| Subject: Re: Any wonder that we are cynical of Bush's Ordering Saddam H to disarm? |
Author:
Dennis L. Laurie
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:22:29 02/26/03 Wed
Author Host/IP: 098.216-123-194-0.interbaun.com/216.123.194.98
In reply to:
GLENN HAREWOOD per jfh
's message, "Any wonder that we are cynical of Bush's Ordering Saddam H to disarm?" on 11:21:26 02/26/03 Wed
The War Correspondents bit is not a surprise at all; militaries and governments have censored and sanitized war reporting since its inception, and shows no sign of retreating from that practice. I do wish to comment on your later remarks however.
For those who may only watch the evening news for their "Iraq info", the truth that western countries, some for and some against war, armed and supplied Hussein's regime with these weapons may come as a shock; those who are more versed in the history and nuance of the situation have known this for quite some time. Rarely, if ever, do politicians set out, in clear terms, all the evidence, especially that which may cause initial negative reactions to its policies. Really, this information should be well known to millions upon millions of people, since it was well publicized that the US government supported Iraq in the '80's during its war with Iran. It's a shame that basic, common, and important information like this is forgotten due to the short attention spans of people today and the right-now, sound-bite media culture that has developed.
Glen, you misrepresent the facts, however slightly, to strengthen your case unjustly. Saddam Hussein is not being instructed to totally disarm; Iraq is required by UN Security Council Resolution to divest itself of all Weapons of Mass Destruction, precursor chemicals and facilites with which to manufacture these weapons, and the offensive ballistic missile systems to deliver them. Personally, I find the international demands for a dictator to submit to international patrols to protect endangered minorities in his country and to divest himself of only his most terrible weapons, after he has used those weapons and after he has engaged in two wars of aggression against his neighbours, to be quite sane and even-handed; Versailles was not so kind.
In addition, is it not morally right, after realizing the mistakes made in the '80's, for the US and others to attempt to right the wrongs it committed in the past? I would argue there is a moral obligation not only to the oppressed and violated people of Iraq but also to the world and their own citizens for the US and western nations to correct the misdeeds of their governmental pasts. Arming a homicidal dictator with these terrible weapons was horrid enough, not to mention arming him at all. The US and others screwed up. It only follows that they should be driven to correct that foul up; "A man who has committed a mistake and doesn't correct it is committing another mistake". Would you not agree?
In response to your remark about Israel's nuclear capability, I would strongly argue against it being fair to demand Israel's disarmament. On legal grounds, it is NOT illegal, no matter your opinion on the matter, to develop and maintain nuclear weapons; Israel is well within its rights as a sovereign nation to do this if it so desires. I would even make the not-so-bold argument that Israel's decision to maintain a nuclear arsenal is quite rational, given its small size and the threats it endures, and has endured in the past.
To go further into International Law, it IS illegal to develop and possess nuclear weapons if a nation is party to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and was not in possesion of nuclear weapons or technology at the time of signature. North Korea, Iran and Iraq are all signatories to the NPT and notice and deposit of ratification was given to the UN by both Iran and Iraq. Israel is not party to this treaty, as such it is under no legal obligation to become party to it or to abide by its provisions. If we wish to go into discussions over the non-compliance with UN resolutions as it relates to Israel and Iraq, we will see that UN resolutions pertaining to Israel are made under Chapter 6, which features no enforcement mechanism and is used to identify reccommendations for action to be negotiated between multiple parties. It is the norm that Chapter 6 resolutions need the cooperation of multiple parties; Chapter 6 resolutions can often not be complied with unilaterally. In the case of Iraq, UN resolutions pertaining to this country have been made under Chapter 7, which contains military enforcement mechanisms and which can be complied with unilaterally. The onus is clearly on Saddam Hussein and his regime.
Glen, your question regarding a future demand for Canadian disarmament is valiant, though it is rhetorical hyperbole to say the least. It is all fun and dandy to bring up those kinds of questions, but when we take a look at the broad situation we see that there is no parallel to be made. The US is not an irrational, blood-thirsty country. It is self-interested in the extreme for sure, but what is to be expected of arguably the most aggressively capitalistic nation on Earth? The political and economic cultures and motivations that underlie American action are similar in many ways to other western nations, but there are also important differences in scope and intensity between the US and almost all other nations in the world. They are acting as they feel they should act. While the term "hawk" is applied sometimes in a condescending manner to some in the Administration, I always remember that a hawk, in addition to its ferocity and prowess, possesses great foresight and vision and can see things far or hidden on the field that other birds cannot see.
In closing, I wish to make light of an interestingly sad development in this on-going saga. The plight of the Iraqi people has been grossly misrepresented, used, or ignored, to further the agendas of anti-war polemicists, unjustly in my opinion. Anti-war commentators wax on about wanting to protect and save the Iraqi people from further hardship. As a conservative realist, I am comfortable in saying a few things about this. One, they will always endure hardship, we all do, it is only a matter of extent or intensity. Two, I would rather live and die free than live in mediocrity, or live well for that matter, under an opressive and homicidal dictator; I would rather serve in heaven than rule in hell. Iraqi writers seem to have been shut out of the picture. Their calls for help, for liberation, are being systematically ignored. Anti-war commentary seems to prefer saving the Iraqis from more intense hardship over the long term. The consequence of this is that anti-war advocates implicitly support the continued subjugatiion and oppression of the Iraqi people, for there exists no credible alternative. Inspections may, and I stress may, work to disarm Hussein's regime of its terrible weapons. Inspections WILL NOT change the conditions the Iraqi people are forced to live in. Inspections will not help Iraqis feed themselves or become free. Inspections will not drive Saddam Hussein from power. Only the removal of that regime, by force, will truly liberate the Iraqi people.
People can be cynical all they want, scoffing at suggestions that there is a humanitarian side to the war. There is, whether you think so or not. Liberation of the Iraqi people, Shi'a, Sunni and Kurd alike, is one of the goals and will be one of the consequences of the war. Obstructing war on the grounds of humanitarianism is morally bankrupt and relies on the assumption that no war will mean a better life for Iraqis. That is false. I find it distressing that many people will decry the plight of the Iraqis under the sanctions and under Saddam for years, yet when the west decides to do something about it, those same people oppose action to rectify the very situation they railed against for years before.
Dennis L. Laurie
Edmonton North
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 