posted March 30, 2003 04:24 AM            

PN: Why did you say we are invading Iraq?

WM: We are invading Iraq because it is in
violation of security council resolution 1441. A
country cannot be allowed to violate security
council resolutions.

PN: But I thought many of our allies, including
Israel, were in violation of more security
council resolutions than Iraq.

WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main
point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass
destruction, and the first sign of a smoking
gun could well be a mushroom cloud over NY.

PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons
inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons.

WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons
are the issue.

PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long
range missiles for attacking us or our allies
with such weapons.

WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us,
but rather terrorists networks that Iraq could
sell the weapons to.

PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell
chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a
bit to Iraq in the eighties ourselves, didn't we?

WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein
is an evil man that has an undeniable track
record of repressing his own people since the
early eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone
agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic
murderer.

PN: We sold chemical and biological materials
to a power-hungry lunatic murderer?

WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather
what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a
pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait.

PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound
bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq,
Gillespie, know about and green-light the
invasion of Kuwait?

WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As
of today, Iraq could sell its biological and
chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama BinLaden
himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis
to suicide attack us, proving a partnership
between the two.

PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading
Afghanistan to kill him?

WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's
really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the
lesson from the tape is the same: there could
easily be a partnership between Al Qaeda and
Saddam Hussein unless we act.

PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin
Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel?

WM: You're missing the point by just focusing
on the tape. Powell presented a strong case
against Iraq.

PN: He did?

WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al
Qaeda poison factory in Iraq.

PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless
shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the
Kurdish opposition?

WM: And a British intelligence report...

PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an
out-of-date graduate student paper?

WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs...

PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings?

WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding
evidence from inspectors...

PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the
chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix?

WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard
evidence that cannot be revealed because it
would compromise our security.

PN: So there is no publicly available evidence
of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's
not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing
the point.

PN: So what is the point?

WM: The main point is that we are invading
Iraq because resolution 1441 threatened "severe
consequences." If we do not act, the security
council will become an irrelevant debating
society.

PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings
of the security council?

WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us.

PN: And what if it does rule against us?

WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of
the willing to invade Iraq.

PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that?

WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy,
for starters.

PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless
we gave them tens of billions of dollars.

WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing.

PN: I thought public opinion in all those
countries was against war.

WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The
majority expresses its will by electing leaders
to make decisions.

PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by
the majority that is important?

WM: Yes.

PN: But George B . . .

WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our
leaders, however they were elected, because they
are acting in our best interest. This is about
being a patriot. That's the bottom line.

PN: So if we do not support the decisions of
the president, we are not patriotic?

WM: I never said that.

PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading
Iraq?

WM: As I said, because there is a chance that
they have weapons of mass destruction that
threaten us and our allies.

PN: But the inspectors have not been able to
find any such weapons.

WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them.

PN: You know this? How?

WM: Because we know they had the weapons ten
years ago, and they are still unaccounted for.

PN: The weapons we sold them, you mean?

WM: Precisely.

PN: But I thought those biological and chemical
weapons would degrade to an unusable state over
ten years.

WM: But there is a chance that some have not
degraded.

PN: So as long as there is even a small chance
that such weapons exist, we must invade?

WM: Exactly.

PN: But North Korea actually has large amounts of
usable chemical, biological, AND nuclear weapons,
AND long range missiles that can reach the
west coast AND it has expelled nuclear weapons
inspectors, AND threatened to turn America into
a sea of fire.

WM: That's a diplomatic issue.

PN: So why are we invading Iraq instead of
using diplomacy?

WM: Aren't you listening? We are invading Iraq
because we cannot allow the inspections to
drag on indefinitely. Iraq has been delaying,
deceiving, and denying for over ten years,
and inspections cost us tens of millions.

PN: But I thought war would cost us tens of
billions.

WM: Yes, but this is not about money. This is
about security.

PN: But wouldn't a pre-emptive war against Iraq
ignite radical Muslim sentiments against us,
and decrease our security?

WM: Possibly, but we must not allow the
terrorists to change the way we live. Once we
do that, the terrorists have already won.

PN: So what is the purpose of the Department of
Homeland Security, color-coded terror alerts,
and the Patriot Act? Don't these change the way
we live?

WM: I thought you had questions about Iraq.

PN: I do. Why are we invading Iraq?

WM: For the last time, we are invading Iraq
because the world has called on Saddam Hussein
to disarm, and he has failed to do so. He must
now face the consequences.

PN: So, likewise, if the world called on us to
do something, such as find a peaceful solution,
we would have an obligation to listen?

WM: By "world", I meant the United Nations.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the
United Nations?

WM: By "United Nations" I meant the Security
Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the
Security Council?

WM: I meant the majority of the Security Council.

PN: So, we have an obligation to listen to the
majority of the Security Council?

WM: Well... there could be an unreasonable veto.

PN: In which case?

WM: In which case, we have an obligation to
ignore the veto.

PN: And if the majority of the Security Council
does not support us at all?

WM: Then we have an obligation to ignore the
Security Council.

PN: That makes no sense.

WM: If you love Iraq so much, you should move
there. Or maybe France, with the all the other
cheese-eating surrender monkeys. It's time
to boycott their wine and cheese, no doubt
about that.

posted March 30, 2003 11:56 AM              

"Victims of torture in Iraq have been subjected to a wide range of forms of torture. The bodies of many of those executed had evident signs of torture, including the gouging out of the eyes, marks of severe beatings and electric shocks to various parts of the body, when returned to their families."

"In the mid-1990s Iraq introduced judicial punishments such as amputation of hand and foot, branding of forehead and cutting off of the ears..."

"Torture victims in Iraq have been blindfolded, stripped of their clothes and suspended from their wrists for long hours. Electric shocks have been used on various parts of their bodies, including the genitals, ears, the tongue and fingers. Victims have described to Amnesty International how they have been beaten with canes, whips, hosepipe or metal rods and how they have been suspended for hours from either a rotating fan in the ceiling or from a horizontal pole often in contorted positions as electric shocks were applied repeatedly on their bodies. Some victims had been forced to watch others, including their own relatives or family members, being tortured in front of them."

"Other methods of physical torture described by former victims include the use of Falaqa (beating on the soles of the feet), extinguishing of cigarettes on various parts of the body, extraction of finger nails and toenails and piercing of the hands with an electric drill. Some have been sexually abused and others have had objects, including broken bottles, forced into their anus."

posted March 30, 2003 12:55 PM              

And the US & UK's use of anti-personnel landmines and cluster bombs:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140502003
(Have you ever met anyone maimed by a bomb buried/set in their practical back-yard during a conflict?)

------
And, oh, wait, wait: Sexual torture of women in custody in Turkey: http://web.amnesty.org/pages/turkey_action

The Spiral of Violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories: http://web.amnesty.org/web/web.nsf/pages/IOT_home
And torture by Israeli authorities: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE150752002
The 2002 Report on N. Korea: http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/asa/democratic+people's+republic+of+korea!Open

And news on Iran: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130062003?open&of=ENG-IRN http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130012003?open&of=ENG-IRN http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130232002?open&of=ENG-IRN

AND Russia: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR460052003?open&of=ENG-RUS

Egypt: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE120222003?open&of=ENG-2AF

Zimbabwe: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR460102003?open&of=ENG-2AF

Sudan: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR540122003?open&of=ENG-2AF

Pakistan: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA330042003?open&of=ENG-2AS

Malaysia: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA280092003?open&of=ENG-2AS

India: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA200102003?open&of=ENG-2AS

Mexico: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR410132003?open&of=ENG-2AM

...there're more - do you want me to go on?
If Saddam's mistreatment of his people are the pressing reason that we're going to war, why aren't we attacking (or atleast putting heavy pressure upon) other countries?

And the US uses torture, too; we just "contract" it out more often than not.
But, oh, wait - not here: http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/521/521p16.htm
(Yes, this is from a very liberal website, but it's reporting on a Washington Post article that I remembered reading but has now been pushed back to the "pay" section of washingtonpost.com).
___________________________________________________________________
In other news, we're loosing our battle for the "hearts and minds" of the Arab world: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48367-2003Mar29.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49353-2003Mar29.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49317-2003Mar29.html

(This last article speaks to the images that are being seen much more in the rest of the world than here; there's a very impressive (in the strictest sense of the word - it makes an impression) picture on the front page: Men carrying another man who appears to have lost his face.
I can't post the link to it (it opens into a smaller flash window), but here's a link to the front page that shows it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/

posted March 30, 2003 01:00 PM            

But why aren't you asking where our government stood for many years on the matter while those Iraqis were being tortured?

Do you realize that the US was giving Saddam weapons of mass destruction during some of this time?

The primary reason there weren't droves of people out in the street protesting these atrocities back then (There were a number of devoted activists out protesting, I know because I have spoken with some of them, but they almost NEVER got any coverage by the media) was because the average American had no idea it was going on because the media had no reason to cover the story in any real depth..whereas now that it serves the purposes of the current regime in Washington to highlight the brutal reign of Saddam, a great deal of people here are able to recite lists of those atrocities like you just have..

posted March 30, 2003 01:59 PM            

I'm sort of rambling here, stream of consciousness stuff..

To answer your question..proxi said it already too..there are and have been alot of people protesting the human rights violations all over the world.. They just don't make for news that is in the best interest of the media to report on all the time..afterall..some of the human rights violations come at the hands of the coporations that have moved over seas where they can exploit cheap labor, often bruatally, and it's these same corporations that have a large amount of advertising money staked in the media outlets, if they don't outright own them.

That's another reason why investigative reporting is all but dead in the US.. Greg Palast put it well, if I may quote..

Investigative reports share three things: They are risky, they upset the wisdom of the established order and they are very expensive to produce. Do profit-conscious enterprises, whether media companies or widget firms, seek extra costs, extra risk, and the opportunity to be attacked? Not in any buisness text I've ever read. I can't help but note that Britian's Guardian and Observer newspapers, the only papers to report this scandal (Presidential election debacle) when it broke just weeks after the 2000 election, are the world's only major newspapers owned by a not-for-profit corporation."

I believe that the majority of Americans who support the war would very likely have different feelings on the matter if the major media outlets in this country were non-profit driven. Clearly the news would have a radically different tone...

posted March 30, 2003 03:28 PM              

What Would You Do If?
by Joan Baez

posted March 31, 2003 06:33 PM              

I already answer this question on another thread...

quote:

---

The problem of dictatorships is deep and I really don't believe that freedom can come through violence, especially because democracy is not a product to export, it has to come from within.

---

quote:

---

When one wants to bring down a dictatorship most effectively and with the least cost of lives ,then one has four immediate tasks:

*One must strengthen the oppressed population themselves in their determination, self-confidence, and resistance skills;

*One must strengthen the independent social groups and institutions of the oppressed people;

*One must create a powerful internal resistance force;

*One must develop a wise grand strategic plan for liberation and implement it skillfully.

---

quote:

---

Against a strong self-reliant force, given wise strategy, disciplined and courageous action, and genuine strength, the dictatorship will eventually crumble. Minimally, however, the above four requirements must be fulfilled.

---

quote:

---

A liberation struggle is a time for self-reliance and internal strengthening of the struggle group.
As Charles Stewart Parnell called out during the Irish rent strike campaign in 1879 and 1880:

"It is no use relying on the Government.... You must only rely upon your own determination.... Help yourselves by standing together... strengthen those amongst yourselves who are weak..., band yourselves together, organize yourselves... and you must win...."

---

quote:

---

Liberation from dictatorships ultimately depends on the people's ability to liberate themselves.

---

quote:

---

The cases of successful political defiance-or nonviolent struggle for political ends, indicate that the means do exist for populations to free themselves, but that option has remained undeveloped in Iraq's issue...

---

Jakie

posted April 01, 2003 12:28 PM              

Proxie, I never said anything about thinking Islam doesn't have sound theological basis in regard to nonviolent action.