It’s about judgement, not belief

Webdiarists have dug in for detailed debate since John Wojdylo presented his case for a first strike against Iraq.

Today’s war issue:

1. Peter Briggs catches out Bernie McComb on ‘Septics’.

2. David Makinson deconstructs John Wojdylo’s case, Zainab Al-Badry replies to John’s comments on his argument against a first strike and Mark Sergeant and Con Vaitsas critique John’s conclusions.

3. G Hassan says I’m biased against Arabs.

4. Graham McPherson says it’s really a war against OPEC.

5. Gina Bowry looks for a third way.

6. Scott Burchill compares the US position on Iraq and Israel.

7. John Halse relies to American Ken White.

***

Jozef Imrich recommends:

* “Eye on the empire”, on the economics of the war, at antiwar.

* ‘Policy as if the public interest mattered’, a speech on the war by Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats in England, at libdems

* ‘Neo, Nader, next door neighbour: Citizenship’, by Jeanne E Hand-Boniakowski at metaphoria

* ‘A replay of Vietnam in Iraq?’ by Derrick Z. Jackson, at bostonglobe

* “We should all be pursuing a lasting victory over world want” by James Cumes at onlineopinion

1. YOU CAN’T FOOL YANKS WITH SEPTICS

Peter Briggs in Belconnen, Canberra

Strange but true: Australia’s finest journalist is now sourcing Facts On Americans from this guy who knows this guy who once went out to dinner with one. (Bernie McComb in Power and weakness.)

Suspicious, one of her intrepid readers types ‘septic tank’ into a search engine to find out…

Flashback: It’s a week after 9/11, the Great Nation is in crisis, but the 1-in-4 Americans who have one still need to know, “How often do I empty my… whatchamacallit?” usatoday

THE CASE AGAINST JOHN

David Makinson

I’ve just worked all the way through John Wojdylo’s Saddam’s heart of darkness and Saddam’s will to power. You urge those who want to understand Saddam to read this. I would very strongly suggest that people go beyond the limited extracts he provides and do some proper homework.

I am reading the Said Aburish biography and can report that it is a far more balanced account of Saddam than the selective quotes in Mr Wojdylo’s offering. It also provides extensive insight into the role of naked US and UK self-interest in the making of modern Iraq.

Mr Wojdylo’s writings are disturbing. Not because they reveal anything new, for they do not, but because they show a degree of careful bias which is quite breathtaking in its scope – a wilful and cynical bias which sadly is becoming more and more common in these times. Mr Wojdylo comfortably criticises the naive beliefs of others, whilst complacently elevating his own opinions to the status of authoritative truth.

If understand him correctly (and I may not, so I’ll apologise in advance) the assessment of the rights and wrongs of the current Iraq dilemma is driven to large degree by “what you believe and why”. The implication is, of course, that those believe differently to Mr Wojdylo are just fooling themselves.

I’m sorry, but this focus on “belief” is patent nonsense. It’s about judgements and probabilities – about guesses of people’s intentions and future events and outcomes. It’s about applying reason, intuition, compassion and common sense – and yes, ethics – to a complex set of contributing factors.

The essence of the question at hand is whether or not we (the US and its allies) should launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

The things we believe include:

* Saddam is a bad man. This seems to be uncontroversial – a given. We do not need another several pages of carefully selected quotes to grasp this extraordinarily challenging concept.

* Saddam has weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and would like more. Similarly uncontroversial. We did not need the Blair Dossier to know this.

* Iraq has not attacked the US (or Australia for that matter) at any time. The truth is a strange and fleeting thing, but this statement is probably as close to an historical fact as we can get (until proved otherwise).

None of these things that we believe provides any support for a pre-emptive strike.

The judgements/assessments we might make will be varied and individual. Some of mine are as follows:

* Iraq is not a “clear and present danger” to the US or its allies. A judgement, not a belief. Based in part on my assessment that Iraq’s WMD are not as big and bad as those of the US and its allies, and Saddam is not, for all his other faults, an idiot.

* Saddam’s intention – or lack of intention – to mount a threat is unclear. No matter what Mr Wojdylo and others assert, it is unclear. Without such clarity, no military intervention can be justifiable (a judgement).

* An attack on Iraq would be an unprovoked act of aggression. A straightforward conclusion, based on the absence of any attack from Iraq. I would judge such an act of aggression to be an evil thing. This is both a personal view and a moral judgement. It is also flat out repudiation of the Bush doctrine that a pre-emptive attack is acceptable. It is not.

The Bushes and Howards of the world have drawn different conclusions based on (as far as we are told) broadly similar inputs. According to this world view:

* Iraq is a “clear and present danger” to the US or its allies.

* Saddam’s intention to mount a threat is clear. With such clarity, military intervention is justifiable.

* In these circumstances, a pre-emptive attack is acceptable.

These positions are unfounded. They do not pass the smell test. All Messrs Bush, Howard and Wojdylo have are a set of irrational opinions. This is their right and privilege. But they want us to go to war on the basis of these opinions.

Many commentators have tried the “appeasement” argument. Again, it’s terribly short in the logic department, but it has a certain emotive appeal so I’m not above using it. If we continue to appease US self-interest and let Bush et al get away with this, our children will hold us to account one day.

***

Zainab Al-Badry

Disclosure: I am an Iraqi who opposes the US possible attack on my country and was old enough during the Iraq-Iran war to understand all the surrounding circumstances of it.

I don’t know for how long we can go back and forth with this issue but John Wojdylo has raised some important issues that I again feel need to be answered. Many thanks for having this window open for all of us. (Zainab’s piece and John’s response are in Saddam’s will to powersmh.)

1. I am not accusing the US alone of acting out of self-interest with regard to the Iraqi problem. In fact every other country is doing so, whether that interest be oil or something else. Let’s not forget that France built the first nuclear reactor for Saddam, which Israel destroyed in 1981, and Russia is the biggest supplier of arms and weapons to Saddam. What hurts more than anything else is that Saddam’s brutality and evil deeds are/were known to those countries for decades, so why did no one think of freeing the Iraqi people 10 or 20 years ago?

2. John is implying that I am a naive or stupid person (without saying so) when he said that I think “Saddam is harmless” because I don’t support the US campaign. No Iraqi thinks even for a split second that Saddam is harmless or that he is not capable or willing to use any method in his hands to destroy his opponents or enemies. In fact there is no Iraqi who has not suffered directly or indirectly from this brutal regime.

3. In an attempt to justify the “mistake” of George Bush Snr in 1991, John said, “Why might Bush Snr’s betrayal in 1991 not be equivalent to Stalin’s betrayal in 1944?”. The answer is that two mistakes do not make one right, and that Bush Snr’s mistake, which I believe was a deliberate one, is not forgivable because Bush Snr and his administration knew Saddam first hand from their previous dealing with him during the 80s. They had in front of them enormous amounts of proofs and witnesses of Saddam’s evil and mentality, so there is no excuse for them. To try and tell me now that they acted the way they did because they naively thought that Saddam would be contained by the UN resolution is really beyond me.

4. John argued that one of the reasons the US stopped short of toppling Saddam in 91 was for fear of him using biological weapons against them. What makes the US so sure now that he would not do the same if he was cornered? What makes the US willing to sacrifice its soldiers this time? Or maybe the US is absolutely sure that he in fact does not have WMD left. I do not believe this last theory, in fact the most terrifying scenario I could imagine is if Saddam found himself with his back to the wall. He would use whatever was in his hands, regardless of the consequences.

5. John also said that by not acting now “this would give the power to threaten us with unleashing the Holocaust unless we submit to his will”. I couldn’t agree more. On the other hand, Saddam had his own Holocaust back in the 80s when he used his chemical weapons against Iran and then against his own people virtually under the nose of the whole world, yet no one lifted a finger to stop him, especially not the US who to my knowledge (please correct me here if I am wrong, and I do want very much to be proved wrong) vetoed a UN resolution condemning Saddam’s acts against the Kurds.

6. Finally, I have no doubt that Saddam has a mind of his own and an evil one for that matter. What I am saying is that the US and the West helped and encouraged him to achieve his goals simply because they seemed to be in line with those countries interests at the time. Now when those interests have changed, Saddam suddenly becomes the bad boy who must disappear from the scene. Saddam would never have been a problem now if the US and the rest of the world acted and stopped him earlier. If the US was willing to overlook what Saddam did to my people simply because it wasn’t in its interest to stand up to him, what guarantees do I have that the US will not do the same thing again??

***

Mark Sergeant

In Saddam’s heart of darkness, Part 2, John Wojdylo makes much of an alleged threat on Qatar by Saddam.

“The encounter at the end of August began brotherly enough. The newspaper report, citing Iraqi sources, said that at the meeting between the Iraqi president and al-Thani, the Qatari foreign minister had at first urged Saddam Hussein to allow UN weapons inspectors back into the country. Otherwise “hell will be unleashed.” “At the American military base al-Udeid in Qatar,” said al-Thani, “I have seen weapons that I have never laid eyes on before.” Hussein listened to this calmly.

“Al-Thani continued, saying that “these weapons would be used against Iraq in the event of an American attack”. Saddam jumped up in rage. He shouted at the foreign minister. According to the Cairo newspaper, he asked his guest whether Qatar was prepared to be an agent of the USA and, on the side of the enemy, strike against the Arab nation. Should the small Gulf emirate “allow the US army to attack Iraq from al-Udeid”, he would “completely annihilate” the country.”

In Saddam’s will to power, John wrote: “Four weeks ago Saddam threatened a sovereign nation (Qatar) with “total annihilation”. Why do commentators like Paul McGeough not address Saddam’s explicitly stated ambition and his manifest intention to fulfil it, and instead write conspiracy theories about American motives, or banalities about Toyota truck mechanics in Baghdad?”

I do not read this as evidence of “Saddam’s explicitly stated ambition and his manifest intention to fulfil it”. I read it as a threat of retaliation if Qatar allows itself to be used in an attack on Iraq. It isn’t evidence of WMD, either, as it seems likely to me that Saddam would issue the threat in the same terms whether he had WMD or not.

***

Con Vaitsas in Sydney

It is obvious that John Wojdylo is itching to get a job on George Bush’s public relations team, or maybe he really wants a job with the New York Times, which too many of us accept as the greatest newspaper on this earth without knowing its seamier side.

Unfortunately his piece reads like a uni essay and wouldn’t convince too many apart from those who want to believe his theory. And why he quotes the New York Times as though it is authoritative I will never know, as they have been caught out several times recently.

Remember the case of Wen Ho Lee, the Taiwanese-born nuclear scientist who was the centre of a federal investigation into alleged Chinese espionage in the USA during the late 1990s after allegations that he turned over to China design information about a key US nuclear missile warhead?

All of this arose from a series of articles in the New York Times which launched an anti-China spy scare campaign to embarrass the Clinton administration. It reckoned that tens of millions of people were threatened by Lee’s spy activities and criticised the White House for not taking appropriate action.

Wen Ho Lee was held for nearly a year in solitary confinement, but the Justice Department found no evidence to support the story and released Lee. The New York Times had to apologise, but hey, who cares?

***

3. THE WEST CAUSED THE MESS

G. Hassan in Sydney

It is a shame that you called the Middle East a “mess” in your column “When politics is in the blood” (smh).

I do not think the Middle East had any “mess” until you and your government brought it to the people of the Middle East. What have the Iraqi children got to do with your two rusty frigates in the Gulf stopping food and medicine reaching the dying children? According to very reliable sources 5000-6000 children die every month because of the Anglo-American (and Australian) blockade.

With the resources available you could have mentioned the Palestinian children dying because of the Israeli fascism and your government’s support for it.

You and Miranda Divine are either ignorant or have a racist hidden agenda. You represent a very racist government which is maltreating imprisoned women and children in concentration camps because of their skin colour and cultural backgrounds.

Hopefully not too many “Australians” are listening to you and people like you.

4. WAR ON OPEC

Graham McPherson

My congratulations go to Paul McGeough for his excellent piece What the White House really wants (smh). It goes a long way to restoring my faith in the ability of journalists to report on reality and not just spin.

It’s important to try to tease out all of the motivations from the tangled web of White House rhetoric before they become lost in the imperative of war, and Paul did a great job.

At the moment it would seem that the US is lining up for several wars. We have, obviously, the war against terror, and the war against Saddam (two separate things the White House is tying itself into knots to try to conflate). Less obviously we have the war against OPEC and the war against non-US oil interests. Then there’s the war against the UN. In fact, there seems to be a war against anything that stands in the way of the maximal use of other peoples resources by the US at minimal cost.

But all of that is in the long term. In the short term the significant date in this debate is not September 11, it’s November 5. Throughout this matter Bush has had one eye on Saddam and the other firmly fixed on the US Senate. His comments earlier this week confirmed this by effectively accusing Democratic Senators of disloyalty because they haven’t yet gone completely belly up over his Iraq policy.

In fact the whole Iraq campaign has been incredibly fortuitous with regards to the fortunes of the Republicans in the upcoming mid-term elections. Somehow it has managed to extinguish virtually all comment on the economic downturn, corporate mismanagement and the failure to exterminate al-Qaida in Afghanistan. The appropriate catchphrase for George W, as opposed to his father, has become, “It’s NOT the economy, stupid”.

Bush is absolutely aware that by turning the heat up on Iraq it’s the Democrats that feel the flames. So successful has this policy been, and given the obvious parallels, I briefly wondered if the Republicans might have had an observer last year here during our own election, but given the proximity of Sept 11, I rather doubt it. It also explains why Bush has been so willing to alienate virtually everybody in the world, except the American voter, in pursuit of a goal which is no more urgent today than it was ten years ago.

The upshot of all this is that I’m willing to go further than most Webdiarists and make some predictions. After the November 5 elections, the Iraq debate will move into an entirely new phase. Bush will not be nearly so dismissive of inspections and the war rhetoric will tone down. Inspections will go ahead, and then only if (or when) they are sabotaged by Saddam, will the US move into Iraq with full UN support. I don’t doubt that Howard will give a great sigh of relief.

By the way, if you want to know how I feel about Saddam, let me put it this way: If they can get rid of him without killing 10,000 people, I’ll even go with them.

5. MIDDLE GROUND, PLEASE

Gina Bowry

There are too many things that concern me regarding the “war on terror” and Iraq.

I believe that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous leader who is developing WMD, but I do not know why. I think he will not use them directly against any country – at least not right now – without the justification of a first strike against him. He has to understand that that is one thing that would certainly be the end for him, as it would be reason for the US to unleash their vast array of weaponry on him with the support of the rest of the world.

While I understand that he is dangerous, I have less understanding of the motives of other world leaders in their stances either for or against war.

I think that Bush and his colleagues are too motivated by the “oil” side of the debate. I also am cynical of the timing of the rhetoric, knowing that Hussein has had these plans for years .

I am more believing of Blair, although I don’t know why I feel like this. Without his input, I would be more likely to think of Bush and Howard et al merely as the caricatures that have recently been drawn.

However, I am more inclined to believe that there is genuine cause to be concerned with Saddam, and that Bush is the sabre-rattling, war-mongering, oil-grabbing US bad cop so Blair has the chance to get a more moderate and (hopefully) peaceful outcome through the UN Security Council. If all Saddam Hussein takes seriously is the extreme threat of force, then the threat needs to be seen and be seen as immediate.

I want to know what will happen if he calls their bluff and the US is really forced to go to war. Then will he use the WMD? And just against the troops in the field, or against other countries in his range? Once Iraq has been invaded, he will feel justified in their use as he will have nothing left to lose, knowing that regime change is the ultimate aim.

What of Australia’s involvement in all this? We obviously do not have the capacity for military involvement of any real impact. We only have a defence force, not a standing army. I think most Australians do not want their children going to war – and unless there is a long drawn out war there is little chance there will be much involvement except for navy vessels.

I think that our position should be one of facilitation of a peaceful solution that does not allow the dictatorial regime to continue, without simply setting up a US puppet government or allowing anarchy (don’t ask me how to do that!). That the US has been unable to complete this solution in Afghanistan is not a good start.

Another issue that concerns me was touched on by Marise Payne in Thank God for Australia because…: What of the other nations in the UN that are not ruled by democratic means? Are any of them developing WMD? And what of the nations who may be democratic but also have hopes of developing these weapons? Saddam is not the only thug in world politics today – look at Zimbabwe. There are also all those nations in turmoil that never get mentioned in the news in Australia. Who is next on the hit list – and why?

I am not a fan of US powerbrokers or Australian Liberal arsekissing. I do not agree that you are either “for us or against us” – I think there must be a middle ground. I am one of those bleeding hearts who is trying to choose between waiting for Saddam Hussein to use his WMD capability before going to war, or going to war before he can. How do you explain to the innocent people who will die either way? Sorry Israel, but that bunch of people had to die before we could justify getting Saddam? Or, sorry citizens of Iraq, we had to kill you so that Saddam wouldn’t be able to kill off any more Kurds or sponsor any more terrorists? Neither is a satisfactory outcome.

6. ISRAEL-V-IRAQ

The Israel comparison

Scott Burchill, Lecturer in International Relations, Deakin University, Victoria

As soon as Western governments made Baghdad’s non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions the issue, it was inevitable that comparisons would be made between Iraq and Israel. As discomforting as it clearly is for the Australian Government, it wasn’t going to be possible for Canberra to copy Washington and just ignore the question of why Iraq’s non-compliance constituted a grave threat to the credibility and future of the UN but Israel’s longer standing violations cast no reflection on the organisation.

The comparison was even harder to avoid when at the very time UK Prime Minister Tony Blair released his much vaunted dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, the UN Security Council was passing resolution 1435 (2002) which, amongst other concerns, demanded that Israel “immediately cease measures in and around Ramallah including the destruction of Palestinian civilian and security infrastructure” and withdraw its “occupying forces from Palestinian cities towards the return to positions held prior to September 2000”.

The resolution passed 14-0 with one abstention, the United States. Israel immediately announced that it would disregard the resolution.

So how has Canberra sought to avoid the Iraq-Israel comparison, while insisting, in Prime Minister Howard’s words, that “if the United Nations Security Council doesn’t rise to its responsibilities on this occasion [with regard to Iraq] it will badly weaken its credibility”? There have been two different tactics.

At the National Press Club on 11 September and later on commercial talkback radio, Mr Howard claimed that because Israel was a democracy it shouldn’t be judged by the same standards as Iraq, the clear implication being that democracies are not under the same obligation to observe international law as authoritarian states. The claim that a state’s external obligations are determined by its internal political complexion has no basis in international society or law. One might have thought that a higher commitment to the rule of law could be expected from countries which pronounce their democratic credentials.

The second tactic was revealed by Foreign Minister Downer on 26 September in the following ABC radio interview:

ABC Journalist: “Israel is currently ignoring UN resolutions?”

Alexander Downer: “It’s not ignoring. I mean that ‘s another debate. The resolutions in relation to Israel are Chapter Six. In the case of Israel these are Chapter Six, not Chapter Seven resolutions. There’s a technical difference and it has an obligation to negotiate final settlement status in the Middle East and we hope that Israel will do that obviously we urge them to do so. There are a lot of bad governments around the world. I ‘m not sure I’d say any of them is worse than the government of Saddam Hussein.”

This line of argument, emanating from Tel Aviv, was faithfully echoed by journalist Greg Sheridan in The Weekend Australian on 28 September. Sheridan claimed that Security Council resolutions under different chapters of the UN Charter meant that “even in terms of UN legality, there is no comparison between Israel and Iraq”.

In line with Washington and Tel Aviv’s instructions, he also went on to argue that “it is clear Israel is not in breach of” UN Security Council resolutions 242 or 338 which call for its withdrawal from Palestinian territory illegally occupied since 1967.

A range of subsequent UN Security Council resolutions calling on Israel to implement both resolutions expose the lie in this assertion, which has about as much veracity as his other claim that in 2000 Ehud Barak “offered 97% of the [Palestinian] territories” to Yasser Arafat. This is another Israeli state myth uncritically reproduced by compliant journalists which cannot withstand the smallest scrutiny.

This second tactic is almost comical. According to the Foreign Minister, first Israel isn’t ignoring UN SC resolutions, then it is but because its resolutions aren’t Chapter Seven resolutions they don’t matter. Chapter Six resolutions apparently do not carry the same legal weight or impose the same degree of obligation on states for compliance. In other words, he is saying is that only certain Security Council resolutions need to be enforced and this is determined by the particular Chapter of the UN Charter which they are invoked under.

This argument has no basis in fact or international law, but it does demonstrate the extraordinary lengths he and his echoes have been forced to go to in order to explain why only Iraq’s violations of UN SC resolutions constitute a threat to the authority, integrity and future of the UN. And why Israel’s violations since 1967 don’t.

The reason there are no UN Security Council enforcement resolutions against Israel under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter is because since the 1970s the US has used its veto 32 times to protect Israel from internationally authorised action. This is apparently a minor detail neither Howard, Downer nor Sheridan believe is worth mentioning.

While ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, genocide in Rwanda, illegal land occupations in Kuwait and Bosnia, and state terrorism in East Timor have all recently elicited enforcement action from the UN, 35 years of brutal, humiliating and illegal occupation of Palestinian land by Israel have not produced one enforcement resolution. Perhaps even more remarkably, Israel’s attacks against Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Tunisia have all been protected from a multilateral response by Israel’s North American patron.

Washington clearly has an idiosyncratic view about states complying with UN Security Council resolutions. If the US objects to non-compliance, the country can be attacked. If the US favors non-compliance it either vetoes the resolution or disregards it, in which case it is as good as vetoed.

Iraq has violated or ignored 16 UN resolutions. The equivalent figure for Israel is 69. It’s no wonder Canberra would prefer no comparisons of any kind were made, although it is difficult to see tactics as impoverished as these succeeding for very long. If Russia, France or China use their veto to block a new Chapter 7 resolution against Iraq promoted by Washington and London, the howls of protest and outrage from Washington, London and Canberra can be expected to reach a crescendo of hypocrisy rarely seen even in the tawdry world of international diplomacy.

7. US AND THEM

Ken White in Florida (first published in Thank God for Australia because…)

Interesting commentary from many folks. One of the less cogent was from John Halse in Letters from America and War conversations. We could wish for a peaceful world in which all nations got along but we’re certainly not there yet. Mr Halse seems to argues that the United Nations is the path to this Nirvana.

I submit that the larger the governmental entity, the more likely it is to lose touch with reality and become overbearing and oppressive and that we should be very suspicious of such – look at the European Union and its governance by stealth and subterfuge for a cautionary example.

If he wishes to entrust his life and future to “the laws of this body (the UN)…” that is certainly his prerogative. I’m not inclined to trust elected politicians of any stripe very much and I certainly don’t want to hand my future to unelected bureaucrats, the majority of whom have proven to be consistently hostile to European values, particularly to the English speaking nations – including Australia.

Mr Halse cites “Chile, Nicaragua, Columbia, Panama, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Lebanon, Grenada, Dominican Republic and numerous other nations which your government and its armies or clandestine organizations have attacked militarily and economically”. All true.

Mr Halse should also visit most of those countries, as have I, and ask the residents for an assessment of the overall well being before and after U.S. involvement. I believe he will discover that all, save the Southeast Asian nations and Lebanon, where we either lost or left too soon, will say they are thankful – grudgingly in some cases perhaps but still thankful – for the change.

Somehow in his polemic he neglected Iraq (possibly because he senses their invasion of Kuwait legitimized US involvement? Interesting omission, that).

We didn’t finish that one either, as Papa Bush and his advisers were worried about “world opinion.” We are not likely to repeat either mistake.

John Halse in Singapore

Mr White, I am sorry that you found my argument for a world body to determine laws and policies ineffective. However you failed to offer a more convincing case for any other system. I find it difficult to understand your solution. On one hand you state you are “not inclined to trust elected politicians of any stripe” then on the other you don’t want to “hand your future to unelected bureaucrats”.

What then Mr White? Leave it up to the military and the covert agencies of the United States to, as you say ,”not repeat mistakes again” and finish things off regardless of world opinion?

My idea of the United Nations making decisions regarding the laws and policies may be Nirvana. The UN certainly needs reform. I would hope discussions like ours and other people – especially the democratically elected leaders – will be able to make the United Nations work. I have faith in democratically elected officials as I know I can always vote again if dissatisfied.

I am appreciative that you have talked to citizens of the countries I mentioned in my previous letter and they supported your view that they are better off since US intervention.

I wonder who you spoke to in Chile, Mr White? Did you speak to the thousands of relatives of the victims of General Pinochet’s regime. The same Pinochet who was supported by the CIA and later lost power due to overwhelming public disquiet with his governance?

In Colombia, Mr White, have you spoken with the 55% of the population living under the poverty line or the countless victims of torture from the actions of the US trained and supported para-military and police?

The reason I “omitted” Iraq, Mr White, was due to the fact that I was listing countries your governments had attacked without United Nations approval.

If the people you spoke to feel better off after US intervention, why then do you need to attack Iraq? Surely this nation is led by a person that your country helped to power, supporting him and his government during attacks on the Kurdish tribes and Iran. Why after this US intervention are the people not better off?

I am cheered by the many letters from your countrymen that oppose your and your President’s blatant warmongering.

It is appropriate, Mr White, that Saddam Hussien and all countries listen to “world opinion”. I do not have the answers, but I know there must be a more sane way than war to solve disputes between nations and help nations to democracy.

Leave a Reply