|
ONE
IRAQ
WAS INVOLVED IN THE 9/11 ATTACK ON AMERICA OR IS CLOSE TO OBTAINING
NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
ANSWER:
The War Party in Washington has mounted a vast campaign in conservative
media to attack Iraq again. See Georgie Anne Geyer column on lobby
in Anti-Arab
Advocates Risk U.S. Interests. Saddam is an enemy of Islamic
Fundamentalists. Iraqi women are among the most emancipated in
the Moslem world. You never see Saddam wearing a robe and shouting
about Holy War. Iraq has not been a supporter of "global terrorism,"
although it does support Palestinian terrorists against Israel's
UN declared illegal settlements on the West Bank. There is no
evidence of Iraqi nuclear ability, nor that it ever provided chemical
weapons to other nations or terrorists.
TWO
IF
WE DON'T BOMB IRAQ, SADDAM WILL USE HIS WMD AGAINST US OR HIS
NEIGHBORS OR ISRAEL
ANSWER:
Saddam is rational. He had these weapons during the First Gulf
War and didn't use them because he feared our threats of worse
consequences even when his nation was being decimated. Israel
has some 200 atomic
bombs and its own active biological and chemical weapons program.
It can well defend itself. Meanwhile Washington arms all Iraq's
neighbors (except Iran), and Turkey bombs and invades Iraq at
will. Yet the pressure now in Congress to attack Iraq is based
upon its unreal threat to Israel.
Also, Iraq's neighbors oppose an American attack. If Iraq was
such a threat, why do they not fear it?
THREE
IRAQ WOULDN'T LET THE UN--US MONITORS INSPECT POSSIBLE
WMD PRODUCTION OR STORAGE SITES. THAT'S WHY AMERICA STARTED BOMBING.
ANSWER: Untrue – Iraq did allow them from 1991
until 1998, but Washington still wouldn’t take off the trade blockade,
under which thousands of children were dying every week without
clean water, electricity, etc.
Scott Ritter, the former UNSCOM inspector, told CNN
on 2/18/01 "In terms of large-scale weapons of mass destruction
programs, these had been fundamentally destroyed or dismantled
by the weapons inspectors as early as 1996." Yet
Madeleine Albright declared in 1997: “We do not agree with the
nations who argue that if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning
weapons of mass destruction, sanctions should be lifted.” Clinton went one step further when he said,
“sanctions will be there until the end of time, or as long as
he [Saddam] lasts." THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT REPUDIATED
THESE STATEMENTS.
Then in 1998 Washington made new demands, access
to all government personnel files, the basis of its power structure. UN weapons inspectors were still roaming Iraq
and the country had been found "clean"
for 7 years. Iraq saw that U.S. demands were just always escalated
with no hope of sanctions being lifted. The Iraqis also complained
that most of the UN inspectors were British and American intelligence
agents, who were trying to overthrow their government (Scott Ritter
on CNN 1/5/02 said he had been working with Israeli intelligence
from 1995-98). Clinton then launched a new bombing campaign using
information from the "spy UN inspectors" for bombing targets.
Iraq now fears, justifiably, that this would happen again.
FOUR
IT'S SADDAM'S FAULT THAT HALF A MILLION CHILDREN DIED SINCE THE
ECONOMIC BLOCKADE, SADDAM COULD FEED HIS PEOPLE IF HE CARED INSTEAD
OF USING HIS MONEY TO BUY WEAPONS – " More than one million
Iraqis have died – 500,000 of them children – as a direct
consequence of economic sanctions... As many as 12% of the children
surveyed in Baghdad are wasted, 28% stunted and 29% underweight."
– UN FAO, December 1995. For details see Morbidity
and Mortality Among Iraqi Children 1990-98.
ANSWER:
Nearly all oil sales money has been controlled through United
Nations officials, subject to over 35% reduction for reparations
(Iraq is forbidden to contest any claim) and UN expenses, and
subject to Washington's veto and foot dragging. Washington allowed
food and medicine imports, but almost nothing else for economic
reconstruction. For nearly ten years it blockaded chlorine to
sanitize the water and any equipment to rebuild the electricity grid,
sanitation and irrigation facilities. Even pencils for school
children were prohibited. (A NY Times editorial 2/11/01
reports, "currently American diplomats are holding up billions
of dollars of imports needed for civilian transportation, electric
power generation...and even medical treatment"). Finally the Europeans
rebelled at the cruelty and shamed Washington into allowing such
imports, (NY Times 12/6/00).
However, as of 12/2/01 about $1 billion of electric and other
machinery has been held up for a year by Washington. Until oil
prices increased in 2000, sales ran about $4 billion yearly minus
about 35% withheld by UN left 2.6 billion divided by 20 million
population = $130 per year per person = 36 cents per day per person
for food, medicine.
Iraq is now also getting substantial monies through sales of smuggled
oil, especially since the price of oil went up and the rest of
the world tires of the American blockade. No doubt some
of this goes for weapons purchases.
FIVE
IF IRAQ ALLOWED INSPECTIONS FOR WMD (WEAPONS
OF MASS DESTRUCTION), WASHINGTON WOULD REMOVE THE BLOCKADE. IRAQ
MUST PROVE THAT IT HAS NO WMD AND THAT IT WON'T MANUFACTURE ANY
IN THE FUTURE.
ANSWER: There's No Connection Between Inspections and
Sanctions on Iraq. Equally no Nation can "prove" a negative,
that it's not doing something. Biological and chemical weapons
can be made, "in a large closet which is all the space you need
to mix deadly chemical weapons... Chemical and biological weapons
are the great equalizers against our atomic weapons." (Time
"Everyman a Superpower", 11/24/97).
Re inspections,
Reuters reported, 12/13/99,
"The (European) aim was to prevent the United States and Britain
from imposing arms requirements that Iraq could not meet and thus
keeping the sanctions in place for years to come." And Agence
France Presse 12/13/99, "French diplomats retorted that by insisting
on full cooperation, the council would give the United States
an excuse to refuse to suspend sanctions on the flimsiest grounds.”
Scott
Ritter, former head of the U.N. arms inspection team in Iraq,
on the NBC Today Show, 12/17/98, explained, "Washington perverted
the U.N. weapons process by using it as a tool to justify military
actions... The U.S. was using the inspection process as a trigger
for war." For details on how Iraq complied, e.g. 700 inspections
by UN/US officials, and grew to realize that Washington would
prevent the sanctions from ever being lifted see Le Monde-Diplomatique
. Note also that Iraq did not expel the inspectors. The U.N. withdrew
them in anticipation of the extensive American bombing attacks.
SIX
IT'S
IRAQ'S FAULT THAT THE BLOCKADE CONTINUES. AMERICA HAS NOTHING
AGAINST IRAQ'S PEOPLE, ONLY AGAINST ITS GOVERNMENT.
ANSWER:
Britain and Washington have introduced a "peace plan"demanding
that Iraq must allow inspections, but would still be under the
trade blockade indefinitely.
Russia and France have introduced a plan (vetoed by Washington)
allowing for immediate lifting of sanctions in return for continued,
ongoing WMD inspections and blockade of military supplies.
Washington's policy (also followed in Serbia) is to tell local
dictators to get themselves killed or thrown out of power
(and then tried for "war crimes") or otherwise have their citizenry
starve while their country's devastated economy is kept in ruins.
The policy was denounced by former Pres. Jimmy Carter
. (For detailed discussion of UN
resolutions see CASI
from Cambridge and IAC
detailed analysis of UN Resolution)
Most nations in the world want trade sanctions lifted for non-military
goods. It is the U.S. veto that prevents lifting of sanctions
(United Press, 11/1/00). Imposed in 1990 many nations argue
that they were never intended to last for years and are one of
the most brutal sanction regimes in modern history.
The crippling trade embargo is incompatible with the UN charter
as well as UN conventions on human rights and the rights of the
child (BBC News Online, 9/30/00).
SEVEN
SADDAM
GASSED HIS OWN PEOPLE
ANSWER:
Atrocities are often the key substance of propaganda to get Americans
to go to war. Didn’t our government also do that at Waco? The
C2 gas used by the FBI killed children who couldn’t fit into gas
masks and then created an explosive mixture which triggered fire
and immolation, (see super documentary, Waco, nominated for an
Academy Award).
To
see how good natured Americans are lied to by our own government
see, How Hill and Knowlton Public Relations
"sold" the Iraq War). For the First World War,
it was stories that German soldiers ate Belgian babies.
For the Iraq war it was lies about babies being
thrown out of incubators, "testified" to a Congressional Committee,
with massive media coverage, by a "mystery" witness who later
turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti sheik’s ruling family
who is Ambassador in Washington. It was all lies. Then we
were told there were aerial photographs of the Iraqi Army massed
on Saudi Arabia’s border ready to attack. They were never
released; they apparently were lies too. How do we know we
weren't also lied to about the gassing? See Jude Wanniski
Report on gassing for questions about it.
For
more background and earlier answers about Iraq, please go to http://iraqwar.org/talking-points.htm
and to http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-consp.htm#one
about the missing evidence that Iraq was planning to attack Saudi
Arabia in 1990.
EIGHT
A
WAR WOULD BE QUICK AND EASY TO WIN. IRAQIS WOULD WELCOME AMERICANS
TO OVERTHROW THEIR CRUEL DICTATOR. AMERICA WOULD THEN SET UP A
FRIENDLY REGIME, EASILY OCCUPY THE COUNTRY AND RID IT OF WEAPONS
OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
ANSWER:
To assume that after massive new bombing (what we always do) and
killing tens of thousands more Arabs, that America would be welcome
is unreal. Also Washington is now considered in the Arab world
as an instrument of Israeli policies. More likely would be continuing
guerrilla warfare against occupying Americans, possible break
up of the nation, economic chaos in Jordan and Turkey which trade
with Iraq, and/or the rise of a new dictator. War, once started,
has its own momentum. Arnaud de Borchgrave draws a possible
scenario of a worldwide oil crisis, overthrow of pro-U.S.
Moslem regimes, and chaos for American interests.
Also
millions more Moslems would be seeking vengeance against America.
There would be little support in Congress for a prolonged occupation
and "Democracy building."
CONCLUSION
Look
at the above and think how America is now hated. No wonder many
Arabs engage in suicide missions. American soldiers are so unpopular
in Saudi Arabia that the government hides our Airmen away in desert
bases to keep them out of sight from its citizenry. How the world
sees us was reported by the Wall Street Journal's European
edition editor (2/24/98):
"What
came up most were charges of American hypocrisy. The US wants
to bomb Iraq over its violations of UN directives, but won’t take
any action against the Israelis for theirs (e.g. occupation of
and settlements in Palestine)."
Washington
Times columnist Bruce Fein (10/9/01) put it another way, "Other
nations and peoples are more resentful of our pious hypocrisy
than of Realpolitik bluntness."
No doubt America can easily decimate Iraq again.
But then what? More death, more hatred, more enemies wanting vengeance. Out of
the billion plus Moslem world others would finally find new ways,
perhaps biological, to hit us back. And meanwhile we would
live in constant fear of that day.
If,
instead, Washington showed justice and fairness in its policies,
then it would not be creating sworn and desperate enemies who,
in former Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick's words, "define
themselves as being Enemies of America." The best security
for Americans is not to make so many enemies (see
Joseph Sobran column, How Many Enemies Do We Want?)
ADDENDUM
The
Boston Globe (5/16/99) reported:
"In
planning the 1991 Persian Gulf War, US officers found a 12 bridges
for the movement of Iraqi troops in and out of Kuwait. US planes
bombed those bridges over and over, with little effect. So they
bombed every bridge in Iraq, 160 in all, about two-thirds of them
far from Kuwait. After a while, all bridges were seen and
treated equally. Similarly, now in Belgrade, it seems, all military
agencies are seen and treated as if they were of equal importance.
The Pentagon announced last week that three-quarters of the targets
hit in this air war, 270 out of 380, have been 'strategic targets.'
Only 110 have been directly connected to the soldiers and militias
in Kosovo."
Jon
Basil Utley is the Robert A. Taft Fellow at the Ludwig
von Mises Institute. A former correspondent for Knight/Ridder
in South America, Utley has written for the Harvard Business Review
on foreign nationalism and Insight Magazine on preparation for
terrorist threats.
|
