Today's debate - The Iraq war was it worth it ?

[RexCathedra]

You have to remember, it was never intended to be a 'war'. It was intended as the world's largest and most expensive campaign commercial.

George the Junta Boy wanted to be a wartime president, to exercise the emergency powers of a president in wartime throughout his term, to use the power of a wartime president to cripple the opposition party in Congress, and it worked.

It delivered the 2002 and 2004 elections, and convinced the Democrats to neuter themnselves, lest they be seen as opposing the President in a time of foreign war. (We have a fetish about politics stopping at the water's edge.)

 

[London Irish]

Cant answer as I think NO, this war wasn't worth it....
but I also think we must now stay there rather than leave the country to decend into a bloody civil war.

Even the head of the British Army thinks our presence there is counterproductive because it inflames the most radical part of insurgency. If we were gone, and the country effectively handed over to the Shi'a (because that's what would happen), then they would crack down on the more intransigent elements of the insurgency far quicker and with more legitimacy. I believe the key to restoring the security situation is the withdrawal of all foreign forces.

 

[NMH]

I believe that isn't far off the mark RexC.

As far as Blair is concerned, I'm not sure that he lied about WMDs so much as believed Bush's lies - which is not as sinister as knowingly lying, but is ultimately just as bad for him to have done.

 

[Lammy]

I could never blame someone for saying "I can't support Labour because of Iraq" - it's a massive issue which they've clearly f***ed up. (Incidentally, I still totally scratch my head and question why one of the best "politicians" of our time has committed political suicide like this - I still find it completely and utterly baffling).

But conversely (and it's a very big "but"), in no way does anyone ever vote for a party based on just one issue either - that's the deal you get in a representative democracy. But in just about every other respect OTHER than Iraq, I think they've done a very good job.

Yep I agree with most of that. I just found it odd that you were soooo appalled by the US properganda machine when our own government were just as guilty.

that is all...

 

[NMH]

Even the head of the British Army thinks our presence there is counterproductive because it inflames the most radical part of insurgency. If we were gone, and the country effectively handed over to the Shi'a (because that's what would happen), then they would crack down on the more intransigent elements of the insurgency far quicker and with more legitimacy. I believe the key to restoring the security situation is the withdrawal of all foreign forces.

Add to that, Colin Powell, the head of the US Military, also resigned in a (somewhat silent) protest, and Charles Clark is highly critical of things.

Bush has no freaking IDEA what he is doing, the man is a complete and utter moron who can barely even speak English. He stumbles through important speaches unable to even read off a prompter properly!

 

[perth seagull]

The war was fought on false pretences and Bush/Blair delberately misled the public. In a perfect world, they would be brought to justice for the loss of lives, material damage and waste of taxpayer funds caused by the greed of Bush's regime and the business groups who backed his campaign to serve their own profit making interests.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Yes 15%
Unsure 9%
No 76%

 

[Albion Dan]

Be interesting to hear Looneys arguments to support the war now?

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Bush 'serious concern' over Iraq

Mr Bush said the US would "prevail"
US President George W Bush has said the recent upsurge in violence in Iraq is a "serious concern", warning that success there is vital in the war on terror.
He said the goals in Iraq had not changed, but said the US was "adapting its tactics" to combat the unrest.

He warned that if Iraq became a failed state, extremists could gain access to oil wealth and launch fresh attacks.

His comments come two weeks ahead of crucial mid-term elections, amid public dissatisfaction over policy in Iraq.

Speaking at a press conference at the White House, Mr Bush said recent events, including the deaths of 93 US troops and more than 300 Iraqi security personnel, along with acts of "unspeakable violence" against civilians, were of "serious concern" to him.

But he warned that if the US was not successful in Iraq, extremists could use it as a base from which to try to establish a "radical empire from Spain to Indonesia".

Mr Bush said that he was "making it clear that America's patience is not unlimited" with regards to Iraqi government efforts to gain control of the security situation, particularly tackling Shia death squads.

But he said that at the same time the US authorities were being careful not to "put more pressure on the Iraqi government than it can bear".

But despite the problems in Iraq, Mr Bush assured Americans that they could have "confidence that we will prevail".

25/10/06

 

[London Irish]

Except the Lib Dems!

They had the curious position of supporting it once it started. Typical Lib Dems.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

If you tell me how much it cost I'll tell you whether it was worth it or not.

Costs? Count it in lives lost on all sides. No, it wasn't worth it. Either it had to be an "all or nothing" conflict, or it should have been left alone. Something in the middle has deterred no-one and sorted nothing, except that a lot of American companies have become very rich with contract work.

Bliar and Bush are as much war criminals as Hussein - he may have gassed people, but Bliar and Bush are just as guilty of causing the deaths of innocents - and we won't even question Bliar about dodgy peerages......

 

[Dandyman]

Brave to say that on NSC

Yeah, cliched bullshit is exactly the sort of thing that wins VCs.


The war was launched with lies and deceit and has been the worst foreign policy decision taken by this country in my lifetime.

 

[London Irish]

Bigger disaster than Suez? Reckon so!

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Even the head of the British Army thinks our presence there is counterproductive because it inflames the most radical part of insurgency. If we were gone, and the country effectively handed over to the Shi'a (because that's what would happen), then they would crack down on the more intransigent elements of the insurgency far quicker and with more legitimacy. I believe the key to restoring the security situation is the withdrawal of all foreign forces.

Kind of. General Dannatt has been used, according to the best possible sources, as a lever to allow us to reduce/remove troops. If he had really spoken out of turn, he would have been invited to resign as a matter of principle by now. The same scenario is being played out in the US, where senior military figures are announcing that the conflict is not winnable. Bliar and Bush will eventually cede to the "military opinion" that they should approach this in a different manner, and will pull out, leaving only Military Advisory Teams (read CIA) in place.

If the Shi'a were given control of the country (they are the biggest/most powerful faction in the country), then there would be bloodshed on a massive scale as all the old scores are settled. However, it would be an internal civil war, the US could return to silently funding whichever side they fancied at the time, and it would mean that the "civilised" world could return to our pedestal and watch the "third" world slaughter each other.

 

[Dandyman]

Kind of. General Dannatt has been used, according to the best possible sources, as a lever to allow us to reduce/remove troops. If he had really spoken out of turn, he would have been invited to resign as a matter of principle by now. The same scenario is being played out in the US, where senior military figures are announcing that the conflict is not winnable. Bliar and Bush will eventually cede to the "military opinion" that they should approach this in a different manner, and will pull out, leaving only Military Advisory Teams (read CIA) in place.

If the Shi'a were given control of the country (they are the biggest/most powerful faction in the country), then there would be bloodshed on a massive scale as all the old scores are settled. However, it would be an internal civil war, the US could return to silently funding whichever side they fancied at the time, and it would mean that the "civilised" world could return to our pedestal and watch the "third" world slaughter each other.

Which all sounds very probable. The only real alternative is for solidarity with what there is of progressive elements in Iraq- the trade unions, some of the Kurds and secular democrats.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Wheres the option for 'No - Bush and Blair are murderers and war criminals'

Same goes for every single Labour MP who voted for the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq. They are collaborators, pure and simple.

An unparalleled MILLION of the electorate marched on the streets of London in protest at the transparently bullshit pretences being raised in the case for war. (Same number of votes lost by the Labour Party at the last election - big surprise there, then) But Blair had promised to 'deliver' the UK to Bush, and that's what he did, to the eternal shame of the Labour MPs serving at the time. ALL the Labour MPs serving at the time. THAT's Blair's legacy. The man is a war criminal with blood on his hands.

The anti-war threads on NSC - lost in the great server crash round about the same time as the illegal and immoral invasion funnily enough was some of the best writing ever seen on here.

 

[bullshit detector]

Fact is however evil Saddam was (and he was very evil) the people of Iraq, especially women, were better off then than they are now.
An amazing achievement, that, by Bush and Bliar. To reduce a nation's people to such a state that they were better off being ruled by a psychopath.

 

[Man of Harveys]

Fact is however evil Saddam was (and he was very evil) the people of Iraq, especially women, were better off then than they are now.
An amazing achievement, that, by Bush and Bliar. To reduce a nation's people to such a state that they were better off being ruled by a psychopath.

It's a good point - what George Bush obviously never realised (but it really doesn't take much to find it out - I did it a bit at undergraduate level and I'm not running the world - yet) is that liberal democracy tends to require certain conditions to be in place for it to work - such as economic stability and a lack of entrenched factionalism - hence the fact that the Northern Ireland situation, for example, couldn't be solved by a purely democratic approach. Anyway, none of these factors are in place in Iraq.