Events, Dear Boy, Events (another war thread)

If I could demonstrably be shown that the Iraqi people, Kurdish people and most importantly Britain would be safer and lose less lives with war - and persuaded by good arguments then that is all it would need to change my mind. No-one has done that yet - and I am merely my current anti-war swing on the fact that I know that in armed conflicts people die.

so to ans this: a well thought out slogan that is able to get 'the point' across.

Here's a broader question - do people whose minds can't be changed have the right to try and change other peoples? ;)

Ralph Nader staging a bloodless coup and taking over the running of the US, and *still* believing that war would be a good thing.

Blair saying that we would be prepared to use nuclear weapons (offensively) against IRaq *does not* help make me feel any more pro-war.

and its not fair that so many innocent people are probably going to be slaughtered, in the up and coming events, because of one man's tyranny.

Basically, Saddam is a tyrant. Not withstanding the facts that:
- We built him up
- We armed him
- We've tolerated him until now
- We should have done it before
- There are other people and other countries who would need to be tackled if this wasn't to become hypocritical
- There are other longer running sores that really should be tackled

He's a tyrant. But how do you get rid of him? Sanctions can be as devastating to civilian populations as carpet bombing.

As someone who was anti-Saddam from the days when he was our friend, I hold no torch for him. But how do you shift someone, and shift them in such a way that will genuinely provide the opportunity for a new Iraq which doesn't replicate the gangsterism of former regime officials slipping through and repeating the whole sorry mess?

There are two aspects here.

In a parallel with 1990, regardless of everything else, the invasion of Kuwait was something that had a negative effect on the situation of the Kuwaiti people. They didn't wish to be ruled from Baghdad (they had their own dictator, thank you very much). Nor did the Falkland Islanders wish to be ruled from Buenos Aires. That's the first then - if, despite other caveats, Saddam was removed, surely the lives of the Iraqis would improve. I'm not saying massively - we know enough about the post-regime change plans to realise that it won't be the land of milk and honey - but enough for it to be 'just'.

Secondly, there's a wider issue of how you rid the world of a tyrant. The left were the first to raise the issue of Saddam in the 80s and were likewise with regard to the Taliban. But ultimately, if you believe a regime is wrong, is your sentiment little more than platitudes if you have no positive way to rectify matters?

Take Iraq as an example - the left called for sanctions in the 1980s, when Iraq was being traded with. Then the Kuwait situation - and suddenly, the same people calling for action are calling for inaction. Then sanctions are applied, and these are called to be lifted. Then war is threatened and sanctions are urged.

There are many who whilst disagreeing with whatever course of action is proposed have no real argument as to how you remove the root cause of the misery they are so against on another level. And without such a plan or idea, the viewpoint as a whole loses credibility.

As I say - these are just thoughts I've had, which may or may not be particularly well thought out, but in debates with advocates of war, this point is the one I've not been able to provide a convincing answer to.

Is Afghanistan better off now? I wish someone would tell me.

I think the bits of Kabul that are still standing probably are. I very much doubt it's the case in far-flung areas controlled by warlords.

However, comparing Afghanistan to Iraq is misleading... the former is practically living in the middle ages, while Iraq is a (relatively) developed nation with a far more successful infrastructure in place and a well-educated population not to mention the oil and fertile land. There's more room for nation-building post Saddam. I suspect that the average quality of life, even allowing for sanctions and the like, is better in Iraq under Saddam than the average person living in "liberated" Afghanistan (immediate threat of war notwithstanding).

I'm in favour of war as long as I can be convinced that the alternative will be worse, for Iraqis or for neighbouring countries or the wider world. At the moment, I remain unconvinced.

I suppose the problem is that yet again this is a complex answer not easily divisible into handy better or worse pie charts. The situation is Afghanistan is better for some people and worse for others. Especially those who died in the process. Unfortunately there is no easy formula to say that the greater good has been reached.And those of us judging would still be doing it from a Eurocentric perspective too.

I am against war. I do not think their are just wars. In extremis it may be reasnoble to use force if directly under attack and in mortal danger. Punitive retaliation doesn't count. As bad as the situation in Iraq is I do not think that killing Iraqi people, and putting lives of British and American people in danger is the answer. I belive that the money would be better spent on trying to solve the inequalities of the world. The way to combat terrorism and biggotry is with understanding and devlopment.

The important questions raise by 11/9/01 have not been addressed. Instead of the instant desire for revenge, restraint should have been the order of the day and efforts should have been made to understand why a group of people wished to take such drastic and terrible action.

By attacking Iraq and killing Iraqi people we would be no better than the terrorists and there is no gaurantee that we would ameliorate the suffering of the Iraqi people simply by overthrowing Saddam.

The best thing that could happen is if Saddam's resignation could be negotiated and his regime dismantled peacfully. Evn if it means the west has to pension off a very evil man it would be worth it to avoid a single further Iraqi death (and bear in mind Iraqis are dying every day, and have done every day since the 1st gulf war because of International sanctions).

That said the pension him off plan would certainly be my favourite (slightly more preferable to assasination with a black ops back up for internal revolt - the only other obvious method of getting him out without killing that many innocent people). But do you not need the threat of war to get to that position?

Also I doubt that the US will stay around to try and pick up the pieces -- look at Afghanistan, where bombs are still going off and vestiges of the Taliban are still around. The Iraqi people -- who, if reports are to be believed, are going to be shocked into submission by a bomb blitz -- have suffered mightily in recent years, and given the Afghanistan track record and the Bush admin's "concern" about problems at home I hold out little hope for their situation getting better at all. I foresee an aftermath, if there is a US victory of any sort (and if a conflct does erupt, is victory only going to be determined by the ridding of Saddam from power?), of the spoils of war being pillaged (hey, we're in a deficit economy, we need to pay for this somehow!) and Iraqis being left to rot. Add to that the piling up of hometown casualties (the military is said to be more actively recruitiing morticians in recent ways) and it just sounds like a disaster, a game of Risk played by a bunch of fratboys who got out of being pieces by being in the right class at the right time.

Seems a pretty tough call to make on this point in particular, Ed. It's not like we were giving Hitler the option, for instance (obviously the two situations are not parallel, but this is what leapt to mind when reading yer post).

i can be swayed yes. im not anti war per se, and im not even neccessarily against this war, but the whole thing depresses me. why, if something is going to be done, now? why let it fester for 11 years, with this pseudo-war weve been having there anyway?

what Dave B said bascially.

and i am flummoxed by the lefts shift from pro-action in the 80s to the opposite in the 90s (i know some reasons have validity but even so...)

that reminds me of my ex-flatmate who was always very in favour of action and intervention in regard to the taliban up until 9/11, but swung to polar opposite overnight afterwards. she was arguing against the very reasons she enthusiastically espoused a mere 24 hours before. this exasperated me

One thing that might sway me that I don't think has been mentioned: being convinced (not sure how this could happen) that the Iraqi people wanted Saddam gone and were ready to join with Western efforts to dislodge him and install a much better regime. What I mean by "much better" is almost certainly eurocentric, but I'm European. A new Islamic fundamentalist state would not strike me as a huge improvement.

Anti-war types have to convince me that once the sanctions are removed (and I believe that they must eventually be removed- they cannot exist in perpetuity) Saddam will pose no threat to either his neighbors, his own people and the rest of the world.

Pro war types have to convince me that there is some workable post-Saddam plan in place that will not make things worse.

This is pretty general stuff but you get the idea.

I think if the US/Britain was able to show proof that I'd support the war if:

A) Iraq was knowingly supplying terrorists weapons for use against the US, UK, or other Western Nations (I'm ignoring Israel, since basically every country supports that) and there was proof beyond mere assertions by Gov't officials I don't trust

B) that there's a logical plan that has a prayer of working without alienating the people of Iraq and making it into a puppet gov't for Western influence (eg, something similar to the US' rebuilding of Japan)

As for Afghanistan, I'll give the folks there the benefit of the douct seeing as the troops are still there and the rebuilding process is still underway. Bring it up again in 5 years and we'll see.

-
Alan

I don't support war against Iraq under the current circumstances. There is no proof that Iraq has any weapons that pose a threat to America, and until such evidence is conclusive people around the world will just continue to hate Americans because of the Bush administration's reckless impatience to get to war. We'd definitely be fighting a losing war without support from other nations.

Actually, the post WW2 US occupation of Japan did just that. Japan still has very little indepence. Of course some think that's a good thing.