Although I disagree with Frances attitude/stance/policy on the war, I even more disagree with American peoples reaction that France don't have the right to act this way. France is entitled to choose whatever political path they want. I disagree both with France's policy and motivation but they are entitled to make that choice. America's sudden disdain for all things French bears a worrying similarity for their presidents lack of international insight.
And with war pending it's going to be interesting to see how the western world fractures as a result. Blair (by far one of the better PM's in a long time) is probably going to loose his job. America going to war unchecked without the UN/NATO/UK anyone, sets a dangerous president. Somebody needs to be sitting looking over Bush's shoulder watching him, and it appears only Blair realises this. But the issues aren't simple and peace will not help the Iraqi people any more than war.
I'd rather trust Blair's integrity of Saddam's. Blair does seem to have a better idea of how this all fits together than Bush who has a rather narrow world view and France who has a rather French only view and a lot of people campaigning for peace on the basis that war is bad rather than any actual argument. Yes war is bad, but so is a dictator that kills his own people and continually flouts UN law. Yes I know Bush is flouting the UN too and I don't like him particularly much either, but compared to Saddam he quite rosy. And at worst he will only get one more term,
Personally I think this should all get solved with Bush arm wrestling Saddam. Winner takes all. that would be far more interesting.
1. Destructor
Yes it will be interesting to see how the world fractures. Interesting like masturbating with a cheese grater is interesting.
If the United States controls Persian Gulf oil fields, it will have a stranglehold on the world economy
Maybe then they’ll organize a little payback for France, or any other nation that doesn’t step into line with them.
Iraq has so stopped being the issue here. The issue is if the citizens of any country that isn’t the United States will have a say in how the world is run for the next century.
d
2. Adrian
Which is exactly why its important for the UK to be involved to make sure that the US doesn’t have unrestricted control of what goes on.
As for France, the war stops them getting their money out of Iraq which Iraq owes them so don’t think that France is completely holistic here.
And Bush may be a muppet but he isn’t a Hitler. The USA is powerful, but there are systems both internally and externally that wont let the USA control the world. Too much conspiracy theory in your argument.
And don’t forget there is still the chance that the intel gathered on Saddam might just be right. He has troops. He has weapons. He is a despot.
Where would you rather live for the last 5 years? Texas or Baghdad?
3. Fer
After the last presidential election, I’m not sure that technically even US citizens have any say in how the world is run.
4. Destructor
What is my ‘conspiracy theory’? This is happening, out in the open, in front of everyone, right now.
We’re part of the ‘coalition of the willing’ simply because Blair AGREES with Bush! The US will do whatever it wants and simply saying: ‘Well it’s the lesser of two evils!’ is, as I’ve said, not actually an argument. It’s an admission that the US is, in fact, doing whatever it wants! Your school of thought seems to be: “Well, yes, but let’s just knuckle down and bear it as well as possible.” And that may well be what we have to do, but damned if I’m gonna grin and say: “Oh this is all fine.” because it clearly ISN’T.
Please tell me what these external checks are that prevents the US from doing anything it wants. Where the hell are they?
The fact is I don’t live in Texas and I don’t want to move forward into a world where only those living in Texas get the good deal. The “you don’t like it, move to Afghanistan.” argument is, quite frankly, retarded.
You are oversimplifying this to say it’s about who’s more moral, Bush or Saddam. It’s not about Iraq anymore. I am behind the disarmament of Saddam. I’m just not all in favour if ignoring due process and international law (and killing innocent civilians, while we’re at it) to do it.
Using your reasoning, it’d be okay to give Police carte blanche to use whatever means neccessary to stop crime, because: “Who would you rather have in charge? The cops or the criminals?”
d
5. Adrian
Ok but where is your proof that America is doing this to control the world? Where is the proof that the motivation of declaring war on a Despot who is armed and who has used those arms before and who violates human right accords continually is not in the interest of the free world?
Their is no proof that the intention of the US is to control the worlds oil. There are naturally other components to the war than just Saddam, but there is no proof that the attempts to disarm Saddam are disguising ambitions to dominate the world.
Also the statement that innocent civilians are going to die en-mass is a great anti war argument. But innocent people are going to die regardless and these numbers could well be limited with an effective war.
I do not support Bush. I don’t like his politics or his policies at all. But I do reckon Blair is doing a little more than trying for world domination.
There are strong arguments for removing Saddam. it’s hard to see how this is going to be done peacefully. Saddam is made a career of playing the rules, not by them. If nothing is done about Saddam, nothing will get done by Saddam, and Iraq will continue to rot under him. Not doing anything will result in Saddam carrying on as he wishes. No peaceful approach is going to move Saddam.
6. Fer
Asking whether there is any intention on America’s part to control the world is missing the point.
The simple fact is that America does control the world. It has an armed force the size of the ten next largest armed forces put together.
This morning one American diplomat, in response to the question of whether the war means that America will always ignore the UN, said (with no irony intended) that when the UN’s decisions accord with that of America then they will continue to support it, but where the UN members block America’s actions then they will ignore it.
It is this kind of doublethink that demonstrates that the US indeed believes it does have control of the world.
The French decision is, in my view, nothing short of brilliance. By realising that the US would take responsibility for the war however the UN voted, it took a decision (probably for the benefit of its civilians who are less likely to be the target of terrorists) to outwardly oppose the war, while simultaneously precipitating it.
Much as I agree that Saddam should go, this should not be at the expense of the freedom of nation states to self-government. The US may have no territorial ambitions over other countries, but de facto control is just as good.
7. Adrian
From Thorndike’s comments on waferbaby.
can you honestly say that you think that leaving a tyrant like saddam in power is the right thing to do? there is no question about wmd as the u.n. showed with the previous 18 resolutions. it comes down to the fact that france, germany, russia and china all have economic ties to iraq and didn’t want to loose them
and
for those of you who still blame the u.s. for this, remember that france said that they would veto any resolution the u.s., u.k. or spain put to the u.n. by saying this, the u.s. and u.k. pulled the last resolution which included 30 more days for the inspectors.
I agree with thorndike, the french had there own financial interests at heart and forced the hand.
And the US are the worlds only superpower. They have been for ages. It’s economics as much as military. Any idea otherwise is naive. But that doesn’t make them uncontrolled. Besides common belief not ever american (in power or otherwise) has this innate desire to fuck the world over.
America has its problems. So does everywhere else. It still is a democracy. Half the people (either way you look at the election) voted for Bush. Hopefully he wont get a second term. But it’s a democracy. Personally I prefer living in Britain.
The only non war way out of this was to leave Saddam as was. Not necessarily a fantastic solution either.
8. LisaB
Thoughts:
1) I live in Wisconsin and I’m seriously considering fleeing back to Canada because…. well, the US scares me now.
2) If the world stands by and lets the US invade whatever country it pleases for reasons x, y , z then the US does, in fact, control the world.
3) This is all very saddening.
9. Sara
LisaB— are you acually American or Canadian? I’m American, and believe me, I’m scared too. I don’t understand why everything that happens in this world, America has to be right in the middle of it. I hate having to go home at night, and turn on the TV to see if we are at war. I’m getting sick of seeing Bush’s face on the TV everyday, saying the same thing as he has been saying for a while now. I want all this crap to be over.
10. Adrian
LisaB,
If those reasons are to remove a despot and violent dictator and to enforce international security is it doing as they please? The world stood by and let Hitler get on doing as he pleased. Deciding if the USA is the aggressor or the protector somewhat depends on your point of view.
Saddam is a violent dictator. There is no question. The UN resolution has been blocked by countries with there own self interest as.
Should the US do as the please when they please? No! Should Saddam be allowed to stay in power? No! Should the UN do something about it? Yes. Are they? No. So what’s the solution? Let Saddam stay in power and carry on committing atrocities? I don’t think so.
Sometimes there is no right answer. But the better of the wrong answers is to remove Saddam. There is more chance for a better Iraq without Saddam.
11. Adrian
Sara,
America is in the thick of things in this instance because they have decide that Iraq is a international and national threat. Not with standing underlying politics and potential oil issues, that is why American has elected to be involved in this case.
In general though, America is the worlds only remaining super power. With that comes responsibility which America has generally not accepted. America has acted like a spoilt brat when they should be more involved in cooperating with the rest of the world. America gets involved when they want to. Really they should be getting involved more often.
Unfortunately as a result anti-American sentiment is being used as a justification for anti-war sentiment. Clouding the issues at hand.
12. Destructor
How is Iraq an international threat? The few missiles they had which could fire over 92 km have just been bulldozed. Yes, atrocities are committed in Iraq, but similar atrocities are committed in: North Korea, Nigeria, China (MFN!), Zimbabwe, Camp X-Ray. Where was the US when Rwanda went down? That made Saddam’s regime look pretty tame, frankly- they nearly wiped out an entire people! There are other motives at work here and you know it.
What peaceful means have been tried to remove Saddam? The entire Iraqi population wants him out. There are exile groups who exist purely to help Iraqis on the inside get Saddam out. Have these groups been given ANY aid? Or any attention, for that matter? Has the US/UN tried ANY non-violent means to remove him?
How about a UN resolution saying any building that UN weapons inspectors are not allowed into will be bombed? How about creating ‘human rights’ inspectors? After all, the weapons inspectors were actually doing thier job- Iraq WAS being disarmed.
The people just needed the opportunity to oust him. We could have given them that opporunity. With the amount we’re spending on the war? We could have done SO MUCH to help. Not a finger was lifted.
But no, military solution first- no matter what the rest of the world thinks. I ask you again: Where are these external controls? You are basically putting your faith in the GOODNESS of George Bush. Well, history has shown time and time again that when any entity has unchecked power, that entity abuses it! And it’s being abused right now. It’s not about Iraq anymore. I want Saddam out as well and if I thought they were just doing a humanitarian exercise to save the Iraqi people then that’d be great,. But it’s NOT and everyone knows it. They’re going in there to set up thier own government, to control the region- and there are NO checks and balances.
Did you listen to Bush’s speech? The first thing he told the Iraqi people was not to fire the oil wells! It was only later he decided to mention: “Oh, yeah, and don’t use Weapons of Mass Destruction, either.” Why did he feel it neccessary to mention the oil wells if this isn’t a war about oil? Oil and control.
You have to understand that being anti-war does NOT mean being pro-Saddam. But hostile regimes have been ousted before without war and I feel like you’re focusing purely on the Human Rights issue, without looking at the things going on around it.
d
13. Adrian
I never said being anti-war was pro-Saddam. But being anti-American is not pro-peace either.
I also never said there where not underlying issues as well. But Saddam is a despot. Their are human rights issues. And Saddam is not going to step down. He is a dictator. The only way things where going to change would be if there was a coup and they would probably be more bloody and end up with someone just as bad in charge. Saddam was not going to step down no matter what support anti-Iraq activists got. Dictators tend to dictate. Non violent means have been tried to remove him. In the last 12 years and in the last 12 weeks. It wasn’t going to happen.
Also saying where was the support of the free world when other dictators where killing other people is not a justifiable argument not to stop Saddam. Where was the world when Stalin and Hitler where killing millions of people? How long is a good time to wait?
You say this is all about oil? How about the fact the French blocked any UN sanction that would lead to war? You think that was done because the French donﾃや冲 want war? Thatﾃや冱 also about oil. The French just market themselves better.
Saddam is not intellectually stupid. He has been playing smart games with the free world. He has cleverly played them off one another instead of having them focus on himself.
Bush has another 4 years maximum. Bush may have polices I donﾃや冲 like and donﾃや冲 agree with. But by and large they do mostly work with the international community. Not nearly enough as they should. But they also are not completely malevolent as people would make them out to be.
Removing Saddam will make Iraq a better place. Saddam was not going to be moved with out a foot in his backside. Yes there are other issues at steak, there always are. The US can do what they want. They have the power to do that. But they are a democracy and they have to cooperate with the international community too. It sounds good to say the US will do what they want. But they don’t. At the end of the day you are depending on the goodwill of those nations with power to do the right thing. The UK,US,OZ etc are doing the right thing. And they are doing it in a democratic way. The elected officials voted for war. Democracy works both ways. You get a voice, but so do I. My voice voted for war. It’s democracy.
14. Destructor
I agree with you that simply pointing to other countries and saying: “Look, they have them too.” is not a justification for not doing anything. All I am doing is providing evidence that, for the Bush Administration, the ‘moral’ issue is only part of the equation because it lets them acheive thier goals. The US backed Saddam’s mass gassings when it served thier purposes.
Look: South Africa has some Human Rights issues, yes? Let’s say a country- any country- decided that it was time to correct them, so they would invade, kill loads of civilians, forcibly remove the government in power, and put thier own government in its place. Oh yeah, and bring in thier own companies to redistribute South Africa resources. Wouldn’t that tick you off, just a little?
Now, agreed, that’s a ridiculous thesis, but the fact is that if it DID happen, there’d be nothing anyone could do about it.
Up until the new ‘pre-emptive defense’ doctrine, sovereign nations didn’t invade other sovereign nations. It just wasn’t done. Now, the entire planet is gearing up to either do it, or defend themselves from it. The arms race has restarted, and it’s accelerating.
You didn’t ‘vote’ for this war and neither did I vote against it. (for starters, you and I don’t vote in this country). The majority of Britons and the majority of Australians do NOT support a non-UN-backed war. This is a distortion of democracy.
I am not anti-American. I don’t disagree with the removal of Saddam. I am simply scared that a select group of people is deciding the fates of a world that clearly doesn’t agree with them. In three years, Bush has done a ludicrous amount of damage- I really do dread to think what he’ll do with another four.
d
15. Adrian
Yeah the South African government had human rights violations. But it never used WoMD against its own people. And it was still a democratic government if you where white. I democratic government that eventually was disposed by democratic vote for a true democratic government. It simply is not possible to compare all cases.
Peaceful methods sometimes work (SA) and sometimes don’t (WW2)
The arms race has always been around. The arms race slowed down because the world is financially more dependant on each other and war (once good for business) is now bad. Development still went into arms but budgets became more transparent.
Over 50% of Brits support the war by latest polls. And I didn’t vote for the war. I voted for a government that would do the right things. A government doesnﾃや冲 respond to everybody’s individual opinion but follows a charter. This is what they are doing. The house of commons voted for war, under the democratic rules for how this country is run. Say hi to democracy. I don’t have a say in the French or Russian or German government where THEY BLOCKED the UN charter. But I will have a say in this one. I don’t expect Blair to ask me about every decision he will make. But I get a chance to vote against him next time around if I disagree.
I don’t like Bush either. And I do hope he will get voted out. But Blair might get voted out too and I do believe he is making the right decisions. Democracy works like that.
16. Destructor
I’m not questioning the legality of Britain’s actions, just the motives and the consequences.
You’re right, Blair’s actions now will have consequences for him come the election.
Your point about how we don’t have a say in the elections of other countries cuts straight to the heart of my fear- that very soon, the world will exist merely to provide the US with the standard of living it is accustomed to. This state exists already in many, many portions of the world, and regardless of your feelings, this war is a part of that.
The nuclear arms race was REGRESSING a decade ago. Countries were disarming. Nuclear weapons were rightly seen as the greatest threat to continued human existence and were appropriately being destroyed. Now Bush wants to research new ones, get permission from congress to launch without approval. It’s madness. If Saddam had nukes, he’d be threatening to use them, considering his days on earth are numbered in the dozens.
And after Iraq, what then? Zimbabwe has some heinous crimes going on, perhaps America should control the government in that country, also. Terrorist flare ups in Ireland? Uh oh, better invade and take charge of that government as well. Where are the checks and balances? I’m not saying there’s another way, it’s not like the world can ‘stand up’ to America, I’m just worried.
“The entities that call themselves ‘the international community’ should have assumed their responsibilities a long time ago, should have thought about what the sanctions they have imposed really meant, should have looked at reports about weapons and human rights abuses a long time before having them thrown in their faces as excuses for war five minutes before midnight. What is bringing on this rant is the question that has been bugging for days now: how could ﾃや徭upport democracy in Iraqﾃや become to mean ﾃや彙omb the hell out of Iraqﾃや? why did it end up that democracy wonﾃや冲 happen unless we go thru war? Nobody minded an un-democratic Iraq for a very long time, now people have decided to bomb us to democracy? Well, thank you! how thoughtful.”
d
17. Tot
Adrian,
I think your main protractor has summed up his point perfectly…..to him, “It’s not about Iraq anymore”.
500,000 Iraqi kids have died to date through “peaceful” sanctions and diplomatic “solutions”.
I object to anyone hijacking this issue so that they can have the democratic luxury to “shake their fists” at the Americans and their global dominance and muse about a 50-100 year timeframe. It’s an enormous luxury that costs innocent Iraqi lives EVERY SINGLE DAY.
It’s not a game. If there was a diplomatic, non military (or threat of military) solution then it would have happened 12 years ago. Reverting back to the “peaceful” and “diplomatic” solution reverts back to starving children, torture and genocide. There WILL be innocent lives lost during the war - but we can only hope that they will be significantly less than the 500,000 kids killed to date, and the hundred of thousands of innocents tortured, executed or gassed en-masse.
Let’s not be stupidly naive…..the ONLY reason that any progress is being made by the weapons inspectors this 12th resolution is because there are 300,000 troops on his border - and they cannot stay there forever. The dictator in Iraq did nothing - NOTHING, until military action was threatened, and he will continue to do nothing (except sign French and Russian oil contracts) without a credible threat of force.
18. Destructor
You’re right, Tot. I am not talking about Iraq. The invasion is going ahead. The people of Iraq will be liberated and placed under US control. I am not disputing this. I am analyzing what is happening and attempting to predict what will happen afterwards. How does the ‘luxury’ of analysis cost Iraqi lives?
I agree- the reason progress was being made is because of military threat. But progress was being made. Please tell me about these peaceful attempts to remove Saddam that have occurred over the last 12 years. I don’t consider sanctions to be such, because they have killed more through lack of food and medicine than the Saddam regime. How has the ‘coalition of the willing’ supported the Iraqi government in exile? How have they supported the Kurdish insurrectionists? How have they supported ANY move to implement a democratic Iraq? There has been no such support. The military solution has been seized apon because it supports American political objectives. There has not been a war fought in all of history that did not revolve around control of resources. This is no exception, and I object to people using the Human Rights issue, as valid as it is, as a smokescreen for that.
d
19. Tot
The luxury of personal analysis if fine - it’s more the collectivisation of this into nation states such as France, who exercise a veto in their own interests of minimising American influence in the world and signing oil contracts at the expense of continued Iraqi deaths.
From what I gather, the US has provided quite substantial support for the Iraqi opposition, although they bowed to local regional pressure in one instance and deserted a Shia uprising after the Gulf War. Remember that a lot of the Iraqi opposition (those not killed by the regime) are supported under political asylum in the US and Britain, and who are providing a decent chunk of the intelligence that is being dismissed by many as US propoganda for world domination.
Even so, the Iraqi opposition can do very little against someone who has not just conventional weapons, but also chemical and biological weapons. Of course theoretically the US could quite easily fund a large “local” army to get rid of Saddam Hussein. But is this really realistic?? Where would they be based? Which individual (not constrained by democratic government) would the US hand over such a large amount of firepower to? What ethnic group would they come from, and would they respect the rights of the other ethnic groups? Would any of the countries in the region seriously allow this?
Perhaps the Iraqis once liberated will not be completely under US control, but maybe more like other groups of people who were liberated by the Americans such as the Germans. They certainly feel no concerns about disagreeing with and confronting their liberators.
The peaceful means in the last 12 years that I refer to are the UN misnamed “resolutions” that are not backed by credible military action, and the last lot of weapons inspectors that were ejected by Iraq. 12 resolutions, 4 years of weapons inspections and 12 years on non-disarmanent. I find it incredible that people sincerely believe that should the US take their troops back, that Iraq will keep destroying their weapons and not develop any more.
You may object to human rights interferring in a theoretical discussion about US world domination……for some people this is the key concern in the whole Iraq issue, and why some people support military intervention.
20. Sara
I found these quotes from Bush while I was waiting in the dentist’s office today…
Bush on Social Security- “They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it’s some kind of federal program.”
Bush on Peace- “This is a world that is much more uncertain than the past. In the past we were certain, we werecertain it was us versus the Russians in the past. We were certain, and therefore we had huge nuclear arsenals aimed at each other to keep the peace.”
Bush on the state of the world- “this is still a dangerous world. It’s a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses.”
Hmmm.. Should I still be scared?
21. Destructor
…cont
1. Will Saddam deploy WMDs? If he does, that certainly goes a long way to justify invasion. If he doesn’t, then what exactly was the world so afraid of?
2. Will the US leave Iraq in the same state they left Afghanistan? If they do, that proves they never gave a damn about ‘liberating the people’. If they don’t, kudos.
3. Where will the US turn its attention to next, and what does that mean for the stability of the planet?
Human rights are definitely a very good reason (I would say the only good reason) for supporting the invasion. But that doesn’t mean you have to say: “Look, it’s about Human Rights, just ignore all this stuff that’s going on behind it.” because that is the stuff that is going to have the long terms effects of the rest of the world.
d
22. Destructor
I’ve never agreed with France’s decision- if they’d supported the second resolution, the war would not yet have started. I think thier announcement that they would not support the resolution ‘whatever the circumstances’ was asinine.
However as an intelligent citizen (and people do this in countries that aren’t democracies, as well), I cannot help but question the higher motives of the politicians. You are right to attack France for its decisions, but if your justification is because the French are ‘signing oil contracts at the expense of continued Iraqi deaths’, then why do you turn a blind eye to the US’s own, rather transparent, desire for the oil wells? You also say that France is acting as the collectivization of a pro-peace movement. Is Chriac following the desires of his constituents, or following the oil money? Probably both, but that doesn’t deny the French populace the right to say what they think is wrong- and I doubt the avergae Frenchman is just thinking about those sweet oil prices.
I am all for the liberation of Iraq. I’m just a little worried about how it’s all going down, and what happens for the world next. The comment that sparked this was ‘It’ll be interesting to see how the world fractures’. Well, for someone who lives outside the United States, those ‘fractures’ could be utterly devastating.
I completely agree, the resolutions have been useless and no-one believes for a second that Saddam would disarm without threat of force. And I appreciate the US for providing that force. But it was working. Inspections were going ahead. Iraq was contained, and being disarmed. Saddam was scared and doing whatever he was told. Now was the time to allow the people of Iraq to rise up, with US support. That’s clearly not what is happening.
The US “support” of the Shia after Desert Storm was a cruel and fatal joke that resulted in incredible slaughter. The chance to take down Saddam existed right then and there.
The reason I keep saying ‘this isn’t about Iraq’ is because the will they/won’t they issue is over. They’re going in, and pretty soon the Iraqi people will no longer have Saddam as a dictator. Good. What I’m talking about is what happens next. These are the important points:
cont….
23. John
First off, I’m no great defender of George Bush. Having said that, I think Saddam is a whacko, and once he is out of the way, North Korea will be next on the shit list.
Yes, oil is a consideration. We are not fucking stupid. Better to have the oil controlled by a democratic state then a misguided group like al Queda and its supporters. Who would do more good, or bad, with that oil and the power it represents, the U.S., or someone like bin Laden? And let’s not forget practicalities. We know there are large pseudo-Muslim groups that want another chance to stick in and break it off as far as America is concerned, so I think we should take steps to prevent that from happening. The families of Palestinian suicide bombers receive funds from Saddam. Is it such a stretch to think that al Queda is getting money from Iraq as well?
If the people of Iraq have been suffering so badly, why haven’t they risen up against Saddam? Why haven’t they had a revolution and overthrown their oppressor? Why does the U.S. have to step in? And don’t say ‘because Saddam is a tyrant’ or variations on that theme because that only reinforces the necessity of his removal.
I could step onto the streets of San Francisco right now and join a protest without fear of any dire consequences, or get on a plane to Washington tonight, stand outside the White House, burn the flag, verbally abuse Bush, and take a shit of a photo of him, and at the most I would be charged with minor mischief and hit with a small fine. I could not do the equivalent in Iraq. And even if we go to war Bush will tread carefully because he knows that he will ultimately have to answer to the American people and many western nations with which we have vested interests. Saddam answers only to Saddam.
24. LisaB
Sara - I’m Canadian. Eh.
Adrian - this subject is being beaten to death so I’ll keep it short at the risk of possibly being misunderstood.
- Bush appears to be ignoring the will of the international community and a large portion of his own people (I’m recalling the largest mass demonstrations in the world being held recently), that would appear to be a poor way for a democratic leader to operate.
- Bush is going to war NOW, despite the fact that Saddam was complying with every demand made of him (until the silly 48 hr speech). The only reason I’ve read for his doing this is because shortly it will be too hot in the region for effective battle. Bush committed his troops and he’s using them. It didn’t matter what Saddam did, once Bush moved his troops into the region, the deal was done.
I seem to agree fully with the Canadian government’s stance on this war. Here’s a quote from a Canadian news site (www.canoe.ca) that sums it up a little:
“The international community should have expected more from the leader of the free world than it got from U.S. President George W. Bush over the issue of disarming Iraq, a federal cabinet minister said Wednesday.
“I think it’s really regrettable and unfortunate that he’s made this decision when the whole world is crying out for peace,” said Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal. “
I think this war is rash. There is no reason to be doing it now when Saddam was complying with all requests/demands, when the entire world was looking over his shoulder and military pressure was applied. I don’t quite understand why now suddenly we’re in a position where huge civilian casulties are inevitable.
So much for being short.
I agree with Jam:
“The issue is if the citizens of any country that isn’t the United States will have a say in how the world is run for the next century. “
25. Colin
Maybe this isn’t the right time for war. Maybe we do need more UN support. Maybe this, maybe that. But plain and simple, going to war will remove one major world threat, and improve the lives of Iraqi generations to come. No one thinks about the actual citizens of Iraq… everyone says, “Give peace a chance!” but what about the Iraqi people who are living under an abusive dictator that instills fear into people across the world? Saddam Hussein has got to go, and Bush seems to be the only one willing to do it.
26. Adrian
LisaB,
It is being beaten to death but is making for interesting debate.
The anti-war protests where big but still only where a small percentage of people. Only some of the international community disagrees with war, and there motivations aren’t exactly pure either. The whole world is not crying for peace. But no one protests for war. Peace protests are more vocal. We had the same protests for peace around WW2. People were wrong then too.
Saddam spent the last few months playing games with the demands being made of him. He complied when he had to and no more. The only reason he has complied with anything (and certainly not everything) is that there are 300 000 troops sitting on his border. He has spent the last 12 years not complying and has only given the connections he has had to recently under military threat.
Saddam simply wasn’t compiling. What he was doing was enough to keep the west bickering. Civilians casualties will happen. Over 500 000 casualties have already happened by not going to war.
The world is not controlled by the US no matter what everyone likes to think including Bush. That doesn’t make America any less powerful but it doesnﾃや冲 make them all powerful either. The entire of Europe is a big economic, geographic and military block than the US. But the US for the most part is not malevolent and this isnﾃや冲 needed. The Us does good as well as bad, they are powerful, but the rest of the world has a say. If the US bombed or even sanctioned France for lack of support their would be massive ramifications. The US simply would not get away with it.
Colin has a good point. Maybe this maybe that. At the end of this, Iraq will be a better place. It may take a while for it to be a normal place, but it wont be a worse place.
27. John
In regard to the French, they never have had much backbone (pick a war, any war) and when they finally did stand up for themselves (the revolution) they killed so many goddamned innocent people it was a wonder anyone was left to run the country. Time and again there have been horrific things happening in nations nearer to Europe (and sometimes on the continent) than America, but when America finally steps in and tries to cool things down (despite the motivations of the U.S. - a life saved is a life saved, after all) they are accused of trying to take over the world. What utter bullshit.
If you have the time for some serious reading, check out this excellent article on Saddam at this link.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/05/bowden.htm
28. Destructor
John,
your attempts to tie Iraq to Al Qaeda when every intelligence agency in the world has said there is no such link is completely disingenuous.
What I’d rather not have is a World Order in which one sovereign nation invades another sovereign nation simply because they have something useful.
China has a list of human rights abuses as long as my arm. It also has a variety of useful natural resources. What if Russia decided tomorrow that it wants those resources, and decided to invade China ‘for humanitarian reasons’ and to disarm the numerous, proven WMD. To oust the Chinese government and put its own in its place? To redistribute China’s resources to Russia’s benefit?
What will the world do then? What justification can any organization give that this action is immoral, and illegal?
I find this discussion interesting and useful- it informs my views on the current situation and changes them. I appreciate everyone chipping in, and you all have changed my views on the war in many ways. I agree that removing Saddam will be a good thing. But I am terrified, and it may be difficult for an American to understand this, but I’m terrified of the consequences of the shattering World Order. It’s fine to be in the country that comes out on top. But the consequences of this war will be extremely far-ranging, and may result in vastly more deaths than both the casualties of this war, and the casualties of Saddam’s leadership.
Maybe this, maybe that. Isn’t it smart to start talking about what may be?
d
29. Adrian
Their may be no link between Al Q and Iraq but their are confirmed links between Iraq and Palestinian terrorists.
China does have a bad rep, but it is changing. Their is progress. Some progress can be obtained peacefully. Saddam was never going to change without being forced too.
It’s good to question what will happen next. But assuming that America will now do as it pleases when it pleases I don’t think is valid. America may choose to follow policy’s that suit is self more often than not, but I am not truly in fear of American’s running rampant all over the world doing as they please.
Sometimes you got to show a little bit of faith.
America is setting a dangerous president, and Bush does worry me. Don’t get me wrong.
The thing is Saddam should have been deposed years ago. But the UN has never really had any teeth anyway. Half the problem with America doing what they want, is that no one else seems to be doing what they should. If the rest of the world did what they should instead of having as many vested interests as the US the US wouldn’t be able to do what they want.
In this case the US is doing what should have been enforced by the UN, but no one got down to the dirty and sorted it out.
30. Wade
In my (albeit unresearched) estimation, the Marshall plan for Post-war Germany did much to resuscitate the US economy.
The Cold-War brought about massive US spending which contributed to US GDP in almost unimmeasurable proportions. The cold hard facts of Budget deficits were ingored in order to outspend the USSR.
One can view this action as yet another decoy by Bush who is purposely fiddling in Baghdad while Washington burns economically. People are creatures of habit - consistently refer to Iraq as the worst news possible and decrease the publically dispensed state of the US economy and you achieve the following: The military is seen as the Saviour, militray equipment reported outdated, ramp up new military equipment production to counteract threats not only locally but worldwide (now you need more weapons), bloat defense budgets accordingly, increase consumer spending accordingly as new employees increased for military equipment.
The Republican’s have inherited the legacy of Raegan’s administration, Saddam included, now the spin doctors are out in full force.
One of the best treatises on American politics is the movie “Wag the Dog”. See it and understand.
Financially, the world cannot meet the massive corporate returns and general greed required without instability.
Total stability - Total lack of defense spending.
You may think this a conspiracy but ask yourself - How much does the USA really care about Human Rights? Did they care in Bosnia? Do they care in Zimbabwe? Do they give a damn in North Korea?
It’s one of the best Snow Jobs in years.
Cheers
W
31. Adrian
We have had over 14 years since Regan, they legacy is long gone.
Years ago war was good for business now it isn’t.
Total lack of defence spending is nice. But also requires total lack of a threat.
No one is saying that there are not other issues in Iraq besides Saddam, but the fact remains that there are human rights violations and he is more dangerous than Zimbabwe.
Also if America goes after Korea, Zimb, etc everyone says America is policing the world. If they don’t everyone says America is going into Iraq purely for selfish reasons.
You can’t have both. And until we have an effective UN (cough cough splutter) you cant have it both ways.
Saddam should have been removed and tried years ago.
32. Destructor
Tried in the International Criminal Court? The one the US keeps vetoing?
d
33. Tot
Unfortunately the US are wary of the International Criminal Court. They fear that there are too many people out there who have a rabid dislike of them given their economic, cultural and military superiority, overlooking facts and engaging in hysterical conspiracy theories which could lead their citizens to be victimised (-:
34. Destructor
35. Tot
I appreciate your concerns.
If you think that you did not grow up in a world with one country making the majority of all your decisions then you must be very old indeed. The US has been the dominant military, economic and cultural power for Western society for nearly 60 years. If you think that the Europeans, British, Canadians, Australians, Japanese, Koreans etc. have been making truly independent decisions then you are very much mistaken. All of these countries have been chipping away around the edges, but broadly following American policy for the majority of that time.
Although I don’t prefer hegemony, I am personally more worried by a world with weapons of mass destruction, rogue states and terrorism against which the only defence is a talking shop of nation states not prepared to do anything effective against them.
Perhaps for me this is the lesser of two evils for me.
And if I didn’t think this was the case - I am fortunate enough to be able to make my choice at the next election, and fortunate enough to be able to direct my “spend” away from countries that I choose not to support economically……
Perhaps the supposed “majority” against military actions and US domination should do something about it, rather than protesting and talking.
36. Adrian
Any democratic system relies on faith that the elected officials (ordinary humans) will make the right decisions. and if they don’t you get to vote next time round again.
France by forcing a veto is also making decisions for others. So is Saddam by not disarming. But the US is accountable. They will be when the next election comes. They will be after the war. They may not do everything the way you agree with, and may not be as accountable as we all would like. But they still are part of an international community.
America CAN do what they want. They have been able to for years. The idea that they will do what ever small whim takes their fancy is a strength. They just happen to be conducting a series of actions you disagree with.
Why is the UN not being held accountable for all the violations of its charter that it hasn;t enforced?
Yes I don’t like many of the US policies. But they are doing the right thing at the moment. And fortunately America is a democracy and I have to have faith that their people will vote for a better leader next time round.
37. Destructor
The military actions in and of themselves, as has been stated, aren’t the concern. The ability for nations to self-govern and not be invaded, for citizens to decide thier own fate rather than have it decided for them by an entity that is only working for its own self-interest, these things have existed throughout my past 26 years.
The US may have certainly ‘led the way’, but it has never dictated world policy to such a degree before. Never ignored the will of the Earth’s nations in such a blatant way. Never abandoned its own (intelligent, anti-nuclear) first strike policy. Adrian is right: It’s a dangerous precedent, and I really don’t want to see who is next to follow up on it.
And Adrian is right about faith. For all our arguments, it’s about what we believe.
Should alternative means of empowering Iraqi citizens have been used before a military alternative was taken?
Will America continue to invade and occupy any country it says is a threat?
Will America’s citizens be able to stop thier own government if it steps over the line? Where is that line? Will they even care?
You believe America should be allowed to roam unchecked, unquestioned. I don’t.
As a non-US citizen, Tot, what do you want me to do? This is exactly what I’m talking about. Where’s the democratic means for any foreigner to affect what your country does? The only means we had of influencing international policy was the UN. With America’s dismissal of its authority, the world is less stable than I’ve ever experienced it. And people want me to ‘get behind’ the process that is causing this potentially catastrophic instability?
I’ll support the removal of a dictator. I can see that. I can’t get behind the threat to world peace that is forming around your country.
Do you genuinely believe Terrorism is going to go DOWN because of this invasion? Why do the terror alerts keep getting higher and higher? With each new country the US takes control of, there will be more and more disempowered groups and individuals that are resentful of that power.
d
38. Tot
I think that you will find that America has dictated the policy very much before, but because majority of the West relied on them for protection during the Cold War, there were few diplomatic wrangles. This threat has now been removed, and we have entered into a new era of world politics with one hyperpower.
Choice we all have is to either engage the hyperpower and influence their decision-making process (Blair) or confront them in a completely futile gesture (Chirac).
I certainly don’t think America should go unchecked. However, relying on the UN is naive. The UN has practically never done anything with regards to global security, and never done so without the Americans. It is a tool of the major powers, with the US being the most major. We are some distance away from a “star trek” ideal where everyone has first-world living standards, is fully educated and fully informed - and therefore a global democracy is not viable. A relatively small number of countries bankroll the world economy and provide significant aid to the rest. One country pays for world policing out of it’s own pocket. Perhaps these countries should have a proportional say in how the world is run?
As a non-citizen of the US, you DO have influence - support the politicians who oppose what you see as domination, and vote with your dollar / yen / pound / euro. Collectively, if enough concerned world citizens cancel holidays to the US, boycott US goods, refuse to work at US multinationals, don’t invest in US firms, refuse to work at local companies whose major shareholders are US owned, refuse US aid money et al - then the US will eventually listen to what other countries say. I wonder how many people are really concerned enough to give all that up!
39. Fer
If the US were to halve (or even reduce by 90%) its defence budget and give the money as state aid (on a no-strings basis), and also abandon its trade tariffs, giving a reasonable chance of first world standards of living in poorer countries, then perhaps it might find this a more effective defence policy.
Simplistic, perhaps, but then many of the best ideas are.
40. Crystal
Just a question Adrian… Do you really think Gore would have done better given the situation? There wasn’t really another choice for president. I don’t see how we could have elected a “better” leader, as you say, and I don’t see how, if we had elected another, this situation would have changed.
Tot’s got many good points, and I’d like to tip my hat to him for what he had to say. Everyone, including Americans, is afraid to say what is really true. That the UN is useless and has been useless for years, and the only security they’ve given has been with America leading its way and pulling up the rear.
There are many mistakes one could make in this situation, but one must choose the lesser of two (or three… or more) evils. In my eyes (not as an American, but as a rational individual), the decision to act is better than to sit and wait for something that most likely would not happen (the distruction of weapons of mass distruction by Iraq).
I think of it like this: You see a drunken man walking through the streets, waving a pistol at the passers by. You see him as a threat to yourself and to others around you. Do you a) hope he sobers up before he shoots someone, b) hope he gives the gun to somebody before he shoots someone, or c) kick his ass and take the gun away from him before he shoots someone.
Perhaps that was a bit simplified…
Irregardless of the angst many give towards Bush’s administration, his defience of the UN, and the seemingly rash tatics the US is taking, the hope of this war is that a tyrant will be kicked off his throne to ensure world safety. Moreso, Bush is ensuring the safety of the US (because if there is one country Saddam hates more than anyone, it’s the US… and he poses a serious threat to the US). I think he has a right to do that as a president.
41. John
Hey, there’s a good discussion going on here. As I said today in my blog—
>I think I’m edging a little closer to a pro-war stance every time I encounter some goofball protestor on the street. I passed a guy carrying a sign that read, ‘Attack Iraq Now And Our Children Will Suffer For Generations To Come.’ So, what is the alternative in this guy’s view? Sit back and let Saddam continue to stockpile weapons, take over countries like Kuwait and Iran (which he would do if he could), amassing power in the form of oil and continuing to fund groups like the PLO and al-Qaeda? Sit back and wait for the next bunch of freako fucks to launch a terror attack on the U.S. or on citizens and soldiers abroad? Sit back and take it up the ass?
Screw that. We should have gotten rid of Saddam long ago, and now we should finish the job, and nail his sons in the process, since they are as bad as he isﾃやｦ and possibly worse.
I think it’s a safe bet that Saddam will continue to fund any anti-American anti-semite organization. He’s done it in the past, and since the threat of him doing it in the future exists, I think this strike is preventative. Sanctions don’t work. While barring Iraq from acquiring any mechanical parts that could be used to create WsMD, food and medicine was exchanged for oil. Foods and medicines intended for children, infants, and mothers has been sold by Iraq to other countries for more cash. Machinery intended for pumps to help fight drought did not go to the farmers of Iraq but ended up in the ‘resort’ Saddam named after himself, a resort which includes luxury accomodations, pools, and fountains. The only area that has a good supply of water is Saddam’s home village. Support Saddam and reap the benefits. Ignore him and get nothing, while he builds up his personal fortune and continues to stockpile weapons.
42. Destructor
Well, I saw Tony’s speech last night, and was pretty impressed- he covered a lot of the ground that I was worried about, particularly the point about the oil money going into a UN Trust Fund. If there’s anyone I trust in this mess, it’s Blair. So I am feeling a bit better about the war, and I should also note that a lot of the points made in this discussion did a lot to change my mind.
However that doesn’t mean I still don’t have loads of questions and worries, and that I’ll keep voicing them.
John, I find the concept of a pre-emptive war to be very, very dangerous. The basic fact is, Iraq has never ever attacked the United States, and there is simply zero proof that they have the capability to attack anyone outside thier immediate neighbours (and most nations have this capability). The last time they did do that, they got smacked down. I simply don’t believe it’s right to attack nations because you THINK they MIGHT have the capability to strike you and they MIGHT use it. That’s way too many ‘maybes’ for justify invasion and occupation.
No-one is advocating just ‘sitting back’, we’re just advocating that a case has to be made for war, and no case was made. Which means that nations no longer need to account for themselves if they want to invade another nation. Don’t forget that it wasn’t just the French that were anti-war, it was the majority of Security Council that failed to be convinced that a case had been made. I suppose they’re all in Hussein’s pocket?
All these pros and cons are well and good, but that’s actually not my worry. I’m worried about the lack of accountability here. Crystal, for all its problems, the UN is the only international forum that can provide this. As I said, I think it must be very difficult for an American to understand how frightening the world seems without the discussion and debate and responsibilty that the UN provides. You don’t have to worry about these things, so you are free to deem the UN irrelevant. But the rest of the world is here and we effect each other and this breakdown in diplomacy will lead to problems far bigger than ‘the butcher of Baghdad’.
d
43. Tot
Lets not get confused here….this is not a pre-emptive war, but enforcement of a surrender agreement signed by Iraq with the United Nations 12 years ago.
If Iraq was complying with the surrender agreement, then there would not be United Nations AGREED sanctions against his regime.
Blatant disregard of terms of surrender is justification enough for military intervention, and there are 30-40 countries whose elected officials support enforcement of this.
Blatant disregard of terms of surrender surely must absolve you of sovereign rights. The UN force in the last Gulf War did not depose the Iraq regime on the fully signed-up agreement that the country would be fully disarmed.
It’s just that the UN due process of enforcing its resolutions has been hijacked by certain nation states with economic interests in the region.
Again, too many conspiracy theories and not enough facts.
44. Fer
At the risk of sounding hackneyed, we’re talking about a country here which:
- has a leader in power against the will of the majority of its people
- which is alleged to have WoMD with a threat of using them
- which has engaged, and continues to engage, in the systematic abuse of ethnic minorities
- which acts in violation of the UN
- which uses methods of punishment which are viewed by many other countries as being in violation of basic human rights
- which imprisons people who are perceived as a threat to the state without trial
- which has several times over recent years attacked other sovereign states without provocation
- which is alleged by some to support terrorist organisations
Isn’t this enough reason to require a regime change?
Unfortunately when we were in a position to act we failed to do so (we let them get independence in 1776).
45. Joe
I’ve kept out of the debate on here - not being very good at keeping my thoughts short and sweet, as a comments box dictates.
I have, now, however, added thoughts over at my site - probably in way too much detail. But, that’s just me.
Thanks to all of you for keeping me going over the last couple of days. I’ve really enjoyed your views - and the debate that’s ensued.
Well done, Adrian, if not for your views, then for starting things off.
46. Chicken
This blog and string of comments are teriffic. It is so nice to read comments made in belief without the name calling. Good for you Adrian, for sparking rational, intelligent and spirited correspondance.
47. Leonie
Adrian
Thanks for this debate. Very interesting. The comments I posted on my blog are somewhat more simplistic(!), but I stand by them.
I can usually hear the demonstrators in Parliament Square from where I’m sitting. Suspect it will be noisier today…
48. Crystal
Just because I happen to be an American does NOT mean I’m a complete idiot or blind to the facts and other world views.
I’m not jumping on a pro-war bandwagon like so many anti-war protesters who don’t even know exactly what they’re protesting against. “War kills.” “War is bad.” “Peace not war.” Yes, war isn’t the happiest thing in the world, but sometimes it’s necessary. It’s NOT about oil. The US gets very little of it’s oil from the middle east. It’s not about grudges, otherwise this would have happend a long time ago. It’s about a man who, among other things, keeps blowing off the world’s leaders’ attempts at diplomacy to do as he pleases, keeps his entire country oppressed, and, given the chance and the technology, would kill hundreds of thousands of people because he feels like it.
I resent the fact that just because I’m an American, those in other countries seem to think I’m sheltered or have no worthy opinion in world matters. I’m seeing the facts for what they are, whether American, British, French or what have you. It reminds me, honestly, of how some men treat women. “Oh, you’re a woman. You would have no idea what’s going on, so your opinion doesn’t count.” That’s a bit closed-minded. I’m an American, not a moron.
As for the whole war debate, I’ll say my last piece by reflecting on the images of all the Iraqi people rejoicing in the streets, tearing down posters of Saddam. That, to me, makes me feel like the whole damn thing is worth it.
49. Destructor
Crystal,
please don’t equate anti-war sentiment with anti-Americanism. We are basing our opinions on the actions of your country, not just some vague anti-American feeling. To continue your analogy a bit further, if a woman does something I don’t like, and I comment on it, does that make me sexist?
The bottom line for me is, the international community is held together by laws, and the laws should be established by the world community at large. The governments of America, Australia and Britain have ignored those laws by starting this invasion prematurely, without ‘the consensus of the world’. How can America take Iraq to task for ignoring UN resolutions when they ignore the UN pretty much whenever it well pleases them?
Oh, and here’s a fun fact for the anti-French folks: Bush publicly offered both Russia and France radically reduced oil prices once America controlled Iraq’s oil supply; provided they supported the second resolution, that is.
d
50. Destructor
Crystal,
referring to your ‘man with a gun’ analogy, I think a better analogy is this:
There’s an insane, child-beating man, walking round with a gun. Two guns, even. The biggest, toughest cop in town confronts him:
COP: “Put down that gun!”
The man does so.
COP: “And the other one, smart guy!”
The man drops the other gun.
COP: “And that grenade I sold you last week!”
MAN: “I don’t have a grenade.”
COP: “Yeah you do. Now drop it before I drop you.”
MAN: “No, I really, really don’t have it.”
COP: “Hey, you’re that wife-beater, aren’t you?”
MAN: “Ummm…..”
COP: “You’re gonna fuckin’ DIE!”
Man puts hands up, begs for mercy. Other cops show up.
NUMEROUS COPS: “Don’t do it, Captain! We can take him in, there’s no need to kill him, we’ve got him surrounded!”
SGT. BOBBY: “Go for it, old chap!”
COP: “Thanks, Bob, I knew you’d back me up! Let’s take this pervert down!”
Firefight ensues. Insane Man, essentially defenseless, uses one of his children as a human sheild. The cop kills the kid as well, before slaughtering the man.
OTHER COPS: “Ummm, geez, you kind of ignored due process there, Captain, guess we’d better take you in or something (mumble mumble)…..”
COP: “What are you gonna do? Arrest me? I’m chief of police! Bwahahahaha!”
d
51. Destructor
Oh, and one more fun fact for those of you saying that the US is just enforcing existing regulations:
On the day the resolution was passed, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte said to the Security Council: “There is not ‘automaticity,’ and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken.”
Ummm……sure they will…….
d
52. Crystal
I was refering to your “It must be hard to understand as you’re an American” quote (no, that’s not taken directly, but that’s the jist of it). Just because I’m an American does not mean I’m blind to the facts. The facts are there. The American people can see them.
And since when did the US violate any UN laws in this? Unless I’m mistaken, there is no law in the UN that says there has to be a full agreement by all countries in the UN for a country to carry out an agreement made years ago. That if Iraq did not dis-arm (refering to WoMD), action would be taken to dis-arm him.
WHY hasn’t the UN kept the promises it has made? WHY hasn’t the UN gone through with the agreements and treaties it has passed? If anyone needs to be held accountable, it’s the UN. It was made clear that he (Saddam) was to dis-arm by a certain date. This was enforced by the UN. He didn’t. What good is an international council if it doesn’t uphold the promises it makes?
53. Destructor
I apologise if my comment was taken as, er, country-ist. My fear is a crumbling World Order in which America ignores the international community and invades any country it wants, and I think it’s reasonable to assume that my perspective from the outside is bound to be very different to someone on the inside.
The UN asked Saddam to disarm. He said he had. They sent in weapons inspectors to ascertain this. They did. They asked him to disarm some of his long range missiles. He did. In short, he did as he was told, and was invaded anyway. There was no proof of WoMD, and the invasion continued anyway. You say that America can see the facts, but the presence of WoMD is a supposition, not a fact. Even if they find them now, and I hope they do, the war still proceeded from an assumption of guilt, and that ain’t good enough.
And those images of happy Iraqis you were talking about? Here’s what I caught on the news last night:
+ Iraqi civilians taking up arms against coalition forces.
+ Citizens of Baghdad scouring the reeds alongside the river Tigra, searching for downed American pilots to turn them in.
+ Umm Qasar, declared ‘held’ four days ago, still hampered by loyal troops and citizens inside the city using Guerilla tactics against the coalition.
d
The mood on the streets remains somber and sullen. Stores are mostly closed, and those that are open have run out of duct tape, gasoline, and aluminum foil (which is wrapped around computers to shield them from e-bombs). People seem sad, resigned, sometimes resistant, mostly fearful. There is universal opposition to the war: George W. Bush’s name is spit with venom. Yesterday, a soldier saw me on the street and shouted, “George Bush, I fucked your mother. We will win this war because you are here. You are a human shield. We are all human shields and the world is with us.” Still, Iraq’s celebrated hospitality remains, even in wartime. I have been greeted with kisses and hugs as often as I have with people pointing fingers at me and yelling pow-pow.
54. Adrian
For the record the only reason Saddam did anything was because their where 300 000 troops camped on his door step.
Secondly, we can all quote rhetoric and show good and bad pictures of Iraq to justify our arguments as long as we like. The point is this now is a war and this is what happens in a war. It is only after the war when we can truly see if it was the right or wrong decisions. Life is never this black and white,
A large argument is the world is against the war. If you look at why the world is against the war, its because the countries against the war have other reasons (I will send you an email on this) which makes them just as guilty of what you are accusing the American government of. Had the other countries voted for the war, it would be less of an American Imperialism issue.
Finally it’s documented that Saddam asked for the details and addresses of family members to the third cousin of scientists and people involved with the inspectors. Makes you think about how much you can trust a man like Saddam when he has said he has disarmed.
55. Tot
…and in reference to Saddam disarming:
There is documented proof that the regime had weapons of mass destruction during the first round of weapons inspections after Gulf War I. This has been agreed by Iraq.
The UN found that Iraq possessed a number of items including thousands of litres of Anthrax and VX Mustard Gas.
Iraq (with 300,000 troops on its border) states that it has suddenly destroyed all of this…..but unfortunately….it appears as though they have absolutely NO record of it. Strange isn’t it??
Now let’s take a step into the real world.
What sort of dictator with such a tenuous link on power would let his biological and chemical weapons disappear unaccounted within the borders of his country??
Remember that this is a dictator who has survived assasination attempts on his life and those of his sons, has hostile neighbouring countries on a number of sides and has ethnic minorities fighting armed resistance struggles within his own borders. He has also had scores of his closest aides executed to protect against any coups.
Surely a leader with so much to fear would have some record of the status of his most valuable weapons being destroyed…some basic documentation or proof?? Surely he would want some assurance that they hadn’t got into the hands of his many enemies??
I guess I am just being cynical.