Arundhati Roy on war

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

But, of course, the author offers NO alternative strategy for dealing with Saddam Hussein.

This is by far the most frustrating aspect of the rhetoric aimed at the war. 12 years of "inspections" did little except enrich French, German and Russians corporate fat cats. Where was the compassion for poor Iraqi children then? The opposition pov seems to be that death and suffering from neglect and blissfully ignoring the problem is somehow infinitely better than trying to do something about it.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by gunkulator
This is by far the most frustrating aspect of the rhetoric aimed at the war. 12 years of "inspections" did little except enrich French, German and Russians corporate fat cats. Where was the compassion for poor Iraqi children then? The opposition pov seems to be that death and suffering from neglect and blissfully ignoring the problem is somehow infinitely better than trying to do something about it.

That arguement only has any weight after 9/11(which had nothing to do with Iaq). There was no reason or will in international or US opinion to invade Iraq. Clinton tried but found it impossible to rally support. Of course there was no will to invade Iraq before Saddam invaded Kuwait either, when he had much more dangerous capabilities.

There has never been any indication that saddam would sell chemical weapons to terrorist groups, hes never done it in the past and even during 12 years of devastating embargoes he has not resorted to extreme or desperate tactics. Its conveniently overlooked that the much talked about Ansar group in northern Iraq is deep in Kurdish controlled territory and is mainly supported by Iran. Oh yeah, have they found the supposed chemical lab there yet?

[Jack the Bodiless]

How is that relevant?

It seems that gunkulator's position is similar to mine. Saddam deserves to go because of his appalling human-rights record (one of the worst in the world).

Frankly, I don't care what the excuse was, I'm just relieved that action is being taken. Just as I was relieved when the Taliban refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden: it provided the political will to put an end to that regime.

[gsmoove23]

One of the worst in the world? What does that mean? Try one of the most publicized in the world. Compared to other 3rd world leaders he's a drop in the bucket. Lets remove em all, that way we can have the worst human rights record in the world. Remember, its the Saddams of this world that make America look good.

[Lincoln]

Re: Arundhati Roy on war

Originally posted by LaRusso
Arundhati Roy
Wednesday April 2, 2003
The Guardian
...So, here's the moral maths as it stands: 200,000 Iraqis estimated to have been killed in the first Gulf war. Hundreds of thousands dead because of the economic sanctions. (At least that lot has been saved from Saddam Hussein.) More being killed every day. Tens of thousands of US soldiers who fought the 1991 war officially declared "disabled" by a disease called the Gulf war syndrome, believed in part to be caused by exposure to depleted uranium...

With this type of math in science we would still be saying the earth is flat. I wonder why he does not mention the number of people tortured in Iraq or the number that Saddam has ordered killed. And why does he not mention that the alternative to war was more years of sanctions that would kill more people? Here is how his math works:

2+2=4 -16=4

[Jack the Bodiless]

One of the worst in the world? What does that mean? Try one of the most publicized in the world. Compared to other 3rd world leaders he's a drop in the bucket.

Which ones are those? There are maybe two or three others in his league, no more.

[Flubber]

a very slanted piece-- every adjective is carefully chosen to set an anti-war tone with really nothing to soften or moderate the bias.

I like that the writer has the freedom to write his opinion and cite his carefully chosen "facts". The right to free speech includes the right to be completely biased.

Personally I find such writing ( whether for or against this war) to be unpersuasive since the bias is so obvious that I find it almost impossible to trust anything they say.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
One of the worst in the world? What does that mean? Try one of the most publicized in the world. Compared to other 3rd world leaders he's a drop in the bucket.

There are of course practical answer to the "why Saddam?" question. The US is not omnipotent and has to choose its battles. Besides gassing his own people invading his neighbors, Saddam controls a large amount of oil which is a vital component for the well being of the industrial world. Those who poo-poo this notion are free to take up walking to prove their ability to go without.

In addition, Saddam's neighbor's provide the US with much needed military bases. No bases = no war. Finally, Saddam has no real allies. Sure there are countries that deplore the war, but they cannot publicly be pro-Saddam. He is a pariah who will be missed by noone when he's gone.

Lets remove em all, that way we can have the worst human rights record in the world.

Not a bad goal, but unattainable. Still, it is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness

[gsmoove23]

Its fine to say I don't mind the war so much because afterwards the new regime will be better to its people. Its foolish to say that this in anyway was the objective. Bush came to power on a platform stating he would avoid just such humanitarian entanglements.

Saddam controlling the oil was in no way a danger to the industrial world, I don't know how you can argue it was. He wanted to sell it as much as we want to buy it. However, US control of the oil will be a great boon to OUR industry, this is true.

[ThePantaloonDog]

There are of course practical answer to the "why Saddam?" question. The US is not omnipotent and has to choose its battles. Besides gassing his own people invading his neighbors, Saddam controls a large amount of oil which is a vital component for the well being of the industrial world. Those who poo-poo this notion are free to take up walking to prove their ability to go without.

The problem with this reasoning is that Saddam is a horrible choice to pick a fight with. He is the secular head of state keeping the country together by means of terror and violence. Iraq is inherently unstable which without a strong government to keep its various factions together will fall into anarchy. An excellent example is the current "governement" in Afghanistan. The state of Iraq will not take to democracy no matter how many troops, loaves of bread, or billions of dollars we poor in.

In addition if you hadn't noticed for the last hundred years the Middle East has known to be a tad unstable and its people a tad defensive of WEstern meddling. I'm sure all of those Arabs reading the newspaper are cheering for the Western hegemon to crush their Arab brothers and sisters. This war is more likely going to increase much of the hatred the Arab world has of the U.S. that's why Saddam was a poor choice.

And this article is worthless. The author must be drowning in her own spittle as she spouts every anti-American 'fact' she's heard. Her article hurts the anti-war movement more than helps it.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Its fine to say I don't mind the war so much because afterwards the new regime will be better to its people. Its foolish to say that this in anyway was the objective. Bush came to power on a platform stating he would avoid just such humanitarian entanglements.

No argument from me. I don't have a clue why Bush thought we needed to be in this fight.

Saddam controlling the oil was in no way a danger to the industrial world, I don't know how you can argue it was. He wanted to sell it as much as we want to buy it.

Control = power. Saddam is enormously wealthy and can afford to shut off the oil for long periods of time. He doesn't care how much this hurts his own people. I'm guessing you didn't live through the 70's oil shocks and witness firsthand how the entire western world can be held hostage to a handful of fabulously rich oil sheiks.

However, US control of the oil will be a great boon to OUR industry, this is true.

Bush's stated goal is to return the country to the control of the Iraqi people, so, no we don't get to keep the oil. If he does not do this, then he is every bit the imperialist that his critics paint him to be.

[gsmoove23]

Bush's stated goal is to return the country to the control of the Iraqi people, so, no we don't get to keep the oil. If he does not do this, then he is every bit the imperialist that his critics paint him to be.

Their are no Iraqi oil companies, but there are American ones. They'll be pumping the oil for a long time to come. Interestingly Bush was asked before the war where the funds for the recontruction of Iraq will come from. The answer? Much will come from international donations but most will be covered by the sale of Iraqi oil. Now, who is going to get most of the rebuilding contracts? American companies. This is all quite plainly stated.

Saddam is enormously wealthy and can afford to shut off the oil for long periods of time. He doesn't care how much this hurts his own people. I'm guessing you didn't live through the 70's oil shocks and witness firsthand how the entire western world can be held hostage to a handful of fabulously rich oil sheiks.

As you said before, Saddam has few friends and even if OPEC was behind him oil production has diversified quite alot since the 70s. If Saddam was ever so foolish to cut off his oil other oil producing coutries would quickly pick up the slack and Iraq would be the only one hurting. His control of the oil in Iraq has never been a danger.

[gunkulator]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by gsmoove23

Now, who is going to get most of the rebuilding contracts? American companies. This is all quite plainly stated.

Of course. Money is what this has always been about. Notice how the countries making the biggest fuss (France, Germany, Russia) were also those profiting the most from their deals with Saddam. I would be shocked if the new gov't did not look more favorably on US companies. The Iraqi people don't give a hoot over which foreign oil company makes the money. For them, a democratic gov't can't possibly be worse than what they had.

If Saddam was ever so foolish to cut off his oil other oil producing coutries would quickly pick up the slack and Iraq would be the only one hurting. His control of the oil in Iraq has never been a danger.

Saddam has made it no secret that he wants all the oil in the ME. His Iran invasion was chiefly in the south were the oil fields are. Kuwait was a prelude to Saudi Arabia. His sons were likely to be no better. The region is more stable with his ilk gone.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by gsmoove23

That arguement only has any weight after 9/11(which had nothing to do with Iaq). There was no reason or will in international or US opinion to invade Iraq. Clinton tried but found it impossible to rally support.

And Bush didn't have much support and went ahead anyway.

Originally posted by gsmoove23

There has never been any indication that saddam would sell chemical weapons to terrorist groups, hes never done it in the past and even during 12 years of devastating embargoes he has not resorted to extreme or desperate tactics.

I would call the selective starvation of his population an extreme tactic. While the connections of this regime to Islamicist terrorists is thin to say the least, Iraq has had a long connection to terrorists, including training, logistical support and sanctuary.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Its fine to say I don't mind the war so much because afterwards the new regime will be better to its people. Its foolish to say that this in anyway was the objective. Bush came to power on a platform stating he would avoid just such humanitarian entanglements.

I don't have to agree with someone's rationale for an action to agree with the action. Just because Bush and company put out a new justification for the war every couple of days doesn't mean that I have to support that particular justification merely because I support the war. Just as various diametrically groups oppose the war doesn't mean that they cannot reach common ground in their opposition. Thus whatever Bush's objective was is immaterial to anyone else's feelings about the war. People agree with the action or disagree for their own reasons.

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Saddam controlling the oil was in no way a danger to the industrial world, I don't know how you can argue it was. He wanted to sell it as much as we want to buy it. However, US control of the oil will be a great boon to OUR industry, this is true.

Wrong on both accounts. Saddam was using his oil money to build up his military, which without provocation (opinions vary in regard to Iranian actions prior to the first Gulf War) has attacked three strategically important countries since he rose to power. Two major oil producing states and nuclear armed Israel. The invasion of Kuwait forced much of the industrialized world to react by puting the lives of their troops on the line. A series of planned terrorist acts against Western interests were thwarted by close cooperation between a number of states during Operation Desert Shield / Desert Storm. A nuclear weapons program was well under way when it was brought to a halt by coalition forces in 1991. The man was a danger to the whole world, though perhaps not a mortal danger to most of it.

As for the Iraqi oil, it isn't going to help the U.S. much, as we are going to let them sell it and use the money to rebuild. I think it very likely that much of the tab for getting the Iraqi oil industry back on its feet will be picked up by the Coalition of the Willing or other members of the international community. Why not use the oil money to pay for the reconstruction of the oil industry? Because Iraq owes about four years of oil revenues in debts to other states and entities. There simply isn't enough oil money generated in Iraq to rebuild itself and service its debt simultaneously, not to mention enough for the U.S. to skim a profit in addition. The United States isn't going to profit from this war by any measure, though certain companies who have political pull will of course manage to make some of our tax money back in profits. A truly crooked administration would just take the billions we will spend on the war and reconstruction, cancel the invasion and use it to pay off people directly, leveraging that money tenfold.