Blair's defeat?... or the Iraqi peoples'?

[lotusguy]

To be sure, Blair has placed himself in an unenviable political position with his own people. The fact that his position coincides with that held by the US government is secondary to his belief that forcing Saddam Hussein to comply with the unanimous decision of the UN Security Council to cooperatively disarm is a moral imperative. It is unfortunate that so many politicians have now voiced opposition merely to enhance their own political strength.

Many people are not appreciative of the fact that in fact we are not embarking on a new war with Iraq. It is rightfully the continuation of the 1991 Gulf War which began when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. When hostilities ended, in February 1991, no peace treaty was signed with Iraq.

Instead, a truce was arranged, based upon a clear and unequivical set of conditions, namely that Iraq freely and completely disarm itself of WMD and refrain from researching and producing any more. Since the concensus, even among UN members (including France, Germany, Russia and China) and UMSCOM Inspectors, is that Iraq has failed to comply with these conditions, this truce is null and void. It is not an issue of whether or not to start a war. It is an issue of whether to allow the agressor to ignore the conditions of the truce.

The world has spent the past 12 years excerting one peaceful means after another in an attempt to get Iraq and Saddam Hussein to honor the conditions they agreed to. The continuation of inspections are irrelevant as these inspections have already determined that Iraq is not complying with either the Gulf War truce (UN Security Coucil resolution # 687) or the subsequent call on Iraq to freely disarm and disclose the existance of any WMD in it's posession (UN SC resolution 1440). Even in his most recent public statement, Hans Blix stated that Iraq "has yet to show full co-operation" and "I do not think I can say there is evidence of a fundamental decision of Iraq to disarm"

A continuation of economic sanctions is a poor option and one which Saddam Hussein has abused for the past 10 years. It is estimated that he has siphoned off as much as $1 billion USD a year to direct towards the creation and implementation of chemical, biologic and radiologic weaponry while a famine and healthcare crisis rages amongst Iraq's people.

Is it moral to allow this intense suffering to continue while we congratulate ouselves for "giving peace a chance"? Is it more moral to maintain that horror indefinitely rather than to try to win a quick war to depose Saddam, free the people from tyranny and end the sanctions?

War is a terrible thing. But, it is perhaps not the most terrible thing. No one disputes the evil of Saddam's brutal police state. No one doubts that he would acquire and employ weapons of mass destruction if he could. No one can guarantee that he would not help Islamic Terrorists acquire these weapons to use against the West or even his own regional enemies. No one disputes that the Iraqi people would be better off under almost any other regime than the current one, or that great numbers of them along with the majority of Iraqi exiles, endorse a war to remove this tyranical regime.

If we attempt to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties, if we do all we can to encourage self-determination in the aftermath, than military action is not only warranted and vital for the security of the Iraqi people and the world, but a moral imperative. Those who oppose this without offering any credible moral alternative are not merely wrong and misguided, they are, in fact, helping to perpetuate deep and intolerable injustices to the world and to the Iraqi people...Jim '85TE

>>> Edited by lotusguy on Thursday 27th February 17:27

[gnomesmith]

When it is necessary to resort to technicalities and semantics the case is surely lost.

There are more valid arguments both for and against the potential war.

[lotusguy]

gnomesmith said: When it is necessary to resort to technicalities and semantics the case is surely lost.

There are more valid arguments both for and against the potential war.

GS,

I'm not sure it is necessary to resort to semantics at all or that any case (for/against war) is lost at all. My point is that peace means much, much more than just not fighting. Many so called pacifists seem ignorant of this fact.

I care much less about Bush or Blair's political sucess, or securing oil than I do about limiting access to extremely dangerous weaponry or the plight of the Iraqis.

To be sure, we cannot right all the world's ills, but here is one case where we can. It will be difficult, and I have no idea if the people of the world have the stomach for it. I do believe that if they do not, we should reconsider any action at all as merely creating another state of unrest in Iraq could do as much harm as good.

But, if our societies stand for self-determination, freedom of the individual and the wrong of a state oppressing it's people, are we not bound to assist?...Jim '85TE

[andytk]

Hmmm

I can see this thread raging for a while.

Can I ask a favour lotusguy could you read this and give me your opinion on it.

www.fredoneverything.net/Empire.shtml

Please understand I'm not trying to wind you up or anything.

I have been at a loss to understand why the US are so keen to go to war.
I accpet that its not about oil. (many don't but I do)
I do not believe the US administration gives a flying f*** about the iraqi poeple. If they did they would have trooped in a long time ago. Plus what makes the iraqi peopels plight any worse than that of poeple in north korea, zimbabway or any number of other African States.
I don't see the USA trooping to their aid.
Put simply the Americans no longer go to war to help other peoples suffering. Not after 'Nam and Sierra Leone.

Also I'm not entirely sure about WMD.
I do believe that your admistraion is afraid that that such weapons may be sold or given to terrorists or perhaps even stolen by them from the iraqis.

However I do think that Fred's article has some valid points re having a US controlled/friendly state in the middle east. Possibly to act as a stabilising force in the region.
Even this in itself may not be a bad thing. I'm not against Empire building anyhow. For decades we were the masters at it. However the Americans should relise that in the long term it could do more damage than good.
Just like when Britain left the empire to disintegrate.

Anyhooo what do you think?

Andy


>> Edited by andytk on Friday 28th February 10:58

>> Edited by andytk on Friday 28th February 10:58

[anonymous-user]

andytk said: Hmmm


Also I'm not entirely sure about WMD.
I do believe that your admistraion is afraid that that such weapons may be sold or given to terrorists or perhaps even stolen by them from the iraqis.

Err.. So am I. It frightens the crap out of me that Saddam has even a tiny amount of ricin, anthrax etc.. He doesn't have to use it himself, he just needs to give it to some nutter to release in the tube and all the discussions are academic.

I don't really care about Bush or his motives. Saddam's dangerous and he needs sorting before he causes something very nasty to happen to us. Appeasement never works, history has shown that. Let's get it over with.

[deltaf]

Strange that in all the "anti war" protests, and all the debates raging on Tv, ive never ONCE heard there being any talk of an anti saddam protest.
Whether or not saddams WMDs can reach us or be used on us is not the point.
The point is that this w*nker can use them on his own people, and has.
If we continue to ignore that, then what does it say about us?
Lets get it done, and remove him by whatever means and his stinking regime, for the sake of innocent people everywhere.

[Citizen Rat]

Weren't there Kurdish activists on the London march, handing out anti-SH leaflets? Although after we have given the Kurds to the Turks (I believe that they live above oil?), that problem will solve itself.
There was a pro-west puppet in this region before. When they threw him out, we were lucky that they mostly stuck to rhetoric.
We will win the war very quickly, but it doesn't look like our great and glorious leaders will even draw the peace.

[swilly]

i think the Kurds should get their own state, as should the palestinians. I didn't know until recently that the Kurds in northern Iraq had democratically elected themselves a prime minister and government, and that they are trying to return to normal life....yet ther is no mention fo this in the press until recently and my instincts tell me the UK/US pact does not intend to support this fledgling democracy because of opposition from Turkey who believe the Turkish-Kurds in southern Turkey will want to seperate and join the Iraqi-Kurds in a new Kurdistan....so we have the makings of another complete injustice perpertrated by the UK/US

[lotusguy]

andytk said: Hmmm

I can see this thread raging for a while.

Can I ask a favour lotusguy could you read this and give me your opinion on it.

Please understand I'm not trying to wind you up or anything.

I have been at a loss to understand why the US are so keen to go to war.
I accpet that its not about oil. (many don't but I do)
I do not believe the US administration gives a flying f*** about the iraqi poeple. If they did they would have trooped in a long time ago. Plus what makes the iraqi peopels plight any worse than that of poeple in north korea, zimbabway or any number of other African States.
I don't see the USA trooping to their aid.
Put simply the Americans no longer go to war to help other peoples suffering. Not after 'Nam and Sierra Leone.

Also I'm not entirely sure about WMD.
I do believe that your admistraion is afraid that that such weapons may be sold or given to terrorists or perhaps even stolen by them from the iraqis.

However I do think that Fred's article has some valid points re having a US controlled/friendly state in the middle east. Possibly to act as a stabilising force in the region.
Even this in itself may not be a bad thing. I'm not against Empire building anyhow. For decades we were the masters at it. However the Americans should relise that in the long term it could do more damage than good.
Just like when Britain left the empire to disintegrate.

Anyhooo what do you think?

Andy


>> Edited by andytk on Friday 28th February 10:58

>> Edited by andytk on Friday 28th February 10:58

Andy,

Fred raises several views which I am coming to see are very popular, not the least is his anti-American slant on things. I am not familiar with his writings and so cannot place them in their proper context.

It's ridiculous to label US foreign policy as wrong or inept. To be sure, there have been failed or flawed policies in the past as there have been from virtually every country on earth. But in each case, that nation's leadership believed it was the right thing and without the benefit of hindsight proceeded (I'm certain that Nev. Chamberlain thought the Munich Accords was the correct policy).

US Foreign Policy, if it inherently suffers from anything, suffers from it's lack of continuity. That is, the President determines foreign policy as outlined in our constitution. And, since WWII, we have only elected half our presidents to a second term. This means a policy shift every four years. As the world, or people's views, do not run in 4-year cycles, many polcies are left uncompleted by their originator.

But, back on point. Like you, I believe that America is not entering this for oil. I do believe, however, that France, Germany and Russia's opposition to any regime change in Iraq is all about oil, or their secured rights to it.

Is Israel a component to US policy? Without a doubt. But no Middle East policy, by any nation, can fail to take either Israel or their conflict with the Palestinians, or the will of Arabs of any nation to collectively band together against Israel into account. But, in the case of Iraq, as has been stated by Fred, they pose a real threat to the region because of their demonstrated willingness to attack Israel in an attempt to rally Arab sentiment behind them. Iraq is a major ally (at least in the fight against Israel) to those other states overly hostile to Israel (Syria, Yemen, Iran, etc). If they(Iraq) are made more moderate, it could weaken this opposition sufficiently to allow Israel to feel secure in loosening it's stance on occupied territories and a Palestinian State, which could result in a general lessening of tension in the region.

As far as WMD, this is really indisputable. There are documented vast stockpiles of chemical and biologic weapons. Iraq claims these were destroyed, but, to date, has offered no credible evidence of this. As far as nuclear, enough anecdotal evidence exists to be certain they are pursuing these weapons as well. No one questioned why the French were building a nuclear reactor in Iraq in the 1980's, purportedly for production of electricity, when they (Iraq) was sitting on the world's second largest known petroleum reserves. The only other use of such a reactor is the production of weapons grade fissile material. No one should expect a nuclear bomb in the classic sense, but rather a 'dirty bomb' which requires only a small conventional explosive used to scatter radioactive material, contaminating a city renedring it unusable for decades. Would Al Qaida be the delivery system? Surely they are a plausible threat. Even though they are fundamentally opposed to SH and his regime, the policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is most likely at play here.

I agree that the foundation for military action has been 'oversold' to the point that people are confused and able to oppose a particular reason for it, but that doesn't mean the initial determination was incorrect. I think that Bush, Blair and the UN need to concentrate on the main issues here, namely the current Iraqi regime's threat to it's own people and the world. This is reason enough to depose them.

And, it's not a case of the West simply disliking Iraqi policy. Action against Iraq does not set a precedent or legitimise military action against any other state because we don't like what they're doing. It's because they are a real threat. You ask, why not some other hotspot, but you fail to acknowledge that there are diplomatic efforts underway to address each of these. Priorities must be set, and methods tailored to the individual situation employed. And, don't discount the possibility that should current methods fail to achieve results, they will change accoringly.

US Foreign Policy has had many failures, but equally they have had many sucesses. In the past 100+ years, in which the US was a major player on the world scene, we have decided 2 world wars, rebuilt europe and asia, caused a downfall of Communism, and in the past 50 years established general peace in the world. These accomplishments alone stack up against, and exceed, those of virtually any other world power in the past two centuries...Jim'85TE

[ATG]

What gets me is that the WHOLE security council signed up to resolution 1441. You can read it on the UN website ... it only takes 5 minutes. It is blatantly obvious that Iraq has failed to comply with 1441. By signing 1441, the members of the security council were stating that Iraq had broken the terms of the ceasefire and that existing resolutions allowed members to use force to enforce compliance. All of this is covered in the first few paragraphs of 1441 and it is genuinely unambiguous.

Why did France, Russia and China all sign 1441 if they didn't agree with its contents?

What is the point of having Security Council Resolutions if its own permanent members ignore their own commitments within a few weeks?

[cnh1990]

The same reason France ignores the trade agreements rules you have with then as it suits them with little reprisals.

Their Iraq stance has more to do with oil than the USA waging war with Iraq.

The French are driven by the oil agreements that Total/Fina/Elf has from SH. Those prefered agreements will not be honored if he is removed from power.

They are the leaders of the Axis of Weasels.

Calvin

[ATG]

Agree with the first sentance. But, just as it is too easy for the anti-US movement to say "it's all about oil", I think it is equally implausible that France is primarily concerned about Iraqi oil. (It is a slightly more plausible explanation for Russia's stance as they are living from hand to mouth.)

France does seem to think it can pick and choose which rules it upholds and which it chooses to ignore. I'm British so I tend to take an unimaginative Anglo-Saxon attitude to obeying rules ... i.e. I stick to them.

The Gallic attitude just leads to absolute chaos. If everyone behaved the way Chirac does (and his colleagues and predecesors) you might as well forget about any serious international cooperation of any kind, because everything is written in sand. You can expect spineless oportunism from tinpot governments who've got nothing to lose. But it is stomach-turning to see this kind of vandalism being perpetrated by a country that thinks itself a leading world player. The hypocrisy is beyond belief.

Sorry for the rant. I am obviously childish and badly brought up. I'll take this opportunity to shut up.

[CarZee]

lotusguy said: Fred raises several views which I am coming to see are very popular, not the least is his anti-American slant on things. I am not familiar with his writings and so cannot place them in their proper context.

Well firstly, AndyTK - glad I'm not the only one who keep abreast of Mr Reed's commentary..

Jim - his background is military & police journalism, first covering Vietnam - he's written for everything from Guns & Ammo, thru Playboy to the Washington Times (still does ISTR). He's for common-sense and equality and against liberalism, feminism, thinkofthechildrenism and affirmative action.

www.fredoneverything.net/Bio.html

he's one of the few people who provides satisfactory evidence to me that not all yanks are nuts

Edit: ATG - I have to grudgingly respect the French position - I don't have a classic British attitude to rules & regulations.. AFAIC rules & boundaries are there to be tested, stretched and, if necessary, ignored completely.

Chirac might piss people off, but the French appear to get pretty much what they want and he upholds a long standing Gallic tradition. All the while he's winding Billy & George up, he's quaffing a glass of Burgandy's finest and engaging in a chorus of "Encoulez les Anglaises" ... which in my eyes is a much more human position than that taken by Blair and his mates, n'est-ce pas?

>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Friday 28th February 19:46

[andytk]

lotusguy said:

And, it's not a case of the West simply disliking Iraqi policy. Action against Iraq does not set a precedent or legitimise military action against any other state because we don't like what they're doing. It's because they are a real threat. You ask, why not some other hotspot, but you fail to acknowledge that there are diplomatic efforts underway to address each of these. Priorities must be set, and methods tailored to the individual situation employed. And, don't discount the possibility that should current methods fail to achieve results, they will change accoringly....Jim'85TE

A very valid point but my point was that the USA does not wage war for humanitarian purposes anymore. If it was a simple case of Saddam gassing folk again the USA would simply do nothing.
As they did in the past.

I do agree though that war is necessary both to save large chunks of the Iraqi population and for our own continued security.

I think the biggest problem that Blair has is that people (peaceniks) here either don't believe there is a direct threat (because there has never been one from Iraq yet) and because they don't want British servicemen getting killed (which is a fair point).
The other problem is that some folk think that as Americas lapdog (their words NOT mine) we will become more of a terrorist target.
I for one believe we're already number 2 target in the world anyway. SO we might as well take out a potential source of weapons and occupy the region. (with a view to getting out ASAP afterwards)


Oh and Carzee,

CarZee said: Well firstly, AndyTK - glad I'm not the only one who keep abreast of Mr Reed's commentary..

It was you that pointed him out to me in a previous thread and I've been a big fan ever since. Its shocking really, an American that talks sense

Oh and you're damned right about the frogs

Calvin said:They are the leaders of the Axis of Weasels

Andy

Edited to add Clavin's frog bashing sentiment

>> Edited by andytk on Friday 28th February 19:50

[lotusguy]

ATG said: What gets me is that the WHOLE security council signed up to resolution 1441. You can read it on the UN website ... it only takes 5 minutes. It is blatantly obvious that Iraq has failed to comply with 1441. By signing 1441, the members of the security council were stating that Iraq had broken the terms of the ceasefire and that existing resolutions allowed members to use force to enforce compliance. All of this is covered in the first few paragraphs of 1441 and it is genuinely unambiguous.

Why did France, Russia and China all sign 1441 if they didn't agree with its contents?

What is the point of having Security Council Resolutions if its own permanent members ignore their own commitments within a few weeks?

ATG,

You raise several points that I have been alluding to all along.

First, that there is no further legal justification necessary for the coalition nations to act against Iraq. This was, in fact, a diplomatic sucess for the US Diplomatic Mission to the UN and Colin Powell in particular. As you say UN SC Res. #1441 is unambiguous.

As to your queery of why France Russia and China signed it in the first place, in a recent NPR (National Public Radio) interview, Colin Powell stated that he had been dispatched by Geo. Bush to get a unanimous resolution against Iraq passed in the Security Council. This was similar to President Kennedy tasking then Sec. of State, Dean Rusk to get a unanimous resolution against Cuba from the OAS (Organization of American States) in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The OAS had never passed a single resolution unanimously, but through behind the scenes negotiating, Rusk was able to get the resolution unanimously passed stsating that Cuba was in violation of the 'Rio Treaty'. This formed the legal basis for US action in imposing the 'Quarantine' against Cuba. They chose to deliberately avoid a UN resolution, believing that this would offer them less flexibility of action. When working with the missions of other Security Council members, Powell stated that France and Russia expressed an intention to vote against #1441 unless the language was changed to exclude any mention of war or military force. After much wrangling back and forth, an agreement with France and Russia was reached based on the current language. Powell further stated that he believed both nations felt at the time, that they could reserve any opposition for a subsequent resolution. Powell said, what they failed to grasp was that no further resolution would be needed upon the passage of #1441, at least as a legal justification for action against Iraq.

What none of us can appreciate is the degree of behind the scenes negotiating which constantly goes on at the UN. France, Germany, China and Russia are not so nearly intransigent as they may appear. China has already said that they would most likely abstain from a second resolution, but that they would not veto it. This is due to their sensitivity to maintain their trade agreements with the US and US flexibility in the N. Korean situation. France has recently left room for them to come on board as has Russia. And, if you check their quotes, neither French or Russian or German leaders have expressly stated that they would veto a second resolution, this has mainly been inferred by the media, but never officially spoken by these countries, they have, in fact, carefully tip-toed around any specific language regarding this. It's interesting to note, that none of these nations have authored a counter resolution to #1441, though they easily could do so. They are not in so much disagreement as they would like it to appear. They simply do not yet believe they have negotiated their acquiescence of #1441 to their maximum advantage. Remember, in Diplomacy, there is no last word...Jim'85TE



>> Edited by lotusguy on Friday 28th February 20:04

>> Edited by lotusguy on Friday 28th February 20:08

[apache]

I'm beginning to see why this has appeared to be handled badly by B squared now. When as you say, there are all these diplomatic wheeling and dealings going on behind the scenes, and at the same time the general public of the US and UK have to be won over.
A pretty tough job really and I'm beginning to have a grudging respect for Mr Blair, I just wish he could handle internal affairs with as much aplomb.

[lotusguy]

swilly said: ...my instincts tell me the UK/US pact does not intend to support this fledgling democracy because of opposition from Turkey who believe the Turkish-Kurds in southern Turkey will want to seperate and join the Iraqi-Kurds in a new Kurdistan....so we have the makings of another complete injustice perpertrated by the UK/US

Swilly,

I'm not sure I disagree, but I do think it would be very unproductive for the UK/US to express a desire to see the kurdish issue solved. At this moment we need the cooperation of several of Iraq's neighbors to accomplish our stated objectives against Iraq.

Once that has occured, anything will be possible in a post war reconstruction. The creation of a kurdish state could be well received and promoted through the UN. It may even have some positive effect on the unrest in Kurdistan.

The kurds are both ethnically and religiously separate from the rest of the Iraqis. They have some oil reserves in their 'territory' making them more self sufficient than many break-away republics.

I, for one, would support such a move and I think most Americans would agree. It may be that there is something in the offing once the conflict is resolved. As long as Turkish territory is not compromised, they may actually be for it, especially if significant numbers of their own kurds would wish to emigrate to such a state...Jim '85TE



>> Edited by lotusguy on Friday 28th February 20:31

>> Edited by lotusguy on Friday 28th February 20:32

[lotusguy]

Calvin,

They are the leaders of the Axis of Weasels. - PRICELESS!

Hey, are you going to Dave L.'s tomorrow to help him with his Europa? Let me know, Brenda's out of town so I'll be there...Jim'85TE