Midnight Oil

[Powderworks] Re:NMOC - mural and war

Jacques Cuneo jccuneo@bellsouth.net
Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:55:51 -0600


>I don't mind if people of other countries don't like
>America (whatever the reason).  I just don't agree
>with letting dictatitorial governments supressing
>free-speach and abusing human rights.  It is also
>different if a country develops weapons and if they
>actually use them.  I also don' think it is right for
>a government to allow religious groups and the
>educational system to promote hate of other cultures
>and religions. >>
>The question is, even assuming any of what you said is true of Iraq, does 
>this justify/lead to the conclusion that some country should kill thousands 
>of their soldiers, who knows how many civilians and kids, and level their 
>cities -- with a horrible, terrifying war machine that makes that country 
>look like the bad guys to most of the rest of the planet?

Let's work under the style of thinking that all life is precious and that
we are all created equal.  It is no coincedence that this is a view
espoused particularly heavily by those of the "left" side of the fence - it
helps make my point.  So far during Saddam's 25 year tenure (well, since
'79, but we'll round off):

- He killed 50,000 or so Kurds by chemical warfare
- He has killed ~250,000 of his own citizens for political reasons
- He has starved ~400,000 of his own country's children to feed his army
(saw this on ABC, a "lefty tilted" news organization, just yesterday)
- He was responsible for starting the Iran Iraq war, a conflict in which
500,000 to 1,000,000 people died (estimates vary), including some by
chemical warfare again.  We'll split the difference and go with 750,000.
- Invaded Kuwait and was resonsible for ~100,000 deaths or so

So, in 25 years of rule he has been responsible for the extinguishing of
~1.5 MILLION lives.  That works out to 60,000 people a year consumed by his
"presidency".  This, of course, doesn't account for the institutional rape,
torture and other atrocities committed on the still living.  So if we lose
100 troops (or 500, or 1,000) to save 60,000 x the next 20 years (another
million people), is that worth it?  

Regardless of all thoughts of conspiracies concerning oil money (not that
its politically feasable to divert it for the US's use in the current
political climate) or rebuilding contracts (Cheney's old company is the one
who cleaned up the 1991 fires and is pretty much unique in its capabilities
to clean up here - they were a natural choice to do it again.  It is a
shame that this coincedence raises the stink of conspiracy - I wish they
found someone else).  Even if both of those are true or false, is the
deposing of a leader responsible for all those things listed above worth
it?   In my mind, it isn't even close.  

Stalin killed 10 million or so during his rule.  Hitler is in the same
ballpark.  The only reason Saddam isn't right up there is opportunity.

>And does it mean WE have to do it?
We have found out very quickly that a policy of appeasement has once again
gripped most of Europe (excluding many brave countries including Spain,
Britain, Poland, and others) as well as many other countries.  If WE didn't
do it, who would?

Once again, those who do not learn from the lessons of history are doomed
to repeat it.

>And does it mean we shouldn't have even attempted more containment and diplom
>acy (and, for god's sake, ANYTHING but WAR) before we became KILLERS?  
>Shouldn't a war like this always always always be the last last last resort?
Killers?  Saddam is starving people at the rate of 25,000 a year (most have
been recent, from what I understand).  There won't be anywhere near that
many civilian casualties in this war.

KILLERS? This war will SAVE lives, in just about any way you care to count
it.  The numbers speak for themselves.

Take care.