There's a documentary airing on bbc 2 now about the gulf war(2) from the view point of the al-jazeera network.
If ever there was a case to show that we went to war for the wrong reasons this program presents it, the americans made out that they were doing the Iraqi people a favour by ''liberating'' there country then wondering why A.J was presenting them in a bad light when they started showing film's of them going to war.
They (americans) even show bad taste by having the regime's most wanted made into the form of a deck of cards (common knowledge i know), that just shows (to me) that there not been taking the whole thing seriously.
In they end it's the family's of the people who have died, be it English, American or Iraqi who have to pay for Dubya's and Bliar's desicion to go to war, to get rid of the regime and discover the ''wmd'', i bet the Iraqi people feel alot safer now there countrys been ''liberated''.
Of course this is only my opinion and i appreciate that it's been covered before but i wanted to make my point, i look forward to your reply's.
Well go and count the bodies that they pulled out of the mass graves all over Irqa, where Sadam and his henchmen killed of of people by the 100,000's. The problem at the moment is the power struggle between what will be an elected government and the Clerics who also want to run the Country as a Muslim State under Muslim law. I suggest that you have a good look at just what is going on instead of following the herd who want to have a go at Bush and Blair. Before you ask I did not vote for Blair, but on many of these things I would support him. Now just what would you do if you Bush or Blair.
The faces of the regime members were put in decks of cards so that soldiers would play with them and learn the faces of the men they wanted to capture.
I was just reading about the members of the Iraqi Olympic football team who have made the quarter finals. They are attacking Bush for using thier success in re-election campaigns. Some of the team members have said that once they return back to Iraq they will take up arms against the American occupiers.
What do the Americans expect though? They invade a country for false reasons, occupy it and install a pro-American government made from exiles and expect the Iraqi people to support them.
The coalition (loose term since many of the countries supported the war for the economic benefits of standing beside the US) has removed an evil dictator, but that was only a consequence of the war and not the reasons why we went to war.
Bush decided to go to war because 70% of the American people believed Saddam Hussein was part of the 9/11 planning. we went to war to strengthen Bush's political ambitions. The only thing that Bush and any other first term president wants is a second term. Only a second term president, who is free from the limitations of public opinion, would be prepared to decide to go to war to expand democracy and to free people (which has never been the case) America is always the first to defend its actions as 'fighting for democracy', but the US has never gone to war to expand democracy but only to expand its economic and strategic interests.
The coalition lacked worldwide support before the war, especially in the middle east. I am not defending Saddam, and like many Iraqis I am happy to see him go, but the war in Iraq was an unneccesary, unjustified and illegal war. Bush and Blair need to go. Blair has lost the respect of the nation and is no longer a fit leader. Bush on the oter hand, is supported by the Americans who were foolish enough to believe that by invading a middle eastern country we would phase out terrorism. The law needs to be changed so that leaders of democratic countries can be tried for crimes such as the one that has been committed by Bush and Blair.
After 9/11, Bush said that "you are either with us or against us". In the war against terrorism, I am with Bush because terrorism can never be justified and must be battled. But the fact of the matter is that the war in Iraq was not part of the war on terror but was part of Bush's political campaign. Because of that, I am against the war in Iraq and sympathise with the Iraqi people whose country has been turned into the battlefield that it is today and understand why they decide to oppose America.
Many people throughout the world believe that America is a power which causes more trouble than good, including me. Only an idiot would say that America's aim in the world is to expand democracy. Its only aim is to expand capitalism and to preserve its position as the worlds only superpower. America has a history which can be compared to the Nazis and Stalin!
Its a disgraceful cycle. Bush lies to the people, the people support Bush, Bush does what he wants and then lies to the people, who support him for it. f@#k politicians are all the same - liers and hypocrites.
In the upcoming American election I personally think that the war in Iraq will not do Bush any harm. He has a lot of support, especially by the American people who refuse to believe that the US has done harm. Bush's supporters are f@#k arrogant fools who dont care about anything other than 'American values.'
However, I doubt that Kerry is any different. He recently said that he would have still voted for the war even if he was aware that WMDs would never be found - basically saying that the war did not need justification.
Even in Britain the situation is the same. The conservatives, who supported the war as much as Labour, do not hesitate attacking Blair over the war now that it has happened. Anyone who supported the war in Iraq is a fool in my opinion, including me who once believed that the elimination of Saddam was justified whatever the consequences.
Tab wrote:Well go and count the bodies that they pulled out of the mass graves all over Irqa, where Sadam and his henchmen killed of of people by the 100,000's. The problem at the moment is the power struggle between what will be an elected government and the Clerics who also want to run the Country as a Muslim State under Muslim law. I suggest that you have a good look at just what is going on instead of following the herd who want to have a go at Bush and Blair. Before you ask I did not vote for Blair, but on many of these things I would support him. Now just what would you do if you Bush or Blair.
Genocide is a terrible thing, but the fact is that the west supported Saddam Hussein when he was at the peak of his crimes. The US and the UK knew what was happening in Iraq but did nothing. They can not ignore an event of this kind, store the facts away and then bring them out when they are needed most. Its pure hypocrisy to say that the war in Iraq was because of Saddam's cromes when it had nothing to do with them. At the moment our governments are ignoring acts of genocide throughout the world. We can not ignore these crimes and then use them to justify future wars!
The West supported Saddam when he was fighting a bigger evil and that was Iran, once that war ended then the support was cut right back, then when he started to get ideas of expansion it ended.
But it isnt justified to ally yourself with one dictator simply to defeat another.
I also fail to understand why Iran was a 'bigger evil'. The ayatollahs and Saddam alike are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. As was the shah of Iran, Americas's best mate who the clerics replaced. America is against the Iranian regime simply because an important economic American ally has been replaced. The US does not decide who is freiend or foe based upon human rights records and democratic values. Besides, dont forget that the US was selling weapons to the Iranians at the same time it was supplying Iraq.
Funny thing is that America supported Iraq's invasion of Iran. Ovcourse today, when Saddam is no longer a friend, the Americans are the first to use the invasion of Iran against him to justify thier own actions.
If any nation is the 'bigger evil', it is the US. It does not care how it gets its strength, only that it has it. Unlike Saddam, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and the Nazis, the United States can justify it's actions as 'acts of democracy' and 'good vs evil'. The sad truth is that many people believe it and ignore it's own shady history.
I do not believe that because the US holds elections it has the right to dictate to the rest of the world what should be right and wrong. I do not believe that anyone who is against America is instantly against the 'free world' and that the US and its allies can do whatever it wants. The US has supported more dictators, terrorists, criminals and murderers than any other country in the world and will continue to do so.
But it isnt justified to ally yourself with one dictator simply to defeat another.
Welcome to the wonderfull world of Realpolitic, Jon. Justice has nothing to do with it. Saddam was a rank amateur compared with Joe Stalin. Churchill sided with Stalin on the "my enemy`s enemy is my friend" issue.
Then he wanted to nuke them over the Berlin blockade
Most of the Bootys on here were against the war because we are not gullible fools. We are capable of forming an independant view from Sunreader.com and we could see the sham that Tone was pushing about the evidence of WMDs. Believe nothing, question everything, where politicians are concerned.
Well said jon, on the documentary there was a scene where there was a group of iraqi's sitting in a cafe watching tv coverage of their country being invaded, on man turns around and says (to the camera) that what right do they have to do this? and that he wouldn't be allowed to walk into someone's house and just kick them out on some false pretense, i just felt sorry for the poor buggers-they never asked for the war.
The irony is that those bodies found in the mass graves were probably killed when they (iraqi goverment) had support from the USA in the 80's, when they were selling them arm's.
A greater irony would be that the USA invade Iran next, and it doesn't seem that unlikely with all this news of them having nuclear capabilities in three years time-atleast they actually have wmd's.
andrew_s wrote:A greater irony would be that the USA invade Iran next, and it doesn't seem that unlikely with all this news of them having nuclear capabilities in three years time-atleast they actually have wmd's.
Bush isn't going to invade anyone who actually has them or even anyone who might have them. Mushroom clouds ruin the photo op.
[i]To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just another attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; ability to understand the question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action; fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man -- Thucydides[/i]
wholley wrote:Contradicting yourself there. Bush did think that Iraq might have nuclear weapons,
so he invaded.
I am suggesting that he made sure that they didn't have them so it would be safe to invade. And no, it wasn't the German Shepherds who did this. It was the Weasel-in-Chief.
[i]To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just another attempt to disguise one's unmanly character; ability to understand the question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action; fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man -- Thucydides[/i]
