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

The following was posted by me on another website regarding the possibility of a war with Iraq. I'm posting it here to open the debate, as I think it sums up my opinions on the matter pretty well (and it means I don't have to type lots of stuff again ).

"A war with Iraq is a good thing for just about everyone.

Bush's father made one of the most seriously stupid and short-sighted political decisions ever in 1991 when he failed to support the Iraqi's uprising against Saddam (in order to "contain" Iraq). The results were hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's dead from sanctions, a continued sporadic and ultimately aimless US "air war" against Iraq, utter distrust and hatred of the West in the Arab world and, arguably, the September terrorist attacks.

The US is in a bad situation, it needs local support for an invasion (British and French support is all very well, but they don't border Iraq) and is having trouble getting it. An "air war" of the kind used against Yugoslavia is unlikely to work here and will mean thousands of civilian casualties.

The West must get support in the area (difficult, since we're no longer trusted very much there) and, importantly, allow the Iraqi's to join in the overthrow of Saddam. It is important that this is not a US-backed coup followed by the installation of a puppet government. The Iraqi's must choose their own government, if the American's won't let them, then they have learned nothing since 1991."

I want to know what the rest of you think. Basically, I want rid of Saddam and an Iraqi government chosen by it's people. I have a mistrust of America, I'm afraid they might install a puppet dictatorship and incur the wrath of the Muslim world once again. I'd like to think the U.S. establishment learns from it's mistakes, but then again....

Zagreb

I don't think it's a terribly good idea. Arabs cheer Hussein because he stands up to America. Killing him will make him a martyr. Still, it's better than a war with Iran.

IV, one of the few Americans who knows the difference between the two.

"Arabs cheer Hussein because he stands up to America. Killing him will make him a martyr"

This is a problem . Hussein has turned himself into a hero for many Arabs purely because he is anti-American. I think the Americans should make this not only a Western war, but an Iraqi war against Saddam. I'm sure the Iraqi's (who have to live under his government) have different opinions to other Arabs. Certainly the uprising of 1991 suggests they don't care for him much.

Apart from anything else, I would really, really, like the US to apologise for failing to support the attempted revolution in 1991 and the subsequent sanctions. This would change the opinion of many Arabs, who simply see the Americans as Muslim-hating bullie. Sadly, I think Americans are about as good at saying "sorry" as Japanese.

Zagreb

"bullies", not "bullie"

I've read about the opposition groups, the Kurds, and whatnot. It seems they're poorly organised and ill-equipped. Apparently learning from its mistakes in Afghanistan a decade ago, the American government seems a bit leery of equipping a lot of scrappy rebels. There's no telling what they'll do with the weapons once they've ousted Hussein.

I don't think that the Kurds are particularly an 'opposition' group, just a distinct ethnic group within Iraq. And being a distinct ethnic group, they are often villified and attacked. I may be wrong here, though

Military action against Saddam Hussein is all very well, but it's impossible. What we're talking about here is military action against the Iraqi people. A people who have suffered enough, really. What with the terrible casualties caused by the Gulf War, and the suffering inflicted by sanctions, the last thing they really need is another war. In modern warfare, it's more and more the civilians that are the victims of war.

If there was any quick, painless way to remove Saddam Hussein from power, then I would say, go for it. But there isn't. The only way to do it would be to subject thousands of people to further grinding hardship. As a result of sanctions, 200 children die each day, according to Unicef. Do we really want to make things *worse* for Iraq?

The main reason for this new aggression, according to the US, is to depose Hussein, as he is capable of launching weapons of mass destruction. Why don't we stop giving him reasons to be nervous. With all this talk of ousting him and military strikes, no wonder he's building up an arsenal. If the west can be on friendly terms with the governments of Israel, Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, maybe they can lower themselves to talks with Iraq, before invading.

The emphasis should be less about the settling of old scores, and more on the humanitarian needs of an impoverished population.

There is another lesson from the past.
Remember the other guy who should be removed at all cost? With the beard and cigar just across Florida?

Without the us sanctions he would probably have been ousted long ago.

you need to paint this scenario for me marjin... sorry

alec.

Justification for war with Iraq has now be changed at least twice.
At first, we were told he was part of the Axis of Evil because he supported Al-Quaeda. No evidence has ever been shown to prove this. It also ignores the fact that the last thing Saddam needs running around his back yard are Islamic Fundamentalists. He fought a decade long war against the regime of the Ayatollah's because an Islamic Fundamentalist stae was an inherent threat to his power base.

Then we were told that he had go because he was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. He appears to out-manouvred the US here by offering unlimited access to weapon inspection teams. It also raises the rather difficult issue of the US's own refusal to allow weapons inspection teams into their own chemical weapons plants.

Now we are told that he just has to go. As, to quote George Bush 'out of evil against us [the US], great good might come.' Quite what evil Saddam has committed against the US in recent years i don't know, save perhaps being a rather ugly reminder of Dubya's daddy's failure to get it right in the first place-and inparticular his failure to back and support insurrections he had encouraged and then abandoned to saddam's sweet mercys.

This is a morally unsustainable war, and it is time Europe made a stand and refused to co-operate in any way whatsoever with a conflict that will likely destabilise the entire region, with catastrophic results to oil supplies and economies all over the world.

I back the german stance.

Just something...
Britain does not support a war with Iraq, Tony Blair would do whatever Bush says, but that is the problem with having Americas Foreign Secretary for a Prime Minister.

Now i'd like to share a little story... Im sure you will all be able to see the analogy.

A farmer and his wife were sat in the evening sunshine enjoying a drink, when suddenly, a swarm of hornets ungulfed them both, stinging away. The farmer and his wife slapped away at the hornets with all they had, but they couldnt escape the swarm. Whilst this was occuring the farmer noticed a wolf stood on a rock, grinning at the scene before him. The farmer ran into the house, grabbed his shotgun, ran out and shot the wolf. 'What are you doing?' his wife cried, 'That wont stop the hornets!' 'Yeah, but it sure made me feel better', said the farmer...

There is no moral, ethical or legal basis for a war against Iraq.

There is no current UN Security Council reolution mandating an attack on Iraq - therefore any attack would be illegal under international law.

Whilst we may find Saddam objectionable, we do not have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation.

The western worlds actions in the last 10 years have increased the sufferring and hardship of the ordinary Iraqi citizen, though have also probably saved a large number of Kurdish lives.

On the subject of the Kurds - this is an ethnic group that the west has contiuosly let down, by failing to deliver on our promises of a Kurdish state etc.

I really don't know what to think about the possibility of war on Iraq. It's a nasty place, but it's not alone in that. I reluctantly backed the war in Afghanistan (to start with), but thought then that Iraq would be a step too far.

The Kurds seem to me to be a key issue. They want their homeland, but I don't see Turkey as being too keen on a revitalised Kurdish nationalism (where else do Kurds live, BTW?). Perhaps the carrot of EU membership can be dangled before Turkey if they solve their Kurdish issue?

But, like Albanian nationalism in the Balkans, it's a tricky issue that could destabalise the entire region. I'd like to think that there is a plan to win the peace before there's a plan to win the war. This includes some kind of plan to sort out the Israeli-Palestine conflict as well.

Otto, feeling persuadable.

Gonzo and Blues Shark,

Yes, the Iraqi's will probably suffer during the war, but if there is no war many, many more will die through sanctions. Whilst Saddam is in power the sanctions will not be lifted and the Iraqi's will not overthrow Saddam. They simply can't do it on their own. The choice is between thousands dead through a war or hundreds of thousands dead through sanctions, under a repressive police-state. It's a tough, miserable choice, and if the American's had shown moral fibre and intelligence in 1991 then we wouldn't be making it. But there you go, there's no point in ducking difficult issues.

Yes, the war is morally sustainable. The Iraqi's live under a dictatorship that they don't want. Nobody likes to live under tyranny, no matter what anyone says. As for destablising the region, that is a worry, but it depends on whether America makes it look like it's invading and occupying Iraq or whether it's liberating it. American policy in the Middle East has been an utter, utter shambles and I really hope that when Saddam is gone they leave it to some world powers with a better understanding of the region. As I said before, an apology to the Iraqi's would be a good move.

If America stated that Saddam was to remain in power, and tens of thousands of his subjects to die, in order to preserve "peace" in the region, many people against the war would accuse the US of innhuman cynicism and demand the overthrow of Saddam. Let's try and avoid the usual political brinkmanship and start fighting for what we believe in. Not thumbing our nose at the "other side".

The Kurds live in South Eastern Turkey, Northern Iraq and North Western Iran mostly - the UN would need to carve a Kurdish state out of these 3 countries.

Zagreb - because we dont like Saddam does not give us the right to become involved in the internal affairs of Iraq. The fact that the US bottled out of taking a decisive stance when they had a legitimate cause to enter Iraq back in 1991 does not give them (or us) the right to do so now. The only option the west has is to support, educate, arm and help organise the opposition within Iraq until such time as the UN via the Security Council makes an appropriate resolution sanctioning armed intervention.

Also Saddam has called the bluff of the US by making an invitation to the UN to send weapons inspectors to insopect sites suspected of being used to make Weapons of Mass Destruction. As an interesting aside the US has systematically refused to allow UN inspectors to visit or inspect US chemical weapons factories!

There is no UN mandate for war.

It is therefore illegal.

End of argument. Or are siding with stalin n stating that the ends justify the means, because it didn't sound to good from him and still doesn't, from either Bush or Blair.

Sanctions, which appear to have done no good so far in persuading the Iraqi's to throw out the 'hated' Saddam (and where does your evidence that the Iraqi's hate him come from?) could be lifted tomorrow. Not that that will bring back the estimated 50,000 dead children that have already been casualties of the worst thought out, *and* least sucessful, sanctions since those against Cuba.

I *don't* support Saddam. But neither will I support illegal armed action against him which is clearly designed to do nothing more than further the aims of the US military-industrial complex.

There is no UN mandate for war.

It is therefore illegal.

End of argument. Or are siding with stalin n stating that the ends justify the means, because it didn't sound to good from him and still doesn't, from either Bush or Blair.

Sanctions, which appear to have done no good so far in persuading the Iraqi's to throw out the 'hated' Saddam (and where does your evidence that the Iraqi's hate him come from?) could be lifted tomorrow. Not that that will bring back the estimated 50,000 dead children that have already been casualties of the worst thought out, *and* least sucessful, sanctions since those against Cuba.

I *don't* support Saddam. But neither will I support illegal armed action against him which is clearly designed to do nothing more than further the aims of the US military-industrial complex.

Weren't there Kurds in Seriba/Bosnia too?

I heard a chap on the radio this morning saying that a war in Iraq has nothing to do with the UN, it should be waged by the USA and the UK because Saddam poses a terrorist threat against those nations he wants revenge on. He said that Saddam isn't planning to hit France or belgium or Russia but has a particular gripe against the US and UK so those nations are justified in a pre-emptive war.

I don't know who he was (the Today programme at about 8:20) because I only switched on halfway through but his justifications seemed extremely woolly.

No there aren't any Kurds in Bosnia. Muslims yes, Kurds no.

There is no evidence that Saddam has ever had any nuclear capabilities since the days before the Gulf war when the Israelis bombed Iraq's one nuclear power station (and they bombed it before it was switched on.)

As for chemical or biological attack. What possible advantage could he gain by attacking Britain or the US? Now think, what is Iraq's primary export? Who buys said export? Not good for customer relations is it to attack your buyers!

Your initial comment seems incomplete, by the way Zagreb.
>'A war with Iraq is a good thing for just about everyone< who has interests or shares in US arms companies'. Is surely what you meant to say?