[While I sympathize with the anti-war sentiments of author of these "9 Solid Questions on Iraq", I question some of his statements that he makes and the way that he makes his argument.
First he applauds the "success" of the U.S and Britain's unilaterally and illegally imposed so called "no fly zone" over Iraq and claims that that has stopped Iraq's "adventurism"! He makes no mention that this unilaterally imposed military action is completely in violation of all international law and in fact the U.N. charter itself! Further, it supports Bush's claim of Iraqi "adventurism" in the region, while completely ignoring the "adventurism" pf of the U.S in both that region and in fact the rest of the world! No mention that it was cheifly the U.S who put Saddam in power in the first place, armed him to the teeth, while he was fighting a proxy war for the U.S. with Iran! No mention either, of the longstanding legitimate border dispute Iraq had with Kuwait or that the U.S., through it's ambassador to Iraq at the time, Avril Harriman, gave him the go ahead to invade Kuwait!
Secondly he makes the pont that if there is a U.S. invasion that Sad dam Hussein *may* resort to the use of chemical and biological weapons. This line of reasoning, and as in the one one above, applauding the "success" of the no fly zones actually feed into and strengthen the Bush regime's propaganda line that the U.S has the unilateral right to impose it's will on any country it so chooses, regardless of international law and the U.N. This argument supposes and legitimizes Bush's claim (despite all evidence to the contrary) that Iraq possess these chemical and biological weapons!
The way to stop a war is to call a spade a spade and to tell the real facts and to condemn the lies and illegal actions of the aggressor - not to feed into and legitimize the propaganda! Such is the bankruptcy of nice, respectable pseudo-left, bourgieos liberalism in the face of outright capitalist and imperialist agressiion!]
mart
======================================================
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 08:46:10 -0700
Subject: 9 questions to ask about War on Iraq
From: "sharon cotrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The sender is Chuck Anderson of OC who has held a peace vigil every Friday night at South Coast PLAZA in Long Beach California, Since the Gulf War. He now is Chair of the Orange County (California) Peace and Freedom Party. He came to Long Beach December 22 and supported the first anti war rally in LB which was called by Lupe, 16 year old high school student from Wilmington.
I echo the last sentence: "If you worry about the future of America, clip or copy these nine questions and include them in letters to your senatorsand
representative." Pose them also to all you know and meet.
Sharon
----------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 19:54:58 EDT
Subj: Iraq
Date: 09/23/2002 2:05:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Gibson)
Nine solid questions to ask about a war with Iraq.
1. Why engage in a risky and potentially calamitous invasion of Iraq when the existing strategy of "containment"--entailing no-fly zones, sanctions, technology restraints and the deployment of US forces in surrounding areas--not only has clearly succeeded in deterring Iraqi adventurism for the past ten years but also in weakening Iraq's military capabilities?
2. Why has the Administration found so little international support for itsproposed policy, even among our closest friends and allies (with the possible exception of Britain's Tony Blair), and what would be the consequences if Washington tried to act without their support and without any international legal authority? Isn't it dangerous and unwise for the United States tengage in an essentially unilateral attack on Iraq?
3. Is the United States prepared to accept significant losses of American lives--a strong possibility in the projected intense ground fighting around Baghdad and other urban areas?
4. Is the United States prepared to inflict heavy losses on Iraq's civilian population if, as expected, Sad dam concentrates his military assets in urban
areas? Would this not make the United States a moral pariah in the eyes of much of the world?
5. Wouldn't an invasion of Iraq aimed at the removal of Sad dam Hussein remove any inhibitions he might have regarding the use of chemical and biological (and possibly nuclear) weapons, making their use more rather than less likely?
6. Are we prepared to cope with the outbreaks of anti-American protest and violence that, in the event of a US attack on Iraq, are sure to erupt throughout the Muslim world, jeopardizing the survival of pro-US
governments in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and further inflaming the Israeli-Palestinian crisis?
7. Can the fragile American economy withstand a sharp rise in oil prices, another decline in air travel, a bulging federal deficit, a drop in consumer confidence and other negative economic effects that can be expected from a major war in the Middle East? And what would an invasion mean for an even more fragile world economy and for those emerging markets that depend on
selling their exports to the United States and that are vulnerable to rising oil prices?
8. Even if we are successful in toppling Sad dam, who will govern Iraq afterward? Will we leave the country in chaos (as we have done in Afghanistan)? Or will we try to impose a government in the face of the
inevitable Iraqi hostility if US forces destroy what remains of Iraq's infrastructure and kill many of its civilians?
9. Are we willing to deploy 100,000 or more American soldiers in Iraq for ten or twenty years (at a cost of tens of billions of dollars a year) to defend a US-imposed government and prevent the breakup of the country into unstable Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite mini-states?
So far, the Bush Administration has not provided honest or convincing answers to any of these questions. It is essential, then, that concerned Americans ask their Congressional representatives to demand answers to these (and related) questions from the White House and hold further hearings to weigh the credibility of the Administration's answers.
It is vital that our representatives play their rightful constitutional role in this fateful decision. The American public clearly would welcome such moves:
A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that while a majority support the President at this point, they want him to seek authorizationfrom Congress and approval of America's allies before going ahead. And when asked whether they would favor a ground war if it were to produce "significant" US casualties, support plummeted to 40 percent and oppositionrose to 51 percent.
If you worry about the future of America, clip or copy these ninequestions and include them in letters to your senators and representative.
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
