- The war drums are beating, louder and louder. Iraq, Iran,
and North Korea have been forewarned. Plans have been laid and, for all
we know, already initiated, for the overthrow and assassination of Saddam
Hussein.
-
- There's been talk of sabotage, psychological warfare,
arming domestic rebels, killing Hussein, and even an outright invasion
of Iraq with hundreds of thousands of US troops. All we hear about in the
biased media is the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein, with little regard
for how this, in itself, might totally destabilize the entire Middle East
and Central Asia. It could, in fact, make the Iraq "problem"
much worse.
-
- The assumption is that, with our success in Afghanistan,
we should now pursue this same policy against any country we choose, no
matter how flimsy the justification. It hardly can be argued that it is
because authoritarian governments deserve our wrath, considering the number
of current and past such governments that we have not only tolerated but
subsidized.
-
- Protestations from our Arab allies are silenced by our
dumping more American taxpayer dollars upon them.
-
- European criticism that the United States is now
following
a unilateral approach is brushed off, which only causes more apprehension
in the European community. Widespread support from the eager media pumps
the public to support the warmongers in the administration.
-
- The pro and cons of how dangerous Saddam Hussein actually
is are legitimate. However, it is rarely pointed out that the CIA has found
no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks
of 9/11.
-
- Rarely do we hear that Iraq has never committed any
aggression
against the United States. No one in the media questions our aggression
against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed
sanctions
responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children.
-
- Iraq's defense of her homeland can hardly be
characterized
as aggression against those who rain bombs down on them. We had to go over
6,000 miles to pick this fight against a third-world nation with little
ability to defend itself.
-
- Our policies have actually served to generate support
for Saddam Hussein, in spite of his brutal control of the Iraq people.
He is as strong today - if not stronger - as he was prior to the Persian
Gulf War 12 years ago.
-
- Even today, our jingoism ironically is driving a closer
alliance between Iraq and Iran, two long-time bitter enemies.
-
- While we trade with, and subsidize to the hilt, the
questionable
government of China, we place sanctions on and refuse to trade with Iran
and Iraq, which only causes greater antagonism. But if the warmongers'
goal is to have a war, regardless of international law and the
Constitution,
current policy serves their interests.
-
- Could it be that only through war and removal of certain
governments we can maintain control of the oil in this region? Could it
be all about oil, and have nothing to do with US national security?
-
- Too often when we dictate who will lead another country,
we only replace one group of thugs with another - as we just did in
Afghanistan
- with the only difference being that the thugs we support are expected
to be puppet-like and remain loyal to the US, or else.
-
- Although bits and pieces of the administration's plans
to wage war against Iraq and possibly Iran and North Korea are discussed,
we never hear any mention of the authority to do so. It seems that Tony
Blair's approval is more important than the approval of the American
people!
-
- Congress never complains about its lost prerogative to
be the sole declarer of war. Astoundingly, Congress is only too eager to
give war power to our presidents through the back door, by the use of some
fuzzy resolution that the president can use as his justification. And once
the hostilities begin, the money always follows, because Congress fears
criticism for not "supporting the troops." But putting soldiers
in harm's way without proper authority, and unnecessarily, can hardly be
the way to "support the troops."
-
- Let it be clearly understood - there is no authority
to wage war against Iraq without Congress passing a Declaration of War.
HJ RES 65, passed in the aftermath of 9/11, does not even suggest that
this authority exists. A UN Resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq,
even if it were to come, cannot replace the legal process for the United
States going to war as precisely defined in the Constitution. We must
remember
that a covert war is no more justifiable, and is even more
reprehensible.
-
- Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent
of the people. The planned war against Iraq without a Declaration of War
is illegal. It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are
likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do
with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against
us.
-
- We must understand that the American people become less
secure when we risk a major conflict driven by commercial interests and
not constitutionally authorized by Congress. Victory under these
circumstances
is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable.
-
- http://www.lewrockwell.com
|
