Posted September 11, 2002

Let's Leave the War Party Behind – Completely

Although there is a growing movement against a war with Iraq, the debate is still being conducted in a war party type framework. The framework boils down to a few arguments:

1. Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction(WMD) and the capability to produce them.

2. Iraq refuses to allow inspectors to check their supposed sites of WMD storage and production.

3. Saddam Hussein is a threat to the security of the United States and Israel, and could be "taken out" relatively quickly.

The counter arguments being offered by most of those opposed to war are:

1. Iraq's capability to produce WMD has been eliminated and they do not possess WMD that can actually be weaponized.

2. Iraq is willing to allow inspectors in if they are assured there will be no resulting "regime change."

3. Saddam Hussein might be a little off, but he is not stupid enough to start anything with the U.S. or Israel; furthermore, many in the military warn that war with Iraq would be very costly and would bog the U.S. down for years in a rebuilding effort, assuming initial victory.

Conceding this framework to the War Party very much weakens the antiwar movement against war with Iraq. In terms of this framework:

1. If the War Party is able to show just a few WMD sites in Iraq then the war is on. But why shouldn't Iraq possess WMD? Practically every other country in Asia has them or will soon, not to mention the fact that Bush is giving Iraq every reason to need WMD to ward off a possible American assault. If Bush is so arrogant as to dictate whether other countries whose policies he opposes should have WMD why isn't he going after China, or Iran, or North Korea, or Russia, or India?

2. Inspections are merely a tool of the United States government and its lackey, the United Nations, to take over a sovereign country, like Iraq, and bring it into the orbit of world government. Ever since its inception, the United Nations has been at the forefront in fomenting war. Witness the African continent and the sad legacy of UN-US interventions. Scott Ritter is wrong in calling for Iraq to allow inspectors back in. Instead he should be calling for the UN and all its meddling busybody committees to be abolished.

3. Those current and ex military men cited in articles in Antiwar.com who oppose the war do so on tactical grounds and not philosophical grounds. They do not oppose a war with Iraq per se, but only because certain military circumstances are not propitious right now for overall success. It is dangerous, as Justin Raimondo has done, to hail these interventionist military types as heroes when tomorrow as military circumstances may change, such as more "allied" support, they may support the war.

The arguments opposing war with Iraq should not grow out of the framework of the War Party, but out of the ideals of freedom, liberty, and non-intervention stemming from our american heritage. The US has the responsibility to respect others' sovereignty as it expects its sovereignty to be respected. It will not tolerate unprovoked invasion of its airspace, and so should not invade others' airspace without provocation. It will not stand for uninvited special forces within its borders, and so should not inject forces inside others' borders. Furthermore, the law is very explicit: A formal declaration of war is required to be passed by Congress before any troops may be committed to war with Iraq. There was never one passed in Gulf War I, and there has yet to be one passed for proposed Gulf War II. Daddy Bush should have been removed from office for such lawlessness, as should W. if his executive branch unilaterally invades Iraq.

~ DW

Jeremy responds:

Yeah!!! Sorry, I just couldn't contain myself.

Gulf of Tonkin II?

The recent US and British attacks on Iraqi targets in between the 'no-fly zones' are obviously meant to increase the chances of American or British planes getting shot down, so as to provide Bush and Blair the 'incident' they need to persuade their people to go to war. What better time to manipulate an outrage than the 9-11 anniversary week/ the week of Bush's appearance before the UN? What remains to be seen is whether the Iraqis will cooperate.

~ Lloyd G

Is It Really About the Coca?

Regarding the US drive to "wipe out coca growing" in Colombia, I wonder if after Colombia will come Peru and after that, Bolivia.

When I worked for a UN agency in Vienna, we implemented crop-substitution projects in Bolivia. Later I heard the US favored 'educating the farmers' (over promoting alternative crops) and couldn't figure out what that meant. Now, I guess, the policy is total eradication.

Coca leaves have long been part of the Andean world. You still can drink 'mate de coca' in Peru and in Bolivia. Tourists love it. And, I understand, in the fifties, you could buy over the counter cocaine pills for sore throats.

What I find most fascinating is the fact that the Peruvian government sells coca to Coca-Cola to this day. So, I take it, they won't wipe out all of the fields.

But what I find most intriguing is this: when did this humble coca leaf that the natives would chew all day long (like the soma pills of Brave New World) undisturbed, for centuries, become such a threat to a foreign country that a drug-war had to be started to "kill" it? ("The goal, American officials say, is to kill up to 300,000 acres of coca this year.")

I hope the answer to that question has absolutely nothing to do with recent news and articles about oil and gas pipelines, military bases and terrorism in, precisely, Colombia, Peru and Bolivia.

~ MCerritelli

This Time We May Firebomb the Cathedral, Too!

I seem to recall that Dubya said something like "either you are with us or against us" to the rest of the world a few months ago. Since Germany has quite clearly stated it is against the US war plans, could someone enlighten me as to when is the US Air Force going to carpet-bomb Berlin and Dresden again? It will be much easier to invade Germany than Iraq, given that there are already tens of thousands of US troops in there.

~ Matt Soja, Clifton, NJ

Spin Is So Cheap These Days...

Dear Antiwar.com

You folk are quite wrong.

This is SOLID evidence connecting Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The link with Elvis is, however, more tenuous...

This is what my dog could do with Photoshop in half an hour, but I gather the CIA and Mossad have video production facilities as well, so I expect this evidence is just the tip of the iceberg.

Regards and all the best to you,

~ Sid Walker, Australia

Criticize Israel, You're 'Jew-Hating Garbage'

Regarding an email in response to my letter in "Backtalk" from 9/7, from a charming fellow who refers to himself only as "Rick":

Incensed over "lies" about the USS Liberty and Jonathan Pollard spread around by "Jew-hating garbage" like myself, he set the record straight: Cristol's book, along with ten "investigations," has "proved" that the attack on the Liberty was a mistake; and there is no evidence that Pollard's information was sold to the Soviets.

Here, for the benefit of anyone else who'd like some evidence to back up those claims, are some references:
Regarding the USS Liberty:
James Ennes, Jr. "The USS Liberty: still covered up after 35 years,"

Regarding Pollard:
Eric Margolis, "Jonathan Pollard Was No Jewish Patriot,"

and

"Pollard Inflicted Serious Damage to U.S. – Magazine" Reuters Jan. 10, 1999.

And to answer your question, Rick, I don't get any pay from the "a-rabs." I do all this work out of a selfless desire to educate people like you.

~ Kevin Carson

Not Just 'Bush Knew!': 'Bush Did It!'

The posturing of an attack is serving two purposes, the most immediate and threatening of which is Mr. Bush and his cronies establishing a Dept. of Homeland Tyranny that fundamentally alters the constitutional balance of powers.

I, like many, am firmly of the belief that they were complicit in, or were directly involved in, the September 11th attacks. The plan was to set up the pretext for taking extraordinary powers.

What they are attempting now with this age-old game takes it to another level: they want to fundamentally alter our government with the intent of establishing a tyrannical assault on our American liberties at law.

Please focus on these issues. The national security of the American people is gravely threatened by the proposed "Dept. of Homeland Security".

~ Bob Ficalora

Corps, God, Country

Jeremy,

Just wanted to note this about the reference one of your contributors made about lobotomized Marines.

Not lobotomized but when I was in the Marines and was told to "saddle up" I did. My oath was loyalty to Corps, God and Country. In that order. If I was told to "saddle up" and head for Viet Nam, Washington or LA to deal with its' inhabitants I would. I would and did then and I would today. A mission is a mission. No Marine ever questions orders that come down from on high. He obeys. He does his duty.

You have probably heard of "The German Way"? This is The Marine Corps Way and we are Teufel Dogs, one and all. We are a band of brothers! A man that does not saddle up for a mission is not worthy of his stripes or stars. Period.

When we are on our movement to contact and said contact is imminent, civilians, any civilians will do well to give us large quarter and listen up! Preserve themselves because we come in noble faith for all.

Semper Fi,

~ Jack Webb

Jeremy responds:

I'm sorry, I know this needs no response. But aren't the original letter-writer's comments proved with this letter...? So you weren't physically lobotomized. You're still a conscienceless automaton in a system of death.

Previous Backtalk