|
home
Plow Creek Mennonite Church
Response to Jim
Foxvog's Ideas about
Iraq War
I recieved the following response to my page about why we should not go to war against Iraq. If you want to skip to the letter with my response interposed, click here.
Here is my response: (in white, quoting Ken in yellow, Ken's quote of me in light yellow)
At 1259 PM 5/14/2004, you wrote responding to my web page, http://www.plowcreek.org/iraq-ivcc.htm.
Ken, thank you for your thoughtful reply to my writing of over a year ago. It is good to be able to discuss these things rationally and to see what our old beliefs about the future look like as things actually take place.
Just as police officers shouldn't cower from criminals, the U.S. shouldn't have cowered from the likes of Saddam Hussein and his henchman.
Agreed. Cowering just makes bullies bully more.
If there is no enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions there should be no UN resolutions and perhaps no UN -- what would be the point?
I am still in agreement with you, although the US veto power greatly weakens the security council. Would you apply your point to the UN Security Council resolutions on Israel also?
The question is how to enforce them.
On your web page, http://www.plowcreek.org/iraq-ivcc.htm you list eight reasons against a war with Iraq.
1) Iraq not as serious a threat as Bush says - mostly disarmed, neighbors don't support war to disarm.
Iraq's neighbors aren't as much of an adversary to them as the U.S.
A long bloody war was fought with Iran. The US supported Iraq.
Iraq invaded Kuwait (with the US hinting it could overlook it - probably as an excuse to attack back) The neighboring countries were certainly the only ones that the greatly weakened Iraq had any potential to endanger.
Iraq's neighbors are more of an ally to Iraq than the U.S. These people share a common culture and religion. There aren't any democracies in the region.
We have found a lot of terrorist receiving safe harbor in Iraq under Saddam such as Abu Abas
(part of the PLF waging a war for the independence of occupied Palestine, who had quit military action and was supporting peace accords. Not a US enemy)
and Zarqawi.
Sorry, I don't know much about him other than various attacks attributed to him. I'd be happy to hear evidence that he was receiving safe harbor under Saddam. If he was an Al Qaeda ally, they were strong enemies of Saddam.
Saddam certainly had an anti-U.S. motive, why would he hesitate to give or sell his weapons of mass destruction to anti-U.S. terrorists?
If he had some, he wouldn't want them to go to those that were his enemies such as Al Qaeda. He would probably want to use them for defense.
It isn't so much "Bush's claim". Bush doesn't go out there and collect the information himself.
Would "Bush's spin" be better? We've seen plenty of evidence that the Bush -- Cheney team only wanted to hear the case that Iraq had WMDs.
Intelligence agencies of the U.S. government provided the President and Congress with their findings. Bush's number one critic agrees
Kerry Said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)
Kerry Said "Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)
I have no disagreement with you over Kerry's views. He never was one of the anti-war candidates. He and Bush agree on too many things.
But here is what retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000 says: "We had to create a false rationale for going in to get public support. . . . The books were cooked, in my mind. The intelligence was not there . . . . The rationale that we faced an imminent threat, or a serious threat, was ridiculous." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47244-2004May22_2.html)
See, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/932187/posts
2) Inspections are working. Iraq is increasing cooperation with inspectors. Jimmy Carter suggests permanent inspectors. Blix says Inspections can disarm Iraq without active cooperation.
" Speaking to reporters at the United Nations, Blix said that Iraq's cooperation with inspectors improved markedly over the past month and that he would "welcome" more time to do his work. With inspectors back in Iraq only three months, "It seems to me it would be a rather short time to close the door," he said.
Blix said he could no longer conclude, as he has in previous reports, that Iraq's behavior did not justify finding it was committed to "genuine disarmament." Baghdad's destruction this week, under U.N. orders, of 19 Al Samoud-2 missiles, launchers and other components constitute "real disarmament," he said. He added that the Iraqis "have been very actively, I would say pro-actively," disarming in recent weeks." -- Washington Post 3/5/2003
Naive Blix wasn't smart enough to realize that he was getting the run around.
Blix was far from naive and had been dealing with run arounds for a while. Blix's views seem to have been confirmed by the evidence gathered since.
Mostly disarmed?
And therefore a very little threat. Events proved this true. They were able to give very little resistance to the invasion.
Kinda cooperating is like kinda being pregnant. Either they have WMD (weapons of mass destruction) or they don't. If he didn't have them why didn't he fully cooperate with the inspectors in the years and months preceding the invasion?
Good question. Of course there had been some banned weapons earlier, which were destroyed and Iraq said so, but did not adequately prove it. Maybe they thought that would be a deterrent to attack. Or more likely, Saddam knew that the oppressive sanctions on his country that were causing so much hardship (but not to him) helped keep him in power because of the sense of being oppressed by an enemy helps a dictator. Saddam could well have wanted the sanctions he rightly condemned continued for his own selfish personal reasons.
Why did he kick the weapons inspectors out (during the Clinton administration)? He certainly ad a lot to lose by not cooperating -- why do you suppose he didn't?
He claimed that the weapons inspectors were spying for the US. Turns out, he was partially right; the US used information from the American inspectors to choose bombing targets.
We know he had WMDs? He has used them several times in the past in well documented instances. Why won't Saddam answer the question -- What did you do with the WMDs that you did have? Why isn't anyone asking that question and why isn't Saddam volunteering the answer?
Iraq did use poison gas in Iran war, with US support. The question about what was done has been answered; they were destroyed as claimed, with probably a few stolen or misplaced remnants still around..
3) War would cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, environmental disaster. IMMORAL! Gulf War syndrome (much worse for Iraqis) multiplied. Depleted Uranium likely factor.
To date, the U.S. has lost about 730 servicemen in Iraq (and many weren't combat related deaths). We lost about 200,000 in World War II and about 48,000 in Vietnam. [millions of people dead in WWII, 1.5 million in Vietnam] I don't know what the Iraqi casualties are but they were people taking up arms against the U.S. military, sympathizers of Saddam Hussein. They were fighting for a heinous brutal dictator to remain in power.
All people are of equal value. About 10,000 civilian deaths are recorded due to the war, and estimates of uncounted civilian deaths sometimes run a number of times that. Military deaths -- maybe 50,000?? Many coerced into the military, others just (in their eyes) defending their country from foreign invasion). But my hundreds of thousands may have been too high an estimate (unless we stay for years longer, or you count the probable future deaths due to Depleted Uranium.)
Saddam is probably responsible for more Iraqi deaths than the U.S. Everybody wants to blame the U.S. while foolishly ignoring the atrocities of Saddam.
Maybe more deaths due to sanctions, that are the joint responsibility of US and Saddam. You may be right about violent deaths. They should not be ignored. As a US citizen, deaths caused by my country are more my responsibility.
We are the liberators not an oppressor.
That depends on whom you consult. Certainly liberation was the goal of many of the military and some of those who sent them. The opinion of those suffering under the occupation does not agree with that, even many of those who initially hailed liberation from Saddam.
To my knowledge there are and were no environmental disasters in the current Iraq campaign.
I haven't seen environmental disasters covered either. I was thankful there were not the huge number of oil well fires and that the fires that were set were put out quicker. The oil contamination was less than I expected.
For you to believe that they have uranium that is harmful to living things but not WMDs is a contradiction.
Whether Depleted Uranium (DU) is properly called a WMD is debatable. Some do argue that it is -- see www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0330-02.htm. It may well cause widespread death and disease, but over periods of years, decades, and centuries. It may well cause the deaths of more Americans and Iraqis than the rest of the war combined over the years.
In the1991 Iraq war, 944,000 DU rounds or some 2700 tons of DU tipped bombs were used. A UK Atomic Energy Authority report said that some 500,000 people would die before the end of this century, due to radioactive debris left in the desert. --http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0330-02.htm Many times as much DU was used in 2003 war, much in heavily populated Baghdad, where many US troops are staying (but I believe the 5.6 million Iraqis count, too!)*. I would call this environmental disaster, and worse. But I do believe only the "Coalition" has DU weapons, not Iraq. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.
Do a search on Depleted Uranium and you'll find some believe it harmless, others believe it the main cause of the Gulf War Syndrome and large numbers of birth defects and disease in Iraq, Gulf War I veterans, and in the Balkans.
4) War would encourage terrorism. War would likely lead to more radical Islamic governments -- would be just was Al Qaeda wants.
The U.S. has received acts of terrorism many times on and before September 11, we haven't had terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11. Maybe that's because we bursted their bubble -- we've shown them that we aren't going to take it. I suspect that Al Queda isn't a fracturing of what it use to be -- many are dead. They will always attempt to attack us. It is better that we take the war to the Middle East than for them to take the war to the U.S.
I hope terrorism will decrease. I don't think it has and I think the Iraq war is leading in many more US enemies and increased terrorism. But time will answer this one.
5) War would hurt US relationships with much of the world. Of the countries that back war, much of their population doesn't - lead to changes in governments less supportive of US.
If the majority of the countries of the world are wrong and the U.S is right we shouldn't follow the majority.
Agreed. But if the US is wrong? A more multilateral approach against terrorism would be much more effective. The prediction of damaged relationships proved correct.
Many of the world's leaders were lining their pockets with Saddam's oil money bribes under the "Oil for Food" scam. Of course they weren't with us. They were making too much illegal money from Saddam.
This possibly motivated some "leaders" but the general populations that were not making these profits seemed to be the main motivation. Even the general populations of most of the "coalition" nations were against the war.
The rest of the world doesn't have our problems and they aren't going to provide us with a solution. They are telling us to not defend ourselves but they can't and won't defend us.
(Attacking around the world is not "defending")
What good are they?
What good is the rest of the world? Quite a self-centered attitude! I hope that's not what you mean.
Look what happened recently in Spain. Terrorist attacked them right before an election. The people voted out the conservative president and replaced him with a liberal president who vowed to withdraw troops from Iraq. The terrorist won. The people lost because terrorist struck again days after the election. Spain is getting attacked no matter what they do.
6) Waging a preemptive war is a very bad precedent. If it is morally right for us to attack Iraq, because we see them as a potential threat, why is it not proper for them (or numerous other nations) to preemptively attack the US.
Because the U.S. is not run by a rogue, brutal dictator with a history of violence against people whose only crime is criticizing their government and other human rights violence. Saddam's son used to rape women on their wedding nights. He had sex with 12 and 13 year old girls. I could describe other heinous acts but I'll spare the gore.
I expect I agree with any characterization of Saddam and sons as evil.
Secondly, the U.S. is enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Despite the media bias, we have the authority of international law.
"Enforcing" means having at least thousands of innocents killed? The invasion wasn't the UN's interpretation of the UN resolution.
7) War very expensive in time of growing budget deficits. Could do much more for our nation and the world by spending same amount for hunger relief and medical aid.
The deaths of innocent people from terrorist attacks and property damage would be of greater "costs" than our investment in Iraq. I'd rather be poor than dead.
Based on same unproven assumption that there would be fewer terrorist attacks. Do the innocent deaths in Iraq count for anything?
8) Iraq not behind September 11, 2001 attacks. No one from the administration even claims that it was -- though they make extremely questionable links to Al Qaeda. Many Americans falsely believe Iraq was behind the attacks, which is why many support war on Iraq. In August 2002, a Gallup poll found 53% saying they believed "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks." So it is understandable why they hate Iraq's president.
There are a lot of great reasons to hate the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein -- just ask the people who had to live under his oppressive and violent rule. Supporters of the Current campaign in Iraq can't be responsible for people' misperceptions about Iraq and 9/11. I know of no politician who has claimed that Saddam/Iraq was behind 9/11.
But it sure was hinted at by Cheney.
We can be certain of two things -- Saddam is responsible for the deaths of over a half million people (which is arguably terrorism)
Agreed. But the US helped put and maintain Saddam in power, provided support for WMD development, and winked at the use of poison gas because he was on our side, fighting Iran. Rumsfeld went and publicly shook his hand shortly after the poison gas was publicized.
and he has harbored terrorists as honored guests in his country.
Evidence please.
A rational person might infer that Saddam would give or sell WMDs to our adversaries.
The web page you cite is my political arguments given to a politician. They are not my main reasons for rejecting the war. I reject all war because I am attempting to be a follower of Jesus. God loved us while we were his enemies and sent his son Jesus to die for us. Jesus says we should be like our Father in heaven, blessing the good and evil alike. We are commanded to love our enemies. That means more than not killing them, but it surely includes not killing them. Meditate on God's love for you and you will be able to love others, even enemies. If we do not forgive others, we will not be forgiven.
The way of Jesus is the way of peace.
Jim Foxvog
Return to Foxvog page. Return to mission page
I recieved the following response to my page about why we should not go to war against Iraq. If you want to skip to the letter with my response interposed, click here.
Jim:
Just as police officers shouldn't
cower from
criminals, the U.S. shouldn't have cowered from the likes of Saddam
Hussein and his henchman. If there is no enforcement of UN Security
Council resolutions there should be no UN resolutions and perhaps
no UN -- what would be the point? Maybe we should get rid of
all laws everywhere if we are too soft to enforce them.
On your web page, http://www.plowcreek.org/iraq-ivcc.htm you list eight reasons against a
war with Iraq.
1) Iraq not as serious a threat as
Bush
says - mostly disarmed, neighbors don't support war to disarm.
Iraq's neighbors aren't as much of an
adversary to them as the U.S. Iraq's neighbors are more of an ally
to Iraq than the U.S. These people share a common culture and religion.
There aren't any democracies in the region.
We have found a lot of
terrorist
receiving safe harbor in Iraq under Saddam such as Abu Abas and
Zarqawi. Saddam certainly had an anti-U.S. motive, why would
he hesitate to give or sell his weapons of mass destruction to
anti-U.S. terrorists?
It isn't so much "Bush's claim". Bush
doesn't
go out there and collect the information himself. Intelligence agencies
of the U.S. government provided the President and Congress with their
findings. Bush's number one critic agrees:
Kerry Said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)
Kerry Said "Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)
2)
Inspections are working. Iraq is increasing cooperation with
inspectors. Jimmy Carter suggests permanent
inspectors. Blix: Inspections can disarm Iraq without
active cooperation.
" Speaking to reporters at the United Nations, Blix said that Iraq's cooperation with inspectors improved markedly over the past month and that he would "welcome" more time to do his work. With inspectors back in Iraq only three months, "It seems to me it would be a rather short time to close the door," he said.
Blix said he could no longer conclude, as he has in previous reports, that Iraq's behavior did not justify finding it was committed to "genuine disarmament." Baghdad's destruction this week, under U.N. orders, of 19 Al Samoud-2 missiles, launchers and other components constitute "real disarmament," he said. He added that the Iraqis "have been very actively, I would say pro-actively," disarming in recent weeks." -- Washington Post 3/5/2003
" Speaking to reporters at the United Nations, Blix said that Iraq's cooperation with inspectors improved markedly over the past month and that he would "welcome" more time to do his work. With inspectors back in Iraq only three months, "It seems to me it would be a rather short time to close the door," he said.
Blix said he could no longer conclude, as he has in previous reports, that Iraq's behavior did not justify finding it was committed to "genuine disarmament." Baghdad's destruction this week, under U.N. orders, of 19 Al Samoud-2 missiles, launchers and other components constitute "real disarmament," he said. He added that the Iraqis "have been very actively, I would say pro-actively," disarming in recent weeks." -- Washington Post 3/5/2003
Naive Blix wasn't smart enough to
realize that
he was getting the run around. Mostly disarmed? Kinda cooperating
is like kinda being pregnant. Either they have WMD (weapons of mass
destruction) or they don't. If he didn't have them why didn't he
fully cooperate with the inspectors in the years and months
preceding the invasion? Why did he kick the weapons inspectors out
(during the Clinton administration)? He certainly had a lot to
lose by not cooperating -- why do you suppose he didn't?
We know he had WMDs? He has used
them several times in the past in well documented instances. Why won't
Saddam answer the question -- What did you do with the WMDs
that you did have? Why isn't anyone asking that question and why isn't
Saddam volunteering the answer?
3) War would cause hundreds of
thousands of
deaths, environmental disaster. IMMORAL! Gulf War syndrome
(much worse for Iraqis) multiplied. Depleted Uranium likely
factor.
To date, the U.S. has lost about 730
servicemen
in Iraq (and many weren't combat related deaths). We lost about 200,000
in World War II and about 48,000 in Vietnam. I don't know what the
Iraqi casualties are but they were people taking up arms against the
U.S. military, sympathizers of Saddam Hussein. They were fighting for a
heinous brutal dictator to remain in power. Saddam is probably
responsible for more Iraqi deaths than the U.S. Everybody wants to
blame the U.S. while foolishly ignoring the atrocities of Saddam. We
are the liberators not an oppressor.
To my knowledge there are and were no
environmental disasters in the current Iraq campaign.
For you to believe that they have
uranium that
is harmful to living things but not WMDs is a contradiction.
4) War would encourage
terrorism.
War would likely lead to more radical Islamic governments --
would be just was Al Qaeda wants.
The U.S. has received acts of
terrorism
many times on and before September 11, we haven't had terrorism on U.S.
soil since 9/11. Maybe that's because we bursted their bubble -- we've
shown them that we aren't going to take it. I suspect that Al Queda
isn't a fracturing of what it use to be -- many are dead. They
will always attempt to attack us. It is better that we take the war to
the Middle East than for them to take the war to the U.S.
5) War would hurt US relationships
with much of
the world. Of the countries that back war, much of their
population doesn't - lead to changes in governments less
supportive of US.
If the majority of the countries of the world are wrong and the U.S is right we shouldn't follow the majority. Many of the world's leaders were lining their pockets with Saddam's oil money bribes under the "Oil for Food" scam. Of course they weren't with us. They were making too much illegal money from Saddam.
The rest of the world doesn't have our problems and they aren't going to provide us with a solution. They are telling us to not defend ourselves but they can't and won't defend us. What good are they?
Look what happened recently in Spain. Terrorist attacked them right before an election. The people voted out the conservative president and replaced him with a liberal president who vowed to withdraw troops from Iraq. The terrorist won. The people lost because terrorist struck again days after the election. Spain is getting attacked no matter what they do.
6) Waging a preemptive war is a very bad precedent. If it is morally right for us to attack Iraq, because we see them as a potential threat, why is it not proper for them (or numerous other nations) to preemptively attack the US.
Because the U.S. is not run by a rogue, brutal dictator with a history of violence against people whose only crime is criticizing their government and other human rights violence. Saddam's son used to rape women on their wedding nights. He had sex with 12 and 13 year old girls. I could describe other heinous acts but I'll spare the gore.
Secondly, the U.S. is enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Despite the media bias, we have the authority of international law.
7) War very expensive in time of growing budget deficits. Could do much more for our nation and the world by spending same amount for hunger relief and medical aid.
The deaths of innocent people from terrorist attacks and property damage would be of greater "costs" than our investment in Iraq. I'd rather be poor than dead.
8) Iraq not behind September 11, 2001 attacks. No one from the administration even claims that it was -- though they make extremely questionable links to Al Qaeda. Many Americans falsely believe Iraq was behind the attacks, which is why many support war on Iraq. In August 2002, a Gallup poll found 53% saying they believed "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks." So it is understandable why they hate Iraq's president.
There are a lot of
great reasons to hate the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein -- just ask
the people who had to live under his oppressive and violent rule.
Supporters of the Current campaign in Iraq can't be responsible for
people' misperceptions about Iraq and 9/11. I know of no politician who
has claimed that Saddam/Iraq was behind 9/11. We can be certain of two
things -- Saddam is responsible for the deaths of over a half million
people (which is arguably terrorism) and he has harbored terrorists as
honored guests in his country. A rational person might infer that
Saddam would give or sell WMDs to our adversaries.
Here is my response: (in white, quoting Ken in yellow, Ken's quote of me in light yellow)
At 1259 PM 5/14/2004, you wrote responding to my web page, http://www.plowcreek.org/iraq-ivcc.htm.
Ken, thank you for your thoughtful reply to my writing of over a year ago. It is good to be able to discuss these things rationally and to see what our old beliefs about the future look like as things actually take place.
Just as police officers shouldn't cower from criminals, the U.S. shouldn't have cowered from the likes of Saddam Hussein and his henchman.
Agreed. Cowering just makes bullies bully more.
If there is no enforcement of UN Security Council resolutions there should be no UN resolutions and perhaps no UN -- what would be the point?
I am still in agreement with you, although the US veto power greatly weakens the security council. Would you apply your point to the UN Security Council resolutions on Israel also?
The question is how to enforce them.
On your web page, http://www.plowcreek.org/iraq-ivcc.htm you list eight reasons against a war with Iraq.
1) Iraq not as serious a threat as Bush says - mostly disarmed, neighbors don't support war to disarm.
Iraq's neighbors aren't as much of an adversary to them as the U.S.
A long bloody war was fought with Iran. The US supported Iraq.
Iraq invaded Kuwait (with the US hinting it could overlook it - probably as an excuse to attack back) The neighboring countries were certainly the only ones that the greatly weakened Iraq had any potential to endanger.
Iraq's neighbors are more of an ally to Iraq than the U.S. These people share a common culture and religion. There aren't any democracies in the region.
We have found a lot of terrorist receiving safe harbor in Iraq under Saddam such as Abu Abas
(part of the PLF waging a war for the independence of occupied Palestine, who had quit military action and was supporting peace accords. Not a US enemy)
and Zarqawi.
Sorry, I don't know much about him other than various attacks attributed to him. I'd be happy to hear evidence that he was receiving safe harbor under Saddam. If he was an Al Qaeda ally, they were strong enemies of Saddam.
Saddam certainly had an anti-U.S. motive, why would he hesitate to give or sell his weapons of mass destruction to anti-U.S. terrorists?
If he had some, he wouldn't want them to go to those that were his enemies such as Al Qaeda. He would probably want to use them for defense.
It isn't so much "Bush's claim". Bush doesn't go out there and collect the information himself.
Would "Bush's spin" be better? We've seen plenty of evidence that the Bush -- Cheney team only wanted to hear the case that Iraq had WMDs.
Intelligence agencies of the U.S. government provided the President and Congress with their findings. Bush's number one critic agrees
Kerry Said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn't’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)
Kerry Said "Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)
I have no disagreement with you over Kerry's views. He never was one of the anti-war candidates. He and Bush agree on too many things.
But here is what retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000 says: "We had to create a false rationale for going in to get public support. . . . The books were cooked, in my mind. The intelligence was not there . . . . The rationale that we faced an imminent threat, or a serious threat, was ridiculous." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47244-2004May22_2.html)
See, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/932187/posts
2) Inspections are working. Iraq is increasing cooperation with inspectors. Jimmy Carter suggests permanent inspectors. Blix says Inspections can disarm Iraq without active cooperation.
" Speaking to reporters at the United Nations, Blix said that Iraq's cooperation with inspectors improved markedly over the past month and that he would "welcome" more time to do his work. With inspectors back in Iraq only three months, "It seems to me it would be a rather short time to close the door," he said.
Blix said he could no longer conclude, as he has in previous reports, that Iraq's behavior did not justify finding it was committed to "genuine disarmament." Baghdad's destruction this week, under U.N. orders, of 19 Al Samoud-2 missiles, launchers and other components constitute "real disarmament," he said. He added that the Iraqis "have been very actively, I would say pro-actively," disarming in recent weeks." -- Washington Post 3/5/2003
Naive Blix wasn't smart enough to realize that he was getting the run around.
Blix was far from naive and had been dealing with run arounds for a while. Blix's views seem to have been confirmed by the evidence gathered since.
Mostly disarmed?
And therefore a very little threat. Events proved this true. They were able to give very little resistance to the invasion.
Kinda cooperating is like kinda being pregnant. Either they have WMD (weapons of mass destruction) or they don't. If he didn't have them why didn't he fully cooperate with the inspectors in the years and months preceding the invasion?
Good question. Of course there had been some banned weapons earlier, which were destroyed and Iraq said so, but did not adequately prove it. Maybe they thought that would be a deterrent to attack. Or more likely, Saddam knew that the oppressive sanctions on his country that were causing so much hardship (but not to him) helped keep him in power because of the sense of being oppressed by an enemy helps a dictator. Saddam could well have wanted the sanctions he rightly condemned continued for his own selfish personal reasons.
Why did he kick the weapons inspectors out (during the Clinton administration)? He certainly ad a lot to lose by not cooperating -- why do you suppose he didn't?
He claimed that the weapons inspectors were spying for the US. Turns out, he was partially right; the US used information from the American inspectors to choose bombing targets.
We know he had WMDs? He has used them several times in the past in well documented instances. Why won't Saddam answer the question -- What did you do with the WMDs that you did have? Why isn't anyone asking that question and why isn't Saddam volunteering the answer?
Iraq did use poison gas in Iran war, with US support. The question about what was done has been answered; they were destroyed as claimed, with probably a few stolen or misplaced remnants still around..
3) War would cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, environmental disaster. IMMORAL! Gulf War syndrome (much worse for Iraqis) multiplied. Depleted Uranium likely factor.
To date, the U.S. has lost about 730 servicemen in Iraq (and many weren't combat related deaths). We lost about 200,000 in World War II and about 48,000 in Vietnam. [millions of people dead in WWII, 1.5 million in Vietnam] I don't know what the Iraqi casualties are but they were people taking up arms against the U.S. military, sympathizers of Saddam Hussein. They were fighting for a heinous brutal dictator to remain in power.
All people are of equal value. About 10,000 civilian deaths are recorded due to the war, and estimates of uncounted civilian deaths sometimes run a number of times that. Military deaths -- maybe 50,000?? Many coerced into the military, others just (in their eyes) defending their country from foreign invasion). But my hundreds of thousands may have been too high an estimate (unless we stay for years longer, or you count the probable future deaths due to Depleted Uranium.)
Saddam is probably responsible for more Iraqi deaths than the U.S. Everybody wants to blame the U.S. while foolishly ignoring the atrocities of Saddam.
Maybe more deaths due to sanctions, that are the joint responsibility of US and Saddam. You may be right about violent deaths. They should not be ignored. As a US citizen, deaths caused by my country are more my responsibility.
We are the liberators not an oppressor.
That depends on whom you consult. Certainly liberation was the goal of many of the military and some of those who sent them. The opinion of those suffering under the occupation does not agree with that, even many of those who initially hailed liberation from Saddam.
To my knowledge there are and were no environmental disasters in the current Iraq campaign.
I haven't seen environmental disasters covered either. I was thankful there were not the huge number of oil well fires and that the fires that were set were put out quicker. The oil contamination was less than I expected.
For you to believe that they have uranium that is harmful to living things but not WMDs is a contradiction.
Whether Depleted Uranium (DU) is properly called a WMD is debatable. Some do argue that it is -- see www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0330-02.htm. It may well cause widespread death and disease, but over periods of years, decades, and centuries. It may well cause the deaths of more Americans and Iraqis than the rest of the war combined over the years.
In the1991 Iraq war, 944,000 DU rounds or some 2700 tons of DU tipped bombs were used. A UK Atomic Energy Authority report said that some 500,000 people would die before the end of this century, due to radioactive debris left in the desert. --http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0330-02.htm Many times as much DU was used in 2003 war, much in heavily populated Baghdad, where many US troops are staying (but I believe the 5.6 million Iraqis count, too!)*. I would call this environmental disaster, and worse. But I do believe only the "Coalition" has DU weapons, not Iraq. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.
Do a search on Depleted Uranium and you'll find some believe it harmless, others believe it the main cause of the Gulf War Syndrome and large numbers of birth defects and disease in Iraq, Gulf War I veterans, and in the Balkans.
4) War would encourage terrorism. War would likely lead to more radical Islamic governments -- would be just was Al Qaeda wants.
The U.S. has received acts of terrorism many times on and before September 11, we haven't had terrorism on U.S. soil since 9/11. Maybe that's because we bursted their bubble -- we've shown them that we aren't going to take it. I suspect that Al Queda isn't a fracturing of what it use to be -- many are dead. They will always attempt to attack us. It is better that we take the war to the Middle East than for them to take the war to the U.S.
I hope terrorism will decrease. I don't think it has and I think the Iraq war is leading in many more US enemies and increased terrorism. But time will answer this one.
5) War would hurt US relationships with much of the world. Of the countries that back war, much of their population doesn't - lead to changes in governments less supportive of US.
If the majority of the countries of the world are wrong and the U.S is right we shouldn't follow the majority.
Agreed. But if the US is wrong? A more multilateral approach against terrorism would be much more effective. The prediction of damaged relationships proved correct.
Many of the world's leaders were lining their pockets with Saddam's oil money bribes under the "Oil for Food" scam. Of course they weren't with us. They were making too much illegal money from Saddam.
This possibly motivated some "leaders" but the general populations that were not making these profits seemed to be the main motivation. Even the general populations of most of the "coalition" nations were against the war.
The rest of the world doesn't have our problems and they aren't going to provide us with a solution. They are telling us to not defend ourselves but they can't and won't defend us.
(Attacking around the world is not "defending")
What good are they?
What good is the rest of the world? Quite a self-centered attitude! I hope that's not what you mean.
Look what happened recently in Spain. Terrorist attacked them right before an election. The people voted out the conservative president and replaced him with a liberal president who vowed to withdraw troops from Iraq. The terrorist won. The people lost because terrorist struck again days after the election. Spain is getting attacked no matter what they do.
6) Waging a preemptive war is a very bad precedent. If it is morally right for us to attack Iraq, because we see them as a potential threat, why is it not proper for them (or numerous other nations) to preemptively attack the US.
Because the U.S. is not run by a rogue, brutal dictator with a history of violence against people whose only crime is criticizing their government and other human rights violence. Saddam's son used to rape women on their wedding nights. He had sex with 12 and 13 year old girls. I could describe other heinous acts but I'll spare the gore.
I expect I agree with any characterization of Saddam and sons as evil.
Secondly, the U.S. is enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Despite the media bias, we have the authority of international law.
"Enforcing" means having at least thousands of innocents killed? The invasion wasn't the UN's interpretation of the UN resolution.
7) War very expensive in time of growing budget deficits. Could do much more for our nation and the world by spending same amount for hunger relief and medical aid.
The deaths of innocent people from terrorist attacks and property damage would be of greater "costs" than our investment in Iraq. I'd rather be poor than dead.
Based on same unproven assumption that there would be fewer terrorist attacks. Do the innocent deaths in Iraq count for anything?
8) Iraq not behind September 11, 2001 attacks. No one from the administration even claims that it was -- though they make extremely questionable links to Al Qaeda. Many Americans falsely believe Iraq was behind the attacks, which is why many support war on Iraq. In August 2002, a Gallup poll found 53% saying they believed "Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks." So it is understandable why they hate Iraq's president.
There are a lot of great reasons to hate the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein -- just ask the people who had to live under his oppressive and violent rule. Supporters of the Current campaign in Iraq can't be responsible for people' misperceptions about Iraq and 9/11. I know of no politician who has claimed that Saddam/Iraq was behind 9/11.
But it sure was hinted at by Cheney.
We can be certain of two things -- Saddam is responsible for the deaths of over a half million people (which is arguably terrorism)
Agreed. But the US helped put and maintain Saddam in power, provided support for WMD development, and winked at the use of poison gas because he was on our side, fighting Iran. Rumsfeld went and publicly shook his hand shortly after the poison gas was publicized.
and he has harbored terrorists as honored guests in his country.
Evidence please.
A rational person might infer that Saddam would give or sell WMDs to our adversaries.
The web page you cite is my political arguments given to a politician. They are not my main reasons for rejecting the war. I reject all war because I am attempting to be a follower of Jesus. God loved us while we were his enemies and sent his son Jesus to die for us. Jesus says we should be like our Father in heaven, blessing the good and evil alike. We are commanded to love our enemies. That means more than not killing them, but it surely includes not killing them. Meditate on God's love for you and you will be able to love others, even enemies. If we do not forgive others, we will not be forgiven.
The way of Jesus is the way of peace.
Jim Foxvog
Return to Foxvog page. Return to mission page