Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4600)	1/30/2003 6:37:46 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

<<...Other motives must be at work. Control of Iraq could give the United States de facto control over the Persian Gulf area and two-thirds of the world's oil – an unrivaled prize in the historic human struggle for power and wealth....>> Bush's 3 Bogus Reasons For War On Iraq By Michael T. Klare AlterNet January 30, 2003 In his State of the Union Address and other speeches, President Bush has attempted to articulate the reasons for going to war with Iraq and ousting Saddam Hussein. Stripped of rhetoric, these can be boiled down to three main objectives: (1) to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction (WMD); (2) to diminish the threat of international terrorism; and (3) to promote democracy in Iraq and surrounding areas. To determine if these powerful motives are actually behind the rush to war, each must be examined in turn. (1) Eliminating WMD: The reason most often given by President Bush for going to war with Iraq is to reduce the risk of a WMD attack on the United States. Such an attack would be devastating, and vigorous action is appropriate to prevent it. If the threat of WMD attack is, in fact, Bush's primary concern, then he would surely pay the greatest attention to the greatest threat of WMD usage against the United States, and deploy available U.S. resources – troops, dollars and diplomacy – accordingly. But this is not what the president is doing. North Korea and Pakistan pose greater WMD threats to the United States than Iraq for several reasons. Each possesses a much bigger WMD arsenal. Pakistan has several dozen nuclear warheads along with missiles and planes capable of delivering them hundreds of miles away; it is also suspected of having chemical weapons. North Korea is thought to possess sufficient plutonium to produce one to two nuclear devices along with the capacity to manufacture several more; it also has a large chemical weapons stockpile and a formidable array of ballistic missiles. Iraq, by contrast, possesses no nuclear weapons today and is thought to be several years away from producing any, even under the best of circumstances. A policy aimed at protecting the United States from WMD attacks would identify Pakistan and North Korea as the leading perils, and put Iraq in a rather distant third place. (2) Combating terrorism: The administration has argued at great length that a U.S. invasion and "regime change" in Iraq would mark the greatest success in the war against terrorism so far. Why this is so has never been made entirely clear. It is said that Saddam's hostility toward the United States somehow sustains and invigorates the terrorist threat to America. Saddam's elimination would thus greatly weaken international terrorism and its capacity to attack the United States. There simply is no evidence that this is the case. If anything, the opposite is true. From what we know of al Qaeda and other such organizations, the objective of Islamic extremists is to overthrow any government in the Islamic world that does not adhere to a fundamentalist version of Islam. The Baathist regime in Iraq does not qualify; thus, under al Qaeda doctrine, it must be swept away, along with the equally deficient governments in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It follows that a U.S. effort to oust Saddam Hussein and replace his regime with another secular government – this one kept in place by American military power – will not diminish the wrath of Islamic extremists, but rather fuel it. (3) The promotion of democracy: The ouster of Saddam Hussein, the administration claims, will allow the Iraqi people to establish a truly democratic government and serve as a beacon and inspiration for the spread of democracy throughout the Islamic world. But there is little reason to believe that the administration is motivated by a desire to spread democracy in its rush to war with Iraq. First of all, many of the top leaders of the current administration, particularly Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, happily embraced Hussein's dictatorship in the 1980s when Iraq was the enemy of our enemy (Iran), and thus considered our de facto friend. Under the so-called "tilt" toward Iraq, the Reagan-Bush administration decided to assist Iraq in its war against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. Under Reagan, Iraq was removed from the list of countries that support terrorism, thus permitting the provision of billions of dollars' worth of agricultural credits and other forms of assistance to Hussein. The bearer of this good news was none other than Rumsfeld, who traveled to Baghdad and met with Hussein in December 1983 as a special representative of President Reagan. The Department of Defense, then headed by Dick Cheney, provided Iraq with secret satellite data on Iranian military positions. This information was provided to Saddam even though U.S. leaders were informed by a senior State Department official on Nov. 1, 1983 that the Iraqis were using chemical weapons against the Iranians "almost daily," and could use U.S. satellite data to pinpoint chemical weapons attacks on Iranian positions. Not once did Rumsfeld and Cheney speak out against Iraqi use of these weapons or suggest that the United States discontinue its support of the Hussein dictatorship during this period. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that the current leadership has a principled objection to dictatorial rule in Iraq. Besides, the United States had developed close ties with the post-Soviet dictatorships in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan – all ruled by Stalinist dictators who once served the Soviet empire. And there certainly is nothing even remotely democratic about Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, two of America's other close allies in the region. Other motives must be at work. Control of Iraq could give the United States de facto control over the Persian Gulf area and two-thirds of the world's oil – an unrivaled prize in the historic human struggle for power and wealth. Perhaps these ulterior motives do justify war on Iraq, even if the three stated reasons do not. If that is the case, the President should make this claim to the American public, and let us determine if we want such a war. __________________________________________________ Michael Klare (mklare@hampshire.edu) is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., and the author of "Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict" (Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt, 2001). alternet.org

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (4600)	1/30/2003 6:45:57 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 25898

Who Would Jesus Bomb? 10 Reasons to Oppose War with Iraq by JOSH FRANK CounterPunch January 30, 2003 counterpunch.org 1. War with Iraq won't make us safer. A unilateral attack by the United States will inflame anti-U.S. sentiment, feeding right into Bin Ladin's own evil rhetoric, and may stimulate more attacks by fundamental extremists. 2. There is no imminent threat. There is no hard evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons. Recent UN reports suggests inspections have shown no evidence that Saddam's robust nuclear program of the 1990s has continued. According to these same reports the United Nation's believes Iraq has little means to deliver chemical and biological weapons to threaten countries in the Middle East, let alone the U.S. 3. A preemptive attack violates the U.N. charter. The U.N. Charter forbids member countries from attacking another country except in self defense. If the U.S. puts itself above international law it will further encourage other nations to do the same. Not to mention the contradiction of the United States in relation to the numerous U.N. resolutions Israel has broken with their dealings of occupied territories of Palestine. While Israel continues to receive the majority of US foreign aid, totaling a staggering 1.6 trillion dollars since 1973, with over 50% supporting Israel military operations in Palestine. 4. Our allies don't support us in this war. U.S. allies in the Middle East oppose a U.S. attack on Iraq. Our European allies have urged the U.S. to work through the U.N. An invasion of Iraq would isolate the U.S. from the rest of the world and shatter the principles of international cooperation and mutual defense that are key to U.S. and global security. 5. Thousands of innocent people may die. Pentagon estimates say that an invasion of Iraq could lead to the deaths of 10,000 innocent civilians. The CIA also reports that if Saddam does possess biological weapons, he is more likely to use them in defense if attacked by the US, putting even more of Iraqi civilians and US troops at risk of death. 6. Young American men and women will fight and die. U.S. military action and possible occupation is likely to produce far more casualties than the previous Gulf War or the war in Afghanistan. Many combatants will suffer physical and psychological repercussions for years after the war ends. 7. Funding for education, environment and health care is already being cut in order to pay for the "war on terror." Estimates put the cost of a war with Iraq at $60-$100 billion with ongoing billions for occupation and rebuilding Iraq, a drunken thought if one realizes our economy is currently suffering an awful recession. Also the environmental impact of another Gulf War could potentially threaten even more oil reserves, and endangered species (if set on fire like the first Gulf War), as well as contributing greatly to global warming- which Bush after his 2003's State of the Union address- is acknowledging actually exists. 8. Things may not be better after a war. We have no guarantee that a new regime in Iraq will make life any better for the Iraqi people, who already live under a tyrannical dictator. Or that Iraq will be any friendlier to the U.S. than Saddam currently is. The Taliban were once our allies in Afghanistan. Will the new regime in Iraq become our enemy after a few years as well? 9. There are other options. The U.S. can work through the U.N. using mechanisms such as the resumption of weapons inspections, negotiation, mediation, regional arrangements, and other peaceful means. Most significantly trying Saddam in an international court of law for War Crimes, such as was done post-Bosnia conflict for Slobodan Milosevic, is an option. This may also entail prosecuting certain United State's officials and companies who openly supplied Saddam with biological components. 10. The American people have deep misgivings about this war. Many people know deep down that this war makes no sense. They are starting to speak up and make themselves heard. You can add your voice to activities in your own community. In the rhetoric of our President Bush, a proclaimed Christian, one must wonder, has he ever thought-"Who would Jesus bomb?' The response surely would not be the innocent people of Iraq who have already suffered greatly because of Saddam, along with the U.N. sanctions supported and controlled by the United States. _____________________________________________ Josh Frank is a 24-year-old writer and activist living in Portland, Oregon. He can be reached at: frank_joshua@hotmail.com