Highlights

 
Quotable
If, finally, violence meets with violence, we have confirmation of the age old adage that war though it kills many men, makes many more men evil.
Fritz Medicus
Original Letters Blog US Casualties Contact Donate

 
Letters to
Antiwar.com
January 6, 2007

The Democrats' Agenda

Thomas Moore said: "...the Constitution makes the president the Commander-in-Chief, giving him control over the military, Congress has little direct say over where and how the troops are deployed." Why has he not recommended that this presidential power be taken away? like right now!

We have a nut case as president.

~ George X

Thomas Moore replies:

It would take a constitutional amendment, which at best would require several years to be ratified.


Keane/Kagan Plan Means More Bloodshed

You go to war or declare war against another sovereign nation for one of two reasons:
1. You are attacked without provocation, like, say, Pearl Harbor.
2. An ally by treaty is attacked without provocation and you go to help them. Another form of this would be to be asked by a sovereign nation for help.

The ultimate goal of either one of these reasons SHOULD BE to end the hostilities as soon as possible either by the attacking side surrendering such, as in our Revolutionary or Civil War, or a ceasefire arbitrated by some third party and then an effort to bring some peace and stability and reason between the warring factions.

After WWII instead of sending most of our soldiers home and shutting down our munitions factories we kept our military large and immediately went into the so-called Cold War. This was a war against an ideology, communism, not a nation, even though the USSR and to some degree China were the personification of it.

So for almost 45 years we fought the "Cold War" against an ideology which finally collapsed on its own. Did we win that war? And was it really necessary to spend all that money to "win" that war? I don't think it had anything to do with war. The military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned about needed an excuse to continue making war profits so they needed a "war," so they got one. So we fought in Korea, war profits were good....

But along comes a ceasefire for Korea.... So now what? Another threat of Communism in Vietnam and another "war" and more arms and profits. 10-plus years of lots of profits and arms buildup until the fall of Saigon in 1975. So now what do they do? Back to the old "commie threat" (Red China, etc.), bigger missiles, more planes, bombs, etc.

So for 15-plus more years more profits until quite to everyone's surprise communism effectively collapses as a world threat, Clinton gets elected and peace threatens to break out. (Oh, I almost forgot the first Gulf War, a good little war that increased profits but ended too quickly). No need for big missiles, planes etc. Panic sets in among the arms merchants. How do they keep the war machine going if there is no threat? Along comes a think tank run by a bunch of neocons called the Project For a New American Century, formed in 1995, that advocates a foreign policy of American military superiority in the world.

So the arms merchants see a new chance to keep their war profits going. But Clinton is a Democrat and surely will not go along with this. So wait until he is out of office, put in a friendly dumb president in 2000, a Republican of course, and start the new century out with great expectations and the "war party" in power. Along comes 9/11 and lo and behold the "Global War on Terror," an arms merchant's dream: a hundred years of war profits, almost forever. So how do you keep the "Global War on Terror" going for a hundred years? Make sure there are more terrorists out there under every bush, scare the crap out of the American people so they will continue to support a big military budget and life goes on.

So is Iraq a success for the arms merchants? You better believe it. The War in Iraq has fueled more terrorists, which will keep the Global War on Terror going for years and was just an opening shot in a wider war with Iran, Syria, etc. All to keep the war machine busy and increase profits. Remember, "war is good for the economy."

So what to do about Iraq? The arms merchants could care less. They are chomping at the bit to go elsewhere.

So we can continue supporting the president in another course-change in Iraq and hope for the best or we can impeach him and Cheney, Mr. Arms Merchant, and maybe have a chance to break the arms merchants once and forever.

~ Bill Keyes


The Shi'ites Have Their Revenge

... I find this quite a simplistic analysis of the real facts behind the reason for the date chosen for such an execution.

The article seems to infer that the execution of Saddam on the Eid-Al-Adha was done on purpose by the Shi'ites to take revenge on Saddam. Maybe we should dig further into why it was done on such a date? ... The Eid-Al-Adha is celebrated by all Muslims, whether Sunni or Shi'ia. It is the last day of the holy pilgrimage to Mecca and all Muslims are required to sacrifice a lamb in honor or Prophet Abraham. There is no distinction here. Further, the execution took place in the "Green Zone," the American base. Who were the real individuals who ordered the execution on that day, the American Government or the Government of the Prime Minister of Iraq? Who were the masked men? ... How many Shi'ites were really celebrating or dancing around the dead bodies?

Why would the Iraqi Government of Nouri Al-Maliki want to create more division between the Shi'ites and Sunnis, which he knew would have a direct repercussion on his government and instill further violence? Also we forget that the execution of Saddam was conducted not in a fair trial, but in a kangaroo court, where the judges where chosen by the U.S. Government. Saddam was tried only for the Shi'ite massacres in Dujail. The gassing of the Kurds and the killing of 1.5 million Shi'ite Iranian soldiers and civilians, including the use of chemical and biological weapons, went untried.

As Robert Fisk rightfully put it:

"Who encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the greatest war crime he has committed for it led to the deaths of a million and a half souls? And who sold him the components for the chemical weapons with which he drenched Iran and the Kurds? We did. No wonder the Americans, who controlled Saddam's weird trial, forbade any mention of this, his most obscene atrocity, in the charges against him. Could he not have been handed over to the Iranians for sentencing for this massive war crime? Of course not. Because that would also expose our culpability."

Ms. Napoleoni seems to forget that the Iranians were Shi'ites, and Iran did not get its day for the revenge of Saddam's criminal acts against their people. The last sentence of the article demonstrates why because it would expose our culpability!

I want to know where is the footage of all the Shi'ites celebrating this execution (though they would have a right to do so) around the world, beside the continuous picture that CNN wants to show of a group in Dearborn, Michigan (and we don't even know how many people were involved in that celebration a handful, 20, 30, 100!).

I tend to believe that this was another method of creating further divide between the world's Muslim majority who are Sunni, and the Shi'ites in particular Iran. Since Iran is now the next demon that the U.S. and Israel are both after. The U.S. has to break what Ahmadinejad has been able to do creating unity among all Muslims against the U.S. occupation in Iraq and Israel's occupation of Palestine and its massacres this summer in Lebanon. The so-called (puppet) "moderate Arab leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan" also wish nothing more than to see a Sunni revolt against the Shi'ites. ...

So we go back to the question: it is quite ominous, and illogical for the Government of Iraq to have chosen this day. Who was really behind it is the real question.

~ M. Homayouni

Loretta Napoleoni replies:

Dear Mr. Homayouni,

One of the reasons why U.S. and coalition troops should move out of Iraq now is that once gone the responsibilities for what is happening in Iraq will be much clearer. I agree entirely that the U.S.-led invasion created the conditions for a civil war, I was among the many who opposed such decision, but today those who are actively participating in it are the Iraqis.

Saddam Hussein was put on trial for one specific crime against a Shi'ite village, not for what he did to the entire nation. The trial was held in Iraq, it was the Iraqi government not the U.S. government who put him on trial and decided to execute him.

As for the videos of his execution, which I find deeply distasteful and cruel, we now know that it was an Iraqi officer who passed them on to YouTube.

I know it is hard to accept that one's own country is in the grip of civil war and that to blame a foreign power can be comforting, but the reality is very different. Those who are in charge of today's ethnic warfare are people like Moqtada al-Sadr who benefit from chaos. Iraq should say no to those people and seek a reconciliation.

Previous Backtalk

 
 
Backtalk is edited by Sam Koritz. Click here to send a letter. Letters become the property of Antiwar.com and may be edited before posting. Unless otherwise requested, authors may be identified and e-mail addresses will not be published. The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of Antiwar.com.
Archives

Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
without written permission is strictly prohibited.
Copyright 2014 Antiwar.com