Tarik
The Fly
To be contrary to some ppl in this forum, lets talk factually.
The most importent arguments of the war supporters are:
1. Saddam breaches the UN. resotion 1441 as well as he breached further resoltions regarding weapons of mass destruction
2. Saddam used chemical weapons against the kurds during the Iran-Iraq war 1980 - 1988
3. Saddam has connections with Al Qaida (so this argument means that according to this, he was involved in the 11.9. attack
4. Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who commit violations of human rights
Lets go through point by point:
1. Its a true and a fact that Saddam breached 17 resolutions of the security council. But it is also a fact that Israel breached (and still is breaching) UN resolutions, as (according to the res.) they have to leave the territories occupied '67 as well as their colonies in the Westbank are illegitimated.
But Israel needn't to be afraid of an invasion, as well as there even are no sanctions or not a boykott agains israel.
Far from it! Israel annual get 3 bil. US dollars from the United States.
But back to the last UN resolution. The last two reports from Blix (expecially the last) commended the iraqi cooperation. If the inspectors had more time (of course with the US military compression) this conclict would be solved peacefully. But to invade in Iraq WITHOUT UN MANDATE and without solving the Palestinian problem can have fatal consiquences.
2. Its true that Saddam used chemical weapons agains Iran and the Kurds. But if this fact would be an argument for a change of that regime, it would have to take place in 1991. During the gulf war this year almost all provinces in Iraq were occupied by the allied troups or by revolters.
But what happened? "Suddenly" the US made peace with Saddam, giving him time to break down the revolts.
And what about 1992, when to US government refused to help the shiites in South Iraq, although they liberated importent cities like "BASRA" and "NASIRIJAH"?
Its a fact that the Saddam during the 90's has remained in power cause the USA DIDN'T WANT A REGIME CHANGE.
3. This is the flimsiest argument. Saddam is in almost the same manner accountable for the 11.9. attack like the pope. Saddam's baath party is laical and the eyes of islamic fundamentalists he is a "heathen" (osama himself called him so), which party ist not compatible with an islamic theocracy. In Iraq there is for example the "Ansar Al Islami" group fighting agains Saddam.
In my opinion the intention of this argument is a "brain wash" of the american ppl. And it works: Almost 50 percent of the US ppl. believe that Saddam is hand in glove with Osama (no wonder if you read "Stupid White Men").
As I live in Germany I have the chance to see more objective reports and news as against you in the united states.
4. This is also true. But I'm asking you: Which arabic leader is not? Let me bring you just one example: Egypt
In Egypt is in state of emergency since 1981. Practically it means:
- no right to appeal
- arrest possible without accusation
- constricted defense right
- demonstrations prohibited
What cases of death and torture in arrest matter, Egypt is on the top of AI list.
And what ist the US-answer to Mubarak? He annually gets 2 billions US dollars for his "inside security"
The most importent arguments of the war supporters are:
1. Saddam breaches the UN. resotion 1441 as well as he breached further resoltions regarding weapons of mass destruction
2. Saddam used chemical weapons against the kurds during the Iran-Iraq war 1980 - 1988
3. Saddam has connections with Al Qaida (so this argument means that according to this, he was involved in the 11.9. attack
4. Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who commit violations of human rights
Lets go through point by point:
1. Its a true and a fact that Saddam breached 17 resolutions of the security council. But it is also a fact that Israel breached (and still is breaching) UN resolutions, as (according to the res.) they have to leave the territories occupied '67 as well as their colonies in the Westbank are illegitimated.
But Israel needn't to be afraid of an invasion, as well as there even are no sanctions or not a boykott agains israel.
Far from it! Israel annual get 3 bil. US dollars from the United States.
But back to the last UN resolution. The last two reports from Blix (expecially the last) commended the iraqi cooperation. If the inspectors had more time (of course with the US military compression) this conclict would be solved peacefully. But to invade in Iraq WITHOUT UN MANDATE and without solving the Palestinian problem can have fatal consiquences.
2. Its true that Saddam used chemical weapons agains Iran and the Kurds. But if this fact would be an argument for a change of that regime, it would have to take place in 1991. During the gulf war this year almost all provinces in Iraq were occupied by the allied troups or by revolters.
But what happened? "Suddenly" the US made peace with Saddam, giving him time to break down the revolts.
And what about 1992, when to US government refused to help the shiites in South Iraq, although they liberated importent cities like "BASRA" and "NASIRIJAH"?
Its a fact that the Saddam during the 90's has remained in power cause the USA DIDN'T WANT A REGIME CHANGE.
3. This is the flimsiest argument. Saddam is in almost the same manner accountable for the 11.9. attack like the pope. Saddam's baath party is laical and the eyes of islamic fundamentalists he is a "heathen" (osama himself called him so), which party ist not compatible with an islamic theocracy. In Iraq there is for example the "Ansar Al Islami" group fighting agains Saddam.
In my opinion the intention of this argument is a "brain wash" of the american ppl. And it works: Almost 50 percent of the US ppl. believe that Saddam is hand in glove with Osama (no wonder if you read "Stupid White Men").
As I live in Germany I have the chance to see more objective reports and news as against you in the united states.
4. This is also true. But I'm asking you: Which arabic leader is not? Let me bring you just one example: Egypt
In Egypt is in state of emergency since 1981. Practically it means:
- no right to appeal
- arrest possible without accusation
- constricted defense right
- demonstrations prohibited
What cases of death and torture in arrest matter, Egypt is on the top of AI list.
And what ist the US-answer to Mubarak? He annually gets 2 billions US dollars for his "inside security"