Last argument of the Pro War Lobby falls apart

Freelancer

After the WMD search proved to be an embarssment the argument for the war was always thrown out there. But the Iraqi people have their freedom! things are so much better than under Saddam.

Human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein and are even in danger of eclipsing his record,

Which of course the pro war argument will always say is the tired line of the Robert Fisk's of this world until we see that these words were actually uttered by

according to the country's first Prime Minister after the fall of Saddam's regime.

'People are doing the same as [in] Saddam's time and worse,' Ayad Allawi told The Observer. 'It is an appropriate comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things.'

He goes further

in a damning and wide-ranging indictment of Iraq's escalating human rights catastrophe, Allawi accused fellow Shias in the government of being responsible for death squads and secret torture centres. The brutality of elements in the new security forces rivals that of Saddam's secret police, he said.

For months the fear has been that the Shia's would be provoked into civil war with the insurgents coming from mainly Sunni background. Now apparently the Shia have in fact been striking back for months, through the police the secret police and hidden prisons and torture chambers.

Allawi was selected to serve as prime minister of the first interim government, before last January's first national elections. Admired in both Downing Street and the White House as a non-sectarian politician committed to strong centralised government representing all Iraqis,

What possible defence for this shambolic war can be put forward now?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1651789,00.html

Bloodychancer

Perhaps the real reason for it in the first place

OIL

zepp

The words since saddam has gone power vacumm come to mind. Saddam was a tyrannt he supressed all people thats why there was less before. If you think saddam was right to be in power. Maybe you support mugabe as well.

Sand

No Zepp, you misunderstand. They do not support Saddam being in power. They do not support removing Saddam from power. So they would not support Mugabe, but they would not support removing Mugabe from power either.

Freelancer

zepp wrote:

The words since saddam has gone power vacumm come to mind. Saddam was a tyrannt he supressed all people thats why there was less before. If you think saddam was right to be in power. Maybe you support mugabe as well.

And where did I say I thought Saddam was right to be in power? And the if you support this you must clearly support the other.

Remember how we were told by Rumsfeld "We will be welcomed as liberators"?

Its assinine to suggest I was pro Saddam, just someone who said the war was a mistake the US weren't making realistic plans for the occupation and the hand over of power.

The bleated mantra after the weapons of mass destruction weren't found was "the freedom of the iraqi people" after the brutal tyranny of Saddam. Now it turns out that the democratisation of the Iraq people has given them the freedom from Murder and torture under Saddam to democratic freedom to murder and kill each other.

Manic Moran

Well, I guess it's a step closer... They elected their own torturers earlier this year, and they get to elect a new batch in a couple of months. If that's not democracy, what is?

NTM

Zombrex

Sand wrote:

No Zepp, you misunderstand. They do not support Saddam being in power. They do not support removing Saddam from power.

Who said you had to remove Saddam from power?

All along the anti-war lobby (myself included) were saying removing Saddam from power will cause more problems than it solves. Guess what, we were right

Sometimes the most desired outcome (Iraq free with wonderful and peaceful democracy reigning) is simply not possible and the best thing to do is do nothing because what ever you do you make the situation worse. This was one of times. I think it has become horrifically obvious now after the complete disaster that was the Iraq "liberation".

patzer117

Eh, just because human rights abuses are bad now doesn't mean the reasons for going to war weren't correct. When i supported the invasion (and not the occupation for all those who think they are the same), I did so because the plan was to remove a certain evil dictator from power. It worked. What it has been replaced by doesn't matter in the case for war, it matters in the case for occupation. Don't confuse the issue.

And don't get me started on oil. The Americans have lost enough money through the war to build multiple nuclear power plants for energy and to drill all over the Pacific Ocean and Antartica. They clearly did not go in for oil.

breandan

patzer117 wrote:

And don't get me started on oil. The Americans have lost enough money through the war to build multiple nuclear power plants for energy and to drill all over the Pacific Ocean and Antartica. They clearly did not go in for oil.

They clearly did its just that as in every other aspect of this war they (Britain/America) cocked up how much it would cost to run the country after the invasion and how many barrels they would be able to produce to pay for it all (production is still less than prewar levels).

As for the abuse claims by Allawi.................America and Britain have known whats going on for at least a year to eighteen months yet have untill the raid on the secret prison in Baghdad last week done nothing about it.
Surely that makes them at least partly responsible for the abuses, although judging by the video of how the British Marines treat their own maybe there standards for what constitutes abuse and torture are very very high......................

Freelancer

Gosh patzer, And I'm left with baited breath for your defence in humanities.

patzer117 wrote:

Eh, just because human rights abuses are bad now doesn't mean the reasons for going to war weren't correct. When i supported the invasion (and not the occupation for all those who think they are the same), I did so because the plan was to remove a certain evil dictator from power. It worked. What it has been replaced by doesn't matter in the case for war, it matters in the case for occupation. Don't confuse the issue.

So if you go to war to replace an evil dictator who is abusing his people, and then create a system while people are suffering under the exact same circumstances, I mean thats a worthwhile endeavour.

I mean trying to separate the war and the occupation when the planned result of the war was an occupation is just daft.

And don't get me started on oil. The Americans have lost enough money through the war to build multiple nuclear power plants for energy and to drill all over the Pacific Ocean and Antartica. They clearly did not go in for oil.

Yes but er but american oil companies have made a fortune and there is the rub. The suggestion that america is working as one unified whole for america it Ignores the fact that the american government is driven by oil, the complexitity of the Saudi involvement in the US economy, how rewarding the war was for several oil and military companies in america. The suggestion that the American government has the best interest of the entirity of the Americans is something that would not merit discussion in even the average elks lodge.

mcgarnicle

I really don't understand how people expect Iraq to be perfect after two years of occupation. It is a massive undertaking, they have to try to completely change the order of Iraqi society. I know it is bad now but that doesn't mean that it will be bad in 5 years. Take a look at Japan, the American occupation of Japan lasted 8 years and I don't think anyone can deny that it was a success. What if the Americans had left Japan after two years?

bush doctor

The American government projects its power abroad only to protect/advance the country's own (economic) interests. With regard to furthering democracy and improving human rights they're only paying lip service as it suits their own ends.

What about Zimbabwe, Burma, Uzbekistan.........

If they're interested in 'freedom' then I'm a monkey's uncle!

Manic Moran

bush doctor wrote:

The American government projects its power abroad only to protect/advance the country's own (economic) interests. With regard to furthering democracy and improving human rights they're only paying lip service as it suits their own ends.

What about Zimbabwe, Burma, Uzbekistan.........

If they're interested in 'freedom' then I'm a monkey's uncle!

True. However, every country works in its own best interests, so you can't really blame the Americans for it.

Back to the original topic, have a gander at http://www.logictimes.com/civilian.htm

Bearing in mind that it's probably a little biased (But hey, what 'factual' analysis of Iraq isn't?), it's interesting enough. Of note is the claim that the current death tolls are 93% less than Saddam's monthly average.

They do need to get the Iraqi security forces back under control though.

NTM

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

True. However, every country works in its own best interests, so you can't really blame the Americans for it.

I think very few people think otherwise in this instance. But the annoying part isn't really that, but instead that the US has these grand ideals of how people should live and conduct thier lives. Sad thing is whats on paper rarely reflects actual reality.

Originally Posted by patzer117
Eh, just because human rights abuses are bad now doesn't mean the reasons for going to war weren't correct.

Except that the reason of "removing Saddam" never really surfaced until after the attack. Before that it was WMD this and WMD that. So the reasons for going to war were in fact incorrect. Of course most people knew it was BS especially since Bush himself was said to say he would invade Iraq back in 2000 and Rumsfield telling his guys to work on hitting Iraq on 9/11.

Heres a nice timeline of the whole thing.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/timeline/index.php?

bonkey

mcgarnicle wrote:

I really don't understand how people expect Iraq to be perfect after two years of occupation.

Who has said anything about perfect? A strategy that showed promise of working would probably be enough of a good start.

What we see instead is growing unrest, growing numbers of atrocities, and the US now making noises that this growing disaster is getting "good enough" that they can start pulling out.

I know it is bad now but that doesn't mean that it will be bad in 5 years.

True. Thats no reason for anyone to suggest that one cannot evaluate progress meaningfully until that time has passed. And if we did do so, and after 5 years it was still a mess.....would you be agreeing at that point, or sugegsting that not all nations and projects are as quick or as easy or as something, and that we should wait 7 or 10 years...or however long it takes?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you basically seem to be saying "It will turn out alright if we give it enough time". Its strange that logic wasn't used before the invasion. Its even stranger that while you're saying this, the people in charge are increasingly making noises that its already time to be thinking about starting to leave.

jc

jc

jc

ferdi

In the 1870s, America began to move away from its isolationist policy which it had since the 1790s and started to take a full interest in european and world affairs again. why?

The 1870s saw the rise of entrepreneurs such as Andrew Carnegie and J.D. Rockefeller whos business exploits gave rise to what we would today call modern capitalist democracy. The reason the states started looking beyond its own boarders was for the purpose of expanding its business markets in order to widen its growning economy. Things are no differnet today.

Why does America look towards Iraq and the Middle East? To spread Democracy and the American way of life? Yes! but Why? - In order that future markets may be secured so that the modern capitalist economy may be maintained.

There are very few, if any truely good intentions at work here. America (and the world) exist for the benifit of huge multinationals and the war on Iraq was and is nothing more than a huge business take-over.

Zombrex

patzer117 wrote:

What it has been replaced by doesn't matter in the case for war, it matters in the case for occupation. Don't confuse the issue.

The war and the occupation are the same things. It would never have been possible to have the war and then just leave. The anti-war crowd (myself included) were saying this all along too, the fact that America and the UK are still in Iraq should come as no surprise to anyone. It would have been a certain civil war if the Allied forces had simply removed Sadam and them just left.

patzer117 wrote:

They clearly did not go in for oil.

You seem to be slightly underestimating the importance of oil to the world economy. Basically without oil there would be no world economy.

Everything America has done in the middle east since 1945 has been directly or indirectly due to oil. Everything. There are loads of dictators around the world worse than Saddam that America pays no attention to (or even helps if it serves their interests) Also the middle east would probably be largely full of modern western style democracies if it wasn't for western meddling. Iran was a liberal (for a muslim country) democracy 50 years ago till America removed this because of threats to nationalise its oil reserves.

It serves the west to keep the area weak and under control. The reason they do this is oil. Always has been

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote:

True. However, every country works in its own best interests, so you can't really blame the Americans for it

Every mugger works in his own best interests. I don't see that as a reason not to blame them for injuries caused to their victoms.

Gurgle

bonkey wrote:

the US now making noises that this growing disaster is getting "good enough" that they can start pulling out.

Which just might lead to 'What are we going to do with all these tanks and planes now ?'
- Well theres no point in just bringing them home.

Zombrex

Manic Moran wrote:

True. However, every country works in its own best interests, so you can't really blame the Americans for it.

True but not every country goes to war at the drop of a hat to further those interests.

Manic Moran wrote:

Back to the original topic, have a gander at http://www.logictimes.com/civilian.htm

Skimmed throught that and there seems to be a few wild assumptions used to back up the idea that Iraq would be 93% worse now under Saddam.

w66w66

Manic Moran wrote:

True. However, every country works in its own best interests, so you can't really blame the Americans for it.

Different factions in America supported the war for various different reasons, nationalism included. But the main architects of the war, the neocons, are internationalists at heart and have little time for the ideals of nationalism and nationhood. For them the ideology always comes before the country. Not surprising then that many Neocons are former Marxists.

patzer117

Freelancer wrote:

So if you go to war to replace an evil dictator who is abusing his people, and then create a system while people are suffering under the exact same circumstances, I mean thats a worthwhile endeavour.

I mean trying to separate the war and the occupation when the planned result of the war was an occupation is just daft.

No it's not. The reason I supported the war was because they were removing a dictator from power. They did that. It's my opinion that they then after doing that bottled the occupation so I don't agree with the way they occupied the country and the way they currently are. I do think they were right to go in and I think they were right to occupy the country. I think they have severely mismanaged the occupation though. The two points are in no way contradictory and aren't daft.

J.R.HARTLEY

patzer117 wrote:

No it's not. The reason I supported the war was because they were removing a dictator from power. They did that. It's my opinion that they then after doing that bottled the occupation so I don't agree with the way they occupied the country and the way they currently are. I do think they were right to go in and I think they were right to occupy the country. I think they have severely mismanaged the occupation though. The two points are in no way contradictory and aren't daft.

what about the fact that they lied to go to war, their reasons were not to remove sadam but to find the wmds, it only emerged later that their sole purpose was to effect regime change. their is not a proper regime their at the moment, so the occupation is not seperate, it would be if simply removing the dictator was the point, howver regime change includes replacing with a stable alternative

FTA69

Well the invasion of Iraq subsequently led to the botched occupation, and the latter would not have occurred had the US not invaded Iraq. As someone said earlier on, the best thing to do would have been nothing at all. Liberation can not be introduced into a country through torturous prisons, the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, the deliberate use of horrific chemical weapons and the subsequent occupation of the country by two armies well versed in repression. It is up to the Iraqi people to free themselves from any dictatorship, because as we have seen in recent years, the invasion approach was fundamentally flawed.

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

No it's not. The reason I supported the war was because they were removing a dictator from power.

Thats not the reason they went to war, thats not even the reason they claimed to be going to war. They claimed this dictator was planning to build and held weapons of mass destrution which he was going to use on the west.

They did that. It's my opinion that they then after doing that bottled the occupation so I don't agree with the way they occupied the country and the way they currently are. I do think they were right to go in and I think they were right to occupy the country. I think they have severely mismanaged the occupation though. The two points are in no way contradictory and aren't daft.

Yeah they are. You think that going in and invading and the moment that the giant statute of Saddam falls down, it's a completely different kettle of fish. Rumsfield said they'd be greeted as libirators. Invading a country without a clear idea of what will be required once the invasion is completed means the two are intriniscally linked.

Zombrex

patzer117 wrote:

I do think they were right to go in and I think they were right to occupy the country. I think they have severely mismanaged the occupation though.

Well I mean there was no way they were going to not over throw Saddam, they had massive superior military strength. To judge the entire campaign a success because they managed to do this one thing is missing the larger picture. To say they did over throw Saddam successfully and anything that comes after the fall of Saddam is a different issue all together is ridiculous.

Ignoring the damage actually done during the war, the war lead directly to the occupation. The are one and the same on going event. Everyone knew all along that the war would have to lead to an occupation, you don't just remove a government like Saddams leave and expect everything to be fine. It would have been impossible to have had a war to over throw Saddam and not end up right where we are now.

patzer117

Wicknight wrote:

Well I mean there was no way they were going to not over throw Saddam, they had massive superior military strength. To judge the entire campaign a success because they managed to do this one thing is missing the larger picture. To say they did over throw Saddam successfully and anything that comes after the fall of Saddam is a different issue all together is ridiculous.

Ignoring the damage actually done during the war, the war lead directly to the occupation. The are one and the same on going event. Everyone knew all along that the war would have to lead to an occupation, you don't just remove a government like Saddams leave and expect everything to be fine. It would have been impossible to have had a war to over throw Saddam and not end up right where we are now.

First of all I am not judging the entire campaign as a success. I am stating the reasons I supported the war. What I believe, and I'm repeating myself at this stage, is that they got into the correct position, where I would have liked them to be, by removing Saddam, then they threw it away by making stupid mistakes - like Abu Gharaib and using Phosphorus, by allowing the insurgents gain too much power in the Sunni triangle etc.

The idea that it wasn't possible to overthrow and end up where we are today is rather shocking. I don't think many people expected it to get this bad, and certainly there was a large chance it would go otherwise. Just because it didn't doesn't mean they shouldn't have tried.

Freelancer

patzer117 wrote:

First of all I am not judging the entire campaign as a success. I am stating the reasons I supported the war. What I believe, and I'm repeating myself at this stage, is that they got into the correct position, where I would have liked them to be, by removing Saddam, then they threw it away by making stupid mistakes - like Abu Gharaib and using Phosphorus, by allowing the insurgents gain too much power in the Sunni triangle etc.

One could happily argue that the entire campaign was fought with an indiscriminate indifference to human life, and events such as Abu Gharaib and using Phosphorous are just another in a long line of criminal indifference to the Iraq people, which started with sanctions and carried on with such events as the bombing of convoys carrying channel four journalists, indiscriminate civilian casualties, an unwilliness to even try to guess the numbers of civilian casulaties, and the alledged accidental bombing of al jaazera in bagdhad. And those are just the ones off the top of my head.

The idea that it wasn't possible to overthrow and end up where we are today is rather shocking.

I'd rather suggest that the US's arrogance and indifference to human life as displayed in afganistan and in the build up the war meant that this was never going to go any other way.

I don't think many people expected it to get this bad,

The name, "Robert Fisk" keeps coming to mind for some reason. As do the ten's of millions who voted with their feet to oppose the war. I think most of them knew it was going to get this bad, thats why they opposed the war.

and certainly there was a large chance it would go otherwise. Just because it didn't doesn't mean they shouldn't have tried.

Ah sure lads, it's all gone pear shaped, and the Iraq people are no better than when they were under Saddam, but sure at least we tried.....

Spending billions, killing tens of thousands to end up exactly where you started from (from the Iraq's point of view) and you're giving the invasion an "A" for effort?

If the invasion when planned didn't consider the likely outcome of the the occupation then the invasion failed.

Manic Moran

From what I've seen, if nobody else on the planet is better off for the whole endeavour (No WMDs, increased incentive to target America, cash expense and loss of lives), the Iraqi people are. The January election was a city-wide three-day party in Mosul, and people weren't shy about waving, smiling and showing their purple fingers. (Which made no sense at the time, we only found out what that was all about the next day) If there was only one day that made our whole endeavour feel worthwhile, that was it. There is a series of adverts currently running on the TV in the US by 'theotheriraq.org', which near as I can tell is predominantly Iraqi Kurds basically saying 'thank you America', I guess to counter all the negative publicity.

I find myself largely in agreement with Patzer. It was a good idea, which was executed in a less-than-stellar fashion. Bush could probably have done a better pre-invasion job with the international community (though there are arguments that he could never have achieved much better than he did), and the disbanding of the Iraqi security forces by Bremer was..um.. questionable to say the least. There were a couple of other decisions made for political expediency: Sometimes doing the proper thing is unpopular, and doing something to acceed to political pressure just makes things worse in the long run.

NTM

breandan

Manic Moran wrote:

From what I've seen, if nobody else on the planet is better off for the whole endeavour (No WMDs, increased incentive to target America, cash expense and loss of lives), the Iraqi people are. The January election was a city-wide three-day party in Mosul, and people weren't shy about waving, smiling and showing their purple fingers.

Simply not true. There may well have been widespread happiness in the Kurd Sunni section of Mosul however the Arab Sunni and Turkomen Sunni regions of the city are basically war zones where practically where practically no one voted in the January elections.

Manic Moran wrote:

(Which made no sense at the time, we only found out what that was all about the next day) If there was only one day that made our whole endeavour feel worthwhile, that was it. There is a series of adverts currently running on the TV in the US by 'theotheriraq.org', which near as I can tell is predominantly Iraqi Kurds basically saying 'thank you America', I guess to counter all the negative publicity.

Would be grand if the Kurds represented the whole Iraqi population.
Unfortunately they only represent 20%. The other 80% including the majority Shi'ites who suffered most under Saddams tyrany are in no mood for 'thank you Americas' but judging by your above comments they dont really count. Let us also not forget that since the first gulf war the Iraqi Kurds have been basically running their own affairs anyways so this idea that it was the invasion of Iraq this time round that has lead to their freedom is not the whole picture. What the second war has led to is Kurd troops being used in Sunni Arab areas such as the disaster that has been Fallujah as well as in the disputed oil rich city of Kirkuk which has only mad the secterian issues within the country even more pronounced.

Victor

patzer117 wrote:

Eh, just because human rights abuses are bad now doesn't mean the reasons for going to war weren't correct.

Be careful not to confuse the broad range of (potential) reasons one could use for invading with the actual decision.

When i supported the invasion (and not the occupation for all those who think they are the same)

So you mean they should have invaded, destroyed the domestic power, create a power vacuum and walk away? Now that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

patzer117 wrote:

No it's not. The reason I supported the war was because they were removing a dictator from power.

But it you remove one dictator, surely you should remove all the dictators? But who decides who is a dictator? How do we prioritise the list?

Eventually, when we have removed all the dictators, we are ourselves, dictators