war with Iraq, i say no!

[nefar559]

We, The People, Can Stop a War

By Medea Benjamin, AlterNet
August 20, 2002
source: http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13882

As someone trying to build a third party in the United States, I often complain about the lack of democracy in this country: the way money has corrupted politics, the exclusion of third party candidates from debates, a corporate-run media that usually ignores third party challengers, two major parties so alike that half the eligible voters don't even bother to vote. Add to that our daily exposés of corporate scoundrels with hands in the public till, or political scoundrels with hands in the corporate till, and it's hard not to be cynical about the state of our democracy.


But right now I don't want to complain. Right now I am desperately eager to be proven wrong about how this country works. Right now I want to believe that the people do indeed have a voice in the critical issues of our times, a voice that can influence the policy-makers. I want us, the people, to leave aside our partisan differences. I want us, the people, to free our representatives in Washington from the saber-rattling that envelops them and endangers us. I want us, the people, to stop a war with Iraq.


So does the rest of the world. Our only ally in Europe is Tony Blair, who is starting to backslide because the majority of the British people say no. The Arab states have urged the Bush administration to focus on solving the crisis in Israel and Palestine instead of creating a war that will fuel a new wave of anti-American sentiment. Even the Kuwaitis, who were invaded by Saddam Hussein, shake their heads in amazement. The New York Times quoted a Kuwaiti royal family member saying, "Just open a map. Afghanistan is in turmoil, the Middle East is in flames, and you want to open a third front in the region? That would truly turn into a war of civilizations."


Within the U.S. government, there is also plenty of dissent. Rumor has it that Secretary of State Colin Powell, CIA Director George Tenet and many career military officers --including some in the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- think war with Iraq a terrible idea. And while most of Congress has been appallingly quiescent, holding hearings that focused more on the mode of attack rather than questioning the entire rationale, we've had some notable exceptions like Senator Dianne Feinstein and most recently, House Majority Leader Dick Armey -- neither of them peaceniks.


So, on the one hand, we have a President who wants to help his oil buddies get control of Iraq's vast supplies and quash Saddam to finish the task his daddy started. On the other side we have the rest of the world shouting, "Don't do it!" And the one factor that may well determine whether or not we embark on this reckless venture is, believe it or not, us. Remember, there is an election coming up this November, and then a big one in 2004. If the polls show a high percentage of public opposition, the wheels of war may well come to a screeching halt.


We don't have much time and the stakes are enormous. That's why we've got to work together -- Republicans, Democrats, Greens, non-voters, whoever -- to educate and mobilize the American public. I think most Americans know deep down that this impending war makes no sense. Our task is to turn their latent misgivings into blatant opposition. We've got to talk to our friends, our relatives, our co-workers and let them know that yes, Saddam Hussein is evil, but he is not threatening us, he had nothing to do with Sept. 11, and attacking a Muslim country at this point in time will put us and our families in danger. We've got to convince them that the United States has absolutely no justification for a preemptive strike that could, according to Pentagon figures, kill some 10,000 Iraqi civilians and many of our own young men and women.


And if they're not swayed by the potentially catastrophic loss of life and the anti-American backlash, then try the bread and butter issues. The last Gulf War, in today's dollars, cost $80 billion. Back then, our allies chipped in 80 percent of the cost. This time, we taxpayers would foot the entire bill. Ask your friends if they can think of some better uses for $80 billion, like putting it into our schools, or Medicare or Social Security, or using it to pay off our budget deficit.


Let them know that there is a much better way to deal with Iraq: We can join our allies in pressuring Saddam Hussein to resume weapons inspections. Despite Bush's naysaying, these inspections did work in the past to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and they can work again.


Let's assume, for the moment, that we have a real democracy where we can mobilize the American public, get our voices heard in the mass media, and force our policymakers to listen to us. If that's true, then we should be able to stop this war before it starts. And if we do indeed accomplish such an awesome task through the power of the people, then we can start working together on others things like getting money out of politics and creating a real multi-party system. But let's take this democracy thing one step at a time.


Medea Benjamin, a Green Party activist, is the founding director of the human rights group Global Exchange and a new coalition, UnitedForPeace.org.

 

[4T7]

I say YES!

If we don't shut them down now the'll grow to be more powerful, then the'll try to shut us down!

I think it's time 4 the U.S. to take action on all them little middle eastern countries that think there bad, and that think they can fuck with us.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

I say YES!

If we don't shut them down now the'll grow to be more powerful, then the'll try to shut us down!

Thats real smart. Piss the entire world off. No one has are back on this one homie. Trust. Ya, we might win the war but its just the beggining of much more pain for us.

Who do you think put Suddam Hussain in power? we did.
Who do you think had Iraq's back to help slaughter the Iranians? We did.
Who turned their backs on Iraq? We did.
Fuck the nonsense, no disrespect intended homie, just 100% against ya on this one.

 

[4T7]

@2-0-Sixx

Iam lost U said we put Saddam Hussain in power?......I don't think so. Him and his ppl put him in power!

R U saying Americans voted 4 him to be a Leader? Kuz that would be us putting him in power!

I think all those countries down there are trouble for the World. What I mean by that is one day they will start a big war If we don't put them in check now. Right now we have more power, and help from other countries....but who knows what the future holds. IT'S TIME TO TAKE ACTION ON ALL THREATS TO THE U.S.......
.......And that's exactly what OUR President is doing! Iam with him not against him!!

 

[Unregistered]

Inspectors for the Northern Alliance already said that with their technology, they were able to detect underground "plants" the Unites States claims that Iraq has and they haven't found anything, but the U.S. keeps insisting on "shutting them down." It seems like the U.S. is starting to "rebel" to the Northern Alliance.
I personally think that George "Hillbilly" Bush will do what he feels as long as Americans are blinded to the facts. Once the truths are exposed, we should take action.

 

[2-0-Sixx]

@4t7, no playa, do some research homie. U.S. Helped Suddam gain power. We had his back for years. We even gave them weapons and money when Iraq was fighting Iran. We Were Allies. Ever hear of the Iran Contra contraversy? Ya we fucked up big time in Iran, they had hostages, we had weapons. So we made the deal behind Iraq's back. Now if that isnt two timing shit, I dont know what is.
No, america didnt vote for him, but we did have a major factor to do with it. Just like all the other countries in the world. Im telling you, a war with Iraq is not the answer. Your right, the mideast is fucked up right now and something definately needs to be done. But why do you think its so fucked up? Cuz they have been getting fucked by the major nation for years!
Average americans dont know shit about whats going on and what has been going on for years. Every one thinks we are the best, strongest nation in the world. I cant agree with this. I say in order for a better world in the future, we need to make peace now.
Fuck Bush.

 

[4T7]

Every one thinks we are the best, strongest nation in the world. I cant agree with this. I say in order for a better world in the future, we need to make peace now.
Fuck Bush.

If were not the strongest nation then who is?

Peace in the Middle East? It ain't gonna happen!

Even if there was peace I don't think we can trust them!

U got a good point though.

 

[ColdBlooded]

4t7 who do you think gave Iraq chemical weapons to begin with?

Here is some info for everyone on the subject:


Published on Friday, August 2, 2002 by CommonDreams.org
The Saddam in Rumsfeld’s Closet
by Jeremy Scahill

“Man and the turtle are very much alike. Neither makes any progress without sticking his neck out.”
—Donald Rumsfeld

Five years before Saddam Hussein’s now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.

That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld’s December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed “topics of mutual interest,” according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. “[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world,” Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. “It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems.”

Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States “in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be ‘contrary to U.S. interests’ and has made several moves to prevent that result.”

In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: “Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination.”

The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. “Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists,” the U.N. report said. “The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun.”

Prior to the release of the UN report, the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying “available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons.”

Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, “We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular.”

Compared with the rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick’s reaction was hardly a call to action.

Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department “evidence.” On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, “American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.”

A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored. Two years later, in an article about Rumsfeld’s aspirations to run for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld’s achievements helping to “reopen U.S. relations with Iraq.” The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons.

Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan’s Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:

“First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved.”

In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department—in the name of “increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market”—pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam “transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military.”

In 1988, Saddam’s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they “believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.”

In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq’s use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.

Eight years later, Donald Rumsfeld signed on to an “open letter” to President Clinton, calling on him to eliminate “the threat posed by Saddam.” It urged Clinton to “provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish.”

In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world’s attention to Saddam’s chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had “available evidence” Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing.

Washington now speaks of Saddam’s threat and the consequences of a failure to act. Despite the fact that the administration has failed to provide even a shred of concrete proof that Iraq has links to Al Qaeda or has resumed production of chemical or biological agents, Rumsfeld insists that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

But there is evidence of the absence of Donald Rumsfeld’s voice at the very moment when Iraq’s alleged threat to international security first emerged. And in this case, the evidence of absence is indeed evidence.

Jeremy Scahill is an independent journalist. He reports frequently for Free Speech Radio News and Democracy Now! In May and June 2002, he reported from Iraq. He can be reached at [email protected].