Completing the Liberation of Iraq

Authored by Michael Pate on April 11th, 2004 at 10:52 PM

Micah Sifry has three beliefs regarding finishing the War in Iraq.

1. They believe Iraq was somehow connected to 9-11, and thus our invasion of Iraq was justified as self-defense and as an integral part of the war on terror.

There is a great deal of credible evidence of links between al-Qaeda and the government of Iraq. It it certain that Iraq aided in the planning and operational details of September 11th? Absolutely not. Is it credible enough for George Bush to act upon? I think so, but that is not why he acted. He acted on the charge that Iraq refused to account for their WMD programs for 13 years and that they had ties to terror. Being President means you have the responsibility to make decisions like that and he made one.

2. They believe the Administration-Pentagon spin that things are just getting better and better for the Iraqi people, a message that is reinforced by our generally complaisant media.

Actually, the Iraqi people believe things are getting better. And since they are there and Mr. Sifry is not I think they are the more credible witnesses.

3. They think removing Saddam from power and helping the Iraqi people towards democracy justifies the costs.

Saddam Hussein had an uncounted number of people murdered and had instituted a full-scale program of genocide. His sociopathic offspring would have continued the policies if given the chance. Slobodan Milosevic is on trial in the Hague for much less due to American intervention. And the scope of the argument above would seem to be broad enough to argue that rather than removing Adolf Hitler from power in 1945, the Allies should have merely imposed sanctions.

I guess it is good to know that no matter how evil a vile, murderous trug like Saddam Hussein is, there are always people ready to leap to his defense.

Comments

> Bush ... acted on the charge that Iraq refused to account for their WMD programs for 13 years and that they had ties to terror.

Actual evidence indicates the Bush administration invaded Iraqi to stabilize the production of oil and thus stabilize oil prices. For more details read this article from 2002, "US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis":
http://www.sundayherald.com/28285

An energy policy report commissioned by US vice-president Dick Cheney in April 2001 states:
" tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key 'swing' producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government."
Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century - http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/2001/bakerreport0401.html

> Saddam Hussein had an uncounted number of people murdered and had instituted a full-scale program of genocide.

Once again actual evidence suggests that the problem the Bush administration had with Hussein was, to quote the above report:
"Saddam Hussein ... demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets."

> I guess it is good to know that no matter how evil a vile, murderous trug like Saddam Hussein is, there are always people ready to leap to his defense.

The Bush administration cannot claim the moral high ground as they used weapons of indiscriminate death in Iraq, such as child maiming cluster bombs, and chemically toxic, radioactive, depleted uranium ammunitions that have contaminated US troops and will contaminate Iraqi civilians for generations to come:
http://news.google.com/news?q=uranium+contaminated+us+soldiers&btnG=Search+News

These weapons are all but banned by the United Nations. UN resolution 1996/16:
"Urges all States ... to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, ... cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium"
"the production, sale and use of such weapons are incompatible with the promotion and maintenance of international peace and security"

Mr. Groom,

You obviously have a pre-occupation with the economic justifications for the War in Iraq. The studies you cite offer something of a compelling case. But I was commenting on the reasons that were cited, not speculating on the reasons conspiracy theorists dream up in the middle of the night.

In the State of the Union Address 2003, the President stated: Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist group When you can cite any evidence that he used the report as motivation, don't hesitate to write.

And as for your other point about 1996/16. Just for the record, this was neither a Security Council Resolution or even a General Assembly Resolution. This particular standard was proposed by the United Nations Commissions on Human Rights Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. I don't claim to be an expert on International Law, but I don't think Sub-Commissions get to "all but" ban anything. The evidence on the use of Depleted Uranium is still inconclusive at this point.

Every innocent life in Iraq has been unfortunate but even the most flawed estimate falls far short of some past events. And the current estimate of lives saved is growing every day.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.patetech.info/cgi-bin/mt/mt-doubleback.cgi/308