Massive Human Slaughter
By Marc Ash for truthout.
What George W. Bush and Tony Blair are planning is the greatest act of human slaughter since Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge orchestrated the Cambodian genocide in the mid 1970s. That act killing some 1.5 to 2 million largely defenseless and quite peaceful Cambodians.
Civilian Iraq is utterly defenseless and totally unprepared for the carnage that is about to be visited upon them. It is murder plain and simple, murder on an unimaginable scale.
There is no “war” looming, no “conflict” with Iraq, and no “standoff.” What exists is a vast military force poised to inflict death and destruction on a major population center. Those who live there will attempt to defend themselves, but they will fail, and the dead will cover the ground like a fallen forest.
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://truthout.org/docs_03/031703A.shtml
Massive Human Slaughter
By Marc Ash
t r u t h o u t | Opinion
Sunday 16 March 2003
What George W. Bush and Tony Blair are planning is the greatest act of human slaughter since Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge orchestrated the Cambodian genocide in the mid 1970s. That act killing some 1.5 to 2 million largely defenseless and quite peaceful Cambodians.
Civilian Iraq is utterly defenseless and totally unprepared for the carnage that is about to be visited upon them. It is murder plain and simple, murder on an unimaginable scale.
There is no “war” looming, no “conflict” with Iraq, and no “standoff.” What exists is a vast military force poised to inflict death and destruction on a major population center. Those who live there will attempt to defend themselves, but they will fail, and the dead will cover the ground like a fallen forest.
Should this act of insanity proceed, it will stand as one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever recorded.
Know now, it can be stopped.
This deadly drama now playing out on the United Nations stage is not for diplomacy or disarmament or for some vague resolution. They joust for one thing: the hearts of common men. All that stands between Baghdad and unprecedented destruction is our favor, and nothing more.
The world does not oppose America; it opposes unbridled aggression. While their leaders disagree on what course to take, the people of France, England, Spain and the United States do not. It is not the collective will of these nations that Baghdad be destroyed and it’s sons and daughters slain. We are tolerant and reasonable; we will allow the process of inspections to proceed. Men like Bush and Blair, small in numbers and spirit, beat the drum for invasion in the hopes that many will follow. If those many stand firm, their call will go unanswered.
The blood of innocents once shed cannot be unshed. Should the US military set about killing these people, the deed remains our doing for all time. We are given now a precious moment for reflection. Let us use it wisely. The voices of true American friends all over the world are clearly calling to us: Be patient… work as a group… you are not alone. Let us not taint the American experience for all time by answering, instead, a drumbeat to madness.
We hear day after day that “Time is running out.” Running out on what, on who? On Saddam Hussein? On a five thousand year old city? On 24 million men, women and children? Or is time running out on the spirit of America? On the soul of our people? Why is it that the world no longer cherishes American values? Could it be because we no longer cherish them ourselves?
The right way is the American way. America’s great gift to the world is fair play and due process. Democracy is not a sales slogan. It is a commitment to tolerating dissent and yielding to consensus. Genocide, on the other hand, is true anarchy.
You can send comments to t r u t h o u t Editor Marc Ash at: ma@truthout.com
Oh my. Soilent Green is people. The poor fool sounds like he’s reading the script for a bad sci-fi movie. Where else could he come up with such a gloomy scenario? Not from historical example, that’s for sure.
I guess he also doesn’t realize that the so-called inspectors are not supposed to be in Iraq to find anything, but to confirm that weapons have been destroyed. They are not investigators, but rather varifiers. And 12 years of verification has verified that Iraq is not in compliance, and will not comply unless forced to comply.
The UN is supposed to enforce their resolutions, but they choose not to, so it is up to the countries who believe in the resolutions they voted for to enforce them.
Why are we bombing Iraq? Because we don’t want Iraq to bomb us. Either directly or indirectly through terrorist proxies.
You sound like a dangerous guy; I’m afraid you might attack me. You haven’t before, and you’re surrounded and all, but just the same, I’m sure you won’t mind if I burn down your house and kill you. After all, I don’t want you to do anything to me, and that’s certainly justification enough.
But then, come to think of it, justification like that goes both ways. Sure I’ll get you, but then anyone who feels threatened by me (and after what I did to you who wouldn’t?) would be justified in attacking me. So tell you what, purely out of naked self-interest, I’m not gonna attack you. I’ll just keep a real close eye on you — after all, that’s been working for the past decade.
BTW, 300-400 cruise missiles a day for 2 days (the stated US opening gambit) on a city the size of Bagdad people just might kill a few innocents. Fallen forest sounds about right.
So you have a problem with the U.S. killing Iraqies, most whom are military, with the hopes of a better furture, but you don’t have a problem letting Sadam stay in power to kill, gas, rape & torture all whom are innocent??? Something sounds a bit off here.
When you fling 300-400 cruise missiles a day for 2 days into a major city, you are not going to hit “mostly military” — you’re going to kill a huge number of civilians. Your second point doesn’t follow — it’s a dubious debating point, a fallacy of argument usually called false dilemma. You are suggesting that either we must fling 300-400 cruise missiles a day into Baghdad for 2 days or we must let saddam do whatever he likes. I suggest there is at least one other way, say something in the middle. In fact, in the real world, there are a great many options inbetween the two extremes you suggest are the only 2 possibilities.
Yes, trade sanctions are #3 which we have been doing since 1991. The only thing this has done is greatly hurt the Iraqi people but not Sadam. Any other military options will be veto’d by France, Germany & Russia because they make too much money from doing business with Sadam. Nothing on earth will get him & his cronies out of office except the military action. I’d like to hear some other options.