---

by Bruce
“3 Ministers resign” makes a better story than “88 ministers don’t”.

---

Well, of course it does. It's unusual, and it's news. Ministers following the party line, even when privately they disagree, is neither of those things - it happens every day.

Those who have resigned have effectively ruined their careers. That they are willing to do this over a matter of principle deserves attention.

Of course, some might say that Tony Blair is ruining his career too...

---

by Jayjay
The only way troops will be removed is if public opinion is strong enough that politicians fear for their jobs. In fact, it would take a bit of a 'regime change' here in the west, which would be easier for us than the USA. Bush and Blair have staked too much in this war to pull out.[/b]

---

It's just about feasible for Blair to be removed, but only if the situation in Iraq becomes so disasterous his parliamentary support melts away. But Bush is all but invulnverable until 2004 -- the only way to remove him would be to impeach him, which would be in the realms of fantasy with the current US political situation.

So we come to whether their minds can be changed: both have already shown they can face overwhelming oppisition and weather it. Bush appears to be under the missaprehension that he's on a holy crusade, and with the entire Republican cabal that props him up being rabidly pro-war and to hell with the consequnces, I think there's precisely zero chance Bush will withdraw troops.

---

If this happens it would be a victory for democracy. IT would show to the people of the middle-east and muslims everywhere that the people of the west are not their enemies, just those who have led us. It won't completely undo the damage done, but it will abate it.

---

If only I could believe things worked like that. But I can see this being a dream recruting tool for fundamentalists of all colours -- and since we'll still have to remain in the Gulf to contain President Saddam, there's no reason to think the resentment will be in any way abated.

---

And the same goes for the UN. When politicians see that the route taken by Bush and Blair leads to the dole queue, being gung ho won't be so popular.

---

This is something that I'm in agreement with, but not at the moment. Let Bush be thrown out in disgrance in 2004, and Blair to be humiliatingly stripped of power by a card vote at a Party conference this Autum. But if Bush especially were to go now, there's nothing to stop someone even worse assuming the presidency: Bush is appaling, but some of the seedy fanatics hanging round in the background make him look positively sane.

---

We can then address the Israel-Palestinian issue, follow the UN route for dealing with Iraq, continue the no fly zones over southern and northern Iraq. Withdrawal wouldn't be a victory for Saddam, it would be a victory for the people of the western democracies.

---

It would, but it would also be painted as a victory for President Saddam, however much truth there may be in that judgement.

In addition, it would give the impression to many Iraqi dissedents that they'd been abandoned by the US and Britain again, making it infinitely harder to get any cooperation from them in the future.

---

It's up to each and every one of us. We can either shrug our shoulders and let the powerful few run us like any other dictatorship, or we can stand up and be counted and demand the democracy our forefathers fought and died for. It's up to us.

---

What efforts need to be focussed on now is Iraq post-conflict. Let's face it, war is simply not going to be stopped, however much either of us wish it (and I certainly wish it). I do not support anything that's happening, but can only make the best of an appaling situation. Which is why I think the Stop the War Coalition should now force some viable promises from Downing Street about Iraq's future, while continuing to condemn the manner in which this war was launched.

Putting all efforts into stopping a war is sadly futile now: I honestly believe the best thing for Iraq would be firm planning for after this madness is over. I may be an idealist at times, but I'm also a realist, however shabby the reality of a situation my be.

Regime change in the UK...

Interesting idea. The Conservatives say they would have done the same thing as the Government leading to the conclusion that to achieve a fundamental shift in policy, you are essentially talking about either getting the Liberal Democrats into power or fracturing the Labour party and hiving off the true left wingers from the rest, creating an ideological party that would be completely unelectable.

The Labour Party is not about to dump Blair. He is the most successful Labour leader of modern times, still represents their strongest electoral asset, and large proportions of the party are loyal to him and to his politics.

To repeat an earlier point, more than half of Labour MPs voted in favour of military action.

Bear in mind that there is a distinct possibility that things could go in Blair's favour should the conflict be resolved swiftly and evidence uncovered of Saddam's weaponry.

The anti-war protestors may feel disenfranchised because their opinions are not reflected by the governing party on this issue, just as the countryside alliance feels disenfranchised. What is interesting is that the Countryside alliance doesn't extrapolate its marginalised views onto the rest of the population whereas the anti-war protestors do.

That does not mean the country at large is baying for a change of leadership, it is not.

Depends on your definition of success...

And no, the country isn't baying for Blair's removal. I never claimed that. But every poll I've seen shows the majority of the country is opposed to this war, in the manner it has been brought about. That isn't a disenfranchised minority extrapolating its views onto everyone else.

Swapping a Tory for a Tory, no that would make no change. And under the current circumstances, the change I envisioned was Tony Blair's removal as leader of the Labour Party, and therefore Prime Minister. It would not require a split of the party, and it is not as simple as left=anti-war, right=pro-war. And politicians are pragmatic souls. Nothing can change their vote more than the threat of losing their seat. If enough Labour MPs feel they have a choice between supporting Blair or keeping their job, then we might see an end to his premiership. And only we can make them fear for their jobs. It's our choice.

As for the voting numbers. It was a vote under a three line whip, with rebels left in no doubt of their future in the party for opposing the government. IF you really think that constitutes a free vote, and therefore the genuine opnion of the PLP, then you're more niave than you sound.

There has been widespread anti-war sentiment in the run up to every major conflict of the last 100 years.

Most people default to a 'War is bad' position because morally it is much more simple and easy to grasp.

Unless you are resisting an immediate direct threat, war is inevitably a utalitarian decision.

As with all conflict, the rightness of this action will be assessed after the event.

Describing Tony Blair as a Tory is cheap and easy rhetoric, just like dismissing Bush as a buffoon.

Finally, truly free votes are something of a rarity and would run the risk of fatally compromising the ability of the government to govern. As a backbencher, particularly one with no ambition for government, moral grandstanding is always an option. For those in the cabinet, and leading the cabinet, hard pragmatic decisions are what is required and they are what has been made.

---

by Jayjay
But every poll I've seen shows the majority of the country is opposed to this war

---

And since when have 'polls' ever been accurate?

As for the constant moaning about Blair. What this country has right now is a true Leader. A leader who was elected through our version of democracy. While I do think that Blair should perhaps be paying a little more attention to what is a *popular* view in this country - I do not think that a majority of this country is as anti-war as many people think. What if this was a different issue. would you be happy if our *leader* bowed down to public pressure just because a few newspapers said that it was what teh country wanted and because 2 million people out of 50 million (a very approximate figure I know) were pursuaded to march.

If it were possible for a true opinion poll to be done then you would probably find that the MAJORITY of the country is in the "I don't know" camp. Which is actually wher I stand on this.

There are blatent lies being told on both sides of this - unfortunately it seems that the anti-war lies are easier to swallow than the pro-war lies.

And anyone who thinks that any change in leadership in this country would make a difference is sadly deluded. Thatcher cementeted the special relationship the US and UK governments have and even if by some bizarre turn of fate Charles Kennedy had wound upleader at this point we would still be just as deeply involved.


And don't try and use alledged police brutality as an excuse for the behavior of some protesters - it doesn't wash. If someone is a true pacifist they wouldn't react in that way anyhow - and the example I'm talking about was a simple police line up in front of whitehall (something along the lines of national security and all that) - no attempts to move protesters into a small space or do anything to them at all. The bottles and rocks thrown were thrown because someone felt like it. No more. No less.

(Edited by Sydney 22/03/2003 00:16)

I'm glad Sydney has posted what she has because it reflects my own thoughts on what is going on and, I feel, like she says, probably the views of a lot of people in this country. In other words, most people are torn between both sides of the argument and it is not as cut and dried as some would make you think.

As most of you know, I am not here to get involved in political arguments as I am here to 'referee' these threads. But I do feel I have to at least post something and then step back.

Like Syd has said, thuis is a time for a true leader. And sometimes that means making the tough decision. I know I'd rather have Blair in charge right now than Charles Kennedy. So, let's get this war over with as soon as possible with the least number of casualties and get the soldires back to their families.

As far as the protesters are concerned? Yes, they have a right to protest, but the violence shown in Brighton sickens me. It seems to me that the war is just an excuse for a minority of anarchists to wreak havoc where they see fit and damn the consequences. They don't speak for the genuine anti-war voice, only for themselves.

Anyway, that's my tuppence worth.

---

by Bruce
There has been widespread anti-war sentiment in the run up to every major conflict of the last 100 years.

---

Which means.. what, exactly? That all anti-war sentiment should be ignored? That we'll all come around eventually, we just need to place our trust in Tony?

---

Most people default to a 'War is bad' position because morally it is much more simple and easy to grasp.

---

Or how about because - War. Is. Bad. Sometime necessary, yes, but wholly undesirable, a last resort, and to be avoided if at all possible. It should be the default position of any sane person.

---

As with all conflict, the rightness of this action will be assessed after the event.

---

That would entirely depend on your criteria. Let me be clear about this - I'm in little doubt that Iraq does in fact have proscribed weapons, despite the meagre evidence of this provided prior to the invasion, and that US forces will find them once they've conquered Baghdad. That's not really the point. The point is - does this give Britain and the US the right to pre-emptively attack another country, with (to put it kindly) dubious legal grounds, without the support of the United Nations, before non-military avenues to finding a solution to the alleged problem have been exhausted, without a clear plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, and in an already troubled and volatile area of the world? I think that it doesn't. What happens afterwards is therefore, by my standards, irrelevant in judging the rightness of the action, because the deed has already been done.

Should just add that Turkey 'invading' Kurdish northern Iraq is troubling....

---

by Bruce
55 posts in and no-one has really put a case in favour of forcibly removing Saddam.

Military action in the Gulf at the start of the 90’s was endorsed by the UN (the phrase ‘all necessary means’ being the one that allows military force to be applied).

At the end of the Gulf War, the disarmament of Iraq was a part of the conditional ceasefire. This was supposed to have happened within weeks.

After years of inspections, during which time Saddam obfuscated, dodged, delayed and in any way possible avoided complying with the terms of the ceasefire and the further resolutions passed by the UN, he threw the inspectors out.[/b]

---

Actually, the inspectors were withdrawn by the UN because the US declared it was about to launch airstrikes. President Saddam never threw the inspectors out, but that blatent falsehood has been peddled by our politicians ever since.

---

At that point in time, the inspectors had identified sizeable stockpiles of biological and chemical weaponry plus smaller numbers of medium range missiles.

Resolution 1441, passed unanimously by the UN security council deemed Iraq to be in material breach of all UN Resolutions since the Gulf War including the conditional ceasefire agreement and required immediate disarmament under penalty of ‘serious consequences’.

---

The phrase "serious consequences" is a new one in UN lexicon, a compromise for the US, and the Resolution was passed on the understanding that the Security Council would return to declare Iraqi in "material breach" of 1441. Yet the US unilaterally decided Iraq breached it, and did not bother to put it before the council.

Inspectors estimated that between 1991 and 1998, 90 per cent of Iraq's chemical weapons capacity was destroyed, and have declared Iraqi is not only free of nuclear weapons, but that it's nowhere close to developing them.

President Saddam's regime has coluded, conspired and decieved inspectors at every opportunity: no one would pretend otherwise. But real progress was being made this time, with al-Salmud missiles being destroyed on demeand and no impediments to the inspectors' actions. There is no reason I could see why Hanx Blix could not be allowed to continue his job until he declared either Iraqi was disarmed, or he could do no more. He himself said he could finish his job, with proper cooperation, within months. But this was never allowed to be put to the test.

---

Whilst a second resolution would have been politically expedient, Byron’s contention that the action breaches international law is certainly not as cut and dried as he might suggest.

---

Kofi Annan has already said it is not in accordance with the UN Charter, but you're right, it's not cut and dried. Nothing is with international law, a vague and ambigous beast at the best of times.

However, going by president, an unprovoked (meaning direct attack to a country or their allies) pre-emptive invasion of another soverign country, however vile the regime, would certainly go against the grain of all understood norms of international law. That the Attorney General had to go to the lengths of saying UN Resolutions against Iraq from 1991 still stand to provide legal backing just goes to show how much of a reach providing legal cover for this war is.

---

The obvious question is ‘Why now?’ after 12 years. There is certainly some strength in the argument of the French and indeed of Hans Blix that inspections should be given more time.

Iraq’s statement to the UN in response to resolution 1441 stated that it had no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Iraq’s contention is that, despite having spent 8 years obstructing inspectors, once they had left Iraq voluntarily destroyed all its weapons but kept no records of this process. It would be nice if the anti-war protesters in the West were as willing to subject Saddam to scepticism as they are Bush and Blair.

---

Many of those protestors were condemning Saddam while the UK and US governments were happily providing him with the arsenal they've now gone to war over. It's Bush and Blair's condemnation that's more suspect, a suddenly found epithany with ever changing reasoning.

The anti-war protesters have been focussing on Bush and Blair because that's the matter in hand: they're well aware of Saddam's crimes, and those I've talked to take every opportunity to condemn him. But he's a murderous tyrant who took power in a coup, they're democratic leaders (well, Blair is ) who we expect a damn sight more of.

There's certainly been gaffes on the anti-war side, such as Tony Benn's cringeworthy sycopthantic "interview" with President Saddam, but on the whole the cause has been focussing squarely on the task at hand. They've not disputed President Saddam's vileness, just how it should be dealt with.

---

Blix has himself stated that it is not the job of the inspectors to catch Iraq out. Rather, it is the responsibility of Iraq to voluntarily disarm. The only times when Iraq has made any movement in that direction is under the direct threat of US force. Time and again, they have done the bare minimum to avoid reprisal after delaying for the maximum amount of time. He also agrees that Iraq has not complied with any of the UN resolutions.

There is no indication that this strategy is likely to change.

---

It was already changing, with demonstrable results of destroyed missiles and unrestricted acess. Hanx Blix has said "significant disarmerment" was taking place before he was pulled out. Not ideal, but certainly better than war. If Washington had played this half-competently, they wouldn't be in the mess they currently are. 1441 could have been passed, and if President Saddam then failed to cooperate, another resolution could have been sought and proper authority and a clear plan for any force put into place. None of that happened.

---

So ‘Why now?’ America’s view of the rest of the world has changed. It feels vulnerable to attack by terrorists now where before it did not. America is not used to feeling threatened and the US government sees its responsibility first and foremost not as the defence of the world but as the defence of the American people. It makes them deeply nervous to think about an openly aggressive and anti-American leader (no not Chirac, the other one) controlling the kind of substances (biological agents, Anthrax etc) which in the hands of terrorists could be used to devastating effect on the US Mainland.

---

Who would have thought the immense feelings of sympathy and empthaty America acheived in the wake of 11 September would have evaporated so quickly? Of course the Americans are afraid, and rightly so: but that simply does not give Washington the right to manipulate that fear for its own dubious ends. 11 September just isn't an excuse for attacking pre-emptively anybody who may pose a threat in the future.

If anything, Bush's war will act as a dream recruiting sergeant to fundamentalist organisations. This madness isn't going to make any country, least of all America, safer. Police work and inteligence are the key, not boming indescriminately to sate the adminstrations wrath.

Over 3,000 Afghans are thought to have died in Amercia's bombing in 2001: the same number who died in the twin towers. How is this brutal cycle of vengeance and hatred in any way a fitting epitaph to those who died that day? Who is it helping?

---

This is the perceived threat, not a long range attack by Iraq directly.

---

If perceptions could justify wars, an awful lot of countries should start worrying!

---

There is also an expediency issue. Iraq has only, and grudgingly, complied at all with the UN because of the imminent threat of action by a US army assembled near its border at great expense. The army cannot sit there indefinitely, there is a window for practical action and Saddam knows it. Once the threat of attack dissipates, so will Iraq’s willingness to play the disarmament game sending all parties back to square one.

---

A few months was all anyone was talking about -- that wasn't going to work politically for Geroge Bush with a 2004 re-election (sorry, election) coming up. March was when he wanted to invade, and low and behold, that's exactly what happened. All the talk of "indefinite delays" was manufatured as justification, but the truth is we just don't know, because we were never allowed to find out.

---

A second UN resolution would have been the equivalent of taking aim. It would have made real the threat in the clearest terms and given one last chance for Iraq to avoid invasion. The French promise to use the veto ‘no matter what’ a second resolution said made this last attempt to merely threaten force impossible and hastened the start of hostilities. The suggestion in some quarters that Chirac is a possible Nobel Peace Prize winner is laughable. The French and Russians have oil interests in Iraq too, only theirs are dependent on Saddam staying in power. The French position is the one that has ultimately damaged both the UN and Nato by refusing to accept the logic of UN resolutions and forcing America away from the table.

---

The French stand to loose far more from angering America than they do from oil interests in Iraq.

President Chirac never threatened to use the veto "no matter what", that is a flagrant lie put about by Blair and Bush. He said he would veto, at this time, a Resolution that was an automatic trigger for war because he didn't consider the inspectors' task to be finished. France has used its veto 18 times compared to America's 77, and America has the habit of vetoing anything whatsoever to do with condemning Israel it can get away with. Most recently, it vetoed a resolution condemning the Israeli Defence Force's shooting of an aid worker, which strikes me as an awful lot more "unreasonable" than anything France has done!

As for motivation, it's very complex from what I can see. Chirac is an adherent to the De Gaulest vision of a stong France, and has overwhelming public opposition to war to contend with. Just as it's a lazy attack to say Bush wants Iraq just for the oil (though it's undoubtedly a huge motivator on all sides), so it is to level the same accusation at M. Chirac.

---

In the starkest terms, Saddam Hussein is a menace, to his people, his neighbours and potentially to the rest of the world. He has driven his population into poverty and ruled through torture and murder. As has already been pointed out, his decisions have led to the deaths of millions of people.

The moral argument for removing him from power is indisputable. No-one can reasonably argue that the Iraqi people will be worse off than they are under Saddam. No matter how cynical you may be about the personal motives of our leaders, the moral case is sound.

---

You can say exactly the same about numerous regimes around the world, but we're not about to invade China and North Korea, are we? President Saddam may want to pose a threat to the world, but he patently doesn't have the means, and niether is he stupid enough to launch another regional invasion with the US breathing down his throat. He was effectively contained, and the invasion has made regional instability far more likely than the status quo. An internal rebellion would have been the best option, but since Washington wouldn't have had the control it wanted, that was never going to happen.

The moral case for removing President Saddam is sound, unquestionably so. But the method by which Bush has gone about it -- abandoning the UN when it suited him and launching a pre-emptive strike -- is not. It muddies the waters by using how evil Saddam is as justification for Bush's actions: I can accept everything you say about the old despot and still be vehmently opposed to Bush's arrogant, dangerous unilateral actions.

---

More than that, after 12 years of threatening much and achieving nothing, a statement is being made to other nations that there is a penalty to be paid. If tyrants stop for thought before pursuing ever more deadly arsenals, the world becomes a safer place.

---

A statement is also made that if you don't have nukes yet, like Iraq, you're fair game, but if you do, like North Korea (easily as bad as the Ba'ath regime, and which has torn up non-proliferation treaties and kicked out UN inspectors) you're safe. And if you're a superpower, you're free to disregard the UN when it suits you, and need be answerable to no one.

---

The complication comes in the potential deaths caused by military action. Bush and Blair understand that this war will be scrutinised unlike any other. The anti-war movement has succeeded in ensuring that the politics of the situation demand minimum Iraqi casualties as well as minimum western casualties. The technology of the US army allows this to become a strategic, achievable objective.

---

However advanced the technology may be, it can and will go wrong, and as the 3,000 dead in Afganhistahn show, there's every probablilty it will. And there's brutal, old fashioned ground fighting to be done, however sophisticated America's weaponry may be. Not only is the death toll likely to be high, there's a very real posiblity of the region being thrown into chaous: already, Turkey has said it's about to invade northern Iraq to supress the Kurds from declaring an independent Kurdistan. Yes, Iraq's previou situation was appaling, but there's nothing to say it's new one will be any better.

---

The argument that other regimes are just as bad is irrelevant. Righting one wrong is not made any less morally defensible by the failure to right others. In any case it is disputable that there is any more morally culpable regime capable of being tackled in this manner at the moment.

---

Just because you cannot arrest one man for murder doesn't mean you absolve another, true. But America has to be seen to act consistently and in accordance with international laws and the UN Charter. At the moment, Bush is acting like the Texan cowboy of caricature, and what could be more effective in stirring up hatred against the US than presenting it as a gung-ho, capricious monster?

---

I cannot understand the claims of anti-democratic behaviour. Anyone who listened to the recent debates in the House of Commons will know that all opinions were reflected. Ultimately, two thirds of MPs voted in favour of military action. Over half the ruling party voted for it. Of 91 government members, only three have resigned despite the traditional stance of the Labour party.

---

And there was one of the most vigorously enforced three-line whips in history in effect: there was in no sense a free vote. That 139 Labour MPs did rebel is testement to the strength of anti-war feeling. However, I agree going through Parliament did confer at least some legitimacy that was previous lacking; I just disagree it's quite the democratic open-and-shut that certain commentators are making out.

---

It is also worth reflecting that those who support military action do not have to take to the streets in order to get their opinions reflected, and those who do not have been able to. I see no evidence to suggest that position has been suppressed. If anything, the press has been determined to give it greater weight than it merited. “3 Ministers resign” makes a better story than “88 ministers don’t”.

---

The Sun, The Express, the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Times are all pro-war. As, shockingly, is The Observer.

The Independent, The Daily Mirror and The Guardian are anti. The two broadsheets' circulation together is around 600,000, compared to the 3 and a half million Sun readers alone. The protests have been reported, but their arguments have not been given either accurate representation or the weight of representation as the pro-war arguments. The blatent lie about Chirac's comments is just one example of the misrepresentation in the press.

---

Finally, it is worth pointing out that Britain’s support of the US has bought some concessions that would otherwise not have been forthcoming, namely the explicit involvement of the UN in the reconstruction of Iraq, the safeguarding of Iraqi assets for the Iraqi people and the endorsement by Bush of a two party solution in Israel.

---

Britain's support has wrung concessions, but that has to be measured against making this country complicit in a pre-emptive war that sets all sorts of terrible presidents.

Overall, I don't think we come out of the deal at all well.

Quite mind-boggling. Just come across a song by Clint Black, a US country & western singer, entitled "Iraq & I Roll" with stunning lines about how smart bombs find dumb people too (ie anyone siding with Saddam Hussein) and how the US Army is taking out the trash.

Absolutely astounding!

---

by Bruce
The obvious question is ‘Why now?’ after 12 years. There is certainly some strength in the argument of the French and indeed of Hans Blix that inspections should be given more time.

The moral argument for removing him from power is indisputable. No-one can reasonably argue that the Iraqi people will be worse off than they are under Saddam. No matter how cynical you may be about the personal motives of our leaders, the moral case is sound.

---

The question in the first paragraph can as easily be applied to the second paragraph, or to be even more precise, 'Why highlight the 'plight of the Iraqi people now?' (when for 35 years, it was more convenient for the US government to turn a blind eye, even to the extent of accusing the Iranians of using gas first near Halabja in '83, and the only voices raised for the Iraqis and the Kurds were those of the protesters who are now accused of giving Saddam solace).

I would have been happier to see human rights inspectors sent in to Iraq years ago, which would, IMO, have seriously hampered Saddam's ability to terrorise his people and led to his downfall but, barring the occasional soundbite, 'Coalition' officials don't like to dwell on the humanitarian issue, because people would be asking 'Why now and not before?' Admitting just how unimportant the travails of the Iraqis were in the scheme of things, as against aiding Saddam in his war against Revolutionary Iran, is not an option, clearly.

More weirdness: the Gulf War drinking game at http://www.gulfwardrinkinggame.com/. Highlights include
- an American is shot, x2 if its by an enemy
- any coalition representative mentions securing oil fields
x2 if immediatly followed by "for the benefit of the iraqi people"

and...

- Somebody says "between Iraq and a hard place"

---

by The_Host
barring the occasional soundbite, 'Coalition' officials don't like to dwell on the humanitarian issue, because people would be asking 'Why now and not before?'

---

And let's face it, any country commiting the acts that are currently occuring in Guantanamo Bay really doesn't want to use the phrase 'human rights' too often...

OK, seems I have to clear a few things up.

I in no way wished to defend anyone using violence on a peace march. My comments basically amounted to this - I have seen the institutionalised violence of the British Police force towards peaceful protestors - I have fled from a march fearing my safety for that very reason - And I have seen the British Press report the exact opposite. As such I will take any reports of violence with a pinch of salt. If someone was at the march and told me they saw unprovoken violence by a protestor then I will believe them. I know better than to trust the police or the press on this issue.

Also, you do not have to be a pacifist to oppose this war. I believe their is such a thing as a just war. I supported NATO actions in Kosova and Serbia. I felt we were too late intervening in Bosnia. Unlike most on the left I even think the Falkland's war was just. A pacifist I am not. But I will not support a war that has no legal, moral or sane justification.

As for polls, no they are not an exact science. But I raised the point to counter the accusation of a minority superimposing its views on the majority. We can all sit here until we're blue in the face saying 'I belive this' and 'I believe that'. All conjecture. However I can point to some evidence, imprecise as it is, that would give reason to believe the majority of people in this country don't support this war. If anyone can do the same for 'I don't know' then I will take that position as being more than simply anecdotal.

'Blatant lies being told on both sides'. People have posted on this thread examples of the lies being spread by the pro-war movement, and the evidence that they are lies is easy to find. I haven't seen anyone present anything similar about arguments used by the anti-war camp. Its very easy to make sweeping generalisations about the arguments for and against, and to tar them with the same brush, but it helps if there is evidence to support it. I would love to see some examples of anti-war lies, and the evidence that they are so.

As for my comments on Tony Blair and his allegiances, I stand by them. And will happily present my reasons for doing so. But this is a thread about the war in Iraq, and I don't want to deviate from that. If you want to start a thread up on that, Bruce, I'll happily post on it. By the way, saying something is empty rhetoric without presenting reason nor evidence for why it is is in itself empty rhetoric. And a cheap shot.

I agree that there is a place for the whip system. I also agree that free votes are rare. They are usually saved for the most serious, most morally complex issues, where party point scoring is seen as distasteful and cheapening. An example is votes on capital punishment. Surely the decision to go against the wishes of the UN, NATO, the majority of Iraq's neighbours, and even the major opposition groups in Iraq by invading in the manner we have, and with the goals we have, surely this deserves a free vote? Many anti-war MPs abstained. Is that a reflection of their indecision or fear of going against an authoritarian government?

I'll say this again, for those who've missed it - there is no proven link between Iraq and terrorist organizations. In fact, the hatred between the Iraqi regime and certain well known Fundamentalist Terrorist groups is well known.

We know Iraq does not have the capability to launch an attack outside of its immediate vacinity. Claims that Iraq presents a real threat to nations in Europe and North Americe is just one of the many lies being spread.

The majority of Iraq's neighbours are opposed to this war. Not because they support Saddam Hussein, but because they are all too aware of the destablising effect it is having, while Israel continues to murder on a daily basis.

Finally, the other lie given for initiating this war. The major opposition groups do not support this war. Already the Kurdish fears of a Turkish invasion, occupation, and new tyranny is looking all too real. There has been no uprising in the south because history has taught them how much they can trust the USA and UK. They want rid of Saddam Hussein, but not like this.

So, if the people of Iraq don't want this war, if the majority of the region do not want this war, and there is no evidence of Iraq presenting a terrorist or military threat to the west - why exactly are our troops dying out there?

---

by Jayjay
And let's face it, any country commiting the acts that are currently occuring in Guantanamo Bay really doesn't want to use the phrase 'human rights' too often...

---

Something we can agree on. I was stunned during a recent trip to America to read Alan Dershowitz' defence of state sponsored torture in 'ticking bomb' situations.

---

"As for polls, no they are not an exact science. But I raised the point to counter the accusation of a minority superimposing its views on the majority. We can all sit here until we're blue in the face saying 'I belive this' and 'I believe that'. All conjecture. However I can point to some evidence, imprecise as it is, that would give reason to believe the majority of people in this country don't support this war. If anyone can do the same for 'I don't know' then I will take that position as being more than simply anecdotal."

---

From Reuters today:

"LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Tony Blair has received welcome news as polls suggested the public was rallying behind him now the Iraq war has begun.


Despite nearly a quarter of a million demonstrators marching for peace in the streets of London on Saturday, two opinion surveys showed a majority of Britons now back Blair."

---

"By the way, saying something is empty rhetoric without presenting reason nor evidence for why it is is in itself empty rhetoric. And a cheap shot."

---

In the simplest terms, it was factually incorrect (a Tory is a member of the Conservative party) and intended instead to use Tory as a pejorative term and imply in some manner that Tony Blair was either a hypocrite, a traitor to his party or both. In the manner of all propaganda, it was thrown in as a factual comment rather than laid out in a logical and transparent fashion.

---

"They are usually saved for the most serious, most morally complex issues, where party point scoring is seen as distasteful and cheapening. An example is votes on capital punishment."

---

I would suggest that this *is* a morally complex issue where paltry point scoring is distasteful.

---

"We know Iraq does not have the capability to launch an attack outside of its immediate vacinity. Claims that Iraq presents a real threat to nations in Europe and North Americe is just one of the many lies being spread."

---

Which means you are in luck as long as you are not Kuwait who have now been clearly demonstrated as being within Iraq's firing range.

The threat depends on your assessment of exactly what weapons Iraq possesses and your appraisal of what Saddam Hussein is prepared to do with them. I'm willing to put more faith in the CIA's intelligence than yours (meaning evidence, not wit of course). Then again, I don't have your complete and dogmatic lack of trust or faith in government, police or seemingly any other institutional force in the western world.

---

"The majority of Iraq's neighbours are opposed to this war. Not because they support Saddam Hussein, but because they are all too aware of the destablising effect it is having, while Israel continues to murder on a daily basis."

---

It is true to say that if America also took a firmer line on Israel it would have far less trouble getting vocal support over Iraq from other Arab states. It would be far more accurate to say that Iraq's neighbours are in favour of removing Saddam but only if something is also done about Israel/Palestine which is not the same thing as being opposed on principle to the conflict.

---

"Finally, the other lie given for initiating this war. The major opposition groups do not support this war. Already the Kurdish fears of a Turkish invasion, occupation, and new tyranny is looking all too real. There has been no uprising in the south because history has taught them how much they can trust the USA and UK. They want rid of Saddam Hussein, but not like this."

---

Frankly this is somewhat irrelevant, as is any notion of offical or major opposition inside Iraq. They were happy with the notion of a war until they discovered America did not intend to simply hand over the reins to them in the aftermath.

In any case, whilst opinions on the ground in Iraq are obviously hard to come by, I have yet to hear an Iraqi immigrant who is opposed to the West's actions.

---

"So, if the people of Iraq don't want this war,"

---

The 'major' opposition does not equate to the 'people'.

---

"if the majority of the region do not want this war"

---

They want Hussein gone, they are concerned about Israel and religious extremists.

---

"and there is no evidence of Iraq presenting a terrorist or military threat to the west"

---

Iraq does not pose a direct military threat to the West. How do you intend to prove it poses no Terrorist threat? The Bin Laden argument is admittedly a stupid one which should never have been raised but that does not preclude Iraqi involvement in or sponsorship of terrorist activity.

---

Why exactly are our troops dying out there?

---

A nice emotive conclusion. Soldiers are dying because the Western leaders have concluded the cause is just and necessary. You disagree with them.

Yup. I do. It would be nice if the pro-war supporters could present a logical and moral argument that isn't flawed for why the cause is just and necessary in the context that it is being done.

And I'm sure the polls are starting to swing back to supporting the war. All that emotional black mail, combined with a sense of futility, is bound to get people who oppose the war to accept it. I haven't seen polls showing that the majority in this country support the war, and would be interested if anyone has any links to a poll that showed this to be the case.

I thought my comments on Tony Blair being a Tory were clearly light-hearted. I would be disturbed if anyone read my thread and came away thinking he was the leader of the Conservative Party. Mainly for their own lack of awareness. Yes it was meant pejoratively, however I think I can more than easily prove that his policies and views would be more in tune with a Conservative Voter than a Labour one. But as I said, that isn't the debate at hand, but I'd gladly debate it elsewhere.

---

by Bruce
I would suggest that this *is* a morally complex issue where paltry point scoring is distasteful.

---

Agreed. Hence my belief this should have been a free vote and not an issue for the whips office. I suspect it was the parties fear of out right rebellion that lead to the manner in which the vote was held.

And Iraq has been in no state to launch an attack on Kuwait following the defeat in the last Gulf War. The only reason they are under attack now is that they are providing the main launch site for the invasion. You can't throw rocks and not expect a few to be thrown back at you.

And I would also put more faith in CIA intelligence if they presented any that stood up to investigation. No agency of any government has provided a single thread of evidence that Iraq has either a) links to any terrorist organization b) the technology to launch an attack outside its immediate vicinity. If they did I would reconsider my position. The fact that they instead release the flimsiest of false data and the weakest of propaganda only hardens my resolve against them.

---

by Bruce
Then again, I don't have your complete and dogmatic lack of trust or faith in government, police or seemingly any other institutional force in the western world.

---

Sorry, liked the film but I don't do dogma. I'm a cynic. A skeptic. I believe in examining all data presented. Whoever presents it. If you want to believe everything that comes out of whitehall then that's up to you. But the idea that I accept unflinchingly anything said by those figureheads of the far-left, while denying the legitamacy of all things institutional is more than wide of the mark. As someone who supported Blair until recently, is opposed to nuclear disarmament, believes in 'just wars' including the Falklands and Kosova, and has spent a lot of energy in battle with dogmatic left-wing organizations, I don't think I fit your characature. But nice try.

---

by Bruce
It would be far more accurate to say that Iraq's neighbours are in favour of removing Saddam but only if something is also done about Israel/Palestine which is not the same thing as being opposed on principle to the conflict.

---

Strange. That's exactly what I thought I said. No one is claiming support for Saddam Hussein (a myth put about by the pro-war campaign), either internally or internationally. What is being opposed is the method, and the likely result of the war, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.

---

by Bruce
They were happy with the notion of a war until they discovered America did not intend to simply hand over the reins to them in the aftermath.

---

How awful of them! To not support a war where the Iraqis have no say in their leadership. Could they be anymore selfish?

As for Iraqi immigrants opposing the war, well I have. On such radical news services as the BBC and ITN. Air time given to them is not equivalent to those who support it, but the numbers seem equivalent, from what I can see.

And no, major opposition does not exactly equate with the people. But it is a better signifier of what the majority want than a handful of immigrants. If the people of Iraq really wanted this war, then where are the internal uprisings?

And sense when did you have to prove a negative? It is not for anyone to prove there is no link, just because someone suggested there might be. It is for the hawks to prove the link DOES exist. Without prove it cannot be used to sanction war. Innocent until proven guilty? Basic human rights? Sound familiar?

---

by Jayjay

I thought my comments on Tony Blair being a Tory were clearly light-hearted. I would be disturbed if anyone read my thread and came away thinking he was the leader of the Conservative Party. Mainly for their own lack of awareness. Yes it was meant pejoratively, however I think I can more than easily prove that his policies and views would be more in tune with a Conservative Voter than a Labour one. But as I said, that isn't the debate at hand, but I'd gladly debate it elsewhere.

---

Unless you feel that he in some way tricked the electorate, the point remains a strange one. I'd have thought the name 'New Labour' was something of a clue to a set of values differing from the traditional Labour ones.

---

And I would also put more faith in CIA intelligence if they presented any that stood up to investigation. No agency of any government has provided a single thread of evidence that Iraq has either a) links to any terrorist organization b) the technology to launch an attack outside its immediate vicinity. If they did I would reconsider my position. The fact that they instead release the flimsiest of false data and the weakest of propaganda only hardens my resolve against them.

---

Fair point. The case for war as it has been presented has frequently be muddled and capable of disproof.

---

I'm a cynic. A skeptic.

---

Which? A cynic takes a habitually negative, scornful and distrusting view of the world. I think it was Brian Walden who described it as corrosive.

---

How awful of them! To not support a war where the Iraqis have no say in their leadership. Could they be anymore selfish?

---

I am sure that if America simply intended to hand power to an opposition no more inherently representative of the Iraqi people than Saddam and wash their hands of the situation then you would be equally critical of that.

It may be worth pointing out that Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi Kurd leader believes the allies are coming to liberate Iraq.

---

As for Iraqi immigrants opposing the war, well I have. On such radical news services as the BBC and ITN. Air time given to them is not equivalent to those who support it, but the numbers seem equivalent, from what I can see.

---

I can only take your word for that. I am curious to know how, if airtime is not equivalent, that you can gauge an equality of numbers... but accept there may be Iraqi immigrants who are not in favour of removing the regime they presumably fled.

---

And no, major opposition does not exactly equate with the people. But it is a better signifier of what the majority want than a handful of immigrants. If the people of Iraq really wanted this war, then where are the internal uprisings?

---

Now there is an interesting question. When the people of Iraq depend on centrally controlled depots for food and water, when dissidents are tortured and killed after being disappeared by Saddam's police and when the ruling dictator has an overwhelming military advantage, starting an uprising may not seem like the best idea.

---

Innocent until proven guilty? Basic human rights? Sound familiar?

---

Another interesting point. Saddam does not fit the description 'innocent' as I usually understand it.

To what extent do you consider the motivation for an action to define it's ultimate correctness?

Having said all that, I think there is mileage in the position that the West needs to lead through example rather than insisting that the world do as we say, not as we do. The clearest illustration of this is now in play... America has ignored the Geneva Convention in its treatment of Al Quaeda suspects and their confinement at G-mo Bay. It makes me distinctly uneasy to hear them invoke it so readily the moment that US soldiers are captured.

---

And sense when did you have to prove a negative? It is not for anyone to prove there is no link, just because someone suggested there might be. It is for the hawks to prove the link DOES exist.

---

Iraq was specifically required by the UN to provide the proof that it does not have any weapons capable of mass destruction. It was not, and has never been, the responsibility of the inspectors to find weapons, only to audit Iraq's statement about their armaments.

As I have previously pointed out, Iraq's basic position is that even though it had chemical and biological weapons in 1998 when the inspectors left, it has destroyed all of them away from the prying eyes of the West for presumably altruistic reasons. However, they neglected to document this process. I have no trouble applying skepticism to that idea.

(Edited by Bruce 23/03/2003 19:48)

Okay, despite all the political wrangling going on in this thread at the moment, I'd like to take a moment just to remember the human face of this war. Iraqi civilians are dying daily and they have a long, hard road ahead of them with no clear consensus at the moment as to where the majority of the money to rebuild will come from and who will administrate it. British soldiers as usual are being killed by the Americans and each other when they have no business being in the Gulf, and American soldiers are being ambushed and held as pows. The terrified expressions on their faes makes me feel for them, as do the Al Jazeera pictures of mutilated Iraqis lying in hospital beds with caved in skulls and lost limbs and hope. Is this liberation? Do they want this war? No one can say for sure, I am skeptical that the majority of Iraqi civilians would welcome advancing American 'imperialist' troops as heores, although this of course is an opinion. What is fact is that the international community have not given sanction to this war, despite the tremendous efforts of the world's only superpower to the contrary. As the war progresses I find myself growing more and more depressed about the state of the world and fearful of events to come. I feel in my heart that this will not be the end to U.S. pre-emptive agression and I wonder what's next. I reject the notion that this war can be justified by the outcome, no one can predict the outcome and already resistance is proving much tougher than expected, men and women, are being killed, injured, brutalised and demoralised due to the actions of the governments that are supposed to look out for them and have their best interests at heart. This should never have happened, I'm under no illuions that it will stop now but hope that despite the recent u-turn of much of the media against the anti-war camp, the movement will continue to grow in strength and prove a thorn in the side of those that think war is an acceptable instrument of foreign policy when no clear case has been made or accepted by the majority of the people of the world. Despite my demoralsation I will continue to fight peacefully for what I believe is right, and will not be dissuaded from this course of action by the cheats and liars that hide behind their rhetoric and spin and threats and lies. I would hope anyone feels similarily will do the same.

---

by Jayjay


As for polls, no they are not an exact science. But I raised the point to counter the accusation of a minority superimposing its views on the majority. We can all sit here until we're blue in the face saying 'I belive this' and 'I believe that'. All conjecture. However I can point to some evidence, imprecise as it is, that would give reason to believe the majority of people in this country don't support this war. If anyone can do the same for 'I don't know' then I will take that position as being more than simply anecdotal.

---

Thought you might find this interesting...

Guardian poll

And for those who can't make head nor tale of the whole thing, here's the acompanying article

I'd also like to add that I think this poll is a load of rubbish too

Sloppily worded poll (particuarly worded unbenefically for the Guradian's views, I would have thought).

"Do you approve of the military action on Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein"

Reasons should never be included in polls, unless that's specifically what you're testing for. People can agree with the action but not the reason, and vice versa.

[EDIT} On re-reading, I'm not sure if that 'to' is a reason or an explanation. Contentious, if it's an explanation. At the very least, the wording is ambiguous.

Polls are suspicious enough data without people carrying them out improperly.

(Edited by Demona 25/03/2003 12:35)