Pilger: Blair is a Coward

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**MyVoice*,Sorry, but i cannot believe you actually want me to buy this argument. Your argument is that, if i care about "lessening the number of deaths annually", i should be in support of this US-led aggression? By that logic, MyVoice, why don't we just ask Mr. Putin to nuke Chechnya - that will end the suffering of the Chechens. Or, since so many Israelis have lost their lives via suicide bombings, why don't we just nuke Israel so that no more Israelis have to suffer ?

Sorry, but that's about how rational the above argument appears to myself.
[/QUOTE]

Nadia: When you start to try to "logically analogize" the situation in Iraq to nuking Chechens and Israelis, I reach the outer limits of where I care to try to engage in meaningful dialogue.

In another thread, OG has posted a commentary by Julie Burchill of The Guardian. She said it better than I did: “If you really think it's better for more people to die over decades under a tyrannical regime than for fewer people to die during a brief attack by an outside power, you're really weird and nationalistic and not any sort of socialist that I recognise.”

To me, that’s really the bottom line: i.e. under what scenario will more people be likely to die. And the answer really is a no-brainer. More people will die one way or another if Saddam and his regime are not removed from power. That you and other people do not see and understand this truly boggles my mind.

I am absolutely convinced that the only way you will see massive civilian casualties in this attack is if Saddam unleashes the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons you are so certain he doesn't have. And if he does unleash them on Tel Aviv, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and/or on his own soil in response to an American led invasion, the people of the world should pray and give thanks that we took him out now rather than waiting for him to develop and stockpile even more weapons for use in the future.

22

myvoice, when are you going to stop believing in all that hyped up sensationalized information ? Sadly, for some its all about gaining from the commercial benefits of war, they could not care two hoots about the thousands of Iraqi civilians that will die as a result of war. :disgust:

23

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
myvoice, when are you going to stop believing in all that hyped up sensationalized information ?
[/QUOTE]

Exactly what "hyped up sensationalized information" do you find in my posts in this thread? Aren't those spreading the [mis]information that massive civilian casualties will happen in the event of a US attack and/or that the US plans on killing babies and women in Bagdad through water deprivation the ones "hyping" and "sensationalizing" things?

24

myvoice, anyone following the Iraq crisis will realise that almost the entire world is against the Bush doctrine which advocates a pre-emptive attack against Iraq. Now when we read some of the tabloids, it's like watching a comical version of the days news... and sadly some people are taking everything spoken on those networks as the Gospel truth. LOL! you may as well watch a tom and jerry cartoon and believe that. Things like Iraq is a threat to all of its neighbours, Iraq is going to nuke Isreal, Iraq is going to invade Saudi Arabia, Iraq is a threat to the entire world, hell even garbage like Iraq is an ally of the taliban.. lol! Its sensationalised and hyped up stories like these which make a mockery of the arguments supporting war.

25

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
myvoice, anyone following the Iraq crisis will realise that almost the entire world is against the Bush doctrine which advocates a pre-emptive attack against Iraq. Now when we read some of the tabloids, it's like watching a comical version of the days news... and sadly some people are taking everything spoken on those networks as the Gospel truth. LOL! you may as well watch a tom and jerry cartoon and believe that. Things like Iraq is a threat to all of its neighbours, Iraq is going to nuke Isreal, Iraq is going to invade Saudi Arabia, Iraq is a threat to the entire world, hell even garbage like Iraq is an ally of the taliban.. lol! Its sensationalised and hyped up stories like these which make a mockery of the arguments supporting war.
[/QUOTE]

Methinks you are making some things up. I don't believe anyone on any TV station has said that "Iraq is going to nuke Israel." In fact, no one that I know of has even said that Iraq currently possesses nukes. What has been said is that Iraq very conceivably would nuke or threaten to nuke Israel if it were allowed to develop a nuclear capability. I also don't think that any news service has said "Iraq is an ally of the Taliban." I have heard the news services accurately report the accusation of the US administration that Iraq has some links with Al Qaeda.

Maybe you have been watching Tom and Jerry instead of the news and were unaware of it. I confess that it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between Hannity and Colmes versus Tom and Jerry.

Since Iraq has already invaded two neighbors (Kuwait and Iran) and sent scuds into two others (Saudi Arabia and Israel), it is probably not too much hype or sensationalism to say that Iraq is a threat to its neighbors and/or would/might invade Saudi Arabia if allowed to develop and/or keep WMD.

26

myvoice, your answers just prove my point that all your arguments supporting war are based on nothing but unsubstantiated facts. The IAEA has already stated there is no evidence stating Iraq has nuclear weapons or even is trying to acquire them, the UN weapons inspectors have so far found NO WMD in Iraq, so one has to question your sources of information as regards to what threat Iraq poses to the region. For a country which has already been devastated by war and sanctions the last thing they would want to do is threaten any of their neighbours. Yet there is still this sensationalist propoganda being spread by the media.

27

MyVoice, i deleted that reply of mine because of its tone.

>>I am absolutely convinced that the only way you will see massive civilian casualties in this attack is if Saddam unleashes the stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons you are so certain he doesn't have.<<
In regards to your comment above - there was a thread or post posted last year in WA that stated that the CIA (perhaps the FBI, not certain, let me know if you want me to dig up the thread) did not believe the chances of Hussein orchestrating an attack against the US were high. On the contrary, they stated, if the US provoked a war against Iraq, then it could well be assumed that the latter would retaliate severely. So i am afraid i am a bit confused when i read the argument that 'we must go to war against Iraq in order to prevent them from attacking us' - the chances of Iraq retaliating against the US are rather slim at the moment. Go to war against them - and then, yes, there is a valid chance that you have severely escalated instability in the country and in the region, and then the US can certainly expect some sort of retaliation. i am certain that bin Laden will use pictures of "collateral damage" from the war to boost his support. i am not certain how all of the above makes the US safer.

How many of the 19 hijackers were from Iraq, by the way?

28

DHP:
What I believe to be unsubstantiated is the claim/argument that Iraq has no WMD. The last time the world was able to do any accounting, a certain amount of weapons, toxins, nerve agents, etc. were known to exist. The point of the most recent UN resolutions was for Iraq to account for these not for the UN to send in a cadre of people to try to find them. Where did they go DHP? Why is there no evidence that Iraq destroyed them? You don't just throw these things away in the garbage and burn all records related to them at a marshmellow roast.

Nadia:
I think you know better than to suggest that the reason the US is planning on going to war with Iraq is that we fear that Saddam will shortly directly launch an attack against the US. The reason that the US must go to war is the near certainty that an Iraq led by Saddam armed with WMD will directly threaten and attack his neighbors and surreptitiously provide chemical and/or biological agents to terrorists to assist them in striking US interests at home and abroad.

Whatever horrors you believe exist or that you foresee happening from a military action in Iraq can be magnified one hundred fold if Iraq is allowed to develop, maintain and use WMD. Since you would not be the target of any future Iraqi actions, you very likely don't consider that risk very significant. As a future potential target and victim, I view the risk as unacceptable and fully support whatever efforts my President takes to eliminate it.

In my opinion you have absolutely no evidence or facts whatsoever to support a claim that Iraq destroyed all of its WMD and terminated all of its WMD programs. As set forth above, we KNOW what he had and Iraq has failed miserably to explain what happened to it. As Powell will demonstrate today, there is substantial evidence that Iraq is hiding something. You seem to think that the US has the burden of proof to find WMD in Iraq. I say that's cr*p. The burden is on Iraq. And don't give me the standard line about unfairly imposing upon Iraq the burden of proving a negative. They are being asked to prove a positive: i.e. when, where and how they destroyed the WMD that we KNOW they had.

29

Sorry, OhioGuy, i am afraid i don’t know much about military tactics. i understand that ‘shock and awe’ is a ‘strategy’ aimed at demoralizing one’s enemy, to the point that defections become widespread.

In precise terms, what is the effect of the above strategy when it is implemented in, for example, a city such as Mosul in Iraq? With civilians and residential structures, as well as electrical grids, in short the basic infrastructures one would find in any civilian city? Please forgive me, i am not trying to be rude with you, i honestly am not :flower1: i am just not certain how the above tallies with the Geneva Conventions. Not trying to be rude, just honestly - i don’t get how we can condone these types of tactics. Not trying to offend anyone here, honestly.

>>Arkin is a military critic, and the thrust of his columns was that the very precision of the US attack failed to generate enough “terror” to have the people over throw Saddam.<<
Only if it’s not an inconvenience would you mind expanding on the above, please.

My take on it is that, bombing a civilian society’s sewage, water infrastructures (so that they are forced to give their children contaminated water) will - if anything - make them closer to their government, and despise the “outside” world even more?

Secondarily, wouldn’t the above hinder mass defections (- among the civilians- ) rather than encourage that?

Sorry for the questions. Thank you in advance.

30

Nadia,

I will try to explain.

First, new weapons have been developed regarding electrical grids. Rather then bombing them with high explosives, there is a new weapon that sprays carbon fibers and shorts out the electrical systems. There is very little damage, repairable in days. Water supplies, bridges, food supplies will not be hit.

In Mosul they are very close to the Kurdish territories, and that city will fall fast. In the south they hate Saddam, and they will assist in any way. The city of Tikrit will get hit suprisingly hard. This is intended to demoralize the Ba'athist Generals who run the Republican Guard. Most of the ruling party hails from the Tikrit area, count on it being called a "center of gravity".

Out in the desert areas there are new weapons that will be used that generate huge microwave pulses. Much like your microwave at home. These pulses ruin electrical equipment, but nothing else. Imagine sitting in your tank and every electrical circuit is fried, and you cannot start it. Now these weapons cannot be used around hospitals, but literally all things electrical are basically destroyed. Communications, firing switches on weapons, any digital circuit acts like an antenna and absorbs millions of watts of power. Any general with a pacemaker will have a problem. These weapons will be sent over airfields, and over large deployments of armor.

Cities like Basra and Mosul are a very long way from Baghdad. In Basra there will be so many troops flooding in from Kuwait and from the sea that the conflict will be very short. Saddam has put mostly conscript armies there, not his professional units. In Mosul there may be more of a fight, as the Republican Guard is deployed in a broad array up the Tigris/Euphrates and all the way up to Mosul. To the extent they are out in the open they will be heavily shocked and awed.

The real problem is Baghdad. If his troops fall back into the city there will be severe fighting and it will be bloody and tough. The theory of "shock and awe" is that resistance is futile. Arkin is the main critic of this, contending that Saddam considered the bombing in the first Gulf War to be mere pin pricks. Quite frankly I think he is now judging that the care that is taken by the US to avoid casualties is a signal of weakness and it will embolden him to try to out last the attack on Baghdad, and to count on video images to win the war for him. His only hope is to hide among civilians.

I have been following troop deployments very carefully. Up until Mid-December the US was just bluffing. Very little of the needed war material was really moving. In the middle of December when it became apparent that Saddam was not really going to disarm, all the big stuff started to come. Now, not only is a huge portion of the major pre-positioned stock already in Kuwait, about half of the standby shipping fleet is moving with very heavy Army weaponry. There are huge aircraft movements, particularly pulling American troops out of Germany that have largely gone unreported. The US has reverted to the Powell doctrine, and they will use stunningly fast movement with huge quantities of heavy armor.

In my mind the inspectors are marginalized. Either Saddam leaves or the US invades. Turkey has allowed use of their country, as has Jordan for limited purposes. The Saudi's will either relent, or the planes there will move to another base temporarily. The Kurds are clearing and reconstructing airfields. Like it or not it is "now or never time". There is now too much credibility on the line to back off.

Thus the only question left is how to wage the war to cause the least pain and suffering. The US is counting on a sudden swift knockout. A gruelling 12 round bout will be the worst possible thing for all involved, particularly the bystanders.

My guess? There is a new moon March third. This provides darkness for invading troops and strike aircraft. 95% of the things the US needs will be ready and available by then. At some point an ultimatum will be given, and a date set. I think it will be the first week of March. If Saddam does not go, the next week will be very sudden and very difficult. I AM not condoning it, simply observing and explaining.

31

Nadia,

One point I did not address. You asked about the Geneva conventions. Certain laws protect people in times of war. The Law of War is a general expression for the national and international specifics. In particular certain places have protection under the Hague Conventions. Places like schools and hospitals are thus protected. The only caveat to this is that, if the enemy hides in those places they are no longer protected. Additonally there is no real concept of the dreaded phrase “collateral damage” in the Law of War. Rather, there are prescribed rules that require the commander to evaluate the Risk and Rewards of a certain target. If you are interested, read page 29 of the current tissue of Field Artillery Magazine which has a good article on the legal implications of targeting in an urban envionment.

http://sill-www.army.mil/FAMAG/

32

OG,

Thank you for taking the time to write all that out. You seem to be on the top of all this information. Thanks also for taking the time to explain it to me in non-military jargon.

We don't have to continue having this discussion if you believe it is pointless, since my predominant response to your post will be focusing towards the effects upon civilians. If that's not a valid discussion area for yourself, or you believe you have already discussed this previously, then i understand and we don't have to continue anymore.

...a new weapon that sprays carbon fibers and shorts out the electrical systems.
i take it that this would short out ALL the electrical systems in the surrounding area. i am not certain if you have ever read any articles n the British medical journal, The Lancet, by Dr. Peter Kandela. (Do a Google search on him with the word "Iraq"). He has written numerous articles, one or two of which i posted a year back on GS, some regarding the effects of electrical shortouts upon Iraq's hospitals. Now we have all the predictable consequences that we can expect - vaccines that need to be refrigerated (except the refridgeration equipment doesn't work), operations that are sometimes conducted in the dark by the aid of a candlelight (this was reported by British writer Felicity Arbuthnot) - i could go on and on. So we can expect all of this to occur, again, during the coming 'Gulf War' (IF there is one).

You mentioned that if the enemy hides in civilian areas, then the Geneva Conventions' protocols don't apply. As far as my limited knowledge goes, this is not accurate.

The current issue of the 'Field Artillery' publication states, on page 32, towards the bottom of the middle column, "When the enemy improperly uses protected places (hospitals, schools, churches, etc.) to hide or shelter their forces and fire against friendly forces, the enemy is violating the Law of War; those places lose their protected status. Consequently, more collateral damage should be expected when enemy ground forces and weapons systems are intermingled in populated areas..."

Note that the FA publication does not state "those places lose their protected status according to the Geneva Conventions". That's because they knew the G. Conventions don't stipulate this. What they have stated, is only in the opinion of the authors of this article (who, i could not help noticing, are all military officials). Even when enemy forces locate themselves in civilian areas, that does not justify there losing their protected status.

To the best of my knowledge, the G. Conventions do not permit this.

In my personal opinion, what's sadly missing from the article, is a detailed discussion about what the Iraqi populace has been going through in the past twelve years, that silent war, and whether or not it is justified to put them through another war. You and i will be sitting in our comfortable living rooms, passing judgements on a war that is being lived thousands of miles away. How we can possibly pass that off as collateral damage, i am not certain, or justify that in the long run it will be better for the people of Iraq. Maybe i am hopelessly naive, or just plain stupid so all the concepts of proportionality assessment go over my head, i am not certain. This war, if it goes through, will increase the feelings of hatred towards the US and make it a less secure country.

>>Turkey has allowed use of their country, as has Jordan for limited purposes. The Saudi's will either relent, or the planes there will move to another base temporarily.<<
i agree with the above. All Muslim countries will eventually fall in line.

33

Nadia,

The article I quoted is indeed written by military men. The fact that they are actively engaged in a discussion of how to pursue their profession while limiting needless deaths should be somewhat striking to you. In the article they allude heavily to the Judge Advocate General, who is basically a pentagon lawyer schooled in the particulars of International law. They described particular training exercises where the JAG officer observed and debriefed each commander on his decisions, and the ramifications of decisions.

I am in complete agreement with you, war will have ill effects on all involved. No doubt about it. What may have escaped you is that military men are often the most reluctant to go to war as only they are truely aware of the horrors of war. But most learned men also realize that the worst wars, for all involved, are the ones where problems are ignored, and two extremely powerful (or toxic) opponents face off with civilians in the middle.

I am absolutely convinced that either Saddam must step down or there will be war.

34

Nadia in WW11 cities in Britain were blitzed by german bombers,lots of civilians suffered and died,i know the same happened with German citizens before everyone jumps on me,if we had taken your way of thinking,we would be speaking German in Britain now under a facist regime.I have never heard from people who lived through that ,that we should have capitulated,just because these deaths may have occured.Burying our heads in the sands because of what MAY happen,is never an option.

35

…] In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal rejected German arguments of the "necessity’ for pre-emptive attacks against its neighbours. "To initiate a war of aggression,’ said the tribunal’s judgment, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’

…] The killing of some 80 villagers near Baghdad last Thursday, of children in markets, of the "chicks who get in the way’’ would be in industrial quantities now were it not for the voices of the millions who filled London and other capitals, and the young people who walked out of their schools; they have saved countless lives.

Just as the American invasion of Vietnam was fuelled by racism, in which "gooks’’ could be murdered with impunity, so the current atrocity in Iraq is from the same mould. Should you doubt that, turn the news around and examine the double standard. Imagine there are Iraqi tanks in Britain and Iraqi troops laying siege to Birmingham. Absurd? Well, it would not happen here. But the British military is doing that to Basra, a city bigger than Birmingham, firing shoulder-held missiles and dropping cluster bombs on its population, 40 per cent of whom are children.

We See Too Much, We Know Too Much. That’s Our Best Defense](http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=394406), John Pilger, The Independent, 6 April 2003

36

No doubt Brits would be happy and pleased to see their cities pounded into rubble and would welcome a bunch of arabs, lol!