The Tragedy of War As An End In Itself

[Ted]

Article is here
The tragedy of war as an end in itself


RAMSEY CLARK
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

Above all, it is the premeditated attack on life, the human casualties, that make "the scourge of war" so horrible and dehumanizing.

The first Gulf War in January-February, 1991, is a classic example of the human destructiveness of war as an end in itself. The Pentagon states it conducted 110,000 aerial sorties against Iraq in 42 days, one every 30 seconds, unleashing 88,500 tonnes of bombs. Iraq was essentially defenceless.

On March 1, 1991, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf said, "We must have killed 100,000," according to the Los Angeles Times. On March 20, the Wall Street Journal reported that Schwarzkopf provided Congress the figure 100,000 Iraqi military killed. On May 22, the Defense Intelligence Agency placed the number of Iraq soldiers killed at 100,000.

On March 3, the London Times reported allied intelligence estimated 200,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed. A French military intelligence source gave the same 200,000 figure to the Nouvelle Observateur. In the summer of 1991, former secretary of the navy John Lehman told a gathering of business and political leaders the Pentagon estimated 200,000 Iraqis were killed in the war.

In response to the question how many soldiers and civilians were killed in Iraq in the war, then-Gen. Colin Powell told the New York Times on March 23: "It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in."

Civilian casualties from the bombing were in the tens of thousands. Thousands died from direct bomb hits, but far more died from the destruction of facilities essential to civilian life. Within hours of the first bomb there was no electricity anywhere in Iraq. In the first two days, pipes distributing water ran dry throughout the country.

During the first week of February '91, I travelled more than 3,000 kilometres in Iraq with two photographers and a translator, examining the destruction of civilian life and emergency medical services. The first night in Baghdad the minister of health, who had no communication outside his temporary office in a hospital except by courier, said his first three priorities were clean water, water, water.

He estimated at least 3,000 civilians were dead, 25,000 more were in hospitals and clinics and a quarter million more were sick without medicines or medical care, from drinking polluted water. All municipal water systems in the country were destroyed — a fact we confirmed in dozens of cities from Basra in the far south to Samarra north of Baghdad.

To be severely nauseated, plagued with diarrhea, dehydrated, desperately thirsty and have nothing to drink but the water that made you sick is a special misery.

Visits in seven hospitals are never to be forgotten. On the first night, we entered a major hospital in Baghdad. What greeted us was a scene somewhere between Dante's Inferno and M*A*S*H. Cold and dark, with two candles for 20 beds, the room was crowded with patients, families, health professionals.

Sobbing, murmuring, urgent instructions from doctors, occasional shrieks of pain, and the wail of grieving relatives filled the air. One middle-aged woman had about 30 shrapnel wounds on her back. A 12-year-old girl whose left leg had been amputated near the hip without anesthetics was in delirium. A semiconscious woman who had been seriously injured when her house caved in had not yet been told that she was the sole survivor of her family of seven.

A surgeon who had just performed radical surgery on a young man's arm came over to us. He was exhausted and near despair. Trained in England to be a surgeon, he was now working frantically 18 to 20 hours a day. He told us there was no anesthesia, so patients were held down by aides during operations. Gauze, bandages, adhesive tape, and antiseptics had run out.

He held out his bare hands and said, "These are my tools to heal the sick. The few hours I have to sleep I wake up to find myself rubbing my hands. I have no clean water to wash them with, no alcohol to kill germs, our glove supply was exhausted a week ago. I move hour after hour from the open wounds of one person to another, spreading infection. I cannot help my patients."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`Bush has sought war with Iraq throughout his presidency. He and a handful of advisers are obsessed with the desire to control Iraq and its resources, and have brought us all to the brink of disaster.'

International human rights activist Ramsey Clark, left

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In Basra, we saw a middle-class residential area that was heavily damaged on Jan. 31. Twenty-eight persons were reported killed, 56 were injured, 20 homes and six shops were destroyed. We inspected about 18 units in a very large low-cost public housing project that were destroyed or severely damaged on Jan. 28, killing 46 and injuring 70. The nearby high school was damaged by a direct hit on a corner. The elementary school across the street was damaged. We visited an area where, on Feb. 6 — the day we arrived — 14 persons were killed, 46 injured and 128 apartments and homes destroyed or damaged together with an adjacent Pepsi-Cola bottling plant and offices across a wide avenue.

The United States has put its casualties at 148 — of whom it says 37 were killed by U.S. "friendly fire." The remainder were by chance, negligence and mechanical failure.

More than 1,000 Iraqis died for every U.S. death. It was a slaughter.

The war itself, for all its terror, inflicted minor destruction compared to the U.N. sanctions imposed by the Security Council days after Iraq invaded Kuwait. An international health group estimated that "an excess of 46,900 children died between January and August, 1991," in Iraq from sanctions and the effect of the bombing, according to a report in the Sept. 24, 1992, New England Journal of Medicine. In 1995, a U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization report found 12 per cent of children surveyed in Baghdad wasted and 28 per cent stunted. FAO team members estimated "567,000 children had died as a consequence of economic sanctions."

When I met the minister of health, a Kurd and a medical doctor, in Baghdad on Feb. 24, 2003, he gave me the ministry's detailed report on the effects of the sanctions on the people of Iraq, through December, 2002. It stated 1,807,000 people had died in Iraq as a direct result of the sanctions since their imposition on Aug. 6, 1990. Of these 757,000 were children under the age of five.

The health ministry confirmed that Iraq is less well prepared to treat large numbers of civilian casualties now than it was in 1991 when sanctions had been in place for only six months. It has struggled for 12 years to rebuild its health care system and secure vital medicines, medical supplies, and equipment. Its priorities have been nutrition related illnesses, cancers primarily related to depleted uranium ammunition used by U.S. forces in 1991 and medical services for a weakened population.

Emergency medical service capacity will be exhausted in days if cities are bombed. The probability of more intensive bombing of cities with street combat and far greater civilian casualties is high. Protected supplies of drinking water ambulances, oxygen tanks, anaesthetics, antiseptics, sutures, bandages, burn treatment supplies, gasoline powered generators are not sufficient and cannot be quickly obtained.

Thousands may die who could be saved if there were reserves of medical emergency supplies protected from bombing.

Since 1991, the U.S. has spent hundreds of billions of dollars on new war technology, weapons and special forces training. Iraq has been struggling to survive.

President George W. Bush presided over the execution of 152 people during his five plus years as governor of Texas — far more than any other U.S. governor since World War II and more than one-third of all executions in the United States during his terms as governor. Of those executed, all were poor, 50 were African Americans, 21 Hispanic, two were women. Included were teenagers at the time of their offence, mentally retarded persons and foreign nationals executed in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Bush has sought war with Iraq throughout his presidency. He and a handful of advisers are obsessed with the desire to control Iraq and its resources, and have brought us all to the brink of disaster. He will not be compassionate in the conduct, or aftermath of war.

He must be restrained by world opinion, opposition from the people of the United States and by the United Nations and its members that understand the tragedy of war.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International human rights activist Ramsey Clark was U.S. attorney-general from 1967-69 under president Lyndon Johnson

[jegs2]

Nobody denies the tragedy and violence of warfare. For that reason, it is termed a "necessary evil." War is an extension of politics, and for all of its violence, it has solved many problems (many would argue that diplomacy, without the threat of war, has never solved anything). Robert E. Lee once said, "It is good that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it." Yes, war is awful, but without the proper exercise of war, the forces of Nazi Germany would have marched unchecked over all of Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (and beyond, assuming only pacifists had ruled the day) -- this does not count the millions of civilians not of the arian race who would have perished in death camps. Yes, war is terrible, but at times it is also necessary.

[Ted]

Yes, ware is terrible, but at times it is also necessary.

Is it necessary now though?

I have seen or heard no evidence that it is.

[jegs2]

Yes, ware is terrible, but at times it is also necessary.

Is it necessary now though?

I have seen or heard no evidence that it is.

The removal of Saddam's regime is necessary. Currently, an invasion is the recommended course of action IOT meet that objective. Do you know of a viable alternative that would accomplish that objective?

[Enlightenment]

The removal of Saddam's regime is necessary.

That assertion has not been proven.

[jegs2]

The removal of Saddam's regime is necessary.

That assertion has not been proven.

Well, if one disagrees with the assertion that Saddam must go, then there is no issue. It is amazing to me how much of the world he's managed to sucker -- he's better at propaganada than I initially gave him credit for...

[Enlightenment]

Well, if one disagrees with the assertion that Saddam must go, then there is no issue.

It would be good for Saddam--and many other dictators, for that matter--to be done away with but absolutely nothing has come to light lately to suggest that he of all thugs must be done away with for the sake of either international or American security.

This is even more true as the US just got caught out stretching the truth (again) about the usefulness of the infamous aluminium tubes for uranium enrichment. http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=14603

[Ted]

The removal of Saddam's regime is necessary.

Why is the removal of Hussein neccesary?

[jegs2]

It would be good for Saddam--and many other dictators, for that matter--to be done away with but absolutely nothing has come to light lately to suggest that he of all thugs must be done away with for the sake of either international or American security.

I'll agree with that -- we can't afford to go after every international thug. Two reasons I can see for removal of Saddam are firstly that he is in a very volatile area of the world, and his continued presence adversely affects oil prices in the entire region. Secondly, there is the school of thought that says the Mid-East terrorists get a psychological boost from seeing Saddam remain in power after having gone to war with the US and that his removal would remove that psychological advantage, but it's only one school of thought.

This is even more true as the US just got caught out stretching the truth (again) about the usefulness of the infamous aluminium tubes for uranium enrichment. http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=14603

I still tend to trust our own intelligence sources over that of other nations (including international bodies), but each has its own political agenda. Furthermore, Saddam has had years in which to hide all of his illegal weapons and he allowed inspectors back into the country only on threat of war. The inspectors may as well be looking for a needle in a haystack -- they're on a wild goose chase -- nothing more. Saddam has played his game quite well...

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Article is here

Saddam invaded Kuwait. What was the US supposed to do, drop stop signs on them?

[HemlockGrey]

Tens of thousands of civilian casualties? What source does he get this from?

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

The removal of Saddam's regime is necessary.

Why is the removal of Hussein neccesary?

Because Saddam's a nut that invaded Kuwait for their oil in the past, as well as gassing his own people. But still, I'm sure Kim Jong has let far more people starve to death in his country.

[Mr Bean]

Because as I pointed out to Ted in another thread, Saddam has the ability to wipe out Middle East Oil Production, With Troops in the area he can't touch most of it and I don't think he has enough Sucidual MIG Pilots Ready(Not enough Fuel except for 1 Way Trips... Or he uses missles) To devisatate the US and World Economeys and also fuck over a great majority of the World's Popluation in the Proccess


Count the number of US and European Oil Burning Power plants, without Middle East Oil we can't run them, In some states(Texas, Maine, NC, SC, Virgina) they are nearly entirely Oil Power provided, Now if all the Electrical power cuts out for a week what happens? Bad shit normal, What about a month? Very bad shit, What about A Year? dunno but I don't think it will be bright and sunny

[Darth Wong]

Because as I pointed out to Ted in another thread, Saddam has the ability to wipe out Middle East Oil Production, With Troops in the area he can't touch most of it and I don't think he has enough Sucidual MIG Pilots Ready(Not enough Fuel except for 1 Way Trips... Or he uses missles) To devisatate the US and World Economeys and also fuck over a great majority of the World's Popluation in the Proccess.

Count the number of US and European Oil Burning Power plants, without Middle East Oil we can't run them, In some states(Texas, Maine, NC, SC, Virgina) they are nearly entirely Oil Power provided, Now if all the Electrical power cuts out for a week what happens? Bad shit normal, What about a month? Very bad shit, What about A Year? dunno but I don't think it will be bright and sunny

So you agree with the critics who say it's really about oil?

[Xenophobe3691]

Does everyone keep forgetting that SADDAM TRIED TO KILL BUSH'S DAD?!?

[Darth Wong]

Does everyone keep forgetting that SADDAM TRIED TO KILL BUSH'S DAD?!?

So? World War I was a long time ago, and we don't want to echo their thinking.

[Frank Hipper]

Does everyone keep forgetting that SADDAM TRIED TO KILL BUSH'S DAD?!?

So? World War I was a long time ago, and we don't want to echo their thinking.

I'm stone cold sober, yet neither of the above posts makes a lick of sense to me...

[Dahak]

The removal of Saddam's regime is necessary.

Why is the removal of Hussein neccesary?

Because Saddam's a nut that invaded Kuwait for their oil in the past, as well as gassing his own people. But still, I'm sure Kim Jong has let far more people starve to death in his country.

Well, no one, especially not the USA, was screaming for Saddam's head when he gased Iranian soldiers and those civilians back then...

[Admiral Valdemar]

So if it's not about oil and it can't be about taking out a ruthless dictator, then what is it about?

If it were some personal vendetta by Bush for what Saddam plotted and failed miserably to do in the past to his daddy, then I have to wonder what's going on in that man's head.

[Xenophobe3691]

This is Bush we're talking about. He campaigns against nation building/for isolationism, and now look what he's doing.

[Mr Bean]

So you agree with the critics who say it's really about oil?

Our Econmey acutaly, To say "All about the oil" is mearly scratching the Surface


In the end its about not having a Guy who can reach off and turn off the lights at will for a few years

[Frank Hipper]

So if it's not about oil and it can't be about taking out a ruthless dictator, then what is it about?

It's about maintaining an overwhelming military presence in the one area of the world where it matters. As I said in another thread, Saddam is our bogey-man, without him, we have nothing resembling a legitimate reason to maintain bases in the region.
Saudi Arabia is the focus of this, NOT Iraq.
If there should be an uprising of wahabi fanatics that overthrows the Saudi ruling body, where in the hell do you think we ALL would be. Up the creek, that's where. That's a possibility, you know. Bin Laden is trying to stir up just such a thing.
Saddam is a convenient, and manufactured, excuse.

[Enlightenment]

Count the number of US and European Oil Burning Power plants, without Middle East Oil we can't run them, In some states(Texas, Maine, NC, SC, Virgina) they are nearly entirely Oil Power provided, Now if all the Electrical power cuts out for a week what happens? Bad shit normal, What about a month? Very bad shit, What about A Year? dunno but I don't think it will be bright and sunny

OFCS. If the entire Middle East oil supply was disrupted the respose throughout much of the western world would be to introduce rationing to ensure that vital facilities get enough fuel to keep operating. People who drive trucks for no good reason would be in trouble but the power plants would simply be paying more rather than running dry. The global economy would take a hit due to gasoline/petrol prices going through the roof but it's not a freezing-in-the-dark end of the world scenario.

In the event of a prolonged disruption, gas turbines have a fairly short lead time and can burn damn near anything from alchohol to sawdust.

[Enlightenment]

Saddam is a convenient, and manufactured, excuse.

Unfortunately getting rid of him is going to give the fanatics even more ammunition and recruiting propaganda. Getting rid of Saddam and replacing him with either a US military government or a puppet regime answerable to Washington will increase the pitch of Islamist frothing. This is not a route to greater peace.

[SyntaxVorlon]

Saddam is a ruthless dictator who wants further power in the middle east. He originally was supported by the US because Iran was up the US backside about oil embargos, etc. He gassed the iranians, but the US let him. Really it's the fact that he stands to destroy or take over a large enough chunk of the oil supply to make the rich people in the US wring their hands.
The reason that bush is going after Saddam is that the threat from saddam's war machine(WMDs or no) to the oil supply is more concerning to the oil industry than the actual confirmed nuclear program in NK.
The whole weapons inspection thing is really just a transparent ploy to goad Iraq into a war or at least noncompliance. Saddam is smarter than that and will probably keep on complying.