I care only about the WMDs in so much that they are part of the manipulation and misinformation that both our government and that of our masters on the other side of the Atlantic have perpetrated in order to justify their actions. I care only because I was lied to. WMDs, for me, we're never enough to justify this war. Especially as we knew before the war that Iraq did not have the capacity to strike outside its immediate region (no ICBMs to launch them with, for starters) and so presented no direct threat to Europe. However, this was the reason given to parliament and the UN, and the main reason given to the electorate. If it cannot be backed up, then the government should face the consequences.

But whatever happens on WMDs, for me, the war was unjustified, as it would only stir up hatred in the region towards western countries. See actions in Riyadh, Kenya and Casablanca for evidence. And because the only argument the Alliance of Puppets used to justify the war that had any credibility - liberation of the Iraqis from a brutal regime - fell down because the US government never intended to liberate the Iraqis, just replace one puppet government past its sell by date with another. See the refusal to address the Kurdish-Turkish question, and the refusal to incorporate the Shias in the discussions for a new Iraq.

Anyway, the WMDs were clearly an excuse used by the US and UK governments to attempt to manipulate the UN and the electorate into backing a war that was really about the US controlling who governs which country. If they were ever serious about finding WMDs then the UN inspectors would have been invited back in and given the freedom to investigate as soon as the major objectives were achieved. This hasn't been done. The US government has pretty much admitted it couldn't care less about WMDs - the only possible reason could be that they knew there were none in the first place.

So, Iraq is not free, no WMDs have been found, the UN is utterly compromised, the US has access to money from Iraqi oil, the country is in turmoil, and countless are dead. Just how does Tony Blair sleep at night?

I have to an extent changed my mind as a result of the recent events leading up to, during and since the attack on Iraq.

More than anything else, I have come to conclude that I cannot reach a justifiable opinion because the necessary information to support one is unavailable.

The modern world is fantastically complicated and since none of us can experience first hand the vast majority of events occurring, we must trust the accounts of others. During the coverage of the conflict with its rolling 24 hour news, it became increasingly apparent that to trust such information was impossible, as one hour's breaking news became the next hour's dismissed rumour.

Every source of information has an agenda of some sort or other be it the Times, the Guardian, Amnesty or Greenpeace. They select information to focus on, ignore other information entirely and interpret data in line with their own perspective on the world.

I lack Jayjay's confidence that non-governmental sources are any more reliable that governmental ones, and as such cannot wholeheartedly agree with his interpretation of events, however neither do I trust the proclamations of government or the arguments, both pro and anti invasion of those paid to comment.

Donald Rumsfeld said recently that it was 'Too early to write history' and rare though it is that he says anything worth listening to, on this occasion I am prone to agree.

Unfortunately, what we are watching is the failure of representative democracy. The electorate no longer asks for, nor receives the information required to make informed decisions and judgements. Politicians prefer spin to honest debate and news providers follow the agendas of their masters. With no access to reliable impartial information, we are left grasping for context and forced to choose which set of prejudices most closely matches our own.

We saw this over Iraq and we are seeing it over Europe. How can democracy function when the electorate is so ill informed?

If news is drawn from enough different sources, you can see through the agendas to build an overall picture. If you let concerns about agendas dominate, you’d never form an opinion about anything.

And whatever a news organisation's agenda, they didn't fabricate the film and quotes demonstrating Bush and Blair's bellicosity, invent their constant shifting of the goal posts, nor concoct their current obfuscation over the Weapons of Mass Destruction. You've now got Rumsfeld casually saying there may not be any WMDs in Iraq because Saddam Hussain destroyed them before the war: which would nullify the entire justification for the war. He’s so cocksure he’s not even bothering to lie anymore. By the day, more and more cracks are appearing in the pre-war “intelligence”, such as the latest allegations Blair ordered the British dossier to be “sexed up” (paging Sigmund Freud), and the infamous “weapons could be launched in 45 minutes” line was based on a single, unsubstantiated piece of intelligence from a dubious source.

The war was never supposed to be about “liberating” the Iraqis; the “allies” claimed it was prosecuted to eliminate Saddam's alleged WMDs capability. We must not loose sight of that fact. If this capability never existed, and Britain and America knew this and invaded regardless, then the entire war clearly contravened every standard of international law. Saddam was a ruthless tyrant, but he was also leader of a sovereign country, and national sovereignty is at present a fundamental tenet of international law. If we're going to have an interventionist international order that allows certain dictators to be stripped of their position by force, it needs to be constituted properly, not on the fly by a shady cabal of self-involved American neo-conservatives.

---

by Inc
How can democracy function when the electorate is so ill informed?

---

Answer - it can't.

And no news source is impartial, but some are more reliable than others. And contrary to popular opinion I don't base mine only on left-wing sources. I take news from as many different sources as possible and weight them for reliability. I take what information the government supplies, but then have to weight it against there reliability. In November last year Tony Blair made a speech stating that the recently passed resolution on Iraq was insufficient to allow an invasion of the country. Apparently a second resolution was required for such an action. Less than 6 months later...

Direct information from the intelligence services isn’t possible. The best we can get is leaked stories like the one currently doing the round about the 45 minutes required to deploy a WMD in the government report foreword on the case for invading Iraq. Apparently this came from a single source only, was not verified, and therefore not considered reliable, according to the leak anyway.

I also use major news sources like the BBC and Channel 4. But again weight them against past cases of misreporting that I've experienced first hand.

Not of this is particularly difficult or even time consuming. Read the papers that assume the IQ of their readers is above 10. Weight all of it against the bias you know they are capable of. Be aware of the history involved. Won't get you the god's honest absolute truth, but it will give you a reasonable idea of the issues at stake, and a healthy dose of cynicism.

Finally, please note there is nothing I have posted that contravenes anything the government has said. Has the government found WMDs? No. Have they found ICBMs or even bases capable of firing ICBMs? No. Have the UN inspection team been invited into Iraq to help find the WMDs? No. Have their been retaliation attacks? No. Has either the UK or US government made any statement on the possibility of an independent Kurdistan, on the future of Kurkuk, or on Turkish opposition to the Kurds? No. Are the Shia representatives demanding the US and UK troops leave Iraqi soil and allow Iraqis to decide their own fate? Yes. Are these representatives refusing to take part in US organized discussions on Iraq? Yes. None of this is difficult to find out. None of it contradicts the claims of the government. Where what I am saying differs from the government is on 1) Their reasons for invasion - their reasons have changed a number of times and do not stand up to scrutiny; 2) Whether WMDs will be found - I don't know (or particularly care) and would have a hard time believing any that were after such a long gap, and no UN involvement 3) On the price we will pay for this war - they claiming they have brought stability, while all I can see is escalation.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to come to the same conclusions. Simple analysis should suffice.

(Edited by Jayjay 03/06/2003 17:07)

I do like the fact that not too long ago Rumsfeld suggested that the lack of WMDs might have been due to the fact the Iraqis destroyed them before the war started.

So, what was the justification again?

If America wants WMD they only have to look in their backyard, since they found a bunch of abandoned live anthrax they didn't know they had not too long ago...

So what was the war over answer the relative untapped supply of oil that Iraq has.

Who was America's and Britain's arab ally in the middle east answer one saddam hussien.

Who supplied him with the capability to manufature WMDs answer britain and america

so there you have the true villans of this whole mess is not the government who has just been toppled but the two governments who did the toppling, and until the rest of the world wakes up to the fact that there is quite possibly that there is an idiot in charge of the largest arsenal of WMDs and the capability to launch them to anywhere in the world the chances are higher that a WW3 will happen.

Received via email :

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.

A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?

A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?

A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?

A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?

A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?

A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.

A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?

A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?

A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?

A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?

A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?

A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?

A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?

A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?

A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?

A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?

A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?

A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?

A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?

A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.

A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?

A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?

A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?

A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?

A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?

A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?

A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?

A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?

A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?

A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?

A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?

A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?

A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?

A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?

A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?

A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What's the difference?

A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.

A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.

A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?

A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?

A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.

A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?

A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?

A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?

A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?

A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?

A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?

A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?

A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?

A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?

A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?

A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.

Q: Why?

A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?

A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?

A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?

A. Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Q: Good night, Daddy.

Very funny. A little long, very detailed, but very funny. And scarily true...

thanks for that Stoo. all too accurate

---

by Watcher girl
thanks for that Stoo. all too accurate

---

*ahem*

*Wipes Watcher Girl's glasses for her*

so you want me to pay attention to what i'm reading? how very unreasonable of you all

Perhaps Watcher Girl may not be the best nick?

---

by Incandenza
Perhaps Watcher Girl may not be the best nick?

---

hmmm... 'vaguely confused wench'?
or perhaps just 'Eh? What?'