Essays | Home
| |
Sunshine for Women Essays | Home |
Peace for Our Time
This essay was written in response to an e-mail I received from a family member.
In the essay which you forwarded entitled "Peace for Our Time" by Alistair Cooke, Cooke equates Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler and warns the world against appeasing a megalomaniac and a tyrant. Widely respected for his powerful writing (even to the point of being knighted in 1973) this eye-witness to World War II eloquently states the danger of appeasement.
The world knows the dangers of appeasing tyrants: certainly the German, French, and Russian people know the dangers of appeasement – one, possibly two, generations of Germans, French, and Russians spent their lives rebuilding their war-scarred and shattered lands. I am surprised that Cooke seems to believe that he needs to inform the world of the dangers of appeasement. Does he believe that the German's have forgotten their own history or the French or the Russians? Maybe American's have forgotten the events of WW II because our country emerged from the war stronger than before, not devastated and destroyed.
Certainly the French whose land was ravaged by both World War I and World War II do not need Cooke to remind them of dangers of appeasement.
Certainly the Germans who have had American soldiers stationed on their soil for over 50 years, who daily live with "monuments" to that horrid time, and who have listened to the world condemn an earlier generation of Germans do not need to be reminded of the dangers of appeasement.
Certainly the Russians, who lost over 20 million countrymen and countrywomen in WW II, who suffered through Stalin's purges, and who spent at least one generation rebuilding their industry, their communities, and their society, do not need Cooke to remind them of the dangers of appeasement.
Certainly the citizens of so many of the smaller states in Europe who were conquered in an afternoon by Hitler's troops do no need Cooke to remind them of the dangers of appeasement.
At the same time, Europeans, Asians, and other peoples whose lands have suffered the ravages of war know the costs of war: the cost in terms of human suffering and shattered lives, the cost in the destruction of families and communities, and the cost in terms of the devastation of industry and the public infrastructure.
I offer you some pictures of the carnage of just a few of the wars of this world. Do you seriously expect me to believe that the people who experienced this devastation first hand and their children and grandchildren have forgotten what it means to be at war? If any people have forgotten what it means to be at war, it is the American people. If any people have forgotten what it means to appease a tyrant, it is the American people.
Photo Libraries
David Hart's Study Guides to War Art
Images of WW I: French Posters 1914-1920
Künstler Gegen Den Krieg (Artists Against This War)
Peace Park, Nakasaki
Unseen Gulf War by Peter Turnley
WW I Pictures from U. Kansas
Images in Historical Order of Event (not by creation date of the art work)
Burghers of Calias Rodin
Disasters of War, Goya
A suite of etchings from Los Desastres De La Guerra (The Disasters of War), Goya
Third of May, Goya, U. of Adelaide, Australia
Guernica, Piccasso
World War I
Ruins of Vaux- Stan Parry
Effects of French shellfire on German positions
World War II including Hiroshima / Nagasaki 1945
Lidice, Czeck Republic
Lezaky, Czeck Republic
Firebombing of Hamburg, Germany, WW II
Bombing of Dresden in World War II
The WWII Dresden Holocaust - 'A Single Column Of Flame' (a narrative)
Hiroshima, An Eyewitness Account (with Pictures) by Bishop Franklin Corley (narrative)
Surviving the Atomic Attack on Hiroshima, 1945
Hiroshima and the Atomic Bomb at Boise State University
Hiroshima and the Atomic Bomb II at Boise State University
Burned Field in Hiroshima
Hypocenter in Nagasaki
Peace Park, Nakasaki
Iraq, c. 1991
Unseen Gulf War by Peter Turnley
Bosnia
Stari Most(Old Bridge in Mostar, this bridge was destroyed during the most recent war in Bosnia)
Afghanistan 2001
Carpet bombing 'kills 150 civilians' in frontline town
"A Crusade Against Terrorism"?: Perspectives on Operation Enduring Freedom
So let's look at the facts:
1) Hitler controlled the mightiest military machine on earth when Chamberlain returned from München.
Saddam Hussein controls the remnants of a once second-rate military machine – his air force has been grounded for a decade, American and British aircraft bomb Iraqi positions at will, and UN inspectors poke through his underwear drawers at will in a search for contraband weapons. His neighbors have no fear of his military might. Even Israel, the one country in the region that has the most to fear from Hussein, has publicly declared that they will take no special measures to defend themselves against the Iraqi military in the event of another Gulf War.
Further, the US has placed a mighty army of over 250,000 men and women, supplied with the most fearsome weapons developed in the history of the world, in the waters near his country. Hussein may be ruthless, but he is not stupid enough to provoke an assured attack from that military machine. He has been contained. He will never become the master of a continent as Hitler once was.
2) Hussein was allegedly involved in the 2001 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.
Intelligence agencies around the globe credit Al Queda with the 2001 attacks. Al Queda's funding comes primarily from our ally Saudi Arabia while the manpower comes mostly from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. No evidence indicates that Iraq contributed funds to Al Queda; indeed, Iraq is so impoverished due to a decade of economic sanctions that it can not even feed its own people.
Pakistan is a much greater threat to the US than Iraq. When the US drove the Taliban from Afghanistan (notice I did not say defeated Afghanistan), the cockroaches fled the country – for Pakistan. Already home to many Taliban (indeed it is estimated that ½ of Pakistani intelligence are Talibans), the Afghan Taliban fit right in. Pakistan is a nuclear power. Thanks to Bush's pressure on Pakistan to support his military adventures, Musharraf 's tenure as head of government may well be limited. Today's news reports indicate that hundreds of thousands are protesting Musharraf 's rule. By the time you get this message, he may already be out of power, replaced by a Taliban. Taliban control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is much more fearful than Hussein controlling what is left of Iraq's military. Pakistan and India have been at odds with one another since the day the two nations gained their independence from Britain. India is also a nuclear power. With hot-heads in charge of the Pakistani, Indian, and American nuclear arsenals, the world has become a very dangerous place for humans and other living things.
Further, Al Queda, lead by Osama bin Laden, is primarily a militant, fundamentalist Islamic organization; Hussein's Iraq is staunchly secular. Bin Laden is as opposed to the secular Hussein as he is to the US. Nothing could please bin Laden more than for his top two nemeses to destroy one another. Hussein has as little love for bin Laden. If Iraqis are involved with Al Queda, the people so involved are there as individuals, not at the behest of their government.
No evidence links Hussein or Iraq to the events of 911, despite a concerted effort by US intelligence agencies to find such a link.
3) Hussein is a bad man who abuses his own people.
Yes, Hussein is a bad man and a tyrant: Hussein is also the creation of the Reagan and Bush I administrations. George H. W. Bush is largely responsible for Hussein getting into power, for funding Hussein's military build-up, and for providing advanced weapons to Iraq as well as the materials needed to create chemical weapons. Our government made no secret of our dealing with Hussein two decades ago, Hussein has not changed in the last two decades, and our government still continues to support countries that oppress their own people.
For example, there is no religious freedom in Saudi Arabia – it is a capital crime to own a Bible or to teach Christianity in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi's treat their women like shit, and they don't treat their middle-class and working-class men much better.
If this administration is indeed so committed to the Christian religion, religious freedom, and human rights, why has it made no attempt to prod our friends into supporting religious freedom and democracy? Why are we willing to take on Iraq but not other countries?
So many people across the world are convinced that the answer to this question lies in the size of the known oil reserves under Iraq – the second largest known reserves in the world, second only to Saudi Arabia. Iraq's occupiers will control its oil. Some people believe that the primary motivation to this war is Iraqi oil for its monetary value. Other people believe that the primary motivation to this war is Iraqi oil as a source of fuel for American industry and for American domestic consumption – as a means to keep the American people contented. Yet other people believe that the primary motivation to this war is Iraqi oil as a source of hegemonic power – the country that controls the Iraqi oil spigot controls the world's major economies for all of them are dependent on oil. Should it be any surprise that the loudest voices clamoring for war come from the oil industry and the industrial-military establishment?
A little known work was published in the summer of 2000 and signed by some of the people in the highest reaches of the Bush Administration, if you think people like Dick Cheney are high placed, that is. The document was written by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). If you are interested in reading this document personally, I will look up the URL and send it to you. PNAC posted it to the web years ago. PNAC calls for the US to be so dominant in world affairs economically and militarily that no country will even attempt to challenge American hegemony in any arena. According to PNAC, after the US takes control of Iraq, US control of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, and Jordan will follow. Once Bush starts us on the road to war, wars with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, and Jordan will follow.
4) General comments about the current situation
In an attempt to neutralize the recent world-wide marches for peace, the Free Republicans (they call themselves Freepers) sponsored a widely publicized pro-war rally on the Washington Mall. Hyped for weeks by such media luminaries as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, the outpouring of support for war with Iraq in our nation's capital amounted to about 50 people, including the lookers-on who were curious to discover what the event was all about. None of the talking heads from TV who so assiduously promoted the event bothered to attend. None of the newspaper columnists who so fervently flogged for war bothered to attend. Few, if any, active duty military personnel bothered to attend. None of the pro-war congresscritters attended, and only a very few congressional or White House staffers could possibly have attended (after all, only 50 people altogether showed up). The guys who got student or marriage deferments during Vietnam, then screamed at the top of their lungs demanding other people go to war and put their lives on the line, and who are today so fervently prompting this war too, did not bother to attend. None of the people who stand to make millions and billions of dollars from this war bothered to attend. If the American people are so behind this war, why did so few people express their desire for war?
Bush is fond of claiming that he serves God. Yet he refuses to meet with religious leaders, especially the leaders of his own Methodist church, who oppose this war. Is it taking the Lord's name in vain to claim that God supports a war that God does not support? What would Jesus do about Iraq? Would he launch a mighty armada against an already contained foe? I think I do not understand Bush's version of Christianity.
As is well-known, the current White House resident was a member of the Texas National Guard, a cushy place to sit out the Vietnam War arranged by his Pappy, at that time Congressman Bush. Bush went absent without leave for a year while in the Texas National Guard. According to the Military Code of Justice, once someone is AWOL (absent without leave) for 30 days, he becomes a deserter. In other words, George W. Bush deserted from the military during war. Nonetheless, the American people sort of selected him to occupy the White House. Why did the news media not bother to report on this story during the 2000 campaign? How is it that the leaders of the religious right who campaigned mightily for Bush were not aware of that fact? Or perhaps they were aware of that fact and they chose to ignore it. In that case, why do they believe that such a fact is not significant in choosing a president for this country? How can a deserter in good consciousness order the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of people in the name of love of country?
I would also like to point out that George W. Bush is an admitted alcoholic who found God in the bottom of a bottle. As anyone who has been around an alcoholic for any length of time understands, many alcoholics become adept liars and master manipulators as a method of coping with their addiction. Unfortunately Bush exhibits all the characteristics of a dry-drunk.
As if Bush has not frightened the world enough he has very publicly stated on international television that "any one who is not with us is against us," that he reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear foes as first strike weapons, that he believes in using assassination as a political tool, that the US has the right to put commandos into any country at any time to do any mission that he wants them to do (which, to much of the world, sounds like support for using the US military on terrorist missions), and that the US should develop miniature weapons to help the American people get over their squeamishness about using nuclear weapons. Does this sound like a man who follows the Christian God?
Now I have a few questions:
If this war is such a good idea, why don't the people who support it ask to have their taxes raised to pay for it? Instead, Bush promises the rich another tax cut and endless government corporate welfare while guttin programs to help the middle-class.
If this war is such a good idea, why don't the talking heads and other war supporters demand that their children take part in this war? Princess Elizabeth, her sister Margaret, her mother Queen Elizabeth, and her father King George spent the blitz in London. Princess Elizabeth was in uniform. Princes Charles and Andrew have both seen military service during time of war. Why can't Bush's children also be part of the war machine, just to demonstrate his commitment to war? I don't even expect him to allow his children to go into harm's way, but I could see them doing something say, like delivering mail at the Pentagon, a couple of days a week. Being in the Pentagon with Secret Service protection should allow them to be quite safe. It would be such a nice gesture to know that even the President's children are expected to due their part for the war effort.
In all earlier wars, special military oversight was established so that private industry would not profiteer from war. When will such a commission be set up to oversee the war on terror?
If Bush is such a staunch supporter of the military, why is he willing to put so many troops in harms way? During Gulf War I, the US used about 300 tons of depleted uranium weapons, almost all of which is lying around waiting for someone to clean it up. About ½ of Gulf War I Vets have been certified by the military as suffering from service connected disabilities: they are suffering from uranium poisoning as a result of their exposure to depleted uranium munitions during Gulf War I. Iraqis are also suffering from the same sickness (you should read some of the articles on it, it is a gruesome disease. Lots of birth defects in children, lots of pain, lots of premature death.) Our soldiers will have to move right over the depleted uranium left from the last Gulf War. You can expect a 50% causality rate for veterans of Gulf War II – but they will die a slow death over the coming decades. The best thing anyone can do for our troops is to bring them home, now. Once they have traveled through the remnants of Gulf War I, it will be too late for them. And what has the Bush administration done for Gulf War I veterans (and other veterans)? He ordered the VA to cease outreach efforts to ensure that veteran know what their benefits are. The VA was having a hard time meeting the demand for services, so instead of increasing the VA budget, Bush told them to stop letting vets know what services they are entitled to by law.
As I understand it, the Pentagon's plan for the beginning of the war is to launch 3,000 cruise missiles at Baghdad in the first 48 hours, a plan entitled "Shock and Awe". Half of the people in Iraq are children under 15, half of the population is female, so at least ¾ of the population of Baghdad is composed of women and children. News reports indicate that, as expected, the wealthy have fled Baghdad, leaving the old, the crippled, the halt, the lame, the sick, and the poor along with women and children in Baghdad. The destructive power of 3,000 cruise missiles is almost the same as the destructive power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Five million people live in Baghdad and the UN estimates that in any such bombing campaign at least 500,000 people will die. At a minimum, we can expect the same devastation as in the fire bombing of Hamburg and Dresden during WW II. How can Bush or any one else believe for one second that this plan is condoned by God? There is a warm spot reserved in hell Bush and Company.
Can any person truly believe that more terrorism directed against America will not be the direct consequences of Bush's unprovoked attack? Even those bastions of left-wing liberalism, the CIA and the FBI, admit that there will be an enormous increase in terrorist plots against this country in the event of Bush starting this war.
Perhaps we have stumbled upon some information which people around the world know that the Cooke does not know. Maybe the people calling for peace have a good reason to do so.
I am sure that you were already well aware of the facts presented above. I know you take the time to become educated on the issues. If you doubt any fact that I have mentioned here, let me know which fact you question. I can provide URLs to major newspapers like the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, the Washington Post, and the UK Guardian to substantiate every fact I have stated.
I hope when the bombing starts that you can pause for a moment and ask God to have mercy on the innocent people of Iraq. On so many levels this war is the wrong thing to do. I can think of no justification for it.
Sunny
March 16, 2003
PS. If a war in Iraq is wrong before the bombs start falling, a war is equally wrong after the bombs start falling. I hope you don't believe that the beginning of the bombing campaign will silence the peace movement. It will only embolden it.
sunshine@pinn.netCopyrighted, created and maintained by Sunshine, 2003. You have Sunshine's permission to copy and disseminate this document as long as it is attributed to Sunshine and Sunshine's URL appears on the document.
last updated March, 2003
To the Essays Menu 
