Posted by iceburn on 3/30/2003, 1:35 pm, in reply to "Ted Galen Carpenter sums up my views nicely." http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/research/factsheet-1984.html Conclusive proof that the Iraqis used chemical weapons in an OFFENSIVE strike on another soveriegn nation, despite their signing of the Geneva protocols. Now, if anything, I would expect anti-war persons to say, "So what? Big deal. Iraq used chemical weapons. In World War I, mustard gas inflicted 1,300,000 casualties (only 90,000 or so of which were fatalities). The firebombing of Tokyo by the U.S. killed 200,000 Japanese people, and those were conventional weapons. Why do we even outlaw chemical weapons? War is war, and I don't like war. That is what I'm against. Using one weapon against someone is just as bad as using another weapon." That argument, I would have problem debating with. Your argument about a serious, imminent threat is not as big of a problem, and I believe that you are missing a precedent of such a person and regime that has had major repurcussions on our politics of today. Saddam's regime has tried to assassinate an American president. I don't know if that means anything to you, but that is an act of war, and the action was planned and intended to be executed after a ceasefire. Saddam's regime has tried repeatedly to gain access to long range ballistics research, for weapons that could strike anywhere in the world (including the U.S.). His current medium range missiles have proved to be highly inaccurate and poorly developed (as witnessed in his strikes against Kuwait at the beginning of this war). Saddam's regime has offensively attacked two countries (that I know of), Iran and Kuwait (and I guess you could also include Israel in that category, although the Israel/Arab issue is extremely complicated). His aggressive regime, research programs, secret police, and history of using chemical weapons on his own civilians reminds me of another leader of the 20th century, that all of our politicians today are supposed to have learned a big lesson from. Adolf Hitler became Prime Minister and pursued 1) an offensive territory gathering campaign dominated by bullying and invading, 2) a rigorous research program into offensive ballistic missiles and a nuclear weapons program (which we later found out was intentionally or unintentionally sabotaged by Werner Heisenberg), 3) an internal secret police structure well known for its severe brutality, and 4) the intentional chemical gassing of hundreds of thousands to millions of its own citizens (Jews, gypsies, dissidents, etc.) The similarities between these regimes (and the Yugoslavia regime as well) is striking. Winston Churchill summed up the situation presented quite well in his "Sinews of Peace" speech that I have posted at the House of Ice(Here) Last time I saw it all coming and cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention. Up till the year 1933 or even 1935, Germany might have been saved from the awful fate which has overtaken her and we might all have been spared the miseries Hitler let loose upon mankind. There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented in my belief without the firing of a single shot, and Germany might be powerful, prosperous and honoured to-day; but no one would listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool. We surely must not let that happen again. Granted, things have changed since his speech, but so many things that he mentioned in there are good, solid advice to our generations. When you see someone come along like this, you must do everything in your power to stop it. The speech touches on everything from how the United States must step up and how the UN can not turn into a Tower of Babel and must back up its words. You should read the speech if you have a moment. Here's the part about the UN not being a house of words: We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words, that it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can some day be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel. Before we cast away the solid assurances of national armaments for self-preservation we must be certain that our temple is built, not upon shifting sands or quagmires, but upon the rock. The United States and Britain did a wonderful thing in trying to get the UN involved and solidify the foundation that Churchill talked about. France did an absolutely awful thing in expressing that no matter what, it would prevent any kind of show of power on the UN's behalf. In my opinion, the members of the UN that moved to block the enforcement of the UN's mandates forgot what the UN was put into place for and the responsibilities that their positions as prominent members of the UN obligate them to. That is why I'm not pro-war, but I am pro removing Saddam. I believe that it is the Bush administration's fault, partly because of their oversight and lack of touch with the American public, that they have not quelled natural, valid national outrage over the war with a better, public description of why this war is so important. I voted for Bush, but as I have said on this message board and with conversation with whoever will listen to me, I will not vote for him again. In my opinion, he is incapable and incompetent of being our President and an American figurehead. He makes us sound ignorant and he makes us look even worse. I'm upset with his administration, and I'm upset with myself for voting for him. Thank you for your time, Iceburn
24.196.59.210
The issue is not even whether Iraq possesses chemical or biological weapons (which I sincerely doubt they'd use in any real offensive capacity even if they did).
Message Thread:
« Back to thread