streets...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/21/2003 2:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Electra: your argument about the US supplying chemical weapons to Irag is irrelevant. So we did. So we were wrong in trusting him. What has that got to do with now? If this is the main thrust of why you disagree with the war, I would wonder: how can you, a Christian, offer salvation to anyone? Were you not once a sinner? Did you not once sin? Did you not once make mistakes?
D'Souza, in his excellant book, What's So Great About America? makes an excellant point in this area. He says that when people judge the US, they always judge it as if it were the Garden Of Eden, while they always judge other countries on a much lower standard, which is exactly what you are doing now.
The argument is what to do now. I would suggest for your argument to work NOW, you give good reasons on how we can keep Hussein contained without force. I'm listening...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/21/2003 6:11 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Interesting question Brandon. My initial response would be that there is no such thing as powerless love. Though the world may dismiss it as weakness and falsely accuse it—all the while thinking they are doing both God and the government a favor—love is the only legitimate power. Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Ok. I have to push for this a little. Couple of things.
In terms of government? Something to think about. There can be no politics apart from the use of power. We have evangelicals like Jim Wallis and John Howard Yoder (Anabaptists) who juxtapose the power of politics (i.e. the "powers" of the world expressed in social, economic and political relationships) with Christian love (i.e. servanthood, the cross, self-denial). The question that needs to be asked is whether the two are compatible. In my view, they are. The coming together or "the dance" takes place on the floor called "justice". In my view, if the evangelical community is going to develop a political ethic, which it MUST, it must be one in which power is recognized and accepted as a legimate means to the ends it seeks.
This is the problem I have with guys like Wallis and Yoder. What they want to do is refuse to acknowledge ANY legimate use of power as being "the way of the world." As if love is somehow "sacred" and power "baaaad." Why do this?
Brandon
"And don't say it's love that broke your heart when you trusted someone. Cause love's the victim, not the crime."--Jody McBrayer, Love Can Break Your Fall www.jodymcbrayer.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 3/21/2003 6:54 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
The evils unleashed by war are indefensible.
Who will suffer most??
The innocent; the little children...
If you're concerned about the loss of innocent life, there's
some abortion clinics in Minnesota you could protest as well.
_________________________
1 + 1 = 3 for large values of 1 | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/21/2003 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/21/2003 4:51 PM (GMT -6) | | How do Iraqi Christians feel about the American invasion?
Although Christians are a small minority of Iraq's population, they are an ancient community. Christians have worshiped together in Iraq since the first century. Abraham, the father of Muslim, Jewish, and Christian faith came from present-day Iraq.
As part of a mission to humanitarian and human rights consequences of war, John McCullough (Executive Director of Church World Services) had opportunity to talk with many ordinary Iraqis about the effect of the sanctions and the threat of a U.S.-led war. Here are some of their responses:
excerpts from an article posted on churchworldservice.org--full text
"From their vantage point, it's a real 'reach' for them to view American intervention at this point as positive," McCullough reported. "People see the U.S. presence as a threat to their national sovereignty, culture and religion. Iraqis have a tremendous sense of national pride. They asked me, 'Do Americans believe that theirs is the only country blessed by God?'
"While Iraqis have to live under a dictatorship, they don't see that as unusual in the region," McCullough continued. "It's not that they don't have problems with Saddam Hussein's regime--they do. But they feel that what they would suffer in a war wouldn't be worth the change in government. They ask, 'Why this aggression now? What changed?"
Moreover, he said, Iraqis hold the United States responsible for the sanctions, under which 1.3 million Iraqi children have died--largely for lack of adequate medical care.
"When they look at what the presence of the United States has meant, they see massive suffering. People are dying of hunger and unable to get basic medical care. They also are looking at the impact of the U.S. bombings in the 'no-fly zone' in Iraq's north and the loss of life and property and constant trauma in that part of the country," he said. "Civilians are being killed and injured."
The average American thinks sanctions are a good strategy, but the people who bear the brunt are average Iraqis, not the leaders, McCullough confirmed. "The sanctions should be lifted and the bombing raids should be stopped. The United States should take another look at its national values and employ them in a process that would result in a resolution of these problems."
Iraqi pastors urged Americans to "join them in prayers for peace, for the leaders of our two countries to engage each other in constructive dialogue and to find more peaceful solutions to the problems they face in their respective communities," McCullough said.
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 03/21/2003 10:36:10 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/21/2003 4:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Statement by Action by Churches Together (ACT)
International relating to humanitarian principles in the event of a war in Iraq full text
Geneva, March 4, 2003
Of grave concern to ACT International is the fact that there seems to be a concerted effort to blur military and humanitarian actions, with the result that humanitarian purposes have been co-opted by the military. A military-led relief and reconstruction effort is against humanitarian principles and is unacceptable to ACT International members whose independence and safety around the world would be compromised by such a close relationship with military occupation forces. Without civilian co-ordination of humanitarian and reconstruction efforts, NGOs and other humanitarian actors will be unable to effectively meet the enormous humanitarian needs. As such, ACT International affirms its commitment to upholding acknowledged and internationally accepted UN co-ordination mechanisms and structures in the case of humanitarian disasters.
As an alliance whose members are made up of churches and their related aid agencies around the world, we believe that all conflict should be resolved through whatever peaceful means possible. In the instance of Iraq, we do not believe all efforts for a peaceful resolution have been exhausted.
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 03/21/2003 10:00:36 PM
Edited by - Electra on 03/21/2003 10:37:33 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/21/2003 5:33 PM (GMT -6) | | World Council of Churches statement on Iraq
Responding with "profound sorrow" to news that a military attack on Iraq has begun, World Council of Churches (WCC) general secretary Rev. Dr Konrad expressed his conviction that : “non-violent means to solve the conflict have been far from exhausted." He also stated: "By relying on the right of the powerful, including the use of threat and economic pressure to influence other states to support their action, these countries undermine international rule of law that has taken half a century to construct." full text
WCC general secretary challenges Bush's religious claims
WCC general secretary Rev. Dr Konrad Raiser denounced as "misuse of religious language" US president George W. Bush's attempts to invoke divine legitimation for his war against Iraq.
Noting an increasing tendency on the part of the US president "to invoke religious, even divine legitimation for his intention to disarm Iraq by force", Raiser suggested that a Christian response today to "the political, ethical and spiritual challenge of war [...] declared with the alleged purpose of restoring peace and justice" must be "an act of defiance: denouncing this misuse of religious language in order to justify an act of war that violates the legal order developed to protect world peace".
In his reflection, Raiser quoted the German pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer who, in 1934 as war loomed, made the passionate plea: "Today God's commandment for us is the order of international peace. To say this is to express a quite definite recognition of the will of God for our time. [...] As certainly as we leave the making of the last peace to God, so certainly should we also make peace to overcome war."
The prayer service for peace was also attended by the papal nuncio in Geneva, Msgr. Diarmuid Martin, who suggested that "The rule of law and the vigour of solidarity" are means by which civilization can "overcome the logic of the war and dismantle the instruments of terror". "Our civilization deserves better than war. We are capable of better," he said. That is why, he continued, "it is time for our world, once and for all, to move beyond the logic of war and all forms of the arrogance of power". full text
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 03/21/2003 10:39:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 3/21/2003 6:16 PM (GMT -6) | | World Relief Groups Prepare Aid for Iraq
By MARK FRITZ, Associated Press Writer , Fri Mar 21, 7:11 PM ET, full text
Big charities ready to roll into Iraq with food, blankets and medicine plan to refuse the protection of U.S.-led military forces, fearing that being spotted with an invading superpower is more dangerous than going it alone.
This unprecedented decision to shun visible connection with the military is prompted largely by anti-American sentiments in parts of the Muslim world where many groups operate, aid agencies say.
"God help us if we become identified as one of the belligerents," CARE security chief Bob McPherson, a former U.S. Marine colonel in Somalia, said by telephone from Jordan….
To a guerrilla with a gun, the brutally random nature of modern warfare has blurred the line between helpful humanitarian and enemy interloper. The rocky marriage of private relief groups and multinational armies in Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia may have ended in divorce in Afghanistan, when armed U.S. soldiers in civilian clothes were distributing aid.
"That increased our security risk considerably," said Mark Bartolini, Middle East director for the International Rescue Committee. "You will see the vast majority of (relief groups) keeping their distance from the military. This is a highly controversial war…”
Many relief organizations are upset that the U.S. military will be responsible for controlling aid distribution in Iraq and determining the level of access allowed those groups....[F]or U.S.-based aid agencies, Iraq is a restricted country; and no licenses to operate there have been given out — something the relief groups also say is unique to this war…
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky
Edited by - Electra on 03/21/2003 11:17:53 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 3/21/2003 6:20 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 3/21/2003 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | | WAR:
Honorman wrote:
quote:
Hmmm, whose view should I follow, Bush's or Byrd's the ex-KKK member.
Hmmm, all these choices...
THIS IS A WAR OF "CHOICE."
Diplomacy and peace negotiations were prematurely discarded -- despite the outcries from around the globe.
Why??
To rashly disregard nonviolent measures that may have proven effective (and, in avoiding war, saved countless lives) causes many to question -- in America, and abroad, how this war can be ethically & morally defended.
Most organized Christian groups DO NOT endorse this war.
Yes, our American sons & daughters who will be charged with fighting (and, possibly dying) in this war should be supported.
However, this DOES NOT mean that Americans must or should support an unjustifiable war that DOES NOT have the endorsement of the United Nations.
The reality is that war does have long-term ramifications. Innocent people (including children) will die.
To minimize that reality for the sake of "justifying" ones position is simply a
smoke screen to divert attention from the fact that there are indeed valid reasons to OPPOSE this war.
Documentation does not exist that proves that this war was justified -- and, that peace negotiations should have been abandoned.
The truth is that this war has more to do with temporal values (greed/oil) that the liberation of Iraq.
<><
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/21/2003 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Mayflower
Diplomacy and peace negotiations were prematurely discarded -- despite the outcries from around the globe.
Iconoclast
I don't get this. Haven't we been doing diplomacy and peace negotiations with Saddam for some 12 years? How much longer were we supposed to do this? The only reason Saddam agreed to any inspections as of late is that large forces started to build up along his borders. Once this happens there is only so much time before they must go in or go home. You can't keep them there indefinitely. Saddam knows what the deal is. Shoot - he STILL won't negotiate even at this very moment when his personal demise is staring him in the face. I think this is conclusive proof that further diplomacy and peace negotiations wouldn't have made any difference. Does anyone here think that we could have stopped Hitler with more peace negotiations?
Mayflower
The truth is that this war has more to do with temporal values (greed/oil) that the liberation of Iraq.
Iconoclast
I really don't get this. What evidence is there for this position? It seems to me the reason that Bush decided to end the threat of Iraq is crystal clear. September 11 happened on Bush's watch. If a child you were babysitting was kidnapped and killed on your watch would you be just a little more proactive about removing potential threats to the next child that you were babysitting? Now, you might argue that pre-emptively shooting the guy down the block who was convicted of child-rape 12 years ago is going too far but you certainly can't argue that the motivation to do so is out of covetousness of his possessions.
The reason Bush is taking out Saddam is because he would rather act too pre-emptively than allow a chemical, biological or nuclear attack in the middle of New York City on his watch - or have it be said that like Neville Chamberlain he appeased a bloody tyrant and thus through his inaction allowed future atrocities. Bush and Blair are simply acting upon the lesson we all learned so harshly about appeasing a tyrant. I think it is absolutely fair to say that if we had not appeased Hitler when he invaded Poland but rather banded together and took decisive action that 6,000,000 Jews would not have been slaughtered in Nazi death camps.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 03/22/2003 12:04:30 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/21/2003 7:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra
Quote from another author:
Moreover, he said, Iraqis hold the United States responsible for the sanctions, under which 1.3 million Iraqi children have died--largely for lack of adequate medical care.
Iconoclast
If our policy of enforcing UN resolutions with sanctions leads to 1.3 million children dying would you argue that it is better to just have a quick and decisive war to enforce UN resolutions or to not try and do any enforcing at all of UN resolutions? If we don't enforce UN resolutions at all should we even bother to have them?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/21/2003 7:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Electra
Quoting another author:
The prayer service for peace was also attended by the papal nuncio in Geneva, Msgr. Diarmuid Martin, who suggested that "The rule of law and the vigour of solidarity" are means by which civilization can "overcome the logic of the war and dismantle the instruments of terror".
Iconoclast
The "rule of law" can only "overcome the logic of the war and dismantle the instruments of terror" if there is a power that actually enforces the "rule of law". The UN is not and cannot be such a power - it was never set up that way. WE are the only power that can enforce the "rule of law". The UN made the law - resolution 1441 (or something like that) and we are enforcing it. We are not engaging in "the logic of the war". We are engaging in a police action to enforce a UN resolution. The UN is like a legislative body and we are the executive branch. Nobody likes us taking this role (especially France, Russia and China) because we are presuming to be THE leader of the world in doing so. It scares other countries because such awesome power can easily be abused. At the same time if we did not take this role at all we would be roundly criticized for shirking our duty and not acting when other countries are in trouble - imagine if we just let Kuwait be taken over by Iraq, and then Saudia Arabia, and then Syria, and then ...
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 3/21/2003 7:41 PM (GMT -6) | | WAR
Iconoclast, I respectfully disagree.
Perhaps the rest of this article would be helpful?
Peace & blessings,
<><
____________________________________________________
Helping Iraq Kill with Chemical Weapons:
The Relevance of Yesterday's US Hypocrisy Today
http://www.kdp.pp.se/BOLES.htm
by ELSON E. BOLES
Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
You may feel disgusted by the hypocrisy of US plans to make war on Iraq and sickened at the inevitable slaughter of thousands of people. But if you could only vaguely recall the details of how deep the hypocrisy goes, then read on.
The US not only helped arm Iraq with military equipment right up to the time of the Kuwait invasion in 1989, as did Germany, Britain, France, Russia and others, but also sold and helped Iraq to integrate chemical weapons into their US-provided battle plans while fighting Iran between 1985-1988.
According to a New York Times article in August, 2002, Col. Walter P. Lang, a senior defense intelligence officer at the time, explained that D.I.A. and C.I.A. officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" to Iran. "The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," he said. One veteran said, that the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas." "It was just another way of killing people _ whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference."
Now consider just how deceptive the recent comments from the White House are. In late September spokesman Ari Fleischer said that British Prime Minister Blair's dossier of evidence is "frightening in terms of Iraq's intentions and abilities to acquire weapons." A few days later, while making his case against Saddam, President Bush said "He's used poison gas on his own people." Bush deceives because he hides the fact that US officials, including his father, had no qualms about helping Saddam gas Iranians. What is truly frightening are the US policies toward Iraq, the cover ups of those policies, and the US officials who personally profit in the millions of dollars from those policies. To whatever degree Saddam is a tyrant, he would not be that without the US government.
The question is not whether Saddam is willing to use chemical or other weapons of mass destruction again. The question is whether the US is currently selling and helping countries use weapons of mass destruction.
Details about Iraq killing Iranians with US-supplied chemical and biological weapons significantly deepens our understanding of the current hypocrisy. It began with "Iraq-gate" -- when US policy makers, financiers, arms-suppliers and makers, made massive profits from sales to Iraq of myriad chemical, biological, conventional weapons, and the equipment to make nuclear weapons. Reporter Russ Baker noted, for example, that, "on July 3, 1991, the Financial Times reported that a Florida company run by an Iraqi national had produced cyanide -- some of which went to Iraq for use in chemical weapons -- and had shipped it via a CIA contractor." This was just the tip of a mountain of scandals.
A major break in uncovering Iraqgate began with a riveting 1990 Nightline episode which revealed that top officials of the Reagan administration, the State Department, the Pentagon, C.I.A., and D.I.A., collectively engaged in a massive cover up of the USS Vincennes' whereabouts and actions when it shot down an Iranian airliner in 1987 killing over 200 civilians. The "massive cover up" Koppel explained, was designed to hide the US secret war against Iran, in which, among other actions, US Special Operations troops and Navy SEALS sunk half of Iran's navy while giving battle plans and logistical information to Iraqi ground forces in a coordinated offensive.
In continuing the probe, as Koppel explained in June, 1990, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush [Sr.], operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy."
A PBS Frontline episode, "The Arming of Iraq" (1990) detailed much of the conventional and so-called "dual-use" weapons sold to Iraq. The public learned from other sources that at least since mid-1980s the US was selling chemical and biological material for weapons to Iraq and orchestrating private sales. These sales began soon after current Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad in 1985 and met with Saddam Hussein as a private businessman on behalf of the Reagan administration. In the last major battle of the Iran-Iraq war, some 65,000 Iranians were killed, many by gas.
Investigators turned up new scandals, including the involvement of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL), the giant Italian bank, and many of the very same circles of arms suppliers, covert operators, and policy makers in and out of the US government and active in those roles for years. The National Security Council, CIA and other US agencies tacitly approved about $4 billion in unreported loans to Iraq through the giant Italian bank's Atlanta branch. Iraq, with the blessing and official approval of the US government, purchased computer controlled machine tools, computers, scientific instruments, special alloy steel and aluminum, chemicals, and other industrial goods for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
However, the early reports on BNL's activities and the startling revelations that the US government astonishingly knew that BNL was financing billions of dollars of purchases illegally, were rather comical in view of later revelations regarding who was involved. US government officials didn't just know and approve, but some were employees at BNL directly or indirectly. It was Representative Henry Gonzalez (D-Texas) who relentlessly brought key information into the Congressional Record (despite stern warnings by the State Department to stop his personal investigation for the sake of "national security").
Gonzalas revealed, for example, that Brent Scowcroft served as Vice Chairman of Kissinger Associates until being appointed as National Security Advisor to President Bush in January 1989. As Gonzalez reported, "Until October 4,1990, Mr. Scowcroft owned stock in approximately 40 U.S. corporations, many of which were doing busies in Iraq." Scowcroft's stock included that in Halliburton Oil, also doing business in Iraq at the time, which had also been run by current Vice President Dick Cheney for a time. Recall that this year President George Bush Sr. faced suspicion of insider trading in relation to selling his stock in Halliburton. The companies that Scowcroft owned stock in, according to Gonzalez, "received more than one out of every eight U.S. export licenses for exports to Iraq. Several of the companies were also clients of Kissinger Associates while Mr. Scowcroft was Vice Chairman of that firm." Thus, Kissinger Associates helped US companies obtain US export licenses with BNL-finance so Iraq could purchase US weapons and materials for its weapons programs.
Many US business-men and officials made handsome profits. This included Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, who was an employee of BNL while BNL was simultaneously a paying client of Kissinger Associates. Gonzalez reported that Mr. Alan Stoga, a Kissinger Associates executive, met in June 1989 Mr. Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. "Many Kissinger Associates clients received US export licenses for exports to Iraq. Several were also the beneficiaries of BNL loans to Iraq," said Mr. Gonzalez. Kissinger admitted that "it is possible that somebody may have advised a client on how to get a license."
Perhaps the most bizarre revelations about the involvement of former US officials concerned a Washington-based enterprise called "Global Research" which played a middleman role in selling uniforms to Iraq. It was run by, none other than Spiro Agnew (Nixon's former VP who resigned to avoid bribery and tax evasion charges), John Mitchell (Nixon's chief of staff and Watergate organizer), and Richard Nixon himself. In the mid-1980s, more than a decade after Watergate, Nixon wrote a cozy letter to former dictator and friend Nicolae Ceausescu to close the deal. Global Research, incidentally, swindled the Iraqis, who thought they were getting US-made uniforms for desert conditions. Instead they received, and discarded, the winter uniforms from Romania.
By late 1992, the sales of chemical and biological weapons were revealed. Congressional Records of Senator Riegle's investigation of the Gulf War Syndrome show that that the US government approved sales of large varieties of chemical and biological materials to Iraq. These included anthrax, components of mustard gas, botulinum toxins (which causes paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing and is often fatal), histoplasma capsulatum (which may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules), and a host of other nasty chemicals materials.
To top it all off, there is the question as to whether Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was a set up. Evidence indicates that the US knew of Iraq's plans -- after all, the military and intelligence agencies of the two countries were working very closely. Newspaper reports about the infamous meeting between then-Ambassador Glaspie and Iraq officials, and a special ABC report in the series "A Line in the Sand," indicated that, although the US officials told Iraq that it disapproved, they indicated that the US would not interfere.
Bear in mind the attitude of the US policy makers not only regarding Iraq's use of gas against Iranians, but in general. Richard Armatige, then Asst. Sec. of Defense for International Security Affairs and now Deputy Secretary of State, said with a hint of pride in his voice that the US "was playing one wolf off another wolf" in pursuing our so-called national interest. This kind of cool machismo resembled the pride that Oliver North verbalized with a grin during the Iran-Contra hearings as "a right idea" with regard to using the Ayatollah's money to fund the Contras. The setting up of Iraq thus would be very consistent with the goals and the character of US foreign policy in the Middle East: to control the region's states either for US oil companies or as bargaining chips in deals with other strong countries, and to profit by selling massive quantities of weapons to states that will war with or deter those states that oppose US "interests."
The problem that Armatige refers to was the fact that by 1990, the US and allied arming of Iraq had given Iraq a decisive military edge over Iran, which upset the regional "balance." The thinking among the US hawks was Iraq's military needed to somehow be returned to its 1980 level. An invasion of Kuwait would enable the US to do that.
But initially many arms suppliers opposed the war on Iraq because they had been making huge profits from arms sales to Saddam's regime during the 1980s. Indeed, one US official interviewed expressed his disappointment with Iraq's invasion and the subsequent Gulf War because the relationship with Iraq could have continued to be "very profit...uh mutually profitable."
Bush Sr. and others expected that after the war, Saddam would capitulate to US designs on the region. With a heeled Saddam, the interests of arms suppliers, defense contractors, and the many US oil corporations could be renewed. Iraqi would have to re-arm itself and invest in oil drilling and processing facilities that were destroyed by US forces. And to pay for all that, Iraq would have to sell oil cheap, which served the interests both of the giant oil corporations and the American public who had begun buying GM SUVs en masse. It would be good for US business.
The invasion today is, above all, to renew US firm's access to Iraqi oil. As reported recently in the New York Times, former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power, argues that, "It's pretty straightforward, France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them. If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."
His views are of course supported by the new Iraqi government-in-waiting. Faisal Qaragholi, the "petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States" says that "Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people." Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, put it more bluntly and sadi that he favored a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which would replace the existing agreements that Iraq has with Russia and France. "American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil," Chalabi said.
Note also that Bush and company have a personal stake in unilateral action. According to Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff at ABC, "Dick Cheney's Halliburton Co. had interests in Iraqi oil production after the [Gulf ] war."
Thus, following the Gulf War, Cheney, Bush Sr. and others didn't expect that Saddam would refuse to abide by US interests and join the so-called "family of nations." This is really what President Bush Jr meant when he said at a cabinet meeting on Sept. 24, 2002 that he intends "to hold Saddam Hussein to account for a decade of defiance."
There is no shock about any of this, nor of the sordid assortment of officials and individuals directly or indirectly involved -- from the infamous US-based international arms dealer Sarkis Songhanalian and former Gen. Secord, to Oliver North and Richard Nixon -- and many others. They had been part of covert US arms and drug deals and Mafia dating back decades. Iraqgate was in fact also part of Irangate, and both are about a shadow government that circumvents domestic and international laws in arming regimes and terrorist organizations to enhance the profits of US businessmen and corporations.
The public learned since the mid-1980s that the shadow government folks played all sides of various wars, and made curious business alliances. Profits were good, but there were also ideological reasons. While arming Iraq and putting proceeds into their pockets, the covert operators also armed Iran. Israel of course, had also been arming Iran since the Ayatollah came into power in order to counter Iraq. The US soon joined these operations after Regan came to power.
Oliver North, Bush Sr., Dennis McFarlane, and Gen. Secord, and others purchased from the CIA spare parts for US-made weapons and more than two thousand TOW missiles, which the CIA had purchased at discount rates from the Pentagon. Secord and North sold the weapons and parts to Iran in exchange for cash and the release of US hostages in Lebanon.
In public, Ronnie Reagan repeatedly condemned negotiations with terrorists in principle and even stated on national TV that there had been no negotiations with terrorists. He went back on air a few months later and said that while he still didn't believe "in his heart" that the US had negotiated with terrorists, the facts told him "otherwise." He escaped impeachment because he "couldn't remember" signing detailed instructions for sales of weapons to Iran and for the diversion of money to the Contras.
Insiders considered these trades "business as usual." Former General Secord, for instance, unashamedly told Congressional investigators during the Iran-Contra hearings that his arms-dealing firm, the "Enterprise," which sold the TOWs to other brokers and then to Iran, was a legitimate profit-making business. And as we all know, at the other end of the deal, North channeled a portion of the proceeds from those sales through Swiss banks and to the terrorist Contras in Honduras. Their job was to overthrow the Sandinista regime that overthrew the brutal 43-year Somoza family dictatorship supported by the US.
Again, in legal terms, the scandal was not only that Reagan's administration circumvented the Boland Amendment which outlawed military support to the Contras, but also that the CIA had also mined the harbors of Nicaragua. When the US was taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and convicted of violating international laws, President Reagan disregarded this conviction saying the ICJ had no jurisdiction over the United States.
Bush Jr. has stated the following reasons for invading Iraq, all of which are accurate except the last: (1) Iraq used chemical weapons, (2) Iraq tried to build nuclear weapons, and (3) the US tried to bring Iraq into the "family of nations" (said first by Bush Sr). He is correct that Iraq was willing to use chemical weapons and has been trying to build nuclear weapons for years. Of course, he just fails to mention that the US was willing to sell, and to help Iraq use, chemical weapons of mass destruction and that his friends profited handsomely in so doing. He also fails to note that today Hussein is not seen as an immediate threat by it's Arab neighbors, none of whom have called for his ouster, and that Iraq has only a shadow of the power it had in 1990. There is no evidence to support Bush or Blair's claims that Iraq has and is preparing to use chemical or biological weapons.
Lastly, what about Bush Jr.'s third contention, that the US had tried to bring Saddam into the "family of nations?" In view of the thousands upon thousands of women, children, and men butchered with US battle plans and arms, as well as arms from Europe, one could only characterize that family as being composed of unscrupulous, profiteering, vile accomplices to mass murder. Perhaps this is also a reason why the Bush administration opposes the formation of the World Court and needs US politicians and military personel exempt from international law.
Elson E. Boles is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Saginaw Valley State University University in Michigan.
[end]
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 3/21/2003 8:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Mayflower
Quoting another author:
To whatever degree Saddam is a tyrant, he would not be that without the US government.
Iconoclast
If this is true then it just lends more moral force to us taking unilateral action to fix our mistake. If we installed Saddam and helped him to be a tyrant then we have a special legitimacy and responsibility to take him out.
Mayflower
Quoting another author:
The question is not whether Saddam is willing to use chemical or other weapons of mass destruction again. The question is whether the US is currently selling and helping countries use weapons of mass destruction.
Iconoclast
Seems to me that these are both very important questions that must both be dealt with. The second in no way abrogates the need to take care of the first.
Shouldn’t we deal with both of them? Are you okay with Saddam killing his own people with WMD? Are you okay with Saddam supplying WMD to terrorists? Shouldn’t this be dealt with?
Mayflower
Quoting another author:
To top it all off, there is the question as to whether Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was a set up. Evidence indicates that the US knew of Iraq's plans -- after all, the military and intelligence agencies of the two countries were working very closely. Newspaper reports about the infamous meeting between then-Ambassador Glaspie and Iraq officials, and a special ABC report in the series "A Line in the Sand," indicated that, although the US officials told Iraq that it disapproved, they indicated that the US would not interfere.
Iconoclast
This whole article seems very conspiracy theory oriented to me. As though we lured Iraq into Kuwait in order to set up this whole series of events so that now we can finally take over their oil.
I read this article and see the normal confusion and yes, hypocrisy, evident in any large organization. But I see absolutely no evidence that Bush is willing to put his place in history and his second term on the line because he wants to help some oil companies.
Let’s look at one example of a misread in this article:
quote:
The invasion today is, above all, to renew US firm's access to Iraqi oil. As reported recently in the New York Times, former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power, argues that, "It's pretty straightforward, France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them. If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them."
To me it is obvious that Woolsey is commenting on how to influence France and Russia to team up with us in order to move Iraq toward decent government. The goal being to have a decent government in Iraq (for all the obvious security and regional stability reasons) NOT to team up against Iraq so we can steal their oil. The author is “leading the witness” in typical journalist style. The data used in no way backs up the headline when read carefully. I find this sort of slant throughout the article.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 03/22/2003 01:12:01 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 3/21/2003 9:52 PM (GMT -6) | | By the way, it is NOT true that most Christian organizations do not support the war. It is true that most liberal (politically) Christian organizations like the so far left they don't know what right is World Council Of Churches (the, "hey, I never met a cause that hated the United States that i didn't like" church). Most conservative churches support the war. Perhaps Mayflower thinks only liberal churches are truly Christian, in that case then that would be true. Alas though that is another debate.
By the way, at the rate this is going the "war" should be done before this debate is.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 165 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:01 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|