![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Iraq Veterans Against The War
In recent debates with psuedo-conservatives, I have become aware that they have quite a bit of ignorance regarding the nature of the war in Iraq and the cost in money and lives.
I found a group that seems to know something about the subject. "Iraq Veterans Against The War"
From: http://www.ivaw.org/faq
A: Here are 10 reasons we oppose this war:
1. The Iraq war is based on lies and deception.
2. The Iraq war violates international law.
3. Corporate profiteering is driving the war in Iraq.
4. Overwhelming civilian casualties are a daily occurrence in Iraq.
5. Soldiers have the right to refuse illegal war.
6. Service members are facing serious health consequences due to our Government's negligence.
7. The war in Iraq is tearing our families apart.
8. The Iraq war is robbing us of funding sorely needed here at home.
9. The war dehumanizes Iraqis and denies them their right to self-determination.
10. Our military is being exhausted by repeated deployments, involuntary extensions, and activations of the Reserve and National Guard.
Comments?
I found a group that seems to know something about the subject. "Iraq Veterans Against The War"
From: http://www.ivaw.org/faq
A: Here are 10 reasons we oppose this war:
1. The Iraq war is based on lies and deception.
2. The Iraq war violates international law.
3. Corporate profiteering is driving the war in Iraq.
4. Overwhelming civilian casualties are a daily occurrence in Iraq.
5. Soldiers have the right to refuse illegal war.
6. Service members are facing serious health consequences due to our Government's negligence.
7. The war in Iraq is tearing our families apart.
8. The Iraq war is robbing us of funding sorely needed here at home.
9. The war dehumanizes Iraqis and denies them their right to self-determination.
10. Our military is being exhausted by repeated deployments, involuntary extensions, and activations of the Reserve and National Guard.
Comments?
no subject
no subject
On the short version-- I think IVAW is a lot more honest and 'on target' than, say, most republican and neo-con groups out there, and more honest than the Bush Administration. However, regarding the ten points of theirs that you've posted here:
#s 3,6,7,8 & 10 I agree with, without reservation.
# 1 - I agree, BUT-- simply saying the war is based on lies and deception-- there's too many arguments on both sides of the aisle that start with that basic premise that I think the "lies and deception" need to be defined before that argument is used. As a 'for-instance' point: having seen what Saddam was doing to his own people, and what he was capable of, I gotta tell ya-- IMO, that sonofabitch did need to go. That doesn't excuse using false justifications to launch a war against him, nor does it justify botching so many aspects of this war-- but claiming that Saddam was a just and good leader of his people, instead of a cold-blooded killer whose list of crimes against humanity is still considerably longer than the list one could try to charge Bush with, doesn't work.
# 2 -- easy to say. Much harder to prove. And is this saying the initial causes and choice to go to war were against international law, or specific actions and conduct within the war are against international law, etc? Too much of an open statement -- again, without specifying what acts, actions, and decisions were against international law and why, this just leaves too much open ground that either side can fill up and abuse with bullshit statements (presumably when I get to IVAW's page and read up in depth, they'll start discussing specifics).
# 4 -- there's two sets of problems I have with this statement-- 1. Given how many Iraqis Saddam was killing on his own while he was in power, and given that most of the civilian casualties occurring now are due to sectarian Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence-- how much of these deaths are really due to U.S. actions in the war? And if/when the U.S. pulls out, how much will that reduce civilian casualties in Iraq? It ain't all our fault, guys... 2. "overwhelming civilian casualties" -- the very phrase brings the whole statement into doubt. Too many civilian casualties, yes, but "overwhelming"? Perhaps the IVAW guys (being veterans) really should have paid more attention to military history-- as bloody as Iraq's getting, it's still pretty bloodless compared not only to previous wars, but also in comparison to current-day events in Africa (at the least, events in Darfur, Sudan; and in Somalia).
# 5 -- yes, absolutely, but the right to refuse participation in an illegal war isn't a solution by itself. The problem is, generally speaking according to our courts, while soldiers have both the right and obligation to refuse illegal orders, including orders to participate in illegal wars, we aren't given the right to define what is or isn't an illegal war. So far, this war is a really stupid one, particularly the way it's been fought lately, but it isn't an 'illegal' one-- or at least not illegal so far under U.S. Law.
# 9 -- this is a pretty stupid statement. The "war" deprives them of humanity and the right to self-determination?! And Saddam wasn't doing that? and the person who makes this argument proposes what solution, when right now the Iraqis themselves (in their pursuit of sectarian violence) are doing a pretty good job on their own of dehumanizing each other and denying each other any right to self-determination? Frankly, this is (kinda-sorta) true, except that this part is NOT something we've done to them, it's not something we can fix, and it can't all be blamed on the (U.S. in Iraq) War & Occupation.
More later-- when I get a chance to think about it all.