War With Iraq

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Outside of America Tony Blair seems to be the only person in the world that wants to go to war with Iraq, shame he's running the country and that the Prime Minister happens to have the power to go to war without asking parliment (if I recall correctly). So bit of a worry, eh? Especially as our armed forces suck.

[Phina]

In what way do our Armed Forces 'suck'? And if our armed forces suck I dread to think what every other countrys armed forces do- (suck harder/longer?!!) as ours is widely known and shown to be the best in the world (alongside the Americans and the Israeli's (yes really)) both in technology and in training.

As for Bush and Blair's judgement regarding Iraq, well that is another factor entirely. The circumstances in which they choose to send their machines of war into are what will make or break the West and their chance of victory- but my point is that the actual 'machine' is well oiled and state of the art can gear up for a conflict pretty darn quick.

[Zombie Sheep]

I would support a war on Iraq. I admit that I am not sure that I would be able to argue my reasons to a satisfactory conclusion. Basically, the leader of Iraq appears to be unstable and capable of actions that will have drastic consequences for the world. It may be argued that it will never happen. But it has happened before, so who can say it will never happen again. But like I said, I'm not sure that I can entirely justify my position.

[Al]

"Basically, the leader of Iraq appears to be unstable and capable of actions that will have drastic consequences for the world."

True. But you could replace the word Iraq with the US and the sentence would still be equally valid.

[hr]It all depends what you mean by.....

[Scunthorpe]

Our army is excellent at small unit tactics but does not have the capacity to sustain a prolongued war. As to the grey issues that occur with regard to various national leaders, nonetheless we have to make a stand one way or the other.

[hr]You see! The British can be defeated! We have caught them with their pants up!

[Phina]

[s]Al wrote on 23:36, 30th Aug 2002:
"Basically, the leader of the US appears to be unstable and capable of actions that will have drastic consequences for the world."


Not quite the same thing though is it? Whilst we might not like Bush I think we can all accept that he does not have the desire to obliterate the rest of the world, and certainly not his own people... which is something which Mr Hussein has shown he's quite willing to do...

I would support a war on Iraq. But in a more sensitive way than it is being managed now. I think that sitting and letting Sadam Hussien simmer behind the border whilst we all put our heads in the sand is hardly a remedy for success- which seems to be what those opposing the war would suggest.

[The_Farwall]

[s]Phina wrote on 00:07, 31rd Aug 2002:
" "Basically, the leader of the US appears to be unstable and capable of actions that will have drastic consequences for the world."


[s]Not quite the same thing though is it?[/s]"

How is it not? So far in Bush's term of office he has had one major test to deal with, the September 11th terrorist attack. He's dealt with this by going to war, and devestating the lives of civilians in, the country US intelligence (the same US intelligence that had no inkling of the original WTC attacks before they happened) believed the terrorist organisation to be based in.

The US won a comprehensive victory. Over afganistan. Al Quaeda (or however it's spelled), on the other hand, is still active in several countries around the world and it's millionaire benefactor and figure head is still at large. Yay Dubya!

And now war in Afganistan has died down, what does he do? Begin plans to invade Iraq. Now, there are very few Western leaders that are happy or comfortable with Sadam Hussain's regime in Iraq. It has been widely recognised as a bad thing for a good few years hence to large number of sanctions and trade embargos that are crippling it economically. But at any time in the last ten years, has a past US President said 'Hey, lets bomb Iraq!'? No. Has any British Primeminister? No. Has any other Western leader? Or anyone in the UN? Or anyone else with the power to do so, but the good sense to not? NO!

Then along comes Dubya, get's through his first crisis, settles down to assess the aftermath and decides what? "Hey! Lets BOMB IRAQ!!!"

[hr]
"As you pick up the toothbrush a tree outside the window collapses.
There is no causal relationship between these two events."

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Oh, come now. The whole war with Iraq is very hypocritical of the West - let's not forget that not too long before the war the West had no problem encouraging Saddam to attack Iran and do whatever he wanted to the Kurds.

[monkeymadness]

[s]Scunthorpe wrote on 00:02, 31rd Aug 2002:
Our army is excellent at small unit tactics but does not have the capacity to sustain a prolongued war.


I'd disagree. I think Britain does have the capacity to sustain a prolonged war on a small scale. As I think Northern Ireland demonstrates. I think it would depend on what situation Britain was going to be involved. For instance Britain could sustain almost indefinetly it's offensive support in Afghanistan - small groups of Marines/Paras + AWACS + VC10 refuellers. So in that sense a prolonged war would be possible. Though a larger war, such as on the gulf war level could not be prolonged for years if large armoured regiments were required.

[underworlddreams]

And further to monkeymadness' comments, I would also point out that the reason why the UK would be perfectly fine in a prolonged war is the same reason why it has not been invaded since 1066 - the navy. We are an island, with a powerful navy (and airforce since last century) meaning that we could most certainly hold our own. I'm no expert, but sea and air are also battle 'fields' in war these days, aren't they?

[hr]Discourage in-breeding - ban country music!

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I don't think that our navy will help too much when Iraw is pretty much landlocked - there are limits to what naval bombardment can do...

The real question is not - could we sustain a war (because Tony could raise taxes etc to pay for it) but whether we would want to because as I just mentioned there are costs to be paid and as Tony Blair (and a few people here) are the only people interested in the war in the first place I imagine that opposition will be strong because in many ways the war is unjustifiable.

Just try and justify it.

[underworlddreams]

I'm not going to try, simply because I wouldn't want to.

[hr]Discourage in-breeding - ban country music!

[Al]

"It has not been invaded since 1066.." -the British Isles have been invaded many times since 1066. They just have not been conquered since 1066. That's leaving aside the obvious point that it was England that was invaded in 1066 and not the UK (which wouldn't exist for another 641 years).

[hr]It all depends what you mean by.....

[Phina]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 21:33, 31rd Aug 2002:[/s]

Just try and justify it.


Perhaps I am being blonde but I simply do not understand what it is about the regime in Iraq that makes you believe it should continue. And continue it shall if nothing is done- which is the action you seem to advocate.

Yes, I am no fan of the Wests hypocrisy in the past- however we need to deal with the present- and that concerns a very pressing threat to world saftey. Iraq is stockpiling weapons of every cocievable sort. Now please do tell me Prophet Tenebrae what you believe this has been done for? I personally doubt that they are just for an interesting static display... maybe you disagree.

The Iraqi government has shown in its history that it is not a responsible possesor of these weapons- certainly not for self-defence... it has shown itself to be an aggressive country with its invasions of Kuwait and Iran.

There are positive outcomes to Bush's aggressive sounding talk on this matter. Iraq is now making motions to coming back into the discussion on weapons inspections... something not achieved in the years of the softly-softly 'lets appease him' tack. If Iraq will not let us carry out inspections surely that would indicate that something pretty scary is going on?

Farwall- there is logic behind the attacks on Afghanistan and now the US proposal to bomb Iraq. The Iraqi regime supports al Qaeda (correct spelling)... if they haven't done so already, then it is likely that they are either a) harbouring our favourite billionaire (though I'm fairly sure he's happily in Africa by now) and b) going to supply this terrorist organisation with biological weapons. We've already seen the destruction and terror that the organisation has wrought
by using our own technology against us... you don't have to have a brilliant imagination to imagine the devastating consequences which will arise with biological weapons... when there is just so little we can do.

So perhaps taking the opinion that 'prevention is better than cure' isn't so ridiculous as you first made out? This is in effect what the UK and US are proposing to do. However it is at this point that I depart entirely from the US plan of "kill, kill, kill." Something has to be done, and eventually this might have to take the form of military action in order to get results... however the US needs to make clear what its objectives are and make it plain how it intends to achieve them. The British government seems to be taking the tack that I agree with in the form of trying diplomatic talks first... but in many ways you need to 'talk tough' to get anywhere with rogue nations. We also need to address how not to alienate the other middle-eastern countries for this is in no way an attack on them. Perhaps we could start with giving Bush a semester in ME1001 'Middle East Studies'?

[monkeymadness]

[s]Prophet Tenebrae wrote on 21:33, 31rd Aug 2002:
I don't think that our navy will help too much when Iraw is pretty much landlocked - there are limits to what naval bombardment can do...



I presume you meant Iraq. Actually there is plenty that the Navy could do, as Iraq is not completely lacklocked.

1) RN aircraft carriers based in the Persian Gulf would provide figher support in the guise of sea harriers.

2) Swiftsure class nuclear submarines could provide highly accurate tomahawk cruise missile attacks.

Not to mention support that destroyers could give to a sea-based invasion of Southern Iraq...oh yeah and assault ships.

[immunodiffusion]

[s]Phina wrote on 01:01, 1st Sep 2002:
Iraq is stockpiling weapons of every cocievable sort.

Yes, Iraq is stockpiling weapons. So too is Britain. So too is the US. Every country of the world has a large weapons stock. Whilst I agree that having a large weapons stock is a bad thing, surely the US using their large weapons stock is not going to help. As long as the West bombs Iraq, Iraq is going to fight back. You can't fight fire with fire. The best way of preventing Iraq from blowing up the world would be for the US and Britain to back off and stop bombing Iraq. If the US believes that weapons are not the answer to the world's conflicts, why doesn't the US decommission all its weapons and army? They are asking Iraq to do this, surely the best way of persuading them this is a good idea is to set a good example themselves. Total unilateral disarmament is the only answer.

[The_Farwall]

You see, that's the thing that's bugging me about it. I'm beginning to recognise that perhaps it is going to be a necessary evil but just the morals of the logic behind invading Iraq are, on a very basic level, dodgy to say the least.
Iraq is stock piling weapons, they might attack us with them so what should we do? Attack Iraq. You see what I mean? It makes us just as bad as them (or, more precisely, him). I know that originally the west was thinking that Sadam was planning on using his weapons for expansionist purposes and the west planned on using ours for defence agaist him. However, after these months of the US making it's intentions to attack Iraq very public, Sadam now has just as much justification as the west the use his weapons in self defence.
If we turn the camera around and put Iraq in the place of the US and vice versa the picture, at this point, would still make perfect sense.

[hr]"As you pick up the toothbrush a tree outside the window collapses.
There is no causal relationship between these two events."

[Jayme]

I have my own opinions on what should be done to deal with/contain/combat Hussien, and what the us/western nations policies vis-a-vis al-Qaeda/bin Laden/Afganistan/countries that harbor or support terrorists should be, but rather than put my ideas out there i thought I would give you all a few things to consider.

First in relation to Iraq, I feel pretty confident in saying that no one on this board supports the policies or the legitamacy of the current Iraqi regime. The opinion poll on the left suggests that none of you are touting the man's leadership abilities (which just as a side note are probably pretty good since he is leading his own country--same will all of the figures up there). And regardless of whether you like George W. Bush, a war against Iraq is not simply finishing up the first Bush's business, the situation in the Middle East is far to complex and has changed (and remained stagnit in some ways) over the years to make another go at Iraq a completely different ballgame. Despite this I would not discount the President's personal williness to possibly settle his father's score. Over and over again Saddam has been accused a violence against his own people and surrounding nations. He is labeled by most onlookers as a regional destabilizer with unknown weapons capabilities, as well as an unknown will to use them against anyone and everyone. He is a dictator. he continually violates international agreements. He is likely developing weapons of mass destructions and may even posess short-range theatre weapons to act as a delievery system. Any incursion he makes outside of Iraqi territory threatens the stability of the regions vast oil supply which is particulaly vital to Europe, who i believe imports aprox. 60% of their oil supply from the Middle East, while the US relies on the area for only about 25% and could easily survive without it. So far eliminating Saddam and promoting democracy looks pretty good, but for just a second try to think of him as a regional stabilizer and not a destabilizer. Iraq is not a Homogenious Country, three ethno-religios groups divide the population nearly equally--The Sunni and Shi'ate Muslims and The Kurds. The strong centralized government has kept these groups living together and prevented them from tearing the country into thirds. It is unlikely that a weakened, central government (ie a democracy) would have the power to keep such contingient forces together. Each group has the ability to destabilize the surrounding countries, particularly Iran to the east, Saudi Arabia to the west and most troubling for western nations, the Kurds pose an incredibly destabilizing threat to Turkey in the North (our closest ally to the region). The effect that these groups could have on the surrounding countries may also interupt oil-flow from the region. There is also the problem of a power vaccum and who will be able to fill it. If Saddam is forced from power without forcing all of those around him out as well then it is possible and likely that someone younger and in better health and possibly far more tyranical will replace him. Both of his sons could be considered candidates and of them one could also be labeled a homocidal maniac, he has been none to walk into clubs in bagdad and open up fire, killing many people. His other son is the current leader of the Republican Guard and is a the most likely successor to his father in case of Saddam's death. If the power structure is wiped out who in the country or outside has the ability to rule. There are no populous exile groups, in fact until last week when the Iraqi Embassy in Germany was seiged there had been almost no inklings that there was opposition from iraqis themselves. Moreover who is to say that a government imposed by western states will have anymore authority than the one in afganistan is recieving. Part of democracy is locke's theory of the consent of the governed, it will make or break the power of a government. Finally, and I will make this short, there is the issue of alternative solutions to the iraqi problem, such as sanctions (smart sanctions?) and the lifting of sanctions. The role of Russia must be considered as she may be able to play a crucial role as a arbitrator (oh my god we might have to trust russia and the cold war has only been over from 13 years). There is the issue of attack points if we do go to war, Kuwait will remain and ally and a staging point, but Saudi Arabia will not, and Turkey is still up in the air. But now thanks to some nifty NATO dealings we may have options with Bulgaria and Romania (look at a map). And oil and natural gas reserves in Azerbijan are becoming more and more promising every day. Then again Central Asia might turn into another middle east...Extremist Islamic groups, oil, great divide between rich and poor, drugs, all too recent colonial past under the USSR...Hmmm sounds like the place I want to be.

Ok enough ramble about iraq, on to a closely related subject the War on Terror. And really I have only one question to pose here. Has anyone considered that my keeping bin Laden at large, and continuing to uncover terrorist cells that the War can go on indefinately? If so this means that is can (and probably will) be used in an attack on Iraq. In our continued relations with both the middle east, central asia, pakistan/india, china, n. Korea/s. Korea, SouthEast Asia, North Africa and East Africa. Not to mention US-European Relations, questions about the expansion of NATO, international definitions of terrorism, what to do with Russia...OH wait could it be the war on terrorism has the ability to define and redefine the entire scope of international politics for a long time to come. Hmm if I were a powerful world leader who wanted to continue to keep me finger on those relationships and also garner public support at home for my overseas military actions I might like to keep bin Laden at large as well.

Well it was pretty long-winded but I hope that it gave you a little something to chew on as well.

[monkeymadness]

Are there actually any reasons to go to war with Iraq?

Saddam Hussein is a dictator who oppresses his people. But so what? There are many others who have done that round the world, many less powerful than SH and the US has done nothing. If it uses this as a reason to usurp SH then it sets a precedent.

He may be developing WMD. Well, I'd hardly say he'd be the first, and he has used gas against the Iranians but he was at war with them, and the US should remember it has been known to use WMD - and in a situation where the USA was much less directly threatened than Iraq. Plus is there any evidence that Hussein would use WMD against other countries preemtively? If so than this should be presented to the public before war commences. Yes, there is the arguement about protecting your intelligence sources but when Donald Rumsfeld et al need to realise that simply saying 'yes we know' is not justification.

Also, I dislike intensely the rampage the US is on. Whether or not it can defeat Iraq by itself is no excuse for trampling all over its allies - ones which stood by and helping in Afghanistan.

And, whilst the US may want to look at each internation situation by itself I dont think you can. By sticking two fingers up at the environment summit, by refusing to talk seriously about a Palestinian homeland and by ignoring what Europe is saying about Iraq what kind of message does GWB think he is sending to groups who dislike the USA (such as terroist groups)? These people are not afraid to die and are more likely to be enraged by a USA which flounts international opinion than one which attempts to engage in dialogue. I mean the environment summit is fairly meaningless - so would it really harm the US to engage in it more decisively?

Just because you can doesnt mean you should.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Phina: I'm no fan of the regime in Iraq but the real question is whether going to war with Iraq will actually achieve anything more than slaughtering more ill-trained peasants that don't know any better. Not to mention the fact that attacking him is pretty much guarnteeing that he is going to use any and all of the weapons of mass destruction that he has accumulated.

It simply seems that the supposedly practical reasons that the US offers for the war are invalid - and hence it would be foolish to go to war for those reasons.