Was the war in Iraq the right thing to do? [Archive]

Phanerothyme

20-07-2003, 09:16

Originally posted by t020
Saddam was a muslim and the west attacked him as a way of stirring up even more hatred against us, and since we played a big part in the war it has now brought more attention to us, not just the USA. They do this despite the fact that Saddam has killed more muslims than any other person. Overall though, we did the right thing.

Long post - no apologies, but if you can't be arsed (and who can blame you) just read the headings.

Saddam no friend of the muslim
Saddam Hussein may have been nominally muslim, but he was a hated figure by islamists for his supression of Islam withing Iraq (which was not an Islamic state, but had a judiciary based on the british legal system).

He was much feted for by western leaders for his tough stance against fundmentalist islam, and received much funding for arms with which to persecute Shia Muslims

The UK and Iraq have always had very good relations and many Iraqi officers trained at Sandhurst, many Iraqi scientists carried out postdoctoral research at British universities by invitation. There is even a British Servicemens Cemetery in Iraq.

not right, not wrong - simply unecessary
As for whether the war was right or wrong - well there's no answer to that. Was it necessary? No.

It's about WMD
The war was completely predicated on WMD. That was the UN resolution that the UK and US claimed they had a mandate from 1991 (resolution 707) and then again in 2002 (1441). The UK and US started this war with (patchy) support from the UN and used those 2 resolutions (and a handful of others) tojustify military action.

So the war was about WMD, and disarming Saddam in accordance with the surrender signed back in 91.

Blair confirms that issue is WMD not Regime Change
Tony Blair even said (I paraphrase)
"this is not about regime change, this is about disarmament. If saddam disarms [in accrordance etc.] he can keep his armies and navies, blah blah blah"

Parliament is convinced
Parliament was poked into action on the matter, and approved the commitment of UK forces (although parliament is not required to do this - the PM can do it himself).

UK forces and interests are directly threatened
The evidence presented to parliament showed Saddam to be in possession of weaponised biological and chemical agents, that they were well organised, and could conceiveably strike UK forces in Cyprus within 45 minutes of the order being given.

Whoops! No, they aren't
This has been demonstrated to be completely wrong. Whether anyone actually deliberately 'sexed up' the evidence, I am less sure - more likely a case of a message being changed slighty every time it was passed up a level. Cock-up rather than conspiracy.

War was planned well in advance by US
The fact remains, however, that the US were going prosecute this miltary regime change whatever, and they were going to do it before the summer (too hot for combat). The UK went along because (possibly quite rightly) they thought if the US went in alone, the consequences for global stability could be disastrous.

All this WMD/UN/45minute stuff was just a pretext siutable for domestic assuagement. The political thetoric was pumped up calling objectors appeasers and so on - the media was shown a fast moving and exciting bandwagon, and the leapt on in droves.

So it wasn't really about WMD, what was it about?
Why was the war prosecuted?

Anyone who thinks it was done to liberate the Iraqi people from an evil and opressive dictator should ask themselves the following questions:

Why did the UK/US support him for so long in opressing the Shia Muslims?

Why did the UK/US support him for so long in the oppression of the Kurds?

Why did the US/UK sell Saddam arms and precursors for chemical weapons, as well as entire culture labs for the manufacture of biological weapons for so long (until invasion of Kuwait)

Why did US/UK ignore obvious and publicised human rights abuses in Iraq (until invasion of Kuwait)

Why did the UK/US not invade Indonesia, Myanmar, Rwanda, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Pakistan, China, - all brutally opressive regimes with long lists of human rights abuses (in China they execute prisoners and sell their organs for example)

Why does the UK continue to sell arms and torture equipment to the world market (including several of the countries listed above)?

Basically the US/UK governments couldn't give a rat's arse about human rights or despotic dictators.....

unless they threaten the stabliity of the oil market.

War prosecuted to keep our lives comfortable
This war was prosecuted to further the economic ends of the West. not in some simplistic "invade iraq, steal oil , get rich" way, but in a complex alteration of global political power and the introduction of dollar markets into previously 'dollar-less' zones.

And make sure we don't have any nasty 'petrol crises'
As well as to stimulate patriotism (whoops again), flex our military muscles for the benefit of all watching, stimulate the arms industry (need more missiles, planes and tanks) and put our forces smack bang in the middle of the worlds largest reserves of oil on the planet - which means we get a say in what happens to it.

US is on the march
This is the age of american imperialism and empire, a fact we'd better get used to. Not content with a very successful era of Cultural imperialism, a new era of political and military imperialism is beckoning.

Blair knows this, and realised that being a favoured puppy of the US is defintely a prosperous and well defended thing to be.

All Hail PNAC!
Anyone with any doubts about the current american policy direction should take a look at the Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/ i think) to have a look at Cheny, Perle, Rumsfeld and Wolfie's current thinking.

GHaywood

20-07-2003, 09:46

Yes the war was justified. It was justified on any number of reasons. It was justified on WMD. It was justified on Saddam's history of murdering hundreds of thousands of people, forcing millions to flee the country under pain of death and torturing God knows how many.

This argument that there are no WMD because we haven't found them yet really amuses me. It's a massive country with lots of empty desert and the weapons being talked about are tiny and extremely easy to hide. It's also a fact that the first inspectors who went into Iraq spent years looking for these weapons without finding anything until a defector told them that they existed and where they were.

The argument that some give (mainly Robin Cook) that we'd find huge factories for producing weapons if there were any is also false. We've been told for years that these weapons can be manufactured using the same equipment that can be used to produce normal goods (by Robin Cook in fact). So a normal factory could very easily be changed over to become part of the weapons process.

And since we gave Iraq about 6 months warning before we even sent any inspectors in it's not hard to imagine that these places could have been cleaned of evidence.

There is also the fact that Saddam failed completely to tell the UN what happened to a lot of nasty stuff that we knew of certain that he had.

We gave him a chance to co-operated and he tried to play games.

Abdul

21-07-2003, 06:25

Originally posted by t020
There is also the fact that it may have helped get the American economy ticking again, which in turn will help to stop the world slow down. There were downsides to the war though. People got injured and lost their lives

Nice one. Thousands of civilians dead and injured, but that's not as important as the health of the stock market.

What do we do if the world economy slows down again? Go to war on somebody else?

(edited for spelling)

tonychester

21-07-2003, 20:41

The war on Iraq was against public opinion and our soldiers
should never have gone without consent of the UN.
What were we trying to gain from the war? Oil?!!
The situation will turn nasty in the coming months a soldier a day
has already died since the end of the war.

I say get the British soldiers out and get Blair and Labour Out!!

Jon

05-04-2004, 23:37

:thumbsup: Its time to get the army out of Iraq now and leave the ungreatful Iraqi people to kill themselves

mojoworking

06-04-2004, 00:00

I agree with you in in theory, but in practice there is a big drawback to your suggestion.

Leaving them to "get on with it" simply leaves the way open for all manner of religious zealots to step and start their own campaigns of hatred against the west.

Look at the latest nutter to spring up in Iraq (Sadr?). Half his family was murdered by Saddam, yet instead of welcoming his removal, he's now recruited a private army and is preaching death to America.

If he is not removed soon, we'll simply have replaced one crazy dictator (Saddam) with another. At least with Saddam, he enjoyed the trappings of Western life so was no immediate threat to us. This latest head case could prove very dangerous.

Tony

06-04-2004, 07:20

It all rather feels like Iran in the 1970's where the West left certain USSR backed Mullahs to "get on with it". They deposed the Shah, then the USA / West spent the next 15 years funding Saddam in Iraq to fight against them.

Remember...
WE created Saddam.
WE created the situation in Iraq.
WE have had the courage to try to put it right as time has gone on.

So.... are WE going to let it happen all over again? I do hope not.

evildrneil

06-04-2004, 07:51

I didn't (and don't!) agree with sending in forces in the first place - I think it was stupid, oil driven and illegal. WMD was such a painfully obvious pretext that its almost cartoonish - if anyone really seriously thought there were any would they have sent in ground forces befure reducing Iraq to a smouldering ruin? However I think this is a case of where doing something stupid in a half-arsed way is worse than doing it properly and pulling out now is going to turn Iraq (and possibly the entire middle east) into a seething bloodbath destabilising both Iraq and the surrouding area. Unfortunately I dont think that we are going to learn from history and are going to pull out as soon as the Sun (as arbiter of lowest common denominator reactionarry 'politics') decides we should...

While I in no way agree with terrorist activities I can increasingly see their point of view...

Rich

06-04-2004, 10:07

So yeah, they kicked Saddam out, but the Iraqi people have only ever known a regime of violence and death, so what do they do?! Set about killing each other and blowing themselves up as suicide bombers!

I say pull all the Yanks out and let them get on with it, it's not like the US presence is going to make any difference anyway, it's just George W bush flexing his muscles bleating about how he saved the world by ousting the biggest known Terrorist.

And IMO from a British standpoint the war should never have happened, but oh no, T Blair was so far up George W Bush's arse throughout the whole thing he didnt dare not send our brave soldiers to possibly die in a war that the Yanks were clearly quite capable of fighting on their own.

halevan

06-04-2004, 10:20

Any fool can give an opinion with hindsight, but what you have said "BEFORE" we went in, that is the difficult part. Yes, thousnds of people have been killed in the invasion, but hundreds of thousands were killed during the Hussein rule by this callous butcher and he would have kept on killing.

Zamo

06-04-2004, 10:27

It appears that many people are of the opinion that "the end justifies the means" and therefore the invasion of Iraq can be defended. Well, this is a very dangerous position to take.

It's the UN's job to uphold international law and one of these laws is that it's illegal to invade a sovereign country unless in self defence. One of the reasons for this law is to discourage superpowers (now and in the future) from developing imperialistic ambitions and deciding to force their will on others - as the Germans tried in both Great Wars.

When these rules were drawn up, the UN decided there were no excuses. Each country has the right to self rule. Sometimes this means bad people end up in charge (especially when helped by self-serving superpowers) and bad things happen. But, unless the whole world agrees (i.e. the UN decides to intervene), no country (or alliance) has the right to decide “it knows best” and to take that country over. Unfortunately, this is what happened in Iraq and it is a worrying precedent.

The UN’s failure to act against the "alliance" has shown a terrible weakness. It is a sign that the UN does not have the will/strength to make a stand against a powerful country/alliance that defies international law and opinion. It is effectively a green light to superpowers of the future to do what they want.

It doesn't matter if you agree with what the superpower of today (the USA) is trying to achieve. Things change.

What if China suddenly finds huge reserves of oil and its economy starts to boom, whilst the US suffers a string of natural disasters that ruins its economy?

Will you still be happy that the UN has lost its teeth as China emerges as the next superpower?

Will you still be happy if China decided to ignore international law and invade Japan because it finds capitalism as offensive as we find non-democratic regimes?

Will you be happy knowing our country could be next because there is nobody to stand up to them?

Will it matter that the people of China support their government because they truly believe they are liberating and not conquering?

Put the shoe on the other foot and honestly ask yourself if you really can export beliefs, political ideologies etc, to another country using force?

Would we accept it if China tried to "liberate" us?

evildrneil

06-04-2004, 10:28

Ahhh so its a moral war - so when are we going to move in and remove those leaders with equally bad (if not worse) human rights records - but that either dont have oil reserves or even worse do have WMD - I dont see anyone queuing up to invade China or North Korea...

slimsid2000

06-04-2004, 14:39

Definately the right thing to do.

Also how does anyone know there were no WMDs? All we know is that they haven't been found yet. In fact, it is well known that Saddam did have WMDs.

It's just a pity that the British and American forces now in Iraq are so decent. If they weren't they would torture the truth out of Saddam and find out just what he did with them. The man himself would not hesitate to resort to such tactics. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

Zamo

06-04-2004, 15:34

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Definately the right thing to do..
Despite the fact that it has increased terrorism and the support received by terrorist groups?

Despite the fact that the lack of backbone shown by the UN makes the world a less safe place?

For the record, when did human rights abuses in Iraq start to bother you? How many protests did you go on? Why do you think Iraq was choosen "first"? What other countries do you think we should invade in order to impose our moral and political ideologies on?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Also how does anyone know there were no WMDs? All we know is that they haven't been found yet. In fact, it is well known that Saddam did have WMDs.[/B]
The cheif US weapons inspector, David Kay, has said in no uncertain terms that there are no WMD and almost certainly weren't any when the US invaded. What is it that you know that this expert, and ones like Hans Blix, don't know?!?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
It's just a pity that the British and American forces now in Iraq are so decent. If they weren't they would torture the truth out of Saddam and find out just what he did with them. The man himself would not hesitate to resort to such tactics. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. [/B]
Try reading something other than the Sunday Sport and you find plenty of stories that show our forces act just as badly in war as any others.

saxon51

06-04-2004, 17:16

Originally posted by Zamo
Try reading something other than the Sunday Sport and you find plenty of stories that show our forces act just as badly in war as any others.

And the country that is stupid enough to 'play fair' in the face of the opposition's dirty tactics usually loses. Re IRA v British Army.

I remember the glut of nonsensical idiots who played hell after we had sunk the General Belgrano in the Falklands conflict. "Poor chaps, cruising peacefully in the South Atlantic when bang." What a load of rubbish. If the British Army was HALF as bad as most other nation's armies, we'd have finished the IRA off in months, all stops out. We'd have overrun and flattened Argentina easily, and the civilian death toll to our guns would have been astronomical in Basra.

Please don't confuse OUR lads with the Yanks. WE try to do a tidy and casualty free job, the Yanks just blast away and sometimes even hit the target. The US may be big, powerful and well armed, but compared to the UK troops they're amateurs.

Zamo

07-04-2004, 09:19

Originally posted by markham
And the country that is stupid enough to 'play fair' in the face of the opposition's dirty tactics usually loses. Re IRA v British Army.

I remember the glut of nonsensical idiots who played hell after we had sunk the General Belgrano in the Falklands conflict. "Poor chaps, cruising peacefully in the South Atlantic when bang." What a load of rubbish. If the British Army was HALF as bad as most other nation's armies, we'd have finished the IRA off in months, all stops out. We'd have overrun and flattened Argentina easily, and the civilian death toll to our guns would have been astronomical in Basra.

Please don't confuse OUR lads with the Yanks. WE try to do a tidy and casualty free job, the Yanks just blast away and sometimes even hit the target. The US may be big, powerful and well armed, but compared to the UK troops they're amateurs.
I agree with you that compared to the Americans our forces are "model" soldiers. When I referred to "our" troops, I meant the allied force in general. Unfortunately we are lumped together, and will be tarred with the same brush, whether we like it or not.

I don't agree with you that if we'd played dirty with the IRA then we'd have finished them off in months. We did play dirty many times. The SAS were responsible for many assinations and we regularly fed info to loyalists to do our dirty work for us. The simple fact is these tactics didn't work. It only creates "martyrs" and 10 new recruits spring up... as is now happening as a result of our actions in Iraq.

Surely you are not suggesting that Britain should have invaded Argentina after the war as some sort of punishment or to claim our spoils of war? If this isn't what you mean then I'm confused. What do you mean about civilian death toll? It wouldn't have been much of a rescue/liberation mission if they'd have just killed everyone would it? I think in those circumstances even the Americans might show restraint! The worse thing about the Falklands was that there was a lot more bloodshed than there needed to be... but that's another "Thatcher" argument!

Rich

07-04-2004, 10:18

All they've done though by sending our lads over there is make Britain a target for terrorism.

Now every time even the slightest untoward thing happens, the Government and the papers get their collective knickers in a twist thinking we've been terrorised.

I mean yeah we need to be vigilant, but there's some very gullible people out there who will read the papers and listen to the likes of Tony Blair on the news and think the world's coming to an end next week due to a terrorist attack cos the media over-sensationalises it all.

saxon51

07-04-2004, 10:48

Zamo, I think you have either misread, or misunderstood my comments.

I didn't say we should have 'done a Yank' and gone in mob handed and flattened everything in sight on the off chance we kill a few of the enemy. I said we could have done, but we didn't. We exercised self control and acted like gentlemen. By doing this we suffered more casualties than necessary (as usual).

If you think that using the SAS is playing dirty, then you are on another planet. The SAS is used in a roll whereby their tactics are designed to lessen the damage to civilian and neutral interests. The SAS were used primarily to - A, gather intelligence. B, Take-out or arrest terrorist group leaders. This they did with great skill and daring. By the way, the IRA didn't hesitate to murder, assasinate and torture any poor sod they got their hands on. Even our lads!! I was there, I know!!! The situation whereby a sniper would fire on a patrol from someone's house often arose. Did the Army fire back? No!! Why not? Because there could have been civilians in that house. Now that takes a hell of a lot of self discipline, character and concern for the innocents don't you think. And usually, the sniper would get away and have several more shots at the lads (some fatal) before the SAS got him using their own brand of justice. And rightly so!!

Don't quite understand what you mean by there being a lot more bloodshed in the Falklands then there should have been. British soil had been invaded, British citizens had been incarcerated and the invaders refused to leave even though they had been given several warnings and chances. Our lads went down there, killed the people who were trying to kill them, and sent the ones who were sensible enough to give in back home. That you see, is why we have an Army, Navy and Air Force!!

I am dying to hear your accurate accounts of the 'dirty tactics' used by the SAS though.

By the way, I will NEVER refer to any other country's troops as our troops. Our troops are the ones under the Union Flag, getting on with the job, not gobbing off, and concidering the wellbeing of the civilian population 'where possible'. They're usually the ones who haven't got a clue why they're there, or what its all about, but have just got dragged into someone else's fight as usual.

Zamo

07-04-2004, 12:39

Originally posted by markham
Zamo, I think you have either misread, or misunderstood my comments.

I didn't say we should have 'done a Yank' and gone in mob handed and flattened everything in sight on the off chance we kill a few of the enemy. I said we could have done, but we didn't. We exercised self control and acted like gentlemen. By doing this we suffered more casualties than necessary (as usual).
Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant.

Originally posted by markham
If you think that using the SAS is playing dirty, then you are on another planet. The SAS is used in a roll whereby their tactics are designed to lessen the damage to civilian and neutral interests. The SAS were used primarily to - A, gather intelligence. B, Take-out or arrest terrorist group leaders. This they did with great skill and daring. By the way, the IRA didn't hesitate to murder, assasinate and torture any poor sod they got their hands on. Even our lads!! I was there, I know!!! The situation whereby a sniper would fire on a patrol from someone's house often arose. Did the Army fire back? No!! Why not? Because there could have been civilians in that house. Now that takes a hell of a lot of self discipline, character and concern for the innocents don't you think. And usually, the sniper would get away and have several more shots at the lads (some fatal) before the SAS got him using their own brand of justice. And rightly so!![/B]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not making any excuses for the IRA (or any other terrorists), they are cowardly murderers as far as I'm concerned. I agree that sometimes it is justified and right for military force to be used against terrorists but we need to be real about this - it won't ultimately stop them. In fact, it can be counter-productive as it often helps them to attract new recruits to their cause.

As for the SAS, you said it yourself - they were used to "take-out or arrest terrorist group leaders". "Taking-out" people is assasinating them. As this is illegal in this country it is a good example of the "dirty tactics" I referred to.

Originally posted by markham
Don't quite understand what you mean by there being a lot more bloodshed in the Falklands then there should have been. British soil had been invaded, British citizens had been incarcerated and the invaders refused to leave even though they had been given several warnings and chances. Our lads went down there, killed the people who were trying to kill them, and sent the ones who were sensible enough to give in back home. That you see, is why we have an Army, Navy and Air Force!![/B]
I was referring to battles such as Goose Green, which were ordered by Thatcher, not because there was any military advantage, but because they provided great "heroic" stories. These stories were used by the Thatcher government to create a wave of national pride on which they were re-elected. "Lads" for votes you might say.

slimsid2000

07-04-2004, 13:11

Originally posted by Zamo
Despite the fact that it has increased terrorism and the support received by terrorist groups?

Despite the fact that the lack of backbone shown by the UN makes the world a less safe place?

For the record, when did human rights abuses in Iraq start to bother you? How many protests did you go on? Why do you think Iraq was choosen "first"? What other countries do you think we should invade in order to impose our moral and political ideologies on?

The cheif US weapons inspector, David Kay, has said in no uncertain terms that there are no WMD and almost certainly weren't any when the US invaded. What is it that you know that this expert, and ones like Hans Blix, don't know?!?

Try reading something other than the Sunday Sport and you find plenty of stories that show our forces act just as badly in war as any others.

If you don't believe Saddam had WMDs how do you explain all those Kurds being gassed? Or was it just some sort of mass halucination?

I also don't think getting rid of Saddam has increased terrorism. It may not have prevented it all together but replacing an anti-western dictator with a pro-western democracy in Iraq will surely help in the wider war against terror.

If you really wanted to prevent terror you could intern all Muslims in the Uk (better safe than sorry). However, I doubt there would be much support for such a measure.

Finally I don't read the Sunday Sport, although I understand they have rather prettier page 3 girls than Claire Short. (Joke)

evildrneil

07-04-2004, 13:34

Originally posted by slimsid2000
If you don't believe Saddam had WMDs how do you explain all those Kurds being gassed? Or was it just some sort of mass halucination?

If military intelligence REALLY thought that Saddam had readily available WMD do you really think thet the Americans who are absolutely paranoid about losing personel would have put any of their land forces within striking range of them? And of course if he had all these WMD usable in 45 minutes why didn't he well ermmmm use them?

I also don't think getting rid of Saddam has increased terrorism. It may not have prevented it all together but replacing an anti-western dictator with a pro-western democracy in Iraq will surely help in the wider war against terror.

This we will have to wait and see - however Saddam was aguably one of the more pro-western leaders in the area - which is of course why the west set him up there and supplied him with weapons, gas, military information et al in opposition to Iran.

If you really wanted to prevent terror you could intern all Muslims in the Uk (better safe than sorry). However, I doubt there would be much support for such a measure.

Hmmmmm - does the term backlash mean anything to you?

saxon51

07-04-2004, 13:51

The battle for Goose Green must have been necessary. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a battle. For there not to have been a battle, one of the sides would have had to have surrendered. Or are you saying that we should have just walked away and said, "OK Argentina, you can have this bit".

They were told to leave, they didn't. We marched on them and they opened fire. We fired back and beat them. Then they left. Its as simple as that. ITS CALLED WAR. All battles in war are necessary if the invading country refuses to shift or surrender.

Unless of course the man in the street has a different answer that military leaders have been missing for the last few thousand years.

Or maybe its because the dreaded Thatcher was in charge and a lot of people refuse to accept that she was right occasionally.

As for taking out terrorist leaders, I don't see how any British subject can decry this method. The IRA themselves said it was a war, yet refused to fight openly and in uniform. They murdered, not in open battle, they tortured and assassinated. Are we the horrible ones for getting rid of them?

A state of war is different to peace, so the whys and wherefores alter. Not many people are saying that we should have minded our own businesses in two world wars are they. Remember those? The ones where we liberated Europe, South East Asia and North Africa using the same methods and tactics that people are now saying are wrong.:loopy:

Not wanting to start a slanging match here Zamo pal, but I will defend our armed forces to the death, and they need defending with some of the crap that gets thrown at them from time to time.

Zamo

07-04-2004, 15:56

Originally posted by markham
The battle for Goose Green must have been necessary. Otherwise there wouldn't have been a battle. For there not to have been a battle, one of the sides would have had to have surrendered. Or are you saying that we should have just walked away and said, "OK Argentina, you can have this bit".
Goose Green wasn't on the way to Port Stanley, which was the main objective. Commanders on the ground wanted to go straight to Port Stanley but were over-ruled by the war cabinet i.e. Thatcher. Do you think Thatcher had a better understanding of military tactics than her commanders or was she after a big ground victory that would swell the nations pride and do her re-election prospects the world of good?

As I'm sure you are aware, you don't need to take out every unit in order to secure a victory.

Originally posted by markham
Unless of course the man in the street has a different answer that military leaders have been missing for the last few thousand years.[/B]
I don't think the man in the street, nor the woman who was in number 10, knows more about military tactics than military commanders. That was my point. Politicians interfered with the decisions being made by the commanders on the ground because it suited their own political agendas.

Whilst the British troops accomplished a great victory at Goose Green against the odds, it was still a battle that did not need to be fought and that is what I meant by there being more bloodshed than necessary.

Originally posted by markham Or maybe its because the dreaded Thatcher was in charge and a lot of people refuse to accept that she was right occasionally.[/B]
We're already gone off topic enough, so I'll avoid a Thatcher argument with you!

Originally posted by markham
As for taking out terrorist leaders, I don't see how any British subject can decry this method. The IRA themselves said it was a war, yet refused to fight openly and in uniform. They murdered, not in open battle, they tortured and assassinated. Are we the horrible ones for getting rid of them?[/B]
I didn't actually make any moral judgement, I simply said it was illegal. If assassination is illegal then the SAS doing it must be seen as a "dirty" tactic mustn't it?

Originally posted by markham
A state of war is different to peace, so the whys and wherefores alter. Not many people are saying that we should have minded our own businesses in two world wars are they. Remember those? The ones where we liberated Europe, South East Asia and North Africa using the same methods and tactics that people are now saying are wrong.:loopy:[/B]
I'm not a pacifist. I just believe that before we go to war we should be sure it is for the right reasons, there aren't alternatives and we have clear and achievable objectives.

Originally posted by markham
Not wanting to start a slanging match here Zamo pal, but I will defend our armed forces to the death, and they need defending with some of the crap that gets thrown at them from time to time.:[/B]
Defend away. I never meant to slag of our armed services. I am slagging off the decision to send them into Iraq and the mess it has caused.

People are talking about it being the right thing to do. Why? What was the objective of it (surely we must at least have an objective before we go to war)?

If the objective was to rid us of the threat from WMD, has it succeeded? No, because there weren't any. We also had an alternative in the form of UN weapon inspectors. Yes, it would have taken longer but wouldn't it have been worth it?

If the objective was to free the Iraq people and provide them with democracy, has it succeeded? No. There is no democracy. There is anarchy as different factions fight for power. It is only being suppressed with guns and tanks. The situation is getting worse and the hatred for the US and British grows each day. SNAFU.

If the objective was to reduce the threat from terrorism, has it succeeded? No, it's worse.

saxon51

07-04-2004, 16:09

Originally posted by Zamo

People are talking about it being the right thing to do. Why? What was the objective of it (surely we must at least have an objective before we go to war)?

If the objective was to rid us of the threat from WMD, has it succeeded? No, because there weren't any. We also had an alternative in the form of UN weapon inspectors. Yes, it would have taken longer but wouldn't it have been worth it?

If the objective was to free the Iraq people and provide them with democracy, has it succeeded? No. There is no democracy. There is anarchy as different factions fight for power. It is only being suppressed with guns and tanks. The situation is getting worse and the hatred for the US and British grows each day. SNAFU.

If the objective was to reduce the threat from terrorism, has it succeeded? No, it's worse.

Its a pity the politicians and military commanders DIDN'T have the hindsight before the war that you are using here.

We went in because the US asked for a coalition. We're allies. Like it or not. If we had refused to join them, would they have helped us in any future conflicts? No, and who could blame them.

If, after WW2, it was found out that we only declared war on the Axis to get our hands on German industry and technology would it have been wrong of us to get involved? After all, we only got involved because Czechoslovakia was an ally. Not to defend ourselves.

AND the politicians practically ran that little party as well.

Zamo

07-04-2004, 16:55

Originally posted by markham
We went in because the US asked for a coalition. We're allies. Like it or not. If we had refused to join them, would they have helped us in any future conflicts? No, and who could blame them.
I don't want our country to be the spineless, weedy tw*t that hangs around with the school bully so he doesn't get beaten up himself.

If Britain had shown a little more backbone then perhaps the war would have been prevented. We'd also have the respect of the rest of Europe and the UN and, IMO, the world would be a lot safer.

Originally posted by markham
If, after WW2, it was found out that we only declared war on the Axis to get our hands on German industry and technology would it have been wrong of us to get involved? After all, we only got involved because Czechoslovakia was an ally. Not to defend ourselves.

AND the politicians practically ran that little party as well. [/B]
We had "mutual aid" pacts with several other countries that meant we were obliged to go to their defence.

I agree there are sometimes "secondary" reasons/motives for going to war (the spoils if you like) but there must still be a primary reason that can be justified both morally and legally.

The US and UK primary reason - WMD - has been proven to be a lie. To the rest of the world we are arrogant bullies who have undermined the UN by ignoring international law.

We have done ourselves no favours and we have done the Iraq people no favours. All this BS about liberating the Iraqi people and bringing them democracy is nonsense. Anyone who thinks this, should trying watching some serious news programmes or buy a serious newspaper. Without trying to offend anyone (although I prob will), if all you watch is GMTV, and all you read the Sun, then your knowledge of what's going on over there is going to be someone "limited".

Tony

07-04-2004, 17:47

Originally posted by Zamo
I don't want our country to be the spineless, weedy tw*t that hangs around with the school bully so he doesn't get beaten up himself.
We aren't. If anything we are more like the school prefect.

Originally posted by Zamo
If Britain had shown a little more backbone then perhaps the war would have been prevented. We'd also have the respect of the rest of Europe and the UN and, IMO, the world would be a lot safer.
Sorry - you're totally wrong. If Iraq had shown a willingness to cooperate with the interanitonal community there would have been no war. I cite Libya as exhibit No 1.

saxon51

07-04-2004, 19:26

Originally posted by Zamo
I don't want our country to be the spineless, weedy tw*t that hangs around with the school bully so he doesn't get beaten up himself.

If Britain had shown a little more backbone then perhaps the war would have been prevented. We'd also have the respect of the rest of Europe and the UN and, IMO, the world would be a lot safer.

You mean like the spineless weedy tw**s who hung on to OUR coat tails for protection, such as France, Belgium, Holland, Czechoslovakia, Spain, Serbia, etc. etc.? You know the ones I mean don't you? The ones who relied totally on us and the Yanks to fight FOR them?

And what's this about Britain having backbone? We took a risk, commited ourselves (at great cost) and the lads did a magnificent job as usual. The Iraqi people who welcomed us however, and then told us to get lost, are the ones responsible for what is happening there now.

WMD? Ok, none found! Common sense dictates that without us going in and finding this out for sure, the fear that they had them would still be present now. And being used as a threat by Saddam enabling him to bully whoever he wanted. As I said, with HINDSIGHT its easy to say "Look, no WMD." Would YOU have been able to definitely make this statement BEFORE we went in?

Newspapers? Funny how when an article is about how good Britain is, people seem to say "You can't believe everything the papers say." But when an article is running Britain down, "Look what it says here, aren't we a terrible nation."

And finally, as far as Military dictating how a war is carried out, this only applies to a Military Dictatorship. (which we are not). Commanders on the ground follow instructions from government. If, as Thatcher decided, an isolated pocket of well armed and battle ready enemy troops are bypassed in favour of taking the prime objective, and these bypassed troops are then brought into the fray as a second front then the chances of losing the objective is possible. They may not have posed an immediate threat, but they were capable of causing all sorts of problems later. I reckon she took a risk and it paid off. Well done to her. The soldiers who died did not die in vain. The British lads were all volunteers, and we can assume that when they signed up it was knowing that they would one day be expected to fight. Personally, I have no respect at all for any soldier who moans, and wants to get out of the army when he is asked to do his duty. To my knowledge none of our lads tried to skive their responsibilities even though they are the ones who were asked to go out and die. If they were willing to do this without complaint, who are we to criticise. Its the ARMY for Christ's sake, that's what we've got it for.

One last thing.

Isn't it funny how the people of Iraq now start a civil war but only AFTER we've got rid of Saddam. What was wrong with them doing this earlier? Or wouldn't they have had anyone else to blame in that case. They're the villains here, not us.

Phanerothyme

07-04-2004, 21:21

Originally posted by markham
You mean like the spineless weedy tw**s who hung on to OUR coat tails for protection, such as France, Belgium, Holland, Czechoslovakia, Spain, Serbia, etc. etc.? You know the ones I mean don't you? The ones who relied totally on us and the Yanks to fight FOR them?

And what's this about Britain having backbone? We took a risk, commited ourselves (at great cost) and the lads did a magnificent job as usual. The Iraqi people who welcomed us however, and then told us to get lost, are the ones responsible for what is happening there now.

WMD? Ok, none found! Common sense dictates that without us going in and finding this out for sure, the fear that they had them would still be present now. And being used as a threat by Saddam enabling him to bully whoever he wanted. As I said, with HINDSIGHT its easy to say "Look, no WMD." Would YOU have been able to definitely make this statement BEFORE we went in?

Yes.

The UN and many other countries implored the US and UK via the UN to give Blix more time. Saddam's regime was staring at an inexorable build up of troops on the border and compliance became total. Blix's opinion of the moment was in complete disagreement with that of Tony Blair, who stated categorically to Parliament:
from the dodgy dossier
Intelligence reports make clear that he sees the building up of his WMD capability, and the belief overseas that he would use these weapons, as vital to his 3 strategic interests, and in particular his goal of regional domination. And the document discloses that his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them.

We went to war to disarm Saddam Hussein of WMD, and despite of the best evidence available telling us there were probably no WMD, and almost certainly no serviceable WMD capable of being deployed in a strategic fashion, we sent the boys and girls in anyway.

The picture is gradually emerging of a pre Sept 2001 US defence dept plan to invade iraq 'pre-emptively', and Tony Blair was notified of this.

"this is not about regime change" he said - but it is.

<snip>
And finally, as far as Military dictating how a war is carried out, this only applies to a Military Dictatorship. (which we are not). Commanders on the ground follow instructions from government.

As any politician knows, and I expect every miltary person knows - once the battle is started, those in government only get punctuated opportunities to influence events. A commanding officer will not (or very rarely) sacrifice his troops on a politicians whim.

Politicians are not experts in war, Soldiers are - sensible politicians will defer to the judgement of the military command. Politicans set the objectives in consultation, and leave the military to get on with it, reporting back as circumstances dictate.

As for the Belgrano - it's a well established fact that sailing towards or away from the exclusion zone, a ship can turn around in less than 10 minutes even at full steam. The British Carrier Group could easily have been cut off and this risk was unacceptable. Two nations at war, you can't expect peace love and understanding.

The key difference here is that Argentina were the agressors. In the case of Iraq - We are the agressors.

...<snip>

One last thing.

Isn't it funny how the people of Iraq now start a civil war but only AFTER we've got rid of Saddam. What was wrong with them doing this earlier? Or wouldn't they have had anyone else to blame in that case. They're the villains here, not us.

Same as Marshall Tito in former Yugoslavia, to an extent. You have 3 or 4 distinct ethnic groups with a long history of antagonism. You have a strong, nay dictatorial regime that keeps a lid on internecine conflict (except for the national army persecuting uppity peasants).

Take out the dictator and it all boils over like a well shaken bottle of pop with everyone vying for control.

Lots of people said this before the invasion. Many questioned whether the US even had a post invasion plan.

Tony Blair, in the house of commons no less, insisted that Iraq would be administered under a full UN mandate and that Iraqi oil would be the property of the Iraqi people and again administered by the UN.

The US plans to have between 15-20 miltary bases and airbases in iraq (just in case they lose the ones in saudi) which will bring the total number of foreign US military bases to something like 750.

saxon51

07-04-2004, 21:48

To be quite honest Phan, I think we ought to send Saddam back home, reinstate him and let the bas****s suffer his revenge.

They don't deserve the help of any other nation, and if ever ANY country asks for our help again no matter what the reason, we should just say sod off. Not our problem.

That way we won't have Brit arguing with Brit.

Then again, there will be those who say "But we should have helped them out. That's what we're here for."

We'll have to agree to differ on this one.

Zamo

08-04-2004, 09:16

Originally posted by markham
To be quite honest Phan, I think we ought to send Saddam back home, reinstate him and let the bas****s suffer his revenge.

They don't deserve the help of any other nation, and if ever ANY country asks for our help again no matter what the reason, we should just say sod off. Not our problem.

Nobody did ask for our help. The whole of the Middle East and the UN were against the invasion.

The civil unrest was completely predictable. It's not a matter of hindsight - there were warnings that this would happen from all quarters prior to the invasion.

Of course the Iraq people were glad to see the back of Saddam but what did it cost them? Tens of thousands lifes (friends, family, countrymen) and the toll rises every day. There is no law and order. Homes have been destroyed. They are controlled by an occupying force that indisriminately use tanks and guns against them. There is no democracy - although they may get an interim government in July (appointed by the US) who can thereafter "take the blame". In a Gallup poll taken at the end of 2003, 94 per cent of Iraqis said they felt more insecure now than under Saddam - things are worse now!

Marham, what exactly do you think they should be "grateful" for?!?

Originally posted by markham
Then again, there will be those who say "But we should have helped them out. That's what we're here for."[/B]
No - that was the UN's job. It's not for the US and UK to self-appoint themselves as world guardians and impose their values on others.

If China was the reigning world superpower would you welcome them with open arms if they came to liberate us from our capatilist slavery? I'm sure they would be doing it with the best of intentions.

Originally posted by markham
We'll have to agree to differ on this one. [/B]
At last... something we can agree on! :D

Zamo

08-04-2004, 09:34

Originally posted by Tony
We aren't. If anything we are more like the school prefect.
Appointed by who?

Originally posted by Tony
Sorry - you're totally wrong. If Iraq had shown a willingness to cooperate with the interanitonal community there would have been no war. I cite Libya as exhibit No 1. [/B]
Hans Blix, Head of the UN Weapons Inspectors, said he was getting enough co-operation to be able to confirm for certain that Iraq has no WMD within a couple of months. Why wasn't this good enough?

Why was the collective opinion of the UN, who also though war was unnecessary, ignored?

Tony are you really saying it was worth spending billions fighting this war - that resulted in ten's of thousands of people dead, near anarchy in Iraq and a growing hatred of the West that has strengthen terrorist groups like Al Queda - just because Saddam wasn't smiling whilst inspectors probed his private places?

The war could only possibly have been justified if WMD had been found. Bush and Blair took this gamble and lost. It's time to pay up and excuses won't do.

Tony

08-04-2004, 09:39

I for one have never said that I either support or dissagree with the decision to go to war. It's far too complex to make snap judgements based on (lets be frank) bugger all evidence that we have as members of the public.

On balance... looking back... with hindsight... I think it was the right thing to do.

I have a huge problem withthe US attitude and lack of care in planning and establishing a way forward for Iraq post war though.

Rich

08-04-2004, 09:49

It's like I said, all George W Bush cares is about is that he thinks he's single handedly saved the world thanks to ousting a major terrorist.

Zamo

08-04-2004, 10:11

Originally posted by Tony
On balance... looking back... with hindsight... I think it was the right thing to do.
OK, but why exactly?

What do you think has been achieved?

Why do you think that these achievements were worth the cost e.g. ten's of thousands of lives, increased hatred for the West, increased threat of terrorism, the undermining of the UN etc.?

Tony

08-04-2004, 10:14

I thought I explained that adequately in my last para'

Zamo

08-04-2004, 10:25

Originally posted by Tony
I thought I explained that adequately in my last para'
Sorry, which last para? The one about Lybia?

Tony

08-04-2004, 10:38

Originally posted by Tony
I have a huge problem withthe US attitude and lack of care in planning and establishing a way forward for Iraq post war though.

Zamo

08-04-2004, 10:45

Sorry Tony, I don't get what you mean. You said...
Originally posted by Tony
On balance... looking back... with hindsight... I think it was the right thing to do.
Meaning the war was the right thing to do - right?

And your reason for thinking the war was the right thing to do is...

Originally posted by Tony
I have a huge problem withthe US attitude and lack of care in planning and establishing a way forward for Iraq post war though. [/B]
Sorry, I don't get it. :confused:

Tony

08-04-2004, 10:49

OK... the thread doesnt really follow.

Basically I'm thinking less about US and more about THEM. That is... the war will in the medium term help Iraq as a country, regardless of our domestic issues.

I was aways more interested in removing Iraq from bondage than whether there were WMD's. Saddam should have been removed long ago.

Does that make my position clear?

Zamo

08-04-2004, 12:25

Originally posted by Tony
OK... the thread doesnt really follow.

Basically I'm thinking less about US and more about THEM. That is... the war will in the medium term help Iraq as a country, regardless of our domestic issues.

I was aways more interested in removing Iraq from bondage than whether there were WMD's. Saddam should have been removed long ago.

Does that make my position clear?
I suppose.

You think we should abandon international laws giving every country the right to self rule and let the most powerful country in the world dictate things.

Great idea. Let's go back to caveman values where the strongest rules. That will make the world a safer place to live. :loopy:

Rich

08-04-2004, 12:36

But the Iraqis don't know how to self govern though, all they know is pain and suffering like they had under Saddam, I mean all you see on the news nowadays is them running round blowing either themselves or each other up and the Yanks plus every other International body is getting caught in the crossfire.

I say pull all the aid agencies and the Americans out of Iraq and let them get on with it, cos it's clear that no amount of US or anybody else for that matter's help is going to make a scrap of difference to them.

saxon51

08-04-2004, 12:40

Originally posted by Zamo

You think we should abandon international laws giving every country the right to self rule and let the most powerful country in the world dictate things.

Great idea. Let's go back to caveman values where the strongest rules. That will make the world a safer place to live. :loopy:

The right to self rule means "run by the PEOPLE of that country", so no dictatorship has self rule. Remove the dictator, and the people get their 'self rule' status.

Tony

08-04-2004, 12:46

Zamo, you're taking it out of context. There are occasions where I think such things are neccesary. Utimately, who would you rather have next door? Saddam or Bush? It's not a tough choice really if you ignore the rhetoric.

Without Saddam the world is definately a safer place to live.

saxon51

08-04-2004, 12:57

I agree Tony.

We might as well be saying "Let us safe, stable countries just sit back and watch the rest of the world fall apart. Only when they are blowing each other up, poisoning their near neighbours and starving their citizens shall we step in. (but only when invited to do so by the poor sods who have just died)."

spook

16-06-2004, 15:11

With the news that no credible link has been found between Iraq and bin Laden, here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm) and all the deaths and anarchy, was it really worth it in the end?

I don't think it was. I haven't seen anything that can convince me Iraq was a threat to us. Sure we removed Saddam but the Iraqi people aren't exactly happy with their lot since are they?

The Iraq war was about oil? You betcha!

dylan_61

16-06-2004, 15:14

WAR, yeah, uhuh, what is it go for?

Absolutely nothing

Emilychee

16-06-2004, 15:21

This is a good site

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

Rich

16-06-2004, 15:24

Originally posted by dilwise
I think we should have gone into Iraq but not at that time. The UN would have come around to our way of thinking and more time should have been allowed. The Americans set the agenda and we were too quick to agree with them.

That's cos the British establishment is too far up the American administration's arse.

Emilychee

16-06-2004, 15:28

If the US Government are so convinced that this war is "just" then why dont they send their children?

Emilychee

16-06-2004, 15:30

We are just constantly being fed lie after lie

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.htm

Emilychee

16-06-2004, 15:32

If American want to make the world "a safer place" by destroying other countries WMD, then why dont they get rid of theres aswell??

Because they want complete control over every other country

rosie

16-06-2004, 15:38

I sent bith my son`s there with their regiment.

They both came back and said the Iraq people were glad they came and their lives had got better in numerous ways but had got BETTER not worse. They could live life without fear of what they said and who they said it.

They felt justified they were there and they should know because they went.

They did not sit at home and moan about what should have happened but they went and did their jobs and saw what life was really like.

My son could have come out of the army before they sent him but 3 days after his 18th birthday he went and was glad he did.

Phanerothyme

16-06-2004, 15:49

Well the one soldier I know, has returned safely from his 2nd tour of Iraq, this time working with mil intelligence (doing god knows what, following people about mainly - fallujah, nablus, basra and baghdad.

The picture he painted was of growing resentment against the total lack of infrastructure, and the bare two facedness of the iraqis in basra who would be accepting gifts one day and throwing stones and rocks the next.

The collective memory of the region is absolutely littered with pale faced northern europeans turning up with guns - only this time the british have, by working in concert with the USA, squandered 80 odd years of goodwill and working relations with ordinary Iraqis.

Having said all that he reported that the closest brush with death he had was getting up early one morning in the south of the country at some combined services base, going for a slash and coming back to find a US 50 cal bullet hole right through his sleeping bag...

....Some trigger happy GI had been letting off rounds like he was at home on the ranch.

So I guess it depends which soldiers you speak to...

But was it right?

Well the estimated 4000 (no-one knows) iraqi children killed in the conflict by allied firepower are not going to give you any answers directly, but their deaths speak for themselves - as does the pile of over 1,000,000 childrens corpses, stacked up since 1992 as a direct result of sanctions.

evildrneil

16-06-2004, 22:40

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040616/325/ew1b6.html

bulldog D

16-06-2004, 23:11

Every sane person out there will regret the loss of an innocent life irrespective of who they are. Only in 20 years time will we truly be in a position to make a judgement on this action.
There is a large picture to look at, not just the snapshot news bulletins.
History is being made at this moment!
Only time will tell If It was the right decision

Phanerothyme

16-06-2004, 23:24

Originally posted by bulldog D
Every sane person out there will regret the loss of an innocent life irrespective of who they are. Only in 20 years time will we truly be in a position to make a judgement on this action.
There is a large picture to look at, not just the snapshot news bulletins.
History is being made at this moment!
Only time will tell If It was the right decision
I regret that I am late for work. I totally abhor the infliction of violent death on evidently blameless children, and reject completely the proposition that this sort of killing can be justified on any grounds, particularly economic and military ones, let alone arguments about the 'greater good'.

The larger the picture of Iraq you look at, the longer the history you examine, the more detail you encounter, and what do you see? Mountains of the dead, inexorably rising with every intervention in the affairs of the people of the region.

History is either a)always being made, continually with no variance, or if you really believe fukayama, b)history ended about 15 years ago (in ideological terms at least).

Sure, Bush and Blair may both have one eye on the history books when they think of the next tranche of lies, but I am certain they will face some fairly harsh judgement.

no good ever comes of slaying children, trust me on this.

bulldog D

17-06-2004, 00:02

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I regret that I am late for work. I totally abhor the infliction of violent death on evidently blameless children, and reject completely the proposition that this sort of killing can be justified on any grounds, particularly economic and military ones, let alone arguments about the 'greater good'.

The larger the picture of Iraq you look at, the longer the history you examine, the more detail you encounter, and what do you see? Mountains of the dead, inexorably rising with every intervention in the affairs of the people of the region.

History is either a)always being made, continually with no variance, or if you really believe fukayama, b)history ended about 15 years ago (in ideological terms at least).

Sure, Bush and Blair may both have one eye on the history books when they think of the next tranche of lies, but I am certain they will face some fairly harsh judgement.

no good ever comes of slaying children, trust me on this.

NO GOOD EVER COMES OF SLAYING CHILDREN
quite right Phan,King Herod found this out alright!
But did Saddam Hussein(the Pshycopath) really take this into consideration when he governed Iraq.

Ned Ludd

17-06-2004, 14:23

Originally posted by markham
I agree Tony.
We might as well be saying "Let us safe, stable countries just sit back and watch the rest of the world fall apart. Only when they are blowing each other up, poisoning their near neighbours and starving their citizens shall we step in. (but only when invited to do so by the poor sods who have just died)."
Why aren't our/US troops in Sudan where the government militias are responsible for far more deaths of innocents than Saddam was in his past 6 years then? I can't believe you buy into this hyocritical "humanitarian" motive. I notice you haven't mentioned WMD. Sudan is not rich in oil and not a potential long term counter balance to Israeli powerare the answers methinks

Tony

17-06-2004, 14:50

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
Why aren't our/US troops in Sudan where the government militias are responsible for far more deaths of innocents than Saddam was in his past 6 years then? I can't believe you buy into this hyocritical "humanitarian" motive. I notice you haven't mentioned WMD. Sudan is not rich in oil and not a potential long term counter balance to Israeli powerare the answers methinks

Yes but you miss the point that quiet diplomacy is making gradual improvements in many places. All efforts to achieve this in Iraq had failed, and Saddam was openly sponsoring terrorism (Palestinian suicide bombers).

I totally agree that other nations are much less than perfect, and our governmental attitudes vary depending on how close it is to our national interests, but the glimmer of diplomatic hope exists there, unlike Iraq.

You can't have it both ways. On the one hand you want the UN to have carried on the diplomatic and weapons inspection process in Iraq, but then you question why you should invade Iraq if not Sudan? You can't have it both ways. Does dealing with Iraq instantly commit us to sorting out Sudan too?

WMD's? So what? Politicians always need excuses for war. In 1939 it was Poland that was invaded, not the UK. Hitler had no pretensions towards invading the UK even after overrunning France. We still rightly committed to war.

You have the enviable luxury of your liberty and freedom from where you can moan about the Iraq War - the people of Iraq did not.

Ned Ludd

17-06-2004, 15:09

Originally posted by Tony
You have the enviable luxury of your liberty and freedom from where you can moan about the Iraq War - the people of Iraq did not.
I do have the luxury so I will moan because Iraqis who moan are likely to be shot, tortured, raped,imprisoned or flown to Guantanamo by Bush's crusading army..I'll moan for them.
I don't want us to invade Sudan. My point about Sudan is that it's currently far worse in human rights terms than Iraq has been for years and years. I merely use this as an example to show that the just cause argument of Bush and Blair won't wash.
I'm amazed that you feel it's quite alright for political leaders in a democracy to lie to justify war, invasion, human rights abuses and the slaughter of civilians for political and economic reasons.
No wonder there's voter apathy amongst the rest of us.

Greenback

17-06-2004, 15:16

WMD's? So what? Politicians always need excuses for war. In 1939 it was Poland that was invaded, not the UK. Hitler had no pretensions towards invading the UK even after overrunning France. We still rightly committed to war.

What on earth has WW2 got to do with Iraq? It's pretty obvious Saddam never had the sort of power Hitler was invested with. We haven't gone in to save civilisation as we know it, we've gone in on the coat-tails of the American oligarchs. That's the bottom line.

And you seem to imply that international law doesn't need to be respected, as long as you have some sort of self-invested moral authority?

Tony

17-06-2004, 15:35

You’re both being very short sighted, and really I suspect that's more to do with personal politics than any real concern about Iraq and its people at large.

The Iraqi government incited and sanctioned beheading of women and children in the market place has stopped.

In a few days time, Iraq will have its own leaders again, and in time that will give way to democracy - a first in the Middle East, with the exception of Israel that you probably also despise. :(

The war and all it entails is a transitionary phase. Painful yes, but transitory.

One can only hope that in 10 years time Iraq and maybe the nations adjoining it will know the meaning of freedom and democracy. You can bet that would never have had the slightest chance under the previous regime.

International law is very important, but that is only half the story. Laws need upholding, and the UN had lost its appetite to do so. Just like the League of Nations once did.

Let me remind you of how the international community at large got it so wrong in the past...

1934 - Night of the Long Knives.
1936 - The Berlin Olympics.
1939 - Germany invades Poland,
1940 - Germany invades France and effectively annexes Europe.
1945 - The world counts 50 million dead

Did you spot the Olympic Games in the middle of all that?

sanman

17-06-2004, 17:08

I think I'll have to side with the non-war brigade here. Comparing Iraq with WWII is ludicrous :loopy: and an insult to our soldiers that served in the war.

The question I ask myself is, if Iraq was in Africa and had no discernable wealth would we have invaded. I for one am far from convinced that we would.

This war is costing us the lives and millions of pounds. Stop the war and start spending the money in the UK, I can give you a list of things to spend the money on if you want

Tony

17-06-2004, 17:34

Have you not noticed that the war has stopped? Have you missed that Iraq will have its own government soon?

I am making the point that the UN was doing nothing effective, and whilst war is never a good option, the outcome usually is. There is very definitely a direct and parallel comparison to the 1930's and the attitudes of nations to Germany.

To compare is to African nations is an insult to the outcome and the Iraqi people. Maybe you would prefer Saddam to still be there terrorising and slaughtering his own people and sponsoring terrorism of other nations?

Maybe a straw poll in Iraq would favour a return to the old regime? Not from what I hear.

Maybe we could have a new scanner at the Hallamshire Hospital if we didn't maintain and use our armed services in Iraq?

For all the wringing of hands in dismay at "the illegal war that's killed thousands, cost billions and still not found any WMD's"... have you got a realistic alternative suggestion?

I'm all ears.

sanman

17-06-2004, 17:54

Tell the families of the poor sods that got blown up today that the war is over, I'm sure it will be a great comfort.

So on the basis we went to war beacuse Saddam slaughtered and terrorised his own people, who are we going to liberate next?

As for sponsoring terrorism, why didn't we go to war with America for sponsoring the IRA.

The reality pill is the blue one, I suggest 1 three times a day until you start talking sense.

Tony

17-06-2004, 18:15

Originally posted by sanman
Tell the families of the poor sods that got blown up today that the war is over, I'm sure it will be a great comfort.

Jeez... for the umpteenth time... War is nasty. We do it because of the outcome, not the process. Does anyone say it's fun? Are you saying that the war was pointless?

Originally posted by sanman
So on the basis we went to war beacuse Saddam slaughtered and terrorised his own people, who are we going to liberate next?

That is incredibly patronising and naive. Maybe you should ask an Iraqi?

Originally posted by sanman
As for sponsoring terrorism, why didn't we go to war with America for sponsoring the IRA.

You are confusing America with Americans.

Originally posted by sanman
The reality pill is the blue one, I suggest 1 three times a day until you start talking sense.
The reality is the man that killed over a quarter of a million of his 'subjects' is now behind bars and about to go on trail by his own countrymen. His rule of terror has ended. The killing will come to an close. Iraq will be peaceful once again. It will regain its culture and economy. It will be able to sell its oil. It will be able to buy the drugs it needs to cure its sick. They will have democracy.

Whether they give him a blue pill or the edge of a sword is now their prerogative.

The simple truth is that Iraq now has a chance where before it had none. You have no alternatives.

Phanerothyme

17-06-2004, 18:51

Originally posted by Tony
The reality is the man that killed over a quarter of a million of his 'subjects'

So less than the US led sanction regimes then, that's a relief.

No simple truths exist here.

evildrneil

17-06-2004, 18:57

Originally posted by Tony
Jeez... for the umpteenth time... War is nasty. We do it because of the outcome, not the process. Does anyone say it's fun? Are you saying that the war was pointless?

Based on the premise of the war (WMD deployable in 45 mins) then yes it was pointless.

That is incredibly patronising and naive. Maybe you should ask an Iraqi?

It seems a perfectly valid thing to say to me - so why is it patronising and niave? What sounds far more patronising and niave is "we did it because of a moral imperative and out of the good of our hearts"!

You are confusing America with Americans.

Americans may have sent the money to Noraid but the US government didn't exactly go out of their way to stop them did they? But then again given the US govenments history of sponsoring terrorism you wouldn't really expect them to would you?

The reality is the man that killed over a quarter of a million of his 'subjects' is now behind bars and about to go on trail by his own countrymen. His rule of terror has ended. The killing will come to an close. Iraq will be peaceful once again. It will regain its culture and economy. It will be able to sell its oil. It will be able to buy the drugs it needs to cure its sick. They will have democracy.

Now speaking of patronising and niave! Ah lucky Iraqis they will now have a wonderfull democratic country - assuming you stretch democracy to include American imposed govenments.

The simple truth is that Iraq now has a chance where before it had none. You have no alternatives.

An alternative to going to war to to remove WMDs that didn't exist and Iraqui state sponsorship of Al Queda that didn't exist? Well not going to war would seem a perfectly good alternative?

sanman

17-06-2004, 19:06

Well said. There is always an alternative, even if that alternative is doing nothing.

How many times do we hear of governments & dictators terrorising their own people. I can certainly think of countries in South America, Africa & Asia. How many do we go in and 'liberate'?

If America had not been fixated on Iraq after September 11th & not gone to war do you really think Britain would have?

It's about time Blair stopped being Bush's lap dog and looked to his own people.

Tony

17-06-2004, 19:11

I'll reiterate... WMD's... so what?

By all means take it up with Tony Blair. I personally don't care about WMD's. That's my own stance, I don't really care what the government said.

It's far too cosy for people to sit in our easy chairs watching the football and commenting at half time on such issues, then confusing them with the state of the NHS and asylum seekers taking our jobs.

For the third time in as many posts I will ask this question in all openness... does anyone have any better ideas? I haven't heard any yet.. just lots of hand wringing and soul searching about how nasty the UK and the USA have been.

Edit: Originally posted by sanman
There is always an alternative, even if that alternative is doing nothing. Wow.. you really did say that? Unfortunately whilst it's a bit late for the people of Halabja, luckily the remaining Kurds have half a chance. It's not perfect, but it is a start.

sanman

17-06-2004, 19:17

And I'll answer again, DO NOTHING.

If not then show some bloody consistency and go into all the other countries that treat their people like *****.

As for getting this confused with domestic issues, then I'm all for contrating on the domestic issues. Whilst we still have pensioners dying of hyperthermia in this country because they can't afford to heat their houses then we should save our money for our people. Charity begins at home.

Phanerothyme

17-06-2004, 19:18

Originally posted by Tony
For the third time in as many posts I will ask this question in all openness... does anyone have any better ideas?

Better ideas than what exactly?

Certainly we were shouting lots of better ideas back before the war started.

Or do you mean better ideas about trying to extricate ourselves from this £50,000,000 a day desert misadventure?

Originally posted by Tony
Edit: Wow.. you really did say that? Unfortunately whilst it's a bit late for the people of Halabja, luckily the remaining Kurds have half a chance. It's not perfect, but it is a start.

Why is Halabja always invoked as the defining example of Saddams monstrous behaviour to the kurds and turkomen? Have we all forgotten how complicit our governments were in that episode too?

Tony

17-06-2004, 19:19

Originally posted by sanman
Charity begins at home. No it doesn't and it's facile to suggest so.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Better ideas than what exactly?

Certainly we were shouting lots of better ideas back before the war started.
So what were they? Honestly Phan, I would like to hear any that make any sense.

And what other ideas are there now?

sanman

17-06-2004, 19:25

OK Tony

Heres a suggestion, start a poll asking wether the government out to spend billions on other countries or whether they should spend that money on the health service, child care, pensions etc etc etc. I think you'll find the vast majority want the governments priority to be this country. By the looks of it Blair is trying to avoid paying income tax he spends that long abroad.

Phanerothyme

17-06-2004, 19:26

Originally posted by Tony
No it doesn't and it's facile to suggest so.

So what were they? Honestly Phan, I would like to hear any that make any sense.

1.Don't invade Iraq
2.Don't invade Iraq
3...er thats it

(There were dozens of good reasons not to invade Iraq back before the war, but here we are in the middle of the war and still looking for a single good reason for having done so)

Tony

17-06-2004, 19:37

Come on Phan, that's just a western luxury guilt trip. No matter how hard you try you can never, ever claim that the UK or the USA is anywhere close to Saddams regime.

You haven't even come close to giving a better solution. The primary objective of the war was to remove Saddam and his regime. That was accomplished. It should have been done in 1991, but hey, we live and learn!

You can claim all sorts of reasons for that objective, and I might agree with you on a lot of them, but ultimately the regime was despotic. Iraq is undeniably a better place and has better prospects after its removal.

Sanman, well you're suffering from typical western selfishness! That's the top and bottom of it. You've lost any opportunity to claim any moral high ground with such an uncaring attitude. Ask me if I wanted to put the money to a better health service, child care and pensions and I might say 'no, I already pay for those privately'. That's the trouble with many people - they're just worried about their own back yard at the end of the day - a bit like those people who object to building on brownfield land near to their house to provide homes for people, but forget that they live in homes that were built on undeveloped farm and moor land!

They don't really give a stuff about those people that died in today’s bomb that you mentioned earlier - it just makes them feel better to think that they might.

sanman

17-06-2004, 20:12

Come on Tony are you really saying your view has more morality because you'd rather use tax payers money to stop suffering and injustice in another country than to do so in this.

I've sponsored childrens education in Africa for a number of years, but that's my personal choice. I wouldn't use your money for a cause I believe in without getting your agreement first.

I spend a great deal of my time doing voluntary work in an area in which I don't live to help improve the lives of the people there, beause they are less fortunate than me and are getting precious little help from eithet government or council. Yet you have the audacity to call me selfish.

As for the homes issue. House builders have planning permission to build 300,000 homes in this country, we currently have 700,000 homes empty.

It must be cosy wrapped in that blanket of self rightousness.

Tony

18-06-2004, 06:03

Originally posted by sanman
Come on Tony are you really saying your view has more morality because you'd rather use tax payers money to stop suffering and injustice in another country than to do so in this.
Not at all, but there has to be a balance and we as a nation have a responsibility outside our borders where no-one else has the spine to commit.

I suspect that Phan would point to the rise of Al-Quada and Saddam through western politics, and I would have some sympathy with that - strengthening our responsibility.

At the end of the day, the politicians recognised that Saddam had to go, and admitted the mistakes of the past whilst trying to correct them. Unfortunately the only option left was war. I still don't see any other viable alternative, even with the benefit of hindsight over year later.

As to paying for it, well we are a global economy (no amount of protesting is going to change that) and we have global responsibilities.

"They are only interested in the oil" I hear people cry. Well yes, let's admit that it is an important factor. The same people enjoy the benefits of oil and wouldn't do without it.

I go back to my original and contant assertion that governments have to make tough choices, but those decisions have to be made to allow our society to continue to prosper, and to allow others to prosper alongside us. What is ultimately good for Iraqi's is good for us, and vice-versa.

Abdul

18-06-2004, 06:30

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Why is Halabja always invoked as the defining example of Saddams monstrous behaviour to the kurds and turkomen? Have we all forgotten how complicit our governments were in that episode too?

Yep - while US and UK aircraft were patrolling the no-fly-zone to 'protect the Kurds', those same pilots had to watch while Turkey embarked on a little Kurdish genocide of their own.

The only difference I noticed was that Turkey is an ally of the west, and used American weaponry (F16s and Blackhawk helicopters) while Saddam was an ex-ally of the west, using American weaponry (chemical agents etc).

Actually, that's not much of a difference at all, is it? Does this mean the allies will invade Turkey next?

evildrneil

18-06-2004, 07:52

Not untill they become an ex-ally - or discover massive oil reserves?

Ned Ludd

18-06-2004, 10:14

I remember Douglas Hurd as Foreign Secretary sending the SAS to Pol Pot's training camps in Thailand to train the Khmer Rouge in guerilla warfare, sabotage etc after they had been driven out of Cambodia. Tony's logic would suggest that this was done for the benefit of The Cambodian people and demonstrating that we were showing a responsibility beyond our own borders and when no one else had the spine to do it.
Maybe those without the spine were sickened by the 6 million deaths perpetrated by Pol Pot, a man who made Sadaam look like a saint.
Thank God for The Observer who stumbled on this dirty little secret, ensuring a very quiet withdrawal back to the UK.

oxbeast

18-06-2004, 11:53

Ned Ludd hits on a good point. For all those who say that Saddam was evil, and it was right to remove him, they are entirely correct. But why is both Britian and America supporting dictatorships and quasi-dictatorships around the world right now? If they are willing to fight wars to remove brutal regimes in some parts of the world, why support them elsewhere? After all, we might have to remove these created dictators when they start oppesssing the wrong sort of people, or witholding their oil.

This is just hypocritical. And I can't stomach the lies about the WMD, which the Americans are apparrently still looking for. There was no basis in international law for invading. Its quite bizarre to hear that there was no alternative. This is a very deterministic view of history, with all the human motivations removed.

oxbeast

18-06-2004, 12:25

Find the WMD (http://www.ucomics.com/rallcom/2004/01/17/)

A.B.Yaffle

18-06-2004, 15:19

I think it was the right thing to do, but as Sadam Hussein was playing games with the UN ever since the end of the first Gulf War, it should have been resolved a few years earlier.

I don't think it makes any difference whether or not they find WMD now, as Sadam was breaking his agreements on weapons inspections etc for around 10 years. That alone should have been a reason to go to war to get rid of him.

Ned Ludd

18-06-2004, 15:32

Saddam said he had no weapons. He had no weapons. There was actually nothing to inspect.
Maybe he didn't want Israel, Iran and Syria to know that he was virtually helpless.
The fact is the UN inspectors were reasonably happy with progress but Bush had to get the invasion underway before the inspectors declared, "there's nothing here!" and they were getting closer to that each week.
You state that he was playing games with the UN. The UN was against the invasion because they were happy with progress.
It was the UK/US that went against the wishes of the UN and it's inspectors. The fact is Bush/Blair wanted war and the UN didn't.

goose

28-04-2005, 10:55

I think Tony and Gordon have just seen their anticipated huge majority reduced.

Following a leaked memo, number 10 have published the Iraq war legal advice. See: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4492439.stm

Many questions to be answered. Wonder why the Attorney General changed his mind so dramatically over a few days. It stinks!

Abdul

28-04-2005, 11:52

All this talk of legal advice is simply fiddling while Rome burns.

Whether Blair lied or not, it's not going to bring tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians back from the dead :mad:

Avalon

28-04-2005, 11:58

I think that Mr Tony should resign over this blatant lie! I cant believe he is defending his actions!! :rant:

goose

28-04-2005, 12:11

Originally posted by Abdul
All this talk of legal advice is simply fiddling while Rome burns.

Whether Blair lied or not, it's not going to bring tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians back from the dead :mad:

True, but that dosent mean we should not expose how the Government operated on such an important matter.

We need to learn lessons so it never happens again.

28-04-2005, 12:30

I suspect that pressure will be heaped on the AG by Blair in order that he resigns.

That way, a scapegoat has been found to be responsible and Blair thinks he emerges sparkling clean.

Don't think that the electorate will be stupid enough to buy that one.

I can see those Lib Dem votes starting to pile up nicely now as Blairs majority reduces daily.

theflyingfish

28-04-2005, 12:36

Originally posted by Mo

I can see those Lib Dem votes starting to pile up nicely now as Blairs majority reduces daily.

Is it really though? I know polls are not always something to go by, but apparently the war is only important to something like 3% of voters

Rich

28-04-2005, 12:41

I personally think Bliar (deliberate typo) is a cock and should be forced to step down as PM over the whole Iraq issue.. I said all along that he was too far up George Bush's ass over the whole thing... :loopy:

But then, what British PM hasn't been up the US establishment's posterior?!

28-04-2005, 12:42

Originally posted by theflyingfish
Is it really though? I know polls are not always something to go by, but apparently the war is only important to something like 3% of voters

I don't think that it is the issue of the war per se but rather that of the Prime Minister telling lies and witholding information.

The electorate can't trust the man. He has been found out and what little integrity he had has evaporated.

I bet the Labour Party are wishing that they had ditched him pre-election.

goose

28-04-2005, 14:09

The famous Labour 'spin doctors' should be sacked. The first rule of a bad press story is to get the whole story out of the way all at once, instead of a drip, drip, drip effect.

Now Labour face going into the last fews days of an election campaign defending the Iraq/truth issues. Members of the Labour party will not be very happy bunnies this evening.

I will be watching question time with interest tonight!

Abdul

28-04-2005, 14:32

Originally posted by goose
The famous Labour 'spin doctors' should be sacked. The first rule of a bad press story is to get the whole story out of the way all at once, instead of a drip, drip, drip effect.

But what is the function of a spin doctor? To provide the whole truth? Or to protect the Prime Minister?

The spin doctors wouldn't last very long in their jobs if they had any integrity, would they?

A good day to bury bad news, anyone?

Disco_Cat

28-04-2005, 14:39

Originally posted by theflyingfish
the war is only important to something like 3% of voters

The problem is a large portion of that 3% happen to be Labours target vote.

mrplodge

28-04-2005, 20:28

I think we were right to go into Iraq. For all those who don't, the deed is done and Saddam is gone you will just have to live with it. Both main parties have agreed they would have gone to war with or without WMD. The Prime Minister made a decision rightly or wrongly but what do these anti war people hope to achieve by their constant moaning. I presume they want to give saddam his Job back and pull troops out and everyone in Iraq will live happily ever after. I have no problem in recommending the lib dems for the anti war mob as well as holidays to iraq after the troops have gone.

Rich

28-04-2005, 21:19

Originally posted by mrplodge
I think we were right to go into Iraq. For all those who don't, the deed is done and Saddam is gone you will just have to live with it. Both main parties have agreed they would have gone to war with or without WMD. The Prime Minister made a decision rightly or wrongly but what do these anti war people hope to achieve by their constant moaning. I presume they want to give saddam his Job back and pull troops out and everyone in Iraq will live happily ever after. I have no problem in recommending the lib dems for the anti war mob as well as holidays to iraq after the troops have gone.

But the fact of the matter is that when they were searching for WMDs, did they actually FIND anything?! No they didn't... And I personally don't think they ever will.

Phanerothyme

28-04-2005, 23:33

not only did they not find any wmd, but this also corroborates the documentation produced by Iraq to satisfy UN SC res 1441.

So, no "material breach" of 1441, no further resolution to 628 to initiate hostilities post 91 ceasefire. And an attorney general whose leaked advice to the PM, no less, was equivocal at best on the legality of the war.

And then the war itself - prosecuted on the basis of a refusal to disarm weapons that did not exist - was "not a question of regime change" (Tony Blair).

It seems that if the US had openly proposed an alliance of the willing to forcibly change the regime in Iraq they might have met with some unexpected support - and the whole thing might have been managed a great deal better with less death.

Instead, our taxes paid for the uncounted (literally) deaths of iraqi citizens and the systematic destruction of the infrastructure of a state; which is now being rebuilt by american contractors, who are being paid - effectively - in oil (dollar revenues from oil sales).

The parliamentary labour party, apparently intoxicated with their power, commited an act of wilful suspension of disbelief when they were briefed on why it "was imperative they support the government" in committing British Forces to this war of commerce.

No wonder Blair is looking uncomfortable nowadays, it is increasingly difficult for him to justify his actions. He told us to judge him by his actions, and to do so at the ballot box.

Now he is telling us not to....

redrobbo

29-04-2005, 00:31

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

The parliamentary labour party, apparently intoxicated with their power, commited an act of wilful suspension of disbelief when they were briefed on why it "was imperative they support the government" in committing British Forces to this war of commerce.

It was parliament itself that voted on the war, not just the parliamentary Labour party. That included most of the Conservative parliamentary party, though an awful lot of the Labour MPs voted against.

goose

29-04-2005, 08:03

Originally posted by mrplodge
Both main parties have agreed they would have gone to war with or without WMD

Thats incorrect. Only the Tories have said they would have gone in with or without the WMD threat. The whole point of the argument is that Tony said we where going into Iraq because of the WMD's and the 45 minute threat. Blair stressed that it was not about kicking Saddam out, he actualy said that if Saddam fully complied with the weapons inspectors he could have stayed in power.

The whole 'the worlds better without Saddam so stop moaning' argument is flawed.

This issue is that the way the UK and the US acted over Iraq opens the door to other countrys to invade their 'enemies' without the backing of the UN security Council.

It all comes down to Mr Blair giving Bush his backing to go into Iraq, then coming back to the UK and doing everything and anything to make sure he went in with the US.

goose

29-04-2005, 08:06

Originally posted by redrobbo
It was parliament itself that voted on the war, not just the parliamentary Labour party. That included most of the Conservative parliamentary party, though an awful lot of the Labour MPs voted against.

Like it or lump it, the Labour Party are responsible for the illegal Iraq war. They voted for it and made the case for it, if only there were more Labour MP's like Robin Cook who had the bottle to stand up to Blair and his cronies.

A.B.Yaffle

29-04-2005, 08:18

Despite Michael Howard's protestations about Blair having taken us into a war "illegally", he admitted last night that if he had been the Prime Minister at the time then he would have invaded Iraq on a "regime change" excuse. That would have definitely been an illegal war!

Belle

29-04-2005, 08:43

I am a bit hazy on international law, but I thought I had read that regime change is not a legitimate reason to attack a country or go to war on/with it.

That being the case, and if someone could confirm that, we would not have been able to use that as a "reason" for the war, even though it is the one that sits most comfortably with us.

Incidentally, Andrew Marr on the BBC website today, seems to think that the leaked advice is actually a lot less awful in the fact than in the imagining and cannot understand why it was not published a long time ago so that the whole issue could be put to bed.

He seemed to think that it exonerates the AG and TB, rather than the other way round.

Have you seen his article?

goose

29-04-2005, 09:01

Originally posted by Belle
I am a bit hazy on international law, but I thought I had read that regime change is not a legitimate reason to attack a country or go to war on/with it.

That being the case, and if someone could confirm that, we would not have been able to use that as a "reason" for the war, even though it is the one that sits most comfortably with us.

Incidentally, Andrew Marr on the BBC website today, seems to think that the leaked advice is actually a lot less awful in the fact than in the imagining and cannot understand why it was not published a long time ago so that the whole issue could be put to bed.

He seemed to think that it exonerates the AG and TB, rather than the other way round.

Have you seen his article?

Yeah, its a load of rubbish. You have to be carefull with a lot of BBC reporters, most of them have been round to No10 for sticky buns and a cup of tea.

Reading the document i think it leaves a lot more unanswered questions.

Belle

29-04-2005, 09:17

Originally posted by goose
Yeah, its a load of rubbish. You have to be carefull with a lot of BBC reporters, most of them have been round to No10 for sticky buns and a cup of tea.

Oh really that is an interesting take.

I thought the BBC was considered to be anti-war and in trouble with number 10 viz a viz Alastair Campbell, Dr Kelly, Andrew Gilligan and the whole WMD and intelligence issue etc.

I seem to remember that the Governor and the Chairman of the BBC both resigned over the issue

Perhaps I just mis-remembered

goose

29-04-2005, 09:30

Originally posted by Belle
Oh really that is an interesting take.

I thought the BBC was considered to be anti-war and in trouble with number 10 viz a viz Alastair Campbell, Dr Kelly, Andrew Gilligan and the whole WMD and intelligence issue etc.

I seem to remember that the Governor and the Chairman of the BBC both resigned over the issue

Perhaps I just mis-remembered

Although Andrew Marr does work for the BBC it dosent mean that he hasnt got his own take on things. Besides, the very fact that they (Dyke etc) have resigned from the BBC only backs up an argument that the BBC is more pro-Government than it used to be. I for one have noticed how the BBC has 'backed off' from taking on the war issue since the slap on the wrist.

Any reporter worth his salt would know that the contents of the released information are dynamite.

Belle

29-04-2005, 09:41

Originally posted by goose
Although Andrew Marr does work for the BBC it dosent mean that he hasnt got his own take on things. Besides, the very fact that they (Dyke etc) have resigned from the BBC only backs up an argument that the BBC is more pro-Government than it used to be. I for one have noticed how the BBC has 'backed off' from taking on the war issue since the slap on the wrist.

Any reporter worth his salt would know that the contents of the released information are dynamite.

Or then again.... I cannot believe that you can trash Andrew Marr's professionalism, integrity and ability, just because his take is not the same as yours.

I am also extremely surprised you didnt like what he said when in actual fact he said exactly the same as you said in an earlier post - they should have got it all out of the way a long time ago and avoided the drip drip drip.

goose

29-04-2005, 09:50

Originally posted by Belle
Or then again.... I cannot believe that you can trash Andrew Marr's professionalism, integrity and ability, just because his take is not the same as yours.

I am also extremely surprised you didnt like what he said when in actual fact he said exactly the same as you said in an earlier post - they should have got it all out of the way a long time ago and avoided the drip drip drip.

Hang on a minute, i was'nt trashing his professionalism or integrity. Are you his mum or something?!?

All i am saying is that, unlike Marr, i believe the leaked advice is devestating for the Government. It shoots a massive hole through the regime change argument and raises questions about why Goldsmith's opinion changed so much within a short time frame.

I agree that it should have been released earlier, in terms of good media management.

I quite like Marr, hes one of the better reporters on the BBC. Just remember that reporters have their own alligences just the same as anyone else.

slimsid2000

29-04-2005, 12:36

I think Mr. Howard is being very cleaver politically on this issue.

By being to the right of Tony Blair he is securing his own core vote who are pro-war at the same time as keeping the issue 'alive' and thus increasing the chances of core Labour voters (generally anti-war) either voting Lib-Dem or not voting at all.

Differential turnout will be crucial in this election. If Mr. Howard can get his own vote out and prevent Tony Blair from doing the same he will win.

Wardonia

31-03-2008, 10:23

With the benefit of three more years hindsight, obviously it was the wrong thing to do.

Paul2412

31-03-2008, 10:52

I think looking back it was totally wrong. Personally, although I in no way believe the governemnt did anything dodgy, I think 9/11 was used as an excuse. Good old Bush decided he can now invade Iraq for the oil if he can someway link bin laden with saddam.

I dont think anything devious was done by either the usa or blair, but its another reason why an incompetant fool such as bush shouldnt be in power.

To my knowledge, nothing was found. And, if saddam was treating his civilians so bad that we had to invade, how come noone has invaded zimbabwe? Its obvious oil had a major part to play

callippo

31-03-2008, 18:39

got to this thread late but early on it there's some mention of where Iraq got their arms.

conventional weaponry came overwhemingly from the Soviet Union, followed by France and China. The tanks the coalition faced in 1991 were Russian and Chinese. The planes, which ended up in Iran a couple of weeks into the air campaign, were a mixture of French and Russian. Small arms, mostly Russian

this excellent graph, based on the findings of the Stockholm Peace Research Institute, shows which nations supplied Iraq with conventional weaponry between 1973-90.

http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html

the United States supplied Iraq with hardly any weaponry at all in comparison. Iraq was able to benefit greatly by the US sharing satellite imagery with them though and this helped them to turn round a conflict they were in danger of losing.

as Henry Kissinger famously said, 'I hope they both lose', and that was basically the attitude of most western governments, for the Iran-Iraq war to carry on as long as possible.

Sixty US helicopters that were designed for crop spraying were later refitted by Saddam and some of them MAY have been used at the Hallabja poison gas attack.The largest suppliers to Iraq of the precursors for chemical weapons production were Singapore, the Netherlands, Egypt, India, and West Germany.

the supplier that can be 'blamed' the most for Hallabja or Saddam's gassing of Iranian soldiers in the Iran-Iraq war is basically West Germany. Historically, the Germans have been the uncontested masters in the discovery, production, and development of lethal poison gases used in warfare, such as mustard gas, which was discovered by German scientists and was first used in WW1. Sarin is also a German invention.

you might say that Iraq's chemical weapons program was basically built with German brains and Iraqi oil money. Some even say The Iraqi people have every right to prepare an indictment against the German government and its companies for directly assisting the dictatorial regime in killing Iraqis using this terrible means.

but of course none of the anti-war crowd seeks to blame Germany for assisting the Iraqis chemical wapons programme to such a great extent in the 1980s, but try to pin everything on the US and the UK instead - because, of course, the German government were one of Europe's main opponents of the 2003 invasion.

i