Larissa
24th February 2003, 19:27
My colleague Paul Frank exposed his nagging doubt, worth to read and debate:
"For weeks I have been having a nagging doubt. In my heart of hearts, and in my mind, I dread the prospect of war against Iraq, because I fear that thousands and possibly tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children will be killed. That is why I oppose this war and joined millions on the streets to protest against the war. I also know, as does everyone, that Bush and his cronies are motivated by geopolitical and economic considerations, as well as old-fashioned greed for power, rather than by a concern for human rights in Iraq or anywhere else. But the fact remains that Saddam Hussein is a despicable tyrant. Amnesty International's reports on Iraq are harrowing: ""Victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of
forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks." Torture in Iraq is systematic. Although Iraq, a third-rate and virtually defeated regime, poses no threat, direct or indirect, to the people of the United States, or even to its neighbors (though it was no always so), it is incontrovertible that the Iraqi people would be better off
without Saddam Hussein.
My nagging thought is this: what if the war is quick and successful and exacts very few innocent lives (though one is one too many)? And what if as a result Iraq turns into a genuine democracy and beacon of human rights to the Arab world, which is politically dominated by
crooks and tyrants? Unlikely, but possible. The likelyhood of thousands or tens of thousands of civilians casualties (not that a soldier's life is worth less than a civilian's) makes me oppose this war. But the current
status quo is not acceptable either, because millions of Iraqi people are suffering from poverty, political oppression and fear.
In an article published today, Edward Said comments, "the planners of this war, as Ralph Nader has forcefully said, are chicken hawks, that is, hawks
who are too cowardly to do any fighting themselves. Wolfowitz, Perle, Bush, Cheney and others of that entirely civilian group were to a man in strong favour of the Vietnam War, yet each of them got a deferment based on privilege, and therefore never fought or so much as even served in the armed forces. Their belligerence is therefore morally repugnant and, in the
literal sense, anti-democratic in the extreme. What this unrepresentative cabal seeks in a war with Iraq has nothing to do with actual military considerations. Iraq, whatever the disgusting qualities of its deplorable
regime, is simply not an imminent and credible threat to neighbours like Turkey, or Israel, or even Jordan (each of which could easily handle it militarily) or certainly to the US. Any argument to the contrary is simply a
preposterous, entirely frivolous proposition. With a few outdated Scuds, and a small amount of chemical and biological material, most of it supplied by the US in earlier days (as Nader has said, we know that because we have the receipts for what was sold to Iraq by US companies), Iraq is, and has easily been, containable, though at unconscionable cost to the long-suffering
civilian population. For this terrible state of affairs I think it is absolutely true to say that there has been collusion between the Iraqi regime and the Western enforcers of the sanctions."
Why can't the international arms trade be stopped? Why can't the U.S. and other industrial powers stop arming and propping up dictators?
Paul Frank"
"For weeks I have been having a nagging doubt. In my heart of hearts, and in my mind, I dread the prospect of war against Iraq, because I fear that thousands and possibly tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children will be killed. That is why I oppose this war and joined millions on the streets to protest against the war. I also know, as does everyone, that Bush and his cronies are motivated by geopolitical and economic considerations, as well as old-fashioned greed for power, rather than by a concern for human rights in Iraq or anywhere else. But the fact remains that Saddam Hussein is a despicable tyrant. Amnesty International's reports on Iraq are harrowing: ""Victims of torture in Iraq are subjected to a wide range of
forms of torture, including the gouging out of eyes, severe beatings and electric shocks." Torture in Iraq is systematic. Although Iraq, a third-rate and virtually defeated regime, poses no threat, direct or indirect, to the people of the United States, or even to its neighbors (though it was no always so), it is incontrovertible that the Iraqi people would be better off
without Saddam Hussein.
My nagging thought is this: what if the war is quick and successful and exacts very few innocent lives (though one is one too many)? And what if as a result Iraq turns into a genuine democracy and beacon of human rights to the Arab world, which is politically dominated by
crooks and tyrants? Unlikely, but possible. The likelyhood of thousands or tens of thousands of civilians casualties (not that a soldier's life is worth less than a civilian's) makes me oppose this war. But the current
status quo is not acceptable either, because millions of Iraqi people are suffering from poverty, political oppression and fear.
In an article published today, Edward Said comments, "the planners of this war, as Ralph Nader has forcefully said, are chicken hawks, that is, hawks
who are too cowardly to do any fighting themselves. Wolfowitz, Perle, Bush, Cheney and others of that entirely civilian group were to a man in strong favour of the Vietnam War, yet each of them got a deferment based on privilege, and therefore never fought or so much as even served in the armed forces. Their belligerence is therefore morally repugnant and, in the
literal sense, anti-democratic in the extreme. What this unrepresentative cabal seeks in a war with Iraq has nothing to do with actual military considerations. Iraq, whatever the disgusting qualities of its deplorable
regime, is simply not an imminent and credible threat to neighbours like Turkey, or Israel, or even Jordan (each of which could easily handle it militarily) or certainly to the US. Any argument to the contrary is simply a
preposterous, entirely frivolous proposition. With a few outdated Scuds, and a small amount of chemical and biological material, most of it supplied by the US in earlier days (as Nader has said, we know that because we have the receipts for what was sold to Iraq by US companies), Iraq is, and has easily been, containable, though at unconscionable cost to the long-suffering
civilian population. For this terrible state of affairs I think it is absolutely true to say that there has been collusion between the Iraqi regime and the Western enforcers of the sanctions."
Why can't the international arms trade be stopped? Why can't the U.S. and other industrial powers stop arming and propping up dictators?
Paul Frank"