The
Essay
Title by Justice Junction as The Governments Hypocrisy, The
Balance of Power.
The
administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile
chemical or biological weapons ("weapons of mass destruction")
- mainly because they have used them in the past. Well, if
that's the standard by which these matters are decided, then
the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has
stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years.
The U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes
during it's "Cold War" with the Soviet Union. Why,
then, is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence)
- with respect to Iraq's (real) war with, and the continued
threat or, it's neighbor Iran?
The administration claims that Iraq has used these weapons
in the past. We've all seen the pictures that show a Kurdish
woman and child frozen in death from the use of chemical weapons.
But, have you seen these photo's juxtaposed next to pictures
from Hiroshima or Nagasaki? I suggest that one study the histories
of World War I, World War II and other "regional conflicts"
that the U.S. has been involved in to familiarize themselves
with the use of "weapons of mass destruction." Remember
Dresden? How about Hanoi? Tripoli? Baghdad? What about the
big ones - Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (At those two locations,
the U.S. killed at least 150,000 non-combatants - mostly women
and children - in the blink of an eye. Thousands more took
hours, days, weeks or months to die.)
If Saddam is such a demon, and people are calling for war
crimes charges against him and his nation, why do we not hear
the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even
greater amounts of "mass destruction" - like those
responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned
above? The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it
comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.
Hypocrisy when it comes to the death of children?
In Oklahoma City, it was family convenience that explained
the presence of a day care center placed between street level
and the law enforcement agencies which occupied the upper
floors of the building. Yet when discussion shifts to Iraq,
any day care center in a government building instantly becomes
"a shield." Think about that. (Actually there is
a difference here. The administration has admitted to knowledge
of the presence of children in or near Iraqi government buildings,
yet they still proceed with their plans to bomb - saying that
they cannot be held responsible if children die. There is
no such proof, however, that knowledge of the presence of
children existed in relation to the Oklahoma City bombing.)
When considering morality and "men's rea" (criminal
intent) in light of these facts, I ask: Who are the true barbarians?
Yet another example of this nations blatant hypocrisy is revealed
by the polls which suggest that this nation is greatly in
favor of bombing Iraq. In this instance, the people of the
nation approve of bombing government employees because they
are "guilty by association" - they are Iraqi government
employees. In regard to the bombing in Oklahoma City, however,
such logic is condemned. What motivated these seemingly contradictory
positions? Do people think that government workers in Iraq
are any less human that those in Oklahoma City? Do they think
that Iraqis don't have families who will grieve and mourn
the loss of their loved ones? In this context, do people come
to believe that the killing of foreigners is somehow different
that the killing of Americans?
I recently read of an arrest in New York City where possession
of a mere pipe bomb was charged as possession of a "weapon
of mass destruction." If a two-pound pipe bomb is a "weapon
of mass destruction," then what do people think that
a 2,000-pound steel-encased bomb is? I find it ironic, to
say the least, that one of the aircraft that could be used
to drop such a bomb on Iraq is dubbed "The Spirit of
Oklahoma." This leads me to a final, and unspoken, moral
hypocrisy regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction.
When a U.S. plane or cruise missile is used to bring destruction
to a foreign people, this nation rewards the bombers with
applause and praise. What a convenient way to absolve these
killers of any responsibility for the destruction they leave
in their wake. Unfortunately, the morality of killing is not
so superficial. The truth is, the use of a truck, a plane,
or a missile for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction
does not alter the nature of the act itself. These are weapons
of mass destruction - and the method of delivery matters little
to those on the receiving end of such weapons.
Whether you wish to admit it or not, when you approve, morally,
or the bombing of foreign targets by the U.S. military, you
are approving of acts morally equivalent to to the bombing
in Oklahoma City. The only difference is that this nation
is not going to see any foreign causalities appear on the
cover of Newsweek magazine. It seems ironic and hypocritical
that an act as viciously condemned in Oklahoma City is not
a "justified" response to a problem in a foreign
land. Then again, the history of the United States policy
over the last century. when examined fully, tends to exemplify
hypocrisy.
When considering the use of weapons of mass destruction against
Iraq as a means to an end, it would be wise to remember the
words of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.
His words are as true in the context of Olmstead as they are
when they stand alone: "Our government is the potent,
the omnipresent teacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole
people by it's example."
Sincerely,
Timothy J. McVeigh |
