Different opinions of war

jkitleft Sun May 27, 2007 at 12:05:36 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Is it hypocritical to support one military action and not the other? I'm actually not sure. I'm not old enough to remember UK going into Kosovo, but I think I would have been for military intervention in the Balkans. There are some who are always against these interventions, people like Tony Benn etc. There are also conservitives like Malcolm Rifkind who was against intervention in Kosovo and Iraq. There are others who shared the views of Robin Cook, for the first war, not the other. Another Hitchenesque school of thought is always confusing, defining missiling Sudan as a war crime, but, defending the intervention of Iraq. I was against intervention in Iraq from the start. Does it make me hypocritical? I think on the basis that Milosovic was threatning other countries and ethnic blocs. But I didn't believe Iraq was threatning other countries, the failiure to get a second UN resoloution, the faulty intelligance etc. were the reasons for my opposition. Hussein was obviously lots of things which I won't choose to say on a Sunday morning. If the 'Blairesque' school of thought is to be believed, then we would also have to intervene in Belarus, Burma, Zimbabwe, China, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and many other countries. And I'm sure, that many bloggers would like to see intervention in some of these countries, but not others.





tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Different opinions of war | 42 comments (42 topical)

Re: Different opinions of war (#1)

by Loz on Sun May 27, 2007 at 04:11:21 PM GMT

It's an interesting point you raise, and I don't think there is a world leader past or present that has ever held a truely consistant opinion on the matter. I supported the iraq war, mainly because I wanted rid of saddam. I'm sure Blair deeply regrets saying he could stay in power. When people ask me nowadays how I can still support the war and removal of saddam, I simply say that I could not ever oppose the removal of the evil tyrant. I just couldn't do it.


Re: Different opinions of war (#2)

by Lorin on Sun May 27, 2007 at 06:27:49 PM GMT

I supported interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia. They were supported by the EU and NATO. Milosevic was about to commit war crimes, and the intervention was in order to prevent these crimes.He was a regional threat, and had attacked Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. I didn't support intervention in Iraq because it wasn't supported by the EU or NATO. The american government knew who Saddam was, they previously sold him chemical and biologial weapons( so did thatcher). He later used these weapons to gas kurds and shia muslims. Saddam was a no less of a dictator, but he was on "our" side. Same goes to Saudi-Arabia, their regime is probably the most corrupt on earth, and we sell them weapons.... The claim for intervention was WMDs, there were non, the previous UN inspectors disarmed them Blair didn't listen to MI6. The excuse of Invasion of Iraq was a pack of lies and oil compaies have benefited from this war. Blair said in his interview to John O'farrel that it was because of breach of UN resolutions. What about Israel, who violates human rights, every day and has a policy in the West-Bank and Gaza that is according to the South-African Intelligence minister who is also a jew "worse than apartheid". I think the solution to the Darfur crisis has to be an African one.


Re: Different opinions of war (#3)

by Loz on Sun May 27, 2007 at 07:01:55 PM GMT

Saddam already HAD committed war crimes. Not to mention the fact he financed terror in palestine and asia. There is absolutely no evidence lies were told and as for oil companies gaining, the latest reports have shown contracts going to the chinese and russians, not the US. Gas prices are no different and oil companies are gaining at the same rate they have for decades. As for selling them weapons, we did, but then so did the french, the russians and the chinese. As for darfur, you mean the african solution that lets a few thousands troops watch the genocide take place? I mean, because it's been so very succesful. Give me a break.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#4)

by Lorin on Sun May 27, 2007 at 07:24:39 PM GMT

Other nations sold weapons to Saddam but the didn't pretend to be holier than him. We tried to hide the fact we did. No lies told:Where are the weapons?, where are all the chemical weapon plants? By an african solution I mean africa needs to take responsibility, the AU needs to take action in order to solve the conflicts. Just like the EU did in Kosovo. Do you have any other alternative? And while we invade Sudan what about the people suffering in: China, Israel, Myanamar, Congo, N Korea, Saudi Arabia (who we do deals with), Pakistan, Turkmanistan, Belarus, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya?


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#5)

by Loz on Sun May 27, 2007 at 07:33:48 PM GMT

Other nations sold him it, and then opposed the war and even in the case of russia gave him our military strategy. The world changed after 9/11, you just have to ask yourself whether it was worth taking a risk on saddam. As for the weapons not being there, that doesn't equal a lie does it? I mean even the anti war crowds so called smoking gun, blair and bush are actually discussing the threat of saddam using chemical weapons. And to compare the EU to the AU is absurd. The AU is taking responsibility (be it several years to late) and the best they can come up with is a few thousand troops who are doing nothing but stand by and watch as innocent people are raped, beaten and killed by government supported militias. I don't know what to do myself, but I would certainly not see supporting the AU as any sort of solution. People like to talk about war for oil, well take a good look at sudan where the chinese and south africans have prevented action or even condemnation for that very reason. And I don't defend our relations with the saudis but I think we have to accept that when it comes to fighting the war on terror, we need to work with them.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#6)

by Lorin on Sun May 27, 2007 at 07:48:05 PM GMT

Working with the Saudis even if their regime is as opresive as that of Saddam. It is the support of Israel and the corrupt kings and puppet presidents in the middle east that increases the support for Al-Qaeda. Mind you the CIA trained Bin Laden and the Taliban so they could fight the soviets in afghanistan, whats the excuse for that "we have to accept that when it comes to fighting the war on terror"? Saddam posed no threat, Blair said himself in the commons in 2002" he can stay if he dissarms". Saddam had NO chemical weapons in 2003, they were confiscated and de-commisioned. And if you think companies didn't benefit from the Iraq invasion"Order 39 laid out the framework for full privatization in Iraq, except for "primary extraction and initial processing" of oil, and permitted 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi assets. Other orders established a flat tax of 15% and permitted foreign corporations to repatriate all profits earned in Iraq. Opposition from senior Iraqi officials, together with the poor security situation, meant that Bremer's privatization plan was not implemented during his tenure, though his orders remain in place. Privatization of the oil industry, in addition to around 200 other state-owned businesses, was scheduled to begin sometime in late 2005, though it is opposed by the Federation of Oil Unions in Iraq." We can't be involved in Sudan, mind you its not just Sudan the violence has spilled over into Ruanda,Chad,Congo. We don't have the money to invade. There are so many conflicts in the world, should we intervene in every one of them?


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#7)

by Loz on Sun May 27, 2007 at 08:51:44 PM GMT

The anti war movement tells us we need to talk things through with iran so why should saudi arabia be any different? Andn no we didn't train the taliban on just bin laden, we trained the mujahideen to fight against the communists. That unit splintered into several different groups afterwards, including the northern alliance who helped us defeat the taliban. We didn't train anybody to fly planes into buildings and target innocent people. As for blair saying saddam posed no threat, I've not seen that, what I did see though was blair supporting bombing of saddam with clinton and US actions thereafter on a regular basis right up until the 03 war. As for chemical weapons, what has never been fully explained is where they went. If saddam had destroyed them, why on earth did he make no effort to prove it with the bellicose military of the worlds most powerful nation at his doorstep? It was never proved that saddam had got rid of his weapons, because he threw them out before it could ever be verified in the 90s. As for ther oil wealth, subsequent iraqi government reforms are aimed at distributing proffitts across it's regions. The bottom line is, we need foreign investment to build up the industry and maximise its potential. That does mean foreign oil companies which have largely been representative across the oil resources world. And as for sudan, I made very clear I don't know what the solution is. In theory we have every right to go in and save those poor people. But I'm not going to make excuses for inaction such as the AU which has simply stood by and watched.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#9)

by Lorin on Sun May 27, 2007 at 09:28:35 PM GMT

Well go out and fight then, fight for the last drop of other peoples blood. On Sudan:Encourage the AU to do more, and solve the conflict, like the EU did in Kosovo and Bosnia. Saddam did say he had no weapons of mass destrucion, so did Hans Blix and the Inspection teams. The CIA did train Bin Laden, and gave him 3 billion dolars.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#11)

by Loz on Sun May 27, 2007 at 10:08:15 PM GMT

Stop being so absurdly naieve about sudan. The AU has been 'dealing' with that issue for ages. And the best they could come up with is abour 8 thousand troops who have done nothing but watch genocide. Clearly you favour no action, but don't expect me to buy this bullshit about letting the 'AU' deal wth it. Hans Blix and co didn't say that definitively until after the war, before hand they also in one of their last reports questioned why there was no evidence of the weapons destruction. We're talking about tonnes of the stuff, which he somehow did all on his own after the period he thre out the inspectors and yet no record of it, no desire to prove it to the world. As for the CIA, they did not give any money directly to bin laden. That is a complete lie. They funded the mujihadeen and trained them to kick out the communists. They did not train them to fly planes into buildings.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#12)

by Lorin on Sun May 27, 2007 at 10:29:59 PM GMT

They did give Ben Laden 3 billion dolars, and CIA training, they addmit it, there are even photos that show so. I'm not in favour of inaction, I said I supported interventions in Kosovo and Bosnia. The AU has not been doing enough on the Sudan issue, don't get me wrong, I am very sadened by what goes on in Sudan, but I think it would be wrong for us to invade Sudan, that would cause even more carnige and destruction. Hans Blix said 95% of his weapons were confiscated. And he had to deal with No 10 and the White House rubbishing him, because he was disproving their claim that Saddam was a regional threat. Look at Iraq today, do you beleive it's better today than it was under Saddam?


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#13)

by Loz on Sun May 27, 2007 at 10:40:32 PM GMT

Thats complete nonsense. If you have the proof, send it to the bbc. The CIA, funded the mujihadeen, who fought the communists. There is absolutely no proof or any US government spokesman past or present that would cooborate claims they paid bin laden 3 billion dollars. I think you've read one too many conspiracy theories. As for Sudan, I don't know what else could solve the problem. I think the majority of the people would appreciate it considering tens of thousands of people are being killed. Sitting and waiting isn't fair and it isn't right. And again with WMD, that 5% had the potential to kill millions of people. Just a tea spoon worth of some of this stuff can kill massive ammounts of people When I look at Iraq today, I see opportunity and hope. With between 80-90% of the violence concentrated in the baghdad region, we must tackly and defeat this enemy. I do think it is better than under saddam. The people have democracy, 80% of the electorate risked their lives to vote for democracy whereas what, not much more than 60% bother to vote in our country less still in the US. Do you think pulling out would make things better?


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#14)

by Mozzer1989 on Sun May 27, 2007 at 10:47:26 PM GMT

The CIA did fund Albanian terrorists though.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#15)

by Lorin on Mon May 28, 2007 at 12:01:11 PM GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6AWl18xWak&mode=related&search= This video shows all the "good" the US has been doing in the world. Iraq is a hole, and we should stop digging and get out of that hole. 750,000 dead is "opportunity and hope"? We are the ones causing the problem and should leave. This view isn't just a leftie opinion, its the opinion of the head of the british armed forces.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#16)

by Loz on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:13:50 PM GMT

Anyone that needs to use youtube to make political points is fighting a losing battle. Interesting to see you chose one of the highest death tolls out there despite the methodology being shot to pieces. Lets not forget who is killing those people, islamo facist terrorists, not our brave men and women. Comments like 'we are causing the problem' are both asbsurd and baseless. Again, we are not the ones killing innocent people, targetting them day in day out.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#17)

by Lorin on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:34:43 PM GMT

It was a scene from michael moore's documentary. It shows why the Iranians hate us, we took their oil and installed a dictator, same situation in chile, only without the oil. US gave the Taliban government millions of dolars, the US have been funding terrorism around the world we can't shake away the responsibility for the way the world looks today. The US supported Saddam ,sold him weapons, they also sold weapons to Iran. And I think it was us who reduced Faluja to rubble and who commited atrocities in abu-graib. We caused the violence in Iraq, Saddam was a dictator, who held the country with an iron fist, there's no doubt that he was a dictator, only when he started to resent the US( although they put him in power) they US suddenly describes his regieme as the most horrific one on earth. Same will happen with Saudi Arabia, if they start opposing US policy and selling them cheap oil , they will be "the most corrupt regieme in all mankind".


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#18)

by Loz on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:45:05 PM GMT

I don't agree with alot of what they have done in south america and during the cold war, but sitting there slinging anti american excuses at me is not debating the issue. Stick to the facts and we can have a debate about the current war on terror instead of blaming america for everything which is what you are doing. Sadly alot of the problems with iran can be traced back to jimmy carter who made an almighty balls up. I see no reference in your rhetoric to iranian terrorist attacks against the US military basis or the state sponsored hostage crisis. The US supported saddam for a reason as did several other nations of which none you make a mention. Does a friend for now mean a friend for life? That's absurd. We didn't tell saddam to annex an independent country and we didn't tell the french to aid his nuclear programme. It was us who liberated iraq including falujah from islamo facist terrorists incase you forgot. War are not pretty and that has always been the case. Do you think falujah would have been better in al qaeda hands? Again, absurd. It needed to be taken, and thank god it was. Now, abu graib is another absurd reference. How on earth can you smear an entire nation, a military based on the actions of a few criminals? (who were punished unlike the meat grinder operators in saddam day)? Nobody can be blamed but saddam himself. He called the shots and he defied the world for so many years, leaving the iraqis to suffer the consequences of his power trip. Saudi Arabia is a barbaric regime, however they are a crucial partner in fighting the war on terror. It's not nice, it doesn't sit well with even our own leaders, but it is the reality. We face a great threat from islamist terrorists and sitting back and moaning about the big bad americans while saying nothing about the modern day pertinent battle explains why politicians with such opinions will always sit on the fringe.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#21)

by Lorin on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:09:22 PM GMT

Well you should look up "Operation Ajax", sound farmiliar? Thats when the US overthrew the government of Iraq, guess why? They were going to nationalise the oil industry. So I can understand why Iranians might resent US agression against them, they installed one of the most brutal dictators, the Shah of Persia. So your saying we can use countries as we like? same happened with Gaddafi, he's no less of a dictatior, he's just on our side now. If no one can be blamed but saddam himself why did the US fund his revoultion and support his regime? We face a threat because we continue the agression and occupation of muslim countries, and our support of Israel. US has over the years given Israel more money and weapons than international aid. It was the US who sent Israel bombs they used to kill civilians in Lebanon and are still doing it in Palestine. You must understand, as long as you continue to use contries based on their alliance with or against you, you will be hated.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#22)

by Lorin on Tue May 29, 2007 at 03:10:31 PM GMT

*Operation Ajax was when they overthrew the government of Iran not Iraq


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#25)

by Loz on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:51:02 PM GMT

The Iranians have been installing dictators in one form or another for decades. The fact that we started the ball rolling in the 50s in no excuse for their actions today. The Iranians have committed terrorism against US interests around the world, most recently in Iraq, including against our forces. Why can't you debate the present? I'm not disagreeing that policy during the cold war was especially ruthless, but we didn't install the current regime that has been nothing but hostile towards us. Also with gaddafi, I think it's pretty disgusting that we've been cosying up to him in recent years, but you simply can't ignore the fact we need to work with him in the WOT. He gave up his illegal programme, and we have to use the opportunity to benefit the WOT effort. Now as for saddam, we didn't fund his revolution he rose up through the ranks himself of a prior revolution and assumed power. As for weapons given to him, the US arms supply to iraq (which only happened during the 80s out of fear of iranian gain) made up ONLY 0.5% of weapons given to the regime. The russians gave the most, and even france supplied over 10%. Yet not one mention on your part of those nations. We weren't in iraq or afghanistan on 9/11. Islamic regimes have funded terrorists that aren't even on the ground in the middle east, worse still they've funded terrorists to target legitimate middle eastern nations. Israel is a democratic state, under constant siege to the tune of hundreds of rockets a month from neighbouring nations. We are rightfully committed to the defense of that nation and in supporting its right to defend herself from enemies in the region. Simply blaming it all on us and the big bad americans and israelis is absurd and counterproductive because it completely ignores the wider regional issues, such as the islamo facist movement funded by regimes like iran and syria to destroy our way of life and install in their own words, the islamic flag above downing street and the white house. It's all well and good besmirching the americans, but when are you going to have something to say about these regimes that are the true cause of the violence we see today? And when are you going to stop calling it an 'occupation' when the government of iraq has requested our precence, has criticised our surrender politicians, not to mention the fact it is now under UN mandate?


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#26)

by Glass House on Tue May 29, 2007 at 06:50:28 PM GMT

All excellent points which those who want to cut and run will completely fail to address.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#27)

by Lorin on Tue May 29, 2007 at 07:09:33 PM GMT

You see, The Iranians havn't been installing dictators in one form or another, and even if they have, that doesn't give us the right to do so. You fail to understand, let me give you an example. The revolution in Iran was caused by the will of the people to get rid of a brutal dictator, who was installed by the US, so you can understand why Iranians hate the US. Having lived in Israel and been to palestine, which you haven't done. Israel illigaly expands settlments in the west bank, they have been illigaly occupying the west bank for 40 years, 40 years of a brutal military occupation, can you contemlapte that fact???? This occupation violates more than 40 UN resolutions, far more than Saddam did. The missiles that are fired at Israel are nothing more than street lamps converted into missiles, compared to Israel's american made missiles. The occupation has no connection to the "war on terror", the palestinians resisting occupation are trying to get their land back, and trying to stop israel bulldozing their homes. Just go to the west bank and see for yourself. Syria is a secular nation hardly flying the "islamic falg above downing street", their alliance with Iran is only on to stop them being isolated in the region.(not that i'm defending Mr Assad's regieme). Saddam was not an Islamic ruler either, in fact, bin laden offered to help the US in the 1st gulf war. The only islamic regiemes in the region were Saudi Arabia, whom we were buddies with, and Taliban Afghanistan, whom we gave a quater of a million dolars in "aid" in 2000. More than 60% of Iraqis want the troops out. You can't defend some military action yet condemn some. You ask why I can't debate the present, I am, you just ignore actions of the US that caused much of the hate against us.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#28)

by Loz on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:08:41 PM GMT

Why keep bringing up US actions dating back decades? The Iranians have since continued this trend of overthrow and placing new dictators all on their own. Are you trying to justify iranian terror attacks? Are you trying to tell me that that gives them a free pass to do whatever the hell they like? It sounds very much like that to me, and that is frankly dangerous. Now onto israel, and with respect, you don't know me, so you couldn't possibly tell me where I have and haven't lived without asking me, which you haven't. I have never supported israel settlement expansion, but when it comes to a choice of an israel settlement and a hamas rocket launcher pad, I choose the former every time. Israel of course just years ago made a dramatic pull back, forcing residents out. Just HOURS later, hamas had torn apart the farming equiptment and turned the buildings into launchpads for attacks against israel. As for the rockets themselves, they're getting more and more advanced and the war in lebanon last year only proved that fact. Schools have been hit, only a couple of weeks ago, and the lives of ordinary israelis are disrupted as they are forcibly evacuated to safety. I feel deeply sorry for the palestinians, I honestly do, but they are being led down a dangerous and negative path by regimes like Iran and Syria, and from within by terrorists like hamas who use icons like mickey mouse to indoctronate little children. UN resolutions as we have seen in the past arr more or less useless. I'd scrap the whole thing and start again. It's a complete waste of time and space as it currently stands. And as for trying to get your land back, I'm sure the israelis who have had their relatives, there children blown apart on buses would really agree with your assessment of the act that took their lives away from them. Syria sadly has been financing terrorism also and in the aftermath of the war last year vowed to set up their own equivalent to hamas. They're got blood all over their hands. As for bin laden and saddam, they had both made a pact to 'leave each other alone' although al qaeda terrorist now dead, zarqawi just happened to be there in 2002/3 before the war. Saddam also found an islamist heart in his donations to terror in both palestine and the phillipines. 60% of iraqis according to a poll I might add. Conducting a poll right now in iraq simply cannot produce decent results. The election however did, where around 80% ofn the electorate literally RISKED THEIR LIVES to vote for democracy and for a government that has near enough got down on it's knees and begged us to stay. And as for ignoring the past, you are being extremely ignorant in that respect. I have condemned in near enough every post you have bought it up, some US actions. We are living in the present, the ball game has changed. It's time to stop blaming ourselves and to start confronting what faces us in the terrifying modern world.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#29)

by doctordunc on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:36:18 PM GMT

You are right, of course, that the present is terrifying, but - however much it irks you - a lot of that terror is of our own creation (and I don't just blame the US administration - it is the work of ours as well). Many of the problems you outline are the result of destabilisation of the region: a predictable consequence of our rush to war. You make the point that polls cannot produce decent results in Iraq - I fear the same is true of elections. I agree that people were very brave in voting, it also appears that people are very frustrated that, so long after voting, they still don't feel as though they have any say over the administration of their own country. You ask why people still refer to it as an occupation: because it is one. Iraqis refer to it as an occupation, and they are not begging us to stay. Not all of the government is begging us to stay. Any reason to assume that those elements that do are representative of the population is not immediately apparent to myself. We ARE part of the problem. And while I might agree that there are other parts to the problem, and that might include some of Iraq's nearer neighbours, we have to realise that the only hope for Iraqis - and indeed for a democratic Iraqi government - is if US and UK troops leave. This is not 'cutting and running' as Glass House would have it: it is giving Iraqis a chance. We should go to the UN and beg for assistance in withdrawing, and in finding a UN approach to assisting a passage to genuine democracy. Of course arguments will still rage about the war - and I was against it from the start - but the danger for ordinary Iraqis today is too severe for people to play out yesterday's arguments with their fate. Whether you believed it was the right thing to do in 2003 or not, it is fundamentally the wrong thing today for US and UK troops to maintain their presence in Iraq.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#30)

by Loz on Wed May 30, 2007 at 03:23:19 PM GMT

Again, simply blaming ourselves is absurd and does not deal with the present day issues. God knows the americans treated the whole of south america as its own playground during the cold war, but since when do you see south americans flying planes into buildings and openly fighting against them? The answer is, you don't. As to polling, 80% of the electorate voted in tighter security than normal. They risked their lives nevertheless and while it wasn't a perfect election by any standards, most observers were pleasently surprised with how well it went. It has far more credibility and authority than any private poll. They elected politicians, a government that is calling for us to stay. Those that aren't begging for us to stay, i.e. the al sadr ministers have recently pulled out. The government survived that. To say we are the problem is absurd and pretty disgraceful. If we were out there targetting innocent people you'd have a case. We're building schools and saving iraqi lives. How on earth can that be a problem? The only people it is a problem for is the terrorists. Are you so naieve you think they're just going to resume every day life? 'Hey bid laden, we've kicked them out, set up an islamo facist government, nothing more to do'. It's a quite crazy mindset born out of a desire for surrender to terrorists. You make a point about 'giving the iraqis a chance'. That IS the plan and always has been. Why on earth would we pull out before our commanders, the americans and the IRAQIS themselves think they are ready? We don't need to go the UN, we've already got a mandate. The UN will not offer any help. They didn't then, why on earth would they now? I believed in it then, I believe in it now. The world will be a better place without saddam hussein. We need to finish the job and defeat the terrorists. If we pull out and take the easy option, leaving an young government andn ill prepared iraqi army, they will fall, iraq will fall to islamo facist terrorists. In that scenario, one can only imagine what the consequences would be. Complete and utter disaster for the people of iraq, the rest of the region and most likely the rest of the world, of course including us and our coalition partners who would take the brunt of whatever reprisals these animals have up their sleeves. When Bill Clinton pulled troops out of somalia in the early 90s, the early days of his presidency, it provided an inspiration to generations of islamo facist terrorists. Bin Laden has refered to it numerous times in his messages. Are you really to prepared to take that risk?


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#31)

by Lorin on Wed May 30, 2007 at 03:54:08 PM GMT

More terrorists are active now than they were under Saddam. You said Israel withdrew forces from gaza and terrorist fired rockets at them. Israel withdrew and locked the palestinians in a cage and threw away the key. They can't go fishing, there boarders are closed, no wonder the attack Israel. There is a significant diference between Hizb-allah and hamas, hizb-allah is a lebanese resistance group, hamas are palestinians. Israel still holds hundereds of lebanese in their prisons from the 18 illegal years they occupied southern lebanon, they still hold the sheba farms, the golan hights that are syrian and lebanese lands. In the west bank there is an aparthied regeime, with new roads for Jews only, and dirty unnatended roads for palestinians. I dare you, visit Hebron, I have, there are pavements there for Jews only(larger ones) and roads for palestinians. In the west bank over the 40 years of illegal Israeli occupation Israel has annexed most of the west bank( including east jerusalem). There are thousands checkpoints in the west bank, in these checkpoints palestinians are humlliated every day, so a trip from lets say ramalla to east jerusalem that would 20 minutes now takes 7 hours. This regeime was discribed by the South African Minister for Intelligence Services Ronnie Kasrils (who is Jewish) as "worse than aparthied" if you still support Israel then there is no point in this debate, it proves what a racist you are.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#32)

by Loz on Wed May 30, 2007 at 04:16:48 PM GMT

More terrorists have come out of the wood work. In the long run, that's a good thing. Hopefully we and our iraqi partners will slaughter every last one of them. As for the pull out, maybe you didn't read what I said. I said nothing about prisons etc. You quite disgracefully condoned terrorism. The israelis gave the palestinians land back, and the palestinians instead of using the land as it was, to make a living out of farming threw out the equiptment and used it as a base for terrorism. Sadly for the syrians and lebonese, they can't be trusted. Israel has every right to defend itself, it did when the islamo facists illegally invaded, and they do now whilst the same people attack them day in and day out. Jerusalem will quite rightly stay in israeli hands. The absolute morons making decisions for the palestinians chose war when they were offered a very fair deal including UN control over jerusalem. They have only themselves to blame. They continue to murder israelies at every opportunity and blow up with intent, women and children. They celebrate this in the streets. And as for calling me a racist, you are quite simply a moron. And that's a compliment considering the fact you have also tried to justify terrorism. And why on earth would I give a shit what a south african communist thinks? I don't care if he's jewish or not, that doesn't make his opinion any more valid. The man is also a supporter of the terrorist PM of palestine.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#33)

by Lorin on Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:02:15 PM GMT

I'm not supporting terrorism. I'm saying if someone uprooted your olive trees, which your family had been living of for 200 years, and started to build a wall higher than the berlin wall on that area, you would want to defend yourself. Who are you to decide who is "to be trusted" or not? Its israel that has been illegaly invading its neighbours, ergo, Israel is not to be trusted. Arafat refused Barak and clinton's offer because it didn't talk about giving them airspace, border control, and talked abour dividing the west bank into 3 areas, with israel controling the passage between them. If you say Israel has a right to hold east jerusalem, you are igoring UN resolution 242, calling on israel to withraw from ALL the occupied areas. And he isn't a communist, he's in the ANC, more proving my point your a racist, you agree with the human rights abuse of palestinians, yet are shocked when a palestinian who's faimily was murdered wants to attack the Israeli soldiers who did this to him. You think arab and muslim blood is less signifigant to your western blood.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#35)

by Loz on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:51:18 PM GMT

I'm afraid your comments came very close to condoning terrorism. As for 'who am I', I'm a free citizen in a free nation, so I get to express my opinion regardless as you do in your moronic accusations of racism. As it happens, you need to take a history lesson, because the islamists invaded, or attempted to invade israel. They got their asses handed to them on a plate and lost alot of land which israel very much needed and to some extent still needs today to act as a security buffer from hostile nations like Iran and Syria. Also, I wasn't talking about the terrorist araprat, I was talking about the original UN partition plan that the palestinians responded to with terrorism. Now, you like tp point out the plight of the palestinians, yet you have not a word for the middle eastern nations that have pimped these people, exploited them for all they're worth and sent them along to the next pimp. They are treated quite disgracefully by nations that consider them friends. Denied any sort of citizenship or even basic rights and left to rot in camps exploited by their other dirty habits, islamo facist terrorists that thankfully the lebonese are now clearing out. UN resolution also called for an end to terrorism as one of the key conponents of the resolution. That has not happened and so the resolution can never be fully realised until the islamo facist terrorism stops. And actually, the minister you mentioned is also a member of a communist party, since I believe before his membership of the ANC. Your cries of racism again are laughable and pathetic. I feel very sorry for the palestinians, but until they stop targetting innocent people, there never will be peace. They are being raped by the iranians and syrians who are using them to push their own agendas. It's very sad, but that's the reality and those are the facts.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#34)

by doctordunc on Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:13:04 PM GMT

More terrorists have come out of the wood work. In the long run, that's a good thing. Hopefully we and our iraqi partners will slaughter every last one of them.

I'm sorry but this is absurd. Your false dichotomy between 'terrorists' and 'ordinary Iraqis' really needs to be challenged. Who are these terrorists? They are people, many of whom are doing despicable things, but people nevertheless. But to produce this image of them as being entirely 'other' and that bringing them out of the woodwork to be slaughtered is a good thing, you are engaging in a trigger-happy zealous ideology, almost as repugnant as that of some of the terrorist groups.

No doubt you will shower me with condemnation for being 'soft on terrorism' and accuse me of 'moral relativism' - which will be a complete misunderstanding of what I'm saying.

I am as appalled by the brutal acts carried out by some in Iraq as you are. But your determination not to analyse or undertand those acts leads to your position being thin and dogmatic.

I don't retreat for a moment from saying we are part of the problem in Iraq. We quite clearly are. Senior figures in our own military share that view. To make that argument is not to somehow claim that the worst atrocities in Iraq are committed under British or US orders (though reports from Fallujah don't tend to focus on 'the coalition' handing out lollipops to the kiddies) - it is to try and salvage something from this appalling mess.

Barely a family in Iraq was not touched by the war, and many, many Iraqis will never take anything from US or UK authorities on face value, and frankly they're right to see it that way.

Your suggestion that us withdrawing will be seen as a victory for the terrorists is a serious problem, I agree, but it is not a problem made by those who see that withdrawal is inevitable.

Whether it's this year, next year, or five years from now, troops will be withdrawn. I don't see anything to suggest that - if we remain - the situation they leave will be any better than it is today. Therefore the only sensible answer is to find the best way to withdraw.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#36)

by Loz on Wed May 30, 2007 at 08:03:44 PM GMT

"I'm sorry but this is absurd. Your false dichotomy between 'terrorists' and 'ordinary Iraqis' really needs to be challenged." That makes no sense at all. I specifically mentioned terrorists. I made no mention of ordinary citizens. Do I really need to spell out for you the difference between the two of them? " They are people, many of whom are doing despicable things, but people nevertheless. But to produce this image of them as being entirely 'other' and that bringing them out of the woodwork to be slaughtered is a good thing, you are engaging in a trigger-happy zealous ideology, almost as repugnant as that of some of the terrorist groups. No doubt you will shower me with condemnation for being 'soft on terrorism' and accuse me of 'moral relativism' - which will be a complete misunderstanding of what I'm saying." I'm afraid you have demonstrated that you are soft on terrorism. You are stuck in the shocking mindset of 'lets sit and play dominos with these people'. No doubt you'd have been saying the same thing during world war 2. These are humans, they are not 'ordinary people', they cease to be 'ordinary people' when they take up arms against our country and innocent people. "I am as appalled by the brutal acts carried out by some in Iraq as you are. But your determination not to analyse or undertand those acts leads to your position being thin and dogmatic. " What is there to understand? They don't like us and never have done. I want to win hearts and minds, but I also want to defeat these evil bastards. And lets not forget that is exactly what they are. I am absolutely shocked and disgusted at what I see happening in Iraq. It is evil in our time. We can win hearts and minds by securing the peace, working with the iraqis and earning their trust. "I don't retreat for a moment from saying we are part of the problem in Iraq. We quite clearly are. Senior figures in our own military share that view. To make that argument is not to somehow claim that the worst atrocities in Iraq are committed under British or US orders (though reports from Fallujah don't tend to focus on 'the coalition' handing out lollipops to the kiddies) - it is to try and salvage something from this appalling mess. " I ask you again, what exactly are we doing that is causing this? Building schools and hospitals? Saving lives? Trying to help the innocent iraqis? Who are we causing problems for? Who wants us out? And more importantly, who is causing you to think we need to get out? It is the terrorists. If it were the case that millions of iraqis were fighting us, you'd have a strong case. I couldn't argue with you. But its an extremely small ammount of terrorists, many, according to recent releases, most are from abroad. Terrorists who have come to fight us in iraq and install an extremists islamic government. Can we really afford to cut, run and surrender when faced with that? "Barely a family in Iraq was not touched by the war, and many, many Iraqis will never take anything from US or UK authorities on face value, and frankly they're right to see it that way. " Barely a family in iraq was not touched by saddams regime in some form. I don't know what the perception of the iraqis is. I can only go on the facts: 1. They voted in their millions, a higher turnout than our own elections, risking their lives to vote for democracy. 2. The government and the UN approve our mission to secure the nation. The iraqis have been outspoken critics of democrats in america for trying to force withdrawel. "Whether it's this year, next year, or five years from now, troops will be withdrawn. I don't see anything to suggest that - if we remain - the situation they leave will be any better than it is today. Therefore the only sensible answer is to find the best way to withdraw. " I'm not making a case for staying there forever. What I'm saying is, we need to continue training the iraqis and developing infrastructure to give the iraqis a chance to do it by themselves. As president bush has said, as the iraqis stand up, we stand down. We;re handing over land and bases weekly, and progress is being made. We need to finish this job, we will only get one shot at it after all.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#37)

by doctordunc on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 06:03:52 PM GMT

I'm sorry Loz, but this is pure fantasy; it has nothing to do with the real world. Of course barely a family Iraq was not touched by Saddam's regime and of course they 'voted in their millions for democracy' (although I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, unless you mean that simply by the act of voting they chose democracy - of course, they voted for a very wide range of groups, some secular, some sectarian, some democratic, some emphatically not so). To caricature those who see the need to withdraw as being some how soft on terrorists or to have not been sufficiently opposed to Saddam Hussein is to attack a straw man, and weakens your argument. I have been involved in campaigns to do with Iraq since I was a schoolkid (which is sadly a long time ago) and have campaigned alongside Shia, Sunni and Kurd in a variety of causes: I do have some idea of what the perception of Iraqis is, and the vast majority of them want us out. I don't want the troops out because of 'the terrorists'. I opposed them going in the first place, and I never thought they should be there. Yes, the likelihood that we would transform an impoverished, oppressive siege state into an impoverished, oppressive playground for terrorists and corporate criminals was one of the reasons I opposed the troops being there. You say 'the terrorists' "cease to be 'ordinary people' when they take up arms against our country and innocent people" - and of course that is true on one level, just as any who engage in violent acts are not 'ordinary'. But when the pentagon ordered 'shock and awe' tactics against Iraq they knew that many, many innocent people would die - the security guards, the cleaners, office workers, not to mention tens of thousands of conscript soldiers who were wiped out outside Baghdad - I find it increasingly hard to comprehend the minds that create such policies and give those orders, but were I to cease to try and understand - to decide that they are merely the big shaitan, or the infidel - then I have lost the argument. People join 'terror' groups in Iraq for a variety of reasons (and some of these groups are more accurately termed 'terrorists' than others; terrorism is a military tactic used by official armies and paramilitary organisations alike) - but some join because they reach precisely the sorts of conclusions that you do: "They don't like us and never have done", they conclude: only force of arms can force this faceless, 'extraordinary' enemy from their soil. While both sides of a conflict dehumanise the opponent there can be no peace. The truth is that any one of us could have been the 7/7 bombers, or been their friends, teachers, colleagues. To avoid such a fate for ourselves, we must ensure that we are rational and analytical, and I fear that you are not. It is possible to be pro-war and rational (though of course I would say that you had reached the wrong conclusions) but welcoming the slaughter of new terrorists is very, very far from rational.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#38)

by Loz on Fri Jun 01, 2007 at 11:04:41 PM GMT

"Of course barely a family Iraq was not touched by Saddam's regime and of course they 'voted in their millions for democracy' (although I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, unless you mean that simply by the act of voting they chose democracy - of course, they voted for a very wide range of groups, some secular, some sectarian, some democratic, some emphatically not so)." They voted for a constitution which was a democratic constitution. The election is not perhaps evidence of a vote for democracy, but a vote of approval for a democratic constitution is. "o caricature those who see the need to withdraw as being some how soft on terrorists or to have not been sufficiently opposed to Saddam Hussein is to attack a straw man, and weakens your argument." Thats not what I'm saying. My point was aimed more at your objections to killing the terrorists. Do you not think in a war that the enemy should die when they are actively fighting against our folks? "I have been involved in campaigns to do with Iraq since I was a schoolkid (which is sadly a long time ago) and have campaigned alongside Shia, Sunni and Kurd in a variety of causes: I do have some idea of what the perception of Iraqis is, and the vast majority of them want us out." I don't deny they want us out. But thats not how it works. The government THEY elected doesn't. The majority of brits want the death penalty, but we don't run our country by polls and perception. Now, even if they do want us out, which I'm willing to admit, that doesn;t mean they're going to go out and start blowing us up does it? Unless we think they're all backward animals witha terrorist instinct. I don't believe that to be the case. "Yes, the likelihood that we would transform an impoverished, oppressive siege state into an impoverished, oppressive playground for terrorists and corporate criminals was one of the reasons I opposed the troops being there." The country was already impoverished, it already was a siege state for the enemies, the many enemies of saddam, it already was a playground for the ansar al islam terror group and it was also a scene of many corporate crimes, oil for food, and my money for saddams palaces. There is now hope, a chance for democracy and freedom. Are you willing to sell the iraqi people short and hand the place over to the terrorists? "But when the pentagon ordered 'shock and awe' tactics against Iraq they knew that many, many innocent people would die - the security guards, the cleaners, office workers, not to mention tens of thousands of conscript soldiers who were wiped out outside Baghdad - I find it increasingly hard to comprehend the minds that create such policies and give those orders, but were I to cease to try and understand - to decide that they are merely the big shaitan, or the infidel - then I have lost the argument." Sadly that is war. That is what happens and always has done in military conflict. It's near impossible in this day and age as it was even in the wars of the past to remove civilian casualties. I think the difference is clear. While one side tries to prevent and minimise civilian casualties, the other does all it can to target innocent people and uses women and children as shields. "People join 'terror' groups in Iraq for a variety of reasons (and some of these groups are more accurately termed 'terrorists' than others; terrorism is a military tactic used by official armies and paramilitary organisations alike) - but some join because they reach precisely the sorts of conclusions that you do: "They don't like us and never have done", they conclude: only force of arms can force this faceless, 'extraordinary' enemy from their soil. While both sides of a conflict dehumanise the opponent there can be no peace." I accept that many are 'forced' and there is evidence to suggest this is the case. But ultimately in war, and this is a war, it is us vs them. Whilst they are a part of plotting and actively taking up arms against us, we have to respond with force and defeat them. " The truth is that any one of us could have been the 7/7 bombers, or been their friends, teachers, colleagues. To avoid such a fate for ourselves, we must ensure that we are rational and analytical, and I fear that you are not. It is possible to be pro-war and rational (though of course I would say that you had reached the wrong conclusions) but welcoming the slaughter of new terrorists is very, very far from rational. " I'm sorry that you have come to that conclusion. I am quite willing to discuss the other side to this conflict, the necessary victory for hearts and minds. I accept that we cannot win this war without winning hearts and minds, trust and respect from the islamic world. But right now, we are up against it. Children are being force fed terrorist propaganda. Mickey Mouse is teaching very young children to hate us. It doesn't bode well, and the notion that pulling out and leaving them to it will fix it all is beyond absurd. These terrorists are targetting nations that had nothing to do with the iraq war, being supported in many ways from governments and prominent religious figures in the region. My problem with your perspective is that it's all about 'us us us'. What do you propose we do to these people? I think if you believe that it is all our fault as I suspect you do, then we really couldn't debate this any further and there is a fundemental difference of opinion. Beyond Iraq, there is a wider problem. I look at nations like Iran, and it scares me very much to think of how dangerous that regime is. It's all well and good blaming the big bad americans for past mistakes, but we are stuck with a problem in the present. My support for military action is part of a wider approach. If I felt we could achieve the objectives that I'm sure you and I would agree upon, I wouldn't see the need to support military action.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#39)

by doctordunc on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 02:22:09 PM GMT

the notion that pulling out and leaving them to it will fix it all is beyond absurd

If that was all that was proposed, then it might constitute a reckless policy (although no more so than staying, in my view). The truth is - as far as I can see - that our presence is doing nothing to help prevent children from being force fed terrorist propaganda. Indeed, every time a child is stopped at a checkpoint, or their house is searched (both of which somebody needs to be doing of course) it provides links real-life links to that propaganda; it appears to confirm what is being said. You cannot win this war by force of arms. Every dead Iraqi (whether they were a terrorist or not, whether it there was a military imperative to kill them or not) will help create new terrorists.

My perspective is not all about 'us us us' (indeed I could turn that charge around - as I would argue that internationalising peace-keeping in Iraq is the answer - not 'us us us') - but there is a degree to which I am held collectively responsible for the actions of 'us us us' - as a member of the governing party - when my role as a critic of the Iranian government (for example) is very different.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#40)

by Loz on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 06:27:24 PM GMT

"If that was all that was proposed, then it might constitute a reckless policy (although no more so than staying, in my view). The truth is - as far as I can see - that our presence is doing nothing to help prevent children from being force fed terrorist propaganda. Indeed, every time a child is stopped at a checkpoint, or their house is searched (both of which somebody needs to be doing of course) it provides links real-life links to that propaganda; it appears to confirm what is being said. You cannot win this war by force of arms. Every dead Iraqi (whether they were a terrorist or not, whether it there was a military imperative to kill them or not) will help create new terrorists. " Should therefore the police not raid houses in our country in case it turns children against them? A war is a war. Either you believe this is a war or you don't. We have to do those things not just for our own security, but more often than not, also for the security of ordinary citizens. One would also hope those same kids are seeing our guys building schools and hospitals and putting their heads on the line standing out in the streets trying to secure their nation and help them secure themselves. "My perspective is not all about 'us us us' (indeed I could turn that charge around - as I would argue that internationalising peace-keeping in Iraq is the answer - not 'us us us') - but there is a degree to which I am held collectively responsible for the actions of 'us us us' - as a member of the governing party - when my role as a critic of the Iranian government (for example) is very different. " I am genuinly interested to hear you solutions for these problems, something that undermines the anti war movement in general is a lack of alternatives. So far all I can see is references and implications of blame put on our doorstep.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#41)

by doctordunc on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 11:05:02 PM GMT

Well we probably need a new thread, and some specific questions/areas to consider for that. Just on the 'a war is a war' bit: I don't know what you're wanting me to say about that. Yes it is a war; no we shouldn't be at war: we should take brave strides for peace. The point about the schools and hospitals is a point I referred to earlier: how are such things received? In the '80s, the Russians built schools, hospitals, etc. in Afghanistan. It didn't actually increase their legitimacy in any way, or wipe out the offence of their occupation.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#42)

by Loz on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 11:38:49 PM GMT

The construction in afghanistan no matter how futile was the result of foreign aid, not paticuarly russian investment. You've got to consider we've spent tens of billions collectively that is. I don't think it's even comparable accept for the fact both can be considered a foreign nation invading a occupying a country. We're now there with UN mandate and iraqi government support. The soviets raped that country and occupied it without any mandate or legitimacy. Sometimes efforts for peace fail, and only delay the inevitable. Our great country has learnt that lesson the hard way once, and sadly the world has ignored those lessons and allowed suffering and evil to spread unimpeded.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#23)

by Lorin on Tue May 29, 2007 at 04:01:01 PM GMT

The US ambassador to Iraq told him in 1989, they will not be involved in his "Arab-Arab" conflicts


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#8)

by Mozzer1989 on Sun May 27, 2007 at 09:06:37 PM GMT

If we are condemning for financing terror, what about the US doing that? In East Timor, for example.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#10)

by Lorin on Sun May 27, 2007 at 09:29:46 PM GMT

What do you mean?


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#19)

by doctordunc on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:07:40 PM GMT

The UN didn't support the Kosovo intervention, actually.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#20)

by Glass House on Tue May 29, 2007 at 01:53:02 PM GMT

I don't think that AWB said that they did. He said that the EU and NATO did.


[ Parent ]

Re: Different opinions of war (#24)

by doctordunc on Tue May 29, 2007 at 05:37:07 PM GMT

Ah right. Fair enough. Careless reading on my part.


[ Parent ]

Different opinions of war | 42 comments (42 topical)