Perhaps I am an unusual sort of guy; I enjoy a good civil debate, tempered with levelheaded rules of course. The first rule is to debate your point of view using evidence through researched material. But the main rule is to always keep it civil as the debate can become dislodged from the purpose of its intent (purpose of a debate is to seek out the truth through adamant research on the part of both debating competitors).
The point here is to debate with knowledge as your choice of weapons and with mutual respect for the opposition and his or her counterviews. It is without a doubt that I usually perform duties as a novice reporter and debater using touchy and often controversial subjects which most of the time no one wants to tackle. However I feel that it is a necessary duty and some one has to do it. So here I am at it again; pillaging the decorum of the off beat topics that everyone either fears or dreads considering or conversing. (ESPECIALLY ON LINE)
The focus of debate today is "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Who deserves the right to manufacture and control them? And the U.S operation in Iraq is it helping or harming Iraq?
This topic was selected in response to the critics of one of my articles ("Reality and The Mythic Narrative of War Collide") as a response to their views on the subject matter. Allow me this opportunity to thank all my critics and supporters with their most appreciated input for it empowers me, giving me the ability to harness my views by a more indebt and focused researched analysis. Dare I suggest that because of this debate I get a second look at my material, I get to upgrade my perspective by utilizing an additional researched analysis?
During my consideration of the email compilation I had received from my critics I noticed several comments which deserve attention and recognition as they espouse the general concerns and counter responses to my oratorical on the subject matter in question. It was stated "Why would a country need a nuclear weapon, if it was not planning on using it? Apparently this question was aimed at Iran and the smaller countries I had spoke about in my article ("Reality and The Mythic Narrative of War Collide"), it was also used as an attempt to rectify the misuse of force and power America has chosen in the middle east in Iraq and now attempting to use in Iran.
Although this statement has some validity to it, the statement and the speaker leaves out the fact that America and many other European nations have nuclear weapon yet he/she never attributes this line of questioning to these nations who have nuclear weapons and who have historically already used them (Pearl Harbor and the bombing of Hiroshima). Why do they feel that it is ok to have the ability to bomb others yet not face consequences? If you grant yourself the right to manufacture and use these weapons then you have globally set the benchmark for other free nations to do the same.
"Nuclear non-proliferation Treaty of 1968; the idea of the treaty: keep the weapons from falling into the hands of nations that could result in nuclear war." Who determines which nation is a threat to the instigation of a nuclear war? Obviously the job of judge and jury can't be left to the nations who already have and used weapons of this magnitude.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is an international treaty, opened for signature on July 1, 1968 to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. There are 189 states (countries) party to the treaty; among them are Iran, Iraq, and the United States of America.
The NPT consists of a preamble, and eleven articles. In spite of the fact that the concept of "pillars" appears nowhere in the NPT, the treaty is nevertheless sometimes interpreted as having three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.
First off I find very fine holes in this treaty and as stated each country has the right to use nuclear technology yet how is this possible if they are prevented from acquiring and using the resources to manufacture that technology? In addition this treaty although not contractually inscribed leaves open the gap that provides too much room for interpretation and speculation, which no good treaty or contract should do.
The room that is left wide open is the fact that America who has signed this treaty along with these other smaller countries still maintains its right to proliferate weapons without any signs of disarmament, while holding other non technical nations to mainstream interpretations of the treaty. This kind of treaty is faulty as it surely stagnates other nations around the world from ever advancing technologically and it further threatens their freedom and safety as countries such as Israel (who by the way has not signed the treaty) can use these weapons without a deterrent.
Another aspect of treaty signing that I would like to mention is the history of the American government treaty and promises in which they have made to other nations, The foremost subjective historical account of treaties signed by the Americas was made as a promise to the Indian Nation, in which many such treaties were signed and agreed upon and each one was broken by the United States Of America. It seems to me that with the treaty of nuclear weapons at stake (the most significant and important treaty ever made) and if we weight the history of the United States, the government never keeps their word. So why should we trust them now?
I have not known a weapon or device that was made by man that was never used. I have yet to see the day when governments tell the truth or keep a treaty, and I will never witness the time when civilians and military people are no longer gullible.
"It takes little in wartime to turn ordinary men and women into killers. Most give themselves willingly to the seduction of unlimited power to destroy. All feel the peer pressure to conform. Few, once in battle, find the strength to resist gratuitous slaughter. Physical courage is common on a battlefield. Moral courage is not."
By Chris Hedges
1. CRITIC -"Civilian Deaths UNDER Saddam Hussein before the U.S operation in Iraq' Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power. BTW this doesn't include the soldiers that died during the U.S. invasion of Iraq. By simple extrapolation, the U.S. intervention has SAVED lives as the actual number under Hussein would have been much higher."
Here again the critic forgets a formidable point and that is it was the American government that employed Saddam Hussein during his killing spree and with no objection from his employers the CIA or the President, perhaps he might have been doing the bidding of the government, it was obvious that the Bush administration had no objections to Saddam Hussein's appetite for blood because they continued to back him during his war like campaigns. During this time of chaos many of the President's people (Donald Rumsfeld) meet with Saddam Hussein in business meetings and as allies. As a result of these facts it would be accurate to say that America acted acquiescent while cosponsoring terrorism within that region of the world, and the blood which was spilled by Hussein is also on the hands of the American government.
2. CRITIC - "BTW: one of the most thoughtful and scientific approaches to the causes of death in Iraq is offered by BETH OSBORNE DAPONTE. She pointed out that the loss of infrastructure (Power plants, hospitals, water and sewage plants, etc) lead to additional causalities."
As I researched it Beth Osborne Daponte was a 29-year-old Commerce Dept. demographer in 1992, when she publicly contradicted then-Defense Secretary Richard Cheney on the highly sensitive issue of Iraqi civilian casualties during the Gulf War. In short order, Daponte was told she was losing her job. She says her official report disappeared from her desk, and a new estimate, prepared by supervisors, greatly reduced the number of estimated civilian casualties. Although Cheney said shortly after the 1991 Gulf War that "we have no way of knowing precisely how many casualties occurred" during the fighting "and may never know," Daponte had estimated otherwise: 13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system, she calculated. In all, 40,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the conflict, she concluded, putting total Iraqi losses from the war and its aftermath at 158,000, including 86,194 men, 39,612 women, and 32,195 children.
I tend to shiver at the thought of a ("scientific approaches to the causes of death in Iraq") statement in which the critic made; it makes the loss of life so menial and antiseptic. Statements like these show how empty and marginal we as Americans (who have systematically been sheltered from the realities of war) have now become; desensitize to the loss of human life and the worth or value of its significance. BETH OSBORNE DAPONTE pointed out that the loss of infrastructure (Power plants, hospitals, water and sewage plants, etc) lead to additional causalities. However she never pointed out that the invasion of Iraq by America in addition to the constant embargo which deterred imports into the country and the constant bombings during both wars in Iraq lead to the destruction of all these structures within the city limits of Iraq. America is therefore responsible for inciting a civil war within the country, killing thousands of civilians and innocent people and destroying the infrastructure of their culture and metropolis subsystem. Besides the harm that was caused by the lies that was told in order to instigate the war in Iraq, the Iraqi's have lost their sovereignty on land and in their own airspace and the right to protect their homes, their culture and their lives.
4. CRITIC -"While initially attributed to direct U.S. military action, the death count is mounting not from US military action but rather, from sabotage by the terrorists who keep knocking them out as fast at they are brought back on line.
Saddam Hussein was a raving madman. He gassed the Kurds, started a war with Iran and when he lost that, he didn't want to repay all the loans from Kuwait.... so he attacked them. First thing he did when attacked in the first Gulf War: launched missiles on Israel. Is this world really safe with a homicidal maniac with a huge bankroll on the loose? Stopping Hussein was necessary."
This statement made by the critics seemed almost ironic since the CIA and the government financed and manipulated this madman, except who is aware of the madman who holds Saddam Hussein's lease. Who put him in power and who made oil deals with him over an undetermined period of time? When you speak about madmen try replacing Saddam Hussein's name with Bush and then ask yourself that same line of questions, it may enlighten you to the realities of this war.
5. CRITIC "The problem is simple: the people of this country have a government and the paranoid rantings of those who refuse to take responsibility for THEIR government are pathetic. We need an educated electorate to take back control of OUR government and stop trying to blame this group or that. I'd just like to point out that the Democrats have been in power in Washington for 7 months AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!!! We are Americans and we need to come together. All the rest is rhetoric and worthless..."
The truth is never rhetoric or worthless, it is sublime it is tranquil but never unworthy of the people's considerations. We are not however inspired by a government that lies to instigate wars; those are mad who calculate the reactions of the people and who use them to murder in the name of peace, democracy and freedom. Because we have a government that is vastly becoming anti constitution and anti American, the problems are in fact not so simple. Although the Republicans and the Democrats have sat at the round table together they have not served the needs of the people in any way shape or form. What are the real concerns here? As I see it I debate for the innocent to survive, for true justice to prevail and how is it that a debate over issues of this sort should ever become worthless or rhetorical. My question to all the critics is what are you debating for? Why do you appear to oppose these things? What is your agenda?