The Free Press -- Independent News Media

Thu Nov 20 2008

Departments
War in Iraq

No Support for War
by James "Guin" McGuinness
March 19, 2003

As the hour of murder nears, people are gearing up to voice their outrage at George Bush's foreign policy. It seems that he feels that killing tens of thousands of innocent people to get his "target", Saddam Hussein, is a good foreign policy. Unfortunately, far too many people feel that in order to prevent terrorism, and/or to prevent an attack on the US, will require killing a tyrant. Not just any tyrant mind you, but a specific tyrant from Baghdad. While I do not in any way. shape or form support Hussein, I also do not support Bush in this endeavor.

The unelected President George Bush has said it is now "the moment of truth." This would seem to be a first from a man who has been lying for as long as I have been hearing him. I have been opposed to war since I was a child. he got into college through affirmative action, since his grades were so low that had his family been blue collar, he would have never have been accepted. Then he got into the Air National Guard, where he appears to have served in spirit, since he was not seen for much of his time there. He stole the presidential election, with the assistance of his brother. And most of his inner circle pushing for the war never served a day in the military, never mind saw action.

Beginning in my Freshman year of High School in 1970, I demonstrated against the war in Viet Nam. I have not seen a "just war" since. Although I have seen the US involved in a number of illegal and immoral issues since then. Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, Iran, the list goes on. We were taught in school that the United States got involved with these and other governments to help the people living there, and free them from the evil rulers who were responsible for committing acts of atrocity. yet when I researched deeper into these events, it became clear that the rulers there were either put in place by the CIA or some other US agency, or the leader in question refused to march in lockstep with the US administration of the moment. Only after the dictator involved decided to do things his own way did the US decide he was "evil."

Until the United States makes a conscious and true decision to stay out of the internal affairs of other countries across the world, there can be no peace. The US only gets involved with another country when it will be beneficial to multi-national or US corporation interests. Iraq had no role in 9/11, there is no proof of any connection to Al Qaeda, has seen it's weapons greatly reduced, and lived under severe sanctions for years. And this is a country that threatens the United States, the only superpower in the world?

The US is currently preparing to cause immeasurable destruction to the people and country of Iraq. The military gloats that they are ready to show the Iraqi's "shock and awe." They recently exploded a weapon dubbed the "mother of all bombs", the largest, most devastating "conventional" weapon ever created. There is discussion of using depleted uranium, which causes chemicals to be released when it burns, and leaves radioactive debris behind. DU is 40% reduced in radiation, which is still very harmful, especially to children who amy play with it afterward. Then there is the "bunker buster", a nuclear missile, and the US Air Force's request to be allowed to use full scale nuclear missiles. And, finally, there is the "E-Bomb", a "high-power microwave" weapon designed to temporarily knock out communication and other electrical systems to prevent the enemy from using essentially any weapon more advanced than a gun or knife. Considering the might of the US military, it seems that this is nothing more than mass slaughter.

This war is ostensibally about the possibility of Iraq having an/or using weapons of ass destruction. No one has more such, or deadlier, weapons than the United States. And George Bush refuses to rule out the possible use of such weapons by US forces. Considering the overwhelming might and superiority of the US military, it seems to me that Mr. Bush is pushing Saddam and the Iraqi people into a corner, which can be a very dangerous thing. When someone feels there is no hope at all, they often times do things they would not usually do.

Considering the fact that much of what the US has offered as proof of Iraq's acquiescing to destroying weapons of mass destruction has been proven false, and or faked, there is absolutely no excuse to go to war. What George Bush has planned is nothing more than mass murder. He has stated that after the war there may be trials for war crimes. He also made it clear that saying someone was only doing their job would not be an excuse. I can only hope that the United Nations will take that seriously. Because as far as I can tell, George Bush and many in his administration are nothing short of war criminals. Those of us who are committed to peace can only make our voices heard as loudly as possible. That means writing articles and letters exposing the lies, holding rallies and vigils, committing act of civil resistance, and hoping that the UN will try this administration for war crimes, and/or the American people will demand the impeachment of these men and women.

It seems that whenever a President sends US men and women into battle against the will of Congress and/or the citizens of the US and/or the UN, we are told we must support the troops and our President. I refuse to do either one. I support bringing the US troops home, and not allowing them to murder innocent people abroad. I support any individual member of the US military who refuses to go to Iraq and kill unneccesarily. But I do not support any military person, be they American or foreign, that allows themselves to be used as pawns by an immoral government. And the only way I will support President Bush is if he agrees to go into exile in Bahrain. Perhaps he can share a duplex with that other tyrant, Saddam Hussein.

James "Guin" McGuinness

Email this article to a friend