garyshort.org

You don't deserve to write on a computer freely in safety if you think only that American and Australian military are doing nothing but furthering "imperialism". First you should define "imperialism". Then you should see that if imperialism equals squashing tyranny even through violence, you would see that there is some measure of good that can come out of this. But the measure will be much greater the more the world comes together to fight nihilstic terror and support the vast majority of Iraqi's who want to maximize the potential benefit that first world nation investment and political restructuring can have. Anti-war is lazy, pro-peace requires action and compassion.

Where do I start? I feel that it's not worth rebutting your comment as you have clearly swallowed the Irag = terrorism = 9/11 line, however I will attempt it non the less.

Firstly, Dictionary.com defines imperialism as "The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations." So that pretty much covers what the US is doing in Iraq, so I stand by what I said and it's not just Iraq, Bush would like to extend his "political hegemony" over other nations too.

Next let's deal with squashing tyranny. Yes the Iraq leadership was tyrannical and the fact that they have been removed is a good thing. But let's not pretend that this was the reason the US invaded. There are far worse regimes in the world that the US chooses to do nothing about. There are even some worse ones the the US actively supports. Clearly the US is not against tyranny per se, it's just against tyranny where it does not serve the US. To prove this point ask yourself this question, was the Iraqi leadership less tyrannical when the US supported it with weapons and cash?

Now let's talk about "first world nation investment". It's true that the US is pumping billions into the re-building of Iraq, however most of that money is going to US companies such as Haliburton. How much of that investment do you think is reaching the Iraqi people? Do you think it's been worth the US and Iraqi lives to feather the already comfortable nests of the Haliburton executives? I certainly don't.

Lastly let's look at your assertion that "pro-peace requires action and compassion". Now that it has been proved, by impartial enquiry, that Iraq had neither WMD nor had any involvement in 9/11 it's safe to say the the Iraqi people are totally innocent. That being the case, how do you compassionatly kill thousands of innocent people?

Well said Gary. My brother is just back from Iraq, and I am under no illusions as to why he was there either.

As a side issue, after Blair forcing many resignations at the BBC after a reporter suggested (after talking to an expert) that the 45 miute claim might be bogus, and now knowing that, infact it WAS bogus, shouldn't he be offering his resignation sooner rather than later?

It seems that the "anti-war" crowd feel that if they repeat the "Saddam was tyrannical but thats not the most important issue" line it will cease to be a desperately amoral perspective. The fact that they attempt to occupy the moral high ground at the same time is, frankly, risible.

What you fail to acknowledge is that international politics/affairs has never and will never be able to be run on nice neat logically consistent lines. It may work in an undergraduate class debate to assert "unless you invade all dictatorships, you can't invade one" but in the real world, you do what you can, when you can - logically consistent or not.

To my mind Blair and Bush faced a very difficult decision. If they left Saddam in power, then tens or hundreds of thousands would continue to be murdered or tortured. If they went to war, tens of thousands of Iraqis would die or be affected. Its a horrific dilemma that makes me glad I don't have to make that choice.

But lets be clear that was the choice. Only in the febrile anti-Americanism of the anti-war camp is it possible to forget or downgrade the thousands dying at Saddam's hand. Somehow the deaths of thousands who die through military action are more tragic and offensive than those that die at Saddas hand. Why? Why do these people always get the most cursory mention by "peace" campaigners. Its because they stand in the way of the real underlying agendas of many who protest against the war.

Scratch the surface and beneath the supposed concern for Iraqis are some very old-school, left-wing, domestic agendas. A visceral dislike for capitalism, an abiding hatred for Republican presidents, Pavolvian responses to various words such as "imperial", a fear of giving people that dreaded tool, "choice", etc etc ad infinitum

Thats where, to me, the moral high ground really begins to disintegrate under their feet. For many on the left, it was more important to frustrate an American Republican president than it was to address the wholesale slaughter going on in Iraq. That is morally untenable in my view and only possible if you have retreated into an isolated cocoon chanting "I'm alright Jack...". Hardly the principled image the left likes to fashion for itself.

When did the sense of International responsibility for your fellow man leave the left? In the 30s the left formed armed brigades to go and fight in the Spanish Civil war. I couldn't see this happening in a month of Sundays now.

Then there's oil. Often branded by agit-prop protestors as the killer argument, as if the need to protect a key energy resouce for us and many other countries around the world is somehow a deeply reprehensible act. What utter bollocks. Its hugely important that governments protect our energy supply and to pretend otherwise is simply to wish that the world isn't as it is. In 30 years if we have millions of wind farms, perhaps we won't need to move in such a way - but until we do, I'm bloody glad we do protect that supply.

Finally - WMD, lies etc etc. Yawn yawn. It never mattered to me that there were WMDs or not. But, Blair did, mistakenly in my view, use them as a pretext for the invasion. Something that Bush actually didn't do.

The fact that they weren't found does not mean he was lying. I think they genuinely thought they were there. It simply does not invalidate the decision to go to war and those that assert that it does simply do not understand.

So - we have today an Iraq that is very very dangerous some two years on from the invasion. But its future looks ever brighter, even if it will be very painful for some time to come.

If the Galloways, Kennedys and Glenda Jacksons of this world had had their way, Saddam would be in power, a similar number of people would also be dead and in mass graves but the future for Iraqis would be much bleaker. No prospect of freedom.

So much for a "progressive" outlook and a concern for "social justice".

James

BTW - I am no Labour apologist. I've voted Labour many times - not the last time - but that definitely wasn't because of his position on the war.

Hello James and thanks for stopping by. Firstly, I'm no anti-war campaigner nor am I a left winger or anti-american. I'm not against the war for idealogical reasons. I'm against the war because the politicians couldn't convince us that it was a good idea based on the real reasons and so they lied to us to make it more palatable.

Lie 1 - WMD's, there were none, and they didn't honestly believe that Iraq had they as you claim, cos Hans Blix was telling them there were none. Go read his book for more information.

Lie 2 - Thousands murdered at the hands of Sadaam. The murdering was true but the fact that they gave a damn is the lie. Just as many were dying when the west supported Sadaam and they didn't lift a finger to help them, they even supplied nerve gas to be used on the Iranians.

Lie 3 - The war was legal and the Attorney General gave unequivocal support to it. Turns out that his advice was far from enequivocal.

The real reason for the war was to secure the oil. Not for us, (our power stations are gas fired), nor for the US who have enough wealth to buy what they need. It was to secure the oil, *from* the Chinese to prevent them becoming an industrial power and threatening the US's position as the world's only super power.

Now I don't really have a problem with that. The world is a better place with a powerful America and the UK's world importance far exceeds that of a puny island in the Atlantic because of our support of the US. What pisses me off is that there was no way the politicians could convince the electorate that the above was worth British lives so instead of giving up on the idea they fabricated a whole new set of wholly acceptable reasons and they did that because they hold us in such poor regard that they believed that we were to stupid to notice. The thing is, some of us were...

Hi Gary

Thanks for replying.

I appreciate you may not be a left-winger or anti-American but you share a common position with many many people who are (but always claim not to be interestingly - why is that?).

I think you make a valid point about the stated reasons for going to war. It was a mistake in my view to use WMDs as the Casus Belli. However, the reason he did that is because there were enough people on the Labour backbenches and in the media who would have had a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of non-WMD justified invasion and made (political and domestic) hay while the sun shone in frustrating that effort. The concept of "regime change" was vilified by all such people as if it was some evil concept - rather than about giving all the people in a raped country a chance to experience some of the freedoms we all take for granted. That's cock-eyed, to me. Whenever someone like Tam Dayell came on the radio saying that any stated justification for war was unjustified I wanted to ask "So, under what circumstances would you approve military action?". the truth, i think, was that those of that ilk wouldn't approve attacking Hitler even if he was at the gates of London, if it was the same thing a Republican President wanted. In the face of such wilful obstructionism, Blair made the wrong choice and predicated his decision on WMD. He should have toughed it out and argued for "regime change".

To address your points.

1) However - the fact that Hans Blix was saying there were no WMD is not a reason not to believe there might be. The UN is not infallible. I worked at the UN HQ in NY for a couple of years and a more dysfunctional organisation you would be hard pressed to find. Governments have their own intelligence networks and they were within their rights not to be solely dependent on Blix for their information.

2) Its undeniable that 20 years ago the West supported some pretty horrible regimes for strategic reasons. I don't agree with it, but it happened, so - we are where we are. However, that does not mean that a Western government can't say "Whatever happened in the past, we think a new policy is needed". Otherwise, we would have our hands permanently tied by past governments' decisions. Where does it end? How long a timespan needs to pass before govts can reverse previous poilcies? To me, this does not pass muster as an argument. "Sorry Mr Kurd, we'd like to stop you being gassed but you see this wouldn't be consistent with decisions a previous government took. It would make us look hypocritical and frankly your life is not worth that much to us."

3) The legality of the war. Well, we can go backwards and forwards on this. The truth is that even if he was equivocal in his draft advice (but unequivocal in his final advice) - so what? What matters is the final advice, which he stands by. If TB had gone to war when the AG had specifically told him in his official final advice it was illegal, then you might have something. But he didn't, so you don't. This is a storm in a teacup and despite efforts to turn it into a smoking gun - it isn't really.

Oil. Despite our electricty being (mainly but not exclusively) gas-fired, our transport isn't. My car runs on petrol, the buses and lorries on diesel - not sure we could run our society and economy on bicycles. And anyway, its not just about us - the global economy would go into serious and possibly fatal convulsions if access to middle-east oil was not secured. As for the US being able to buy what they need - that doesn't really stand up. You can't buy from someone who won't sell or sets an absurd price because you are the US.

I think I am in agreement with part of your argument, if for different reasons. He did use the wrong reason for war. However, I think more people than you credit knew exactly what he was doing (as I did) and while holding thier noses, approved. I didn't feel hoodwinked. He did it, I believe, because he thought it was an extremely important thing to do and his methods achieved his aim. Not pretty, i agree. But while he may be due criticism, I think more searching questions can be asked of the Pavlovian knee-jerkers who would have frustrated him at every turn had he not gone WMD. I used to respect various left-wingers like Robin Cook, Clare Short (what a joke....) etc. But no more. Their moral compass has become warped. Whatever you think about Bush, he is not as evil as Saddam. To argue, or more likely imply as they and many others did, that he is and there is a moral equivalence between the two is deeply dishonest or deeply stupid.

People seem talk about pre-war Iraq almost as if it was a 3rd world country with a tinpot dictator (like some African countries). However, Iraq had a thriving economy with a decent health service/education system/transport etc... (supported by Western money a lot of the time). Although it had a hight percentage of Muslims, it was a secular country with an extremely high proportion of educated women in important roles such as doctors etc...

The problem was Saddam Hussain, who, initially supprted by the west, ended up refusing to tow the line and who started refusing to co-operate with OPEC/The West etc (and started selling to the Chinese etc...).

My opinion was that this became unacceptable to some in the west.

The reason for the war was regime change, but let's not kid ourselves that the west was worried about the torturing etc... (there are plenty of other countries with leaders who torture their population). They were worried that Saddam had become a loose cannon in an area of the world that had control of a large part og the world's oil resources.