Courtesy of Michael Bradfield and Wilma van der Veen (Inter-university Coalition Against the War)
This is a war to control Middle Eastern oil reserves.
Senior members of the Bush cabinet worked on a plan to take over Iraq before the 2000
U.S. presidential election. (Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century – Baker
Institute for Public Policy, April 2001)
The U.S. war is not about weapons inspection.
Scott Ritter, ex-Marine and former UN Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq, concluded that “Iraq
has no significant weapons of mass destruction and no means to produce them in meaningful
quantities.” He pointed out that the U.S. actively blocked renewed weapons inspections in
Iraq (SCFAIT, June 4, 2002). The U.S. is now trying to ensure that inspections fail, and
initially refused to provide UN inspectors with U.S. intelligence data on Iraq.
Targeting Iraq alone to eliminate “weapons of mass destruction” violates Section 14 of Security
Council Resolution 687, which calls for region-wide disarmament.
This war is not about terrorism.
There is no evidence connecting Iraq to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 nor to Iraqi government
support for al-Qaeda.
This is not a war in defence of democracy.
Saddam is a cruel despot who has committed horrendous crimes (with Western military
support). However, the U.S. is not allied with democratic Iraqi opposition groups with
widespread support. The U.S. wants to replace Saddam with a compliant set of Iraqi generals.
Invasion will likely be followed by a prolonged US occupation.
There is no legal justification for war on Iraq.
The UN Charter, Article 2, forbids “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state” unless facing imminent military threat. Iraq has not
attacked nor threatened the U.S. but the U.S. and the U.K. attack Iraq daily in the “no fly”
zones which were imposed by the U.S., not by the UN.
Iraq is no longer a military power.
Twelve years of devastating sanctions have left the people of Iraq extremely vulnerable. UN
reports indicate that the 1991 destruction of infrastructure, combined with sanctions, have
already caused the death of 1,500,000 Iraqis, including 500,000 children. The sanctions – an
economic and military blockade – caused the unprecedented resignations of top UN officials.
The UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator, Denis Halliday resigned in protest in 1998. In February
2000, his replacement, Hans von Sponeck, also resigned, calling the sanctions a “true human
tragedy.”
In 1999, the Canadian Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Mennonite, Presbyterian, and United
churches concluded “the suffering and death caused by the UN sanctions are of a scale that
place Iraq in a category with the gravest humanitarian disasters of the 20th century”
(InterChurch Action).
An all-party Parliamentary Committee unanimously recommended in April, 2000, that Canada
call for the urgent lifting of economic sanctions, a call the Prime Minister continues to ignore.
An invasion of Iraq would be a clear violation of international law and
of the UN Charter.
Article 2 of the UN Charter requires UN members to “settle their international disputes by
peaceful means.” The UN Charter supercedes all Security Council resolutions. Even under
Resolution 1441, it is the Security Council which must determine if a “material breach” of its
terms has occurred and, if so, what to do about it. If the US interprets 1441 as a pretext for
war, the legitimacy of the UN Charter and the rule of international law will be undermined.
A war on Iraq is likely to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians
directly, or indirectly through disease and starvation (Medact Report, Globe and Mail, Nov.13,
2002). War will shatter fragile networks of ration distribution for food and medical supplies,
risking widespread famine. It will create severe and long-term environmental damage, and
further de-stabilize the region.
A war and occupation of Iraq will intensify animosities towards the U.S. and the West.
As the Prime Minister of Malaysia observed (Financial Times, Sept. 17), a war on Iraq will
“undermine the world economy,” increase the probability of future acts of terrorism, and further
de-stabilize the region and the globe.
Canada must end its complicity.
We have already spent over a billion dollars enforcing the blockade and war against Iraq. If
Canada is drawn deeper into this destructive conflict, it will further undermine our
independence and our security as a nation.
7 comments on “TEN REASONS WHY CANADIANS (AND THE WORLD!) SHOULD OPPOSE WAR ON IRAQ”
Well… to respond to some of this:
This is a war to control Middle Eastern oil reserves.
It’s an interesting thought that has been thrown around, but I don’t see it being true. For one thing, the US has been very steady in the idea that they have no wish to control Iraq – they only want to see a more democratic government – one without Saddam.
This war is not about terrorism.
And the US government has said as much about Iraq not being connected to 9/11. There is some valid concern, however, that is weapons of mass destruction got into the hands of Iraq, it could easily end up in the hands of any anti-west group.
This is not a war in defence of democracy.
Saddam is a cruel despot who has committed horrendous crimes (with Western military support). However, the U.S. is not allied with democratic Iraqi opposition groups with widespread support. The U.S. wants to replace Saddam with a compliant set of Iraqi generals. Invasion will likely be followed by a prolonged US occupation.
Saddam is a cruel despot who has committed horrendous crimes with Western support? At times in the past, perhaps – but certainly not recently. Is it okay for Saddam to use chemical weapons against his own people? Do you REALLY think the West supported him in that case? What about the invasion of Kuwait? Also, as I said before, the US government has insisted they have no interest in occupation of Iraq.
In 1999, the Canadian Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Mennonite, Presbyterian, and United churches concluded “the suffering and death caused by the UN sanctions are of a scale that place Iraq in a category with the gravest humanitarian disasters of the 20th century”
Although I agree the sanctions are harsh – perhaps people should also sit down and question while Saddam builds large palaces for himself and his friends, yet doesn’t give anything to the people of Iraq.
“It’s an interesting thought that has been thrown around, but I don’t see it being true. For one thing, the US has been very steady in the idea that they have no wish to control Iraq – they only want to see a more democratic government – one without Saddam.”
But the US gov. isn’t supporting anything but minority factions and will certainly have a hand in creating a puppet government so as not to allow Iraq to fall apart, as it did countless times before Saddam took power. Iraq’s people fear one thing more than Saddam, as far as I understand, and that’s having Western ideals forced upon them.
“There is some valid concern, however, that is weapons of mass destruction got into the hands of Iraq, it could easily end up in the hands of any anti-west group.”
This may be a possibility, but Saddam’s W.o.M.D. are far less than countless other nations, so using that as an excuse is a joke. Russia has lost nukes. Why not invade them? Or China, they have nukes… So does India… and the US
“Saddam is a cruel despot who has committed horrendous crimes with Western support? At times in the past, perhaps – but certainly not recently. Is it okay for Saddam to use chemical weapons against his own people? Do you REALLY think the West supported him in that case? What about the invasion of Kuwait? Also, as I said before, the US government has insisted they have no interest in occupation of Iraq.”
Saddam was trained by the CIA and used as a pawn against Iran by the US… The chemical and other weapons were all supplied by the US initially because they thought they could use Saddam. I in no way excuse his actions, but I don’t believe the people of Iraq deserve to suffer for the mistakes of one man. Should the US take over Iraq they would find themselves unable to keep peace in it because of the different factions and would thus force a puppet government… They may lie about it, but their’s no other reason for Bush and his cronies to invade other than the economical and power benefits, because right now Saddam is simply no threat.
“Although I agree the sanctions are harsh – perhaps people should also sit down and question while Saddam builds large palaces for himself and his friends, yet doesn’t give anything to the people of Iraq. “
True, Saddam is a tyrant, but the people of Iraq do not deserve to suffer! 1.5 million have died because of the UN sanctions. Whether their dictator is Saddam or Mr. Bush, they don’t deserve to die for something they have no control over!
This may be a possibility, but Saddam’s W.o.M.D. are far less than countless other nations, so using that as an excuse is a joke. Russia has lost nukes. Why not invade them? Or China, they have nukes… So does India… and the US
Oh, everyone knows that Saddam’s WOMD are less threatening than other nations. The difference is the belief of what they’re going to use them for. Today, WOMD are used more for the “threat” factor. I don’t believe that there are many countries that would dare use a nuclear weapon – can you imagine the internal backlash of the US using one today?
Then there is Iraq. Many people (myself included) believe that Iraq would not directly use WOMD against other nations – the biggest threat comes from Saddam’s willingness to ally himself with terrorists (while he has no known links to al-Qaeda, he is linked to several other mid-east terrorist groups).
True, Saddam is a tyrant, but the people of Iraq do not deserve to suffer! 1.5 million have died because of the UN sanctions. Whether their dictator is Saddam or Mr. Bush, they don’t deserve to die for something they have no control over!
Of course, what kind of damage could be done by Iraq/terrorist groups if Iraq was able to acquire WOMD because UN sanctions were lifted?
My responses to this as an American citizen who doesn’t think we should be rushing into war as quickly as Bush has us doing…
This is a war to control Middle Eastern oil reserves.
If this is true, it’s the first I’ve heard of it. It would be absolutely disgusting if it was. However, I’m a tad skeptical about one thing. How is it possible for a cabinet to plan something when that cabinet does not exist yet? There is no cabinet in place until the president is elected. Once elected, the cabinet is selected, and then approved by Congress. I assume Bush would have had an idea of who he would like in his cabinet, but during the campaign, no actual cabinet other than that of Bill Clinton existed.
The U.S. war is not about weapons inspection.
This I agree with. Bush claims to have intelligence proving that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction but refuses to share that information with the UN inspectors. This is detrimental to the inspectors’ mission. There’s obviously something else going on here when Bush refuses to do something that would help the cause he claims to have.
This war is not about terrorism.
True. There has been suspicions of Iraq having an al Quaeda connection, but no hard and fast proof.
This is not a war in defence of democracy.
Also true. That’s not a reason for war.
There is no legal justification for war on Iraq.
At the moment, that is true. However, the worry is that if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction as some suspect he does, Iraq could then become a threat.
Iraq is no longer a military power.
Like I said with the previous question, that is true at the moment. But if Iraq really does have those weapons, it could become a military power again very, very easily.
An invasion of Iraq would be a clear violation of international law and of the UN Charter.
That is correct. Peaceful means are always the best way to resolve something. But let’s say that all attempts at a peaceful resolution have been made and have not resolved the situation, and Iraq does have biological weapons and is a military threat, war could potentially be justifiable.
A war on Iraq is likely to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians.
That’s the most horrible aspect of war, and needs to be a big factor in deciding of war will be started.
A war and occupation of Iraq will intensify animosities towards the U.S. and the West.
I agree.
A thing that I wish the world at large would realize is that this is Bush’s war, not the American people’s war. There are so many people in this country who object to what he’s doing. I think if Saddam Hussein really does have those weapons, something needs to be done about it. But right now there is no proof other than the intelligence Bush claims to have but refuses to share, which makes no sense what-so-ever. All he cares about is finishing the war that his father started and couldn’t complete.
For the first statement, there is obviously a big incentive in the oil Iraq holds, and I do think that is a major cause for this war. There is little else to be gained other than vengence and an attempt to make it look like Bush is doing something.
Yes, the reluctance to give any facts to inspectors or the people he supposedly serves casts great doubt on the credibility of his info and motives.
With no proof there’s no reason to start a war. And so far, Bush has shown the public zero proof.
Iraq really is no threat anymore… they have no means to deploy W.o.M.D. and likely don’t even have a substantial amount, if any at all. A few months or a year to run proper inspections can prove this and also limit any new weapons being made or bought. But Bush is too impatient for his revenge and glory that he will likely refuse to wait, which is in violation of many agreements.
“A thing that I wish the world at large would realize is that this is Bush’s war, not the American people’s war. There are so many people in this country who object to what he’s doing. I think if Saddam Hussein really does have those weapons, something needs to be done about it. But right now there is no proof other than the intelligence Bush claims to have but refuses to share, which makes no sense what-so-ever. All he cares about is finishing the war that his father started and couldn’t complete.”
I think the responsibility of American people who disagree is to make sure Bush doesn’t start a war. It’s not as far-fetched as one might think. I have many American friends and my girlfriend is an American, and all are opposed to a war, so I certianly am aware that a lot of people are against it. However, apathy is no excuse for allowing things like this to happen, silently objecting will do nothing.
I see your point that there is incentive. I can see where it would be a possibility. But like I said, I’m skeptical because a cabinet can’t plan something when it doesn’t exist yet. Maybe it was planned after the election, but point being, a very basic part of that statement is incorrect, which makes it less credible.
I agree that with zero proof there is no reason to start a war.
Yes, it is the responsibility of the American people to show their outrage… which is being done.
Read this.
Yeah, I think there was definitely some misinformation in that first statement, but that the root of it is still valid.
Oh, I’m aware that some people are letting their voices be heard. I make it a point to read as much international news as I can. I just don’t think it’s enough yet.