WAR IN IRAQ

[Guest madu]

I thought I'd put a political issue up for discussion. I personally am AGAINST war in Iraq and think it is all 100% fueled by money and oil. And have many *real* arguements supporting this, but will not go into that.

Just thought I'd ask your opinion.. :)

[Guest Gorskar]

I am also against the war, I think lots of innocent people will be injured or killed, and the net result will be saddam being replaced by someone not much better.

We still have no evidence of weapons of mass destrucion or links to terrorists. This war is Mr Bush's personal crusade (after the failure of his daddy to get any results in this region of the world)

The support he has drummed up in his own country is only a result of the fact that he made the right noises after sep-11, and some sort of phantom feeling that America should be doing some killing of someone nasty as a result of this tradgedy. As they are unable to catch the real terrorists then why not go after Mr Bush's pet hate Iraq. After all he's mean and nasty so he probably deserves it anyway, or at lesat thats how America is thinking I'd imagine.

[Guest SirGaz]

Personally I am for the war, but against the reasons why we are doing it. As already stated, the reasons why we are going are war are less than honerable in that there is no proof of weapons of mass destruction and no proof of links to terrorists. However, I do believe that Saddam is bad and has done some terrible things to the people of Iraq. He does need to be removed to bring better human rights to Iraq.

I don't believe in the theory about it being over oil or money. The last time we went to war it was due to Iraq invading Kuiwait and that threatened the world's oil supply, but Iraq has not done anying obvious this time.

Like I said at the start though, he does need to be removed, I do personally belive that there have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, not sure whether there still are some though. I just wish that America (and Britain) were honest about their actions and stated the real reasons for invasion. Will they apologise if after the war they find no evidence of the weapon? I suspect not.

And if we are going to war, why not publish all the "proof" that they were going on about a couple of months ago. After all it isn't going to change anything now is it.

[Guest ChrisJM]

I am against the war because i dont think its fair innosent people dying and also i am going to america next month and if the war is on our flight will probably be cancelled. :cry:

Chris

[Guest amo]

Nah, flights wont be cancelled, just cheaper

[Guest HelloDave]

Personally I think it is Dubya's personal crusade (and maybe oil), and not for the right reasons. Yes Saddam has done some terrible things, but so have quite a few other world leaders; they just don't happen to be in the spotlight. "Weapons of mass destruction" is a convenient excuse to attack Iraq, becuase after 9/11 a lot of Americans will already be paranoid about further attacks; if Saddam can be made out to be "a threat" then there will be no shortage of support for a war. It's a pity that Blair has to be so far up Bush's a**e, but we're stuck with I spose - I think it's a complete waste of money and resources for the UK to join the war on Iraq. Why should I have to pay more for my fuel just becuase Dubya's dad couldn't finish Saddam 10 years ago? :evil:

Just my $0.02... :)

[Guest madu]

I personally am for a war with Iraq.

Anyone who abuses there power such as dictators and moderators should be strung up by the bollocks and left to rot.

So in your opinion MrBush does NOT abuse his power??

PS: The oil is a fair point since Saddam when toppled will be replaced by someone 'in control' - no doubt! (we'll let you be the president if you listen to us...) Thus providing themselves with 'controllable' energy(oil) resource - supporting US policy on importing natural resources rather than using their own. And this is just a quick introduction....

[Guest woody]

if or when Bush puts a carrier of plymouth and says "give up your nuclear weapons or else" who the f**K MADE THEM THE WORLD POLICE

[Guest woody]

is that pteal????

[Guest Vector]

Yep, you can tell by the way he says "Anyone who abuses their power such as dictators and moderators should be strung up by the bollocks and left to rot. " :wink:

He's also changed his username from pteale to pteal since he got banned last time.

[Guest fraser]

I'm sorry, but anyone who is for this war simply doesn't know enough about it. Bush and pals have been consistenly lying and misleading everyone about this, inciting post 9-11 emotions against a nation that has absolutely nothing to do with Islamic terrorism. This is despite large operations by the FBI and CIA to prove otherwise, which haven't even picked up the slighest trace of a connection. Iraq is a secular country that is an enemy of all Islamic states, they fought an 11-year war with Iran and they have no friends in the region at all. Meanwhile countries in the middle east who had everything to do with the terrorist attacks are treated as allies because we have business dealings with them, where we support regimes that give their own people less civil and human rights than the people in Iraq have.

We don't have business dealings with Iraq. Overthrowing the present leadership will give the US and the UK access to the Iraqs oil, which are the second largest known oil reserves in the world. Not only does Iraq contain lots of oil, the oil itself is very easy (cheap) to extract, refine and export. It is a goldmine for the oil companies, who have already started to carve up the spoils of war, with some of the most lucrative contracts going to companies that key players in the current administration have a long personal history with.

Bush's cabinet said in April, 2001 (6 months prior to 9-11): 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary."

Always remember; everyone in the Bush administration has very close ties to the oil industry. The National Security Adviser has an oil tanker named after her. Each of these people were given huge "parting gifts" by the oil industry when they moved into politics.

What is ironic is that the US helped Saddam rise to power, then later supplied him with the weapons that were used to commit his crimes against humanity. The US congress blocked investigations during Regan's presedency into the attrocities. Not only do they turn a blind eye, they actively tried to cover it up. Now all of a sudden "it's important".

In addition to this, most anti-western feeling is due to one nation in particular, Israel. This nation is in violation of so many UN resolutions it is unbelievable, yet we are treating a second resolution against Iraq as a ticket to war. Israel is commiting a holocaust against the Palestinion people in their own homeland, worse than anything Saddam has done, yet the US regularly uses UN vetos against any resolutions that attempt to tackle the problem, the US has the most vetos by far in the UN, most relating to this problem. Israel's current occupation of Palestine is illegal, brutal, racist and funded by the USA. By the way, the vast majority of US media is controlled by Israeli-friendly companies.

My sig relates to this. The US media is engaging in a campaign that is very similar to the Nazi's rise to power. They are demonising a people that are of no real threat to them, stating that we must attack first "to preserve our way of life". They suggest that all arab states want to destroy us and that we must defend ourselves by attacking them. Fear is used to bring the people in to touch. Shops have sold out on things like duct tape, after "advice" to people to build a chemical warfare shelter in their own homes. They have got an entire nation running scared, and this is being used to fund the governments conquests for power.

The US people are being presented with a very racist treatment of all Arabs, with everyone being guilty until proven innocent, that's if you are actually able to get legal representation. Arabs are treated with fear and suspicion, especially in places such as airports. An imigrant computer programmer was recently moved across the US in police custody, held in appauling conditions for over three weeks, all because he noticed that his visa had expired earlier that it was supposed to. Many Arabs have started to leave the US, akin to some of the Jewish population leaving Germany during the 30's.

This sort of behaviour, and the continual errosion of civil liberties, has destroyed the fabric of the US, undermining everything that the nation is supposed to stand for. I have more fear of people like Bush, Cheney and Rice than I do of Saddam.

Meanwhile at home (in the UK), we have "scandals" when members of the government indicate that they disagree with the current policies. Excuse me, but I thought we were supposed to be living in a democracy? How is that possible when all politions are made to promote the same plans?

Our governments are making a mockery of democracy. They aren't listening to the publics desires one bit, and are intentionally misleading us on the issues. Voting once every five years between a choice of two viable parties is a farce. Anyone who thinks we live in a fair and democratic society should get their head out of their arse before they suffocate.

[Guest woody]

thought i remember that style from somewhere

seriously what has changed in the last 12 years to bring down the wrath of god(states)on iraq

[Guest madu]

Fraser, respect for the article! I could not agree more. And am pretty sure if you could be bothered to type (after all that) this could go on and on and ooon.

[Guest HelloDave]

I heard a great news report on the radio this afternoon...

Initially Iraq will be rained on by missiles, and 9/10 of them will be "smart bombs", so they should hit the right thing.

Don't ya just love quality journalism :)

[Guest woody]

fu*k my luck to be one of the10%

[Guest skimask]

Well written fraser. For anyone else who is interested in reading some 'real' journalism regarding the situation in the middle east, checkout Robert Fisk's articles in The Independent or read them on this site.

If you're interested in doing your li'l bit to help stop the war, click here.

[Guest almark]

I am against it. Bush comes across as a simpleton and Blair is a hypocrit by calling on a worldwide war on terrorism - when can't deal with Irish Terrorists. If Bush was to do what Blair has done, then Bin Laden and Saddam would hold a US government position just to keep them sweet.

Blair thinks he is maintaining the so called 'special relationship' but I fear that the vast majority of people consider that it is more about ego than anything else.

Who put Bush in charge of planet Earth? He just about got elected, thanks to his brother, the Governor of Flordia.

This war will cost innocent lives.

[Guest Syvwlch]

Fraser, I couldn't agree with you more with a gun to my head.

I've taken the liberty to share your prose with some friends, as it expressed my sentiments better than I ever could, and you've posted it in this open, if (we alas sometimes forget how much) rather specialized forum.

You've a head on your shoulders, and a way with words. Pleasure reading you.

[Guest phoenix]

impressive polemic Fraser

I have been torn between the two sides yet with a great deal of thinking I have joined the pro-war camp.

But

I am not going to try to persuade anyone to join my point of view because that is essentially futile as there are so many genuine and just reasons for being anti or pro war.

I just feel that with the unknown that is the future and what Saddam aims to use his Scuds for I think pre-emption is the only answer.

If he were to strike Israel then Israel would justly react.

Yet their reaction may not be measured and could cause a conflagration of military activity in the whole area which would be extremely costly in terms of human loss, also would send the global economy into spectacular decline heralding depression across the entire globe

the civilian loss in the 1991 Gulf War was 300, mostly deaths caused by a bunker being hit by a misplaced US missile. So it was a mistake.

as were nearly all the US fatalities, some 246 killed in such accidents.

As a democratic country we feel that our way is the least worst and we feel that self-determination and freedom are sacred and it is our duty to ensure that all peoples across the world can enjoy it.

Also your attack on the democratic value of electing a Government every 5 years is valid, but naive in the extreme. A true democracy, one in which every citizen votes in referenda for each bill is unworkable and impotent and if we were to cut the term down from 5 years then politicians would become far more short termist and unwillingly to take on any new schemes like transport or education reform.

[Guest Gorskar]

None the less, Tony Blair has lost my vote for the next election.

[Guest Monolithix [MVP]]

Next election i'll be a student proper, so it'll be the LibDem;s for me.... ;p

As for the war, i'm still undecided. Up until a few days ago i wasn't bothered either way, but after spending the past few days reading the bbc news website and watching CNN (got to love having Sky at work...) I've decided i'm anti-war. The troups being kitted up for chemical warfare protection is a standard procedure i'm sure, but it sure as hell brings home what is actually about to happen.

People don't have to die because Bush wants the worlds oil to himself....

[Guest Emad]

Bah, everyone knows there are no winners in war, only losers.. Thou shalt not kill.. Bah. Hell, even the Pope said it was bad :)

Anyone read cook's speech? That was v good in my opinion.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859431.stm

The main thing I don't like here is how it shows what our democracy is really like. Tony Blair is calling on party loyalty to follow his stance. Anything other than loyalty to the party is a bad thing. In an issue like this, shouldn't each MP be asked to make up his or her own mind having been given ALL the evidence? It annoys me as much as when the opposition argues for the sake of arguing..

Lets bomb the saudis out of power, they're the real terrorist sponsers.. Failing that, lets get Israel off occupied land.. Bah.

Brain dead, need sleep, nite..

[Guest mashkhan]

Well said Fraser,

What I find particularly galling is the double standards of the American's they act like they are the policeman of the world, yet the Israelis systematically abuse every civil right in the book and are backed up by the Americans. Is it any wonder that there is a deep mistrust of them in the Arabic world. Let's not forget who trained Al Qaeda/ Saddam and provided them with weapons in the first place. It's not only the Middle East who have "benefited" from American foreign policy they also helpled Pinochet take power in Chile, screwed over the Cubans with crippling sanctions, Vietnam, Iran etc

[Guest yatpeak]

I don't like that "SHOULD hit the right thing".

Wyatt

[Guest dan.peterson]

1. Oil

2. National Security

3. US economic imperialism and other Friskisms.

4. Political Expediency

1. Hmm. The oil arguement is all very impressive and tempting, god knows the US admin knows a thing or two about it,

But it would be ten times easier to simply take oil from Saddam and brush the human rights problems under the carpet (a la Saudi Arabia, and most of the gulf states, not too mention Latin America) than to actually expend the amount of effort that Bush has done to get Saddam out.

The oil arguement simply does not make sense- Much as I would like to tar the Bush admin with more corruption, and self interest.

2. National Security.

Almost a joke really, Bush has barely begun to make his case:

- Timing?

- Proof?

- Connection with terror?

But that said no doubt Iraq would act in the same way as Syria and other rogue states and happily support their main enemy. My enemies enemy is my friend is one that always holds up at the extremes of geopolitics.

3. US economic imperialism.

Not to go against Frisk totally, but he is the classic overly educated liberal. Regardless of the arguements for and against, he will act against action, and against any hegemonic authority. And imperialism? Does not seem to make sense imeadiately, but then who knows with Bush and a US with an aching self esteem.

4. Political Expediancy.

The domestic pressure for Bush to give the war against "terror" a human face, and a nation state against which to use the US's strength must be immense. And so there was Iraq...?

There is no clear answer, but it should be recognised that what is required is more than simply shouting "its de oil, its de oil". God knows what it is, but the opposition must not resort to as arguments just as unsound as the Bush/Blair coalition.

And if you want to hear a fantastic speech against it, check out

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/c...30318-32_spnew0

And as always also have a look at:

http://www.bushisms.com the leader of the free world. God bless.

Regarding democracy, well no, no one pretends it is perfect but

q. Who would you prefer to have the might that is wielded by America?

George Bush, inept, inarticulate as he is?

Zhang Zemin/ Li Peng of China?

Anyone with the sort of power that the US has will always wield it, given that, we should count ourselves lucky that the world is as it is, and the US tries to at least keep the appearance of acting benignly. The alternative is a lot worse.