Viewing Thread:
"A Query for the Pro-War Lobby"

That is, those tubthumping pro-war ladies and gentlemen who never allow hard facts to get in the way of a good days crowing.

Here's a thing or two about your remarkably ill-thought through blusterings;
You're all saying "See! See! Told you, stupid hippies" and conveniently forgetting that at no point did "Anti-War" mean "Pro-Saddam"

The reasons for going to war are still invalid. NO womd found or used, NO UN approval, civilians injured in the thousands etc etc

And just what the hell has happened to Saddam then? I thought we weren't stopping until he was dead?
So where is he?

I hope that some intelligent pro-war people will take the time to respond to this. Doubtless the more moronic among them will take another opportunity to ignore the entire question and respond with their usual reality-free tirade...

Star Fury wrote:

>
> Fact is, until Iraq, America and it's allies have never acted pre
> emptively. They've dropped the odd bomb, hit a few installations, but
> never gone to war. That policy has changed, and N.Korea, and everyone
> else, has seen it change. Saddam never believed, as he did in 1990,
> that the world would act against him, and he was nearly right. In the
> past military powers have underestimated our capability and believed
> victory possible, but after the TV footage everyone around the world
> would have seen they can no longer believe that, which is why,
> surprise surprise, N.Korea suddenly wants multilateral talks - which
> it previouly didn't want.

WHAT???? Never acted pre-emptively?? Hellooooo? Nicaragua, Korea, Columbia, Cuba, too many middle-american mini-regimes to name. The US have been acting pre-emptively for decades. I've no idea where you get your info, but you need to read around the subject a bit more. The US has been actively involved in subverting and destabilising regimes around the world that don't meet 'American Interests' since before WW2. The only difference here is that it's been high-profile media war as much as anything, whereas in the past, it's been kept from the public eye. I'm making no comment on the moral rights or wrongs in this post, so please don't try and antogonise me for being a liberal hippy (which I am).

> It does raise questions about the moral standards of the US
> government
> though. Do the American administration really have any right to
> stand
> on a pedestal and dictate to the world what is right? Would you
> trust
> a Policeman who gave guns to two rival street gangs so they could
> eliminate each another? Neither would I, and I have similar
> reservations about trusting world peace to the Americans.

Tough pal. The actions of the US will continue to affect us all until either (a) we're all blown to smithereens, or (b) they cease to be the dominant (both militarily and financially) power.


> As for dictating what is right, I think democracy, freedom of speech,
> freedom from torture and freedom of religion are pretty damn right by
> any civilised persons standards....

True dat.

Miserableman wrote:
> The modus operandi of North Korea is well known. They're not making
> anti-West gestures just because they're genuinely evil and they drink
> the blood of dead American soldiers. It goes something like this -
> they have plenty of weapons of mass destruction and plenty of things
> to shoot them at, so they know no force would dare invade. They make
> lots of noise about how ready they are to use them by pulling out of
> the nuclear treaties, kicking weapons inspectors out, test-firing
> missiles right over the Japanese mainland etc. They use the mass
> consternation this causes to bring America to the bargaining table,
> and screw them out of a few billion dollars in return for the closure
> of Yongbyon etc.

Ah, but you are wrong, that was how N.Korea seems to work from the Western perspective, and how N.Korea thinks it can interact with the US is no longer valid. You point a nuke at the US or UK and just see where it gets you. Fact is that there are plenty of ways to attack a country without war, and you can only play games so long before the US and it's allies play them right back at you. Your thinking is pure Cold War my friend, and it ain't the Cold War anymore.

>Everybody wins. The situation in Iraq doesn't change
> this, except give the Koreans a bit more to foam off about. The US
> would never invade North Korea - a volatile leadership with a
> million-strong army, several nuclear weapons and a defense pact with
> China. They might not even find any ash where Tokyo and Seoul once
> stood.

Would never ? Might never is more likely. N.Korea can only push so far before it gets pushed back, and seeing as the Chinese are having major problems right now they would not support N.Korea if it came down to the 5 yard line. Million strong ? Since when does numbers matter anymore, in Iraq we just took down an army of a million with a 1/4 million ! Technology is the new force multiplier and we have that by the bucketload. And N.Korea knows it.

I notice you avoid the fact that N.Korea now accepts the US terms for talks when prior to Iraq it did not...... wonder what changed their mind, the image of Baghdad being struck night after night by precision missiles and bombs perchance ?

> No and no. I fundamentally disagree with you on the way a nation such
> as the US and UK should approach its foreign policy, which is why I
> didn't respond to your last post. We'd argue until the end of time and
> still get nowhere, so I'm not going to bother.

Well I disagree with that, someone has to be the Police and it damn well isn't the UN or anyone else. Why should this not be the case ?

Star Fury wrote:
> With due respect I don't think anyone outside of the top levels of
> North Korea's government knows how it operates, if anyone did then
> they could have a very highly paid position in various agencies of
> their choice.
>
> Fact is, until Iraq, America and it's allies have never acted pre
> emptively. They've dropped the odd bomb, hit a few installations, but
> never gone to war. That policy has changed, and N.Korea, and everyone
> else, has seen it change. Saddam never believed, as he did in 1990,
> that the world would act against him, and he was nearly right. In the
> past military powers have underestimated our capability and believed
> victory possible, but after the TV footage everyone around the world
> would have seen they can no longer believe that, which is why,
> surprise surprise, N.Korea suddenly wants multilateral talks - which
> it previouly didn't want.


The modus operandi of North Korea is well known. They're not making anti-West gestures just because they're genuinely evil and they drink the blood of dead American soldiers. It goes something like this - they have plenty of weapons of mass destruction and plenty of things to shoot them at, so they know no force would dare invade. They make lots of noise about how ready they are to use them by pulling out of the nuclear treaties, kicking weapons inspectors out, test-firing missiles right over the Japanese mainland etc. They use the mass consternation this causes to bring America to the bargaining table, and screw them out of a few billion dollars in return for the closure of Yongbyon etc. Everybody wins. The situation in Iraq doesn't change this, except give the Koreans a bit more to foam off about. The US would never invade North Korea - a volatile leadership with a million-strong army, several nuclear weapons and a defense pact with China. They might not even find any ash where Tokyo and Seoul once stood.


> I don't, I think that for the first time in a long time we have
> administrations in the UK and USA who will act decisively and with
> full force. The police/gang analogy is incorrect and selectively
> misleading. Would you give guns to a gang, to fight another dangerous
> gang that you yourself could in no way be seen to fight because you
> were the police ? Would you then fight the gangs one by one when you
> decided you could attack them. Yes, and yes.


No and no. I fundamentally disagree with you on the way a nation such as the US and UK should approach its foreign policy, which is why I didn't respond to your last post. We'd argue until the end of time and still get nowhere, so I'm not going to bother.

Miserableman wrote:
> You don't seem to know how North Korea operates. North Korea can do
> nothing but talk war - it gets the US to cough up money, some of which
> goes to feed its people and some of which goes on making more weapons.
> The US invasion of Iraq only strengthens North Korea's case, but it
> doesn't really change the dynamics of the situation. I would agree
> with you, but recent history has demonstrated that military powers
> facing the overwhelming might of the US army have often chosen to
> fight to the death, rather than choose a relatively simple
> get-out-of-jail option.

With due respect I don't think anyone outside of the top levels of North Korea's government knows how it operates, if anyone did then they could have a very highly paid position in various agencies of their choice.

Fact is, until Iraq, America and it's allies have never acted pre emptively. They've dropped the odd bomb, hit a few installations, but never gone to war. That policy has changed, and N.Korea, and everyone else, has seen it change. Saddam never believed, as he did in 1990, that the world would act against him, and he was nearly right. In the past military powers have underestimated our capability and believed victory possible, but after the TV footage everyone around the world would have seen they can no longer believe that, which is why, surprise surprise, N.Korea suddenly wants multilateral talks - which it previouly didn't want.

> It does raise questions about the moral standards of the US government
> though. Do the American administration really have any right to stand
> on a pedestal and dictate to the world what is right? Would you trust
> a Policeman who gave guns to two rival street gangs so they could
> eliminate each another? Neither would I, and I have similar
> reservations about trusting world peace to the Americans.

I don't, I think that for the first time in a long time we have administrations in the UK and USA who will act decisively and with full force. The police/gang analogy is incorrect and selectively misleading. Would you give guns to a gang, to fight another dangerous gang that you yourself could in no way be seen to fight because you were the police ? Would you then fight the gangs one by one when you decided you could attack them. Yes, and yes.

As for dictating what is right, I think democracy, freedom of speech, freedom from torture and freedom of religion are pretty damn right by any civilised persons standards....

> Yes and no. You can't say what precedent this has sent until a decade
> down the line. Yes, someone like North Korea could see this as a need
> to increase there arms. Or, they could see the ease with which the US
> steam rollered through Iraq and decide they'd better not tempt them.
> The Tri-party talks during the week and the subsequent problems are
> only the introduction to the beginning of the opening act.


You don't seem to know how North Korea operates. North Korea can do nothing but talk war - it gets the US to cough up money, some of which goes to feed its people and some of which goes on making more weapons. The US invasion of Iraq only strengthens North Korea's case, but it doesn't really change the dynamics of the situation. I would agree with you, but recent history has demonstrated that military powers facing the overwhelming might of the US army have often chosen to fight to the death, rather than choose a relatively simple get-out-of-jail option. The obvious example is the Taliban, who were told "Hand over Osama, or we'll kick all of you out of government". They chose to die fighting rather than give over a known terrorist. This shows that the sensible option is not always taken by foreign governments opposed to the US.


> Long after the respective situations changed though. Okay, maybe they
> should have been aware of the dangers of arming volatile groups, but
> you can't then blame them for everything the training and guns did -
> at some point the individuals take the blame.


It does raise questions about the moral standards of the US government though. Do the American administration really have any right to stand on a pedestal and dictate to the world what is right? Would you trust a Policeman who gave guns to two rival street gangs so they could eliminate each another? Neither would I, and I have similar reservations about trusting world peace to the Americans.

Dr Gonzo wrote:
> That wasn't the point. Historically it is one of the things we look
> back at with horror. Just because it is a government doing whatever
> to its own people has no effect on how we react to the actions.


So what is your point? Oooh, terrible things happen? Saddam Hussein is somewhere a long way down the list of 'bad things to happen to humanity', even in your lifetime.


> US chose the means to achieving something most of the world wanted to
> achieve. You've said getting rid of Saddam is generally good - what
> gives you the right to decide how he governed his own people? While
> Human Rights aren't a black and white criterion, the grey area isn't
> as big as you're making out.


Nothing gives me the right to decide how Saddam Hussein runs Iraq, that's the point. It also applies to you, George Bush, Tony Blair and anyone else outside of Iraq.

That grey area is enormous, much much bigger than you clearly realise. You only have to look around the world at Muslim countries like Indonesia to see how incensed their population are with the US administration - they see Bush and co as persuing a war against the Islamic world, and whether they're right or wrong, they're *furious* about it. When undertaking an operation as big as the total invasion of another country you are going to create an enormous fallout, the effects of which you may not see for decades. And if the coalition pursued a policy of mass-invasions/government replacement, the consequences would be as unpredictable as they are severe. It is the apparant total disregard the US government has for these consequences that bugs me above anything else. The foreign policy they show signs of pursuing has every chance of triggering World War III, yet you get nothing but 'shock and awe' from the Americans. One wonders if there's any tact left in that government, they'll need it to deal with the Koreans.


> Yes and no. You can't say what precedent this has sent u.€âGîT

The bigger picture here is this, to my mind anyway;

For the first time in a very long time a group of nations have acted in a pre-emptive attack to destroy a threat before it materialised.

This is, to my mind again, majorly important. Every nation which harbours, supports and equips terrorists has seen what happened. Every nation making WMD in secret and that is trying to hide it, saw what happened. Every nation that is thinking of attacking unjustly another nation has seen what happened.

Attack us, in fact even just consider it, and we will anhilate you and nothing you can do will stop us. You will be dead or captured, your armies driven back in defeat and surrender, and your people will be largely thanking us for doing so.

That is a powerful message, and one that needed sending way before now. Another important aspect, that the anti-war lobby forgets in every single discussion, is that Iraq was given 12 years to comply, as the Taliban were given 1 month to hand over Bin Laden, as Grenada was given 2 months to change, and Iraq a month to withdraw in 1990, and so on..... We have never once said "s0d diplomacy let's attack", we have always pursued diplomacy to death before attacking.

Whatsmore, I genuinelly believe that actions such as those taken in Iraq, Afghanistan e.t.c are paving the way for a finer world, one where dictators and terrorists have no place, where there is more equality.

We can speak, in the comfort of our "western central heated running water et al" homes all we want of how violence achieves nothing. But see the Iraqi people, see those in Afghanistan. Violence has led to freedom because nothing else would work. In Somalia, abandoned by the UN, the same needs to happen to achieve a working peace for it's people.

It is nigh time that the West, led by America and the UK, took on those who make life miserable and terrible for millions of people, and in the current governments of those two nations, and others, we have those with the will to act, not just utter senseless words and sanctions, but the will to do what is right.

Mess wrote:
> It's important to look at the bigger picture here. The Middle East
> has always been a bit of a crazy, backwards place

WTF? This is an area where the first civilizations started many thousands of years ago. Egypt? Babylon? Assyrians? Persia? These were the first urban centres and the first areas with governments and laws not based on pure tribal rule. Let's not forget the fact that when Europe was reeling from the Dark Ages with the colapse of the Roman Empire it was the Arabs, notably the Saracens, that preserved mathematical and philosophical theories and the Romano-Greek heritage. Did you know our numbers are based on Arabic numbers, and not as you well know Roman numerals.

*SLAP*

Miserableman wrote:
> What Hitler was doing to the
> Jews was of little consequence to Chamberlain when faced with 5
> million heavily armed German soldiers.

That wasn't the point. Historically it is one of the things we look back at with horror. Just because it is a government doing whatever to its own people has no effect on how we react to the actions.

> What gives the US the right to decide how other governments
> should govern their people?

US chose the means to achieving something most of the world wanted to achieve. You've said getting rid of Saddam is generally good - what gives you the right to decide how he governed his own people? While Human Rights aren't a black and white criterion, the grey area isn't as big as you're making out.

> Taking Iraq in isolation is not an option
> - once you invade one country, you set a precedent that lines up a
> dozen more. It doesn't matter whether you see it this way or not -
> those countries see it that way, and are frantically arming themselves
> in pre-emption of the US knocking on their door.

Yes and no. You can't say what precedent this has sent until a decade down the line. Yes, someone like North Korea could see this as a need to increase there arms. Or, they could see the ease with which the US steam rollered through Iraq and decide they'd better not tempt them. The Tri-party talks during the week and the subsequent problems are only the introduction to the beginning of the opening act.

> The US recently reaped the seeds it sowed in Iraq and Afghanistan in
> the 1980's, when it supplied weapons to the Taliban and Saddam Hussein
> to fight off Russia/Iran respectively.

Long after the respective situations changed though. Okay, maybe they should have been aware of the dangers of arming volatile groups, but you can't then blame them for everything the training and guns did - at some point the individuals take the blame.

Miserableman wrote:
> Britain didn't declare war on Germany until Germany invaded Poland,
> which happened too long after Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and
> Britain said "okay you can go that far, but if you take Poland we
> will have no choice but to act".


too long after = not long after

tired :O/