and speaking for the Affirmatives...
A letter from a Cambridge University student of Iraqi decent.
Source: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7218.asp
Link via : http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/17/1045330515777.html
Iraq and "War"*
Dear All,
I am writing this email after a lot of deliberation about whether I have the right to use my strange and unique position (within our group) to argue the case FOR an invasion in Iraq. But in the end I have decided that I have more to lose if I keep quiet.
Firstly, my parents, my family, are from Iraq. My parents fled from Iraq some 23 years ago leaving everything and everyone behind when at that point 17 of our relatives had been "disappeared" or imprisoned for no reason whatsoever. They sought refuge in Kuwait for 4 years, but once again were forced to flee with us (my brother and I) in tow when Saddam had the Kuwaitis deport the Iraqi men back to Iraq. On the border he had these returnees shot dead.
We were lucky; we made it safely to Britain. My father was lucky - his brother was caught trying to escape and tortured. So here I am, 19 years later, never having set foot in the country of my parents.
The anti-"war" feeling prevalent amongst people I speak to seems to me totally misjudged and misplaced. I have to be honest here and say that I feel it is based partly on a lot on misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq and partly on people's desire to seem "politically rebellious" against the big, bad Americans. And let me say, that I also agree the American government is indeed big and bad; I have no illusions about their true intentions behind an attack on Iraq.
More than you or I, the Iraqis know the ignorant and truly atrocious attitude of the American government towards most of the world's population. Iraqis felt the effect of this when America (and the rest of the West in fact) eagerly supported and supplied Saddam when he waged his war-of-attrition against Iran causing the death of 1 million Iraqis and Iranians and the disappearance of many more - there was no anti-war movement to help them.
They felt the effect of this attitude when America and the West ignored, supplied even, Saddam's use of biological weapons on the people of Halabja, killing 5000 people in one day, and causing the deformed births of babies in the area to this day.
Iraqis know well the untrustworthy nature of the Western governments when the coalition gave Saddam permission, a few days after the end of the Gulf War, to massacre the uprising peoples of Iraq when they had wrested control from him in most cities of Iraq.
The people of Iraq echo our discontentment with America and the West's policy in Iraq, for they know the realities of such a policy far better than any of us shall ever know.
I want to ask those who support the anti - "war" movement (apart from pacifists - that is a totally different situation) their motives and reasoning behind such support. You may feel that America is trying to blind you from seeing the truth about their real reasons for an invasion. I must argue that in fact, you are still blind to the bigger truths in Iraq. I must ask you to consider the following questions:
- Saddam has murdered more than a million Iraqis over the past 30 years, are you willing to allow him to kill another million Iraqis?
- Out of a population of 20 million, 4 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their country during Saddam's reign. Are you willing to ignore the real and present danger that caused so many people to leave their homes and families?
- Saddam rules Iraq using fear - he regularly imprisons, executes and tortures the mass population for no reason whatsoever - this may be hard to believe and you may not even appreciate the extent of such barbaric acts, but believe me you will be hard pressed to find a family in Iraq who have not had a son/father/brother killed, imprisoned, tortured and/or "disappeared" due to Saddam's regime. What has been stopping you from taking to the streets to protest against such blatant crimes against humanity in the past?
- Saddam gassed thousands of political prisoners in one of his campaigns to "cleanse" prisons - why are you not protesting against this barbaric act?
- An example of the dictator's policy you are trying to save - Saddam has made a law to give excuse to any man to rape a female relative and then murder her in the name of adultery. Do you still want to march to keep him in power?
I remember when I was around 8 I went along with my father to a demonstration against the French embassy when the French were selling Saddam weapons. I know of the numerous occasions my father and many, many others haves attended various meetings, protests and exhibitions that call for the end of Saddam's reign. I have attended the permanent rally against Saddam that has been held every Saturday in Trafalgar Square for the past 5 years. The Iraqi people have been protesting for YEARS against the war - the war that Saddam has waged against them. Where have you been?
Why is it now that you deem it appropriate to voice your disillusions with America's policy in Iraq, when it is actually right now that the Iraqi people are being given real hope, however slight and precarious, that they can live in an Iraq that is free of the horrors partly described in this email?
Whatever America's real intentions behind an attack, the reality on the ground is that many Iraqis, inside and outside Iraq support invasive action, because they are the ones who have to live with the realities of continuing as things are while people in the West wring their hands over the rights and wrongs of dropping bombs on Iraq, when in fact the US & the UK have been continuously dropping bombs on Iraq for the past 12 years.
Of course it would be ideal if an invasion could be undertaken, not by the Americans, but by, say, the Nelson Mandela International Peace Force. That's not on offer. The Iraqi people cannot wait until such a force materialises; they have been forced to take what they're given. That such a force does not exist - cannot exist - in today's world is a failing of the very people who do not want America to invade Iraq, yet are willing to let thousands of Iraqis to die in order to gain the higher moral ground. Do not continue to punish the Iraqi people because you are "unhappy" with the amount of power the world is at fault for allowing America to wield. Do not use the Iraqi people as a pawn in your game for moral superiority - one loses that right when one allows a monster like Saddam to rule for 30 years without so much as protesting against his rule.
Some will accuse me of being a pessimist for accepting that the only way to get rid of Saddam is through force. I beg to differ; I believe I have boundless optimism for the FUTURE of Iraq, where Iraqis are able to rebuild their shattered country, where Jews, Muslims, Christians, atheists, communists - all peoples of any and all backgrounds are able to live in peace and safety and without fear of persecution. I beg you to imagine such an Iraq, such a democracy in the Middle East, and ask where in that do you see pessimism? Such an Iraq is what is being envisaged and sought by many millions of Iraqis; such an Iraq is where I hope I will be able to take my children.
If you want to make your disillusions heard then do speak out, put pressure on Blair, Bush & Co to keep to their promises of restoring democracy to Iraq. Make sure they do put back in financial aid what they have taken over the years, and make sure that they don't betray the Iraqis again. March for democracy in Iraq. If you say that we can't trust the Americans then make sure that you are a part of ensuring they do fulfil their promises to the Iraqis.
So I conclude by asking you to consider your REASONS for supporting the anti-"war" movement, and if you are going, the anti-"war" demo. If you still feel that what I have said does not sway you from this stance, then I can do no more.
In some ways I do admire the movement because it proves what people can achieve when they come together and speak out. Unfortunately for Iraq nobody spoke out earlier.
Please feel free to email me with your counter-arguments, comments, thoughts etc.
Rania Kashi
(* I use apostrophes with "war" because in truth it will be no war, but an invasion. A war presumes relatively equal forces battling against each, with resistance on both sides. A US-led force will encounter NO resistance from the Iraqi people or the army.)
Monday, February 17, 2003
Rob's reply to Amelia
Amelia,
...I think Vietnam is a beaming example of the right idea aimed at the wrong people (the soldiers being the symptom and the politicians being the cause). However military power has always been a political weapon. [Rob indulges in a history lesson on the start of WW1)...anyway enough of history, the fundamental principle of a clear mandate to engage in the act of war remains. Spin doctors have unfortunately been very adept at manufacturing mandates for all sorts of things and popular debate is one way of keeping it in check.
The big difference to 1991 was that the world was responding to the invasion of a sovereign nation when Iraq rolled into Kuwait ("a UN Security Council resolution authorised the use of force to reverse the invasion" BBC website). ironically this is the very thing that the US Administration appears to have planned for Iraq.
I absolutely agree with your comments about the perceived threat being cooked up by the US administration vis a viz the Cold War threat. One can almost see a thread of McCarthyism running through this Axis of Evil campaign ('You're either with us or against us').
I agree with your comment about Hans Blix managing a level of containment of the threat with the inspectors in Iraq. It is a key tennent in modern warfare doctrine, not to occupy strategic land for its own sake but to "remove the enemy's ability to wage war". I do believe this is already being achieved and it points to there being a number of creative means to do so and not just charging in bayonets fixed.
As for the Arab solution, it is idealogically sound but practically impossible to implement. Please look at my friends letter on my website as he explains how the US Administration would not really want to restore democracy to Iraq. This is because a Shi'ite government (the ethnic majority) is likely to align it with Iran, a Kurdish government would challenge Turkey, so a Sunni ruler would be the only acceptable fit. Sunni's are only 17% of the population so it would likley be achieved by dictatorship. [Simon goes into it in better detail in his letter]
I appreciate you comments on the petitions and must admit to normally having higher standards than what I displayed the other day.
Please keep the thoughts coming and bring more people together to consider their own future. My concern is after Iraq is resolved, we may face a crisis of momental scale with North Korea if the same approach is used. Where does it all stop?
Take care
Rob
Amelia,
...I think Vietnam is a beaming example of the right idea aimed at the wrong people (the soldiers being the symptom and the politicians being the cause). However military power has always been a political weapon. [Rob indulges in a history lesson on the start of WW1)...anyway enough of history, the fundamental principle of a clear mandate to engage in the act of war remains. Spin doctors have unfortunately been very adept at manufacturing mandates for all sorts of things and popular debate is one way of keeping it in check.
The big difference to 1991 was that the world was responding to the invasion of a sovereign nation when Iraq rolled into Kuwait ("a UN Security Council resolution authorised the use of force to reverse the invasion" BBC website). ironically this is the very thing that the US Administration appears to have planned for Iraq.
I absolutely agree with your comments about the perceived threat being cooked up by the US administration vis a viz the Cold War threat. One can almost see a thread of McCarthyism running through this Axis of Evil campaign ('You're either with us or against us').
I agree with your comment about Hans Blix managing a level of containment of the threat with the inspectors in Iraq. It is a key tennent in modern warfare doctrine, not to occupy strategic land for its own sake but to "remove the enemy's ability to wage war". I do believe this is already being achieved and it points to there being a number of creative means to do so and not just charging in bayonets fixed.
As for the Arab solution, it is idealogically sound but practically impossible to implement. Please look at my friends letter on my website as he explains how the US Administration would not really want to restore democracy to Iraq. This is because a Shi'ite government (the ethnic majority) is likely to align it with Iran, a Kurdish government would challenge Turkey, so a Sunni ruler would be the only acceptable fit. Sunni's are only 17% of the population so it would likley be achieved by dictatorship. [Simon goes into it in better detail in his letter]
I appreciate you comments on the petitions and must admit to normally having higher standards than what I displayed the other day.
Please keep the thoughts coming and bring more people together to consider their own future. My concern is after Iraq is resolved, we may face a crisis of momental scale with North Korea if the same approach is used. Where does it all stop?
Take care
Rob
Amelia's second letter
Dear Rob,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It really makes me happy to hear from people who are genuinely interested in thinking about this. Like you said: "I would be happy if people just dedicated a few minutes to join this debate and demonstrate what they believe in." And your letter made me think some more about my position.
So please be patient... and if you can't be bothered to wade through my wandering thoughts, please skip to the petition section at the end!
I'm glad you brought up the soldiers, because I hadn't thought about them at all. Sad but I guess not suprising. I completely agree with you that it's important that the world - the politicians - are addressing and debating the issue before sending in soldiers. I don't know very much about this, so it's hard for me to say anything interesting or valuable. Basically, it seems that the problem is that people who don't support a military action and who won't support the soldiers during or after an action, cannot be bothered to influence their governments enough to keep that action from happening. If I won't make my voice heard now, then I should be aware enough to inform myself about the situation of the soldiers and to support them as fellow citizens, even if I don't support the administration, because by my inaction I am partially responsible for them being there. On the other hand, the incredible lack of public support for and acceptance of Vietnam vets in the US - a tragedy - has an influence now on how quick the government is to send in troops. So public action/inaction/opinion does have real effect in the long-run. It would be much faster and less painful if we, the public, were more aware and more organised.
One of the many differences between soldiering now and soldiering through history up thru 1945 seems to be that now, in a professional army, the soldiers are putting their lives on the line not for their beliefs, but for the beliefs or desires of someone else; usually politicians. Maybe that has always been true - my point is that I don't think the post-WWII conflicts involving US troops are cases of self-defense. We appease or ignore lots of dictators.
If the US hadn't have gone into Kuwait in 1991, the resolution of the Iraqi invasion might have been much more complicated. I don't remember whether the US got a UN resolution or not then. However, forcing the UN to take action (by not acting independently) will be necessary at some point, and it is happening. The UN must become a viable organisation capable of timely action to resolve conflicts.
I think the argument that Sadaam is going to use his WMD to hurt us, soon, is not the whole issue, and it may not be correct. During the Cold War, we really believed that the Soviet Union was going to hurt us, soon. This turned out to be totally wrong, but acting on the belief cost a lot of lives. The Russians were nowhere near as close to using nukes as the Americans were (my slightly-informed opinion).
There is the opinion that the goal in Iraq has already been achieved; If there are hundreds of international inspectors crawling and flying over Iraq, the situation is contained. What do you think of this?
The key point, which you also brought up, is involvement of Arab nations. Have you heard the theory that the whole American govt's pro-war stance (threat) is an elaborate political ploy to prod the Arab nations into removing Sadaam? To wit, less than a year ago the US was talking mostly regime change and the Arab states were insisting that the issue is disarmament - now the world is focused on disarmament and the Arabs are seriously (well, media reports) exploring options for organising regime-change in Iraq. I doubt the Bush administration is sophisticated or organised enough to carry out such an elaborate stunt, but it's an interesting thought.
ABOUT PETITIONS
Today I received a different anti-war petition, from a college friend. It's a women's petition, so I hope that doesn't turn you off, but the key thing for me is that after a tiny bit of searching I was able to find it online, and to learn something about how this all works.
The petition itself is on the page www.petitiononline.com/waw2002/petition.html. It may be a little more than you are ready to sign, as it is against American military action period. But, there are other petitions - see below. I did go ahead and sign the women's petition on the website, and I will recommend to other people that they go there and sign the petition online rather than forwarding the letter (as you can see I'm not bothering to send you the letter version).
(The site that organised the petition is called www.unreasonablewomen.org. Interesting site. Other interesting sites (to me at least) I found connected with this are: www.guerrillanews.com and www.adventuredivas.com.)
The petition is hosted by a site called www.petitiononline.com. The site hosts lots of different petitions and collects the signatures as a free service for people and groups who want to organise a petition. Here is what they say about how valid the petition signatures are:
"Ensuring identity without invading privacy is quite a challenge. We don't see that a perfect solution is currently available, given that there is not yet any widespread foolproof system for establishing online identity. An email address is not enough to establish identity by itself, but it is substantially more than just a name, and it provides a link back to a person for (the potential of) confirming identity."
On the website is a FAQ page that talks more about all this stuff.
Hope this information is interesting! Is sure was interesting to me.
Kind regards
Amelia
Dear Rob,
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It really makes me happy to hear from people who are genuinely interested in thinking about this. Like you said: "I would be happy if people just dedicated a few minutes to join this debate and demonstrate what they believe in." And your letter made me think some more about my position.
So please be patient... and if you can't be bothered to wade through my wandering thoughts, please skip to the petition section at the end!
I'm glad you brought up the soldiers, because I hadn't thought about them at all. Sad but I guess not suprising. I completely agree with you that it's important that the world - the politicians - are addressing and debating the issue before sending in soldiers. I don't know very much about this, so it's hard for me to say anything interesting or valuable. Basically, it seems that the problem is that people who don't support a military action and who won't support the soldiers during or after an action, cannot be bothered to influence their governments enough to keep that action from happening. If I won't make my voice heard now, then I should be aware enough to inform myself about the situation of the soldiers and to support them as fellow citizens, even if I don't support the administration, because by my inaction I am partially responsible for them being there. On the other hand, the incredible lack of public support for and acceptance of Vietnam vets in the US - a tragedy - has an influence now on how quick the government is to send in troops. So public action/inaction/opinion does have real effect in the long-run. It would be much faster and less painful if we, the public, were more aware and more organised.
One of the many differences between soldiering now and soldiering through history up thru 1945 seems to be that now, in a professional army, the soldiers are putting their lives on the line not for their beliefs, but for the beliefs or desires of someone else; usually politicians. Maybe that has always been true - my point is that I don't think the post-WWII conflicts involving US troops are cases of self-defense. We appease or ignore lots of dictators.
If the US hadn't have gone into Kuwait in 1991, the resolution of the Iraqi invasion might have been much more complicated. I don't remember whether the US got a UN resolution or not then. However, forcing the UN to take action (by not acting independently) will be necessary at some point, and it is happening. The UN must become a viable organisation capable of timely action to resolve conflicts.
I think the argument that Sadaam is going to use his WMD to hurt us, soon, is not the whole issue, and it may not be correct. During the Cold War, we really believed that the Soviet Union was going to hurt us, soon. This turned out to be totally wrong, but acting on the belief cost a lot of lives. The Russians were nowhere near as close to using nukes as the Americans were (my slightly-informed opinion).
There is the opinion that the goal in Iraq has already been achieved; If there are hundreds of international inspectors crawling and flying over Iraq, the situation is contained. What do you think of this?
The key point, which you also brought up, is involvement of Arab nations. Have you heard the theory that the whole American govt's pro-war stance (threat) is an elaborate political ploy to prod the Arab nations into removing Sadaam? To wit, less than a year ago the US was talking mostly regime change and the Arab states were insisting that the issue is disarmament - now the world is focused on disarmament and the Arabs are seriously (well, media reports) exploring options for organising regime-change in Iraq. I doubt the Bush administration is sophisticated or organised enough to carry out such an elaborate stunt, but it's an interesting thought.
ABOUT PETITIONS
Today I received a different anti-war petition, from a college friend. It's a women's petition, so I hope that doesn't turn you off, but the key thing for me is that after a tiny bit of searching I was able to find it online, and to learn something about how this all works.
The petition itself is on the page www.petitiononline.com/waw2002/petition.html. It may be a little more than you are ready to sign, as it is against American military action period. But, there are other petitions - see below. I did go ahead and sign the women's petition on the website, and I will recommend to other people that they go there and sign the petition online rather than forwarding the letter (as you can see I'm not bothering to send you the letter version).
(The site that organised the petition is called www.unreasonablewomen.org. Interesting site. Other interesting sites (to me at least) I found connected with this are: www.guerrillanews.com and www.adventuredivas.com.)
The petition is hosted by a site called www.petitiononline.com. The site hosts lots of different petitions and collects the signatures as a free service for people and groups who want to organise a petition. Here is what they say about how valid the petition signatures are:
"Ensuring identity without invading privacy is quite a challenge. We don't see that a perfect solution is currently available, given that there is not yet any widespread foolproof system for establishing online identity. An email address is not enough to establish identity by itself, but it is substantially more than just a name, and it provides a link back to a person for (the potential of) confirming identity."
On the website is a FAQ page that talks more about all this stuff.
Hope this information is interesting! Is sure was interesting to me.
Kind regards
Amelia
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Rob's reply to Amelia
Amelia,
First of all it is never boring when you write so please keep doing so. Secondly I must apologise, you are quite right about the shabbiness of the petition. My blind zealousness hastily overlooked what the normally sceptical Rob would have picked up straight away. I no doubt think their heart was in the right place, however I agree about the inappropriate "US wants war" statement.
I have exactly the same view as yourself about the approach to this situation. I have been careful not to confuse my feelings about the US Adminstration's motivation and Sadam's regime. I would support the UN signing the dotted line on a military solution as a last resort, because something must be done. Although I am aware that this issue will not go away until the Arab nations wade in and sort out Iraq rather than the West's goodwill/imperialist blueprint for fixing these kind of problems.
One thing I am glad about, having been a soldier myself, is that the issue is being addressed & debated now while it lies with the politicians instead of raising a hubub when the soliders are sent in. I think soldiers on both sides need support and respect, from oneanother on the battlefield and from the rest of us, because they are putting their lives on the line for their beliefs. I would be happy if people just dedicated a few minutes to join this debate and demonstrate what they believe in.
Anyway must go, keep safe and keep in touch.
Cheers
Rob, George and Jemima
Apologies this is a random picture that has nothing to do with the seriousness of the Iraqi issue, but I just about wet myself when I saw it.
Amelia,
First of all it is never boring when you write so please keep doing so. Secondly I must apologise, you are quite right about the shabbiness of the petition. My blind zealousness hastily overlooked what the normally sceptical Rob would have picked up straight away. I no doubt think their heart was in the right place, however I agree about the inappropriate "US wants war" statement.
I have exactly the same view as yourself about the approach to this situation. I have been careful not to confuse my feelings about the US Adminstration's motivation and Sadam's regime. I would support the UN signing the dotted line on a military solution as a last resort, because something must be done. Although I am aware that this issue will not go away until the Arab nations wade in and sort out Iraq rather than the West's goodwill/imperialist blueprint for fixing these kind of problems.
One thing I am glad about, having been a soldier myself, is that the issue is being addressed & debated now while it lies with the politicians instead of raising a hubub when the soliders are sent in. I think soldiers on both sides need support and respect, from oneanother on the battlefield and from the rest of us, because they are putting their lives on the line for their beliefs. I would be happy if people just dedicated a few minutes to join this debate and demonstrate what they believe in.
Anyway must go, keep safe and keep in touch.
Cheers
Rob, George and Jemima
Apologies this is a random picture that has nothing to do with the seriousness of the Iraqi issue, but I just about wet myself when I saw it.
Monday, February 10, 2003
Amelia first reply to Rob's original letter
Dear George and Rob,
Good to hear from you guys! And thanks for the info about the protest in London on Feb 15. I'm in Hanoi so I probably won't be demonstrating in the streets, but I've been having lots of opportunities to discuss the issue with tourists and locals (mostly tourists) while travelling around Asia.
I just wanted to write a note about the petition you sent. I have received this petition, or a similar one, a couple of times before. I didn't sign it because I think it's poorly done and not even a real petition. It's just something to make people feel like they're doing something by spending 5 minutes on the internet. Anyone who really wanted to make a difference would do a little better job formulating their petition - or go to a demonstration.
Basically, when I read the text I was supsicious because the letter is vague and the tone is sensationalistic (global catastrophe, etc.), but mainly because it says that the UN has proposed a petition. The UN is not the kind of organization that starts petitions or collects signatures - usually this is done by ngo's or other pubic interest groups. Even the address in the email that they say to forward the signature list to, www.unicwash.org, says that they have nothing to do with this petition! You can see what they say about it at: http://www.unicwash.org/unic%20was%20response%20to%20petition.htm.
And finally (just to be even more pedantic), I think statements like "The United States wants war" are blatant provocations, since most US citizens are against it. Something like "The US administration is pushing for war" would be more accurate.
I think the most important issue is whether or not the US will follow the will of the UN, or just do what it wants. I am opposed to unilateral military action and I think the US should support the decisions of the Security Council and work with the other members to implement whatever the UN proposes. Then if it doesn't work, the UN will be under pressure to reform itself, which would be a good thing.
I think if the UN decides against war and the US goes ahead anyway, the UN should initiate sanctions against the US. This would be incredibly difficult to organize of course.
Anyway, sorry if this is boring to you.
Take care and be well, Amelia
Dear George and Rob,
Good to hear from you guys! And thanks for the info about the protest in London on Feb 15. I'm in Hanoi so I probably won't be demonstrating in the streets, but I've been having lots of opportunities to discuss the issue with tourists and locals (mostly tourists) while travelling around Asia.
I just wanted to write a note about the petition you sent. I have received this petition, or a similar one, a couple of times before. I didn't sign it because I think it's poorly done and not even a real petition. It's just something to make people feel like they're doing something by spending 5 minutes on the internet. Anyone who really wanted to make a difference would do a little better job formulating their petition - or go to a demonstration.
Basically, when I read the text I was supsicious because the letter is vague and the tone is sensationalistic (global catastrophe, etc.), but mainly because it says that the UN has proposed a petition. The UN is not the kind of organization that starts petitions or collects signatures - usually this is done by ngo's or other pubic interest groups. Even the address in the email that they say to forward the signature list to, www.unicwash.org, says that they have nothing to do with this petition! You can see what they say about it at: http://www.unicwash.org/unic%20was%20response%20to%20petition.htm.
And finally (just to be even more pedantic), I think statements like "The United States wants war" are blatant provocations, since most US citizens are against it. Something like "The US administration is pushing for war" would be more accurate.
I think the most important issue is whether or not the US will follow the will of the UN, or just do what it wants. I am opposed to unilateral military action and I think the US should support the decisions of the Security Council and work with the other members to implement whatever the UN proposes. Then if it doesn't work, the UN will be under pressure to reform itself, which would be a good thing.
I think if the UN decides against war and the US goes ahead anyway, the UN should initiate sanctions against the US. This would be incredibly difficult to organize of course.
Anyway, sorry if this is boring to you.
Take care and be well, Amelia
Rob,
Interesting that you mention your opinions are in a state of constant modification. I find I'm in the same boat.
I read a very good little book over the weekend called War On Iraq (or, perhaps, War In Iraq). On the cover the author is shown as Scott Ritter, ex Arms Inspector from UNSCOM (actually it's by William Rivers Pitt, who interviewed Ritter). It's tiny, maybe 50 pages. It's prominently displayed in virtually every bookshop I have visited of late.
Ritter's argument is that the Iraqis did have all sorts of weapons of mass destruction but the production facilities were totally destroyed by the inspectors. If any bio or chemical agents were left they would have decayed and be useless by now. And he doubts they could have rebuilt the production facilities since the inspectors left. He was particularly convincing to me (a sceptic) when talking about nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. As he says, long-range missiles need to be tested and there's no way they could do that in secret. And enrichment facilities making weapons-grade plutonium would release gamma radiation that could be detected. When UNSCOM was in Iraq they found none.
Basically, Ritter is saying that the Iraqis are lying, cheating toe-rags but they probably don't have any weapons of mass destruction or any way to make them. Let the inspectors have enough time to check.
That does make sense to me. However, I think that the threat of over-whelming force has to be used to force Iraq's compliance with the inspectors. Like I said before, I think Saddam is an expert at exploiting the weaknesses of his enemies and opponents and if he thought that the UN/Allies weren't really serious about using force then he'd be back to playing games. I don't see anything wrong with waiting for the inspectors to finish but if they do find the smoking gun, then the UN has to take some sort of decisive action.
After living in South America, and learning a bit about its recent history, I have to say I'm more cynical than you about governments' motives. I now believe that virtually no major player ever does anything for the "right" reasons. They're all still swinging from the trees. For example, I suspect France's motives for opposing military action have more to do with protecting its commercial interests than altruism. Last night's Bremner Bird and Fortune (pretty variable comedy but quite good about Iraq) gave a long list of the materiel and equipment the French had supplied to Iraq. And in the book, Scott Ritter mentions that some of the weapon-making facilities they destroyed used German equipment.
In my other email I mentioned it would only be a "good" war if the outcome was favourable for the innocent Iraqis. Scott Ritter made a very interesting point about that. He said there's no chance that America will allow Iraq to become a democracy if it overthrows Saddam.
Shi'ite Muslims make up 60% of the Iraqi population but America wouldn't want them in charge, as they would ally themselves with Shi'ite Iran (country number 2 in the Axis of Evil - whoops). The next biggest ethnic group in Iraq are the Kurds, with 23% of the population. Can't have them running the show either, America's good friends the Turks wouldn't stand for it. If you think the Turks have no influence in the US, you should have seen the documentary last week about the Armenian Genocide. When the US Congress was going to officially & overwhelmingly recognise the Turkish action of 1915 as genocide, the word came down from Pres. Bush to cancel the vote, in the interests of national security. Funnily enough, Turkey has just recently allowed US planes to be based in Turkey, after stalling for months about it.
Anyway, according to Scott Ritter, end result would be that the US would only allow another Sunni ruler of Iraq. Since the Sunnis only make up 17% of the population, the only way they could rule would be by a dictatorship, as now.
Talking of Saddam applying scorched earth tactics to Iraq if he was defeated, that's exactly what my Iraqi work-mate fears. He said that Saddam has announced he will leave nothing but sand in Baghdad for the Americans. My work-mate also said there are rumours Saddam has several missiles aimed at a dam up river of Baghdad. If he has to pull out, the rumour goes, he'll blow the dam and drown Baghdad.
Cheers,
Si
Interesting that you mention your opinions are in a state of constant modification. I find I'm in the same boat.
I read a very good little book over the weekend called War On Iraq (or, perhaps, War In Iraq). On the cover the author is shown as Scott Ritter, ex Arms Inspector from UNSCOM (actually it's by William Rivers Pitt, who interviewed Ritter). It's tiny, maybe 50 pages. It's prominently displayed in virtually every bookshop I have visited of late.
Ritter's argument is that the Iraqis did have all sorts of weapons of mass destruction but the production facilities were totally destroyed by the inspectors. If any bio or chemical agents were left they would have decayed and be useless by now. And he doubts they could have rebuilt the production facilities since the inspectors left. He was particularly convincing to me (a sceptic) when talking about nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. As he says, long-range missiles need to be tested and there's no way they could do that in secret. And enrichment facilities making weapons-grade plutonium would release gamma radiation that could be detected. When UNSCOM was in Iraq they found none.
Basically, Ritter is saying that the Iraqis are lying, cheating toe-rags but they probably don't have any weapons of mass destruction or any way to make them. Let the inspectors have enough time to check.
That does make sense to me. However, I think that the threat of over-whelming force has to be used to force Iraq's compliance with the inspectors. Like I said before, I think Saddam is an expert at exploiting the weaknesses of his enemies and opponents and if he thought that the UN/Allies weren't really serious about using force then he'd be back to playing games. I don't see anything wrong with waiting for the inspectors to finish but if they do find the smoking gun, then the UN has to take some sort of decisive action.
After living in South America, and learning a bit about its recent history, I have to say I'm more cynical than you about governments' motives. I now believe that virtually no major player ever does anything for the "right" reasons. They're all still swinging from the trees. For example, I suspect France's motives for opposing military action have more to do with protecting its commercial interests than altruism. Last night's Bremner Bird and Fortune (pretty variable comedy but quite good about Iraq) gave a long list of the materiel and equipment the French had supplied to Iraq. And in the book, Scott Ritter mentions that some of the weapon-making facilities they destroyed used German equipment.
In my other email I mentioned it would only be a "good" war if the outcome was favourable for the innocent Iraqis. Scott Ritter made a very interesting point about that. He said there's no chance that America will allow Iraq to become a democracy if it overthrows Saddam.
Shi'ite Muslims make up 60% of the Iraqi population but America wouldn't want them in charge, as they would ally themselves with Shi'ite Iran (country number 2 in the Axis of Evil - whoops). The next biggest ethnic group in Iraq are the Kurds, with 23% of the population. Can't have them running the show either, America's good friends the Turks wouldn't stand for it. If you think the Turks have no influence in the US, you should have seen the documentary last week about the Armenian Genocide. When the US Congress was going to officially & overwhelmingly recognise the Turkish action of 1915 as genocide, the word came down from Pres. Bush to cancel the vote, in the interests of national security. Funnily enough, Turkey has just recently allowed US planes to be based in Turkey, after stalling for months about it.
Anyway, according to Scott Ritter, end result would be that the US would only allow another Sunni ruler of Iraq. Since the Sunnis only make up 17% of the population, the only way they could rule would be by a dictatorship, as now.
Talking of Saddam applying scorched earth tactics to Iraq if he was defeated, that's exactly what my Iraqi work-mate fears. He said that Saddam has announced he will leave nothing but sand in Baghdad for the Americans. My work-mate also said there are rumours Saddam has several missiles aimed at a dam up river of Baghdad. If he has to pull out, the rumour goes, he'll blow the dam and drown Baghdad.
Cheers,
Si
Simon,
Appreciated reading your thoughts and understand that George has penned you her views already, although I haven't seen them. First of all I must apologise for the shabby petition that was on the bottom of the email. I don't think I would have normally allowed that one through, less signed it.
I was careful not to confuse my feelings on the US agenda for Iraq with what I think of Sadam. Without reservation I think that Sadam is a nasty piece of work. I read in the Independent last week an article supporting the impending war on Iraq, although not backing the US Administration's motivation. For me personally, I thought we in the first world stopped 'swinging from trees' long enough ago that doing the "right thing" for the wrong reasons was not an acceptable face of diplomacy. Quite simply it is Neanderthal. It is our own actions that determine good from bad and not a reliance on the actions of others to lower the bar.
Whilst the US invading Iraq may coincidentally stop Sadam's maltreatment of the Iraqi people, we must remember that this is not the reason that the US is taking a stance. The fact that they have let Sadam behave like this for years unchecked is obvious when you consider that they got involved in 1991 only because of Iraq invading Kuwait, a sovereign nation , who just happened to have a lot of oil. Before that they were even funding Sadam and his regime! This time around we see them raising their hackles not for the sake of stopping crimes against humanity but for the removal of 'weapons of mass destruction', entirely because it part of the US Homeland Defence strategy.
I also believe that the fate of the Iraqi people is being further jeopardised by the threat of imminent invasion. As a headline of the Guardian said on Saturday [of course I would never buy the Guardian, someone was reading it on the train!] the choice for Iraq's citizen soldiers is be killed by the US or be killed by Sadam, as the country mobilises to defend itself and Sadam. Whilst the status quo was terrible before all this kicked off, it is worse now than it would be if the West had done (a) nothing; or (b) something sensible like what France and Germany is proposing. The West has spared no end of column inches to suggest that Sadam may use these weapons against the invading force and that the soldiers are taking measures against such a scenario (vaccinations and NBC suits). What is overlooked is that Sadam would use these means as a measure of last resort within his own borders and would employ it as part of a scorched earth plan, like he used in Kuwait. The 'rub' is that the US administration far from taking partial responsibility for the potential gassing of millions of Iraqis, knows it can capitalise on the press it will generate to further its own cause. Beyond that the US adminstration has ruled in the use of nuclear weapons in this conflict. That is obscene and the irony that a world leader with the smallest majority in the world (a knats breath away from being a dictator by definition) is threatening to unleash the biggest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, in the cause of ridding the world of dictators with such stockpiles, has not been lost on me.
One thing I won't drone on about here is my feeling that the whole concept of a western design for peace in the Middle East is fundamentally flawed. History has borne this out and I ideologically remain hopeful of the League of Arab Nations sorting out its own rather than a botched attempt by the West. This is one of the prime reasons why I believe the UN has a mandate where the US and its Western Allies do not.
Of course I am not opposed to a military solution for dealing with Sadam and believe now is a good time to do so (although 1991 would have been better). My feelings remain that a military solution should be a last resort and I am in no way convinced (and neither is the UN Security Council) that we have exhausted all effective means of dealing with the situation. Should the French/German solution win the day then I think your Iraqi colleague may be bitterly disappointed to see the US Administration's interest wane when the weapons of mass destruction have gone but the regime of imprisonment and torture remains.
And finally, bear in mind that if the US administration is allowed to unilaterally invade a sovereign nation such as Iraq this time, it will all be small chips when they go after their public enemy number two, North Korea.
I, like yourself, have found the whole issue a difficult one and have had my opinion modified constantly. I am glad however that the issue is being discussed while it rests with the politicians rather than when it is left to the soldiers to carry out. I think soldiers on both sides need support and respect, from oneanother on the battlefield and from the rest of us, because they are putting their lives on the line for their beliefs. If/When it all kicks off I will be directing my anger at the politicians and not the military. I would be happy if people just dedicated a few minutes to join this debate and demonstrate what they believe in, either way, whilst they still can make a difference.
You're welcome to join us on Saturday and I always enjoy your views.
Cheers
Rob
Appreciated reading your thoughts and understand that George has penned you her views already, although I haven't seen them. First of all I must apologise for the shabby petition that was on the bottom of the email. I don't think I would have normally allowed that one through, less signed it.
I was careful not to confuse my feelings on the US agenda for Iraq with what I think of Sadam. Without reservation I think that Sadam is a nasty piece of work. I read in the Independent last week an article supporting the impending war on Iraq, although not backing the US Administration's motivation. For me personally, I thought we in the first world stopped 'swinging from trees' long enough ago that doing the "right thing" for the wrong reasons was not an acceptable face of diplomacy. Quite simply it is Neanderthal. It is our own actions that determine good from bad and not a reliance on the actions of others to lower the bar.
Whilst the US invading Iraq may coincidentally stop Sadam's maltreatment of the Iraqi people, we must remember that this is not the reason that the US is taking a stance. The fact that they have let Sadam behave like this for years unchecked is obvious when you consider that they got involved in 1991 only because of Iraq invading Kuwait, a sovereign nation , who just happened to have a lot of oil. Before that they were even funding Sadam and his regime! This time around we see them raising their hackles not for the sake of stopping crimes against humanity but for the removal of 'weapons of mass destruction', entirely because it part of the US Homeland Defence strategy.
I also believe that the fate of the Iraqi people is being further jeopardised by the threat of imminent invasion. As a headline of the Guardian said on Saturday [of course I would never buy the Guardian, someone was reading it on the train!] the choice for Iraq's citizen soldiers is be killed by the US or be killed by Sadam, as the country mobilises to defend itself and Sadam. Whilst the status quo was terrible before all this kicked off, it is worse now than it would be if the West had done (a) nothing; or (b) something sensible like what France and Germany is proposing. The West has spared no end of column inches to suggest that Sadam may use these weapons against the invading force and that the soldiers are taking measures against such a scenario (vaccinations and NBC suits). What is overlooked is that Sadam would use these means as a measure of last resort within his own borders and would employ it as part of a scorched earth plan, like he used in Kuwait. The 'rub' is that the US administration far from taking partial responsibility for the potential gassing of millions of Iraqis, knows it can capitalise on the press it will generate to further its own cause. Beyond that the US adminstration has ruled in the use of nuclear weapons in this conflict. That is obscene and the irony that a world leader with the smallest majority in the world (a knats breath away from being a dictator by definition) is threatening to unleash the biggest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, in the cause of ridding the world of dictators with such stockpiles, has not been lost on me.
One thing I won't drone on about here is my feeling that the whole concept of a western design for peace in the Middle East is fundamentally flawed. History has borne this out and I ideologically remain hopeful of the League of Arab Nations sorting out its own rather than a botched attempt by the West. This is one of the prime reasons why I believe the UN has a mandate where the US and its Western Allies do not.
Of course I am not opposed to a military solution for dealing with Sadam and believe now is a good time to do so (although 1991 would have been better). My feelings remain that a military solution should be a last resort and I am in no way convinced (and neither is the UN Security Council) that we have exhausted all effective means of dealing with the situation. Should the French/German solution win the day then I think your Iraqi colleague may be bitterly disappointed to see the US Administration's interest wane when the weapons of mass destruction have gone but the regime of imprisonment and torture remains.
And finally, bear in mind that if the US administration is allowed to unilaterally invade a sovereign nation such as Iraq this time, it will all be small chips when they go after their public enemy number two, North Korea.
I, like yourself, have found the whole issue a difficult one and have had my opinion modified constantly. I am glad however that the issue is being discussed while it rests with the politicians rather than when it is left to the soldiers to carry out. I think soldiers on both sides need support and respect, from oneanother on the battlefield and from the rest of us, because they are putting their lives on the line for their beliefs. If/When it all kicks off I will be directing my anger at the politicians and not the military. I would be happy if people just dedicated a few minutes to join this debate and demonstrate what they believe in, either way, whilst they still can make a difference.
You're welcome to join us on Saturday and I always enjoy your views.
Cheers
Rob
Simon.Elms@ wrote:
Seems to me that whether it's a "good" war or not depends on the outcome, particularly for the inhabitants of the country on the receiving end. I would say that on balance Afghanistan turned out to be a good war, by that criteria. Yup, the Yanks no doubt killed lots of innocent civilians, and a few Allied combatants as well, but it seems to me that in general the population of Afghanistan is better off now than it was under the Taliban.
Note I don't say it's a "just" war. I suspect that a lot of the Americans' motivation has to do with oil. Having said that, though, I'm also aware that good results can come about from selfish actions. For example, the Marshall Plan after WWII had a lot to do with building up Western Europe so it could be a sturdy bastion against the communists. But the end result was still that the shattered countries of Western Europe were rebuilt using American money.
Sadam does strike me as having a very similar personality to Hitler, or to Milosevic. Give him an inch and he'll take a mile. He's been dicking the UN around for 13 years now, and it seems from the inspectors' reports he's continuing to do so. At what point do you say enough is enough, or do you just say to hell with it, it's too much effort? The thing I think about repeatedly in these days, is whether WWII would have been averted if France and Britain hadn't been so gutless over Czechoslovakia. If they had mobilised in 1938 would it have stopped Hitler? And would it have been better to have reined in Hitler that way, or was it better to fight WWII in the end, killing 19 million people in the process, but totally wiping out the Nazis instead of just curbing them?
It's easy to see in hindsight that something should have been done about Sadam during the Gulf War. In ten years time will they be saying the same thing about 2003?
To be honest, I'm really interested to hear why people oppose the war. Obviously the majority of Brits do but I'd like to hear their reasons. The only one that makes sense to me would be that a war might be devastating for the innocent Iraqi civilians. If this is the reason, why was it different in Afghanistan? And if people had the same fears about Afghanistan before the war there, were their fears bourn out in reality? I'm looking to be convinced that not going to war is better than going to war. I'm really after some convincing arguments but I haven't heard them so far.
The problem is that I work with a guy who's an Iraqi refugee from Baghdad, who still has family there. Somehow most folks arguments carry little weight when compared to those of someone who's got a very personal stake in the outcome.
Love,
Si
Seems to me that whether it's a "good" war or not depends on the outcome, particularly for the inhabitants of the country on the receiving end. I would say that on balance Afghanistan turned out to be a good war, by that criteria. Yup, the Yanks no doubt killed lots of innocent civilians, and a few Allied combatants as well, but it seems to me that in general the population of Afghanistan is better off now than it was under the Taliban.
Note I don't say it's a "just" war. I suspect that a lot of the Americans' motivation has to do with oil. Having said that, though, I'm also aware that good results can come about from selfish actions. For example, the Marshall Plan after WWII had a lot to do with building up Western Europe so it could be a sturdy bastion against the communists. But the end result was still that the shattered countries of Western Europe were rebuilt using American money.
Sadam does strike me as having a very similar personality to Hitler, or to Milosevic. Give him an inch and he'll take a mile. He's been dicking the UN around for 13 years now, and it seems from the inspectors' reports he's continuing to do so. At what point do you say enough is enough, or do you just say to hell with it, it's too much effort? The thing I think about repeatedly in these days, is whether WWII would have been averted if France and Britain hadn't been so gutless over Czechoslovakia. If they had mobilised in 1938 would it have stopped Hitler? And would it have been better to have reined in Hitler that way, or was it better to fight WWII in the end, killing 19 million people in the process, but totally wiping out the Nazis instead of just curbing them?
It's easy to see in hindsight that something should have been done about Sadam during the Gulf War. In ten years time will they be saying the same thing about 2003?
To be honest, I'm really interested to hear why people oppose the war. Obviously the majority of Brits do but I'd like to hear their reasons. The only one that makes sense to me would be that a war might be devastating for the innocent Iraqi civilians. If this is the reason, why was it different in Afghanistan? And if people had the same fears about Afghanistan before the war there, were their fears bourn out in reality? I'm looking to be convinced that not going to war is better than going to war. I'm really after some convincing arguments but I haven't heard them so far.
The problem is that I work with a guy who's an Iraqi refugee from Baghdad, who still has family there. Somehow most folks arguments carry little weight when compared to those of someone who's got a very personal stake in the outcome.
Love,
Si
From: Rob Gourdie [mailto:rob_gourdie@yahoo.com]
Sent: 07 February 2003 17:04
To: Everyone
Subject: Stop the War, Rally London Saturday 15 Feb
Hi everyone.
Well the new job is working well and we are trying to sort ourselves to move down to Brighton as soon as we can. Hopefully that will be before WAR breaks out, so we can sell our London friends floor space in our lounge at extortionate prices whenever they feel the need to evacuate the capital. Only joking about the extortionate price (I'm sure we can work out a pre-pay instalment plan...) but the state of the world these days *sheesh!*.
We thought our introduction of Jemima to politics one day, would be a compulsory mind-numbing visit to Westminister, but alas no. Saturday 15 February young and old (and Jemima) will be demonstrating in London for their continued existence in the Land of the Good. Yes someone must have shifted the border one night and we now seem to be living in the Land of Not Very Good At All.
I hope you form your own decision about this and don't fall back to watch the war unfold on TV, when it is currently being decided in your own streets and newspapers. If you feel the urge please make your opinion known by joining the peaceful demonstration on Saturday 15 Feb, starting at 12.30 from Embankment and Gower Street, finishing in Hyde Park.
Also you can forward the bottom of this email onto whoever you like. For those not in the UK, please feel free to sit in your home at the time of the march and wave banners and blow whistles! [additional dressing up as policemen and brandishing handcuffs only allowed between consenting adults]
Rob
Sent: 07 February 2003 17:04
To: Everyone
Subject: Stop the War, Rally London Saturday 15 Feb
Hi everyone.
Well the new job is working well and we are trying to sort ourselves to move down to Brighton as soon as we can. Hopefully that will be before WAR breaks out, so we can sell our London friends floor space in our lounge at extortionate prices whenever they feel the need to evacuate the capital. Only joking about the extortionate price (I'm sure we can work out a pre-pay instalment plan...) but the state of the world these days *sheesh!*.
We thought our introduction of Jemima to politics one day, would be a compulsory mind-numbing visit to Westminister, but alas no. Saturday 15 February young and old (and Jemima) will be demonstrating in London for their continued existence in the Land of the Good. Yes someone must have shifted the border one night and we now seem to be living in the Land of Not Very Good At All.
I hope you form your own decision about this and don't fall back to watch the war unfold on TV, when it is currently being decided in your own streets and newspapers. If you feel the urge please make your opinion known by joining the peaceful demonstration on Saturday 15 Feb, starting at 12.30 from Embankment and Gower Street, finishing in Hyde Park.
Also you can forward the bottom of this email onto whoever you like. For those not in the UK, please feel free to sit in your home at the time of the march and wave banners and blow whistles! [additional dressing up as policemen and brandishing handcuffs only allowed between consenting adults]
Rob
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
Thursday, November 14, 2002
Thursday, November 07, 2002
Friday, November 01, 2002
Well its another Friday afternoon and here you are. I can announce that I have this week acquired two new blogspot assistants (or "bitches" as we like to call them in prison) to help me trawl the web for the bits that sink to the bottom. Introducing Ash and Nick. One dresses up as a fireman for work and the other dresses up as a fireman in the privacy of his own home.
Happy Friday
Happy Friday
This is a brilliant site full of research about those stories and emails you get sent on a regular basis. Truth or Fiction.com
Is there any truth to the rumour there are guns out there that look like mobile phones?
Yep.
Is there any truth to the rumour that people are ringing you on your mobile and asking you to dial '90#' so they can rip you off? Load of bollocks!
Is there any truth to the rumour there are guns out there that look like mobile phones?
Yep.
Is there any truth to the rumour that people are ringing you on your mobile and asking you to dial '90#' so they can rip you off? Load of bollocks!
This just in from "WeirdNewsOnline.com"
Assassin Mistakenly Honored At Martin Luther King Celebration
The town of Lauderhill, Florida is very upset after a plaque intended to honor James Earl Jones instead honored the wrong man. The plaque was to be displayed at a celebration of Martin Luther King Jr.'s life, but instead of honoring Jones, the plaque read, "Thank you James Earl Ray for keeping the dream alive." James Earl Ray was the man who assassinated King in 1968. A Merit Industries spokesman Herbert Miller, said that it was caused by an unintentional error, "We in no way meant any disrespect. It was an honest error."
Assassin Mistakenly Honored At Martin Luther King Celebration
The town of Lauderhill, Florida is very upset after a plaque intended to honor James Earl Jones instead honored the wrong man. The plaque was to be displayed at a celebration of Martin Luther King Jr.'s life, but instead of honoring Jones, the plaque read, "Thank you James Earl Ray for keeping the dream alive." James Earl Ray was the man who assassinated King in 1968. A Merit Industries spokesman Herbert Miller, said that it was caused by an unintentional error, "We in no way meant any disrespect. It was an honest error."
http://www.nodoze.net A website that tells people how to do everything they shouldn't. I am sure you could find Osama and Timothy McVeigh in the guestbook somewhere.
Matchstick Rockets!! Why didn't they have these things when I was a kid?
Cheap fireworks!! Launch them indoors! Don't worry about the weather on guy fawks night!!
Cheap fireworks!! Launch them indoors! Don't worry about the weather on guy fawks night!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)