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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abuelita who wrote (12839)	2/11/2003 4:48:55 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 89467

Why invade when the U.N. system is disarming Iraq? LINDA MCQUAIG Columnist The Toronto Star Feb. 9, 2003. 01:00 AM Every war has its galvanizing image, aimed at rousing all decent people to take up arms. In the last Gulf War, it was the image of Iraqi soldiers ripping Kuwaiti babies out of incubators. (Only afterwards did it come out that no such thing actually happened.) The galvanizing image of the upcoming invasion of Iraq has been the story that Saddam Hussein "gassed his own people." By constantly raising this 1988 atrocity — including in his recent State of the Union address — U.S. President George W. Bush has managed to paint an image of Saddam as so uniquely, horrifyingly evil that a war to dethrone him is justified. As a galvanizing image and call-to-arms, it's hard to beat. It's also, apparently, not true. Given its sheer centrality to the case against Saddam, one might have thought that a New York Times article late last month casting doubt on the "Saddam-gassed-his-own-people" story would have stirred a little interest, even prompted some skepticism about how much the Bush administration can be trusted on Iraq. What makes The Times story compelling is the source — Stephen Pelletiere, who served as the CIA's senior political analyst on Iraq throughout the 1980s and later taught at the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania. So we're not talking pinko or Saddam-lover. Pelletiere says that the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja in northern Iraq occurred as part of the fighting in the Iran-Iraq war, after Iranians seized the town. Both sides are believed to have used some form of gas on enemy troops, but the condition of the dead Kurds' bodies in Halabja indicated they were killed by a cyanide-based gas, which Iran had — and Iraq didn't. Pelletiere notes that an investigation by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency concluded it was gas released by Iran — not Iraq — that killed the Kurdish civilians. Using gas against enemy troops (who are also using it back) is hardly good behaviour, but it doesn't conjure up the same level of depravity as gassing one's own defenceless citizens. So the Bush administration, although it presumably had access to the same inside intelligence as Pelletiere, didn't hesitate to alter the story considerably, thereby pushing Saddam's reputation for evil into the stratosphere. All this provides an interesting backdrop to the dossier presented at the U.N. last week by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell — a dossier based on unnamed sources, ambiguous aerial photos and snippets of overheard conversations, all of which we're supposed to take on faith that this administration is presenting and interpreting honestly. (Among the many allegations in the dossier was the claim that Saddam gassed the Kurds.) One odd aspect of the whole spectacle was Powell's insistence that war is immediately necessary to disarm Iraq. But the U.N. is already in the process of disarming Iraq. The inspectors are on the job, they are being given unfettered access, nobody in Iraq is threatening to kick them out. (If more inspectors or more equipment for the inspections are needed, these can be provided.) In other words, the U.N. system is working — working so well that we should consider imposing it on other countries defying U.N. Security Council resolutions, including Israel, Turkey and Morocco. Interestingly, the only country hampering the U.N. inspectors from truly getting on with the job of disarming Iraq is the U.S., which wants to replace this peaceful process of disarmament with a violent disarmament brought about by war. Nobody has explained why this would be preferable. In fact, it would be a clear violation of international law. The U.N. Charter (chapters 6 and 7) establishes that an attack on another nation can only be justified in cases of immediate self-defence (hardly applicable here) or a Security Council decision to use force, which can be taken only after every possible peaceful channel has been exhausted (certainly not applicable here!). Ironically, if the U.S. invades now, it will actually be interrupting the U.N.'s process of disarming Iraq. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who is unabashedly eager for an invasion, wrote last week that disarming Iraq is Washington's "stated purpose" while its "unstated purpose" is to transform Iraq into a "progressive model to spur reform ... around the Arab world." Let's leave aside the sheer arrogance of this line, and marvel instead at the heavy-handed way that Friedman envisions this happening. "Iraq will be controlled by the iron fist of the U.S. army and its allies, with an Iraqi civilian `advisory' administration gradually emerging behind this iron fist," he wrote. The amazing thing is that these lines are written with enthusiasm; Friedman doesn't even understand that what he's describing is commonly referred to as imperialism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and political commentator. Her column appears every Sunday. thestar.com

To: abuelita who wrote (12839)	2/11/2003 6:14:42 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Vulnerable but ignored: how catastrophe threatens the 12 million children of Iraq By Leonard Doyle Foreign Editor The Independent 12 February 2003 "They come from above, from the air, and will kill us and destroy us. I can explain to you that we fear this every day and every night." – Shelma (Five years old) It is not Saddam Hussein and his henchmen, but Iraq's 12 million children who will be most vulnerable to the massive use of force that the US plans to unleash against their country in the coming months. With or without UN Security Council backing, the looming war on Iraq will have immediate and devastating consequences for the country's children, more vulnerable now than before the 1991 Gulf War. A team of international investigators – including two of the world's foremost psychologists – have conducted the first pre-conflict field research with children and concluded that Iraqi children are already suffering "significant psychological harm" from the threat of war. The team was welcomed into the homes of more than 100 Iraqi families where they found the overwhelming message to be one of fear and the thought of being killed. Many live in a news void, with little information concerning the heightened threat of war. "I think every hour that something bad will happen to me" said Hadeel, aged 13. Assem, five, and one of the youngest interviewed, said: "They have guns and bombs and the air will be cold and hot and we will burn very much." But it is the fear expressed by the majority of the children that most shocked the team. In a breaking voice 13-year old Hind told them: "I feel fear every day that we might all die, but where shall I go if I am left alone?" When and if a massive bombardment and invasion comes, the investigators predict the consequences will be so dire that the plight of Iraqi children must be given more priority when Britain and the US consider the alternatives to war. Because there is only one month's supply of food in the country and the overwhelming majority depend on rations distributed by the Baghdad regime, the chaos of war could tip a population of malnourished children into starvation. And once American and British bombs start falling on President Saddam's power stations, the country's main water treatment plants will fail causing the rivers to become contaminated with sewage. Millions of Iraqis rely on river water to irrigate crops and prepare food. Drinking or even washing dishes in such contaminated water will make an already vulnerable population liable to deadly diseases ranging from E-coli to typhoid. Before 1990, Iraq's health care system was the pride of the Middle East and was described by the World Health Organisation as "first class". The ensuing Gulf War and sanctions have crippled the healthcare system causing death rates of children under five to double over the past decade with 70 per cent of deaths caused by easily avoidable bowel diseases and respiratory infections. Despite grave concerns at the highest levels, UN agencies are unable to prepare for an emergency that has yet to happen without being accused of clearing the way for war. The World Food Programme is preparing to feed up to one million Iraqis for at least three months, but once the shooting starts it will have to pull out its expatriate staff. Iraq's civilian population of 22 million is particularly vulnerable. Some 16 million – half of them children – are totally dependent on monthly government-distributed food rations. The last 12 years of sanctions and corruption within the regime mean that few if any families have stockpiles of food to get them through a war of any length. The World Food Programme supplies basic foodstuffs, but deliveries are left to the Iraqi government and a bombing campaign that destroys bridges over the Euphrates and Tigris rivers will stop distribution in its tracks. The report of the international study team, published by the charity Warchild, warns that there will be a "humanitarian disaster" if war breaks out. Children, already weakened and vulnerable because of sanctions are "at grave risk of starvation, disease, death and psychological trauma". The experts expect casualties among children to be in the thousands, probably in the tens of thousands, "and possibly in the hundreds of thousands". The team concludes a new war would be "catastrophic" for Iraq's children. news.independent.co.uk