War With Iraq

[Oddball]

[s]Rennie wrote on 01:05, 28th Feb 2003:
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..."


Dubya may not have been top of his class, but he did not do too badly at a top university. As to the issue of removing Saddam, it is unfortunately not just him that needs to go. His family certainly needs to be removed from power, and it would be best if many of the senior members of the government were to go. War is a way to accomplish that aim, it is hard to see how else it could be achieved. The threat of war might persuade Saddam and co to go into exile, which would be a partial solution. The threat or use of force seem to be the solutions most likely to work.

[Rennie]

Why couldn't the Us organise a military coup in the country similar to what they have done in many places in the past? Is it because the support for Saddam is increasing by the day as the Iraqi people realise that they are going to be bombed to bits? Quite possibly i feel.

[Tom Plant]

Let's get something clear. There is no moral incentive for our war on Iraq. The majority of our allies in the Middle East are butchering savages with worse records for human rights abuse than dear old Saddam. Saudi's not great, Turkey's hardly Butlins, Egypt and Pakistan do not win the 'Mister Democratic' award for democracy, and I'm not even going to mention those childkilling Israeli bastards. Add to this the fact that our governments ardently supported Saddam in the 80s at the height of his barbarity, sucking his Scud-shaped winkle for oil in the same way as we now suck our middle-eastern mates', until he gave us reason not to. Nor can we use the Kurds as an excuse, whom we betrayed back then to Saddam, again for oil. Our right to the moral highground is seriously questionable in this conflict (or, as I humbly opine, in any conflict).

Nor is there any evidence of Iraqi uncooperation with the weapons inspections. Quite possibly the Americans are right to suggest that Saddam is cheekily hiding his arsenal (matron), but unless they want to prove this, it gives them no cause for war. Why send weapons inspectors over there if you have no intention of heeding them? Also, you may have noticed that as soon as the inspectors did not find what Bush wanted, the American media started dirtying their names and deliberately damaging their credibility. Apparently, one was 'involved in pornography,' and therefore of insufficient moral calibre for the job... Why, the cynic might wonder, would one employ an inspector with a track record so easily subject to media scrutiny? Perhaps so that they could sully his name when he didn't say the right things?

Nor does Iraq seem to have any link to the Crusade against Darkies - sorry, that's 'War on Terror,' right, Mr Bush? Osama Bin Laden's message to Saddam wishing him all the best in battling the Great Satan calls him and his state 'infidels' - hardly a term of endearment, I think. There has been no link whatsoever proven in the public domain of a link between Iraq and the September 11th bombing.

So, that pretty much leaves oil in the short-term (this much is undeniable - the vultures are openly circling and shamelessly discussing the spoils) and a 'democratic' Pax Americana in the long-term, run by the military (just like lovely MacArthur in Japan, eh?).

Regardless of the reasons for the war, this much is indisputable. Conquering Iraq will lead to the deaths of American and British soldiers, will widow Iraqi women and orphan Iraqi children, who will want revenge against the countries who killed their fathers. We are formenting aggression and inviting terrorist reprisals.

How many of our people's lives is this oil worth, Mr Blair?

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I would agree that the *blatant* duplicity and hypocrisy of the West - specifically the indication that Tony Blair has any sort of moral authority (smacked up by 2 archbishops? That hardly ever happens).

[Mark]

Excellent post Tom...summed up an awful lot of what I've been saying about this war for a few months now. Another important consideration is what will happen should the war be announced (I won't say commenced, because there are currently US and UK troops engaged in covert activities within Iraq, while bombing raids have been pretty much a constant feature for the past decade...when does it become 'war' rather than just directed military action?). The latest alleged statement by good ol' Osama (shit! You mean he's not dead after all? Who would have thought it?) demonstrates more than adequately that if there's one thing which could do more than any other to incite further opposition to the West in Islamic nations and bolster the ranks of Al-Quaeda for decades to come, it's war on Iraq. As has been pointed out time and time again, Saddam's regime, while undeniably a corrupt, brutal and unsightly pustule on the arse of democracy, is not substantially worse (and is, in fact, somewhat more defensible in certain areas) that, for example, America's best buds the Israelis. Or Turkey (and isn't it funny that just when the Turks were so kind as to let us use their bases to launch strikes on Iraq in Gulf War II we decided that, actually, they were A-OK to join the EU after all? Oh, shit, sorry. That hasn't happened yet, has it?). Or...I could go on (even more), but there wouldn't be a lot of point. The fact is that any kind of war on Iraq would be a new high point in The Amazing Adventures of Western Hypocrisy In The 21st Century (price £29.99, available in all good bookshops). For fuck's sake...if you're going to try to pretend that this war is on Humanitarian grounds, at least have the decency to pretend to listen to the UN Inspectors you've been so publicly sending into Iraq for the past God only knows how long.

[GeorgeWBushSupporter]

Christ almighty, Mark. How much time should Iraq be given? They've had over 10 years to dispose of the shit they have, yet they keep beating around the "bush" (no pun intended). It's obvious that Saddam has sadistic intentions in mind and he's going to keep defying the UN inspectors by not destroying the Al-Samoud missles, the mobile biological weapon facilities, etc. Are you guys blind and deaf or what? You all say it's about "the oil". Well, I say "who cares". When we do win this war, not only will we have oil, but we'll have one less hitleresque dictator (which by the way, Europe would be a Nazi country still if not for America), and one country of free, happy people. It's a win/win situation any way you look at it.

[devolved_kmbkr]

First of all, I'm very aware of how intelligent Saddam can be. I certainly am NOT putting words into your mouth about the views of US citizens, only that as a former student of an American university, I still keep in contact with several of my US-born and voting friends.

The US has exercised and proven near control of the United Nations. Perhaps I'm biased as the child of someone who works for the UN, but from what I understand, France can kick and scream and delay all it likes - it can exercise no control or bullying, and the US will eventually get what it wants.

I am also completely aware of Saddam's actions against the Kurds in particular. I have listened first hand to lies from the Iraqi mission in NYC, and parlayed those lies into writing a position paper from the viewpoint of Iraq for a conference. I also know that starving a country and people to death (as statistics clearly prove) is factual, and can only be explained so far by Saddam's pocket-lining practices. I apologise for my liberal attitudes, but there isn't enough money going into the country, even through the back door, to justify each and every one of Saddam's arms expansion policies.

I'm sorry that you mistake my experience for naïvité, however it can't be helped completely by the fact that you can't seem to get your head around trusting a reputable source like the Times - however liberal they appear to be. I am completely aware that Saddam is indeed intelligent enough to build sites below the ground, much like the UK's purported missle production site at Portland, but don't you think that the US policy is a bit like a very facist one of Mao's (before you accuse me of not knowing that Mao was communist, let me assure you that I am well aware of this - only pointing out that many of his policies bordered on facist): "Enticing the snake out of its haunt only to cut off his head". Instead of finding real threats to the US (which, however far the Al Samoud 2 missles can go, is not far enough to reach Europe - Turkey is not in Europe - let alone the United States). If we give Bush absolute power as a nonelected official, what are we saying to the rest of the world? If we get rid of Bush like getting rid of Saddam, then there are several more facist and right-wing leaders jumping at the chance to take his place.

Please do not mistake my understanding of the so-called "crisis". It was a technique favoured at one time in the recent past by the CIA to rid Saddam, under practices that are perhaps a bit shady but nonetheless effective. Unlike you, I do not get all my news from CNN, and only read the Times at the weekend. I've tried to get as unbiased a view as possible, and with the information given by the Guardian, the Globe and Mail (Canada - which nobody can argue against it being a ridiculously right-wing paper) and colleagues of my father, I'm inclined to think that war, just like each and every Bush policy, is a complete shadow to cover the fact that his presidency is illegitimate. But then again, that's just my opinion as a discerning foreigner.

Please don't continue to believe that the US is the responsible big brother sent out into the world to bully the rest of it into compliance. Bush will run into war, guns blazing, with or without the support of the United Nations or other countries. Just because he can't find Bin Laden doesn't mean he has to keep the war machine running by turning his attention to Iraq. And when he's done there, he'll turn his attention to North Korea, and then just for kicks, he'll go for Cuba. If those aren't invasion policies, I don't know what is. So yes, I am uncomfortable about any nation having a nuclear arsenal, but I'm quite uncomfortable about the United States not disclosing their weapons program - they intend to invade Iraq, just like Iraq intended to invade Kuwait for something they wanted. Wake up and smell the crude oil.

[Show]

I dont have time to look over everywhere youve gone wrong on this board but ive been refered here to take a look at it so i will tell you why a war with Iraq is necisary.

1. The most important part is human rights. It is true that innocent people will die in this war, but more innocent people will die in one year from saddams way of running his country then will from collateral damage. Anyone who cares at all about human decency should feel that Iraqis have the right not to be tortured. In fact they have the right to have the same kind of great government structure as Europe and America. Would any of you rather live in a government like Iraq rather than your respected country.

2. The next issue is nukes. Saddam is working hard to get them no one denys that. Why else would he be blocking inspecters. Much like we couldnt let him blackmail the world by controlling the middle east's oil we cant let him do the same with nuclear weapons. We would have to treat Iraq like we are treating north korea if they had nukes, which we dont want to do and shouldnt do.

3. Terrorism. I dont believe al quada its self is that big of presence in Iraq. But if you look on the bigger scale. There are four countries that mainly fund palistinean terrorrism. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Saddam has shown his ability to stay in power so we do have to take him out. Once there is a democratic Iraq. Iran who is on the verge of having its theocracy overthrown would be more likely to do that when they see the success of its neighbors Afghanistan and Iraq as democracies. After Iraq and Iran begin to open up there oil wells to the world market Saudi Arabia's oil will not be as big of an issue in how to deal with them. After terrorist groups are not getting the money to fund suicide bombers, peace in isreal will be much easier to happen.

For critics of the war a couple of things to think about.

If we were only in this war for oil, alls we would have to do is remove the sanctions of Iraq, iran as well.
If we really wanted to take over the country we would have done it in 91.

And for those of you who think killing is wrong in any circumstance i say to you, allowing people to be killed is just as wrong.

[NicC]

And for those of you who think killing is wrong in any circumstance i say to you, allowing people to be killed is just as wrong.

Exactly. I deplore the idea of war, I truly do, just as much as I deplore the demonisation of Islam in the West - but I just can't get past this fact. People *are* dying, and will continue to die without Western bombing raids helping them along (Western sanctions are doing that quite nicely already).

If we have the power to stop it, how can we *not* stop it?

Regardless of whether our leaders are only in this for oil (although I'm beginning to suspect that Blair, at least, has a little more conscience than that), might not some good come of it anyway?

[hr]"'Our Mrs Peel in Ladies Underwear'. I rattled up the stairs three at a time..."
--Steed, The Avengers

Soldier in the War on the Brain since October 2002

[Tom Plant]

Good old right-wing, reactionary St Andrews, blissfully secluded from the facts or the reality of the world in its ivory tower of moral posturing as usual. One such example follows:


"-1. The most important part is human rights. It is true that innocent people will die in this war, but more innocent people will die in one year from saddams way of running his country then will from collateral damage."

The civilian death toll in Iraq has been caused by extensive bombings and by our trade sanctions. These sanctions are the only reason why the Iraqi people are so firmly behind their despotic leader. They are being starved and bombed by America and Britain, and Saddam voices their defiance. If we had not imposed the sanctions, Iraq would probably not be under Saddam now. Funny how America is is so keen on the free market as an alleviator of poverty, except when it comes to sanctioning countries it doesn't like - the Cuban and North Korean people have hardly benefited from such sanctions. All theses sanctions have done is strengthen popular support for harmful regimes. Remember how Hitler rose to power?

And would I rather live in Iraq than Britain? No, but I'd far rather live there than as a Palestinian in our old mate Israel. When are we going to stand up to Israeli brutality, my morally crusading friend? Simple answer - never. It's not in our best interests.

"2. The next issue is nukes. Saddam is working hard to get them no one denys that. Why else would he be blocking inspecters."

Show us the proof. If you send weapons inspectors in, you have to trust their judgment, otherwise what's the point?

"-3. Terrorism. I dont believe al quada its self is that big of presence in Iraq. But if you look on the bigger scale."

Yes, let's look on the bigger scale. The people of Iraq will clearly thank us when we've installed our military leadership, disguised as a democracy, having killed most of their men and by accident a good number of their women and children. They'll love us. Wake up! This is no campaign of liberation - British military sources are convinced that taking Iraq will create a sullen people waiting to take revenge.

4. "Iran who is on the verge of having its theocracy overthrown would be more likely to do that when they see the success of its neighbors Afghanistan and Iraq as democracies."

Yes, Afghanistan is such a successful democracy now we've blitzed it. Think again. It's as bad as it ever was, with clerics and warlords ruling the roost, women back in burkas and people in poverty. Why? Because we spent 15 billion US dollars on the war, and only 6m in restructuring Afghanistan.

5. "After terrorist groups are not getting the money to fund suicide bombers, peace in isreal will be much easier to happen."

How much money do you really think it costs to fund a suicide bomber? As much as it costs to buy some wires and fertiliser, pretty much. Peace will never happen in Israel until Israel moves off Palestinian soil. If your friends or family had been butchered by American-made M16-toting Israeli soldiers because they tried to cross into the neighbouring village to get some food, and all you had to fight with was sticks and stones, wouldn't you fight back however you could?


It's this simple. Our motives in the Middle East have never been altruistic, and it is incredibly naive to think the are now. Only support war if you'd be happy to die for the cause yourself; I know that I wouldn't want to die in this one.

[GeorgeWBushSupporter]

[s]Tom Plant wrote on 04:51, 1st Mar 2003:
Good old right-wing, reactionary St Andrews, blissfully secluded from the facts or the reality of the world in its ivory tower of moral posturing as usual. One such example follows:


"-1. The most important part is human rights. It is true that innocent people will die in this war, but more innocent people will die in one year from saddams way of running his country then will from collateral damage."

The civilian death toll in Iraq has been caused by extensive bombings and by our trade sanctions. These sanctions are the only reason why the Iraqi people are so firmly behind their despotic leader. They are being starved and bombed by America and Britain, and Saddam voices their defiance. If we had not imposed the sanctions, Iraq would probably not be under Saddam now. Funny how America is is so keen on the free market as an alleviator of poverty, except when it comes to sanctioning countries it doesn't like - the Cuban and North Korean people have hardly benefited from such sanctions. All theses sanctions have done is strengthen popular support for harmful regimes. Remember how Hitler rose to power?

And would I rather live in Iraq than Britain? No, but I'd far rather live there than as a Palestinian in our old mate Israel. When are we going to stand up to Israeli brutality, my morally crusading friend? Simple answer - never. It's not in our best interests.

"2. The next issue is nukes. Saddam is working hard to get them no one denys that. Why else would he be blocking inspecters."

Show us the proof. If you send weapons inspectors in, you have to trust their judgment, otherwise what's the point?

"-3. Terrorism. I dont believe al quada its self is that big of presence in Iraq. But if you look on the bigger scale."

Yes, let's look on the bigger scale. The people of Iraq will clearly thank us when we've installed our military leadership, disguised as a democracy, having killed most of their men and by accident a good number of their women and children. They'll love us. Wake up! This is no campaign of liberation - British military sources are convinced that taking Iraq will create a sullen people waiting to take revenge.

4. "Iran who is on the verge of having its theocracy overthrown would be more likely to do that when they see the success of its neighbors Afghanistan and Iraq as democracies."

Yes, Afghanistan is such a successful democracy now we've blitzed it. Think again. It's as bad as it ever was, with clerics and warlords ruling the roost, women back in burkas and people in poverty. Why? Because we spent 15 billion US dollars on the war, and only 6m in restructuring Afghanistan.

5. "After terrorist groups are not getting the money to fund suicide bombers, peace in isreal will be much easier to happen."

How much money do you really think it costs to fund a suicide bomber? As much as it costs to buy some wires and fertiliser, pretty much. Peace will never happen in Israel until Israel moves off Palestinian soil. If your friends or family had been butchered by American-made M16-toting Israeli soldiers because they tried to cross into the neighbouring village to get some food, and all you had to fight with was sticks and stones, wouldn't you fight back however you could?


It's this simple. Our motives in the Middle East have never been altruistic, and it is incredibly naive to think the are now. Only support war if you'd be happy to die for the cause yourself; I know that I wouldn't want to die in this one.


Please refer to this:

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


Now, about Irael giving lands to the Palestinians... Why should they? The Lord gave the region of Canaan ( http://www.museum.upenn.edu/Canaan/Map.shtml ) to the people of Israel. Not the palestinians, who came many years later. All of that land rightfully belongs to the Israelis. The Palestinians should be thanking their lucky stars that the Israelis are letting them even consider living anywhere in that region.

Deuteronomy 32:49 - "Ascend this mountain of the Ab'arim, Mount Nebo, which is in the land of Moab, opposite Jericho; and view the land of Canaan, which I give to the people of Israel for a possession"

Feel free to ask for my e-mail if you need anymore lessons.

[ambigous]

When are people going to wake up and smell the napalm?
Britain and in particular, the US are trying to rid anyone who could be a threat of any real power.
Supposedly acting in our best interests, they are just using the guise thrown up by Sept 11th to take out anyone they feel is a threat to them. Its just a modern democratic way of protecting your own rights.
If the US and UK were really concerned about weapons of mass distuction, they would be looking at India and Pakistan (the latter where large amounts of Al Quaeda are) who hate each other and have nukes aimed at each other. Or the Koreans.
They'll be finding 'terrorists' in the Soviet Union next..
Instead of a country which 'may' have 'deliverable biological agents' or could eventually build a suitcase nuke or something..

[Rennie]

Fucking hell, 'georgewbushsupporter', i can't believe you're saying that it's ok for the palestinians to get fucked over just because 'god' gave them the land in the bible. If he gave them the land, why doesn't he smite all the Palestinians then and give the land back to the Israelis? Oh wait, maybe God had a hand in getting Ariel Sharon another term in power (a man who admits he went through refugee camps and killed thousands of people in the 1980's)

Surely God is a cunt?

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I thought that the Old Testament already proved that?

[Rennie]

Well, yes. And i wanted to wind up the God Squad.

[ambigous]

[s]Rennie wrote on 14:41, 1st Mar 2003:
Well, yes. And i wanted to wind up the God Squad.


Personally I'm not too bothered. Try harder next time..

[Oddball]

[s]Rennie wrote on 14:41, 1st Mar 2003:
Well, yes. And i wanted to wind up the God Squad.


How very mature of you

[Rennie]

I don't really feel that the God Squad need winding up. My feelings on hte subject is that the God Squadders, although leading moral lives if they keep it to themselves, it can be very fucking annoying having Mrs Ross coming at you with a load of shite. But, this is off the point, and God is a cunt.

And, ambiguous, at least it bothered you slightly - enough to post anyway

[Oddball]

[s]Rennie wrote on 15:59, 1st Mar 2003:
I don't really feel that the God Squad need winding up. My feelings on hte subject is that the God Squadders, although leading moral lives if they keep it to themselves, it can be very fucking annoying having Mrs Ross coming at you with a load of shite. But, this is off the point, and God is a cunt.

And, ambiguous, at least it bothered you slightly - enough to post anyway



Having Mrs Ross come up to you with her pamphlets is all part of the St Andrews experience. Deep down we wouldn't want it any other way.

[Rennie]

[s]Oddball wrote on 16:16, 1st Mar 2003:
[s]Rennie wrote on 15:59, 1st Mar 2003:[i]
I don't really feel that the God Squad need winding up. My feelings on hte subject is that the God Squadders, although leading moral lives if they keep it to themselves, it can be very fucking annoying having Mrs Ross coming at you with a load of shite. But, this is off the point, and God is a cunt.

And, ambiguous, at least it bothered you slightly - enough to post anyway



Having Mrs Ross come up to you with her pamphlets is all part of the St Andrews experience. Deep down we wouldn't want it any other way.
[/i]

Hmm, i would want her not there preferably.