February 6, 2003 War on Iraq: a matter of consequence
Given all the evidence and circumstances as of today, one day after Colin Powell's presentation to the U. N. Security Council, two courses of action are open before us with fundamentally different results. In the peaceful means of disarmament, when the Iraqis have instantly agreed to allow high altitude surveillance airplanes to accompany U. N. inspection and unsupervised interview of its scientists by U N inspectors, disarmament of Iraq to the satisfaction of the rest of the world can be done. But, as we all know, the mighty killing machine of that super power United States can do that much quicker, much more efficiently, much more convincingly and much more horrifically though not necessarily more thoroughly.
Even if we are to treat Powell's U. N. report as indisputable truth, not half truth or a big lie, the aforementioned Iraqi concessions in response to the Powell speech make it possible for increased numbers of U. N inspectors to disarm, monitor and dispel remaining doubts about Iraq. Without a war, Iraq is more and more complying with U. N. demands. If so, why is force needed?
Because the U.S. A. is attempting to convince the world to wage a war which it can easily kill millions to win to its own benefit, third parties have no right to simply listen to just one side. Iraqi claims must also be examined. In so doing, we have to maintain absolute neutrality which requires also a scientific and objective assessment of Powell's evidence. Otherwise, the prosecution can get its way without evidence. People however innocent they may be, can be executed or rather, murdered in the name of justice just on basis of lies or innuendos. To avoid this kind of tragic tyranny, we must also scrutinize Powell's speech.
Some of the most alarming information had come from human sources which in my experience often are politically and or financially motivated, using fabrications to achieve these gains. Suppose the mobile biological weapons production system purported by one of them is indeed in existence in Iraq, an all out military invasion into Iraq wouldn't do a much better job than what the satellites and soon U-2 reconnaissance flights in cooperation with the U.N. inspectors can do together. If not half truth, or a big lie, mobile biolabs can be tracked down too. How else did you know their exitence to begin with? Or just guessed? The task is to locate and destroy them if they insist, and not kill millions first just to find nothing at all. The other weapon of mass destruction, chemical agents, was inferred being in existence in Iraq from some wireless phone calls between two Iraqi soldiers. In Powell's presentation, a colonel was telling a Capt. Ibrahim to remove the expression " nerve agents " from " wireless instructions. " Powell pointed out that this demonstrated these Iraqis' awareness of being listened to by others. That's why nerve agents must be removed from wireless instructions to ensure that those listening in on them wouldn't know of the nerve agents' existence. One thing that puzzles me is how stupid that Iraqi colonel was. To prevent nerve agents being heard by snoopers, he went out all the way to use a radio, an obvious wireless communication tool. If he were a little more intelligent, his instruction would not have been wireless. Unless he is that dumb, this conversation never took place or did not come from genuine Iraqi soldiers. If an Iraqi colonel can be that retarded, surely we must allow them time to digest the gravity of the situation they are facing. Only when they have understood the serious consequences of non-compliance could they properly respond to avoid them.
February 17, 2003
On basis of the evidence given, the two crucial weapons of mass destruction claimed by the U.S. A. to be in Iraqi possession may not be in existence in Iraq at all. The other danger outlined by Powell was the so called nexus with the terrorist bin Laden organization. However, as seen in the following passages, it may be only bin Laden's one sided effort to get others involved in his own plot.
February 15, 2003 (2:19pm): Even I on 9-1-1 2000 or days thereafter detected the Etel message ""("Take or exact vengeance for him."). At that time, I was in Shenzhen China. My first thoughts were "I don't do these things. Don't say I did it." Obviously we can all have a little or lots of grievances against the U.S.A. But that's not how we deal with them. It's like having a fight with a classmate. It does not follow at all that a quarrel or fight should end in bloodshed. There has to be an appropriate civilized behaviour, not in any way "bang, bang, bang." So, clearly I can't let him draw me into his way of doing things. He wants to get all those having a grudge against the U.S.A. to go along with him or support or join him. But that's not how things work. I tell you this: "I have nothing to do with him." That's quite obvious. Similarly, Saddam Hussein may have nothing to do with his activities either. Although Osama bin Laden is shouting slogans of unity with him, at the same time he accuses Saddam of being an "infidel." It's unlikely that, unless forced into an U.S.-imposed war, he would really cooperate with Osama to get himself in trouble. In this respect, Saddam's denying having ties with him can be considered the truth.
Of course, people could trust me. They can see that I couldn't have any links with him and that I have my own way of doing things. This is not so the case with Saddam whom the Americans distrust. That's why there is that danger of unwarranted suspicion on this issue. So far, nothing suggests Saddam Hussein has anything to do with him. It's just bin Laden's one-sided recruiting effort.
February 17, 2003
Sure, nothing beats going in there to take a look for ourselves. But this is a very very dangerous attitude to take and practice to pursue. Otherwise, we would have to do away with everybody's right to privacy. People would be everywhere looking into everybody else's bedrooms just to ensure that no one is hiding weapons of mass destruction.
February 18, 2003
Besides, of course it's so much easier just to bomb than search every building. But that's not how we do things. We can't demolish everything just because we are too lazy to search.
18 February 2003
Another dangerous attitude taken by the Bush administration or by many so-called self righteous " guardians of peace " is this: "We are here to use force to maintain peace." If indeed that is the case, the other side has to have started the war already or is about to strike, or will be attacking if not stopped right now. Otherwise, anyone using war in the name of peace is the first one and the only one waging a war now or ever for this potential conflict. In other words, in the name or in the hope of or in the wish or with the excuse that war is the only way to maintain peace, war is fought now, imposed on another nation which otherwise would never have started or fought a war within the present context.
In the present situation, if Iraq can be disarmed without a war, still waging a war is obviously to replace its leadership, not to maintain peace but to wage a war. A lie cannot be greater than yelling peace while starting a war. It's like gunning down a helpless child with the excuse that it was necessary to shoot him to keep the peace. We want to maintain peace, but we are the only ones getting a war going. Without our war, no war would have erupted. Who has imposed a war on mankind? They or we? Need I yell over your lies? The gravest danger in following this line of action is for the whole world to support war in the name of peace when peace could have been maintained without war. People are waging wars to achieve objectives other than maintintaing peace--because without these wars,the world would have enjoyed peace. So, the warmongers are the very ones killing millions while yelling "peace." They can even go one step further and conquer the whole world in the name of peace: Without these wars of conquest, they would have waged war on us! We only did what's necessary to defend oursleves and keep peace. Now it's all peace. None can ever defy us. They have been all disarmed. Ha, ha, ha!
Certainly we don't want to live in a world pursuing this line of seemingly "peace-loving" conquest.
As of now, on the one hand, American evidence against Iraq is rather shady or shaky. On the other hand, Iraq is gradually making the necessary concessions to disarm. When millions of lives and a basic principle of war and peace on earth is on trial or at stake, it's not good enough for the Americans just to say: "You just have to trust us" before the rest of the world would follow its plunge into war. The USA has to convince us that war is essential to disarm Saddam and that failure to disarm him would mean future Iraqi aggression into its neighbors or threat against the USA.
February 14, 2003 (6:38pm) About 2 days ago (Wednesday, 12, February, 2003), Colin Powell declared that he would welcome an UN-sponsored Saddam exile, taking along with him his top-ranking officials. Today, Bush stated that he would disarm Iraq one way or the other. 18/2/03: Over the weekend, Bush responded to the world-wide peace demonstrations with "I respect their view but they don't seem to realize Saddam is a threat to peace."(paraphrased) Underlying the apparent determination to disarm Saddam, I still suspect that Bush administration's real intent prefers to replace him.
Still, two courses of action are open to us with fundamentally different results: 1. Kill millions and replace Saddam, and 2. Keep the peace and disarm Saddam with intensified inspection.
The Sequence of Disarmament
Table of contents