This archival web page was frozen in its current form for historical record with the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, March, 2003. Only two articles by Harry Browne were added afterwards, from December, 2003 and March, 2004. Some of the news links on the left side may no longer work. All other content is property of the Downsize DC Foundation, formerly known as the American Liberty Foundation. » Two Important Notes...
The truth about war vs. deterrence
by Jim Babka
We have provided evidence to show that Bush's justifications for war are baseless. But what if the evidence showed otherwise?
- What if Hussein really did have massive arsenals of chemical and biological weapons, and what if they really could be turned into true weapons of mass destruction? (See Claim #1.)
- What if Hussein really did have nuclear weapons, or a realistic prospect of developing them in the future? (See Claim #1.)
- What if our government had not been complicit in Hussein's invasions of Iran and Kuwait, and what if he really was a new Hitler, intent on conquering the Middle East and monopolizing a large part of the world's oil supply? (See Claim #4, Claim #6, and The truth about Hussein's brutality.)
- What if he really did have contacts with terrorists? What if he really did share their beliefs and goals, and what if he really did want to arm them with weapons of mass destruction to use against America? (See Claim #2.)
- What if Hussein really had gassed his own people? (See The truth About Hussein's brutality.)
If all of these things were true instead of false, would that mean that Bush's proposed war would really be the only solution, or even the best one? The answer is no.
We know this is true because of simple logic, and because we have traveled this road before. We know from experience that war is not the only, or even the best option, when faced with a powerful threat.
- For forty years the Soviet Union had vast arsenals of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, aimed at the west and capable of striking us.
- The Soviet Union had invaded and conquered half of Europe, and funded insurgencies and terrorist groups all over the globe.
- The Soviet Union had even killed tens of millions of its own people.
- And yet we did not need to attack the Soviet Union in order to defend ourselves against it, or even to bring about its eventual fall.
Instead, we used a policy of deterrence—attack us and we will obliterate you. And we should adopt the same policy now.
- Does Saddam Hussein want to continue living? Yes he does.
- Does he want to retain his cars, his women, his palaces and his power? Yes he does.
- Does he know that the United States has the power to destroy him? Yes he does—Gulf War I proved that to him if he didn't know it already.
Hussein, unlike Hilter, knows that he hasn't got a fighting chance to save himself if he does anything to harm us. Deterrence is more than enough to keep him in line, and protect the American people, whereas a war runs the very real risk of creating a true terrorist regime in Iraq, and perhaps in its neighbors as well.
- War is not the only option.
- It is not even the best option.
- War, in fact, is the absolute worst option.
Our Director of Public Policy, Harry Browne, explained that the Bush Administration was taking a dangerous course in dealing with Saddam Hussein back in August 2002. You can read his editorial, "How to Destroy American in One Easy Lesson" here: wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28624.
To examine more of the TruthAboutWar site, visit these links (or the Claims links on the left side of this page):
The truth about Hussein's brutality
The truth about violations of international law
The truth about Hussein's UN prohibited weapons
The truth about the causes of terrorism
The truth about war versus deterrence
Thank you for visiting and supporting TruthAboutWar.org!