Reading Politics

Let's not forget that the reagan administration helped saddam gain power, helped him get a lot of the weapons of mass destruction that he used, and supported him while he used them. If saddam is evil, and he is if there is such a thing, then so is reagan.

Point 2:
The combination of our bombing of their infrastructure (water) and sanctions have killed far more iraqis than saddam.

No one is saying that saddam is a good person. Everyone agrees that he is the opposite, but we (americans) need to take a hard look in the mirror before we believe that this push for war is about the people of iraq or wmd.

This post was edited by jdonnell on Mar 25, 2003.

I have actually been reading a bit about damage caused after the first Gulf War. Alot of people I talk to don't buy the sanctions argument. They say if Saddam really cared about his people he would give some of his money back and stop hoarding it. That when he withholds is is harming. However, I don't totally buy that.

One figure I read said 500,000 children have died as a result of the war, not to mention the few hundred thousand that have died as a direct result of the military (including ones killed while trying to surrender or were killed while running away).

I'm not sure that even if Saddam was the nicest guy in the world and wanted to give out of his pocket that he could have saved all those children. Health care costs lots of money, and I really don't think as much money has Saddam has could have saved all those people. It seems reasonable that were Saddam turned into a saint overnight, that sanctions would still kill a good many Iraqis. I also don't think it's reasonable to think that Saddam would ever do that. I mean American politicins could give a real boost to the economy if even for one year they would refuse payment and put the money back into America. So if American leaders don't do it, how reasonable is it to expect dictators to.

That's what ticks me off about this war, our govt. claims that they are doing this for the people of Iraq when quite possibly they have killed more than Saddam did.

Well i'm in again and as usual have to throw my two cents in....
i'm sorry i haven't read all the posts yet (i know i should do it before i enter the discussion, so forgive me this time ;) )
I think that the american "way" is comletely irresponsible and "janusheaded".
Now to come to some things America was doing in the early 80s and what just a few people know.:

1. The Iran-Iraq war: In the early 80s Irak (under the president ship of Saddam Hussein) attacked Iran and was supported by the USA. The US wanted to embank the moslem fundamentalism which came up in Iran under the new leader Ayatollah Kohumeini. But after the Iranish moslem made a counteroffensive and entered Iraq, the USA deliverd chemical weapons to the Iraqis which they used against Iranish militairs and civilians. The world wasn`t interested in that.

2. The kurdish "problem": After the Iran war the Kurdish people in north-Iraq tried to made a rebellion and to get autonomy. again the Iraqi army used nerve gases agains civilians, delivered by the USA and France, and again all the countrys looked away. About 15,000 civilians died.

3. Another rebellion: In the beginning of operation "dessert storm", the Americans ensured the Kurdish people in the north and the Shiite populution in the south, that if they make a rebellion against Saddam Hussein, the americans will do the very best to help them and to secure them. But instead of helping the rebellioun, the US army waited and watched as the Iraqi Army slaughtert down the rebellion. And just after the victory of the Iraq army, the US army "helped". The same situation as the Warsaw Rebellion in 1944. And that's why you now hardly see cheering iraqi people who are happy because of their "liberation". They have never forgotten what the american army staff did 10 years earlier. and that's why the south front doesn't collapse as the pentagon belived it would do.

That are just 3 examples i had to say. Now let's see if this is a war of "good" agains "evil", of a nation fighting agains inhumanity and for justice.
For my oppinion, things are not like a Pentagon propaganda machinery want's to show us.
Well i don't want to offend anyone and as well as my oppinion to this war might be obvious i just wanted to tell some history aspects as neutral as possible. And please forgive me some mistakes i could have made in this early morning time ;)

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

artrus, great well informed post, I can see that it took a lot of effort. As for the gas prices falling, I am so happy about that, it's about time!

Everyone knows that the worst humanitarian in the world is Saddam Hussien.

First of all, that isn't true. There are hundreds of banana republics with dictators that torture, rape, mutilate, and murder their populations. Our government supports many of them. Including Saddam Hussein in the 80s when he was gassing his own people and the Iranians, and we were supplying the intelligence to show him where to drop the chemical weapons. Further, Bechtel built a chemical plant that was likely used in the construction of CWs in Iraq, and might have helped Iraq build conventional weapons.

Second of all, even though Saddam is odious and Iraq has a bad human rights record, that isn't a justification to go to war either morally or under international law. Think about the fact that the United States sponsors Israel, a state which engages in constant terrorism against Palestinians, a state which has over twice as many UN resolutions against it than Iraq. If poor humanitarian records are justifications for war, then several of the US's allies would have to be considered targets before Iraq. Need I remind you that the United States supported genocide in East Timor?

Thirdly, the United States has led sanctions for the last 12 years that have strangled Iraq's population and caused thousands of deaths due to unclean water and otherwise treatable or preventable illness. So it could be argued, based on this and numerous other actions abroad, such as the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, that the United States has the world's worst humanitarian record.

Now that we have invaded, there will be no more innocents killed by Saddam, ending his 20463 'record'. If in this conflict the allies kill greater than 20463 innocents, then we have done a horrorable thing

A strange assumption. Interesting how you spelled "honorable" "horrorable." I think your spelling of the word is a more accurate characterization of what we have done than "honorable." Massacreing an army without a shred of hope against our superior armaments, and killing civlians, and risking soldiers' lives for oil cannot be considered "honorable," but is certifiably "horrorable," deplorable, demented, evil, and illegal.

Anyway, to address your point, how do you reconcile this logic with the fact that the US has trained and sponsored state terror and massacres of hundresds of thousands of civilians around the globe? We are the only country to have ever been prosecuted for global terrorism in the ICC, our corporations are responsible for such disasters as the Union Carbide Bhopal disaster, which killed 12,000 people, and Unocal's use of slave labor in the construction of a pipeline in Myanmar, or Bechtel's privitization of Bolivia's water and then doubling of the price, or Chevron/Texaco's support of terror groups in Nigeria against indigenous people who are squatting. My point is, the US is clearly not interested in saving any lives, based on careful scrutiny of their actions both in Iraq and elsewhere. So I wish I could share your high-minded idealism, but it is way out of synch with reality.

I notice your signature has a verse from Corinthians. If you are truly a Christian, I would encourage you to study Jesus' message of peace. Why is it that the Christian fundamentalists in this country are so mercenary and bloodthirsty? This is a massive hypocrisy. Never once did he say "get them before they get you," which is literally conceptually what Bush's foreign policy is based on. I am not a Christian, but I understand the doctrines and the teachings of Jesus, and I know that the men running this country, while they claim to serve him, only serve one god: power. Do you really think Jesus, the pacifist who said "turn the other cheek," would sanction mass murder? Do you realize that early Christians allowed themselves to be boiled in oil before they would fight? Theirs was a passive resistance, like Ghandi's.

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Why is it that the Christian fundamentalists in this country are so mercenary and bloodthirsty? This is a massive hypocrisy.

Amen to that. I am a Christian and it frustrates me that many of my fellow evangelicals have chosen to ally themselves with the wielders of temporal power instead of embracing the true power of peace and love that is the message of Christ. And they have the nerve to say that Gandhi will go to hell because he never accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior. It is ironic that it was Gandhi who faithfully followed Christ's sermon on the mount while the Church has been casting its lot with those who rule with power. Indeed, this is a massive hypocrisy.

During the Iraq war, churches were, at best, drawing the people's attention away from the war and the pulpits echoed with messages to keep the faith in these trying times. At their worst, churches were twisting and overemphasizing the message of Romans 13 that told people to be subject to their rulers.

My fellow Christians, it is true that St. Paul told us to be subject to our rulers, but in the same passage he reveals his assumption that rulers are there to enforce the will of God. But in cases where governments are acting in the interests that contradict the will of God, peaceful resistance is the answer. Let the prophet Daniel be our example. The Emperor himself commanded him to practice idolatry. His response was neither to give in and do so nor to fight and shed the blood of those who force him. Instead he remained steadfast and allowed himself to be thrown into the lions' den, in the same way that Gandhi and his followers allowed themselves to be abused physicaly--and turn the other cheek. But we Christians have become idolatrous. We have decided not to be thrown into the lions' den. Instead we have decided to worship the god of Bush--the Prince of this world and the Father of Lies. After all, has he not lied time and again to fabricate justifications for this war? How long will we be so naive? We never learn. The Church did nothing when Hitler was in power and was being used by Satan. And we are doing nothing now even as Bush has been used by Satan to deliver the devastation of war to the two countries of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Look within your hearts and tell me that this massacre has been the will of God! And yet we have allowed our pulpits to echo with the voice of Death and Destruction.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

This post was edited by childeoftheblood on Jul 10, 2003.

During the Iraq war, churches were, at best, drawing the people's attention away from the war and the pulpits echoed with messages to keep the faith in these trying times. At their worst, churches were twisting and overemphasizing the message of Romans 13 that told people to be subject to their rulers.

Most of the National Episcopal churches, and many Catholic (the Pope, fer cryin' out loud!) Churches denounced Bush's belligerent intentions, as did many, many Protestant churches (predominantly Methodists, I belive).

In fact, the new rector at my church (Episcopalian, though I, technically, am not an Episcopalian) gave a pretty good sermon about 'morally upright' conservative Christians in power, not naming names of course, who were contradicting the teachings of Christ at every chance.

I'll believe in anything if you'll just believe in anything

Well, that's good to hear. and i do know about the pope, so i should not have used the capital "C" on "church" on my generalizing statement since i was referring mostly to protestant evangelical groups. still, i think there are more pro-war than anti-war christian orgs and individuals. a lot of christian journals and online publications are so pro-war, like Christianity Today. If you can give me some links that are not, i'd be very thankful because i'm sick of the usual crap i get to read.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

I was thinking as I read this last post about the Old Covenant and the Law from the Old Testament, which is less pacifistic than the New Testament. In the Old Testament, it has the commandment commonly interpreted as "Thou shalt not kill," possibly more accurately translated "Thou shalt not murder." It also says "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth," and Old Testament Jews were heavily militant--mainly to defend themselves against rival societies encroaching them. My point in noting these things is that the Old Covenant appears to hold that self defense, particularly against heathens, is acceptable. If we were to use OT doctrine to justify war, however, we would need to have either a direct threat, or a direct eye or tooth knocked out, so to speak. Despite Bush's attempts to convince the public that a) there is a direct threat from Iraq and b) Iraq was somehow involved in 9-11, it is clear that neither of these is true and that, if anything, we owe Iraq an eye or a tooth. It appears as if our government intends to take a liver, brain, and heart.

Mac

Ewige Blumenkraft!

The message of Jesus and the New Testament (which is what matters to Christians more) is one of pacifism. Take what is dealt to you and accept it; don't seek out violence, and the like. Definitely not a message of "let's get the bad guy before he gets us". The fact that Christian churches are promoting a message of patriotism and faith in our leader above all reason means that they are abandoning true Christianity for a political agenda.

But the entire point about Christianity justifying the war is irrelevent. This nation is a SECULAR country, and in a secular-dominated nation with freedom of religion, one cannot justify national policy using religion. One must justify policy with other arguments (social, economic, etc.)

Sure, Saddam may have killed 20000-30000 people in his 20 year reign. We killed over 4000 Iraqi civilians in less than a month. And the argument about the US having a policy of rooting out aggressive, oppressive dictators is just bullshit. While going after Saddam, we support Pakistani President Musharraf (who clearly sponsors cross-border terrorism against India and likely harbors Bin Ladin and other al-Qaeda members), and give tacit consent to the much more dangerous Kim Jong-Il of N. Korea (who, I might add, already has nuke(s) and is developing more). Those are just the two most relevant examples right now; we support, and have supported, many more dictators than we have removed (we supported Castros regime, let him in power, until he turned to the Soviets in 1961 or 1962).

And in Iraq, Iraqis have not welcomed us, their conqueror, with open arms (why the hell did we naively expect this... no one greets a conqueror with joy). Our government is surprised by the resistance, when in fact, we should have anticipated it. Iraq is going to be a HUGE drain on our military and economy for a long time.

P.S. I had little time, so I kept this relatively brief... a list of reasons why the US shouldn't have gone into Iraq could take up pages and pages ;)

"It was not God who created man, but man who created God." --Santa Caserio