IQ test on war on Iraq
03 December 2003, 02:03 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Croydon - returned to democracy! Yay!!
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bros2,
While I would be the last person to side with Mr Hussein over this, there are a few key points that you have missed.
You say that he has systematically hidden his WMD components, infrastructure and so on throughout the country. Well, that may be true, but unfortunately there is no proof. All we really have to go on is that the USA says that this is what has happened. There may well be valid intelligence which proves this to be the case, and the sources may well be sensitive enough to warrant a degree of protection. Then again, there may not. It is not enough to simply pitch up and say "If you can't prove that you don't have xyz then we'll say you do." How the Hell do you prove you don't have something if you don't have it? "Mr Powell, I believe that you have crack cocaine in your house." "But I don't!" "Well, can you prove it?" "Come in and look." "OK, thanks. We can't find anything, but of course that doesn't mean you don't have it. We need you to prove otherwise or you're going down for posession..."
Listening to regional news, to people on the ground and to my own former colleagues on the inside, there is a very common thread. Apart from a few - the Emir of Kuwait, for example - no-one actually considers Saddam to be a threat to regional stability. Contrary to your statement, the Iraqi regime is not generally expansionist. The last Gulf war was a direct response to the Kuwaiti government, frankly, taking the p*ss and drilling oil which did not belong to them. there was more to it than that, but there's the root. The Iran/Iraq war was partly personal, partly sectarian and partly western sponsored. No expansionism involved.
Saddam's use of gas on civilians is appalling but is again taken out of context. These weren't just loyal subjects who were in the way, they were fifth columnists who were directly supporting the Iranians and were establishing a channel for Iranian ground forces to enter Iraq. Not a very popular opnion, but as someone who was involved in the investigation on a professional basis, one I will stand by. I am not justifying his action, simply giving it a context.
You say that Iraq is a sworn enemy of Israel. Fair comment, but show me one Arab nation which, in reality, isn't. Public and pragmatic attitudes may well be different. Politically it is nigh on suicidal for any Arab leader - even someone as ruthless as Saddam - not to side with the Palestinians and support them in some way. That, by default, means being a sworn enemy of Israel.
By the way, if the Israelis were to start seriously working for peace and the problem could be resolved (not beyond the bounds of possibility, it just needs an attitude adjustment) then I'm 100% certain that the Arab world would accept them and move on. But I digress.
I am not a fan of appeasment, and tend to agree that your League of Nations comparison is a valid one. I'm also surprised to be on this side of the fence. As an ex Royal Marines Commando I've usually tended toward the gung-ho approach. I really do not like Saddam Hussein. My in-laws hail from Iraq and left the country very shortly after the Ba'ath party came to power. I would love to see him toppled and replaced by a real democracy. But I do not want to see hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost to do it.
It's also worth remembering that our troops are volunteers. All credit to them - they deserve our support and I am proud to have served my country. Iraq has a conscript army, and those poor *******s have little training, poor leadership and antiquated weaponry. They don't have a hope in hell of surviving this. It would be nice if, this time, our US colleagues actually remembered that it isn't considered the done thing to carry on firing at retreating forces and actually leave some Iraqis alive to rebuild the remains of the country after the war.
SB
[Edited by Sbradley - 3/12/2003 2:09:25 PM]
While I would be the last person to side with Mr Hussein over this, there are a few key points that you have missed.
You say that he has systematically hidden his WMD components, infrastructure and so on throughout the country. Well, that may be true, but unfortunately there is no proof. All we really have to go on is that the USA says that this is what has happened. There may well be valid intelligence which proves this to be the case, and the sources may well be sensitive enough to warrant a degree of protection. Then again, there may not. It is not enough to simply pitch up and say "If you can't prove that you don't have xyz then we'll say you do." How the Hell do you prove you don't have something if you don't have it? "Mr Powell, I believe that you have crack cocaine in your house." "But I don't!" "Well, can you prove it?" "Come in and look." "OK, thanks. We can't find anything, but of course that doesn't mean you don't have it. We need you to prove otherwise or you're going down for posession..."
Listening to regional news, to people on the ground and to my own former colleagues on the inside, there is a very common thread. Apart from a few - the Emir of Kuwait, for example - no-one actually considers Saddam to be a threat to regional stability. Contrary to your statement, the Iraqi regime is not generally expansionist. The last Gulf war was a direct response to the Kuwaiti government, frankly, taking the p*ss and drilling oil which did not belong to them. there was more to it than that, but there's the root. The Iran/Iraq war was partly personal, partly sectarian and partly western sponsored. No expansionism involved.
Saddam's use of gas on civilians is appalling but is again taken out of context. These weren't just loyal subjects who were in the way, they were fifth columnists who were directly supporting the Iranians and were establishing a channel for Iranian ground forces to enter Iraq. Not a very popular opnion, but as someone who was involved in the investigation on a professional basis, one I will stand by. I am not justifying his action, simply giving it a context.
You say that Iraq is a sworn enemy of Israel. Fair comment, but show me one Arab nation which, in reality, isn't. Public and pragmatic attitudes may well be different. Politically it is nigh on suicidal for any Arab leader - even someone as ruthless as Saddam - not to side with the Palestinians and support them in some way. That, by default, means being a sworn enemy of Israel.
By the way, if the Israelis were to start seriously working for peace and the problem could be resolved (not beyond the bounds of possibility, it just needs an attitude adjustment) then I'm 100% certain that the Arab world would accept them and move on. But I digress.
I am not a fan of appeasment, and tend to agree that your League of Nations comparison is a valid one. I'm also surprised to be on this side of the fence. As an ex Royal Marines Commando I've usually tended toward the gung-ho approach. I really do not like Saddam Hussein. My in-laws hail from Iraq and left the country very shortly after the Ba'ath party came to power. I would love to see him toppled and replaced by a real democracy. But I do not want to see hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost to do it.
It's also worth remembering that our troops are volunteers. All credit to them - they deserve our support and I am proud to have served my country. Iraq has a conscript army, and those poor *******s have little training, poor leadership and antiquated weaponry. They don't have a hope in hell of surviving this. It would be nice if, this time, our US colleagues actually remembered that it isn't considered the done thing to carry on firing at retreating forces and actually leave some Iraqis alive to rebuild the remains of the country after the war.
SB
[Edited by Sbradley - 3/12/2003 2:09:25 PM]
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post