portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

imperialism & war

What is wrong with the justification given for war in Iraq?

Bush justification for Iraq war questioned
What is wrong with the justification given for war in Iraq?

The first assumption is that the possible dangers of Saddam's WMD are greater than the certain death and destruction that would be caused by a war. Obviously there is no basis to reach this conclusion because in both cases we are talking about events that have not yet happened, so none of it can be quantified. Only one thing is certain. If we go to war a lot of people will die and it will cost a huge amount of resources.

The first strike principle is based on the perennial advice that has been passed down from father to son for many generations. If you know you are about to get into a fight in the schoolyard, try to get in the first lick.

The problem with this schoolyard thinking is that there have been no indications that we are in any danger from Saddam. If there had been any supporting evidence presumably it would have been revealed by this time.

Obviously it is impossible to guess Saddam's, or anybody else's intentions. Even if we could know what others were thinking it still would not justify a preemptive war. Go tell the judge that you killed your neighbor in self-defense because you thought he was planning to kill you. This would really go over big if you came to court with no evidence to back up your allegations. Tell the judge to trust you. You know what you're doing. Better yet, tell him that God appointed you to rid the world of people like your neighbor.

When someone says they are being directed by God to commit acts of violence it's usually a bad sign. Think about it.

We threaten Iraq with war if they do not hand over these WMD that may or may not exist. It's possible Iraq is telling the truth. We just don't know. All that we do know is that we gave Iraq a lot of very deadly stuff and they cannot prove that it was all disposed of properly.

If Iraq does not have WMD then we are fighting a totally unjustified war. If Iraq does have WMD we will probably find out when we invade because they will almost certainly use them on our troops and even our civilian population if possible. Bush is threatening nuclear strike if this happens.

Let's see... We are fighting a war on terrorism and if you are against us we will drop an atomic bomb on you because we want to rid the world of terrorism. What's wrong with this picture?

GW Bush has publicly announced his intentions to keep the USA the sole dominant superpower and go in and destroy anybody else who tries to challenge us by building a few nukes of their own. What if things were turned around and someone much more powerful than us, someone we are not friendly with, announced that they intended to dominate the world. Say our only defense was one atomic bomb. Don't you think we would be scrambling to build more?

Does having a self-proclaimed, designated bully in the schoolyard make you feel safe? No, because you know that he's going to come around to take your lunch money and whatever else he wants from you.

When we demand Saddam turn over these WMD we are dealing with a madman. We should not expect a madman act sensibly and do the right thing. According to GWB, it's up to Saddam if we go to war or not. This is a very common physiological ploy.

It works like this:

You tell someone that if they do not meet your conditions then you will carry our some threat. The assumption is that you have somehow become like a robot and no longer have free will. The blame has been transferred to the victim you are threatening. They become responsible for pushing your CRUSH! KILL! DESTROY! button. They, not you, were in control. So they brought it upon themselves. You warned them not to push your button.

GWB has said that he does not want this war, it was thrust upon him. He has no choice. Saddam is in control. Well, if Saddam is the one in control, and Saddam is free to make choices, maybe he would make a better president.

Letting someone like Saddam determine if we go to war is a bad idea. If there were any justification for war it would be in defense of a direct attack. There are other examples in history of leaders who have justified preemptive war in the name of national security. One of them who come to mind is Adolph Hitler.
Your argument was compelling 23.Feb.2003 17:35

!

Your argument was compelling Right up to the point where you suggest that Saddam would make a better president.

I don't think you would find too many people would trade, even though they would like you to think so.

There is a point to be made, but perhaps Bush really is being proactive and in that case he/we are in charge.

I was just making a point 23.Feb.2003 18:36

PHH

I was not seriously suggesting that Saddam be president. It was just sort of a joke. The point was that Bush is in fact the one who must decide and it is really not at all up to Saddam. Bush is not in fact being dragged into this war at all. He wants the war, but he does not want to be responsible for it. So he tries to makes it look like Saddam is forcing him to act.

No, I don't want Saddam. Even Bush is better that Saddam. Of course Ralph Nader would be alot better. But if we had Saddam maybe he would come out on the front lawn on the White House and do that thing where he fires the gun in the air to get everybody to cheer.

Your argument was compelling, ! 23.Feb.2003 18:46

Dead Presidents say

Let's try it, have the Supremes appoint Saddam, let's see if there is a difference. We have nothing to loose.

everybody cheers because they have to. 23.Feb.2003 18:55

!

If you don't cheer in public, then you run the very real risk of having the secret police come to your house and nailing your testicle to the floor while it is still attached.

I realize you were being light-hearted, and that is a relieve on this website. I do believe Bush wants politcal cover, but you really don't know if he is being pushed into this or not.

What i mean is, that if the Israelis say that they will go in and take saddam out if we don't then, that could most like end up in a Nuclear exchange between Israel and her neighbors. That would destablilze the whole region for decades.

Bush maybe the only one who can go in and "difuse" the situation by getting rid of saddam.

I think we are going to find out in about week.

good fatherly advice? 23.Feb.2003 21:14

d

What kind of a father would actually teach his son to strike first and get in the first lick? My father told me that violence is wrong and that one should never initiate it. If someone takes a swing at me, then I will resort to self-defense and kick the guy's ass. But I won't initiate. Apparently, Bush Sr. isn't much of a father.

My father wasn't much of a father either. 23.Feb.2003 22:14

PHH

My father would have gone along with Bush. He would have called him a coward for not using nuclear weapons. He believed in the law of the jungle. But most of all be believed in the 'American Way', that we are destined to rule the world. He did not believe in God. America was his God. He did not believe in heaven. But he did believe in hell. The believed that hell is this life we live here on earth.

Saddam on free, open elections 23.Feb.2003 22:45

one word

Saddam on free, open elections
Saddam on free, open elections

Flash report 23.Feb.2003 23:08

farmer

In a report essential to all individuals endowed with faculties, ! lost his ball when he farted, can't find it and now looks like this ' not this !. Anyone finding his ball should not touch it since it's presumed to be full of hazerdous sprue capable of atrophying the body, especially the brain, which is why all he can produce is flummery. The best course of action for anyone encountering ' ball-less or ! as temporarily reconstituted is to give him a wide berth since his condition is contagious.

WMD IS A SMOKESCREEN ISSUE 24.Feb.2003 01:13

antiwar

The problem with the Mainstream antiwar movement is that it refuses to question the underlying lies used to justify war in the first place. In this case, it is the issue of "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Never mind the fact that people such as Scott Ritter have said that 95% of Iraq's WMD were destroyed by 1998, the issue itself is moot because this is NOT the true reason why America wants to invade and colonize Iraq.

The real agenda has to do with securing control of Iraqi Oil, colonizing the MIddle East in general similar to what the British Empire did in the 1920s, and more broadly, expanding American hegemony on a global level.

If you don't challenge the Terms of Debate as dictated by the Warmongers (i.e. the diversionary issue of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"), you will never be able to effectively oppose War. Period.

blessed are the warmakers 24.Feb.2003 08:05

fodder

for they shall have oil
blessed are the warmakers
blessed are the warmakers

WMD= lie 24.Feb.2003 09:56

Jack Straw

WMD is a lie as far as being an excuse for this war. There is another country near Iraq that has over 300 nukes, illegaly made, plus lots of chem/bio weapons, a country that not only has attacked its neighbors, but continues to illegaly occupy land, in fact settling its own population on that territory, in violation of the Geneva Convention, a country that has been condemned by even mainstream human rights groups for massive rights violations, which has imprisoned one of its major scientists for exposing its nuclear arsenal. A country that has been in violation of over 60 UN Security Council resolutions (would've been twice as many were it not for US vetoes). And not only is the US not contemplating an attack on it, it is giving *Israel* billions in aid every year.
Hey, Israeli forces have even killed American servicemen, ie the USS Libery, June '67.

talk about wmd 25.Feb.2003 20:50

boomer

18 trident submarines , each carry 24 missles, each missle carries 8 nuclear weapons = 3,456 cities destroyed.

 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=trident+submarine