IRAQ WAR - Right or Wrong?

Message

Wed Mar 16, 2005 12:58 pm

IRAQ WAR - Right or Wrong?

How do you feel so far about the Iraq war? It's been (2 years?) now and what do you think... where do you think it is going?.... when will it end?... how many will die?

Get on your soapbox and post your opinions!!

Remember, everyone has an opinion, right or wrong so don't flame someone because they/you don't see eye-to-eye.

Mike.

Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:01 pm

Again, I'll start this off...

I've always been opposed to the Iraq war. I did not believe the UN inspectors ever had a chance or were ever given a chance. The US it seems rushed in on a hunch it was Saddam who caused 911 without much proof... and then there is 911 itself... was it all a setup?

In December 2004, the USA gave up on finding any WMD in Iraq, but yet the USA is still there...

Seems to me one big mess is occuring and the pres just isn't listening to the people as soliders are dying...

Just my 2 cents.

Mike.

JJ · #3 Unread post by JJ » Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:56 pm

see my post in the Geo Bush section!

Have a nice day - I have to take my blood pressure meds now

JJ

#4 Unread post by **sv-wolf** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:43 am

In the run up to the invasion, the British Government ran a covert operation whose purpose was to provide misinformation about the weapons' inspectors supposed lack of success to the intelligence services and the media. The idea, of course, was to win over popular support to the view that Saddam was a significant threat and has to be destroyed.

Put it all together: Blair's fraudulent dossier, the demonstrable lies he told about what happened to Saddam's supposed arsenal of WMD, government misinformation and you have a clever campaign to delude the public into thinking that the invasion was about anything other than its real purpose. The media, left, right and centre, have done a brilliant job of lying to the public. Well done lads!!!!!!!!

So that is how 'sincere' that nice and 'sincere' Mr Blair was in his 'sincere' commitment to... (what exactly was it he said he wanted to invade Iraq for? The reasons changed every week).

What amazes me is that at least 100,000, mostly innocent Iraqis are dead, god knows how many more are wounded and traumatised and have had their lives torn apart by these events and the media are still trying to convince us that this was a good thing.

The one tangible result that sticks in my mind - though the conventional media have very little to say about it - is that the American government still continues to build a string of expensive, permaenent military bases on Iraqi soil.

oldnslo · #5 Unread post by **oldnslo** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:23 pm

Iraq is old business, passe'. Mission accomplished. Time to attack Iran and North Korea, sumultaneously. That oughta surprise 'em. It'll be a cake walk.

#6 Unread post by **sv-wolf** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:49 pm

oldnslo wrote:Iraq is old business, passe'. Mission accomplished. Time to attack Iran and North Korea, sumultaneously. That oughta surprise 'em. It'll be a cake walk.

One of the papers here ran a feature about two weeks ago in which it quoted leaked U.S. government documents which purportedly set a date for attacking Iran. How true that is, is anyone's guess.

One view is that going for Iran would not fit in so neatly with traditional British Foreign Policy objectives, so it'll be interesting to see if Blair is up for an Iranian adventure.

Back in 1998 the British Government published a Strategic Defence Review which stated that it was about to start throwing its weight about in the world much more agressively - what it called 'force projection'. Its plan was to purchase new aircraft carriers and weapons systems to act as a 'coercive instrument to support political objectives'. Access to oil supplies as domestic stocks dwindle is one of those political objectives, particularly in the Middle East (Iraq), the Caspian Sea (Afghanistan) and East Africa.

Paul Curtis who is a radical British historian suggests that the recent UK 'humanitarian intervention' in Sierra Leone was related to this British interest in oil-rich East Africa. The U.S. also is apparently projecting that 25% of its own oil supply will be coming from this region in the not too distant future.

In December 2003, a further British government paper stated effectively that the U.K. would increasingly threaten those nations who are non-compliant with its strategic policy needs with military force. Was it thinking of Iran? or...

Yep, I suspect Iraq is only the beginning.

oldnslo · #7 Unread post by **oldnslo** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 5:37 pm

The US purports to have humanitarian issues at heart, but in the final analysis, it's about oil and money, all of the time. I bet within the next 10 years, we will liberate every oil-rich country in the arab kingdom.

Itzamna · #8 Unread post by **Itzamna** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 8:15 pm

I thought it was wrong the day Bush addressed the nation telling us that the U.S. was going into Iraq. In that address, he blatantly lies, and even gives the resources to look up what he is saying to see that he is lying about it.

Now, I do believe Suddam needed to be removed from power. I would of been happy if the U.S. just said, "Screw the UN and everyone not agreeing, we're taking this crazy ****er out." Really, that's what they did, so they should of done it that way, instead of a bunch of lies along the way. If they said that to start, it wouldn't of been so bad.

#9 Unread post by **sv-wolf** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 3:03 am

Itzamna wrote: Now, I do believe Suddam needed to be removed from power. I would of been happy if the U.S. just said, "Screw the UN and everyone not agreeing, we're taking this crazy ****er out." Really, that's what they did, so they should of done it that way, instead of a bunch of lies along the way. If they said that to start, it wouldn't of been so bad.

No doubt about it, Saddam was one crazy ****er. But I'd question whether it was necessary that he be 'removed from power'. It was the west, principally the U.S. but with British connivance that put him in power in the first place, knowing full well that he was 'once crazy ****er. The British government certainly helped with the massacre that took place at the time of the coup.

Later on, the U.S. goverment also tried to cover up for his little jokes, like the gassing of the Kurds in Halabja by telling its ambassadors to try and blame the massacre on Iran, knowing full well that it was Saddam that did it.

I don't see that the U.S. or Britain had any change of policy over Iraq. The 'humanitarian' pretext doesn't cut any ice. It Does matter why governments act, because that will determine how they act and what the consequences will be. The U.S. Govt. didn't mention 'humanitarian' reasons until a couple of days before the invasion at the Azores summit.

The war has destroyed far more Iraqi lives than would have died under Saddam. Since the Iraq/Iran war he seems to have calmed down on that front. The whole thing is a tragedy and I don't see any mitigating circumstances.

If the U.S. had not prevented the coup against Saddam in 1991, he would have been gone long ago with much less loss of life.

oldnslo · #10 Unread post by **oldnslo** » Fri Mar 18, 2005 5:06 am

Interestingly, after 2 years, it is US troops living behind walls and check points, while Iraqis knock-down-and-drag-out with road bombs, rockets and other little annoyances outside those walls. We have dug into defensive positions, it seems. Strange strategy, capitulating to such an inferior enemy. So far, 1500 of our troops dead, most after the mission was declared accomplished by George. He's such an optomist.....