h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm kind of in two minds about the subject.

I think a war to topple Saddam is a good thing, for reasons I've detailed several time in certain forums on this site . I agree with Blair's comments about "decent liberal-minded people" and their willingness to, effectively, allow Saddam to remain in power indefinitely. I think what is good for the West is good for the Middle East and, yes, I do think it's worth fighting for. Sadly, that's the only way to get some things on this planet.

However, the British governments attitude to the United States annoys the living c**p out of me and Blair is largely responsible for this. If he simply agrees with everything Washington says, then how are we, the British people, and more importantly the rest of Europe, supposed to know what he and his government really think? I think, for once, he and I agree on Iraq, but if Blair takes that message elsewhere, people think "Here come the British, America's little poodle, come to trot out Washington's position". That is not only a pathetic way for Britain to be recognised throughout the world but ensures that our "international influence" is minimal. I gather Blair get on well with the German Chancellor, but it's not surprise he hasn't been able to "bring them on board", who would listen to British "opinion"?

Zagreb, you're being very civil, so I'll try to do the same, despite the fact that I haven't felt so angry about a political issue in years as I do about the planned war for oil. I'm a fairly respectable middle-aged fellow, and I thought my days of shouting in the streets were long gone: but if there's a peaceful anti-war demo planned anywhere near me in the near future, I'll be there.

I've tried to explain in the column why I disagree with Blair's 'decent, liberal-minded people' remark. To oppose war is not to support Saddam. There are other ways to get him to behave, especially at a time when his government is talking in terms of allowing weapons inspectors back into Iraq. War should surely always be the very last resort, and I don't believe the other options are anything like exhausted yet.

Frankly, I am angered by the sight of people on your side of the argument being brave by proxy. Perhaps you're in the military, and currently packing your bags in preparation for the order to go to war. In that case, you have every right to declare '...yes, I do think it's worth fighting for'. I suspect, however, that a more accurate statement of your position might be: 'I want Saddam Hussein ousted, and I don't really mind if thousands of other people have to be killed and maimed in order to achieve that'.

We can certainly agree over Blair and his attitude to America, though. It is absolutely outrageous that he's going so far down the road towards war without allowing MPs the chance to have a say, especially when the great majority of the British public opposes the line he's taking. There's a great cartoon in today's 'Guardian' showing Blair in his dog basket being carried on to a plane, a label on the basket reading: 'Pet dog Tony in transit to Moscow via Washington DC'. Blair is saying: 'Recall Parliament? I don't, actually...'

OK, first off I think the war has nothing to do with oil. If America cared about Iraqi oil they would have deposed Saddam in 1991 and installed a puppet government that would sell oil to them. They imposed sanctions instead and deliberately cut themselves off from Iraq's oil.

As for the "Brave by proxy" it's an argument that doesn't hold water. Soldiers are professionals, paid to do their job. Churchill was entirely unwilling to wield that Tommy-gun on the French front-line but does that mean he was wrong in prosecuting war? Arguing "unless your a soldier, you should keep your mouth shut about war" is pretty undemocratic. I'm not a doctor, does that mean I can't have an opinion about the NHS?

And, yes, if the majority of the British public don't want war then Blair has no right committing troops to any conflict. I believe that quite strongly.

As for the "the other options" does that mean getting rid of Saddam or just his WMD's - thus making sure we in the West are cosy and secure whilst the Iraqi's suffer under tyranny? The only other option for getting rid of Saddam is supporting a coup and I think that would be very difficult in a tightly-policed state like Iraq.

Also, if they stay out of the war, European countries have only themselves to blame if the Americans field a unilateral invasion and do what the hell they like with the Iraqi government. It's not responsible to say "not my problem" and turn your collective backs on something you could have dealt with.

In 1991, America could afford to do without Iraqi oil because there were other reliable sources of supply, in particular Saudi Arabia. Times have changed since then, especially after September 11. With increasing tension between the West and militant Islamists, and unrest in the oil-producing regions against governments perceived as being too pro-Western, America needs a guaranteed friendly government in those regions. I believe that a big part of the reason for this proposed war is the desire to install such a government in Iraq.

And now, Zagreb, you're following Bush's lead and invoking Churchill! It must be infectious... Of course you don't have to be a soldier to have an opinion on war. But I wish people on your side of the debate (not necessarily you personally) would stop pretending that they're being brave in taking that stance, when the people who'll really need courage if the warmongers get their way is the innocent population of Iraq.

Your main argument seems to be that we must have war because it's unfair to the Iraqis not to attack them, thus leaving Saddam in power. Personally, given the choice between living under a deeply unsavoury government and having bombs raining down on myself and my loved ones, I think I'd opt for the former.

Finally, it is frankly bizarre to argue that if European governments don't agree with an American unilateral attack, then they should join in so that it's not unilateral. If one country takes unilateral action, then the consequences are that country's responsibility and no-one else's.

Resisting the war is not a matter of saying 'it's not my problem'. It's more a matter of saying that you're not willing to turn thousands of innocent people into 'collateral damage', which is what is bound to happen in any attack. Such an attack would also further destabilise an already dangerously volatile part of the world, and risk the further spread of war. That doesn't sound very 'responsible' to me.

First off, many many more will die through unlifted sanctions if Saddam remains in power. That is a fact and it can't be ignored.

I don't think my stance is "brave". I think it's the most sensible and, ironically, the most humane. The soldiers are the brave ones.

I don't buy your point about oil. The US has good relations with enough Middle-East countries to secure it's oil for the next decade at least. The fact that the Saudi's don't want US troops in their country does not mean they will cut off oil supplies. The Saudi's need buyers for their oil. Apart from that, no other middle east oil producer is likely to stop selling to the Americans.

I don't think Europe can ignore it's responsibilities in the Middle East. If America does make a unilateral assault and the Europeans don't like how things turn out, the Americans will be able to stick a finger up at them and tell them "you didn't want any part of this so you can keep your mouth shut". I think we have a large responsibility to keep US adventurism and cynicism under control.

As for "destableisation". I remember the same arguments being drummed out before the war in Afghanistan. If the anti-war people had had their way, the Taliban would still be in power and the Afghan's lot would still have been utterly miserable. Things have improved drastically over there, thanks to the West as a whole being willing to take hands-on action in a region of the world we had previously considered "not our problem".

As for Bush and Churchill. I didn't compare Bush to Churchill and wouldn't dream of it

It's certainly true that if the present sanctions stay in place, then many more people will die in Iraq. However, Zagreb, you seem to be working on the premise that as long as Saddam is there, then the sanctions will also be there. Why need this be so? The sanctions were imposed because Saddam expelled the UN weapons inspectors from Iraq. The Iraqi government is now talking in terms of allowing the weapons inspectors to return. If that were to happen, couldn't the sanctions be lifted?

I don't believe, either, that your blithe optimism about the security of oil supplies to America is backed up by the facts. The *present* governments in Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries in the region might be willing to do business with the USA, but that could all change. There is unrest in Saudi Arabia. al-Qaeda has drawn a lot of its support from there. And nothing would be more certain to inflame Islamist and Arab anger against the west than an American-led attack on Iraq.

I don't accept the analogy with Afghanistan. Reluctantly and sadly, I did accept that the attack on Afghanistan last year was necessary, as al-Qaeda obviously represented a clear and present danger to the world after September 11. But on the evidence presented thus far, I don't believe that any convincing case has been made to show that Iraq now represents a similar danger, despite all Blair's windy rhetoric.

In any case, the action in Afghanistan last year was surely, at best, a partial success. It failed to achieve many of its objectives, and it's left Afghanistan in a very volatile state. Osama bin Laden was never found, and al-Qaeda certainly wasn't destroyed. Obviously it was great to see the back of the Taleban, but the present situation in Afghanistan isn't exactly calm and peaceful. Anyone who said last year that military intervention in Afghanistan would destabilise the place could reasonably claim to have been proved right after this week, in which there's been a major car bombing in Kabul and an attempt on the life of Hamid Karzai, the head of the interim government. (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2239573.stm for details)

I'm glad that music is now allowed in Afghanistan and that men are allowed to shave if they want to, but from what I've read women there still daren't go out without a burka. Have things there really improved all that drastically? Once again, I think the attacks on Afghanistan were justifiable, but their uncertain outcome illustrates the truth of that Churchill quote I used in this week's 'Notes From A Small Planet', about how no statesman can ever embark on war with any sort of certainty about what will happen.

Finally, I too would certainly like to see American military adventurism and cynicism brought under control. However, I cannot agree that the way to do so is to support the American government in a reckless and unnecessary adventure in Iraq. Frankly, that seems to me to be rather like trying to fight crime by joining the Mafia.