"Let's ROLL" or "No2War"

PH01

Are you against war with Iraq no matter what or are you a "Let's Roll" no matter what, or something in between?

mike65

I voted option 3, as I don't really think the inspectors can do much to
prove Saddam has accounted for all the weapons and associated infrastucture.

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

therecklessone

Voted Option 2, but my preferred choice would be:

1. Lift the sanctions now!

2. Organise and arm the various opposition groups, both in and out of the country. Make it clear to them from the start that Iraq will remain a sovereign state after doing away with the crazy bastard, albeit with regional autonomy.

3. No bombing of built up areas, but pummel the s***e out of his remote air-defences and military facilities, to help reduce the regimes chance of fighting back against armed insurrection.

4. Halt all flying within the no-fly zone. That means choppers as well. hell, that means Cesna 152s! That removes Saddam's best weapon against his own people, attack helicopters.[edited...attack originally read attach...doh!]

5. Finally, play Van Halen very loud through the windows of Saddams palace, 24 hours a day, with no breaks for Muslim religious holidays. It worked in Panama. If you want to make it slightly more 21st century, we could try U2s song from Gangs Of New York.

Chaos-Engine

Yes to what???

Biffa Bacon

I voted yes Let's Roll because I believe in human rights for oppressed peoples.

Turnip

The war has already started. US special forces are in Iraq doing recon missions, marking targets etc. So anybody going marching is just wasting their time. Though I think they know this but will march anyway because it'll make them feel better about themselves. Anybody bothered to ask any Iraqis if they want t be liberated or not? Thought not. Typical left wing arrogance.

Cork

Originally posted by Turnip
US special forces are in Iraq doing recon missions, marking targets etc. So anybody going marching is just wasting their time.

The copying of sensitive papers in the Northern party - Does this mean the ceasefire is no more?

We need to look and see how this situation can be resolved.

Saddam does need to go,
Sanctions need to be lifted.
Democracy should be brought into this region.

But - What is the way to achieve this.

Hopefully by agreement. But force cannot be ruled out.

dathi1

I voted yes Let's Roll because I believe in human rights for oppressed peoples.

What's your body count quota on that? and the right to live?

Anybody bothered to ask any Iraqis if they want t be liberated or not?

oh right...bomb the **** out of them first....ask questions later.
and..
Bush and Rumsfeild(<4m people killer in laos/cambodia) are gonna bring it to them...hehe....yeah right...Try to learn something about the world around you before you post such imbecilic crap.

gatheringdust

im totally against war at all costs...was part of the march today in town! Its great to see so many people voicing their anger against war..:)
what next though? dictator bush looks like he doesnt give a toss!!

ds.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Manach

Opt 4 - War.
Who knows, mabye the region after 5000 years is ready to try democracy. Oh wait, didn't Saddam just get 100% in a recent referendum.

Sand

1. Lift the sanctions now!

Grand, what exactly keeps Saddam supposedly harmless then?

2. Organise and arm the various opposition groups, both in and out of the country. Make it clear to them from the start that Iraq will remain a sovereign state after doing away with the crazy bastard, albeit with regional autonomy.

Okay tool up various armed opposition groups both in and out of the country - will there be an interviewing process or will it be basically a case of first come first served? When Saddam is gone will all these heavily armed victorious groups hand over their weapons which place them in positions of definite influence so they can then become unarmed, uninfluential groups? What guarantee is there that they wont start settling old scores with each other or their former enemies? What about, say, certain armed groups making a power grab in their regions of support leading to the mass breakup of Iraq into mess of hostile, tribal domains of warlords? Have you learned *anything* from Afghanistan and the handling of it? I mean, god almighty, for all the criticism of US foreign policy there seems to be a hell of a lot of 60s, 70s and 80s advisors reborn as anti- war activists:|

If an outside milatary force (i.e. not heavily armed groups like you plan ) go in, *theyre* the ones with the guns, hence *they* set the rules - now personally Id prefer They=the US or some other western nations, not Bin Laden Junior - hell even Saddam 2 - and his band of less than amicable allies of convenience.

3. No bombing of built up areas, but pummel the s***e out of his remote air-defences and military facilities, to help reduce the regimes chance of fighting back against armed insurrection.

Im Saddam. I move anything important to heavily built up urban areas - I use some imported Japanese as human shields to go along with the Iraqi human shields. What exactly the hell do you do now? Send in the A- Team?

4. Halt all flying within the no-fly zone. That means choppers as well. hell, that means Cesna 152s! That removes Saddam's best weapon against his own people, attack helicopters.[edited...attack originally read attach...doh!]

At last, a sensible point. Id argue though that his best weapon is terror. A bad leader is eventually toppled. A terrifying leader, such as Saddam is is so brutal his people are terrified to be even *thinking* in case he finds out. If for example the US were to invade Saddam would very quickly lose his hold over the people.

5. Finally, play Van Halen very loud through the windows of Saddams palace, 24 hours a day, with no breaks for Muslim religious holidays. It worked in Panama. If you want to make it slightly more 21st century, we could try U2s song from Gangs Of New York.

Id send in the peace protestors in. Theyd have a similar effect I think with their yammering. Saddam would just have them shot though. Ah well, not a total loss:)

therecklessone

As a by now blatant anti-US led war on Iraq mouthpiece(I do have a sense of humour), I thought I may added something by suggesting an alternative way of dealing with regime change (which I do support!) Apparently not...

Sand, I had my reasons for every point I made. Primarily, I believe the best people to remove Saddam are his own, with logistical support from the West. Now, most of us would agree that the current state of affairs means that the locals are too bloody weak to take the man on himself. I am lead to believe (I have no reference to back this up however) that 70% of the people now survive on basic rations in the country. There IS ample evidence from various independant agencies that malnutrition is a serious problem within Iraq.

Now, sanctions are supposed to stop Saddam developing WMD right? But we're told he's doing it anyway, and has been for 12 years. The oil for food program is supposed to regulate the flow of goods into Iraq to ensure (a) he doesn't receive military hardware, and (b) his people are fed. The US are telling us (a) ain't working, and the UN that (b) ain't working. Why continue?

By lifting sanctions, I meant that we could flood the country with food and medical supplies. Allow Saddam's people to recover their strength. In the meantime, as I've said, encourage opposition groups to actively engage Saddam's forces. I'll quote an important part of an earlier post by myself for emphasis if I may...

Make it clear to them from the start that Iraq will remain a sovereign state after doing away with the crazy bastard, albeit with regional autonomy

You can tack on a proviso that the international community will not tolerate inter-communal fighting in a post-Saddam Iraq if needs be. Aren't we constantly being told that the Iraqi people want rid of Saddam? Then bloody let them at him, with our support!

Yes Saddam will try to move essential parts of his military into built up areas, but to engage the Northern Kurds he can hardly base a regiment in Basra, can he? Be realistic, the biggets threat Saddam poses is to his own people, so moving his armour to Baghdad is no biggy, if your tactic is to ferment internal opposition in the north and south. Allow success by opposition groups to encourage popular protest, thus reaching critical mass.

OK, so people will suffer, probably die as well. But the US is more than adept at arranging regime changes around the world, surely it can arrange this one without the 200,000 troops and the thousands of cruise missiles. The question is, does that suit US strategic aims?

Btw, thanks for acknowledging point 4. Its always amazed me that a helicopter which can HOVER above a town, and spend that little bit more time selecting individual targets (oh, a school here, a hospital there) is allowed into the no-fly zone when Saddams aging jets, with non-presision weaponry are barred?!?!?!? An AH-64 for instance (chopper) can be fitted with up to 16 anti-tank missiles, or 72(not exactly sure thats right, might be 1/2 out) lighter, anti-personal rockets, or a mix of both. And a big bloody machine gun on the front. OK, thats a US chopper, but the Soviet built ones that Saddam uses are just as lethal, believe me. And you'll find the Marsh Arabs haven't been supplied with quite as many Stinger SAMs as Osama and his boys were!

Sand, I'm an "anti-war" bod who is actually showing a little initiative by suggesting an alternative. I know you mightn't agree, just try not to sound too condescending...

therecklessone

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I voted yes Let's Roll because I believe in human rights for oppressed peoples.

Just saw this one.

I'm right behind you on the way into Tibet Biffa. C'mon ya Chinese f**kers!

bonkey

Originally posted by daveirl
Well the majority of Americans support a war so for Bush not to go to war would be against the majority of his people's wishes which is exactly what we're critising Blair/Bertie for doing.

Except that the figures from teh US have not clearly shown that that majority of Americans support a war at all.

For several weeks, the figures consistently quoted on CNN have been hovering in and around 45 to 55 percent. Watching some CNN coverage over the weekend, Wolf Blitzer or someone was addressing this issue pointing out that the majority of Americans will support a war with a second UN resolution authorising it but do not support going it alone without such a resolution. However, without a second UN resolution there is not majority support for war in the US.

Coming from a mainstream US media source, these figures are hardly likely to be largely skewed in an anti-war fashion.

Apparently some major US papers over the weekend also carried front-page stories in the US about the growing awareness of lack of domestic support.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by therecklessone
In the meantime, as I've said, encourage opposition groups to actively engage Saddam's forces.

What makes you think that a conflict like this would be any less bloody than an American-led invasion? Seems to me there's even more potential for civilian casualties/massacres/score-settling.

Make it clear to them from the start that Iraq will remain a sovereign state after doing away with the crazy bastard, albeit with regional autonomy

And how does the international community enforce this?

Originally posted by bonkey
Except that the figures from teh US have not clearly shown that that majority of Americans support a war at all.
jc

And on that note, the extremely *cough* balanced fox news had a poll all day yesterday showing that 70% of the U.s people supported War.( I don't watch fox news all day by the way:D )

On saturday, I did see a piece on the New York protest though, on Fox news and if it wasn't so serious, It would be funny.
The organiser of the NY protest was being interviewed via a link to the outside of the U.N.
She was barricked continiously by a woman in her late fifties who was the head of the NY bureau of the Washington times.
The latter, kept interupting with"who is financing you? " and" you are anti semetic" and wait for it..."you are a socialist " This was interspersed with comments from the Washington post on t-shirts worn by the protesters with various Cuban revolutionaries on them...
Now I doubt if she saw that, It was minus nine in New York on Saturday:eek: ffs!
Imagine what Miriam O' Callaghan would say to that kind of debate , if it happened on Primetime!

Anyhow, unless we can get Bonkey into, Fox news to restore order, ( ) then thats the kind of sentiment that will bring the U.S people behind a war!
mm

Cork

Originally posted by gatheringdust
im totally against war at all costs...was part of the march today in town! Its great to see so many people voicing their anger against war..:)
what next though? dictator bush looks like he doesnt give a toss!!

ds.

Bush is not a dictator. He has control over both houses of congress. It is Saddam who is the dictator.

I am aganist war. But - the threat of force is the only push factor for Saddam to comply with the US resolution.

If he does not comply - War will be an option to remove hime - sanction of course by the UN.

Americans will rally around their President - if war is declared.

Cork

Do we want too be pure but poor?

I think that Ireland like France has national interest. We have got to bide out time & await the UN final Weapons report. We are not a big play. We are not influential. We have got to get real hear.


Our biggest market is Britian. Our Biggest investor is the US. Our second biggest make is the US. Our second biggest investor in the the UK.

I think everybody is aganist war. Should our government stop giving grants to companys that supply micro chips to defence companys?

Should we start closing the door on certain companies?

If we do this - We might as well close the door on US investment.

You cannot divorce your self interest with your economoic policy.

But Saddam needs to be gotten rid of.

I really would not take much advive from the Germans on foreign policy. I think France too are no Angels. e'll just have to give the inspectors a deadling - perhaps another 4 weeks.

Its up to Saddam.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
I think everybody is aganist war.

So thats the real reason the US are saying that diplomacy has failed and that its time for action. They're saying it because they are against taking this action that they are calling for.

You cannot divorce your self interest with your economoic policy.

And you seem to be unable to divorce yourself from the fact that there isnt a shred of evidence to back up your "economic impact if we dont bow to George's wishes" line of reasoning. This has been pointed out time and time and time again you, and you still spout this line as though it were the holiest of Fianna Fail doctrine.

We'll just have to give the inspectors a deadling - perhaps another 4 weeks.

Yeah, lets ignore the fact that al Baradei has said it would take a ballpark 6 months to be able to determine whether or not Iraq had nuclear WMDs, let alone what state its research was in.

Yeah - lets give them another 4 weeks. I'm sure its no problem for anyone to fit 6 months of work into 1.

Great plan.

jc

Von

Cork.

Are you Tony "Who will march for that dead Kurdish baby?" Parsons?

Cork

And you seem to be unable to divorce yourself from the fact that there isnt a shred of evidence to back up your "economic impact if we dont bow to George's wishes" line of reasoning. This has been pointed out time and time and time again you, and you still spout this line as though it were the holiest of Fianna Fail doctrine.

The UN should give the inspectors a deadline. Be that 6 weeks or 6 months.

Our biggest market is Britian. Our Biggest investor is the US. Our second biggest make is the US. Our second biggest investor in the the UK.

We are very dependant on both the US & UK. Investment decisions often come down to 50/50 decisions. Ireland as a country has large amounts of Foriegn US direct invertment.

When you even - go down to the University of Limerick and see - where the money has came from say to build the foundation building.

Ireland has a very close relationship with the US. We really can't ignore this. Very few EU countries are siding with either France/Germany or the UK.

Finland has a very similar position to ourselves. We need to be realistic. We need to look at our economic interests. Just as France is also doing and dare I say it are the US.

Should our government stop giving grants to companys that supply micro chips to defence companys?

If the government followed this line - US companies might as well shut up shop.

The US gave our people jobs in good times and bad. I really do not think the Irish want to be pure but poor.

Bertie is being 100% right. Awaiting for the FINAL UN report so that decisions can be made and actions can be taken - what ever is deemed necessary by the UN.

By this stage, France, Germany etc will be backing what the UN deems appropriate.

Saddam will not be able to devide and conquer.

bug

I voted no 2 war.. please forgive my igonorance but to be quite honest I have only become interested in international politics since Sept 11th. The iraqi people went to the UN in 1988 to tell them that Hussein was an evil man and to tell of the plight of their people, the Gulf war ended just before Clinton got in,right. If this is the case then WHY NOW after so many years? They could have taken him out after the Gulf war?? Do special forces exists,? Why not go in and take out him, his close allies and family? Why go in and wage war on the entire country? Would this be against interantional law? is this the reason?

Cork

Saddam is a evil dictator who has oppressed his own people. Iraq deserves better. The goal needs to be getting rid of Saddam & the removal of sanctions.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by bug
They could have taken him out after the Gulf war?? Do special forces exists,? Why not go in and take out him, his close allies and family? Why go in and wage war on the entire country? Would this be against interantional law? is this the reason?

That, I understand, was the original plan, however political support for the war went away after the 'Road to Basra', where footage of what appeared to be a massacre of of the retreating army was reported around the world and in the US. Even so, I think there was an expectation that he would be overthrown by his own people after losing the war. It is likely that the coalition forces would have continued on if they knew Saddam would survive politically.

(All the above imho, based on articles read at the time.)

Meh

Originally posted by bug
Do special forces exists,? Why not go in and take out him, his close allies and family? Why go in and wage war on the entire country? Would this be against interantional law? is this the reason?

I'm sure Saddam is aware of the existence of special forces too. He's probably one of the most heavily guarded men in the world right now. Any special forces sent into Iraq after him would be on a suicide mission.

We are very dependant on both the US & UK. Investment decisions often come down to 50/50 decisions. Ireland as a country has large amounts of Foriegn US direct invertment.

But would that investment be at risk if we took a stand against US government policy? I have to disagree. The evidence is that US companies make their investment decisions based on financial rather than political reasons. Look at China -- did any US companies pull out of there because of the spy plane row a few years ago? No they didn't -- US companies are still pouring investment into China, and US consumers are still happily buying Chinese-manufactured goods.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Meh
What makes you think that a conflict like this would be any less bloody than an American-led invasion? Seems to me there's even more potential for civilian casualties/massacres/score-settling.And how does the international community enforce this?

Yes, but what I am aiming at is internal conflict which will initially involve willing combatants. If the struggle continues into the cities then yes, civilians will suffer. But what would you pefer? Die as a result of an American bomb going astray? Or die as a result of an uprising of your own people, against a leader who we are constantly told is tyrannical and unwanted?

Also, if it remains internal, the damage to the infrastructure within Iraq remains minimal, as opposed to the carnage of a weeks worth of coalition bombing.

Do you honestly believe that the US has the ability or the desire to establish a peaceful settlement of tribal or regional differences in Iraq once Saddam is gone? By all accounts, the warlords are having a whale of a time in Afghanistan...the one woman member of the provisional government has resigned, so bang goes the women's rights we heard so much about.

therecklessone

Originally posted by Meh
Look at China -- did any US companies pull out of there because of the spy plane row a few years ago? No they didn't -- US companies are still pouring investment into China, and US consumers are still happily buying Chinese-manufactured goods.

China is a market of over 1 billion consumers. If an American company pulled out of there for political reasons, the shareholders would hang the CEO.

And there's the fact that Chinese prison camps provide great sources of cheap labour...

therecklessone

Originally posted by Cork


Bertie is being 100% right. Awaiting for the FINAL UN report so that decisions can be made and actions can be taken - what ever is deemed necessary by the UN.

Cork, myself and yourself just seem to say the same things over and over again. Can I quote the editor of the Irish Times from Saturday's edition (and my political views are far from concurrent with hers, believe me)?

"...official statements have deliberately left open the possibility of providing support for a United States-led war, even if it lacked UN or EU backing. Ireland's economic and political relationship with the United States has been of immense value and the Government is understandaly anxious not to damage it in any way. At the same time, however, it must have regard to the views of its own citizens."

I agree with you, let us wait for the UN to decide the best course of action. But please, close the door on support for unilateral action. That has yet to be done, and no amount of waiting patiently and cautiously, as you seem to think Bertie is doing, will change that fact. It is the clear will of the Irish people that in the event of a unilateral attack on Iraq by the US, Ireland should have no part to play. State it now, unequivocally (not in the Roy Keane sense!), and be done with it.

Meh

Originally posted by therecklessone
But what would you pefer? Die as a result of an American bomb going astray? Or die as a result of an uprising of your own people, against a leader who we are constantly told is tyrannical and unwanted?

I really couldn't care less how I die. It's all the same to me.

Also, if it remains internal, the damage to the infrastructure within Iraq remains minimal, as opposed to the carnage of a weeks worth of coalition bombing.

What evidence do you have to support this assertion that internal conflicts necessarily cause less infrastructure damage than a week-long external bombardment? Look at Bosnia, Somalia -- all of which had their infrastructure wrecked by internal conflict.

Do you honestly believe that the US has the ability or the desire to establish a peaceful settlement of tribal or regional differences in Iraq once Saddam is gone?

They have more "ability and desire" to do it than Saddam does.

By all accounts, the warlords are having a whale of a time in Afghanistan...the one woman member of the provisional government has resigned, so bang goes the women's rights we heard so much about.

And if the US were making the Afghans respect women's rights, there would be complaining about the Americans imposing their culture on others. Looks like the Afghan administration isn't such a puppet government after all.

I agree with you, let us wait for the UN to decide the best course of action. But please, close the door on support for unilateral action.

I don't support unilateral action, and I believe that Shannon should be closed to US troops if they go ahead without UN approval.

Do you honestly believe that the US has the ability or the desire to establish a peaceful settlement of tribal or regional differences in Iraq once Saddam is gone?

They have more "ability and desire" to do it than Saddam does

so if N.Korea were proposing this war with Iraq, for iraqs lack of cooperation, would you be this supportive? Because believe me, a country like N.Korea would pacify the country as effectively as any other country, regardless of the methods used.

Something i've said in another thread, but consider this. In last number of decades that the US have been involved with, they've left army bases behind, and have taken a hand in "protecting" the country in question. That also involves the stewardship of resources.

QUOTE]Originally posted by klaz
Just to add one more point abt the US and countries they defeat.

Germany still has american troop bases within its borders. Japan, too has american bases still remaining. Do you really expect that America will leave Iraq, even if they hold elections?

Below is a list of American bases worldwide:

http://www.pilotshack.com/MilitaryBases_Overseas.html
http://www.naveur.navy.mil/Bases.htm

Interesting to see how many bases the US have abroad.

As regards to Nukes:

http://pro-resources.net/nuclear-weapon.html
(Note: The US is the only country with nuclear weapons deployed outside its borders)
http://www.greatdreams.com/weapons.htm
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nnews.asp [/QUOTE]

Cork

Originally posted by therecklessone
Cork, myself and yourself just seem to say the same things over and over again. Can I quote the editor of the Irish Times from Saturday's edition (and my political views are far from concurrent with hers, believe me)?

"...official statements have deliberately left open the possibility of providing support for a United States-led war, even if it lacked UN or EU backing. Ireland's economic and political relationship with the United States has been of immense value and the Government is understandaly anxious not to damage it in any way. At the same time, however, it must have regard to the views of its own citizens."

I agree with you, let us wait for the UN to decide the best course of action. But please, close the door on support for unilateral action. That has yet to be done, and no amount of waiting patiently and cautiously, as you seem to think Bertie is doing, will change that fact. It is the clear will of the Irish people that in the event of a unilateral attack on Iraq by the US, Ireland should have no part to play. State it now, unequivocally (not in the Roy Keane sense!), and be done with it.

Well, I think that the Inspectors will be given more time - but it it is up to Saddam to start actively complying with the UN resolution.

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern says Ireland made a significant contribution to the shaping of the agreement reached by the European Union on Iraq. European leaders have warned Iraq that it faced a 'last chance' to disarm peacefully.

Saddam has one one chance to avoid war.

The French, Belgiums and Germans are now on board. The EU is at one with the US and the UN.

Saddam now has a chance of avoid war.

Will - he take it.

Hopefully.

If he does not - then the guy does not want a peaceful solution.

Saddam now has a chance of avoid war

What makes you think that the US will allow them to avoid it?

Cork

And if the US were making the Afghans respect women's rights, there would be complaining about the Americans imposing their culture on others. Looks like the Afghan administration isn't such a puppet government after all.

Both Womens rights and Human rights are pretty fundemental and should not be seen as the preserve of Western Soceity.

Should the average Iraqi expect more than the dictat of a facist dictator?

I think - democracy needs to be fostered - if you are living in Rebel Cork or Red China.

if you are living in Rebel Cork or Red China

A bit off topic, but what are u talking about? Rebel Cork? huh?

Cork

What makes you think that the US will allow them to avoid it?

If there is going to be war - (which is likely if Saddam does not change his atitude to the UN) - It will be backed by a second resolution.

He will be given every chance to comply. If he does not. The UN will not tolerate it & sanction war.

Both the EU, UN & US seem to be in agreement on this.

But, I hope Saddam will begin to cop on & let the UN know of his weapons.

They have not disappeared into thin air.

I think that - if there is a war - And if Saddam uses his chemical weapons - Will the people who are so anti war take any responsibility.

the UN even sees war as an option.

Cork

Originally posted by klaz
A bit off topic, but what are u talking about? Rebel Cork? huh?

Just that human rights should be in every country.

www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com

Cork, you haven't answered my question. What if the US does not allow Saddam peace, even if he co-operates with the weapon inspectors>?

Also, what has www.peoplesrepublicofcork.com got to do with human rights? As far as i can see its just a movement for pride & a good bit of piss-taking among cork people.

Meh

Originally posted by klaz
Cork, you haven't answered my question. What if the US does not allow Saddam peace, even if he co-operates with the weapon inspectors>?

I can't speak for Cork, but I'd oppose a war if the Iraqis were cooperating fully with the inspectors. However, they clearly aren't. As Hans Blix said to the Security Council:

Another matter - and one of great significance - is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for.

To take an example, a document, which Iraq provided, suggested to us that some 1,000 tonnes of chemical agent were "unaccounted for".

If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented.

Without evidence, confidence cannot arise.

The declaration submitted by Iraq on 7 December, despite its large volume, missed the opportunity to provide the fresh material and evidence needed to respond to the open questions.

well my feelings in this matter, are that the US are using this as a pretext for the war, otherwise, why wasn't Iraq invaded five years ago or more? Weapon inspections have been occuring for longer than a year, and if Saddams, avoidance was such an issue, then, this should have been broached back then.

The US want this war, & the lack of cooperation is just an excuse. Regardless of how much Iraq co-operates, it will never be enough in the eyes of the US.

Cork

What if the US does not allow Saddam peace, even if he co-operates with the weapon inspectors>?

I have faith that the US unlike Iraq will comply with the UN. If Iraq does comply with the UN resolution - Sanctions should be lifted.

Look at China -- did any US companies pull out of there because of the spy plane row a few years ago? No they didn't -- US companies are still pouring investment into China, and US consumers are still happily buying Chinese-manufactured goods.

China has a massive market. Access into this market is very important. Ireland needs a good relationship with the US to encourage investment. If my local shop keeper alienated me - I would not shop there.

PH01

"Let's ROLL" or "No2War"?
No 2 War no matter what - 19 - 30.65%
Yes, but only with a 2rd UN resolution & the inspectors get all the time they need. - 27 - 43.55%
Yes, but only with a 2nd UN resolution. - 7 - 11.29%
Yes, "Let's Roll" - 9 - 14.52%
Total: 62 votes 100%

30.65% say No 2 War, while 69.35% would support military action against Iraq.
And of those who support military action only 21% support without a 2nd UN resolution, i.e. the US position, while 79% support a 2nd UN resolution.
And of those who support military action and a 2nd UN resolution, 79% want inspectors to be given as much time as they need

bonkey

These figures are interesting. Clearly whichever way you classify people who only support a war with a second UN resolution will ultimately sway how you interpret public opinion.

These figures also seem to generally run close to the general Irish and British figures...

The US would have us believe that Europe is "anti-war" - whatever about anything else - whereas it would be far more accurate to say that Europe is only opposed to unsanctioned war.

Of course, this inevitably gets followed by the claims that its easy to say you'll only back a UN sanctioned war when the UN will never issue that mandate, but the only real truth is that the UN is not willing to sanction one yet.

jc

mike65

Originally posted by bonkey

The US would have us believe that Europe is "anti-war" - whatever about anything else - whereas it would be far more accurate to say that Europe is only opposed to unsanctioned war.
/B]

er Bonkey only the anti-war protesters are saying Europe is anti war! Most governments back the US
to some degree.

Mike.

Sand

Originally posted by therecklessone
Now, sanctions are supposed to stop Saddam developing WMD right? But we're told he's doing it anyway, and has been for 12 years. The oil for food program is supposed to regulate the flow of goods into Iraq to ensure (a) he doesn't receive military hardware, and (b) his people are fed. The US are telling us (a) ain't working, and the UN that (b) ain't working. Why continue?

Agreed. Milatary action, or at least action of a more decisive kind seems not only practical but in the long the best course for the Iraqis themselves.

By lifting sanctions, I meant that we could flood the country with food and medical supplies. Allow Saddam's people to recover their strength. In the meantime, as I've said, encourage opposition groups to actively engage Saddam's forces. I'll quote an important part of an earlier post by myself for emphasis if I may...

I had a similar discussion with Bob where he favoured what sounded like a covert operation to feed Iraqs population ( which would require a logistical operation dwarfing the current supplies for the US invasion force - and even indeed Operation Vittels which was run openly and fed only one city ). I didnt consider it viable then or now tbh. If thats not what youre talking about then the only other option is actually ending the Sanctions and letting Iraq buy what it wants. Which includes milatary supplies to reequip its milatary or purchases supplies it needs to develop the WMD it needs to make the US and the rest of the world butt out ( see North Korea ). If thats not what you mean then you mean"smarter sanctions" which allow the Iraqi people to buy what they need/want but somehow prvent Saddam getting what he needs/wants - basically "smart sanctions" which has been a buzzword for a while now. Its much harder to do though because of the dual use nature of many products.

You can tack on a proviso that the international community will not tolerate inter-communal fighting in a post-Saddam Iraq if needs be.

Sorry, but this is *extremely* naive. You think an "or else!!" from the UN is going to hold any weight with heavily armed warlords? Once theyve managed to fight down the roaring laughter resulting from considering what it would take to get the UN to actually back up its resolutions theyd just shake their heads and get back to the real world wheres guns on the ground make the rules. Id prefer those to be the guns of an army, that like all western armies, is bound to obey the will of the democratic government - rather than the guns of a warband who are only responsible to their leader. Once you arm and train an independant force its very hard to control them and you cant just demobilise them in peacetime as you might do with a volunteer army - Afghanistan is an example of what goes terribly, terribly wrong when you think the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Just because groups oppose Saddam does not mean they are friends, or that it is a good idea to assist their rise to influence over the future direction of Iraq. Iraq must be left with a democratically elected *civillian* government, with an army that recognises it is subservient to the will of the elected government. To leave them in the hands of warlords invites another Afghanistan, or even another Saddam - who the US allied with on the flawed basis of the enemy of my enemy....

Yes Saddam will try to move essential parts of his military into built up areas, but to engage the Northern Kurds he can hardly base a regiment in Basra, can he? Be realistic, the biggets threat Saddam poses is to his own people, so moving his armour to Baghdad is no biggy, if your tactic is to ferment internal opposition in the north and south. Allow success by opposition groups to encourage popular protest, thus reaching critical mass.

But isnt your stated goal to keep Iraq from breaking up into a million pieces? When Saddam withdraws from say Northern regions, and leaves it to the Kurds - hes lost not that much given the Saddam-Kurdish love affair and the no fly zones anyway and now has a bigger hold of his "heartland". In the meantime the Kurds now control the north and declare Kurdistan - or more likely make a land grab for various tribal regions. How does this keep Iraq a sovereign nation rather than a mere footnote in a history book? As for popular protest, despite what the local unwashed students might say were definitly not living in a fascist state - attempts to use people power on Saddam begin with a small group - Saddam kills said small group, he kills their familes, he kills their friends, he kills anyone who did not inform on them and he does it so brutally as to terrify even the most ardent anti-Saddamites into silence. This is after all how he has held power for so long.

OK, so people will suffer, probably die as well. But the US is more than adept at arranging regime changes around the world, surely it can arrange this one without the 200,000 troops and the thousands of cruise missiles. The question is, does that suit US strategic aims?

Most likely far more people will die in a *hoped" for insurrection, which even with US air support will not be likely to be able to defeat Saddams milatary, easily or quickly if at all - especially if he keeps true to form and uses chemical or biological weapons against the rebels. The Saddam backlash against populations suspected off supporting the rebellions would likely be absolute bloodbaths. If the US takes a hand by a direct invasion, not only do they distract Saddams attention to the greatest threat of the US invasion, but also they can protect the population from rampaging Iraqi secret police - as well as opening the way for food and medical aid in a way that would not be possible were Iraq to be torn apart by a protracted guerilla war/rebellion such as you plan.

My support for the US invasion is based on the fact that it is a good thing to get rid of Saddam (duh), but also that US victory is almost guaranteed, and not only guaranteed but very likely to be short with the minimum of civillian casualties.

Its probably in the US strategic interests, but then its also in the strategic interests of everyone I would have thought?

Sand, I'm an "anti-war" bod who is actually showing a little initiative by suggesting an alternative. I know you mightn't agree, just try not to sound too condescending... [/B]

I admit Im a little snappy at times - but when I see the blueprint for the failed foreign policies of the 60s, 70s and 80s dressed up in new clothes and trotted out for a second going Its very hard to find a good side to it imo. Apologies for any offence caused. I just see the idea of arming warbands and then setting them off with no viable control over them as a disastrous policy, not only for the West but also for the average Iraqi who merely swaps one warlord holding power through force of arms and terror for another - theres no point toppling Saddam if this is to be their future. The Americans have proved the failure of this route for us, now that theyre actually going about forceful regime change in a way that has been proven to work we shouldnt try and persuade them to bring back some of their past policy advisors:|

therecklessone

Originally posted by Sand


I admit Im a little snappy at times - but when I see the blueprint for the failed foreign policies of the 60s, 70s and 80s dressed up in new clothes and trotted out for a second going Its very hard to find a good side to it imo. Apologies for any offence caused. I just see the idea of arming warbands and then setting them off with no viable control over them as a disastrous policy, not only for the West but also for the average Iraqi who merely swaps one warlord holding power through force of arms and terror for another - theres no point toppling Saddam if this is to be their future. The Americans have proved the failure of this route for us, now that theyre actually going about forceful regime change in a way that has been proven to work we shouldnt try and persuade them to bring back some of their past policy advisors:|

Thanks for the reasoned reply Sand, I do appreciate it. We do agree on something...I too wish to see a democratically elected government, with an army which respects the constitutional status of a post-Saddam Iraq, and with it civilian rule. My fear is that:

1. A US/UK assault on Iraq will be far from bloodless. It will inflict massive damage on the Iraqi infrastructure, which will take much time to repair. It will also lead to a massive humanitarian crisis in an already impoverished state, with a hugely malnourished population.

2. The effect that the weapons of modern warfare will have are, as yet, to be 100% confirmed as as lethal after the conflict, as during it. By this admittedly badly-worded sentence, I mean the effect of depleted uranium, and of course the threat posed by munitions such as cluster bombs in remote areas. Better start saving up now for the prosthetics...

3. Finally, I find it hard to trust the US government's actual plans for a post-Saddam Iraq. I wish they would state that they have no intentions of selling off oil rights to US bidders post-war to "help" rebuild Iraq, with conditions that suit the interests of the US and not the Iraqi people. I wish they would state that they have no intentions of allowing Turkey free reign in Kurdistan to do as it wishes, i.e execute a war of attrition against those "pesky" Kurds. Remember, Turkey is no saint when it comes to human rights.

I accept that you don't agree with my suggestions, and I admit that I haven't done half as much reading or research on the topic as you may have. Interesting to talk to you though.

Cork

Finally, I find it hard to trust the US government's actual plans for a post-Saddam Iraq.

I would find it even harder to trust Saddam.

One and Eight Iraqi children die in Iraq before the age of 5. Sanctions will just have to be removed in a post saddam situation.

I tought using Iraq as a political football in the Dail yesterday was a disgrace.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The Americans have proved the failure of this route for us, now that theyre actually going about forceful regime change in a way that has been proven to work we shouldnt try and persuade them to bring back some of their past policy advisors:|

Where has it been proven to work?

I do agree though - the old ways didnt work, and that is the only reason necessary for not continuing to follow them.

jc

Originally posted by Cork
I would find it even harder to trust Saddam.

One and Eight Iraqi children die in Iraq before the age of 5. Sanctions will just have to be removed in a post saddam situation.

I tought using Iraq as a political football in the Dail yesterday was a disgrace.

Cork, another thing is to consider have these sanctions worked at all? Is it really worth it, the deaths of between one & eight children, so that the western world can keep a foreign power down? Especially when no actual direct military attack has ever been made towards them, without being first attacked? Cause remember everyone, Saddam invaded Kuwait, not London.

Originally posted by Cork
I would find it even harder to trust Saddam.

One and Eight Iraqi children die in Iraq before the age of 5. Sanctions will just have to be removed in a post saddam situation.

I tought using Iraq as a political football in the Dail yesterday was a disgrace.

In all the reports, I have seen, on Iraq, one thing is clear, there are some very wealthy people there driving around Baghdad in Fancy jeeps and BMW's.
There must be no tax regime there, no worthwhile government.
And as has been said many times, Sadam's governement could supply enough food to his people under the food for oil programme if he was interested in their well being ...
but no, he prefers for thousands to die, while he smuggles oil out for his and his clique's own benefit.
mm