Do you support an attack on Iraq?

Turnip

Who supports an invasion of Iraq? There is no question that the country and the region and the world would be better off without him, but the usual lot are moaning that the conflict could spread etc. They said the same thing about the Gulf War and then Afghanistan and they were wrong then. I think they'll be wrong again.

Keep on Trekin

Before you Vote Read this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=61263
Strange Case?

bonkey

Will it spread? I dunno, but looking at the previous cases may not be terribly relevant.

The fundamental difference here is that the previous events you refer to were all taken in response to attacks.

The Gulf War was as a result of Iraq invading Kuwait.
The Afghanistan "incursion" was as a result of the 9.11 attacks.

This time, however, there is no wronged party. There are allegations (probably true) that Saddam is building up weapons of mass destruction. There is a widely-publicised view that this is a bad thing - although its by far an open and closed argument.

America will find support much harder to come by this time round, particularly in the region. Last time, pretty much every middle-eastern nation wanted to see Iraw get its just deserts when the US came to Kuwait's aid. When Afghanistan (or more correctly, the Taliban via Al Qaeda) was implicated in 9.11, no-one opposed the US search for justice/revenge.

This time, however, its not a retaliatory action. America will be the open aggressor. This is a very, very unsettling affair.

Iraq may be a better place without Saddam, but to be honest, the US have not covered themselves in glory when choosing the puppet to replace the despot.

I think a lot of the world, particularly those nations who do not subscribe to western idealism, will be worried by an American invasion.

I'm not going to try and pretend to understand all the reasons why the US is talking about invasion, but I do know that anyone who believes it is about any single issue is gravely mistaken.

Do I support it? I can see a lot of pro- and contra- arguments. I'm not sure which are the most convincing for the real world (as opposed to some idealised view of how things should be). So I guess I'm sitting on the fence for now....but I aint no liberal

jc

Sand

A lot of people will oppose a war, not because they like Saddam but because they despise Bush/Blair more. That British labour MP enjoying crumpet and tea with Saddam recently, whilst the British press lapped up Saddams praise of Britain much as they did Hitlers, is a fine example. A well meaning Chamberlain if ever there was, with men like him in power Western civillisation would go the way of the Roman Empire - invincible one day, vanished the next.

Would a war against Saddam be a good thing for the Americans to pursue? - I believe so. It seems wiser to defeat your enemies rather than wait night after night for them to strike at you, hoping they die of old age in the meantime. Were Saddam to attempt to drag Israel into the conflict he would likely succeed given the man running Israel these days - and this would no doubt lead to a general war in the middle east. The Americans have to decide whether theyre willing to risk that given theyll have to fight that war too, whether they want to or not. Saddams a petty dictator in any case- he does not command loyalty or respect, only fear - The americans need to win only one decisive victory and the Iraqi milatary will collapse again, like they did in kuwait.

The sad thing is the Americans will probably do an invasion on he cheap and do a deal with another Iraqi General, talk up his democratic credentials in the Western media and then leave him to his own devices.

mayhem#

Read this article

Kinda puts thing in a different light doesn't it?

JustHalf

I really don't like Saddam. I don't like what he has done in the past. I don't like what he is doing right now. I don't like the idea of what he will do.

I also don't think the US has a good reason to invade Iraq. Iraq is less of a direct threat to America than the EU. Indirectly, Hussein has shown no indication of being involved in planning and carrying out attacks on the US or it's allies... the worst it has done is given money to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine.

*sigh*

I'll elaborate in the morning, after some precious SLEEP.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand
A lot of people will oppose a war, not because they like Saddam but because they despise Bush/Blair more.

I doubt that very much- Bush and Blair are a distasteful pair, with much to answer for, but nothing along the lines of dropping chemical weapons on minority groups in their own countries. Sadaam crossed that line, and many others in the course of his leadership- the criminal point to note here is that it is largely due to Western support that Saddam is where he is today.

That British labour MP enjoying crumpet and tea with Saddam recently, whilst the British press lapped up Saddams praise of Britain much as they did Hitlers, is a fine example. A well meaning Chamberlain if ever there was, with men like him in power Western civillisation would go the way of the Roman Empire - invincible one day, vanished the next.

Just to clarify one thing- the Roman empire didn't just "vanish" in a day- it took years and years, decades in fact, for it to be slowly eroded away. The next point to note is that Sadaam is in no position (as Hitler was) to mobilize any significant force that couldn't be instantly countered by Arab alliance forces. That wasn't true in 1990, but it is now.

Would a war against Saddam be a good thing for the Americans to pursue? - I believe so. It seems wiser to defeat your enemies rather than wait night after night for them to strike at you, hoping they die of old age in the meantime.

There are oh so many problems with this statement. Has everyone just forgotten that a couple of decades ago, the US and its allies helped the Ba'ath party to rise to power by supporting them in the Iran-Iraq war?. I surely hope not- they weren't always our enemies- Iran was seen as the biggest threat after the Shah's departure, so we persuaded the Ba'ath party that it would be in our mutual interests if they attacked Iran. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis/Iranians perished in the marshes of Fao, dead in a war they should never have had to fight.

Confident that precious Western support would divide opposition to an attack on Kuwait, Sadaam then takes a chance, acting upon assurances from the Undersecretary of state for the Middle East that the United States "would not oppose the retaking of Kuwait". This stance was radically and conveniently changed at the last moment, when it became clear that Sadaam might not stop at the neutral zone.

So you see Sand, we need more allies in the region, not more enemies or more suspicion- our actions, along with the actiosn of several Western governments, helped Sadaam to develop these agents of mass destruction. The Germans and the British for example, provided much of the laboratory technology required for a chemical arsenal, and the French were key in the push for an atomic bomb. There's no ducking that kind of responsibility, we're talking about hard investment grants to defence firms in a foreign country in the interest of national goals. Given that we triggered many of these events, it's a bit difficult to then spin around in outrage and call these people we armed our enemies. Sounds all rather hypocryphal.

The reason that MP chap was having tea with Sadaam Hussein wasn't because he enjoyed his company or his politics- it was to try and change the regime, not by force, but through constructive engagement. Look at the how the US approached China in the 1970s- ever since then, despite what happened in Guangzhao province and Tiannemen square, we were willing to stay engaged with China. As a restult, they have liberalized to a great extent, winning an Olympic bid, and modernizing their government structures at speed. All without spilling a drop of American or Chinese blood in conflict- an unthinkable idea for many in the US after seeing body-bags shipped back from Korea in the 1950s.

Were Saddam to attempt to drag Israel into the conflict he would likely succeed given the man running Israel these days - and this would no doubt lead to a general war in the middle east. The Americans have to decide whether theyre willing to risk that given theyll have to fight that war too, whether they want to or not.

Israel will not be drawn if they wish to retain American support (which they know is vital)- if this ludicrous series of suspicions actually translates into military action- then we would employ Arab allies in the region- that is the only effective way to end such a conflict without destabilizing the Middle East.

Saddams a petty dictator in any case- he does not command loyalty or respect, only fear - The americans need to win only one decisive victory and the Iraqi milatary will collapse again, like they did in kuwait.

He's hardly just a petty dictator, after all, the USA never backs "petty" dictators :P He's got a fair bit of spine to him, and if any of these allegations regarding WMD prove to be accurate, we're putting our soldiers in harm's way on a whole different scale. Of course the only response would be with WMD in kind, a surgical strike on Baghdad, obliterating millions of people in an eyeblink, probably none of whom supported their leader's actions. The potential for this, and countless other humanitarian tragedies exists with a conflict like this, which is why we should avoid direct confrontation in what is a sensitive, fractious, and ethnically/politically divided country.

The sad thing is the Americans will probably do an invasion on he cheap and do a deal with another Iraqi General, talk up his democratic credentials in the Western media and then leave him to his own devices.

It could be a whole lot worse than that- aside from the obvious fact that American and Iraqi lives would be needlessly put at risk- there is also the civilian population to consider- and one that has been starved into submission, via sanctions and medical supply restrictions that don't even allow enough vaccines in to innoculate newborns. It's a testament to the character of the medical services in Iraq that a major medical crisis is being constantly averted. I think that purely in these civilian interests, a direct military confrontation would be the worst possible choice. I realize and acknowledge that this is hardly likely to be a factor in our current president's thinking...but it should be. At least if he wants the Middle East in one piece.

Occy

mayhem#

I find this whole attempt of the US to "stamp out terrorism" slightly pathetic and distastefull. Mind you I think that terrorism should be fought as hard and as fast as possible, but this is not what they're doing.
They should have finished saddam off when they had the chance during the Gulf war, now it's going to end up costing loads of more lives of people who haven't got a clue what is going on...

m1ke

it's all about oil, that's it .... they'll invade iraq if it's profitable, replace sadam with a puppet who'll start mass producing oil and this will replace Americas dependance on Saudi Arabia. Kuwait was about oil, so was iraq ..... there's always a political/selfish motive behind this war on terrorism bull****. You can be 100% sure that Americas policy is benign neutrality and non-interference unless they're either bitten or there's money to be made.

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus Has everyone just forgotten that a couple of decades ago, the US and its allies helped the Ba'ath party to rise to power by supporting them in the Iran-Iraq war?.
...
So you see Sand, we need more allies in the region, not more enemies or more suspicion- our actions, along with the actiosn of several Western governments, helped Sadaam to develop these agents of mass destruction. [/B]

This, incidentally, was in reply to Sand's claim that the US will install a puppet muppet, extolling whatever virtues it takes in order to sell him to the international media, public and so on.

Your own reply seems somewhat contradictory on this. On one hand, you try to point out that the US wants Allies, and so it probably wont go installing dodgy characters. On the other hand, you readily admit that the US considered Sadaam its bestest buddy not too long ago.

Its a very valid question - exactly how do the US intend to do a better job this time around? Its not like they meant to create such a monster last time round....and its not like the only time they've ever made such a slip-up.

Anyway...that wasnt my main point....this was.....

The more I think about it, the more concerned I am about how the op will be run. The US informs us that it is certain Sadaam has WMDs. Now, there is no hope of him being able to defeat the US in a conventional military scrap, so the very act of initiating a war on Iraw is direct provocation to bring these weapons into play (unless of course the US is certain it knows all the locations of all the weapons beforehadn). Should this happen, they will most likely be brought against the US, or against any nation in the vicinity who has sided with the US (Israel being el primo targeto under these criteria).

In terms of destabilising the region / the world, the worst thing the US could do is precipitate the war where WMDs are first used....all in the name of trying to remove them from the threat of use. Whats even worse is that it would be relatively hard to judge any government at fault for defending itself to the best of its ability when attacked by a foreign force with the stated aim of removing the head of state.

This is a dangerous move, if indeed it is a serious threat and not some heavy posturing/bluffing by the US. The more I think about it, the more certain I am that anyone who believes that this is "just about oil" really hasnt thought it through.

jc

DadaKopf

The whole war is being justified on the basis that Saddam has WMDs but every government has consitently remained ambiguous as to the definition of a WMD. Common sense tells us that the US's policy defines it as any weapon capable of significant damage that's in the hands of anyone not endorsed by the American government.

But the fact that we're dealing with a justification of war on such ambiguous grounds, it essentially (to my mind) gives the US a green card to make up whatever stories they want and to pursue any strategy they want (this is obviously enhanced by the massive power diffeerential). They've lied before - Dick Cheney lied to the General Chiefs of Staff and the American public in 1991 when he said that Saddam would be nuclear capable within three months - official estimates of the CIA put it at 1.5 to 2 years. The same political strategy has been adopted and there's no reason for us to believe anything Bush or Powell says. There's more evidence to say Saddam is in a weaker position than he was in 1991 than that he's in possession of (almost) deployable WMD's (whatever they are).

Added to that is he got a severe ass-whooping the last time, despite his delusions of victory. He's learned his lesson, he's learned that he can never win a war against the US. Any speeches or shows of power we hear of is him playing up to political expectations and stratagems at home more than "thumbing his nose" at the world, but that's how he wants it to look.

Sand

Just to clarify one thing- the Roman empire didn't just "vanish" in a day

You dont be saying.

So you see Sand, we need more allies in the region, not more enemies or more suspicion- our actions, along with the actiosn of several Western governments, helped Sadaam to develop these agents of mass destruction.

The americans dont have any allies in the middle east. They have a variety of regimes ranging from dictators to dubious democracies which need american milatary and economic partnership. Given a choice between aiding the Palestinians in overthrowing the US backed Israelis (Okay, the US has one - troublesome - ally in the middle east) and aiding the about as popular as the black and tans at a republican rally Americans take on the valiant standard bearer of Arab resistance to US global domination what do you think theyre going to choose? Especially given that the "arab street" will not be flying stars and stripes, burning them maybe...

Its not to say that the US has to be involved in the Middle East - It could simply reduce its dependance on oil through technological innovation and just withdraw its exsposure in the region and leave them to their own devices. Sure technological innovation ( at least widespread and practical) is fairly long term but compared to the sort of time scale of crawling the US will have to do before youll have before Americans can travel as safely to the Middle East as they do to Western Europe.

But if the US wants to be involved for whatever reason- and it does- it should stop pretending that the Middle East likes it, or views it as an even handed friend of the region. They dont, and theyre less friendly every time they see American weapons being used to kill Palestinian martyrs, so making plans reliant on their friendship is a tad ...... risky.

The reason that MP chap was having tea with Sadaam Hussein wasn't because he enjoyed his company or his politics- it was to try and change the regime, not by force, but through constructive engagement.

Much as the English were granted the Magna Carta ( It wasnt that King John (i think) was basically held to ransom by his barons - men of diplomacy and politics rather than dark age warlords), or that the French were granted their republic ( They didnt have to fight a shockingly bloody revolution ) or that King George suddenly told the Americans they could leave his empire and establish their own republic.

Saddam is not a democrat. He is not concerned with his people whatsoever. He doesnt need their vote. He will not lessen his power an iota regardless of how many nice men visit him and ask him please. He will exploit weak minded well meaning fools who pride themselves on asking the "hard questions" and thinking outside the box whilst having quality street with Saddam ( Go on, ask him a few hard questions - not too hard mind ) in an attempt to validate his regime.

Not than im an opponent of constructive engagement - but thats engagement - the other side has to be interested - Saddam isnt - what exactly does *he* gain? Hes personally wealthy, hes fairly safe from his enemies - his people are ground underfoot and the west is too weak and divided to threaten him - so what do you offer him - free tickets to the super bowl?

The Chinese at least were marginally concered for their peoples well being and nominally represented them democratically. Even so you wouldnt want to be a Falun Gong member over there, all these years after Tiannemen.

Israel will not be drawn if they wish to retain American support (which they know is vital)

Theyve been quite willing to pull the (american) tigers tail with their high adventures in the West Bank over american disapproval and criticism - Sharons now going to suddenly fly against the laws of all probability should Saddam attack Israel? Sharon made comments to the effect that Israel could do whatever the hell it liked ( short of using nerve gas I hope) and the americans would still have to support them - so far hes right.

I think that purely in these civilian interests, a direct military confrontation would be the worst possible choice.

I agree - it grows more and more statistically likely with each passing decade of Iraqi oppression and suffering that theyll eventually get lucky and overthrow the american ally/puppet Saddam (wholl shortly have WMDs if not sooner - screw engagement then eh?:) ) and establish a fully functioning democracy - say 20, 30 years? Whilst its estimated now that the war would lead to thousands of deaths now we can only estimate now that millions, or even tens of millions will die otherwise.

Augmerson

I dont support an Attack on Iraq. Atleast, not by a solely American invasion force. If Saddamn Hussein is a threat to the world, then he is a immediate threat to the Middle east nations.

I think it's in the best interests of the surrounding countries to knock out Hussein. However, co-operation between Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan isnt likely. Why should they be bothered when the Americans are going to do it anyway?

Because without Hussein in Iraq, there is no Buggy-man. The Americans will no longer need Saudi Arabia, or her Oil. They'll be getting it cheap out of occupied Iraq. Imagine George W Bush standing on top of a Oil Refining nodding Donkey and shouting "**** you OPEC!" in the middle of Iraq.

They no longer need OPEC, need to reassure it, or comply to it. OPEC is now devoid of any meaning, powerless as America pumps the Oil fields of Iraq. Oil prices will drop dramatically. Exactly what American industy needs after Sept. 11th.

Apart from this, I dont believe Iraq will fall so easy.

As a boy, I was dumbfounded why the people of Germany never rose up against Hitler, and all those terrible things he did. Why, even to the bitter end, they fought on, despite the all too clarity of their hopeless situation. You could say they were brainwashed, their minds finally curdled by Nazi rhetoric, flags, rallys and cute slogans.

Hussein isnt Hitler. His still a bad boy though. And I believe his using every able minute to brainwash the people of Iraq.

Why hasnt there been a rebellion in Iraq? I know it would be vanquished in the most heinous blood bath I've ever seen, but they could still try.

Maybe because they dont see a need to overthrow Hussein? With an Invasion of Iraq by those Christian infidels, all support will shift to Hussein, the leader of the nation. The Iraqis will see it, not just as a invasion, but a war of annhilation as those strange white and black, brown and yellow people of the West, of a totally different culture will try to stamp out their existence.

War will distabilise the region, like it did with Pakistan and India. It will give every War mongery bastard across the planet the incentive he needs. "If the Americans can, then so can I!"

Surely a War like this is breaking International Law?

I favour the removal of Hussein. I do not favour the Americans leading the way through the Desert. An Arab coalition is the best idea I think.

bonkey

Originally posted by Augmerson
Surely a War like this is breaking International Law?

What International Law?

There is no such thing as "International Law". The closest we have to it is the UN. Here, the US can veto any decision made on military matters, so they cannot be sanctioned in any way for their actions unless they choose to. However, vetoing any sanctions is only using the power granted to them...it is not in violation of anything.

There is no other recognised international body to put "International Law" in perspective.

So....exactly what law are they breaking?

jc

sceptre

Voted no.

Simple question:
The US are likely to justify an attack on Iraq on the basis of funding of and support for terrorism and terrorist activities. Are they going to invade their friends in Saudi Arabia? On their likely (albeit in my opinion faulty reasoned) basis for justifying the attack on Iraq would it not make more sense for them to invade Saudi Arabia?

(my answers to those two questions are: "not too likely" and "yup" - I'm interested to hear the views of the usual suspects)

bonkey

Saudi lacks a leader who the US can credibly claim is a direct threat, particularly in concern with the use of WMDs.

This, incidentally, would appear to be the "main" reason the US are touting - at least in the press I see. Its not just about terrorism.....its all about the bomb, Jack.

jc

Augmerson

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

I would say that a unprovoked Invasion is a danger to the civilians of Iraq. I will go on to say, that a war will disrupt and destroy, jeopardizing the lives of innocent people.

But since there will be no offical declaration of War on Iraq, this doesnt matter. Did it matter anyway? No

/me shakes his head and will never trust in the UN again.

I'm too tired to look for it Tonight, but I'm sure theres something in the US constitution that says the Military cannot make war, for that is the role of the State.

If there is no Offical declaration, then isnt it the Military acting alone? And so then, arent the Americans breaking the laws set by their own Constitution? Not that they'll give two Hoots.

I am aware of the irony of using Article 3 of the Universal declaration of Human rights for the defence of my argument for not invading Iraq. How many times has Hussein breeched this article? god knows...

shotamoose

I agree that the main reason the US give for going to war in Iraq is to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction. But isn't that what the nuclear deterrent is for? Surely the Iraqis know that if they use WMD on another country they will get the same and more in return. There are plenty of countries around the world with WMDs, some of whom have signficant gripes with America or other bastions of freedom and democracy. Yet they don't actually use these weapons, because to do so is to ensure their own destruction. There's also a conventional deterrant - for Iraq to invade another country with land forces promises a far bigger counterattack with American troops and probably more from other countries.

If the only reason for wanting to attack Iraq is to prevent the use of WMDs, then the sensible thing is to do nothing but make threatening noises. If the aim is to get a regime change, that's different. That may be a worthy aim, but it's not going to get much support by itself.

kamobe

I'll be sitting on the fence for this one...
If I were certain that America's efforts were honourable, it may sway me a little. But history tells us they probably arent, and of course it's only gonna give their middle eastern chums more "evidence" that the USA should be taken down.

Maybe it would cause more trouble then it's worth...

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by bonkey


Your own reply seems somewhat contradictory on this. On one hand, you try to point out that the US wants Allies, and so it probably wont go installing dodgy characters. On the other hand, you readily admit that the US considered Sadaam its bestest buddy not too long ago.

I was arguing, rather incoherently I admit, for a concerted policy change in the middle east- especially regarding how we deal with dictators and their regimes. We need to establish good faith in the region- and not just with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Our administration has focused on UN resolutions as a recourse to Saddam's misdemeanors, a horrible PR mistake given how Israel is seen to openly flout them. The focus needs not to be the Security Council- a hugely distrusted executive council wrt Middle East affairs, but how governments and regimes in the region conduct themselves. Iraq are no longer a (significant) threat to peace in the region, Israel is arguably poses greater risk these days and they are tolerated. The administration needs to focus on results-driven policy of a trust-building nature, else we will not see progress.

Originally posted by Sand


You dont be saying.

Ah, but I do.

The americans dont have any allies in the middle east. They have a variety of regimes ranging from dictators to dubious democracies which need american milatary and economic partnership.

Bunkum. I would call Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait staunch US allies, especially Egypt and Jordan. Your dubious democracies comment is bordering on the farcical- many of the elected structures in Europe are dubious at best, yet we still consider them allies, as do your government. As for military partnership, that was a feature that grew out of the Gulf war and was based on the need for oil-rich nations to arm themselves to achieve a standard of deterrence. Allies are founded on political relationships in the main, shortcomings in other areas are to be tolerated- show me *one* example of a perfect ally.

Especially given that the "arab street" will not be flying stars and stripes, burning them maybe...

And what do you think they'll be burning in the streets if we attack Iraq? You just made my point for me- alliances in the region need to be strengthened and good-will established, attacking Iraq isn't the way to accomplish that. Just for the record, large strides are being made in the fields of diplomacy wrt Iran, Syria and Lebanon- I have no doubt that in the near future Iran will continue its pattern of reform and be considered another ally in the region, a powerful and influential one.

Its not to say that the US has to be involved in the Middle East - It could simply reduce its dependance on oil through technological innovation and just withdraw its exsposure in the region and leave them to their own devices.

The US is less dependent on foreign oil now than ever before- domestic exploration contracts are at an all-time high, national reserves exceed the annual output of half the OPEC nations- I wouldn't call that dependence. We learned our mistakes from the 1970s supply shocks (at least on the economic front).

Sure technological innovation ( at least widespread and practical) is fairly long term but compared to the sort of time scale of crawling the US will have to do before youll have before Americans can travel as safely to the Middle East as they do to Western Europe.

You're talking about a radical resource shift that even Europe isn't willing to fully contemplate yet. The EU has achieved decent relations with the Middle East for the most part, and has done it without such a radical economic shift. The power of the fossil fuel lobbies in every major developed country is extremely prohibitive to any kind of resource base shift- something we all have to accept for now.

But if the US wants to be involved for whatever reason- and it does- it should stop pretending that the Middle East likes it, or views it as an even handed friend of the region.

Why pretend that we're liked when the real thing is just around the corner? It would simply take a re-evaluation of strategic thinking in the region, one that would be beneficial to US interests as well as Arab ones. As for American weapons killing Palestinian "martyrs"...I don't recall great outrage when German and French-made poison gas was dropped on Kurdish tribes in Iraq- nor when French nuclear reactors forced an Israeli strike at Osirak. Or when French mirage jets obliterated a holy shrine at Basra- the harsh reality is that American politics in the region is what scars our reputation, not local warlords butchering their own with tools we made. It's the mind behind the trigger that's to blame, not the guy who made the gun- people in the Arab region realize this.

Saddam is not a democrat. He is not concerned with his people whatsoever. He doesnt need their vote. He will not lessen his power an iota regardless of how many nice men visit him and ask him please.

I never said that change would be accomplished in this manner- I said that it would come about via international pressure through engagement. Threatening the regime wouldn't help anymore than nice men coming round to tea- but the latter at least allows the chance for constructive dialogue. As far as I am aware, the free nations haven't given Iraq a chance through bilateral diplomatic channels. I merely propose the chance for dialogue before the decision on an attack is made- is that really so much to ask?

Not than im an opponent of constructive engagement - but thats engagement - the other side has to be interested - Saddam isnt - what exactly does *he* gain?

A greater base of international approval- Iraq is currently a wealthy country because of oil, it will not always be so. The Ba'ath party may be a dictatorial bunch, but they're no fools- they know that international approval is critical to substantive progress in the long run. They just don't want to be seen as bending over and capitulating- which is how it would look given how Western countries have forced the issue. They want a chance to develop while maintaining their identity- which means reform. We just need to give them a chance- look at how the regime in Myanmar is reforming for an example on how likely this would be.

The Chinese at least were marginally concered for their peoples well being and nominally represented them democratically. Even so you wouldnt want to be a Falun Gong member over there, all these years after Tiannemen.

Ever been to Iraq? I've visited before and after 1991, and I can tell you that the Ba'ath party, for all their political oppression, were heavily commited to industrialization, modernization and the improvement of public services. Ever since the Gulf War, their oil market has been strangled, sanctions have crippled public services, the backbone of the industrial infrastructure has been truly broken. You need to see it to truly believe it. Out of the 6 glittering highways that once connected Basra to Baghdad, only one still exists that is remotely usable- this destruction and isolation easily allows people like yourself to be brainwashed by Western government spokesmen to believe that Iraqi leaders care nothing for their people. I would also point to their struggling medical services being given heavy government support since the sanctions. The regime is brutal in some ways, as were the Chinese (personal freedoms etc)- but in terms of caring for their people they surpassed the Beijing administration on many fronts, and still do, in spite of all that's happened.

Theyve been quite willing to pull the (american) tigers tail with their high adventures in the West Bank over american disapproval and criticism - Sharons now going to suddenly fly against the laws of all probability should Saddam attack Israel?

Now you're reaching- Sharon may butcher Palestinians in his own back yard with impunity, but comitting Israeli forces to an attack on Iraq would isolate Israel in the Middle East as never before. Jordan, Egypt and Bahrain, in fact all the liberal states of the Middle East would revoke any support they'd displayed for Israel. This would seriously tarnish Israel's image with Europe even further- trade contracts and agreements would be revoked- the consequences would be final for Sharon and his administration. It would be well to distinguish between public blathering/saber rattling- and serious statements of policy. Sharon is capable of both, although the latter seems to escape him lately.

Whilst its estimated now that the war would lead to thousands of deaths now we can only estimate now that millions, or even tens of millions will die otherwise.

Now you're scaremongering. Where did you get those figures from? Thousands are dying at the present time, but the majority of those are dying from a chronic lack of medical supplies and malnourishment due to the rationing and food import restrictions. A major humanitarian crisis is constantly being held at bay because of sanctions...and you want to solve this by going to war and instigating regime change? That's laughable...why not simply remove the sanctions and engage? It worked with China, Myanmar, and is set to start working in Cuba and Libya soon. These countries all started waking up to international opinion once they were engaged...why not give Iraq that same chance? The fact that it hasn't even been offered worries me that our administration's collective minds have been made up- which bodes ill for the stability of the entire region.

Occy

dathi1

I'd say forget Iraq,
Lets invade Israel and liberate Palestine. Israel has weapons of mass destruction. They still illegally occupy foreign territory. They have a war criminal as prime minister...eh lets see..oh yeah they operate terrorist cells called Mossad which kill people in foreign territories.

ReefBreak

I'd say forget Iraq,
Lets invade Israel and liberate Palestine. Israel has weapons of mass destruction. They still illegally occupy foreign territory. They have a war criminal as prime minister...eh lets see..oh yeah they operate terrorist cells called Mossad which kill people in foreign territories.

No offence Daithi1, but you're once-sided rhetoric is getting sooo predictable. You're like an Real/Provisional IRA supporter that only ever sees British actrocities/incidents, yet delights in forgetting the atrocities/incidents (e.g. murdering civilians) committed by terrorists on the Irish side.

Ditto with your opinions on Israel/Palestine.

Note I'm not disagreeing with your opinion on Sharon and the illegal occupation by Israeli settlers. I'm saying this because otherwise you might have started off on the usual "Oh so you support Israel state-sponsored terrorism then do you" line-of-argument. I don't. Again, an argument is often used by SF/IRA people... "I hate the 'RA." "Oh so you support the loyalists do you?"

Question One: What are your opinions on the murder of Israeli students at the University two weeks ago?
Question Two: Are you opposed to the actual existence of Israel or do you just want peace between the two states?

Sand

Bunkum. I would call Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait staunch US allies, especially Egypt and Jordan. Your dubious democracies comment is bordering on the farcical- many of the elected structures in Europe are dubious at best, yet we still consider them allies, as do your government.

I dont think any of them will be rivalling the US for the title of home of the brave, land of the free any time soon. Mind you, I accept given the middle easts standards you take what you can get. Its hard not to sympathise with Arab bitterness over the US talking up freedom and democracy whilst at the same time holding hands with unfree and undemocratic regimes. Constructive engagement is a useful cover for holding hands though - the US inate goodness is rubbing off on them, not the other way round- until then dont do anything to rock the boat, anything that might endanger the engagement, no matter what they do. As for Europe, your right its not a great place to live- Yet I can dare to criticise the european leadership without dissapearing into a nice european jail. In the middle east , including many of Americas allies.....

As for a perfect ally I might mention the UK under Blair has been embarrassingly ( for the British anyway) compliant to US needs and demands. Granted their royal family is a joke but....:)

And what do you think they'll be burning in the streets if we attack Iraq? You just made my point for me- alliances in the region need to be strengthened and good-will established, attacking Iraq isn't the way to accomplish that. Just for the record, large strides are being made in the fields of diplomacy wrt Iran, Syria and Lebanon- I have no doubt that in the near future Iran will continue its pattern of reform and be considered another ally in the region, a powerful and influential one.

Yeah I hear the Iranians have replaced chants of "Death to America" and "Down with the great satan" with "Toestubs to America" and "no upward movement to the great satan" - progress is a wonderful thing. If youre waiting to make friends and influence people by buying their oil youll be waiting a long long time - Saudis are great friends (oil producers) of the US apaprently yet they fund fundamentalistism (with american oil dollars maybe ) and practically all the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Doesnt exactly speak of a deep felt friendship between the people of the two nations tbh - but Im weird like that.

Saddam is a problem to the US - so they claim and I believe theyre not far wrong for so long as they intend to be in the middle east ( You *can* pick your enemies after all) . They can crush him and rebuild Iraq into a fairly friendly nation with democratic principles - Tough?, sure - but as Germany ( formerly a Nazi "empire") and Japan ( fanatical imperialists) proved not impossible. Will people die - Yes they will, most definitly. Will people die under Saddams benevolent rule- Yes, again, most definitly and theyll have longer to starve and die and most likely more will die- Ive heard it stated that the Iraqi death toll since the Gulf War due to sanctions is in the millions. Not unreasonable to assume millions more will die in the time span it will take for a democratic iraqi state to emerge.

Basically, dont worry if the US actions make the average arab hate them- they already do so who cares? If the US were to overthrow their former friend Saddam and help rebuild Iraq into a genuinely free democracy theyd actually gain a lot of friends ( the average iraqi for one) and have an actual ally in the region they wouldnt have to make exscuses for ( dont mind the ruthless suppression of free speech and dissent - theyre arab after all) . And maybe, just maybe Arabs in other states would begin thinking along the lines of...if they can have a modern democracy, why cant we? The US however is not an agent of change - its a defender of the status quo and the old order. It tried to hold the Shah in place in Iran when it should have actually encouraged and aided change - so it got a fundamentalist, rabidly anti american regime instead of at least neutral regime, or even a friendly democracy. America was an ally of the oppressor there and continues to make exscuses ( constructive engagement) for continuing to do so.

I wouldn't call that dependence.

Pity, its the only exscuse I can think of for US support of undemocratic regimes in the middle east.

You're talking about a radical resource shift that even Europe isn't willing to fully contemplate yet. The EU has achieved decent relations with the Middle East for the most part, and has done it without such a radical economic shift

Europe isnt the US and hasnt the same history in the region - the Suez canal nearly 50 years ago being the last incident of franco british adventure there. The EU has also rubbed up the Arabs the right way by heartily criticising Israel morning noon and night. And the Americans are heavily identified with Israel - to the point where the Arabs dont seem too convinced of the US impartiality regarding them.

A greater base of international approval- Iraq is currently a wealthy country because of oil, it will not always be so.

And Saddam the dictator, the actual individual who runs Iraq for his own benefit alone gives a flying feck because??? Any group/individual which relies on terror and oppression to remain in power is not really representitive by my rule of thumb - Saddam has continued building palaces whilst his people starved - more the actions of a 6th century ruler than 21st century one.

Now you're reaching- Sharon may butcher Palestinians in his own back yard with impunity, but comitting Israeli forces to an attack on Iraq would isolate Israel in the Middle East as never before.

Only as much as the last few times theyve been in wars with their arab neighbours - who bear them such goodwill and joy to begin with.

dathi1

Question One: What are your opinions on the murder of Israeli students at the University two weeks ago?

not good.The Palestinians have the right to armed struggle against this war machine...I think the P Ira had the right idea towards the end. Hit the financial Centres forget killing people if it can be helped...just like the Israelis Intel in Haifa etc..

Question Two: Are you opposed to the actual existence of Israel or do you just want peace between the two states?

Peace and an end to occupation 100% full stop. I think the Israeli state was a bad idea and the powers that be at the time should have forced a federation of Arab and Jewish cantons within the Land of Palestine....On second thoughts it should have been set up in Germany. but yes as the situation exists now we have no choice. ps: I've been there lots of times.

Von

Voted yes. My cousin was in Gulf War I in the fightingest tank in the whole army. He quit after the war despite being offered promotion and all that malarkey, then he went a bit bonkers and is now doing 10 years in HMP Slaghaven for killing someone.

If/when the war kicks off, the brits might need to form Sven Hasselesque punishment battalions or "Dirty Dozen" suicide mission squads from the ranks of the army's bad boys to augment regular forces which will presumably be led by the legendary Lt.Col Tim Chicken, newly returned from blowing up empty caves in Afghanistan. At least this is what I'll suggest to the british government. Come on Tony Blair! One day a lad's a liberator of poor oppressed Kuwaitis and a bloody hero of the free world for efficiently despatching countless mad muzzy ragheads, the next he's doing bird for whacking a common thug.

Where's the justice?

Let the boys out, send 'em in and give them a 2nd (or 3rd in some cases) chance to earn their freedom.

Everyone else who voted yes should f**k off and join up.

WhiteWashMan

voted yes.

doesnt matter how you debate it and what stupid ideas people come up with about injustice etc etc etc, the fact of the matter is that hussain is a madman and should be dealt with swiftly.

besides nostradamus has identified him as the antichrist and the cause of world war three. lets get rid of him eh?

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Lemming

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan
besides nostradamus has identified him as the antichrist and the cause of world war three

Nostradamus' predicitions were never quite so "straightforward".

I would be willing to speculate, given the current situation, that he is the catalyst. NOT the actual cause.

My thinking n nostradamus' prediction is this ...

the US/UK go into Iraq. Sparks off massive arab-world crap. This then sparks of all manner of unpleasantness elsewhere, engulfing the whole world.

Shazbat

Originally posted by Turnip
There is no question that the country and the region and the world would be better off without him

There is a lot of people without whom the world would be a better place. It doesn't mean you should go around killing them all.

Any war on Iraq would be based on purely political motives and any other reason given by Blair or Bush is complete bullshít.

bonkey

Originally posted by Von
Voted yes.

...

Everyone else who voted yes should f**k off and join up.

Does this mean that you have ****ed off and joined up???

jc

Sand

Does this mean that you have ****ed off and joined up???

No, its one of Vons many, unfunny, pathetic attempts at satire - You see, youre meant to assume that supporting the overthrow of Saddam makes you a right wing nazi - that or english, its hard to tell with Vons take on right wing nazism.

Just push him long enough and youll get to his true level of 12 year old slagging about men in toliets - very Un-PC Von, lennin would be appalled big brother.