4 years on

[BDunnell]

If you look at the history of actions in the UN involving Iraq, the vast majority of human rights issues related resolutions came at the hands of the US and UK, who I might add were also the ones who used physical means to protect people within Iraq by way of the no fly zones.

To claim that those people who on a number of occasions were subject to hostile acts while supporting the no fly zones somehow didn't care about human rights isn't a very accurate statement. And to claim that the administrations of those countries didn't care shows total disregard for the fact that they funded that protection.

This is true, but I suppose I am talking about those individuals in power now in the USA. If the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush really had genuine convictions about such things, they should have spoken out then, as many others did. I can't recall whether Tony Blair did speak in favour of taking action in about 1992-93.

[raphael123]

If everyone took your view, there would never be any Government inquiries into anything, no matter how serious, no scrutiny of important events after they happen, and no blame attached to wrongdoing because the important thing is to 'look ahead'. This is Tony Blair's line every time his Government gets into trouble — just draw a veil over it, because it will soon go away. Well, sometimes it won't. There would also be no historical record other than the official version, because, according to your view, there's no need to rake up the past. Sometimes, I think there is a very real need to do so.

As for what happened in 1991, you have to ask yourself why the Coalition then didn't take the opportunity to remove Saddam when they certainly had their chances. Except you won't ask yourself that, because it was in the past. I think it's rather important given what is happening now.

That's not what I'm saying at all!
I'm not saying there shouldn't be an inquiry into any wrong doings or mistake at all. I think I've actually said we should learn from our mistakes. In most cases, there is an inquiry, and we do learn from these mistakes.

I'm just stating your attitude of 'well, they should have done it years ago' or 'well they shouldn't have let him in the army in the first place' doesn't help things at all. You have to accept mistakes were made, as they can't be changed, and make sure you've learnt from them, and then make the best possible decision now, without making another mistake!

How on earth going back to decisions made years ago, wrongly or rightly, is going to help things NOW is beyond me. Everyone knows we should have removed Saddam in 91, so saying now, in 2007 'well we should have done it in 91' isn't going do much to help is it?

It's the attitude, when discussing what we should do in Iraq now, people scream 'we shouldn't be there in the first place' I find annoying- how on earth is that going to be helpful? We need to look to the future, rather than look back at descisions made 20yrs.

But that doesn't mean I don't think we should learn from our mistakes, I think we SHOULD do. But I don't think, when making a decision now, we should just say 'we should have done it right 20yrs ago'. That's not helpful, and doesn't solve anything.

[RALLY TEAM GB]

raphael123

tell you what..if you are so behind bush and this war and all the other idiots who support it, why dont you go to iraq and do your bit for the war?????

[airshifter]

This is true, but I suppose I am talking about those individuals in power now in the USA. If the likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush really had genuine convictions about such things, they should have spoken out then, as many others did. I can't recall whether Tony Blair did speak in favour of taking action in about 1992-93.

Most of the post Gulf War resolutions addressed the humanitarian issue, including 1441. Some have available transcripts of discussion comments at the UN website. Since most if not all come from the UN representatives, it's not always a direct insight as to the government leaders but it should be a fairly accurate representation of that governments desires and concerns.

I personally don't think any world leader disregarded the human issue, it's just that they differ in the approach to solving it. Similar to the issue in Darfur today, there is no easy solution that all of the world would support. I know for quite some time they even avoided the use of the term genocide when speaking of Darfur.

Many of Bush's public addresses voiced the concerns for the people of Iraq, as I'm sure did leaders of other countries.

[RALLY TEAM GB]

the speeches which bush made, did not voice his concern for the people of iraq...he couldnt give a rats arse bout them...aslong as he gets his blood stained hands on the oil he dont care

anyone who supports him is as bad as he is

[Mark in Oshawa]

Rally Team, you just keep on spouting off your crap, you have no cogent argument I see. It is really simple on why polticians lie and obscure what they do, because trolls like yourself are so cynical, and so bloody obnoxious about how things work in this world, you cant handle the truth.

The truth was, Blair and Bush THOUGHT Saddam was a threat. This was based on reports from the CIA ( George Tenet is trying to point fingers now, but that is only because Iraq is so unpopular. Weasels always change the truth to make themselves look good ), SDECE in France, Military Intelligence in the UK and yes, even the UN thought Saddam had weapons. Now we can debate all day about how stupid all these intelligence agencies are, but the point is it is a difficult job to find out what is going on in any dictatorship that is in this part of the world. Saddam had the weapons to gas the Kurd's, and use on Iran in his wars with them, so spare me the BS about how he NEVER had them. I heard that one too.

We live in a world where 20 Al Quaida terrorists flew 4 planes into the World Trade Center. America wanted revenge, but they also wanted to change the culture of the Arab world. Was this foolish? Maybe naive, it is never foolish for wanting a chaotic and often violent part of the world to treat human beings with decency. Is this part of the world floating with oil? Ya, it is, but the thing is, America has spent a lot more fighting this war than they have gotten back in oil, which is, NIL. NOTHING. NADA. America don't get the oil from this part of the world really. I bet those of you in the UK might know where it is going, go look at your cars. It is the contient of Europe that gets the lion's share of this oil. Yet I don't see many people in Europe having any appreication for that.

So now the Americans mainly are the targets in Iraq for a stupid war that maybe they should have stayed away from, but all the intelligence in the world was saying there was a threat. Saddam was NOT shy about funding terrorism in the past, and while there are no real concrete evidence that Saddam was talking to Al Quaida, we all know how poor intelliegence is in this part of the world don't we? So Bushie got a little naive and invaded with the help of Blair. Did I think it was a good idea? No, because as we have seen, fixing Iraq after the war was always my concern, but I also knew that Saddam would hook up with someone to hurt someone. He was killing over 20000 people a year in his regime, so it wasn't exactly a tea party living in his country. The Shiites and Kurds were not crying when they saw him run off believe me. Where was all your righteous indingnation for those dead? Where is all your concern for those living in Iran under another tyranny that will punish women by death for adultry? How about punishing women for not wearing veils and holding hands with their husband? Where is your violently angry posts about that? Hypocrite, this is an anti Bush/Blair fest, we cant talk about HUMAN RIGHTS????

The real problem with those who object to this war is they ignore the fact that the war WAS LEGAL (under the terms of the UN resolutions to end the first Gulf War, the final option for NOT obeying them was a continuation of the invasion of the FIRST Gulf War), they ignore the fact that American oil companies and America itself are NOT making money off of this. The oil prices going up is making money for the oil companies, but this is more to do with the price fixing that occurs when the OPEC nations adjust their production to keep the supplies at a level where THEY make money. THis happens anyhow, oil or no oil, and the Russians trying to flood the market with oil is part of this contraction on part of the OPEC nations as well. To make simplistic and stupid statements that many of you make, is to ignore the fact that the world is a complicated place, it is run by flawed but often earnest men and women, and the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Iraq is a mess, yes, but yelling about how bad George W Bush is, and how stupid Tony Blair was for following him ( Blair followed him because all the intelligence he was shown obviously scared the hell out of him ) is just pointless, and stupid. Iraq is NOT the basketcase many of you think it is, but it is a small area around Baghdad where most of the problems are now occurring. Many of the terrorists in the area are Al Quaida now, and if they want to fight the US and the UK over there, it is better than in Kent or Maryland now isn't it? That is what is happening now. So rather than pointing fingers about how sad this is going on for over 4 years, why don't you opponents of this war say what you would do now to fix things? Pulling out is just telling the Arab world we don't have the guts to stand behind our princples of human rights and democracy. Nice thing to do, encourage a bunch of dictators that you are afraid of a fight. That sort of thinking was around in 1938, and we all know how THAT turned out.

No, you can yell and scream how stupid war is, I won't disagree.
You can complain that Bush is an idiot, I will say maybe, but he is gone in 18 months too.
You can complain how stupid Blair is, well, I must say I disagree, but I don't always like him either.
You can state how you are worried about the Iraqi people, I say you are full of crap, because you were not likely as mad about things there before Saddam was removed.

Just have an argument. It likely hurts your wee minds to have one but try to have one that is based in logic and cogent thought. Right now, some of you sound like just leftist fools.....which living in a democracy gives you that right, but remember, people put their lives on the line to give you that right and many more are still willing to keep doing it. Yet you mock their efforts....very childish IMO.

[BDunnell]

The truth was, Blair and Bush THOUGHT Saddam was a threat. This was based on reports from the CIA ( George Tenet is trying to point fingers now, but that is only because Iraq is so unpopular. Weasels always change the truth to make themselves look good ), SDECE in France, Military Intelligence in the UK and yes, even the UN thought Saddam had weapons. Now we can debate all day about how stupid all these intelligence agencies are, but the point is it is a difficult job to find out what is going on in any dictatorship that is in this part of the world.

The UN inspectors managed perfectly well, as it turned out.

Just have an argument. It likely hurts your wee minds to have one but try to have one that is based in logic and cogent thought. Right now, some of you sound like just leftist fools.....which living in a democracy gives you that right, but remember, people put their lives on the line to give you that right and many more are still willing to keep doing it. Yet you mock their efforts....very childish IMO.

Sorry, but your level of self-righteous anger is doing your argument down, in my book at least. While I agree that the post to which your rant responds is a very simplistic view of the situation, and not one that I hope I would put across, calling those of us who oppose the war 'leftist fools', 'hypocrites' and 'childish', and accusing us of having 'wee minds' does your cause no good at all in my eyes. If you want to be called names back, so be it.

[SOD]

"Just have an argument. It likely hurts your wee minds to have one but try to have one that is based in logic and cogent thought. Right now, some of you sound like just leftist fools.....which living in a democracy gives you that right, but remember, people put their lives on the line to give you that right and many more are still willing to keep doing it. Yet you mock their efforts....very childish IMO."


fixed version:

Just have an argument. It likely hurts their wee minds to have one but try to have one that is based in logic and cogent thought. Right now, some of you sound like just oil companies.....which living in a democracy gives you that right, but remember, people put their lives on the line to give you that extra bottom line and many more are still willing to keep doing it (lucky them). Yet you mock their efforts....very childish IMO.

[airshifter]

the speeches which bush made, did not voice his concern for the people of iraq...he couldnt give a rats arse bout them...aslong as he gets his blood stained hands on the oil he dont care

anyone who supports him is as bad as he is

You should attempt dealing in facts. They can be found on the internet at times, and often are hidden in books as well.

The Bush speeches, and the actions of the US during the entire post Gulf War period, supported increased humanitarian aid to Iraq. Both the US and UK pushed the Oil For Food Program, which did just this, even though they had to tolerate illegal oil trade and price fixing to allow the aid to happen.

If you look at facts, you will also find that the majority of the price fixing kickbacks to Saddam also came primarily from the countries that opposed the war. It was their greed for oil that funded Saddams illicit trade, not the greed of the US or UK.




BDunnel,

For the record, I don't think your view is one of the simplistic closed minded ones. I can't speak for Mark in Oshawa, but I felt his comment was aimed at those without any valid points of fact, rather than the people like yourself engaging in actual fact based discussion.