|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this article |
Printer-friendly version
|
|
News :: |
|
A Dove's Dilemma (english) |
|
by Jeffrey Shyu
Email: theapportioner (nospam) yahoo.com |
08 Apr 2003
Modified: 09 Apr 2003 |
|
How do we reconcile condemnation of Saddam Hussein with opposition to the war? |
From too many fronts, the rhetoric from those who support the Iraq war has been overwhelming. Many of these pseudo-arguments are toss. However one conundrum had, for a time, worried this author. I am referring to Saddam himself, who is by nearly all accounts a brutal dictator, one of the worst.
On this point, the more vituperative of the hawks scream hypocrisy and complicity with terrorism and totalitarianism. How does one resolve the peace position with opposition to totali-terrorism (if you permit me to play on the neoconservatives’ questionable association)?
For the moment, I defer this question to bring attention to a bit of history. The history of the current Iraqi regime, a terrible history that includes the unclean hands of the United States (and many anti-war nations, to be fair), points to a legacy of complicity and hypocrisy, the very charges the forgetful neoconservatives heap upon the doves. The exportation by Americans of anthrax and botulinum toxin, as well as the Reagan administration’s knowledge and disregard of the gassing of 100,000 Kurds in the late eighties, only scratches the surface of the United States’ shameful history with Iraq. With these scandals in mind, it is only reasonable that we should be suspicious of the official motivations of American foreign policy.
But one could say that America, after September 11, 2001, has learned its lesson and now should “make things right”, to echo Bush’s parlance. History is important, but so are security and the moral high ground.
This also sounds disingenuous, and the recent fight in the United Nations shows why. The hawks, in their rush to war, have “preemptively” rejected any possible peaceful solution to the Iraq question. It would be very nice if we knew that Iraq didn’t have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Similarly, few would disagree that more should be done to stop all the nasty elements of a dictatorship. However, as we saw, there are ways to achieve these aims without resorting to war. In the 1990s, inspections may have suffered because of worldwide indifference, but as illustrated recently, they can succeed with appropriate encouragement.
To an extent, the hawks are right. We must not be silent when it comes to Hussein’s crimes; it would be hypocritical of us to say nothing. Saddam’s fate is decided, but it is imperative that we promote novel and alternative ways to hold accountable war criminals, including our own, and to contain the threat of weapons of mass destruction without resorting to disastrous intervention. |
|
Well writen (english) |
by MicMac Merc
(No verified email address) |
08 Apr 2003
|
ALL understand your conscience vs. a madman.
The question is: Do you REALLY feal any of these
folks who are making or have weapons of MD who may
handle them irrationally will just sit back and hand
them over?
They may feel PREASURE if you march "for them to
disarm, ( as the left should have done when the
preasure was on Iraq during negotiations )LOUDLY!
Unfortunately, those who organize anti-american ( under
the guise of "antiwar" protests want to see our country
turned into a "dictatorship" and would never do any thing
that might truely kead to "peace" as it wouldn't be
in thier "hidden agenda" interest.
MicMac Merc |
|
Figured it out... (english) |
by ...
(No verified email address) |
09 Apr 2003
|
Wow, I can't believe it took you this long to figure out our "hidden agenda". It's just so obvious when soccer moms, and teachers, and students, and veterans, and average citizens take to the streets to stop a war we are obviously only looking to destroy American freedoms.
(In other words, your logic eludes me.) |
|
On War Criminals (english) |
by not a cog
(No verified email address) |
09 Apr 2003
|
The U.S. is the biggest stockpiler of weapons of mass destruction.
The U.S. administration is one of the biggest employers of big-time war criminals.
The U.S. spends more on its own military dominance than the next 15 or so countries combined, and enough many times over to solve the root causes of the wars in question (except for a small number of fanatics which will always exist in any case and exist even in greater numbers in our fucked up U.S. society).
In other words, I oppose Saddam Hussein's regime but at the same time I oppose the U.S. regime even more. Why should I be obliged to throw in my lot with the U.S. under the guise some realpolitik which in the long run is foolish and in the meantime disempowers me and the movement against ALL war criminals and criminal regimes. "The enemy of the enemy is my friend," after all, is the same fucked up logic that the U.S. has operated by time and time again. (And don't forget "The person who will subdue the population and give us access to their resources is my friend...")
So in conclusion, I agree that we must not be silent about Saddam's crimes (but most people here are not silent on them anyway and haven't been for years and years). However, we must not let anyone corral us into a "realpolitik" of supporting the U.S. war under any guise of liberation of Iraqi people. Enslavers don't know how to liberate. It's only PR. |
RSS Feed