Iraq, terrorism and Defence spending

[Saracen]

Originally posted by walibe
Like it or not, Iraq is now in a better situation than it was.

In many respects that may be true, but in some, it certainly isn't.

But regardless of that, the argument seems to be that the end justifies the means. Quite a number of innocent Iraqi civilians were killed in this war, and the notion that they had their lives taken from them because some outside government decided that it was a price worth paying to remove the Saddam regime gives me moral indigestion.

Besides which, it sets an awfully dangerous precedent. Suppose, for instance, the Chinese government decided that the UK would be better off with the Blair government out of power, and it'll only cost a million or so British lives in the invasion.

When does a country have the "moral" right to decide a war is justified for the sake of regime change? Who has the detached Olympian vision to decide what is right? How bad does a government have to be before we are justified in launching a war to correct that? What gives us the right?

I'm glad Saddam is gone, and I suspect the vast majority or Iraqi's are too. But I'm far less convinced that, long term, the "beneficiaries" of our benevolence in removing that nasty regime will actually thank us for bombing them to achieve it - especially as we seem to be having a great deal of difficulty even getting water and power properly respted, let alone setting up a police force capable of maintaining security on the country (or even in Baghdad). If we can't even get the power on, what chance do we have of setting up a full and stable set of democratic institutions to enable ordinary Iraqi's to have a say in their own future.

And what about Mugabe, North Korea and so forth? When do the wars start to remove those despotic regimes?

However much better of Iraq is now, or will be in a year or two's time, I'm far from convinced that THAT is a sound justification for war. In fact, it's more likely the start of a slippery slope to WW3.

What's more, Blair/Bush etc KNOW full well that they could not have sold that to the country as a justification for war, which is why they didn't try that.

As for WMD in Iraq - we'll just have to wait for the ISG to complete it's work. By their own account, they have found nothing much in the way of actual weapons, but that is also still fully consistent with them existing but just not having been found yet. Weapons capable of being deployed, even in 45 minutes or less, could YET be found.

We will just have to wait and see on that.

[Blub2k]

Iran is up next, they were first added to the axis of evil when they started murmering about changing over to the Euro as their currency of choice to trade oil in. Soon they too will be up for invasion. Sure even Saddam was only very nasty before he changed over to trading in Euros then he was elevated to "evil" overnight. Only thing I can think of is that the UK has so many reserve dollars that it would screw their economy to allow the dollar to slip anymore.

[spikegifted]

Originally posted by walibe
The missiles were dated this year, you can't believe everything the French ministry will say.

The fact that many of you are unable to see the benefits of this war troubles me somewhat. Lets not forget the people of Iraq are now free and will have Democratic elections, will not be lead to their local police station to never come back and will benefit from the revenue from the oil for the first time. If you guys fail to see this then there is clearly something wrong. Secondly do not confuse the people of Iraq with the terrorists and loyalists (a minority here) who are ambushing soldiers and oil/water supplies ect.

Like it or not, Iraq is now in a better situation than it was.

That is an interesting train of thought: "we can't believe everything the French ministry will say." So since when can we believe everything the governments of the US and the UK? You are suggesting that the rest of the world should listen to the 'hawks' like it's the gospel and yet dismiss the 'doves'. Isn't that a little bias? Do you use your objectivity in assessing the situation? Are you trying to suggest that you, and the rest of the people you preach to, simply listen and believe what some people tell you while dismiss others without thinking? All this without a touch of your own thought process? This is like reading a movie review suggesting a movie is 'excellent' but when you read five others suggesting that it's not 'excellent' and you kept on the believe it's an 'excellent' movie based on one review? This is a lethally naive and I trust you don't apply this to all matters...

I've expressed my doubt with regards to 'improvements' in the lives of the average Iraq in this post. Additionally, Saddam's secret police may have gone, but they're instead been replaced by troops from the US and the UK. Have you had the chance to watch some TV? Some of the documentaries on BBC and Channel 4 have shown how life for the average Iraqi is like. Instead of the fear for Saddam's police, the Iraqis are now living under the fear of being raided by US or UK troops, hunting down Saddam sympathizers or terrorists. These troops simply shout English at them, somehow I don't think there many interpretors willing to go on a raid with them. How many ordinary Iraqis speak and understand English? At least Saddam's police spoke the same language as the people they were taking away...

Additionally, have you ever lived in a society where gun crime is a regular daily occurance? The so-call gun culture in the UK is nothing compared with what's happening in Iraq where gangs of people have guns and they're willing to use them to meet their objectives. In such a society, ordinary citizens are being put under a great deal of stress - every other loud gang can mean another gun battle or someone has been shot at, wounded or killed. That is not what we call a good quality of life - that is called life under seige. I guess you're sitting comfortably when you're reading this thread, and yet you are claiming that life is better now that Saddam has gone... Open your eyes, see the reality! You may think that camera crews attached to US or UK army units must have been seeing an accurate reflection of life after Saddam. But don't forget, those are only a portion of their lives - that's what happens with the troops are around. The moment they turn around, revenge killings, gang warfare, looting, murders, etc are just happening all over the place.

Riots and demonstrations are not the actual problems, they're symptoms of deeper problems - widespread dissatisfaction of the post-Saddam administration. Sabotage and ambushes are not the actual problems, they're again symptoms of deeper problems - the complete lack of security in the 'liberate' country.

No matter how 'just' the 'end' of this invasion is claim to be ('liberating of a people'), the 'means' that used to achieve it is not just. While it is claim that the Iraqis are now 'liberated' and now 'free', there's no evidence that will support this lofty claim.

[Blub2k]

wrong forum