veiled4allah: oppose war, indict Saddam veiled4allah: oppose war, indict SaddamOpposing a War in Iraq is essential because such a war would undoubtedly be detrimental most to the Iraqi people. At the same time, only opposing a war, without anything further, implies that Saddam Hussein should remain in power to perpetuate his well-documented crimes against the Iraqi people and others. In other words, while decrying what might happen to the Iraqi people during a war, the anti-war movement is forgetting that Iraqi's are suffering and dying at the hands of one of the most brutal dictators the world has seen since World War II.Later, he says:
The alternatives are not just "War" or "Keep Saddam". There are other alternatives. Using established international law, Saddam could be indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. His crimes are no less than the Serb, Rwandan or Cambodian defendants now facing trial in international war crimes tribunals. Anyone truly interested in the welfare of the Iraqi people must not only oppose war but also call for the freeing of the Iraqi people from Saddam's brutal rule, and hold him accountable for his crimes.I oppose war on Iraq not because I support Saddam Hussein in any way. Certainly not! But I don't believe that war is the answer. He's a brutal thug who kills his citizens, so we should respond by killing more Iraqis and further devastating an already devastated country? I don't think so.
All comments are copyright their authors
Here's who's pinging me:
(no pings yet)The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in veiled4allah as of Mar 02, 2006:
View a list of all entries in veiled4allah
This entry has been tagged as covering the following subjects: antiwar. The following is a list of the ten most recent entries in Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs that share any of these tags:
A semantic analysis of this entry also suggests the following keywords to search for related content on: saddam hussein, iraqi people, war crimes, north korea, why should, war, iraq, saddam, Iraq, Saddam, people, hussein, Hussein, should, iraqi, think, Iraqi, iraqis, Iraqis, why, world, get, crimes, really, see
What links here: View a list of other entries in this blog (if any) that link to this entry
Or look generally for informational pages on my website tagged with antiwar
A semantic search of Al-Muhajabah's Islamic Blogs suggests the following as the ten entries most closely related to this entry:
Check out other web pages (if any) that I've bookmarked via del.icio.us that share the same tags: antiwar
Explore reference materials from Answers.com about these subjects: antiwar
Read news stories at Common Times about these subjects: antiwar
View search results at gada.be metasearch service for these subjects: antiwar
Find books at Amazon.com on these subjects: antiwar
Check Waypath for blog entries generally related to this entry, or Technorati or Bloglines for blog entries that link to this entry.
Technorati tags: View blog entries, bookmarks and photos tagged by others with the same subjects as this entry: antiwar
For external resources on the topic of this entry, you can run a search for its title oppose war, indict saddam (Google, DayPop, Feedster) or keyword(s) antiwar (Google, DayPop, Feedster). DayPop is a search engine similar to Google that focuses on searching news sources and blogs. Feedster searches blogs via RSS feeds.
Sure, it'd be great to see Saddam indicted for war crimes, but the fact is that's not going to happen without force. War criminals are only nabbed after they lose power; that is, after a war to unseat them. Look at Slobodan Milosevic, or the Nazi war criminals.
As for the Iraqi people bearing most of the cost of a war (in terms of civilian deaths), that's inevitably true, and it's tragic. But the fact is, they currently pay 100% of the cost - and as the writer notes, that cost is pretty high. Thousands of undesirables imprisoned or executed, torture, etc. Will civilians die in any invasion? Yes. Will civilians die if there is no invasion? Yes. I just don't see the prospect of civilian deaths as a debate-ending thing -WHEN CIVILIANS DIE EVERY DAY under Saddam.
I don't know why the Bush admin doesn't play up the alleviation of Iraq's suffering angle. They're so convinced that the only thing that matters to anyone is his capacity to harm the US. That's not really the point; it wasn't in 1991, and it isn't now.
the link to the article is blocked, I can't access the site, and would really like to read the article.
is it possible to copy/paste the article in a email ?
I know I'm a nuisance, everybody tells me so.
thanks
Marc - No, we don't know that because we haven't really bothered to try. Bush seems to be just going through the motions so that he can get his war on. I believe that if we made a real concerted effort, we could do it, and my morality demands that we try first before going out to kill innocent people. C'mon, we're the most powerful country in the world and we can't find a way to make a dictator of a broken-down third world country do our bidding? Ridiculous!
"To avoid a war, I would recommend that some provision be made so that the senior leadership in that country and their families could be provided haven in some other country," Mr Rumsfeld said in response to reports that Saudi and Turkish officials were urging Mr Hussein to accept amnesty and exile. This deal has effectively been made to Saddam Hussein and he has refused it. I fail to see any way in which we could get him to "do our bidding".
This isn't a video game, Nick. This is WAR. Like what happened to America on 9/11 over and over and over again.
Do you truly believe that we have done everything possible to avoid a war and remove Saddam Hussein through non-military means? Do you truly believe that we have exhausted every possible option but to rain down death on the helpless people of Iraq? I'm sorry, but you and I must be living in different worlds if you really think that.
I certainly hope you've signed up for the armed forces so that you can personally see all the death and destruction you are so eager to bring to Iraq. Or do you only want other people to do the fighting and the dying? How convenient for you.
What would happen if the US/UN decided to pursue Saddam for war crimes?
Well, first and foremost, it would completely end the "chance" to end the conflict peacefully. We can still pretend that, should Saddam disarm, then the crisis will blow over. But not if you're going to charge him with war crimes from the past. It would be a done deal then -- the question would be, how do you get him.
So the US brings it up at the SC. First thing that happens: critics point out that the US has supported war criminals in the past, so what makes Saddam so special? Others will call it an intrusion of nat'l. sovereignty -- how can the UN just throw it's weight around accusing "legit" leaders of war crimes, etc etc.
And, of course, countries like China and Russia, not to mention smaller ones like North Korea, Iran and half of Africa wouldn't be too happy, seeing it as a dangerous precedent that might come back to haunt them after the US is done with Iraq.
But let's say the US uses its pressure and gets the SC to sign off on a resolution, a warrant even, demanding Hussein's extradition for war crimes. They say that Saddam must appear before the international court, or face "serious consequences." Does Saddam show up to the doors of the UN with his lawyer? Doubtful. He sends poor Tariq Aziz out in front of the cameras to say "This is an outrage. American/British Aggression against the peace-loving people of Iraq will not be tolerated. Saddam has never committed a single crime against anyone. We challenge you to prove it."
Then the world says "Ah-hah -- the Iraqis are right! The US must prove their contention that Iraq has committed war crimes!" So the US gets a UN team to start canvassing people, putting together the case. They bring it back to the SC, but those who oppose this movement won't listen -- they say that "War is never justified." Those unwilling to go that far will say "You have not proved your case enough -- how is this a threat to us, after all?"
So the US must then decide -- do they make good on their duty to enforce their warrant, or do they simply let it slide becasue many oppose war no matter how brutal Saddam is?
In this case, with Bush at the helm, we can assume he goes in regardless. He is called a cowboy, a warmonger, a racist, etc etc. But he wages war against the Saddam regime because the inability to enforce a warrant makes the whole point of accusing Hussein of War Crimes just a PR game.
I hope the parallels between our current situation and the one proposed by the Iraqi jurist are clear. Laws are not self-enforcing (I'm sure you know this, considering your profession). If you want to propose unseating Saddam for humanitarian reason, I will sign the petition -- for it is this reason above all others that lead me to support the current US position. But in the end it will mean the same thing. If Hussein will not go, he will be made to go. Anything else is public relations.
Thanks for your site -- I will return often.
Adam in Montreal
The entire point of my previous post was that he already has all the incentive we can give him. We have offered(today Bush said it directly instead of having lower officials hint at it) that he and his top officials can go into exile. If he fails to do so, then he can count on either being killed during the war, or tried for crimes against humanity after it. I fail to see how we can give him any further incentives to step down and you have not offered any suggestions.
I certainly hope you've signed up for the armed forces so that you can personally see all the death and destruction you are so eager to bring to Iraq. Or do you only want other people to do the fighting and the dying? How convenient for you.
Where have I said anything in favor of war, never mind expressed eagerness for it?
Maybe we need to widen the scope of our debate. What exactly do you believe is the reason we need to go to war? Is it to stop Saddam Hussein from preying on his own people? Or is it because you feel that Iraq poses a threat to the U.S.? There are lots of other countries with repressive dictators. Why start with Iraq and why do it immediately? Do you think we should also make war on other repressive dicatatorships? If so, when? As soon as we finish with Iraq? What's your criterion for deciding who's next? Do you think that making war on a whole series of repressive dictatorships one after the other is really the best use of America's time, money, resources, and lives? Isn't there a less costly way to improve the world? Or if you don't think we should make war on other repressive dictatorships, why is Iraq unique?
I think if you can answer these questions for me it would help me understand your position much better.
As for my comment about your being eager for war, you're correct. It was based on my interpretation of your position not on anything that you've said. You seem to be jumping to war so quickly that I assumed you must be eager for it in some way. War is a terrible thing, not to be embarked on without a lot more thought than we seem to be giving it. You seemed to be saying in #4 that war is OK because Saddam Hussein was going to kill those people anyway? Huh? War is a lot worse than the current situation. Tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of innocent people are going to die either directly from our bombing or indirectly because of the devastation of Iraq's infrastructure. Do you really truly believe that we need to do this, that there is NO other way?
We also recognize that the threatened war in Iraq is not one of humanitarian intervention, but one designed, according to the public statements of the U.S. government, to deprive the Iraqi government of its alleged chemical and biological weapons, to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons, and to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Although in making a case for war George Bush has referred to the Iraqi government's severe repression, this is clearly a subsidiary argument to his call to address Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction and to force "regime change." There can be little doubt that if Saddam Hussein were overthrown and any weapons of mass destruction reliably surrendered, there would be no war, even if the successor government were just as repressive.
1) A nuclear armed Iraq is simply too dangerous a proposition. The Hussein regime is reckless, aggressive, and Saddam fancies himself the modern Saladin -- but a Saladin who hasn't liberated a thing yet. A nuclear armed Iraq, like the currently armed North Korea, will be able to dmand real concesions from its neighbours and prepare his "final liberations" -- be it Jerusalem, Mecca or Tehran. A nuclear armed Iraq is an unnacceptable shift in the ME balance of power.
2) The only way we've been able to even slow his ongoing attempts to acquire these arms is through heavy sanctions, sanctions which are so devastating to the Iraqi people that we (the West) end up looking like heartless, baby-killing monsters inevitably. And were I an Iraqi, I doubt I'd think much different. Why should Iraqis suffer for their leader's thieiving of money intended for them through the Oil for Food programs? Why should Iraqis suffer for their leader's golden palaces? And, perhaps most importantly, why should they suffer because we can't figure out how to contain this creature Saddam? But if we remove sanctions completely, Saddam will surely get his bomb. If we don't remove him, we are forced to maintain the sanctions, and the Iraqis continue to suffer. Consider this: as many as may die in the invasion of Iraq, it is almost guaranteed that more will die in another decade of sanctions. So which is worse, in the long run?
3) Iraq is a prison state built on torture and fear. Like Nazi Germany before it, North Korea now, and Zimbabwe very shortly, it's run by a gang who have lost their basic right to rule by simply jettisoning the basic rights of humanity. Some states are beyond the pale, to my mind. it's not a black and white issue, and we can debate "who comes next" and what that means, but if you believe in human rights, you have to believe that some basic rights are worth enforcing.
I would have said Hussein's own coup, what with its brutalily and trumped up trials, should have put him beyond the pale. that the US tried to do business with him in his insane war with Iran is to the US's shame. That they've come round is a good thing, not something to accuse them even more for. Would we be happier if they were supporting Hussein still?
The pressure we can bring to the US now is to force them to behave appropriately in a liberated Iraq. To demand that the world pay attention and get involved. To demand that the neighbouring states do not start their usual tricks of subterfuge and election rigging. To demand that the Iraqis (like the Kosovars) eventually rule themsleves without outside interference.
But none of that is possible without removing Hussein and his gang first.
Sorry for rambling. I like your perspective, and have enjoyed reading the many comments. You get a good class of commenters, and I hope I've added something to the debate.
Regarding the WMD, I still see little evidence that Saddam Hussein has any and less evidence that he would either give them to terrorists or use them on the U.S. As the quote from Human Rights Watch points out, Bush's stated justification for the war is these WMDs and the threat they allegedly pose to the U.S. and that's by far the weakest argument he can make.
The point of the orginal blog entry is basically a question of tactics. We agree that Saddam Hussein is a brutal murdering tyrant, we disagree about the way to get rid of him. I am not convinced that a war that will devastate the Iraqi population and infrastructure is the right way to get rid of him. I think that the "collateral damage" is too high. Surely there must be a way to get rid of him without killing as many of his people as he does. You should also visit Body and Soul which has been dealing directly with the question of enforcing human rights without making war.
I am not saying that we should never make war for humanitarian reasons. I do however feel that because the human cost of war itself is so high, we should try every possible non-military option before we say "well, he was going to kill them anyway". Bush seems to be pursuing war as a first choice not a last resort and I find that deeply troubling.
I actually agree that the current WMD argument isn't the strongest (for me) argument to support the regime change. For me it's the tyranny of Saddam. I'm not really much of a believer in "national soveriegnty" in the face of such horrors. As I said, I think rulers abrogate their rights to rule when they go too far. Of course, what that "too far" is highly contestable, and I'm still trying to figure out what that would mean, even hypothetically.
I also worry that the WMD argument will get us into the awful spot of Hussein taking off to live with Idi Amin in Saudi, and some new Ba'athist creep taking power. If the Bush admin goes for this I will be horrified. I believe in regime change -- not just leader change, but that the entire system that imprisons Iraqis has to change, at least as far as the Iraqi people themselves wish to change it. I am assuming they would all be happy to do away with secret police and torture prisons.
Still, the WMD argument as framed by the UN doesn't have to provide anybody with evidence that they exist or don't. We know they exist because when Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 98, we'd already found them -- VX agents and Anthrax.
What we've been demanding (I'm in Canada, but consider the "we" to mean the UN) is that Iraq prove their claim that they destroyed the weapons. They haven't, and they won't.
Or take the negative proof argument -- if Hussein was really WMD free all these years, why the refusal to let inspectors back in to verify, until the US held a proverbial gun to his head? Why put up with the sanctions one more day?
Anyway, what you've been arguing most strongly (and to which I have little response) is that the invasion will do more harm than good. I don't live in Iraq. I don't have to imagine what to do with my family when the bombing starts. I don't have to hope the "smart" bombs aren't as stupid as last time.
But I do know that there are a good number of Iraqis who are hoping for real change, and see the invasion as the only way to achieve it.
Here's an article you might find interesting.
The Fire Last Time
Well, it's horrific, and also entirely anecdotal. But, just as I came to see how wrong the sanctions have been from eyewitness stories, so I think this article shows why the Hussein regime needs to be stopped, sooner rather than later. But it also shows that Iraqis had that chance, and the US blew it by renegging on a spoken pledge that I still remember hearing with my own ears. If there is any place to put real blame for American involvment making a bad situation worse, it is here.
Here's an idea: is there any way people can start thinking of ways to get help to Iraq once the war is over? Can it be done through your website? Do you have any access to Iraqis now? We should all probably start thinking about this now. Our help will be needed soon.
Take care,
Adam in Montreal
Regarding helping Iraqis, I personally don't have any special connections or resources. But I think the best thing we as individuals can do is work with private charities. I have been planning to put together a static page for my website with resources about Iraq, mostly links with information. But I will also be on the lookout for organizations that are working to help Iraqis.
Thanks for the link to the story by Zainab Al-Suwaij. It was truly moving. I've edited your comment to make it a hyperlink. I wish I felt more confident that the Iraqi people won't be betrayed again.
Subject: peace cannot be forced it must be understood (albert einstein)
albert einstein stated "PEACE CAN'T BE FORCED IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD" it only works on people who have the ability to understand this. not a tyrant who thrives on dominating peoples lives and giving them no freedom to pursue their own liberties as a human being.a special letter from CHRIS HOSTILE san diego, california
BORN AND RAISED IN NEW YORK
for those of you against the war in iraq
you really need to do some research on what's going on in iraq
first off we finally killed a very infamous rapist and killer of women which by the way is totally leagal for the iraqi regime. testing chemical weapons as well as biological weapons on innocent women and oh my god children as he watched the results of the experiments while eating his lunch in front of the victims. yes the one the only uday hussein. one down more to go. then we got the chemical general. gone!!! this is a guy who with no remorse delibrately sent chemical weapons to northern iraq which is occupied by the kurd which is pretty much an outcast group of people just trying to find their own state and country. not much different than the jews in isreal not too long ago. saddam wow let's talk about this guy for a few. this is a military leader that took over iraq intending on turning iraq into his own world where people have little to no rights esspecially the freedom of speach which many of you american people seem to be voicing your opinon (which you can get tortured and killed for as well as your family in iraq) about how we should not be there. he has also lied to the united nations stating that "how can we use weapons of mass destruction on the us troops when we just destroyed them all" notice the first three missles that were fired at our troops in kuwait where scud missles which they just said that they DO NOT HAVE . as well as putting antiaircraft batteries and military targets next to schools and residental neiborhoods for the effect that saddam can go on tv saying that we are bombing cililian targets to create outrage for the united states citisens just like what's we've been seeing on television protesting. our humanitarian wave is directly following the troops helping the people immediately after we go through. if the situation was reversed do you really think saddam would do the same for the american people. i think not. now think this again.should we go to war for this yes ??? am i a war monger or do i want a war NO. but however unfortunately the united states is the only country in the world to take action and wow we started a trend from three counties to over 40 around the world have now joined up with us. i guess we are the police of the world someone has to be. do you think france is going to do it. this is a country that let hitler just walk in and take over without firing a shot during wwII. in fact let's check this out france as of 12 pm noon time california sat france has just sent troops to the region maybe they finally started to realize that it's time to actually do something instead of sitting around complaining. if find it hard to believe that here in california where most of you people are so into life eating right and excersizing education as well as being relatively overly nice to everyone out here. can find these people to be welcome in this world. please send me your adress so i can mail you a plane ticket to iraq or one of these other countries where you are not liberated and free and then come back to me and tell me you're still against this war. yes people die yes families will be lost as well as women and children will be killed during the attacks. but remember this WE DIDN'T PUT THE IRAQI CILIVIANS IN THE LINE OF FIRE SADDAM DID. protesting and marching just causes more violence if you havent' noticed in san francisco as well as egypt. if you really are against the war in iraq this is what you should do. go to iraq and try to reason with saddam to walk away from his stand if he really loves his people then he would do anything to protect them (am i right??) not put them in the line of fire. i do pray that this war will be over quickly and with little casulties but that's up to our troops and the support of the world esspecially the american people.
Yours is the first Muslim persons blog I have read. What you are saying does make sense; however it is also an unfortunate fact that when these atrocities were happening, when these solutions were open, the anti-war lobby did nothing to help the Iraqi people. These Anti war people, if they really cared about the Iraqi people - and thought they could do something without resorting to war, should have done so when they had the chance. Having said all this I hope future and current dispicable regimes are dealt with in a more civilised manner.
In your view the three points you have mentioned are STRONG justifications to opress and demand from Iraq to comply without FULL AUTHORIZATION OF UNITED NATIONS........ IS THIS WHAT DEMOCRACY STANDS FOR IN THIS WORLD
Think about it from the other side of the table, if you were on the receiving end of those devestating bombings which has taken innocent lives of children and other Iraqis - WOULD YOU CLASSIFY THAT UNDER DEMOCRATIC VALUES
In your honest view "WHAT IS THE MAJOR INCENTIVE OF USA BLOWING $100+ Billion AND LOSING LIVES OF THEIR SOLDIERS AND COMMITTING MURDERS IN IRAQ??" Give it a deep thought!!
Originally posted by Adam Barken -
In ref. to your back and forth with Nick, I wanted to put forth my 3 interconnected reasons for supporting the removal of the Hussein regime. They're not in order of importance so much as ordered for clarity.
1) A nuclear armed Iraq is simply too dangerous a proposition. The Hussein regime is reckless, aggressive, and Saddam fancies himself the modern Saladin -- but a Saladin who hasn't liberated a thing yet. A nuclear armed Iraq, like the currently armed North Korea, will be able to dmand real concesions from its neighbours and prepare his "final liberations" -- be it Jerusalem, Mecca or Tehran. A nuclear armed Iraq is an unnacceptable shift in the ME balance of power.
2) The only way we've been able to even slow his ongoing attempts to acquire these arms is through heavy sanctions, sanctions which are so devastating to the Iraqi people that we (the West) end up looking like heartless, baby-killing monsters inevitably. And were I an Iraqi, I doubt I'd think much different. Why should Iraqis suffer for their leader's thieiving of money intended for them through the Oil for Food programs? Why should Iraqis suffer for their leader's golden palaces? And, perhaps most importantly, why should they suffer because we can't figure out how to contain this creature Saddam? But if we remove sanctions completely, Saddam will surely get his bomb. If we don't remove him, we are forced to maintain the sanctions, and the Iraqis continue to suffer. Consider this: as many as may die in the invasion of Iraq, it is almost guaranteed that more will die in another decade of sanctions. So which is worse, in the long run?
3) Iraq is a prison state built on torture and fear. Like Nazi Germany before it, North Korea now, and Zimbabwe very shortly, it's run by a gang who have lost their basic right to rule by simply jettisoning the basic rights of humanity. Some states are beyond the pale, to my mind. it's not a black and white issue, and we can debate "who comes next" and what that means, but if you believe in human rights, you have to believe that some basic rights are worth enforcing.
I would have said Hussein's own coup, what with its brutalily and trumped up trials, should have put him beyond the pale. that the US tried to do business with him in his insane war with Iran is to the US's shame. That they've come round is a good thing, not something to accuse them even more for. Would we be happier if they were supporting Hussein still?
The pressure we can bring to the US now is to force them to behave appropriately in a liberated Iraq. To demand that the world pay attention and get involved. To demand that the neighbouring states do not start their usual tricks of subterfuge and election rigging. To demand that the Iraqis (like the Kosovars) eventually rule themsleves without outside interference.
But none of that is possible without removing Hussein and his gang first.
Sorry for rambling. I like your perspective, and have enjoyed reading the many comments. You get a good class of commenters, and I hope I've added something to the debate.