2008 Woodie Awards
How to deal with Saddam
John Green--The California Aggie (U. California-Davis)
Issue date: 2/26/03 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
(U-WIRE) DAVIS, Calif. - Everyone acknowledges that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant responsible for the deaths of not only many Iraqis, but also many Iranians. Clearly, he is far from the ideal leader of Iraq or any other country. The question remains, how do we deal with Saddam?
For over a decade, the United States has used its power on the United Nations Security Council to impose deadly sanctions on Iraq. For the past 12 years, these sanctions have killed 1.5 million Iraqis, but not one Saddam Hussein.
The United States dropped 88,000 tons of bombs on Iraq during the first Gulf War. These bombs destroyed buildings, roads and water treatment facilities -- and not always on accident, either. The bombings killed many civilians, but they did not kill one Saddam Hussein.
In 1991, tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers invaded Iraq. They killed and captured thousands of Iraqi soldiers. U.S. tanks and helicopters used radioactive depleted uranium shells to devastate their adversaries. However, no M-1 Abrams tank and no Apache helicopter ever irradiated one Saddam Hussein.
The United Nations imposed inspections on Iraq during the 1990s, too. Even here, the United States manipulated the inspectors for its own aims. Scott Ritter, a former U.N. inspector and card-carrying Republican, has alleged that they were used as spies by the U.S. government to document sensitive Iraqi installations.
Weapons inspections for Iraq but not the United States? Not France? Not Israel? Not Russia? Not China? Not Pakistan? Not India? Not North Korea? What worries us more: over 10,000 nuclear warheads in the U.S. arsenal, or Iraq maybe trying to produce one nuclear weapon in the next five years?
And what about the International Criminal Court? The ICC is currently trying Yugoslav strongman Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes. But why aren't any American war criminals, like Colin Powell, on trial for covering up the My Lai massacre in Vietnam? Why isn't Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on trial for the ongoing military occupation of Palestine? The ICC is not an unbiased tribunal of justice; it's just another tool in the U.S. utility belt. The real alternative to war
For over a decade, the United States has used its power on the United Nations Security Council to impose deadly sanctions on Iraq. For the past 12 years, these sanctions have killed 1.5 million Iraqis, but not one Saddam Hussein.
The United States dropped 88,000 tons of bombs on Iraq during the first Gulf War. These bombs destroyed buildings, roads and water treatment facilities -- and not always on accident, either. The bombings killed many civilians, but they did not kill one Saddam Hussein.
In 1991, tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers invaded Iraq. They killed and captured thousands of Iraqi soldiers. U.S. tanks and helicopters used radioactive depleted uranium shells to devastate their adversaries. However, no M-1 Abrams tank and no Apache helicopter ever irradiated one Saddam Hussein.
The United Nations imposed inspections on Iraq during the 1990s, too. Even here, the United States manipulated the inspectors for its own aims. Scott Ritter, a former U.N. inspector and card-carrying Republican, has alleged that they were used as spies by the U.S. government to document sensitive Iraqi installations.
Weapons inspections for Iraq but not the United States? Not France? Not Israel? Not Russia? Not China? Not Pakistan? Not India? Not North Korea? What worries us more: over 10,000 nuclear warheads in the U.S. arsenal, or Iraq maybe trying to produce one nuclear weapon in the next five years?
And what about the International Criminal Court? The ICC is currently trying Yugoslav strongman Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes. But why aren't any American war criminals, like Colin Powell, on trial for covering up the My Lai massacre in Vietnam? Why isn't Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on trial for the ongoing military occupation of Palestine? The ICC is not an unbiased tribunal of justice; it's just another tool in the U.S. utility belt. The real alternative to war