Figure 1.--
|
Figure 1.-- |
Some HBC readers have submitted their comments and opinions on the 2003 war with Iraq. While we have some reservations about some of these comments, HBC promotes and open debate and will post these comments to present a forum for discussion. Many of the issues raised involve subjects that are beyond the range of issues that HBC focuses on, but some do touch on issues we have addressed on our website.
Many of the issues raised involve subjects that are beyond the range of issues that HBC focuses on, but some do touch on issues we have addressed on our website. We do not want to discuss these comments point by point. Many of the issues have been discussed in our main Third Iraq Crisis page. We do have some general comments.
While we agree with the principle that all War is bad, HBC also believes that there are just wars. The best example is World War II. HBC also does not agree that no good can come from war. Again the best example here is World War II. One of the results of the War was a democratic Germany and Japan--two major developments that have been an enormous force for good in the modern world. Another example is the American Civil War which made the abolitioin of slavery possible in America. We recognize that there is considrable difference of opinion as to whether the war in Iraq is a just war. The point is that plaitudes like war is evil are not especially helpful in assessing this are any specific war.
We do agree wih the general proposition that war's result in great harm to people and should be the action of last resort. We also agree with comments from our readers that in addition to the human suffering another serious result of war are the unintended consequences. Here there are endless examples. Perhaps the best example here is that some of the results of World War II were the rise of totalitarian Fascism and Communism in Europe. This issue of unintended consequences is we believe some of the most valid concerns raised by the European critics of American actions.
While unlike many Americans, HBC does not particularly object to the United Nations, I have no great confidence in it. There are a lot of dead people in Bosnia, Serbernica, Rawanda, East Timor, ect. tha put their confidence in the U.N. This is not unlike the countries that turned to the League of Nations in the 1930s. Should America and NATO failed to act to save the people in Kosovo because the UN didn't approve. Nor doe HBC see the U.N.as a great arbitror for morality. The current chairman of the ommission for Human Rights is Libya!
HBC does grant that our European readers raise a very valid question in our modern world . That is the question of the use of Americam power. This is a real and serious conncern in a world in which America is the only remaining super power. Just what limits does America except to the use of its power. Many Europeans believe that the U.S. should seek U.N. permission to use force. HBC doesn't believe that U.N. permission is a reasonable limit. But we do grant that that it is a very serious question that the United States has not yet faced.
Many of our European readers stress that there quarel is not with the American people, but President Bush. HBC has done some work on the Bush presidency. In some ways the attitudes are similar to those expressed about President Reagan. Given the vitriol that Europeans directed at Presiden Reagan, it is interesting that few West Europeans today reflect on the role Reagan played in bringing about today's Europe. This is a Europe no longer under the nuclear gun, with democratic governments in the former Soviet satelites, and Germany united. Many of those in the streets demonstrating against Bush today were protesting against Reagan in the 1980s. There are of course a wide range of opinion on President Bush in Ametrica, especially his economic, social, and enviromental policies. As regards his policies on Iraq, however, while there is no unanimity to be sure, there is a very large level of support. Those in Europe who say they do not dislike America, but only President Bush are apparently not aware that there is a great deal of public sentiment which supports President Bush stances on a range of issues from the Kyoto Accods to the death penalty.
Here are some of the comments from our readers. They show some of the thoughts in Europe. They also show that there is considerable doubt about the war in America. HBC stresses that we do not endorse the factual content here. In fact we believe that there are some factual errors are misunderstandings expressed here. We present these submissions without editing to show the range of opinions about the war in Iraq. The comments vary from the reflective and sober to the emotional.
Well, I don't want to get into a discussion about morality. We seem to
think we have a lock on morality. Maybe the Eurpoeans, suffering through
two world wars have more incite than we think. As far as Iraq goes, I should remind you that we are the ones that first gave Saddam the means to make chemical weapons [Here HBC is not aware of evidence to support this contention] and we are the ones that theatened to use our veto in the U.N. security concil when they were going to vote to codndemm Iraq for using chemical weapon against Iran. I also don't think it is our job to remake the world in our image.
My concern is that America is too reluctant to use its power, not that as the Europeans seem to believe, too anxious to use it. The killings in Rawanda is the best example of what happens when America ignores its responsibilities. People who go on and on about the United Nations should think about the million dead in Rawanda that put their faith in the United Nations. The same thing happened Serbinica and East Timor until the Australians went in. Nor did the United Nations act to protect the Kosovars. American intervention was late in Bosnia and Kosovo and far to reluctant, but it did come. Americans are not anxious to do these things. We would rather have young men and women save at home and out of harms way.
In 1992 Paul Wolfowitz then the under-secretary of defense wrote the
first draft of our new foreign policy and pre-emptive strike: 1992 draft.
Then in 1997 a group of neo-conservaties, (Chaney, Rumsfeld, Abrams, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc.) wrote the "Project of the New American Century". In this project they detailed why they must attack Iraq: PNAC. Here is my take: We are following the same type of doctorine that the Third Reich made in 1934. We are losing our personal freedom for the sake of security. My other take is these neo-conservatives never were in combat or seen war. I call them the Chickenhawkds. The New Hamsphire Gazatte our oldenst newspaper in America has a great article and named all the
Chickenhawks that are in both parties: New Hamsphire Gazetter.
I do not like Bush or anything he believes in he is EVIL to the highest degree he and all his monkeys. I do not believes that this war is to free Iraq form Saddum it is for control of the area. This means Iran too, I think it is for oil and profit. By our greedy government. This makes me very unhappy to even say I live in the USA. I think the world most look at all of us as a bunch of idiots and rednecks, I hate what American as become. Your not even allowed to disagree with the powers that be any more. They want us to keep our mouths shut stay stupid watch our TV’s and believe all the lies they tell us. And most
important pay TAXES so they can keep playing there little games. So to the hell with the government who don’t care about people who put them there. But of cores we all know Bush cheated his way in. I hope people who do not live here can see we are not all idiots who believe every thing they say on TV. And anyway way should GOD bless us. I like this site I can come here and not think about the mess were in. A kind of rest from the hell hole.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t think all Americans are bad people. Allot of us believe that change is needed. Putting the power back to the people not the corporations that care only about the bottom line. We need to be a caring nation for all the sick the poor the old the young.
What I don't understand is where were all the demonstrators when Saddam was killing the Iranians, the Kurds, the Shi'ites, and the Kuwaitis? He killed hundred of thousands. Some estimates are over a million deaths attributed to Saddam. Estimates now show civilian deaths in the liberation of Iraq at 1,200, some do to Iraqi actions. That of course is a tragedy, but the difference between the demonstartions against American military actions causing a very small number of civilian deaths in comparison to the silence on Saddam's killings is striking. Why were not all the Europeans who say they hate war and killing demonstrating then? Or for that matter where were the demonstrators when the Serbs were killing the Bosnians and Kosovars or the Hutus killing the Tutsis. Clearly the European demonstartions are not aimed at saving Iraqis, but at America.
I think the German opposition to the American invasion of Iraq was basically opposition to war. I think they were misguided, but respect their commitment to peace. Oppisition to the invasion in France was a different matter. I believe that it was primarily motivated by anti-Americanism which has been a hall-mark of French governments since World war II. This from a country that would not exist today had America not saved it in two World Wars and protected it from the Soviets. French pandering to Saddam, especially helping him build a nuclear reactor is just uncomcionable.
I hate Saddam HUSSEIN and I think this despot is totally insane and the whitecoats should come and get him and lock him up in a padded cell and throw away the key. When Iraq was a protectorate of our British Commonwealth there were no problems but in marched the USA and loused it up but this time I hope they get this mad bastard and his cronies and blast them off this planet for ever. I want my Australia to retie our Empire with the United Kingdom, New Zeaaland, and Canada and our other brothers of the British Commonwealth and
keep an eye on Indonesia because they are totally mad it seems to me. They blew a school friend of mine up in Bali because they hate us Westerners. I'm not a ______ westerner but a child of the Southern Cross and a Monarchist because the moncharchy has done no harm to me or my family and I like OUR queen of Australia and would die for her because my great grandfather was a convict Scot and I'm a proud Australian Scotsman but I do not hate America either. I hope the USA wins this war and publically flog that _______ as well as do some of the things to him that that he does to children, men, and women in his prisons. Why do these arabs hate me because I never even knew what a Muslim was. Saddam Insane has killed over 1 million of his own people because the UN has no backbone and is 'YELLOW' like a ripe banana. I don't understand why all those critics of America complain about small numbers of Iraqi civilians being killed and not a word about the huge numbers Saddam has killed.
I am a little bit reluctant to express my opinion about the war on Iraq. Although I sympathize with the American soldiers in the desert, I think they should not be there. They are attackers, not defenders. It's Bush that declared war on his personal enemy Saddam Hussein. I agree that Saddam is a monster, but he is not the only one in the world. There are many others in Asia, Africa and South America, who fit that description, but they have no oil and are not close to Israel (except for other Muslim rulers in North
Afria and the Middle East, but what they do to their own people and others is
being overlooked by Washington). I don't believe that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Saddam would have used them already. He has nothing to lose. The Americans have miscalculated the mentality of the Iraqis. They are thinking that the people would welcome them with open arms. That does not seem to be the case. Even when they are afraid of their dictator, Iraq nevertheless is their country. They live there in their houses (or mud huts) and they expect to be killed or bombed-out by American air raids. I admit that the forces are trying to be careful not to hit civilians, but was there ever a war where women, children and old men were unharmed? I know what war is, I was 11 years old when WWII started and I have seen enough. In 1948 I went to Indonesia and experienced some awful things when the Indonesians fought for their independence and the Dutch tried to prevent that. War is hell. Bush does not know that. He himself stayed out of the army. But now he is the Commander- in- Chief !
A Dutch reader has provided an esppecially thoughtful assessment of the Iraq situation and the larger meaning of American action. He writes, "Some remarks with an outspokenness that I usually try to avoid in matters politic. However, since HBC has become a forum for open discussion , I feel I feel compeled to contribute. I feel that HBC too often treats 'Europe' as a monolith. Don't. We hold a variety of views, both as countries and as individuals." Our Dutch reader is especially concerned about the unintended consequences of American actions, a concern which HBC shares.
Unfortunatly the majority of European people don't grasp the determining role America will play for the political balance of the world. Our first weapon might be firmness when concerning about the future of our planet. It is my opinion , but today France prefers to present a rose (like one used to see see on the photographs of many French children). It isn't surely the best way with the dictators. When I am listening to President Chirac, I would believe being in the church during a sermon. But there are the priests and the politicians, and their role are totaly different. The war will be quickly won, it is certain. Few American and English soldiers will lose their lives. This work over; the hardest will be to contain interior unrest of this country. Here the informations asure, if we are not agree about this situation America is our freind from way back and our country doesn't abandon its freinds. ( Notice they are a plenty discution on media, but never a
deplaced word agains America or England. ) Our nuclear aircraft carried Charles de Gaulle is in Mediterranée sea. The French-American cooperation about the anti-terrorist fight
works perfectly.
I have just comeg back from Austria and it is true, that in the European Union that the majority of the population is against the American war in Iraq. Frankly I think it is a normal popular reaction; unfortunately far from the political decisions good for our planet. You know I am catholic because of this I am committed to work for peace. But I also have political commitments. Iit is the raison why my opinions can be contradictory .
As long as politic man, I have the duty of decision which must ensure the future of the population By this way the firmness and unfortunatly even the war can be ultimate solutions which should be considered. TheFrench Government has allowed Coalition aircraft (such as B52s) can cross over our territory flying Iraqi operations. The French goverment would help the coalition Army , in case Saddam uses chemical (gas) or bacteriological weapons. I am in a minority hre, but I am with the courageous American-English Army .
They are doing what all Western countries should have done.
I agree with you that Saddam isn’t a good man and has fought his people, especially in the North and South, terribly.
However I think you should also show both sides of the topic.
I think any war is no GOOD and can’t solve the problems that are in our world. In fact it makes them even worse. I ‘m
afraid this could turn into a huge “fire” involving other Arab countries, as well. More and more misguided people
could come out of this, causing similar attacks as on 11.9th .
George W Bush has given a GOOD example to the later liberated Iraqis, how democracy should NOT work. In my
opinion, it isn’t democratic if one country regardless what the UN and most of the people (e.g. demonstrations in
Europe, Asia, Australia and few in USA) in different countries say, goes its own way. It is important, that everyone
has to do the things the majority has decided, or there have to be further discussions.
Furthermore, most of the proves that were shown to fasten the opinion Iraq are producing WMD right now, were
revealed as either faked or obsolete. Thus the UN declared not to give way to a 2nd resolution. The examinations
should have been continued in my opinion, because Saddam had at least begun to destroy his weapons.
Please keep in mind that there will be also many children and adults get killed, as well as many very old buildings will
be destroyed in the war, the allies have started a few days ago. There is NO clean war, despite whatever the media
says. Even weapons driven by GPS can fail. One guy was using GPS in his car, but he went into a river because of a
mistake the programme made.
As Iraq hasn’t had any connections to El Qaida and has not threaten or taken aggressive actions against USA
directly, there is a violation of Folk law this might result in sentences at the International Court of Den Haag, but as
the US never recognises it, it won’t be of any good. There’s a sentence saying that you can’t arrest a person until he
or she’s committed a crime. It is strange, to fight preventive wars then.
It seems as the right of the strongest country(e.g. in economical terms) is set forth regardless of all others opinions.
If people would learn of history, they would NEVER start a new war. Don’t you think that left alone WW I and WW II
were bad enough? Apart from other wars fought in earlier centuries. In fact, the UN was founded to prevent such bad
wars. They should never happen again.
If people would treat others the same way they’d like to be treated themselves there won’t be any war for sure, as no
one wants to begin it. (Like the Golden Rule).
These are just a few thoughts of mine on the topic.
Europe (and me) is not against America, but against Bush
and his administration, namely guys like Rumsfeld or Cheney.
If Bush would not have refused the so important Kyoto
protocole, I might have had another opinion. If his administration
would not have tried to bribe certain members of security council
to buy their votes, I might have had another opinion. Etc etc
Do you know that actual planning of the present operation started
more than one year ago ?
If Clinton would have undertaken this action in his own way, even
war, I could have supported him.
To add a bit of flesh to this story let me explain what we in Europe
believe are the true reasons of this war, bearing in mind that we do
not object to the elimination of Hussein by other methods than war.
First are the economic reasons specifically linked to oil and arms; we
know that Bush and most of his administration have direct interests in
both. See wherefrom C.Rice, D.Cheney are coming: oil industry. See the
Carlyle group and Bush father: direct link to arms industry.
On top of that remember the words of Michael Moore at the "Oscars"
ceremony. We also believe Bush has stolen his election with a difference
of 537 votes in Florida where usually the blacks voted differently.
The recount was stopped by by the supreme court (7 judges, 4 were
designated by Bush father or predessecor..)
Also the sudden reappearance of a possible solution in the Israel/Palestine
conflict is due only to the difficulties to gather a majority in the
security council.
This very important conflict previously had been put below the pile if not
in the wastepaper basket by Bush whereas it should have been tackled as
the most urgent problem.
But other reasons of a psychological origin do heavily complement the
economic reasons.
After September 11, the anti terrorist campaign and chase of Bin Laden
soon revealed not entirely satisfactory, there was necessity to find another
target. An old project by Wolfovitz (not sure the spelling) buried years ago
by the White House has been brought back to light: Irak and Saddam Hussein.
Wolfowitz is number two of Pentagone.
The revenge aspect is also primordial: the son wants to finish the job that
the father was unable to bring to an end, this failure having also caused
non reelection of father: a successfull war will help with reelection of
son.
In which case for the first time the son would be better than the father.
Because Bush son has always been nothing else than son of father, with
serious alcohol problems, bringing three companies to bankrucy. To solve
his problem suddenly the son discovered the Bible, Jesus and God. And now
he perpetually refers to : "So help me God". How can anyone refer to God
and still defend the death penalty, free selling of arms ...or start a war.
Did ever Jesus act like that ?
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Return to Main third Iraq crisis page]
[Introduction]
[Activities]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Clothing styles]
[Countries]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Satellite sites]
[Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]