| William R | Linda, Like you, I`m posting this as the big debate is going on in Parliament and wondering what the outcome will be. I think back to the 1940`s when WE were producing weapons of destruction,when our sentiments were that these tanks, bombs, shells were all going to shorten the war by killing people. The delight when the first atom bombs were dropped on Japan, to see the mass destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we were showing "them" what we could do.We didn`t think of the victims, our only thought was that we were going to win, we were going to have things our way, I was in India when the country was gaining Independence, when the native said his hour had come, when the white man was trash, we did not belong there, the wheel was making its circle. In my closing years I look back and think, "Please do better than we did, we tried our best, but it wasn`t good enough" We are only custodians of this earth, for future generations, we would do well to remember that one day, we will be judged for our actions. Hope that`s not too sombre, Cheerio, Bill. |
| edmurfin | (written before the war started but worth reading)
Hi
It's not a thought i enjoy harbouring, and enjoy setting it out in black and white even less, but, there may be - NOW - no peaceful alternative to war as a means of speedily containing Saddam, only "less unpeaceful" means, that may still have a damaging effect on people there, but less immediately damaging than outright war.. .
From the start I felt that the imposition of sanctions post GulfWar was wrong. I recognised what many recognised, that is, Saddam, and his entourage and power apparat, would be mainly unaffected and that only his people would suffer. The Allies knew this too, but, sharing the modern “bunker-safe” mentality of Saddam, unlikely, like him, to suffer the deprivations of material shortages, and in their own way as indifferent to the fate of ordinary people - especially the ordinary people of hostile nations - as he, they felt it was a strategy that might work. The days when leaders were at the van of their armies are long gone. Remote from the blood, guts, eviscerations, emptied bowels, shattered bones, and all the sordid, squalid horrors of combat. they have become innured to suffering in others, and contemplate the death of millions with an equanimity more appropriate to the ancient Gods of primordial savages. Their mental attitude is not dissimilar to that of those Nazi soldiers tasked with liquidating Polish Jews in Kracow. Just a job, people are not people, but numbers on one side or the other of a balance sheet detailing the riches of power and egoistic ambition.
Lifting all sanctions now , for instance, is being mooted as a possible peaceful alternative to war. It is indeed, but will not inhibit Saddam's inferentially discerned ambitions, and could well help him speed up and expand his re-arming programme, but, his people might gain some benefit from lifted sanctions. They will continue as a subject people, still oppressed/highly controlled as they are now, but at least, possibly, healthier and more sanguine - those of them not at immediate risk of Saddam's haphazard culling and eugenic notions - and, maybe, better able, over time, to mount opposition that might lead to Saddam being ousted. That is only a possibility. The probability that it would succeed in containing Saddam is not readily calculable.
Harm to people will continue to be done by Saddam's apparat, reinvigorated by injections of resources made available by lifting of sanctions and increased oil revenues meanwhile, though, arguably, less immediate harm than will arise from a war against him and his people now.
The longer term harm resulting from lifting of sanctions could, possibly, be even greater than the immediate harm of a war now. How long will Saddam live? How much harm will greater ability to wreak havoc on his own people cause and - if the inferentially derived ambitions he is said to cherish are true - cause to adjacent peoples?
The time for peaceful action may have expired. The possibility that Saddam would one day represent a threat to his people and his neighbours and, maybe, the world, was apparent 20 years ago, when he was building up and strengthening his power base in Iraq. Then, perhaps, was the time to have infiltrated his still growing organisation - and arranged an assassination ( of itself, not "peaceful" and potentially very unpeaceful if such an assassination was not in Iraq universally approved). It was, however, convenient to support him, arm him and make it possible, one day, for him to develop WMD. Supporting him then may have been seen as a way to stave off the perceived threat of Fundamentalist Islam following the deposing of the Shah - a reasonable proposition, one supposes - especially now, when Islamic terrorism is so much to be feared, though it is difficult to see how, even though Iran were utterly defeated, that would have prevented the arising of organisations like Al Quaeda, dedicated to gaining redress of grievance against nations of the more developed world (it's not the only one) - indeed, it's possible the surviving vanquished Iran might have regrouped and formed a terrorist organisation the size and like of which the world can only envisage in apocalyptic nightmares... for if the conclusion of that war had been outright victory for Saddam, what might have happened afterwards? A ferocious combining of outraged Muslim countries to avenge the Iranian defeat? An even larger. multinational terrorist organisation, determined to punish those who supported Saddam against their comrade country?
Once his apparat was fully grown, his bunkers built, his personal protection army established, it became impossible to eliminate him in stealthy fashion.
Ordinary people, seeing no hard evidence that Saddam possesses WMD, rightly feel that a war against him and his people cannot be justified on those grounds of possession based on "evidence" so far revealed. They are right, in my view. However, for political reasons, the actual hard evidence may not be advanced by the countries urging that war until it becomes possible for them to present it shorn of material source identification and dissociated from their own countries culpability in the supply. Hence, possibly, the seemingly desperate and inept presumptive and assumptive attempts to present "evidence" of possession, intent to use, and connection to Al Quaeda. . Those countries, which in past times supplied Saddam with actual weapons, and the means to manufacture his own, must be aware of the disparities in what has been identified and disabled by the Inspectorate, and what was earlier supplied and earlier made possible to exist, but fear in the revelation, some unwanted consequences - either to their country, or other countries, or to the political reputation and credibility of leaders - and the, possibly, damaging effects on their ability to remain such.. .I feel there is rather more altruism in political life than our cynical observations of politics and politicians renders likely-seeming to us, but there's no doubt that egoistic concerns DO play an important role in the decision-making processes.
Bush, Blair, and even those leaders of countries presently opposed to war, cannot justify such a war by openly confessing that the actions of their countries rendered the likelihood of such a war being one day necessary, to contain an inferred threat to world peace. Nor can they openly confess that it is the past actions of their countries which have led to the growing sense of grievance in many parts of the world, not just in the world of Islam, and now exploited by Fundamentalists and others to justify terrorist activities.
At this late stage war may be, regrettably, the only SURE way to contain Saddam NOW and the potential threat it is inferred he represents. If efficiently engaged it will, literally, simply remove him - and many 10,000's of his people. It will not contain the threat of a world war. It will not contain the threat posed by many other countries ruled by despots. It will not much inhibit the greed and selfishness inherent to the sale of arms by one country to another. It will not much inhibit terrorism arising from grievance. It will not be a war to end wars. It will be only the latest expression of the aeons long cycle of cause becoming effect becoming cause - ad infinitum -until nations decide, co-operatively, that war ought not to be the preferred problem-solving option, and thereafter set about devising ways to eliminate the fear that lies at the heart of all conflict, micro or macro. - bottle fights after the disco, or depleted uranium shells in the desert.
There IS one peaceful alternative. NOT some restricting "miracle" from a worried deity. NOT some notional "healing love impulse" from collective prayer and supplication to said deity. NOT some notionally transmissable and directable "energy of positive thoughts" - though positive prayers and positive thinking by large numbers opposed to war - as in the demonstration about which you appear so scathing - can do no harm and given the large numbers involved - half a million? - certainly present our leaders with a powerful indication of public feeling against war - those same leaders are happy to plan entire election campaigns based on the statistical significance of a few opinion polls involving around a mere 1000.person sample cross section - is it unreasonable of demonstrators to think that a sample of 500 times that number will be effective in persuading leader to rethink their strategy? I think not, and so applaud the effort being put to demonstrating public opinion that way.
This peaceful alternative will not appear - by fault of the intrinsic nature of those from whom it is called upon to be exercised.
Put simply - it requires every "first world" country which has ever - or continues to - exploit another for gain, and has not, and/or continues not, to make proper recompense - to the past and continuing disadvantage of the countries so exploited - to stand up, admit their culpability without reserve or cavil, and invite those aggrieved to tell them how they may best make such recompense - and furthermore, resolve to make recompense in full, immediately, and in perpetuity, or as long as remedial action is necessary to render the aggrieved content.
It's a very improbable proposition, and even if it became probable, i doubt it would resolve the present crisis. There is a hysteresis in human affairs - wars and terrorism would continue for quite a while after such an announcement - the loss of trust by centuries of war and exploitation will take, maybe, centuries to restore. We all want answers in the NOW, where we can see the results. That's not a criticism, BTW - it seems just to be the way we are.
All this is conjecture - more or less reasonable according to my ability to reason by inference. In other words, just opinions. I'd love to be wrong - i hope there are those in power even now earnestly seeking alternatives to war with Iraq. I may see none of immediate value, but that's just an opinion - hope and wishing obliges me to think that a greater effort to find an alternative is justified to avoid a war - the consequences of which can be inferred with a high degree of probability attaching. More time is needed, and Anan is right to insist that no action be taken without observing the UN constraints on such action. I wish he'd go further and attempt to persuade the wouldbe warriors to keep looking. The haste being shown to engage is both unseemly and unwise, i think.
We may be worried prematurely at this point. A further report from the Inspectorate is due in a few days. Pray to whatever deities you adore that we may be pleasantly surprised.
Cheers
Ed |