|
|
To put it bluntly, I do not agree with Nir Dagan's piece on the necessity of the Iraqi conflict though he did bring up several good points. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why...
First of all, let us lay it all out on the table. Saddam is a horrible man and a corrupt ruler. He tortured his people, he murdered thousands of innocents and to put it honestly didn't give a damn. Nonetheless, had the United States really had the good intentions of "freeing the Iraqi people" and "liberating Iraq" then they could have done what they did a whole lot sooner. I see again and again on a large variety of news channels from Al-Jazeera, to BBC, to CNN, to DW-TV and Das Erste that America has yet to find that elusive 'smoking gun'; the mother-load of weapons of mass destruction and general evilness. The 'nuclear capabilities' that Nir touches on in his essay are based not in fact but in the fiction of the American propaganda machine. I find it strangely humorous that the United States blames Iraq for possessing such capabilities while right under their noses, North Korea, who openly announces its construction of nuclear weapons, largely remains ignored (up until a few days ago). Similarly, the supposed Iraqi links with Al-Quaeda haven’t surfaced though the troops have discovered some signs of the atrocities committed by Saddam "against his own people". By the by, Al-Quaeda actually hates, well, hated the regime of Saddam because he runs a secular state while Al-Quaeda believes in a very religious government. So fundamentally these two groups just don’t get along. Anyways, with all this evil flowing around, why hasn’t Iraq thrown even one threat in the direction of the United States or any other state since Gulf War I? May it then be clear to all who read this: this is the first war started by the US as a pre-emptive option against something that just might happen. Something which might happen but so far hasn't. This makes them running the risk that the war is seen, internationally, as a lost cause. As I have mentioned above, no one yet has found the Smoking Gun.
By watching channels such as MSNBC, I am aware of what the American civilians are subjected to on a daily basis, and they have no other choice. Other US news channels seem to exude a very similar form of frenzied patriotism. You are reminded daily that another two American soldiers were killed, Jimmy and Susie, and then it goes on to interviews with their sobbing parents. After they finish with that, they're off to say, "The 34th airborne division has destroyed an Iraqi bunker said to be holding hundreds of soldiers." I can imagine that, having only this sort of news available to satisfy one’s intellectual urges, civilians will be more likely to see their own soldiers in a Godly light while the enemy remains in their eyes nothing but Arab savages resorting to guerrilla warfare in a vain attempt to put a dent in the American war machine. No matter how informed and hence uninformed Mr. Dagan is in writing his article, he doesn't have a right to mention such sweeping generalizations about Iraq and the Middle East in his article (and as we're talking about the Middle East, since when did Israel become a western nation?).
I would just like to clear up the issue at this point that the Nazi’s in Germany during the 1930’s were not ‘mainly’ against the Jews but focused on anybody who did not fit their view of the perfect Arian, blue-eyed, blond-haired person. Hence the list initiated by Mr. Dagan can then be expanded to included gypsies, communists, socialists, physically and mentally disabled people and homosexuals. Now that we have this covered...
Nir Dagan says that Iraq is in possession of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons? The closest they have admitted to, is a cruise missile called the Al-Samud II which is much more like a SCUD than anything else. Even though, most likely, the Iraqi nuclear arsenal doesn’t exist, Dagan goes on to say that Iraq would be able not only to attack Iran but also Israel. Why doesn't he touch on the fact then that Israel is openly in possession of nuclear weapons and nobody is doing anything about it? But perhaps touching on Israel is too risky a subject. I'll get back to my original rant.
We were informed in the article of Mr. Dagan that Saddam's "will to control the world may cause a major fight in the Middle East." What has shown us that Saddam wants to take over the planet? Perhaps the act of Iraq building missiles which fire...shock, horror...100 kilometers farther than the UN sanctions allow (the UN set a measly limit of 150 km on Iraqi rockets, the extra 100 kilometer range of the Samud II allowing Iraq to just hit Israel from its western border). Perhaps what planted the seed in people's minds was the fact that Saddam “gassed his own people, for God's sake" as we are reminded a multitude of times during White House press reports.
Another reason why I believe that the United States doesn’t have such pure intentions with Iraq is that this whole thing reeks too much of oil. Let me just fill you in on the details. A while back, before it became occupied, Iraq changed from selling its oil in Dollars to selling its oil in Euro. Hmmm... What does this mean? That the American currency will suffer. Now OPEC is considering the same change from Dollars to Euro and when this happens, the United States will finally lose its money ‘monopoly’ on the oil industry. And I am saying this without even mentioning the knock-out punch: that England and Norway, when in the year 2005 will also change to the Euro for selling their oil. Hence, as the largest oil producers in Europe as well as the rest of the Middle East drop US money, the backlash on the US economy will be spectacular. The war on Iraq was not only to save the Iraqis and “rid the world of an evil regime” but also to protect US interests in the region. Now, as the USA gains control of the oil in Iraq, they will be able to return all sales of the ‘black gold’ back to the original Dollar.As we are talking about protecting the Iraqi people, the United States and England have an obligation under the Geneva Convention to provide for all medical and social needs of the Iraqi civilians which, to this point in time, has not yet been done. When soldiers are interviewed on the TV they say things like, “We are a peacekeeping force. It is not our job to police the streets. It is not our job to rebuild the city. It is not our job to stop the looters.” Well, what are they there for then? To take sight-seeing tours in the palaces of the regime? To steal some of Iraqi’s history and bring it back to the United States (as four journalists and one soldier have already done)? To sit by and watch as homes, hotels, museums and various public buildings get looted (American soldiers were positioned in front of the National Museum as it was gutted and did absolutely nothing to prevent the effacing of Iraqi history)? Men, women and children are dying in hospitals for the lack of medical supplies. Where is the plan for rebuilding Iraq? Have the US and England really thought about this AT ALL?
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
Sami Kerim Galal
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
Sorry about that! Sami Kerim Galal | May 2nd, 2003
Just wanted to tell everyone that this isn't the full article. I'm presently in communication with the editorial staff getting the problem fixed.
G'bye for now...
It's fixed... Sami Kerim Galal | May 14th, 2003
I'd like to thank Jedi Mike, working at TakingITGlobal, for his help in fixing up the article. It is now ready to read if anyone is interested.
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
