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: PartyTime who wrote (12272)	2/24/2003 6:46:40 AM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 25898

<<..."An American war against Iraq, even if it ended in victory, is liable to heighten the sense of affront, humiliation, hatred and desire for revenge."...>> Osama Must Be Relishing Thought of US Invasion Seven Responses to Bush Bombast by Haroon Siddiqui Published on Sunday, February 23, 2003 by the Toronto Star Is the whole world wrong and only George W. Bush and his minions right? Millions in many nations have risen up against an American-led war on Iraq. A majority of Britons and Germans rate America as more dangerous than Iraq and North Korea. One-third of Canadians consider Bush scarier than Saddam Hussein. Are they all "foolish," as Senator John McCain says? Or, dupes of Saddam, as U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice suggests? The answer is that the world has seen through Washington's phony excuses for a war that will be fought mostly at the expense of Iraqi civilians, already half-dead from the effects of the 1991 Gulf War as well as 12 years of cruel economic sanctions. Here are some of the more reasoned responses to American bombast: 1. Iraq has not invaded America. It is not threatening to. It has no capacity to. Neither Iraq, nor even renegade Iraqis, had anything to do with Sept. 11, notwithstanding Bush's crude attempts now at connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda. 2. While Saddam is in breach of several Security Council resolutions dating back a dozen years, it is up to the council to authorize war. America cannot invoke the first point and bypass the second. America is also the wrong party to be citing violations of U.N. resolutions, having backed Israel's for 35 years. The double standard is no longer sustainable abroad. People and governments everywhere are asking: Why Iraq and not Israel? Their fury is fuelled by Ariel Sharon's reoccupation of most of the West Bank and military incursions into the Gaza Strip, and the almost daily killings of Palestinian women and children, not just terrorists. Among the more prominent signs at almost all anti-war demonstrations around the world are: "Free Palestine" and "End Israeli Occupation." Not all those concerned about the plight of Palestinians are Arabs or anti-Semites, contrary to the noisy assertions of some Israeli backers. 3. The most egregious Iraqi violations of U.N. resolutions relate to weapons of mass destruction. But while Saddam's missiles can cross the U.N.-imposed limit of 150 kilometres, North Korea's can reach America. Why the different responses? The moral case for immediate war crumbled when the U.N. inspectors reported "no evidence of ongoing nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq," nor chemical and biological weapons as such, only suspect accounting thereof. All that remains is the haggling over how much time to give the inspectors. That's what Jean Chrétien is negotiating with the allies. 4. Washington argues that if the U.N. does not take action against Saddam, it might become irrelevant. In fact, if it avoids war while continuing to disarm Saddam, it would win new respect. 5. While Saddam is a tyrant killing his own people, he was once our favourite tyrant. Besides, the world is full of them. Who decides whom to axe when? America also cites the calls by some Iraqi exiles for an invasion of Iraq. They have a right to — from the safety of their exile. They are not the ones who will be dying as collateral damage. 6. There is everything right with the promise of democracy for Iraq except the track record of the one making it. America double-crossed the Kurds in the 1970s by letting the Shah of Iran make a deal with Saddam. In 1991, the elder George Bush let Saddam butcher them, along with the Shiite minority. Now, the younger Bush is sacrificing the Kurds for the Turks. Turkey will join his war in return for its troops entering the autonomous Kurdish region, where the elected assembly likely will be a victim of the new Iraqi order. Bush has also just jilted the foreign-based anti-Saddam democratic front. An American commander, not Iraqis, will rule post-Saddam Iraq. It will be American-backed Ba'athism, not democracy. 7. While the world wants to get rid of Saddam, it most dreads the following likely fallout of a war: a) A human catastrophe, first and foremost. United Nations agencies are predicting 100,000 Iraqi casualties, 1 million refugees and 3 million destitute who will need emergency food rations. Even if the estimates are exaggerated, who wants to raise their hand for even a fraction of the predicted damage? b) The unpredictability of what Sharon might do while the world is focused on Iraq. c) The rise of extremism. Osama bin Laden must be relishing the spectre of America invading an Arab nation and, worse, administering it. Israeli writer Amos Oz: "An American war against Iraq, even if it ended in victory, is liable to heighten the sense of affront, humiliation, hatred and desire for revenge." Copyright 1996-2003. Toronto Star Newspapers Limited commondreams.org