 |
|
| |
|
||||
The notion of a "war" on terrorism has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by the participating governments to pursue long-standing policy objectives, reduce civil liberties, and infringe human rights. Some people say the expression itself is inappropriate. On September 14, when the United States House of Representatives voted on a bill authorizing the President of the United States to use military force in the against those involved in the September 11, 2001, attack, there was only one dissenting vote -- Representative Barbara Lee of California. Much of the opposition came from the general public, long-standing pacifist groups as well as the anti-globalization (or so-called alternative globalization) movement.
LanguageSome argue that the term "war" is not appropriate in this context (as in "war on drugs"), because they believe there is no tangible enemy, or that it is unlikely that international terrorism can be brought to an end by means of war. Others [1] (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002023596_russanal02.html) note that terrorism is not an enemy, but rather a tactic; calling it a "war on terror," they say, obscures the differences between, for example, anti-occupation resistance fighters and international jihadists. World opinionSome critics use pejorative nicknames:
GermanyThe leadership of the German Green Party, known for its pacifist principles that were already partly left during the war in Yugoslavia, supported the attack, but condemned the use of cluster bombs. This support led to an internal division within the party and a confidence vote called by German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, in which he retained the support of enough Greens to stay on. Differences between U.S. and European countriesU.S. and European critics make many different arguments. One concern is that none of the terrorists who attacked on September 11, 2001, were either Afghan or Iraqi nationals. In many allied countries, the heads of governments decided against a majority of the population, as in Spain, Italy, and many eastern European countries, for example. Death tollThe death toll, including coalition casualties, caused by the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq is estimated to be much larger than the direct deaths (including bombers) caused by the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001 (about 3,000). Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths range from 3,853 to more than 100,000. Details of estimates:
This estimate does not include [7] (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/):
Response
Intelligence authenticity of Need of ‘War’When allied intelligence was completely flawed on “Weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, how U.S intelligence can be trusted on, deaths which could be caused by “Saddam Hussain”, if not removed and deaths during his era. U.S. claim, that more deaths could have been resulted, can be easily rejecting by observing Amnesty International report on Iraq in years leading to war. (see complete amnesty international report here) (http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/webmepcountries/IRAQ). Report shows, deaths by ‘Saddam Hussain’ in years leading to war were in hundreds, not even in thousands. Additionally this report showed about 300 civilian deaths by ‘allied’ bombing. This showed that human suffering during this time in Iraq, was less then its current level. It shows, although ‘human right violations’ were more then an ‘acceptable level’, but overall they were decreasing and of course less then its current level. In Addition to this Amnesty international in their open letter said (full) (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE140112002?open&of=ENG-IRQ)[8] (http://www.mideastnews.com/irq4dc2.html)
So observing this and flawed intelligence reports about ““Weapons of mass destruction", how can “US intelligence reports” be trusted on deaths which “would” have occurred, if “Saddam Hussain” was in power. Response
Hiding Iraqi civilian casualty figures deliberatelyAmerica is giving no official Iraqi casualty figures, citing it is difficult to estimate them reliably. When allies can give ‘reliable’ figures of death during ‘Saddam Hussain’” government, a time during which allies were not in control of the country, and even give figures of “possible future deaths” after ‘Saddam Hussain’ which in their view are ‘reliable’ enough to invade a ‘sovereign country’, why they can’t give reliable figures when they occupy the same country. Further to note that, researchers in america and other allied countries can give deaths of jews during Nazi Era reliably which happened 40 decades before first PC was made. Why the figures of casualties can’t be found reliably, in current age of ‘information technology’? Response
NoncombatantsSome argue that the War unjustly results in the deaths of noncombatants (collateral damage). An alternate version of this argument is that the "war" is being fought in a way intended to minimize deaths to allied soldiers without regard to the effect on non-combatants. (See, e.g., Ten Reasons Why Women Should Oppose the "War on Terrorism" (http://war-times.org/pdf/Women%20Leaflet.pdf).) ResponseProponents of the war respond that civilian casualties are limited to the greatest possible extent through use of modern techniques like precision bombing. In addition, they argue that a mere body count is misleading and disingenuous, as it ignores the much larger number of civilians who they believe would have been killed under Saddam or the Taliban, but were not. Moreover, proponents of the war also argued that the large number of civilian casualties is due to the fact that terrorists often hide in densed cities or refugee camps and use the local population as a human shield. Supporting current terrorist groupsA number of observers have criticized the United States for supporting groups that its own state department considers terrorists to help in the war on terror. Most notably the MKO, a leftist Iranian group, that has conducted assassinations and bombings in Iran. As Iran is part of the "axis of evil" this group has been granted Geneva Convention protections. [9] (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0729/p07s01-wome.html) Promoting future terrorismAnother prevalent theme in opposition literature is that the "war" is "sowing the seeds of future terrorism and violence" by creating conditions of poverty and desperation (Artists' petition against the war (http://www.douglaslain.com/aawii.html)). ResponseCritics of the "poverty hypothesis" point out that all the September 11th hijackers were from wealthy or middle-class backgrounds in their countries of origin, arguing that they could not, therefore, have been inspired by "poverty and desperation". Interrogation methodsMany believe that the interrogation methods employed by the CIA violate international conventions against torture and that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay as well as many detained in the US based on the Patriot Act are not treated according to international standards. "Hegemony" and leftist criticismOne analysis is that the "war" is being fought "to establish a new political framework within which [the US] will exert hegemonic control." (World Socialist Web Site Editorial Board (http://www.anti-war.org/stories.php?story=01/10/17/9955066)) Many say the U.S. seeks to do this by controlling access to oil or oil pipelines. This view is shared by a broad variety of ideological streams, including social democrats (e.g. Michael Meacher: "the global war on terrorism has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project") ; anarchists (e.g. Noam Chomsky) ; greens (e.g. George Monbiot) ; and Marxists. In addition, many on this side of the political spectrum opine that the War is being fought to benefit domestic political allies of the Bush administration, especially arms manufacturers. (See Military-industrial complex.) Proponents of the "hegemony hypothesis" point out that achieving such a state of affairs is in fact the stated aim of the Project for the New American Century, a conservative think tank that includes many prominent members of the Republican Party and Bush administration amongst its present and former members. Civil libertiesMany opponents of the "war" focus on the domestic aspects, complaining that the government is systematically removing civil liberties from the population or engaging in racial profiling. They also allege that this approach contributes to whipping up public hostility to dissenting voices by encouraging the accusation of them of being unpatriotic or even treasonous for simply disagreeing with the administration. Some point to a CBS documentary, Hitler: The Rise of Evil, about how Hitler came to power. Later, the producer was fired because of remarks he made about his opinions that Hitler's coming to power resembles the current situation. However, by mid-2004, similar pressure failed to significantly affect filmmaker Michael Moore's efforts to release his film Fahrenheit 9/11 which directly criticized the "war on terror" and George W. Bush in particular. In fact, the pressure backfired, creating so much publicity that the film went on to make box office history with its unprecendented successful box office run for a political documentary. Personal criticismsBased on Politically Incorrect language:
Misleading the publicSome critics argue that politicians conducting the "war on terror" are motivated by reasons other than those they publicly state and accuse them of cynically misleading the public to achieve their own ends. For instance, in the two months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush and members of his administration suggested that links existed between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida. However, evidence for such links has so far been weak, and a thorough investigation by the 9/11 Commission found no credible evidence that Saddam Hussein had assisted al-Qaida in carrying out the September 11, 2001 attacks. However, polls suggest that a majority of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was complicit in the attacks. See alsoExternal links
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 2008 WordIQ.com - Privacy Policy
::
Terms of Use
:: Contact Us
:: About Us This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Criticisms of War on Terrorism". |