If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
The government CAN know who voted for it, but this information is legally safeguarded
pretty damn good, I'd say.
How many have marched in favour?
The majority of the U.S. support disarming Iraq by force. These are the only numbers that matter to me. Sometimes the hardest path to follow is the one that is right.
I didn't see anyone with banners protesting against Iraq MoK. I did speak to some people and most agreed that Saddam is an evil dictator who's caused the death of countless people. But the point everyone was making is that war is not the answer. That Bush and Blair are bent on it for ulterior motives and that there is no reason or justification for a war.
Some people disagreed on whether a war would be justified if Saddam was found in possession of massive amounts of ready and live WMDs, was considered dangerous to others and the UN gave its full backing. I'd say a majority believes war is simply not the answer, and that if the 'Empire of Evil' Soviet Union, as Reagan so kindly called it, once in possession of more WMDs than the US itself was successfully contained through deterrent then a piss-poor little country like Iraq would be a very easy job. That of course in the very unlikely case that Saddam does possess WMDs and is a threat to others.
Lots of people on this board protest against the war. Not one of them has posted a workable solution in MoK's thread.
I, as a voice who does see war as an acceptable solution, have posted what I would offer as a solution.
What does that say about your informed and knowledgeable protestors now?
Shame on them then. Surely he is as much to blame for this situation, in fact he is more at fault for it is his non-cooperation which gives the US grounds.
His failed to adhere to international law. You see the US and UK are conforming with Int law in that they have a ceasefire which Iraq hasn't complied with. This allows use of force to ensure it's compliance.
Don't you think it's a little ironic that these people protest against the Govts they elected, but don't protest against a brutal, despotic dictator?
And yet how many offered realistic alternatives?
Other than those proved to have failed before?
If you want to know what was really achieved yesterday then consider who has actually gained from the demonstration. Only one person would have been smiling last night, and he lives in Baghdad.
Sleeping better now?
So come up with a better one.
How did the inspections fail? Iraq's nuclear weapons programme was 'completely dismantled' according to the head of the IAEA and Saddams biological and chemical weapons development was severely depleted - How many WMD's has he used since inspections started?
International Law? The US has little respect for that! Security Council members are bribed/blackmailed with Aid, International treaties - Kyoto, Anti-ICBM's and The Geneva Convention are openly flouted (rise in emissions, Star Wars and Camp X-Ray) and Un Security Council resolutions are ignored - There are about a dozen resolutions the US supports the Israelis being in breach of.
Oh, and a ceasefire! The US/UK bomb Iraq frequently to enforce the No-Fly Zones. They freely admit dropping hundreds of tonnes of bombs.
The alternative to war is the THREAT of war backed up by the inspection of sites within Iraq. Also backed by the no fly zones.
THAT IS THE ONLY WORKABLE SOLUTION
A war will be bloody, indiscriminate and expensive when all they need to do is kill one man.
You are exactly right. The threat of war provides the stick to offer with a small carrot of compliance with the UN inspectorate.
So, tell me then, at what point has war been declared?
Anti-war protestors have no war to protest against! The people who you so vigorously campaign against are playing a classic good cop-bad cop role within international brinkmanship and politics! They're doing precisely what you suggest. Threatening, blustering, rattling the sabre in what must be regarded as a highly successful PsyOp against the Iraqi regime.
So, I ask you now: what's your problem?
Because Saddam hasn't complied with them.
Have the inspectors been shown the evidence of 6,500 wareheads they knew Saddam to have, or the chemicals weapons they knew he had? Not according to Hans Blix.
I dunno which part of his speach on Friday you listened to, but you obviously missed his piece on lack of cooperation, he suggested that inspections could only work if Iraq complied and that this wasn't happened.
You want to wait until he uses them? *is incredulous*
Do the words "stable door" and "horse bolted" mean anything to you?
UN1441 states that Saddam still has WMD. Have you seen any disarming since?
As I have said to other, get me a security council resolution on any of these issues and we can discuss them. Until then, how are they relevant? The issue on the table at the moment is Iraq not complying with UN resolutions...
And perhaps you should look into each of those cases you mention.
Out of interest though on Kyoto, no country is in compliance with this. many haven#t bothered. Only one is condemned, guess which. And the US does adhere to the Geneva Convention, unless you know something which most of the world doesn't. And it's Israeli non-compliance with UN Res, not US.
Bombs dropped in accordance with the ceasefire.
You do know what a ceasefire is, don't you?
It means that either side can start shooting again, without warning, if the terms of the ceasefire aren't met. hence US/UK bombs dropped...
A threat is only effective if it is followed up. At the moment Iraq had little evidence to suggest that they will face the carrying out of this threat if the continue on their current path.
Unless they listen to people like me and DJP that is...
Well I've been to anti-war demos before, including the Kosovo one in 1999 and the Afghanistan one in autumn 2001, and I went yesterday.
Yesterdays was very different, not only because of the size, but because of the people there. Most of the people on the other demos I've been to are what some people would call the "professional" protesters, ie at every march and demo and in organised groups, e.g. lefty unions or the "youth Revolution" movement. Now they were still at yesterdays, but in the most part the people there (at least the ones OI chatted to) had never been to a demo in their life, but they were anti war with iraq.
This was compounded by the lack of appluase for the more pacifist or pro muslim orators in Hyde Park, and the applause for more moderate speakers.
At least he's not trying to pass on as a defender of the innocent and of human rights like Bush here. Saddam is an evil dictator and we are supposed to be the civilised, democratic and responsible caring countries. Neither Bush nor Blair are acting that way. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Nobody there was sympathising with Saddam. But the demo yesterday wasn't about protesting against a brutal dictator like him (if you want to organise one I'll be heading off the demo- only don't ask to drop 50,000 tonnes of high explosive as a "solution"). The demo was to protest about a potential war that is completely unnecessary, will cause tens if not hundreds of thousands deaths, and is being instigated by a deranged moron for a number of self-interest reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with peace, welfare of people or the respect of international law.
The 1998 resolutions might have gone slightly better if half the inspectors hadn't turned up to be working for the CIA.
Saddam has not been co-operative to date but we're finally seeing change and anyone who does not want to extinguish all diplomatic avenues before going to war is the one who will have trouble sleeping at night.
Oh, I'm sure there were many people smiling in Baghdad last night. About 2 million of them.
So the issue is whether we should use force if necessary to ensure countries comply with UN resolutions. And it obviously transpires from this that the US is a great defender of international law and cares for the compliance of UN resolutions.
Pity then that the US will do anything in its power to
prevent anyone from trying to implement resolutions 194 (passed in 1948 and reaffirmed 135 times since), 242 (first passed in 1967), 465 (passed in 1980), 487 (passed in 1981), 1322 (passed in 2000) or 1435 passed last year.
I can give you details of what those resolutions are and what country are up against but I'm sure you can work it out.
Doing nothing is a "right" then is it? Allowing an "evil dictator" to do what he wants is a "right" is it?
I agree diplomacy would be a better option, but whilst the UN has tried this, Saddam isn't interested. As his action have proven.
So let me get this straight. The protest was against a elected Govt which you can remove at the ballot box in a couple of years, but no-one thinks it necessary to vote against someone who cannot be removed?
The very same people who protested yesterday have done nothing to protest against this despotic regime. Nor do they apparently see the need. As I have said, if Saddam complied, then war would be averted.
Funny morals, wouldn't you say?
Tens of thousands (if not hundred) have been partly caused by sanctions, which is a "diplomatic" approach to the problem. So much for saving lives eh?
As for international law, which one haven't they adhered to?
[quoet]Oh, I'm sure there were many people smiling in Baghdad last night. About 2 million of them.[/quote]
Which 2m is this then?
The 2m still being oppressed and as likely to die at the hands of Saddam's henchmen as the US?
I'm sure that they are dancing in the street.
Of course, that many tried to overthrow their oppressors in 1991 when they thought we would support them shows that they don't want our help, doesn't it?
Perhaps you should ask why no-one else is willing to do anything? Or is it only the US who should act?
What stops any other country from enforcing these Resolutions (I assume that you are talking about Israel again)...
But then you already know my stance on Israel, so this really is a mute point wouldn't you say.
I take you back to your "Two Wrongs" comment. If it is wrong not to act on these resolutions, then surely it is wrong not to act on Iraq...
About other countries not doing something, I agree that it is a shame. But other countries are not pushing for war to implement certain resolutions only. And more importantly is to remember the disgusting bullying behaviour of the US administration of recent months before considering taking action into your own hands. If objecting to a war has brought shameful accusations and insults by the American government and the implementation of political and tactical decisions "destined to hurt the German and French economies" as announced by a US congressman recently, imagine what the US would do to anyone who dared threaten let alone attack its dear darling in the Middle East. I have little doubt that the Bush administration would sink the French aircraft carrier if it came to that.
Back to Saddam, I'm sure many people would agree with you that something should be done. But what we continue to disagree with is what to do about it. A majority of people in this country and elsewhere believe war is not the answer. That's what the demo is all about; we're protesting against Bush and Blair because they are the ones about to launch a war that will cause countless deaths, not Saddam. Blair is defying the great majority of people who don't want war and won't even debate it in parliament. Like a placard read yesterday, he's in danger of becoming Britain's first dictator.
I could throw the 'funny morals' remark back and say that it's a bit funny how people who want to bring democracy and freedom to a country don't seem to care that the chosen way of doing so will cause the death of up to 100,000 people
What really surprises me about your attitude is that you really believe war is the best solution, a surgical strike to remove Saddam and everyone's happy. The alternative that people like me see is unworkable to you, because you won't accept that it can work. So tell me, if the invasion of Iraq encourages al-Qa'ida to seize the moment and initiate a campaign of terror in Britain and America, will you view that as acceptable losses, or admit that Bush screwed up? Conversely, do you really believe that keeping the weapons inspectors in will give Saddam the freedom to prepare for further aggression. Either scenario could go either way, but to argue that those people, who managed to motivate record numbers to come out on the streets in protest, don't have any idea of an alternative to war... Well, I think I preferred Greenie's argument that if the entire world doesn't object to war, it's all systems go.
Truoble is that when Bush threatens action because Saddam isn't 'co-operating', it's not a credible threat of war. That can only come about with a new UN endorsement, which doesn't appear to be forthcoming.
Ever read one of Saddam's speeches?
What alternative is that?
If it's not a credible threat of war, then why's everyone protesting against it?
If it's not a credible threat of war, then why's everyone worried about unilateral action by the US.
Your statement is inconsistent with the facts.
They just protest against anything suggested…
Without a second resolution. In opinion polls this step increased the support massively.
No, he does it without a war
But Bush and Blair are action in response to Saddam’s non-compliance, not inspite of. Important distinction.
Plus you protests against them because they are the easy target. Like I said, the one real scumbag is the one no-one has protested about.
100,000 possible deaths through war vs 200,000+ as a result of sanctions plus deaths at the hands of Saddam’s henchmen…
So basically the US isn’t in breach of international law on this issue, is what you are saying.
And of course he was under duress, he’d just lost a war FFS. Do you think any ceasefire is happily signed by the defeated leaders? That’s the whole point of warfare, to make your enemy comply with something they didn’t want to do, if they’d agreed with UN demands there wouldn’t have been a war in the first place.
What alternative?
That’s what my other thread is about…
I will accept that alternatives can work, just none that have been put forward have actually worked.
I thought that there was no link between Al-Q and Iraq
But surely you don’t that Al-Q won’t attack regardless of what happens in Iraq?
Do you think that you won’t be able to then?
Of course, IDS supports Blair’s stance too...
Looks like a LibDem Govt next then…
Well, they haven't invaded anyone yet. Therefore they haven't breached that one.
And despite their rationality/irrationality of proposal, they have a credible threat of war. Since you countenance that it could happen: it's credible.
Are you confused, or just trying to argue from both sides at once?