Personally I think it's still far to early to make any kinda judgement , I think there may well be some huge knock on affects, I will say however that going by what we are "allowed" to see on TV etc the people do really seem to have wanted him gone.

My thoughts are still with everyone out there and hope that it all comes to an end sooner rather than later.

I was against the war and my view has not changed at all. Yes, most of the Iraqi people are probably very happy to get rid of Saddam, let's face it I think most of us think this is a good thing, but does the end justify the means? I personally think not.

I don't believe that Saddam was a threat to the west, or even to any of his surrounding countries. He was quiet, contained, and there was a system of weapons inspections in place. I very much doubt he had any weapons of mass destruction that were deployable, even if he had stocks of chemical agents.

I also don't believe he had any links to any terrorist groups. I think Blair's statement that he might have some WMDs, and maybe in the future he might make contact with terrorist groups, and then maybe supply them with these weapons, and therefore needed to be taken out was laughable.

So in my mind it boils down to the fact that he was a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people. A brutal dictator who we were quite happy to leave in place, and in fact support, when it suited our purposes. So what's changed? This question, and the fact that there was no UN mandate for this war leads me to believe that the US have their own agenda, and their new found concern for the Iraqi people is a convienient excuse.

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of the U.S. making decisions on which regimes and/or dictatorships they don't mind, and which ones they're going to overthrow with their vastly superior military might. Where does it all lead? Who will they attack next? How will the rest of the Arab world react?

I think these are dangerous times. I am glad that this war on Iraq hasn't resulted in the vast loss of life some predicted, but am worried that this is just the start.

Wot FiveByFive said

Im pretty much in agreement. I was against the war, and still am. I strongly agree that any 'liberation' of the Iraqi people is a useful excuse for the Americans and the British who have so far shifted there reasons for the war several times.

First it was WMD - but we werent satisfied, "They're not a threat to the west" we said.

So next they had to play the September 11th card and say "Ah but WMD will get into the hands of terrorists"

Nobody bought that either

Finally, they went down the 'Liberation' road, and people are buying that. Well its worked, and, if they can get the pockets of resistance out of the way the US will probably come up smelling of roses (and oil)

Or they might be fighting a messy guerilla war for some time.

I agree that there are plenty of people happy to see Saddam go, but why did we need a war? Is the average Iraqi pleading to the US "Please...bomb us into liberation"

The US is using the liberation thing as an umbrella for their interests, in the same way as they used Sep 11th as an Umbrealla for their interests when they invaded Afghanistan. (The interests in this case being a touted oil pipleline through Afghanistan, from one of the biggest untapped oil reserves in the world, Khazaktan)

And did no one find it slightly sus. that while the worlds attention was fixed on Iraq on the first day of the war, they kicked of in Afghanistan too?





(Edited by Funky Monkey 11/04/2003 12:56)

Yes, getting rid of Saddam would be considered "a good thing", but I think from the way that the forces went in that there will be large knock on effects for a long time to come, even Afghanistan is *far* from over at the moment, it's just been neatly swept under the carpet and largely forgetten about.

It's far too early to tell exactly what will be the reprocussions of all this, many arab nations are *far* from happy over the US involvement in all of this, the supporters of Saddam's regime are still around, they have just melted away into the general populace.

After all, when the CIA helped install the Baathist(sp?) party in the first place it was considered to be "a good thing", and look what that spawned..

The whole area is *so* unstable, mainly through the US & UK meddling in the affairs of the area - Persia, Iran/Iraq, Isreal etc, that the slightest wrong move could spark something truly appalling.

But all us plebs can do is watch and wait now.

I agree totally with FivebyFive above. Couldn't have said it better.

So-called pre-emptive war is an extremely bad precedent, and I've never thought that the people of one country--no matter how powerful--have the right to decide for another country who their leadership should be or what weapons they can and can't have. It's just arrogant.

The end does NOT justify the means, as far as I'm concerned. The loss of life, the destruction, the trampling on international agreements and cooperation--there's nothing good in any of it. And I believe that this action will breed more terrorism and hatred in the future.

What's more, I don't think this is going to lead to the real "liberation" of the Iraqi people--which wasn't the goal in the first place. Do any of us really believe that the Iraqis are going to be allowed to choose the leadership they want--if it's not what "the coalition" wants? What if the Iraqis decide they want a fundamentalist Islamic regime that wants to nationalize the oil fields and kick out Western interests? I guess we'd then see how eager "the coalition" is to allow Iraqis to control their own lives and resources.

I agree with the previous posts, the legal basis of the war looked flimsy to begin with and has been exposed as an utter sham by the absence on the battlefield of any WMDs (on the Iraqi side anyway, British and American troops have been using shells which clearly fall under this definition). It seems pretty likely now that we were lied to by George Bush, Tony Blair et al when they claimed incontrevertible evidence that Iraq had these weapons - lets all look forward to Tony Blair handing himself in at the International Court in The Hague to defend himself now that his sole legal basis that he claimed for the war has gone.

Maybe no WMD (yet - the war is still being fought so who knows what may be found - although, weren't barrels of some toxic material/chemical discovered somewhere) but plenty of evidence of men and women tortured and killed by Saddam's regime.

War - yes, always a bad thing and a last resort. But, in my mind, it was necessary and let's hope it is over ASAP and get the troops out and back home soon. In my mind, the end *did* justify the means but, then again, I am only a Sun reader....

Thats my opinion, feel free to rip it apart. I know I'm probably in the minority but I'm not going to keep quiet just because of that. I'm glad someone organised a march in Portsmouth last week to actually *support* our troops. It was about time....

(Edited by Whistler 11/04/2003 19:18)

Still too early.

While I agree with the majority of what has already been posted, I do believe that the ends justify the means. That is - the outcome will decide how the means are judged. While the removal of Saddam Hussein will be welcomed by everyone but the most lunatic, this isn't the only end. And victory in Iraq does not necessarily mean a swift return of our troops. Bush is already targeting Syria and Iran, so don't expect our troops to leave the region soon, as Blair is showing no signs of developing a backbone any time soon. Then there's the destabilisation of the region. How will this affect countries with growing Islamic Militancy like Saudi Arabia? Or the Turkey/Kurdistan situation, how's that going to pan out? And pre-emptive strikes? How's that going to impact Kashmir? How will India use the war on Terrorism vis-à-vis Pakistan? Or Israel and its neighbours?

And what of the Iraqi people? As has already been raised, what is liberation going to mean? Did US and UK soldiers die so that a more anti-west government can be formed? Or so Kurdistan can break away, thus destabilising NATO as Turkey invades? Or how about joining Iran along with all those oil wells?

Time will tell.

Oh, and on the chemicals found so far. Most were found to be farming chemicals. There are some findings that are still being investigated, but nothing has been announced yet. And considering how gung-ho the media has been in presenting any evidence for war, it doesn't bode well. Besides, if they had Chemical and/or Biological weapons (everyone knew they definitely didn't have nukes) and were prepared to use them on Iraqis, then why weren't they used against our troops?

I hope our troops come home soon. I hope we stop fighting for Project For A New American Century. I hope we stop bringing the world closer to nuclear annihilation. I hope people continue to stand up to our puppet government and the dictator in Washington DC. Or that I'm very wrong. Because the future I see has never looked bleaker.

---

by Whistler
War - yes, always a bad thing and a last resort. But, in my mind, it was necessary and let's hope it is over ASAP and get the troops out and back home soon.

---

I don't think that the troops will be home anytime soon, not all of them anyway. All the evidence says that the sort of operation that has been undertaken is not the sort of thing that has a nice tidy ending. The Americans still have troops in Afghanistan, Nato still has forces in Kosovo. Hell, the Americans are still in Korea and that was 50 odd years ago.

Being honest, I've barely paid attention to any of it.