Can we hold back the tide?

Éomer of Rohan

We all know what the outcome of the Iraqi conflict will be regardless of what happens in Britain; America will win the military conflict and a sycophantic press will convince Americans that it was worth the effort.

With regard to Britain, an enormous amount of casualties in the storming of Baghdad could spark either a leadership challenge from within labour or the return of the 'Lib Dems' to a credible party LOL and thus Blair might be ousted as leader of the Labour Party or Prime Minister or both, despite the dreadful electoral state of the conservatives at present.

Ultimately though, an important question remains for pro-war supporters and anti-war supporters (in this instance) alike.
When the US make clear who their next target is going to be, will you support them or oppose them? If America invade Iran or Syria as has been hinted at, postulated, examined and exhaustively debated by many parts of the media, what will the pretext be and will it be as shoddy as the one given for Iraq?

It is no secret that I am anti-war in Iraq and that I, like many others, believe that the US and UK rode roughshod over the UN, just like the old gunslingers they are so often caricatured as. Given that they had an issue with WMD in Iraq, what might the UN opinion be when they ignore the Security Council again?

It will be interesting to see if the pro-war in Iraq posters will rally behind an invasion of Syria or Iran.

mike65

A short answer to this fair question. I'm not supporting this war for "ideological" reasons, rather I belive Saddams regime is worth being shot of. If Bush went off on a post war "beano" feeling he was impervious then I'd not approve.

I'd be appalled if he went after Iran - its gradually moving in the right direction and the last thing
the progressive elements in that country need is the US intervening.

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

*gasps in mock horror*

You mean we might be out on the streets together at some stage lol?

mike65

Steady on, there's a limit...

Mike.

Sand

Talk of the US going after Iran and Syria next is a tad hard to believe given the sheer size of the theatres theyd be operating in, multiple fronts, all the while trying to keep a handle on Iraq which will be tricky for the short term anyway.

AS Mike says, Iran is gradually moving in the right direction - milatary action isnt needed i think in that case, it would probably set back democratic forces if anything.

Sparks

You're expecting rationality from men that have declared a preemptive war in defiance of the UN Charter, conducted that war in defiance of the Geneva Conventions, and who now expect the UN to step in to clean up the mess?

I'm just surprised that they haven't bombed Syria and Iran already...

cerebus

I came across some interesting comments from James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, on this subject today. He identifies Iran, Iraq, Syria and Al Qaeda as the 'enemy'.

I believe he has been mentioned as a possible member of the administration the US proposes for Iraq after the current hostilities are over?

He also seems to imply that Egypt and Saudi Arabia could be next in line - he mentions Mubarak and the Al Sauds as possible candidates for removal. He does say that backing democratic movements will be the preferred means for regime change...

So, the question is how well does he reflect the current administration's view? He is a member of the Defence Policy Board, a bi-partisan committee that advises the Secretary for Defense...

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

pork99

I'm just surprised that they haven't bombed Syria and Iran already...

Unlikely that they will. Bush wants a good quick sucessful war to get him re-elected. However I think the American economy is going to be so sh*gged up the arse by this war that Bush will pay for it in 04, like his dad did in 92.

So Saddam gone this year, hopefully Bush next year, good riddence in both cases

Well, i'm against this war for two reasons: 1) they didnt wait for the UN to finish, 2) Iraq didn't perform any action to create this war.

Should the US get approval from the UN, in regards to an invasion of Syria, then yes, i'd probably support it. On the other hand, i wouldn't support the invasion of Iran, simply because there is no reason to. For ****s sake, the US has more terrorist/militant groups than Iran has.

Beëlzebooze

simply because there is no reason to

the reasons to invade Iraq where made up as the coalition forces went along!

Sparks

Only two reasons to be against this invasion?
Here's a third then - before the first human casualty, we'd already seen the destruction of a hundred years worth of international law in the form of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the ICC, the UN Charter and just about anything else that prevented a civilised nation from bombing the ****e out of a smaller nation.

Sand

Only two reasons to be against this invasion? Here's a third then - before the first human casualty, we'd already seen the destruction of a hundred years worth of international law in the form of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the ICC, the UN Charter and just about anything else that prevented a civilised nation from bombing the ****e out of a smaller nation.

Wasnt it Koffi Annan who said that a nations sovereignity shouldnt protect it if it was a evil regime or words to some such effect ( Cant remember, not arsed looking it up, use google, was in relation to Kosovo i think ).

davelerave

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
We all know what the outcome of the Iraqi conflict will be regardless of what happens in Britain; America will win the military conflict and a sycophantic press will convince Americans that it was worth the effort.

With regard to Britain, an enormous amount of casualties in the storming of Baghdad could spark either a leadership challenge from within labour or the return of the 'Lib Dems' to a credible party LOL and thus Blair might be ousted as leader of the Labour Party or Prime Minister or both, despite the dreadful electoral state of the conservatives at present.

Ultimately though, an important question remains for pro-war supporters and anti-war supporters (in this instance) alike.
When the US make clear who their next target is going to be, will you support them or oppose them? If America invade Iran or Syria as has been hinted at, postulated, examined and exhaustively debated by many parts of the media, what will the pretext be and will it be as shoddy as the one given for Iraq?

It is no secret that I am anti-war in Iraq and that I, like many others, believe that the US and UK rode roughshod over the UN, just like the old gunslingers they are so often caricatured as. Given that they had an issue with WMD in Iraq, what might the UN opinion be when they ignore the Security Council again?

It will be interesting to see if the pro-war in Iraq posters will rally behind an invasion of Syria or Iran.

they did ride roughshod over the UN but that may not always be a bad thing ,sometimes decisive action is needed(remember bosnia) although i was kinda against it so soon in this case.but saddam and his regime are really evil and brutal and that reality can't be ignored

Sparks

Sand,
Annan has a well-known policy of holding that individual sovereignty can take precendence over state sovereignty - is that what you refer to?

" If states bent on criminal behavior know that frontiers are not an absolute; if they know that the Security Council will take action to halt crimes against humanity, then they will not embark on such a course of action in expectation of sovereign impunity."

Dave,
In this case, running roughshod over the UN is indefensible. Yes, Saddam needs to be removed from power. But is it really worth 859 to 1032 innocent iraqi civilians to do so? Does anyone really believe that with the full might and resources of the most technologically advanced and potent military force in human history, that the elimination of one man necessitated the full-scale invasion of a third-world country?

davelerave

Originally posted by Sparks
Sand,
Annan has a well-known policy of holding that individual sovereignty can take precendence over state sovereignty - is that what you refer to?

" If states bent on criminal behavior know that frontiers are not an absolute; if they know that the Security Council will take action to halt crimes against humanity, then they will not embark on such a course of action in expectation of sovereign impunity."

Dave,
In this case, running roughshod over the UN is indefensible. Yes, Saddam needs to be removed from power. But is it really worth 859 to 1032 innocent iraqi civilians to do so? Does anyone really believe that with the full might and resources of the most technologically advanced and potent military force in human history, that the elimination of one man necessitated the full-scale invasion of a third-world country?

probably yes unfortunately ,look at that pile of coffins the british found today or the kurds who were gassed,which is worse i dunno.this war is pretty awful but so is he

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

All of which ignores my point. If you wanted to eliminate one man, you would shoot one man, not call for a full-scale invasion of his country costing several billion dollars and killing thousands of people...

Éomer of Rohan

....or maybe have gone and got proper and official international support to launch a war effort or a revolution or whatever. As Sparks said it is irrelevent. This war, come to think of it, is testimoney to the incompetence of the CIA, and that is reinforced when we remember the feeble attempts to kill Fidel Castro.

Barry Aldwell

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
and that is reinforced when we remember the feeble attempts to kill Fidel Castro.

They also planned to make his beard fall off by putting a chemical in a cigar.

davelerave

Originally posted by daveirl
What are you talking about. There hasn't been any gassings in around 12-15 years. And the British couldn't find Kurdish bodies because they're not in a Kurdish area, they're in a Shiite area. Of course maybe they did find what you describe, can you give us a link?

Yes Saddam is an awful guy but that's the poorest excuse for a war. I thought it was about WMDs?

link

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

Dead Iranian soldiers, weren't they?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

Well, that's the exact opposite of the reports I'd read - got a source?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

davelerave

it seems now they were iranian soldiers killed in dubious circumstances.my point was that regime change is a positive thing

This regime change is a positive thing, however its like asking do you replace one evil with another. The actions of the coalition to date in regards to this war, have been suspect from the beginning. Considering the number of claims the coalition have made in regards to what will come after, nobody really knows what will happen to Iraq after the war. Will it become another afghanistan, forgotten by the world? Because please remember, that while saddam might be removed, theres plenty of nasty men to take his place. Will your attention stay on Iraq, to see who takes over, once the allies leave? or if they leave at all..... remember, bush has said both, that the US troops will not stay longer than necessary, and he's also told the world, that the troops will be there for months.

Will iraq become a colony? a puppet state? or will it become another nation thats forced to reform, & then forgotten, while mass slaughter ensues.... cause lets face it, its doubtful the world will intercede if ex-saddam supporters decide to have a slaughter in revenge on the people of iraq.

SkepticOne

I think there will be a democracy of sorts, carefully monitored by the CIA in case what happened in Venezuela happens there also.

I think there will be a democracy of sorts, carefully monitored by the CIA in case what happened in Venezuela happens there also.

Democracy of sorts? Sounds like the US would screen all parties, and dismiss the ones they don't like. Doesn't sound very democratic that. Still, i'm sure the Iraqi people would vote anotehr saddam into power, if they were given the chance... :rolleyes:

SkepticOne

Originally posted by klaz
Democracy of sorts? Sounds like the US would screen all parties, and dismiss the ones they don't like. Doesn't sound very democratic that. Still, i'm sure the Iraqi people would vote anotehr saddam into power, if they were given the chance... :rolleyes:

I doubt if they would vote another Saddam into power, but what the US will be worried about will be the possibility of a populist leader like Chavez who may not have the US's requirement for cheap oil as top priority.

The first thing they will do is make sure all of Iraq's oil fields are in private (preferably Western) hands. They will do this before handing over to any locally run administration.