"Let's ROLL" or "No2War"

Do you honestly believe that the US has the ability or the desire to establish a peaceful settlement of tribal or regional differences in Iraq once Saddam is gone?

They have more "ability and desire" to do it than Saddam does

so if N.Korea were proposing this war with Iraq, for iraqs lack of cooperation, would you be this supportive? Because believe me, a country like N.Korea would pacify the country as effectively as any other country, regardless of the methods used.

Something i've said in another thread, but consider this. In last number of decades that the US have been involved with, they've left army bases behind, and have taken a hand in "protecting" the country in question. That also involves the stewardship of resources.

QUOTE]Originally posted by klaz
Just to add one more point abt the US and countries they defeat.

Germany still has american troop bases within its borders. Japan, too has american bases still remaining. Do you really expect that America will leave Iraq, even if they hold elections?

Below is a list of American bases worldwide:

http://www.pilotshack.com/MilitaryBases_Overseas.html
http://www.naveur.navy.mil/Bases.htm

Interesting to see how many bases the US have abroad.

As regards to Nukes:

http://pro-resources.net/nuclear-weapon.html
(Note: The US is the only country with nuclear weapons deployed outside its borders)
http://www.greatdreams.com/weapons.htm
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nnews.asp [/QUOTE]

Cork

Originally posted by therecklessone
Cork, myself and yourself just seem to say the same things over and over again. Can I quote the editor of the Irish Times from Saturday's edition (and my political views are far from concurrent with hers, believe me)?

"...official statements have deliberately left open the possibility of providing support for a United States-led war, even if it lacked UN or EU backing. Ireland's economic and political relationship with the United States has been of immense value and the Government is understandaly anxious not to damage it in any way. At the same time, however, it must have regard to the views of its own citizens."

I agree with you, let us wait for the UN to decide the best course of action. But please, close the door on support for unilateral action. That has yet to be done, and no amount of waiting patiently and cautiously, as you seem to think Bertie is doing, will change that fact. It is the clear will of the Irish people that in the event of a unilateral attack on Iraq by the US, Ireland should have no part to play. State it now, unequivocally (not in the Roy Keane sense!), and be done with it.

Well, I think that the Inspectors will be given more time - but it it is up to Saddam to start actively complying with the UN resolution.

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern says Ireland made a significant contribution to the shaping of the agreement reached by the European Union on Iraq. European leaders have warned Iraq that it faced a 'last chance' to disarm peacefully.

Saddam has one one chance to avoid war.

The French, Belgiums and Germans are now on board. The EU is at one with the US and the UN.

Saddam now has a chance of avoid war.

Will - he take it.

Hopefully.

If he does not - then the guy does not want a peaceful solution.

Saddam now has a chance of avoid war

What makes you think that the US will allow them to avoid it?

Cork

And if the US were making the Afghans respect women's rights, there would be complaining about the Americans imposing their culture on others. Looks like the Afghan administration isn't such a puppet government after all.

Both Womens rights and Human rights are pretty fundemental and should not be seen as the preserve of Western Soceity.

Should the average Iraqi expect more than the dictat of a facist dictator?

I think - democracy needs to be fostered - if you are living in Rebel Cork or Red China.

if you are living in Rebel Cork or Red China

A bit off topic, but what are u talking about? Rebel Cork? huh?

Cork

What makes you think that the US will allow them to avoid it?

If there is going to be war - (which is likely if Saddam does not change his atitude to the UN) - It will be backed by a second resolution.

He will be given every chance to comply. If he does not. The UN will not tolerate it & sanction war.

Both the EU, UN & US seem to be in agreement on this.

But, I hope Saddam will begin to cop on & let the UN know of his weapons.

They have not disappeared into thin air.

I think that - if there is a war - And if Saddam uses his chemical weapons - Will the people who are so anti war take any responsibility.

the UN even sees war as an option.

Cork

Originally posted by klaz
A bit off topic, but what are u talking about? Rebel Cork? huh?

Just that human rights should be in every country.

www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com

Cork, you haven't answered my question. What if the US does not allow Saddam peace, even if he co-operates with the weapon inspectors>?

Also, what has www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com got to do with human rights? As far as i can see its just a movement for pride & a good bit of piss-taking among cork people.

Meh

Originally posted by klaz
Cork, you haven't answered my question. What if the US does not allow Saddam peace, even if he co-operates with the weapon inspectors>?

I can't speak for Cork, but I'd oppose a war if the Iraqis were cooperating fully with the inspectors. However, they clearly aren't. As Hans Blix said to the Security Council:

Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for.

To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for".

If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

Without evidence, confidence cannot arise.

The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions.

well my feelings in this matter, are that the US are using this as a pretext for the war, otherwise, why wasn't Iraq invaded five years ago or more? Weapon inspections have been occuring for longer than a year, and if Saddams, avoidance was such an issue, then, this should have been broached back then.

The US want this war, & the lack of cooperation is just an excuse. Regardless of how much Iraq co-operates, it will never be enough in the eyes of the US.

Cork

What if the US does not allow Saddam peace, even if he co-operates with the weapon inspectors>?

I have faith that the US unlike Iraq will comply with the UN. If Iraq does comply with the UN resolution - Sanctions should be lifted.

Look at China -- did any US companies pull out of there because of the spy plane row a few years ago? No they didn't -- US companies are still pouring investment into China, and US consumers are still happily buying Chinese-manufactured goods.

China has a massive market. Access into this market is very important. Ireland needs a good relationship with the US to encourage investment. If my local shop keeper alienated me - I would not shop there.

PH01

"Let's ROLL" or "No2War"?
No 2 War no matter what - 19 - 30.65%
Yes, but only with a 2rd UN resolution & the inspectors get all the time they need. - 27 - 43.55%
Yes, but only with a 2nd UN resolution. - 7 - 11.29%
Yes, "Let's Roll" - 9 - 14.52%
Total: 62 votes 100%

30.65% say No 2 War, while 69.35% would support military action against Iraq.
And of those who support military action only 21% support without a 2nd UN resolution, i.e. the US position, while 79% support a 2nd UN resolution.
And of those who support military action and a 2nd UN resolution, 79% want inspectors to be given as much time as they need

bonkey

These figures are interesting. Clearly whichever way you classify people who only support a war with a second UN resolution will ultimately sway how you interpret public opinion.

These figures also seem to generally run close to the general Irish and British figures...

The US would have us believe that Europe is "anti-war" - whatever about anything else - whereas it would be far more accurate to say that Europe is only opposed to unsanctioned war.

Of course, this inevitably gets followed by the claims that its easy to say you'll only back a UN sanctioned war when the UN will never issue that mandate, but the only real truth is that the UN is not willing to sanction one yet.

jc

mike65

Originally posted by bonkey

The US would have us believe that Europe is "anti-war" - whatever about anything else - whereas it would be far more accurate to say that Europe is only opposed to unsanctioned war.
/B]

er Bonkey only the anti-war protesters are saying Europe is anti war! Most governments back the US
to some degree.

Mike.

Sand

Originally posted by therecklessone
Now, sanctions are supposed to stop Saddam developing WMD right? But we're told he's doing it anyway, and has been for 12 years. The oil for food program is supposed to regulate the flow of goods into Iraq to ensure (a) he doesn't receive military hardware, and (b) his people are fed. The US are telling us (a) ain't working, and the UN that (b) ain't working. Why continue?

Agreed. Milatary action, or at least action of a more decisive kind seems not only practical but in the long the best course for the Iraqis themselves.

By lifting sanctions, I meant that we could flood the country with food and medical supplies. Allow Saddam's people to recover their strength. In the meantime, as I've said, encourage opposition groups to actively engage Saddam's forces. I'll quote an important part of an earlier post by myself for emphasis if I may...

I had a similar discussion with Bob where he favoured what sounded like a covert operation to feed Iraqs population ( which would require a logistical operation dwarfing the current supplies for the US invasion force - and even indeed Operation Vittels which was run openly and fed only one city ). I didnt consider it viable then or now tbh. If thats not what youre talking about then the only other option is actually ending the Sanctions and letting Iraq buy what it wants. Which includes milatary supplies to reequip its milatary or purchases supplies it needs to develop the WMD it needs to make the US and the rest of the world butt out ( see North Korea ). If thats not what you mean then you mean"smarter sanctions" which allow the Iraqi people to buy what they need/want but somehow prvent Saddam getting what he needs/wants - basically "smart sanctions" which has been a buzzword for a while now. Its much harder to do though because of the dual use nature of many products.

You can tack on a proviso that the international community will not tolerate inter-communal fighting in a post-Saddam Iraq if needs be.

Sorry, but this is *extremely* naive. You think an "or else!!" from the UN is going to hold any weight with heavily armed warlords? Once theyve managed to fight down the roaring laughter resulting from considering what it would take to get the UN to actually back up its resolutions theyd just shake their heads and get back to the real world wheres guns on the ground make the rules. Id prefer those to be the guns of an army, that like all western armies, is bound to obey the will of the democratic government - rather than the guns of a warband who are only responsible to their leader. Once you arm and train an independant force its very hard to control them and you cant just demobilise them in peacetime as you might do with a volunteer army - Afghanistan is an example of what goes terribly, terribly wrong when you think the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Just because groups oppose Saddam does not mean they are friends, or that it is a good idea to assist their rise to influence over the future direction of Iraq. Iraq must be left with a democratically elected *civillian* government, with an army that recognises it is subservient to the will of the elected government. To leave them in the hands of warlords invites another Afghanistan, or even another Saddam - who the US allied with on the flawed basis of the enemy of my enemy....

Yes Saddam will try to move essential parts of his military into built up areas, but to engage the Northern Kurds he can hardly base a regiment in Basra, can he? Be realistic, the biggets threat Saddam poses is to his own people, so moving his armour to Baghdad is no biggy, if your tactic is to ferment internal opposition in the north and south. Allow success by opposition groups to encourage popular protest, thus reaching critical mass.

But isnt your stated goal to keep Iraq from breaking up into a million pieces? When Saddam withdraws from say Northern regions, and leaves it to the Kurds - hes lost not that much given the Saddam-Kurdish love affair and the no fly zones anyway and now has a bigger hold of his "heartland". In the meantime the Kurds now control the north and declare Kurdistan - or more likely make a land grab for various tribal regions. How does this keep Iraq a sovereign nation rather than a mere footnote in a history book? As for popular protest, despite what the local unwashed students might say were definitly not living in a fascist state - attempts to use people power on Saddam begin with a small group - Saddam kills said small group, he kills their familes, he kills their friends, he kills anyone who did not inform on them and he does it so brutally as to terrify even the most ardent anti-Saddamites into silence. This is after all how he has held power for so long.

OK, so people will suffer, probably die as well. But the US is more than adept at arranging regime changes around the world, surely it can arrange this one without the 200,000 troops and the thousands of cruise missiles. The question is, does that suit US strategic aims?

Most likely far more people will die in a *hoped" for insurrection, which even with US air support will not be likely to be able to defeat Saddams milatary, easily or quickly if at all - especially if he keeps true to form and uses chemical or biological weapons against the rebels. The Saddam backlash against populations suspected off supporting the rebellions would likely be absolute bloodbaths. If the US takes a hand by a direct invasion, not only do they distract Saddams attention to the greatest threat of the US invasion, but also they can protect the population from rampaging Iraqi secret police - as well as opening the way for food and medical aid in a way that would not be possible were Iraq to be torn apart by a protracted guerilla war/rebellion such as you plan.

My support for the US invasion is based on the fact that it is a good thing to get rid of Saddam (duh), but also that US victory is almost guaranteed, and not only guaranteed but very likely to be short with the minimum of civillian casualties.

Its probably in the US strategic interests, but then its also in the strategic interests of everyone I would have thought?

Sand, I'm an "anti-war" bod who is actually showing a little initiative by suggesting an alternative. I know you mightn't agree, just try not to sound too condescending... [/B]

I admit Im a little snappy at times - but when I see the blueprint for the failed foreign policies of the 60s, 70s and 80s dressed up in new clothes and trotted out for a second going Its very hard to find a good side to it imo. Apologies for any offence caused. I just see the idea of arming warbands and then setting them off with no viable control over them as a disastrous policy, not only for the West but also for the average Iraqi who merely swaps one warlord holding power through force of arms and terror for another - theres no point toppling Saddam if this is to be their future. The Americans have proved the failure of this route for us, now that theyre actually going about forceful regime change in a way that has been proven to work we shouldnt try and persuade them to bring back some of their past policy advisors:|

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sand


I admit Im a little snappy at times - but when I see the blueprint for the failed foreign policies of the 60s, 70s and 80s dressed up in new clothes and trotted out for a second going Its very hard to find a good side to it imo. Apologies for any offence caused. I just see the idea of arming warbands and then setting them off with no viable control over them as a disastrous policy, not only for the West but also for the average Iraqi who merely swaps one warlord holding power through force of arms and terror for another - theres no point toppling Saddam if this is to be their future. The Americans have proved the failure of this route for us, now that theyre actually going about forceful regime change in a way that has been proven to work we shouldnt try and persuade them to bring back some of their past policy advisors:|

Thanks for the reasoned reply Sand, I do appreciate it. We do agree on something...I too wish to see a democratically elected government, with an army which respects the constitutional status of a post-Saddam Iraq, and with it civilian rule. My fear is that:

1. A US/UK assault on Iraq will be far from bloodless. It will inflict massive damage on the Iraqi infrastructure, which will take much time to repair. It will also lead to a massive humanitarian crisis in an already impoverished state, with a hugely malnourished population.

2. The effect that the weapons of modern warfare will have are, as yet, to be 100% confirmed as as lethal after the conflict, as during it. By this admittedly badly-worded sentence, I mean the effect of depleted uranium, and of course the threat posed by munitions such as cluster bombs in remote areas. Better start saving up now for the prosthetics...

3. Finally, I find it hard to trust the US government's actual plans for a post-Saddam Iraq. I wish they would state that they have no intentions of selling off oil rights to US bidders post-war to "help" rebuild Iraq, with conditions that suit the interests of the US and not the Iraqi people. I wish they would state that they have no intentions of allowing Turkey free reign in Kurdistan to do as it wishes, i.e execute a war of attrition against those "pesky" Kurds. Remember, Turkey is no saint when it comes to human rights.

I accept that you don't agree with my suggestions, and I admit that I haven't done half as much reading or research on the topic as you may have. Interesting to talk to you though.

Cork

Finally, I find it hard to trust the US government's actual plans for a post-Saddam Iraq.

I would find it even harder to trust Saddam.

One and Eight Iraqi children die in Iraq before the age of 5. Sanctions will just have to be removed in a post saddam situation.

I tought using Iraq as a political football in the Dail yesterday was a disgrace.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The Americans have proved the failure of this route for us, now that theyre actually going about forceful regime change in a way that has been proven to work we shouldnt try and persuade them to bring back some of their past policy advisors:|

Where has it been proven to work?

I do agree though - the old ways didnt work, and that is the only reason necessary for not continuing to follow them.

jc

Originally posted by Cork
I would find it even harder to trust Saddam.

One and Eight Iraqi children die in Iraq before the age of 5. Sanctions will just have to be removed in a post saddam situation.

I tought using Iraq as a political football in the Dail yesterday was a disgrace.

Cork, another thing is to consider have these sanctions worked at all? Is it really worth it, the deaths of between one & eight children, so that the western world can keep a foreign power down? Especially when no actual direct military attack has ever been made towards them, without being first attacked? Cause remember everyone, Saddam invaded Kuwait, not London.

Originally posted by Cork
I would find it even harder to trust Saddam.

One and Eight Iraqi children die in Iraq before the age of 5. Sanctions will just have to be removed in a post saddam situation.

I tought using Iraq as a political football in the Dail yesterday was a disgrace.

In all the reports, I have seen, on Iraq, one thing is clear, there are some very wealthy people there driving around Baghdad in Fancy jeeps and BMW's.
There must be no tax regime there, no worthwhile government.
And as has been said many times, Sadam's governement could supply enough food to his people under the food for oil programme if he was interested in their well being ...
but no, he prefers for thousands to die, while he smuggles oil out for his and his clique's own benefit.
mm

shotamoose

Originally posted by Man

And as has been said many times, Sadam's governement could supply enough food to his people under the food for oil programme if he was interested in their well being ...
but no, he prefers for thousands to die, while he smuggles oil out for his and his clique's own benefit.
mm

And each time this has been said, it has had to have been pointed out that 16 million Iraqi people are being kept alive by free monthly food rations distributed by the Iraqi government and paid for by the Oil For Food programme. One UN official described the Iraqi food distribution network as 'second to none', especially when you consider the devastated condition of the country's infrastructure.

Of course, this reliance on Saddam for food only increases his strength, which is why the Security Council should take advantage of the present situation to pass a resolution handing over control of the O4F programme to the UN.

bonkey

Originally posted by shotamoose
And each time this has been said, it has had to have been pointed out that 16 million Iraqi people are being kept alive by free monthly food rations distributed by the Iraqi government and paid for by the Oil For Food programme. One UN official described the Iraqi food distribution network as 'second to none', especially when you consider the devastated condition of the country's infrastructure.

And yet all of those who would remind us of Saddam depriving his people of basics such as food attach no comparable significance to the tens of thousands of children who died as a result of not having clean water when strikes against power plants during the Gulf War caused the water treatment plants to be shut down.

That is, assumably, acceptable losses during a war.

On the other hand, Saddam failing to feed every single person in the nation - despite apparently having done an incredibly good job trying (I would say as good as possible, but there is no proof of that) - is an atrocity which must be condemned at every chance.

Yes, Saddam is not without blame. If he swallowed his pride and submitted totally to the UN following the first Gulf War, then all of this would be probably over, and everyone would be better off.

However, Saddam is not solely to blame, and we should be careful when demonising his actions, as we often see similar results from the actions of our leaders "for good".

jc

On the other hand, Saddam failing to feed every single person in the nation - despite apparently having done an incredibly good job trying (I would say as good as possible, but there is no proof of that) - is an atrocity which must be condemned at every chance.

Bonkey, i'm sorry but i have to take u up on that. There is no country out there that feeds all its people. People die of starvation in ireland, as do in russia, the us, and other countries. Its the scale of the amount of people dying thats the problem. However, to compare Iraq with Ireland for example is a bad one, i admit, simply because the differences in population.

Originally posted by shotamoose
Of course, this reliance on Saddam for food only increases his strength, which is why the Security Council should take advantage of the present situation to pass a resolution handing over control of the O4F programme to the UN.

yeap that would be a good idea.
Of course in the current circumstances, it would be a Very, Very good idea, as sadam would probably think they are spies and organise at least one minder per un worker.
The minders could help with the distribution of the aid...

There is no country out there that feeds all its people. People die of starvation in ireland, as do in russia, the us, and other countries. Its the scale of the amount of people dying thats the problem.

Thats an issue on at least two counts.
On the one hand if you are pro-war, you will say get rid of Sadam real quick and then he can't kill more of his population.
On the other, bombing is certain to kill the vermin and the innocent, and in a classic machiavellian way, those pro-war will justify this by saying many more lives will be saved by a more sane regime being installed sooner rather than later.

Trouble is, the need for change is certain , yes, but all roads to it are paved in moral dillemas.
mm

Sand

Where has it been proven to work?

Germany. Japan. Italy.

The allies had men on the ground, werent indebted to anyone and made the rules because they had the guns and the power. Despite extremely thin ground for democracy to take root in they succeeded to an incredible extent. Successful and decisive regime change seems linked to direct action and influence rather than making friends with less than trustworthy bandits and warlords.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
Bonkey, i'm sorry but i have to take u up on that.

Except that I was referring to the attitudes of others...not my own belief.

I am questioning why - when it appears that Saddam has done as much as could be expected to feed his people - is he demonised for his starving, then the good guys get to ignore the criticisms of the fact that it is their destruction of infrastucture which caused a lot of this extreme hardship, as well as causing thousands of deaths as a result of the impact of their bombing.

jc

Man, actually i don't see it that way. I see that Saddam has done a great job of feeding his country. I believe the solution to the starvation, is the stopping of these sactions. Its doubtful that Iraq could feed itself considering how badly its infrastructure was damaged by the last war, and these sanctions do nothing to help them rebuild.

Even the Germans were allowed to rebuild after WW2, why can't they let Iraq do the same.

And before you say Saddam is still in power, as a reason, as to why the sanctions cannot be removed, if Saddam was such a issue, shouldn't he have been removed after the last war?

Cork

Originally posted by klaz
I see that Saddam has done a great job of feeding his country.

He also did a job gasing his people.

Certain socialists/communists and marxists point out - if people have food - they are ok.

It is not easy to ignore human rights abuses in Iraq, Cuba or Red China.

They is more to life than food.

They need freedom. They don't need a fasist dictators. The UN needs to enourage human rights. It is about time that we see Saddam for what he is - treating the Un with complete distain.

Cork, theres not even a little give in you is there? People can be evil, and still do great acts of humanity. Saddam has under sanctions been feeding his country in the best manner possible, and you're still not happy with even this chink of light.

He also did a job gasing his people.

You make it sound that to this day he's still gasing people. It happed a decade ago, and not since. I'm not excusing the act, but i find it just as terrible that people must paint Saddam, as if he's running around trying to find people to gas.

It is not easy to ignore human rights abuses in Iraq, Cuba or Red China

Is it that much easier, to paint these country's leaders in such a bad light, that whatever they do must be construed as being bad? Is there no good in what they do?

They is more to life than food

So says the person that has plenty of food everyday. ASK these people which they'd prefer, Foiod or some idealistic human right.

They need freedom. They don't need a fasist dictators. The UN needs to enourage human rights. It is about time that we see Saddam for what he is - treating the Un with complete distain

Again you're choosing what they need. There's no point having freedom, if you're dead (although technically thats the ultimate freedom). And as i've said to you in other posts, not all dictators are facists, and i'm not aware, that Saddam, is indeed a facist.

And treating the UN with complete disdain is not as bad as you make out. Hell, America is prepared to ignore them, remember.
Also you believe that nations should follow the UN, but remember not all nations in this world are part of the UN, and therefore have a very different view as to how the UN is.

Cork

Also you believe that nations should follow the UN, but remember not all nations in this world are part of the UN, and therefore have a very different view as to how the UN is.

That is no excuse for not complying with UN resolutions.

If there is war - It will be as a result of non compliance by Saddam.

You make it sound that to this day he's still gasing people. It happed a decade ago

I think that some behavior is unacceptable. This would be rank as one.


Saddam needs to comply with UN resolutions. Making excuses for him is giving him defacto support. There should be no war. But if he fails to comply - War is inevitable.

How many chances does Saddam want?

The UN needs to tell the world that it is noodys fool.