Iraq-to war or not to war

[mentalbunny]

I need links and places to research for a debate at school. I need good facts to back up opinions, stuff about the Gulf war, Bush's father, oil, etc.

There must be soem good sites and news articles out there, I only have till tuesday so i'd really appreciate some help (by the way I'm AGAINST the war).

I only have general ideas, i don't have concrete so the opposition could rip me to pieces at the moment, they are also rich capi fuckers and i want them to knwo that socialists are as good as if not better than them, whatever they think!

[Frosty]

Disclaimer:
This might be just "general ideas" and I've got a cold that makes me feel like I imagine it would be to be drunk.
-Bush wants oil. With a puppet regime in Bagdad, he will easily get this. And probably he could use "means" to force through some very beneficial treaty over that (for the US). The fact that Saddam is a rather unpleasant guy is very beneficial.
-You were the one on that cool English school? Ask them why England should support an attack amerikkka could do a 100 times simultaneously around the world. Ask them why a war with inevitable civilian casualties would make them happy.
-Screw it, I can't come up with anything better. But check out oppositional newspapers' websites. You know what I mean, but I don't (can't remember the name(s))

[redstar2000]

Here are two sites that no one else is likely to come up with...but you have to do your own research.

www.uruklink.net/iraqnews/eindex.htm This is the, believe it or not, official Iraqi News Agency in English.
(at least until U.S. bombs knock it off the net!)

www.khaleejtimes.co.ae This is an English language newspaper published in one of the little gulf states. Lots of letters from folks who live over there...and may soon be dying over there.

Good luck with your research.

[peaccenicked]

I have made numerous posts on this in the Soc v cap forum.
I reccomend especially http://www.antiwar.com
http://cursor.org
http://warpeace.org

[LeninCCCP]

We sould just drill in alaska and forget about Iraq until they set up concentration camps then kick the crap out of them.

[queen of diamonds]

Well, I see you already have an opinion on the subject, so go back to whatever evidence led you to that conclusion....and if you don't have any evidence, keep your minds fully open to what the opposing views' supporters are saying, 'cause right now, it looks like you don't have anything with which to rebutt it within your own thoughts.

[redstar2000]

I'm a little confused about your position, LeninCCCP. Are we supposed to "kick the crap out of Iraq" first and then "destroy the government" or is it the other way around? And the part about "long live America"--could you explain why you think our Empire, however "glorious" it may be, deserves to survive any longer than any other.

[marxistdisciple]

Ummm after going to the anti-war protest yesterday I decided to put together my answers to people's questions on my weblog. this is what I put, some of them have sources, some of them don't, but hopefully some of what I researched could be useful:

Q: Saddam gassed the kurdish population of his own country and killed thousands, what should we do about that?

A: Firstly, this is true. There is some missing facts though. The first fact is that Saddam bought these weapons from the US in the 80s. The second fact is that during the war with Iran, the US/UK actively supported him using these weapons and attacking Iran with them. To answer the 'what should we do' part, well, you need to rephrase, what have we done? The gulf war and operation desert storm have both happened because of saddam's attrocities.

Q: But he's an evil man, why shouldn't we remove him from power?

A: Well, this one's a different kind of question. It is certainly an important moral one, but it's partly a question of rights. Do we have the right to remove him from power because of our perception of him? Perhaps, but I would say that this power would have to come from a colaboration of countries to avoid furthering the interests of one, at the expense of the Iraqi people. So the answer is perhaps, but only with international support. The fact that the Iraqis must also support this action is a given, but we have had very little media coverage on what the Iraqis want.

Q: Does he have chemical and biological weapons and would he use them?

A: This is a two part question. Firstly, it is possible that he does have these weapons. The weapons he was sold in the 80s had nothing to stop them being reproduced (see question 1.) It is also conceivable that he has very few left after the weapons inspections. Only more inspections can determine this. To enlighten you a little, Saddam can't hide chemical/biological weapons construction in a cave somewhere, these require huge production processes, vast knowledge and lots of space. So the 'he's hiding them' argument is not very helpful. Would he use them? Well he has used them in the past, so there is reason to expect he would do. If we attack gung-ho style, I think any he does have will be launched off against american and israeli targets.

Q: How dangerous would Saddam be in a war?

A: Well, not very dangerous is the answer. His army is a bout a fifth of the size of what it was in the gulf war, it is badly funded and trained. They have virtually no air force, and what they do have is old Mig-25s and a few french fighters of equal ages. These country is short of food and water, hospital care and education. Things like warplanes are of second priority, even to Saddam.

If we attacked them, the Iraqis have said they will fight a guerrilla war. Unlike in the Gulf War, the targets won't be out in the desert, they will be fought within the cities, all the way back to Baghdad. Now, the US certainly haven't had a great record of guerilla warfare, (remember vietnam?) and would prefer that the Iraqis ran out in the desert for them to shoot, but it is unlikely.
Any war will have to involve bombing the cities, otherwise the Americans will lose any support they have back home. When US soldiers start coming back for funeral processions, the propoganda war is already lost.
So, how do you minimise civilian casualties in such an event? After all, we are supposed to be protecting these people from Saddam. Well, they can't be protected from bombs, so they will simply have to flee their homes to refuge camps.

Q: Why are you so convinced that this is wrong, I mean you admit he's a nasty guy right?

A: Of course he is. You completely missed the point. The point is we are not attacking Saddam as one man, we are attacking a country. As much as I dislike many world leaders, bombing their country to remove one person is not helping the people of the country....and isn't that supposed to be what the point of this war is?

Q: So what happens if we leave him alone, what is the risk to us?

A: I am not saying we should leave him 'alone' as you put it, simply that we back of an take things a step at a time. He does pose a risk to the world, but so does rash, careless thinking before making decisions that affect thousands of people. The risk is certainly not imminent, and not even very great. If he does posess these WMDs, he doesn't have the range of missile to hit very many people (his scuds have a maximum range of 800km after having most of the warhead removed.) In fact, the only country he could attack that he would seemingly want to, would be Israel. Of course that would be suicide, they have nukes. In the gulf war he did fire scuds at Israel, but none of them carried chemical or biological weapons.

Q: Won't bombing remove the WMDs better than inspections will?

A: Actually, no. The UN weapons inspectors found 150,000 chemical munitions which had seemingly been untouched by the bombings. As far as the nuclear weapons program went, the bombings had very little effect on most of their activities, (Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, editors, Gulf War Air Power Survey: Summary Report, (Washington, D.C.: USGPO, 1993) pp. 78-79. Key Iraqi facilities remained undisturbed after 1,000 hours of air war. Only total defeat and subsequent inspection revealed the extent of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program.)

Q: Even if all you say is true, shouldn't we be careful about Saddam anyway?

A; Of course we should, but I never said that we shouldn't. It is a common misconception that anti-war protestors are anti-any-involvement. This just isn't the case. Most of the protestors would probably tell you that they would support weapons inspections as the first line, just not attacks.

Q: What about Israel/Palestine, wheat's going on there, and why are so many of the protestors anti-semitic?

A: Now, this is a poor question. Firstly, they are not anti-semitic, but perhaps anti-zionist. Look up these terms in detail before you go any further. What is happening? At the current time Israeli forces are being internationally asked to leave Arafat's compound. This whole lot seemed to errupt from two suicide bombers. Although I do not condone the dead bomber either, the Isarelis have attacked apartment buildings (http://hrw.org/press/2002/07/gaza072302.htm) and shown lack of compassion in dealing with the concequences, "Sharon said Israel had "no interest in harming civilians" in the attack. Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer issued a statement saying that "the information which we had was that there were no civilians near him."" USATODAY - In an apartment block?) Civilian casualties are a common occurance in the Israeli army (http://www.palestinemonitor.org/updates/israeli_state_terror_in_gaza.htm)
To put it in context, the Israeli army is the 4th biggest in the world. They are one of the US' biggest customer of arms sales. Palestine does not have an decent army. It is made up of many militant fighters, but to be honest they have absolutely no chance of beating Israel. Currently Israel is simply taking revenge for every suicide bomber coming at them, by killing more civilians in the occupied terratories. Although blame can be attributed on both sides, blame from the americans has been solely sided on Arafat and Palestein. This of course protects American interests. there are very few wars that can entirely be blamed on one side, but the American media is doing it's best to present a one sided argument of this conflict. Until that kind of thing stops happening, the conflict will never end.

Q: What about all these UN resolutions?

A: Well, most countries take them seriously. Some do not. Iraq is one of these countries, the other is Israel (they have violated even more UN resolutions than Iraq.)
The US has been shown to ignore an International Court of Justice ruling on it's activities in Nicaragua (for facilitating the overthrow of the government and mining nicuraguan ports against international law) (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/Icases/iNus/inus_isummaries/inus_isummary_19860627.htm)

So although Iraq has violated these resolutions, Israel has been shown to break them too, and the US has ignored ICJ hearing against it's activities too (the ICJ is the judicial arm of the UN.)

Q: Would the attack in Iraq be legal?

A: No, not without a UN mandate. This is because under international law, the attackers would be considered the agressor, and there is no provision in international law for 'pre-emptive' strikes. This is highly circumspect, it is very difficult to prove any of the US allegations too.
In order to make a resolution, the security council must pass a mandate by democratic vote.

Q: How does the Security Council work?

A: The council has 15 members. These are countries. 5 of these members (The US, UK, France, Russia and China) are permenant members. This means that they do not have a temporary stay of membership. The other ten countries are members for 2 years, elected by the UN General Council. The security council's purpose is to protect peace and security. It was formed to allow international legitimacy in conducting military action (i.e. the action must be just, evidenced etc.) The US has shown great disdain for the secuirty council of late, but seems to lack any real reason to criticise (aside from it's trouble with Iraq.) One of the most important conditions of the security council's conduct in this context is 'to take military action against an aggressor.' An 'agressor' is an easily defined term. Iraq does not yet meet this term. Regardless of the vote on a resolution, the five permenant members have the right to veto (stop something coming to law) if they disagree with it. This is why G.W has been travelling to France, China and Russia. If any one of these countries vetos the UN resoultion, it will not be legitimate, and the US/UK attack on Iraq would be illegal.


-----------------------------------------
"There is such a thing as the freedom of exhaustion. Some people are so worn down by the yoke of oppression that they give up... the oppressed must never allow the conscience of the oppressor to slumber.. To accept injustice or segregation passively is to say to the oppressor that his actions are morally right. ."
Martin Luther King

[LeninCCCP]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 6:12 am on Sep. 29, 2002
I'm a little confused about your position, LeninCCCP. Are we supposed to "kick the crap out of Iraq" first and then "destroy the government" or is it the other way around? And the part about "long live America"--could you explain why you think our Empire, however "glorious" it may be, deserves to survive any longer than any other.

i love my country not for the government but because they give me the rigth to backtalk to them. And once in awhile you'll find someone who has common sense in this country. And when i say "kick the crap out of them" i mean the shitty dictatorship they have.

[mentalbunny]

thanks for all your info, in the end I didn't ahve to do the debate and I was knackered so I didn't go to it at all, the motion was "ths house would enforce a regime change in Iraq" and had an american leading the proposition. He's quite intelligent actually so I doubt that is what he truly believes, he just got roped into it because he's American, I assume.

The research was interesting anyway, thanks for the help.