Oceania Iraq attacked ?

Doesn't anybody find it a bit disconcerting that Iraq is being attacked in the first place? What we are seeing is an offensive move by the US, it is premeditated, yet has very little in the way of justification. So far all we have been given by the US as reasoning is that Saddam is a Bad man!!!

A bad man that has been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. A bad man that has been willing to use them on people. Not just a man that the US doesnt like...a truly bad man that is happy to painfully kill as many people as possible if given the chance.

The US has tried for over 10 years to get rid of Saddam... and failed

Uhhh, no. 10 years ago, the US went in, but stopped short of going after Saddam. Since then, it hasnt been attempted. Your comment is completely incorrect.

The rhetoric we are hearing is that "terror" needs to be stamped out. Like the terrorising of Iraqi citizens with war planes?

Terrorism by definition is "the use of force to oust a government". America needs to look at its political tactics before continuing on the path of its current propaganda. It's just not worth the loss of life.

1) That isnt much of a definition of terror. Terrorism is more along the lines of targeting innocent civilians in order to achieve political gain.
As I see it, most of the military actions of the US and UK have been directed against military targets, not civilian.

2) Perhaps when Saddam is gone, and people no longer have a madman in charge, there will be less use for military and trade sanctions? Perhaps a final attack on Iraq with an aim to destroying Saddams regime will help the Iraqi people?

 

I'm all for pre-emptive strikes when the moves have been thought out, consequences weighed and it's not just a case of some patriotic flag waving by going after an enemy that they at least know what country to look in.

Saddam must be removed, he has given the world ample warning of his intentions were he to have the means, and while innocent life will likely be taken in the course of US action, it's a case of some will die now, to prevent further, more widespread death in the future.

My only concern is, what happens when China decides they've had enough of the US acting as the global boy scout?

 

I don't think that China really gives a second thought to the US's hegemony. China is a very non-interventionist country, EXCEPT when their interests are at stake. They frequently vote against UN Security Council resolutions, and the only reason that the UN has actually acted offensively is when China abstains their vote.

 

I don't want to derail this thread, but seriously, China being non-interventionist?

I wonder what the Dalai Lama would think of that statement?

 

I was referring specifically to collective security action in the UN, like in the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo etc..

 

Oh ok, I wasn't.

 

Dagsy, that is the dictionary definition of terrorism (or close enough).

Do people fail to see what is happening here? Saddam will not be killed, he cannot be killed by dropping bombs from planes and every attempt to assassinate him has failed... miserably. This is an ideological attack, it is purely symbolic of America's willingness to try and bring democracy to the world, and whilst this is a nice thought it is a senseless waste of life. The only way to get rid of Saddam is to send in ground troops who will get SLAUGHTERED by the Iraqi forces. This will quickly turn into a Vietnam-style conflict.
The opposition forces to Saddam in Iraq do not share similar goals to Northern Alliance styled forces in Afghanistan and there is a severe lack of stability or reliability to information. Wouldn't it be better to implement a diplomatic resolve in Iraq. Saddam has come to terms with the US previously and funnily enough, hasn't used any of his Weapons of mass destruction during these cease fires. It's time for the US to shut down its aggressive offensives in Iraq and try to work to a diplomatic solution until a military one is more plausible.
Saddam is not a truly bad man that is happy to painfully kill as many people as possible if given the chance. Open your eyes. He is a dictator who uses whatever force necessary to keep his dictatorship (this by no means is meant to justify it). He does not randomly kill people any more than the US (like bombing the weddings of innocent civilians in Afghanistan).
The fact of the matter is that the US does not have the knowledge to deal with Iraq at this point and it does not have solid support on the ground like in Afghanistan.

Wedge point taken about Cuba. But you can't just go after Saddam without provocation? Seriously, what has he done that can be seen as threatening to life since the gulf war? Shooting as US war planes that are bombing your country is perfectly legal according to the UN. The line has been blurred between serious threats and people that the US just doesn't like since Sept 11.

We can't just wage war, we have to make intelligent decisions. I'll be in Canberra protesting if Australia gets involved and sends ground troops. The risks are just too great.

 

If you listen to what Richard Butler is saying about what Iraq has been up to, he'd be the guy to listen to, they've been doing quite a bit.

Aside from the obvious internal domestic squabbles that he has to control through force, he is also preparing weapons for war not only against America but against just about every surrounding country. Then you add his rumoured links to Osama Bin Laden and today's call for America to topple Bush, then you've got quite an unstable region trying to take control.

It's funny how Iraq says that you have to topple a Government to make them stop their supposed wrongs, when democracy lets you do that just by voting.

Anyway, the suffering of everyday people in Iraq is a good enough cause to do something about the government there.

Oh, (and for Nyder)it makes good economic sense of course....

 

Flogging a dead horse.

 

Wedge, I think it's even funnier that people think democracy can bring stability to a nation, look at factional disputes in Spain, Ireland and Zimbabwe where "democracy" is rule.

 

Firstly, look at Lenin's definition of terrorism. It's to terrorise. If you want a history, I can give you one. I'm about to write my thesis on terrorism.
And the dictionary definition is OLD!!! Terrorism USED to be the urban counterpart to guerilla war; but that's long since gone. Terrorism lost most political pretention when the USSR fell - the Guevarist/Marxist FARC in Columbia are simply drug dealers now.

stinrab, what if he means liberal not Liberal? As in JS Mill style liberal? Then he could get away with left leaning sympathies.

Wedge, don't act so arrogantly learned - you obviously know little about the whole Gulf. It was almost totally about oil and economics, and if 9/11 taught us anything it's that Washington has perhaps not been too long-term in it's foreign policy approach.
A Marxist position wouldn't link it to just to economics but what? CLASS STRUGGLE. Capitalist profit exploiting the proletariat and all that garbage. Try actually reading Marx.
The largest oil reserves are where? Under: IRAQ/SAUDI ARABIA/KUWAIT. Soooo, if Saddam, who invaded Kuwait why?
a) Because he's evil,
b) Because he wanted to oppress the poor Kuwaitis, or
c) Economics.

The answer is (c). Why? Because IRAQ was dirt poor and in debt to SAUDI ARABIA and KUWAIT from it's costly, decade long war with IRAN. It charged that KUWAIT was drilling across the border into IRAQI oil areas, which, under international law (capture & keep principle), is baloney. Thus, it stormed in, "appropriated" the "offensive" oil fields and began to ship tonnes of necessary medical equipment out of KUWAIT. You probably saw news footage of this; or the Kuwaiti diplomat's daughter in her fraudulent speech to Congress, which was engineered by a PR firm from New York.

The US was concerned because they did not trust Saddam with that much oil, and Said leader with said oil would cause massive disruptions in oil shipments to the US (though they could survive on Texas reserves) but more importantly to Japan, who depend heavily on OPEC oil.

And, on Iraq now - I'm for it, but I think it needs to be a UN move. It HAS to be military, UN inspections failed. There is no opposition, they were kind of left to dry. If you want to read a really good book about the Western response to terrorism, then try these:
BAER, ROBERT: See No Evil
HARCLERODE, PETER: Secret Soldiers.

E_S

 

Ha! Putin's telling Bush not to get involved. That's funny because it works on two levels. One, he's saying don't get involved in Iraq - bombing it would be baaad. He's also telling Bush not to get involved in HIS bombing of Georgia and Chechnya. Ha ha, Putin you old KGB dog you.

E_S

EDIT: Marvin, I agree about China. They're not too interested in telling the world how it should be. Well, no, they TELL the world but don't do anything to back it up. Unless you read Tom Clancy, and then they're just eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil.

 

Everything is about economics anyway. Why? Economics = money = power. That simple. Is it a bad thing? Not always. Nation states act in the best interests of themselves. Each does it, and only through mutual benefit are consensus and treaties reached. Iraq, today, could be about trying to capitalise on the American post-9/11 psyche, but I severly doubt it. If I had to guess, I'd say the economic side is a plus for domestic defense spending,which creates jobs and revenue, and potential foreign investment in the "New Iraq."

I there are two people I would never trust on Iraqi NBC/WMD capacity: Richard Butler and Scott Ritter. One's the "Mad" Australian and something of a zealot; and Ritter is a glory hound.

Perhaps of interest, Richard Butler's giving a talk @ Sydney Uni, 19.9.02.
E_S

 

RP, you're right about those countries, but what point are you trying to make? I've always said outside intervention should get involved.

Not that it's helping in Ireland much, but their problems aren't exactly of a political nature. They're only just setting up their government really.

If you look at African democratic countries you always get lob sided votes due to the population dispersion. Mugabe is obviously crazy, his speech at the "Earth Love Festival" last week was so stupid I had to laugh. No worries in the Barb though, Little Johnie has that one in hand.

Bottom line is, there is always more that can be done in some of these places.

Now, ES. Arrogantly learned? OK, I'll try. But you are aware that Kuwait and Iraq aren't the only Gulf countries that produce Oil, aren't you? OK good.

Interesting you didn't have a D) answer either. The one that Hussien uses himself to justify why he went into Kuwait. He believed the land was Arabias' to begin with. All the way back to when the Turks ruled the entire area before Lawrence of Arabia showed up and reclaimed it all and his British empire distributed it between all the major poitical/tribal leaders.

That's a good enough reason for intervention and to stop a madman like Hussien.

 

The issue was oil and debt. Saddam was just too broke to pay them back and figured that if he could own Kuwaiti oil fields, then why the heck not. This whole "Iraqi border" thing is Saddam's little delusion. He fought a ten year war over it with Iran, and nobody won that. Millions died, that's about it.
The oilfields under Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq are the largest in the world. Iran, actually, has the largest and deepest reserves in it, but after 1979 noone actually bothers with them. Esp. OPEC.
I'm all for getting Saddam out, but I don't think that the weapons inspections are necessary. He won't cooperate. He hasn't before and won't anytime soon. I think it should be a UN mission; but if the UN won't get involved then IMO it's up to the US. My guess is they're going in under a "humanitarian interventionist" policy - Condoleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeza Rice was using that wording earlier.
Russia, France and China will veto a Security Council resolution though...
E_S

 

I know, but my reason D) was just Saddam's actual thought process. He mentions it all the time in his speeches to motivate his country. They're easily brainwashed it would seem.

 

Brainwashed, no, intimidated is more likely. Saddam has cultivated a nice little system of spying, )and like Iosef Stalin, he has tried to cultivate the "Cult of the Personality.") Neighbours routinely dob in other neighbours, for money, on the most dubious of accusations. Futhermore, Saddam's agents are everywhere; so you can't actually say, do or pretty much think anything contrary to his position. If any of these things come down on you, his favourite treatment for dissenters is an acid bath.
There have been a few attempts to oust Saddam from within. An Iraqi General defected to "Kurdistan", ie Northern Iraq, but it wasn't consistent with Washington's strategy to support his coup. The Kurds were prepared to attack Saddam but were inefficient, undisciplined and fighting each other. The Iraqi National Congress, based in London (I think), was lead by a man, Ahmad Chalabi, who had a dubious reputation. However, given the information here, I have to ask - what happens when Saddam is gone? There is no one fit to take over from him. Not like Afghanistan where you had the Northern Alliance.

I'm all for US intervention, if the UN Security Council lacks the resolve. I just have one reservation - who comes after Saddam?

E_S

 

Sydney Uni is hosting Richard Butler talking about WMD. Perhaps of interest to people on this thread who live in NSW?

Centre for Human Aspects of Science and Technology

2002 TEMPLETON LECTURE

RICHARD BUTLER

SCIENCE, WEAPONS, POLITICS:
THE ETHICS, THE HARD CHOICES?

6.00 pm, Thursday, 19 September, 2002

EASTERN AVENUE AUDITORIUM
(near Carslaw Building, City Road entrance)

ADMISSION FREE

Mr Richard Butler will talk about weapon development and the associated
politics from the birth of the atomic bomb down to the present crisis with
Saddam Hussein. He will address the issues of the need to reconcile
developments in science and technology with democratic government and the
defence of wider universal ideals.



---------------------------------------


-e_s-

 

Marvin, you said China "abstained" their vote. Not entirely true. The Security Council votes when China is not in the room, which is not an abstention. If they obstained then the Resolution would not be passed as all five permanent members must AGREE before it's passed. When the UN intervened in Korea, they did so when Russia had left the room (the ChiComs weren't in the Security Council until the 70's, it was the Kumiotang). It's a non-vote, which is neither a "yay", "nay" or "abstain". it has to be a 5-0 score to pass, not a 4-1 or 4-(0).

E_S

 

Wedge, outside intervention should not get involed. We need to work around Saddam until it is more plausible to move in on him.

ES I get the general drift of your arguments (pity you came in so late!) but your interpretation takes too much of a Marxist stance to make it possible. What we need to see is the economics behind the move (point taken) but also the political motives behind an attack. The US will have elections in a few months for (correct me if I am wrong) but both of their representative houses. The US voting public has approved attacks that will sustain the "liberty" and "freedoms" of Americans and thus the move is as much political as economic. No politician in America (few exceptions) has gone against the general trends of the gun-toting public. At the risk of making a total generalisation, this is what kept Clinton in government after his Lewinsky scandal: he attacked Iraq. It seems like Saddam is as much of an election scape goat for the US as the buzz word of the year; terrorism.
You canned my definition of terrorism, but what else can it be defined as? Simply "terror" is too broad based, yet the idea of Terrorism is to take out a government due to an ideological standpoint and using methods of a terrorising nature (like bombing the hell out of a country such as Iraq).

To conclude my little whinge, I do not want war in Iraq unless it is vital to the greater good of the world, and at this point in time, it cannot be justified as being so. Regardless of "reports" of nuclear capacities for Saddam and biological weapons, he will not use them unless provoked (he is human after all) and we have no solid proof. Give the world proof, then allow it to act as a police watchdog on Iraq, until then there is no justifiable course of military action.

 

"Regardless of "reports" of nuclear capacities for Saddam and biological weapons, he will not use them unless provoked (he is human after all) and we have no solid proof. "

It's documented that Iraq have a policy to kill every Kurdish male in Iraq between the age of 18 and 55. In 1988 they used nerve gas on Halabja that killed about 3000 people... the entire town.

Hussien is a very unstable man.

 

Regardless of "reports" of nuclear capacities for Saddam and biological weapons, he will not use them unless provoked

No, he won't; but the people he sells the nukes to will

 

The question we should be asking is will our backing of the US benefit australia economically?

Or if you want to get all humanitarian, how about benefitting Iraq by raising per capita income? Foreign investment may be a good way to go but first you have to get rid of the dictator.

Many people may die in an attack but if the country does benefit and raises it's income levels to create a more affluent society than a couple thousand people dead will be a blessing to all those future citizens of Iraq. Such a noble sacrifice!

Ok that sounded a bit silly but think of all the people who died in order for you to be enjoying the activities you partake in now.

Of course the US is going in for it's own interests - they are no bloody charity. But perhaps through their endless greed they will produce a more positive outcome for the poor and desolate that make up the bulk of the Iraqi population....

Aside from Iraq, I'm just concerned about all the Australian government spending that will no doubt be incorporated into our war effort...

The figures would make any economist dizzy!!! So there must be a return!!!!

 

Stinrab Said:
I'm a member of a liberal club, so I'm not left wing I just have a knack to search for the logic behind it all. - Nyder

Yet, not long ago you said this:

Australia needs to see where it's priorities lie, and have a left-wing socialist society for everyone to enjoy - Nyder

Well, comrade, it seems you do have a knack..... for hypocrisy

I have to admit stinky, that I am surprised at this too.

 

Marxist my ass, I'm very happily a centrist thank you very much. And a cynic and a realist. Dude, I'm doing a master of international relations. I look at this all the time. The political concerns aren't that important in terms of an election; I'd say Bush has won anyway. Remember, his father got 91% approval after the Gulf War but lost to Clinton a whole year and a bit after. Bush has the Department of Homeland Security which everyone loves, he's putting Americans before the international community by not ratifying the ICC statute (out of fears that it will be a carte blanche to punish Americans out of anti-American sentiment), and he's generally doing right by his people in their eyes. Before 9/11, he was struggling, but since, he's become increasingly popular.
Rogue, what I'd suggest is that you look at this a little deeper. Saddam, when threatened, doesn't do the smartest things does he? Nope. He tends to burn oilfields and gas Kurds. If he has NBC weapons, and sufficient quantities of them to load them into SCUD missiles and launch them at Israel, he will do it if threatened enough. He's not human, he's slightly crazy. And he's got nothing to lose but his life.

The problem with your definition of terrorism is, that like Marxism-Leninism or a whole plethora of "isms" is that they tend to evolve. You say that it's about ousting a government. Yet, the ETA never tried to oust anyone did they? No. They tried to create a separate Basque state. If you want a definition of terrorism, try that it is the act or threat of using civilian casualty to achieve a broad political (or religious) aim. The attack on the embassy in Beirut (83), or in Dar-es-Salaam or Nairobi(98), or the USS Cole (2000), weren't about ousting a government. They were about hurting American interests. Look at the FARC, the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Columbia. They control their own zone in Columbia, run it as a Marxist state but are content with that. And selling narcotics, of course. They are called terrorists, and yet they are more guerilla. Which brings me back to your point - the defintion you give of terrorism isn't wrong, just out of date. It's more applicable to the kind of tactics that were the urban counterpart to guerilla warfare. The kind of stuff the Rebels in Star Wars would have employed. Not flying a Boeing 767 into a building.

-e_s-

EDIT: I know that I added a swear word, but since I'm insulted at being called Marxist, I'd like to leave it.