for those like myself who find myself confused regarding the whole war on
terror/iraq thing, I would like to hear opinions on whether there is a
middle ground which can be found in the whole sorry episode.
I have no doubt that Saddam is a very bad man. As we know, he has no
compunction about killing those in his own nation, and his use of chemical
and bio weapons is truly chilling. He is clearly a despot, who's policies
have kept his people in a state of poverty. It is the responsibility of any
government to ensure the growth and protection of its citizens, and in this
he hasnt just failed, he has deliberately and wantonly caused widespread
death and suffering.
I for one would not be upset to see the back of this man, and Im sure that
others who oppose war would also agree. More, I hope for no more attacks on
the US or indeed anywhere, and feel great sadness for the victims of 9/11,
and indeed other terrorist atrocities carried out by fundamentalists,
governments, political militias etc.
however, the prospect of war is a major concern. Sanctions have been
responsible for continued poverty, and are harming the already seriously
fragile economy. We have seen much evidence that the current situation is
actually maintaining the status quo of a vicious and repressive government.
But what will the effect of war be on the region? It will be destabilising
no doubt, and could ignite further tensions leading to more death and
destruction. Many innocents will die, and no amount of talk about
"collatoral damage" will change that. INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL BE KILLED and I
have an ethical problem with this.
I have seen no incontravertable evidence of Saddam husseins intention to
acquire and use nuclear weapons. I am deeply sceptical about the current US
administrations motives, and I am very concerned that we are on the brink of
a world religious war of self-fulfilling prophecies of armaggeddon, which we
now have the power to achieve (before weapons which can wipe out all life on
the planet,a few thousend years of talk of armageddon has been simply
academic and related to faith).
Additionally, there is no framework to put in place should saddam be
deposed, and it is quite clearly the responsibility of those involved to put
their new house in order and ensure that that survival, growth and human
rights of the people of Iraq are tantamount.
I have no doubt that the world would be a safer place without Saddam
Hussein, but I
equally feel that the US government and its allies share at least some of
the blame for the resurgence in fundamentalism and the related terrorism.
Whilst trying to maintain a degree of rationalism, it is not a subject which
has simple answers. Currently, opinion appears polarised in many people. joe
dees for example, feels that the justification is made for a pre-emptive
attack, and i can understand his sentiments (whether I agree or not is
irrelevant at this point).
Others, including myself, have argued for a diplomatic solution. However, Im
not sure if one can be found which will achieve the desired result... but it
is clear to me that you cannot enforce the peace with weaponry...centuries
of history should have taught us this by now. The root causes of terrorism
are much more abstract that we consider, and when we sit in out plush
offices in the western world, debating something that will happen thousands
of miles away, have we not a tendancy to get a little desensitised to the
troubles? We know that people are being killed, but its a long way
off....Conflicts happen, people get killed....Can we do anything about it?
Im sure those who firmly believe it is right to attack iraq have no wish to
see innocents suffer, and im sure they especailly hope their countrys
servicemen will come home safe, but the reality is very different.
With that in mind, my question is whether there is a middle ground? Will the
unfettered readmittance of weapons inspectors change anything? What would be
the "best and worst case scenarios"? What is needed, and are there
alternatives? There may be none, in which case, I will wrestle with my
morality alone. But if there are possibilities, even remote ones, it is
important that these opinions be allowed to develop.
Kind regards,
Dylan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:24 MDT