Page 1 of 1 pages
These are horrible environmmental consequences that should have been addressed by the leaders of their nation. Iraq had the means to lead a productive and healthy country, though the government chose to ignore the problems it created. The government of Iraq chose to weaken, torture, threaten, and lie to its citizens on a level that Americans cannot imagine.
If the US government had taken the initiative when they first challenged Saddam then this never would have reached its current proportions. Ask yourself, which government would you rather live under: that which can be openly criticized in the US… OR… the governments of Algeria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Colombia, Venezuela, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Palestine, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Angola, Liberia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Burma, Laos, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, or Somolia? Lets be honest now, these may all be interesting countries, but which government would you choose?
The US has its problems and makes mistakes, but we all have to work hard to improve what we can. Don’t give up on a system that has worked toward many positive goals in favor of untested pipe dreams.
Posted by ROCKTIME on Mar 29, 2003 at 9:01 AM
Ross Mirkarimi writes that the war on Iraq is driven by energy policies. No doubt, the quest for oil is a major factor. But whether that oil is for energy is questionable. Energy has a variety of possible sources: the sun, the wind, ocean currents, biomass, the atom, coal and maybe some I’m not thinking of at the moment. But except for the atom, those items can’t support something else: a war machine. Furthermore, Iraq is not the only target of the war that Bush and his inner circle are waging. What we are seeing is a massive, blatant grab of wealth and power—in which most members of Congress and many in the federal judiciary are complicit—whose real aim is the destruction of the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by Gino Rembetes on Mar 29, 2003 at 3:42 PM
I’ve heard Ross Mirkarimi speak about this issue over the radio. He makes a compelling argument at how the eco-science of a war’s aftermath is another vital tool for dissuading future wars.
The more information we get, the more effective we are in building our case against this madness—beyond the rhetoric that seems trite at times. Thanks for the piece.
Posted by J.C. on Mar 31, 2003 at 12:58 AM
Mr. Mirkarimi,
Good points. But, you didn’t mention that this war is good for business. U.S. business. Someone has to attend to the war’s aftermaths and since the crisis du jour is Iraq, the United States is poised to topple a dictator and plant a new shopping mall.
Bad luck for the other hardship nation-cases, who still struggle, media-free, from their humanitarian crises. As long as the United Nations keeps getting its knees whacked, any notion in rectifying the environmental and human consequences of war, is an expensive lesson in false-hope.
Is that the U.S. I see taking its other foot out of the U.N.?
Posted by Alexa. F. on Mar 31, 2003 at 8:48 PM
I just came across this story and wish I had seen it before. Apparently, very little information on this subject is out in the mainstream. For me this piece raises larger questions and that is how do we deal with all the catastrophic military impacts on the planet…how indeed?
Posted by Will Z. on Apr 16, 2003 at 3:16 PM
Ross’ piece only teases us in wanting to learn more since this issue is far from over and hidden from the mainstream press. Maybe if there were some sexy photo-shots of oil well fires in Iraq we would see greater attention paid to the impact issues, but then again, maybe not. Thanks.
Posted by E.J. on Apr 20, 2003 at 2:01 PM
I’m visiting the states and have mixed feelings about all the attention being applied to the Iraq crisis and not the impacts of the Palestine-Israeli conflict. Many of the issues mentioned in this article are applicable to the West Bank and Gaza. My family knows this all too well. Please address these issues too.
Posted by Luna Shahin on Apr 21, 2003 at 4:07 PM
The oil well fires of ‘91 are a distant memory. The 2003 war’s impacts haven’t made headline news because they pale compared to the scale of what happened 12 years ago. Unless of course we’re talking about depleted uranium. This stuff is nasty—a disaster waiting to happen if not properly addressed.
Posted by Russell on Apr 23, 2003 at 4:44 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
These are horrible environmmental consequences that should have been addressed by the leaders of their nation. Iraq had the means to lead a productive and healthy country, though the government chose to ignore the problems it created. The government of Iraq chose to weaken, torture, threaten, and lie to its citizens on a level that Americans cannot imagine.
If the US government had taken the initiative when they first challenged Saddam then this never would have reached its current proportions. Ask yourself, which government would you rather live under: that which can be openly criticized in the US… OR… the governments of Algeria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Colombia, Venezuela, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Palestine, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Angola, Liberia, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Burma, Laos, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, or Somolia? Lets be honest now, these may all be interesting countries, but which government would you choose?
The US has its problems and makes mistakes, but we all have to work hard to improve what we can. Don’t give up on a system that has worked toward many positive goals in favor of untested pipe dreams.
Ross Mirkarimi writes that the war on Iraq is driven by energy policies. No doubt, the quest for oil is a major factor. But whether that oil is for energy is questionable. Energy has a variety of possible sources: the sun, the wind, ocean currents, biomass, the atom, coal and maybe some I’m not thinking of at the moment. But except for the atom, those items can’t support something else: a war machine. Furthermore, Iraq is not the only target of the war that Bush and his inner circle are waging. What we are seeing is a massive, blatant grab of wealth and power—in which most members of Congress and many in the federal judiciary are complicit—whose real aim is the destruction of the U.S. Constitution.
I’ve heard Ross Mirkarimi speak about this issue over the radio. He makes a compelling argument at how the eco-science of a war’s aftermath is another vital tool for dissuading future wars.
The more information we get, the more effective we are in building our case against this madness—beyond the rhetoric that seems trite at times. Thanks for the piece.
Mr. Mirkarimi,
Good points. But, you didn’t mention that this war is good for business. U.S. business. Someone has to attend to the war’s aftermaths and since the crisis du jour is Iraq, the United States is poised to topple a dictator and plant a new shopping mall.
Bad luck for the other hardship nation-cases, who still struggle, media-free, from their humanitarian crises. As long as the United Nations keeps getting its knees whacked, any notion in rectifying the environmental and human consequences of war, is an expensive lesson in false-hope.
Is that the U.S. I see taking its other foot out of the U.N.?
I just came across this story and wish I had seen it before. Apparently, very little information on this subject is out in the mainstream. For me this piece raises larger questions and that is how do we deal with all the catastrophic military impacts on the planet…how indeed?
Ross’ piece only teases us in wanting to learn more since this issue is far from over and hidden from the mainstream press. Maybe if there were some sexy photo-shots of oil well fires in Iraq we would see greater attention paid to the impact issues, but then again, maybe not. Thanks.
I’m visiting the states and have mixed feelings about all the attention being applied to the Iraq crisis and not the impacts of the Palestine-Israeli conflict. Many of the issues mentioned in this article are applicable to the West Bank and Gaza. My family knows this all too well. Please address these issues too.
The oil well fires of ‘91 are a distant memory. The 2003 war’s impacts haven’t made headline news because they pale compared to the scale of what happened 12 years ago. Unless of course we’re talking about depleted uranium. This stuff is nasty—a disaster waiting to happen if not properly addressed.
register a new account »Posting Security