|
|
Gulf War II - Bad Idea (Part One)
Revised Edition
Rather then simply make statements about why I think a Gulf War Episode Two is a bad idea, in this article I will address 3 of the most popular arguments for a war.
“The US should not invade Iraq for three reasons. One, because thousands of civilians will be killed. Two, because it would increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the United States, and three because our government is lying to us about the reasons it wants to go to war”
- Tom Morello of Audio Slave (formerly of Rage Against The Machine)
1a Iraq has links to terrorists (Al Quida)
Impossible.
Firstly, Saddam has suppressed Muslim fundamentalism within his country since he came to power, and secondly -for this very reason- Al Quida have said they want Saddam dead on several occasions.
On the recent Bin Laden recording (if it is in fact Bin Laden) he states that Saddam is not a real Muslim.
1b Iraqis are terrorists
In the last gulf slaughter America suffered between 79 total casualties all of which were FRIENDLY FIRE, Iraq suffered around 150,000 casualties - 35,000 of which were civilian - yet America has the disgusting audacity to call Iraqis terrorists?
I am under the impression that clean water and electricity are basic requirements in order to sustain even a minimal standard of living but Power Plants and Water treatment plants were bombed during the gulf war and since then Iraq have not been allowed to repair such facilities due to sanctions imposed on them. This is supposedly illegal under the Geneva Convention by the way, but how foolish of me, America is immune to conforming to such inconvenient laws of course.
On a propagandist TV program a couple of days ago a dude was going on about how children in Iraq have no pencils: IRAQ ARE NOT ALLOWED TO IMPORT PENCEILS UNDER CURRENT TRADE SANCTIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE SAID TO HAVE A MILITARY USE!
Furthermore Iraq was bombed with depleted uranium shells during the gulf. 40 tonnes of depleted uranium were left in Iraq after the war and due to this Iraq has the highest child leukaemia rate in the world and 70% of Iraqi women are Anaemic. Guess what else? - Our compassionate sanctioners have put an EMBARGO ON TREATMENTS FOR THESE CONDITIONS, as well as most medications and chemicals.
The child death rate in Iraq increased from 38 to 131 per 1000 between 1989 (when sanctions were introduced) and 1999 and an estimated 1,000,000 Iraqi children alone have died due to trade sanctions since the gulf war.
Eh-ehm... who are the terrorists exactly?
2a Iraq Has Weapons Of Mass Destruction
First and foremost, I am yet to see any evidence of this and I would never blindly take the word a government so keen to go to war. Iraq's capabilities to produce weapons of mass destruction were supposed to have been destroyed in the first gulf war to the best of my knowledge. I'm also under the impression that Iraq has been unable to import the necessary materials to restore these capabilities under the trade sanctions placed upon them.
In November and December 1998 there were 300 weapons inspectors in Iraq, only 5 of which encountered problems, UNSCOM chief Scott Ritter stated that by that time "Iraq had in fact, been disarmed to a level unprecedented in modern history."
The United States, The UK and western private corporations sold both Iraq and Iran weapons of mass destructions so that they could sit back and watch the two blow chunks out of each other whilst reaping the economic benefits for the oil, banking and armaments cartels. If the US wants to know what weapons Iraq have, surely they can just consult their copies of Saddam's receipts.
I do believe the US are the only country to have used an Atomic Bomb (to end a war that could have been prevented.) And I also believe that we know for a fact Britain, America and most western countries DEFINATELY have such weapons, which brings me to my next point:
What’s that I hear you say?
"2b Britain and America are allowed weapons of mass destruction because they are peaceful nations"
WHAT?! Are you serious???
Britain and America are planning a Pre-Emptive Attack - that means THEY ARE THEY AGGRESSORS
Therefore by their own policy THEY MUST BE SANCTIONED, just as Israel was after their pre-emptive attack in the six-day war.
In the mid 1980s Gorbachev of the Soviet Union announced that his nation would no longer test any new nuclear weapons. He said he was taking this action whether the US joined him or not (they of course chose not.) In 1991 when the Soviet Union was no more the new Russian and Ukrainian leaders stated they were out of the arms race, decommissioned their warheads and turned off computer coordinates pointing missiles at various US cities. They then offered America a pact to permanently eliminate all atomic weapons
The American Response?
There was no American Response! The offer was completely ignored!
The next Russian leader, Boris Yeltsin was a drunken moron and the new Russian leaders talk of building more weapons and selling them to Iran and North Korea!
3 Iraq Are Aggressors Who Invaded Kuwait
It is of course true that Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990 but this was after they were warned on several occasions to cease its actions of cross-drilling, stealing Iraq's oil, they were given a final warning before the invasion which they did not listen to. Iraq has not been an Aggressor for over 10 years and the invasion of Kuwait only occurred because the Western World allowed it to as can clearly be seen by these facts:
- According to government sources American reconnaissance advised Bush around July 16th and 17th 1990 that Iraqi troops were assembling along the border of Kuwait. Nothing was done, no diplomatic warning, no statement in the media or anything.
- On July 25th Saddam met with the US ambassador, April Glaspie, who told him she was acting on the instruction of daddy bush and stated that the Bush government had “no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflict like your border disagreement with Kuwait.” She also stated that she had instructions to pursue better relations with Iraq. Does this sound like the representation of a government wishing to prevent a war? April Glaspie then went on a summer holiday, another indication to Saddam that America were simply not interested in their affairs. Daddy Bush had still said nothing in public about the build-up on the Kuwait border and it was not publicized.
- By July 31st perhaps 100,000 troops were involved. Still not a peep from Daddy B.
- TWO DAYS before the invasion John Kelly, an assistant to the secretary of state was asked by a congressional hearing is the US would defend Kuwait if Iraq attacked and he responded, “We have no defence treaty with any Gulf country”
- On the 2nd of August Saddam invaded Kuwait. Uh-huh, but of course this couldn’t have been prevented, could it? No, of course not!
- The US then told Saudi that Saddam was likely to invade them next (the word “bull” comes to mind.) US troops were then assembled along the (supposedly) threatened Saudi Border and the world was told they were only going to defend Saudi, no intervention was to be made and economic sanctions were to be the only weapon used against Saddam.
- The Bush “UN” forces attacked on January 16th 1991.
The media stated that “smart bombs” were used (that were able to target a building very accurately.) In fact, according to the Pentagon’s own figures, only around 7% of the bombs were “smart” and 70% of the bombs used missed their targets!
Is it an underground bunker? Is it a chemical plant? No! It’s a school!
(If anyone wants information on the actual kind of weapons used drop me an email or look up “fuel-air bomb,” “big blue,” “bouncing bombs,” and “bee hive” in order to discover some of the most horrific bombs that were applied. Time permitting I may follow up “War In The Gulf – Bad Idea Part 2” with “American Atrocities During The Gulf War” to show what hypocrites those behind the “War On Terror” really are.)
Conclusion
I don’t believe Iraq poses a threat to Western society and so Western society has no right to tell the country how it should be governed. A pre-emptive attack is an act of aggression, if I am walking down the street and I beat someone up, then when I go to court I say “I suspected he would stab me if I didn’t beat him up” this would not be sufficient reason for me not to be sentenced, the same goes for a country. The only difference between terrorism and war is that the government says war is ok but terrorism is not, war is state-sponsored terrorism with a much bigger budget.
Finally, in order to compile "Gulf War II – bad Idea (Part 2)" I need people who support war to email me with their arguments for war or any counter-arguments to mine, I shall address all feedback I consider reasonable in Part 2.
If you would like to know the source of any information in this article please email me quoting it and I'll look it out specifically for for you, information from more then 20 sources was included in this article.