Justin and Joel get a little feisty in this first installment of their debate on the Iraq War. The Iraq War- Where do we go from here? from Justin Bradshaw & Joel Van Brunt on Vimeo.
The Iraq War - the validity and where we go from here?
March 8th, 2008 | Sessions
4 comments ↓
The humanitarian case for invasion. Warning! This video is graphic. Please watch with caution. It made me sick. I post it because I believe it’s essential to remember exactly who we were dealing with in Iraq even if it’s hard to watch. Truth is sometimes tough. Sometimes, we as Americans like to forget the brutality that existed in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. I look forward to a response from those who believe that we should never have invaded in the first place; those who believe that Iraq would be better off under Saddam. Can you legitimately argue that this is the better situation than the current chances of self-determination and rule of law? I know this is making a purely humanitarian case and not a strategic one. If Obama and Clinton truly believe what they say, then this dictator would still be in power and presumably have had another 5 years torturing his own civilians and in a state of war with the US. I honestly don’t see how the democrats can win on this issue. All McCain needs to say is “This is the Iraq we would still see if my democratic friends were left in charge.”
If my progressive friends disagree, then I’d like to hear how they would have addressed the Saddam situation in a way that would have avoided war and still got him out of power. I don’t believe that option existed.
Well Joel, while I don’t condone anything that Sadaam did and agree he was ruthless, etc… I think it’s a false choice to say that he was an imminent threat and we had to take him out. Even at the time Bush was making his case with supposed evidence of WMDs there was PLENTY of evidence against the case for war… but our government chose to espouse one side until it seemed like the only side. Just ask Colin Powell.
The total brutality under Sadaam Hussein is probably less than Mugabi in Zimbabwe… and now that it seems the only argument left for going into Iraq is the moral one… let’s be honest and admit it wasn’t the real reason. There were clearly more brutal and heinous dictators and there were clearly more imminent threats. Why don’t we deal with one of them instead? My answer? Oil.
This is a portion of a research essay I wrote comparing the Vietnam and Iraq anti-war movements (with a conspiracy theory twist).
These sentiments have led to a number of different conspiracy theories, all of whose credibility can be challenged. Some conspiracy theories that have played a role in
the anti-war movement are: supposed Imperialism, supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction, and supposed media coverage bias. This discussion will deal with one. I will give a description of the beliefs behind the WMD conspiracy theory, as well as an analysis of their relevance and credibility.
This conspiracy theory carries a lot of weight for many who are against today’s war. People feel that the Bush administration has been dishonest with the American public regarding our reasons for going to war. As stated by John Kerry, “saying there are weapons of mass destruction, doesn’t make it so – I will never mislead us into war.”
Some participants in the anti-war movement have the belief that Bush said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq even though he “knew” there weren’t any, and that the WMD explanation was only a lie used to make war. This is a little similar to an anti-war movement sentiment during the Vietnam era, when people did not understand the threat of communism (some of them were sympathizers), and did not consider it a valid excuse for going to war. However the WMD conspiracy theory is the result of a number of different misconceptions.
The principle idea behind the WMD conspiracy theory is: “We invaded Iraq because we were told that they had or were about to have extremely dangerous weapons of mass destruction, and now that all turns out to be lies” (Card). As Orson Scott Card further explains, “First, no one has introduced any evidence of lies. There have been some pieces of seeming evidence that turned out not to be reliable, but the conclusion that Saddam had WMDs was universally held” (Card). Every major intelligence agency in the world came to the same conclusion about Saddam having WMDs (2). Card is quick
to add, “At no point in the discussion in the U.N. did anyone raise the serious possibility that Saddam did not have at least some of the weapons, or programs and facilities available to acquire others. Our failure (so far) to find them surprised everybody” (Card).
As keenly pointed out by Orson Scott Card, “disgruntled” members in the intelligence community claim they warned the administration that Saddam might not have WMDs. However, members of the intelligence community know how to cover themselves. In case their proposed conclusion turns out to be wrong, they can always point back at some paragraph that warns of the possibility of the opposite being true. So
if their main point turns out to be wrong, they can say “we tried to tell them that this stuff was unreliable, but the Bush administration was determined not to listen” (Ibid.).
Information from American, British, as well as Iraqi refugees (who were in a position to know anything), all suggested that Saddam’s illegal programs were going full-steam (Ibid.). Not only that but the Russian, French, German, Italian, and Spanish intelligence sources all believed there were WMDs (2). No one could have known the degree to which Iraqi scientists deliberately slowed their work to keep these weapons out of Saddam’s hands, much like German scientists under Hitler did in World War II. Even now, nobody knows what has happened to the chemical weapon stockpiles Saddam had used against his own people. Saddam had even ordered their deployment and authorized their use against us when we came to take him out of power; this is rather baffling in it self (Card). Did Saddam think he had WMDs that he didn’t have?
To paraphrase Orson Scott Card, the main problem with these sentiments about WMDs is that they were never the only reason, or even the main reason for invading Iraq. As Card notes, “In the aftermath of the invasion of Afghanistan, the Bush administration had overwhelming support for an immediate invasion of Iraq.” However this did not happen immediately, because Ariel Sharon invaded the West Bank, and as a result an invasion of Iraq was not possible. We could not stage an invasion without our essential Arab allies in the Persian Gulf. Our Arab allies insisted that we wait for a while so our campaign in Iraq would not seem connected to the much “hated Israeli campaign in the west bank.” However, there was plenty of justification for taking Saddam out of power post Afghanistan, and those are: (Ibid.)
Firstly: “Saddam had never kept a single one of his commitments in the ceasefire agreement, which meant that the 1991 Persian Gulf War was not over” (Ibid.).
Secondly: “Saddam was waging a genocidal campaign against the Shi’ites in the south — the so-called “swamp Arabs” — and was only prevented from slaughtering more Kurds in the north by American planes and Kurdish fighters using American arms. Since the mere threat of genocide was the justification for Clinton’s non-U.N.-sanctioned intervention in Kosovo, clearly it would have been justification enough in this case, where the genocide was an ongoing effort” (Ibid.).
Thirdly: “Saddam was firing on American planes several times a week and had been for many years, ample cause and legal justification for invasion at any time” (Ibid.).
Fourthly: “Saddam was a known financer, harborer, trainer, rewarder, and protector of terrorists, including terrorist groups that had declared war against all Americans, as well as terrorist groups that were actively murdering civilians in Israel and Jews in other countries” (Ibid.).
As explained by Card, “It was in the campaign to win over the U.N., and only then, that the WMD situation became the main plank in the pro-war platform, and that was only because this was the only violation of U.N. resolutions that the Security Council veto-holders and the largest NATO powers seemed even remotely interested in considering” (Card). Much to the disappointment of those who feel going to war without UN approval is illegal, and states making money off of Saddam’s rule, the Bush administration acted without UN approval. No justification was enough in the eyes of France, Russia, and China, and understandably so, because to invade Iraq would mean the end of their hugely profitable set up through Oil-For-Food. Here history repeats itself: Just as the League of Nations failed to deal with the obvious threat of Adolph Hitler, the United Nations has failed to deal with the threat of Saddam Hussein, and this time, through institutionalized bribery.
Most of this was taken from Orson Scott Card’s editorial. Here is the original bib:
Card, Orson S. “War Watch.” The Ornery America. 25 Jan. 2005. 15 Apr. 2006 .
Hi
I am Eli’s friend at UB. I am from Sudan. I watched your video and I want to leave a comment. I just want to say, under Saddam’s regime there was not any religious persecution. His regime was secular not religious in origin. His right hand man Tarq Aziz was a Christian Iraqi. Bin laden will never accept a Christian to be in power with him. This is a major difference between the two that you have not clearly discussed. All the killing that Saddam did was because he did not like people to talk about his government, he crushed dissidents. Ben Laden claims that the only reason he is fighting Americans is because they are there in Saudi Arabia the holey Muslim country. Why don’t you talk about what it was like in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, then the Persian Gulf War, and finally when Saddam was removed from power? The problem runs deeper and is more complicated than you can discuss in an hour.
Leave a Comment