Most Helpful Customer Reviews
7 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Best Short Book Opposing the Iraq War + What To Do About It, March 2, 2003
By A Customer
This review is from: Against War with Iraq: An Anti-War Primer (Paperback)
This short, highly readable book summarizes in one place many of the arguments against the war with Iraq. It is trying to arm the reader with a basis for opposition to the war and provides a list of resources that can get people active. It lays out the international prohibition on the use of force, the two exceptions permitted under the U.N. Charter, and explains the various United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq. It details the Bush Administrations justifications for a new war, particularly with regard to weapons of mass destruction and points out how its claims are misleading, exaggerated or false. It analyzes many of the alleged rationalizations for the war, finds them unconvincing and proceeds to discuss what this war is really about. It summarizes the early roots of the doctrine of preemptive strikes and explains the war as one for oil and U.S. world domination. The book also contains a section on the serious consequences and dangers such a war will have for the people of Iraq, the U.S. and the rest of the world. Best single book on Iraq.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Succinct and frightening, April 13, 2003
This review is from: Against War with Iraq: An Anti-War Primer (Paperback)
AGAINST WAR WITH IRAQ: AN ANTI-WAR PRIMER is a frightening description of the Bush Administration's plan for world dominance. It points out that there is no tangible proof of any connection between Saddam and bin Laden, and that "weapons of mass destruction" is not at the root of the war. Rather, the Bush Administration is interested in controlling the second largest oil reserve in the world, which Iraq just happens to sit on top of. Iraq is also a good target in this plan because it is just a defenseless country, thus sending a graphic message to the rest of the world of our military capabilities. Yet another advantage of attacking Iraq is the fact that it lies at the center of the Middle East, providing the US a good opportunity to weaken the region's stability even further and establish a USA presence that can later be expanded. AGAINST WAR WITH IRAQ: AN ANTI-WAR PRIMER also provides the chilling account of US crackdown on civil liberties in the name of "protecting our freedoms," and how other countries have followed suit. It also notes that terrorism increased during the preparation for war with Iraq, and that it most likely will increase if we *do* go to war (note: this book was published a few weeks before the outbreak of the war). Most frightening of all is the revelation that the war with Iraq is just phase one in the Bush Administration's quest for global dominance. The idea is to scare the rest of the world, to let them know that the US has a right to attack whenever they feel, without sufficient proof of any wrong doing - this is called a "preventive attack" (meaning the USA can attack any country it *thinks* may be planning to attack us, no proof is needed). As this book points out, the great irony is that while the official justification for the war with Iraq is to do away with their "weapons of mass destruction," the war with Iraq will only increase weapons of mass destruction because other countries are now afraid of the USA and will want to stock up protection to defend themselves against the USA. We can strike whenever we want (boy, I love how those euphamisms make things so much prettier than they really are: unions strike; the US military is *bombing* and killing), so countries will need to protect themselves. I picked up AGAINST WAR WITH IRAQ: AN ANTI-WAR PRIMER hoping to learn more about what is really going on. I found what is in these pages to be so horrifying that I almost wish I hadn't read it. I now understand why so many Americans believe that the war is about protecting our freedoms: it's too frightening to realize that we have a government that is lying to us this much and is willing - and able - to sacrifice innocent human lives in the quest for money.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Good summary of why this war is aggression, March 21, 2003
This review is from: Against War with Iraq: An Anti-War Primer (Paperback)
Written before the current jihad began, but no less useful, this book outlines why the U.S. has no authority to unilalaterally bomb a sovereign country. Resolution 1441 stated merely a listed of extremely heavy conditions for Iraq to comply or else it would be declared in "material breach." It called for the convening of the security council to hear the inspector's report. There was nothing explicitly granting the United states to bomb if Iraq was declared in "material breach." Article 51 of the UN charter declares that no state can act militarily against another without security council approval or if they country is under immediate and sustained attack. The UN charter does not endorse the doctrine now explicity endorsed by the extreme reactionaries currently at the helm of power in Washington that the U.S. has the right to "pre-emptively" attack any country it feels to be threatened by, even if that threat is not imminent. They note that the U.S. has obtained security council votes in an extremely compromsing way. E.G. cutting off aid to Yemen after it voted against a U.S. draft resolution back in 1990. They note that congressman Henry Gonzales drafted a bill of impeachment against Bush Sr. for the many "bribes and threats" used to get UN approval. In current times, it seems some backroom deals have been made with the French and the Russians to secure their existing oil contracts with Saddam post-war which is what the latter are really concerned about. American oil companies will probably have first pick of the oil resources. The Americans will install a pro-American government that will do America's bidding in the oil rivalries with OPEC, they write. And indeed the authors point out that Iraq is not an imminent threat, that U.S. intelligence deny this. They note that Richard Butler reported to the security council in January 1999 that the inspection process had made Saddam "substantially disarm." They quote the conservative anaylst Anthony Cordesman that it is likely that stocks of biological and chemical weapons retained by Iraq after the gulf war have lost their viability. They quote Scott Ritter that the 800 or so mustard gas shells that Iraq is reportedly to have, does not represent any sort of option for them on the battlefield. Nor do the dozen or so blastic missles. And they do not have the technology to produce any significant amount of VX nerve gas, and the equipment they did have was found and destroyed by the inspectors in 96' and found never to have been used. They note that the International Atomic energy agency certified in October 1997 that Iraq was in "full, final and complete" compliance with its nuclear weapons program. They note in an endnote that the evidence about Iraq trying to gain enriched uranium from Africa is very tenuous, it simply does not have the infrastructure (this book was published before it came out from the IAEA that U.S. documents purporting to show Iraq's aquisition of uranuim from Niger were forgeries). They point out, of course, Saddam's regime is unbelievabably bestial but that did not bother United States and its British lietenant when he was "gassing his own people" back in the 80's. They gave him substantial support to build up his arsenal of WMD. The link to Bin Laden is unlikely for the supposed meeting in the Czech republic seemed not to have taken place and Saddam would not want to give weapons to independent-minded fundamentalists who have a goal of overthrowing his secular dictatorship. Most importantly they note that people seem not to care much about the humanitarian impact on Iraqis. U.S. bombing has and will continue to destroy much of Iraq's vital civilian infrastructure. Estimates vary about total casualties: from like 48,000 to 200,000. If Saddam does have any substantial WMD and is backed into a corner, there is no doubt he will use them. Various nations with bad human rights records like Russia, China, India, Israel have a green light to conduct terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism. Wahabi terrorism increased in late 2002 and will surely do so as a result of what happens in Iraq. They note in an endnote that the dim-witted disciple of Jesus currently in the white house was not telling the truth when he said that Iraq was diverting oil for food money for weapons. Such money is placed in an escrow account in New York with purchases made by it directed by the United nations. They note that it is rather unlikely the president's claim that Iraq has possessions of drones that are capable of flying undetected accross other countries and U.S. military bases to bomb the United States.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
