[VR]

Just curious to hear every one's opinions about the war on terror (war for oil, war of dictatorships, war of ideologies, the new Crusades or whatever you call it). Good or bad? A new era of potential peace or a new World War? Quick battle which'll end in a year or a never-ending conflict with suffering uncomparable to anything else in human history?

Post your thoughts here!

[Olympas]

I read an interesting article the other day. I suspect there will be a lot of opposition to it here, since this place seems predominantly (as much as anything can be predominant in a community of about six individuals) left-oriented and therefore presumably part of the "anti-war lobby".

It is very probable that the US and Britain will go to war, but what happens after they win will be another matter. It is a fine line to judge between Iraqi opposition politicians who are democratic, representative and benevolent and Iraqi politicians who are simply being opportunistic. Obviously, if Saddam is removed it will be one of them who will be "installed" or "elected" (depending on your point of view ).

The Left betrays the Iraqi people by opposing war
By Nick Cohen (telegraph.co.uk)
(Filed: 14/01/2003)


As Tony Blair yesterday reaffirmed his determination to confront Saddam, the Stop The War coalition was able to present an impressive list of celebrities to add glamour to the fight to save Iraq from Anglo-American terror.

Gemma Redgrave, Anita Roddick, Rosie Boycott and Bianca Jagger are standing shoulder-to-shoulder with rough train drivers from Aslef and Marxist-Leninists from the Socialist Workers Party. Everyone who is anyone from the soft-headed centre to the anti-democratic Left is there. All are welcome - except the people in whose name the party is being thrown: the Iraqis.

Tens of thousands might have been invited. London remains a great exile city, and for more than 20 years Kurds and Arabs have fled from Saddam's persecution to sanctuary in Britain. Yet not one of the 50 Iraqi dissident groups that met in the capital last month to organise the struggle for national liberation has been asked to join the coalition. Nor would they be thanked if they tried to gatecrash.

The anti-war movement is a private party. It has proved to be a remarkably fastidious friend of suffering peoples of the Middle East, and its doors are always open to non-Iraqi Muslims - but it's not at home to Muslims from Iraq.

As far as I can work out from the coalition's membership list, only two Iraqi organisations - one calling itself the Iraqi Network for Human Rights and a second called the Federation of Kurdish Community Organisations - have signed its manifesto. No Iraqi exile I have interviewed has heard of either.

The truth is that the overwhelming majority of Iraqi dissidents are an embarrassment to the Left. After enduring misery few of us can imagine, they have discovered that, without foreign intervention, their country won't be freed from a tyrant who matches Stalin in his success in liquidating domestic opponents. Only America can intervene. Therefore an American invasion offers the possibility of salvation.

There's a damnable logic to this that no amount of wriggling can escape. If you say to the Iraqi opposition that America is very selective in its condemnation of dictatorships, they shrug and ask why Iraqis should care. If you say that Iraq shouldn't be liberated from Saddam until Palestinians are liberated from Israeli occupation, they ask if the converse also applies. (It never does, incidentally.) They confront the anti-war movement with the disconcerting thought that there are worse things in the world than George W Bush and American imperialism, and Saddam Hussein and his prison state are among them.

To right-thinking, Left-leaning people, such thoughts are not merely disconcerting but unthinkable. Oppressed peoples are meant to confirm the prejudices of their (usually white) betters, not raise awkward dilemmas. The honest course would be to say that the price of peace is a continuation of Saddam's oppression. But rather than make a brutal argument that would lose it the moral high ground, the anti-war movement prefers to deal with the Iraqi opposition by ignoring it.

The absence of honourable engagement is allowing the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to get away with murder. Journalists demanded yesterday that Tony Blair tell us if Britain would go to war without UN authorisation. There's a tougher question: what kind of Iraq would British troops be risking their lives for if there is a war?

In Washington, the future of Iraq is ferociously contested. The names of the competitors on either side of the argument prove that you should never believe easy political labels. To the surprise of the simple-minded, Donald Rumsfeld and his supposedly "far-Right" friends in the Pentagon support democracy, while the CIA and the supposedly "moderate" Colin Powell at the State Department hint that they want to replace Saddam with a more compliant dictator.

Mr Blair seems to be with Gen Powell. Ever since Britain created Iraq in the 1920s, the Foreign Office has wanted a kind of apartheid rule by a monarch or dictator from the Arab Sunni minority. The majority of Iraqis, the Shia, have been kept down, along with the Kurdish ethnic minority in the north.

At no point has Mr Blair said he wants dictatorship to end if Saddam is overthrown. The organisers of last month's conference of exiles in London asked the Foreign Office if Mr Blair or Jack Straw would address the assembled delegates. Zaab Sethna, a spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress (INC), told me the men at the FO "laughed in our faces". Our leaders didn't want to waste their time on Iraqi democrats.

The moral disgrace of the liberal-Left wing of the anti-war movement lies in its failure to put pressure on the Prime Minister to uphold the values it pretends to believe in. The Iraqi opposition had a right to expect support. The alternative it offers to Saddam's secular tyranny is not Islamic theocracy. The INC and the London conference of exiles both want a democratic Iraq that gives a voice to the suppressed Shia; a federal Iraq that allows autonomy for the Kurdish minority; and a secular Iraq that can contain the differences between Sunni and Shia Islam.

When I put this programme to my democratic and secular comrades, they turn nasty. I hear that the peoples of Iraq will slaughter each other if Saddam goes; that any US-sponsored replacement will be worse. They may be right, although the second prediction will be hard to meet. What is repulsive is the sneaking feeling that they want the war to be long and a post-Saddam Iraq to be a bloody disaster. They would rather see millions suffer than be forced to reconsider their prejudices.

I expect that some Telegraph readers regard the British Left as good for nothing. In mitigation, I would say that we are world-class nags. If we had taken up the cause of Arab democracy, we would have nagged away until Mr Blair was forced to commit himself for or against liberty.

As it is, the only people who won't be welcome in Baghdad if a free Iraq comes against the odds are the Iraqis' immensely condescending friends in the Stop the War coalition.

[Proctor]

Has anyone noticed how the media refers to 'suspected' terrorists, and then states in the most authoritive way the english language allows what they were intending to do. If it were that obvious, they wouldn't be just 'suspected'.

Here is an example:
x number of 'suspected' (insert Islamic if appropriate) terrorists/extremists/both were arrested today in a raid in (insert Patriotic country here). They have links with (Al Qaeda, or if that is not true, pick a 'rogue state' at randumb) and were planning to blow up/poison/hold hostage (insert major landmark here).

Do you see what I mean?

[Olympas]

It would be a little verbose and unstylish to keep saying "they are suspected to have links with..." and "they are suspected to have been planning", don't you think? As long as one "suspected" is in there somewhere, I think the intelligent readership will get the message - that nothing is confirmed.

[Proctor]

I love the Dominion.[/img]

[The Red Goblin]

I see "Terrorism' as having replaced "Communism" as the number one pretext for the Military-Industrial complex in the United States. By maintaining a strong military against a "threat", Republican presidents sift focus from their domestic failures by stirring up Patriotism to a fever pitch against a foreign enemy.

Sure; Saddam is an a$$, but he should have been taken out during the Gulf War when we had the chance AND the justification. The motive for doing so now is questionable at best; is Junior trying to atone for Daddy not finishing the job a decade ago?

Make Love, not War (its a 60's thing!)

[El Cid]

It's a "holy war", if you will, against those countries that have been a thorn in...His dad's eye.

[KurtFF8]

I think its justified (like the war in afganistan is justified) and i think that persuing al queda all round the world is also justified, and that countries they help an organization that tries to deliberatly slaughter innocent americans/other countries citizens should have action taken agnist them (not necessairly war every time though)

[CasX]

yeaH lets gEt the baddies who wannt to kill iNnocent amEricAns!!!!11111

[Russian]

some aspects of the war on terrorism are justified; others aren't

Destroying taliban and searching for Bin Laden is ok. But using the 9-11 paranoia to manipulate people into thinking that Iraq is a threat that need to be dealt with is wrong

[Comrade Koatna]

The war on terror? HA! i do call it a war for oil and the U.S. just HAD to get the political support needed to wage this war by destroying the one of the symbols of American power on 9/11. Personally I think America is gonna get itself nuked because of its arrogance.

[The Red Goblin]

Like on the religion forum; I apologize for the rather long post. Still I don't feel too bad as text loads much quicker than some of these pictures folks use for their signatures. Feel free to read or ignore. I spammed groups from alt.politics.bush to alt.politics.clinton with this one last August.

War, Imperialism, and 9/11

9/11 was a great tragedy for the American nation. Long thought secure behind the two largest
oceans, victor in the Cold War, it came as quite a shock that we could be attacked from overseas. The
American public was justifiably angry and a retaliation was called for. Having said that, however, let me
say Patriotism, like religion, can easily be translated into fanaticism. We are more than seeing that with the
mindless flag waving that just doesn’t seem to abate. Why?

The simple truth is that war is good for business. What is good for business keeps the Wall Street
financiers who have replaced the industrial bourgeoisie as the oppressors of the working classes very happy.
Capitalism thrives on war and human suffering; and in this case, more than a little slight of hand. Governor
Dubya is basking in presidential glory he did not earn, crying crocodile tears over the deaths of
approximately 3,000 lives.

Republican presidents like to pat themselves on the back concerning their prowess in foreign
policy. It is supposedly a strongpoint. But look at Dubya’s record prior to 9/11. He made an ass out of
himself at Euro-Economic Summit and with the Kyoto Protocols (environmental controls to save the earth
for posterity.....fuck that.....bad for business). He made America the “heavy” on the ABM Treaty debate
with the Russian Federation, and the US delegation walked out on the UN sponsored Racism Conference in
Durban. We won’t even mention how he destroyed the strong Clinton economy, as that is a domestic,
rather than a foreign policy affair (or is it?).

Then comes September 11th, 2001. Followers of a religious fanatic seize four large airliners and
three impact on target. This is the best thing that could have happened to Junior, away from the targeted
White House at the time. And the more time passes we see more evidence that the government knew
something was afoot. If Dubya knew then he should be impeached. In the meantime, he is able to focus
national attention on a foreign enemy, ignoring the domestic issues in this country. He fans the flame of
patriotism to keep his popularity up. This is an all too common trick, as Round Up Ronnie did it for two
terms (his illegal and immoral invasion of Grenada being the perfect example), and George Senior did it
with the Gulf War.

Dubya is riding high now and is not about to let things die down. We have ousted the Taliban and
yet we are still in Afghanistan bombing wedding parties and killing innocent people. Why? It is quite
simple. If he can keep the war popular he can maintain an edge for the GOP in the fall elections. Also, the
majority of the ground forces are African-Americans. The more casualties among this ethnic group the
better it is for the Right (i.e. fewer potential Democratic votes). It gets even more ridiculous than this,
however. Dubya knows at some point he will have to pull out of Afghanistan, so he is already laying the
groundwork for future wars. Next on his agenda is to create a war with Iraq to finish what his Papa
couldn’t. It is becoming increasingly clear that in the post-Cold War era the United States and its
Middle-Eastern lackey, Israel, are the greatest threats to world peace.


Imperialism is the inhuman exploitation of Third World countries by the West. The countries are
raped for their resources and labor. This is another wonderful outgrowth of Capitalism and its need to
dominate markets. Imagine 12 year old girls laboring in sweat shop labor conditions in Honduras so that
naive, small town white boys can have clean Hanes underwear. “Gawd bleSS Amerika, indeed”. The
United States has shown itself in the past more than willing to sling its military around to keep these
markets and areas under our domination.

We can only hope. For what, you might ask? If his pig-headedness to stay in Afghanistan long
after our objectives have been completed, causes people to question his motives, for one. In Lexington
there was a demonstration for Peace in March (“War is Terrorism too” was the theme). Still later,
hundred’s of thousands marched in Washington to the same effect. Eventually heroes such as Jane Fonda
and Muhammad Ali, with the power of name recognition, will have the courage to step to the forefront of
the anti-war effort. That is, unless they are arrested for doing so under the provisions of the mis-named
“Patriot Act”, the blueprint for an American SS or KGB. A huge protest over his Iraq policy is planned for
October.

Washington’s continued support of the squatter state of Israel continues to astound. Modern Israel
has no right to exist, and continued support of Israel is what attracted the terrorists attacks of 9/11. Israel
exists because of the collective guilt of the west over the Holocaust. And how do the Israeli’s repay the
West for being given a country on a silver platter? By being the most fascist and racially motivated state
since Nazi Germany. Of course, maybe that is why Rightists like Israel so much. They can give their dark
nature an “out” and still pretend they are not anti-Semitic. And before anyone accuses me of such, let me
state that I do not equate Judaism and Zionism. Neither do some leading Jewish intellectuals, such as Dr.
Noam Chomsky of MIT. If we embrace the “Black Gold” of the Arab world over a strategically useless ally
our international situation will be much improved.

Patriotism is a very base emotion, and like religion, one that is capable of degenerating into
fanaticism all too easily. Ask any flag waver today what is the greatest country in the world, and the answer
is America! And they will parrot a whole list of reasons why that have been brainwashed into their heads
for years. Birth is a trick of fate and who is best is a matter of perspective. If these people could see past
the testocerone the reason America is the greatest country in earth is because....they were born here! These
people would feel loyalty to Norway, Zimbabwe, or any other country to the same degree if they had been
born there.

Some don’t agree. Take John Walker Lindh for example. The “My country right or wrong,” and
“America: Love it or leave it” crowd would gladly have slammed the door on his ass as he boarded the
flight to Kabul with a good riddance, don’t come back wave. He didn’t love or support it, so he left. Now
these same people were demanding the death penalty when the young man was forcibly brought back as a
prisoner of war. Am I the only one who sees a “Catch-22” here? I hope not.