Boffins, the Media and Scaremongering.

Brass Monkey wrote:You're a bit of a paradox really aren't you? The archetype of pseudo-intellectualism and quasi-maturity mixed in with the ostentatiously simple.

Oh, stop flirting, you big tease.

Let's remember a couple of things about the WMDs, firstly that Saddam did have them before, and he had used them - a nerve gas attack on the town of Halabja. So let's not get the idea that this was some complete fantasy. Equally, he tried to make nuclear weapons, until the Israelis bombed the Osirak plant.

I don't believe for a moment that Blair deliberately lied to take us to war. It's intellectually lazy to make that accusation and simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That they started from the perspective of him having WMDs and then trying to find them - allowing themselves to be convinced from the outset is fair criticism, but that's not deliberately lying.

There was a very good discussion about this kind of thing on This Week last night, talking about lazy cynicism as opposed to healthy scepticism. Too much of the "Blair lies" thing is simply an unthinking approach to a nuanced issue. I simply do not believe a British Prime Minister would deliberately lie to take us into a war that there was no urgent need for us to fight. Sorry.

Very good post, Shoeshine. It should be remembered that WMD disarmarment was only one of the conditions laid down in the cease-fire agreement following the Iraqis' ejection from Kuwait in the first Gulf War in 1991. Saddam also agreed not to persecute the Kurds or the Marsh Arabs or fund external terrorist groups as well as agreeing to pay reparations to Kuwait for the damage that had been caused (including setting the oil wells on fire as Iraqi forces retreated). All these agreements were broken which justified a resumption of the conflict.

In the wake of the brutal suppression of the popular uprisings following the Iraqi defeat in 1991 the US and Britain had to enforce "no-fly zones" in both the north and the south for 12 years to prevent genocide. Bush in his speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2002 listed over 14 breaches by Iraq of mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions of which failure to comply with WMD inspectors was only one.

Richard Butler, the Chief UN Weapons Inspector for Iraq before Hans Blix, in his book Saddam Defiant: The Threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Crisis of Global Security outlines the Iraqii Government's campaign of deception during the 1990s. Weapons Inspectors had been sent into Iraq immediately following the conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991 and spent four years finding preactically zilch until General Hussein Kamal, Saddam's son-in-law, whom he had put in charge of the WMD programmes, briefly defected to Jordan (he was tempted back to Iraq where he was murdered by Saddam's sons).

Thanks to his debriefing and documents left behind at his chicken farm the weapons inspectors were able to discover whole caches of previously hidden materials. This incident also had the effect of any assertion from Saddam's administration that they were "WMD-free" being immediately discounted by the weaponns inspectors and those to whom they reported.

"Regime change" in Iraq was a policy of the Clinton Administration enacted by Congressional statute which Bush inherited. Following the crisis in 1998 when Saddam refused to cooperate with the inspectors unless they declared Iraq "WMD-free" thereby causing sanctions to be lifted (despite Saddam's various other breaches of the 1991 ceasefire agreement) resulting in the inspectors being withdrawn the US and Britain bombed various sites containing potential WMD material for 3 1/2 days and nights in December 1998. This action was not authorised by the UN and was equally an act of war as the invasion of 2003.

However thousands did not come onto the streets and both Robin Cook (then much more intimately involved as Foreign Secretary rather than Leader of the House when he resigned in 2003) and Clare Short remained in office, their consciences untroubled. Indeed Ms Short later claimed that these bombing raids had destroyed all of Saddam's stockpile of WMD despite failing to explain why the intelligence was so much more accurate in 1998 than it was in the following 5 years and why the British and US air forces were capable of such pinpoint accuracy in their bombing missions when they could barely hit a single Serbian tank in the 77-day air war over Kosovo the following year.

Did the difference in reaction betwen the bombing raids of 1998 and the invasion of 2003 have anything to do with the political affiliation of the incumbent in the White House? Surely not!

In his response to Blair's speech in the House of Commons in March 2003 arguing for military intervention the then Leader of the Opposition, Ian Duncan-Smith, argued that the forcible overthrow of Saddam Hussein was justified on humanitarian grounds, irrespective of whether or not he held WMDs. Indeed if Britain was justified in intervening in Sierra Leone and NATO forces justified in intervening in Kosovo (neither of which was authorised by the UN) then a reasonable case could be made for a similar intervention in Iraq.

The idea that maintaining Saddam in power whilst at the same time enforcing a sanctions regime (which as we now know from the revelations surrounding the "oil-for-food" programme was being widely flouted with the connivance of UN officials, none of whom have been held accountable, and several member states bringing misery to the Iraqi population whilst at the same time enabling Saddam and his cronies to live in luxury) with upwards of 30,000 allied troops sweating it out in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and various other friendly neighbouring states acting as a "containment" strategy would have been a more "humane" policy I find quite ludicrous.

such dire rubbish.
& an attempt to whitewash.

>> several member states bringing misery to the Iraqi population whilst at the same time enabling Saddam and his cronies to live in luxury)

the concern is touching.
how are iraqis living today btw ?
they used to be a secular, middle-income country during saddam's days.

buckSH wrote:how are iraqis living today btw ?
they used to be a secular, middle-income country during saddam's days.

And the trains used to run on time under Mussolini...Go tell that to the Kurds. Who's whitewashing whom?

yeah, the Iraqis have been 'liberated' into a hellhole.

Let's get some perspective though bucks - Saddam's 'secret police' have been rumoured to have caused around 200,000 deaths in his 23 years in charge. That's a lot.

OK, it's not 110,000 in 5 years as the west has caused - but that goes to show how murderously autocratic he was.

Brass Monkey wrote:Let's get some perspective though bucks - Saddam's 'secret police' have been rumoured to have caused around 200,000 deaths in his 23 years in charge. That's a lot.

OK, it's not 110,000 in 5 years as the west has caused - but that goes to show how murderously autocratic he was.

I would take issue with the "caused" bit. Do people really think that the fall of Saddam - whenever it happened - was going to usher in an era of peace and prosperity immediately after? It was always going to be a bloodbath. That the US & UK's post invasion planning was lamentable is not in doubt, but there never was going to be a wonderfully peaceful change in Iraq.

Further to Shoeshine's earlier post.

It's worth remembering what Bill Clinton said in 1998 when announcing Operation Desert Fox.

Bill Clinton wrote: First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past...

...Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

That was Bill Clinton, the immediate predecessor of George W Bush.

Was he lying too?

Saddam was intent on playing two sides of the same coin. He wanted his regional enemies to think he still had WMDs while wanting to play the West for fools, buying himself enough time to rebuild his WMD capabilities.

He thought he would prevail in the end because he assumed the United States didn't have the stomach for an invasion. He miscalculated badly.

Shoeshine wrote:
I would take issue with the "caused" bit. Do people really think that the fall of Saddam - whenever it happened - was going to usher in an era of peace and prosperity immediately after? It was always going to be a bloodbath. That the US & UK's post invasion planning was lamentable is not in doubt, but there never was going to be a wonderfully peaceful change in Iraq.

Oh, no, that's fine. Predicting a bloodbath makes it all OK.

Heck, let's have one over here - I'm sure it's f*cking wonderful to be mindlessly bombed just because the dictator in power is possibly in the vicinity. I can imagine some of the innocent people, cowering and covering their heads thinking "Oh. F*ck. I'm going to die here. Oh well, blood was predicted."

Brass Monkey wrote:Let's get some perspective though bucks - Saddam's 'secret police' have been rumoured to have caused around 200,000 deaths in his 23 years in charge. That's a lot.

OK, it's not 110,000 in 5 years as the west has caused - but that goes to show how murderously autocratic he was.

that is as inflated a figure as the figure of WMDs in Eyeraq.

That was Bill Clinton, the immediate predecessor of George W Bush.

Was he lying too?

We all know, Clinton never lied.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:
I would take issue with the "caused" bit. Do people really think that the fall of Saddam - whenever it happened - was going to usher in an era of peace and prosperity immediately after? It was always going to be a bloodbath. That the US & UK's post invasion planning was lamentable is not in doubt, but there never was going to be a wonderfully peaceful change in Iraq.

Oh, no, that's fine. Predicting a bloodbath makes it all OK.

Heck, let's have one over here - I'm sure it's f*cking wonderful to be mindlessly bombed just because the dictator in power is possibly in the vicinity. I can imagine some of the innocent people, cowering and covering their heads thinking "Oh. F*ck. I'm going to die here. Oh well, blood was predicted."

No need to be like that. The point is a valid one that horrendous casualties were always going to be the outcome in Iraq irrespective of what was or wasn't done. My point is that it's not reasonable to take the figure and assume that nothing of the sort would have happened without the invasion. Saddam was an evil bastard who caused a million deaths with his invasion of Iran, and half a million more deaths with his invasion of Kuwait. He then caused (and let this be clear it was down to him) immense suffering with his refusal to allow the import of perfectly allowable food and medical supplies under sanctions.

The fundamental problem with pre-emptive action is that you never know what would have happened. But presumably most people with the wonderful benefit of hindsight think it would have been a good idea for France to have toppled Hitler the moment he marched into the Rhineland, but had they done so, and a small war had resulted, doubtless everyone would be slating them for their actions.

buckSH wrote:yeah, the Iraqis have been 'liberated' into a hellhole.

You have Al-Qaeda to thank for that who've killed almost (but not quite) as many Iraqis in the name of Islamic jihad against the West as Saddam Hussein did in the cause of self-preservation

Shoeshine wrote:No need to be like that. The point is a valid one that horrendous casualties were always going to be the outcome in Iraq irrespective of what was or wasn't done. My point is that it's not reasonable to take the figure and assume that nothing of the sort would have happened without the invasion. Saddam was an evil bastard who caused a million deaths with his invasion of Iran, and half a million more deaths with his invasion of Kuwait. He then caused (and let this be clear it was down to him) immense suffering with his refusal to allow the import of perfectly allowable food and medical supplies under sanctions.

The fundamental problem with pre-emptive action is that you never know what would have happened. But presumably most people with the wonderful benefit of hindsight think it would have been a good idea for France to have toppled Hitler the moment he marched into the Rhineland, but had they done so, and a small war had resulted, doubtless everyone would be slating them for their actions.

Personally, I reckon it was an immensely glib remark to make and a remark that someone in a safe and comfortable environment would be making. As soon as the Yanks got onto it - knew his possible whereabouts it was simply "let's wipe this place out, f*ck the fall out and get him". IIRC, it turned out he may well have been in the area that got wiped from the map, along with countless innocent people.

Yes, you're right, he had a hand in over 900,000 deaths including the Iran and Kuwait wars and he was by no means defendable - but to blithely quote the casualties of innocents as 'by the by' is sickening IMO.

Allan D wrote:
You have Al-Qaeda to thank for that who've killed almost (but not quite) as many Iraqis in the name of Islamic jihad against the West as Saddam Hussein did in the cause of self-preservation

Right... get your figures out then Allan - you're one to post a diatribe. Post one.

Allan D wrote:Al-Qaeda

you really think such a mythical thing exists.

thus far I have only heard about this in the media, wherein I also heard about 'Global Warming'.

Someone went on about 'intellctual laziness' earlier on. The presumptuous statements about Al Qaeda are laughable, they really are. The pinnacle of being intellectually lazy.

Brass Monkey wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:No need to be like that. The point is a valid one that horrendous casualties were always going to be the outcome in Iraq irrespective of what was or wasn't done. My point is that it's not reasonable to take the figure and assume that nothing of the sort would have happened without the invasion. Saddam was an evil bastard who caused a million deaths with his invasion of Iran, and half a million more deaths with his invasion of Kuwait. He then caused (and let this be clear it was down to him) immense suffering with his refusal to allow the import of perfectly allowable food and medical supplies under sanctions.

The fundamental problem with pre-emptive action is that you never know what would have happened. But presumably most people with the wonderful benefit of hindsight think it would have been a good idea for France to have toppled Hitler the moment he marched into the Rhineland, but had they done so, and a small war had resulted, doubtless everyone would be slating them for their actions.

Personally, I reckon it was an immensely glib remark to make and a remark that someone in a safe and comfortable environment would be making. As soon as the Yanks got onto it - knew his possible whereabouts it was simply "let's wipe this place out, f*ck the fall out and get him". IIRC, it turned out he may well have been in the area that got wiped from the map, along with countless innocent people.

Yes, you're right, he had a hand in over 900,000 deaths including the Iran and Kuwait wars and he was by no means defendable - but to blithely quote the casualties of innocents as 'by the by' is sickening IMO.

Hardly glib. What do you expect, me to rent my clothes and wail at the injustice of it all? It's reality, it's not something I can change. But whilst you might think I'm commenting without my heart, if you can't accept the reality of what was happening and what was likely to happen, then you're commenting without your brain. Iraq was a deeply troubled region and was going to be anyway. To take the outcome of what we did in isolation and not work forward to a future without this action is simply not a reasonable way of thinking about it.

Brass Monkey wrote:Someone went on about 'intellctual laziness' earlier on. The presumptuous statements about Al Qaeda are laughable, they really are. The pinnacle of being intellectually lazy.

Mmm, depends on how you interpreted the comment. It's undoubtedly true that the carnage in Iraq was caused by foreign insurgent fighters from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. There's pretty heavily documented evidence pointing to the intervention by Iran certainly. You can't lay it all on the British and Americans.

Shoeshine wrote:Hardly glib. What do you expect, me to rent my clothes and wail at the injustice of it all? It's reality, it's not something I can change. But whilst you might think I'm commenting without my heart, if you can't accept the reality of what was happening and what was likely to happen, then you're commenting without your brain. Iraq was a deeply troubled region and was going to be anyway. To take the outcome of what we did in isolation and not work forward to a future without this action is simply not a reasonable way of thinking about it.

"Now don't be like that."

What I do like though, is the fact your conjecture is put forward as almost an inevitability, what I don't get is how you've drawn your conclusion. Well I do, you've drawn it on the past actions of the man, before he was hamstrung by the first war. There are deeply troubled regions throughout the world, it was by no sense of moral fibre or conscience that took our campaign there. There is no planned future there apart from to stick some tinpot leader in that we can marionette.

basically the IEDs, you never know who it is that does them.

'the media' usually blames the usual suspects ranging from 'al-qaeda' to Iran to Iraqi resistance. But one is always left in doubt whether it is any of these groups or intelligence agencies carrying out their agenda under guise of insurgency and instability.

usually in such a situation as Iraq one will never know in the medium-term. But in the long term CIA or Americans would bring out some 'white-paper' on past criminal misdeeds informing the world that they did this and this and now deserve to be forgiven because they admitted.

they have admitted many such misadventures in Vietnam and other places after 30 or so odd years.

Since the Israelis have many scores to settle with the Iranians and Shias in Iraq, I presume they would be behind at least a small percentage of the IEDs going off in that country at a pessimistic estimate. But a fair or optimistic estimate would attribute responsibility of more than 50% IEDs on the intelligence agencies of the external controlling powers in Iraq to achieve various geo-political aims.

Shoeshine wrote:Mmm, depends on how you interpreted the comment. It's undoubtedly true that the carnage in Iraq was caused by foreign insurgent fighters from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. There's pretty heavily documented evidence pointing to the intervention by Iran certainly. You can't lay it all on the British and Americans.

Yes, you're right - I have absolutely no idea about death caused counts per country. What I do know for certain was that the initial obliteration of Baghdad's more civilised area was due to faceless American bombers that had not one jot of concern for the ramifications of those bombs. That, to me, is nearing as evil as it gets. All done in the name of freedom and goodness, of course.

Oh shit, bucks it on the loose.

Brass Monkey wrote:Oh shit, bucks it on the loose.

common danny, show some strategic chutzpah.

though i know never to expect too much from a civvie.