It's all kicked off

Mick -

Oil prices dropping ! Great.. More profits for the big oil companies. Perhaps I should mention this to Shell and get my rates up ?

-A-

Oldie,
Setting aside your snide little remark, in the absence of any means of conducting valid polls in Iraq, all evidence - including the views of your Iraqi friends - is necessarily anecdotal. Consequently, whether or not one agrees that majority of Iraqis support the invasion is a matter of judgement, not of fact.

But in my judgement the anecdotal evidence overwhelmingly supports the belief that the majority do support invasion, and that many others who oppose it do so only because they mistrust the USA's motives - not because they believe that the price in lives of freedom is too high, as some would have us believe.

I have formed my opinion as a result of:

1) Knowing how inhibited even Iraqis in exile can be about expressing their views in public. The Iraqis I met in the late 1980s, who were campaigning for action [not necessarily military] to be taken against Saddam were wary of giving their names, fearing not only that their families might be punished by Saddam but that even here in England their own lives might be in danger from Iraqi agents. This is hardly surprising given the reputed number of Iraqi informants.

2) Seeing on TV at regular intervals, over the past few months, Iraqis who have suffered under Saddam arguing passionately in favour of military intervention, and claiming that these views were widely held in Iraq. Those who have not favoured intervention have tended not offer an opinion on what views are held in Iraq. What this means, if anything, I cannot say.

3) Articles on the Internet by or about people linked to Iraqi opposition groups.

4) Recent [i.e. in the last day or two] reports from journalists in Baghdad, saying Iraqis are now daring to express (at least in private) their support the invasion. Even so, they are not in a postion to assess how many are for or against - but at least it is the judgement of people who are in Iraq right now.

What I have not been able to find is scientifically valid polls.

I did find a reference to a poll that supposedly showed that 90% of Iraqi Kurds supported the invasion [which seems a little unlikely, given the ambivalence of at least one Kurdish opposition group] but I was unable to find any information about the poll, so cannot give it much credence.

I also found a mention of the results of an informal Internet poll in which, it was claimed, ~1700 out of ~2700 Iraqi exiles who responded were pro invasion. Again, it's scientifically meaningless but it adds to the anecdotal evidence.

--J

[This message was edited by JeremyD on FRIDAY 21 March 2003 at 15:18.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Ball:
Mick -

Oil prices dropping ! Great.. More profits for the big oil companies. Perhaps I should mention this to Shell and get my rates up ?

-A-

---

Oil companies produce oil.
Oil companies sell oil/oil derivatives
Oil prices go down/oil derivative prices go down
Oil companies get lower revenues from oil and oil derivaitves
Oil companies make less money
Maybe you should offer Shell to reduces your rates

Matthew

Dear JermemyD
Quote:- Setting aside your snide little remarks
There is nothing snide about my remarks, it's just your interpretation of them. My assesment
is based on facts and not unsubstantiated hypothesis, I'm afraid that your argument supporting this unjust war leaves you hoisted on your own petard.

iraN's reported a singular missile exploded at one of it's oil refineries. all the talking heads on tv are saying "must be collateral damage/stray" or sabotage or whatever. dont these people remember anything? i still remember that in gulf war I iraq lobbed some into neighboring countries(israel, iran?). why? maybe it was to provoke theater expansion? get more countries into this mess?

irony was in 1991 iraq flew some of its warplanes to iran, ostensibly to keep them safe. i wonder whether they got any planes back.

regards

Dear oldie,

I'm probably extremely stupid, or something, but I haven't understood your argument at all. WOuld you be kind enough to state the incontrovertible facts on which your assessment is based and explain the steps that lead from these facts to your assessment?

I await your answer with interest.

Kindest regards

--J

dEAR jeremyD
I would not be so rude as to suggest that anybody was stupid,we just have a differant interpretation of things.I'm sure that if you were to bother to go back to the original postings all would be clear to you.
In essence this is a totaly unjust and illegal
war that is not sanctioned by the UN and therefor cannot be justified by any civilised
society. It is no use empowering the UN and then when it suits us ignoring them. I don't think anybody is under any illusion about Saddam

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
The 17 correspondents eventually accredited had to sign forms agreeing to accept censorship at source by six MoD "public relations officers". The result was that the war was reported exactly how the military wanted it to be"

Matthew

---

Matthew

My point remains that I do not think that 2 PARA or anyone else on the British side wanted the Argentine Garrison to be told that they where outside Port Stanley ready to cross the start line. I accept that the Military wantto control reporting - ( bloody right, too - is immediate news worth a single life or disfigurement? ) but this example shows that the war was not reported totally in acordance with MoD diktat. Looking at the news tonight there is a lot of live / near live coverage - I reckon Sky News is covering it best - CNN etc has too many talikng head shots. The journalists there clearly realise that if they report TOO accurately, they could well end up as targets.

Regards

Mike

Sorry jeremyD
My bl--dy computer just froze up on me mid sentence. What I was going to say was that we all recognise Saddam as a murderer etc.
after all we armed and educated him in these ways when it suited us some years ago.But doing Thats all for now, as I feel we are just going round in circles
So all the best
[JUST] OLD

quote:

---

In essence this is a totaly unjust

---

It's 'just' if it frees the Iraqis from their oppressors.

quote:

---

and illegal war

---

It's more legal than most wars.

quote:

---

that is not sanctioned by the UN

---

Iraq is in breach of innumerable (I know there's a number, it's large and I don't have it) UN resolutions. Last year's resolution alone is good enough to sanction this action.

quote:

---

and therefor cannot be justified by any civilised
society.

---

Iraq and the PRC are both UN members, neither regime manages a 'civilised society' so I don't see your point. Do you wish to protect despots?

Paul

Its done it again .It should have read
But doing the same as he has done does not make it right.

quote:

---

Last year's resolution alone is good enough to sanction this action.

---

Paul

This point was never finalised. The US/UK (and others) position was that the resolution 1441 was sufficient authority for military action, the French/Russian/German (and others) position was that it wasn't sufficient authority. Cue endless debate between diplomats.

Clearly both positions were rendered irrelevant by the pursuit of conflict by the US/UK and Australia regardless of UN authority or otherwise.

I posted a link (in another thread) showing the outcome of some journalism which reported that this war is illegal under international law, but to enforce such a law would be impossible (and politically suicidal). I am too tired to dig out the link. Again, it's a somewhat academic argument anyway - illegal or not, this war is happening, will continue to happen until the US is satisfied, and there will be no legal repercussions for the 'allied' governments.

Additionally, the US has withdrawn from the International Court, leaving the important issue of 'who could possibly have jurisdiction in any case brought' unanswerable.

This is all hypothetical anyway.

Alex

I did not think the US was ever a part of the inernational court. Where they?

Judd

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by paul atkinson:
When you go to bed tonight spare a thought for the guy in Baghdad who does exactly the same job as you. He's no different from you: he has the same hopes for a good life for himself and his kids, he eats too much and doesn't exercise enough, he spends as much of the day laughing as he possibly can. Probably doesn't give a shit about politics and certainly doesn't support Saddam. Tonight he and his family could be murdered by remote control. Try to imagine this happening in your town. Would the deaths of tens of thousands of people in your county be justified to get rid of Saddam? Then why is it justifiable elsewhere? Unless you're willing to see the slaughter occur at home how can you justify it elsewhere? This must rank as the most cowardly war in history,
very saddened, Paul
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This argument is ridiculous. No war could be justified under this calculation. Why not just say "no war, ever, is ever justified, ever."

It's ok if you feel this way, but back it up with something logically defensible.

Judd

---

Judd, you seem to have some difficulty in distinguishing between the concept of logic and that of morality. To most of us these are separate concepts; Hitler's invasion of Poland was an entirely logical step for example. I do not suggest that no war is justifiable but that war should be the last resort in the most extreme of circumstances. At a moral level it is not unreasonable to suggest that an individual should not support a war unless they would be willing to fight or see one of there loved ones die in it. Applying this criterion I think most of us would have gone out to fight the Nazis but who would want to fight Iraq?

Iraq poses little or no threat at all and was impotent under the weapons inspection regime. To "disarm" it from this position and to affect a regime change (the US has such a good record in this department) is not worth the deaths of many innocent civilians.

Still it aint half fun to be a hawk from the armchair - give yourself a medal for your valour general Judd

...and while you're at it treat yourself to just one more burger - you know you want to

All the contemprary war reporting in the Falklands war was fully vetted and controlled by the MoD. I'm not sure how much plainer I can put this.

Matthew

PS Well said Paul

paul,

What is with all the references to the hamburgers?

judd






Judd

Come on now, Paul.

You know damned well I never even implied that if the war was "logically" justified, then it was generally justified. (That's Mick's argument--pay attention). I said only that your arguments should be logically consistent. Your indictment of war cannot be so broad that it renders all wars unjustified. That's all I meant, and I think you know it.

That said, I don't think I agree with it's more "refined form in your last post. The whole point of war is precisely to kill the other guys so as to save your own. That's the calculation every country makes when it enters a war. Were it not so, the whole concept of war becomes futile.

Anyway, i have no idea what you are calling me a Hawk. I've rejected your reasons for rejecting this war. I have not formulated a justification for it yet. I'm just here for the academic debate.

Judd

Justin said "The whole point of war is precisely to kill the other guys so as to save your own [...] Were it not so, the whole concept of war becomes futile"

I can't imagine anything quite as futile as a war purely for the puropses of killing people.

"I have not formulated a justification for [the war] yet"

You're not alone -- Bush & Blair are on their third or fourth attempt so far and still haven't managed it.

Matthew

quote:

---

I did not think the US was ever a part of the inernational court. Where they?

Judd

---

Judd

I thought that the US originally subscribed, and subsequently withdrew once GWB was elected. I could be wrong, and it could be that they never subscribed in the first place.

One thing is for sure, the US does not recognise the International Court.

Alex

quote:

---

The whole point of war is precisely to kill the other guys so as to save your own. That's the calculation every country makes when it enters a war. Were it not so, the whole concept of war becomes futile.

---

Following this logic, the justification for this war is that the US was under direct threat from Iraq, and that unless this war happened, US lives would be lost. This is totally incorrect. Iraq has posed no threat to the US, and had no proven capability to do so. Even the Al Sahmoud (spelling??) missiles, the ones that were in contravention of the UN resolution with regard to weapons delivery systems, only had a maximum range of 150 miles or so.

The Iraqi regime did pose a threat to it's own people, and to neighbouring sovereign states, but not to the US.

Like the pair of you, Judd and Matthew, I too have failed to see any justification for this war. The message 'from the top' seems to be inconsistent - it flits from 'being to democratise the region', 'to force regime change', 'to liberate the Iraqi people', 'to enforce compliance with the UN' and 'Iraq sponsors terrorism'. There is no clear justification for this war coming from the top, which only fuels the resentment for the war at the level of the populous.

I hope that the real victors in this war are the Iraqi people, and that the US do not, as Bob Edwards has suggested, just pull out and leave the Iraqi people to descend into anarchy having been 'hit hard'. Nobody has suggested (as far as i know) that there is any quarrel with the Iraqi people.

Proper reparations need to be made, a proper level of humanitarian assistance need be made, otherwise the suffering of the Iraqi people will actually be worse than it was before the war - infrastructures would be shattered, a power vacuum would exist, the macro-economy would be in (albeit temporary) ruins and the micro-economy will be in (longer term) ruins. Not to mention the refugee problems, the problems with the proliferation of disease following the shattering of the infrastructure, food shortages, etc etc etc.

To pull out, as in Afghanistan, would be deplorable, IMHO.

Regards

Alex

alex

it is currently being reported that the US wants to include the UN post war. cynical commentary is that since the UN will be managing Iraq's oil revenues in a UN escrow account, the US wants it's hands on that money to pay for the weapons and logistics it's already spent on attacking iraq...contracts for rebuilding(?)

shouldn't the aggressor be making reparations to the victim? all must agree that iraq is the victim here, how can anyone explain that the US is the victim in this case? so why should iraq oil money be used to pay for the US invading it?

finland, algeria have joined france and holland in refusing to follow US requests to boot out iraqi diplomats. the algerians said "Algeria is a sovereign country that establishes relations with countries it wants to and breaks relations with countries that it wants to." will the US attack Algeria now for harboring Iraqis?

the US military are still in Afghanistan. the civilian administration of the country is another matter, how does anyone govern and ungovernable place?

now turkey has marched into northern iraq. the US has complained against this 'unilateral' move. pot calling the kettle black?

world order has gone pear shaped, hasnt it.

regards

good morning!

quote:

---

now turkey has marched into northern iraq. the US has complained against this 'unilateral' move. pot calling the kettle black?

---

This is gross hypocrisy by the US.

Turkey joins in

This, for me, was the quote that summed it all up:

The secretary of state, Colin Powell, visibly irritated, had said earlier: "We don't see any need for any Turkish incursions into northern Iraq."

Well, Colin, a great number of people and nations don't see any need for any US incursions into Iraq either, but it's still happening! Surely it can't be one rule for the US and one for everyone else?

For the US not to think that such proliferation would not happen is extremely naive.

Alex

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/columnist/0,1886,145-178425,00.html?

good morning!

MARCH 21
FOREIGN MATTERS
War will saddle US with prickly Mid-East mandate

Janadas Devan


GULF War II is an optional war. The United States and Britain don't have to fight it. At any rate, there is no pressing reason why it should be fought now, and not six or 12 months hence.

Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein was not about to attack his neighbours, as he did Kuwait in 1990. Nor is there any evidence that he was planning to attack the US. The entire rationale for the war turns on what-might-bes: Mr Saddam may one day acquire nuclear weapons. He may one day use the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that he already has on the US and its allies, as he has before on Iran and his own people. He may one day supply WMDs to terrorist groups.

Because there is a chance the might-bes could become reality, US President George W. Bush has decided to act pre-emptively to make sure they cannot-and-will-never-be.

That is a justifiable ground for war, but he, or his successors, may one day come to regret the manner in which the doctrine of pre-emption has been inaugurated. Prudence suggests its application has to be carefully circumscribed if chaos is to be avoided.

Whether or not one believes existing United Nations Security Council resolutions provide the US with adequate grounds to forcibly disarm Iraq, it is difficult to make the case that the notion of pre-emptive war has been carefully defined in international law. Theoretically, there is nothing now to prevent India from applying the doctrine in Kashmir, or for China to do so in Taiwan.

But those are long-term worries. For now, the US will have to worry about the more immediate consequences.

One, from this day forth, whether it likes it or not, Washington will become intimately responsible, as it has never been before, for the entire Middle East. Every problem in the region will become its domestic problem; all the hopes and fears of the Arab/Muslim world will become its province.

Yesterday marked the beginning of a unilaterally-assumed American mandate for the Middle East. It is altogether fitting that Washington's chief ally in this venture should be the previous holder of a Middle-eastern mandate - Britain.

The US will no longer be just the chief facilitator of stability in the Middle East; it will be its chief guarantor. It will no longer be merely the good-faith, albeit powerful, intermediary in Arab-Israeli peace negotiations; it will become, of necessity, the chief enforcer of that peace.

Failure will see the US mandate collapse in a heap of confusion, as did Britain's in 1948. American prestige and power would be seriously damaged if that were to happen.

Two, the US will have to undertake its remarkable mandate - its most ambitious foreign venture since the Marshall Plan to rebuild post-war Europe and the occupation of Japan - with precious little international support.

Nobody doubts what the outcome of Gulf War II will be - Mr Saddam will be deposed. Nobody, not even the French, will regret that outcome. And yet few support the US. Rarely in history has a war been fought for an end so universally desired and with so little support.

It is not only 'old' Europe that detests the war. Large majorities in 'new' Europe do too - between 70 per cent and 80 per cent in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, about the same proportion as in Germany and France.

A recent Gallup poll revealed that 71 per cent of those surveyed in 10 'new' Eastern European countries believed oil is the reason the US is invading Iraq, compared to 73 per cent who held that view in the European Union. Slovakia was the only 'new' European state whose people backed their government's support of the US.

Not so in Britain, Spain, Portugal and Italy - Washington's chief European allies - where large majorities opposed their governments' support of the US. It is the same story in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia - and Singapore, too, if a New Paper survey showing that three in four Singaporeans oppose the war is to be believed.

Washington claims 35 countries in its 'coalition of the willing'. Alas, they consist almost entirely of governments. Apart from Israel, Slovakia and Kuwait, every pro-American government in the world is paying a domestic political price for its stance. From British Prime Minister Tony Blair to his Australian counterpart John Howard, supporting, not opposing, the US has become the definition of courage.

They can thank Mr Bush for this. In the 18 months since Sept 11, he managed to convert near universal support for America to near universal suspicion. Millions are now convinced he is a greater danger to global peace than Mr Saddam. He has achieved the impossible: He has made US power, not Iraq's WMDs, the issue.

Mr Bush's immediate post-war problem can be defined succinctly: Unless he reverses the world's suspicion of the US, and of him personally, he will fail to carry through his self-imposed mandate for the Middle East. Without the support and cooperation of now 'unwilling' European allies and the despised United Nations in Iraqi reconstruction, the mandate will seem an imperial venture, pure and simple - and a bankrupt one, to boot, for Washington has no money.

The US botched the pre-war diplomacy hopelessly. Now that war has begun, it must win it convincingly. More importantly, it cannot lose the peace. It can win the former unilaterally, but it can only win the latter multilaterally.

What I think will happen is once Saddam Hussein is boxed in, he will set off his nuke's on himself and nobody wins......wishfull thinking

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
All the contemprary war reporting in the Falklands war was fully vetted and controlled by the MoD. I'm not sure how much plainer I can put this.

Matthew

PS Well said Paul

---

Put it as plainly as you feel you can.

The World Service broadcast the intention of UK forces. You cannot seriously think that the MoD gave the OK for this. They had no control. And BTW, how would our MoD have controlled the Argentinian Press?

You really are missing the point completely. And I cant put it any plainer than that.

Mike

PS please dont come back and say that the MoD wanted the Argentine garrison to know that the assault was about to launch. That really would be nonsense. Feel free to make any comment you wish; I will not dignify it with a response.