Freedom Lawyers of America

"Peace is not an absence of war,
it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence,
confidence, justice."
�Benedict [Baruch] Spinoza

Although it�s been 58 years since the end of WW II, 50 years since the Korean War, 30 years since the Vietnam War, and 14 years since the end of the Cold War, these horrendous historical events left indelible imprints on the living memory of millions. Those wars, along with many lesser conflicts, invariably involved brutal tyrants and oppressive governments. These painful memories cause many in today�s world to instinctively reject any nation that smacks of militaristic imperialism, whether large or small, right or wrong. That imbedded psychology, aggravated by intense European political agendas, lies at the crux of the global controversy swirling around the impending US-led invasion of Iraq.

It is extremely difficult to separate emotion from objective analysis on the issue of Iraq, but we�ll try to frame the issues�pro and con�as clearly as we can. There is a broad spectrum of reasons why many reject US plans for a regime change in Iraq�some valid and well meaning, some perverse, some political, and some arising out of sheer ignorance. Like some lazy investors who refuse to do vital research before trading, many pro- and anti-war advocates adopt inflexible positions based on equal measures of ignorance. Many (stubbornly) don�t want to be bothered with real reasons or the facts. The net result is that the Iraq War issue, for many fatally flawed reasons, has inflamed global sensitivities to a level not seen in decades. Of course, our media-overloaded world frequently adds to the confusion.

"I never met anybody who wasn�t against war. Even Hitler and Mussolini were, according to themselves." (David Low, New York Times, February 10, 1946)

ANTI-WAR VIEW: Saddam has emphatically declared he does not want war, has outlawed weapons of mass destruction by presidential decree, and has mended his ways. The small country of Iraq can�t possibly be a threat to the superpower USA. Even if he hasn�t reformed, he can be effectively contained a la the Cold War USSR.

PRO-WAR VIEW: Saddam has repeatedly violated conditions of the 1991 Gulf War settlement to which he agreed. Coalition forces have spent $billions patrolling no-fly zones as Saddam has fired rockets at them repeatedly for 12 years. He brutally repressed and killed both Kurds and the Moslem Shiite population of southern Iraq after he signed the 1991 Gulf War agreement.

"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." �Aesop�s Fables, circa 550 B.C.

Iraq has a firm economy, society, and freely elected government

ANTI-WAR VIEW: The people of Iraq are among the most educated and free in the Mideast. The educational level is very high and most Iraqi people like their government and Saddam as evidenced by elections. Iraq�s people are innovative, industrious and enterprising. If not for UN sanctions and continued US pressure, hardship would not exist.

PRO-WAR VIEW: Saddam maintains control of Iraq by virtue of a brutal Stalinesque secret police. Civil rights and liberty are non-existent. No one dares speak out against the regime lest they be tortured or executed. In the words of Joachim von Ribbentrop: "The F�hrer is always right." Iraq�s economy is in shambles and its people destitute and reduced to refugee status. Unemployment is greater than 50% and the majority of those who are employed make between $4-$8 a month (the latter figure the salary of a physician that works in a primary health center). Most families are without economic resources as they have sold off their possessions over the last decade to survive. Saddam has grabbed proceeds of the UN�s oil-for-food program and funneled them into secret bank accounts abroad to fund terrorism and to continue his weapons of mass destruction programs instead of helping his people. A war against Iraq would be a war of liberation, not a war of conquest.

It�s all about oil

ANTI-WAR VIEW: President Bush, whose political base rests with multinational oil corporations, is hell-bent on grabbing Iraq�s huge oilfields for US interests. France and Russia, who have signed oil contracts with Saddam, are justified in their rejection of Bush�s oil grab.

PRO-WAR VIEW: Oil is indeed a factor. In 1990-91, Saddam grabbed Kuwait�s oilfields and was intent on capturing Saudi Arabia�s giant oilfields, which would have given him absolute control of the world�s largest oil reserves and a chokehold on the global economy. Indeed, the oil factor is strategically important; but for the entire world; but it�s far from the only factor.

Public Health in Iraq

ANTI-WAR VIEW: UN sanctions are responsible for the deplorable status of public health, and a war on Iraq will make it worse. A US medical doctor who recently returned from Iraq reported the following (which I�ve corroborated from independent sources as being largely correct):

-- 60% of Iraqis (almost 14 million people) depend entirely on a government provided food ration that by international standards is the minimum for human sustenance.

-- Hospital wards are filled with severely malnourished children and much of the population has a marginal nutritional status.

-- The food distribution program funded by the UN-supervised oil-for-food sales is the world's largest and is heavily dependent upon transportation that will be one of the first targets of the war. The US will sever transport routes to prevent Iraqi armed forces from movement or re-supply. The feeding program will be its first victim.

-- Even before the transportation system is hit, US aircraft will spread millions of graphite filaments in wind dispersed munitions that will cause a complete paralysis of the nation's electrical grids. Already literally held together with bailing wire, because they have been unable to obtain spare parts due to sanctions, the poorly functioning electrical system is essential to the public health infrastructure.

-- The water treatment system, too, has been a victim of sanctions. Unable to import chlorine and aluminum sulfate (alum) to purify water, there are already 1000% increases in the incidence of some waterborne diseases (typhoid cases have increased from 2200 in 1990 to more than 27,000 in 1999). People will not have potable water in their homes and they will not have water to flush their toilets.

-- The sanitation system, which frequently backs-up sewage ankle deep in Baghdad neighborhoods when the ailing pumps fail, will now have no pumps at all. There will be epidemics as water treatment and water pumping will come to a halt. Pregnant women, malnourished children, and the elderly will be the first to succumb. UNICEF estimates the

excess child mortality in the last ten years has been more than 500,000 and that figure will climb steeply in the aftermath of another war. They are part of the "collateral damage" from the last war.

-- The health care system of Iraq cannot handle an emergency of this nature even if there were not thousands of victims of "collateral damage" as we have promised a cruise missile every five minutes for the first 48 hours seeking out military, intelligence, and security forces around Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul, Iraq's largest cities.

The potential devastation can be summed up by the words of an American soldier in the ruins of a French village in 1944: "We sure liberated the hell out of this place."

PRO-WAR VIEW: Saddam is responsible for this humanitarian tragedy, as he has refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors and disarm, which would result in the dropping of UN sanctions and return to normal life. Saddam has confiscated UN oil-for-food funds and failed to help his own people. The tragedy is that the people in one of the potentially richest countries of the world are destitute because they have a psychopathic, power-hungry leader in the style of Hitler and Stalin, his self-professed idols. Remove Saddam�s regime and install a responsible government and you will solve medical and financial problems, not to mention reducing military threats within the Mideast and weapons of mass destruction and terrorist threats beyond. The US plans to begin dropping massive amounts of food and medical supplies immediately after the war begins, so hopefully this will fill the needs of Iraq�s people as war disrupts transportation, health and infrastructure systems.

Iraq has a right to defend its status as a sovereign nation

ANTI-WAR VIEW: The US-led coalition has no right to infringe on the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation.

PRO-WAR VIEW: Saddam abrogated that right when he invaded Iran and Kuwait, and with his intention to topple the Saudi Arabian monarchy and control its oilfields and destabilize the world economy. Respect for sovereignty cannot be extended to a nation that does not reciprocate with respect for the sovereignty of other nations.

The War on Terrorism and the impending Iraq War are simply excuses by the US to create massive new Big Brother intelligence agencies that will usurp the civil liberties of people

ANTI-WAR VIEW: The Iraq War is simply a global extension of intrusive US Orwellian policies inaugurated post 9/11. "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William Pitt, House of Commons speech, Nov 18, 1783)

PRO-WAR VIEW: Al Qaeda terrorism, claimed by Secretary of State Colin Powell to be linked to Saddam Hussein, is a global threat that needs to be eradicated to avoid even greater acts of terrorism. Saddam�s aggressive tendencies to dominate Mideast oilfields have not changed. "We make war that we may live in peace." �Aristotle

A US-led coalition attack on Iraq will increase anti-US and anti-West sentiment in the Moslem world

ANTI-WAR VIEW: Many Moslems are tolerant of the US and West in general. But virtually all Moslem nations are opposed to a US-led war on Iraq. Saudi Arabia�s top religious scholar, Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh, contended in a worldwide speech to Moslems during the annual haj in Mecca last week (The Economist, Feb 15): "� that the Muslim Ummah or nation being attacked, �economically and religiously�, reflects the common Muslim belief that America wants Iraq for its oil, and assaults Islamic morals in the guise of its war on terror." And, "Yousef Qaradawi, an Egyptian-born cleric based in Qatar, with a wide television following and a reputation for moderation, has denounced terrorism in the name of Islam. Yet, in a recent interview, Mr. Qaradawi declared that anyone killed while fighting to expel American forces from the Gulf would die a martyr. While praising the American people, he claimed that the [US] government was waging war against Islam."

In short, there is immense hostility in the Muslim world towards US policy. A US attack on Iraq will create widespread opposition and hatred in the Muslim world toward the US and the West for years to come. It will increase terrorism, not dampen it. While most Muslims disapprove of Osama bin Laden�s methods, they agree with his basic message: "Yankee go home." US plans to set up a post-Saddam occupation force headed by General Franks will not set well with Iraqis or other Mideast nations.

PRO-WAR VIEW: Many Saudis and Kuwaitis conveniently ignore the fact their nations would no longer exist if the US had not intervened in their defense in the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam has not changed and has failed abysmally to abide by terms of the 1991 Gulf War agreement by flagrantly violating 17 UN resolutions including the Security Council�s "last chance" Resolution 1441. Liberating Iraq will open the door for long overdue democratic and human rights reforms (especially with respect to women), not only in Iraq, but also across the Mideast. A US-led Iraq occupation force headed by General Franks will establish a sound basis for future political and economic policies just as US occupation forces successfully did in Japan and Germany after WW II, and as are now occurring in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

Physical risk to US troops and Iraqi Shiites

ANTI-WAR VIEW: The pro-war warriors are silent on the biggest risk. A military analyst said on NBC: Saddam apparently has anthrax weaponry in southern Iraq where US troops are scheduled to invade. If the anthrax is released, the risk is that 1-3 million Shiites in that region will die, along with an unknown number of US troops. The spores lie on the ground for weeks, fully effective. If the cost in lives of invading Iraq moves into the millions, the war�s plus factors won�t outweigh that.

PRO-WAR VIEW: Saddam has already proven by past actions he will not hesitate to use biological and chemical warfare against his own citizens, in time of war or not. Even without war this threat against the Shiites and Kurds remains. US troops are well aware of the dangers and are prepared to deal with the hazard.

Outside the Mideast, there is overwhelming opposition to the US-led coalition to attack Iraq

ANTI-WAR VIEW: 9/11 destroyed the judgment of the US on terrorism, and it�s now out-of-control. The US is running roughshod over world opinion and its allies, especially its vital allies France and Germany. The US is following a pattern begun by Nazi Germany.

PRO-WAR VIEW: French President Chirac�s contention that "more inspectors" is the way to disarm Iraq is ludicrous. Saddam has repeatedly violated UN resolutions for 12 years and continually led weapons inspectors on a merry chase. It was never the job of inspectors to disarm Iraq, but only for them to verify that Iraq was disarming itself. France agreed to UN Resolution 1441, which was a "last chance" for Saddam, and now it doesn�t want to live up to the very resolution it helped draft and signed. The EU will soon consist of 25 members and 18 of those governments have already expressed solidarity with the US position on Iraq. Recent polls indicate a majority of Europeans don�t favor a US-led war against Iraq without UN approval. But with UN approval, a majority of Europeans is in favor. It appears France and Germany, not the US, are the ones running roughshod over European opinion. The Economist (Feb 15) says: "Europeans are more divided among themselves than Europeans and Americans are."
NATO�s integrity was severely tested recently by France and Germany�s reluctance to join in the defense of fellow member Turkey. The UN Security Council is on the verge of becoming a feckless organization as France, Russia and China are threatening to veto the Iraq war after voting for prior resolutions that Saddam has repeatedly violated and which they no longer wish to enforce. Chancellor Schr�der revealed all recently when he said the spat between the US and the EU (mainly just France, Germany and Belgium) over the Iraq war is really an issue of "European sovereignty." An emergency EU meeting was held on February 17th to try to repair the damage France and Germany have caused in Europe with their go-it-alone, anti-US foreign policy. Regarding NATO and the EU, The Economist (Feb 25) says: "Germany, France and Belgium have undermined that confidence, perhaps fatally."

In Conclusion

ANTI-WAR VIEW: An Iraq invasion will inflame extremists in every Arab nation, which may lead to assassinations & takeovers of now friendly Arab nations by the radicals, which will turn most of the Middle East into a solid anti-US bastion, & cut off most Middle East oil from the US & the West (and/or double the oil price). The risk here is in excess of the lofty theories that some Arab governments will be democratized after seeing Iraq "liberated." US leadership has not evaluated the risks of this invasion properly. The plus factors are largely theoretical and/or are based on everything going perfectly. They never do, especially in a war. In sum: the risks far outweigh the potential gains. The risks may not eventuate, but if they do, the US will inherit evil winds of mammoth size that will change the world, for the worst, for decades to come. Even if the US attack succeeds 100%, it will not have been worth the risks that are involved. It is the equivalent of betting your home on a roll of the dice. A gamble too far.

PRO-WAR VIEW: Many see the US as an imperialistic nation, but others prefer to believe the words of Thomas Jefferson regarding US intentions: "Whensoever hostile aggressions � require a resort to war, we must meet our duty and convince the world that we are just friends and brave enemies." Or Albert Einstein: "Our defense is not in armaments, nor in science, nor in going underground. Our defense is in law and order." There is indeed great risk in an Iraq war; but history has painfully shown there is an equally great risk in failing to stand up to tyrants, and allowing them to increase their power and spread their terror unchecked.

That�s just a sampling of Anti-War and Pro-War Views. Most will find themselves agreeing with some Anti-War Views on some issues and Pro-War Views on others. The position of those with Anti-War Views is clear, but what they often fail to realize is that those with Pro-War Views are for the most part extremely reluctant warriors, who simply see the war option as the unavoidable choice in a bad situation. Either side could be wrong or right; or both sides partly wrong and partly right. Inshallah!


"With reasonable men, I will reason;
with humane men I will plead;
but to tyrants I will give no quarter,
nor waste arguments where
they will certainly be lost."
�William Lloyd Garrison