Posted: Sep 25th 2003, 6:22 am
This is my whole objection. In the UK, we were told we were going to war for one reason and one reason only: that Saddam had WMDs, that he posed a threat to our nation. IF there had been a justification based around human rights and freeing the Iraqi people at the time, I might have been more supportive. If there were many many reasons put forward, I might have even agreed with going to war. But there weren't. My problem isn't the fact that we have 'freed' the Iraqi people, it's that we were conned into going into war in the first place.mglenn wrote: I say that that’s not just one reason its many many reasons.
.mglenn wrote:clear evidence and historical president that Saddam had and was trying to get more WMD’s.
I have yet to see any.
I take your point. I just think that given the amount of time we built up to, and debated, going to war, the post-war reconstruction should have been more thought through. Even GW is now admitting it has been far more costly than he ever thought it would be.mglenn wrote:It hasn’t been five months though? And we’ve done more than we did almost 4 times as long in Germany. No one is saying it will take 7 years. But it will take time and also remember that at the end of those 7 years Germany what not what it is today. If in a year or two years we are still in the same boat, then ok… but five months is a bit short to start saying it’s a failure.starbug wrote:What I don't agree with is the fact that you can say 'well it took years in the case of WW2 and therefore it's fine if it takes just as long in Iraq.'
I realise you weren't trying to be offensive. It's just that it sounded like you thought that the people in the nations sat back and allowed hitler to march all over europe unopposed.mglenn wrote: First off I was not trying to be offensive to those that resisted the Germans attacks and occupation. They risked their lives for their beliefs and I honor them for it. “You’ may not have given the Germans what they took, but the governments of the time did nothing to stop Hitler until May of 1940 when he took over what was left of Europe and the last that was standing in his way of having a direct route to England. The point being that you cannot appease a mad man, you should not allow evil to grow. If England and France had address the issue in the late 20’s and early 30’s we may have been able to avoid war in Europe, although that’s not certain. But it is certain that it gained nothing to allow him to continue with his plans.
Many Americans remember this lesson and do not wish to relearn it with Saddam. We would rather see 300 die now than to risk what could happen if we did nothing.
I wasn't inferring that the US contribution wasn't vitally important. But it is true that US involvement hung back until you were directly attacked. Until that point and had it not happened, we would have been on our own and the result wasn't certain by any means. However, it isn't true to infer that the rest of Europe did nothing and waited for the US to come in and bail it out, and that was how I read your comments. On re-reading, I can see that isn't what you meant. It's just that this is a sensitive issue in europe and it isn't helped by the Hollywood 'interpretation' of the USA saving the poor unfortunate backwards countries of europe from a fate worse than death. Particularly I am talking of Tom Cruise's new film about the Battle of Britain where he single-handedly saves British pilots in the Battle of Britain. This has been widely reported over here (sadly I can't remember the name of the film) and people are getting a little uptight about it. Including me. Sorry, you know I didn't mean to offendmglenn wrote:America did not do it alone, but without our industrial and military power things would not have worked out as they did. And to infer that Eisenhower, Patton, Bradley and other US military leaders were not instrumental in the victory over Germany is to me a bit offensive.
I am simply worried about where the line will be drawn. I think the USA is embarking on a fairly dangerous international policy of trying to make the world like the USA. I personally think there are both good and bad things about the USA, as there are about the UK. However, many nations don't feel the same, and don't want your interference, particularly those in the middle and far east.mglenn wrote: The US is not trying to exercise a “make the world England” policy here. These military dictatorships do not promote the creation of wealth and prosperity.
“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose... the fact that they were the people who created the phrase "to make money." No other language or nation had ever used these words before... Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created.” – Ayn Rand
.mglenn wrote: So I ask you do you have to worry now about an attack with a WMD from Iraq any longer?
I can honestly honestly say that I was never worried about it in the first place. I am more worried about being stabbed, mugged or raped by someone living in my own city. Frankly, I was more worried about what I would be having for dinner in the evening. As I say, I might have been convinced on the issue of going to war for human rights. I was never convinced on the issue of going to war for WMDs, and that was because I didn't see them as a threat to me. Which is how it was painted by our government.
Just out of interest, have you heard about the suicide of Dr. David Kelly? It's big news over here and Mr. Bleugh has been called up infront of an enquiry about it, as have the BBC, and several high-up members of the cabinet. Dr. Kelly was a WMDs expert in the MOD. He was the source of a report by the BBC that the Government deliberately played up the threat of WMDs, saying that the claim they could be launched within 45 mins was false. Anyway, check it out... it's quite interesting.
that's weird. I tried to post the text here but it won't cut and paste for some reason... if you want I can email it to you (I've managed to lift it into a word document). PM me your email address and I'll do it.mglenn wrote: I read the first two stories, the third required a subscription for me to read (maybe you could email me the text or post it here)
I understand. What I'm saying is that my government went forward on the single issue. When they realised people weren't impressed and after it was already too late they pulled other reasons out of the hat. My point is that the real reason we went was to find WMDs. There are clearly other justifications but they weren't produced at the time.mglenn wrote:starbug wrote: Now he's suddenly not an immediate threat, but merely a potential threat in the future?
In case I didn’t make it clear that it is my belief that we did not invade Iraq for a single reason but a multitude of them.