The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I've been 'on the fence' over the current conflict in Iraq since it began; I've never doubted that Saddam needed to be removed from power, but was never entirely happy with the reasons given.
But as the conflict has progressed, I've found myself more and more in support of it. Not a popular view, maybe, but I never was interested in being popular. So these are my thoughts, for what they're worth.
I've never been particularly into politics, and so readily admit that I'm probably ignorant of a lot of things compared to some among you. Feel free to contradict or correct me as you see fit.
1. The legality of the conflict
Section 13 of UN Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm) states:
"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"
While this paragraph doesn't specifically mention war, I have to wonder what exactly France, Germany, Russia and co. thought this meant when they agreed to it. From the tone and language used in the rest of the document, it seems obvious to me that "serious consequences" meant military conflict to enforce disarmament, and not a gentle slap on the wrist accompanied by yet another request to behave. After all, when political means repeatedly fail, what other 'serious consequence' can there be?
Saddam has had 12 years to comply with the requirement that he disarm with regard to chemical and biological weapons. He didn't, and was still interfering with inspections up until the current conflict. In my opinion, the war was always going to be the inevitable outcome of that Resolution. The only question was how long people were going to be prepared to tread lightly and continue giving 'just one more chance'.
2. The weapons Saddam does or doesn't have
I believe that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and the means to deliver them. Why? Because declarations of weapon types and amounts were given to the UN by Iraq years ago, and while the inspectors didn't find any evidence of them, they also didn't find evidence - documentary or otherwise - of their destruction. To me, it is common sense to assume he still has them. One thing I *do* believe without question is that Saddam is a liar, and there is no way he can be trusted when he says they've been destroyed, unless there is compelling evidence to back it up. Which there isn't. So for me, they're still there - somewhere.
As coalition forces do not use chemical/biological weapons, the fact that seemingly every Iraqi unit has been equipped with gasmasks and chemical protection suits would indicate that there were certainly plans to use chemical/biological weapons at some stage. It could well be that the only reason they haven't been used was that the Iraqi military was unprepared for the speed of the coalition advance.
For me, though, it doesn't matter any more whether they're found or not - and my reasons for this are explained next...
3. Pro- or anti-war?
There doesn't seem to be much opposition from anywhere to the fact that Saddam needs to be deposed. While few would ever support it publicly, it is widely believed that much of the Arab world would be happy to see the back of him. I don't get this impression from the propaganda, but from interviews I've seen with Iraqi exiles living in the UK and elsewhere around the world. None of them have a good word to say about him, and seem to be very much behind this campaign, though obviously they are concerned about the civilian population.
As the war has progressed, the existence - or not - of WMDs has, for me at least, become irrelevant. The dispute may have been the cause of the war, but as the battles continue we are hearing more and more horror stories.
Over two hundred unsealed makeshift coffins, with photographic and skeletal evidence of torture and execution. Liberated Iraqi's assisting the coalition forces in locating arms caches and torture rooms. Stories from liberated Iraqi's of how they were tortured. Mass graves found.
And among all this, Iraqi exiles and those in liberated areas of Iraq - free-thinking Iraqi people, those who are away from the propaganda and fear of reprisals - tend to be highly supportive of the action being taken. Generally speaking, those Iraqi's in areas where coalition forces have taken over seem to be welcoming the troops, practically with open arms.
I also know someone - a friend of a friend - who I recently discovered was born in Iraq, and who still has family living in Baghdad; they apparently all detest Saddam and would be happy to see him gone - "killed" to quote this person - and support the current action 100%.
As far as I'm concerned, regardless of political reasons, propaganda claims and counter-claims, THOSE are the people we should be listening to - they are the people who live there every day; they are the people who stand to gain or lose the most from what is happening; they are the people whose opinion is most important, and that should be all that is needed to justify what is happening. Not what the politicians say, not what the other Arab nations say, but what the Iraqi people say. And for the most part, THEY appear to want this.
If UN law makes it illegal to intervene and invade a country because it is a sovereign state, even when you know that torture, mass murder and so on is occurring, then I'm sorry, but in my opinion it's the LAW which is WRONG.
4. Laying blame
It amazes me how many times I have heard people blaming sanctions imposed by the US and UK for the starving people in Iraq. We have seen over the last couple of days the luxury that Saddam and his cronies have been living in, while the general population go without. I've just seen footage on Sky News of YET ANOTHER Presidential palace under construction in Basra.
He has also reportedly offered his fighters a bounty of £3000 per coalition soldier killed. Sanctions or not, the wealth has been in Iraq all along to feed the people - if, of course, Saddam really gave a damn... which clearly he does not.
5. Civilian casualties
The biggest concern of mine, and I believe of many, is not the fact that we are trying to remove Saddam, but of the many innocents that could die. But that is not happening. Even the figures read out by the Iraqi officials themselves prove this.
To take a very 'cold' view for a moment: Any innocent life lost is a tragedy, and WHILE IT IS IN NO WAY MY INTENTION TO DIMINISH THE VALUE OF THE LIVES OF THOSE KILLED, the numbers of civilian dead and wounded civilians are so small as to be almost negligible when you consider the sheer amount of ordnance dropped so far in this conflict.
Unfortunately, there will be civilian casualties in any such battle - that is practically an unwritten and inescapable rule of conflict, particularly when enemy troops not only fire on their own people, but also undertake combat methods which increase the likelyhood of civilian injury or death. However there can be no doubt, surely, that coalition forces are genuinely making every effort to minimise the numbers.
Even so, and again taking a 'cold' view, this battle is likely to kill fewer of the Iraqi people than Saddam himself would in the coming years if left in power. Not that that makes it okay by any stretch of the imagination, but it is something that I feel needs to be considered. Again, I must stress that it is not my intention to cheapen those lives lost by saying, "Well, if we don't kill them, he will..."
6. Double standards
People mention the fact that Britain and the US have armed Saddam in the past. Yes, that did happen, and it backfired terribly - as these things usually do. It's not the first time it's happened, and it probably won't be the last.
However, praise is given to France, Germany and Russia (among others) for opposing the conflict. Yet just a couple of weeks ago, official figures showed that France and Germany are the current largest suppliers of munitions to Iraq in the EU, while missiles of Russian origin dated just last year have been found in Iraq.
We can speak of double-standards from the UK and US, but let's not forget that some of the war's most vocal opponents are also the most recent to supply weapons to the Saddam's regime.
7. Battle plans
Saddam has supposedly warned coalition forces that they will be in for a surprise when they attempt to take Baghdad. Obviously this could be desperate propaganda from a leader on his way out. But what if it's not? What surprises could he have in store?
He obviously has no respect for his people or his country; his attempts to destroy their main source of income by burning the oil fields proves that, as does the fact that his more fanatical troops are now reportedly starting to use Iraqi civilians as human shields against the approaching allies, and firing on those trying to obtain food and water from the convoys. Not to mention the guerrilla tactics of the military wearing civilian clothes, blending in with the population and thereby potentially forcing our troops to attack civilian areas - a sure-fire propaganda victory for him, at the expense of the people he asks for support.
As a result of this, and my belief that Saddam still has chemical/biological weapons, my fear is that he may have placed them at various positions inside Baghdad and that they may be set off if it looks like the city will fall - which it surely will. Potentially mass genocide committed against his own people.
He hasn't used such weapons yet, but that is most likely because he knows that the moment he does, the whole world will turn against him - including, probably, the Arabs. He may be crazy, but he's not THAT crazy. As long as he refrains from the use of chemical weapons, he is guaranteed support from some people/nations. But with his attitude of "if I can't have it, no-one else will either", is it not feasible that he could take such action as a last desperate swipe on his way out?
8. The aftermath
This whole event of course raises questions regarding other similar countries with dictatorial regimes and/or WMDs. Many other Arab states, for example, are dictatorships; will/should/could we enforce similar changes there too? North Korea has nuclear capability; will/should/could we do anything about that?
Zimbabwe?
Ireland?
And then there's the whole Israel/Palestine issue. This post is already more than long enough, so I won't discuss them here, and even if I did, far better and more qualified people than me have failed to come up with solutions. So I'll just concentrate on Iraq.
The one thing we must ensure this time is that Iraq is not deserted after the conflict. They have been let down before and are rightfully dubious of the claims that the West will help them this time. And surely we must.
Though I do now support the action being taken, I am no fan at all of George W Bush. I do not trust him, and question his sincerity whenever he talks about post-conflict aid. Sounds double-dutch, I know - I doubt Bush, but support his action.
Basically, seeing the reactions and hearing the comments of the liberated Iraqi people and exiles, I believe that most are supportive of this action, or at least would be if they felt safe to say so - and they are the people that matter. Obviously no-one wants their homeland be involved in conflict, but some seem to think it's a small price to pay for eventual freedom.
Bush may well have his own agenda, but I believe that the right thing is being done, even if it is for the wrong reasons. If the end result is right, do the reasons matter? Do they tarnish the end result? Maybe I just have a c***-eyed view of things... I don't know.
I won't be surprised if the Bush administration says "Job done" at the end of this, then pulls out and lets the rest of the world deal with the aftermath - just as long as the US has a constant supply of oil. And to be fair, if large numbers of us in the West don't trust Bush to keep his word, how can we expect the Arab world to?
Oddly though, while I am usually no great fan of Tony Blair either, I do believe that he is sincere in his promises to provide support to a post-conflict Iraq. I honestly can't say why I believe that, but I do. I hope I'm not disappointed.
People are concentrating on the bad things that could arise from the conflict, such as increased anti-Western feeling and increased terrorism. Surely it could also lead to good things?
If we keep our promises this time, we could be taking the first steps in building trust between Arab states and the West. If we are seen to follow up this conflict properly with aid and support, the potential for building bridges could be huge. It won't be a simple task, but if we are true to our word now, Arab states may have a little more faith in the 'Roadmap to peace' for the Middle-East. And if - IF - we can ease the situation there, who knows what could happen?
Well, If you've read all that, thanks. Feel free to pick apart my arguments and tell me how stupid I am, and/or - more constructively - add your own.
But as the conflict has progressed, I've found myself more and more in support of it. Not a popular view, maybe, but I never was interested in being popular. So these are my thoughts, for what they're worth.
I've never been particularly into politics, and so readily admit that I'm probably ignorant of a lot of things compared to some among you. Feel free to contradict or correct me as you see fit.
1. The legality of the conflict
Section 13 of UN Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm) states:
"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"
While this paragraph doesn't specifically mention war, I have to wonder what exactly France, Germany, Russia and co. thought this meant when they agreed to it. From the tone and language used in the rest of the document, it seems obvious to me that "serious consequences" meant military conflict to enforce disarmament, and not a gentle slap on the wrist accompanied by yet another request to behave. After all, when political means repeatedly fail, what other 'serious consequence' can there be?
Saddam has had 12 years to comply with the requirement that he disarm with regard to chemical and biological weapons. He didn't, and was still interfering with inspections up until the current conflict. In my opinion, the war was always going to be the inevitable outcome of that Resolution. The only question was how long people were going to be prepared to tread lightly and continue giving 'just one more chance'.
2. The weapons Saddam does or doesn't have
I believe that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and the means to deliver them. Why? Because declarations of weapon types and amounts were given to the UN by Iraq years ago, and while the inspectors didn't find any evidence of them, they also didn't find evidence - documentary or otherwise - of their destruction. To me, it is common sense to assume he still has them. One thing I *do* believe without question is that Saddam is a liar, and there is no way he can be trusted when he says they've been destroyed, unless there is compelling evidence to back it up. Which there isn't. So for me, they're still there - somewhere.
As coalition forces do not use chemical/biological weapons, the fact that seemingly every Iraqi unit has been equipped with gasmasks and chemical protection suits would indicate that there were certainly plans to use chemical/biological weapons at some stage. It could well be that the only reason they haven't been used was that the Iraqi military was unprepared for the speed of the coalition advance.
For me, though, it doesn't matter any more whether they're found or not - and my reasons for this are explained next...
3. Pro- or anti-war?
There doesn't seem to be much opposition from anywhere to the fact that Saddam needs to be deposed. While few would ever support it publicly, it is widely believed that much of the Arab world would be happy to see the back of him. I don't get this impression from the propaganda, but from interviews I've seen with Iraqi exiles living in the UK and elsewhere around the world. None of them have a good word to say about him, and seem to be very much behind this campaign, though obviously they are concerned about the civilian population.
As the war has progressed, the existence - or not - of WMDs has, for me at least, become irrelevant. The dispute may have been the cause of the war, but as the battles continue we are hearing more and more horror stories.
Over two hundred unsealed makeshift coffins, with photographic and skeletal evidence of torture and execution. Liberated Iraqi's assisting the coalition forces in locating arms caches and torture rooms. Stories from liberated Iraqi's of how they were tortured. Mass graves found.
And among all this, Iraqi exiles and those in liberated areas of Iraq - free-thinking Iraqi people, those who are away from the propaganda and fear of reprisals - tend to be highly supportive of the action being taken. Generally speaking, those Iraqi's in areas where coalition forces have taken over seem to be welcoming the troops, practically with open arms.
I also know someone - a friend of a friend - who I recently discovered was born in Iraq, and who still has family living in Baghdad; they apparently all detest Saddam and would be happy to see him gone - "killed" to quote this person - and support the current action 100%.
As far as I'm concerned, regardless of political reasons, propaganda claims and counter-claims, THOSE are the people we should be listening to - they are the people who live there every day; they are the people who stand to gain or lose the most from what is happening; they are the people whose opinion is most important, and that should be all that is needed to justify what is happening. Not what the politicians say, not what the other Arab nations say, but what the Iraqi people say. And for the most part, THEY appear to want this.
If UN law makes it illegal to intervene and invade a country because it is a sovereign state, even when you know that torture, mass murder and so on is occurring, then I'm sorry, but in my opinion it's the LAW which is WRONG.
4. Laying blame
It amazes me how many times I have heard people blaming sanctions imposed by the US and UK for the starving people in Iraq. We have seen over the last couple of days the luxury that Saddam and his cronies have been living in, while the general population go without. I've just seen footage on Sky News of YET ANOTHER Presidential palace under construction in Basra.
He has also reportedly offered his fighters a bounty of £3000 per coalition soldier killed. Sanctions or not, the wealth has been in Iraq all along to feed the people - if, of course, Saddam really gave a damn... which clearly he does not.
5. Civilian casualties
The biggest concern of mine, and I believe of many, is not the fact that we are trying to remove Saddam, but of the many innocents that could die. But that is not happening. Even the figures read out by the Iraqi officials themselves prove this.
To take a very 'cold' view for a moment: Any innocent life lost is a tragedy, and WHILE IT IS IN NO WAY MY INTENTION TO DIMINISH THE VALUE OF THE LIVES OF THOSE KILLED, the numbers of civilian dead and wounded civilians are so small as to be almost negligible when you consider the sheer amount of ordnance dropped so far in this conflict.
Unfortunately, there will be civilian casualties in any such battle - that is practically an unwritten and inescapable rule of conflict, particularly when enemy troops not only fire on their own people, but also undertake combat methods which increase the likelyhood of civilian injury or death. However there can be no doubt, surely, that coalition forces are genuinely making every effort to minimise the numbers.
Even so, and again taking a 'cold' view, this battle is likely to kill fewer of the Iraqi people than Saddam himself would in the coming years if left in power. Not that that makes it okay by any stretch of the imagination, but it is something that I feel needs to be considered. Again, I must stress that it is not my intention to cheapen those lives lost by saying, "Well, if we don't kill them, he will..."
6. Double standards
People mention the fact that Britain and the US have armed Saddam in the past. Yes, that did happen, and it backfired terribly - as these things usually do. It's not the first time it's happened, and it probably won't be the last.
However, praise is given to France, Germany and Russia (among others) for opposing the conflict. Yet just a couple of weeks ago, official figures showed that France and Germany are the current largest suppliers of munitions to Iraq in the EU, while missiles of Russian origin dated just last year have been found in Iraq.
We can speak of double-standards from the UK and US, but let's not forget that some of the war's most vocal opponents are also the most recent to supply weapons to the Saddam's regime.
7. Battle plans
Saddam has supposedly warned coalition forces that they will be in for a surprise when they attempt to take Baghdad. Obviously this could be desperate propaganda from a leader on his way out. But what if it's not? What surprises could he have in store?
He obviously has no respect for his people or his country; his attempts to destroy their main source of income by burning the oil fields proves that, as does the fact that his more fanatical troops are now reportedly starting to use Iraqi civilians as human shields against the approaching allies, and firing on those trying to obtain food and water from the convoys. Not to mention the guerrilla tactics of the military wearing civilian clothes, blending in with the population and thereby potentially forcing our troops to attack civilian areas - a sure-fire propaganda victory for him, at the expense of the people he asks for support.
As a result of this, and my belief that Saddam still has chemical/biological weapons, my fear is that he may have placed them at various positions inside Baghdad and that they may be set off if it looks like the city will fall - which it surely will. Potentially mass genocide committed against his own people.
He hasn't used such weapons yet, but that is most likely because he knows that the moment he does, the whole world will turn against him - including, probably, the Arabs. He may be crazy, but he's not THAT crazy. As long as he refrains from the use of chemical weapons, he is guaranteed support from some people/nations. But with his attitude of "if I can't have it, no-one else will either", is it not feasible that he could take such action as a last desperate swipe on his way out?
8. The aftermath
This whole event of course raises questions regarding other similar countries with dictatorial regimes and/or WMDs. Many other Arab states, for example, are dictatorships; will/should/could we enforce similar changes there too? North Korea has nuclear capability; will/should/could we do anything about that?
Zimbabwe?
Ireland?
And then there's the whole Israel/Palestine issue. This post is already more than long enough, so I won't discuss them here, and even if I did, far better and more qualified people than me have failed to come up with solutions. So I'll just concentrate on Iraq.
The one thing we must ensure this time is that Iraq is not deserted after the conflict. They have been let down before and are rightfully dubious of the claims that the West will help them this time. And surely we must.
Though I do now support the action being taken, I am no fan at all of George W Bush. I do not trust him, and question his sincerity whenever he talks about post-conflict aid. Sounds double-dutch, I know - I doubt Bush, but support his action.
Basically, seeing the reactions and hearing the comments of the liberated Iraqi people and exiles, I believe that most are supportive of this action, or at least would be if they felt safe to say so - and they are the people that matter. Obviously no-one wants their homeland be involved in conflict, but some seem to think it's a small price to pay for eventual freedom.
Bush may well have his own agenda, but I believe that the right thing is being done, even if it is for the wrong reasons. If the end result is right, do the reasons matter? Do they tarnish the end result? Maybe I just have a c***-eyed view of things... I don't know.
I won't be surprised if the Bush administration says "Job done" at the end of this, then pulls out and lets the rest of the world deal with the aftermath - just as long as the US has a constant supply of oil. And to be fair, if large numbers of us in the West don't trust Bush to keep his word, how can we expect the Arab world to?
Oddly though, while I am usually no great fan of Tony Blair either, I do believe that he is sincere in his promises to provide support to a post-conflict Iraq. I honestly can't say why I believe that, but I do. I hope I'm not disappointed.
People are concentrating on the bad things that could arise from the conflict, such as increased anti-Western feeling and increased terrorism. Surely it could also lead to good things?
If we keep our promises this time, we could be taking the first steps in building trust between Arab states and the West. If we are seen to follow up this conflict properly with aid and support, the potential for building bridges could be huge. It won't be a simple task, but if we are true to our word now, Arab states may have a little more faith in the 'Roadmap to peace' for the Middle-East. And if - IF - we can ease the situation there, who knows what could happen?
Well, If you've read all that, thanks. Feel free to pick apart my arguments and tell me how stupid I am, and/or - more constructively - add your own.
Page:
I've been 'on the fence' over the current conflict in Iraq since it began; I've never doubted that Saddam needed to be removed from power, but was never entirely happy with the reasons given.
But as the conflict has progressed, I've found myself more and more in support of it. Not a popular view, maybe, but I never was interested in being popular. So these are my thoughts, for what they're worth.
I've never been particularly into politics, and so readily admit that I'm probably ignorant of a lot of things compared to some among you. Feel free to contradict or correct me as you see fit.
1. The legality of the conflict
Section 13 of UN Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm) states:
"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"
While this paragraph doesn't specifically mention war, I have to wonder what exactly France, Germany, Russia and co. thought this meant when they agreed to it. From the tone and language used in the rest of the document, it seems obvious to me that "serious consequences" meant military conflict to enforce disarmament, and not a gentle slap on the wrist accompanied by yet another request to behave. After all, when political means repeatedly fail, what other 'serious consequence' can there be?
Saddam has had 12 years to comply with the requirement that he disarm with regard to chemical and biological weapons. He didn't, and was still interfering with inspections up until the current conflict. In my opinion, the war was always going to be the inevitable outcome of that Resolution. The only question was how long people were going to be prepared to tread lightly and continue giving 'just one more chance'.
2. The weapons Saddam does or doesn't have
I believe that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and the means to deliver them. Why? Because declarations of weapon types and amounts were given to the UN by Iraq years ago, and while the inspectors didn't find any evidence of them, they also didn't find evidence - documentary or otherwise - of their destruction. To me, it is common sense to assume he still has them. One thing I *do* believe without question is that Saddam is a liar, and there is no way he can be trusted when he says they've been destroyed, unless there is compelling evidence to back it up. Which there isn't. So for me, they're still there - somewhere.
As coalition forces do not use chemical/biological weapons, the fact that seemingly every Iraqi unit has been equipped with gasmasks and chemical protection suits would indicate that there were certainly plans to use chemical/biological weapons at some stage. It could well be that the only reason they haven't been used was that the Iraqi military was unprepared for the speed of the coalition advance.
For me, though, it doesn't matter any more whether they're found or not - and my reasons for this are explained next...
3. Pro- or anti-war?
There doesn't seem to be much opposition from anywhere to the fact that Saddam needs to be deposed. While few would ever support it publicly, it is widely believed that much of the Arab world would be happy to see the back of him. I don't get this impression from the propaganda, but from interviews I've seen with Iraqi exiles living in the UK and elsewhere around the world. None of them have a good word to say about him, and seem to be very much behind this campaign, though obviously they are concerned about the civilian population.
As the war has progressed, the existence - or not - of WMDs has, for me at least, become irrelevant. The dispute may have been the cause of the war, but as the battles continue we are hearing more and more horror stories.
Over two hundred unsealed makeshift coffins, with photographic and skeletal evidence of torture and execution. Liberated Iraqi's assisting the coalition forces in locating arms caches and torture rooms. Stories from liberated Iraqi's of how they were tortured. Mass graves found.
And among all this, Iraqi exiles and those in liberated areas of Iraq - free-thinking Iraqi people, those who are away from the propaganda and fear of reprisals - tend to be highly supportive of the action being taken. Generally speaking, those Iraqi's in areas where coalition forces have taken over seem to be welcoming the troops, practically with open arms.
I also know someone - a friend of a friend - who I recently discovered was born in Iraq, and who still has family living in Baghdad; they apparently all detest Saddam and would be happy to see him gone - "killed" to quote this person - and support the current action 100%.
As far as I'm concerned, regardless of political reasons, propaganda claims and counter-claims, THOSE are the people we should be listening to - they are the people who live there every day; they are the people who stand to gain or lose the most from what is happening; they are the people whose opinion is most important, and that should be all that is needed to justify what is happening. Not what the politicians say, not what the other Arab nations say, but what the Iraqi people say. And for the most part, THEY appear to want this.
If UN law makes it illegal to intervene and invade a country because it is a sovereign state, even when you know that torture, mass murder and so on is occurring, then I'm sorry, but in my opinion it's the LAW which is WRONG.
4. Laying blame
It amazes me how many times I have heard people blaming sanctions imposed by the US and UK for the starving people in Iraq. We have seen over the last couple of days the luxury that Saddam and his cronies have been living in, while the general population go without. I've just seen footage on Sky News of YET ANOTHER Presidential palace under construction in Basra.
He has also reportedly offered his fighters a bounty of £3000 per coalition soldier killed. Sanctions or not, the wealth has been in Iraq all along to feed the people - if, of course, Saddam really gave a damn... which clearly he does not.
5. Civilian casualties
The biggest concern of mine, and I believe of many, is not the fact that we are trying to remove Saddam, but of the many innocents that could die. But that is not happening. Even the figures read out by the Iraqi officials themselves prove this.
To take a very 'cold' view for a moment: Any innocent life lost is a tragedy, and WHILE IT IS IN NO WAY MY INTENTION TO DIMINISH THE VALUE OF THE LIVES OF THOSE KILLED, the numbers of civilian dead and wounded civilians are so small as to be almost negligible when you consider the sheer amount of ordnance dropped so far in this conflict.
Unfortunately, there will be civilian casualties in any such battle - that is practically an unwritten and inescapable rule of conflict, particularly when enemy troops not only fire on their own people, but also undertake combat methods which increase the likelyhood of civilian injury or death. However there can be no doubt, surely, that coalition forces are genuinely making every effort to minimise the numbers.
Even so, and again taking a 'cold' view, this battle is likely to kill fewer of the Iraqi people than Saddam himself would in the coming years if left in power. Not that that makes it okay by any stretch of the imagination, but it is something that I feel needs to be considered. Again, I must stress that it is not my intention to cheapen those lives lost by saying, "Well, if we don't kill them, he will..."
6. Double standards
People mention the fact that Britain and the US have armed Saddam in the past. Yes, that did happen, and it backfired terribly - as these things usually do. It's not the first time it's happened, and it probably won't be the last.
However, praise is given to France, Germany and Russia (among others) for opposing the conflict. Yet just a couple of weeks ago, official figures showed that France and Germany are the current largest suppliers of munitions to Iraq in the EU, while missiles of Russian origin dated just last year have been found in Iraq.
We can speak of double-standards from the UK and US, but let's not forget that some of the war's most vocal opponents are also the most recent to supply weapons to the Saddam's regime.
7. Battle plans
Saddam has supposedly warned coalition forces that they will be in for a surprise when they attempt to take Baghdad. Obviously this could be desperate propaganda from a leader on his way out. But what if it's not? What surprises could he have in store?
He obviously has no respect for his people or his country; his attempts to destroy their main source of income by burning the oil fields proves that, as does the fact that his more fanatical troops are now reportedly starting to use Iraqi civilians as human shields against the approaching allies, and firing on those trying to obtain food and water from the convoys. Not to mention the guerrilla tactics of the military wearing civilian clothes, blending in with the population and thereby potentially forcing our troops to attack civilian areas - a sure-fire propaganda victory for him, at the expense of the people he asks for support.
As a result of this, and my belief that Saddam still has chemical/biological weapons, my fear is that he may have placed them at various positions inside Baghdad and that they may be set off if it looks like the city will fall - which it surely will. Potentially mass genocide committed against his own people.
He hasn't used such weapons yet, but that is most likely because he knows that the moment he does, the whole world will turn against him - including, probably, the Arabs. He may be crazy, but he's not THAT crazy. As long as he refrains from the use of chemical weapons, he is guaranteed support from some people/nations. But with his attitude of "if I can't have it, no-one else will either", is it not feasible that he could take such action as a last desperate swipe on his way out?
8. The aftermath
This whole event of course raises questions regarding other similar countries with dictatorial regimes and/or WMDs. Many other Arab states, for example, are dictatorships; will/should/could we enforce similar changes there too? North Korea has nuclear capability; will/should/could we do anything about that?
Zimbabwe?
Ireland?
And then there's the whole Israel/Palestine issue. This post is already more than long enough, so I won't discuss them here, and even if I did, far better and more qualified people than me have failed to come up with solutions. So I'll just concentrate on Iraq.
The one thing we must ensure this time is that Iraq is not deserted after the conflict. They have been let down before and are rightfully dubious of the claims that the West will help them this time. And surely we must.
Though I do now support the action being taken, I am no fan at all of George W Bush. I do not trust him, and question his sincerity whenever he talks about post-conflict aid. Sounds double-dutch, I know - I doubt Bush, but support his action.
Basically, seeing the reactions and hearing the comments of the liberated Iraqi people and exiles, I believe that most are supportive of this action, or at least would be if they felt safe to say so - and they are the people that matter. Obviously no-one wants their homeland be involved in conflict, but some seem to think it's a small price to pay for eventual freedom.
Bush may well have his own agenda, but I believe that the right thing is being done, even if it is for the wrong reasons. If the end result is right, do the reasons matter? Do they tarnish the end result? Maybe I just have a c***-eyed view of things... I don't know.
I won't be surprised if the Bush administration says "Job done" at the end of this, then pulls out and lets the rest of the world deal with the aftermath - just as long as the US has a constant supply of oil. And to be fair, if large numbers of us in the West don't trust Bush to keep his word, how can we expect the Arab world to?
Oddly though, while I am usually no great fan of Tony Blair either, I do believe that he is sincere in his promises to provide support to a post-conflict Iraq. I honestly can't say why I believe that, but I do. I hope I'm not disappointed.
People are concentrating on the bad things that could arise from the conflict, such as increased anti-Western feeling and increased terrorism. Surely it could also lead to good things?
If we keep our promises this time, we could be taking the first steps in building trust between Arab states and the West. If we are seen to follow up this conflict properly with aid and support, the potential for building bridges could be huge. It won't be a simple task, but if we are true to our word now, Arab states may have a little more faith in the 'Roadmap to peace' for the Middle-East. And if - IF - we can ease the situation there, who knows what could happen?
Well, If you've read all that, thanks. Feel free to pick apart my arguments and tell me how stupid I am, and/or - more constructively - add your own.
But as the conflict has progressed, I've found myself more and more in support of it. Not a popular view, maybe, but I never was interested in being popular. So these are my thoughts, for what they're worth.
I've never been particularly into politics, and so readily admit that I'm probably ignorant of a lot of things compared to some among you. Feel free to contradict or correct me as you see fit.
1. The legality of the conflict
Section 13 of UN Resolution 1441 (http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm) states:
"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"
While this paragraph doesn't specifically mention war, I have to wonder what exactly France, Germany, Russia and co. thought this meant when they agreed to it. From the tone and language used in the rest of the document, it seems obvious to me that "serious consequences" meant military conflict to enforce disarmament, and not a gentle slap on the wrist accompanied by yet another request to behave. After all, when political means repeatedly fail, what other 'serious consequence' can there be?
Saddam has had 12 years to comply with the requirement that he disarm with regard to chemical and biological weapons. He didn't, and was still interfering with inspections up until the current conflict. In my opinion, the war was always going to be the inevitable outcome of that Resolution. The only question was how long people were going to be prepared to tread lightly and continue giving 'just one more chance'.
2. The weapons Saddam does or doesn't have
I believe that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and the means to deliver them. Why? Because declarations of weapon types and amounts were given to the UN by Iraq years ago, and while the inspectors didn't find any evidence of them, they also didn't find evidence - documentary or otherwise - of their destruction. To me, it is common sense to assume he still has them. One thing I *do* believe without question is that Saddam is a liar, and there is no way he can be trusted when he says they've been destroyed, unless there is compelling evidence to back it up. Which there isn't. So for me, they're still there - somewhere.
As coalition forces do not use chemical/biological weapons, the fact that seemingly every Iraqi unit has been equipped with gasmasks and chemical protection suits would indicate that there were certainly plans to use chemical/biological weapons at some stage. It could well be that the only reason they haven't been used was that the Iraqi military was unprepared for the speed of the coalition advance.
For me, though, it doesn't matter any more whether they're found or not - and my reasons for this are explained next...
3. Pro- or anti-war?
There doesn't seem to be much opposition from anywhere to the fact that Saddam needs to be deposed. While few would ever support it publicly, it is widely believed that much of the Arab world would be happy to see the back of him. I don't get this impression from the propaganda, but from interviews I've seen with Iraqi exiles living in the UK and elsewhere around the world. None of them have a good word to say about him, and seem to be very much behind this campaign, though obviously they are concerned about the civilian population.
As the war has progressed, the existence - or not - of WMDs has, for me at least, become irrelevant. The dispute may have been the cause of the war, but as the battles continue we are hearing more and more horror stories.
Over two hundred unsealed makeshift coffins, with photographic and skeletal evidence of torture and execution. Liberated Iraqi's assisting the coalition forces in locating arms caches and torture rooms. Stories from liberated Iraqi's of how they were tortured. Mass graves found.
And among all this, Iraqi exiles and those in liberated areas of Iraq - free-thinking Iraqi people, those who are away from the propaganda and fear of reprisals - tend to be highly supportive of the action being taken. Generally speaking, those Iraqi's in areas where coalition forces have taken over seem to be welcoming the troops, practically with open arms.
I also know someone - a friend of a friend - who I recently discovered was born in Iraq, and who still has family living in Baghdad; they apparently all detest Saddam and would be happy to see him gone - "killed" to quote this person - and support the current action 100%.
As far as I'm concerned, regardless of political reasons, propaganda claims and counter-claims, THOSE are the people we should be listening to - they are the people who live there every day; they are the people who stand to gain or lose the most from what is happening; they are the people whose opinion is most important, and that should be all that is needed to justify what is happening. Not what the politicians say, not what the other Arab nations say, but what the Iraqi people say. And for the most part, THEY appear to want this.
If UN law makes it illegal to intervene and invade a country because it is a sovereign state, even when you know that torture, mass murder and so on is occurring, then I'm sorry, but in my opinion it's the LAW which is WRONG.
4. Laying blame
It amazes me how many times I have heard people blaming sanctions imposed by the US and UK for the starving people in Iraq. We have seen over the last couple of days the luxury that Saddam and his cronies have been living in, while the general population go without. I've just seen footage on Sky News of YET ANOTHER Presidential palace under construction in Basra.
He has also reportedly offered his fighters a bounty of £3000 per coalition soldier killed. Sanctions or not, the wealth has been in Iraq all along to feed the people - if, of course, Saddam really gave a damn... which clearly he does not.
5. Civilian casualties
The biggest concern of mine, and I believe of many, is not the fact that we are trying to remove Saddam, but of the many innocents that could die. But that is not happening. Even the figures read out by the Iraqi officials themselves prove this.
To take a very 'cold' view for a moment: Any innocent life lost is a tragedy, and WHILE IT IS IN NO WAY MY INTENTION TO DIMINISH THE VALUE OF THE LIVES OF THOSE KILLED, the numbers of civilian dead and wounded civilians are so small as to be almost negligible when you consider the sheer amount of ordnance dropped so far in this conflict.
Unfortunately, there will be civilian casualties in any such battle - that is practically an unwritten and inescapable rule of conflict, particularly when enemy troops not only fire on their own people, but also undertake combat methods which increase the likelyhood of civilian injury or death. However there can be no doubt, surely, that coalition forces are genuinely making every effort to minimise the numbers.
Even so, and again taking a 'cold' view, this battle is likely to kill fewer of the Iraqi people than Saddam himself would in the coming years if left in power. Not that that makes it okay by any stretch of the imagination, but it is something that I feel needs to be considered. Again, I must stress that it is not my intention to cheapen those lives lost by saying, "Well, if we don't kill them, he will..."
6. Double standards
People mention the fact that Britain and the US have armed Saddam in the past. Yes, that did happen, and it backfired terribly - as these things usually do. It's not the first time it's happened, and it probably won't be the last.
However, praise is given to France, Germany and Russia (among others) for opposing the conflict. Yet just a couple of weeks ago, official figures showed that France and Germany are the current largest suppliers of munitions to Iraq in the EU, while missiles of Russian origin dated just last year have been found in Iraq.
We can speak of double-standards from the UK and US, but let's not forget that some of the war's most vocal opponents are also the most recent to supply weapons to the Saddam's regime.
7. Battle plans
Saddam has supposedly warned coalition forces that they will be in for a surprise when they attempt to take Baghdad. Obviously this could be desperate propaganda from a leader on his way out. But what if it's not? What surprises could he have in store?
He obviously has no respect for his people or his country; his attempts to destroy their main source of income by burning the oil fields proves that, as does the fact that his more fanatical troops are now reportedly starting to use Iraqi civilians as human shields against the approaching allies, and firing on those trying to obtain food and water from the convoys. Not to mention the guerrilla tactics of the military wearing civilian clothes, blending in with the population and thereby potentially forcing our troops to attack civilian areas - a sure-fire propaganda victory for him, at the expense of the people he asks for support.
As a result of this, and my belief that Saddam still has chemical/biological weapons, my fear is that he may have placed them at various positions inside Baghdad and that they may be set off if it looks like the city will fall - which it surely will. Potentially mass genocide committed against his own people.
He hasn't used such weapons yet, but that is most likely because he knows that the moment he does, the whole world will turn against him - including, probably, the Arabs. He may be crazy, but he's not THAT crazy. As long as he refrains from the use of chemical weapons, he is guaranteed support from some people/nations. But with his attitude of "if I can't have it, no-one else will either", is it not feasible that he could take such action as a last desperate swipe on his way out?
8. The aftermath
This whole event of course raises questions regarding other similar countries with dictatorial regimes and/or WMDs. Many other Arab states, for example, are dictatorships; will/should/could we enforce similar changes there too? North Korea has nuclear capability; will/should/could we do anything about that?
Zimbabwe?
Ireland?
And then there's the whole Israel/Palestine issue. This post is already more than long enough, so I won't discuss them here, and even if I did, far better and more qualified people than me have failed to come up with solutions. So I'll just concentrate on Iraq.
The one thing we must ensure this time is that Iraq is not deserted after the conflict. They have been let down before and are rightfully dubious of the claims that the West will help them this time. And surely we must.
Though I do now support the action being taken, I am no fan at all of George W Bush. I do not trust him, and question his sincerity whenever he talks about post-conflict aid. Sounds double-dutch, I know - I doubt Bush, but support his action.
Basically, seeing the reactions and hearing the comments of the liberated Iraqi people and exiles, I believe that most are supportive of this action, or at least would be if they felt safe to say so - and they are the people that matter. Obviously no-one wants their homeland be involved in conflict, but some seem to think it's a small price to pay for eventual freedom.
Bush may well have his own agenda, but I believe that the right thing is being done, even if it is for the wrong reasons. If the end result is right, do the reasons matter? Do they tarnish the end result? Maybe I just have a c***-eyed view of things... I don't know.
I won't be surprised if the Bush administration says "Job done" at the end of this, then pulls out and lets the rest of the world deal with the aftermath - just as long as the US has a constant supply of oil. And to be fair, if large numbers of us in the West don't trust Bush to keep his word, how can we expect the Arab world to?
Oddly though, while I am usually no great fan of Tony Blair either, I do believe that he is sincere in his promises to provide support to a post-conflict Iraq. I honestly can't say why I believe that, but I do. I hope I'm not disappointed.
People are concentrating on the bad things that could arise from the conflict, such as increased anti-Western feeling and increased terrorism. Surely it could also lead to good things?
If we keep our promises this time, we could be taking the first steps in building trust between Arab states and the West. If we are seen to follow up this conflict properly with aid and support, the potential for building bridges could be huge. It won't be a simple task, but if we are true to our word now, Arab states may have a little more faith in the 'Roadmap to peace' for the Middle-East. And if - IF - we can ease the situation there, who knows what could happen?
Well, If you've read all that, thanks. Feel free to pick apart my arguments and tell me how stupid I am, and/or - more constructively - add your own.
I agree with point you made, but I have to admit I came to my conclusions from a much more simplistic view:
i.e.
Saddam must go
Someone's got to do it
War is bad
Oh hell they've opened fire might as well go with it then
I think subliminally the legalities and other news items that have passed in front of me for the last few months have all contributed to my conclusions, but essentially the four lines above sum up my train of thought since around 1990.
i.e.
Saddam must go
Someone's got to do it
War is bad
Oh hell they've opened fire might as well go with it then
I think subliminally the legalities and other news items that have passed in front of me for the last few months have all contributed to my conclusions, but essentially the four lines above sum up my train of thought since around 1990.
'I agree with the points* you made'
the Edit My Post Campaign starts here and now...
the Edit My Post Campaign starts here and now...
He's got to go, simple as that.
He said he wouldn't have Weapons of Mass-Destruction anymore, signed the thing (I think) - everyone was happy.
They someone wants to check that he's keeping up the agreement, and he says no. And he says no again, and again and again for quite some while.
Finally he lets them in, and they can't find anything - not even the stuff they actually knew he had. Slightly suspicious. Saddam says he had nothing.
Then they find a load of missiles capable of shooting futhur than he agreed he could shoot to. So he's lied.
Then he says he'll destroy them himself, instead of the proper people doing it. The inpectors leave, no-one hears anything else about it.
Now.
Surely if you've gone directly against what you said you wouldn't do, then someone's got to take some action. You can't move in and arrest him - he's got an army which, man-for-man, is greater than ours.
So there's war.
What else?
No-one wants it, but without it, we'd basically be saying to the leader any any contry that they can do what they want.
Then we move in and there's weapons seen. Chemical weapons. You know, the ones he said he didn't have.
Now he's not going to come quietly. Troops have captured soldiers and shown them on TV, which is not allowed. And they're dressing up as civs, which isn't allowed.
Is obvious, isn't it?
This was really the only option.
I'd like to ask anti-war protesters what we should do with Saddam then, considering all he's done and the evidence against him. What's the other options? considering we've seen he's got weapons and an army who'll do anything for him.
It's hardly as though he'll come quietly, is it?
In my opinion, it's pretty obvious that there were no other options.
He said he wouldn't have Weapons of Mass-Destruction anymore, signed the thing (I think) - everyone was happy.
They someone wants to check that he's keeping up the agreement, and he says no. And he says no again, and again and again for quite some while.
Finally he lets them in, and they can't find anything - not even the stuff they actually knew he had. Slightly suspicious. Saddam says he had nothing.
Then they find a load of missiles capable of shooting futhur than he agreed he could shoot to. So he's lied.
Then he says he'll destroy them himself, instead of the proper people doing it. The inpectors leave, no-one hears anything else about it.
Now.
Surely if you've gone directly against what you said you wouldn't do, then someone's got to take some action. You can't move in and arrest him - he's got an army which, man-for-man, is greater than ours.
So there's war.
What else?
No-one wants it, but without it, we'd basically be saying to the leader any any contry that they can do what they want.
Then we move in and there's weapons seen. Chemical weapons. You know, the ones he said he didn't have.
Now he's not going to come quietly. Troops have captured soldiers and shown them on TV, which is not allowed. And they're dressing up as civs, which isn't allowed.
Is obvious, isn't it?
This was really the only option.
I'd like to ask anti-war protesters what we should do with Saddam then, considering all he's done and the evidence against him. What's the other options? considering we've seen he's got weapons and an army who'll do anything for him.
It's hardly as though he'll come quietly, is it?
In my opinion, it's pretty obvious that there were no other options.
One thing I don't understand... Colin Powell showed the UN the supposed satellite photos of Saddam's chemical weapons and secret underground bases of evil - how come we've heard nothing about these so far? Surely Coalition forces would have come across at least one of the suspected sites of weapons over the ground they've covered. If those photos were genuine and to be believed, there should have been hard evidence already.
All we've had so far is a barrel of what may well be sherbet and a few pages on 'how to make a bomb'.
All we've had so far is a barrel of what may well be sherbet and a few pages on 'how to make a bomb'.
Oh, and I object to the phrase 'War on Saddam', as used by ITV - as far as I'm aware, you can't have a war on just one person. If you just dropped bombs on him then okay, but this is a war on the whole country, not just this one guy. Sheesh.
Maybe, but "War on the Iraqi Regime" takes up too much screen space and doesn't have the same ring to it.
And it isn't a war on Iraq, as Sky claim.
Maybe BBC have the best phrase, with simply "Iraq War".
And it isn't a war on Iraq, as Sky claim.
Maybe BBC have the best phrase, with simply "Iraq War".
I'm just as anti-war and cynical as I was but now a part of me is kinda glad that Saddam is out, he was a mean git.
BUT
The war is illegal and so far sweet fook all has been found in the WOMD category
Lies
BUT
The war is illegal and so far sweet fook all has been found in the WOMD category
Lies
Any war to remove such a person from power is perfectly legitimate in my opinion. It would be a bigger crime to leave him in power.
If "the law" says the war is illegal, then "the law" needs changing.
What's being done is right, in my opinion. The only thing that is wrong about it is that it wasn't done sooner - ideally in 1991 as part of the original Gulf war. Instead, we left the Iraqi people to endure a further 12 years of hell.
It's just a shame that it will most likely stop at Iraq. A few days ago, lost among the rest of the news, there was a report on the ITV News Channel on what Robert Mugabe has been doing in Zimbabwe, with some very graphic footage of the beatings dished out to a couple of elderly farmers and their staff, and some opposition activists. I have never, ever seen bruising like it. He's no better than Saddam, and should surely suffer the same fate.
If "the law" says the war is illegal, then "the law" needs changing.
What's being done is right, in my opinion. The only thing that is wrong about it is that it wasn't done sooner - ideally in 1991 as part of the original Gulf war. Instead, we left the Iraqi people to endure a further 12 years of hell.
It's just a shame that it will most likely stop at Iraq. A few days ago, lost among the rest of the news, there was a report on the ITV News Channel on what Robert Mugabe has been doing in Zimbabwe, with some very graphic footage of the beatings dished out to a couple of elderly farmers and their staff, and some opposition activists. I have never, ever seen bruising like it. He's no better than Saddam, and should surely suffer the same fate.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> 'I agree with the points* you made'
>
> the Edit My Post Campaign starts here and now...
****
Cat walking on your keyboard again?
> 'I agree with the points* you made'
>
> the Edit My Post Campaign starts here and now...
****
Cat walking on your keyboard again?
Page: