January 06, 2003
Let's Pretend
So far, weapons inspections in Iraq are proceeding more smoothly than anyone dared imagine. It appears that those, including Scott Ritter and Hans von Sponeck, who've contended for months that Iraq was largely disarmed by 1998 (and remains so), were right all along.
But just for shits 'n' giggles, let's take a trip to The Land Of Make-Believe, and suppose that Saddam does hold some weapons of mass destruction, and that he's hidden them where no arms inspectors will be able to find them. Let's further pretend that he's even got the capability to deliver these weapons. And let's go out on another limb and suppose that, though he didn't do so in the first Gulf War, and hasn't at any time since (and, according to as impeccable a source as U.S. intelligence, would only ever do so in the event of a U.S. attack), Saddam intends to use these weapons upon the United States and its allies at any moment.
We all know that Iraq would be far from the only country to possess weapons of mass destruction, nor the first to use them. Indeed, the world leader in possessing and using such weapons is none other than the United States itself. Its current fumigation campaign in Colombia, for one example, is obliterating the Colombian peasantry. Its use of Depleted Uranium (and, apparently, non-depleted Uranium) munitions, for another example, has caused environmental and public health catastrophes in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. In the Middle East, Israel openly maintains a nuclear stockpile, and has (as has the U.S., we'll recall) even threatened to make use of it.
Ah, but we should know that it's just the niggers and gooks that aren't allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction (unless, like Pakistan and India, they're allies in the "War On Terror"; or, like China, they comprise 20% of the World's population, so that there's nothing we can do about it).
Having make-believe established, then, that Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, has them safely hidden from inspectors, is capable of delivering them to the North American land mass, intends to deliver them even in the absence of a U.S. attack, and is a nigger state; can we please bomb the shit out of Baghdad now?
It would appear so, as the debate over whether or not the United States should launch an invasion of Iraq has been hijacked by the Bush Administration and its willing accomplices (principally the Blair government and the mainstream media), so that war will be launched the moment inspectors turn up a shred of evidence. A recent story in the London Independent, for example, while purporting to demonstrate UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's "warning" that the U.S. has not yet made the case for war, states that, "His remarks were a blunt warning to Britain and the United States that they will need clear evidence of clandestine weapons programmes in Iraq to win support from other nations for any military campaign against Saddam Hussein this winter."
Confident that some shred of evidence will be found -- or manufactured -- the United States continues to send more and more troops to the Persian Gulf region.
But is the mere existence of weapons of mass destruction really the first and only criterion we should employ in deciding to go to war? Even were we to consider it necessary to trash the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions to save the world from Saddam's pretend weapons of mass destruction, shouldn't the potential humanitarian consequences for the Iraqi citizens, and Iraqi and American soldiers, be the primary consideration? For this, we need not pretend: according to reports from Medact/International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, The Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, the United Nations, Kurdish authorities, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, and Eos Life-Work; the war would be absolutely cataclysmic, killing up to 500,000 civilians (without taking into account the long-term health effects of the U.S. use of radiological weapons and further destruction of Iraqi infrastructure).
Even in our pretend scenario, it's inconceivable that Saddam could cause even a miniscule fraction of that much damage with his pretend weapons of mass destruction capabilities before being wiped out. (And let's don't forget that it's awfully disingenous to be pretending such things to begin with, not to mention awfully distressing that we need to add the "not counting niggers" clause to avoid noticing the hypocrisy of the Western World's WMD scare-mongering.)
Denis Halliday, one of two former UN employees to have resigned in protest from the task of administering the UN Oil For Food Programme in Iraq, has, witnessing the savage results of a decade of punishing ecnomic sanctions, accused the West of committing genocide upon the people of Iraq. Given the already fragile status of life in Iraq, a U.S.-led war may remove any lingering doubts.
What you can do: Contact major media outlets, urging them to prominently publicise the likely humanitarian consequences of a major military assault. Copied below is a letter I've sent. You can cut-and-paste that letter into the body of an e-mail message (or compose your own). Below that is a list of media e-mail addresses. Cut-and-paste these into the "Blind Copy" (or "BCC") field of your e-mail message. Type your own e-mail address (or perhaps the White House's: president@whitehouse.gov) into the "To" field, and send it on its way.
Next, forward the text of this post (or this link to the process) to every contact in your address book, asking them to take the same steps.
If you want to get really ambitious, you can print out several copies of your letters, gather signatures to them, and send them via the surface mails to some major media organisations.
Finally, you can download, print, and distribute this half-page flyer. (It's in Word format, so you can localise it if you live outside the Seattle area.)
Good Afternoon,
Given the signal role of the mainstream media in shaping Americans' opinions concerning the upcoming war in Iraq, it is of paramount importance that the media as completely as possible inform Americans of the likely consequences of such an undertaking, and to do so before the initiation of hostilities. As several recent studies and reports detailing the probable humanitarian consequences of the impending war have gone virtually unnoticed by the mainstream media, I'm afraid that in my opinion you've been negligent in your duties.
Consider:
~Collateral Damage, a recent report, jointly released by Medact and International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, estimates that "total possible deaths on all sides during the conflict and the following three months range from 48,000 to over 260,000. Civil war within Iraq could add another 20,000 deaths. Additional later deaths from post-war adverse health effects could reach 200,000. If nuclear weapons were used the death toll could reach 3,900,000. In all scenarios the majority of casualties will be civilians." See URL:http://www.ippnw.org/CollateralDamage.html.
~The Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, in a November report, concludes that, "Heavy bombardments and the use of military forces will have incalculable consequences for a civilian population that has already suffered so much. It would be difficult to imagine a single, more effective way of wreaking devastation on an already devastated country and creating a major humanitarian crisis with hundreds of thousands of innocent victims." See http://www.cafod.org.uk/iraq/iraqshame20021101.shtml.
~Kurdish authorities and International Aid Agencies warn that an attack on Iraq could trigger a humanitarian catastrophe in Kurdish Iraq. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,840555,00.html.
~Ruud Lubbers, the UN High Commisioner for Refugees insisted last month that war would be "a disaster from a humanitarian perspective," creating one million refugees. See http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1229-05.htm.
~The United States is apparently planning to utilize over 1,000 tons of natural (as opposed to depleted) uranium munitions in Iraq, which would create massive civilian, military, and environmental havoc. See http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u231.htm#S6healthhaz.
~The United States is planning to deploy land mines in Iraq, despite their well-known long-term effects upon civilians. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-12-10-landmines-usat_x.htm.
In light of these reports, and in the interests of cultivating a fully informed populace, I would like to strongly urge you to provide prominent, recurring coverage of the likely and (once war begins) actual humanitarian consequences of the war.
(Note that this letter is not specifically intended for publication, though newspaper editors have my permission to publish it if you choose to do so.)
Thank you for your time,
netaudr@abc.com, niteline@abc.com, 2020@abc.com, info@cnbc.com, cnn.feedback@cnn.com, comments@foxnews.com, world@msnbc.com, nightly@nbc.com, today@nbc.com, dateline@nbc.com, newshour@pbs.org, ombudsman@npr.org, atc@npr.org, morning@npr.org, letters@latimes.com, letters@nytimes.com, editor@usatoday.com, feedback@wsj.com, ombudsman@washpost.com, letters@newsweek.com, letters@time.com, letters@usnews.com, conedit@ajc.com, letters@baltsun.com, news@globe.com, letterstoeditor@bostonherald.com, letters@suntimes.com, news@cleveland.com, letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com, letters@denverpost.com, business@det-freepress.com, viewpoints@chron.com, HeraldEd@herald.com, politics@startribune.com, letters@newsday.com, Inquirer.Opinion@phillynews.com, DailyNews.Opinion@phillynews.com, letters@post-gazette.com, letters@uniontrib.com, letters@examiner.com, letters@sjmercury.com, editpage@seattle-pi.com, opinion@seatimes.com, viewer@c-span.org
Posted by Eddie Tews at January 6, 2003 02:32 PM
Comments
why? -- Posted by: sean on November 24, 2003 11:40 AM