Medact, the British affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, released a paper on Tuesday which predicts that an invasion of Iraq could lead to a ‘human catastrophe’. The document is called Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq.
Environmental Costs? Environmental Costs? These people are talking about the environmental costs of removing the man who ordered the systematic torching of all of Kuwait’s oil fields from power. I have some news for you, guys… there is already a ‘human catastrophe’ in Iraq. Killing Saddam Hussain and exterminating Ba’athism and its supporters is the only way that will ever end.
It is interesting that the ‘International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War’ think the best way to do that is to leave Saddam Hussain alone long enough that he can develop or acquire nuclear weapons of his own. One must remember that these are the same people who wanted the Soviet Union and NATO to disarm… but of course the West should do it first.
I will start taking these apologists for mass murdering tyranny seriously when they publish a paper called “Willful Murder: The Health and Environmental Costs of having a Socialist Dictator in Iraq”.
I have a question: what are the health and environmental costs of not going to war?
Good question, Alan. Why don’t we ask Medact…
Its too bad everything is so political. We should be able to trust our president, and if he says that we need to attack we should.
But Bush now hos so many vested interests in this war that who knows if we are doing it becuase Iraq is really bad or if its for oil.
Also this makes us look at other qustions such as should the CIA be able to keep there information prvaite, they are spies and of course the general public shouldn’t know it, but some 3rd parth observer needs to confirm whats happening.
>>>I will start taking these apologists for mass murdering tyranny seriously when they publish a paper called “Willful Murder: The Health and Environmental Costs of having a Socialist Dictator in Iraq”.
And what purpose would that report serve? Do you think Saddam would sit up and take notice? Everyone knows he’s an oppressive bastard, & i don’t think anyone would believe he’s particularly concerned about the environment either. However, does this give us a license to do whatever we want? Leave radioactive material scattered across a country? “oh, it’s ok; we’re a bit bad, but he’s much nastier”. Our governments are (vaguely) accountable, and as far as i understand it, this paper’s not saying we should or shouldn’t do anything, invasion-wise; simply warning about potential consequences of likely actions.
If you want to bury your head in the sand & ignore possible consequences, go right ahead, but if you seriously advocate invasion, you should be realistic about what the results might be. Apart from anything else, by identifying potential environmental problems beforehand, it may be possible to take steps to avoid, or at least alleviate them.
& since when has saddam been a socialist, by any conventional definition of the term?
A_t: Ba’athism was founded by Michel Aflaq, whose objective was secular Arab pan-nationalism that was a mixture of Marxism and National Socialism.
This Aflaq dude was born to a Greek Orthodox Christian family in Damascus, Syria, in 1910. He studied philosophy at the Sorbonne in Paris in the late 1920’s, and became an avid Marxist, but was also a great fan of Nietzsche and Julius Evola.
Aflaq’s idea was to model secular Arab pan-nationalism on a mixture of Russian Communism, whose party structure he admired, and German National Socialism. In 1947 he founded the Movement of Arab Renaissance in Syria, which later became the Ba’athist party.
In 1968, Ba’athists lead by Saddam Hussan staged a coup d’etat in Iraq and invited Aflaq to come in and help organize Iraqi Ba’athism, which he did indeed do. Ba’athism is socialism to the extent that the state controls the means of production in much the same way as German National Socialism did, and modern democratic socialism still does… with a mixture of outright nationalisation and intimidatory regulation… owners of companies can remain so provided they actually use their assets in ways approved of my the state and in tune with ‘national objectives’.
The state calls the tune and in Iraq, “L’etat c’est moi”… Saddam Hussain is the state. Iraqi Ba’athism may not be what western socialists like to think of as socialism but socialism is what it is.