WAR!

[Black Shuck]

Hello, I know I said I wouldn't comment again as I'd ranted long enough, but Dead inside, you have once again completely missed all my points.

You are not an expert on the incredibly complex middle east situation, you do not know the motives of Bush and Blair, yet you assume that their only motives are to kill and make money- you shouldn't jump to conclusions like this! In this crises there has been propaganda both pro and anti-war.

Yes, The Americans have said some very stupid things in the build-up to war (e.g. calling the French 'cheese-eating surrender monkeys!'), yes, Bush is a bad public speaker, but it doesn't mean he is stupid, or a bad bloke. Stephen Hawking is a bad speaker, does that mean he is stupid as well?

What the States are doing, not giving ENOUGH chances to diplomacy, is TURNING SADAM INTO A MARTYR!
That's what will happen if they have the misfortune of killing him. Sadam will become a martyr for the islam. It's time Americans would realise how islam works - but why bother, it's a different culture, right?
So turning a dictator into a martyr is the most stupid thing anyone can do. And the States are losing that war - worldwide.
Maybe they realise this too late as usual, one day something forces the States to look further then their bellybutton...

Hmm, I don't really see how Saddam Hussein, an atheist leader of an atheist regime, who has had hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed, can ever be a martyr.
Well, he will be a martyr, but only in the same way that Hitler is a martyr to some people; Saddam (like Bin Laden) will only ever be a hero to people who are insane. Anyone who sees the attack on Iraq as an attack on Islam must already be absolutely barmy.

Anyways, I too am glad that there has been such passionate debate on this, it is heartening to know people are so concerned about this terrible crisis. It warmed my heart to see one million protesting in London- I don't agree with them, but I am very glad they all came out and spoke their minds.

[dead stars]

Hmm, I don't really see how Saddam Hussein, an atheist leader of an atheist regime, who has had hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed, can ever be a martyr.
Well, he will be a martyr, but only in the same way that Hitler is a martyr to some people; Saddam (like Bin Laden) will only ever be a hero to people who are insane. Anyone who sees the attack on Iraq as an attack on Islam must already be absolutely barmy.

Tell that to muslims!
You see, here you go pretending their values are our values. Comparing Sadam and Hitler has absolutely no meaning to muslims no matter how it might seem adequate to us.

Sadam Hussein doesn't portray himself as an atheist - by the contrary, in every two sentences from him one is "allah is great". Don't you watch his speeches? Especially the latest ones?

BTW, Al JAzeera was kicked out of the territory. That's bad and the truth will resent it.

I've been to AlJazeera's site:

http://www.aljazeera.net/

At least it's funny.
If anyone finds the link to the site in English... - I know it exists, just can't find it myself. You'll see why.

[Quiff Boy]

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/

[Black Shuck]

Sadam Hussein doesn't portray himself as an atheist - by the contrary, in every two sentences from him one is "allah is great". Don't you watch his speeches? Especially the latest ones?

1) Saddam and his crooked family are atheist, the regime in Iraq IS officially atheist, Saddam only quotes from the Koran, calls for Jihad etc. when they want to get feeble-minded nutters on their side- it doesn't fool 99% of the world's Muslims, who no doubt find his using the Koran whenever it suits him highly offensive.

2) Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other person in world history (approx. 1 million in Iraq alone)

3)Saddam is an embarrassment to just about every other Arab leader, who want to take their countries forward by forging better trade links with the west etc., despite Iraq's VAST oil wealth, 60% of Iraqis rely on foreign food aid to survive, while Saddam spends Iraq's money on Palaces and diamonds (to fund his escape from Iraq)

4)The only person responsible for the thousands of Iraqis who will die in this conflict is Saddam Hussein, who it seems has already done a runner (he hasn't ben on Iraqi TV for a couple of days, which in highly unusual)

5)in my opinion, Saddam is actually WORSE than Hitler; I'm not defending Hitler, he was hideously evil and barking mad, but at least he cared (in a very skewed way) about the German people (erm, the non-Jewish German people anyway)- in his crazy mind he thought he was doing what was best for his country- Saddam only cares about one person- himself, and he doesn't mind how many people he kills to further his vast wealth.

[dead stars]

About the war

Putting aside the fact that this war is
a) illegal from the International Right point of view
b) immoral from any point of view
c) irresponsible and incendiary from an International Relations point of view - and the future will show it
let's deal with the present instead.
It's high time Sadam would resign. Of course, if he was a nice guy, he would have resigned in the first place, if simply to avoid his people's bloodshed. But of course, we know he is not a nice guy.
I'll try to analyse his behaviour from a more pragmatic point of view. Considering Sadam isn't stupid, he surely understands his forces - with or without chemical weapons - will not win. Whatever they have the Americans have twice and will not hesitate on using it if provoked (or not, like history tells us from WWII).
So, what's Sadam up to with this stubborn clinging to power?
a) lunatic bravery: he really believes he will win
b) sudden attack of patriotism: he feels he mustn't abandon his people and his country (besides, obviously, a dictator needs people to dictate)
c) sudden attack of faith: he wants to be killed as a martyr of the islam
d) he's waiting for the result of backstage negotiations - whether they've already started or he's trying to achieve resistance enough to grant him a position of strength

Personally, I'd go for d)-negotiations although a little of a)-lunacy is undeniable. Dictators are known for their charismatic eccentricity and tendency to excess that in the wrong situations takes them to where they get. Best example in History: Hitler. He also preferred to die in his bunker than to accept the defeat of his ideology. We could be watching a parallel real soon with Sadam. Then we'll see how much he actually believes what he preaches.
I'm very concerned about the so-called battle of Baghdad ahead. I fear a massacre to both sides.


About the civilians in Iraq

Obviously, the "freedom" campaign hasn't worked.
a) a countryman dictator is always preferable to a foreign invader
b) especially if this invader is a religious "infidel", as it actually is,
c) and bombs your cities and then tries to allure you with candy, which means your enemy insults you by assuming you have the brains of a monkey and you don't realise they are coming not to install democracy but another way of exploiting your people.


The importance of religion

Saw how the people stood in front of the mosque in Najaf so that the coalition troops had to give up going in? There were no guns in their hands, simply their bodies and their lives at the doors of their temple facing a machinegun armed platoon. That was one of the most impressive images I've seen so far in war scenarios. This wasn't about protecting the regime. It's about protecting holy places. The regime uses religion to fulfil its purposes.
Says Eldritch in Glasperlenspiel about Bin Laden:

"I reckon he can be intelligent and still be a fanatic. I don't think a person can be wise and still be a religious fanatic, but I would observe that religion is a handy control mechanism often used by intelligent non-believers for their own ends, which may or may not be in everybody's interest. I'd still prefer them to do without it. Religion causes no end of trouble, and it's unnecessary."

This is what Mr. Eldritch says but was he thinking about third world countries? The poorest a man is, the more he needs religion. The poor often think "why am I poor?". I'm still to find the rich that poses the question "why am I rich?". Therefore, the importance of religion as relieve through faith, at least in the next life. Religion is very necessary when your horizons don't go much farther than dying in the same poverty you've lived all your life though you know few others have better luck. There's the necessity to conform and explain such unbalances. Religion often becomes the only hope.
The way to change this state of affairs is to develop the country and improve people's life quality in general. This would mean the sharing of resources, not the systematic exploitation of the poorest countries.
Between the option of dividing one's wealth in a long-term investment to develop democracy in a natural way or to bomb away one particular regime, it seems the short-term investment in war is by far economically cheaper...
So, basically, what's being done - not only by Americans - is to systematically put out a fire by starting another fire, as long as the flames don't burn this side of the world. When it happens (by terrorist attacks or worldwide recession) our pain seems always bigger than the burning we start.


About the United States

What really worries me about the States
a) the end of Cold War and the way the States are using it to police the Earth
b) the arrogance - supported by a never ending arsenal
c) the hypocrisy - moral, political, economical
d) the disguised dictatorship which consists in "say whatever you want because this is a free country as long as you don't badmouth the government" or you'll end up fired even if you don't work for the state - of course, I'm completely shocked with
1) the White House "instructions" to the television networks about what they shouldn't show (war prisoners)
2) a journalist like Arnett being fired for saying what he thinks to whom he feels like it (in this case, to Iraq's tv)
3) the society's own internal censorship to whomever is considered "antipatriot" simply by not agreeing with the majority
We're talking about a country where a president was almost made to resign because of an extra-marital affair while a maniac president is let loose to bomb as he pleases.
We're talking about a country where you don't get arrested and tortured for speaking too much, but you're fired instead.
We're talking about a country that tried to convince the international community to support a war based on economical interests disguised by good intentions no one believes. We're talking about a country that believes the rest of the world is stupid enough to swallow such fraud.


About the Cold War

Eldritch answers to the question:
"We should probably state at this point that the WTC attack was an outrage, but what would have been the ideal US response?
That's a nasty question, as we shouldn't be in this position to start with. There is no "ideal" response at this point. Any kind of retribution is not "ideal." Any kind of appeasement is not "ideal." My world view inclines me rather to wonder how such messes can be avoided in the first place. That's not to say that I don't accept the prevalence of these situations, but this isn't the Cold War, which my generation took as a given, and it still doesn't have to turn into the Cold War. The best way to stop it turning into another Cold War is to avoid the next flashpoint. Not bombing Iraq or North Korea would be a good start. Solid criticism of Sharon would help."
The Cold War was too a reality for us that are now 30 or more. I grew up with the threat of "the bomb". I had nightmares about the Third world war. Many times I woke up sweating with the image of global annihilation on my mind. People who are now 20 or less cannot remember it, of course, which also explains a little bit of light-heartedness towards war and its effects, sort of a "computer game generation" consequence.
Why am I bringing up the subject? Well, if you asked me 5 years ago about the materialisation of an European Army I'd say "I'm a pacifist and there's no need for such now that the wall has crumbled". Today, I'm the first to say let's get on with it as soon as possible. Never thought I'd say this. But the truth is I dread "American freedom". I prefer my own.
The United States under Bush administration - and especially by disrespecting the United Nations - have achieved to scare the world into extreme militarist positions. I hope Americans realise what Bush is doing to turn the States into a global threat and kindly remove him in the next elections or as soon as possible.

[dead stars]

@ DI

search on bush, iraq, divine, god ....... that sort of thing and you'll find loads but here are two i liked

one comments from around the world

http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/926.cfm


one the actual state of the nation speech transcript

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 29-11.html

Been there. Couldn't find it. Copy/paste the "evidence" and its source.
It's hard to believe and very dangerous if it's true.

[Dan]

Yesterday looters stole the grand piano from the Basra Sheraton.

"Meanwhile in the Sheraton, Dr. Jeep...er...oh bugger."

[RicheyJames]

heave-ho

in a final attempt to save this place from sinking to the basest possible levels i've kindly dragged this rather more intelligent thread back from the depths.

one year (and a bit) on and iraq still dominates the news media (except the british tabloids who are far more interested in whether or not a slightly above average footballer has been cheating on his ex-pop star wife) with good ol' bush jnr only last night promising to devote whatever resources the commanders on the ground call for to complete the "m*****n".

what do we all think now? has anyone who was pro- or anti-war a year ago changed their mind? does it matter that there's no sign of wmd? is the world a safer place?

and, while we're here, one or two of our "newer" members might like to peruse the rest of this thread and note that it used to be possible to carry on an intelligent debate around these parts without descending to childish insults....

[Black Shuck]

I'm still in favour of the war.

It's important not to suddenly think the liberation of Iraq was a bad idea just because a few nutters with Kalashnikovs have started murdering and kidnapping innocent civilians in Iraq, both Iraqis and foreigners.

I just hope all those evil bastards are 'captured or killed' (ie shot in the head while they sleep) ASAFP.



So, Richey, how do you feel about the war a year on? (I can probably guess... )

[Thrash Harry]

Well well well. A little bit of politics. Spooky Richey! I was just thinking the very same thing as I listened to PM on my way home earlier on. On your advice, I started reading this thread from the beginning, but got fed up waiting for you to express an opinion as opposed to just picking everyone else's apart. Furthermore, I think you'd probably rather not have my own views adulterated by those that have been expressed by others.

Yes, I reluctantly supported the war. I say reluctantly because the dangers were clear and no-one really wants to fight do they? But it seemed that Saddam had been waving his arse in our face for long enough over whether or not he had WMD that it deserved a good kicking. Final UN approval would have been nice, but, ultimately, given a choice between the US and Europe, I'd side with the States every time.

And what now?

No WMD. Does it matter? Only in as much as I can't say "Told you so" and the fence-sitters can. If someone sticks two fingers in your back and tells you it's a gun, can they then plead innocent when you pull out a knife and stab them? As for the genuine anti-war protestors, those that I know are absolute pacifists for whom the WMD issue was irrelevant anyway. It's a stance I respect, as my Mother is a firm believer, but not one that I can support. I believe there comes a time when you have to stand up and fight when the people you care about seem to be in danger.

Is the world a safer place? Two points here I guess. Firstly, the 'threat' of Saddam seems to have been non-existent, at least in terms of launching an attack on the West. Perhaps a few less Iraq-sponsored suicide bombers will be heading for Jerusalem. Secondly, the threat of terrorism. Would the increased levels of terrorist activity have been present anyway following the 'successes' of Al Quaida? I think I'd probabbly have to concede that the Iraq conflict has given fundamentalist terrorists more ammunition to throw at the West and drum up support for their cause.

What next? Iraq's a bloody mess. The fears of a Vietnam-like guerrilla war look like coming true and this time we're right there in the thick of it. We have to accept responsibility and keep our troops there, at least until the handover on 30th June, and thereafter, if requested by the new regime. The handover date should not be moved back, because there will never be a 'right time' and the sooner the Iraqi people feel they're back in control of their own destiny, the sooner we can disengage.

[Black Planet]

What does an American say?

I support my troops and as they are an all volunteer force they know what they have volunteered for. That doesn't make the body count any less pleasant.

My President has a conviction and I believe he's an honest man trying to do right. I know most of you HATE him but oh well that's too bad. We, meaning rank and file Yanks really dont' care, because he makes us feel safer. And for me, that's alot. I work in Wash DC. I take the subway to work every day, it's got risks..Spain taught us that. And yes, I am bombarded daily with the spare bag safety messages. Red line is down more and I am late almost daily while security thingys are checked out.

As for Iraq. No they don't like us much. But what they do like is the fact that they can live their lives like the rest of us do...free from fear from a sadistic government.

Yes I want my countrymen out of there when the new gov't takes control. But in the end, I think a good deed has been done...what Iraq does with that good deed is entirely up to the Iraqi people.

I dont' ususally comment on politics. It's far too dangerous, and from former employment I was banned from it. I audited the pols....hence had to be impartial...and never speak of it. Oh well...you got my dollars worth today.

[markfiend]

Well, personally, I think the anti-war stance has been completely vindicated; no WMD, no link between Al-Qaeda (?spelling) and Saddam, increased hostility for the West in the Arab and Muslim world.

As for BP's point:

I support my troops and as they are an all volunteer force they know what they have volunteered for. That doesn't make the body count any less pleasant.

They volunteered to defend your country, not to be a private army propping up Bush / Cheney / Halliburton's Oil company-led war. The best way to support the troops is to bring them home!

[hallucienate]

http://amleft.blogspot.com/

a mosaic composed of the photos of the American service men and women who have died in Iraq. No photograph is used more than three times

[Mrs RicheyJames]

and, while we're here, one or two of our "newer" members might like to peruse the rest of this thread and note that it used to be possible to carry on an intelligent debate around these parts without descending to childish insults....

<sighs nostalgically> yep those were the days...........

[Quiff Boy]

and, while we're here, one or two of our "newer" members might like to peruse the rest of this thread and note that it used to be possible to carry on an intelligent debate around these parts without descending to childish insults....

<sighs nostalgically> yep those were the days...........

that was was before your time that wasn't it?

hmmm, now i think about it.......

didn't that phase end about the same time you joined?

[Mrs RicheyJames]

<slaps Quiffy upside the head and chooses not to tell him more about that shop in Notts that do those god awful shoes that he wears>

[RicheyJames]

On your advice, I started reading this thread from the beginning, but got fed up waiting for you to express an opinion as opposed to just picking everyone else's apart.

sorry to disappoint thrash but i find playing devil's advocate a far better way of teasing out the thoughts and opinions of others. not that i don't have opinions of my own and if you're really interested i'm more than prepared to expand on them at some length - don't say you weren't warned!

and of course, thanks to my training i could have an argument whilst unconscious in an empty room....

[Tuscan Chimaera]

The problem with internartional conflicts run by the US is that not enough damn imagination goes into them. Get the Iti's on board I say.

Don't you feel stupid now, boy.

[Mrs RicheyJames]

HA

[Chairman Bux]

The problem with internartional conflicts run by the US is that not enough damn imagination goes into them. Get the Iti's on board I say.

Don't you feel stupid now, boy.

And quite rightly so.

[Tuscan Chimaera]

About the war

Putting aside the fact that this war is
a) illegal from the International Right point of view
b) immoral from any point of view
c) irresponsible and incendiary from an International Relations point of view - and the future will show it
let's deal with the present instead.
It's high time Sadam would resign. Of course, if he was a nice guy, he would have resigned in the first place, if simply to avoid his people's bloodshed. But of course, we know he is not a nice guy.
I'll try to analyse his behaviour from a more pragmatic point of view. Considering Sadam isn't stupid, he surely understands his forces - with or without chemical weapons - will not win. Whatever they have the Americans have twice and will not hesitate on using it if provoked (or not, like history tells us from WWII).
So, what's Sadam up to with this stubborn clinging to power?
a) lunatic bravery: he really believes he will win
b) sudden attack of patriotism: he feels he mustn't abandon his people and his country (besides, obviously, a dictator needs people to dictate)
c) sudden attack of faith: he wants to be killed as a martyr of the islam
d) he's waiting for the result of backstage negotiations - whether they've already started or he's trying to achieve resistance enough to grant him a position of strength

Personally, I'd go for d)-negotiations although a little of a)-lunacy is undeniable. Dictators are known for their charismatic eccentricity and tendency to excess that in the wrong situations takes them to where they get. Best example in History: Hitler. He also preferred to die in his bunker than to accept the defeat of his ideology. We could be watching a parallel real soon with Sadam. Then we'll see how much he actually believes what he preaches.
I'm very concerned about the so-called battle of Baghdad ahead. I fear a massacre to both sides.


About the civilians in Iraq

Obviously, the "freedom" campaign hasn't worked.
a) a countryman dictator is always preferable to a foreign invader
b) especially if this invader is a religious "infidel", as it actually is,
c) and bombs your cities and then tries to allure you with candy, which means your enemy insults you by assuming you have the brains of a monkey and you don't realise they are coming not to install democracy but another way of exploiting your people.


The importance of religion

Saw how the people stood in front of the mosque in Najaf so that the coalition troops had to give up going in? There were no guns in their hands, simply their bodies and their lives at the doors of their temple facing a machinegun armed platoon. That was one of the most impressive images I've seen so far in war scenarios. This wasn't about protecting the regime. It's about protecting holy places. The regime uses religion to fulfil its purposes.
Says Eldritch in Glasperlenspiel about Bin Laden:

"I reckon he can be intelligent and still be a fanatic. I don't think a person can be wise and still be a religious fanatic, but I would observe that religion is a handy control mechanism often used by intelligent non-believers for their own ends, which may or may not be in everybody's interest. I'd still prefer them to do without it. Religion causes no end of trouble, and it's unnecessary."

This is what Mr. Eldritch says but was he thinking about third world countries? The poorest a man is, the more he needs religion. The poor often think "why am I poor?". I'm still to find the rich that poses the question "why am I rich?". Therefore, the importance of religion as relieve through faith, at least in the next life. Religion is very necessary when your horizons don't go much farther than dying in the same poverty you've lived all your life though you know few others have better luck. There's the necessity to conform and explain such unbalances. Religion often becomes the only hope.
The way to change this state of affairs is to develop the country and improve people's life quality in general. This would mean the sharing of resources, not the systematic exploitation of the poorest countries.
Between the option of dividing one's wealth in a long-term investment to develop democracy in a natural way or to bomb away one particular regime, it seems the short-term investment in war is by far economically cheaper...
So, basically, what's being done - not only by Americans - is to systematically put out a fire by starting another fire, as long as the flames don't burn this side of the world. When it happens (by terrorist attacks or worldwide recession) our pain seems always bigger than the burning we start.


About the United States

What really worries me about the States
a) the end of Cold War and the way the States are using it to police the Earth
b) the arrogance - supported by a never ending arsenal
c) the hypocrisy - moral, political, economical
d) the disguised dictatorship which consists in "say whatever you want because this is a free country as long as you don't badmouth the government" or you'll end up fired even if you don't work for the state - of course, I'm completely shocked with
1) the White House "instructions" to the television networks about what they shouldn't show (war prisoners)
2) a journalist like Arnett being fired for saying what he thinks to whom he feels like it (in this case, to Iraq's tv)
3) the society's own internal censorship to whomever is considered "antipatriot" simply by not agreeing with the majority
We're talking about a country where a president was almost made to resign because of an extra-marital affair while a maniac president is let loose to bomb as he pleases.
We're talking about a country where you don't get arrested and tortured for speaking too much, but you're fired instead.
We're talking about a country that tried to convince the international community to support a war based on economical interests disguised by good intentions no one believes. We're talking about a country that believes the rest of the world is stupid enough to swallow such fraud.


About the Cold War

Eldritch answers to the question:
"We should probably state at this point that the WTC attack was an outrage, but what would have been the ideal US response?
That's a nasty question, as we shouldn't be in this position to start with. There is no "ideal" response at this point. Any kind of retribution is not "ideal." Any kind of appeasement is not "ideal." My world view inclines me rather to wonder how such messes can be avoided in the first place. That's not to say that I don't accept the prevalence of these situations, but this isn't the Cold War, which my generation took as a given, and it still doesn't have to turn into the Cold War. The best way to stop it turning into another Cold War is to avoid the next flashpoint. Not bombing Iraq or North Korea would be a good start. Solid criticism of Sharon would help."
The Cold War was too a reality for us that are now 30 or more. I grew up with the threat of "the bomb". I had nightmares about the Third world war. Many times I woke up sweating with the image of global annihilation on my mind. People who are now 20 or less cannot remember it, of course, which also explains a little bit of light-heartedness towards war and its effects, sort of a "computer game generation" consequence.
Why am I bringing up the subject? Well, if you asked me 5 years ago about the materialisation of an European Army I'd say "I'm a pacifist and there's no need for such now that the wall has crumbled". Today, I'm the first to say let's get on with it as soon as possible. Never thought I'd say this. But the truth is I dread "American freedom". I prefer my own.
The United States under Bush administration - and especially by disrespecting the United Nations - have achieved to scare the world into extreme militarist positions. I hope Americans realise what Bush is doing to turn the States into a global threat and kindly remove him in the next elections or as soon as possible.

Low 2.2, International Relations, Luton Polytechnic.

[RicheyJames]

My President has a conviction and I believe he's an honest man trying to do right. I know most of you HATE him but oh well that's too bad.

for what it's worth, i'm sure bush and co really do believe that they're doing the right thing. unfortunately, that's not the same as actually doing the right thing is it?

We, meaning rank and file Yanks really dont' care, because he makes us feel safer.

okay, you might feel safer due to more visible security precautions but do you really, honestly believe that any amount of security could have prevented new york, madrid or bali? as the old terrorist adage goes "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once."

As for Iraq. No they don't like us much. But what they do like is the fact that they can live their lives like the rest of us do...free from fear from a sadistic government.

but what they don't like is their holy cities being laid seige to by thousands of good ol' boys who refuse to even let ambulances through their roadblaocks. what they don't like is 8000-10000+ of their fellow civillians being killed in the past fifteen months (source).

Yes I want my countrymen out of there when the new gov't takes control. But in the end, I think a good deed has been done...what Iraq does with that good deed is entirely up to the Iraqi people.

ah, the old "we liberated them for democracy it's not our fault if the barbaric arabs are incapable of anything but butchering one another" gambit. wonder why it is most of the world thinks yanks are arrogant...?

[Tuscan Chimaera]

My President has a conviction and I believe he's an honest man trying to do right. I know most of you HATE him but oh well that's too bad.

for what it's worth, i'm sure bush and co really do believe that they're doing the right thing. unfortunately, that's not the same as actually doing the right thing is it?

We, meaning rank and file Yanks really dont' care, because he makes us feel safer.

okay, you might feel safer due to more visible security precautions but do you really, honestly believe that any amount of security could have prevented new york, madrid or bali? as the old terrorist adage goes "you have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once."

As for Iraq. No they don't like us much. But what they do like is the fact that they can live their lives like the rest of us do...free from fear from a sadistic government.

but what they don't like is their holy cities being laid seige to by thousands of good ol' boys who refuse to even let ambulances through their roadblaocks. what they don't like is 8000-10000+ of their fellow civillians being killed in the past fifteen months (source).

Yes I want my countrymen out of there when the new gov't takes control. But in the end, I think a good deed has been done...what Iraq does with that good deed is entirely up to the Iraqi people.

ah, the old "we liberated them for democracy it's not our fault if the barbaric arabs are incapable of anything but butchering one another" gambit. wonder why it is most of the world thinks yanks are arrogant...?

Beta plus, 4th form debating competition, Llanedeyrn High Secondary School, Cardiff.

Gotta give the Welsh marks for trying

[andymackem]

Well, I cautiously supported the war on a wait-and-see ticket, and that's roughly where I am today.

Frankly, the sight of 1m protesters charging through London bleating "Don't attack Iraq" depressed me immensely last year. Reducing a hugely complex international issue to a three-word mantra and claiming to speak "for the nation" without proposing a constructive alternative to dealing with a monstrous regime which has been persistently in breach of UN regulations does verge on the pathetic.

So, why attack Iraq? The WMD aren't there. Many people suspected that a year or more ago - well done to them. I'm not privy to the intelligence that persuaded the coalition of the presence of WMD, so I can't comment on that. BUT, in the UK there has been endless wailing about "government by focus group". Even if Blair was wrong, at least he acted out of his convictions. I'd rather have that than a nation where policy is determined by who can bleat the catchiest slogan in Hyde Park. Especially if I can vote against him if I don't like his convictions.

The Utopian view: Saddam was an evil leader, among the worst in the world. Go look at some of Amnesty International's thoughts on the Ba'ath regime. Previous western governments may well have supported his military ambitions towards Iran ... an obvious mistake. He also attacked a neighbouring state in Kuwait, and the Kuwaitis were correctly defended by the international community. Since 1991 he stayed home and wreaked his havoc inside his own borders. Now he's gone, and whatever follows will ultimately be much better.

IF you accept that as a starting point, how else could he be removed? Diplomatic pressure - for 12 years - achieved very little. Indeed there were growing calls for sanctions to be lifted to improve the quality of life of the Iraqi people. Lift sanctions and it looks like Saddam won and diplomacy has failed. Continue sanctions and Iraq suffers en masse. What would _you_ have done?

Why Iraq, and not N Korea, Israel etc? If you want to be a global police force, don't make your first engagement a difficult one. Attacking a Chinese-backed nuclear power is a war we could conceivably lose, and public opinion destroys you politcally. That was never a viable military prospect here. I don't want to see a US-led coalition spend the rest of my life charging around attacking those countries it dislikes, but I don't really want to see half the world being screwed by a foul selection of dictators. Again, what would _you_ choose?

It's still difficult, it's still regretable and I still have enormous sympathy for everyone caught up in this mess - be they Iraqi civilians, Western troops and ground workers or Spanish commuters. But I think we need to recognise that for the first time I can recall there are steps being taken which _might_ lead to a real challenge to localised dictatorial brutality.

That's still a hope worth fighting for, even if the reality of that fight is less clean than we might hope at times.

[Thrash Harry]

not that i don't have opinions of my own and if you're really interested i'm more than prepared to expand on them at some length

Please do. I freely admit to being less well informed than I probably should be. Not that that's ever stopped me having an opinion of course. I was raised a Catholic after all.