The Iraq War (General)

by dhw, Wednesday, June 16, 2010, 17:32 (5086 days ago)

Under "The Human Animal", Matt raised the subject of the Iraq war. 
I took it up purely in order to give my subjective answer to your question about your soldier friend's position. I don't mind if you, David or anyone else wishes to engage in a political discussion on the Iraq War, East v. West, the UN, oil-based politics, Al Qaeda etc., but let's put it on another thread.-A few facts concerning the Iraq War. The reason given to the British people for the invasion was that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. It was also suggested that he had links with Al Qaeda. Both allegations were untrue, and many people believe that Blair already knew they were untrue. As regards resistance to the war, there were massive antiwar demonstrations here and indeed worldwide BEFORE the invasion (one estimate put the worldwide figure at 36 million between Jan. and April). Robin Cook, Leader of the House of Commons and former Foreign Secretary, resigned in March 2003 in protest, and Clare Short ... International Development Secretary ... resigned shortly after the invasion, also in protest. I attended a lecture she gave at Hay on Wye, and she did not mince her words about Bush and Blair's connivance and personal agendas. She at least had no doubt who was responsible for the war. I watched the UN debate in which Dominique Villepin ripped to pieces the bogus case for invasion, and the vast majority of countries, including France, Germany, Russia and China, opposed the USA plan to invade. In USA itself, you say there was very little resistance at first. I read that on 15 Feb. 2003, between 300,000 and 400,000 demonstrated in New York City, and there were smaller demonstrations in many other cities. In Jan 2003 CBS News / New York Times held an opinion poll in which 63% wanted a diplomatic solution and only 31% favoured military intervention. (I can't vouch for these figures, because like most people I depend on the media for such information.)-David, the 1930s appeaser was Neville Chamberlain, not Anthony Eden. You say I should have learned from the 1930s attempts at appeasement. Let me set the record straight. I am not a pacifist. I was totally in favour of the 1991 Gulf War, after Saddam had invaded Kuwait in an act of blatant aggression. There is a time for diplomacy, and there is a time for action, though I appreciate that one's judgement in these matters is subjective. Mine is that there was every justification for the 1991 war against an aggressor, and none for the 2003 war, in which we were the aggressors.-As regards the link between your two paragraphs, it is widely believed over here (and also, I think, by many Americans) that Iraq was invaded in order to gain control of the oil, and other reasons such as WMD and Al Qaeda were merely a pretext. If this is true, appeasement does not even enter the debate. If the purpose was to develop Iraq as a semi-democracy friendly to the West, I would say, as many ... including Robin Cook and Clare Short ... predicted BEFORE the invasion, that the war has only increased the threat of terrorism and added to the instability of the Middle East. You are right that "the USA is the world policeman", but if a policeman kills my neighbour, cripples my son, destroys my property, and tells me how to live my life, can he really expect me to call him friend?