Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
Are you referring to the ones that were bribed or the ones that weren't?
|
A great many countries opposed the war who did not have a commercial interest in Iraq. And America and Britain have no right to claim the moral high ground over France or Russia in this regard - they traded with Hussain, they sold weapons to Hussain. When the *alleged* attack on the Kurds in 1989 using chemical weapons took place - how did America or Britain respond to this atrocity? (I say alleged, not because the event is in doubt, we know that these Kurdish villages where gassed, but some theorists allege that Iran actually carried out the attack)
The fact Hussain was a murderer, the fact he had chemical weapons which he was prepared to use against external and internal enemies - ALL OF THESE FACTS WERE KNOWN IN 1989... why did the UK and US continue to sell arms to Hussain when these facts where known? Where they "bribed" as France and Russia were in 2003 according to your theories?
The first Gulf War began not over an unprovoked attack, but over a border dispute with the equally despotic regime in Kuwait - why does America defend Kuwait, when they will not defend Iran or the Kurdish people of Iraq from Hussain - are the freedoms and lives of Kuwaiti people more valuable - or is there a financial interest - is America "bribed" (again to use your terminology)
The reason, in my opinion, most people did not support the war, internationally - was that they believed America went to war for the wrong reasons, and that it was not the best way to rid the world of an undoubtably monsterous and corrupt dictator. After the first Gulf War, ths US troops could have supported Anti-Hussain forces within the country and Iraq would have had a chance to go forwards into sunlight, instead America abandoned them, allowed Hussain to crush the rebels, and America mounted a campaign of selective bombing and intimidation - while Hussain lived in luxery, his people suffered greatly from sanctions and bombing... the current war finally removes Hussain, but it does not remove the climate that created him, just the individual.
A once proud and free country is reduced to its knees, its infrastructure destroyed, to be rebuilt by American firms (at a good profit of course), the people, who might have seen America as their protectors, hate America... why did America remove Hussain in 2003 rather than 1991? Financial motivation, the desire to "liberate" Iraqi oil, or has their love of freedom grown in those 12 years?
No player in this game has acted purely out of moral interest, although it might have been better for all if they had - the people who opposed the war did not oppose it to save a few million pounds of contracts with a dying dicatator - they opposed it because they believed it was the wrong way for Iraq, that the Iraqi people could not be saved by being bombed and then overtaken by paternalist dictators...
But obviously, as a moderator on this board, I know you are keen to keep the thread on topic, as I am. The morality of the war is really a whole related but different question.
What I think this thread was intended to discus, was the 45 minutes claim - and that it was a lie, and that Blair must have known it was a lie. I am not being facetous (sic), I genuinely dont know how big a deal it is in the USA if a President is caught out in a lie (even if that lie is eventually not so important)... but in the UK, it is the one sin which politicians are never forgiven for... any Prime Minister who lies in parliament would be forced to resign, unless the lie was absolutely necessary for national security. When it can be shown, quite clearly, that the PM is a liar, that he backed this dodgy dossier when he knew some of its claims were lies, when he clearly and undeniably lied to journalists on the plane to Hong Kong, it is very serious indeed. Not only to the individual, Blair, who I firmly believe must be removed within 6 months, but to the office of the Prime Minister, which Blair has disgraced through his lie.