link That just leaves the theory that it was all about gaining American corporate access to Middle East oil...

I don't have a problem with OPEC being paid back for messing the rest of us around since the 1970s, but I wish Bush & Blair had been a bit more honest about it and hadn't pretended they care about Freedom in the Middle East.

I just can't believe that these pair of knob-stones have been allowed to keep their jobs.

That website is ratehr informative. Cheers for the link Troll. You'd think these guys would be more careful about what they say but apparently the internet is unknown to them

So I suppose it was wrong for the U.S. to get involved in European affairs during World War II because the aggressors in Europe had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor?

You are supporting a straw man argument. I don't think Bush (or anyone else) said that the reason for the war in Iraq was that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, and I saw no evidence to the contrary from the link you provided. However, 9/11 was the wakeup call which made the U.S. realize that it could not continue to virtually ignore the threat posed by openly hostile regimes - especially those which support Islamic jihad (which is a connection to 9/11 after all). Iraq had been an ongoing issue for about 12 years before the U.S. and U.K. (with the support of quite a few other countries) finally decided to remove Saddam who had been violating the terms of the 1991 ceasefire agreement for years.

In fact this is exactly what he implied before he started out in Iraq. I hope someone has a link handy - I had one the other day which was quite amusing/infuriating.

And, not being funny or anything, but a World War is a little bit of a different situation than going to war with a country for fuzzy reasons. America was attacked directly by Japan at Pearl Harbour. Bush declared war on Iraq over nuclear weapons that even the UN said didn't exist and has since admitted that there aren't any himself. See the slight difference in context?

Nobody's saying Saddam's rule was good or anything or that he shouldn't have been removed from power, but making up lies to go to war is like invading countries for the hell of it and that's how World Wars get kicked off.

To go to your final point, violating a ceasefire - yes, but the reason we all went to war was over those darned invisible nukes remember? This thing has dragged out for so long that even Bush can't remember what he said in the first place.

I've always thought it was a blunder for the administration to use possible chemical weapons posession as an excuse for the war. Or they shouldn't have worded it that way (or the press shoudn't have focused so much on it either way).

Considering too that the UN has no real muscle other than sanctions to enforce its directives, I personally think they ought to have hyped this angle. Sanctions didn't work so well or as well as they'd hoped as a deterant. Neither did diplomacy for that matter - didn't they boot out weapons inspectors on more than one occasion?

I think the bottom line here is that, the enforcement of UN resolutions. If they've been broken, there's only so much you can do. I also think this event probably has set a new prescedent in terms of trying to figure out what the UN's purpose should be in this kind of thing.

There's also another issue, and that's countries who may be up to no good who aren't members or bound by their decisions. What do you do? Default to some kind of moral high ground and take necessary action anyway? And who leads the charge?

Implied? I don't think so. But if that's your opinion, then I doubt that anything could convince you otherwise. Implication is often in the eye of the beholder.


I don't think the reasons were fuzzy at all. Bush laid them out clearly in his 2003 State of the Union Address . And by the way, Iraq is part of a World War (fundamental Islam vs. the rest of the world). You could argue that it wasn't at first, but it certainly seems to have become the main front. I don't know about you, but I would rather have the main front be in Iraq than in someplace like the U.S. or the U.K.


Lies? A lie requires knowledge that what one is saying is false. Are you able to read Bush's mind to know that this was the case? The entire world (including Saddam's generals) believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (because he most certainly did at one time) and that he was seeking more. Some (sarin gas, if I remember correctly) were found, but not in the expected quantities. They could still be hidden somewhere, or they might have been shipped off to someplace like Syria. Saddam was supposed to provide verification that he had destroyed what he was known to have, but he never did anything of the sort.

Well okay then, for the last point we'll change "lie" to "misinformed" but either way as President of the USA he's accountable along with the rest of his office.

Any yes, everyone has differing views so I don't think anyone's got much chance of changing each other's stance on the subject as you say.

I think my underlying point though is that if you have to go to war, make sure you're not so bloody vague to begin with. It needs to be "We are at war because XYZ" and not because of the "we think they've got stuff like..." or "they're looking pretty powerful so we might just..." kind of thing. It's the only way to be absolutely clear or people forget what the whole point was and start filling in the rather large gaps in the logic themselves.

Iran should get nukes....then both Iran and Israel could nuke themselves and the entire Middle East into oblivion and permanently solve the problem. (plus getting rid of all the oil that fuels it)

I found a link on the iunfamous 45 minute warning dossier published by the British government in the buildup to the war here. This dossier was the official justification by Tony Blair for taking Britain into the war.

It includes a link to the actual dossier, which you can find here.

Curiously, the dossier argues that Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iran and his own people in the 1980s is proof of the danger of the Iraqi WMD programme. These are the very weapons that the USA and its allies supplied him with so that Iran would not win its war against Iraq. According to Wikipedia, these chemical weapons killed around 100,000 Iranians. By condoning Iraq's actions at the time and supplying Saddam with chemical weapons that we knew he would use, we ended up being equally to blame for those 100,000 deaths as Saddam so we are on questionable ground when we use that against him 15 years later.

The paper also lists Iraqi human rights abuses as a secondary reason for war. Trouble is that we turned a blind eye to the human rights situation before 1990 when Saddam was someone we could do business with, and we continue to ignore the human rights abuses in many other countries because we can do business with their governments.

I think your right, it makes it harder to stand on some moral high ground in justifying a war when a previous conflict saw our indirect particpation cause more problems.

More Cold War fallout bites us in the ass. We help guys like bin Laden during the Russian war with Afganistan - it bites us in the ass later. Russia helps the Vietnamese, it turned out relatively well for them. China helps the North Koreans, ended in a stalemate that's lasted 50 years. We help Iraq fight Iran, it bites us in the ass again.

Seems to me remote control wars work less often than not. Mopping up our problems isn't so easy is it.

It wasn't nearly as simple as you make it sound. From what I've read, as far as the U.S. was concerned anyway, it was private (i.e. not the government) corporations which supplied dual-use components (e.g. insecticide) of those weapons. The weapons themselves were then made in Iraq (it seems that nearly all of the weapons Iraq purchased as weapons came from Russia). I suppose that the degree to which the U.S. government was aware of and/or supported this depends largely on how cynical one is.

It always amazes me how so many people in the U.S. and U.K. are so quick to accept propaganda which goes against their own governments. Sometimes, it seems as if they think their own countries are the source of all lies and other evil in the world. Remember this guy ? I wish people would see that a great deal of the anti-U.S., anti-U.K., and anti-Israel propaganda to which they are exposed is either blatantly false or otherwise twists facts in a dishonest manner. And I wish people would be more aware that a lot of this distortion is perpetrated or at least accepted by their own media for political purposes. There are a couple of interesting videos on this subject here . A certain amount of cynicism is a healthy thing, but too many times, it seems to be misdirected.


I would not disagree with you that the results have not always been stellar, but at least the intentions were good. The involvement in Vietnam and Korea was attempting to stop the violent spread of communism, and Iran is something like the world headquarters of militant Islam which also seeks to spread itself through violence. It's entirely possible that things would have turned out much worse had the U.S. not made these efforts to stop the spread of tyranny. The worst thing you can do when opposing tyranny is to display weakness; if they see that, they'll walk all over you. And negotiation, while it can be an honorable goal, is not always a legitimate option. For negotiation to work, both sides must be honest and reasonable.

Mind you, I don't think the U.S. has been right in absolutely every military action throughout its history (I can think of at least one case where the U.S. may have been helping the wrong side). But for some reason, people seem to demand absolute perfection from the U.S. - anything less is portrayed as absolute failure. And yet they seemingly ignore (or don't care about) regularly occurring atrocities in other nations. Iran's president has announced that he wants Israel wiped off the map, and still many people seem more concerned about ascribing ulterior motives to Bush, Blair, and others who stand against that sort of thing.

Because we are. We (civilised governments) sell people ARMS to fight wars because we want to end up with the lesser of two evils (whilst making a shed-load of cash) right? Then we complain when they use them ON US later on and then pretend like it's not our fault that they've got our equipment pointed at us!

It really is that simple when you break it all down to it's most basic components.

However, as has been stated earlier in the thread there's no point getting too passionate about either side of the argument as most folks reading or participating in this thread have made up their minds one way or another already

Having said that I can't let this next gem go without comment:



All I can say is Good old USA eh? I'm glad I had a good laugh today after a hard day's work.

Ah, yes! the good old war-by proxy doctrine. Tried and tested since the World War 2 and perhaps even before.
I guess El presidente Bush just doesn't believe in it any more as it almost always came back and bid the US in the rear. So he send in his own goons to do the dirty work.
Is Syria and/or Iran next?!?

Wow. I thought I was being hyperbolic. It seems that moral relativism and elements of socialist/communist ideology have been spreading like a virus. May I ask how old you are (I'm 42)? Do your parents think as you do?


The only U.S. or U.K. arms of which I'm aware that might be pointed at us are some stinger missiles which were given to the Afghans to help them fight off the Soviets. Iran still has some U.S. fighter jets which were sold to the Shah, but it is highly unlikely that they are still functional. The U.S. has not had dealings with Iran since the revolution in '79. China and Russia have supplied nearly all of the arms which may be used against us.


I think you're having trouble in assigning responsibility. If a person gets drunk, gets in a car, and ends up killing someone, you would be blaming the shop owner who sold him the beer.

It is true that "civilised governemnts" have empowered the Islamic jihadists during the 20th century by purchasing oil from Islamic nations. At one time, they could have quite easily taken whatever they wanted by force, but that would have been barbaric rather than civilized. In retrospect, it would have been best to just leave the oil where it was and look elsewhere. But I don't think people understood (and most still don't understand) the ideology of these people.

Regarding American and British arms sales, I've just had a look through Jane's 2002 Warships Guide, and it lists a large number of UK and US built ships serving in foreign navies. Some were built to order, while others were second or third hand, a common practice to save money. I've used the original class name where possible:


ALGERIA

Eleven UK Kebir class patrol boats

ARGENTINA

Two UK Type-42 class destroyers
Honourable mention to the US built cruiser General Belgrano, sunk in the Falklands War

AUSTRALIA

Six US Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates
Fifteen UK Fremantle class patrol boats
Two US Newport class amphibious personnel carriers

BAHRAIN

One US Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate

BANGLADESH

Two UK Leopard class frigates
One UK Salisbury class frigates
Two UK Megna class patrol boats

BARBADOS

One UK Kebir class patrol boat

BRAZIL

One UK Colossus class aircraft carrier, since paid off
Four UK Broadsword class frigates
Six UK Niteroi classa frigates
Four US Garcia class frigates
Twelve UK Grajau class patrol boats
One US Newport class amphibious personnel carrier
Two US Thomaston class landing ships

BRUNEI

One UK Brunei class corvette (imaginative name!)

CANADA

Four UK Upholder class submarines

CHILE

Three UK County class destroyers
Three UK Leander class frigates
One US Newport class amphibious personnel carrier

ECUADOR

Two UK Leander class frigates

EGYPT

Four US Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates
Two US/Spain Knox class frigates
Six UK Ramadan class patrol boats

GERMANY

Two US Charles S Adams calss destroyers

GREECE

Four US Charlews S Adams class destroyers
Two US/Spain Knox class frigates
Seven UK Super Vita class patrol boats (three of which are in construction and the other four are planned)
Two UK Hunt class minesweepers

INDIA

One UK Hermes class aircraft carrier
Five UK Leander class frigates

INDONESIA

Four US Claud Jones class frigates

IRAN

Three UK Vosper Mark 5 class frigates
Two US Bayandor class frigates

IRELAND

Two UK Peacock class patrol boats

KENYA

Two UK Province class patrol boats

MALAYSIA

Three UK Leiku class frigates
One US Newport class amphibious personnel carriers

MOROCCO

One US Newport class amphibious personnel carrier

NEW ZEALAND

One UK Leander class frigates

NIGERIA

One UK Vosper Thorneycroft Mark 9 corvette (a second is in repair due to an embarrassing accident)

MEXICO

Two US Gearing class destroyers
One US Fletcher class destroyer
Four US/Spain Knox class frigates
Two US Bronstein class frigates
Thirty UK Azteca class patrol boats (The Yanks must have been ticked off to lose that order!)

OMAN

Two UK Qahir class corvettes
FOur UK Province class patrol boats

PAKISTAN

One US Gearing class destroyer
Two UK Leander class frigates
Six UK Amazon class frigates

PERU

One UK Daring class destroyer

PHILLIPINES

One US Cannon class frigate
Three UK Jacinto classw patrol boats

POLAND

Two US Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates

QATAR

Four UK Barzan class patrol boats

SAUDI ARABIA

Four US Badr class corvettes
Nine US Al SIddiq class patrol boats
Three UK Sandown class minesweepers

SOUTH KOREA

Five US Gearing class destroyers

SPAIN

Six US Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates
Two US Newport class amphibious personnel carriers

TAIWAN

Seven US Gearing class destroyers
Seven US Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates
Eight US/Spain Knox class frigates
Two US Newport class amphibious personnel carriers

THAILAND

Two US/Spain Knox class frigates
One US Cannon class frigate
Two US Tapi class frigates
One UK Yarrow class frigate
Three UK Khamronsin class corvettes
Two US Rattanakosin class corvettes

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO

One UK Island class patrol boat

TURKEY

Six US Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates
Six US/Spain Knox class frigates
One US Claud Jones class frigate


Of course, Britain and America aren't the only countries exporting warships, but I believe that this list demonstrates how widespread and profitable the arms trade really is. Plenty of people make money out of wars.

Iran is currently very hostile to the US/UK, but I think the ships we sold them predate the 1979 revolution. Several other countries, including Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan and Oman could very easily become hostile to American and British interests in the near future; in some cases our economic and military interests would make war inevitable if that happens.

Some of our customers may well sell on our ships to other countries hostile to our interests. There is also the matter of naval technology - China, who regards as strong navy as necessary in order to compete with the USA, is likely to be aquiring data on American and British naval technology by doing deals with or spying on some of the countries on that list.

The human rights issue of selling arms to repressive regimes sometimes "bites us on the ass" as people have a tendency to become angry with the foreign governments who support their oppressors, and arms sales certainaly come into this category.

Deepone - I'm 24 years old, but since that's irrelevant to this topic (as is the opinion of my parents) I'd suggest that we not use age as an indicator of wisdom eh?

Accounting Troll has shown just the tip of the iceberg with the figures above. That's just ships - whereas planes, tanks, guns and ammo themselves... the numbers can only be higher.

As for the car crash analogy - it doesn't really hold water because it's the driver's responsibility, and at the start of the night they're not consciously going out to kill anyone (even though they probably will if they carry on drink driving).

In the case of arms sales, what do you suppose the guns are going to be used for? Door stops? They're going to be used to kill people (often in "self defense" which is another conveniently relative term) on a large scale - hence why you usually get around 30-odd bullets per rifle.

Back to an earlier comment in your post - what the hell has communism got to do with anything?! I don't really have much truck with political ideologies as they're just excuses to blow stuff up half the time and say it's all okay.

Let's stick to the argument eh and not suggest Age = Wisdom or Differing View = Communism

There you go again finding implications where none were intended.

The reason I asked is that your thoughts seem so alien to what I have always thought were the ideals of western civilization. And I was wondering whether this kind of thinking was something that had only become popular recently (hence, my asking whether your parents thought the same). In the U.S., public schools and most colleges have become liberal (in the U.S. sense) indoctrination centers in recent decades. I thought the same kind of thing might be happening there.