The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
What I'd like to knpow is why is it that there are so many anti-war protesters out there, but yet no one of them can offer a different solution to war!
Ashley wrote:
> i am the only one who has absolutely no faith in Condoleeza Rice, or
> what ever she is called, i heard her talk a few weeks ago and lets
> just say she hardly filled me with confidence.
She's got a nice rack though!!!@~:!~@!:1'#;212121sdsv
> i am the only one who has absolutely no faith in Condoleeza Rice, or
> what ever she is called, i heard her talk a few weeks ago and lets
> just say she hardly filled me with confidence.
She's got a nice rack though!!!@~:!~@!:1'#;212121sdsv
i am the only one who has absolutely no faith in Condoleeza Rice, or what ever she is called, i heard her talk a few weeks ago and lets just say she hardly filled me with confidence.
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
> 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;"
Iraq may have been in violation of UN council resolution for 12 years now, but Israel has been ignoring similar resolutions to pull out of the occupied territories for 30 years - and still receives significant financial, political and moral support from the US. How is one different from the other, and why is it suddenly so important that Saddam is disarmed NOW? The rush to declare war was pretty mysterious, considering recent pressure had forced Saddam to let weapons inspectors back in, and they WERE doing their job and they WERE finding/destroying weapons. It's seems ironic, don't you think, that in the frenzy to follow through on UN resolution 1441, the US and UK have defied the UNs will by acting alone? If the US and UK really did care about the UN and its resolutions, surely it would have waited for UN backing and at the very least would give some kind of post-war rebuilding role to the UN? Why therefore are they abandoning the UN in order to satisfy its resolution? Maybe they have another agenda?!?!?!?!?
> 2. The weapons Saddam does or doesn't have
One can only speculate why hazmat suits (although these probably only exist in Half-Life, heh) were found in Iraq - they're just as likely to be a psychological trick as they are to be protection for Iraqi soldiers. Whatever weapons that Iraq did have, the inspectors were doing their job, they were uncovering/destroying weapons at the time that the US/UK invaded.
> 3. Pro- or anti-war?
While I don't dispute that Saddam was a terrible person and did some terrible things to his people, in dictatorial terms he is small fry - there have been atrocities in your lifetime several orders of magnitude worse, such as up to a million people killed in Rwanda in the early 90's, or the whole Yugoslavia affair. Within the last 35 years the US helped bump off 900,000 Vietnamese citizens in the Vietnam war (GO GO GADGET CARPET BOMBING!), and the vicious Cambodian leader Pol Pot killed 1 million people in a country of 10 million (with full US backing, as the Khmer Rouge opposed North Korea). It's sometimes difficult to see how the US can come into this war claiming the moral high ground.
Of course those exiled from Iraq are going to diss Saddam Hussein - they were fooking exiled! People everywhere are stupid sheep, this applies just as much to Iraqi citizens as it does to British tabloid readers or American patriots. Sure there are some horror stories, or people that want Saddam dead, but you'll find similar things in England (admittedly to a lesser degree - "Blair's welfare reforms broke my business" etc don't quite match up to "Saddam disemboweled my family").
And once you start superimposing your own values onto other nations, then you open up a whole new can of worms. Sure, it's pretty easy to grunt "Saddam bad!" and send in the para's, but that sets an incredibly dangerous precedent - what do you then do about Zimbabwe, who's land reform plans and brutal regime are starving millions, or North Korea, who have 1 million soldiers, nuclear weapons and a starving population? Where do you draw the line? Iran? Libya? China, for its human rights abuses?? Russia, for its brutal levelling of Chechnya??? Israel, for its crimes against Palestine???? France, for supplying weapons to a rogue state????? The US, for keeping prisoners illegally at Guantanamo bay??????
All nations are sovereign, and all nations are different - you have to be incredibly sure about your case before you invade another country just because you don't agree with their policies (as the coalition rightfully was about Yugoslavia). I don't think for one second that Iraq have committed serious enough offenses against its people to justify invasion, especially not compared to some relatively recent regimes.
> 4. Laying blame
Your points here are valid - the US/UK/whoever tightened the financial thumbscrews on Saddam to make him comply, but he only offloaded the baggage onto his people. This is exactly the same as what North Korea is doing, only North Korea (imo) is far, far worse - Kim Jung Il lives in impossible opulence and maintains a vast army while his people starve. He then uses the threat of his forces to leverage money out of the US and South Korea to feed his people with - however most of this money goes straight back into his army.
> 5. Civilian casualties
Civilian casualties are bad, and the US and UK have to take great care to avoid them, which is what they're doing. Those cruise missiles cost $2million dollars each, and at the bombings peak they were firing 1,000 a night. So I don't think anyone could accuse the coalition of not taking steps to ensure the minimum of civilian casualties.
Of course, casualties are only half the story. You don't often get to see evidence of the sheer disruption a war can cause. Hospitals filled with injured Iraqi soldiers aren't put their to serve war, they're supposed to be dealing with normal domestic injuries, which don't go away just because there's a war on. One example I saw was a baby being brought from Basra to the British soldiers outside by its parents (this was back when Basra was very much still Iraqi territory) - it had received terrible burns in a domestic action, but with no water the hospitals in Basra were out of action and the family had no-where else to go. It's non-fatal incidents like this that you don't often get to hear about. Food for thought.
> 6. Double standards
Double standards can equally be applied to the US/UK, for using the banner of the UN to justify war yet actually defying the UN in declaring it. According to the BBC News website, reffering to an article by Robert Kagan "It said of Europeans: "They have this idea that the UN Security Council is the only world body legally empowered to decide whether Iraq is to be invaded", whereas nearly all Americans believe of the UN: 'If it makes the right recommendation it strengthens your case. If not you can always ignore it.'" This is a telling case of double standards at the highest level.
One of the better arguments for the Iraq war that I've heard from the coalition is that Saddam would supply WMD to terrorists if left alone long enough. Despite the hilarious lack of any evidence whatsoever that Saddam has any connection with terrorists, this is a credible motive for considering him a target. However, surely the same logic should then apply to Saddams suppliers - France and Russia, supplying weapons to Saddam, supplying weapons to terrorists. Should France and Russia face punishment from the UN? Go back far enough and you find the US (and presumably us as well) were giving weapons to Saddam. What does one do about that?
> 7. Battle plans
I worry about this too, it's entirely feasible that Saddam would use chemical weapons in a built up area against American forces, although I don't see how it would do him any good - the US have protection, and he would only end up killing Iraqi's and polarising the whole world against him. Not a good idea when you need somewhere else to get to, fast.
> 8. The aftermath
While I'm not sure what atrocities Ireland have committed (I'm not sure Terry Wogan counts as a weapon of mass destruction), you pick up on a point I raised earlier about the sort of precedent this sets. If you haven't already done so, I recommend reading the BBC News piece I got the quote from earlier, it's quite an eye-opener in regards to how some within the US administration view foreign policy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2907115.stm
It is a given that we must not abandon Iraq when we win, and I don't think for a moment that we will - US troops are still dying in helicopter crashes in Afghanistan, long after the Taliban left office. What I don't agree with is the US' view that the coalition alone should be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq. Clearly the US is selfish for reconstruction contracts, I heard (although I can't corroborate) that contracts have been awarded already to rebuild things that have not been destroyed yet! Perhaps they have a right to be, they did just wizz $400billion down the drain getting Saddam out. I still find it unsettling that they seem unwilling to involve any kind of multilateral supervision, like the US is deliberately trying to undermine the UN.
I'm sorry I had to pick apart your afternoons work in such great detail. It is difficult for me or anyone to stand up and say "this war shouldn't have happened" as it is very clear that Saddam was no good, both for the Iraqi people and the world at large. When taken in isolation, the world is definetly a better place without him at the helm of Iraq, but I don't think for a second the war has been justified properly, I don't trust what the US government say at all and I think because of that this war raises the tension of the world, as everyone wonders "are we next?".
> 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;"
Iraq may have been in violation of UN council resolution for 12 years now, but Israel has been ignoring similar resolutions to pull out of the occupied territories for 30 years - and still receives significant financial, political and moral support from the US. How is one different from the other, and why is it suddenly so important that Saddam is disarmed NOW? The rush to declare war was pretty mysterious, considering recent pressure had forced Saddam to let weapons inspectors back in, and they WERE doing their job and they WERE finding/destroying weapons. It's seems ironic, don't you think, that in the frenzy to follow through on UN resolution 1441, the US and UK have defied the UNs will by acting alone? If the US and UK really did care about the UN and its resolutions, surely it would have waited for UN backing and at the very least would give some kind of post-war rebuilding role to the UN? Why therefore are they abandoning the UN in order to satisfy its resolution? Maybe they have another agenda?!?!?!?!?
> 2. The weapons Saddam does or doesn't have
One can only speculate why hazmat suits (although these probably only exist in Half-Life, heh) were found in Iraq - they're just as likely to be a psychological trick as they are to be protection for Iraqi soldiers. Whatever weapons that Iraq did have, the inspectors were doing their job, they were uncovering/destroying weapons at the time that the US/UK invaded.
> 3. Pro- or anti-war?
While I don't dispute that Saddam was a terrible person and did some terrible things to his people, in dictatorial terms he is small fry - there have been atrocities in your lifetime several orders of magnitude worse, such as up to a million people killed in Rwanda in the early 90's, or the whole Yugoslavia affair. Within the last 35 years the US helped bump off 900,000 Vietnamese citizens in the Vietnam war (GO GO GADGET CARPET BOMBING!), and the vicious Cambodian leader Pol Pot killed 1 million people in a country of 10 million (with full US backing, as the Khmer Rouge opposed North Korea). It's sometimes difficult to see how the US can come into this war claiming the moral high ground.
Of course those exiled from Iraq are going to diss Saddam Hussein - they were fooking exiled! People everywhere are stupid sheep, this applies just as much to Iraqi citizens as it does to British tabloid readers or American patriots. Sure there are some horror stories, or people that want Saddam dead, but you'll find similar things in England (admittedly to a lesser degree - "Blair's welfare reforms broke my business" etc don't quite match up to "Saddam disemboweled my family").
And once you start superimposing your own values onto other nations, then you open up a whole new can of worms. Sure, it's pretty easy to grunt "Saddam bad!" and send in the para's, but that sets an incredibly dangerous precedent - what do you then do about Zimbabwe, who's land reform plans and brutal regime are starving millions, or North Korea, who have 1 million soldiers, nuclear weapons and a starving population? Where do you draw the line? Iran? Libya? China, for its human rights abuses?? Russia, for its brutal levelling of Chechnya??? Israel, for its crimes against Palestine???? France, for supplying weapons to a rogue state????? The US, for keeping prisoners illegally at Guantanamo bay??????
All nations are sovereign, and all nations are different - you have to be incredibly sure about your case before you invade another country just because you don't agree with their policies (as the coalition rightfully was about Yugoslavia). I don't think for one second that Iraq have committed serious enough offenses against its people to justify invasion, especially not compared to some relatively recent regimes.
> 4. Laying blame
Your points here are valid - the US/UK/whoever tightened the financial thumbscrews on Saddam to make him comply, but he only offloaded the baggage onto his people. This is exactly the same as what North Korea is doing, only North Korea (imo) is far, far worse - Kim Jung Il lives in impossible opulence and maintains a vast army while his people starve. He then uses the threat of his forces to leverage money out of the US and South Korea to feed his people with - however most of this money goes straight back into his army.
> 5. Civilian casualties
Civilian casualties are bad, and the US and UK have to take great care to avoid them, which is what they're doing. Those cruise missiles cost $2million dollars each, and at the bombings peak they were firing 1,000 a night. So I don't think anyone could accuse the coalition of not taking steps to ensure the minimum of civilian casualties.
Of course, casualties are only half the story. You don't often get to see evidence of the sheer disruption a war can cause. Hospitals filled with injured Iraqi soldiers aren't put their to serve war, they're supposed to be dealing with normal domestic injuries, which don't go away just because there's a war on. One example I saw was a baby being brought from Basra to the British soldiers outside by its parents (this was back when Basra was very much still Iraqi territory) - it had received terrible burns in a domestic action, but with no water the hospitals in Basra were out of action and the family had no-where else to go. It's non-fatal incidents like this that you don't often get to hear about. Food for thought.
> 6. Double standards
Double standards can equally be applied to the US/UK, for using the banner of the UN to justify war yet actually defying the UN in declaring it. According to the BBC News website, reffering to an article by Robert Kagan "It said of Europeans: "They have this idea that the UN Security Council is the only world body legally empowered to decide whether Iraq is to be invaded", whereas nearly all Americans believe of the UN: 'If it makes the right recommendation it strengthens your case. If not you can always ignore it.'" This is a telling case of double standards at the highest level.
One of the better arguments for the Iraq war that I've heard from the coalition is that Saddam would supply WMD to terrorists if left alone long enough. Despite the hilarious lack of any evidence whatsoever that Saddam has any connection with terrorists, this is a credible motive for considering him a target. However, surely the same logic should then apply to Saddams suppliers - France and Russia, supplying weapons to Saddam, supplying weapons to terrorists. Should France and Russia face punishment from the UN? Go back far enough and you find the US (and presumably us as well) were giving weapons to Saddam. What does one do about that?
> 7. Battle plans
I worry about this too, it's entirely feasible that Saddam would use chemical weapons in a built up area against American forces, although I don't see how it would do him any good - the US have protection, and he would only end up killing Iraqi's and polarising the whole world against him. Not a good idea when you need somewhere else to get to, fast.
> 8. The aftermath
While I'm not sure what atrocities Ireland have committed (I'm not sure Terry Wogan counts as a weapon of mass destruction), you pick up on a point I raised earlier about the sort of precedent this sets. If you haven't already done so, I recommend reading the BBC News piece I got the quote from earlier, it's quite an eye-opener in regards to how some within the US administration view foreign policy: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2907115.stm
It is a given that we must not abandon Iraq when we win, and I don't think for a moment that we will - US troops are still dying in helicopter crashes in Afghanistan, long after the Taliban left office. What I don't agree with is the US' view that the coalition alone should be involved in the rebuilding of Iraq. Clearly the US is selfish for reconstruction contracts, I heard (although I can't corroborate) that contracts have been awarded already to rebuild things that have not been destroyed yet! Perhaps they have a right to be, they did just wizz $400billion down the drain getting Saddam out. I still find it unsettling that they seem unwilling to involve any kind of multilateral supervision, like the US is deliberately trying to undermine the UN.
I'm sorry I had to pick apart your afternoons work in such great detail. It is difficult for me or anyone to stand up and say "this war shouldn't have happened" as it is very clear that Saddam was no good, both for the Iraqi people and the world at large. When taken in isolation, the world is definetly a better place without him at the helm of Iraq, but I don't think for a second the war has been justified properly, I don't trust what the US government say at all and I think because of that this war raises the tension of the world, as everyone wonders "are we next?".
As long as 'those in power' manipulate with the threat of violence or solve their problems with the use of violence, the evolution of humanity will do nothing but veer in circles.
A few months ago, I was against the war but now I see that we really have exhausted all diplomatic means of solving this problem. I just hope as little people die as possible and that it is all over soon!
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?
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.
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
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".
Page: