War With Iraq

[devolved_kmbkr]

Like the Nazi party, it can only be removed by force.

...ummm...Hitler committed suicide under pressure, but I hardly think that you can say he stepped down under force, they still didn't ever catch him.

However the cost of merely maintaining the current sanctions is real enough. Infant mortality has risen since 1989, estimates vary wildly as to how many extra deaths this has caused, but it may be over 100,000. What money that does go into Iraq(as part of the 'oil for food' program and smuggling) is not spent upon health or public serives, instead it appears to go into military expenses, or into Saddam's pockets.

The aggression launched against Iraq targeted the infrastructure of the national economy, development activities and the industrial and technological progress that had been achieved. The destruction that was caused affected all sectors, disrupted all activities and had adverse repercussions for all areas, including the environment - so where do you get the funds to repair ALL of it? The environment in Iraq has suffered extensive damage because of indiscriminate bombing by the United States and some of its allies, which was aimed mainly at power stations, sewage systems and factories (I'm well aware they bombed military targets as well). This damage has been amplified by the continuing blockade of trade and development in the country. Sanctions have reduced Iraq to becoming a poor nation; a nation unable, with it’s rather meager funds, to feed itself, let alone rebuild. Oil for food is not an issue. Money is. Currently, in Iraq, water and sanitation services are in a critical state of disrepair. This is because they have a lack of spare parts to repair damages, both caused by the war, and break-downs of equipment. Such disrepair has led to Iraqi water tables becoming contaminated. In addition to the deleterious effects of equipment shortages on the environment, the agricultural infrastructure has been badly impaired by shortages of seeds, pesticides, fertilizers and harvesting equipment. Furthermore, the shortage of equipment caused by sanctions has made Iraq more prone to oil spills.

I hardly think that he's overlining his pockets, but that's just my opinion.

[devolved_kmbkr]

It seems like a lot of people do tend to overlook the oppression of the Kurds, but it's the same people who are the most hurt by the sanctions. Maybe if you're narrow-minded enough, war can seem the only answer to get rid of Saddam, but think about who it's going to hurt the most? Saddam will continue to oppress, and the US will step up it's rhetoric.

Khalil Gilbran had it right:

"They died in silence for humanity had closed its ears to their cry"

[Cattet]

Rrankin, I'm not sure what you are not seeing in $840 million spent in Afghanistan...Get rid of the evil regime (i.e. Taliban), help rebuild. Are you missing something in my wording? They're sticking around for at least five more years. What exactly do you want (I'll be sure to call them up and make your order for you)?

[Cattet]

Oh, and also--I'm sure you realize Saddam knows where to get his black market goods. After all, his son is happy to acquire American cigarettes by buying from another country who imports them. Want to talk about his imports of antidote for biological warfare this past fall?

He takes what he wants from whomever he can get it from. And his people pay the horribly high price.

[Oddball]

In response to devolved,


The nazi party was removed by force, Hitler commited suicide because the country was about to fall, his body was discovered and positively identified by the Russians. The Nazi state was then deconstructed by the allies, most of the senior members were put on trial. Hitler was not the only member of the party who had to be punished, the rest of the party had to be removed from power. Regime change does not always just involve the head of state, in Iraq there will need to be changes at more than just the senior level.


As to the effect of sanctions and the failure to repair the infrastructure. Saddam could have spent the money he invested in rocketry programs upon the civilian infrastructure. How can expensive missile programs such as the Al-hussein rockets be justified? They are a post-gulf war design, clearly the money could have been better spent. In order to stop the sanctions Saddam could have removed his Weapons of Mass Destruction at any point after the Gulf War, and complied with the UN. Even without his compliance there was pressure from countries such as France to lift the sanctions. Iraq has only Saddam to blame for the Sanctions. Iraq could rebuild and recover, but as long as Saddam continues with his current policies it will be impossible. Infrasturture can be rebuilt, it may not be especially cheap, but most nations have had to do at some point.

[Guest]

devolved_kmbkr

I’m not quite sure why you feel the need to put words into my mouth about the views of US citizens. It’s clearly evident that all US citizens are not completely behind the war effort. Let me clear up some issues for you. First off, the US does not have complete control over the UN; if that were the case this whole Saddam issue would have been resolved months ago. Why do you think it’s taken so long for an invasion to take place? Because of UN nations like France who continue to veto any action against Saddam. Secondly, take some time and look into Saddam’s horrific past, the countries he’s invaded, the things that he’s done to his people and others. If you don’t feel comfortable with the US having these weapons you will feel 100x worse if Saddam would have them. Forgive me, but your giving me the impression your extremely naïve or haven’t taken the time to look into details about the situation. Yes, the war on Islam is completely over the top, but then again a lot of your accusations appear that way.

I find myself repeating previous statements. Saddam isn’t stupid; do you actually think he would produce these weapons above ground where the whole world could see them? He’s had plenty of time to build his underground facilities. Not until recently were inspectors even allowed onto his most private palace grounds that encompass thousands of miles. The fact of the matter is 200-300 inspectors looking for weapons in a country that is the size of France, or the US state of “California” is a pretty hard task to accomplish. What does it matter if the inspectors do find more weapons? Saddam will just refuse to destroy them just like he refuses to destroy the missiles inspectors found.

You suggested technique about getting rid of Saddam only clears up one thing. Your total misunderstanding about the crisis. Saddam’s entire regime must be removed as well as his sons who in some cases are worse then him. Just a FYI, try getting your information from more than one source, because if you didn’t know the New York Times is a completely biases liberal paper

[GeorgeWBushSupporter]

[s]Unregisted User devolved_kmbkr wrote on 19:38, 26th Feb 2003:
why can't we ask Bush to disclose the US weapons program? How much nuclear force to THEY have? I'm not condoning Iraq in any way, I just think that the United States is unbelievably hypocritical when it comes to hunting down so-called terrorists.

You wan't to know why? Because the United States doesn't invade other countries with the intent of take over. Iraq has attempted to invade and conquer 2 countries since 1980. For them to develop a nuclear weapons program would be disastrous, not only to the countries surrounding Iraq, but to the entire world.

http://www.godswrathclan.net

[Emma]

[s]Unregisted User GeorgeWBushSupporter wrote on 17:19, 27th Feb 2003:
[s]Unregisted User devolved_kmbkr wrote on 19:38, 26th Feb 2003:[i]
why can't we ask Bush to disclose the US weapons program? How much nuclear force to THEY have? I'm not condoning Iraq in any way, I just think that the United States is unbelievably hypocritical when it comes to hunting down so-called terrorists.

You wan't to know why? Because the United States doesn't invade other countries with the intent of take [/i](sic) over.


Um. hate to point it out, but this whole thread is about the USA invading a country with, whoops, the intention of taking it over...however temporarily.

Also, a brief message to pro-war people. I'd just like to get this off my chest: None of us feel anything for Saddam Hussein except hatred, disgust and despisal. The thing is, a war won't just kill Saddam Hussein, but half a million of Iraq's citizens (as many as have died as a result of sanctions, according to Ramsey Clark - remember him, the former Attorney General?-'s report to the UN). We're concerned that, while Hussein in his present state is not a direct threat to the USA, the thousands of extreme Islamist terrorists that will be recruited as a result of a massacre of innocent Iraqi civilians most certainly will be.

For alternatives to the military action that is, I am now convinced, going to happen, please see http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/0,6957,178327,00.html

I now brace myself for the full range of moronic Republican replies, complete with inability to distinguish between 'your' and 'you're'.


[hr]
'I used to rock and roll all night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky'

[Emma]

Addendum; sorry, that wasn't the number of Iraqi civilians killed, that was the number under the age of 15.

[hr]'I used to rock and roll all night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky'

[GeorgeWBushSupporter]

[s]Dee wrote on 17:01, 26th Feb 2003:
Has anyone on this thread suggested any alternative solution to the problem of Saddam? I've looked through it and can't find one.

It seems to be some sort of article of faith with the anti-war movement that there [i]has to be another way.

Can I ask the question - what if you're wrong? What if there is no other way? What if this is the only way to topple Saddam?

Because if you're wrong, you're condemning Iraq to Saddam's oppressive regime for God knows how many years, to be followed by his son's rule - which I suspect will make Saddam's look like a picnic. You're condemning neighbouring countries to invasions by his regime, and that's before we even consider the WMD, which we know he has from previous inspections.

For myself, there is no excuse for covering our eyes so we don't see the Kurdish massacres; the widespread disapperances, oppression, imprisonment, murder, torture, and rape that the Iraqi people are subjected to.

Also, it seems from what I've read that a major reason for being against the war is not wanting to be on the same side as Gee Dubya, or admit America might, on occasion, do the right thing. Regardless of your feelings on America, and its past misdeeds, this is not an admirable reason to deny the Iraqi people the chance to be free of Saddam's oppressive regime.

You don't have to like right wing politics to support this war. You don't need to "sell your soul", and vote Conservative/Republican. By all means write letters stressing your quite reasonable humanitarian concerns - expressing your desire that the liberation of Iraq should be conducted in as humane a manner as possible with minimal loss of human life.

Lord knows this is what a respectable political left-wing would have been doing for the past few months.

Lastly, on the matter of WMD, just so you know, the primary exporters of weapons to Iraq have been Russia, and (everyone's favourite candid friend) France.

That the US and UK armed him in the past as well is atrocious I do not deny it. But the fact that we served to create the problem, does not remove the need for someone else to solve it. Quite to the contrary - it seems to me to double the moral imperative on us to solve the problem.

[hr]"Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you."
- Jean-Paul Sartre
[/i]

Great post, Dee. I agree 100%

http://www.godswrathclan.net

[Emma]

Addendum; sorry, that wasn't the number of Iraqi civilians killed, that was the number under the age of 15.

[hr]'I used to rock and roll all night and party every day. Then it was every other day. Now I'm lucky if I can find half an hour a week in which to get funky'

[Rennie]

A direct quote from Katharine Hamnett..

No matter how repugnant the Iraqi regime may be, the international community has no right to attempt to topple it. That is for the Iraqis to do.

There are many repugnant regimes in the world, none of which attract the threat of invasion like Iraq. What steps were taken to overthrow Stalin, or Mao? Why do we not urge the invasion of Zimbabwe or any of the other despotic regimes in countries in the world?

If Saddam were to be removed he should be taken out by M16 or the CIA. The US flattened Afghanistan but failed to catch Osama bin Laden. Weapons inspectors should be given the extra time they are asking for. Saddam has already decreed that no more weapons of mass destruction are to be manufactured or imported into Iraq.

Sanctions must be enforced. Saddam is withholding medicines from his people himself trying to blame the west for their suffering. If sanctions had applied in 1998 after he gassed the Kurds instead of the US pumping in more aid, none of this would have happened.

War should only be fought as a response to present danger, and as a last resort. How many dead Iraqis are going to thank us for "liberating" their country?

It has a lot of truth in it..surely even the pro-war can see it.

[Emma]

Just out of interest, what makes you think that I haven't already contacted my MP to express concern over humanitarian issues?

The thing I wrote to him about was the use of landmines and cluster bombs, both of which the USA is planning on using in Iraq. The UK as a signatory to the Ottowa Treaty has agreed not to use landmines. Cluster bombs, as used in Afghanistan, divide into 'bomblets' which can lie undetonated for years after conflict. They're often detonated by curious children.

Reports suggest the US and UK have been stockpiling cluster bombs and landmines in Cyprus for some time.

[Emma]

Just out of interest, what makes you think that I haven't already contacted my MP to express concern over humanitarian issues?

The thing I wrote to him about was the use of landmines and cluster bombs, both of which the USA is planning on using in Iraq. The UK as a signatory to the Ottowa Treaty has agreed not to use landmines. Cluster bombs, as used in Afghanistan, divide into 'bomblets' which can lie undetonated for years after conflict. They're often detonated by curious children.

Reports suggest the US and UK have been stockpiling cluster bombs and landmines in Cyprus for some time.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Let's face it - the US is the big cry baby of the UN. The USA has more vetos than all the other members of the security council put together and really if that isn't proof that they're using the UN as a big beaucratic rubber stamp and then taking their ball when things aren't going there way, then some better structured argument will surely prove what my Prophet senses tell me is correct.

[RRankin]

[s]Unregisted User Cattet wrote on 21:40, 26th Feb 2003:
Rrankin, I'm not sure what you are not seeing in $840 million spent in Afghanistan...Get rid of the evil regime (i.e. Taliban), help rebuild. Are you missing something in my wording? They're sticking around for at least five more years. What exactly do you want (I'll be sure to call them up and make your order for you)?


Five years!? Thats even worse! For gods sake, it takes much longer than 5 years to undo the damage done during the war and the taliban regime. There is no infrastructure to speak of, few schools, few hospitals, little in the way of sanitation etc, let alone any form of stable economy or even a united government. Granted, many of Afghanistans problems are rooted in history (eg the Russian invasion, British invasion and occupation before that) but America (and allies, including the UK) took that responsibility on when they decided to destroy what little there was in that country.

$840million and a 5 year comittment are nothing. It'll take at least 50 years before there is a stable country there - you have an illeducated population, poor facilities and an unstable power base. It needs long term developement and investment, as well as an educated generation of people to take over their country in the future. Anything less than that will leave Afghanistan in a mess and leave it a breeding ground for more anti-west contempt and open for another oppressive regime to step in.

Isn't it now time we learnt from past mistakes?

[Al]

"It'll take at least 50 years before there is a stable country there - you have an illeducated population, poor facilities and an unstable power base. It needs long term developement and investment, as well as an educated generation of people to take over their country in the future."

Sorry are you still writing about Afghanistan, or are you describing Britain now?

[GeorgeWBushSupporter]

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/page3065.asp

http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/hrdossier.pdf

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/focus/

http://www.dfat.gov.au/qwon/2003/qwn_030205c.html


The above mentioned links are just 4 of many sites with horrific details of the ways that Saddam treats his citizens. Now, ask yourself this. Would the loss of X amount Iraqis in a war for liberation be greater than many, many years of the Hussein's "prisonesque" rule by Saddam and his sons? I agree 100% that the loss of life is a terrible and tragic thing, but it's either help these people or leave them in hell on earth. People may say that this is all about oil or finishing what the first President Bush started in 1990, but you know what I say? Who cares what the true intentions are? As long as these people get a better lifestyle than the "hell" they are in now, it's all gravy with me.

http://www.godswrathclan.net

[FDR]

According to Allied Reports, 15,000 French Civilians lost their lives in the Allied Operation Overlord, lasting several months. And Obviously---Total Civilian Casualties caused by allied ventures for the entire war were much, much higher---But sometimes that is the cost of being positive you are winning a war. I am sure Europe is glad that the Allies were in Europe to Win, and not half-ass an Operation with the importance of Overlord just because some civilians would die. That is War. And if that is what it takes to win and topple a regime like the Nazis than so be it. And the world is much better for it. The same goes for Japan. There are hundreds of estimates that the atomic bombs did not need to be dropped, and there are hundreds of estimates that 1 million Allies would have died taking Japan. Sorry, again---its war. You play to win. And although it is sad to see so much civilian death---I am not willing to say I would want to go back in time and change the dropping of the Atomic Bombs. The world is better that Tojo Surrendered unconditionally---and that there was no need to even ponder an invasion. There is that possibility that it was not needed....but you are not completely sure. Again...in war, i prefer my government to be sure of winning, and to keep me and my friends heads down and safe for as long as possible if were were in that conflict. War is Hell as Sherman said---and Hell is about winning to preserve YOUR way of Life, not the Enemies.

And George Bush may not be the most eloquent of speakers, but he isnt "poorly educated". You get a high degree from Yale University and also go get Honours from Harvard before you even begin to say that he was not educated.

[Rennie]

Who the hell could possibly stand up and say Dubya is clever? I was reading your arguemtn thinking, yeah, ok, valid point etc.. but when you said that, everything was nullified.

Look, i personally am anti-war, but that doesn't mean to say i think Saddam should stay in power. There are other ways to get him out other than war. Getting the Iraqi people to rebel was significant last time, but due to lack of support was unsuccessful. Maybe if it was thought through clearer this time it would be a winner.

The US, in my opinion, just wants to show the world what it is capable of at the moment, and feels total destruction is the way forward. A far cry from the 30's when France desperately asked the U.S for help in the second world war as Germany invaded only to be told "We don't interfere in the running of other nations..."