Perhaps it is just me but I find it hard to understand why there is/has been so much opposition to the Iraq war. Lets look at a few facts.

The whole Iraq saga didn't start in 2003 but in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. If not for the prompt action of Margaret Thatcher and George Bush (senior) this would have only been the start of land grabs. By that point Saddam had already invaded Iran and after Kuwait Saudi Arabia seemed his next logical target. Then, no doubt a few other oil rich gulf states. Operation Desert Shield (the deployment of multinational troops to Saudi Arabia put a stop to that.

In January 1991 operation Desert Storm (the liberation of kuwait) began and 6 weeks later Iraqi troops were driven out of Kuwait. It was then the a major opportunity was missed. Rather than finish the job off there and then by pressing on to Baghdad, the coalition troops allowed Saddam to remain in power.

Instead a system of sanctions and disarmament was put in place in order to rid Iraq of its WMD's which it had already used against the Kurds and others. It was widely predicted at the time that Saddam would soon fall from power as a result of internal uprising. However, when this was attempted the west refused to help with the result that the rebels were masacred and Saddam's position was strenghened. So began the so called 'containment' period. It lasted 12 years.

If ever peace were given a chance it was these 12 years. If ever the UN were given every opportunity to prove it could handle a situation it was these 12 years. Yet, not only did Saddam remain in power he did all he could to frustrate the UN weapons inspectors. Meanwhile the sanctions proved either inefective or hurt only ordinary Iraqis but not the leadership.

By 2002/2003 it was clear that sanctions were not going to oust Saddam and that any hope of internal uprising was also not going to materialise. After 12 years the world's patience finally wore out and what should have happened in 1991 finally happened.

It should be noted that the casualty figures predicted in 1990 thankfully never materialised. At the time it was predicted there would be tens (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of British dead and that conscription would be necessary. In the event there were less than 100 killed (although obviously that is no comfort to them or their families). Neither was there the predicted mass terrorist casualaties in Britain involving chemical and biological weopons. Even if we accept that the July 7th bombing were a result of our fighting in Iraq it still falls well short of the very high figures predicted before the war in 1990.

My own view is that we should be looking to leave Iraq sometime soon as we never intended our post war occupation to be permenent, although I don't deny this is not as easily done and there may be consequences for Iraq in doing so.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
The whole Iraq saga didn't start in 2003 but in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. If not for the prompt action of Margaret Thatcher and George Bush (senior) this would have only been the start of land grabs. By that point Saddam had already invaded Iran and after Kuwait Saudi Arabia seemed his next logical target. Then, no doubt a few other oil rich gulf states. Operation Desert Shield (the deployment of multinational troops to Saudi Arabia put a stop to that.

No, as mentioned on another thread Saddam had no intention and no capability of invading Saudi...

Originally posted by Greenback
No, as mentioned on another thread Saddam had no intention and no capability of invading Saudi...

Who says this? considering his record of invasions by that time (Iran Kuwait) and his desire for oil it seems highly likely he had every such intention. Anyway, he did invade Saudi in 1991 during the Gulf War.

It could be argued that by flouting International law and not securing UN backing, that the current war is an invasion as illegitimate as Saddam's move into Kuwait. It could also be argued that the lucrative, pre-negotiated "rebuilding" contracts conveniently handed out to the likes of Halliburton are a "land grab" of sorts; certainly the pludering of the vast, indiginous oil reserves is a "resource grab".

People, like myself, have an immense problem with the Iraq war simply down to:
a) it's illegality- even Goldsmith thought it was against the law, before changing his mind at the last minute
b) the lies behind it's motivations- there were no WMDs, which was the sole reason this country was sold on it. the government knew this which is why, disgusted with his own administration, ex- Foreign Secretary Robin Cook left his well paid cabinet job in protest.
c) the hypocricy- we chastise Saddam for invading Kuwait, then we invade Iraq. We chastise Saddam for ignoring the UN, then we ignore them.
d) the aftermath- our actions have plunged the country into chaos/ civil war with an estimated 25,000, and growing, Iraqis dead (mostly civilians). I don't think the people of Iraq quite view us as the knights in shining armour that the US media would lead us to believe.
e) the example to others- for the leading nations of the West to act so irresponsibly by flouting the UN, it's practically a carte blanche message to the likes of Russia & Israel to behave as they wish against Chechnya and Palestine respectively.

But the National outcry will probably make Tony Blair think twice about throwing his weight of support behind any future US foreign policy, eg Iran, North Korea.

I think some people have short memories. Some of us still have bitter and painful memories of the first (1991) gulf war.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Perhaps it is just me but I find it hard to understand why there is/has been so much opposition to the Iraq war. Lets look at a few facts.

The whole Iraq saga didn't start in 2003 but in 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. If not for the prompt action of Margaret Thatcher and George Bush (senior) this would have only been the start of land grabs. By that point Saddam had already invaded Iran and after Kuwait Saudi Arabia seemed his next logical target. Then, no doubt a few other oil rich gulf states. Operation Desert Shield (the deployment of multinational troops to Saudi Arabia put a stop to that.

In January 1991 operation Desert Storm (the liberation of kuwait) began and 6 weeks later Iraqi troops were driven out of Kuwait. It was then the a major opportunity was missed. Rather than finish the job off there and then by pressing on to Baghdad, the coalition troops allowed Saddam to remain in power.

Instead a system of sanctions and disarmament was put in place in order to rid Iraq of its WMD's which it had already used against the Kurds and others. It was widely predicted at the time that Saddam would soon fall from power as a result of internal uprising. However, when this was attempted the west refused to help with the result that the rebels were masacred and Saddam's position was strenghened. So began the so called 'containment' period. It lasted 12 years.

If ever peace were given a chance it was these 12 years. If ever the UN were given every opportunity to prove it could handle a situation it was these 12 years. Yet, not only did Saddam remain in power he did all he could to frustrate the UN weapons inspectors. Meanwhile the sanctions proved either inefective or hurt only ordinary Iraqis but not the leadership.

By 2002/2003 it was clear that sanctions were not going to oust Saddam and that any hope of internal uprising was also not going to materialise. After 12 years the world's patience finally wore out and what should have happened in 1991 finally happened.

It should be noted that the casualty figures predicted in 1990 thankfully never materialised. At the time it was predicted there would be tens (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of British dead and that conscription would be necessary. In the event there were less than 100 killed (although obviously that is no comfort to them or their families). Neither was there the predicted mass terrorist casualaties in Britain involving chemical and biological weopons. Even if we accept that the July 7th bombing were a result of our fighting in Iraq it still falls well short of the very high figures predicted before the war in 1990.

My own view is that we should be looking to leave Iraq sometime soon as we never intended our post war occupation to be permenent, although I don't deny this is not as easily done and there may be consequences for Iraq in doing so.

If they are the only "facts" you take in to account, i can see why you came to that conclusion.

Here are come of the problems with that view;

The Iraq saga started far earlier than 1990. England actually created Iraq as it is now, by forcing three different people together. The same people who are in the middle of what many believe is now a civil war.

But ok lets go to 1990. Firstly Iraq was an allied in the 70's and 80's. We (England and America) put Saddam in power. We sold him arms, we helped him developed the chemical weapons and we allowed him to use the weapons we helped him develop against the Kurds. So it great we think that is was wrong now, that is progress.

But your missing many pieces to this puzzle. Firstly tensions in the area, we heightened when Israel was allowed to bomb Iraq nuclear power plant. That's kicked off a round of serious hatred in the Muslim World. That along with the Afghanistan issue, the use of the Mujahadeen to fight Russia as part of the Cold war. Both these things fostered extremism to take hold. It gave the recruiters a weapon.

I agree that if the American public didn't see the destruction on the road to Baghdad and forced Bush senior to not take out Saddam then, we would be in a much better state than we are now. Saddam would have gone the crazy sanctions would not have been put in place and the World would be happy.

The problem was Saddam was just about to start selling oil in Euros. Just about all oil is sold in Dollars. What that does is make sure other countries buy much of American debt, so they can use those dollars to buy oil and American goods. America has mroe debt than any nation or Empire that ever was. A move away from oil in dollars would hit the America economy hard, there would be less people buying that debt and America would have has to curtain spending.. which was never in Bushs plan, who had said he would be giving huge tax cuts. Iran are also looking at selling their oil in Euros as well. Intesting because we allow India and Pakistan to develope Nuclear weapons, but not Iran? Maybe there is a different reason for the Iran problems, and also why Europe are much freindlier to Iran, trying to defuse the situation?

The sanction were CRIMINAL. Estimates are 500,000 dead. Even though Bin Laden hated Saddam, he says that these deaths made him declare war on America. They had an effect, they actually made Saddam disarm. But that's a huge price to pay for disarmament, 500,000 dead, mainly elderly and Children. Although it seems he did not want people to disarm, possibly to keep Iran at bay. But here is where your whole world view on Iraq falls apart;

It is illegal in the UK and America to assassinate a head of state. That option was not on the table. Personally I think it should have been. We should have bombed all his palaces to the ground in one single night. The loss of civilian life would have been minimal and our problems would have been mostly over. However we did not.

So they had to make a case for war. They did not allow Blix to finish his job. That was the clue anybody in the know saw at the time. Blix said he needed 3 months to finish his work. He was never allowed that time. It's not as if there was a rush. Even the "official" reason at the time was not an issue, as he could not hit a British target with the weapons we were being told he had, and he was years away from a nuclear weapon. So why the rush? Simply because if Blix had finished the "official" reason we were going to war, the legal basis, would no longer be valid. This reason for war, pre-emptive action against a nation with WMD, was a first.

They could not use "impending genocide" as a reason for war. There was no impending genocide, in fact Saddam had been a relatively good boy for some time. So it was WMD, and they would not allow Blix to prove they had none (as we know now).

But the now famous Downing Street goes further. It shows they actually fixed the intelligence around the policy. They also ran 3 times the amount of bombing runs to try to get Saddam to attack. So apart from the war being illegal, apart from the rules of the Geneva convention being broken (which puts our own troops in danger) and apart from lying to go to war, against a man who was no threat (not even his neighbors feared him anymore) I guess everything you said it right on!

Blair and Bush lied to the people, they lied to Parliament and Senate and to the U.N.

Keep your eyes on the pending indictment of very high up figures in the Whitehouse for outing a CIA agent who's husband tried to warn people the U.N evidence was faulty, before Powel went. The pack of cards IMHO is about to fall down, and probably both sides of the Atlantic.

my bloke is in the forces and last year from October-April 05 he was in Iraq, it was the worst time of my life, he had 2 weeks leave (january) so he missed crimbo and his birthday.

Now is it just me or did we go into Iraq to find Saddam? we have now done that and STILL Blair wont bring our troops out!!The reason for bombings (such as London 9/7) is because we are still in Iraq, fighting, if we came out of Iraq and brought our boys home when we caught Saddam, the Londond bombings (probably!) wouldnt have happened! Blair is so far up Bushes a*se he can't see that we need to bring the boys home!

I really do hate Blair for how he has handled to war on Iraq, not only that but the way he has handled the British Army, when my bloke went out, they had hardly any protection apart from a little block to put in their pocket where their heart is, they had to buy most of their own uniform AND they didnt have hardly any ammo....some bloke (in the Birtish Army) stole my blokes ammo, which he had stored away in his locker, my bloke reported this and they was going to fine my bloke £1,000 and not give him anymore, im sorry but how the heck did they expect my bloke to go out and fight with no bullets and hardly any protection?? the British Army is a joke at the moment and i wish Tony Blair could be in my blokes shoes for one day just to see what a shambles he is making of our Country and our Army!!!!!! :rant: :x

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Perhaps it is just me but I find it hard to understand why there is/has been so much opposition to the Iraq war.

Stop right there.

The War should never have started.

Really cannot be bothered to argue the point.

It was simply illegal.

Based largely on Western greed.

We, the public have been lied to from the beginning.

In the last 3 weeks, there have been on avereage 80 insurgent attacks on Western troops per day.

I find it hard to understand how people could support the War in Iraq.

Originally posted by back2basics
The problem was Saddam was just about to start selling oil in Euros. Just about all oil is sold in Dollars. What that does is make sure other countries buy much of American debt, so they can use those dollars to buy oil and American goods. America has mroe debt than any nation or Empire that ever was. A move away from oil in dollars would hit the America economy hard, there would be less people buying that debt and America would have has to curtain spending.. which was never in Bushs plan, who had said he would be giving huge tax cuts. Iran are also looking at selling their oil in Euros as well. Intesting because we allow India and Pakistan to develope Nuclear weapons, but not Iran? Maybe there is a different reason for the Iran problems, and also why Europe are much freindlier to Iran, trying to defuse the situation?
The other country who are keen on moving away from dollars is Venezuela, who barter their oil with some other South American countries and are increasingly moving their reserves out of dollars and into euros. Is it any wonder that Hugo Chavez is not on George Bush's list of favourite world leaders?

I'm just waiting for the oil to run out in 50 years, then everyone'll look really stupid

What we seem to have is two sets of people who will not change their vies no matter what.

There are the "There is no excuse for any war" brigade who would do anything - and I do mean anything in order to avoid war no matter what cos there are always reasons for not going to war.

And then there are the people who want war for the slightest reason and will find any excuse for doing so.

Ignoring the oil. Ignoring the costs. Ignoring all the other rubbish. Bout time folk started thinking about people.

Now I have had a head full of propoganda from all sides, but it does SEEM that the people of Iraq were in need of help, and I refer not to medical or financial aid. Neither of those forms of assistance is much use when the government of the country controls them.

Only time will tell whether going to war was the right thing to do or not. Now it should be up to the people of Iraq to get together and build their country into what they want it to be rather than mindless acts of terrorism. And sorry but there is no excuse for terrorism.

Dragon

Exactly, while British and US soliders are still out there, people are dying, if we left them alone, maybe it would cool down a bit, i mean its not our country, why should we be doing any more for them?

Shouldnt Blair be thinking about his own country right now? He sent Our lads over to Iraq because people were getting killed, bombed, blown up, but what about the UK?

Has he forgotton about the bombings in London in July? Blair should bring our lads home now and leave Iraq to the Iraq people!!!!!

Originally posted by Dragon
What we seem to have is two sets of people who will not change their vies no matter what.

There are the "There is no excuse for any war" brigade who would do anything - and I do mean anything in order to avoid war no matter what cos there are always reasons for not going to war.

And then there are the people who want war for the slightest reason and will find any excuse for doing so.
What utter tripe. Of course, both of those groups exist, but they are extremes and minorities. There are far far more people who fall between the two.

For the record, I am a member of the first group. I am a pacifist, and not ashamed of the fact.

However I was on the anti-war demonstrations on 15th February 2003, along with well over a million others, and I can tell you that the vast majority present on that day were not from the "There is no excuse for any war" brigade - there was an incredible diversity I'd never seen on any other such demo, because so many people, even those who'd supported the first Gulf war and other conflicts, could see that this war was pointless and likely to make the situation in Iraq far worse.

Since the war, the situation in Iraq has, as predicted, got far worse, and now even many of those who had supported the war beforehand admit that it was a mistake.

Dan is quite correct here regarding the diversity of opposition to the Iraq War [or, as I prefer to call it, The Unpleasantness in Mesopotamia]. Opposition to this crusading, meddling debacle comes from paleo-conservatives like myself, just as much as it comes from those of left/liberal consensus, or pacifists like young Daniel. I have never shared the neo-conservative enthusiasm for the unsolicited foisting of Western liberal, democratic, capitalist culture upon other lands. Iraq itself is a hastily-constructed patchwork of hostile ethno-religious groups bearing ancient and irremediable grudges, the result of colonial interference in Arab and Kurdish affairs. Meddling in Iraq is technically illegal, but when has any country ever taken 'International Law' seriously when its interests are at stake? The point is, British foreign policy should be calculated in terms of British interests, and we have no interest at stake in Iraq.

Frankly, I tire of the British Army being posted all over the globe to act like some Police constable to America's Police Sergeant. What business of ours are the conflicts, wars and troubles of other nations, unless they affect our interests? We should get out of Iraq as soon as humanly possible. Of course, it is very easy to get into war, but not so easy to get out. Meanwhile, the Israeli elite looks on, a smile playing about their lips. They will be looking forward to Stage Two, of course, when their airforce is used to destroy [fictitious] facilities containing 'weapons of mass destruction' in neighbouring Iran.

Originally posted by Dragon
What we seem to have is two sets of people who will not change their vies no matter what.

There are the "There is no excuse for any war" brigade who would do anything - and I do mean anything in order to avoid war no matter what cos there are always reasons for not going to war.

And then there are the people who want war for the slightest reason and will find any excuse for doing so.

Ignoring the oil. Ignoring the costs. Ignoring all the other rubbish. Bout time folk started thinking about people.

Now I have had a head full of propoganda from all sides, but it does SEEM that the people of Iraq were in need of help, and I refer not to medical or financial aid. Neither of those forms of assistance is much use when the government of the country controls them.

Only time will tell whether going to war was the right thing to do or not. Now it should be up to the people of Iraq to get together and build their country into what they want it to be rather than mindless acts of terrorism. And sorry but there is no excuse for terrorism.

Dragon

Originally posted by DanSumption
What utter tripe. Of course, both of those groups exist, but they are extremes and minorities. There are far far more people who fall between the two.

For the record, I am a member of the first group. I am a pacifist, and not ashamed of the fact.

Since the war, the situation in Iraq has, as predicted, got far worse, and now even many of those who had supported the war beforehand admit that it was a mistake.

That sure is utter tripe.

Dragon, you ought to do a little more research and thinking before writing such nonsense.

No excuse for any war brigade, what nonsense.

The US have publically stated that they wanted to take the countries capital as quick as possible.

They sent special forces to protect the oil and less able forces to do the fighting.

They made no measures for the aftermath.

Even most of the US military analysts have spoken out about the War being a shambles.

Mistake, it was against the Law, disregarding any other reason why not to go.

The US simply want to control the World and they are willing to fabricate reasons to go to war with their next target.

Originally posted by timo
Dan is quite correct here regarding the diversity of opposition to the Iraq War [or, as I prefer to call it, The Unpleasantness in Mesopotamia]. Opposition to this crusading, meddling debacle comes from paleo-conservatives like myself, just as much as it comes from those of left/liberal consensus, or pacifists like young Daniel. I have never shared the neo-conservative enthusiasm for the unsolicited foisting of Western liberal, democratic, capitalist culture upon other lands. Iraq itself is a hastily-constructed patchwork of hostile ethno-religious groups bearing ancient and irremediable grudges, the result of colonial interference in Arab and Kurdish affairs. Meddling in Iraq is technically illegal, but when has any country ever taken 'International Law' seriously when its interests are at stake? The point is, British foreign policy should be calculated in terms of British interests, and we have no interest at stake in Iraq.

Frankly, I tire of the British Army being posted all over the globe to act like some Police constable to America's Police Sergeant. What business of ours are the conflicts, wars and troubles of other nations, unless they affect our interests? We should get out of Iraq as soon as humanly possible. Of course, it is very easy to get into war, but not so easy to get out. Meanwhile, the Israeli elite looks on, a smile playing about their lips. They will be looking forward to Stage Two, of course, when their airforce is used to destroy [fictitious] facilities containing 'weapons of mass destruction' in neighbouring Iran.

I quite agree.

Venger,
Glad you agree. The Americans, with Blair in tow, are focusing upon Arab-related problems, and as I hint in my previous posting, are greatly influenced by the American -Jewish lobby. They do not seem to notice the greater potential problem of a stronger, more assertive China.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Since the war, the situation in Iraq has, as predicted, got far worse, and now even many of those who had supported the war beforehand admit that it was a mistake.

Interesting to hear Jack Straw at conference, he doesn't think it was a mistake, but then he can't seem to remember the original reasons given for joining the US in this escapade.

The leaked downing street memos show that the war was a preordained invasion, and was timetabled completely independently to events in the UN and weapons inspectors in Iraq.

The government produced successive, flawed, reasons for military action in a hurry, including the possibility of British Servicemen being targeted in Cyprus by Iraqi NBC weapons, that could be launched in 40 minutes. This was "sexed up", as Gilligan put it.

Then the leading expert on Iraqi nbc weapons capability was 'outed' to the media by the MoD, and subsequently committed suicide. (probably).

The invasion was characterised by a singular lack of post conflict planning. Straw's comparisons between Iraq and Post war Germany would be laughable if he wasn't Foreign Minister.

Even the strongest proponents of the War On Iraq (PNAC) recognise that it is a complete shambles, and is likely to lead to a civil war in Iraq, and quite probably an annexation of the southern oilfields by Iran.

Which will make Iran rich. I don't think that was the original purpose of the invasion either. The Israelis won't be pleased...

We've managed to p*ss away a lot of respect for the UK that was formerly found in the Middle East, despite the arabian and mesopotamian borders all being british creations - indeed, even Kuwait (Churchill's bump) was created by drawing a line in the sand, quite literally, and chopping the southern tip off Iraq.

Whatever respect or admiration that existed for the US in the region has now completely vapourised.

The country has become a magnet for anyone with an axe to grind against the US - which must have engineered more coup d'etats worldwide than any other country in history, so plenty of people with blunt axes....

This rush to invade, the false pretences of UN consultation, the Echelon operation to bug and intercept key General Assembly members in order to secure a covering resolution, the lies told in the GA by colin powell, the myth of the "french veto", and the constructive dismissal of the UN weapons inspectors all adds up to one of the least savoury miltary misadventures of the last 50 years. It's strained international and inter european relations to the limit, brought about a surge of terrorist violence in Europe, shown up cabinet ministers as liars, brought about the deaths of many British and US soldiers, and more Iraqis than even Saddam managed to kill in a similar timeframe.

I'm struggling to think of anything that went right with it.

Oh yes, a tinpot dictator of a broken country, destroyed by 10 years of strategic bombing and sanctions (pencils were banned under sanctions, because they were dual use...) is behind bars and awaiting trial. A tinpot dictator, former ally and good consumer of military materiel from the likes of Rumsfeld is now going to be able to spill the whole story in front of the world's media? I wonder.

I still wonder about even calling it a war. As Hicks says "A war is when two armies come together and fight."

The post-rationalisation and revisionism that is being parroted by the party loyalists on both sides of the atlantic disgusts me.

If respect for politicians is plummeting, and disengagement from the political process increasing, should we be surprised when our government acts like this?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme


Then the leading expert on Iraqi nbc weapons capability was 'outed' to the media by the MoD, and subsequently committed suicide. (probably).


I still wonder about even calling it a war. As Hicks says "A war is when two armies come together and fight."

Dr David Kelly was more likely taken care of.

Oh the great Bill Hicks :clap:

I find myself in the unusual possition of being against the first gulf war (1991) but in favour of the second(2003). The reason for this is that it was clear by 2003 (years earlier actually) that a war against and removal of Saddam was nothing like as dangerous as seemed the case in late 1990 (the lead up to the first gulf war).

Nobody seems to remember now just what predictions were being made at the time as regards British casualties and terrorism at home. At the time Iraq had a million men under arms giving it the forth largest army in the WORLD. Much larger than Britain and larger even than the combined forces ranged against it.

A long and bloody war of attrition as bad as Vietnam (or even World War One) was seriously predicted. Casualties in the tens or even hundreds of thousands were expected and conscription was also rumoured (but officially denied). The widespread use of chemical and biological weopons was also expected.

Let's face it, Sid, this is not the first time you've found yourself 'in an unusual position' is it?