Shifting Sands

[Agrajag]

I take your point and agree with it, it was really well made. I know this may be considered a red herring, however I will post it anyway. How many more atrocities, commited by the Hussein regime, would have been acceptable while the more diplomatic solution was sought ?

It could be argued that the soldiers lost in the conflict were professional fighters, who chose that life and were trained for it. However the civilians who he (Hussain) was terrorising were born into it and had no choice. How much of their suffering was stopped because of the war ? How many would have been tortured and murdered while the inspectors were doing their jobs ? How long would it have taken ?

Sometimes, much as we might find it horrific, dentistry is required. Yes it is really painfull at the time, but in the long run it is a good thing. I really hate dentists btw, so this is a really difficult analogy for me to use.

Thank you for the welcome, I have no idea what unpolemic means. Though I may now appreciate Hobbeses joke, with regard to you.

[billyfridge]

We could go round in circles on this topic for ever, Hussein brought it all on himself
by intimating he had WMD, presumedly to frighten neighbouring countries. he defied the rest of the world for nine years was it? when he could have cleared it all up by allowing inspections, which would then have removed the embargoes on his country.
Bush and Blair said enough is enough, and acted whilst all the rest of the world would have carried on doing what Hussein wanted them to do, that is why Bush and Blair were elected, TO MAKE DECISIONS.
The fact that Hussein turned out to be a little martinet with nothing in his locker
just proves what a stupid egotistical twit he was.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Agrajag@9 February 2004 - 02:06
How many more atrocities, commited by the Hussein regime, would have been acceptable while the more diplomatic solution was sought ?

How many would have been tortured and murdered while the inspectors were doing their jobs ? How long would it have taken ?

Yes, inaction is not benign, not benign in the least.

Anybody who thinks that diplomatic solutions would have won the day are not aware that they are dealing with a "fly".

[leftism]

Hobbes, I would like you to clarify one point.

Originally posted by hobbes
Hans Blix would have loved to play his little game forever, the limelight was all he ever wanted.

I'm unaware of any evidence that says all Mr Blix wanted was "the limelight". How did you come to this conclusion?

I would also like to point out something that seems pretty obvious, to me at least.

There are many many "flies" in this world who are equally as bad, if not worse, than Saddam, yet we readily accept the fact that we cant take them all out. So why Iraq and not Zimbabwe for example?

This is the reason why the WMD argument was put forward. 'Just' because a country is run by a brutal dictator, it does not justify prosecuting a war against that country. If that factor alone were enough, we'd be at war with a significant proportion of the planet. So, to bolster the case, we were fed scare stories such as Iraq being able to attack British troops in Cyprus, and Iraq having the capability to launch its WMD within 45 minutes.

So now that no WMD have been found, the head of the CIA has indicated that he never said Iraq was an "imminent threat" and Tony Blair has stated that the 45 minute claim referred only to battlefield weapons, we are back to square one.

Why Iraq?

In the absence of WMD the argument now seems to be that the US is doing this for it's own selfish reasons, but as long as Saddam is gone that somehow makes it right.

One thing is certain. After being fed lies and seeing the unprotected Iraqi museums being looted whilst the oil wells were secured, the British public will certainly require a little more than allegations of WMD to be persuaded to risk the lives of their sons and daughters in the next war.

On the point of the UN not being perfect. Apart from abandoning the concept of International Law and having the US act as judge, jury and executioner do any of the ferocious critics of the UN have any better ideas? As fallible as the UN is, I dont see that alternative as being particularly attractive either. The critics of UN inaction may also want to bear in mind that the US is part of the UN and that the inaction comes in handy when resolutions are applied to US allies such as Israel.

I could also point out that the US currently supports a few 'flies' who are on a par with Saddam, but I think that will do for now.

[hobbes]

As I put in bold at the start of my first post, I am not defending or justifying the war.


Hobbes post 1:

The administration basically decided that they wanted Saddam out and that 12 years of paperclip pushing had resulted in nothing but suffering for the people of Iraq, so they took matters into their own hands. Not for the people of Iraq, but because Bush felt it would be to OUR benefit in the long haul. We shall have to see about this.

Hans Blix:
I guess I can spot a poser when I see one.

"Mr. Blix, when will you suspect that the Iraqi's are impeding your inspections?"

"If I get 1 flat tire on the way to a site, I will probably overlook it. If I get 6 flat tires I will be sure they are obstructing me. So my level of suspicion is somewhere between 1 and 6 flat tires."

What a silly quipster. But really he is irrelevant in that Saddam is a fly.



Flies
I merely labeled Saddam a fly and explained the language that flies understand. As you say, lots of flies about.



Relevant old post

[leftism]

Interesting, looking at that post you linked to it seems that we are thinking along very similar lines with regards to the war.

As for that Hans Blix quote I would simply say that the reporter asked a stupid question and got a stupid answer. Like him or loathe him, Hans Blix is an intelligent man and is quite capable of knowing if/when he is being impeded by the Iraqis.

I still can't see where this accusation of wanting the limelight has come from.

A hawks egg perhaps?

[hobbes]

Or perhaps not

[Biggles]

I am sympathetic to the argument that we should be pro-active and prevent atrocities. However, I am unconvinced with the assertion that this particular war was necessary to prevent a significant level of wrong doing over and above say that of North Korea or Zimbabwe let alone the activities in Rwanda which either went are still going all but ignored.

Saddams main atrocities occurred when he was on our side 15 to 20 years ago. We said little and did nothing at the time. His second batch of atrocities occurred 12 years ago when he suppressed the Shi'ites, who had risen at our behest only to be ignored in their plight.

I find the moral high ground here uncomfortably low. I am sceptical that it is indeed this hallowed turf we are in the process of re-claiming - although on this matter I would happily be proved wrong. Nevertheless, political expediency may be a wind that blows some good to the ME; albeit by fortuitous accident. If it does not, then the whole party piece may not be easy to repeat even if the circumstances are direr and more pressing.

[leftism]

Originally posted by leftism+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A hawks egg perhaps?
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes
Or perhaps not&nbsp;

[/b][/quote]

I guess it depends on you understanding what I mean by "hawks egg"

[hobbes]

Originally posted by leftism+10 February 2004 - 03:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 10 February 2004 - 03:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by leftism@
A hawks egg perhaps?
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes

Or perhaps not

I guess it depends on you understanding what I mean by "hawks egg" [/b][/quote]
Never heard the term but I got this jist-
Hawk:
3 : one who takes a militant attitude and advocates immediate vigorous action; especially : a supporter of a war or warlike policy -- compare DOVE