A Really Good Article About Possible War in Iraq

[StriderKyo]

I don't like Saddam Hussein at all. I'd like to see him gone. But a war just isn't the way to go about it. Too many people who have nothing to do with Saddam will die. Too much anger will be raised in the Islamic world - a war will increase terror, not reduce it (especially considering Iraq isn't really behind any of the recent terrorism). But what I think is irrelevant; the UN made the resolution months ago to go in if Iraq was found to have "weapons of mass destruction". They obviously do, although in what capacity is certainly up for debate. The fact that they've been in no position to use them on anyone else in a decade doesn't really matter, Bush wants him gone so he will be.

I've attached a poll, so people can register their own feelings on the matter. Hopefully we can keep this out of Fight Club, because this is something that should be taken seriously, and not handled like children.

This is an article from this morning's Globe and Mail. Warning: it's not from a US newspaper, so it takes a view of the Bush administration some of you may not be used to or comfortable with. Nonetheless, I agree with him. The David Frum he mentions in the article is the former Bush speechwriter who coined the term "axis of evil", who now writes for another Canadian national paper.



You're heading for a smack

By RICK SALUTIN


Friday, February 7, 2003 – Page A17


After the solemn memorial service in Houston for the Columbia shuttle crew, a CNN reporter, over a shot of their kids, said "it" couldn't have sunk in yet. But isn't that so of every death, especially sudden death, like astronauts or kids in Revelstoke? All deaths, young or old, expected or not, are similar and at the same time incommensurable, since each involves the obliteration of the universe, from one unique, irreplaceable point of view. We all sense, particularly during a life-threatening illness or a near-fatal brush, that the whole universe will be extinguished with our death, along with the amazing realization that this happens when anyone dies, since each person looks out on a horizon that contains the entire universe. Each life is in that way infinite, and each death, too. It's all gone, every time. From this arises both reverence for life and awe at death.

That's why I find it odd that the sense of profound national mourning over the shuttle deaths seemed to find no echo in the deaths that will inevitably result from the coming war on Iraq. American society has been massively preoccupied by the latter, interrupted briefly by the former, then back to war again -- seamlessly. Yet a death is a death, and war, as British journalist Robert Fisk passionately insists, is not about winning or losing, it is about death. The estimates for this war range from thousands to half a million, mainly Iraqi, often civilian, but also attacking forces. No one knows, of course, but as Noam Chomsky points out, that is why one sees war as a last resort. (Not by the way, a pacifist view, where war is never a resort.) After an event like the shuttle disaster reminds you, societally, of the bottomlessness of death, how can you fail to make a link to the coming war and death, or at least give it some thought?

So I asked the people in The Globe library to see whether I'd missed some mentions. After a "wide search," they found one, in The Guardian, quoting U.S. academic Jacqueline Rose: "A nation grieves because it is trying to put out of its mind the fact that it is about to be involved in the killing of up to 80,000 civilians in Iraq." I don't know whether she's right, but at least she sought out a (dis)connection.

Now contrast this sense of war and death, with what can be called an unofficial version of official U.S. views. David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Bush and author of an insider book on the President, raises "one big argument" in his National Post column to rebut oppponents of war: "It is this: Why should the world put up with Saddam for one minute more?"

When I read this, I didn't know whether to answer the question or just threaten him with a smackbottom. There are answers: because war will make future terror more, not less likely, and a nuclear outburst possible, further inflame hatred and do Osama bin Laden's recruiting for him. But what's really astonishing is the callowness of the question, which nevertheless catches a facet of this moment in history, marked by one unchallenged superpower. War is not a momentous step but a matter of irritation, scratching an itch, in the Bush style -- I am running out of patience with Saddam Hussein. Well, everybody runs out of patience, but most of the world is a bit grownup and doesn't assume that whatever irritates it is the sole priority for action. For that matter, why should the world put up with David Frum? Well, there are reasons: I want to know what he thinks, juvenile as he can be; because the world has better things to worry about, including the danger of future terror and nuclear disaster.

Oh, and there's another reason the world doesn't react as he wishes. That's because it opposes war, especially without UN support, according to polls everywhere, including the U.S. and the nations it has cajoled into line (Italy, 80 per cent against; Spain, 75 per cent; Portugal, 96 per cent; U.K., 90 per cent; Turkey, 90 per cent). In other words, because this war is undemocratic in a broad, not an electoral, sense; and democracy is supposed to be what separates "us" from the evil ones.

As for Colin Powell's brief to the Security Council (Monday: memorial service; Wednesday: war-making), what is at stake is not whether Iraq is in breach, material or otherwise, of some resolution, or whether it is hiding weapons. For what it's worth, and I may know as little as Secretary Powell, I think Iraq probably has a weapons program. It is whether these are sufficient reason or threat to the security of the world's people to take the catastrophic step to war. That's what counts, not some legal point-making as if the UN is moot court in law school. For lesser violations, there are other remedies, such as indicting Saddam at the International Criminal Court -- if the United States would stop boycotting the thing.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...s_temp/6/6/17/

Thoughts?

[Jeremy]

We shouldn't get into a war with Iraq, at least not now. Now, there will be too many other lives lost. Also, I don't think the U.S. has explored enought alternate methods of dealing with Saddam. But Bush seems hell bent on just bombing the shit out of Saddam, so that's what will happen. Also, with the terror level now up to high (according to MSNBC), it seems likely that shit will go down sooner, rather than later.

[Diff-chan]

Ummm... I dont know if we're gonna end up killing 80,000 civilians in Iraq. I mean, war in the year 2003 is not like war in 1916, war in 1942, or war in 1967. 80,000 is a LOT, and war today is waged using sophisticated bombs and all that designed to minimize civilian casualties. There certainly weren't very many civilians killed in Afghanistan. I know, a life is a life, but... such a huge number seems like anti-war propaganda to me.

As I see it, the only way that we are gonna kill 80,000 civilians in Iraq is in Saddam and his cohorts revert to their "human shield" tactics.

In which case, that right there shows you the necessity of disposing of this horrible ruler.

[FuryFox]

I chose undecided, since I don't really keep up with the news, and everything you hear is always slanted one way or the other.

I honestly don't think I know enough about the situation to say whether or not we should...however, the level of crisis doesn't seem to indicate that there's not enough time still to research other options.

[Brisco Bold]

I'm torn on the issue. (Good article btw.) I do see Saddam Hussein as a threat. I've watched documentaries on what he does with his followers and his people. He is mentally unstable.

I am also a war-hawk. I believe the only language Hussein can understand is the universal dialect of agression. Yet, the last few days, I don't know what to think.

See, my main thesis is that all those "anti-everything" hippies at UofTthat protest the war and tear down American flags at hotels in Toronto on the basis of human rights abuses being a result of the war, are blinded to the human rights abuses that are a result of Saddam Hussein himself. Thus, in my opinion the war is warranted. If you don't want to see people dying in poverty, Saddam should be deposed. However, to preach the virtues of this theory brings on an interesting question: What about other abuses in the world?

In other countries, leaders who are just as mentally unstable as Saddam Hussein are being ignored. There's no political importance tied to an attack on horrible despots of Africa. (I'd give names of African tyrants, but the media attention doesn't cover that part of the world, so I'm in the dark, like the rest of the world.)Why attack the horrible tyrants in North Korea, who, theoretically, has more weapons of mass destruction than Saddam. Character profiles have flagged him as a pschyopath. He does harm his subjects by his slack rule (poverty and famine due to his regime). Hell, he's even communist.

In short, I support any war in so far as getting rid of a psychopath with weapons of mass destruction who's harming his subjects, but that'd mean that we'd have to declare war on numerous countries for the same reason. Something we obviously aren't doing/going to do.

This calls into question the political importance of the war. I will not support the myth that the war is "simply" about oil (until I have conclusive evidence, this argument will remain moot). Why are we attacking Saddam and not North Korea or the abusive rogue states in Africa? If this post seems a tad confused, that's because its author is just that: confused.

[Wolffen]

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If we attack with UN support, we'll still get blamed and targeted by extremists. If we attack without UN support, we'll give ammunition to Osama and his like to gather more followers. If we do nothing, Saddam will harbor Al Queda cells and provide them with whatever assistance he can (whether that be money, standard arms, or WoMD).

I believe the world would be much better off if Saddam died a horrible death (preferably at the hands of his own people), and I believe that they have items that could be used as WoMD. BUT, I don't think that's why Bush and Co. are really making such a big deal about this. If Bush would just admit that we're going to war to finish what his dad started, and that disabling Iraq's "war machine" is a side benefit, I could accept that. I wouldn't like it, but at least, in my mind, it would be the truth.

Btw, off topic, but where the hell has Cheney disappeared to? He was all over the place early last year, and he's been invisible in the media for the last 6 months or so...

[Kidnemo]

Originally posted by Apokryphos
I chose undecided, since I don't really keep up with the news, and everything you hear is always slanted one way or the other.

I honestly don't think I know enough about the situation to say whether or not we should...

[StriderKyo]

Originally posted by diffusionx
Ummm... I dont know if we're gonna end up killing 80,000 civilians in Iraq. I mean, war in the year 2003 is not like war in 1916, war in 1942, or war in 1967. 80,000 is a LOT, and war today is waged using sophisticated bombs and all that designed to minimize civilian casualties. There certainly weren't very many civilians killed in Afghanistan. I know, a life is a life, but... such a huge number seems like anti-war propaganda to me.

There haven't actually been any official UN numbers released on Afghanistan. As for today's smart bombs and missiles...they're still area effect weapons, and the direct-guided explosives only make up a small portion of the US arsenal. The rest are all the non-guided kind. Supposedly the plan is to bombard the Iraqi interior for a day or two before moving in troops, which has been US SOP since WWII. There are no explosions that only target men in uniform, and most military installations will be located in or near towns.

I'm certain the US military will do everything in their power to limit civillian casualties, but the science of war hasn't yet progressed to the point where civilian casualties can be taken out of the equation. And also don't forget that the Iraqis may well end up using nerve gasses and petroleum fires. Whichever side causes the casualties, if there's a war, there will be some.

Originally posted by Apokryphos
I chose undecided, since I don't really keep up with the news, and everything you hear is always slanted one way or the other.

I honestly don't think I know enough about the situation to say whether or not we should...however, the level of crisis doesn't seem to indicate that there's not enough time still to research other options.

Cool. I think that's a pretty mature opinion.

Originally posted by Briscobold
In other countries, leaders who are just as mentally unstable as Saddam Hussein are being ignored. There's no political importance tied to an attack on horrible despots of Africa.

Which is really the issue here. Why war now? There are worse despots in the world, and have been for years. There is a theory that Blair is supporting the US in exchange for Bush's help against Mugabe, but who knows?

[Ex Ranza]

Lots of solid opinions here.

As for me, I think we're rushing into things a bit too quickly. That doesn't mean I don't think Sadaam shouldn't be deposed in the future, but we need to tread carefully.

I worry about anti-American reprisals more than I fear a war itself.

[StriderKyo]

Originally posted by Wolffen
If we do nothing, Saddam will harbor Al Queda cells and provide them with whatever assistance he can (whether that be money, standard arms, or WoMD).

The thing is, there isn't any actual link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Had there been, it would have been the centerpiece of Powell's presentation to the UN. The best they could do was a 2 or 3 degrees of seperation thing. Iraqi money may be somehow going to Al Qaeda, but I have to feel Saddam, if nothing else, is too cagey to leave himself open like that. Money can be traced, and if he were linked to bin Laden, he'd be toast. Of course, I don't really know one way or the other