September/October 2002
Feature Articles
Holistic Health Q & A
by John DeCosmo, D.O.
Of genes and gene testing and evaluation.
What is... the Organic Movement?
by Robert Roman
Part two of a three-part article detailing
the author's personal experiences and the growth of the organic movement.
UnCommon Sense!
by David Findlay
War - Iraq - Should we remove Saddam
Hussein?
Articles on the theme "The Learning Process"
A Basket Weaver
by Lou Galgano
An example of how one artist learns
and teaches what he knows.
Getting "It"
by Lewis Fishman
Using "it" as an inspiration
to learn.
Learning Without Harm
by Barbara Bedingfiled
How intellectualism has negatively
influenced our education of the young - and how to counter this.
Music and Movement, and Learning
by Bob and Claire Franki
How the combination of music with movement
from age zero not only facilitates musicianship but increases coordination
and learning.
September 12
by Janet Kato
A moment when the learning process
became the healing process
Learning From Everything
by Patrick Plaskett
Learning from life - from both the
"good" and the "bad."
Learning From Other Cultures
by Dr. Jean Houston
The birth of the Planetary Human
The Relationship Learning Process
by Bob Murray, Ph.D.
How our problems stem from failed relationships;
how to make good ones.
UnCommon Sense!
by David Findlay
War Iraq Should We Remove Saddam Hussein?
The 20th century was the bloodiest century on this planet in recorded history. Wars have been getting bigger and "better" all the time. Did you know that in the First World War around 15 million people died. And in the Second World War around 80 million. And since 1982 a period of comparative peace 5 million have died in wars. If there was ever a subject of importance to our well being and survival it is the subject of War.
Did I get out of bed the wrong side this morning?
No. I have just finished reading two new books by Richard Maybury: World War I The Rest of the Story and How It Affects You Today and World War II The Rest of the Story and How It Affects You Today.
Maybury's main thesis is that the current "War on Terrorism" is a continuation not only of "The Thousand Year Was in the Mideast" (the title of another of his books) but of American foreign policy from the late 19th century and through the World Wars and lesser wars of the 20th century. He claims that we can only hope to understand the current war if we put it into context.
You may or may not agree with everything Maybury writes but, if you wish to get an understanding quickly of what is going on, these books are the perfect starting place. The two books are part of the "Uncle Eric" series. They are written in simple language from "Uncle Eric" (Richard Maybury) to an imaginary nephew. You can read both books in 4 5 hours. They cost $17.95 and $19.95 and are available from Bluestocking Press (800-959-8586). The whole Uncle Eric series consisting of 12 books (all well worth reading) costs only $135 and takes about 30 hours to read. An excellent investment of time and money. Read these books and you will know more about American foreign policy, money and politics than most politicians in Congress!
That's my plug for the day. Now let's try to take a common-sense look at War.
Most people don't enjoy war, don't want to go to war, and they certainly do not want to die in a war so why do people fight?
They fight for "something."
Without understanding the "something" we are unlikely to resolve a conflict, let alone a war. Surely this is a matter of common sense?
And this is the problem with the current War on Terrorism. We do not understand what the "something" is it is not even clear what a "terrorist" is (except when the target is American). O'Reilly on his The O'Reilly Factor (Fox cable TV) is sometimes quite refreshing with his "No Spin Zone." However, I disagree with his claim that in reporting the news about the war it is not necessary to get into the background: it's enough to understand that these people have done these terrible deeds and that they need to be stopped and brought to justice. For O'Reilly, a person dealing with "news" basically as entertainment and for ratings, I can understand his position. But the fact remains that if we do not take the trouble and effort to understand the causes we are not likely to come up with lasting solutions.
If wars are about "something," let's try to figure out what the "something" might be.
Let's take Iraq as an example.
The current American position, as repeatedly conveyed by the media, is that we are going to go out and get Saddam Hussein. There is a little discussion of whether or not this is a good idea. For the most part the choice is not whether or not we go to war with Iraq, but how and when. This is like asking someone whether they want to beat their wife on Wednesday or over the weekend no question as to whether or not they want to beat their wife.
During the Gulf War in 1990/91 the main reason given for the war was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and that the Iraqis were committing all sorts of atrocities in Kuwait. The main problem for the American government was that American public opinion did not support a war, until...
(Quote from Richard Maybury)
"In the Iraq-Kuwait War that began in 1990, the American public was solidly against getting into the war until a teenage Kuwaiti girl appeared on TV. She tearfully told of visiting a Kuwaiti hospital when Iraqi troops stormed in to steal incubators and carry them back to Iraq.
"To the horror and shock of American audiences, the young woman said the soldiers threw babies from incubators and allowed them to die on the floor. Follow-up reports put the number of babies killed at 312.
"The story caused a massive shift in public opinion, and America was again swept by war fever. Women, who are normally quick to speak out against war, were silenced by the thought of hundreds of babies murdered.
The intensity of the emotion was so great that after the war began, take-out pizza sales soared; each evening after work, people would come home, order a pizza and watch the war on TV, rooting as if it were a football game.
"Only after the war was over did the truth come out. The baby incubator incident never happened.
The girl who said she saw the babies thrown from the incubators was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.S. The story had been invented to inflame the passions of the American public, and it certainly worked."
A classic "wag the dog."
So, if we didn't go to war for humanitarian reasons, why did we go to war? As far as I can see, it was mainly about oil. A good portion of our oil comes from the Middle East and the greater part of that oil from Saudi Arabia. If Iraq were allowed to take Kuwait, what would stop them tackling Saudi Arabia, or at least putting pressure on them (and the other OPEC countries) to raise oil prices?
This, however, is not quite as "sexy" a reason to go to war and I wonder whether the American public would have been so keen to support the war if they had realized that it was primarily about "cheap" oil.
People go to war for "something." In this case that "something" was an "interest" our "need" for a cheap, uninterrupted supply of oil from the Middle East.
A question that might be relevant is: Would you be prepared to die for cheap oil? Or, if you yourself were not able to fight, would you be prepared to send someone in your family to die for cheap oil? If the answer to either of these questions is "no," then should one be prepared to ask other Americans our youngsters in the military to be willing to sacrifice their lives for cheap oil?
We are now discussing how we are going to remove Saddam Hussein not if, but how. The main argument is that he is developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that in a few years he will have nuclear capability, and that it is against our "interests" to allow this.
But may I politely suggest that this is just window-dressing.
It may be possible (somewhat) to monitor the development of nuclear weapons though remember it came as a complete "surprise" (did it really?) to the CIA that India and Pakistan had developed nuclear devices but to monitor the development of "dirty" bombs (bombs containing low-grade nuclear material that could easily contaminate large parts of cities such as New York or Washington), and biological and chemical weapons is a virtual impossibility.
So, to get rid of Saddam Hussein would do virtually nothing to solve the problem of the proliferation of WMDs. At the same time, any attempt to remove him from power increases the risk of terrorist retaliation. Remember, he has had years to establish sleeper cells in this country and there is no reason to suppose that these cells are not equipped with at least low-grade WMDs (such as anthrax or "dirty" bombs). Also, if we remove Saddam we have to be prepared to leave "peace-keeping" forces in the country indefinitely. Look at Afghanistan. Look at South Korea we've had peace-keeping forces there for over 50 years. And if we increase our presence in the Middle East, how are the other countries in the area going to react? Particularly Iran, a terrorist-sponsoring state. Also Saudi Arabia a terrorist-sponsoring state. Russia has been more than willing to supply arms to Iran (which makes Russia another terrorist-sponsoring state); why not "dirty" nuclear material (which the Russians have probably lost track of anyway). And, if Russia would not supply them, how about the Russian mafia?
Would you be prepared to die to get rid of Saddam Hussein? Would you be prepared to risk sending American troops to die to get rid of Saddam Hussein? Are you prepared to risk the possibility of terrorist reprisals? I am not. And, if not, we need to say so! Our elected representatives are our employees let us never forget that. They only have power to the extent that we let them have power.
People fight for "something."
What is Saddam fighting for or prepared to fight for? I can only guess. But my guess is that primarily he is fighting to survive as a political leader; and that he would like to expand his sphere of influence in the Middle East. I doubt in spite of what he may say that he plans to wipe out America. He may not be too smart though he may be very Arab-street-smart but I see no reason to suppose that he is suicidal. He knows that America is vulnerable to terrorist attacks, but I doubt if he is willing to commit suicide by authorizing such attacks.
If the real problem is the proliferation of WMDs, then it's not just Iraq. We need to look at why someone or some country would need, or use, WMDs. We need to understand. Maybe, if we understand, there is a chance that together we can come up with a solution. If we do not understand, all we will perpetuate is more war.
I have asked you and, of course, I am also asking myself "Would you be prepared to die for...?"
I am assuming that there are some things we would be prepared to die for. For example, if someone broke into our home and threatened us with serious harm, I would try to shoot that person first. If some country invaded America, I should no doubt be prepared to fight against the aggressor and, if necessary, die. But to die, or risk dying, for an "interest"? I am not saying definitely "no" but I should like it clearly defined what the "interest" is and why it is worth dying for. Cheap oil? No, not worth it.
The government our elected employees need to be held accountable since, in the final instance, we are accountable. Regarding Iraq, we need to ask the government exactly why we need to remove Saddam Hussein and we need to ask ourselves whether it is worth the risk. Remember, in addition to the risk of terrorist reprisals, we risk continuing a religious war (Christians vs. Moslems) which goes back to the Crusades. There are over half a billion Moslems in the Middle East and over a billion worldwide. I wonder how many of them are potential Osamas?
P.S. You can e-mail me at david@altnewtimes.com. I may or may not be able to comments on your e-mails in my column but they are appreciated and I will reply. Thanks.
Copyright (c) 2002 Altnewtimes,
Inc. All rights reserved.
No part of this web site my be reproduced without written permission of Altnewtimes, Inc.
E-mail info@altnewtimes.com