|
Happy Imbeciles At War
|
View this Thread in Original format
| JohnSmith |
http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/
| quote: |
This is not a war. Iraq will not be a war. Do we understand this? We do not seem to understand this. This is heavily corporatized power brokers killing each other for oil and capital. Oh yes it is.
Let's be perfectly clear. You cannot have a war when the so-called enemy has done nothing to provoke you and is absolutely no threat to your national safety and has no significant military force and has negligible chance of even setting off a firecracker near your own overwhelming death machines, and whose only weapons of minimal destruction are the rusty short-range warheads and biochemical agents we sold him 20 years ago, and kept selling to him, even after we knew he was gassing his own people.
You cannot have a war when there is nothing to fight against, when it's essentially going to be a huge U.S. military stomping/bombing exercise, when, just like Afghanistan, we stand to suffer zero U.S. casualties (except for those we seem to kill ourselves), and we just bomb and bomb and kill and kill and shrug.
Let us look closer: The U.S. buildup for war with Iraq is the biggest in decades. The Iraq operation, in the words of Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, will be "the most massive precision air campaign in history," because, well, because we can. Because we want to annihilate everything as fast and ruthlessly as possible, simply because the longer such an operation takes and the more expensive and obviously pointless it becomes, the more everyday citizens snap out of it and begin to say, wait, why are we doing this again?
Saddam's meager military, let us be reminded, is a tiny quivering fraction of what it was 10 years ago during Desert Storm, and even then it took U.S. forces less than four days to almost completely annihilate it.
Now it's even weaker, due to ongoing sanctions and U.N. oversight and a decade of continuous U.S.-led bombing raids on Iraqi targets you never read about. Hell, this time we should have those thousands of pesky Iraqi soldiers and innocent civilians dead and slaughtered in a weekend.
This is a Mack truck versus a Pinto. This is an F-16 versus a paper airplane, a Tomahawk missile versus a spit wad. There is no contest. "War" is exactly the wrong term. The U.S. attack on Iraq will be, of course, a massacre. Go team.
Now let's say you sense this all to be true. Let's say you have a queasy feeling deep in your gut as you realize no one is talking about exactly why we need to launch a second simultaneous war to go along with the unwinnable assault we're still running in Afghanistan.
Remember Afghanistan? Yes, we're still there, warring away. Bombing and attacking and killing. Haven't caught a single al Qaeda leader of note yet. That looks bad for Dubya. Killed a few thousand civilians though. Shrug.
So, let's boil it down: Why go to war with Iraq? Can't find Osama, is one reason. That looks bad. Really, really want to steal all that delicious oil for ShrubCo, is another. Saddam is clearly a very bad guy who kills his own people and snickers in America's general direction, is a third. But then again, so are at least a half-dozen other vile tyrants of the world. Volatile, nuke-ready North Korea? Let's open some talks. Feeble, oil-ready Iraq? Let's massacre. Hmm.
Perhaps you wonder why no one is asking any of these questions, making similar points.
Perhaps you wonder just where in the hell is the spineless major media in all this, as they watch the chicken-hawk Shrubster himself, between golf swings, announce how tens of thousands of American troops are being sent to the Gulf alongside an enormous billion-dollar military buildup and imminent gobs of heaping death raining down upon a paltry oppressed nation and coming up next on CNN, we interview that dumb guy from "Joe Millionaire." Perfect.
Perhaps you wonder where is the national TV coverage of all those huge anti-war protests, hundreds of thousands of people, all over the world, from Spain to Berlin to New York to San Francisco.
Perhaps you wonder where are all the "serious" journalists, the risk-taking news agencies pointing up the absurdity of it all, the imminent horror, the outrage. Could it be these news agencies are owned by major conservative corporations? Could it be they're all terrified of losing ratings, of saying something unpopular, of invoking Cheney's wrath, of losing advertiser dollars and that ever-precious, ever-dwindling dumbed-down audience? One guess.
And besides, who needs a reason for a massacre anymore? This is the age of the preemptive-strike, screw-you Bush regime. Who needs, for example, the Monroe Doctrine, that crusty old rag stating how America will go to war only as a last resort, as a defensive measure, and won't become embroiled in unwinnable foreign wars that are none of our business?
Who needs every precedent ever set by international law? Who needs the U.N. Charter? Who needs confused congressional approval? Who needs ethical integrity?
Screw it all, says Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his black eyes gleaming like the devil's own golf balls. Let us become an ever-more-hated rogue nation, attack whomever we want, whenever we want, with no international support and much international disgust. Let us squander, childishly, within months, the generous and compassionate goodwill afforded our country by our international allies in the wake of 9/11.
Let us wantonly kill innocent civilians and children and thousands of Iraqi soldiers who, let us repeat, did nothing to provoke us. Shall we? Yes let's. Why? Shhh.
Let us be clear. Saddam is not a threat to the U.S., and never has been. He is merely yet another cowardly and murderous thug, much like the countless other despots and autocrats, from Marcos to King Fahd to Ariel Sharon, the U.S. has added to its payroll when it served our needs, and whom we then backhand when we need economic stimulus, or when the president needs a boost to his approval ratings, or when the corporate pals of the Bush WASP mafia need more billion-dollar petrochemical and defense contracts. Aha. Perhaps this is why.
We are, in short, going to attack and massacre Iraq for the oil reserves, to protect America's corporate interests, to feed the gaping maw of the military-industrial complex. Same as it ever was.
But let us be perfectly clear: We are most definitely not cranking up the appalling war machine for your sake, or for the country's protection, or for our commendable standing among our humanitarian allies.
We are not doing it to defeat terrorism (it will have the exact opposite effect), or to make the streets safer for our children, or because they've found big scary WMDs (they haven't -- not a one) -- or even for Iraq's own good. And to believe we are is, quite simply, to be wholly misinformed and openly, flagrantly, deliberately deceived.
|
*raucous applause* |
|
|
| Izzy |
| we've heard that arguement many times on the forum, fact remains that Saddam has defied in the past and still controly is defing the peace treaties he had to sign after losing to gulf war and the obligations it required of his government. leaving the US and its secret oil greedy intentions aside :rolleyes: Saddam is still the tyrant he has always been and would never step down as long as he is alive, how do you as the world go about making a regime change in iraq. US or no US it is about time that something descive be done once and for all to solve the problems he poses to the world. one can not sit aside and just do nothing. |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
| Izzy, i expect better from you. |
|
|
| Izzy |
hehe you're right buddy, you deserve better from me :)
in all honesty im just in a lazy mood lately, dealing with back to school stuff |
|
|
| Izzy |
there is justification for war agianst iraq already in international law. In 1991 the Gulf War ended in a ceasefire agreement in which Iraq agreed to a series of UN resolutions requiring the unrestricted inspection of all Iraqi weapons sites (resolutions 687 & 715, full text can be found at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/c..._gulf/59543.stm). Shortly after Iraq agreed to the conditions of the ceasefire agreement, it began to block the UN inspectors. The work of the inspectors continued despite the realization that Iraq intended to violate not only the spirit of the ceasefire agreement, but also the letter of the UN inspection resolutions.
By 1997 UN inspectors had declared they could not work effectively, and by late 1998 the UN team withdrew. In 1999, a new UN resolution demanded their re-entry. Nothing happened. In July 2002, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan concluded that Saddam had no intention of complying with its ceasefire commitments, and ended negotiations.
Iraq has defied 14 UN resolutions over 11 years (http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm). The leaders of the Gulf War coalition could therefore be justified in resuming their original action. Britain and the United States chose instead, and chose correctly and wisely, to seek new domestic consensus and to return to the UN to secure an unambiguous resolution on an unconditional program of inspection. Even in the event a new resolution is not forthcoming, justification for action exists both in terms of the original ceasefire and subsequent UN resolutions.
better? :p
edit: and btw i just now finished all the article you posted (i tried in the beginning and coulnt do it, this time i forced myself). that was a very loosey article, full of illogical and irrational viewpoints that dont take into account any historical or factual context |
|
|
| Renegade |
I'm always a tad weary of these parochial pieces that rely more heavily on emotional rhetoric than facts, but I read this one on a different site on one of my aimless cyber-wanderings (perhaps the site you've posted there actually) and thought it was better than most similar articles that I've read.
Then again, I suppose that it was thinly veiled emotive/patriotic rhetoric that garnered support for the war in the first place, so perhaps we need to more of the same to eliminate it..... :-/
| quote: | | there is justification for war agianst iraq already in international law. |
Is there moral justification for it though?
| quote: | | Shortly after Iraq agreed to the conditions of the ceasefire agreement, it began to block the UN inspectors. The work of the inspectors continued despite the realization that Iraq intended to violate not only the spirit of the ceasefire agreement, but also the letter of the UN inspection resolutions. |
There is little doubt that Iraq was less than forthcoming with UN inspections, but really, they were given very little reason to be.
Firstly, strict sanctions remained in place despite the level of co-operation. Secondly, while I wouldn't necessarily agree with Saddam Hussein when he accused the UN Inspectors of being "spies", there is little doubt that the US government, in a subterfugal manner, were able to use the UN Inspectors to obtain sensitive information pertaining to the Iraqi state. The UN inspectors could hardly be accused of intentionally spying on Iraq on behalf of the American government, yet I think it is widely accepted that the US government were able to obtain state-sensitive information in this way. I remember reading an entire article devoted to this topic and I'll post it if I can find it again.
Finally, if you return to that link you posted earlier, and have a quick glance over Resolution 699, you'll find this piece of text:
".... the Government of Iraq shall be liable for the full costs of carrying out the tasks authorized by section C ["the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of the items specified"]; and requests the Secretary-General to submit to the Council within 30 days for approval recommendations as to the most effective means by which Iraq's obligations in this respect may be fulfilled."
If I'm reading that correctly, Iraq were not only expected to open up their doors completely to the UN (risking information being leaked to the US - and the rest of the globe - as a result) while suffering under the sanctions imposed by the UN, they were also expected to fund much of the activities undertaken by the UN inspectors. This means (depending on how long this resolution was enacted for) Iraq was funding the destruction of its own military for potentially seven years (1991 - 1998) while being essentially banned from foreign trade (where it may have been able to get this money from).
Now I'm not justifying the clandestine tactics employed by Iraq in attempting to disrupt the activities of the UN Inspectors, but nonetheless, under the circumstances, it's not hard to see why they were so stubborn during the operation.
| quote: | | by late 1998 the UN team withdrew. |
By the order of President Clinton I may add.
Also, prior to that date, despite the "uncooperative nature" of Iraq, UN inspection had been incredibly successful. To quote myself:
| quote: | | According to UNSCOM, under their own supervision, they were able to affect "the destruction of 38,000 chemical weapons, 480,000 liters of live chemical weapons agents, 48 missiles, six missile launchers, 30 missile warheads modified to carry chemical or biological agents, and hundreds of pieces of related equipment with the capability to produce chemical weapons." In addition to this, "the International Atomic Energy Agency categorically declared that Iraq no longer has a nuclear program" and "817 of the 819 Soviet-supplied long-range missiles had been accounted for". |
All these weapons were destroyed up until the point that the inspectors were called out to allow the US an opportunity to flex its military muscle once more. Of course, since they've returned after a 4 years hiatus, still no evidence of a smoking gun, nor that the Iraqi military has re-armed/re-grouped significantly since much of it was destroyed in the Gulf War (and even before the Gulf War it was comparitively weak). I suppose at least we know now that we can level the city of Baghdad without the pesky fear of anything even vaguley resembling a "retaliation" eh. :rolleyes:
| quote: | | In July 2002, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan concluded that Saddam had no intention of complying with its ceasefire commitments, and ended negotiations. |
At what point were they re-opened then? Didn't Iraq agree to allow inspectors in (unconditionally) only a couple of months after that date (much to the chagrin of Dubbya and his insatiable push for a war that could actually be justified on the grounds of Iraqi non-compliance)?
| quote: | | Even in the event a new resolution is not forthcoming, justification for action exists both in terms of the original ceasefire and subsequent UN resolutions. |
But how can the US and Britain point to broken UN Resolutions as justification for their war, when the UN itself does not approve of it? Can they punish Iraq - using milatary force - for ignoring the will of the UN, when using this said force is, in itself, going against the will of the UN?
As I said in a previous post, the permanent members are quick to use the UN when it supports their agenda, but ignore it completely when some element of sacrifice or compromise is called for. Until the UN can reign in these "international vigilantes" I suspect that such injustices as the pre-emptive war on Iraq will continue to happen. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Is there moral justification for it though?
|
i belive so, but that doesnt mean my morality is the same as yours, here in lies why we may differ. i was trying to bring in a nutrual issue (legality) which can be based behind facts and reason and not morality which i find to be based on emotion and subjectivity.
| quote: |
But how can the US and Britain point to broken UN Resolutions as justification for their war, when the UN itself does not approve of it?
As I said in a previous post, the permanent members are quick to use the UN when it supports their agenda, but ignore it completely when some element of sacrifice or compromise is called for. Until the UN can reign in these "international vigilantes" I suspect that such injustices as the pre-emptive war on Iraq will continue to happen. |
hehe, i told you the UN sucks ;)
ok sorry for keeping this short, there was other points i wanted to reply but class starts in 15 minutes, and im in my boxers at home - gotta run (!!!) |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
I will have more later as well, but here is a relevant quote from an article i am currently reading:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showart...=15&ItemID=2869
[quote]
Perhaps the least convincing of the official reasons for wanting to get rid of Saddam is the administration's contention that he has no respect for UN resolutions. On September 30, 2002, Rumsfeld staged a show at the Pentagon featuring gun-camera footage of Iraqi antiaircraft artillery firing at American and British warplanes patrolling the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq. Rumsfeld said, "With each missile launched at our air crews, Iraq expresses its contempt for the UN resolutions -- a fact that must be kept in mind as their latest inspection offers are evaluated." But Secretary Rumsfeld must know that no UN resolution (or other international authority) exists to legitimate the no-fly zones. The U.S., Britain, and France created them unilaterally in March 1991 in order to protect Kurds and Shi'ites who had risen in revolt against Saddam after the Gulf War. Although this stopped Saddam from using his air power, the Bush administration then stood by as he crushed the uprisings because it feared that a successful Kurdish revolt would destabilize its ally, Turkey, which has long been engaged in a ruthless suppression of its own Kurdish minority. France soon dropped out of the no-fly zone enforcement, but the U.S. and Britain have continued and, more recently, escalated their air attacks, although they are clearly illegal under international law.
(Stephen Zunes, Tinderbox: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 2003), p. 86; Robert Dreyfuss, "Persian Gulf-or Tonkin Gulf?" The American Prospect, fol. 13, no. 23 (December 2002); and Eric Schmitt, "Pentagon Shows Videos of Iraq Firing At Allied Jets," New York Times, October 1, 2002.) |
|
|
| juzfugen |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Is there moral justification for it though? |
war in itself is immoral
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
".... the Government of Iraq shall be liable for the full costs of carrying out the tasks authorized by section C ["the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of the items specified"]; and requests the Secretary-General to submit to the Council within 30 days for approval recommendations as to the most effective means by which Iraq's obligations in this respect may be fulfilled."
If I'm reading that correctly, Iraq were not only expected to open up their doors completely to the UN (risking information being leaked to the US - and the rest of the globe - as a result) while suffering under the sanctions imposed by the UN, they were also expected to fund much of the activities undertaken by the UN inspectors. This means (depending on how long this resolution was enacted for) Iraq was funding the destruction of its own military for potentially seven years (1991 - 1998) while being essentially banned from foreign trade (where it may have been able to get this money from). |
Why shouldnt they have to pay for it? When the Us and Russia signed the nuke limitation treaties who do you think payed for the destruction of the weapons?
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
By the order of President Clinton I may add.
|
i hardley think the president of the us can withdrawl a un force form another country
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Also, prior to that date, despite the "uncooperative nature" of Iraq, UN inspection had been incredibly successful. To quote myself:
All these weapons were destroyed up until the point that the inspectors were called out to allow the US an opportunity to flex its military muscle once more. Of course, since they've returned after a 4 years hiatus, still no evidence of a smoking gun, nor that the Iraqi military has re-armed/re-grouped significantly since much of it was destroyed in the Gulf War (and even before the Gulf War it was comparitively weak). I suppose at least we know now that we can level the city of Baghdad without the pesky fear of anything even vaguley resembling a "retaliation" eh. :rolleyes: |
Wrong hans blitz and the rest of the un team is still looking for the several thousand unaccounted weapons of mass destruction that the un knew where there in 1998 and now they are missing?
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
At what point were they re-opened then? Didn't Iraq agree to allow inspectors in (unconditionally) only a couple of months after that date (much to the chagrin of Dubbya and his insatiable push for a war that could actually be justified on the grounds of Iraqi non-compliance)? |
Correct and the iraqis still arent garnering unfeathered access to all sites and persons.were going on 12 years of them ignoring a treaty they signed when will the diplomacy huggers finally say thats enough lets get him? after he attacks another country with chemicle or biological or god forbid a nuclear weapon.
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
But how can the US and Britain point to broken UN Resolutions as justification for their war, when the UN itself does not approve of it? Can they punish Iraq - using milatary force - for ignoring the will of the UN, when using this said force is, in itself, going against the will of the UN?
As I said in a previous post, the permanent members are quick to use the UN when it supports their agenda, but ignore it completely when some element of sacrifice or compromise is called for. Until the UN can reign in these "international vigilantes" I suspect that such injustices as the pre-emptive war on Iraq will continue to happen. |
where do you get this false information. broken resolution justification for war ? your damn right whats the point of having resolutions if they arent enforcable. the un will support all actions taking by the us and its allies against iraq.
on a side not i am in the us military i just returned from afghanistan a few weeks ago i spent 6 months over there doing my job and im shipping out to the middles east in a few weeks. this is my job and im happy to go as is everyone else in the service. this is how we earn our paycheck and what we are trained for. and until you have seen the things i have seen you should keep your mouth shut on what you think is happening. dont beleive the liberal media because they have their heads so far up their asses they dont know whats going on over there. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by juzfugen
war in itself is immoral
|
An attractive sentiment - but I doubt you, sir, would feel the same were you relocated to Earth as it would have developed if no wars had ever been fought.
Human fetuses may only develop provided that they receive nutrients through their mother obtained by the destruction and consumption of other life forms.
Evolution of species is dependent upon the deaths of the unfit, whilst the better adjusted live on.
Addition by subtraction is fundamental to advancement both nature and civilization. Sacrifices often must be made in order for the greatest good to be brought to fruition.
Only through the destruction of tyranny do we even give liberty the opportunity to flourish, and only the naive believe that the tyrant will relinquish his vicegrip on his people's freedom by any means other than it being pried from his cold, dead hands.
As the article JohnSmith has quoted says quite clearly - it would be no real problem for the United States to defeat Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. If we choose to sit idle and tolerate the continued oppression of his people when with but a simple stroke we could give them a chance to live in true liberty - to give their children a chance to grow up in a society where they will not be killed or tortured for voicing their opinions or merely because of their ethnicity - then their suffering and their oppression is on our hands as well.
It would be very easy to ignore the dreadful state of human rights in the region. It would be easy to tell ourselves that if we just keep sending aid, and negotiating with the tyrants, that we will be helping those people as much as we can.
But what's right is rarely what's easiest or most popular. Every single day that we do nothing, thousands of children are born into a society where they will be denied basic human rights. This situation is unacceptable. We have the power to fix it. To refrain from doing so, in my less than humble opinion, is what's really morally unjustifiable.
Regards,
Arbiter |
|
|
| Izzy |
| nice post arbiter, i really respect that kind of thinking. thats something i have been aluding to many times, this isnt just a matter of squabble fueds between two countries, much more lies at stake here. there is definitely a morality issue at the heart of this, for me at least. |
|
|
| JohnSmith |
while i agree with human rights, and that the iraqis are suffering, the question then becomes, who decides what is moral? why should the US be the country to decide this, and enforce it?
If we are to apply our current standards of living, and our values to other countries, then there are better places to start than iraq.
Take singapore for example, where you can't chew gum, and are physically beaten with a cane for infringments of the law. is this not a human rights violation?
why aren't we rushing to singapore to liberate these people?
what about amsterdamn, where drugs and prostitution are legal? why don't we go save these people from their moral indiscretions.
true, drug use, prostitution, and chewing gum are smaller problems that WMD, but what about isreal, pakistan, and india that all possess nuclear weapons? what about NK who has admitted to restarting their nuclear program in direct violation of the NPT? these are serious problems, and it the US is truly to be judge jury and enforcer of all that is right in the world, then why not stop the actions of these countries? the answer, because it's not their job to do so, no matter what bush might think.
so, then the question is, why is it their job to do so in iraq? the answer, because this altruistic goal of liberating iraq is only a cover for an oil grab.
for more information: http://www.zmag.org/content/showart...=15&ItemID=2869 |
|
|
|
|
