|
|
Blog Feeds
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
|
How can everyone be so sure war is wrong? national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Saturday March 22, 2003 14:32 by Anonymous
 Its not about what we want - Its about what the people of Iraq want. This war is not about what the Americans and the British want. But what I think people are inclined to forget, EQUALLY, it is not about what anti-war protestors want. It is about what the Iraqi people want. If this war ends quickly with "limited" casualties and the brutal Saddam regime is toppled will this inadvertently have been the right thing to do? I have been a vehement anti-war protestor myself and abhor the policies of the US and the UK, especially the former, and particuarily over the last 50 years. I ask the following as a question and in a devil's advocat way:- Though Bush & his administration are dangerous, manipulative, not to be trusted people - and the motive for the war in Iraq is at least partially economically driven - how can everyone be so sure that this war is wrong? I pose the "possibility" that inadvertantenly, the US/UK may be doing the right thing. Inadvertantently in the sense that their real reasons for the war, i.e.:- Self defense & oil & other economic reasons may inadvertantently do the right thing for the Iraqi people, i.e.:- rid them of the tyranny of Saddam Hussain & his regime which they have endured for decades now. I have yet to see a proper answer to the question (I have already posed this question on this site with limited responses):- What do the people of Iraq want? It is not about what the Americans & the British want. But EQUALLY it is not about what anti-war protestors want. Can everyone acurately answer this question right now without having to scury off trying to find info.? Indeed if you go off and scury for info can you even come back then and answer the question? All I have seen on this site, other sites, and indeed from all media sources is a selection of interviews with various Iraqi people. Under Saddams regime, no doubt it is hard to conduct a poll. So can I take that no one has ever done a poll? But has any one conducted a survey of some sorts as to what the Iraqi people want?? From studying Iraqi interviewees, they seem to be fairly divided. Similarily if you look at the views of Iraqi ex-patriots / communities, they too seem to be fairly divided. The only valid reason for the invasion of Iraq is the toppling of the Saddam regime. The people there have suffered enormously under him - between being slaughtered in their hundreds of thousands, to being tortured and having their eyes gouged out, to just living a miserable, poor existance under his tyranny. I believe, one must pause for thought. Not get totally carried away with one side of the argument and completely ignore all other arguments. Must not necessarily get carried away in a frenzy of hate for America etc. If anti-war protestors expect pro-war people to consider the anti-war argument, how can they expect this, unless they too are willing to consider the pro-war argument. Though America & Britain's motives are wrong, are they inadvertently doing the right thing? The way the war is going at present it could be over very quickly and civilian, Iraqi army and "Allied" casualties, may not be enormous. "If" this is how it turns out, and the brutal regime of Saddam is toppled, are people still "100%" sure that the war would have been the wrong thing to do?? |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (14 of 14)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14OK let's all agree that Saddam is a bad guy. I agree.
But why attack Iraq?
Iraq had nothing to do with Sept 11 2001 - Bush and Blair lied about this.
Why not attack Saudi Arabia? 15 out of the 19 hijackers were Saudi. Saudi Intelligence connections to the hijackers are known.
If Weapons of Mass Destruction are the issue, then why not stop the almost inevitable nuclear war between Pakistan and India?
Why not deal with North Korea?!
If war to end war is needed, where were the SuperPower(s) when Congo had/is having that nasty Civil War that has killed more than 2 million in the last 10 years or so?
I will not shed a tear when Saddam is dead - all four of them - but I will shed tears for the thousands of dead Iraqis - and for the death of American democracy (as flawed as it was) and for the UN, which was a small hope for a while in human history.
The *Personal* War Profiteering by the Bush Administration is well known now.
This war is about Empire, not about Oil. Oil is what fuels the empire - war is just politics by other means.
The question is, who will will bow to ceasar and will refuse. It is not an academic question and the answer will determine the future of your grandchildren.
I am constantly amazed that people who ask this question don't pause for a wee bit of reflection and consideration about the "liberation" of Kuwait by George Bush Senior a decade ago.
Do you really think that his son is going to do a better job in Iraq ... ?
I already posted a link to an article on this but here it is again:
http://www.sfbg.com/gulfwar/090992.html
Also please bear in mind that the "liberation" of Iraq is unlikely to be a once-off show ... in all probability it will be followed by the "liberation" of Iran, North Korea, Libya ... or aome other "rogue state" which falls foul of the Anglo-American Empire ....
But believe what you like .... we live in the "free world" after all ....
It is not only "loony lefties" and pinko creeping jesuses who have their doubts about post-war Iraq ...
For a non-left viewpoint have a look at
The Post-Saddam Quagmire
A view from the right
by Christopher Layne
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=42788
In response to redjade
In answer to my questions you ask “but why attack Iraq?”. My (devil’s advocate) answer, implicit in my question, is to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.
Regarding your other points – relation to Sept 11th – why not attack Saudi Arabia – India & Pakistan – Nth. Korea – the Congo – the UN & Empire. I agree with you in most of these points. But they do not answer the question will the Iraqi people not be better off without Saddam Hussein even if it means innocent lives being killed for this to happen? And is this what the Iraqi people want? This is the one reason for war I have seen anti-war protestors stumble upon when this is thrown at them by the pro-war politicians in public debates.
Though, as I say I agree with you on most of your points, I don’t see how they answer my questions specifically.
In response to “Old Timer”
Regarding the “liberation” of Kuwait by GB Snr a decade ago. Though once again the Americans were not doing this for the good of the Kuwaiti people, but rather for their own self interests of oil & empire, did they once again not inadvertently do the best thing for the people of Kuwait – i.e. rid them of their conqueror and terror – Saddam Hussein?
So you ask “do I think his son is going to do a better job in Iraq?” I am not even talking about better. I am talking doing as equally as good a job, albeit, though the “goodness” of the their job is just a side effect of their malicious real reasons for the job. Surely you & others would agree that the Kuwaiti people were thankful for the US’s intervention? Now I simply ask are & will the Iraqi people similarly be thankful for their intervention. I have no doubt a certain segment of the population are thankful for their intervention. The question is, is how big is this segment?
The U.S. administration for the last 50 years & beyond makes me sick & makes me turn at night, but in this one instance of their horrendous foreign policy, will their self-motivated war end up saving the people of Iraq from Hussein as it did the people of Kuwait?
“Creeping Jesus” – What is your answer to the questions I raise?
The onus is on supporters of the war to PROVE that they are 'saving lives' by bombing and terrorising the Iraqi people.
Bombing is guaranteed to kill.
Not bombing is guaranteed to save lives.
Where's the proof that war is saving lives???
Also, because most Iraqis (and most people in the 'west') are in the dark as to the real motivating factors behind Bush/Blair/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz etc. etc., they tend to believe Bush when he says he's doing Iraq a favour by bombing them.
I don't mean that to sound arrogant, but I really think it is the case that people are not looking at the big picture when they express a simple opinion 'Saddam is bad, I support his violent overthrow'.
Finally, pre-emptive strikes against a sovereign state is wrong.
They're not targeting civilians. Iraq said 3 civilians died last night. That's pretty poor accuracy if they're targeting civilians.
You are an emotional fool who has been misled by unscrupulous people.
There have been paltry civilian deaths sofar in Iraq despite an immense bombing campaign. Contast that with the number of people Saddam would kill in the next ten or fifteen years if he were allowed to die of natural causes as 'President of Iraq'.
As for not launching pre-emptive attacks on 'sovereign' countries, this legalistic excuse - just like the one about not killing innocents - is a get-out-of-jail card for dictators-for-life. Simply declare you're little den a sovereign state, or pack enough innocents around you, and you're safe for good to cook up whatever you like.
You don't really support that, do you? Because that's what you're in fact doing. Forget morality. I'm talking about IN PRACTICE. that's all that really matters at the end of the day.
So you hate America? go on, knock yourself out. But if america overthrows Saddam, the Iraqs will hardly care. In fact, they're hugging the US Marines in the streets. Who are you to grumble? Who?
Joseph - Depp never said the Americans were "targeting cililians".
John is arguing for some of the points here that I am questioning here. Though I don't think that name calling is called for.
Depp:-
I agree with you that the 'primary' onus "is on supporters of the war to PROVE that they are 'saving lives' by bombing and terrorising the Iraqi people."
They will use agruments like that, that John is raising. They will call upon World War II where lives had to be killed in order to save lives. They will call upon the hundreds of thousands of people that have died under Saddam's regime and the countless number of others that have been brutally tortured.
Hence, I also believe the onus is on the anti-war side to counter argue these points. To hold a comprehensive, true and valid agrument as to why this war on Iraq is not in the interests of the Iraqi people. Not only it is important to be able to hold this so as to believe in yourself in what you are saying, but if you are to have any chance of convincing the public at large you will need to have this counter argument.
You say "Not bombing is guaranteed to save lives.". Pro-war people will say that this is not true. In fact the reverse, that bombing is guaranteed to save lives. i.e. the lives that Saddam will kill while he remains in power.
Your point:-
"pre-emptive strikes against a sovereign state is wrong."
I am not totally sure on the international law on this, but I think there are exceptions. And if the UN had passed the second resolution, the war would have been a legal one. Indeed, even without this passing, it will still probably prove to be a legal one because of the pre-ceeding 17 passed resolutions.
I still await an answer from the anti-war side. What do the people of Iraq want? Do they want this war, in order to be freed from the tyranny of Saddam?
Best regards...
So why aren't YOU out there doing your little bit for freedom and democracy ...
Why do you sit on your arse wherever you are pontificating like an armchair general .... (or a FF politico) .....
Like to put on a wee uniform and match your words with deeds ....
After all we want no shirkers in the great war against terror now do we ?
Did you actually read the article about the
liberation of Kuwait ?
Here's the start of it for you ....
Ever since the emir was returned to his throne, repression, rape, and reprisals have become staples of life in Kuwait
By Dennis Bernstein and Larry Everest
DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, and pundits alike have described the "liberation of Kuwait" as an apex in U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II. With great fanfare and pronouncements of new openness and democracy for the oil-rich kingdom, the emir returned to his palace, rebuilt complete with gold toilet seats courtesy of the U.S. Army.
But those promises of freedom lasted only as long as television news teams stayed in Kuwait City. Reports from human rights monitors detail an ongoing Kuwaiti campaign to punish and expel the 350,000 Palestinians living in Kuwait before the war. Today, all but 60,000 Palestinians have been driven out by a combination of summary executions, torture, detention, forced expulsions, and a variety of other pressures. And according to human rights workers, Kuwait is trying to squeeze those last few out quickly.
Sorry, I didn't have the time to read that article. I made an assumption based on your statement, and I assume again that the article is going to show my assumption to be wrong! Anyhow, going to read it when I go home, respond on Monday.
Peace.
"by bombing and terrorising the Iraqi people". Go on, read the message. The implication is that this is a tactic. It's a blatant lie. I'm sick of this emotionalist propaganda who really care nothing for the truth, if it get's in the way of proving a point.
all things aside the war does not have the backing of the international community and for most people it is in contravention of international law. that should be enough to say this war is wrong.
Anyone who puts forward the view that Washington, London, or the rest of the so called E.U. have any concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people is either a very poor pro war propagandist or a person whose knowledge of the history of the gulf region over the last two decades is somewhat limited. When U.S. imperialism imposed Saddam Hussein on the Iraqi people courtesy of a CIA sponsored coup, there were no reports that Langley conducted any public opinion polls prior to the putsch taking place. Successive administrations in Washington and Europe supported Saddam economically, politically and militarily despite his appalling human rights record. At that time Saddam was a “friend” but his move into Kuwait posed a threat to imperialist interests and he overnight became a “monster”. It is stating the glaringly obvious that the Iraqi people alone should decide who the president of their country should be and that their oil wealth should be used for their benefit, NOT to provide cheap oil for U.S. imperialism and it’s junior partners in Europe and Canberra. The Bush/Blair war to grab Iraqi oil, sorry “liberate” the Iraqi people is also a more blatant form of neo colonialism and other states in the region such as Iran are also on the list to be “liberated”. GBA.