Will the collititon against the war collapse when Saddam does

mike65

Having been watching and listening to various RTE programmes over the last few weeks, I wondered would the rag-tag collective that is the anti-war/anti-US
coalition last a minute longer than Saddam Hussian?

I'm willing to bet that once the regime in Baghdad is defeated and the ordinary Iraqis get thier change to express thier delight in seeing the dictator disposed of the anti-war movement will fall quiet and maybe some of them will start to ask themselves what they were effectivly defending by opposing the war on Saddam...

I'm beginning to tire of ppl declaring thier new found concern for the Iraqi ppl while having done ****-all to aid them for the previous 25-odd years. Yet opposing the best means of delivering them from evil.

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

once the regime in Baghdad is defeated and the ordinary Iraqis get thier change to express thier delight in seeing the dictator disposed of

I must say that 'get their chance' seems very 1984 to me - it will probably be staged by an American government desperate to regain the moral highground that they have squandered. This also relies on the presupposition that the Iraqis will cheer and so on - they may not. Ultimately however, the situation in Iraq will be a long term one - America I think will find that it will come back to haunt her when the people annihilate whatever government is installed and install either a new secular dictatorship or an Islamic government of some type - even one elected in a 'democracy.'

I don't think the anti-war movement will collapse - it is important to remember that America's openly belligerent stance on Syria, Iran and North Korea is earning them no friends and many enemies across the developed world. The anti-war movement will transfer it's support to anti-war in Iran and Syria campaigns most likely.

I'm beginning to tire of ppl declaring thier new found concern for the Iraqi ppl while having done ****-all to aid them for the previous 25-odd years. Yet opposing the best means of delivering them from evil.

The best thing we can do is to stop death being rained down on them by american bombers and ships.
As for having done f*** all to aid them, I am sure that there are charity organisations out there somewhere and many many people contribute to a charity rather than to a specific campaign so I am sure there has been a lot done for Iraq by many of the people who oppose war - of course this is beside the opposition of many of us to the destruction of power plants, tv stations, public transport and water pumping facilities.

Mike - i probably fall into the anti-war category for this war anyway. However, i'm not totally against war. I know that its a necessary tool at times, however, i dislike to see a nation use it as a bludgeon. I'm against this war. If you look over my other posts, i've more than covered my reasons for it. I really don't want to mess up your thread with such a discussion.

I'm beginning to tire of ppl declaring thier new found concern for the Iraqi ppl while having done ****-all to aid them for the previous 25-odd years. Yet opposing the best means of delivering them from evil.

2 points:

1) i'm not against this way, out of concern for the Iraqi people. I do feel some sympathy for them, however my attitude comes from a serious distrust for america.

2) I hate the use of the word "evil" to destribe a regime, or any human. Its too absolute. The Saddam regime, is nasty, however it has done some good work in the past. It seems that once a war begins, you have to focus on everything a regime has done wrong in the past. I'm not saying to leave them in power, i'm just saying, dealing in absolutes doesn't apply here.

I'm willing to bet that once the regime in Baghdad is defeated and the ordinary Iraqis get thier change to express thier delight in seeing the dictator disposed of the anti-war movement will fall quiet and maybe some of them will start to ask themselves what they were effectivly defending by opposing the war on Saddam...

Possibly. Actually you're probably right. But on the other hand, if the US starts another war, for no reason, how many of you pro-war people will admit that the US is a loose-cannon? Not many i think.

mike65

Eomer I'm sure you've seen the pictures from around Umm Qasr and the surrounding areas...are all those smiling faces promted by a gun held by British soldiers?

Sure the Yanks will make the most of any "flower strewn" moments if and as they come, but then why would'nt they?

I'll wager that 90-odd % of the Iraqi public will be genuinly glad to see the US/UK succeed and every one of them will have thier own story to tell...I think it'll make for interesting reading and maybe a few in the anti-war
movement at government level - ie the French may be worried about what may come out as civil servants let various cats out of the bag
(they will proberly be red faces in Washington too....).

As for the longer term future of Iraq, well I would'nt like to guess, it may be peaceful based on local devolution
or another hard-man could try to control all from the centre, though that strikes me as unlikely.

Mike.

shotamoose

I will never support the way in which this war was justified. International opinion was utterly disregarged; the largest popular protests in history were ignored; the interests of the iraqi people were taken for granted; lies and distortions were used to try and persuade, and geopolitical might used to bully people into agreeing; the United Nations in particular and multilateral institutions in general were undermined. No matter what the outcome, the way in which the war was approached and proposed was wrong, very wrong.

I refuse to leave that aside, but let's assume that I did. You ask what anti-war people will have to say once Saddam and co are defeated. They'll probably say what they've been saying all along, that they want freedom and democracy for the Iraqis but not at the barrel of a gun and not at the cost of thousands (tens of thousands, even) of their lives, their civilisation and their dignity. They'll probably say that the Americans are not in the slightest bit interested in giving the Iraqi people autonomous self-determination, or in actually paying back the damage that they, the US (and the UK and others) have done to Iraq - in supporting Saddam and in presiding over sanctions regime that amounts to a long, slow war-crime.

'New-found concern for the Iraqi people'? I think you'll find that many of the people opposing this war opposed the US and UK funding and arming Saddam throughout the 80s, and that many of those proposing it - Rumsfeld being the prime example - actively supported someone they knew to be a dangerous, even genocidal dictator. It really makes me sick to see the US administration come across as the friends of the Iraqi people, and if the news from the war is anything to go by, it makes the Iraqi people sick too.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

Dave its Shiite not ****e, oh bugger! Maybe thats why Shier is often used... The censor got me a few weeks ago for saying s-n-i-g-g-e-r. (!)

Finally 66% yes to joining NATO is pretty high I'd say.

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by mike65
Having been watching and listening to various RTE programmes over the last few weeks, I wondered would the rag-tag collective that is the anti-war/anti-US
coalition last a minute longer than Saddam Hussian?

It’s difficult to say. Almost all media coverage has been distorted for propagandistic reasons, by one side or the other. The Iraqi people may well change their attitude towards the coalition, or not - again we’re likely to see two different reports on that.

Public opinion in the West is perhaps easier to predict, in that a rapid conclusion of the conventional war (an ongoing guerrilla war, with or without Saddam, is likely to continue for a long time, just as they still are in Afghanistan) will probably quell most opposition.

Most Western criticism to this conflict will most likely dissipate if the Iraqi government falls within four or five weeks of combat and America does not decide to do anything else to inflame public opinion (like invade Syria).

I'm beginning to tire of ppl declaring thier new found concern for the Iraqi ppl while having done ****-all to aid them for the previous 25-odd years. Yet opposing the best means of delivering them from evil.

Is that a troll? If not, it has to be the most jingoistic piece of crap I’ve seen in a long time.

mike65

the last bit is a bit of a troll, its true....

Mike.

dathi1

Eomer I'm sure you've seen the pictures from around Umm Qasr and the surrounding areas...are all those smiling faces promted by a gun held by British soldiers?

Like tea and biscuits on the Falls Road in 1969 they were always masters of putting the beret and tassel on and give them a smile as we occupy your country. Don’t hassle us though or we'll blow your brains out.
If you want to see the other non smiling faces (cos they’re dead or injured) in the non Sky News and BBC zones on the receiving end of British / US artillery take a look [URL=here ]here[/URL] and tell me if they’ve been liberated.
oh hang on a min...Sure the relatives will get the great British welcoming smile at the end of it all.....worth waiting for.

Éomer of Rohan

I'll wager that 90-odd % of the Iraqi public will be genuinly glad to see the US/UK succeed and every one of them will have thier own story to tell...I think it'll make for interesting reading and maybe a few in the anti-war
movement at government level - ie the French may be worried about what may come out as civil servants let various cats out of the bag
(they will proberly be red faces in Washington too....).

Be realistic - if that number of people wanted rid of Hussein, he would be gone by now, deposed by one of his own generals or aides who would then appeal to the 'populares' to keep him in power - that is fact. The US cannot plausibly deny that he does have support outside of the limited caucus that is the elite of the army and the top of the government - as the Irish proved, you cannot govern an ungovernable people.

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
I'm beginning to tire of ppl declaring thier new found concern for the Iraqi ppl while having done ****-all to aid them for the previous 25-odd years. Yet opposing the best means of delivering them from evil.

You mean like the new found hate that the American Republican party has for Iraqis, having previously supplied them with chemical and biological weapons and having helped fund the Iran-Iraq war and carrying out a proxy war against Iran (their previous ally) on behalf of the Iraqis / Kuwaitis (then on the same side) during the Tanker War. Or when the American ambassador to Baghdad tacitly approved (2 days in advance) the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

Not so much a troll as sarcasm.

PS To be honest Irish people (employed by Cara, an Aer Lingus subsidiary) did help by running the hospital in Baghdad in the 1980s (the hospital was hit by a cruise missile targetting a nearby transmitter last week). There are Iraqi refugees here now (as there was in 1980 - 2 were in my brother's class in school, but later returned). On the flip side we were lower down the line of countries supporting Iraq against Iran, by supplying beef, etc.

Victor

Originally posted by dathi1
look [URL=here ]here[/URL] and

Linky brokey.

CAUTION: STRONG IMAGERY http://www.aljazeera.net/news/arabic/2003/3/3-22-26.htm CAUTION: STRONG IMAGERY

Éomer of Rohan

Elsewhere in Rumsfeld's brave "new" Europe, the Czech Republic insisted it did not belong to the war party though it has sent chemical warfare specialists to Kuwait. Using force to impose democracy in Iraq, warned its president, Vaclav Klaus, is a notion "from another universe

This is the best example of the facade that is the coalition of the willing! The Czech Republic, then Czechoslovakia was 'liberated' from the Soviets following the removal of the Moscow controlled government and even now, when fully embracing the idea of democracy, they can see that America, long held as the beacon for which Eastern Europe was striving is dreaming its own little neo-imperial dream.

America does not have any real international support outside of Britain and Spain - the other 43, well some have been listed and were furious at having been listed, some have been listed for 'allowing the use of [their] airspace' and this proves what a joke this war is. Except to the population of Iraq for whom it is very real.

Victor

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
This is the best example of the facade that is the coalition of the willing! The Czech Republic, then Czechoslovakia was 'liberated' from the Soviets following the removal of the Moscow controlled government and even now, when fully embracing the idea of democracy, they can see that America, long held as the beacon for which Eastern Europe was striving is dreaming its own little neo-imperial dream.

When do you mean? In 1948 when the democratic Czechoslovakian government was overthrown and replaced with an authoritarian communist one? (About the only example of a democratic country becoming a communist one).

Éomer of Rohan

With the collapse of the USSR, Czechoslovakia became a democracy and then became the Czech Republic, centred on Prague and Slovakia, centred on Bratislava. When this happened, they looked towards America as the leader of the 'free world' (I laugh at that!) and despite this, their Premier can see what a dream the Americans have with regard to the 'installation of democracy' (Ha!) in Iraq. Which bit didn't you understand?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Éomer of Rohan

You misunderstand the purpose of the commas - I wanted to differentiate between being liberated as in violently throwing off a tyrannical government or an invasion akin to the liberation of France after D-Day and being served independence on a plate.

sanvean

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan

As for having done f*** all to aid them, I am sure that there are charity organisations out there somewhere and many many people contribute to a charity rather than to a specific campaign so I am sure there has been a lot done for Iraq by many of the people who oppose war - of course this is beside the opposition of many of us to the destruction of power plants, tv stations, public transport and water pumping facilities.

i think he meant mass organised protests. a similar analogy would be the striking lack of protests against the soviet union's policy towards 'troublesome' areas like chechnya, and now those creepy SWSS people are constantly on grafton st telling us to sign stuff against russia's oppresion of the chechnyan's.

but your answer is somewhat lacking. giving money to charities while a nice gesture, and undeniably would do some good, doesn't really amount to helping the iraqi people, or if it does, on a wholly subsistance level. what we should've done (like someone else mentioned) was stop selling him beef, and appealed to the US to stop its tendancy of supporting and supplying bloody and gruesome dictators.

as for the initial question: the movement is an anti-war movement, not an anti-war in iraq movement. the reason why it concentrates on war in iraq is because there is ... a war in iraq. if and when syria and iran (but probably not n korea: too many bad memories, and too many actual real weapons of mass destruction) the anti-war movement will shift its focus to covering those issues.

as for the czech republics attitude to the US recently (although this is the first i've heard about it), they've had brutal experience living under the iron fist of a superpower, so it seems they're playing the cards carefully not to fall under the influence of another. although they'll probably take EU membership as the lesser of three evils.

but that's just my 5c

Éomer of Rohan

I must admit, the case of the Cz Rep. is an interesting one in the scheme of global geo-politics; Russia looks set to embrace the Communist Party of the Russian Federation as it's government once more. The KPRF is the biggest party in the duma (Russian parliament, lower house) and are ready to seriously contest the presidential elections (though there have been many rumours that Putin will suspend the elections indefinitely given a chance, not really surprising from a KGB hardman) - so the position in Eastern Europe will be very interesting in the next few years since inevitably, Belarus and the Ukraine will want to form new ties with a new RSFSR.

mike65

Originally posted by sanvean
i think he meant mass organised protests. a similar analogy would be the striking lack of protests against the soviet union's policy towards 'troublesome' areas like chechnya...

A newbie but a wise one! Hope you've got a hard-hat

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

subsititute 'a wise one' for 'one who agrees with me' for the sake of accuracy mike lol

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sanvean

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
subsititute 'a wise one' for 'one who agrees with me' for the sake of accuracy mike lol

i was actually very hesitant about posting on this politics board, bcos there seems to be a hell of a lot of petty bitching (on both sides) and i didn't really want to get drawn in on it. the reason i took issue with the charity organisations was more a reference to charity organisations who (a) make a hefty profit on the side and (b) have strong links to christian denominations. i don't think i was agreeing with mike65, but thought that he brought up an interesting point which needed (coherent) answering.

it is interesting that there are strong communist roots coming back into the russia duma, although i think alot of it can be put down to nostalgia. i realise that claiming it as nostalgia is somewhat patronising to the russian people actually voting for these organisations, but is somewhat lessened by the growth 'fond remembrance' of stalin.