Why is the US/UK at war with Iraq?

[Adam]

Please show me on what you base these:
- tens of thousands of Kurds,
- hundreds of thousands of iranians
- millions of iraqis.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

What an awesome thread, I had thought that it was dead and buried (along with those er... civilians). This thread is a magnificent time capsule of the tension and uncertainty permeating the intellectual atmosphere of the war. Thanks, Lifegazer, for starting this thread.
______________________
I have heard the argument stated axiomatically: A = B, B = C, therefore A = C; for example, going to war = getting Saddam, getting Saddam = good, therefore going to war = good (Ed Gillespie, Charlie Rose). Sure, it's a quick rationalization for the Charlie Rose show, but it leaves out some important facts, for example, all the costs associated with A, all the ramifications (besides C) of B, and the fact that even though we;ve arrived at C, there will be no withdrawal, and no forseeable end to the occupation of Iraq. No end to the dozen or more US soldiers killed every week. No end to the hundred or more Iraqi civilians and fighters killed every week. When will Iraqi insurgents stop bombing Iraqi troops and police?
Rush Limbaugh said today "war in the Middle East is a fabulous idea, as long as I don't have to fight in it."
What do you think he meant by that?
Ann Coulter calls it a "fantastic success."
I wonder if she said that at any of the funerals.

 

[studentx]

http://hnn.us/articles/862.html
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/03/27/52394-ap.html

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

Iranian leaders have denounced the military strike as "satanic" and "a threat to humanity." They fear being drawn into the conflict after their own eight-year war with Iraq, which killed an estimated 1 million people on both sides.

Now i haven't even mentioned the Madan (marsh people).

 

[Adam]

Read and enjoy.

A War Crime or an Act of War?

It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent � that is, a cyanide-based gas � which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.

Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades � not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition � thanks to United Nations sanctions � Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

Perhaps the strongest argument left for taking us to war quickly is that Saddam Hussein has committed human rights atrocities against his people. And the most dramatic case are the accusations about Halabja.

Before we go to war over Halabja, the administration owes the American people the full facts. And if it has other examples of Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, it must show that they were not pro-Iranian Kurdish guerrillas who died fighting alongside Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Until Washington gives us proof of Saddam Hussein's supposed atrocities, why are we picking on Iraq on human rights grounds, particularly when there are so many other repressive regimes Washington supports?
(Stephen C. Pelletiere, The New York Times, January 31, 2003)

Stephen C. Pelletiere is author of "Iraq and the International Oil System: Why America Went to War in the Persian Gulf."

 

[Adam]

Now what about the "millions of Iraqis"?

 

[studentx]

Well the war with Iran cost at least a million Iraqi lifes. Then there's the invasion of Kuwait and the following war with the coalition, there's the Kurds , the marsh ppl and who not! Also let's not forget sanctions, a direct result of Saddams actions. I am sure i forgot many other people as well, i apologize to them.
Btw, survivors of Halabja witnessed iraqi planes dropping the gas. When the Kurds themselves say it was the Iraqis, who are we to argue with them? Even if Halabja isn't Saddams crime, there are 2000 other villages that are!

 

[Adam]

So you mean when the Kurds heard a shell or two explode in the village, they had some psychic sense which told them they were Iraqi weapons?

 

[Ian]

I've read through the pages of posts on this thread and have come to the conclusion that no one here truly understands why this war on terror has arisen.

This man Osama Bin Laden; he used to be a rich construction merchant in Saudi Arabia (very rich). At that time he consorted with the Saudi Royal family and many heads of state around the world, but he became very disillusioned with the distribution of the oil wealth among his native Saudi Arabians (especially the poor).

As a result of this disillusionment he tried to bring reform to the Saudi system to help the poor there but was shouted down by the house of Saud. Consequently Bin Laden set up Al-Quaeda as the armed resistance movement to liberate the Saudi Arabians from what he sees as an undemocratic, aristocratic dictatorship. To most people, Al-Quaeda is some kind of nutty 'scaramanga' movement out to bring chaos and lunacy just like the character in the James Bond films. However, Al-Quaeda is nothing more than Saudi Arabia's version of the IRA. All Bin Laden ever wanted was to give his people a greater share of the oil wealth, but he has lost the 'appearances war'and we now all see him as world enemy number one.

I remember some time ago that four British men were arrested in Saudi and accused of planting bombs in some sort of 'illegal alchohol war'. The men were imprisoned, tortured (they said) and made to confess to things they had never done. The bombs they were accused of setting off all targeted foreign workers in Saudi and the Saudi government lied to everyone and concealed the fact that the real culprit was the Saudi liberation movement, Al-Quaeda.

The government here in the UK always knew the truth of those imprisoned Brits, but this war to keep a so called 'friend' in control of the Saudi oil reserves is more important to Mr Blair and his gang that they can sacrifice our own - just like GB and the US military personell lost in action fighting in Saudi's war against liberation.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Your account of bin Laden's development misrepresents him and makes him seem like a social reformer in the western sense, where he is really a fundamentalist Islamic rebel. What fired him up was not the disparity of income, but the besmirching of the holy places, Mecca and Medina, by the money hungry Saudi's, and then the presence of infidel (US) troops on the holy soil of Arabia.

Bin Laden got radicallized in Afghanistan, and was a great supporter of the Taliban and their Sharia religious law.

 

[Ian]

SA.,
My description of Bin Laden is only a misrepresentation if you look at him from a western viewpoint. It may make him seem like a social reformer in the western sense, but he's not a westerner is he? To properly understand what he is you have to see him from the eastern sense.

Bin Laden did not become radicallized in Afghanistan, he was allowed to flee there to escape from the Saudi government by the Taliban (a great supporter of Bin Laden).

Nonetheless, if you look back far enough you will find the true origins of Bin Laden's discontent to be just as I have said; the business about besmirching holy Islamic places and the presence of infidel (US) troops on the holy soil of Arabia came long after he set out to remove the House of Saud. It is propoganda he very stupidly provided when he decided to court Islamic fundamentalism to swell his ranks.

Personally I couldn't care less for Bin Laden, he's killed Brits (9/11) and Africans (Kenya) who had no part in what he's fighting against, so he is my enemy now and the world ought to wipe its butt of him. But I can't stand the fact that our government (UK) has seen fit to use our military and tax money to help lose Saudi's war of independence.
But I will always see the enemy for what he truly is and not what propoganda and government tell me he is because it is the only way to kill him.

The Saudi Royals are also enemies of Britain; they imprisoned our people and tortured them even though they knew the truth about who the bombers were and still deny what they did. It doesn't matter if there were only four ordinary men, or even if there were just one; Those guys are somebody, they have families, friends and life just as we do and no one on this Earth has the right to do that to anyone. But our government like all others doesn't truly care about it's people, they only care for appearances, policy and career.

 

[kat]

I think you're romanticizing Osama Bin Ladens movement. It's more likely that he was origionaly (and very likely still is) in cahoots with Prince Turki al-Faisal in the continueing struggle for power in Saudia Arabia. Prince Turki al-Faisal is a NOT proponent of democracy, nor is Osama, both have chose to harness the power of the religious fanatics for their own personal advantage. If Osama is still around, and the struggle between Prince Turki Al-Faisal and Crown Prince Abdullah ends with Prince Turki Al-Faisal and his faction in control..I think you will see a open friendship between Osama and the controling Saudi royalty.

 

[Ian]

I'm not romanticizing anything Kat, Bin Laden needs a bullet in the head.

But like you said (and hit the nail on the head) "the continuing struggle for power in Saudia Arabia". This war on terror is not a war on terror at all, it is the the war over the struggle for power in Saudia Arabia.
Why then are we (the west) fighting it for the Saudi's, and why have they brought their war to our shores. Saudi's war should be kept within Saudi's borders but our inept politicians have brought their work home with them and its stinking up the house.

If its all about oil we ought to remember what the house of Saud did in the seventies when Israel was attacked; they cut off the supply to the west without warning and we ought to remember that date just as we remember 9/11 (a surprise attack) - just like Bin Laden they ain't our friends. But the ordinary Saudi/Iraqui/Iranian etc in the street are our friends because they are no different to Kevin & Tracy with their 2.4 kids.

As for terrorists, we have ours and they have theirs but theirs and ours are running things.

 

[amp]

The Saudis have another hold on the US (and possibly the UK) They are heavily invested in our stock market. If they pulled out, the devastation to the US economy would make the great depression look like a walk in the park.

 

[member 5645]

The Saudis have another hold on the US (and possibly the UK) They are heavily invested in our stock market. If they pulled out, the devastation to the US economy would make the great depression look like a walk in the park.

You greatly exaggerate that threat.

 

[Rashad]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html

Justify criticisms (ie saying it is complete bull****) of this link, please. It seems to have a source or two as backing. Just looking for opinions, seems like the right thread...

 

[Ian]

We can't either justify criticisms' or agreements Rashad, this war touches everyone in some way so all we can do is voice our opinions and accept those of others.
Nonetheless, we in our democracies have a vote!

 

[studentx]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html

Justify criticisms (ie saying it is complete bull****) of this link, please. It seems to have a source or two as backing. Just looking for opinions, seems like the right thread...

On the one hand we have people blaming the Bush govt for not taking the terrorist threat seriously before 911, and on the other hand we have people blaming Bush gvt for planning to overthrow a terrorist regime before 911.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Where's the weapons of mass destruction? We haven't found any. And why can the US have enough nukes to blow the world up several times over, whilst Iraq is invaded for possibly harbouring some biological weapons?
You cannot use 'terorism' as an excuse either; for nobody has any evidence linking Iraq with terrorism.

To me, this whole thing stinks of oil and imperialistic might... mixed with paranoi of terrorism and a crumbling stock-market.
I think the US/UK have made a mistake - regardless of the outcome. Sorry to disrupt the gung-ho patriotism; but that's how I feel.

I'm American, and I agree with you 100%. Please don't believe that all Americans are in favor of this war--trust me, we're not. I went to France and Germany a couple months ago, and I felt the strange need to apologize to everyone. Cowboy George made us all look like a bunch of idiots--and the whole gung-ho-we're-so-great thing is even more embarassing.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Where's the weapons of mass destruction? We haven't found any.

Hmmm... are you sure we haven't found any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq?

And why can the US have enough nukes to blow the world up several times over, whilst Iraq is invaded for possibly harbouring some biological weapons?

I find it laughable that anyone would propose the US do nothing about other countries possessing, or trying to possess, weapons of mass destruction.

You cannot use 'terorism' as an excuse either; for nobody has any evidence linking Iraq with terrorism.

I think even Kerry said that such a link existed. Or am I mistaken? If I am, what were his justifications for voting for the war?

To me, this whole thing stinks of oil and imperialistic might... mixed with paranoi of terrorism and a crumbling stock-market.
I think the US/UK have made a mistake - regardless of the outcome. Sorry to disrupt the gung-ho patriotism; but that's how I feel.

I fail to see how we got any oil out of this deal, or gained any territory. I think your views are heavily tainted by an anti-Republican attitude.

 

[loseyourname]

If all Bush wanted was oil, he'd go into Alaska, not Iraq.

 

[loseyourname]

By the way, the two largest exporters of oil to the US are Mexico and Canada. Why aren't we invading them?

 

[Elizabeth1405]

I fail to see how we got any oil out of this deal, or gained any territory. I think your views are heavily tainted by an anti-Republican attitude.

No we haven't yet, but I'm guessing George W. can't wait to be 'friends' with the Iraqis so he can get a nice discount on as much oil as he wants.

And do you blame this person (who is European) for having an anti-Republican attitude? Look at what the ever-so-eloquent Mr. Rumsfeld said about France and Germany. Do you blame them for being 'anti-Republican' or better yet, anti-AMERICAN?

 

[Elizabeth1405]

By the way, the two largest exporters of oil to the US are Mexico and Canada. Why aren't we invading them?

Don't worry, I'm sure they're next.

 

[JohnDubYa]

No we haven't yet, but I'm guessing George W. can't wait to be 'friends' with the Iraqis so he can get a nice discount on as much oil as he wants.

They call this Truth by Prophecy, and it's a fallacy. In other words, you were unable to respond to my question. You pulled the same line of reasoning out when you stated:

Don't worry, I'm sure they're next.

In other words, your reasoning is faulty and worthless. You cannot justify opinions by referring to events that haven't occurred.

 

[Prometheus]

In other words, your reasoning is faulty and worthless. You cannot justify opinions by referring to events that haven't occurred.

Elizabeth1405: Your comments were structurally similar to those of JohnDubYa, but he was quicker on the draw to insult your for doing what he does.

Hmmm... are you sure we haven't found any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq?

Didn't answer the question

I find it laughable that anyone would propose the US do nothing about other countries possessing, or trying to possess, weapons of mass destruction.

Avoided the question.

I think even Kerry said that such a link existed. Or am I mistaken? If I am, what were his justifications for voting for the war?

Sidestepped the question.

I fail to see how we got any oil out of this deal, or gained any territory. I think your views are heavily tainted by an anti-Republican attitude.

Irrelevant shift of focus to justify his self-confessed failure.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

In other words, your reasoning is faulty and worthless. You cannot justify opinions by referring to events that haven't occurred.

Geez, relax a little. I thought the Canada and Mexico thing was sort of funny. But thank you for setting me straight on my worthlessness, your highness...

 

[JohnDubYa]

Didn't answer the question

Never said I did. And the same goes for the rest of my responses. Besides, you never answered my question either. ("Are you sure we haven't found any chemical or biological weapons in Iraq?")

Your comments were structurally similar to those of JohnDubYa,

Hmmm... I don't recall relying on future events to prove any statements.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

Hmmm... I don't recall relying on future events to prove any statements.

I have an idea...let's start a new thread just to find out if this is true...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[JohnDubYa]

I have an idea... why don't you admit that you have no good reason to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for oil or imperialism? The evidence doesn't support your statements. We are paying more now for oil than before the invasion.

 

[Elizabeth1405]

I have an idea... why don't you admit that you have no good reason to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for oil or imperialism?

Ok, you ready? Here goes: "I have no good reason to believe that Bush invaded Iraq for oil or imperialism."

Does that make you feel better? I hope so, because you seem really angry and uptight. Anyway, I'm not going to fight with you. Life's too short, and we're never going to agree on anything anyway. I'm tired and it's late, so I'm going to bed. Have a nice evening, OK?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Sweet dreams.

 

[Prometheus]

They call this Truth by Prophecy, and it's a fallacy.

You are mistaken in your use of pronouns. You say "they" so that we will think that someone of merit is involved. In truth, it is not some anonymous they but you who is calling it a fallacy, and you are using Truth by Propehcy as your hook to get people to believe you.

In other words, your reasoning is faulty and worthless. You cannot justify opinions by referring to events that haven't occurred.

That you consider this the sole source of her intent is a fallacy on your part, in my opinion.

I fail to see how we got any oil out of this deal, or gained any territory. I think your views are heavily tainted by an anti-Republican attitude.

What kind of fallacy are you using? Surely you have a name for it when others speak this way. The fact that you fail to see something is completely irrelevant, and you know it. Bush had numerous goals for the venture in Iraq. He seems to be failing miserably. You ignore what his purpose was, and look upon his failure as proof that he never had the intentions in the first place. Perhaps your views are heavily tainted by a pro-Republican attitude. Is that not at least as likely?

 

[selfAdjoint]

I wonder if Bush himself remembers what his true mix of purposes was. He's very much a spur of the moment guy, who can't be bothered with analysis. Various of his advisors had different motives, but I think very much the leading one was to stand tall and top the successful Afghanistan campaign with something bigger and better. Remember "Shock and Awe"?

 

[Gokul43201]

You can't disarm the world by war...because there will be no world left. Dozens of, if not over a hundred, countries have missiles. Should we go to war with India and Pakistan for wanting to sell missiles to 3rd-world countries?

I know this is really old, but I just saw it, and I strongly object.

Dear Dan,

Please show me any evidence you have that India has sold (or wanted to sell, whatever that means) missiles to 3rd world countries. I will even accept rumor.

And the US has sold (often just given away) more weaponry to 3rd world countries than probably the rest of the world put together.

Does being a 3rd world country automatically qualify it as a rogue state or a dangerous entity ?

 

[Ethanol]

3rd world countries and missiles

Uncle Sam says afghanis are terrorists, we said yes. Uncle Sam says iraqis have got weapons of mass destruction, we don't speak up a word in iraq's favour.Uncle Sam says israel isn't terrorist, we remain quiet. Uncle Sam says we want terrorists, we say OK. Uncle Sam says give us your airbases we want to attack afghanistan, we give them that too. Uncle Sam says fight afghanis in WANA(a mountain terrain), we say 'your wish, our command'.
But who has the right to rule us and tell us that our Nuclear scientists were terrorists.Uncle Sam says Dr. Qadeer Khan should be imprisoned we asy Ok again.Do you Know why because might is right. After Pakistan conducted nuclear research with AbdulQadeer Khan he was prosecuted in various countries for the theft of researchof the Developed countries but what he really transferred to Pakistan was just knowledge. Might is right. the world works on the principle.Where are WMD(weapons of mass destruction) that Iraq possessed?Those were just WMD(words of mass deception) by Uncle Sam. Where is Osama Bin Laden? Where is the democracy that was promised to Iraqis? Truly Third World deserves the Gallows by the mighty developed countries. Why? Because they are still not rising against the tyranny.If we want to produce electricity by nuclear plant then why are we stopped? Because no one wants us to be developed. If we were developed whom would the Developed rule?And your words are right Gokul being 3rd world does not qualify us to be spanked. It does not suggest that we are dangerous.But it does suggest that we could be suppressed easily.


Uncle Sam says "India and Pakistan, no more fighting". Why would America want our friendship. If 3rd world countries like us become friend who would Uncle Sam sell his weapons to?

P.S. I'm in the favour of indo pak friendship. If the fighting ends the two nations will put their strenghts to development rather than each other's destruction and maybe they won't be regarded rogue.