Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Was the War on Iraq Right?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Was the War on Iraq Right?

    March 2013 sees the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Were the US and British governments right to do it?

    I participated, along with a million others, in the Stop The War Coalition protest march on February 15th 2003 in London, the only piece of active political protest I've ever carried out, and I'm very proud of having done so.

    However, since then, hundreds of British soldiers and thousands of Iraqis have died, Saddam has been overthrown and hanged, no WMDs have been found and the country is more politically unstable than it ever was.

    So was the war the right thing to do?

  • #2
    of course, because now the Iraqis don't have any weapons of mass destruction.

    Comment


    • #3
      I marched against it at the time.
      Would do so again now.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by porcus_volans View Post
        March 2013 sees the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. Were the US and British governments right to do it?

        I participated, along with a million others, in the Stop The War Coalition protest march on February 15th 2003 in London, the only piece of active political protest I've ever carried out, and I'm very proud of having done so.

        However, since then, hundreds of British soldiers and thousands of Iraqis have died, Saddam has been overthrown and hanged, no WMDs have been found and the country is more politically unstable than it ever was.

        So was the war the right thing to do?
        The short answer: hell no.

        Comment


        • #5
          Tragically, I think this answers my question.

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21840718

          Comment


          • #6
            It's worse than Right or Wrong

            The speculation over whether the war throughout Iraq was "right" is a false premise. It has been shown by circumstance to have been (momentarily) popular. This popularity was engineered by a combination of deliberate withholding of "contrary" evidence, suppression of same, and disingenuous reactions on the part of the former President and some of his staff.
            When I say"disingenuous" I mean "ignorant or stupid in deliberate fashion." I mean to imply fooling oneself or lying to oneself for the sake of one's ego.

            Based on faulty and mis-applied data strung together as "evidence," the Reason for the war is a Rationale...engineered "reason" to fit a pre-ordained "right" conclusion.

            Does this mean the war's (occasional and debatably) "good" outcomes are null and void? No. But since when has Machiavellian/Stalinist situational ethics been a good gloss for what the USA has done? Since fuckin' never, last I checked.

            The big question in my mind is, why are we so OK with still debating its presumed virtue or lack thereof?

            People who are sure that the small (and debatably "good" and still-evolving) results from this war justify our nation's unethical behavior and frankly Sophist reading of the rules of order when it comes to declaring war...if they believe the end justifies the means, they'll believe anything we WIN is Right. So, no argument will sway them.

            For those who see bending the rules to popularize a kill-count as "wrong"...I ask you: If right and wrong must be confirmed in action, how will this be made right? What Right Thing will efface the wretchedness this war brought? If the war was wrong, OK. We know. What good, now, is it, to have confirmed. Confession my be good for the soul...but it's not bringing back the dead.
            Last edited by Sabado Galvanischer; 03-19-2013, 09:26 AM. Reason: I like to go on a bit

            Comment


            • #7
              No, I was a great critic of that war, I am still a big one. I hated Saddam Hussein but I don't think invading Iraq was right. I sold all my Orson Scott Card books when I knew he supported that crap war in Iraq.
              "From time to time I demonstrate the inconceivable, or mock the innocent, or give truth to liars, or shred the poses of virtue.(...) Now I am silent; this is my mood." From Sundrun's Garden, Jack Vance.
              "As the Greeks have created the Olympus based upon their own image and resemblance, we have created Gotham City and Metropolis and all these galaxies so similar to the corporate world, manipulative, ruthless and well paid, that conceived them." Braulio Tavares.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by zlogdan View Post
                No, I was a great critic of that war, I am still a big one. I hated Saddam Hussein but I don't think invading Iraq was right. I sold all my Orson Scott Card books when I knew he supported that crap war in Iraq.
                Yeah, it's tough when you realize the author whose invention you like/love/have affinity for, isn't the person you would hope they would be.

                Looking your way, Dave Sim. And yours, Chris Hitchens.
                :)

                Still, I ask, can the US actually try to DO what it initially made noises about doing?...That is, can it use this time of uncertainty and void to help rebuild Iraq in a way that would do the various peoples of Iraq SOME REAL GOOD?

                Could we do it how we actually promised, i.e., as a part of an actual coalition (not a fractious gathering of committeemen who dicker endlessly to appear tough to pollsters at home, then accede to those who hold the economic reins)?

                Could we do it for the reasons we in the West always talk about? That is, to promote human dignity and the furtherance of same under relatively democratic republicanism? Not, as we did, for the removal of a former anticommunist "asset" who made us look bad and (obliquely) threatened gas prices...

                For those who want the "what's in it for us?" Realpolitik. I give you this; prevent future terrorism!
                Imagine a million homeless, hopeless, parent-less children. Imagine that the only thing they know of their lot in life, was that it was the fault of the conflicting motives of (poorly-applied, poorly-understood) Western mercantilist imperialism and Western do-gooder cultural imperialism.
                We've essentially raised a broken generation, whose uniting trait is hatred for those who "took away their (everything)"...
                Like all militarist totalitarian societies, their hatred will expand to mythic, magical and frankly fucking psychotic proportions...
                But in our case, it will have a grain of truth to start it off.

                Let's not let it grow.

                PS-same reson we ought to be vigorously working for HIV prevention and education in Africa!
                Last edited by Sabado Galvanischer; 03-19-2013, 01:13 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm a no vote too. Even if Iraq had WND, I'd still say no.
                  forum

                  1. a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest
                  2. a medium for open discussion, such as a magazine
                  3. a public meeting place for open discussion

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    this is pertinent to this discussion

                    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2908335.html

                    Full letter here

                    http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/the...tter_20130318/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      In the run-up to this travesty, this bit still fills me with a bit of pride, as a Canadian.

                      Ottawa has rejected any Canadian participation in a U.S.-led assault on Iraq.

                      Prime Minister Jean Chrétien made the announcement on Monday, as the House of Commons resumed sitting after a two-week break. Chrétien said without the backing of the United Nations, Canada can't go along with any war initiative.



                      Critics have accused Chrétien of wavering and waffling on his position. Now there is no doubt where Canada stands. "If military action proceeds without a new resolution of the Security Council, Canada will not participate," the prime minister said.
                      http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2003/03...raq030317.html

                      It would've been quite a different outcome had our present reform-a-tory, Steven Harper been in charge of matters at the time.

                      What really was astounding was the quick retort in the negative toward Canada by many in the US after this announcement. How quickly so many forgot just where all those planes landed during the horror of 9-11. Some still believe the hijackers came from Canada, including a git that ran for president, one John McCain.


                      In a couple words, no.
                      Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.

                      ~Henry David Thoreau

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        There is a tendency to forget the years leading up to the Iraq war. Whereby the West had not intervene with great force. The disintegration of Yugoslavia changed all that, when the EU did nothing whilst we saw the rise of 'ethnic cleansing' and playing out the end of WW2, when a lot of populations were displaced. Less said about the Dutch Army the better.

                        Clinton lent the fire power to try and bring Serbia and the rest to stop, this and the subsequent small wars led to other interventions, where it was perceived in 'doing good' as tyrants were checked and replaced. This gave our leaders the belief that they were right and everyone else was wrong. They were willing to massage the 'truth' to get their way. Some of us have not forgotten Dr Kelly who got in the way, Mr Blair and your time will come.

                        It was wrong and the reasons were wrong. Admittedly, it is too late now, but who knows what Saddam would have done if he had been left alone. Cynically, it was Bush Junior way of attacking the man who tried to assassinate his dad and Tony's pension pot.

                        On balance, history will see it as a mistake and leading to our current woes.
                        Papa was a Rolling Stone......

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          How I remember the many light-hearted posts running up to the invasion, when those of us who could read between the lines, pointed out that there was a tidal wave of pro-war BS being propagated. At some points, two factions even became apparent within the US intelligence services. With one side following the Administration line, whilst the other was still trying to paint an accurate picture of the true state of affairs, which backed up that of the international weapons inspectors.

                          As a Brit, my deepest contempt is still held, not for the simian featured, US President Bush, or even the vile, Vietnam shirking, business grey suits that he surrounded himself with, but for Tony Blair and his crew. Outrageous, if not idiotic, claims of Iraqi WMD, ready to be deployed within 45 minutes, were just one of the spineless, self-serving narcissist's crimes against the truth and common sense.

                          Back about 1992, around the start of the first Gulf War, I had phoned around my friends and family, just to say hello, when it looked just possible that Saddam Hussein might launch a chemical, or biological weapons attack on Israel. Having visited Israel a decade earlier, I had no doubt that the Israelis really would have used nuclear weapons, given enough provocation. But, almost twelve years later, after a fairly successful siege level embargo by the West and more, or less, full compliance by Iraq in dismantling its actual WMD stockpile, Iraq was already, quite clearly, a busted flush.

                          However, if anybody wants to argue that getting rid of the secular tyranny of Saddam Hussein and replacing it with the factional religious and tribal extremism, that eventually replaced it, was still worth it. Consider this:
                          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2917701.html

                          Iraq War Anniversary: Birth Defects And Cancer Rates At Devastating High In Basra And Fallujah (VIDEO)

                          The Huffington Post. By Eline Gordts. 03/20/2013

                          Download Video: http://dncdn.dvlabs.com/ipod/dn2013-0320.mp4

                          Ten years after the start of the U.S. invasion in Iraq, doctors in some of the Middle Eastern nation's cities are witnessing an abnormally high number of cases of cancer and birth defects. Scientists suspect the rise is tied to the use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus in military assaults.

                          On the war's ten-year anniversary, Democracy Now! spoke with Dahr Jamail, an Al Jazeera reporter who recently returned from Iraq. Jamail recounts meeting Dr. Samira Alani, a doctor in the city of Fallujah focusing on the issue of birth defects.

                          She said it's common now in Fallujah for newborns to come out with massive multiple systemic defects, immune problems, massive central nervous system problems, massive heart problems, skeletal disorders, babies being born with two heads, babies being born with half of their internal organs outside of their bodies, cyclops babies literally with one eye -- really, really, really horrific nightmarish types of birth defects.
                          Jamail says that the current rate of birth defects for the city of Fallujah has surpassed those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the nuclear attacks at the end of World War II.

                          Echoing Jamail's findings, a September 2012 study published in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology that focused on maternity hospitals in the cities of Basra and Fallujah recorded a devastating number of birth defects in the past decade. The study also indicated that childhood leukemia and other types of cancers are on the rise.

                          The study opens:
                          Between October 1994 and October 1995, the number of birth defects per 1,000 live births in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 1.37. In 2003, the number of birth defects in Al Basrah Maternity Hospital was 23 per 1,000 livebirths. Within less than a decade, the occurrence of congenital birth defects increased by an astonishing 17-fold in the same hospital.
                          As David Kenner notes in Foreign Policy, the numbers of miscarriages and birth defects are much higher than before the start of the war and are also "wildly out of proportion" to numbers collected in the rest of the world.

                          Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, one of the lead authors of the 2012 study and a toxicologist at the University of Michigan, told The Independent in 2012 that there is "compelling evidence" to connect the growing number of defects at birth to the military assaults in Basra and Fallujah.

                          In a new op-ed for Al Jazeera, Savabieasfahani writes that the cancer and birth defect "epidemic" constitutes an "extraordinary public health emergency in Iraq" and that large-scale testing of the environment in the affected cities is of utmost urgency.

                          Watch Democracy Now!'s interview Dahr Jamail in the video above, and see the Democracy Now! website for more coverage.
                          I should add, the video contains some truly horrific images of birth defects. What a price.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            We should not forget how the BBC was berated by Alastair Campbell about 'sexing up' the dossier, dropped into a comment by Andrew Gilligian on the Today programme. It would have properly passed the world by, but by protesting too much it show that the politicians were just too paranoid about truth.
                            Papa was a Rolling Stone......

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It was a war that was started on the basis of lies. For once, my country did not only stay out of it, but openly resisted enormous political pressure from Washington and London. Our (Green) foreign-minister Fischer publicly told Rumsfeld in the face he wasn't convinced of the evidence the Bush administration presented.
                              Furthermore there seemd to be no serious plan for handling the aftermath and rebuilding. So it it was more or less a revenge or penitentiary expedition like in the old days when an unruly Sultan ruffled the skirts of some Western nuns and got a dozen gunboats devastating his shores.
                              And nobody seemed to have a clue about the psychology of the Arabs in the area. A total destabilization of the whole region was predicted and you got.
                              Of course it had the one single positive side effect: that monster Saddam was removed from power - initially a Western underling gone power-drunk and finally beserk.
                              Google ergo sum

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X