Post a Reply
Back to the Forum
Blog from Iraq, just in case anyone is interested: dear_raed.blogspot.com/
Posted: 01:27 Mar 20 2003
Between Iraq and a hard place
Tomorrow, at 1am GMT, George Bush, “president” of the United States, will be broadcasting to the State of Texas and the nation, and will almost certainly be laying down a final ultimatum to Saddam Hussain. His choices are now to go into exile or be invaded. Upto 300,000 British and American troops are amassed on the Iraqi border, and it is almost certain they will invade within days. United Nations weapons inspectors are being withdrawn, as has the Security Council Resolution authorising war after UN Security Council permanent member France determined it would use its veto against it. So the invasion will lack any UN authority, and will breech international law and the UN Charter.
Britain drew out Iraq’s borders in the early 1920s, provided them with a king the French threw out of Syria (elected in a Saddam-worthy plebiscite with a majority of 96 per cent), and reinforced his rule by having the RAF fly regular sorties from their airbase at Habbaniya, outside Baghdad, from where they sent lumbering Handley-Page biplanes to bomb “recalcitrant Arabs”. Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for War and Air, the future Colonial Secretary, said that, “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.” In the end we didn’t use gas; not because we lacked the will, but because we lacked the technology. Being uncivilised enough to be late in paying your taxes was grounds enough for an attack; it was the first systematic bombing of civilians in history. Ever economically prudent, the Empire charged the Iraqis for the bombs used against them.
A Whitehouse aid in the Regan administration said of Saddam: “He’s a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.” Donald Rumsfeld, now crusading US Secretary of Defence, visited Iraq in 1983 to discuss military and economic support for Saddam’s regime, at the same time as he was launching gas attacks on Iranian soldiers. The US and Britain sold Saddam millions of dollars worth of weapons, and helpfully gave him credit to pay for them with. Saddam had no problems with using poison gas; the attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988 was the “most notorious and the deadliest single gas attack against the Kurds,” killing 5,000 civilians. Shortly after that, Britain approved an extra £340 million of credit, and the Americans lent him another billion dollars. The US Senate wanted to condemn the attack, but was blocked by the Republican White House, under Ronald Regan. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, he visited the US Ambassador and was told: “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts.”
In his State of the Union address in 2003, President George Bush condemned the “torture chambers of Iraq”, while apparently suffering a temporary state of amnesia about the torture chambers of regional allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
We are told President Saddam presents a threat to the entire world of such gravity it justified an illegal pre-emptive attack on his country (not that Blair has actually released the Attorney General’s advice about this, but Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, has made the position quite clear), yet neither the US or Britain has managed to produce one iota of evidence to this effect. And if Saddam actually has weapons of mass destruction, what would make him more likely to use them than a military assault on his country? Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis may die, yet no firm plans for keeping the unstable country Britain invented eighty years ago together has come to light; in fact, until the Ankara Parliament vetoed it, the US was perfectly willing to allow 40,000 Turkish troops, independent of US command, to have a free hand against the Kurds of Northern Iraq, which has had de-facto independence from Saddam since 1991.
The moral case for war is strong, says Blair; inaction would be worse than action. In 1991, President George Bush Senior encouraged a rebellion against Saddam. But an uprising by Marsh Arabs and Shia Muslims was brutally repressed by Saddam’s helicopter gunships, because the US declined to intervene; it had been decided it would be better for US interests in the Middle East if they maintained troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Now we’re asked to trust that our governments have the best interests of the Iraqis at heart as they prepare to bomb the hell out of them.
While Britain was bombing the recalcitrant Arabs in the 1920s, Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, the Secretary of State for War, said: “If the Arab population realised that the peaceful control of Mesopotamia ultimately depends on our intention of bombing women and children, I’m very doubtful if we shall gain that acquiescence of the fathers and husbands of Mesopotamia to which the Secretary of State for the Colonies looks forward.”
Who says we never learn from history …
(Edited by Byron 18/03/2003 00:26)
Britain drew out Iraq’s borders in the early 1920s, provided them with a king the French threw out of Syria (elected in a Saddam-worthy plebiscite with a majority of 96 per cent), and reinforced his rule by having the RAF fly regular sorties from their airbase at Habbaniya, outside Baghdad, from where they sent lumbering Handley-Page biplanes to bomb “recalcitrant Arabs”. Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for War and Air, the future Colonial Secretary, said that, “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.” In the end we didn’t use gas; not because we lacked the will, but because we lacked the technology. Being uncivilised enough to be late in paying your taxes was grounds enough for an attack; it was the first systematic bombing of civilians in history. Ever economically prudent, the Empire charged the Iraqis for the bombs used against them.
A Whitehouse aid in the Regan administration said of Saddam: “He’s a son-of-a-bitch, but he’s our son-of-a-bitch.” Donald Rumsfeld, now crusading US Secretary of Defence, visited Iraq in 1983 to discuss military and economic support for Saddam’s regime, at the same time as he was launching gas attacks on Iranian soldiers. The US and Britain sold Saddam millions of dollars worth of weapons, and helpfully gave him credit to pay for them with. Saddam had no problems with using poison gas; the attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja in 1988 was the “most notorious and the deadliest single gas attack against the Kurds,” killing 5,000 civilians. Shortly after that, Britain approved an extra £340 million of credit, and the Americans lent him another billion dollars. The US Senate wanted to condemn the attack, but was blocked by the Republican White House, under Ronald Regan. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, he visited the US Ambassador and was told: “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts.”
In his State of the Union address in 2003, President George Bush condemned the “torture chambers of Iraq”, while apparently suffering a temporary state of amnesia about the torture chambers of regional allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
We are told President Saddam presents a threat to the entire world of such gravity it justified an illegal pre-emptive attack on his country (not that Blair has actually released the Attorney General’s advice about this, but Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General, has made the position quite clear), yet neither the US or Britain has managed to produce one iota of evidence to this effect. And if Saddam actually has weapons of mass destruction, what would make him more likely to use them than a military assault on his country? Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis may die, yet no firm plans for keeping the unstable country Britain invented eighty years ago together has come to light; in fact, until the Ankara Parliament vetoed it, the US was perfectly willing to allow 40,000 Turkish troops, independent of US command, to have a free hand against the Kurds of Northern Iraq, which has had de-facto independence from Saddam since 1991.
The moral case for war is strong, says Blair; inaction would be worse than action. In 1991, President George Bush Senior encouraged a rebellion against Saddam. But an uprising by Marsh Arabs and Shia Muslims was brutally repressed by Saddam’s helicopter gunships, because the US declined to intervene; it had been decided it would be better for US interests in the Middle East if they maintained troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Now we’re asked to trust that our governments have the best interests of the Iraqis at heart as they prepare to bomb the hell out of them.
While Britain was bombing the recalcitrant Arabs in the 1920s, Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, the Secretary of State for War, said: “If the Arab population realised that the peaceful control of Mesopotamia ultimately depends on our intention of bombing women and children, I’m very doubtful if we shall gain that acquiescence of the fathers and husbands of Mesopotamia to which the Secretary of State for the Colonies looks forward.”
Who says we never learn from history …
(Edited by Byron 18/03/2003 00:26)
Posted: 01:27 Mar 20 2003
And so it begins...
Wonder how the overall tone of press coverage is going to change from today?
Wonder how the overall tone of press coverage is going to change from today?
Posted: 09:05 Mar 20 2003 
Well, judging from what was shown on the news last night, this war is going to be one big media event.
by Sydney
And so it begins...
Wonder how the overall tone of press coverage is going to change from today?
Posted: 09:45 Mar 20 2003
Everyone seems to complaining that this war is based upon 'supposed' WMD's, it isn't, it's based on the fact thbat america still has the reciepts for the nukes they sold to Iraq.
The far bigger lie is that Iraq could use nuclear weapons against us, he can't, to launch and target an I.C.B.M you need an orbital sattelite and we know for a fact Saddam doesn't have one of those.
The far bigger lie is that Iraq could use nuclear weapons against us, he can't, to launch and target an I.C.B.M you need an orbital sattelite and we know for a fact Saddam doesn't have one of those.
Posted: 09:46 Mar 20 2003 Everyone?
by Havoc
Everyone seems to complaining that this war is based upon 'supposed' WMD's, it isn't, it's based on the fact thbat america still has the reciepts for the nukes they sold to Iraq.
Posted: 12:36 Mar 20 2003 That is interesting..
by Stoo
Blog from Iraq, just in case anyone is interested: dear_raed.blogspot.com
(Edited by Staff 20/03/2003 17:33)
Posted: 15:15 Mar 20 2003 
I have to admit that I find it highly ironic and distasteful that the US's 'moral' war against terrorism and hostile states has escalated on the 10th anniversary of the terrorist bomb in Warrington, planted by a group who were supported and funded in part by the US government.
So much for targetting terrorists and all those who support them.
So much for targetting terrorists and all those who support them.
Posted: 18:50 Mar 20 2003 
Not sure what news channel was on when I got home tonight, but it appeared to be a bomb and cloud of smoke waiting and watching contest
by Whistler
(quotes)Well, judging from what was shown on the news last night, this war is going to be one big media event.
The reporters were almost like children waiting for fireworks to catapult into the sky - "oooh here goes another one!!" Kinda sad tv news if you ask me 
(Edited by Pegasus 21/03/2003 02:20)
Posted: 02:18 Mar 21 2003 
The following link will reinforce any doubts you may have about our American comrades in this conflict. Promise. 
Click here.
NB: If, for some bizarre reason, you actually read the article, prepare to be scared. Very scared.
Click here.
NB: If, for some bizarre reason, you actually read the article, prepare to be scared. Very scared.
Posted: 10:56 Mar 21 2003
Hey, it could have been worse, he could have changed his name to Megatron or Starscream or some other Decepticon
Posted: 10:58 Mar 21 2003 
I live in Warrington. I know what a bomb going off feels like. I was there that day. My family serve in the forces, my cousin was killed in a bomb blast in Bally Kelly in 1982. I know what a bomb can do.
I don't support this war one way or the other, I can see both sides of the argument.
However, I don't think the 'peaceful' demonstrations are useful. Our troops, our families need support - lack of support is likely to result in low morale.... low morale can result in dejection and unwillingness to do the job properly - civilians can be more at risk in Iraq if mistakes are made or the troops don't care about what they are doing.
They should be caring about what they are doing and the innocent people who will inevitably present themselves during conflict.
I don't support this war one way or the other, I can see both sides of the argument.
However, I don't think the 'peaceful' demonstrations are useful. Our troops, our families need support - lack of support is likely to result in low morale.... low morale can result in dejection and unwillingness to do the job properly - civilians can be more at risk in Iraq if mistakes are made or the troops don't care about what they are doing.
They should be caring about what they are doing and the innocent people who will inevitably present themselves during conflict.
Posted: 11:11 Mar 21 2003 Firstly its great to see you fishie it's been a long time
by fishie
However, I don't think the 'peaceful' demonstrations are useful. Our troops, our families need support - lack of support is likely to result in low morale.... low morale can result in dejection and unwillingness to do the job properly - civilians can be more at risk in Iraq if mistakes are made or the troops don't care about what they are doing.
They should be caring about what they are doing and the innocent people who will inevitably present themselves during conflict.
Ok now to what you have said , I agree that the troops and familys need the support now more than at anytime, I too am from a very army background and grew up in the times where my dad would have to check under his car everytime we used it for bombs, but in one way I feel and esp after hearing Tony Blairs broadcast last night that that's exactly what he is bargining on, he knows that a huge amount of the British public don't agree to this conflict but has gone ahead with it and he even mentioned so he now told us that "I know that this course of action has produced deep divisions of opinion in our country but I know also the British people will now be united in sending our armed forces our thoughts and prayers - they are the finest in the world and their families and all of Britain can have great pride in them"
I'm still not sure wether I agree with waht is happening or not , but I know that there is nothing I can do to stop it and just hope and pray that the loss of life is mimimal
Posted: 11:43 Mar 21 2003
Sange: that's what I meant I think. Offering support to the troops is different from endorsing the war I think. After all, they are just doing their job. No-one should be villified for just doing their job... only when they get it wrong. Now if you were to pose the same question about the politicians... it'd be a different ball game altogether.
oh and have posted in my thread about being back
oh and have posted in my thread about being back
Posted: 11:51 Mar 21 2003 
I'm opposed to supporting British troops in Iraq as I feel that the Government is attempting (and succeeding) to blackmail the good British people's consciences into supporting something they otherwise would not. My support of the troops in Iraq basically involves me calling for them to be withdrawn - my support was evident when I took to the streets before the war to attempt to sway government opinion and stop them from being deployed in the first place. Every British soldier that dies in this conflict will have been sent to their death by Tony Blair for an unjust, imoral and illegal war. Let's place the blame where it lies, they are doing their job, but their job is being dictated by government liars who are twice exploiting them. One one front they are being used in a pre-emptive war of agression against an autonomous nation state, on the other they are being used to rally support for the war that no one wanted.
I have every sympathy with British troops in Iraq, I want them out of there - and that is my support.
I have every sympathy with British troops in Iraq, I want them out of there - and that is my support.
Posted: 12:19 Mar 21 2003
I've been hearing a lot about the protests that are happening all over the country at the moment and as much as I wouldn't get involved, some of the truely peaceful protests are genius for example the people who are stationed at all the traffic lights along the main road and just keep pressing teh buttons for the lights and crossing backwards and forwards over the road. Its disruptive, but it isn't illegal and its getting the point across. Whish is fine. Everyone has a right to protest in that sort of way.
What I do find truely wrong is the so-called peace protestors who are so anti-agression and violence that they think its okay to pelt police officers with glass bottles and stones. And it always is in these sorts of things it is those hypocritical protesters who get the most media coverage, both taking attention away from the peaceful protests that should be getting the attention and giving people of an anti-war stance a bad name
What I do find truely wrong is the so-called peace protestors who are so anti-agression and violence that they think its okay to pelt police officers with glass bottles and stones. And it always is in these sorts of things it is those hypocritical protesters who get the most media coverage, both taking attention away from the peaceful protests that should be getting the attention and giving people of an anti-war stance a bad name
Posted: 13:45 Mar 21 2003 
Not my intention to play down various Israeli governments' crimes over the years, not at all. I just think it's important to bear in mind quite how bad President Saddam's regime is when making comparisons. Dan's quite right about the dangers of historical point scoring (which hasn't emerged here of course), something our own leaders could do well to bear in mind. Crass attacks on France because they supposedly owe us some sort of "debt" from past wars spings readily to mind!
by Jayjay
And the number of Palestinians killed and homes destroyed when Israel was first born, covered in blood? Or the various wars not only to keep Israel in existance but also to expand? Or how about Israel's (under the command of Sheron at the time) actions in Lebanon? Or the actions Mossad, possibly the most feared organization in the world?
Yes, Saddam has killed and tortured his way through life. He is not a man to sympathise with or admire. But let's not play down the damage done by Israel. In lives destroyed, homes levelled, human rights ignored and that no other single factor has destabilised the region more.
Getting back to Iraq ...
In terms of "supporting" our troops, the use of the word in the press and by politcians is heavily and unfairly loaded. Emotional blackmail is a decidedly dirty tactic, the last refuge of a lost argument. Saying people should "support" our troops implies that the anti-war movement wishes them harm, that it is at best callous and at worst traitorous. This is utter bunk. A frequent comment from people opposing the war is their concern for all people involved, both British troops, Iraqi conscrips and Iraqi civilians: most oppose the war so voluably precisely because of their belief that Britain shouldn't be involved in the way it is, and their concern for how it will damage both this country and Iraq -- which is as far as triatorous as you can get. Being anti-war isn't wish defeat on soldiers, it's wishing they had never been sent in.
But it needs to be remembered that all our troops joined up knowingly and voulentarily. I empthatically don't want harm to come to them, but they knew what they were getting into when they joined up, while the Iraqi civilians and conscripts never had this option. The troops' safety was one of the many reasons I opposed the war: I believe we need a strong military, but it should only be used as an absolute last resort.
I do not "support" our troops' deployment in any way whatsoever -- my belief that they shouldn't be there hasn't changed. But what is the least worst option now they are deployed? I believe it's as quick and swift a victory as possible: if they're withdrawn now, it will bolster the Ba'ath Party's tyranny immesurably, and turn President Saddam into a hero for many. So while I believe the military should never have been depolyed, pulling them out now isn't really an viable option.
Which puts me in the ridiculously paradoxical position of vehemently opposing a war while wishing swift victory to the side that unleashed it!
(Edited by Byron 21/03/2003 15:36)
Posted: 15:30 Mar 21 2003
Firstly, I agree with killer and Byron regarding the support of our armed forces personel. I get deeply angry when teh press and certain politicians say that to oppose the war to be against our troops. I want to see every single one of them returned home safely. I don't see how that is in contrast to my continued opposition to the war. This is just a sick ploy to emotionally black mail the people of our country into supporting an act (and the politicians responsible) that is devoid of legality, morality and sanity. I support our armed forces. I oppose the war.
Which is where I disagree with Byron. What is at risk by our actions in Iraq is far worse than potentially reinforcing the Ba'ath party's power. The damage to the UN, to the future of the people of Iraq, and to east-west relations are far more dangerous than any appearance of temporary appeasement of Saddam Hussein. I continue my opposition and want to see our troops withdrawn now. We can return to deal with President Hussein, if need be, but we have to do it properly, with the right methods and the right desired outcome. We have neither right now.
Finally, with regards to the protests. I've been on plenty of marchs and been on the wrong end of the police. I've seen the tactics they use - forcing people into spaces too small to hold them, charhing protestors on horse back. I've even seen them start fighting. And I've seen the press reporting of 'violent elements' and 'awful conditions the police put up with' when the opposite was true. I'm not saying there weren't elements in recent protests looking for a fight, but I'll reserve judgement considering what I have seen in the past.
Which is where I disagree with Byron. What is at risk by our actions in Iraq is far worse than potentially reinforcing the Ba'ath party's power. The damage to the UN, to the future of the people of Iraq, and to east-west relations are far more dangerous than any appearance of temporary appeasement of Saddam Hussein. I continue my opposition and want to see our troops withdrawn now. We can return to deal with President Hussein, if need be, but we have to do it properly, with the right methods and the right desired outcome. We have neither right now.
Finally, with regards to the protests. I've been on plenty of marchs and been on the wrong end of the police. I've seen the tactics they use - forcing people into spaces too small to hold them, charhing protestors on horse back. I've even seen them start fighting. And I've seen the press reporting of 'violent elements' and 'awful conditions the police put up with' when the opposite was true. I'm not saying there weren't elements in recent protests looking for a fight, but I'll reserve judgement considering what I have seen in the past.
Posted: 15:46 Mar 21 2003
55 posts in and no-one has really put a case in favour of forcibly removing Saddam.
Military action in the Gulf at the start of the 90’s was endorsed by the UN (the phrase ‘all necessary means’ being the one that allows military force to be applied).
At the end of the Gulf War, the disarmament of Iraq was a part of the conditional ceasefire. This was supposed to have happened within weeks.
After years of inspections, during which time Saddam obfuscated, dodged, delayed and in any way possible avoided complying with the terms of the ceasefire and the further resolutions passed by the UN, he threw the inspectors out.
At that point in time, the inspectors had identified sizeable stockpiles of biological and chemical weaponry plus smaller numbers of medium range missiles.
Resolution 1441, passed unanimously by the UN security council deemed Iraq to be in material breach of all UN Resolutions since the Gulf War including the conditional ceasefire agreement and required immediate disarmament under penalty of ‘serious consequences’.
Whilst a second resolution would have been politically expedient, ByronÂ’s contention that the action breaches international law is certainly not as cut and dried as he might suggest.
The obvious question is ‘Why now?’ after 12 years. There is certainly some strength in the argument of the French and indeed of Hans Blix that inspections should be given more time.
IraqÂ’s statement to the UN in response to resolution 1441 stated that it had no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). IraqÂ’s contention is that, despite having spent 8 years obstructing inspectors, once they had left Iraq voluntarily destroyed all its weapons but kept no records of this process. It would be nice if the anti-war protesters in the West were as willing to subject Saddam to scepticism as they are Bush and Blair.
Blix has himself stated that it is not the job of the inspectors to catch Iraq out. Rather, it is the responsibility of Iraq to voluntarily disarm. The only times when Iraq has made any movement in that direction is under the direct threat of US force. Time and again, they have done the bare minimum to avoid reprisal after delaying for the maximum amount of time. He also agrees that Iraq has not complied with any of the UN resolutions.
There is no indication that this strategy is likely to change.
So ‘Why now?’ America’s view of the rest of the world has changed. It feels vulnerable to attack by terrorists now where before it did not. America is not used to feeling threatened and the US government sees its responsibility first and foremost not as the defence of the world but as the defence of the American people. It makes them deeply nervous to think about an openly aggressive and anti-American leader (no not Chirac, the other one) controlling the kind of substances (biological agents, Anthrax etc) which in the hands of terrorists could be used to devastating effect on the US Mainland.
This is the perceived threat, not a long range attack by Iraq directly.
There is also an expediency issue. Iraq has only, and grudgingly, complied at all with the UN because of the imminent threat of action by a US army assembled near its border at great expense. The army cannot sit there indefinitely, there is a window for practical action and Saddam knows it. Once the threat of attack dissipates, so will IraqÂ’s willingness to play the disarmament game sending all parties back to square one.
A second UN resolution would have been the equivalent of taking aim. It would have made real the threat in the clearest terms and given one last chance for Iraq to avoid invasion. The French promise to use the veto ‘no matter what’ a second resolution said made this last attempt to merely threaten force impossible and hastened the start of hostilities. The suggestion in some quarters that Chirac is a possible Nobel Peace Prize winner is laughable. The French and Russians have oil interests in Iraq too, only theirs are dependent on Saddam staying in power. The French position is the one that has ultimately damaged both the UN and Nato by refusing to accept the logic of UN resolutions and forcing America away from the table.
In the starkest terms, Saddam Hussein is a menace, to his people, his neighbours and potentially to the rest of the world. He has driven his population into poverty and ruled through torture and murder. As has already been pointed out, his decisions have led to the deaths of millions of people.
The moral argument for removing him from power is indisputable. No-one can reasonably argue that the Iraqi people will be worse off than they are under Saddam. No matter how cynical you may be about the personal motives of our leaders, the moral case is sound.
More than that, after 12 years of threatening much and achieving nothing, a statement is being made to other nations that there is a penalty to be paid. If tyrants stop for thought before pursuing ever more deadly arsenals, the world becomes a safer place.
The complication comes in the potential deaths caused by military action. Bush and Blair understand that this war will be scrutinised unlike any other. The anti-war movement has succeeded in ensuring that the politics of the situation demand minimum Iraqi casualties as well as minimum western casualties. The technology of the US army allows this to become a strategic, achievable objective.
The argument that other regimes are just as bad is irrelevant. Righting one wrong is not made any less morally defensible by the failure to right others. In any case it is disputable that there is any more morally culpable regime capable of being tackled in this manner at the moment.
I cannot understand the claims of anti-democratic behaviour. Anyone who listened to the recent debates in the House of Commons will know that all opinions were reflected. Ultimately, two thirds of MPs voted in favour of military action. Over half the ruling party voted for it. Of 91 government members, only three have resigned despite the traditional stance of the Labour party.
It is also worth reflecting that those who support military action do not have to take to the streets in order to get their opinions reflected, and those who do not have been able to. I see no evidence to suggest that position has been suppressed. If anything, the press has been determined to give it greater weight than it merited. “3 Ministers resign” makes a better story than “88 ministers don’t”.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that BritainÂ’s support of the US has bought some concessions that would otherwise not have been forthcoming, namely the explicit involvement of the UN in the reconstruction of Iraq, the safeguarding of Iraqi assets for the Iraqi people and the endorsement by Bush of a two party solution in Israel.
Military action in the Gulf at the start of the 90’s was endorsed by the UN (the phrase ‘all necessary means’ being the one that allows military force to be applied).
At the end of the Gulf War, the disarmament of Iraq was a part of the conditional ceasefire. This was supposed to have happened within weeks.
After years of inspections, during which time Saddam obfuscated, dodged, delayed and in any way possible avoided complying with the terms of the ceasefire and the further resolutions passed by the UN, he threw the inspectors out.
At that point in time, the inspectors had identified sizeable stockpiles of biological and chemical weaponry plus smaller numbers of medium range missiles.
Resolution 1441, passed unanimously by the UN security council deemed Iraq to be in material breach of all UN Resolutions since the Gulf War including the conditional ceasefire agreement and required immediate disarmament under penalty of ‘serious consequences’.
Whilst a second resolution would have been politically expedient, ByronÂ’s contention that the action breaches international law is certainly not as cut and dried as he might suggest.
The obvious question is ‘Why now?’ after 12 years. There is certainly some strength in the argument of the French and indeed of Hans Blix that inspections should be given more time.
IraqÂ’s statement to the UN in response to resolution 1441 stated that it had no Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). IraqÂ’s contention is that, despite having spent 8 years obstructing inspectors, once they had left Iraq voluntarily destroyed all its weapons but kept no records of this process. It would be nice if the anti-war protesters in the West were as willing to subject Saddam to scepticism as they are Bush and Blair.
Blix has himself stated that it is not the job of the inspectors to catch Iraq out. Rather, it is the responsibility of Iraq to voluntarily disarm. The only times when Iraq has made any movement in that direction is under the direct threat of US force. Time and again, they have done the bare minimum to avoid reprisal after delaying for the maximum amount of time. He also agrees that Iraq has not complied with any of the UN resolutions.
There is no indication that this strategy is likely to change.
So ‘Why now?’ America’s view of the rest of the world has changed. It feels vulnerable to attack by terrorists now where before it did not. America is not used to feeling threatened and the US government sees its responsibility first and foremost not as the defence of the world but as the defence of the American people. It makes them deeply nervous to think about an openly aggressive and anti-American leader (no not Chirac, the other one) controlling the kind of substances (biological agents, Anthrax etc) which in the hands of terrorists could be used to devastating effect on the US Mainland.
This is the perceived threat, not a long range attack by Iraq directly.
There is also an expediency issue. Iraq has only, and grudgingly, complied at all with the UN because of the imminent threat of action by a US army assembled near its border at great expense. The army cannot sit there indefinitely, there is a window for practical action and Saddam knows it. Once the threat of attack dissipates, so will IraqÂ’s willingness to play the disarmament game sending all parties back to square one.
A second UN resolution would have been the equivalent of taking aim. It would have made real the threat in the clearest terms and given one last chance for Iraq to avoid invasion. The French promise to use the veto ‘no matter what’ a second resolution said made this last attempt to merely threaten force impossible and hastened the start of hostilities. The suggestion in some quarters that Chirac is a possible Nobel Peace Prize winner is laughable. The French and Russians have oil interests in Iraq too, only theirs are dependent on Saddam staying in power. The French position is the one that has ultimately damaged both the UN and Nato by refusing to accept the logic of UN resolutions and forcing America away from the table.
In the starkest terms, Saddam Hussein is a menace, to his people, his neighbours and potentially to the rest of the world. He has driven his population into poverty and ruled through torture and murder. As has already been pointed out, his decisions have led to the deaths of millions of people.
The moral argument for removing him from power is indisputable. No-one can reasonably argue that the Iraqi people will be worse off than they are under Saddam. No matter how cynical you may be about the personal motives of our leaders, the moral case is sound.
More than that, after 12 years of threatening much and achieving nothing, a statement is being made to other nations that there is a penalty to be paid. If tyrants stop for thought before pursuing ever more deadly arsenals, the world becomes a safer place.
The complication comes in the potential deaths caused by military action. Bush and Blair understand that this war will be scrutinised unlike any other. The anti-war movement has succeeded in ensuring that the politics of the situation demand minimum Iraqi casualties as well as minimum western casualties. The technology of the US army allows this to become a strategic, achievable objective.
The argument that other regimes are just as bad is irrelevant. Righting one wrong is not made any less morally defensible by the failure to right others. In any case it is disputable that there is any more morally culpable regime capable of being tackled in this manner at the moment.
I cannot understand the claims of anti-democratic behaviour. Anyone who listened to the recent debates in the House of Commons will know that all opinions were reflected. Ultimately, two thirds of MPs voted in favour of military action. Over half the ruling party voted for it. Of 91 government members, only three have resigned despite the traditional stance of the Labour party.
It is also worth reflecting that those who support military action do not have to take to the streets in order to get their opinions reflected, and those who do not have been able to. I see no evidence to suggest that position has been suppressed. If anything, the press has been determined to give it greater weight than it merited. “3 Ministers resign” makes a better story than “88 ministers don’t”.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that BritainÂ’s support of the US has bought some concessions that would otherwise not have been forthcoming, namely the explicit involvement of the UN in the reconstruction of Iraq, the safeguarding of Iraqi assets for the Iraqi people and the endorsement by Bush of a two party solution in Israel.
Posted: 16:07 Mar 21 2003 The thing is, all the damage has already been done. All the appaling precedents have already been set. The UN's credibility is in tatters (by Britain and America's, not France and Russia's hands). East-West relations have been polorized. The world's superpower has decided it has the right to launch pre-emptive attacks whenever they see fit. You're perfectly right about how bad it is.
by Jayjay
Which is where I disagree with Byron. What is at risk by our actions in Iraq is far worse than potentially reinforcing the Ba'ath party's power. The damage to the UN, to the future of the people of Iraq, and to east-west relations are far more dangerous than any appearance of temporary appeasement of Saddam Hussein. I continue my opposition and want to see our troops withdrawn now. We can return to deal with President Hussein, if need be, but we have to do it properly, with the right methods and the right desired outcome. We have neither right now.
But how would withdrawing the troops now help?
President Saddam would have a momentous victory, and British and American troops would have to remain in Saudi Arabi and Kuwait: the resentment at our presence in the Middle East would countinue unabated, probably intensify. It would be far more calamitous than a "tempoary appeasement", and it would leave a devided and inherently unstable Middle East without anything whatsoever to show for it, with a dictator who could rightly boast he "defeated" the world's one superpower. Iraqi people would continue to suffer: anything could happen to their country, quite possibly even worse than the conflict now engulfing it. It would be an intractable mess with no way forwards.
But with Saddam removed from power, at least our troops can be removed from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and America will not have any excuse or need to prop up the vile House of Saud. Something can be salvaged from the chaous and devastation of a war: if we leave now, the damage will have been done in any case, the whole international sitation left in a dangerous state of flux far worse than the one it's currently in, and the Iraqi people will continue to suffer for years to come.
Posted: 16:09 Mar 21 2003
The only way troops will be removed is if public opinion is strong enough that politicians fear for their jobs. In fact, it would take a bit of a 'regime change' here in the west, which would be easier for us than the USA. Bush and Blair have staked too much in this war to pull out.
If this happens it would be a victory for democracy. IT would show to the people of the middle-east and muslims everywhere that the people of the west are not their enemies, just those who have led us. It won't completely undo the damage done, but it will abate it.
And the same goes for the UN. When politicians see that the route taken by Bush and Blair leads to the dole queue, being gung ho won't be so popular.
We can then address the Israel-Palestinian issue, follow the UN route for dealing with Iraq, continue the no fly zones over southern and northern Iraq. Withdrawal wouldn't be a victory for Saddam, it would be a victory for the people of the western democracies.
It's up to each and every one of us. We can either shrug our shoulders and let the powerful few run us like any other dictatorship, or we can stand up and be counted and demand the democracy our forefathers fought and died for. It's up to us.
If this happens it would be a victory for democracy. IT would show to the people of the middle-east and muslims everywhere that the people of the west are not their enemies, just those who have led us. It won't completely undo the damage done, but it will abate it.
And the same goes for the UN. When politicians see that the route taken by Bush and Blair leads to the dole queue, being gung ho won't be so popular.
We can then address the Israel-Palestinian issue, follow the UN route for dealing with Iraq, continue the no fly zones over southern and northern Iraq. Withdrawal wouldn't be a victory for Saddam, it would be a victory for the people of the western democracies.
It's up to each and every one of us. We can either shrug our shoulders and let the powerful few run us like any other dictatorship, or we can stand up and be counted and demand the democracy our forefathers fought and died for. It's up to us.
Posted: 16:38 Mar 21 2003