Was the Iraq War justified?

[Accounting Troll]

I think that Bush and Blair made a massive mistake by concentrating on the Iraqi WMDs. Blair certainaly lied over the issue, and I think Bush probably did as well. Blair's FIRST Iraq dossier turned out to have been a plagarized thesis written by a student in California ten years previously. It even had the same spelling mistakes, and it used American English, which British Military Intelligence never uses when it compiles a report for the British government. All these lies have handed a massive propaganda victory to Al Qaeda.

 

Also, while there is a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda TODAY, there certainaly wasn't before the invasion.

 

But on the other hand, the British and Americans maintained sanctions for a decade because Iraq kept invading neighbouring countries. Iraq also kept attacking the aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones that we were forced to set up to stop Saddam from committing genocide against the Kurds and the Shiites living in the southern marshes.

 

The sanctions were crumbling, and Saddam unwittingly provided the proof. Remember how he liked showing Western journolists around Iraqi hospitals full of children dying through a lack of food and the most basic medicines? Well, the UN sactions were relaxed around 1994 (I think) in the oil for food programme. The terms were that Iraq would be allowed to sell oil in exchange for food and medicine. Yet Iraqi children continued to die...

 

A lot of people, including myself, have noticed that oil seems to have been a major factor in the recent invasion. It was certainaly what motivated Saddam to invade Kuwait in 1990. However, OPEC countries, including Iraq, have been screwing the West for decades by conspiring to keep the price of oil artificially high. Remember the hyperinflation and economic chaos of the 1970s? Price fixing is illegal when private companies do this in the EU.

 

Our civilization is dependent upon oil, and it will remain so for decades to come. Europe and North America would be economically crushed if OPEC decides to align itself with China. Even the United States can no longer produce enough oil to keep its citizens happy. Such a scenario isn't that unlikely. Chinese demand for oil is growing rapidly, and China doesn't care about human rights abuses in OPEC countries. Is it morally wrong to head off this threat by shattering the power of OPEC now by installing a puppet regime in Iraq, and flooding the world markets with Iraqi oil? Remember that Saudi Arabia and Iran have been using their oil revenues to fund the growth of islamic fundamentalism across the world.

[FullAuto]

We should have done the job properly the first time around.

Instead, we chose not to.

 

Is it morally wrong to head off this threat by shattering the power of OPEC now by installing a puppet regime in Iraq, and flooding the world markets with Iraqi oil? Remember that Saudi Arabia and Iran have been using their oil revenues to fund the growth of islamic fundamentalism across the world.

 

Yes, it is morally wrong, but I don't think that's ever stopped us before, has it? Perhaps we should start giving Middle Eastern countries a bit of respect?

Oh, no, sorry, I forgot all Muslims are inherently and deserve to die. Let's get it over with now and nuke 'em. Saves lives in the long term. Yeehaw!

[Accounting Troll]

Yes, it is morally wrong, but I don't think that's ever stopped us before, has it?  Perhaps we should start giving Middle Eastern countries a bit of respect?

Oh, no, sorry, I forgot all Muslims are inherently and deserve to die.  Let's get it over with now and nuke 'em.  Saves lives in the long term.  Yeehaw!

But we've already bombed, napalmed, defoilated and occasionally nuked everybody else. We've got to bomb the Middle East because there's nobody else left to bomb

How else can we preserve all those jobs in the defence industry?

 

Seriously though, we didn't do any regime changes in 1991 because there wouldn't have been the international support, and we didn't have a clue who to actually replace Saddam with (sounds familiar?). We were hoping that the Iraqi people would sort out this problem for us, but they didn't quite manage it, partly because they were depending on British and American help that never materialised.

 

We were effectively fighting a low intensity war with Iraq for the next twelve years. They would have a pop at the British and American aircraft every couple of days, and we would then bomb the anti-aircraft facility that had launched the attack.

 

It was inevitable that some Iraqi civilians would die in the retaliatory strikes. That's what Saddam Hussein was after because it made Britain and America look like the villains. Even the US military has never claimed more than a 95% success rate when using cruise missiles to target enemy facilities, and that's assuming that the enemy don't try disguising facilities or using camoflage netting, tactics which most countries have used for decades. The situation is still better than in World War Two when entire cities were carpet bombed because it was the only way to ensure the destruction of a munitions plant or a railway junction. However civilian casualties are still an inevitable part of war, something many people don't realise because Hollywood doesn't depict it.

 

Where was the money in the oil-for-food programme going to? It certainaly wasn't being spent on feeding Iraqi children. Saddam Hussein was such a callous ruler that he allowed tens of thousands of Iraqi children die in order to score a propaganda victory over the British and American governments.

[FullAuto]

Did you know that a third version of Frank Herbert's Dune was planned to be filmed?

Unfortunately, even if some future Hollywood scriptwriter axes the j-word (jihad), Dune still carries a dangerously subversive message. The story implies that an indigenous people have a right to their land, and to the natural resources beneath it. Even if a technologically advanced culture decides that they want it.

Imagine that!

[Stun Grenade]

I think it was right in some areas... We did get Suddam or whatever his name is.

[sir-roosio]

However, OPEC countries, including Iraq, have been screwing the West for decades by conspiring to keep the price of oil artificially high.

 

China doesn't care about human rights abuses in OPEC countries. Is it morally wrong to head off this threat by shattering the power of OPEC now by installing a puppet regime in Iraq

 

I feel at this point I should make it clear that Theu UK is a OPEC nation. A lot of people don't realise, or forget this this. Britain is a fully fledged payed-up member.

 

When People accuse OPEC of dirty-deeds, that includes Britain. I'm not trying to make argue a point, but I've been in these discussions before and nobody had a clue that OPEC included Britain too.

[FullAuto]

Well, it's true that we have been screwing the West for ages, and with all the wars we get into, our human rights abuses are bound to be out of proportion.

[sir-roosio]

Well, Maybe we used to be, but I've just checked the web and apparently We aren't (or anren't any more).

 

I could edit that post out, but I won't. Sorry, I was wrong, though I could of sworn I was right.

[FullAuto]

Typical. We won't join the EU fully, we get kicked out of OPEC...if we knew building the world's largest empire and then tossing it away would make everyone hate us we wouldn't have bothered...

[Accounting Troll]

FA, as I recall, the indigenous people that found themselves caught in the middle of the conflict were not led by people with an appalling human rights record.

 

OPEC consists of Iran, Iraq (up until 2003), Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Qatar, Indonesia, Libya, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria and Nigeria. Not many bastions of human rights in that lot.

 

Iran and Saudi Arabia are KNOWN to be funding the growth of Islamic Fundamentalism. Both countries routinely torture and execute political dissidents.

 

Indonesia tried to stop international aid from reaching Aceh in the aftermath of the tsunami for fear that we might find out how they've been suppressing the pro-independence faction there. There is also the matter of the genocidal invasion and occupation of oil-rich East Timor which lasted until 1999. Even then, the Indonesians murdered hundreds of people on their way out.

 

Nigeria has been ruined by decades of political corruption and ethnic violence. Its people haven't seen one penny of their oil revenues.

 

The Libyan government was responsible for the Lockerbie bombing and the murder of a WPC in London. They wanted to sell their oil to the West again after years of sanctions, so they just paid some blood money to the British government and got a couple of their intelligence officers to take the blame.

 

I know that Britain and America have been accused of human rights abuses in Iraq and Afghansistan, the most infamous being the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Graib (sp?). But the domestic outrage those scandals caused is proof that we are amateurs compared with the average OPEC country.

 

Whether we like it or not, the West is dependent on oil, and most of the world's oil reserves are in the hands of OPEC. This means we are stuck with the following choices:

 

1. Do business with some of the most evil regimes in the world, and allow them to do a spot of price gouging each time their vain and corrupt leaders want a bigger palace. This means that we must ignore the sponsoring of the occasional terrorist attack.

 

2. Make radical changes to our lifestyle, including massive investment in solar and wind energy and ending our obsession with consumer goods (which means no iPod or computer upgrade). This tends to be political suicide for the politicians who suggest this course of action, and will remain so for the forseeable future.

 

3. Invade an OPEC country with an unusually despotic leader who has launched unprovoked attacks on Iran, Kuwait and Israel. Install a puppet regime that will allow Western oil companies access to the country's oil fields.

 

Oil from non-OPEC countries, including Russia (which has its own problems) is no longer sufficient for the needs of the West and production is declining.

 

Which one of the three above choices would you go for if you were in the position of George W. Bush or Tony Blair?

[sir-roosio]

there is another way. . .

 

4. Establish contact and train and fund a military coup that will bring another leader out on top who may not nessecarily be any nicer, but will be loyal to the West.

 

You wait, sooner or later it will happen! We can't invade every OPEC nation, but we can 'support' any political opposition!

[FullAuto]

We can't invade every OPEC nation,

 

I'm going to save that to my hard drive, SR, and when we do, I'm doing to re-post it in big letters.

 

 

FA, as I recall, the indigenous people that found themselves caught in the middle of the conflict were not led by people with an appalling human rights record.

 

I'm pretty sure they did, actually. Not that any side was particularly nice.

And we're being rather arrogant, aren't we, assuming our culture is superior to everyone else's? I mean, ok, it's something everyone does, but then again not everyone attempts to impose their culture on others.

 

We've already proved ourselves totally incapable of being peaceful, so I suggest we carry on invading. We should at least be consistent. We're not going to make any changes to our lifestyle, we're too greedy for that, so lets carry on killing and maiming to maintain it.

 

4. Establish contact and train and fund a military coup that will bring another leader out on top who may not nessecarily be any nicer, but will be loyal to the West.

 

America has been caught doing that so many times it's not even funny any more. They'll fund it, I imagine, but some other country will get stuck with the dirty work.

[sir-roosio]

FA: EXXXactly! fund em, supply em, pack em off to war, if they get killed, it's no skin off your nose! just start again.

[FullAuto]

It'll be us, you tool!

Someone has to train them, and we're a lot closer than the Yanks.

[sir-roosio]

It'll be us, you tool!

Someone has to rain them, and we're a lot closer than the Yanks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I assume your calling me a tool because if the british train them it would be the finest military coup in the world!

 

"This is Kate Adie. BBC news live from Libya, in the wake of last nights Military Coup,The new government has already established a Cricket team, and have extended a formal invitation to England for a test match to begin in a fortnights time. A source close to the new president was quoted as saying "this will be a bloody good show for all involved, now if you'll excuse me, I must be gone as it's Pimms 'o' clock, Toodle Pip" Kate Adie, BBC News"

[FullAuto]

Just what we need, another Commonwealth nation to kick our arses at cricket...

[Accounting Troll]

You've overlooked the biggest advantage of a British takeover of Libya. When it becomes a British colony, we can deport all our football hooligans, burglars, car thieves and muggers. The only difficulty will be to keep a straight face when we pretend that we are doing this to 'civilize' Libya.

 

Time to despatch a gunboat, methinks

[FullAuto]

Yes, because we need another Australia, don't we?

 

I don't think so...

[Accounting Troll]

When I was doing some voluntary cataloging work at a museum, I came across a rather disturbing schoolbook from around 1900. It boasted of how the British Empire was the most liberal power in the world, and then it went on to argue that it was a good thing that the Australian aboriginies were facing extinction because they weren't civilized.

 

As far as I can see, civilization means that it is every country for itself. It always has been this way, and it always will. Two nations remain at peace because neither thinks it will manage a net gain from war. Even the European ideal is suspect - you name me one country that joined up for the good of mankind and not because it figured it stood to gain from it. Even the special relationship between Britain and America is a farce. British prime ministers like it because they can say "Thanks to my policies, America regards Britain as its equal" and American presidents like it because American actions seem less unilateral if the American President can say "The British are supporting my decision". Suez was the last time we tried to do something that the Americans didn't like, and look what happened there. The fact is that Britain has been a client state of America since the late 1950s. One country dominates another, or it is dominated in turn.

 

As for oil, since the American and British public are apparently opposed to the idea of making lifestyle changes, and we cannot get enough oil without dealing with OPEC, we have a bit of a problem. We either let OPEC do as much price gouging as it likes, or we use our military and economic power to bully OPEC, a policy which means the occasional invasion.

 

The governments of France and Germany didn't oppose the war because they thought it was immoral. They were making money from sanctions busting deals with Iraq. Their anti-war stance has made them more popular with Muslim countries, and if Britain and America somehow create a stable non-OPEC Iraq, the French and Germans also reap the benefits of a weakened OPEC. This is similar to when France withdrew from NATO during the Cold War because they worked out that their geographical position meant that they would still get the benefits, but with none of the cost.

[Lurker]

Justified?

 

Saddam provided plenty of provocation that made other countries feel justified in fighting back. But, anything can be used as an excuse for justification. So, that question is impossible to answer. What is justification for one person isn't for another.

 

As an American who gets to pay for the war, I at times don't feel like we are getting our money's worth. On the other hand, when I saw that American Soldier helping that Iraqi find his voting district and taking the Iraqi citizen to vote, it almost made it all worthwhile for that brief moment. Those Iraqi people really were happy and proud to be able to vote in a free election, and that makes almost any grief worthwhile. But Iraq is hardly a bed of roses.

 

Nevertheless, the Yanks and the Brits probably shouldn't have gone in -- still, one gets the feeling that it was inevitable.

 

However, now that the Yanks and the Brits are there and have stuck their foot in the mess, I don't think they should withdraw until the job is done. They destabilized Iraq, so now it is their job to restabilize it -- unfortunately for those who have to pay for it, the taxpayers and the soldiers.

[FullAuto]

I think perhaps the title of the thread should be "Was the Iraq War just" and the answer is no, of course it wasn't. Not that that bothered anyone, God knows.

[sir-roosio]

As an American who gets to pay for the war, I at times don't feel like we are getting our money's worth. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I no you don't mean it like that, but this sentence sounds so heartlessley capitalist! I love it!

[Accounting Troll]

However, now that the Yanks and the Brits are there and have stuck their foot in the mess, I don't think they should withdraw until the job is done.  They destabilized Iraq, so now it is their job to restabilize it -- unfortunately for those who have to pay for it, the taxpayers and the soldiers.

This is a complex dilemma for our military leaders: would the consequenses of withdrawal be worse than the consequenses of staying on until Iraq is stabilised?

 

Trouble is that it isn't just us and Al Qaeda who are destabilising Iraq. Iranian and Syrian military intelligence are both actively supporting the insurgents.

 

A couple of days after Baghdad fell, Tony Blair persuaded a moderate Shiite cleric who was an Iraqi exile to return home and try to persuade the Shiites to cooperate with the occupying forces. He was promptly murdered by Iranian Military Intelligence because they wanted the Shiite Iraqis to become radicalised and install a pro-Iran government.

 

Does anyone else remember when Iran seized those British patrol boats? The boats were in Iraqi territorial waters despite what Iran says, but the Iranians seized them (an act of war) because they made it hard for the Iranians to continue with their infiltration of Iraq.

 

Even the Kurds stabbed us in the back, betraying a 16 man SAS team to the Republican Guard in the last days of the war. This was because they were making a fortune out of sanctions busting in the 90s and they liked their semi-autonomous status, so they didn't particularly want to see the back of Saddam.

 

I can't see the situation in Iraq improving while Syria and Iran continue to aid the insurgents. We don't have the resources for further regime change and Syria and Iran have a tendancy to go back on international agreements whenever it suits them. That doesn't leave us many options left...

[sir-roosio]

Jesus man, hide that post quick, or Bush will be gathering the ivasion fleets again!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Accounting Troll]

Iran

Iraq

 

 

Oh no, he couldn't have Even Bush wouldn't be be so stupid that he would invade the wrong country by mistake. Wouldn't he?