Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

[chi-kei]

There were demonstrations over the world today,
it was only one reason, asking for peace.

About thousand of protests demonstrated in Hong Kong,
and I was one of them. It's because we want peace.

"Say no to imperialism, no war on Iraq!"
Do you want the USA having a war?
If not, sign a name for supporting us.
_________________
Now, the "nameless monster"
has turned into an actually existing man.

[pugachevV]

All of you who are demonstrating are demonstrating to keep Saddam Hussein in power.
Are you Nuts?

[Thom]

For once, I have to agree with pug. Whilst no-one with access to all the facts can believe that Saddam is the threat to world peace he is being made out to be or that he is supplying terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, it is also impossible to deney that his Ba'ath regime merits removal, by force if neccesary, on grounds of human rights.

The Ba'ath party, led by Saddam, have like many other despotic regimes used military force, torture and all available instruments of oppression against their own population in order to cling to power over a people who, despite state propaganda, hate their rulers more than either the US or the UK. For this reason and this alone, a war is justified. After all, is it not true that the definition of a just war is one which removes more suffering from the world than it creates in the process.

I dont suggest for a momment that the Bush administration (or Tony Blair, despite his claims to the contrary) cares any more about the situation of the Iraqi people than it does about the situation of the Saudis or the Turkish Kurds. Otherwise it would embark on similar wars against Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Tazikistan and Uzbekistan (to name but a few US allies engaged in similar oppression) to remove regimes which use fear, torture and brute force to keep themselves in power. However, if in the process of a war to secure access to Iraq's oilfeilds and impose the United States will on the region, the Ba'ath regime were to be removed and replaced with a better one then wouldn't a side effect of this be that the people of Iraq would be better off? Does anyone think that the Iraqi people would care what the Bush administration's motives were so long as they were freed of Ba'ath?

In an ideal world, the war would be fought with the aim of minimising casualties to all sides (particularly civilian) and not just the politicaly sensative US casualties. In an ideal world, the vast resources belonging to the Iraqi people would be used to deveop their country and rebuild a state that has been shattered by decades of violence and sanctions and not exploited by western companies to benefit wealthy shareholders. In an ideal world, the Iraqi people would be allowed to elect their own government after the war instead of being subjected to the proposed US military occupation.

Unfortunatly, this is not an ideal world but despite all of the obvious shortcomings of the planned war, it remains the lesser of two evils when compared to the perpetuation of Ba'ath's regin of terror.

[Diana]

Hey Thom,

It's good to see you! Long Time No See!

I think Saddam should have been taken out a long time ago since 1991!!!!! If the UN had done their job properly, it wouldn't be where we are today. I don't like Saddam Thom and Pugachev V., but I really don't like war either. It would be nice if Saddam would just go into exile, so we don't have to fight a war and kill innocent Iraqis. That would be a more better solution, but I know Saddam would rather keep his throne and crown as much as he wants.

By the way, I read in the news that many Iraqis are very resentful of the U.S. and the U.N. It seems that they wanted to be rescued from Saddam, but the US and UN didn't help them at all. They are resentful because we allowed them to suffer this long, and they didn't help them from Saddam's repressive regime. In a way, I don't blame them for being resentful. Like I said, if the UN had done its job properly in 1991, the lives of so many people could have been saved. So many Iraqis have died under Sadddam's regime. You wouldn't believe what this monster had done to his own people!!!!! Makes you wonder. Which is more humane? War or Oppression?

Ever since I read that book on Saddam Hussein, I just couldn't believe that the United Nations just stood by and did nothing while those poor Iraqis were suffering and being killed by Saddam's regime!!!! They should have done something a long time ago!! The Iraqis reminded me of own people. They also waited for three years to be rescued because they were powerless to do anything. Those three years were torture and terrible years to my own people, and the Iraqis had to endure the same kind of suffering for 12 years.

Diana

[Chris]

It wasn't made because the UN and her main armed forces the USA didn't want to get so far. They even have left the Iraki opposition at the hands of the rest of Hussein's army and his local "Gestapo": the Republican guards. They 've let Saddam at the power only to play with him especially against Iran. And we are now at the same place that we were 12 years ago. So why now?? Perhaps, it was a long planned scheme scheduled by the current American administration but they hadn't thought of a strong opposition because in the USA they aren't used to it.

Personally now, I think there will be a war because they are in a blind alley. The USA don't need the UN to achieve it but only a strong internal propaganda to make the average wasp to think that's a good action for democracy and for the local economy. Britain will stay out because Mr Blair is in a bad situation unless he wants to commit his political suicide. But the main problem could be: how to govern a country like Irak which hasn't known any liberty throughout its history. A new government like in Afghanistan? It will be a pretty mess with the real devil who has appeared again: Ousama Ben Laden whose the spirit has been running for a long while. No, the game ain't over.....

[Thom]

I agree with most of what you said but I think you're wrong about Blair. Despite the domestic opposition to the war, he'll go ahead precisely because he has an election to win.

The people who are appearing on the TV saying they wont vote for Balir again are those on the centre or left of centre in British politics. When it comes to an election, they'll find that the only choice other than a Blairite labour party is the ever more right-wing conservative party who have been sceaming for war louder than Donald Rumsfeld. He knws he can alienate that section of the voting public because when push comes to shove, he's the lesser of two evils.

On top of that, the British public have the collective political memory of the average goldfish. The next general election isnt until 2007 and by then, crazy as this may sound, all will have been forgiven.

I realise that this sounds crazy, especially to someone coming from continental europe but without having lived a long time in the UK, you'll just have to take it on faith. Did the public remember Tony's promises that if transport and education didnt improve he'd resign? Hell no! When it came to the election (and they'd gotten worse) he retained his mammoth majority. Did anyone remember saying they'd never vote labour again after the 1m pound bribe to secure tobbaco advertising on F1? For about five minutes maybe.

The fact is that Blair has the largest parlimentary majority in living history and that this will remain the case, despite every scandal, despite every broken promise and despite the war, as long as there is no credible opposition. This should be the Lib-Dem's finest hour but where are they? They have no public profile and their image (outside of scotland) is forever that of the smug, WASP, middle class, suburban londoner (hardly attractive to the rest of the population) and this prevents them, even though they are the one party opposed to war, from gaining anything from this situation. The conservatives are an increasingly marginalised right-wing party with no agenda or manifesto of their own other than "Labour but a bit more conservative". Hardly a credible alternative come election time.

Much as I wish it wqere different, Blair can and will go to war without commiting "political suicide".

[obelix]

I don't know much about Tony Blair. I assumed he would be like most labour leaders in Britain in the past.

He turns out to be a principled and courageous man and when Iraq is liberated and democracy established his popularity will skyrocket.

[Thom]

You're right. You clearly dont know anything about Tony Blair.

[dduck]

[Thom]

You may well be right and I may have underestimated the public mood. After all, it's hard to judge the public mood without being there. Reading online papers is no substitute.

I doubt doubt what you say about Scotland, the elections are much more imminent and there is a more credible opposition. I hope and I believe that Blair and the SLP will be punished by the populace for trampling over democracy. This war is far from being the first time that they've done it but it's the one that has everone worked up.

However, I still find it hard to believe that this will greatly affect labour in 2007. I doubt Blair will be stupid enough to get dragged into Jnr's next campaign and so come election day, the war will be a distant memory.

The point still stands that even if people are still angry with Blair, who will they vote for instead? An even more pro-war Tory party? Unless the Lib-Dems really get there act together, even those who remember the war will see Labour as the lesser of two evils.

[dduck]

[Fat Witch]

Not only British people are against this stupid war. Most Spaniards are also against it, though the Spanish Prime Minister, Jos� Mar�a Aznar, seems desperate to support Bush. In my opinion, he wants to be on the side of the strong and he overestimates his political importance. His political party will pay for his behaviour in the next elections. I'm sure about that.

[chi-kei]

[finacall]

Dear forumpals,
I'm totally against war. The suffering of innocent people really annoy me and I can't understand why a single man (Saddam; Hitler, Bush, ...) can rule without any opposition. Where is the governement in the shade of Saddam? There should be one just in case he desappears.
Hope a peaceful solution come soon.

[Huy]

Hi, the discussions are pretty interesting

But the business of going to war against Iraq is not very clear at all. There are more reasons behind the motivation for war than just the obviously one, that we need to disarm Iraq and destroy the axis of evil. President Bush is just digging himself a bigger hole for going to war with Iraq. First it was the 9/11 terrorist attack, then the economy start to spiral down. And the war in Afghanistan is going bad with no significant progress; Bin Laden is still running around. Suddenly Bush just shifted the attention to Iraq with the terrorist and disarms business. Bush is just trying to control our focus on the war with Iraq and forget about everything else . Why Iraq , it is a atheist country, and has not support of fundamental Islamic group. There are more terrorist organizations running around in Iran, Saudi ....and those countries who support fundamental Islamic group than Iraq.
And of course, we want to bring "democracy" to Iraq; hmm I wonder what about Saudi, Iran, and Jordan... Just because we are Saudi ally and they have the oil for us, we just have an exception . I do not disagree that Saddam is a bad person who has caused a lot of terror to stay in power, however, US can't not go in alone with out the UN. Then we will once more return the imperialism period. This declaration of war will not be justified. The whole world does not agree to go to war. It is not hard to win the war, but no one wants to get into the ugly business of building a nation.