If you're against the war...

mike65

...which is more important to you - To see the war prosocuted as quickly as possible or to see the US and UK get a bloody nose trying...?

Mike.

Corben Dallas

im not against the war.

and the most important thing is the the war is over quickly.So lives are saved. Iraqi and US /UK/Australian/ Polish and Kuwaiti lives.

froggy 2

Clearly the most important is war being over quickly, not only because of the casualties, but also because of the increasing risk of regional war (turks / kurds for instance).
This having been said, who has taken those risks?

dahamsta

'S a bit of a cynical question isn't it mike65? Are you trying to make a point? If so, would you like to make it?

adam

dathi1

I'm a bit of an evil bastard so... I want Sadam overthown...but I want to see the people that supported him for 30 yrs pay the price.

shotamoose

Now that the war's begun I'd like to see it concluded with a minimum of bloodshed and 'collateral damage' of any kind. Obviously in practise that means the US and UK winning.

I would not like, though, for them to take the probable ease of their victory as some sort of endorsement or justification for their actions. Plus, I think the US are trying to demonstrate military invincibility to the rest of the world, in order to make future unilateral escapades a bit easier. So in a wider sense a 'bloody nose' might be no bad thing. Sure that involves taking casualties, but my sympathy will be limited to the people immediately involved and not the sensitivities of politicians or public in the West.

Barry Aldwell

Originally posted by dathi1
I'm a bit of an evil bastard so... I want Sadam overthown...but I want to see the people that supported him for 30 yrs pay the price.

There'll probably be Nuremburg-esque trials for those that survive, and that don't "disappear" into an underground holding cell in CIA headquarters in Langley.

gandalf

Well for those that haven't read any posts of mine I am against the war. However now that has started I am of course hoping it is over quickly. The longer it takes the more innocents get killed.

However it still doesn't get the US & UK off the hook, if they are found to be engaging in a illegal war by the UN there should be consequences and ergo our Quislings should be dealt with in Ireland as well.

Gandalf.

Von

Originally posted by Corben Dallas
im not against the war.

Well then the question doesn't apply to you then does it?

I don't doubt that there are more than a few people who'll be rooting for the iraqis to at least put up a fight but I feel sorry for the US/UK troops. No one I know who fought in gulf war 1 liked it very much.

Anyone who supports the war should be made go fight the bloody thing. That's what liberal democracy should be about. For me that's the single most irritating thing about the whole business - a bunch of gloating sad slobs sit in the pubs and in front of tvs and computers **** off to explosions and cruise missile stats and accusing anyone who can see through the bull of being 'pacifists' and 'pro-saddam' and everything else while the trench digging and killing and dying is done by the same crowd of kids that always has to do it.

The best immediate outcome is that the Iraqis surrender asap and cock shaped swarms of football sized killer bees descend on washington and downing st simultaneously, taking out all the top bastards in a freak display of natural justice.

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
...which is more important to you - To see the war prosocuted as quickly as possible or to see the US and UK get a bloody nose trying...?

To be proescuted as quickly as possible, without sacrificing due care and attention to the various potential humanitarian disasters which a less attentive expedition could bring about.

The fewer people die in this war the better - combatants on both sides included.

Having said that, I wouldnt shed a tear if any of the major political figures involved managed to catch a fatal dose of flying metal - they are all responsible in their own way.

jc

Gordon

it sure would be lovely if those flying bits of metal flew all the way over to Bush's underpants.

I must say I enjoy watching the fireworks but of course there are human lives involved and any bloodshed is not worth it. I'd love to see the Iraqi's stuff the UK/SA but only if no lives were lost. Yea, ok stupid comment.

I am hovering on my couch* in hope that Bush, Blair and Hussain will be standing in front of a world jury and condemned to sentence for their atrocious behaviour.

It has taught me something though - I now feel that I can say and do anything and people can't complain if they don't like it as I will simply state - "Well, I am only doing what I think is right." It worked for Blair.



*not the hover like a girl on a public loo - a hover like a football fan with one minute left on the clock and a 1-1 score so far.

DriftingRain

Well, I am only doing what I think is right." It worked for Blair.

Lol I totally agree. He he!

On a more serious note I want a speedy ending and hope that one comes about soon. I also hope that they troops really find something so this war wasn't all in vain. But if they don't a stiff slapping needs to be in order! LOL:D

The Surgeon

everything else while the trench digging and killing and dying is done by the same crowd of kids that always has to do it.

Yeh, but those kids made a choice to join a professional army so there's no use them complaining about having to do the sh*tty work. When they chose to become professional soldiers, they chose to be inserted into any god-foresaken hell-hole that their governments decided to put them in.

Getting back to the real issue: I think the original question is an excellent one because it combines the issues of human misery on all sides (admittedly weighted more on the Iraqi side) with the idea of making people like Bush, Blair and Howard think more carefully before taking decisions of such gravity. I don't like seeing anyone getting hurt - physically, emotionally, psychologically or spiritually - so I hope that the conflict ends soon. But at the same time, I don't think it would do any of the belligerent nations any harm to be reminded that war means death. Maybe then diplomacy would be pursued with more genuine commitment instead of the lip service it received over the past few months.

Whether this war ends tomorrow or in six months is probably irrelevant in the larger scheme of things because the repurcussions will be felt for generations and that will mean more suffering and death whatever happens during this particualr conflict.

One last point which some one else brought up and which I also think is interesting. Whether you are pro-war or anti-war, you can't deny that the images we're seeing on TV of Baghdad being blown to oblivion are fascinating in some weird and possibly sick way. They are disturbing, worrying, shocking and sad images. But as humans, we can't help sitting on the edges of our seats in amazement. It's like not being able to resist staring at a car accident but on a much larger scale. Maybe it's a guy thing. Maybe it's just me.

mike65

Originally posted by The Surgeon
Whether you are pro-war or anti-war, you can't deny that the images we're seeing on TV of Baghdad being blown to oblivion are fascinating in some weird and possibly sick way. They are disturbing, worrying, shocking and sad images. But as humans, we can't help sitting on the edges of our seats in amazement. It's like not being able to resist staring at a car accident but on a much larger scale. Maybe it's a guy thing. Maybe it's just me.

No its not just you, its abit like Sept 11 after the intial shock you, or at least I, started to see a certain ahem -
"terrible beauty" in the images. Somewhere here theres a thread about "sick art" which touched on this topic.

Mike.

The Surgeon

No its not just you, its abit like Sept 11 after the intial shock you, or at least I, started to see a certain ahem -
"terrible beauty" in the images. -

They were compelling images I agree. One of the war correspondents on the BBC World Service used the phrase "terrible beauty" as well. He was describing the launch of Tomahawk missiles from one of the US carriers (USS Mobile Bay, I think). Another guy then said that each of those costs $660,000. Half hour later, the scrolling banner said 1,500 Tomahawks* have been fired since the war began. That's $990,000,000. In three days. :eek:

I know it's the typical hippy argument but can you imagine what that money would to in impoverished and developing countries?

*Other reports said 1,500 "missiles" which I presume means Tomahawks and others. But still, that's a sh*t load of moolah.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Von
Anyone who supports the war should be made go fight the bloody thing. That's what liberal democracy should be about.

Anyone who opposes the war should be made to go and live in Iraq for a few months and then see how anti-liberation they are.

For me that's the single most irritating thing about the whole business - a bunch of gloating sad slobs sit in the pubs and in front of tvs and computers **** off to explosions and cruise missile stats and accusing anyone who can see through the bull of being 'pacifists' and 'pro-saddam' and everything else while the trench digging and killing and dying is done by the same crowd of kids that always has to do it.

Even more irritating than the "No blood for oil" and "Bush = Hitler" idiotarians? Surely not.

The best immediate outcome is that the Iraqis surrender asap and cock shaped swarms of football sized killer bees descend on washington and downing st simultaneously, taking out all the top bastards in a freak display of natural justice.

But that's hardly a very pleasant way to go for human rights activists is it?

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Anyone who opposes the war should be made to go and live in Iraq for a few months and then see how anti-liberation they are.

People opposing the war aren't anti-liberation. At least none that I know of anyway.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Frank_Grimes
People opposing the war aren't anti-liberation. At least none that I know of anyway.

If you're anti-war then you are, in effect, anti-human rights and anti-democracy for Iraqis. Because there's no other way they're going to get those things than through war.

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
If you're anti-war then you are, in effect, anti-human rights and anti-democracy for Iraqis. Because there's no other way they're going to get those things than through war.

Yeah, ok.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
If you're anti-war then you are, in effect, anti-human rights and anti-democracy for Iraqis. Because there's no other way they're going to get those things than through war.

I would tend to agree that diplomacy was unlikely to bring democracy and human rights to the people of Iraq. However, it is equally unlikely, given the history of US foreign policy, that they will get it after war has 'liberated' them, either.

Also, accusations of anti/pro-[insert emotionally charged term here] do smak of semantic propaganda to me.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I would tend to agree that diplomacy was unlikely to bring democracy and human rights to the people of Iraq. However, it is equally unlikely, given the history of US foreign policy, that they will get it after war has 'liberated' them, either.

Probability of diplomacy bringing democracy and human rights to the people of Iraq = 0

Probability of war bringing democracy and human rights to the people of Iraq >> 0

Probability of diplomacy bringing democracy and human rights to the people of Iraq <> Probability of war bringing democracy and human rights to the people of Iraq

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Probability of war bringing democracy and human rights to the people of Iraq >> 0

There I would have to disagree with you.

If the democratic government installed in Afghanistan, by the US, were anything to go by, I would suspect the Iraqis are pretty much screwed either way.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Corben Dallas

re 1500 cruises =990 million or whatever, designing a smart missile than will (more often than not) find its target(within 5m after a 300/400 mile journey) costs, and costs big. It is also an example that the US IS trying to minimise civilcan casulities. If they didint give a monkeys(and really wanted to save $$$) about the normal iraqi, they could just carpet bomb Baghad.

and the US/ UK will install a fairly eleclted govn, poss something the Iraqi ppl have never had.

I believe that this war is Just and Noble and as Eoghan Harris (on Today FM) said of a Royal Irish Guards Officer saying to his men (not a full quote) if the Ojective of this war is to remove Saddam and his regime to give the Iraqi ppl freedom from his tyranny then alto it might not be popular its the right and noble thing to do.

Ireland (our govn.)should show some moral backbone and support the ideals of what the US and UK troops are trying to do, or at least say nothing and continue to allow (which we always have done) the US use Shannon.

That way we would not be involved by supplying or contributing materials etc to the war, but by allowing the use or Shannon we could (in a small) shorten Saddams reign of Terror.

oeNeo

Why should Ireland support the war when the majority of the population are against it?

Corben Dallas

I dont think that the majority in Ireland are against the war, and if an independent research body ( not some peaceheads/CND /Christian Alliance ) provided survey stats on >(would u support a war if a 2nd resolution was passed) (probably) more than half of ireland would support it

The Surgeon

If you're anti-war then you are, in effect, anti-human rights and anti-democracy for Iraqis. Because there's no other way they're going to get those things than through war.

And there you have it folks. :rolleyes:

The Surgeon

If they didint give a monkeys(and really wanted to save $$$) about the normal iraqi, they could just carpet bomb Baghad.

Yeh, that'd win the propaganda war alright.

I believe that this war is Just and Noble

Good for you. So you don't agree in any way that there might, just might, be one or two ulterior motives? Or do you believe that Bush and Blair and Howard are superheroes flying into Baghdad in their capes and underpants to save the day from evil mastermind Saddam Hussein?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Neo-
Why should Ireland support the war when the majority of the population are against it?

Because it's the morally right thing to do.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by The Corinthian
There I would have to disagree with you.

If the democratic government installed in Afghanistan, by the US, were anything to go by, I would suspect the Iraqis are pretty much screwed either way.

Are you seriously suggesting that Iraqis would rather live under Saddam's regime, or at least would be indifferent to it?

The Surgeon

Are you seriously suggesting that Iraqis would rather live under Saddam's regime, or at least would be indifferent to it?

Saddam Hussein is certainly not the ideal leader and his government is certainly not the ideal government. You're probably right that most Iraqis would propably prefer to live under a different regime. And in Afghanistan, most Afghans were very happy to see the back of the Taliban.

But the democracy they have now in Afghanistan is not ideal either. I know it takes time to establish a new democracy, particularly in a country in which it is not a tradition. So we can't be too critical of it either, but you have to admit it is very shaky. Karzai himself said the same thing and warned the West not to walk away whistling now, clapping themselves on the back for a job well done.

But as bad as they were, Hussein and the Taliban provided stability. They provided it with an Iron Fist, sure, but it was there. What Westerners have to appreciate is that when you introduce democracy into a country like Afghanistan or Iraq, there are tribal and religious divisions under the surface which were contained under the oppressive regimes but which could explode once those regimes are gone.

In Western democracies, factions argue in Parliament and make decision with the ballot paper. These new "democracies" are likely to settle things with the AK-47.

Shinji

Are you seriously suggesting that Iraqis would rather live under Saddam's regime, or at least would be indifferent to it?

Has anyone actually ASKED them?

Sorry, I'll rephrase....

Has anyone actually asked them and then had the balls to publish the responses in a mainstream western media outlet?

About the only serious piece about opinions on the ground in Iraq that I've seen came from New Scientist of all places, where it was presented as a sociological study into the demographic characteristics of a nation on the eve of war rather than as a political piece. What came across very strongly from that was that a great many people in Iraq despise the USA as much if not more than they despise Saddam. Saddam, for all his evil deeds, has effectively presided over the modernisation and secularisation of Iraq, creating a nation in the desert which - at least up until Desert Storm - had a solid education system (for males AND females), a modern infrastructure and was generally a better place to live than just about anywhere else in the Middle East.

A great many Iraqis blame the USA (perhaps rightly) for their suffering over the past 12 years. Unlike us in the west, they are keenly aware of the fact that Desert Storm didn't end in 1991, and that bombs have been dropped on Iraq every single day since then. They have seen their children die because - as far as they are concerned - of the US-led sanctions regime. They have seen their cancer and miscarriages rates rise eleven-fold because of the 250 tonnes of depleted uranium the US military left lying around (mostly in easily inhalable dust form) in southern Iraq following Desert Storm.

Under the circumstances, I don't think the people of Iraq really like Saddam that much; but it seems to me that they dislike America every bit as much and perhaps more than their own despotic leader. Faced with the hardship and loss of life caused by a second Desert Storm, I would think that a great many people in Iraq - probably a majority - would prefer to live under Saddam than to see their rooves fall in on their children's beds as the cruise missiles once again pound Baghdad.

(I'm not necessarily saying that the west should do NOTHING about the situation in Iraq, but it's not like invasion is the only answer to overthrowing a despotic regime. As modern history shows us time and time again, the USA and its allies are perfectly capable of handling regime change through covert channels, and they only ever invade when it's not just regime change they want, it's strategic control of an area - such as Panama (for the canal), and now Iraq (for the oil and the base of operations it offers in the middle east).)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Are you seriously suggesting that Iraqis would rather live under Saddam's regime, or at least would be indifferent to it?

No, I never suggested that. I simply postulated that they’re probably going to lose out regardless, in the long run.

Éomer of Rohan

No, I never suggested that. I simply postulated that they’re probably going to lose out regardless, in the long run

I find myself laughing as I write this but I agree with Corinthian - I hope no one who reads this has a weak heart lol.

Consider Afghanistan as he was saying - where are the rebuilt cities and civil infrastructure that the US promised when they chanted about bringing civilisation to a down trodden and oppressed people just before murdering ten thousand innocents in the same campaign?

Why would things be any different in Iraq?
So the media is filling the air with stories about how the good US and UK governments aren't carpet bombing and so on. Good for them. Did anyone watch 'Shock and Awe' on TV? I did. It made me sick to my stomach that that amount of firepower could be unleashed against a city; what happens when something goes wrong? I wouldn't trust the armies of either nation to fly helicopters never mind fire guided missiles and drop tonnes of high explosive from B-52s. I also watched said aircraft take off from Fairfield this morning. I wonder how many innocents will die when the payloads reach their target?

And after the US defeat Saddam (if) and the Iraqi armies are destroyed and captured and either city fighting has laid waste to Baghdad or it has been starved into submission, what happens? Will the US and UK up sticks and leave? Anyone who believes that is a fool; listen to even the right wing media talk about Iran being next for 'regime change' - that sickening euphemism that heralds death and destruction for many thousands more people.

As to Biffa Bacon's comment about this war being 'moral' - I still don't understand how he can claim the moral high ground for the pro war cause when all the major church leaders have condemned absolutely the war - the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury - hell even the Dalai Lama made a statement.

Let us make no mistake - this war is far from moral far from justified but underway and it will not be the international community the suffers from the low oil prices and the resurgent world economy due to the reestablished 'prestige' of a brutal and hypocritical US - it will be the people of Iraq.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Shinji

Has anyone actually asked them and then had the balls to publish the responses in a mainstream western media outlet?

Missed this one. Yes they have. I was watching BBC 1's coverage of Iraq this morning and in Baghdad they did a few interviews (and people can back me up here if they choose) and the theme that came across was that they did not like Saddam Hussein but that they did not want foreigners especially America or Britain - the ones who put them in the mess - to intervene in internal affairs in Iraq and thus they were prepared to cooperate with the regime.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Anyone who opposes the war should be made to go and live in Iraq for a few months and then see how anti-liberation they are.

Only Iraq, or will any oppressive middle-Eastern regime do?

I have friends living down in that part of the world, but not in Iraq. Irish ex-pats as chance would have it. They decided to stay throughout the mounting troubles.

They decided to stay when their company advised them to remove all Irish flags from cars etc etc because the arab papers had printed about Ireland's allowing the use of Shannon, and there was massive resentment in the area, and genuine fear for their lives. (As an aside....I wonder if Bertie has spared a single thought for the Irish who's lives that decision put in direct jeopardy. Neutral my left ar5e-cheek.)

They decided to stay during the protests, the riots, and now the war.

They are opposed to this war, and have said that while they never like the oppression in the region, and nor did the locals, that the reaction to the US/UK invasion is orders of magnitude worse.

They've seen how anti-liberation these people are, and its very simply summed up : liberation, but not this way.

jc

Corben Dallas

Has anyone actually asked them and then had the balls to publish the responses in a mainstream western media outlet?

About the only serious piece about opinions on the ground in Iraq that I've seen came from New Scientist of all places, where it was presented as a sociological study into the demographic characteristics of a nation on the eve of war rather than as a political piece. What came across very strongly from that was that a great many people in Iraq despise the USA as much if not more than they despise Saddam. Saddam, for all his evil deeds, has effectively presided over the modernisation and secularisation of Iraq, creating a nation in the desert which - at least up until Desert Storm - had a solid education system (for males AND females), a modern infrastructure and was generally a better place to live than just about anywhere else in the Middle East.

Fair enuff Shinji, good idea print this in a western newspaper. But I think your sort of missing the whole point here, normal Iraqis don’t have the luxury of getting access to an Independent media.

When your fed day in day out that the US(alone) has imposed these sanctions and u would probably believe that the US is responsible for lack of proper Healthcare and 40%( or is it 60%) of the population live on food aid. (All this in an oil rich country) They prob don’t even know what the UN is.

Much as half the Islamic world are prepared to overlook Saddam's evil deeds, they think its a sort of Crusade (the ones that live on Iraq's borders know this not to be true) against them and that the US has it in for all Islamic countries.
Saddam is more than happy to play the devout Islamic card to encourage this. and because there is no free press or alternative to the national state sponsored press office is offered, the Iraqi ppl cannot reach a more self-determined view

Remember it is reported that Saddam turned off all Internet access for a period leading up to the war.

Let European, US and other worldwide TV stations be broadcast in Iraq and see just how supportive Saddam would be about this
(Obviously have it translated into Arabic-like a world service or a touch)

Éomer of Rohan

Much as half the Islamic world are prepared to overlook Saddam's evil deeds, they think its a sort of Crusade (the ones that live on Iraq's borders know this not to be true) against them and that the US has it in for all Islamic countries.
Saddam is more than happy to play the devout Islamic card to encourage this

Not true. The Islamic nations are not taken in by Saddam, hell Al Quaeda were even against Iraq up until America attacked - then the enemy of your enemy becomes your friend. Saddam does not try to play the devout muslim card - his government is secular, though he himself is indeed a muslim.

Doesn't the US have it in for most Islamic countries? With the obviousl exception of the ones it can control. There are few Islamic Nations which have not felt the sting of US and US backed aggression; Algeria, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Yemen PDR. Lebanon, and former Palestine have all been on the recieving end of US forces or their puppets using US hardware.

good idea print this in a western newspaper. But I think your sort of missing the whole point here, normal Iraqis don’t have the luxury of getting access to an Independent media.

They have access to sky tv just like the rest of us, but as to independent media, do you have access to such a thing? Do I? Remember Orwell's dictum on the subject of media control in a democracy?

Let European, US and other worldwide TV stations be broadcast in Iraq and see just how supportive Saddam would be about this

I must admit, I object to US media in general and can you really fault anyone for wanting to ban it? European media would be alright though.

Remember it is reported that Saddam turned off all Internet access for a period leading up to the war.

How is that possible? Also there is an operative word in that sentence. Reported.

When your fed day in day out that the US(alone) has imposed these sanctions and u would probably believe that the US is responsible for lack of proper Healthcare and 40%( or is it 60%) of the population live on food aid. (All this in an oil rich country) They prob don’t even know what the UN is.

Well now, that wouldn't be the truth per chance? Chapter VII Article 41 allows the UNSC and only that body to impose or lift sanctions - and on several occasions, lifting sanctions has been vetoed by the USA - otherwise sanctions would have been lifted by a vote. And lets not forget, up until it was bombed back into the stoneage, Iraq was an advanced country; educated and civilised.

Shinji

Saddam is more than happy to play the devout Islamic card to encourage this.

Saddam's regime is about as devout Islamic as the pope is. The man himself is an athiest (although he's certainly prepared to invoke the word "Allah" when it suits him, he makes no bones about the fact that he is not a practising muslim) and under him Iraq has moved a very long way from being a devout Muslim state. Note the lack of burquas on the women, the shaved faces of the men, the surprising absence of public stonings and even (at least before Desert Storm) the third level education for both men AND women...

and because there is no free press or alternative to the national state sponsored press office is offered, the Iraqi ppl cannot reach a more self-determined view

Ahhh yes, of course. The stupid ignorant people of Iraq don't even know what freedom IS! Well, we'd better invade them then - it's for their own good, because they're too fucking STUPID to know any better themselves, the poor things!

The Surgeon

40%( or is it 60%) of the population live on food aid. (All this in an oil rich country) They prob don’t even know what the UN is.

Oh, I'm sure they do. And what advantage is it to be rich in oil if you're not allowed to sell the stuff on the open market?

As for Iraq's religious character, the guys are right. Iraq is one of the most secular and socially progressive countries in the region. Of course it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of human rights but in terms of religious fundamentalism, Iraq is not the first country to come to mind. Does that support the US claim that it's quarrel (at least in Iraq) is not with Islam?

seamus

Sorry to backtrack a bit, but......

Originally posted by Corben Dallas
Ireland (our govn.)should show some moral backbone and support the ideals of what the US and UK troops are trying to do, or at least say nothing and continue to allow (which we always have done) the US use Shannon.

Supporting the war directly would be in breach (dare I say 'material breach' ) of our constitution.

Ireland, constitutionally, can never advocate the use of force as a means to settle disputes between international bodies.

Just a point.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by seamus
Ireland, constitutionally, can never advocate the use of force as a means to settle disputes between international bodies.

Actually, I think that's factually incorrect. I don't think there's anything in the constitution that forbids Ireland from war.

mike65

Ireland, constitutionally, can never advocate the use of force as a means to settle disputes between international bodies.

If that a reference to neutrality, you're deffo wrong, as the constitution makes no reference to Ireland being neutral. Its "merely" been government policy since 1939.

Mike.

seamus

Bunreacht na hÉireann, Article 29
2. Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination.

I know it's slightly ambiguous, but as far as I see it, advocating the use of force to settle international disputes is in breach of this.

Von

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Anyone who opposes the war should be made to go and live in Iraq for a few months and then see how anti-liberation they are.

Does this apply to veterans of the first gulf war too? I know a few, my cousin is one, and I'm inclined to think they know a little bit more about the intricacies of the biz than the likes of you.

Here's a question for the war 'supporters'. If Saddam is the most evil creature since Hitler and the greatest danger to the freedom of the world then how come there are no volunteers dropping everything and running off to do The Right Thing? Byron fought for Greek independence, Beckett joined the french resistance in WW2 and Charles 'Nomad' McGuinness fought in WW1 (on both sides), the war of independence (Irish side only) and the Spanish Civil War (on both sides). Where's their modern equivalents eh? No more heroes anymore as The Stranglers put it.

Nope, there are no volunteers because in spite of what they say, nobody, except perhaps the denser Daily Mail readers, really believes that the war has got anything to do with human rights or 'liberation' or WMDs or the sad damned man Saddam. Despite the stated objectives of the PNAC, Blair, Bush and Powell still insist that the motives for invading Iraq are purely altruistic, that the invasion is an act of personal and national high-minded self-sacrifice, seeking nothing for itself but the well-being of the Iraqi people. At the same time, their social and economic policies of neoliberalism and neoconservatism deny the very possibility of altruism, being based fundamentally on the doctrine of privatization and 'rational self-interest'. So, we are asked to believe what is precisely an absurdity and a contradiction, that an action is both selfless and selfish at the same time.

But where did Biffa's new found interest in 'human rights' come from? When did this Road To Damascus* style conversion take place? Not so long ago, he was advocating that the 'knacker classes' be 'liquidated' or 'enslaved'. Well, the bulk of the American and British armies are composed of the 'knacker classes' and since a few of them have been 'liquidated' there's some vacancies. So blubber a teary goodbye to your pies and porn and off you go. We're way behind you.

But that's hardly a very pleasant way to go for human rights activists is it?

Live by the WMDs, die by the giant killer bees.


POW's should be swapped for this eejit. What was he planning on doing? Trick or treating his way to baghdad?

*For anyone who doesn't know, the phrase Road To Damascus comes from when Paul (nee Saul) was on the way to arrest followers of Jaysus and return them to Jerusalem in chains, when he heard a voice (Jaysus) asking 'why all the persecution ****!?!', which caused him to convert immediately to the troublemaker side. Is Dubya Biffa's Jaysus!?

Elmo

It must end quickly. And the rule of the UN must return.

Corben Dallas

They have access to sky tv just like the rest of us, but as to independent media, do you have access to such a thing? Do I?

Éomer of Rohan

Geez Eomer do u reckon that the Average Iraqi has access to Sky TV which he watches from his leather settee on a Wide Screen TV? Oh and Sky TV would be broadcast in Arabic or they would all have studied English…possibly at Oxford. Whooa! Who let that dog sarcasm in here…shooo…go on now….git

Nope, there are no volunteers because in spite of what they say, nobody, except perhaps the denser Daily Mail readers, really believes that the war has got anything to do with human rights or 'liberation' or WMDs or the sad damned man Saddam. Despite the stated objectives of the PNAC, Blair, Bush and Powell still insist that the motives for invading Iraq are purely altruistic, that the invasion is an act of personal and national high-minded self-sacrifice, seeking nothing for itself but the well-being of the Iraqi people.

*me not a Daily mail reader

This war is partly about the liberation of the Iraqi ppl, but if you add a threatening Middle Eastern Dictator with a track record of invading his neighbours, actively seeking to have a WMD programme. (He defiantly held up a disc shaped example of a component used in nuclear weapons (at an international meeting) to prove to the world that the ban of supplying his regime with nuclear weapons and components wasn’t working) he has been found to be in violation of UN resolutions several times for WMD, he has actually used them on his own ppl. And add to this he's nicely located in one of the most strategically important areas in the world. Iraq and most of his neighbours are oil rich countries.

Add these up and u have a situation that has to dealt with, Sanctions, UN Resolutions and Diplomacy have all been used to resolve this and have failed.
There had to be a deadline and unfortunately we have had to go to war.

But there is also a Humanitarian mission in Iraq, that’s part of the reason why we are going to war. Remember there’s no Oil in Kosovo, Mogadishu and Somalia and these were primarily humanitarian driven conflicts. It was the ‘right thing to do’ in those conflicts and much as I would have also preferred that the war on Iraq had UN backing, to do nothing would have had Saddam (or any other Dictator thinking of getting some WMD so they can go about their business and use them as a deterrent to outside intervention) laughing his way into another 30yrs or power in Iraq.

Éomer of Rohan

And add to this his nicely located in one of the most strategically important areas in the world. Iraq and most of his neighbours are oil rich countries

Your own argument defeats you on this one. That you even mention oil when not in direct reply is a big hint that even the pro-war crowd suspect what this is REALLY about.

Remember there’s no Oil in Kosovo, Mogadishu and Somalia and these were primarily humanitarian driven conflicts. It was the ‘right thing to do’ in those conflicts

Mogadishu and Somalia eh? lol.
Really though, this is rubbish IMO - Kosovo was an embarassment and that was the reason NATO took action - the reason that justified it to the public was humanitarian; alternatively there is a strategic argument; Greece was not to pleased by a powerful Serbia controlling her neighbours, especially given the historic ties between Serbia and Russia - thus Serbia was a source of tension within NATO - Turkey wanted to utilise Serbia to twist the trade knife into Greece and over oft-disputed-never-to-be-forgotten Cyprus while Greece was naturally apprehensive; do not forget that Greece and Turkey have almost come to war twice in the last 58 years - whilst members of NATO.
As for Somalia/Mogadishu, the latter one being the capital of the other, this was American intervention against a so called "Socialist" Military dictatorship - simply put, a power related struggle. They even succeeded five years later when said regime fell into chaos.

Corben Dallas

Ok so Mogh. is the Capitial of Somlia > u get a cookie
do u still think the Sky is available en masse to arabic viewers (free) in Iraq ??? touché ..jus j/k, sorry couldnt resist

so the local warlord denying foodaid to normal ppl so he could feed his army, possible sell back the same food aid was BS

and the small fact that the concentration camp that (i think 5000) ppl died was not worth Nato get invovled in this too could be fixed by a UN resolution or 6 ?

Éomer of Rohan

do u still think the Sky is available en masse to arabic viewers (free) in Iraq ???

It is nothing to do with what I think; Iraqis CAN get Sky just like anyone else - but as withh all people, they have to pay for it and also, it is in English but I am told with Arabic substitles - sanskrit or some such I assume.

so the local warlord denying foodaid to normal ppl so he could feed his army, possible sell back the same food aid was BS

Not at all - an accurate summation but not the reason for intervention - if that was indeed the case then why does US foreign policy also involve the propping up of such régimes? The US are always willing to look the other way until a régime stops cooperating - then coercion becomes the order of the day. Thus logic tells us that the motivating factor is self interest since otherwise it was prepared to let any number of people starve.

and the small fact that the concentration camp that (i think 5000) ppl died was not worth Nato get invovled in this too could be fixed by a UN resolution or 6 ?

Again it is necessary to point out that humanitarian issues aren't the concern - consider the attitude of NATO to it's sister organisation SEATO - Burma being a member of which. One of the nations with the most appalling human rights record in the world - including the usual favourites - China pales in comparison to some of the things that go on in Burma - I had to study it in depth for a Model UN conference many moons ago lol. That is not to say that Humanitarian issues do not exist - often they do but it is callous to justify military action to the public on such grounds when in reality such grounds are not the reason; the reasons are more frequently strategic control of a region, resources and markets for US/(Western?) goods or simple paranoia.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.