Sunday, January 16, 2005

The Sham Confirmed

The announcement the other day that the US has formally wrapped up the search for WMD in Iraq with nothing found, is predictable and galling.

It's galling because we all knew that no such weapons would be found. The UN team found no evidence last year, and no other credible existence existed. This was a manufactured war, and I believe that the men who so earnestly mouthed the words abouth the peril of WMD knew exactly what they were doing.

Meanwhile, around 1500 "coalition" troops have been killed, and probably around 30 000 Iraqi civilians. That they have died for such a lie is sickening. New Zealanders can be proud that our government refused to engage in this brutish folly.


Tonez said...

Oh My God, have just used your link to Howick and Pakuranga times, THANKS, Howick Girl now in Welly, been here a year and still miss Auckland, but slowly learning to live and love Welly. Good luck for Pakuranga! we need some young blood in there!

Chris said...

I am sympathetic to your position on the Iraq war, but I would like to ask you a question in the hope I get an honest answer.
Would you prefer that Saddam Hussein was still in power?

Greg Stephens said...

I think I speak for a lot of people when I say:
yes he should be out of there, but it should not cost thousands upon thousands of innocent lives to do so.

michael wood said...

Thanks tonz - only wish you were here to vote for me! Labour voters are needed more in Pak than Welly Central!!!

Chris said...

I was hoping to get an answer to my question from Michael. I agree with you Greg, diplomacy is always the right choice, but it would have been impossible to oust him through diplomacy. Do you agree?

Greg Stephens said...

(I would also like Michael to answer...)
I think that if pressure had been put on properly by the international community after Gulf War I then he would have been ousted long ago. The food-for-oil project was a failure and left the Iraqi people to die, but there could have been better measures put in place (although I'm not sure what given the world setting). But given the decade of neglecting the problem it would have been hard to get rid of him diplomatically primarily because he knew the UN couldn't/wouldn't actually do anything.

michael wood said...

A utilitarian would look at the situation, and add up the misery caused by either option. Frankly, it's difficult to imagine it being worse under Saddam, as brutal as his rule may have been.

Additionally, the prospect of a transfer to pluralistic democratic rule seems so slim under current conditions that it is difficult to claim that things are going to improve in the medium, or even long term.

Diplomatic measures would at least have a chance of achieving that over a period, minus the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and the shredding of international law (roll on Iran...)

Sock Thief said...

What do you mean exactly by "diplomacy"? For 12 years after the first Gulf war various diplomatic strategies to deal with Saddam were tried. None made any impact on his rule. He was as secure in 2001 as he had ever been and one of his psycho sons was set to take the throne when he died.

I don't see how your "diplomacy" solution is any solution at all; it's more of a magic wand. And if you are to compare, using your utilitarian approach, the cost of these two approaches then shouldn't you be considering what could have gone wrong with your solution? Look at Yugoslavia.

I don't know why you maintain that the war was based on a lie. The WMD reason turned out to be wrong but that does not make it a lie. Most people, even those who were anti-war, believed that Saddam was hiding WMD capabilities.