People
This war is not about Saddam but it's about Iraq.
It's very easy to remove Saddam if you put your mind to it but that is not what USA is planning.
This letter, published in today’s Guardian by exactly 100 Iraqi exiles, speaks volumes. Let the Iraqi people be the ones to decide their fates - not Pakistanis like me sitting comfortably in Canada, not Americans in the US, not anyone else.
We are told a war on Iraq is needed to preempt a threat to the region and to free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein’s tyranny. We, as Iraqis already free from that tyranny, living outside Iraq and in the western democracies, say that both these claims are false. As professionals, writers, teachers and other responsible and concerned citizens, many of whom have personally experienced the persecution of the dictatorship in Iraq, we say “No to war; not in our name, not in the name of the suffering Iraqi people”.
Generations of Iraqis have endured a succession of tyrannical regimes, two devastating wars, and 12 years of “the most pervasive sanctions ever imposed on a nation in the history of mankind” (Sandy Berger, US national security adviser, November 14 1997). On the arms issue, Iraq underwent seven and a half years of intrusive inspection and its proscribed production facilities were controlled or destroyed, while the most threatening power in the region, Israel, refuses inspection of its nuclear, chemical and biological facilities.
In Iraq, the regime of Saddam Hussein has nothing left but bombast. Hence it tries to exploit the genuine explosive rise of anger in the whole Middle East at the unbelievable suffering of the Palestinian people. It is the inhumanity of the civilised world in letting Sharon’s atrocities continue in defiance of scores of UN resolutions that leaves the Iraqi regime with any credibility at all.
In the meantime, the sanctions have been catastrophic for the welfare of the people of Iraq. They have made the lives of Iraqis dependent on the state machine rather than on free production and distribution. The fabric of society is barely holding out under the brutality of UN siege, manipulation by the regime and unscrupulous regional intrigues. Sectarian and ethnic politics has displaced modern civil political activity, and intellectual and cultural life is in accelerated decline, with the flight of creative talents and technically qualified people. Another war will crush a vulnerable society and may mean civil war, with unpredictable spill-overs all over the Middle East and potential destabilisation to Europe and the world at large. Already, Iraqis form a large proportion of those risking their lives while seeking asylum in the west.
Our aspirations for Iraq - and indeed the whole of the Middle East - is for nations that respect human rights, guarantee the national rights of the Kurdish people, universally apply international law and are free of weapons of mass destruction. We believe Saddam’s regime is responsible for leading Iraq from a situation of great promise into one of unmitigated catastrophe, and this regime must be held to account for its abject failure and for the crimes it committed against Iraqi people, Arabs and Kurds, of all beliefs and persuasions.
But the remedy must not cause greater damage to the innocent and to society at large. Real change can only be brought about by the Iraqi people themselves within an environment of peace and justice for all the peoples of the Middle East. A change of this kind, combining truth and reconciliation with legal processes of punishing offenders is being espoused all over the world. Why shouldn’t that be the case for Iraq?
We call on the UN to put together a timetable for the lifting of the economic sanctions and do all it can to halt the drive for war that will only plunge the region into the abyss. We also call on everyone to challenge the dangerous and irresponsible war plans of the US.
Mundher Al-Adhami
Kamil Mahdi
Haifa Zangana (novelist)
Kings College, London, Exeter University
and 97 other Iraqi exiles
Just how can the Iraqis overthrow the Hussein regime by themselves?
**The real goal is the seizure of Saudi oil **
Iraq is no threat. Bush wants war to keep US control of the region
Mo Mowlam
Thursday September 5, 2002
The Guardian
I keep listening to the words coming from the Bush administration about Iraq and I become increasingly alarmed. There seems to be such confusion, but through it all a grim determination that they are, at some point, going to launch a military attack. The response of the British government seems equally confused, but I just hope that the determination to ultimately attack Iraq does not form the bedrock of their policy. It is hard now to see how George Bush can withdraw his bellicose words and also save face, but I hope that that is possible. Otherwise I fear greatly for the Middle East, but also for the rest of the world.
What is most chilling is that the hawks in the Bush administration must know the risks involved. They must be aware of the anti-American feeling throughout the Middle East. They must be aware of the fear in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that a war against Iraq could unleash revolutions, disposing of pro-western governments, and replacing them with populist anti-American Islamist fundamentalist regimes. We should all remember the Islamist revolution in Iran. The Shah was backed by the Americans, but he couldn’t stand against the will of the people. And it is because I am sure that they fully understand the consequences of their actions, that I am most afraid. I am drawn to the conclusion that they must want to create such mayhem.
**The many words that are uttered about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, which are never substantiated with any hard evidence, seem to mean very little. Even if Saddam had such weapons, why would he wish to use them? He knows that if he moves to seize the oilfields in neighbouring countries the full might of the western world will be ranged against him. He knows that if he attacks Israel the same fate awaits him. Comparisons with Hitler are silly - Hitler thought he could win; Saddam knows he cannot. Even if he has nuclear weapons he cannot win a war against America. The United States can easily contain him. They do not need to try and force him to irrationality. **
But that is what Bush seems to want to do. Why is he so determined to take the risk? The key country in the Middle East, as far as the Americans are concerned, is Saudi Arabia: the country with the largest oil reserves in the world, the country that has been prepared to calm the oil markets, producing more when prices are too high and less when there is a glut. The Saudi royal family has been rewarded with best friend status by the west for its cooperation. There has been little concern that the government is undemocratic and breaches human rights, nor that it is in the grip of an extreme form of Islam. With American support it has been believed that the regime can be protected and will do what is necessary to secure a supply of oil to the west at reasonably stable prices.
Since September 11, however, it has become increasingly apparent to the US administration that the Saudi regime is vulnerable. Both on the streets and in the leading families, including the royal family, there are increasingly anti-western voices. Osama bin Laden is just one prominent example. The love affair with America is ending. Reports of the removal of billions of dollars of Saudi investment from the United States may be difficult to quantify, but they are true. The possibility of the world’s largest oil reserves falling into the hands of an anti-American, militant Islamist government is becoming ever more likely - and this is unacceptable.
**The Americans know they cannot stop such a revolution. They must therefore hope that they can control the Saudi oil fields, if not the government. And what better way to do that than to have a large military force in the field at the time of such disruption. In the name of saving the west, these vital assets could be seized and controlled. No longer would the US have to depend on a corrupt and unpopular royal family to keep it supplied with cheap oil. If there is chaos in the region, the US armed forces could be seen as a global saviour. Under cover of the war on terrorism, the war to secure oil supplies could be waged. **
This whole affair has nothing to do with a threat from Iraq - there isn’t one. It has nothing to do with the war against terrorism or with morality. Saddam Hussein is obviously an evil man, but when we were selling arms to him to keep the Iranians in check he was the same evil man he is today. He was a pawn then and is a pawn now. In the same way he served western interests then, he is now the distraction for the sleight of hand to protect the west’s supply of oil. And where does this leave the British government? Are they in on the plan or just part of the smokescreen? The government speaks of morality and the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, but can they really believe it?
· Mo Mowlam was a member of Tony Blair’s cabinet from 1997-2001
The war MUST go ahead for whatever reason. And no, it's not because Saddam poses a threat with his weapons of mass destruction to his neighbours, because if he were to take that path it would mean the end of his regime for sure by giving the US the necessary excuse to home in. Saddam is a survivor and a secularist, not a suicidal martyr.
The war will go ahead because America needs it to go ahead for whatever reason, and hardline zionist fatty Ariel Sharon will certainly give his full pot-bellied approval.
Expect the usual suspects to fall in line also through a procedure of cash, coercion and propaganda.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ^MentuLL: *
The war MUST go ahead for whatever reason. And no, it's not because Saddam poses a threat with his weapons of mass destruction to his neighbours, because if he were to take that path it would mean the end of his regime for sure by giving the US the necessary excuse to home in. Saddam is a survivor and a secularist, not a suicidal martyr.
The war will go ahead because America needs it to go ahead for whatever reason, and hardline zionist fatty Ariel Sharon will certainly give his full pot-bellied approval.
Expect the usual suspects to fall in line also through a procedure of cash, coercion and propaganda.
[/QUOTE]
Judge the threat of Saddam gaining access to WMD and using them himself is not as large of a threat as him gaining WMD and passing them on to a 2nd party who will use them. Saddam is smart enough to hire a hit man to do his dirty work, even saying that though Saddam is not a rational person, he went to war with world he is a mad man.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TOMASSO: *
Just how can the Iraqis overthrow the Hussein regime by themselves?
[/QUOTE]
They need help from the US; impossible for them to do it single handedly.
No one answers my questions - who is expected to replace Hussein if he is overthrown? And afterwards, what is the process of introducing democracy to Iraq? And are those who are prepared to see democracy in Iraq, equally prepared to see democracy in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?
I’ve linked an article called "“The right way to choose a successor regime” It makes me believe that there will be those in Iraq who will arise after Saddam is taken down. It also gives good advice on what the U.S. should not do. An interesting site overall.
Within the next 7 years I believe Iraq along with Palestine can be shining examples of how well democracy works in Muslim nations.
UTD save this democracy crap for your zionists brethern since it only makes you look like a hypocrite. Lets talk about the human carnage and destruction, which is about to be unleashed in order to bolster Israel in the middle east. How can you justify that..?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdullah k: *
UTD save this democracy crap for your zionists brethern since it only makes you look like a hypocrite. Lets talk about the human carnage and destruction, which is about to be unleashed in order to bolster Israel in the middle east. How can you justify that..?
[/QUOTE]
Adbullah, you think the Iraqi people won't be celebrating in the streets when the Saddam regime is taken down?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
I've linked an article called ""The right way to choose a successor regime" It makes me believe that there will be those in Iraq who will arise after Saddam is taken down. It also gives good advice on what the U.S. should not do. An interesting site overall.
[/QUOTE]
UTD, i read the article you linked; thank you for providing it & at least answering my question.
The author repeatedly asserts that Iraqi opposition groups should get their acts together, Uncle Sam should view this issue from the perspective of Iraq and not its neighbours, that Sunni Arab leaders are not representative of Iraq (true). Not to sound too fastidious and picky, but where does the author give concrete steps in a post-Hussein era?
It's well and good to state that Iraqis want freedom and prosperity and this is a critical juncture in Iraq's history - yes we know that, but what exactly will happen after Hussein is ousted? Will there be an interim govt. and if so what Shia-Sunni proportions? How long until elections? What happens to lower henchmen of Hussein's - like Tariq Aziz? Imprisonment, trial, where to detain them securely? Do you have a government in waiting, who's in charge of the police forces to deal with an anticipated societal breakdown in law and order. Kurds - will they be allowed to vote in the elections? Do you create an independent Kurdistan? How do you deal with Turkey's misgivings on that? ...
It seems like your IQ level is dropping each day. How can one celeberate death and destruction and what's left. They will surely be celeberating if Tel Aviv is razed to the ground and few hundred thousand jews are killed while trying to bring an end to the evil regime of Sharon, which is a real threat to global peace and security.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdullah k: *
It seems like your IQ level is dropping each day. How can one celeberate death and destruction and what's left. They will surely be celeberating if Tel Aviv is razed to the ground and few hundred thousand jews are killed while trying to bring an end to the evil regime of Sharon, which is a real threat to global peace and security.
[/QUOTE]
At least insult me with something witty, your lack of trying saddens me. But your right Abdullah, they will probably cry when Saddam is taken down, he's treated the Iraqi people so well.
As far as Sharon, his 'regime' can be torn down through elections.
I am sure the policy makers in the US and the zionists allies will have plenty of crying to do in the latter years when they will get to the know the repercussions of their deeds, when they were blinded with arrogance. They are pushing the whole world slowly to the brink of detruction and nothing else. It's a cause of concern for every sane and civlized human being, and thus it's being echoed throughout the globe..of course, except amongst the Zionists themselves.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Abdullah k: *
I am sure the policy makers in the US and the zionists allies will have plenty of crying to do in the latter years when they will get to the know the repercussions of their deeds, when they were blinded with arrogance. They are pushing the whole world slowly to the brink of detruction and nothing else. It's a cause of concern for every sane and civlized human being, and thus it's being echoed throughout the globe..of course, except amongst the Zionists themselves.
[/QUOTE]
I'm so glad you made it so simple to understand Abdullah. I think Hitler said the same thing about Jews, so your in good company.
Why such victimization all of a sudden. Dare to take the blame for your actions just in the Middle East. The amount of torment being inflicted on the Palestineans during the past few decades, while acting as a continous menace in the Middle East. Now the whole world is beginning to see the hypocrisy of your actions and disparity in your words. Why the UN is so weak in enforcing resolutions when it comes to Israel..when it happens to be the largest organized terrorist entity on earth.? Why can't Israel be dealt with brute force to be kicked out of the Palestinean lands, backed by the UN resolutions. Enough of your tears, and proclaiming to be the victims of holocaust...Thre are also millions of Iraqi victims who succumbed due to crippling sanctions, and many more who died in Gulf war.
Abdullah it's always the fault of the U.S. or Israel isn't it? They are to blame for all the ills of the Mid-East as well the ills of the rest of the world. This song and dance is an old one and overused. I have never said that the United States never makes mistakes as they clearly do, but don't you get tired of playing victim all the time, take some responsibility for the awful actions that your own people have done (whoever they might be). I do not agree with how the Iraq sanctions were set up, but I do blame Saddam for the deaths of innocent Iraqis who have no medicine as he has used them as pawns. If you don't believe Saddam has the capability to feed, shelter and medicate Iraqis then you very well may be as mad as he is. I can't respond to your accusations about Israel because I would bet that you believe they have no right to exist, please tell me if I'm mistaken.
Cartoon on The News