Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
Well I was refering to other countries, but also the public in both America and here don't seem to be backing it either
by Demona
(quotes)
Lack of support from their own countries, or other countries?
Posted: 15:52 Mar 18 2003
Between Iraq and a hard place
Tomorrow, at 1am GMT, George Bush, “president” of the United States, will be broadcasting to the State of Texas and the nation, and will almost certainly be laying down a final ultimatum to Saddam Hussain. His choices are now to go into exile or be invaded. Upto 300,000 British and American troops are amassed on the Iraqi border, and it is almost certain they will invade within days. United Nations weapons inspectors are being withdrawn, as has the Security Council Resolution authorising war after UN Security Council permanent member France determined it would use its veto against it. So the invasion will lack any UN authority, and will breech international law and the UN Charter.
Britain drew out Iraq’s borders in the early 1920s, provided them with a king the French threw out of Syria (elected in a Saddam-worthy plebiscite with a majority of 96 per cent), and reinforced his rule by having the RAF fly regular sorties from their airbase at Habbaniya, outside Baghdad, from where they sent lumbering Handley-Page biplanes to bomb “recalcitrant Arabs”. Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for War and Air, the future Colonial Secretary, said that, “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.” In the end we didn’t use gas; not because we lacked the will, but because we lacked the technology. Being uncivilised enough to be late in paying your taxes was grounds enough for an attack; it was the first systematic bombing of civilians in history. Ever economically prudent, the Empire charged the Iraqis for the bombs used against them.
A Whitehouse aid in the Regan administration said of Saddam: “He’s a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.” Donald Rumsfeld, now crusading US Secretary of Defence, visited Iraq in 1983 to discuss military and economic support for Saddam’s regime, at the same time as he was launching gas attacks on Iranian soldiers. The US and Britain sold Saddam millions of dollars worth of weapons, and helpfully gave him credit to pay for them with. Saddam had no problems with using poison gas; the attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988 was the “most notorious and the deadliest single gas attack against the Kurds,” killing 5,000 civilians. Shortly after that, Britain approved an extra £340 million of credit, and the Americans lent him another billion dollars. The US Senate wanted to condemn the attack, but was blocked by the Republican White House, under Ronald Regan. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, he visited the US Ambassador and was told: “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts.”
In his State of the Union address in 2003, President George Bush condemned the “torture chambers of Iraq”, while apparently suffering a temporary state of amnesia about the torture chambers of regional allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
We are told President Saddam presents a threat to the entire world of such gravity it justified an illegal pre-emptive attack on his country (not that Blair has actually released the Attorney General’s advice about this, but Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, has made the position quite clear), yet neither the US or Britain has managed to produce one iota of evidence to this effect. And if Saddam actually has weapons of mass destruction, what would make him more likely to use them than a military assault on his country? Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis may die, yet no firm plans for keeping the unstable country Britain invented eighty years ago together has come to light; in fact, until the Ankara Parliament vetoed it, the US was perfectly willing to allow 40,000 Turkish troops, independent of US command, to have a free hand against the Kurds of Northern Iraq, which has had de-facto independence from Saddam since 1991.
The moral case for war is strong, says Blair; inaction would be worse than action. In 1991, President George Bush Senior encouraged a rebellion against Saddam. But an uprising by Marsh Arabs and Shia Muslims was brutally repressed by Saddam’s helicopter gunships, because the US declined to intervene; it had been decided it would be better for US interests in the Middle East if they maintained troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Now we’re asked to trust that our governments have the best interests of the Iraqis at heart as they prepare to bomb the hell out of them.
While Britain was bombing the recalcitrant Arabs in the 1920s, Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, the Secretary of State for War, said: “If the Arab population realised that the peaceful control of Mesopotamia ultimately depends on our intention of bombing women and children, I’m very doubtful if we shall gain that acquiescence of the fathers and husbands of Mesopotamia to which the Secretary of State for the Colonies looks forward.”
Who says we never learn from history …
(Edited by Byron 18/03/2003 00:26)
Britain drew out Iraq’s borders in the early 1920s, provided them with a king the French threw out of Syria (elected in a Saddam-worthy plebiscite with a majority of 96 per cent), and reinforced his rule by having the RAF fly regular sorties from their airbase at Habbaniya, outside Baghdad, from where they sent lumbering Handley-Page biplanes to bomb “recalcitrant Arabs”. Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for War and Air, the future Colonial Secretary, said that, “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.” In the end we didn’t use gas; not because we lacked the will, but because we lacked the technology. Being uncivilised enough to be late in paying your taxes was grounds enough for an attack; it was the first systematic bombing of civilians in history. Ever economically prudent, the Empire charged the Iraqis for the bombs used against them.
A Whitehouse aid in the Regan administration said of Saddam: “He’s a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.” Donald Rumsfeld, now crusading US Secretary of Defence, visited Iraq in 1983 to discuss military and economic support for Saddam’s regime, at the same time as he was launching gas attacks on Iranian soldiers. The US and Britain sold Saddam millions of dollars worth of weapons, and helpfully gave him credit to pay for them with. Saddam had no problems with using poison gas; the attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988 was the “most notorious and the deadliest single gas attack against the Kurds,” killing 5,000 civilians. Shortly after that, Britain approved an extra £340 million of credit, and the Americans lent him another billion dollars. The US Senate wanted to condemn the attack, but was blocked by the Republican White House, under Ronald Regan. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, he visited the US Ambassador and was told: “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts.”
In his State of the Union address in 2003, President George Bush condemned the “torture chambers of Iraq”, while apparently suffering a temporary state of amnesia about the torture chambers of regional allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
We are told President Saddam presents a threat to the entire world of such gravity it justified an illegal pre-emptive attack on his country (not that Blair has actually released the Attorney General’s advice about this, but Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, has made the position quite clear), yet neither the US or Britain has managed to produce one iota of evidence to this effect. And if Saddam actually has weapons of mass destruction, what would make him more likely to use them than a military assault on his country? Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis may die, yet no firm plans for keeping the unstable country Britain invented eighty years ago together has come to light; in fact, until the Ankara Parliament vetoed it, the US was perfectly willing to allow 40,000 Turkish troops, independent of US command, to have a free hand against the Kurds of Northern Iraq, which has had de-facto independence from Saddam since 1991.
The moral case for war is strong, says Blair; inaction would be worse than action. In 1991, President George Bush Senior encouraged a rebellion against Saddam. But an uprising by Marsh Arabs and Shia Muslims was brutally repressed by Saddam’s helicopter gunships, because the US declined to intervene; it had been decided it would be better for US interests in the Middle East if they maintained troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Now we’re asked to trust that our governments have the best interests of the Iraqis at heart as they prepare to bomb the hell out of them.
While Britain was bombing the recalcitrant Arabs in the 1920s, Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, the Secretary of State for War, said: “If the Arab population realised that the peaceful control of Mesopotamia ultimately depends on our intention of bombing women and children, I’m very doubtful if we shall gain that acquiescence of the fathers and husbands of Mesopotamia to which the Secretary of State for the Colonies looks forward.”
Who says we never learn from history …
(Edited by Byron 18/03/2003 00:26)
Posted: 15:52 Mar 18 2003 
Errrr... Nope. When War was declared against Nazi Germany it was because he had invaded another nation, namely Poland, who we had an alliance with. One that we decided we would actually keep.
by Milky
Now the serious bit. When we went to war against Germany was it not on the premise of 'one day', 'Hitler might', 'we can't wait' and ',,,umm, humanitarian something or other'?? Why was it right then but not now?
Before that Hitler had defied the Treaty of Verailles by stopping paying reparations (he was right to do that though), marching armed troops into the demilitarised Rhineland and parading loads of miltary equipment and personel around. He made it quite clear publicly that he wanted to control Eastern Europe, and when he made moves to take it, Britain under Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement gave him bits of it.
Now, Iraq has committed war crimes, it has had and most likely continues to have Weapons of Mass Destruction. It should have been disarmed properly 12 years ago. Does it really pose a threat now though? To his own people, yes, to certain neighbouring countries, possible. To the western world, not really. He has Israel sat near him with a Nuclear arsenal up it's backside, he has the UN breathing down his neck and the rest of the world looking at him.
And on the Weapons of Mass Destruction, I find it hard to swallow the hypocrisy that the Western World uses in regard to them. He has WoMD, true... so does North Korea. So does Israel, the UK, Pakistan, the USA and god knows how many other countries. So who are the UK and USA to say to Iraq (and North Korea) that they can't have these weapons if we aren't willing to disarm our own? It's a hypocricy that is not likely to end any time soon.
I would back the removal of Saddam Hussein, but I do not back the way it has been handled, and I will not support US occupation/remote rule of Iraq. If they proceed to remove Saddam Hussein and then stick their own regime in then the Iraqi people still don't get their country for themselves... in 10 or 15 years that is going to backfire again and we'll have ourselves another war.
Iraq should be reconstructed/supervised/etc under UN and it's member nations, not the USA trying to turn Iraq into a Middle East satellite nation.
Posted: 16:16 Mar 18 2003 No, we went to war with Germany in 1939 because they invaded Poland. The then British prime minister Neville Chamberlain did everything he could prior to that to avoid war.
by Milky
Now the serious bit. When we went to war against Germany was it not on the premise of 'one day', 'Hitler might', 'we can't wait' and ',,,umm, humanitarian something or other'?? Why was it right then but not now?
Lack of action is lack of action. Intent is another matter, but then, if they had the intent, and the capability, why haven't they done anything for the last 12 years?
"there is no agression from Iraq," <-- I didn't know that you were a member of one of our nation states intelligence services. I agree there is no evidence being shown which shows that there is agression from Iraq but lack of evidence isn't lack of action/intent.
Posted: 16:26 Mar 18 2003 
Not to get entrenched in a pretty useless debate but, no. Not in the slightest, Hitler had pursued an agressive policy of invasion, Poland was the last straw (and no, Iraq is not or cannot pursue an agressive invasion policy since the first gulf war - see Robin Cook's speech yesterday), if you want parallels look to the agressor, i.e. the U.S. and Britain, not the victim of the agression i.e. Iraq.
by Milky
(quotes)
Now the serious bit. When we went to war against Germany was it not on the premise of 'one day', 'Hitler might', 'we can't wait' and ',,,umm, humanitarian something or other'?? Why was it right then but not now?
Tony Blair said himself on a question and answer session that he did not claim to know more than he had released as to the current threat posed by Iraq - so honestly I think your theories fall down a little - we're going to kill hundreds of thousands of civillians and conscripts because a halfwit who dodged his own war draft and his hawkish buddies say we have to because of an illusiory threat that could be applied to almost any 'rogue' nation of which there are many.
I sincerely hope that this flagrant trampling of democracy and all it stands for does not permeate too far into our everyday lives. Already police are using anti-terrorist laws to stop and search legitimate peace protestors all over the country. I in fact believe we are going to the dogs and rapidly, there is much at stake with this war, our own political freedoms as well as the lives of innocents, I cannot express in words or actions or emoticons the incredible extent of my opposition to war and I am in no way a pacifist.
The Israel parallel stands - this war has been claimed legal and moral by the aggressors due to past UN resolutions condemning Iraq. The difference comes in the methods of dealing with Iraq and the methods of dealing with Israel. I'm not saying attack Israel, I'm saying pursue a consistent policy towards these nations. I don't have a magic answer that'll solve all the problems of the middle east - but I know that war is not an answer, not in the circumstances surrounding this proposed atrocity, which incidentaly will shift focus away from Israel and allow Sharon to dump all over the Palestinians yet again in the 'fight against terror'.
I shouldn't be shocked by the pro-war expressions I hear but I truely am, I have seen first hand the B52 Bombers that will reign 'shock and awe' on Iraq, and I'm glad the majority of you will never have to watch these planes bear down on you and drop their 30 ton payloads in the name of your own freedom and democracy when no other avenues were ever really explored.
Clair Short = Uber Judas - I couldn't be more disgusted.
Posted: 16:45 Mar 18 2003 Which flagrant trampling of democracy?
by killer
(quotes)
I sincerely hope that this flagrant trampling of democracy and all it stands for does not permeate too far into our everyday lives.
In Britain we have a Representative Democracy. We elect Politicians and then they act how they belief is right for us, when the next election comes we can get rid of them or keep them. They are not delegates and they do not merely enforce the public will.
Granted it should always be kept in mind, but public opinion cannot dictate Governmental policy because if it did, we'd have mob rule, which is one view of democracy.
I've seen the bombers, they truly are awesome feats of technological development, i'd be in shock if one was dropping a payload over my home... from the way i read your post i gather you mean to say you've witnessed one dropping it's payload, or am i misreading that?
by killer
I shouldn't be shocked by the pro-war expressions I hear but I truely am, I have seen first hand the B52 Bombers that will reign 'shock and awe' on Iraq, and I'm glad the majority of you will never have to watch these planes bear down on you and drop their 30 ton payloads in the name of your own freedom and democracy when no other avenues were ever really explored.
(Edited by Maffrew 18/03/2003 17:24)
Posted: 17:18 Mar 18 2003
by Maffrew
Which flagrant trampling of democracy?
(quotes)
I've seen the bombers, they truly are awesome feats of technological development, i'd be in shock if one was dropping a payload over my home... from the way i read your post i gather you mean to say you've witnessed one dropping it's payload, or am i misreading that?
A deliberate mireading?
Flagrant trampling of democracy because they are using the war on terror to supress legitimate peace movements, legitimate democratic peace movements - trampling over democracy. On the world scale, the UN has not sanctioned war, therefore the action taken by the U.S. and U.K. is clearly ignoring the democratic wishes of the UN.
No Maff I have never seen a B52 dropping its bombs on people, I am glad I never have and I reiterate my gladness that most people will never have to either, as opposed to the people of Iraq - who have and will again it seems.
Posted: 17:29 Mar 18 2003 
by Milky
Now the serious bit. When we went to war against Germany was it not on the premise of 'one day', 'Hitler might', 'we can't wait' and ',,,umm, humanitarian something or other'?? Why was it right then but not now?
We went to war with Germany after they launched an unprovoked act of aggression Poland when Hitler invaded on 1 September 1939, violating treaties between our two countries. There was nothing pre-emptive or hypothetical about the decision. Britain had been appeasing Hitler for most of the decade rather than face him, even going to the lengths of letting him annex Austria and invade Czechoslovakia rather than go to war.
It was only when Hitler launched an unprovoked war of aggression that could not be stopped by any other means that we declared war in self-defence.
I think Simon Schama's position is safe for the immediate future.
"there is no agression from Iraq," <-- I didn't know that you were a member of one of our nation states intelligence services
I'm confused, what are you trying to say here? Matthew Kelly was cleared of any wrongdoing. Are you saying unprovable speculation on the motives of leaders should be grounds for attack?
Why isn't any evidence being released? Perhaps because to release it would compromise the security of other people?? If it was released that Iraq had some kind of bomb which Israel would find offensive, knowing their past recorddon't you think they'd just launch everything and anything at Iraq in an attempt to destroy it? At least America/Britain will [b]try to minimize civilian casualties something that we know Israel doesn't care about.[/b]
To be more specific, the Sharon government doesn't appear to care about casualties; the Israeli peace movement is over a million strong.
I can think of nothing more dangerous to Israel than to launch an invasion of Iraq, because what's stopping Saddam sending his alleged weapons of mass destruction in Israel's direction when he's nothing to loose? And if the concern was Israel being "offended" by Iraqi weapons, the allegations would never have been made by Britain and America in the first place.
There's no realistic chance of Israel launching a pre-emptive strike on Iraq, it'd freeze them out diplomatically from America and alienate every Arab state, and would probably launch a pan-Middle East anti-Israeli war. Sharon my be dense, but he's not that dense.
"Isreal is in defiance of far more UN resolutions than is Iraq" <-- Also very true and also something I'd like to see sorted out. It's also another situation where we were the ones that made the mess
The situation in Israel is tragically complex and it's certainly true this country had a heavy hand in leaving the dangerously unstable situation in it's hurried withdrawal from Palestine in 1948. But it has been a functioning democracy for the past 50 years, so has a lot more responsibility for its actions than Iraq, which has never had genuine democratic rule since we created it. That said, Israel has also been under continued threat of annihilation for its entire existence, so the siege mentality of many of its citizens is at least understandable. You're right a war against Israel would be madness for all sorts of reasons: the election of a decent leader and a fair settlement and guarantee of security for Israelis and Palestinians is the only way forwards.
North Korea is by far the more pressing threat, yet it's being almost entirely ignored in favour of a neutered tyrant. UN inspectors, until they were withdrawn today, were operating in Iraq, and had declared there to be no nuclear programme. North Korea has thrown out all UN inspectors, torn up nuclear non-proliferation treaties and is making increasingly bellicose noises towards South Korea. Yet all US attention is still focussed against the man the Republicans have a long vendetta against; which suggests they really couldn't give a damn about much besides their own perceived interests.
Posted: 17:37 Mar 18 2003 No. As I said Matthew Kelly was a bad example. What I'm, trying to say is that just because there is no evidence aparrant to us doesn't mean that Iraq isn't guilty of what it's being accused of. A lot of the people who are anti-war are saying that because there is no apparant evidence then Iraq can't be guilty yet how many of those same people would have said that Matthew Kelly was a paedophile even though there was no apparant evidence that he was. People aren't using evidence to make their decision but rather lack of evidence and the outward appearance being shown. I hope that makes it clearer what I mean...but I doubt it
by Byron
(quotes)
I'm confused, what are you trying to say here? Matthew Kelly was cleared of any wrongdoing. Are you saying unprovable speculation on the motives of leaders should be grounds for attack?
Posted: 17:43 Mar 18 2003
by Maffrew
And on the Weapons of Mass Destruction, I find it hard to swallow the hypocrisy that the Western World uses in regard to them. He has WoMD, true... so does North Korea. So does Israel, the UK, Pakistan, the USA and god knows how many other countries. So who are the UK and USA to say to Iraq (and North Korea) that they can't have these weapons if we aren't willing to disarm our own? It's a hypocricy that is not likely to end any time soon.
Unquestionably true, but one should not preclude action against the other. Saddam has proved to have a voracious appetite for conflict, and has attacked fellow countries, sometimes using weapons of mass destruction, at every opportunity. It's clear he has no restraints if he thinks he can get away with it.
However despicable the actions US and Britain over the years may be, our attitude towards the weapons we possess is very different. The US has only used nuclear weapons aggressively once, against Japan in 1945, and the UK never has. Both are now signatory to non-proliferation treaties. Even making explicit threats to use weapons of mass destruction pre-emptively is against international law (possessing them is an infuriating grey area), and both countries have also abided by this. There are worrying signs the Bushites may be willing to use them pre-emptively, but at least to date, Saddam's cavalier use is way beyond anything our countries have done.
We're not innocent by any means – the depleted uranium shells we fired in the Gulf War has caused countless deaths from cancer -- and it's unquestionably a messy and unjust situation, but that injustice and hypocrisy alone cannot be used alone as grounds not to interfere in Iraq.
That's why I support UN Resolutions prohibiting Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction (though I don't support the sanctions in their current form). My opposition for the US and British stance is not because I don't think Iraq could be a threat, but because it is not realistically one at the moment, so there is no need I can see for the invasion that's about to be launched.
Posted: 17:55 Mar 18 2003 I appreciate your points despite the questionable example
by Milky
(quotes)
No. As I said Matthew Kelly was a bad example. What I'm, trying to say is that just because there is no evidence aparrant to us doesn't mean that Iraq isn't guilty of what it's being accused of. A lot of the people who are anti-war are saying that because there is no apparant evidence then Iraq can't be guilty yet how many of those same people would have said that Matthew Kelly was a paedophile even though there was no apparant evidence that he was. People aren't using evidence to make their decision but rather lack of evidence and the outward appearance being shown. I hope that makes it clearer what I mean...but I doubt it
but if there's no apparent evidence of wmd can you seriously sanction a war (250,000 Iraqis died in the last one and they plan to drop 10 times the amount of bombs in the first 48 hours of this one). The only thing we have to go on is receipts and evidence, if there is no evidence, how on earth can you say that justifies a war. Of course people base their decisions on lack of evidence, lack of evidence implies innocence.
Posted: 17:55 Mar 18 2003
I think it's best Mr Kelly's name isn't used any more in this thread: since he's legally innocent, even the suggestion of wrongdoing could be considered libel. I'm sure you weren't insinuating anything, but it's best to play it safe with this area of the law. 
Thanks for the clarification, and I do see what you're saying; the lack of evidence doesn't mean that there's nothing there. But how else can we judge a situation but from the hard facts presented to us? You cannot wage war against a country based solely on the possibility and potential they may do something wrong in the future. People are using the evidence available to them to make their descision, the only sensible course of action.
by Milky
[b]No. As I said Matthew Kelly was a bad example. What I'm, trying to say is that just because there is no evidence aparrant to us doesn't mean that Iraq isn't guilty of what it's being accused of. A lot of the people who are anti-war are saying that because there is no apparant evidence then Iraq can't be guilty yet how many of those same people would have said that Matthew Kelly was a paedophile even though there was no apparant evidence that he was. People aren't using evidence to make their decision but rather lack of evidence and the outward appearance being shown. I hope that makes it clearer what I mean...but I doubt it
Posted: 18:02 Mar 18 2003 Yes but the evidence available to the commen person is not the evidence available to Bush and Blair...so if they're making their decision based on the evidence they have available to them then their actions are the only sensible course. And the next argument is why won't they show us that evidence
by Byron
People are using the evidence available to them to make their descision, the only sensible course of action.
. Also I just want to reiterate that I have no strong opinion either way for a war against Iraq. If it doesn't happen I'll be happy, if it happens I just hope that as few people are killed/injured/harmed as possible and that tings turn out okay afterwards. Posted: 21:15 Mar 18 2003 
A sentiment also shared by me.
by Milky
(quotes)
I just want to reiterate that I have no strong opinion either way for a war against Iraq. If it doesn't happen I'll be happy, if it happens I just hope that as few people are killed/injured/harmed as possible and that tings turn out okay afterwards.
Posted: 23:25 Mar 18 2003
Stoo - Sorry about the paranoia. 
Just seemed like Byron had posted a well thought out piece on a highly charged issue, and all the replies were jokes. Hence my reaction.
Demona - Instead of finding reasons why we weren't helping other nations which clearly wanted liberation, I would argue we should in fact help them in liberation, as long as we can show we would be liberating a majority - rather than imposing a minority on the rest. And where we could do so without placing ourselves at serious risk. However, I don't think either can be said of the Iraq situation right now.
Israel and Iraq. I have to disagree with both Byron and Milky. While Israel has a partial democracy (no one in the occupied territories has a vote in the Israel government, and the electoral format they have is highly dubious - as well as the state being essentially theocratic) it is a greater threat to world peace than Iraq. I would even argue that the crimes of Sheron in particular, but also of many of his predecessors, is far worse than that of Saddam Hussein. Show me the Iraqi tanks blowing up Iraqi citizens and their homes. Show me their nuclear arsenal. Show me the same number of dead Iraqi's as there are Palestinians, then I will take your comments seriously.
Further, this isn't just a case of 'Don't attack Iraq because Israel is worse'. The consequences of attacking Iraq while Israel not only goes unhindered but supported and aided by the west, and particularly the USA, are very serious. The whole of the middle-east, as well as Muslims all over the world are sick of the double standards the west apply to Israel and the rest of the region. If we invade Iraq and do nothing about Israel we are lighting a fuse that will blow up in our face. You want to see terrorism? You want to see a holy war? Then follow the path of Bush and Blair. This isn't just a case of gross injustice. This is a case of mass suicide. We have abused the people of the middle-east for roughly a millennium. How much more do you think they will take?
Evidence. In theory, we all live in a liberal democracy. One of its central tenets is 'Innocent until proven guilty'. Its there to protect all of us from being blamed and/or attacked for actions we have not committed because someone else says we have. If neither the Bush nor Blair administrations can present evidence for their claims, then we should not support them. Proving it after the fact is too late and open to abuse. Just because we trust them (and why anyone would trust either of them I cannot understand) does not mean they are telling the truth. We need prove. The UN needs prove. None has been presented. Worse still, downright lies have been presented. The evidence we have seen so far gives us reason to doubt our leaders, not Saddam Hussein.
Milky, I think I understand your point, and it seems to be one that suggest some people are being hypocrites - acting without evidence in some places, and not others. While I won't comment on your particular argument, as per Byron's request, I will say that your point, if true, only means that we should apply the rule of law (that Innocent until proven thing) in all areas, not just here. It does not detract from the case against war.
And this is clearly far too long, yet I want to answer so many other points. However, I'll just finish on Clair Short. I find it hard to believe her decision is based on a desire to help her career. If it is then it is a big mistake. Right now, those on the left, and others who admire her, are disappointed in her and questioning their evaluation of her. And those to the right of the party have never and will never accept her as one of her own. She has no future in the Labour party. I would be surprised if she was still in the government, a year from now. I don't know why she's made the decision she has, but I am greatly disappointed in her. And am surprised to find myself instead admiring the behaviour of Robin Cook. Truly a sad state of affairs.
Just seemed like Byron had posted a well thought out piece on a highly charged issue, and all the replies were jokes. Hence my reaction.Demona - Instead of finding reasons why we weren't helping other nations which clearly wanted liberation, I would argue we should in fact help them in liberation, as long as we can show we would be liberating a majority - rather than imposing a minority on the rest. And where we could do so without placing ourselves at serious risk. However, I don't think either can be said of the Iraq situation right now.
Israel and Iraq. I have to disagree with both Byron and Milky. While Israel has a partial democracy (no one in the occupied territories has a vote in the Israel government, and the electoral format they have is highly dubious - as well as the state being essentially theocratic) it is a greater threat to world peace than Iraq. I would even argue that the crimes of Sheron in particular, but also of many of his predecessors, is far worse than that of Saddam Hussein. Show me the Iraqi tanks blowing up Iraqi citizens and their homes. Show me their nuclear arsenal. Show me the same number of dead Iraqi's as there are Palestinians, then I will take your comments seriously.
Further, this isn't just a case of 'Don't attack Iraq because Israel is worse'. The consequences of attacking Iraq while Israel not only goes unhindered but supported and aided by the west, and particularly the USA, are very serious. The whole of the middle-east, as well as Muslims all over the world are sick of the double standards the west apply to Israel and the rest of the region. If we invade Iraq and do nothing about Israel we are lighting a fuse that will blow up in our face. You want to see terrorism? You want to see a holy war? Then follow the path of Bush and Blair. This isn't just a case of gross injustice. This is a case of mass suicide. We have abused the people of the middle-east for roughly a millennium. How much more do you think they will take?
Evidence. In theory, we all live in a liberal democracy. One of its central tenets is 'Innocent until proven guilty'. Its there to protect all of us from being blamed and/or attacked for actions we have not committed because someone else says we have. If neither the Bush nor Blair administrations can present evidence for their claims, then we should not support them. Proving it after the fact is too late and open to abuse. Just because we trust them (and why anyone would trust either of them I cannot understand) does not mean they are telling the truth. We need prove. The UN needs prove. None has been presented. Worse still, downright lies have been presented. The evidence we have seen so far gives us reason to doubt our leaders, not Saddam Hussein.
Milky, I think I understand your point, and it seems to be one that suggest some people are being hypocrites - acting without evidence in some places, and not others. While I won't comment on your particular argument, as per Byron's request, I will say that your point, if true, only means that we should apply the rule of law (that Innocent until proven thing) in all areas, not just here. It does not detract from the case against war.
And this is clearly far too long, yet I want to answer so many other points. However, I'll just finish on Clair Short. I find it hard to believe her decision is based on a desire to help her career. If it is then it is a big mistake. Right now, those on the left, and others who admire her, are disappointed in her and questioning their evaluation of her. And those to the right of the party have never and will never accept her as one of her own. She has no future in the Labour party. I would be surprised if she was still in the government, a year from now. I don't know why she's made the decision she has, but I am greatly disappointed in her. And am surprised to find myself instead admiring the behaviour of Robin Cook. Truly a sad state of affairs.
Posted: 00:14 Mar 19 2003 
No problems, I was going to do the serious bits a bit sooner, but I lost the will to stay awake after listening to dubya's speech last night lol
by Jayjay
Stoo - Sorry about the paranoia.
Posted: 00:43 Mar 19 2003
At first I thought I understood why Tony Blair was following Bush's lead - a case of better the devil you know, and he could do more good by sticking close by and tempering Bush's actions with proper reasoned thought.
But now? I haven't a clue why, it's like he's not telling us the whole story, like there is some real big reason why he's about ready to commit political suicide.
I think America and the UK have enough problems on their own soil without stirring up more trouble abroad.
I also hate the way America seems to think it literally has a god given right to appoint itself as the global police force.
The only correct way to tackle the wrongs in the world is proper international diplomacy.. Oh, hang on, isn't that what the UN was for? Doh!
But now? I haven't a clue why, it's like he's not telling us the whole story, like there is some real big reason why he's about ready to commit political suicide.
I think America and the UK have enough problems on their own soil without stirring up more trouble abroad.
I also hate the way America seems to think it literally has a god given right to appoint itself as the global police force.
The only correct way to tackle the wrongs in the world is proper international diplomacy.. Oh, hang on, isn't that what the UN was for? Doh!
Posted: 01:01 Mar 19 2003 As already noted in this thread, Saddam Hussain used poison gas to murder 5,000 Kurds in Halabja in 1988. When he came to power, he had all dissidents removed from the Iraqi parliament and shot. He massacred thousands of Shias and Marsh Arabs who rebelled in 1991. Dissidents are routinely tortured to death and their families executed. In his most recent "election", you had a choice of voting for Saddam, or having your family killed and your house torched. He's not got a nuclear arsenal, but not for any want of trying: he was well on his way until 1991, and he very likely still has stocks of VX nerve gas and Anthrax, and he's used both. The Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88 saw half a million Iraqi conscripts die. The Gulf War that resulted from Saddam's invasion of Kuwait saw between 100,000 and 200,000 Iraqi conscripts die (there's still no firm figure). It's estimated by the UN that over 1 million Iraqis have died as a result of sanctions, while Saddam used the resources that could have saved them on trying to develop and accrue more weapons.
by Jayjay
Israel and Iraq. I have to disagree with both Byron and Milky. While Israel has a partial democracy (no one in the occupied territories has a vote in the Israel government, and the electoral format they have is highly dubious - as well as the state being essentially theocratic) it is a greater threat to world peace than Iraq. I would even argue that the crimes of Sheron in particular, but also of many of his predecessors, is far worse than that of Saddam Hussein. Show me the Iraqi tanks blowing up Iraqi citizens and their homes. Show me their nuclear arsenal. Show me the same number of dead Iraqi's as there are Palestinians, then I will take your comments seriously.
There's no certain figures, but that's around 2 million dead all told.
Since the Intifada began in 2000, over 600 Israelis and over 2000 Palestinians have died.
You could trace Ariel Sharon's career back and see how the numbers add up, but I think it's manifestly clear that Saddam's crimes easily equal anything various Israeli leaders have done over the years.
Posted: 01:50 Mar 19 2003
And the number of Palestinians killed and homes destroyed when Israel was first born, covered in blood? Or the various wars not only to keep Israel in existance but also to expand? Or how about Israel's (under the command of Sheron at the time) actions in Lebanon? Or the actions Mossad, possibly the most feared organization in the world?
Yes, Saddam has killed and tortured his way through life. He is not a man to sympathise with or admire. But let's not play down the damage done by Israel. In lives destroyed, homes levelled, human rights ignored and that no other single factor has destabilised the region more.
Yes, Saddam has killed and tortured his way through life. He is not a man to sympathise with or admire. But let's not play down the damage done by Israel. In lives destroyed, homes levelled, human rights ignored and that no other single factor has destabilised the region more.
Posted: 03:17 Mar 19 2003
I think that kind of historical point-scoring is somewhat dubious. Not least because, of course, Britain would be top of the list for forcible disarmament if you want to take it far enough..
From your post, Jayjay, I gather you disagree with the creation of the Israeli state in the first place. I don't really know enough about the history to argue either way, but I will say that, in the aftermath of the second world war, I think the rationale probably seemed pretty convincing.
Anyway, there's an interesting piece which appeared in the Independent a few weeks ago about any 'connections' between Iraq and Israel here.
From your post, Jayjay, I gather you disagree with the creation of the Israeli state in the first place. I don't really know enough about the history to argue either way, but I will say that, in the aftermath of the second world war, I think the rationale probably seemed pretty convincing.
Anyway, there's an interesting piece which appeared in the Independent a few weeks ago about any 'connections' between Iraq and Israel here.
Posted: 11:28 Mar 19 2003
Yes, I think the establishment of an Israeli state was a mistake. The idea predated the holocaust, as did the UK's involvement. It was formed on the Zionist belief that the area of the middle-east was their's by the will of god, and that the best way to deal with the bigotry Jews face on a day-to-day basis was to establish a nation where they formed the majority. I believe both views are fundamentally flawed.
But that isn't the issue now. Israel exists and to force Israeli's to leave their homes would be as wrong as the act of forcing Palestinians to leave their homes when Israel was formed. Finding peaceful co-existance is the challenge ahead.
Further, the issue this thread is about is the war against Iraq. I only mentioned Israel as the refusal of the west to tackle the evils being committed by that nation, while happy to tackle Iraq, will only push the region over the edge in its disgust and hatred for us. It is madness to even consider dealing with the issue of Iraq before there is some semblence of peace and justice in the occupied terroritories.
Plus one last thought. You mentioned (presumably lightly
) Britain being forced to disarm. I personally can see no logical or moral argument for why Iraq should be forced to disarm (if they have anything to disarm) than there is for the UK, US, Russia, France, India, Pakistan, or North Korea. Why are we allowed to have (and use, as we have many times) these weapons, yet Iraq is not. The whole WPM argument seems even more barling than the empty promises of democracy and liberation for the people of Iraq. All we have ever done is bring them misery, and Blair and Bush seem set on adding more misery to the list.
But that isn't the issue now. Israel exists and to force Israeli's to leave their homes would be as wrong as the act of forcing Palestinians to leave their homes when Israel was formed. Finding peaceful co-existance is the challenge ahead.
Further, the issue this thread is about is the war against Iraq. I only mentioned Israel as the refusal of the west to tackle the evils being committed by that nation, while happy to tackle Iraq, will only push the region over the edge in its disgust and hatred for us. It is madness to even consider dealing with the issue of Iraq before there is some semblence of peace and justice in the occupied terroritories.
Plus one last thought. You mentioned (presumably lightly
) Britain being forced to disarm. I personally can see no logical or moral argument for why Iraq should be forced to disarm (if they have anything to disarm) than there is for the UK, US, Russia, France, India, Pakistan, or North Korea. Why are we allowed to have (and use, as we have many times) these weapons, yet Iraq is not. The whole WPM argument seems even more barling than the empty promises of democracy and liberation for the people of Iraq. All we have ever done is bring them misery, and Blair and Bush seem set on adding more misery to the list.
Posted: 18:58 Mar 19 2003