The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
So then, this Iraq business: what's going on? (hey, it's a miserable day; what do you expect to be on my mind?!)
Well, firstly of course we should look at the good news. Firstly, there are now UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. They are doing their job rather well (despite attempts by Dubya's cronies to smear the reputation of Hans Blix, the chief inspector. So desperate are they for the oil...erm, I mean for the war, that they leaked numerous stories to the press questioning his ability, his impartiality and, as we're talking about the Republican right here, probably his sexuality) and should have conducted numerous inspections at hundreds of sites by the time January 27th, the deadline for the inspectors' first report, rolls around.
Secondly, Iraq actually bothered themselves to produce what they say is a full and complete list of all weapons in the country. As both Europe and America could check the veracity of this document by simply having a look at the receipts for the millions of pounds worth of weapons that we sold to Iraq in the 80's, one would hope that Iraq would have provided a full and complete list.
Finally, the nations of the Gulf are quietly starting to make it clear that they will comply with any fresh UN resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq should they fail to comply with the program of inspections. The prospect of a Middle-Eastern conflagration of pant-wetting proportions has thus receded somewhat, though one should always remember that the will of the Middle Eastern governments does not always (or in some cases, ever) represent the will of the Middle Eastern people.
Okay, so that's the good news. Well...good if you're anti-war in Iraq anyway. However, as is always the case, there is ample bad news to balance it out. And that bad news has led to my amending my rather fervent belief that we should not be joining Dubya in his quest to get more oil by means of force. But I'll get to that presently; for now, on with the bad news from the Gulf:
First of all, the weapons inspectors are not getting what they call "genuine co-operation". In other words, it looks like that nice Mr. Hussein is going to stall and procrastinate just like he did last time. That will mean that America will have all the reasons they need to attack. With luck, they'll bother themselves to get a fresh UN resolution to authorise such a course of action, but don't hold your breath expecting them to do so.
If that were not enough, despite this lack of co-operation the weapons inspectors have still been able to find some weapons that were not declared by Iraq. They only amounted to a few empty chemical warheads, but that would seem to be an indicator that Iraq does indeed have or is developing weapons of mass destruction. Again, this alone is pretty much all America needs to attack. Maybe it's not strictly speaking the "smoking gun" that Dubya is itching for, but it's close enough.
Finally, and probably most convincingly, the build up of American (sorry, Allied) forces in the Gulf is now so large that it would be economic suicide not to use them. The reason being, once you've spent so much money getting an Army to the other side of the world, feeding them, and equipping them, it would be disastrous for that money to effectively be poured down the drain by not using them. In other words, no matter what is said in the UN, no matter what else the inspectors find (or don't find) in the coming weeks, and no matter what Dubya's speechwriter tells him to say, it would seem 99% certain that there is going to be a war. If we take it as read that there is going to be a war, there would seem to be only one pertinent question.
What the hell are we going to do? By 'we' I mean the UK. At the moment, our Glorious Leader Blair is taking a lot of criticism from both domestic and overseas critics. As the leader of a supposedly left wing political party, many of his own supporters are uneasy to say the least about our taking part in a war of questionable motivation. And as America's only ally, he is being accused of lending legitimacy to the actions of a...well, I don't have enough time to list the derogatory terms that have been applied to Dubya, but I'm sure you get the idea. This would appear to be a lose-lose situation for Blair and the Labour party in general.
However, this is not necessarily the case. At the moment, various dignitaries of sundry other nations are pontificating at length about what SHOULD be done to Iraq. Deposing Saddam and replacing it with a regime that will treat the Iraqi people with the respect and dignity due to them as human beings comes (rightly) top of this list. All of these nations seem to have the rather sweet and naive belief that, once America has done the business and deposed of Saddam (assuming that they do; a recent US military war game exercise that was essentially a dry-run for the war ended in embarrassment when the Iraqi side inflicted massive losses on the American team), they will listen to these mainly European anti-war advocates when it comes to drawing up the plans for a postwar government in Iraq. This view is about as far removed from reality as the idea that Dubya is a statesmanlike leader who wants peace.
Can you explain to me just why America's leadership will be inclined to share responsibility for the running of this oil-rich country? The American people will be almost as one in supporting their government’s rejection of any outside interference. After all, it will have been their country who did the fighting (though if we're brutally honest, it won't be their country that provides most of the corpses...), and as Americans are by and large a patriotic bunch, it will take barely any rabble-rousing and demagoguery to shift public opinion to the "Screw you, we're going to do what we want!" mindset of the Dubya and his merry men.
As a brief interjection, lest you still doubt that this war is about oil and not, as the rhetoric would have it, improving the lives of innocent Iraqi's and removing an unelected and brutal dictator, I would point to the fact that the US today offered amnesty to all of the "evil and brutal" Iraqi leadership if they give up without a fight. Not exactly the actions of a nation who wish to bring an evil man to justice (though Operation Paperclip and similar initiatives, which saw Nazi scientists being granted amnesty by the Allies in exchange for their knowledge, shows that justice has never been high on the agenda in international relations...). And should we believe that a US sponsored Iraqi leadership would be any better? Why not ask the people of Uzbekistan, who's current paranoid despot, Karimov, is one of the world leaders in human rights abuses...but who, thanks to his decision to allow US troops to be stationed in his country, enjoys the full support of the US government. Maybe these two facts don't add up to a dim future for Iraq no matter who wins, but history would tend to suggest that they do. Unless....
Well, unless Tony Blair actually has does possess the morals and conscience that he has rammed down our throats at every opportunity. If we are the only other nation involved in an attack on Iraq, then we're the only other nation with the authority to have any say in a postwar Iraqi government. And that might actually mean that Dubya doesn't get things entirely his own way as he did in, for example, Afghanistan (where you can now barely get moved for American Oil men who are involved in setting up the new government).
And lest we forget, getting rid of Hussein would be a very good thing. That is the one thing that both pro and anti war pundits are in total agreement about. It's just that I have a nasty suspicion that if the US was left to this war on it's own, it is extremely likely that the misery of the Iraqi people will continue. As I've said, America doesn't have a good record for installing benevolent puppets in it's client countries (check out http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dictators.html if you want confirmation of this), and I don't imagine that anyone in the White House will give a crippled cack about their further suffering in Iraq just so long as the oil is flowing.
For that matter, no one nation has a good record on that sort of thing. It's only when more than one country gets involved that anything is done to address human rights abuses (the Nuremburg trials after WW2 and the current trials of the assorted nefarious Balkan leaders would seem to be proof of that), and even then I'm not so foolish as to believe that the UK alone would make much difference. Yet if more nations bit the bullet and committed themselves to this inevitable war, we could perhaps ensure that the criminals of Iraq get punished, that the people get some sort of relief from tyranny, and that the criminals in America who pushed this just war for selfish and unjust reasons onto us all don't get the money out of it that they're hoping. All of these reasons are good ones to my mind, and that's why I for one am no longer opposed to war against Iraq. Have fun making your own mind up.
Well, firstly of course we should look at the good news. Firstly, there are now UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. They are doing their job rather well (despite attempts by Dubya's cronies to smear the reputation of Hans Blix, the chief inspector. So desperate are they for the oil...erm, I mean for the war, that they leaked numerous stories to the press questioning his ability, his impartiality and, as we're talking about the Republican right here, probably his sexuality) and should have conducted numerous inspections at hundreds of sites by the time January 27th, the deadline for the inspectors' first report, rolls around.
Secondly, Iraq actually bothered themselves to produce what they say is a full and complete list of all weapons in the country. As both Europe and America could check the veracity of this document by simply having a look at the receipts for the millions of pounds worth of weapons that we sold to Iraq in the 80's, one would hope that Iraq would have provided a full and complete list.
Finally, the nations of the Gulf are quietly starting to make it clear that they will comply with any fresh UN resolution authorising the use of force against Iraq should they fail to comply with the program of inspections. The prospect of a Middle-Eastern conflagration of pant-wetting proportions has thus receded somewhat, though one should always remember that the will of the Middle Eastern governments does not always (or in some cases, ever) represent the will of the Middle Eastern people.
Okay, so that's the good news. Well...good if you're anti-war in Iraq anyway. However, as is always the case, there is ample bad news to balance it out. And that bad news has led to my amending my rather fervent belief that we should not be joining Dubya in his quest to get more oil by means of force. But I'll get to that presently; for now, on with the bad news from the Gulf:
First of all, the weapons inspectors are not getting what they call "genuine co-operation". In other words, it looks like that nice Mr. Hussein is going to stall and procrastinate just like he did last time. That will mean that America will have all the reasons they need to attack. With luck, they'll bother themselves to get a fresh UN resolution to authorise such a course of action, but don't hold your breath expecting them to do so.
If that were not enough, despite this lack of co-operation the weapons inspectors have still been able to find some weapons that were not declared by Iraq. They only amounted to a few empty chemical warheads, but that would seem to be an indicator that Iraq does indeed have or is developing weapons of mass destruction. Again, this alone is pretty much all America needs to attack. Maybe it's not strictly speaking the "smoking gun" that Dubya is itching for, but it's close enough.
Finally, and probably most convincingly, the build up of American (sorry, Allied) forces in the Gulf is now so large that it would be economic suicide not to use them. The reason being, once you've spent so much money getting an Army to the other side of the world, feeding them, and equipping them, it would be disastrous for that money to effectively be poured down the drain by not using them. In other words, no matter what is said in the UN, no matter what else the inspectors find (or don't find) in the coming weeks, and no matter what Dubya's speechwriter tells him to say, it would seem 99% certain that there is going to be a war. If we take it as read that there is going to be a war, there would seem to be only one pertinent question.
What the hell are we going to do? By 'we' I mean the UK. At the moment, our Glorious Leader Blair is taking a lot of criticism from both domestic and overseas critics. As the leader of a supposedly left wing political party, many of his own supporters are uneasy to say the least about our taking part in a war of questionable motivation. And as America's only ally, he is being accused of lending legitimacy to the actions of a...well, I don't have enough time to list the derogatory terms that have been applied to Dubya, but I'm sure you get the idea. This would appear to be a lose-lose situation for Blair and the Labour party in general.
However, this is not necessarily the case. At the moment, various dignitaries of sundry other nations are pontificating at length about what SHOULD be done to Iraq. Deposing Saddam and replacing it with a regime that will treat the Iraqi people with the respect and dignity due to them as human beings comes (rightly) top of this list. All of these nations seem to have the rather sweet and naive belief that, once America has done the business and deposed of Saddam (assuming that they do; a recent US military war game exercise that was essentially a dry-run for the war ended in embarrassment when the Iraqi side inflicted massive losses on the American team), they will listen to these mainly European anti-war advocates when it comes to drawing up the plans for a postwar government in Iraq. This view is about as far removed from reality as the idea that Dubya is a statesmanlike leader who wants peace.
Can you explain to me just why America's leadership will be inclined to share responsibility for the running of this oil-rich country? The American people will be almost as one in supporting their government’s rejection of any outside interference. After all, it will have been their country who did the fighting (though if we're brutally honest, it won't be their country that provides most of the corpses...), and as Americans are by and large a patriotic bunch, it will take barely any rabble-rousing and demagoguery to shift public opinion to the "Screw you, we're going to do what we want!" mindset of the Dubya and his merry men.
As a brief interjection, lest you still doubt that this war is about oil and not, as the rhetoric would have it, improving the lives of innocent Iraqi's and removing an unelected and brutal dictator, I would point to the fact that the US today offered amnesty to all of the "evil and brutal" Iraqi leadership if they give up without a fight. Not exactly the actions of a nation who wish to bring an evil man to justice (though Operation Paperclip and similar initiatives, which saw Nazi scientists being granted amnesty by the Allies in exchange for their knowledge, shows that justice has never been high on the agenda in international relations...). And should we believe that a US sponsored Iraqi leadership would be any better? Why not ask the people of Uzbekistan, who's current paranoid despot, Karimov, is one of the world leaders in human rights abuses...but who, thanks to his decision to allow US troops to be stationed in his country, enjoys the full support of the US government. Maybe these two facts don't add up to a dim future for Iraq no matter who wins, but history would tend to suggest that they do. Unless....
Well, unless Tony Blair actually has does possess the morals and conscience that he has rammed down our throats at every opportunity. If we are the only other nation involved in an attack on Iraq, then we're the only other nation with the authority to have any say in a postwar Iraqi government. And that might actually mean that Dubya doesn't get things entirely his own way as he did in, for example, Afghanistan (where you can now barely get moved for American Oil men who are involved in setting up the new government).
And lest we forget, getting rid of Hussein would be a very good thing. That is the one thing that both pro and anti war pundits are in total agreement about. It's just that I have a nasty suspicion that if the US was left to this war on it's own, it is extremely likely that the misery of the Iraqi people will continue. As I've said, America doesn't have a good record for installing benevolent puppets in it's client countries (check out http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dictators.html if you want confirmation of this), and I don't imagine that anyone in the White House will give a crippled cack about their further suffering in Iraq just so long as the oil is flowing.
For that matter, no one nation has a good record on that sort of thing. It's only when more than one country gets involved that anything is done to address human rights abuses (the Nuremburg trials after WW2 and the current trials of the assorted nefarious Balkan leaders would seem to be proof of that), and even then I'm not so foolish as to believe that the UK alone would make much difference. Yet if more nations bit the bullet and committed themselves to this inevitable war, we could perhaps ensure that the criminals of Iraq get punished, that the people get some sort of relief from tyranny, and that the criminals in America who pushed this just war for selfish and unjust reasons onto us all don't get the money out of it that they're hoping. All of these reasons are good ones to my mind, and that's why I for one am no longer opposed to war against Iraq. Have fun making your own mind up.
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> Nice thought, but the realistic world view says any attempted Iraqi
> outsting of Saddam without serious covert support will leave those who
> try it dead.
Firstly I don't think Iraqis have ever had a serious chance to stage their own revolution. Pre-war we were arming and aiding Saddam's government; then post-war we imposed sanctions that harmed the government not one bit, but made the people dependent on Saddam's regime for food, medicine etc.
Secondly, I've no doubt that an internal revolution would be violent and may even fail altogether. But at least in that scenario Iraqis themselves choose to lay their lives on the line. Morally I don't think we have the right to say X amount of civilian dead is an acceptable price for getting rid of Saddam, especially when those civilians have no say in the matter whatsoever.
> Nice thought, but the realistic world view says any attempted Iraqi
> outsting of Saddam without serious covert support will leave those who
> try it dead.
Firstly I don't think Iraqis have ever had a serious chance to stage their own revolution. Pre-war we were arming and aiding Saddam's government; then post-war we imposed sanctions that harmed the government not one bit, but made the people dependent on Saddam's regime for food, medicine etc.
Secondly, I've no doubt that an internal revolution would be violent and may even fail altogether. But at least in that scenario Iraqis themselves choose to lay their lives on the line. Morally I don't think we have the right to say X amount of civilian dead is an acceptable price for getting rid of Saddam, especially when those civilians have no say in the matter whatsoever.
I can't believe they have the nerve to do stuff like this...
People go on about Hitler (don't get me wrong, I don't think it's not as bad people regard - it is...) and the systematic massacre, but to me, people don't acknowledge Hiroshima and Nagasaki which... pretty much hold the record for such a mass killing leaving effects for generations... now what with the weapons inspectors and all... the bottom line is that everything which is being done is an offensive tactive not defensive - you arm yourself to the teeth, have all the secret projects after dropping nukes as pretty much a test, and can somehow get away with trying to dis-arm other countries... how does that work???? Yeah, I know I've missed some stuff out, but the essence is, by taking away any means of defence, that is an offensive maneouvre... Afghan and Iraq, yeah, about the oil and the regime. They're not even a threat to America and everyone knows it. I'm not saying there's no dormant danger. The execution of war bears a foregone conclusion. And the media isn't much of a help either, playing on news values of negativity and promoting a bush-like attitude through filtering. Anyhow, I don't want some stupid essentially pointless war going on with the UK involved or a war fought in my name or anything. Why are we kissing butt???? Who the hell wants a war? I is pretty wound up. I can't talk very rationally at this point, because my sis is REALLY ANNOYING ME!!!!!
"That is your problem. Then I cannot oblige"
People go on about Hitler (don't get me wrong, I don't think it's not as bad people regard - it is...) and the systematic massacre, but to me, people don't acknowledge Hiroshima and Nagasaki which... pretty much hold the record for such a mass killing leaving effects for generations... now what with the weapons inspectors and all... the bottom line is that everything which is being done is an offensive tactive not defensive - you arm yourself to the teeth, have all the secret projects after dropping nukes as pretty much a test, and can somehow get away with trying to dis-arm other countries... how does that work???? Yeah, I know I've missed some stuff out, but the essence is, by taking away any means of defence, that is an offensive maneouvre... Afghan and Iraq, yeah, about the oil and the regime. They're not even a threat to America and everyone knows it. I'm not saying there's no dormant danger. The execution of war bears a foregone conclusion. And the media isn't much of a help either, playing on news values of negativity and promoting a bush-like attitude through filtering. Anyhow, I don't want some stupid essentially pointless war going on with the UK involved or a war fought in my name or anything. Why are we kissing butt???? Who the hell wants a war? I is pretty wound up. I can't talk very rationally at this point, because my sis is REALLY ANNOYING ME!!!!!
"That is your problem. Then I cannot oblige"
unknown kernel wrote:
> From a pragmatic point of view you're absolutely right. But in my
> hopelessly idealistic world of anti-imperialism it would be the Iraqis
> themselves who ousted Saddam, rebuilt their country and spent their
> oil money. Ah well, here's hoping.
Nice thought, but the realistic world view says any attempted Iraqi outsting of Saddam without serious covert support will leave those who try it dead.
~~Belldandy~~
> From a pragmatic point of view you're absolutely right. But in my
> hopelessly idealistic world of anti-imperialism it would be the Iraqis
> themselves who ousted Saddam, rebuilt their country and spent their
> oil money. Ah well, here's hoping.
Nice thought, but the realistic world view says any attempted Iraqi outsting of Saddam without serious covert support will leave those who try it dead.
~~Belldandy~~
Light wrote:
> Yes, but the oil is a natural resource of that country. It's theirs,
> it's within their borders and they're free (well...poor choice of
> words but you get the idea) to use it as their government see fit.
> Dubya is talking about an invasion of another country in order to get
> at their resources. That is the same thing that Iraq found itself at
> war with the rest of the world over when they invaded Kuwait. Your
> criticism of pointing out that it's an oil grab is no different to,
> for example, saying that Kristalnacht was the fault of the Jews for
> having their own businesses and spending money that the Reich
> governers wanted.
> And didn't you say a few weeks ago that the war wasn't about the oil,
> and that anyone who thought it was is a moron?
Firstly, I think anyone is being a bit moronic if they think the war is about oil in the contect of the US invading it solely for the financial benfits of doing so. When I say it is about oil I mean in the context of Iraq could not be the threat it is without the oil to finance it.
Indeed the Iraqi government, sorry...Saddam, is free to use the proceeds as he wishes, but he must accept responsibility for how he uses that finance. When he knows that the money Iraq can gain from legal exports is limited, and supposed to be used for humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people, and instead spends that money on his military, then I think that is a big problem. Even so, Iraq could still spend the finance from oil in ways that would not appear threatening to the outside world, does, for instance, Iraqi research into long range missiles capable of hitting mainland Europe, seem particularly necessary for anything but hostile action ? Another point I'd dispute is the claims of an invasion. The actual stated objective is to dismantle the WMD weapons and programmes, with the unstated objective of getting Saddam out of the way. If Iraq, sorry...Saddam, chooses to obstruct this then, and only then, could an invasion be called for. Even at that stage I feel it lies with Saddam as to how much damage Iraq takes in the conflict, by ordering Republican Guard units into population centers he is guaranteeing a high civilian death toll all by himself.
Putting aside the cause for war, and justification, you have to admit that in a straight fight the Iraqi military faces a suicide mission if they engage a hostile force in the desert. This means urban environments offer some hope of a victory, or lasting defence, at least in practice. I'm not so sure though, after Somali imprinted itself on the Pentagon the US has spent a lot of time and money training for urban warfare. I suspect that even in an urban war Iraq may get a nasty surprise.
> As to the WMD point, you're quite right; most of the weapons we sold
> them were indeed destroyed. But not all; half the problem here is that
> the weapons inspectors never finished their job, so isn't it
> disingenuous to say that they've all been taken care of? Also, why
> were we (US and UK) selling weapons of mass destruction to this (and I
> think everyone can agree on the following term) evil dictator in the
> first place?
Far point, but who forced the inspectors out ? Saddam, Ex weapon inspector Richard Butler wrote the book "Saddam Defiant" detailing his suspicions of Iraq's deception. Coming from a guy who once held Hans Blix's position, I think we can say he knows what he is talking about. In the same book he details how the UN itself limited and obstructed the work of their own weapons inspectors. As for why we sold them, it's simple in my opinion anyway.
Iran. At that time, that place, supporting someone who opposed Iran seemed a good idea. It was the Cold War still, and Iraq provided NATO intelligence with many fine examples of soviet weaponry that, at the time, we desperately wanted to know about or acquire. Given a choice between helng someone in a far away place, and gaining valuable intelligence on a perceived threat at Europe's doorstep, the choice was obvious. In addition, at that time, he hadn't done anything we had learned about that really set the alarm bells ringing - apart from to Iranians of course.... Anyone guess the number one reason why targetting Saddam fo assasination isn't valid ? Guess who trained his bodyguards ? The SAS.... It was in much the same way that we supplied weapons to the mujahadeen in Afhganistan, and offered assistance to them. The enemy then was Russia, and communism.
Now it is terrorism and WMD's. Attacking Iraq is the worst case scenario. Many of their civilians will die, many of our soldiers will die, and so will many Iraqi soldiers. I cannot help think that Iraq iss partly digging it's own whole but cannot avoid doing so. Saddam has to remain defiant to the US and UN to stay in power, he cannot be seen to concede to them, and it is this lack of concession combined with his bluster that is driving us further towards a conflict, in my opinion.
~~Belldandy~~
> Yes, but the oil is a natural resource of that country. It's theirs,
> it's within their borders and they're free (well...poor choice of
> words but you get the idea) to use it as their government see fit.
> Dubya is talking about an invasion of another country in order to get
> at their resources. That is the same thing that Iraq found itself at
> war with the rest of the world over when they invaded Kuwait. Your
> criticism of pointing out that it's an oil grab is no different to,
> for example, saying that Kristalnacht was the fault of the Jews for
> having their own businesses and spending money that the Reich
> governers wanted.
> And didn't you say a few weeks ago that the war wasn't about the oil,
> and that anyone who thought it was is a moron?
Firstly, I think anyone is being a bit moronic if they think the war is about oil in the contect of the US invading it solely for the financial benfits of doing so. When I say it is about oil I mean in the context of Iraq could not be the threat it is without the oil to finance it.
Indeed the Iraqi government, sorry...Saddam, is free to use the proceeds as he wishes, but he must accept responsibility for how he uses that finance. When he knows that the money Iraq can gain from legal exports is limited, and supposed to be used for humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people, and instead spends that money on his military, then I think that is a big problem. Even so, Iraq could still spend the finance from oil in ways that would not appear threatening to the outside world, does, for instance, Iraqi research into long range missiles capable of hitting mainland Europe, seem particularly necessary for anything but hostile action ? Another point I'd dispute is the claims of an invasion. The actual stated objective is to dismantle the WMD weapons and programmes, with the unstated objective of getting Saddam out of the way. If Iraq, sorry...Saddam, chooses to obstruct this then, and only then, could an invasion be called for. Even at that stage I feel it lies with Saddam as to how much damage Iraq takes in the conflict, by ordering Republican Guard units into population centers he is guaranteeing a high civilian death toll all by himself.
Putting aside the cause for war, and justification, you have to admit that in a straight fight the Iraqi military faces a suicide mission if they engage a hostile force in the desert. This means urban environments offer some hope of a victory, or lasting defence, at least in practice. I'm not so sure though, after Somali imprinted itself on the Pentagon the US has spent a lot of time and money training for urban warfare. I suspect that even in an urban war Iraq may get a nasty surprise.
> As to the WMD point, you're quite right; most of the weapons we sold
> them were indeed destroyed. But not all; half the problem here is that
> the weapons inspectors never finished their job, so isn't it
> disingenuous to say that they've all been taken care of? Also, why
> were we (US and UK) selling weapons of mass destruction to this (and I
> think everyone can agree on the following term) evil dictator in the
> first place?
Far point, but who forced the inspectors out ? Saddam, Ex weapon inspector Richard Butler wrote the book "Saddam Defiant" detailing his suspicions of Iraq's deception. Coming from a guy who once held Hans Blix's position, I think we can say he knows what he is talking about. In the same book he details how the UN itself limited and obstructed the work of their own weapons inspectors. As for why we sold them, it's simple in my opinion anyway.
Iran. At that time, that place, supporting someone who opposed Iran seemed a good idea. It was the Cold War still, and Iraq provided NATO intelligence with many fine examples of soviet weaponry that, at the time, we desperately wanted to know about or acquire. Given a choice between helng someone in a far away place, and gaining valuable intelligence on a perceived threat at Europe's doorstep, the choice was obvious. In addition, at that time, he hadn't done anything we had learned about that really set the alarm bells ringing - apart from to Iranians of course.... Anyone guess the number one reason why targetting Saddam fo assasination isn't valid ? Guess who trained his bodyguards ? The SAS.... It was in much the same way that we supplied weapons to the mujahadeen in Afhganistan, and offered assistance to them. The enemy then was Russia, and communism.
Now it is terrorism and WMD's. Attacking Iraq is the worst case scenario. Many of their civilians will die, many of our soldiers will die, and so will many Iraqi soldiers. I cannot help think that Iraq iss partly digging it's own whole but cannot avoid doing so. Saddam has to remain defiant to the US and UN to stay in power, he cannot be seen to concede to them, and it is this lack of concession combined with his bluster that is driving us further towards a conflict, in my opinion.
~~Belldandy~~
Light wrote:
> Hmmm...I'd never thought of it that way before. But it doesn't ring
> completely true with me...it's not the conflict that concerns me but
> the aftermath of it. The Iraqi people will still be in the same
> godawful position after the war if it's just the US kicking off with
> them, but they have a chance of improving their lot if it is a genuine
> coalition against Iraq.
From a pragmatic point of view you're absolutely right. But in my hopelessly idealistic world of anti-imperialism it would be the Iraqis themselves who ousted Saddam, rebuilt their country and spent their oil money. Ah well, here's hoping.
> Hmmm...I'd never thought of it that way before. But it doesn't ring
> completely true with me...it's not the conflict that concerns me but
> the aftermath of it. The Iraqi people will still be in the same
> godawful position after the war if it's just the US kicking off with
> them, but they have a chance of improving their lot if it is a genuine
> coalition against Iraq.
From a pragmatic point of view you're absolutely right. But in my hopelessly idealistic world of anti-imperialism it would be the Iraqis themselves who ousted Saddam, rebuilt their country and spent their oil money. Ah well, here's hoping.
Belldandy:
Yes, but the oil is a natural resource of that country. It's theirs, it's within their borders and they're free (well...poor choice of words but you get the idea) to use it as their government see fit. Dubya is talking about an invasion of another country in order to get at their resources. That is the same thing that Iraq found itself at war with the rest of the world over when they invaded Kuwait. Your criticism of pointing out that it's an oil grab is no different to, for example, saying that Kristalnacht was the fault of the Jews for having their own businesses and spending money that the Reich governers wanted.
And didn't you say a few weeks ago that the war wasn't about the oil, and that anyone who thought it was is a moron?
As to the WMD point, you're quite right; most of the weapons we sold them were indeed destroyed. But not all; half the problem here is that the weapons inspectors never finished their job, so isn't it disingenuous to say that they've all been taken care of? Also, why were we (US and UK) selling weapons of mass destruction to this (and I think everyone can agree on the following term) evil dictator in the first place?
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
Yes, but the oil is a natural resource of that country. It's theirs, it's within their borders and they're free (well...poor choice of words but you get the idea) to use it as their government see fit. Dubya is talking about an invasion of another country in order to get at their resources. That is the same thing that Iraq found itself at war with the rest of the world over when they invaded Kuwait. Your criticism of pointing out that it's an oil grab is no different to, for example, saying that Kristalnacht was the fault of the Jews for having their own businesses and spending money that the Reich governers wanted.
And didn't you say a few weeks ago that the war wasn't about the oil, and that anyone who thought it was is a moron?
As to the WMD point, you're quite right; most of the weapons we sold them were indeed destroyed. But not all; half the problem here is that the weapons inspectors never finished their job, so isn't it disingenuous to say that they've all been taken care of? Also, why were we (US and UK) selling weapons of mass destruction to this (and I think everyone can agree on the following term) evil dictator in the first place?
>
> ~~Belldandy~~
unknown kernel wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree that we should all join in this war simply
> because its inevitable and we might make it a nicer conflict. Sounds
> a bit like going robbing houses with your mate, just to make sure he
> nicks the telly but doesn't crap on the carpet.
Hmmm...I'd never thought of it that way before. But it doesn't ring completely true with me...it's not the conflict that concerns me but the aftermath of it. The Iraqi people will still be in the same godawful position after the war if it's just the US kicking off with them, but they have a chance of improving their lot if it is a genuine coalition against Iraq.
> I'm not sure I agree that we should all join in this war simply
> because its inevitable and we might make it a nicer conflict. Sounds
> a bit like going robbing houses with your mate, just to make sure he
> nicks the telly but doesn't crap on the carpet.
Hmmm...I'd never thought of it that way before. But it doesn't ring completely true with me...it's not the conflict that concerns me but the aftermath of it. The Iraqi people will still be in the same godawful position after the war if it's just the US kicking off with them, but they have a chance of improving their lot if it is a genuine coalition against Iraq.
I'm not sure I agree that we should all join in this war simply because its inevitable and we might make it a nicer conflict. Sounds a bit like going robbing houses with your mate, just to make sure he nicks the telly but doesn't crap on the carpet.
Right, that's it. You've been warned
*takes Star Wars helmet away and puts it on top shelf*
Now get!
*takes Star Wars helmet away and puts it on top shelf*
Now get!
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!
Page: