Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > 2+2 Communities > Other Other Topics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-09-2003, 07:16 AM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,298
Default War on Terrorism

Saddam Hussein

Committed war crimes during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s;

the genocidal Anfal campaign against Iraqi Kurds in 1987 and 1988;

the invasion and occupation of Kuwait in 1990;

the violent suppression of the 1991 uprising that led to 30,000 or more mostly civilian deaths;

the draining of the southern marshes during the 1990s, which ethnically cleansed Hussein's southern flank of thousands of Iraqi Shiites;

more ethnic cleansing of the non-Arab population of Kirkuk and other northern Iraqi areas;

and the summary executions of thousands of political opponents.

Following the invasion of Kuwait, Iraqi authorities killed more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians, held foreign diplomats hostage, unleashed environmental crimes on a colossal scale, looted Kuwaiti property, rained missiles down on Israeli civilians and committed war crimes against American soldiers. The fate of more than 600 missing Kuwaiti citizens remains unknown.

http://www.genocidewatch.org/TrySaddam.htm

I can envision the responses now, the US has supported dictators in the past that have done terrible things; look at all the atrocities in whatever third world country, etc. and whatever other obfuscation that directs attention from the issue at hand i.e. Saddam Hussein being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, his violations of UN resolutions, and his proclivity to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists organizations thus participating in state sponsored terrorism. For those who doubt that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction they are in effect disputing what the USA government is stating. If the USA is wrong, which is what those that doubt Iraq has WMD's are saying in effect, either the USA is involved in a massive disinformation campaign designed to dupe the world community or the USA government is demonstrating total imcompetance in interpreting their data and in drawing their conclusions. Personally regarding Iraq I believe that the chances of either being true are very small.

Iraq's State Sponsored Terrorism

The accusations are the Iraq has provided a safe haven to many mid east terrorist groups. Also Iraq was the only Arab-Muslim nation not to condemn the 9/11 attacks against the US. The official Iraqi statement on 9/11 read the US was "reaping the fruits of (its) crimes against humanity." Of course if one believe's the USA government is not involved in a massive dinformation campaign nor totally incompetant in interpreting intelligence data, then producing weapons of mass destruction should be included as well.

Iraq's Oil and Militarily Strategic Location

Most are aware of the vast reserves of oil that Iraq has. To me one of the most overlooked aspects of this crisis is the militarily advantageous strategic position would afford the USA in the mid east. I don't support willful violations of national sovereignty. I offer these reasons not as justification for war but as reasons to be suspicious about going to war. The US position is that after 9/11 President Bush declared a "war on terrorism" and this is the next battleground in that "war." Yes he could have chosen other battlegrounds or not to pursue a "war on terrorism" but I think it's fairly clear that USA citizens basically support the efforts against terrorism. There is a saying about the presidency that applies to his decision, "the buck stops here." Iraq will certainly be one of battlegrounds eventually so I'm not convinced that the Bush administration has ulterior motives. Bush policy and Iraq oil offer up a correlation but the causation is unproved IMO. I tend to give the president of the United States the benifit of the doubt.

The Futility of Containment

I've posted on this subject previously. I just think that if you want to effect an outcome of the removal of a despot with weapons of mass destruction that is willfully violating UN regulations that resulted from that despots naked aggression against a neighboring country, you don't let the despot continually negotiate the terms of the settlement reached years ago and choose those terms that are to his liking. I have no doubt that the USA will choose to invade Iraq soon if events continue to unfold as they have. I have to believe that Hussein believes this as well and is faced with three alternatives abdicate, die, or turn over the weapons and the tools that are utilized to make them. Containment is not an effective policy IMO for affecting those ends.



Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-09-2003, 10:07 AM
Ray Zee Ray Zee is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: montana usa
Posts: 2,043
Default Re: War on Terrorism

great post tom. i think everyone believes he needw to be removed from power, and his whole regime. its just how to do it.
wait and let it deintergrate. that may work
economically destroy him like we did to the soviet union. that will work but take years.
kill him. that will work if we can find him. but our past efforts with him and ossama have shown that isnt very effective. but puts them out of commission.

problem with the last method is that it gives the whole islamic world another reason to bind itself against us. now they have a reason to use methods of terror to try to bring us down.
plus if we alienate the rest of the free world against us we are starting down the road of economic decline much sooner.
so whats the answer?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-09-2003, 03:11 PM
Zeno Zeno is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Spitsbergen
Posts: 1,599
Default Re: War on Terrorism

An interesting perspective and justification for bringing Saddam and his cohorts to justice. Well done post.

-Zeno
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-09-2003, 03:31 PM
Chris Alger Chris Alger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,160
Default Re: War on Terrorism -- Reply Pt I

Tom:

If Iraq tried to justify war with Iran or Syria with a similar laundry list of depredations, would you take it seriously? Wouldn't you point out that Iraq is responsible for things as bad or worse, and is therefore utterly unlikely to be motivated by repugnance for war crimes? Wouldn’t you refuse, at that point, even considering throwing in support for Iraq’s war effort on the grounds that it has failed to candidly make any case for mass destruction, before reaching the equally compelling question of whether Iraq is likely to provide a better alternative?

If your response is something like, but Iraq is a totalitarian dungeon and the U.S. is a free and open society, I agree, but so what? When it comes to how these two countries treat foreign states, the US has a far greater record of aggressive military intervention and support for repressive regimes around the globe. It used military force abroad more than 50 times in the 20th century (besides the major wars). See, e.g., http://216.239.57.100/custom?q=cache...n&ie=UTF-8 The US supported dictatorships and repressive governments to the detriment of democratic forces in virtually every country in Latin America, as well as dozens more on other continents. See, e.g., http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US...y_Parenti.html

I think you will agree that our record of doing this does not prove that the U.S. is an intolerable threat to the world or justify the use of preemptive military force against the U.S.

If you further contend that the U.S. is committed to democratizing and liberating Iraq for the benefit of Iraqis, then let’s see the evidence instead assumptions that whatever we do can’t be much worse. What safeguards exist to prevent the US from supporting an autocratic Iraqi regime that murders and tortures Kurds and Islamic fundamentalists, that privitizes oil resources for the benefit of foreign corporations and an inner circle of cronies, or generally that the US will let Iraq to be Iraq instead of imposing its own will to further U.S. interests? They don’t exist.

The crimes you cite (and they are indeed serious) are similar to those fomented with U.S. support by Turkey, Indonesia and Israel, and actually pale by comparison to the horrific crimes of US-supported Guatemala (via Israel) and El Salvador (openly and directly). Iraq and Turkey both murder and imprison Kurds for the crime of wanting independence, yet we condemn Iraq while giving Turkey lethal aid. Your list of Iraqi crimes is not problematic because of the hypocrisy, but because it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion of whether the U.S. can justify going to war with Iraq. The only purpose it can serve is to provide a false moral justification to wage war for unrelated reasons.

"I can envision the responses now, the US has supported dictators in the past...."

I'm sick of that phrase. Although every fact is "in the past," apologists for US policy constantly invoke it to subtly suggest that its all over now, that before we might have been bad -- "mistakes were made" -- but we are at the dawn of a new era, etc. (One never finds the same phrase used to describe what Iraq did 20 years ago).

U.S. support for aggression, torture and terror is part of a pattern, not an aberration from a norm. It resulted from the interplay of particular institutions, including a means of getting the American public to tolerate them. Those institutions remain unchanged and support for US crimes "in the past" is not even acknowledged by US policy makers. So no, not in the past, right now, this very second: the US is making no efforts to have clients like Morocco comply with solemn obligations of UN resolutions and international law, the US is giving material assistance to those that imprison and torture political dissidents in Egypt and Turkey, the US is supporting state terror in the West Bank. The US itself was found guilty in the World Court of “unlawful military force” against Nicaragua, and remains to this day unwilling to acknowledge the verdict.

"...and whatever other obfuscation that directs attention from the issue at hand i.e. Saddam Hussein being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, his violations of UN resolutions, and his proclivity to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists organizations thus participating in state sponsored terrorism."

If these are the issues "at hand," why did you being your post with a laundry list of unrelated bad things Iraq has done "in the past?" If US support for dictators and state terror obfuscates the issues of Iraq's WMD, violating UN resolutions and support for terrorism, then why does the list of other bad things Iraq has done not amount to the same?

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-09-2003, 03:46 PM
Chris Alger Chris Alger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,160
Default Re: Reply Pt II

Tom:

You said: "For those who doubt that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction they are in effect disputing what the USA government is stating. If the USA is wrong, which is what those that doubt Iraq has WMD's are saying in effect, either the USA is involved in a massive disinformation campaign designed to dupe the world community or the USA government is demonstrating total imcompetance in interpreting their data and in drawing their conclusions. Personally regarding Iraq I believe that the chances of either being true are very small."

Here you are using a pejorative to describe an obvious process of manufacturing consent as evidence that no such process exists. The US is trying to sell a policy of war. It will use whatever facts and propaganda work. As citizens, we have the responsibility to review and evaluate the evidence. It is manifestly irresponsible for us to assume that government spin and disinformation is unlikely, and that we should support the war therefore.

“The accusations are the Iraq has provided a safe haven to many mid east terrorist groups.”

But the only fact to back those accusations (that Powell made before the UN) are that one associate of bin Laden, Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, received medical treatment in Baghdad. Powell asserted that Zarqawi met with associates in Baghdad, but offered no evidence that Zarqawi met with or received assistance from was supported by any Iraqi official or planned or conducted any terrorist operations from Iraq.

This is what Powell claimed: “Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network, headed by Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants.”

In addition to the medical treatmen Zarqawi received, this is Powell's evidence:

“Last year, an Al Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was "good," that Baghdad could be transited quickly.”

“We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice, and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad; Zarqawi still remains at large to come and go.”

Do you sreiously find this persuasive evidence that Iraq is responsible for Al Queda?

Powell isn’t even alleging that Zarqawi remains in Baghdad. In other words, the US doesn’t know where Zarqawi is, but possesses secret information that at one point “should” have made him “easy to find” if Iraq were inclined to capture him. So the evidence that Iraq is inclined to funnell anthrax and other WMD to its traditional enemies in Al Qaeda turns out to be a vague allegation from secret evidence that Iraq is not doing all it can to arrest Al Qaeda members. Isn’t it obvious that there are many other countries to which this applies, remembering in particular the failure of the Saudis to cooperate with the FBI after the truck bombing at the Abdul Aziz airbase, or the widely-reported support of those in our Gulf State clients for Hamas? You cannot reconcile our continued support for these countries with a sudden need for regime change in Iraq when the same facts apply.

In short, Powell’s evidence continues to fit the pattern: unpleasant facts that one could easily apply to U.S. allies and the U.S. itself, surrounded with a lot of scary rhetoric and hyperbole. Such is the proof that will cost thousands of innocent people their lives and plunge the U.S. into God-knows-what. When we apply the evidence to a basic test for justifying war – whether the case is so compelling that we should risk the lives of our children and compatriots – then the answer, IMO, is clear: everyone should do whatever they can within reason to oppose it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-09-2003, 04:26 PM
IrishHand IrishHand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 888
Default Re: War on Terrorism

The accusations are the Iraq has provided a safe haven to many mid east terrorist groups.
Nevermind the fact that that statement is complete conjecture - a reasonable person would argue that they're not nearly as safe there as they are here. Iraq is sufferering from a decade of UN sanctions, the US has no such burden. No...a bright person would rightly conclude that a terrorist would be far better off hanging out in this country. If the nice standard of living insn't a big enough draw, we'll throw in some flight training (landings cost extra) and some lax immigration enforcement.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.