Iraq

katya · 10-17-2002, 10:13 PM

this thread got long really fast (not surprisingly). i havent read like any of it. oh well. later. ini the meantime, an essay i found (note- this is long so it is in two separate posts):

[start essay]

The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons (''weapons of mass destruction'') -- mainly because they have used them in the past.
Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during its ''Cold War'' with the Soviet Union. Why, then, is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) -- with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran?

The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen these photos juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other ''regional conflicts'' that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of ''weapons of mass destruction.''

Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants -- mostly women and children -- in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.)

If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges against him and his nation, whey do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of ''mass destruction'' -- like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above?

The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.

Hypocrisy when it comes to the death of children? In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes ''a shield.'' Think about that.

(Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb -- saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.)

When considering morality and ''mens rea'' (criminal intent) in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Iran and Iraq-problems-outlook-discussion	brownjenkins	General Messages	208	05-27-2008 12:45 PM
The effectiveness of a "War" on terror	Fenir_LacDanan	General Messages	121	02-02-2007 03:29 PM
Putting Saddam's conviction into perspective	MrBishop	General Messages	24	11-21-2006 04:56 AM
WMD search officially over in Iraq	Ragnarok	General Messages	40	01-14-2005 04:48 PM

10-17-2002, 10:13 PM	#11
katya Elven Maiden Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 3,309	this thread got long really fast (not surprisingly). i havent read like any of it. oh well. later. ini the meantime, an essay i found (note- this is long so it is in two separate posts): [start essay] The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons (''weapons of mass destruction'') -- mainly because they have used them in the past. Well, if that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during its ''Cold War'' with the Soviet Union. Why, then, is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) -- with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran? The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons in the past. We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons. But, have you ever seen these photos juxtaposed next to pictures from Hiroshima or Nagasaki? I suggest that one study the histories of World War I, World War II and other ''regional conflicts'' that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves with the use of ''weapons of mass destruction.'' Remember Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the big ones -- Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At these two locations, the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants -- mostly women and children -- in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took hours, days, weeks, or months to die.) If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges against him and his nation, whey do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of ''mass destruction'' -- like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above? The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction. Hypocrisy when it comes to the death of children? In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained the presence of a day-care center placed between street level and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper floors of the building. Yet when discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes ''a shield.'' Think about that. (Actually, there is a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings, yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb -- saying that they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.) When considering morality and ''mens rea'' (criminal intent) in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians?