Open Letter Regarding IRAQ

Monday March 10, 2003 15:09

by Rex. 84

Subject: United Nations, United States, Material Breach, and Iraq

The definition of an ally is a friendly nation or group of nations coming together to fight a common enemy (any armed adversary, especially a member of an opposing military force); Saddam Hussein is that common enemy.

Saddam Hussein has murdered, gassed, and raped his own people, who, by the way have no choice in his presidency. Yet, in 2003, our supposed allies (the people we have helped for years by fighting battles and handing money to them) believe that the war we choose to fight is unnecessary. Yes, it is unnecessary, if Saddam Hussein had co-operated with the United Nations and us fully. Saddam Hussein cannot half step this process of eliminating weapons of mass destruction. Yes, it is unnecessary, if Saddam Hussein was not harboring terrorists. Yes, it is unnecessary, if Saddam Hussein was not hiding a well thought out weapons plan consisting of the most dangerous chemicals in existence. This war has been necessary for decades.

What group or body of sane humans has the right to say that the United States is fighting over oil or anything other than to prevent more nations from taking up terrorist activities? If this were a fight over oil, everyone but the US should be involved in it. After all, we do not get as much if any oil as the French do from Iraq. I say go forward and enforce the treaty by any means necessary. I also say to cut France and Germany off of any financial help. If it were not for the United States all of France would have been speaking German since 1917. If it were not for the United States, France would not exist today because we bankrolled their bankrupt country in the 50's. If it were not for the United States, France would have suffered another humiliating defeat in Vietnam just as they did in Algeria.

I truly believe we are 100 % correct and justified in attacking Iraq. They put themselves in this breach of contract and now they are not full trying to get out of a war it without living up to their responsibilities.

People are comparing Bush to Hitler and then praising Saddam Hussein. It is the most horrifying thing that I have seen. “The inspections are working. Saddam is co-operating.” Oh yea, except for one thing, what was Saddam working on any kind of weapons program from 1991 anyway? There was already a broken agreement and as evidenced with the recent findings of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles that Saddam was hiding and only after being found destroys while others weapons of mass destruction are more than likely being manufactured as you read this.

This is not about what the UN inspectors can find - it is about Iraq complying fully with the UN and disclosing his weapons of mass destruction. What else is Saddam hiding and not telling the UN? He is playing a deadly childish games of cat and mouse with his nation’s security and wellbeing of its people. The security of Iraq and the world are at steak by allowing such a ruthless dictator to remain in power.

On killing of innocent people, it is true, innocent lives are going to be lost, by no means is it intentional. Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, and Hitler very much lied and covertly intentionally killed innocent people, unlike President Bush, who has peppered Iraq with warnings of impending war. Imagine that, Iraqi citizens do not have the freedom of choice. Do not tell me that you do not think that the people of Iraq would rise against Saddam if they had a chance. Saddam Hussein has more power than HIS PEOPLE; George Bush does not have more power than THE PEOPLE as he is a man of the people by the people and for the people of the United States and entrusted with the great powers of presidency.

America is the land of the free, the home of the brave, and proud of all we have. America is not a perfect country but a far better one than any other is. America is the land of opportunity, a country that people all over the world come to be a part of. I am proud to say that I am an American, a supporter of our Government. As an American I can say that I of all people do not want a war, but I also know American know that if need be I must sacrifice everything I hold dear in order to stand up for our country and protect our people, in this home of the free and the brave.

We are still recovering in the U.S. trying to hold our heads up high after the 9-11 terrorist attack, even though we are afraid to walk on the streets without Gas Masks, duct tape, and other survival materials. Some are still afraid to open their own mail. If any other country were in this fix, they would expect prompt assistance from the U.S. and we would probably give our full support. Why do the members of the UN and allies of United States not want us to attempt to stop terrorism against the United States?

The systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, we are losing the War on Terrorism because of our allies’ intimidation to rise up against it. How do you expect to win the War on Terrorism without the use of force? In the US, people are TERROR-fied, to fly on airplanes, people are TERROR-fied to open their own mail, and people are TERROR-fied when walking the streets. What it comes down to is that, the world is terrified of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. WHY NOT FIGHT FOR THE FALL OF TERRORISM?

We as Americans cannot want a war and pray for a better resolution but we must realize that this country we call America would not be what it is today if we had not stood on the battlegrounds. Yes, war is not an easy position for us or a decision we take lightly however, it is what is brought before us, and we will not cower. If we do not try to stop terrorism then we might as well just lie down and not be America anymore, we, as Americans are strong and ready for justice for the world and us. My hope is that the United Nations will stand strong and not become an irrelevant debating club. The United Nations needs to stand firm with its resolutions and be fully prepared to hand down more than just words.

What America wants is freedom from terrorism. If you allow a weed such as terrorism to take hold, it will grow uncontrollable from cell to cell and country to country.

save preference

Comments (29 of 29)

Jump To Comment:

I presume ...

by FourWinds

Mon Mar 10, 2003 15:29

"Yes, it is unnecessary, if Saddam Hussein had co-operated with the United Nations and us fully"

I presume you mean:

"Yes, it is unnecessary, if Saddam Hussein had co-operated with the United Nations and US fully"

As in the USA not 'us' as in them and us.

Well, I agree that he should have co-operated with the UN, but why say 'the United Nations and US' ? Why give yourselves the same level of authority as the UN. ** NO ONE ** should be considered above the UN and Dubya would do well to remember that, but then if he remembered that he might have to remember that only Congress can declare war under the American constitution.

terrorism

by Gaillimhed

Mon Mar 10, 2003 15:31

The terrorist threat that america faces is what the CIA calls 'Blowback', it is direct retaliation for american foreign policy (eg Israel) that people blow up embassies and fly planes into buildings.

American propaganda

by Karen

Mon Mar 10, 2003 16:14

PROPAGANDA...PROPAGANDA...PROPAGANDA

Rex es ignoro!

by kokomero

Mon Mar 10, 2003 16:21

To quote Rex:

"If it were not for the United States, France would have suffered another humiliating defeat in Vietnam just as they did in Algeria."

Fact:

France were defeated in Vietnam at Dien Bien Phu ... and get this so were the US. The US with their meddling and subsequent abandonment of the region they also plunged a large part of South-East Asia into chaos which led to the Pol Pot Regieme etc. etc.

The British and the Americans have been historically responsible for most of the political instability in the world and their inept meddling in Iraq will only cause matters to degenerate further.

I suggest you go back and study up on your facts before making such an incoherent and factually innacurate posting in future!

The US and Iraq

by Avi H.

Mon Mar 10, 2003 17:46

The US has many faults but it is fundamentally a good country, just like the UK and Israel. If I had the choice of living in any of those countries and any Arab countries (which are just so backward that to call them medieval would be an insult to the Middle Ages), I know which I would choose.

Thank God for the courage and freedom of the USA.

...

by Sean

Mon Mar 10, 2003 17:59

Avi, you fool!

War would 'stop' terror

by Caff

Mon Mar 10, 2003 18:20

Like fire on fire
how is attacking Iraq suppossed to end terrorism , would it not in fact cause moderates to turn against US foreign policy and become in fact more agressive towards the west

Stone-age mentality

Mon Mar 10, 2003 19:35

Avi shows his true colours as a rabid anti-Arab and anti-Muslim as if we didn't already know.

The only thing medieval on this website are your attitudes, Avi.

As for thanking God for the freedom in the US, which is doubtful at best, I'd suggest that you work on your own country's appaling human rights record, your nuclear-chemical-biological weapons, and the numerous UN resolutions you are in violation of and forget about trying to bask in other peoples reputations.

Ah, freedom and democracy

by Bolschewistischer Untermensch

Mon Mar 10, 2003 20:11

Sometime in the latter half of the last century, some perceptive person said the fascism of the future would package itself as freedom and democracy. These days are upon us. The endlessly replayed images of US and British troops getting ready to kick ass in the Gulf remind me of nothing so much as old WWII German newsreels of confident Nazi troops and their hi-tech tanks and planes staging pre-emptive strikes against most of Europe. Fortunately, it all went pear-shaped after Stalingrad.

US Meddling in the World

by Bigfoot

Tue Mar 11, 2003 03:35

Did US meddling in Europe in WWII not defeat Fascism?
Did US meddling in Kosovo not prevent genocide?
Did US meddling in Vietnam not help prevent the rise of Soviet Imperialism?

If it were not for US meddling we would all be slaves.

These Islamic fascists want us either to convert or die. If the US doesn't stand up to Iraq it will only embolden their efforts to enslave us.

I 'm With Karen....

by Kevin

Tue Mar 11, 2003 07:55

by Sparks

Tue Mar 11, 2003 09:06

Bigfoot,
"Did US meddling in Europe in WWII not defeat Fascism?"

No, US and Russian troops invading europe did. And frankly, the Russians are due far more credit - for every US soldier who gave his life, 80 Russians gave theirs.

"Did US meddling in Kosovo not prevent genocide?"

Nope, 'fraid not.

"Did US meddling in Vietnam not help prevent the rise of Soviet Imperialism?"

No, that would have been basic economics. Vietnam just got US soldiers killed for no good reason. Of course, the "loss of innocence" of most US citizens that came with it was useful, but I hardly think it was worth the deaths of US soldiers, VC soldiers, and civilians in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, nor the chaos that followed the Vietnam war. Now if the US under Wilson had stuck to it's word and given Vietnam it's freedom as it had promised to do to any nation that wanted self-determination at the end of the first world war, maybe the whole sorry mess wouldn't have happened. But instead, the vietnamese ambassador was turned away, the French were allowed to retain Vietnam as a colony and a lot of people died for no good reason.

"If it were not for US meddling we would all be slaves."

I don't remember the US assisting in the War of Independence in Ireland. Or in the resulting civil war. I do remember them funding the IRA through NORAID for thirty years though.

Maybe the US should quit it's meddling. It doesn't seem to do it so well.

"These Islamic fascists want us either to convert or die. If the US doesn't stand up to Iraq it will only embolden their efforts to enslave us."

Iraq? Enslave anyone? What are you tripping on, they can't even feed their own people. And in case you haven't noticed, "Islamic Fascist" is a contradiction in terms. Maybe if you knew more about Islam, you'd know that. And maybe if you knew more about Iraq, you'd know it's not actually Islamic, at least not in the sense you're thinking of. Saddam is a secular ruler. It's why Osama wants him dead (prefereably right after a US invasion causes world turmoil, isolates the US further and creates a huge number of new volunteers for the terrorist causes).

Well said Sparks

Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:54

Well bigfoot-in-your-mouth let's here your comeback, based of facts, if you have one?

Freedom and democracy 2

Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:12

The USA is a superpower, the only superpower now, with a vast military budget and huge stocks of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is a third world country that has been under sanctions for 12 years.
America is keeping us free? America allows us to have as much "freedom" as it thinks is good for us, and more particularly itself. And that range of "freedom" is getting narrower all the time. All the countries it is targeting, and not just Iraq, dissent in one way or another from its New Order (a term, by the way, that the Nazis also used). And that is why they are being targeted. The word "democracy" is being emptied of its original content, which meant "rule by the people". It now means "controlled by America".

Hi Sparks

Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:36

You probably don't remember much about the Cold War. You've got to see the bigger picture when you talk about Vietnam and other US interventions.

Much world was in the grip of the Soviet Union and these inteventions were skirmishes, war by proxy. Innocent people got killed, yes, but if the US had pulled up the drawbridge after WW2 all of Europe would have been in Soviet hands, including our little island.

The US has been Europe's guardian ever since the end of WW2 and all the thanks they get from you is complaints about a perceived lack of freedom.

If lived in Baghdad now, or pretty much any where else outside the First world, you would learn what freedom is. In fact, it's really a relative term if you want to live in a society and benefit from it's protection and it's economic system.

If you want true freedom then you should have been born a polar bear, shouldn't you.

Islamo-Fascism

Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:40

If it's good enuff for Christopher Hitchens to use this phrase, it's good enuff for me.

NONE

by Mr S0fa

Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:50

Interesting perspective - I diagree with most of it but I do feel that most people posting to this site are anti-american from purely knee jerk reasons .

Saddam a force of for good!!

by Mark O 'Hehir

Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:56

"Saddam is a secular ruler."

Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh,

Only in Ireland could Saddam be put forward as a cilvilizing influence. Then again the Irish 'left' has had a hard-on for genocidal dictators since Stalin.

Look up secular in the dictionary

by Chekov

Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:18

It doesn't mean civilizing and is an accurate adjective to use in association with the Ba'athist regime, although, like many other 'secular' regimes around the world, it does use religion as a means of imposing its control. However not to the same extent as Dubya does.

Bigfoot

Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:19

I remember plenty about the cold war, thanks. I grew up during it. As to the big picture, I see it rather clearly - the US fumbled badly with vietnam, throwing away a chance to assist the vietnamese in setting up their own democratic state after WW1, thus sending them to the Russians for help in throwing out the French.

And as I said, it was basic economics that defeated the USSR, not the US. Simple fact is, stalinism doesn't work. The states proved that. A free market and property ownership and all the little things they had like freedom of movement and expression and so forth, coupled with a large population and living area and natural resources - end result, a rich country. Taking the same raw ingredients and the USSR came up with (essentially) a nation of stoicly terrified peasants. That was what won the day in "the big picture", not the US's rather short-sighted attempts at foreign policy.

And if you want to talk about us being grateful to the states, how about you talk to Sinn Fein and the IRA? NORAID's been funding those terrorists for years and we've been suffering the consequences. Europe's guardian my ass. Europe's dealer more like.

And Christopher Hitchens can use the phrase all he likes, it won't make it correct. It's like the Iraq-AlQueda link - making it up and saying it ten times doesn't make it true.

Yada yada

Tue Mar 11, 2003 12:55

You will remember Soviet Agression then?
If the US had not been proactive in foreign policy their tanks would have rolled right through Europe.

Are you trying to tell me that the US government funded NORAID, as opposed to US citizens?

O'Heihry bigfoot in mouth

Tue Mar 11, 2003 14:33

Where were the US forces in Budapest in 1956 or n 1968 or in Poland in 1980 or in Rwanda or in Bosnia etc.?

Answer:

Nowhere to be seen and/or gazing into their own navels

Also O 'Hehir .. if the left have a hard on for dictators which is rubbish to start with they have good company in the US and UK governments who have been backing dictators such as Saddam, Suharto, Pol Pot, Noriega and Pinochet for decades. Missed all of those history classes in school did we?

Also mr. sofa stick to being a couch potato, as the only thing jerking around here seems to be you spasming with your one line synthesis of all the postings to this site ... how perceptive of you .... NOT!

Tue Mar 11, 2003 16:12

I don't just remember _Soviet_ aggression. I seem to recall US involvement in argentina and chile and el salvador and panama and haiti and grenada and cuba and laos and cambodia and vietnam and korea (after the 39th parallel). None of it good, little of it above board, and less than that of it legal.

No, the US government didn't fund NORAID. It funded lots of other terrorist organisations, of course, just not any Irish ones.

And "proactive in foreign policy"? You should patent that and sell it to Bush!

Hey Kokomero

Wed Mar 12, 2003 06:35

If you really think the US could have risked a confrontation with the USSR in Prague then you really are not clued up enough to be posting here.

The US is not guilty of anything as regards Rwanda except vacillation - they're not the killers. In fact, the whole world failed Africa in that case. The French went in but it was too little, too late.

Hey Sparks!

Wed Mar 12, 2003 06:48

If you don't see US foreign policy durng that ERA in the context of the Cold War then it's you who needs to wake up.

Do you think I'm seeing this thru rose-tinted glasses? Some dirty work had to be done to secure the future of Capitalism. You must see theses events as skirmishes, aproxy anti-soviet war.

Innocent people died, they always do, but you know, the US would not have interfered in those countries if the Soviet Union had not pursued a "we will bury you" policy.

Do you think it's US policy to go picking fights on smaller states? It's hardly in their interests. There's always a primary cause for any military action, and the cause during that era was Soviet aggression.

Big 'Athletes' foot

Wed Mar 12, 2003 11:11

Frankly Bigfoot you are the one who is clueless.

The Americans were more than prepared to intervene against the Cubans during the 60s including the near WWIII missile crisis but stood idly by when theing weren't happening in their own backyard ... an early case of NIMBY in my opinion!

Obviously the US agenda historically and today has nothing to do with world peace and everything to do with their economic interests. Obvious to everybody except you that is! Obviously you are so much wiser than the rest of us ... I think not!

Wed Mar 12, 2003 11:14

In actual fact it often is in the interests of the US to "pick on" smaller states. For example, in Chile a democratically elected leader was ousted in favour of Pinochet with US funding because Pinochet's political views were more aligned with US interests. Iraq and Argentina are a more interesting example - in both cases, the leader had expressed an interest in selling oil for euros as opposed to dollars. If you know much about the US economy, you know that that action would devalue the US dollar dramaticaly, virtually overnight, while strengthening the euro. In the case of vietnam, laos and cambodia, well, that's historical fact - the US turned down vietnam's request for aid in becoming a democracy (there's your USSR buffer right there) and left the French maintain them as a colony, and when that all turned to crap (as was predictable given that the Russians, Irish and several others were all going through revolutionary actions at the time Wilson declined to help the vietnamese), the US responded by bombing not only vietnam but laos and cambodia as well - and kept their actions secret in laos and cambodia.

The fact is, the US is not a model of statesmanship, and shouldn't be taken as one. The rights held by US citizens are certainly excellent, as are several aspects of the organisation of the US governmental system - but the actions of the US government are not justified by the elegance of it's construction, anymore than shooting a person is mitigated by the elegance of the engineering of the firearm.

I'll have to put the Caps lock on soon

Thu Mar 13, 2003 09:52

I mean, "picking on smaller states" to get at the USSR, the struggle of Communism V Capitalism.

Without the Soviet threat none of this would have happenend.
This was in my last post too, remember?

Anyway, the Cold War has been won, so let's not talk about it any more.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Lockdown Skeptics

Open Letter Regarding IRAQ

Comments (29 of 29)