I'm not in favour of war. And I kind of resent the implication that only the ignorant wouldn't be.
Nobody thinks Saddam Hussein is a good man - nobody I've ever met, anyway. Torture happens all over the world. War is not the answer to ending torture and oppression.
But, hey, if you think military in invasion is the universal answer, you'd better go and enlist. We're going to need a bigger army.
It has been said again and again and again and again: no one is denying that this guy is bad news. The things printed here are par for his course and have been for the 23 years he's been in power. He's a murderous thug. He is, in short, EXACTLY the kind of guy your government and mine have historically preferred to leave in command of unstable regions throughout the world. The primary difference between him and our 'allies' in the region - the ruliing families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait; murderous thugs, all - is that he is a peasant by birth.
So, a member of Tony Blair's party uses her access to press on the eve of war and says "oh, by the way: here's a bunch of unpleasant stuff I've heard." That's a fairly classic propoganda ploy, and is the political equivalent of a salesman calling to check that you are happy with a major purchase. That stuff was going on 20 years ago; and we (the US) were so blind with rage at Iran that we did not care. We gave him all the weaponry he needed to make Iran miserable, and if he also used it to maintain his power, so be it.
It could (and has) been said that since he is our fault we have an obligation to remove him. But really, the political and national makeup of the whole regoin is our fault; the US and Britain drew up the boundry lines of the Middle East at the end of WWII. The region has been in fairly constant turmoil ever since. Will there ever be a point at which we declare it good enough, or will we be forever meddling in the affairs of Arabs?
My country has exactly one interest in the region. It is black, plentiful, and easily recovered. My President's handlers know exactly which pretty words to say to make people believe that this is about issues of high morality. It is not. It is a business scam.
A recent study by a Nobel prize winner said that half-a-million people will die if there is war in Iraq, half before and half after due to the infrastructural damage we're going to do.
If tactical nukular weapons are used, as Dubya proposes, this number will climb into the millions.
If you're going after leaders for the murder of innocents, you need to start with Bush and Blair.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2003-03-20 11:17 am
no subject
Nobody thinks Saddam Hussein is a good man - nobody I've ever met, anyway. Torture happens all over the world. War is not the answer to ending torture and oppression.
But, hey, if you think military in invasion is the universal answer, you'd better go and enlist. We're going to need a bigger army.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
I can.
and again
and again
and again:
no one is denying that this guy is bad news. The things printed here are par for his course and have been for the 23 years he's been in power. He's a murderous thug. He is, in short, EXACTLY the kind of guy your government and mine have historically preferred to leave in command of unstable regions throughout the world. The primary difference between him and our 'allies' in the region - the ruliing families of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait; murderous thugs, all - is that he is a peasant by birth.
So, a member of Tony Blair's party uses her access to press on the eve of war and says "oh, by the way: here's a bunch of unpleasant stuff I've heard." That's a fairly classic propoganda ploy, and is the political equivalent of a salesman calling to check that you are happy with a major purchase. That stuff was going on 20 years ago; and we (the US) were so blind with rage at Iran that we did not care. We gave him all the weaponry he needed to make Iran miserable, and if he also used it to maintain his power, so be it.
It could (and has) been said that since he is our fault we have an obligation to remove him. But really, the political and national makeup of the whole regoin is our fault; the US and Britain drew up the boundry lines of the Middle East at the end of WWII. The region has been in fairly constant turmoil ever since. Will there ever be a point at which we declare it good enough, or will we be forever meddling in the affairs of Arabs?
My country has exactly one interest in the region. It is black, plentiful, and easily recovered. My President's handlers know exactly which pretty words to say to make people believe that this is about issues of high morality. It is not. It is a business scam.
no subject
If the real agenda was to remove Saddam Hussein, surely assasins would be more appropriate than war?
(no subject)
no subject
If tactical nukular weapons are used, as Dubya proposes, this number will climb into the millions.
If you're going after leaders for the murder of innocents, you need to start with Bush and Blair.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
No.
Re: No.
Re: No.
Re: No.
Re: No.
Re: No.
Re: No.