[Harlen Maguire]

This article is most interesting, I wouldn't imagine she's an expert on the subject, but she does raise some interesting points to take home, chew, ponder, and then deposit in a trashbasket or on the New Jersey turnpike... oOo:

By Elie Wiesel
Elie Wiesel, the Nobel Peace laureate, is a Holocaust survivor and author of 40 books.

March 11, 2003

Under normal circumstances, I might have joined those peace marchers who, here and abroad, staged public demonstrations against an invasion of Iraq. After all, I have seen enough of the brutality, the ugliness, of war to oppose it heart and soul. Isn't war forever cruel, the ultimate form of violence? It inevitably generates not only loss of innocence but endless sorrow and mourning. How could one not reject it as an option?

And yet, this time I support President Bush's policy of intervention to eradicate international terrorism, which, most civilized nations agree, is the greatest threat facing us today. Bush has placed the Iraqi war into that context; Saddam Hussein is the ruthless leader of a rogue state to be disarmed by whatever means is necessary if he does not comply fully with the United Nations' mandates to disarm. If we fail to do this, we expose ourselves to terrifying consequences.

In other words: Though I oppose war, I am in favor of intervention when, as in this case because of Hussein's equivocations and procrastinations, no other option remains.

The recent past shows that only military intervention stopped bloodshed in the Balkans and destroyed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Moreover, had the international community intervened in Rwanda, more than 800,000 men, women and children would not have perished there.

Had Europe's great powers intervened against Adolf Hitler's aggressive ambitions in 1938 instead of appeasing him in Munich, humanity would have been spared the unprecedented horrors of World War II.

Does this apply to the present situation in Iraq? It does. Hussein must be stopped and disarmed. Even our European allies who oppose us now agree in principle, though they insist on waiting.

But time always plays in dictators' favor. Having managed to hide his biological weapons, Hussein's goal is to be able to choose the time and the place for using them. Surely that is why he threw out the U.N. inspectors four years ago. If he now appears to offer episodic minor concessions, just as surely that is because American troops are massing at his borders.

In certain political circles, one hears demands for proof that Hussein is still in possession of forbidden weapons. Some European governments evidently do not believe Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's statement that Hussein has such weapons, but I do, and here is why:

Powell is a great soldier and one who does not like war. It was he who prevailed upon then-President Bush in 1991 not to enter Baghdad. It was he who advised the current president not to bypass the U.N. system. If he says that he has proof of Hussein's criminal disregard of the U.N. resolutions, I believe him. I believe that a man of his standing would not jeopardize his name, his career, his prestige, his past and his honor.

We have known for a long time that the Iraqi ruler is a mass murderer. In the late 1980s, he ordered tens of thousands of his own citizens gassed to death. In 1990, he invaded Kuwait. After his defeat, he set its oil fields on fire, thus causing the worst ecological disaster in history. He also launched Scud missiles on Israel, which was not a participant in that war. He should have been indicted then for crimes against humanity. Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic was arrested and brought to trial for less.

Add to the evidence against him Hussein's conversation with CBS anchor Dan Rather. Listening to him declaring that Iraq was not defeated in 1991 made one wonder about his sanity; he appears to live a world of fantasy and hallucination.

The nightmarish question of what such a man might do with his arsenal of unconventional weaponry is why, more than ever, some of us believe in intervention. We must deal sooner rather than later with this madman whose possession of weapons of mass destruction threatens to provoke an ever-widening conflagration.

What it comes down to is this: We have a moral obligation to intervene where evil is in control. Today, that place is Iraq.

[Harlen Maguire]

Fuck, my post dissapeared...

...or, not...? oOo:

but here is another little article relating to the subject that is equally interesting...

"Its time that we opened our eyes to what is really going on here. Saddam is a tyrant, yes, and he's been a tyrant for several decades. However, Iraq's military was much more potent during the 1990s than it is now. If he was planning on attacking America, why did he wait until America was on high alert after September 11? The Sovet Union is nolonger backing their military force. What's more, if Powell and the United States really thought that Iraq posed an international threat, why is America being so brazen in its stance? The UN inspectors are reporting the destruction of major armaments, yet the United States is still planning on invading. Why?

The obvious answer is to force a regime change, yet that is not the real goal. The US does not plan on "rebuilding" the soon-to-be-ruined Iraq, they plan to break up OPEC by dividing the country into three smaller nations. This is no secret; it was in the news just the other day. The entire Iraq campaign is geared towards getting at Iraq's oil, thereby saving the American economy. That's the idea, anyways.

Bush knows he will lose the next election, but he plans to get the United States mired in a conflict as quickly as possible. But the more time that is given for people to actually think about the consequences of the war, the more everyone is opposed to it.

Yes Iraq will be defeated, and yes, Iraq will probably be divided. However, the long-term reprecussions of this war will be incredible. However much fun is made of the United Nations, they are a vital link between America's influence and the rest of the world. If America stops viewing other nations as business associates and independent powers, and more as simply obstacles to its will, the US could find itself friendless in the world very quickly. The attitude of "your either with us or against us" will create enemies swifty, although they may well remain hidden until the time is right.

What is needed now are not strong-arm tactics but a sense of global police action. The United States defeated Al-Qaida, but there is a world of difference between deposing a terrorist force, and virtually destroying an entire nation for the purposes of short term profit. In the end, you reap what you sow, and right now America is sowing the seeds of future international conflict."

[Hmmmmm]

That last article you posted was complete bullshit. Dividing Iraq into 3 nations? hake: Bush losing the next election? (to who?) hake:

The first article by Elie Wiesel (a man, not a woman) was good.