War On Iraq - Personal Statement
Mr. Thomsen and myself, Mr. Mertin, the owners of this website, have observed the latest political and military developments since Wednesday with the most sincere concern.
This topic was started by Rancho*,
Mr. Thomsen and myself, Mr. Mertin, the owners of this website, have observed the latest political and military developments since Wednesday with the most sincere concern. In our opinion it is a tragedy that it has come so far and that all peaceful efforts were thrown aside as the U.S. have begun their attacks. No question that a dictatorship may not be the best political system to have in a country but is that really our's to decide on? And are there not other countries in the far east that should be observed with similar concern?
The United Nations Security Council has been rendered ineffective by the decision George W. Bush has made. We admit though that politics would have taken a much longer time frame. Our thoughts are with the victims of this war - Soldiers and civilians on both sides of the frontiers.
Worldwide acclaimed brazilian author Paul Coelho, author of “The Alchemistâ€, amongst other works, and member of the Brazilian Academy of Arts & Letters, wrote the following critical open letter to the President of the United States...
A Folha de Sao Paulo
First published: http://www.folha.uol.com.br/folha/
Author: Paul Coelho
March 8, 2003
Thank you, George Bush, the Great Leader.
First of all, may I thank you for showing all of us the danger which Saddam Hussein represents. Perhaps many of us might have forgotten that he used chemical weapons against his own people as well as against the people of Iran. Hussein is a blood-thirsty dictator, and certainly an embodiment of evil in the world today.
However, that is not the only reason why I am thanking you. In the early months of 2003, you helped show us, sir, many important things about the world, and it is for this that you have my gratitude. I was taught as child to always say "thank you" to someone who has done me a favor, and it is in that spirit that I write these words.
Thank you for showing us all that the people of Turkey and their Parliament are not for sale, not even for $26 billion dollars.
Thank you for showing us clearly the enormous abyss which exists between the decisions taken by leaders of nations and the true desires of their people. Thank you for helping us see with painful clarity that whether it is José Aznar of Spain or Tony Blair of the UK, that our so called elected leaders don´t have the slightest regard or respect for the fact that over 90% of their population are against war. Thank you for allowing us to witness the ease with whichTony Blair was able to blithely ignore the largest public protest held in England in the last 30 years.
Thank you, because your insistence on war forced Blair to go to Parliament with a plagiarized dossier which consisted of notes written ten years ago by an arab graduate student. As a result we were able to witness the unbelievable farce of Blair insisting that these notes represented “proof†gathered by the British secret service.
Thank you for for making Colin Powell descend to the ridiculous by showing the UN Security Council photographs, which a week later were publicly denounced by Hans Blix, the weapons inspector responsible for verifying the disarmament of Iraq
Thank you, because your position on war resulted in the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Dominique de Villepin, in his speech against war on Iraq, being honored by a standing ovation. This is an honor which, if I am correct, has only happened once before in the history of the U.N., and that was during a presentation by Nelson Mandela.
Thank you, because due to your strenuous push for war, for the first time the Arab nations of the Gulf, usually so divided, have found a reason to unite and have recently issued a joint resolution in Cairo condemning your proposed invasion. You have brought about a unity of opinion amongst the arab nations, that they had not achieved on their own.
Thank you, because as a result of your administration´s rhetoric blasting the United Nations as “irrelevantâ€, even the most undecided and reluctant nations have been inspired to take a position against your country´s attack on Iraq.
Thank you for your extraordinary foreign policy. Attempts to defend your ambitions have caused British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, to attempt to argue a case for a “moral warâ€, and with each attempt lose more international credibility.
Thank you for attempting to divide Europe, which after a century of war and upheaval has been fighting for unity. This was a warning clearly seen by all of us, and it will not be forgotten.
Thank you for finally managing to achieve what few have managed in the past century: to unite millions of people, across the continents and give them a common cause to fight for, even if that cause is the exact opposite from yours.
Thank you for letting us feel that even if our words are not being heard, they are at least being repeated. This will give us strength in the future.
Thank you, because without your esteemed help, we wouldn´t have known the extent to which we were capable of mobilizing. Perhaps this appears useless today...but it will serve us in the future.
Thank you.
So, now that the drums of war seem to beat with unstoppable ferocity, I want to add an insight, words uttered by an ancient European King to a would-be invader:
“May your morning be glorious and May the sun shine brightly on the armor of your soldiers, because in the afternoon I will defeat you.â€
Mr. Bush, thank you as well for visibly trying to stop a movement which has already begun. We will pay attention to the feelings of impotence, and the sensations it arouses within us. We will learn to deal with those emotions, and we will transform them.
In the meantime, may you enjoy your beautiful morning, and all the glory that it may bring you.
Thank you, because I know you will not listen to us, nor take us seriously. Know, however, that we have listened to you and heard you clearly, and we will not soon forget your words.
Thank you, George W. Bush, the great leader!
Many thanks to you.
Mr. Coelho certainly has his points. We would like to point out that this is our personal opinion about this war. Feel free to leave a comment if you wish.
Translation from portugese: Blogspot.com
The War at a glance @ BBC UK
The United Nations Security Council has been rendered ineffective by the decision George W. Bush has made. We admit though that politics would have taken a much longer time frame. Our thoughts are with the victims of this war - Soldiers and civilians on both sides of the frontiers.
Worldwide acclaimed brazilian author Paul Coelho, author of “The Alchemistâ€, amongst other works, and member of the Brazilian Academy of Arts & Letters, wrote the following critical open letter to the President of the United States...
A Folha de Sao Paulo
First published: http://www.folha.uol.com.br/folha/
Author: Paul Coelho
March 8, 2003
Thank you, George Bush, the Great Leader.
First of all, may I thank you for showing all of us the danger which Saddam Hussein represents. Perhaps many of us might have forgotten that he used chemical weapons against his own people as well as against the people of Iran. Hussein is a blood-thirsty dictator, and certainly an embodiment of evil in the world today.
However, that is not the only reason why I am thanking you. In the early months of 2003, you helped show us, sir, many important things about the world, and it is for this that you have my gratitude. I was taught as child to always say "thank you" to someone who has done me a favor, and it is in that spirit that I write these words.
Thank you for showing us all that the people of Turkey and their Parliament are not for sale, not even for $26 billion dollars.
Thank you for showing us clearly the enormous abyss which exists between the decisions taken by leaders of nations and the true desires of their people. Thank you for helping us see with painful clarity that whether it is José Aznar of Spain or Tony Blair of the UK, that our so called elected leaders don´t have the slightest regard or respect for the fact that over 90% of their population are against war. Thank you for allowing us to witness the ease with whichTony Blair was able to blithely ignore the largest public protest held in England in the last 30 years.
Thank you, because your insistence on war forced Blair to go to Parliament with a plagiarized dossier which consisted of notes written ten years ago by an arab graduate student. As a result we were able to witness the unbelievable farce of Blair insisting that these notes represented “proof†gathered by the British secret service.
Thank you for for making Colin Powell descend to the ridiculous by showing the UN Security Council photographs, which a week later were publicly denounced by Hans Blix, the weapons inspector responsible for verifying the disarmament of Iraq
Thank you, because your position on war resulted in the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Dominique de Villepin, in his speech against war on Iraq, being honored by a standing ovation. This is an honor which, if I am correct, has only happened once before in the history of the U.N., and that was during a presentation by Nelson Mandela.
Thank you, because due to your strenuous push for war, for the first time the Arab nations of the Gulf, usually so divided, have found a reason to unite and have recently issued a joint resolution in Cairo condemning your proposed invasion. You have brought about a unity of opinion amongst the arab nations, that they had not achieved on their own.
Thank you, because as a result of your administration´s rhetoric blasting the United Nations as “irrelevantâ€, even the most undecided and reluctant nations have been inspired to take a position against your country´s attack on Iraq.
Thank you for your extraordinary foreign policy. Attempts to defend your ambitions have caused British Foreign Minister Jack Straw, to attempt to argue a case for a “moral warâ€, and with each attempt lose more international credibility.
Thank you for attempting to divide Europe, which after a century of war and upheaval has been fighting for unity. This was a warning clearly seen by all of us, and it will not be forgotten.
Thank you for finally managing to achieve what few have managed in the past century: to unite millions of people, across the continents and give them a common cause to fight for, even if that cause is the exact opposite from yours.
Thank you for letting us feel that even if our words are not being heard, they are at least being repeated. This will give us strength in the future.
Thank you, because without your esteemed help, we wouldn´t have known the extent to which we were capable of mobilizing. Perhaps this appears useless today...but it will serve us in the future.
Thank you.
So, now that the drums of war seem to beat with unstoppable ferocity, I want to add an insight, words uttered by an ancient European King to a would-be invader:
“May your morning be glorious and May the sun shine brightly on the armor of your soldiers, because in the afternoon I will defeat you.â€
Mr. Bush, thank you as well for visibly trying to stop a movement which has already begun. We will pay attention to the feelings of impotence, and the sensations it arouses within us. We will learn to deal with those emotions, and we will transform them.
In the meantime, may you enjoy your beautiful morning, and all the glory that it may bring you.
Thank you, because I know you will not listen to us, nor take us seriously. Know, however, that we have listened to you and heard you clearly, and we will not soon forget your words.
Thank you, George W. Bush, the great leader!
Many thanks to you.
Mr. Coelho certainly has his points. We would like to point out that this is our personal opinion about this war. Feel free to leave a comment if you wish.
Translation from portugese: Blogspot.com
The War at a glance @ BBC UK
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
We did provide proof to the UN. And how much proof do you need, we can't tip all of our hand as to what we know. Half of a war is intelligence. What do you want us to say, "we know he has weapons here, here and here," so they can move them, and we can't take them by surprise? Again, I am just glad cap has no real power besides the power to bitch on a forum.
And lets say I have proof that your American Government are murderers and I should kill you but before I bomb you I HAVE to consult to the UN...UNLIKE the American Government who are beyond judgement and can do whatever the fuck they want playing god......
You have no proof of anything...you have no proof of whatever the fuck you say...you just use fancy words to try and convice people that you do. This is just murder and the whole world opposes. You do not even have proof than Bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 incident. You just try to prove you are gods......all you do is proving you are pathetic cause none of your "facts" (hahahahaha) convince anyone but yourselves.
You have no proof of anything...you have no proof of whatever the fuck you say...you just use fancy words to try and convice people that you do. This is just murder and the whole world opposes. You do not even have proof than Bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 incident. You just try to prove you are gods......all you do is proving you are pathetic cause none of your "facts" (hahahahaha) convince anyone but yourselves.
OK...Bin Laden was still wanted for the bombing of American Embassies you know - And that WAS proved by the FBI.
OK...Bin Laden was still wanted for the bombing of American Embassies you know - And that WAS proved by the FBI.
You know... you BOMBED the whole of Afghanistan, that is a NATION, for just an ASSUMPTION......do u realise what has happened? You never proved Bin Laden is responsible and yet....you made a country full of slopes and hills FLAT !!!!!!! I mean think about it.....don't you even consider a that you might be doing the same thing here? I mean just a bit of doubt man...after all you are free people....don't you question that???
There is no doubt Bin Laden is a terrorist...i agree, but there is no Afghanistan any more and Bin Laden is still around probably......ARE YOU NUTS OR ARE YOU NUTS???? What was the point....??? the whole operation was USELESS....all you did was kill people there and no terrorists....fuck it, I don't trust any American government. Its all bullshit and you are ignorants to follow it........
"A California mother whose son is right now in Kuwait poised to knock
Saddam's block off, wrote her son asking how he would feel if she joined
other relatives of service members in an anti-war demonstration in Hollywood
last month. After reading her son's response, she elected not to
participate.
Dear Mom, It's really your decision to march if you want to or not. You are
the one who has to decide if what we are doing out here is right or not. My
opinion is not yours. I do, however, have things I would like for you and
Grandma and everyone else at home to know. I am a United States soldier. I
was sworn to defend my country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
People may not agree with the things we are ordered to do. I would like to
address those people by telling them that terrorism is not only a threat to
us as Americans, but to many other innocent people in the world. What type
of country would we be if we didn't defend the rights and freedoms of
others, not because they're Americans, but how about just because they're
human?
We live in a country where people feel secure with their daily lives. They
do business like usual and don't worry about the thought of terrorism
actually happening to them. The people of 9-11 thought the same thing. We
now know that it can happen to anyone at any time.
Yet as Americans we're afraid of losing our soldiers to defend our security.
I can only speak for myself when I say that my life is an easy expense to
ensure that my family and friends can live in peace.
I strongly believe in what we are doing and wish you were here to see for
yourselves the honor and privilege that American soldiers aboard this ship
are feeling, knowing that we are going to be a part of something so strong
and so meaningful to the safety of our loved ones.
Then you would know what this potential war is about.
We will stand tall in front of terrorism and defeat it. We as soldiers are
not afraid of what may happen. We are only afraid of Americans not being
able to understand why we are here.
I ask for your courage as Americans to be strong for us; I ask for your
understanding in what we believe is right. I ask for your support in what we
are sworn to do: defend our country and the life of all.
We will succeed in our task and will end the threat of terrorism in our back
yard. We will also end the threat of terrorism in our neighbors'.
We have to remind ourselves of what this country stands for: life, liberty
and justice for all. In order to maintain those rights we have to stop the
threat of terrorism. I am proud to be here. I will be coming home, but not
until I know that it's going to be safe for all Americans and for everyone I
love. My family is first. My country is where they live. I will defend it.
Lonnie J. Lewis
Navy corpsman
C Co. ¼ WPN PLT
UIC 39726
FPO AP 966139726
P.S. Mom, please send this to everyone who has a hard time understanding why
we are here. Ask the paper to put what I've said in a column so that others
will know why we are here and what we are here for. I love you all and will
be home soon. I left my address so that if anyone feels like writing to let
me know how they feel, they can."
Saddam's block off, wrote her son asking how he would feel if she joined
other relatives of service members in an anti-war demonstration in Hollywood
last month. After reading her son's response, she elected not to
participate.
Dear Mom, It's really your decision to march if you want to or not. You are
the one who has to decide if what we are doing out here is right or not. My
opinion is not yours. I do, however, have things I would like for you and
Grandma and everyone else at home to know. I am a United States soldier. I
was sworn to defend my country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
People may not agree with the things we are ordered to do. I would like to
address those people by telling them that terrorism is not only a threat to
us as Americans, but to many other innocent people in the world. What type
of country would we be if we didn't defend the rights and freedoms of
others, not because they're Americans, but how about just because they're
human?
We live in a country where people feel secure with their daily lives. They
do business like usual and don't worry about the thought of terrorism
actually happening to them. The people of 9-11 thought the same thing. We
now know that it can happen to anyone at any time.
Yet as Americans we're afraid of losing our soldiers to defend our security.
I can only speak for myself when I say that my life is an easy expense to
ensure that my family and friends can live in peace.
I strongly believe in what we are doing and wish you were here to see for
yourselves the honor and privilege that American soldiers aboard this ship
are feeling, knowing that we are going to be a part of something so strong
and so meaningful to the safety of our loved ones.
Then you would know what this potential war is about.
We will stand tall in front of terrorism and defeat it. We as soldiers are
not afraid of what may happen. We are only afraid of Americans not being
able to understand why we are here.
I ask for your courage as Americans to be strong for us; I ask for your
understanding in what we believe is right. I ask for your support in what we
are sworn to do: defend our country and the life of all.
We will succeed in our task and will end the threat of terrorism in our back
yard. We will also end the threat of terrorism in our neighbors'.
We have to remind ourselves of what this country stands for: life, liberty
and justice for all. In order to maintain those rights we have to stop the
threat of terrorism. I am proud to be here. I will be coming home, but not
until I know that it's going to be safe for all Americans and for everyone I
love. My family is first. My country is where they live. I will defend it.
Lonnie J. Lewis
Navy corpsman
C Co. ¼ WPN PLT
UIC 39726
FPO AP 966139726
P.S. Mom, please send this to everyone who has a hard time understanding why
we are here. Ask the paper to put what I've said in a column so that others
will know why we are here and what we are here for. I love you all and will
be home soon. I left my address so that if anyone feels like writing to let
me know how they feel, they can."
" Mom, here in Iraq the British and the Americans are bombing the shit out of us. They bomb the market and then they claim they don't. If you see any of them tell them to go f**k themselves and Bomb their homes....
An Iraqi civilian corpse....!!!!
C Co. ¼ WPN PLT
UIC 39726326836438430
FPO AP 96613972676869548654386 or whatever....."
And if you tell me that this is not real and that I came up with it......well it could be as real or as fake as the one above......janus :lol:
An Iraqi civilian corpse....!!!!
C Co. ¼ WPN PLT
UIC 39726326836438430
FPO AP 96613972676869548654386 or whatever....."
And if you tell me that this is not real and that I came up with it......well it could be as real or as fake as the one above......janus :lol:
34 die as US missiles hit wrong target
Luke Harding in Halabja, northern Iraq
Monday March 24, 2003
The Guardian
The last thing that Omar Mohammed Saeed heard was the sound of the American missile plunging through the roof of his dormitory. It was 12.30 at night, and Mr Saeed and his fellow peshmerga fighters had been fast asleep.
The laser-guided bomb reduced the compound where Mr Saeed had been staying into a tomb of pulverised concrete and metal. There was no chance of escape.
"We don't understand. Why did America do this? My uncle was a kind man who would never have hurt anybody," his nephew, Sadar Mohammed, said yesterday. "This makes us love Saddam Hussein rather than America," he added.
Mr Saeed was killed in a US missile strike against Iraq in the early hours of Saturday. Over the weekend the US fired more than 70 missiles at territory in north-east Iraq controlled by Ansar al-Islam, a radical Islamist group linked by the Bush administration to al-Qaida.
It was Mr Saeed's misfortune that on the night the missiles fell from the sky he was sleeping in the next-door village. Most of the missiles landed on Ansar's tiny mountainous enclave, close to the town of Halabja and the Iranian border.
But four missiles hit Khormal, a large neighbouring village, and the headquarters of another Islamic group, Komala.
Komala's military garrison was also hit, killing Mr Saeed and at least 33 other people. As volunteers pulled corpses and body parts from the smouldering ruins of the compound yesterday, Mr Saeed's widow Aisha and 10 children wanted to know only one thing: why had America killed him?
"There is no excuse for doing this," said his nephew, Mr Mohammed. "We were happy when the US promised to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime. But this is replacing Saddam with another form of tyranny."
"We simply don't understand," said another relative, Star Rafor.
Refugees who poured out of Khormal yesterday also wanted to know why a superpower that prided itself on the accuracy of its weaponry appeared to have got it wrong. "The US has committed an injustice. It needs to be more careful about civilians," Tafir Abdulla said, as he fled town in a lorry loaded with his belongings.
Mr Saeed's relatives buried him in an unmarked plot in Halabja's bleak cemetery on Saturday morning. Afterwards they produced his photo, showing a middle-aged man wearing traditional Kurdish clothes, standing in his leafy back garden. He was 50, and had died of massive internal injuries, they said.
It was not clear last night whether the Americans had hit his garrison in error or had been fed wrong information by the main Kurdish faction, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), which has been trying to wipe out Ansar al-Islam for 18 months.
Ansar's guerrillas have been expecting an American attack since late January, when the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, told the UN that the group had links with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network. Its fighters took to the mountains long ago, and appear to have survived the bombardment largely unscathed.
Mr Saeed and his comrades, by contrast, were not thought to be on any US target list. They have no known connection with al-Qaida or with Baghdad. They have spent most of their life fighting Saddam Hussein.
Their group, Komala, run by the bearded warlord Ali Bapir, is part of the Iraqi opposition, and has been at pains to distinguish itself from its fundamentalist neighbours. Mr Bapir fled to Iran last week, leaving his fighters behind.
"The reason so many people died is because they were not expecting to be attacked," Mr Mohammed said.
Kurdish officials say at least 150 people were killed by US bombing over the weekend in northern Iraq - while others say around 60 have died. Either way the human cost of the coalition's war to get rid of Saddam Hussein is now becoming grimly visible. The phrase collateral damage has a hollow ring.
By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, March 25, 2003; Page A11
BAGHDAD, March 24 -- Breakfast was simple, but late. Days of bombing had left the Khalil family sleepless. When a respite arrived at noon today, a moment of ease in an uneasy time, they sat down, picking anxiously at boiled eggs, tomatoes and bread.
Nine-year-old Shahid told stories, and her 12-year-old brother, Ahmed, laughed. The older family members, with harrowing memories of bombings in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, sat uneasily, their silence an eloquent testament to worry.
Then a whisper sounded, ever so slight. In seconds, the house was shattered by a cruise missile, the family said. Um Aqeel, the mother of five children, and her daughter-in-law, Sahar, were killed. Two sons and a daughter were wounded.
Hours later, weary and angry, Aqeel, the oldest son, looked out at his bandaged siblings laying dazed in their hospital beds.
"There are no soldiers in my home, there's no gun in my home!" he shouted. "How can God accept this?"
You see Janus don't bother showing me a "letter" cause there are HUNDREDS of letters that show you what I mean.....that show the MASSACRE....the evation and manipulation of Human Rights and the Leading Role of US on this....so why don't you go tell all that bullshit about how US wants to liberate Iraqi people to someone else cause its not working on people with a brain man....get it?
1. The Humanitarian Impact:
• Over 50% of Iraq's population is under the age of 15. Whatever justifications are made, when
civilians are targeted in Iraq, children are targeted. This is a war waged upon Iraqi children.
• The “shock and awe†plan to fire, in 48 hours, 3,000 cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs
(ten times the number used in two months of bombing in 1991) into Baghdad, a densely populated city of 6
million, will produce massive military and civilian deaths. President Bush´s claim that the US will take
efforts to protect Iraqi civilians is insulting lip service.
• As in 1991, the number of civilians killed by the impact of the war on food and water supplies,
the knocking out of power supplies for hospitals, or radioactive debris and fallout (see below) is likely to
eclipse the number of civilians killed or maimed by direct bombing.
2. This is an Illegal War and will isolate the US diplomatically:
• Article 51 of the UN Charter allows for any nation under attack to use armed force to defend itself,
but all disputes between member nations of the UN are to be resolved under the authority of the UN
Security Council. The US attack on Iraq thus stands in violation of the UN Charter and is thus illegal
• The Fourth Geneva Convention specifically prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular
murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture†being carried out against “persons taking no
active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms.â€
Bombardment of civilian infrastructure, committed on a wide scale in the 1991 bombing of Iraq, is
forbidden. As innocent civilians have already been killed, the US once again stands in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
• By prosecuting a war in violation of the UN Charter and without the support of traditional allies like
France and Germany, the United States is more politically isolated than at any other time in the post-World War II era.
• Of the 44 countries in the ‘Coalition to Disarm Iraq´, 27 are making no significant military
contribution. Only two are committing armed forces: 40,000 from Great Britain and 2,000 from Australia.
The invasion coalition is a fig leaf for what is unmistakably a US operation.
3. This war will bring hardship to US citizens:
• This war and plans by the Bush administration to increase the military budget to over a half a trillion
dollars per year is already diverting funds away from urgently needed programs for health and
education in the United States during this time of economic downturn.
4. This war will decrease security for US citizens at home and abroad, and US soldiers:
• Anger against US arrogance and US imperialism is sweeping the globe. Killing innocent Iraqis will
intensify existing animosities towards US influence in the Arab and Muslim world. Al Qaeda and other
extremist groups willing to commit acts of terror against US civilians will now find a much improved
climate for recruiting new members. The likelihood of future acts of terrorism against the US and its
close allies is now much higher.
• Short of an early surrender by the Iraqi military, the only way that US forces can take Baghdad is
through fighting in urban combat zones, in which US soldiers will be killed. A long-term US military
occupation of Iraq could face serious resistance, leading to more deaths on both sides.
5. This war will decrease security for US citizens at home and abroad, and US soldiers:
• The Bush Administration´s decision to launch an invasion as soon as it became clear that the US did
not have the votes at the UN Security Council is an unprecedented display of contempt for international law
and international opinion by a US President. Bush´s actions betray that he never had any intention of
letting weapons inspectors finish their work in Iraq, in spite of the fact they were making tremendous
progress in disarming Saddam Hussein.
• The extreme right Project for the New American Century (PNAC) published a major policy paper in
September 2000 advocating an invasion of Iraq as the first in a series of wars of conquest by the US. Iran,
South Korea and Syria are future targets. Bush´s foreign policy has precisely followed the foreign policy
recommendations in PNAC´s report. According to the report, the primary goal of this invasion is to
install US military bases in Iraq in order to form a bulwark for US power in the region. Regime change
and the issue of weapons inspections are secondary considerations.
• President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have repeatedly fabricated evidence in their
campaign to justify this war based upon allegations that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction and
that Iraq is collaborating with Al Qaeda. Neither allegation has been proven. Citing a report from the
IAEA, Bush claimed that Iraq was six months away from producing a nuclear weapon in 1990. The IAEA
denied that their report made any such claim. Tony Blair was caught plagiarizing in a ‘dossier´ he released
on Iraq´s weapons of mass destruction. This pattern of fabricating evidence to fit the case for war suggests
that Bush and Blair´s intentions were to build a case for war while the real agenda all along was revealed in
PNAC´s more straightforward plans for invasion motivated by desire for geostrategic control of Iraq.
6. Prospects for a US Occupation of Iraq:
• Internal State Department reports and reports from Pentagon officers in uniform reveal tremendous
unease with the plan for occupying Iraq and multiple invasions in the region. The goals are seen as
untenable and likely to encounter unforeseen costs and consequences such as resistance inside Iraq and
budget excesses.
• The United States has a poor record of following through on humanitarian commitments in states
it has invaded. The US will resist efforts to channel reconstruction funds into UN humanitarian projects,
since the policy is largely driven by the oil and construction firms that stand to profit from the
reconstruction and US control of Iraq´s oil fields.
• Over 50% of Iraq's population is under the age of 15. Whatever justifications are made, when
civilians are targeted in Iraq, children are targeted. This is a war waged upon Iraqi children.
• The “shock and awe†plan to fire, in 48 hours, 3,000 cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs
(ten times the number used in two months of bombing in 1991) into Baghdad, a densely populated city of 6
million, will produce massive military and civilian deaths. President Bush´s claim that the US will take
efforts to protect Iraqi civilians is insulting lip service.
• As in 1991, the number of civilians killed by the impact of the war on food and water supplies,
the knocking out of power supplies for hospitals, or radioactive debris and fallout (see below) is likely to
eclipse the number of civilians killed or maimed by direct bombing.
2. This is an Illegal War and will isolate the US diplomatically:
• Article 51 of the UN Charter allows for any nation under attack to use armed force to defend itself,
but all disputes between member nations of the UN are to be resolved under the authority of the UN
Security Council. The US attack on Iraq thus stands in violation of the UN Charter and is thus illegal
• The Fourth Geneva Convention specifically prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular
murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture†being carried out against “persons taking no
active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms.â€
Bombardment of civilian infrastructure, committed on a wide scale in the 1991 bombing of Iraq, is
forbidden. As innocent civilians have already been killed, the US once again stands in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
• By prosecuting a war in violation of the UN Charter and without the support of traditional allies like
France and Germany, the United States is more politically isolated than at any other time in the post-World War II era.
• Of the 44 countries in the ‘Coalition to Disarm Iraq´, 27 are making no significant military
contribution. Only two are committing armed forces: 40,000 from Great Britain and 2,000 from Australia.
The invasion coalition is a fig leaf for what is unmistakably a US operation.
3. This war will bring hardship to US citizens:
• This war and plans by the Bush administration to increase the military budget to over a half a trillion
dollars per year is already diverting funds away from urgently needed programs for health and
education in the United States during this time of economic downturn.
4. This war will decrease security for US citizens at home and abroad, and US soldiers:
• Anger against US arrogance and US imperialism is sweeping the globe. Killing innocent Iraqis will
intensify existing animosities towards US influence in the Arab and Muslim world. Al Qaeda and other
extremist groups willing to commit acts of terror against US civilians will now find a much improved
climate for recruiting new members. The likelihood of future acts of terrorism against the US and its
close allies is now much higher.
• Short of an early surrender by the Iraqi military, the only way that US forces can take Baghdad is
through fighting in urban combat zones, in which US soldiers will be killed. A long-term US military
occupation of Iraq could face serious resistance, leading to more deaths on both sides.
5. This war will decrease security for US citizens at home and abroad, and US soldiers:
• The Bush Administration´s decision to launch an invasion as soon as it became clear that the US did
not have the votes at the UN Security Council is an unprecedented display of contempt for international law
and international opinion by a US President. Bush´s actions betray that he never had any intention of
letting weapons inspectors finish their work in Iraq, in spite of the fact they were making tremendous
progress in disarming Saddam Hussein.
• The extreme right Project for the New American Century (PNAC) published a major policy paper in
September 2000 advocating an invasion of Iraq as the first in a series of wars of conquest by the US. Iran,
South Korea and Syria are future targets. Bush´s foreign policy has precisely followed the foreign policy
recommendations in PNAC´s report. According to the report, the primary goal of this invasion is to
install US military bases in Iraq in order to form a bulwark for US power in the region. Regime change
and the issue of weapons inspections are secondary considerations.
• President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have repeatedly fabricated evidence in their
campaign to justify this war based upon allegations that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction and
that Iraq is collaborating with Al Qaeda. Neither allegation has been proven. Citing a report from the
IAEA, Bush claimed that Iraq was six months away from producing a nuclear weapon in 1990. The IAEA
denied that their report made any such claim. Tony Blair was caught plagiarizing in a ‘dossier´ he released
on Iraq´s weapons of mass destruction. This pattern of fabricating evidence to fit the case for war suggests
that Bush and Blair´s intentions were to build a case for war while the real agenda all along was revealed in
PNAC´s more straightforward plans for invasion motivated by desire for geostrategic control of Iraq.
6. Prospects for a US Occupation of Iraq:
• Internal State Department reports and reports from Pentagon officers in uniform reveal tremendous
unease with the plan for occupying Iraq and multiple invasions in the region. The goals are seen as
untenable and likely to encounter unforeseen costs and consequences such as resistance inside Iraq and
budget excesses.
• The United States has a poor record of following through on humanitarian commitments in states
it has invaded. The US will resist efforts to channel reconstruction funds into UN humanitarian projects,
since the policy is largely driven by the oil and construction firms that stand to profit from the
reconstruction and US control of Iraq´s oil fields.
It is unfortunate that there are civilian casualties, but good old Saddam only makes things better by putting civilians amongst the military installations. Saddam himself has killed over a million citizens; you can show me your hundreds of letters, it's still less than Saddam has killed.
Since you want to toss in an editorial, so will I
The Right War for the Right Reasons
By JOHN MCCAIN
ASHINGTON — American and British armed forces will likely soon begin to disarm Iraq by destroying the regime of Saddam Hussein. We do not know whether they will have the explicit authorization of veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council. But either way, the men and women ordered to undertake this mission can take pride in the justice of their cause.
Critics argue that the military destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime would be, in a word, unjust. This opposition has coalesced around a set of principles of "just war" — principles that they feel would be violated if the United States used force against Iraq.
The main contention is that we have not exhausted all nonviolent means to encourage Iraq's disarmament. They have a point, if to not exhaust means that America will not tolerate the failure of nonviolent means indefinitely. After 12 years of economic sanctions, two different arms-inspection forces, several Security Council resolutions and, now, with more than 200,000 American and British troops at his doorstep, Saddam Hussein still refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction. Only an obdurate refusal to face unpleasant facts — in this case, that a tyrant who survives only by the constant use of violence is not going to be coerced into good behavior by nonviolent means — could allow one to believe that we have rushed to war.
These critics also object because our weapons do not discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Did the much less discriminating bombs dropped on Berlin and Tokyo in World War II make that conflict unjust? Despite advances in our weaponry intended to minimize the loss of innocent life, some civilian casualties are inevitable. But far fewer will perish than in past wars. Far fewer will perish than are killed every year by an Iraqi regime that keeps power through the constant use of lethal violence. Far fewer will perish than might otherwise because American combatants will accept greater risk to their own lives to prevent civilian deaths.
The critics also have it wrong when they say that the strategy by the United States for the opening hours of the conflict — likely to involve more than 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours — is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi people. It is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi military and to dissuade Iraqi leaders from using weapons of mass destruction against our forces or against neighboring countries, and from committing further atrocities against the Iraqi people.
The force our military uses will be less than proportional to the threat of injury we can expect to face should Saddam Hussein continue to build an arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons.
Many also mistake where our government's primary allegiance lies, and should lie. The American people, not the United Nations, is the only body that President Bush has sworn to represent. Clearly, the administration cares more about the credibility of the Security Council than do other council members who demand the complete disarmament of the Iraqi regime yet shrink from the measures needed to enforce that demand. But their lack of resolve does not free an American president from his responsibility to protect the security of this country. Both houses of Congress, by substantial margins, granted the president authority to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein. That is all the authority he requires.
Many critics suggest that disarming Iraq through regime change would not result in an improved peace. There are risks in this endeavor, to be sure. But no one can plausibly argue that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein will not significantly improve the stability of the region and the security of American interests and values. Saddam Hussein is a risk-taking aggressor who has attacked four countries, used chemical weapons against his own people, professed a desire to harm the United States and its allies and, even faced with the prospect of his regime's imminent destruction, has still refused to abide by the Security Council demands that he disarm.
Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness? Wouldn't people subjected to brutal governments be encouraged to see the human rights of Muslims valiantly secured by Americans — rights that are assigned rather cheap value by the critics' definition of justice?
Our armed forces will fight for peace in Iraq — a peace built on more secure foundations than are found today in the Middle East. Even more important, they will fight for the two human conditions of even greater value than peace: liberty and justice. Some of them will perish in this just cause. May God bless them and may humanity honor their sacrifice.
Since you want to toss in an editorial, so will I
The Right War for the Right Reasons
By JOHN MCCAIN
ASHINGTON — American and British armed forces will likely soon begin to disarm Iraq by destroying the regime of Saddam Hussein. We do not know whether they will have the explicit authorization of veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council. But either way, the men and women ordered to undertake this mission can take pride in the justice of their cause.
Critics argue that the military destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime would be, in a word, unjust. This opposition has coalesced around a set of principles of "just war" — principles that they feel would be violated if the United States used force against Iraq.
The main contention is that we have not exhausted all nonviolent means to encourage Iraq's disarmament. They have a point, if to not exhaust means that America will not tolerate the failure of nonviolent means indefinitely. After 12 years of economic sanctions, two different arms-inspection forces, several Security Council resolutions and, now, with more than 200,000 American and British troops at his doorstep, Saddam Hussein still refuses to give up his weapons of mass destruction. Only an obdurate refusal to face unpleasant facts — in this case, that a tyrant who survives only by the constant use of violence is not going to be coerced into good behavior by nonviolent means — could allow one to believe that we have rushed to war.
These critics also object because our weapons do not discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Did the much less discriminating bombs dropped on Berlin and Tokyo in World War II make that conflict unjust? Despite advances in our weaponry intended to minimize the loss of innocent life, some civilian casualties are inevitable. But far fewer will perish than in past wars. Far fewer will perish than are killed every year by an Iraqi regime that keeps power through the constant use of lethal violence. Far fewer will perish than might otherwise because American combatants will accept greater risk to their own lives to prevent civilian deaths.
The critics also have it wrong when they say that the strategy by the United States for the opening hours of the conflict — likely to involve more than 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours — is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi people. It is intended to damage and demoralize the Iraqi military and to dissuade Iraqi leaders from using weapons of mass destruction against our forces or against neighboring countries, and from committing further atrocities against the Iraqi people.
The force our military uses will be less than proportional to the threat of injury we can expect to face should Saddam Hussein continue to build an arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons.
Many also mistake where our government's primary allegiance lies, and should lie. The American people, not the United Nations, is the only body that President Bush has sworn to represent. Clearly, the administration cares more about the credibility of the Security Council than do other council members who demand the complete disarmament of the Iraqi regime yet shrink from the measures needed to enforce that demand. But their lack of resolve does not free an American president from his responsibility to protect the security of this country. Both houses of Congress, by substantial margins, granted the president authority to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein. That is all the authority he requires.
Many critics suggest that disarming Iraq through regime change would not result in an improved peace. There are risks in this endeavor, to be sure. But no one can plausibly argue that ridding the world of Saddam Hussein will not significantly improve the stability of the region and the security of American interests and values. Saddam Hussein is a risk-taking aggressor who has attacked four countries, used chemical weapons against his own people, professed a desire to harm the United States and its allies and, even faced with the prospect of his regime's imminent destruction, has still refused to abide by the Security Council demands that he disarm.
Isn't it more likely that antipathy toward the United States in the Islamic world might diminish amid the demonstrations of jubilant Iraqis celebrating the end of a regime that has few equals in its ruthlessness? Wouldn't people subjected to brutal governments be encouraged to see the human rights of Muslims valiantly secured by Americans — rights that are assigned rather cheap value by the critics' definition of justice?
Our armed forces will fight for peace in Iraq — a peace built on more secure foundations than are found today in the Middle East. Even more important, they will fight for the two human conditions of even greater value than peace: liberty and justice. Some of them will perish in this just cause. May God bless them and may humanity honor their sacrifice.
It is unfortunate that there are civilian casualties
Unfortunate......
Dead children....DEAD!!! So much for your humanitarian attitude man.
The 2 marketplaces as well....unfortunate....and who knows where else.
The fortune of the Iraqi people layies before your Cruise missiles....
It is unfortunate that there are civilian casualties
If one of the civilians was your mother or father or a little 6-year old sister
then you would not call it unfortunate.....(would you call it murder?? possibly)
Your "patriotic" editorials do not excuse what happens over there man.
Why don't you give Bush and Saddam a pistol and send them over to a mountain to kill themselves instead of sending thousands of people to perform hostile acts such as "civilian casualties" ?.....unfortunate
You know...its actually kind of amusing in a way the fact that you can tell for sure how Iraqi civilians feel about the coalition forces with such confidence and yet cannot "confirm" whether it was a US/UK missile that bombed the market places in Baghdad resulting in "civilian casualties" (Death, Blood). But I guess.....it is unfortunate
I guess you are right....
So thats why when you invade Iraq the Iraqi people welcome you so warmly and they don't fight you back....I see. (?!?!?!?!?!)
I told you man, I read your posts, but all you tell me about Saddam, or all your Government if you like tells us about Saddam is as confirmed as the market bombings!!!!!!
Can't you see that you have NO reason to do what you do.....
Don't you watch TV??? Don't you see what is going on? And do not tell me that Im blinded by the Anti-US propaganda of my media cause Right now I watch BBC 24/7 and not any Iraqi TV. All I see is death of civilians and Pentagon "cannot confirm" ......All you do is TALKING and BOMBING......no proof, NOTHING......who are you kidding man???? The Iraqis or the rest of the world????
You should be ashamed.....
So thats why when you invade Iraq the Iraqi people welcome you so warmly and they don't fight you back....I see. (?!?!?!?!?!)
I told you man, I read your posts, but all you tell me about Saddam, or all your Government if you like tells us about Saddam is as confirmed as the market bombings!!!!!!
Can't you see that you have NO reason to do what you do.....
Don't you watch TV??? Don't you see what is going on? And do not tell me that Im blinded by the Anti-US propaganda of my media cause Right now I watch BBC 24/7 and not any Iraqi TV. All I see is death of civilians and Pentagon "cannot confirm" ......All you do is TALKING and BOMBING......no proof, NOTHING......who are you kidding man???? The Iraqis or the rest of the world????
You should be ashamed.....
