Debate: The War on Iraq

ColinXP [3rdArmy] · **Debate: The War on Iraq -** 09-06-2002, 06:31 PM

Warning: The essay below may or may not contain views held by ColinXP. It is simply a platform with wich we can start a civil debate on the war with Iraq.

No to War on Iraq
By Greg Beiter

Once again, George W. Bush is beating the war drum in an attempt to whip up public support for his latest military bloodbath in Iraq. There's just one inconvenient fact for Bush, though: Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has absolutely nothing to do with the tragic September 11th terrorist attacks. Not a single shred of credible evidence has been produced demonstrating links between Hussein's regime and the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist networks.

Moreover, virtually every government in the world except for Britain's oppose a US invasion of Iraq to topple the dictator Saddam Hussein, but the right wing ideologues in control of the US government don't care. They want to invade anyway.

Bush's original justification for a war was Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam's regime, however, is only one of several repressive dictatorships attempting to develop biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Iraq's capacity to deploy such weapons militarily is doubtful, and Saddam does not pose a strategic military threat to the US.

Washington and Baghdad are both maneuvering over weapons inspections. But it has become crystal clear that the US is not really interested in verifying Iraq's actual military capacity. "What started out as an ultimatum – 'let UN inspectors return or we are going to attack you' – seems to have been streamlined: 'we are going to attack you.'" (Financial Times, 8/20/02)

Even in the event that Saddam did possess such weapons, backing him into a corner by invading Iraq would actually increase the likelihood of him resorting to their use. What's even more hypocritical is that the US government supported, armed and financed Saddam in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war. The US government never objected to Iraq's use of poison gas then, but rather looked the other way. Yesterday we were buddy, buddy. Today we are enemies!

Socialists have always opposed Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship. However, we place no confidence in Bush's corporate administration to liberate the Iraqi people. For them, this is a war to settle an old score. Neither the Gulf War nor 10 years of brutal economic sanctions (which have done nothing but starve the Iraqi people) have been able to get rid of Saddam.

His holding onto power has been a major embarrassment for US imperialism. Saddam continues to remain a thorn in the side of Bush and his hawkish cronies who want to reassert US economic and political domination over the globe and the region.

Bush's claims to be acting on behalf of ordinary Iraqis is nonsense. The US-sponsored sanctions on Iraq has killed over a million Iraqis to date. Now Bush is prepared to kill another estimated 10,000 Iraqi civilians to topple Saddam – three times the death toll of September 11th.

An attack on Iraq would not discourage further terrorist attacks on the US, but rather increase them. Another war in the Middle East will further destabilize the region and fuel anti-American sentiments, supplying terrorist organizations with more recruits.

Bush is trying to convince working class Americans, youth and the poor to accept being the latest casualties of his twisted foreign policy. It won't be the sons or daughters of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, or any of the ruling elite that will be injured and killed, but American workers and youth. They are considering sending up to 250,000 troops into the region. This could mean hundreds, if not thousands of US troops could be killed.

And who will it be that pays for this war? This war will cost tens of billions of dollars. The previous war with Iraq cost $60 billion. We can expect this one to have a much higher price tag.

Just like the wars on Afghanistan and Vietnam, this war will likely be paid through raiding our Social Security funds and cutting education, healthcare and other social services.

With the economy heading back into recession and unemployment rising again, this money could be better used on a public works program to put the jobless back to work and to fund education.

The protests planned for the weekend of September 28 and 29 against the meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Washington DC will provide a perfect opportunity to also hold anti-war demonstration.

Organizing marches and rallies to coincide with the other protests against the IMF/WB would allow the anti-war and anti-globalization movements to link arms and numerically strengthen both movements.

Just like the April 20th demonstrations in DC, these protests can be a sounding board for hundreds of thousands to oppose Bush's right-wing war agenda.

***

Thought you guys might like this biggrin: Any thoughts?

Old Reliable · 09-06-2002, 06:36 PM

We don't need to go to war...why? It would save us more money if we just waited a few years for Sodamn Insane to fall over and die.

Tripper · 09-06-2002, 06:55 PM

It does seem like a pointless waste of Human lives...Cause believe me, as great as the U.S army is....It won't be that easy taking down Sadaam this time. hake:

ninty · 09-06-2002, 07:14 PM

First off this guy is pretty biased and a lot of the stuff he talks about is nothing more than trying to predict the future like Miss Cleo. Now to say that I don't agree with some of it, but a lot of it is nonsense. We can only comment on what is currently happening, now what is going to or could happen.

So where are we now? Personally I like the position Canada has finally taken. Even though Jean Chretien is a dickhead and a horrible leader, I support what he and his cabinet has said in the past couple of days:

[quote:00cef]But Deputy Prime Minister John Manley said Canada would not support military action unless it obtains proof that Saddam Hussein is linked to the al-Qaeda terrorist network or evidence Iraq poses a "real and imminent risk" to other countries by having weapons of mass destruction[/quote:00cef]

Will the USA go to war even if it gets no support from its allies? Probably. If there is sufficient evidence that "bad things" are happening in Iraq and he is about do destroy us all, should the western world go to war? I think so. But until then, I don't see war as an answer to the question.

One way or the other i'm sure the USA will go to war with Iraq. We just all have to decide if its justified or not.

09-06-2002, 07:16 PM

taking out his military would be easy, but taking him out personally would be quite a bit difficult considering how much he uses women and children as human shields.

geRV · 09-06-2002, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strik0r

taking out his military would be easy,

Umm bollocks it would. Why do you americans seem to think that because he lives in some shithole country that their army is gonna be easily beaten? Last i checked vietnam fell under the shithole catagory and america couldn't win that war.

Don't underestimate things like this.

ninty · 09-06-2002, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strik0r

taking out his military would be easy,

Umm bollocks it would. Why do you americans seem to think that because he lives in some shithole country that their army is gonna be easily beaten? Last i checked vietnam fell under the shithole catagory and america couldn't win that war.

Don't underestimate things like this.

I agree. Don't under estimate your enemy.

Innoxx · 09-06-2002, 07:24 PM

I say if he sets foot in another country, then, and only then should we give saddam a schalacking, or why don't they just turn one of saddam's personal body guards into our puppet, it worked for ghandi, and almost worked for karzai. Like how loyal can his guards be?

intrestedviewer · 09-06-2002, 07:36 PM

vietnam was politics, this is us attacking them because we want to. If the military has full command on the operation it should go well, like in desert storm. We are going to war, there is no doubt about it, an aircraft carrier is already over there and jets are getting used to the area. Its really just a matter of time.
Although i also question the reason as to why we are going to attack them, i dont want the good ol USA to look like germany biggrin:
Also last poll taken says only about 38% of americans oppose an attack on iraq.

Pfc.Green · 09-06-2002, 07:53 PM

I voted hell yes, but you guys already knew that.

Old Reliable · 09-06-2002, 08:03 PM

BOLLOCKS!!!!!!!!

SW-14 · 09-06-2002, 08:31 PM

[img]http://feisar4.homestead.com/files/t_ON2020POST.jpg[/img]

LOL

ninty · 09-06-2002, 08:39 PM

[quote="SW-14":e78cc][img]
LOL[/quote:e78cc]

Dude, where the fuck have you been??

Holy shit.

Recycled Spooge · 09-06-2002, 09:01 PM

So, nobody has provided any creadible evidence against this essay; thus, the war on Iraq is a waste of time and money; unless someone provides creadible evidence otherwise. Anyway, if you support the war, tell us WHY on a economic and a strategic basis. All I am seeing so far is that the U.S. wants to take over Iraq for some oil.

Old Reliable · 09-06-2002, 09:08 PM

When ARENT there protests against the IMF and WB? Bush to me seems like a war monger who is hell bent on killing everyone who seems like they could be a threat. This may or may not be a good thing, however I think the US Government needs to focus more on what is more important at the moment - industry and the economy. That farming bill that passed a while back won't do a whole lot of good for farmers in the northeast, that legislation needs to be changed along with regulations of the airline industry so the chance of a terrorist attack would decrease dramatically (so far it is still very high). Therre are over 180 countries willing to back the US in non-military action while a small fraction will help in military. Hmm...to me which seems more logical? Obviously non-military actions. The world against Sodamn Insane sounds more overwhelming and maybe if he realizes that, he will have a heart attack.