War on Iraq - Letters

by Brian Risman, Publisher, www thelawjournal co uk - 19 August 2002 (updated 5 September 2002)

American troops are there now, and where are those weapons Mr. Bush? To me it seems like maybe oil was the reason America's president killed all those people -- so let us hide behind the liberation of Iraqis.

If you all were true Americans you would slack up on your dependence on oil and convert your gas guzzling SUVs to propane, "America's fuel resource"!! For those who are against England being there you need to read your history books. Iraq was once an English colony just like America that was released in the 1930's. If I were English I would think of Iraq as my 18 year old child, young and inexperienced. That is why I think England has the right -- or do they ? Yes, the world would not miss Saddam, but they just might miss a loved one. If I was there, yes I would die for the freedom of all people, but I'm not. Instead I'm asking American's to walk, ride your bike, Maybe even go as far as converting your SUV's to America's fuel, natural gas, or you can wait on those scientists and engineers to develop a new kind of fuel for motors and hopefully you can afford the new and improved SUV.

Something else that really bothers me are these anti-drug campaigns that say if you buy pot you're supplying terrorists with money. I believe if you buy oil or gas you are supplying them with even more money. People, think about it.

the navy has sent 3 shiploads secretly already to the mid-east and
we have a build up of forces already surrounding Iraq, none of this is out there, below is the proof, so why are debating when its already in motion, the only thing not known is the date........ r. e. deininger

Due to United Kingdom Copyright Laws, The Law Journal cannot reproduce the Reuters report Mr. Deininger included in his note. We can however, quote the title of the article "US Navy Ships Heavy Armour to Gulf - [according to] Shipping Sources". The Law Journal apologises for any inconvenience.

Comments from Brian Risman: This news is no surprise -- we can assume that the United States has been moving equipment into place over the last couple of months, in preparation for a strike on Iraq.

As an aside, I always find it fascinating that the enemy knows before the people of the country taking action. No doubt the same situation holds here.

Comments from Brian Risman: Then I gather you prefer unilateral action. Why not involve your friends and allies as full and equal partners in determining the means to a solution of the problem of Saddam Hussein?

31 August 2002 (in response to my comments of 27 August 2002 below regarding BISH0000's note)

When the U.S. engages Iraq I hope that it will be on alert to other potential enemies. Armageddon would be a good war to win.

Comments from Brian Risman: Is that the goal? To take on all 'potential enemies?' Why would Armageddon be 'a good war to win?'

I understand the need to deal with Saddam Hussein and his potential nuclear/ chemical weapon threat. What I -- and indeed, all world leaders -- are saying, is that the US should provide the evidence to the world, build support and work with the allies as equals, not servants. Otherwise support cannot develop. If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that the US 'take out' all potential enemies -- and potential is a big word, since there are no absolutes in this world -- may I suggest that the US will have taken on too many fronts in too short a time. Worse, the view of the US as an ally and a democratic bulwark will be severely damaged.

Back to the 'potential enemies'. That phrase disturbs me. What do you define as a 'potential enemy'? Anyone who discusses issues openly with your country? Discussion is not opposition, but neither is it submission.

Could you also explain why Armageddon would be 'a good war to win?' Do you realise you and your loved ones could be destroyed? For what purpose? For what gain?

Do you want to 'nuke' the world? Is your attitude the prevailing one in the United States? Given some of the notes received, I fear that is the case. I certainly hope not.

Work with your friends -- do not act unilaterally or dictate to them. It is that simple.

The United States proposed action against Iraq is a grab for Iraq's 260 billion barrels of oil reserves. Saddam's not suicidal, and his weapons of mass destruction are for deterrence, not aggression.

If any attack is to be made, it must be specifically authorized by the UN Security Council.

Bush is now saying that he doesn't even need US Congressional approval ---- he can just launch the US into a $100 billion war on Iraq on his own say-so! With 200 billion barrels of oil to sell after it takes over Iraq, the US would come out way ahead! What a deal!

The United States has become a menace to world peace. It is out for world domination under a fascist gang of oil interests - a "praxis of evil" which cares nothing for global climate change as long as they can get their dirty oil money one way or another.

Comments from Brian Risman: While I don't agree that Saddam Hussein is interested only in deterrence, I agree that the United States, in order to garner world support, should 'work the street' -- UN resolutions, alliance building. What is even scarier is that President Bush doesn't feel the need to consult with the US Congress. No wonder that even leaders from his own political party are split on the Iraq issue. Not that they love Saddam Hussein...

I'm an American and I want to say one thing regarding Iraq, "Blow those
Buggas up!".

Comments from Brian Risman: My only question is: Who else gets blown up along with the 'buggas'? For example, the other day Mr. Brent Scowcroft, a major US military figure, warned about the Armageddon implications of a war.