Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Free Iraq, or leave it alone

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Frank Warner

unread,
Sep 11, 2002, 6:11:42 PM9/11/02
to
Free Iraq, or leave it alone.

In all the talk of "regime change" in Iraq by President Bush and his
cabinet in the last few weeks, there have been only hints of replacing
the dictatorship with freedom.

Bush has talked of removing Saddam Hussein to guarantee "peace" and
"security" for the world, but his speeches have left out the cure to
most wars and insecurities. Bush doesn't mention "liberty" or
"democracy" for Iraq.

Avoiding these words cannot be an oversight. It's possible the
president steers clear of freedom talk now to avoid scaring the other
dictators whose cooperation the United States will need to oust
Saddam. If so, it's a short-sighted bargain.

The United States must make freedom its goal for Iraq, and the Muslim
world should be informed of that goal as soon as possible. Otherwise,
any military effort at "regime change" will look like the Americans
are trying to conquer the people of Iraq, and any new government not
freely elected will have no more legitimacy than Saddam's. That kind
of regime change will only incite more violence.

Democracy and freedom are American ideals, and they have been
America's best exports. It's no accident that west Germany and Japan
have lived in freedom and peace since their dictatorships
unconditionally surrendered in 1945.

Not only are democracy and freedom the right of every human, they are
the elements that nurture tolerance in a pluralistic world and allow
each individual real choices for self-expression. Beyond that,
democracies are less likely to kill their own people than
dictatorships, and democracies are less inclined to make war than
dictatorships.

Democracy is safest all around for life and liberty, and every
American president should remind the world periodically of that truth.

So let's hear it, Mr. Bush, for freedom and democracy in Iraq.
Otherwise, leave it alone.

Frank Warner

Frank Warner

unread,
Sep 12, 2002, 2:15:37 PM9/12/02
to
waki...@ptd.net (Frank Warner) wrote in message news:<c4cba10b.02091...@posting.google.com>...

> Free Iraq, or leave it alone.
>
> In all the talk of "regime change" in Iraq by President Bush and his
> cabinet in the last few weeks, there have been only hints of replacing
> the dictatorship with freedom.
>
> Bush has talked of removing Saddam Hussein to guarantee "peace" and
> "security" for the world, but his speeches have left out the cure to
> most wars and insecurities. Bush doesn't mention "liberty" or
> "democracy" for Iraq.

Well, today, Bush actually talked about liberty and free elections for
the Iraqi people:

President George W. Bush's Remarks at the United Nations General
Assembly
New York, New York

10:39 A.M. EDT 11 September 2002

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished
delegates, and ladies and gentlemen: We meet one year and one day
after a terrorist attack brought grief to my country, and brought
grief to many citizens of our world. Yesterday, we remembered the
innocent lives taken that terrible morning. Today, we turn to the
urgent duty of protecting other lives, without illusion and without
fear.

We've accomplished much in the last year -- in Afghanistan and beyond.
We have much yet to do -- in Afghanistan and beyond. Many nations
represented here have joined in the fight against global terror, and
the people of the United States are grateful.

The United Nations was born in the hope that survived a world war --
the hope of a world moving toward justice, escaping old patterns of
conflict and fear. The founding members resolved that the peace of the
world must never again be destroyed by the will and wickedness of any
man. We created the United Nations Security Council, so that, unlike
the League of Nations, our deliberations would be more than talk, our
resolutions would be more than wishes. After generations of deceitful
dictators and broken treaties and squandered lives, we dedicated
ourselves to standards of human dignity shared by all, and to a system
of security defended by all.

Today, these standards, and this security, are challenged. Our
commitment to human dignity is challenged by persistent poverty and
raging disease. The suffering is great, and our responsibilities are
clear. The United States is joining with the world to supply aid where
it reaches people and lifts up lives, to extend trade and the
prosperity it brings, and to bring medical care where it is
desperately needed.

As a symbol of our commitment to human dignity, the United States will
return to UNESCO. This organization has been reformed and America will
participate fully in its mission to advance human rights and tolerance
and learning.

Our common security is challenged by regional conflicts -- ethnic and
religious strife that is ancient, but not inevitable. In the Middle
East, there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both
sides. America stands committed to an independent and democratic
Palestine, living side by side with Israel in peace and security. Like
all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their
interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to
encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek
a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.

Above all, our principles and our security are challenged today by
outlaw groups and regimes that accept no law of morality and have no
limit to their violent ambitions. In the attacks on America a year
ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies. This threat
hides within many nations, including my own. In cells and camps,
terrorists are plotting further destruction, and building new bases
for their war against civilization. And our greatest fear is that
terrorists will find a shortcut to their mad ambitions when an outlaw
regime supplies them with the technologies to kill on a massive scale.

In one place -- in one regime -- we find all these dangers, in their
most lethal and aggressive forms, exactly the kind of aggressive
threat the United Nations was born to confront.

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the
regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other
countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased
instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability
of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of
coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a
series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he
agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and
for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions,
and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against
himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi
regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the
systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said,
threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand
goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq
continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and
that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of
political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to
arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by
beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape.
Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the
presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from
the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687,
demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands.
Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary
General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait,
Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and
Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600
people. One American pilot is among them.

In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded
that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no
terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It
broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373,
Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that
direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments.
Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq
attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American
President. Iraq's government openly praised the attacks of September
the 11th. And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are
known to be in Iraq.

In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all
weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to
the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq
has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons.
After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed
this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters
of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud
warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors
believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of
biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than
three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological
weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that
were used for the production of biological weapons.

United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains
stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the
regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing
chemical weapons.

And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it
had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know
now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have
possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its
nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data,
an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign
assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians.
It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon.
Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes
used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire
fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a
year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings
between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little
doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons.

Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond
the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and
production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range
missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

In 1990, after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the world imposed economic
sanctions on Iraq. Those sanctions were maintained after the war to
compel the regime's compliance with Security Council resolutions. In
time, Iraq was allowed to use oil revenues to buy food. Saddam
Hussein has subverted this program, working around the sanctions to
buy missile technology and military materials. He
blames the suffering of Iraq's people on the United Nations, even as
he uses his oil wealth to build lavish palaces for himself, and to buy
arms for his country. By refusing to comply with his own agreements,
he bears full guilt for the hunger and misery of innocent Iraqi
citizens.

In 1991, Iraq promised U.N. inspectors immediate and unrestricted
access to verify Iraq's commitment to rid itself of weapons of mass
destruction and long-range missiles. Iraq broke this promise, spending
seven years deceiving, evading, and harassing U.N. inspectors before
ceasing cooperation entirely. Just months after the 1991 cease-fire,
the Security Council twice renewed its demand that the
Iraqi regime cooperate fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's
serious violations of its obligations. The Security Council again
renewed that demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's
clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council renewed its
demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant violations; and three
more times in 1998, calling Iraq's behavior totally unacceptable. And
in 1999, the demand was renewed yet again.

As we meet today, it's been almost four years since the last U.N.
inspectors set foot in Iraq, four years for the Iraqi regime to plan,
and to build, and to test behind the cloak of secrecy.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when
inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when
they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one
conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger.
To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this
regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of
the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.

Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient.
We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food, and the
stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all
these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction.
The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear
weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our
citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from
coming.

The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the
United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of
U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a
test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are
Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside
without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its
founding, or will it be irrelevant?

The United States helped found the United Nations. We want the United
Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful. We want the
resolutions of the world's most important multilateral body to be
enforced. And right now those resolutions are being unilaterally
subverted by the Iraqi regime. Our partnership of nations can meet the
test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi
regime.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately and
unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy all weapons
of mass destruction, long-range missiles, and all related material.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all support
for terrorism and act to suppress it, as all states are required to do
by U.N. Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its
civilian population, including Shi'a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and
others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all
Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the
remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept
liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully
cooperate with international efforts to resolve these issues, as
required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will release or account for all
Gulf War personnel whose fate is still unknown. It will return the
remains of any who are deceased, return stolen property, accept
liability for losses resulting from the invasion of Kuwait, and fully
cooperate with the international efforts to resolve these issues, as
required by Security Council resolutions.

If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will immediately end all illicit
trade outside the oil-for-food program. It will accept U.N.
administration of funds from that program, to ensure that the money is
used fairly and promptly for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and
accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United
Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a
government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and
internationally supervised elections.

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've
suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is
a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq
deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do
not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not
threaten the world with mass murder. The United States
supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

We can harbor no illusions -- and that's important today to remember.
Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990. He's fired
ballistic missiles at Iran and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Israel. His
regime once ordered the killing of every person between the ages of 15
and 70 in certain Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. He has gassed
many Iranians, and 40 Iraqi villages.

My nation will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common
challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move
deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with
the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions. But the
purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security
Council resolutions will be enforced -- the just demands of peace and
security will be met -- or action will be unavoidable. And a regime
that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

Events can turn in one of two ways: If we fail to act in the face of
danger, the people of Iraq will continue to live in brutal submission.
The regime will have new power to bully and dominate and conquer its
neighbors, condemning the Middle East to more years of bloodshed and
fear. The regime will remain unstable -- the region will remain
unstable, with little hope of freedom, and isolated from the progress
of our times. With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining
and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront
that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply
these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the
11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors.

If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can
arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off
their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a
democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world.
These nations can show by their example that honest government, and
respect for women, and the great Islamic tradition of learning can
triumph in the Middle East and beyond. And we will show that the
promise of the United Nations can be fulfilled in our
time.

Neither of these outcomes is certain. Both have been set before us. We
must choose between a world of fear and a world of progress. We
cannot stand by and do nothing while dangers gather. We must stand up
for our security, and for the permanent rights and the hopes of
mankind. By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will
make that stand. And, delegates to the United Nations, you have the
power to make that stand, as well.

Thank you very much.

END 11:04 A.M. EDT


In his next speech to the United Nations, Bush should propose free
elections in every one of the United Nations.

Frank Warner

Grazer

unread,
Sep 13, 2002, 2:52:47 PM9/13/02
to
On 11 Sep 2002 15:11:42 -0700, waki...@ptd.net (Frank Warner) wrote:

>Democracy and freedom are American ideals, and they have been
>America's best exports. It's no accident that west Germany and Japan
>have lived in freedom and peace since their dictatorships
>unconditionally surrendered in 1945.

Erm, isn`t it because both countries were bombed flat during the war
and when they were conquered, their war reparations were so severe
that they prohibited any military buildup for years. Oh yeah,isn`t
Japan not even allowed an army apart for a small defense force?

Frank Warner

unread,
Sep 14, 2002, 8:53:19 PM9/14/02
to
Grazer <bi...@ben.com> wrote in message news:<koc4ouslv76103ss6...@4ax.com>...

It is true that west Germany and Japan were devastated by the war
their dictatorships began. (But reparations were not a problem. The
United States sent billions of dollars to help them rebuild.) The
western Allies required that those nations become democracies, and
they occupied West Germany and Japan long enough to make sure
democratic institutions took root.

The free, open, democratic governments of West Germany and Japan
changed the nature of both societies, while the Soviet-controlled East
Germany dictatorship continued to rule with threats and deadly force.
Japan's constitution renounced the use of force.

All these years later, Germany and Japan are long established
democracies. They also are independent and economically strong enough
to resume their aggressive activities of the 1930s and 1940s, if their
governments wished. However, democracies generally don't behave that
way.

It's no coincidence that, in the 20th century, no two democracies went
to war with each other. It's also no coincidence that, in the 20th
century, dictators killed more of their own people than all the
world's wars combined.

Conclusion: Democracy is not only freer than the alternatives.
Democracy is safer for everyone.

Frank Warner

0 new messages