Iraqi Kensington Meeting

pro_gnostic_8

Yesterday's meeting in West London under the auspices of the Iraqi Military Alliance and comprising of :

Iraqi National Congress,
Constitutional Monarchy Movement of Iraq,
Kurdish National Party,
Iraqi Free Officers Movement,

in an official statement requested ,and mandated, military intervention of outside forces to secure the overthrow of the Hussein administration.

May I ask, in your opinion, should Western democracy's ignore or answer this call?

Thanks,
Jack.

Sand

Theres no point dethroning Saddam in favour of just another tin pot dictator. Youll have the same trouble 20 years down the line. If the West is going to actually bring about a regime change it needs to do a post WW2 Germany/Japan effort - and that requires occupation and having complete control to effect those changes. I dont think the west has the conviction to do that, they wimpered out in the Gulf War when the Iraqis were only advancing so they could find an Allied soldier to surrender to. They owe it to the Iraqi democrats to be honest and not lie to them like they did in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

DadaKopf

Personally, I don't like it. I don't like the tone of the agreement and neither do I like the idea that Iraqis (in exile) are colluding in yet another war to further establish US hegemony in the middle east.

What scares me more is that the tone of Bush et al is extremely matter of fact about invading a sovereign state and illegally toppling its government - "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do". Worse than that: the Americans seem to agree. Have they lost all sense? Have they totally forgotten Vietnam?

sceptre

I've said even here in the past few months that the only way out of this "War on terror" that would suit the US military as well as the politicians would be an all-out assault on Iraq. Personally I think they'd rather invade Cuba but haven't thought of a good-enough excuse for that yet (give them time, depending on how long Castro lives).

A "win" in Iraq would justify the whole thing from a public relations POV with much of the American public.

Another relevant report from the BBC

I wouldn't put it past Bush to wait until October to deal with Iraq(as a well-known declared conspiratist, sometimes I believe they all (including Dan Rather, are all out to get and dominate us)). Senate elections are around then and it would consolidate the Republican position in both the House and Senate. I wouldn't be surprised if they waited over another year and tried to run it into the next Presidential election but it seems so far away that from a PR point of view it would be hard to keep the attention of the US public for so long. Plus Dubya will be conscious of the original war in Iraq not having helped his father's prospects for re-election.

On the original question, it's relatively difficult to decide how much faith we should have in organisations like the Iraqi National Congress. The fact that they can talk and have common grounds with the Kurdish National Party can't be interpreted as anything but a good thing. The Kurds have had it hard in all countries where they have settlements - that much is for sure. I don't personally know (because I'm not that clued up on the situation) whether they're seeking a homeland á la Palestine or Israel or a place at the table in Iraq (or indeed, Turkey).

Obviously they're not elected organisations - being organisations or potential governments in exile as it were.

For me, the fact that Iraq has a government that it controlled by a minority of the population (being essentially a Shi'ite governmant in a country where 60% of the population is Sunn'ite Islamic) is almost enough to consider the idea. The fact that the government has held power illegally for the past twenty years by force of arms is another. The fact that that government was essentially installed and supported by the Americans in a reactionary movement to the uprising in Iran (and before that the influence the Americans and British sought to buffer the perceived Russian influence over Iran) is yet another (even though the perceived threat was based on a treaty made after WW2 that the Americans broke in propping up the Shah).

Unfortunately, I almost trust Hussein more than I do the American government. At least with Saddam, you can believe that he does what he does because he believes in it, not that he seeks re-election and an improvement in popularity polls while people ignore the real issues in favour of a vague enemy embodied in a particular race (at the moment we fear the Arabs through what we've been told they have done - not too far away from what Hitler managed to convince millions of people of during the thirties). Not that I don't believe that Hussein isn't inherently evil. Evil in that he seeks to perpetuate his power and influence down the generations (through bequeathing power to his sons), again through creating a phantom menace in the United States. Keeping this in mind (and equating Hussein dangarously with that other evil agriculture minister, Mr Qidaffi), given that Hussein may actually believe he has the support of Senatus et Populesque), Saddam may be playing the same game.

I've faith in democracy. Like everyone else, I've seen it usurped, influenced, broken and fooled. I watched as US soldiers invaded Kuwait in the name of democracy while anyone who considered the invasion knew it was nothing of the sort. Kuwait is not, and has never been, a democracy. I debated this question in Oxford a few years ago (during my "I'll travel anywhere for free pints as long as you're paying" period) and achieved the dubious honour of both a standing ovation and total silence (from different sides of the chamber:D) when I questioned the legal issues behind the US driving Iraqi soldiers out of Kuwait city (I'll leave the uissue unless someone wants to argue over it - it would merely make the whooe thing more murky and pro_gnostic didn't really ask for discussion on it). All I will say is that whatever way you look at it, from the POV of the Americans, Kuwait is less of a country and more of an oil company with a seat at the UN. n However, with all it's recently (at least since the Greek cities had a go at it) introduced faults, it's the best system we have. I may view myself as a potential benevolent dictator, but that's no reason why the rest of humanity should. And the fact that we have a democracy in this country, occasionally misguided and media dominated as it is (and this isn't the US "you can be president but only if you're either a millionaire or can manipulate real estate in Kentucky to make it like you might be" system) means that's what we have, occasionally coruppted as it may be. Property manipulators don't involve themselves in systematic genocide. If people are misguided, at least they believe they know who they're electing. And that's incredibly important.

Can't but agree with everything said by both Sand and DadaKopf. Hopefully this won't kill the thread (the "let's all essentially agree... because we do" that we've seen so far, probably including me). There is no point in dethroning Saddam and replacing him with another tin pot dictator. Worse still if it's a tin pot dictator dominated by the US. It's a good question: "is toppling an illegal dictator in an illegal way in fact illegal?" Of course it is. Is it illegal to steal a stolen item from a thief? Yup. The slightly frightening thing, to address Dada's point, is that, as opposed to Vietnam, the Americans are likely to win a war against Iraq easily and nicely. The Iraqi army, for all Saddam's posturing, are no match for the Americans. Nor do they have the guerilla advantages that the Taliban have (they don't have the training of facing a major foe, nor do they have the cave structures that the Taliban dug (as with the Viet Cong)). In a war of the US v the current Iraqi government, the Americans are sure to win. Even if Hussein nukes his own country with tactical weapons (assuming for the sake of discussion that he has the capability) or uses the chemical weapons that were feared in the last war, he can be judged to have lost by default.

The ironic thing is, of course, that like the Taliban, the Iraqi government were peopped up by the Americans due to a fear of the Red threat. I personally don't believe that they will ever realise how stupid they were (certainly we won't hear about it on CNN). Zaire (Congo), Angola, Nicaragua/Panama, Afganistan, Iraq, the list could go on. When the Americans realise that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, I'll sincerely rejoice. Until then, while I'll have faith in the intelligence of many American citizens, I'll have little faith in that of their government, who I'll continue to see as myopic, self-indulgent, hypocritical (corporate fraud) PR whores.

America started as the greatest democracy in the world. Equality for all, rights unprecedented theretofore and rights for the press that had never thitherto been seen. What the hell happened? In a country where the rights of a citizen to bear arms can't be usurped without a constitutional amendmendment and debate beforehand, what the hell happened the press that they would see questioning the intentions of their own government as an attempt to overthrow the government? As a seim-professional cynic I can at least rely on my beliefs (cynical as they may be), even though they would result in my stoning at then hands of the US (changable) civil service weat-wing establishment (not that it'll be news to anyone but Seamus is a proud realistic socialist - and that state of play existed while I wasn't a resuming student)

Apologies if the above was a little incoherent at times. GF (who is away alas) reckons the handiest way to get rid of my cold is to get well and truly sozzled. Hence I'm sitting in front of the PC with three cans of Red Bull (mostly empty) and a bottle of vodka (er, ditto). I rely on this as my defence:D

(last edit. if i go on, this will turn into an anti-Liam Lawlor/ Ray Burke post. Which wasn't what I intended)

"Self-determination." That may be a dirty conjuncion in the current political environment. It was thought up by a group of renegades in a series of rooms in and around 1776. Noble words in a less than noble time. Their words may have been more of a viw on taxation (and, er, representation) than anything else, but in the more modern interpretation of the wording with regard to the right of a community to self-govern, all , beginning with John Hancock, should be treated as pionerrs beyond their time, dogma and views.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by Sand
They owe it to the Iraqi democrats to be honest and not lie to them like they did in the aftermath of the Gulf War.

I wholeheartedly agree with ya............ thousands of Kurds were abandoned to suffer chemical annihilation in the weeks immediately after the '91 war. And the pro-democratic army elements that were encouraged by Bush senior to uprise were also betrayed by inaction and support.

DadaKopf

What I'd like to know is how much the Iraqi people still genuinely support and adore Saddam as the great hero he's often perceived to be. It would convenient for the US to convince us that te Iraqi people, too, want his regime toppled but who can we really believe? Who can truly occupy the moral high ground?

It's true that Saddam is an egomanaical, psychopathic dictator whose subjects would probably be beter off without him. It can also be said that he's a leader quite similar to Arafat - that is, a traditional, culturally embedded form of state leadership common throughout the middle east.

While that contradiction persists, we have to also look at the effect sanctions are having on the people of Iraq. These are US lead, but UN sanctioned and are no doubt intended to punish Saddam as well as to destabilise the regime and create conditions for homegrown revolt. The US has involved itself in Bay of Pigs-like operations, in an attempt to motivate full-scale insurrections against the regime but these have not been successful. That said, all the US has been doing thus far is to fund paramilitaries already in existence in Iraq.

Clearly there is resistence to Saddam's regime but there's also support for it. The people of Iraq still see him as a war hero - an image he himself has perpetuated via propaganda. But the question I ask is just how much propaganda is the US pumping through our media outlets?

I don't think it'll be possible for anyone to view this upcoming war in clear ethical terms - it's too messy. What is clear, however, is that the US has promised to wage an official war on a sovereign state. This means that they must be accountable for everything they do, especially the loss of life they are about to cause. That, I'm positive, is totally and absolutely repugnant. This is just the same old story Regan and Bush Sr. have written before - I don't expect any surprises.

On another note: the US has formally threatned to withdraw aid packages from Bolivia unless their congress agrees not to elect socialist candidate Evo Morales. Morales has been vocal in opposing US economic and political intervention in recent years so obviously they just want someone in who'll do what they say. The same thing happened last year when they threatned disastrous financial consequences for Nicaragua if the Sandanista Daniel Ortega was elected president. Worse things happened in Panama. Maybe it's just the short before the feature presentation: Gulf War II - Cold Vengeance

JustHalf

Originally posted by DadaKopf
What scares me more is that the tone of Bush et al is extremely matter of fact about invading a sovereign state and illegally toppling its government - "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do".

I'm sorry for illegally replying to your illegally posted post, but I have to ask... what law is there against this?

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by sceptre
I've faith in democracy. Like everyone else, I've seen it usurped, influenced, broken and fooled. I watched as US soldiers invaded Kuwait in the name of democracy while anyone who considered the invasion knew it was nothing of the sort

Oh, I have no doubt that the Allied invasion of Kuwait was motivated by macro-economic considerations rather than any altruistic humanitarian aims. Then again, would you agree that the control of a sizeable percent of world oil stocks falling into the hands of Saddam Hussein would have had very serious repercussions for Western economies. BTW, I have reservations about the '91 invasion being assignated a "U.S." invasion. If memory serves, it was a world alliance including most of the Arab countries.

My opinion (open to change, however) is that western powers have a moral obligation to support any overthrow of this obnoxious regime for different reasons. ............. not least of which would be Husseins atrocious gassing, torture, etc of the Iraqi people. The accumulation of Chem/Bio/Nuke weapons of mass destruct in the hands of this man is also a consideration.

Pity that the West didn't respond to similar calls from Serbian Muslims subsequently massacred in Srebenica or the earlier slaugthter of 1 million people in Rwanda. I guess, like you suggested, neither of these places were important enough players on the geo-politik oil chessboard.

DadaKopf

JustHalf: Obviously there's no law against it. I was just expressing my opinion of the way the US is presenting all of this to the public. The attitudes this whole process of political (re)education are carrying worry me. It's that dangerous blend of strong nationalist sentiments of revenge combined with cold, rational strategisation. But the Bush administration's political education has, so far, not given way to all-out propaganda so there's not much illegal about it for the time being. Even when, in 1991, Dick Cheney lied to the UN Security Council and the world about the time-scale of Saddam's nuclear readiness (it was actually years away, not months), nothing was done to correct this propagandist exaggeration. As Churchill said: "Truth is the first casualty of war."

But even when internal committees do find fault with any administration's methods of politically educating the public, occasionally involving the US in covert propaganda activities, nothing significant ever gets done. For example, in 1987 Otto Reich, the then head of the Office of Public Diplomacy, was investigated by the Comptroller-General and was found to have abused his office during his involvement in the Contra affair - the US's war against the Sandanistas. The Comptroller-General found that he had been involved in "prohibited covert propaganda activities ... beyond the range of acceptable public information activities". Reich, rather than being expelled from political life, has been given the illustrious position of Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. So he's basically doing the same thing he was accused of in 1987 (see my above post).

This was a clear example of legitimate political education succumbing to blatant propaganda in order to justify further US expansion and control over Central America. One is legal and arguably legitimate while the latter is completely illegal. But when it involves the US, it never really matters. The Bush administration's plans have been set and it's unlikely anyone or anything is going to derail them.

JustHalf

When it comes to the US, it seems it does not matter whether an action is illegal or not before it is called illegal.

Von

Originally posted by DadaKopf
The Bush administration's plans have been set and it's unlikely anyone or anything is going to derail them.

After the fiasco in 'Stan where the commandos did not bag a single muzzy, and the total non event that was India v Pakistan, let us at least hope that when 'Raq kicks off, the rags will put up a bit of a fight and it'll be a war worth getting up at all hours to watch. Even if it's a walkover like last time, we can still expect a few obligatory f**kups and perhaps a couple of Mai Lai style massacres.

If a war isn't a tragedy for an entire generation, it's not a war at all.

Clintons Cat

On another note: the US has formally threatned to withdraw aid packages from Bolivia unless their congress agrees not to elect socialist candidate Evo Morales. Morales has been vocal in opposing US economic and political intervention in recent years so obviously they just want someone in who'll do what they say. The same thing happened last year when they threatned disastrous financial consequences for Nicaragua if the Sandanista Daniel Ortega was elected president. Worse things happened in Panama. Maybe it's just the short before the feature presentation: Gulf War II - Cold Vengeance

Also see Venezuela "the coup that almost was."
link - media -testimony