Land of the....

Fighting for peace is like fucking for chastity, people. The means never justify the ends.

However, you can surely see the theoretical stability of an act of violence that is preventative ie. that takes place in order to prevent a greater act of violence. Like punching a chap about to gun down a squad of schoolgirls. It's in practice that this kind of idea falls apart, as demonstrated most clearly in Koastler's 'Darkness At Noon.'

'that grauniad interview is just surface bollocks' The point of the article was looking behind someones description of Baghdad as the most 'mellow and peaceful' place he had ever come across. The article pointed out a report from amnesty that over a hundred women were beheaded by Saddams police outside their homes in front of their families. In Iraq non-judicial executions and torture are common. Would it be 'surface bollocks' if it was happening in your street by our government? Why is it bollocks to point out the reality of what it is like to live under a dictatorship? Vartis

Actually Vartis, as someone who was in Belgrade under the Milosevic regime, I understand far more than you appear to think I do. I say "appear" because I know very little about you. I said its surface bollocks because yet again, it's distorting the real issue.. of COURSE living under a regime is disturbing and appalling - have you tried it? That Saddams regime is unacceptable is not in dispute. What is in dispute, is the fact that the Americans, so ably supported by the Blair govt is about to attack his regime because of his ill treatment of people. Do you truly believe that? Baghdad may well be a peaceful place to be - Belgrade is... its not ALL about regimes and war in a place like that. I also opposed the NATO bombing of Belgrade, went on many demos, belonged to opposition groups, because, as many others in the world despised Slobo and wanted him out, inflicting more strife on the citizens of belgrade, was far from a humanitarian way to go about it.....lets not forget that america assures us that this is a humanitarian war, a war against terrorism... like the bombing of belgrade was done to end the persectution of the albanians in kosovo... stunningly unbelievable. And before you say "well it worked, didnt it? Solobo left?" No -it didnt work. WE removed him, we hated him prior, and when we'd asked for help, america didnt give a @!#$... he is gone, yes, but raining bombs on belgrade - so sorry about the inconvenience of depleted uranium in your rivers, on your crops, the misinformation that caused innocent kids in hospitals to be killed.... well it was done without with american or british help, thanks. They shouldve stayed out then, and they should stay out now. Just as it was then in FRY, is it now in iraq. Im assuming that you dont live there. If you do, I apologise, and look forward to being contradicted. If Im ranting, then I also apologise. I feel strongly on this subject, for the above reason.

america doesn't have enough public beheadings ... thats the problem ...

*nods in agreement* For the greater safety of the world, lets lop off Bush's head.

Check it out. http://www.boxcargene.com/ Vartis.

Changing your mind Vartis?

What exactly is your anti-war argument... Who gives a toss about the exact reasons and calculations supposedly taken into account by Bush /Blair. Are you privy to those? For my money, I am more liable to believe the Blairs (whom I like) of this world and who present their case having access to facts rather than countless speculations from positions of ignorance about this motivation and that motivation many of them culminating in the oil oil oil statement (with a knowing roll of the eyes) as if that constitutes any sort of reasonable argument.. (it is funny that these argumentors sit in the same camp with the Oil Multinationals with billions of vested interests in Saudi Arabia etc who oppose the war too) ..and then you get the even more ridiculous fantasy conspiracy theories allured to earlier on this thread... 9/11 was aided and abetted by the Israelis/US government/Mickey mouse etc.. for Gods sake grow up.. or at least stop smoking those funny cigs and you have a reasonable chance of talking with your own mind. MY REASONS WHY I would support the removal of Saddam 'Today' are simple, instinctive and are outlined in my above post and here. It is a brutal regime whose methods for retaining power are to directly heap misery upon misery on its population (its their policy to do so). It has been here too long (arguably helped along by those UN sanctions). To remove Saddam would immediately make a better world for millions of Iraqs citizens, for its neigbours and ultimately for us... Now others may not give a sh*t about my reasons, but again I reiterate for me this is sufficient to support the war now that there seems to be an international will to persecute it. And yes, because of its rogue nature, its past record, its military and weapon masssing ambitions (or do you ridiculously believe he has now become a 'good' guy), Saddam's Regime in its current form DOES constitute a danger both economical and securitywise to the International Community especially NOW that we are awakened to the reality of the dangers the world faces after 9/11. To deny that is to choose to be deliberately blind. As for 'Yes Saddam's regime is unpleasant'. Do not underestimate what it is like to live under a brutal regime and Saddam is one of the worst where rule by fear is the norm... secrets, rumours, public 'for example' executions, torture, rape, arbitrary laws so you do not now where you stand day to day and those of the regime that literally get away with murder... every day. Go speak to some of the thousands of refugees from repressed countries who take great personal risks everyday to come to this country, in many cases deserting their families and loved ones ... contrary to popular opinion it is not because they are welcomed with open arms, nor to scrounge of our bountiful DHSS, nor due to great jobs on offer in our sweatshops and dingy restaurants, nor because of our great weather and standard of life... life here is hard.. in most cases even harder in physical terms from where they come from... it is freedom from the unrelenting persecution both mental and to their person that they are escaping from... and despite all that is wrong with our country we are at least spared that. Refugees are just another impact on us for not standing up to major injustices in our increasingly world. And Hen, if the above does not constitute a strong argument for you then you have a lot of emotional growing up and wising up to do... As for arguing to do nothing as we are not quite sure what will replace Saddam well it seems to ridiculous to even try and refute it. Presumably Saddam will not last forever. Iraq will not always be a dictatorship. We should act now, because in balance it is the right thing to do, if we are courageous enough to do so.

Tosser. Sorry, just popping it into words you seem to be familiar with.

Shucks.. Shouldn't have been baited by Li's patronising email of earlier.. Last one should have been edited heavily before posting.. Umm Sorry Li for the more personal aspects...

My email wasnt patronising leg... *looks up at your previous one*

..and for the record, Im not into the conspiracy theories either.. i just wish for a little more honesty about this "war".... making remarks about "funny cigs" is unnecessary...

'Who gives a toss about the exact reasons and calculations supposedly taken into account by Bush /Blair. Are you privy to those? For my money, I am more liable to believe the Blairs (whom I like)' This is a war, where people will be killed in our names, funded by our money. Who gives a toss about the 'exact reasons and calculations'? Well, me for one. On what basis do you like the Blairs? Presumably the extensive research you've done? I mean, all those times you've met them too, you know, off-camera, when you had an opportunity to realistically appraise their motives? If I think any more about how many things are wrong with your post my head's going to explode.

I effing hate being told to grow up/wise up by people who are happy to simultaenously demonstrate their understand of the situation is crippled and blinded by obsession. "To remove Saddam would immediately make a better world for millions of Iraqs citizens, for its neigbours and ultimately for us..." Sentimental, overstated rubbish. You cunningly restructure my argument and vulgarise it into 'we don't know who will replace him.' The point is that Saddam is almost 100% likely to be replaced in a very short amount of time by another Saddam. It's the same in almost every Arab state - warlords and dictators run the place. That's how it's been for centuries and we prolong it with self-righteous crusades that make us feel virtuous, but alter little. If you were really concerned about suffering people then you'd be talking in the same breath about North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Palestine at the very least - your agenda, however, is the same as Bush's and Blair's - to take out an enemy. The difference is that for them, he is an enemy of their policy and politics whereas you've just swallowed a clever line. Fact is, Saddam's regime is no worse than countless others that are - oh so strangely - not being drummed up to anywhere near the same extent.

'Changing your mind Vartis?' My mind is constantly changing. However the motivation which prompted me to post remains the same. I had written a lengthy reply but the following two posts were designed to remove the intensity from the thread. Because of this I did not feel like posting my reply. Rather than ignoring you after you had taken the trouble to reply I posted the link which contains some interesting things. Yes, some more honesty and clarity would be a good thing. It is interesting that Andrew Motion says: '...if weapons do turn out to be there, I may well write a poem supporting going.' I am interested in what people think about an act: 'that takes place in order to prevent a greater act of violence. Like punching a chap about to gun down a squad of schoolgirls.' Regards Vartis

Obviously I agree with that because I wrote it. But as you say, "the motivation which prompted me to post remains the same." You're the victim of media manipulation - focus on a particular region of brutality and the man behind it long enough and everyone gets round to hating that man enough to support his immediate demise - that has been Bush's tactic all along, and that's why every speech he makes about the topic is total rhetoric about the evils of Saddam and the suffering of his people. But the wider picture quite clearly complicates the matter, otherwise we'd all agree with you, eh? The fact that Saddam's offences are not the one-offs of a once-a-century madman, but the regular kind of brutality we expect from Middle Eastern warlords. As the David Aaronivitch report made clear, it is possible to live in peace in Baghdad and get along - we aren't talking about a whole people quaking in fear. The image of constant suffering is perpetuated by reports from the right occasions and areas - you could likewise paint Britain as land of anarchy and street-brawls. Obviously, that's not to deny there is suffering, and plenty of it, but I expect the numbers beheaded and genuinely oppressed are not much different to those in Saudi Arabia or North Korea at least - and where's all the war talk about those regions? Eh?? North Korea we KNOW has weapons of mass destruction and has just made a threatening political manoeuvre. It too is ruled by a dictator who North Koreans suffer under. WHY is your attention, and the West's, not directed towards the possibilities of a war against THAT regime? Answer - because North Korea isn't diplomatically isolated and Bush and Blair have no grudge against its leader. Iraq is easy meat for leaders who want to play wargames. You're looking at a humanitarian side-effect that will be vastly limited, if effective at all, to a war that is being fought for gain. NOT for safety and NOT to save people's lives.

'WHY is your attention, and the West's, not directed towards the possibilities of a war against THAT regime? Answer - because North Korea isn't diplomatically isolated and Bush and Blair have no grudge against its leader.' You don't need me then. Regards Vartis

Um. In a debate, when one person gives his version of events, the other doesn't usually say, "Oh, well - he's sorted everything out. No need for me to say anything." I can take your comment as an admission of defeat, but I suspect it was meant flippantly.

One method of debating is when you address a person and, say, ask; 'why is your attention...' is to wait for their answer and then respond to that. If you are going to imagine the answer and fill in the gaps yourself then the debate is with Henstoat's imagination, which leaves anyone elses contribution a little superflous. 'If you were really concerned about suffering people then you'd be talking in the same breath about North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Palestine at the very least' Okay, so if that poster had gone on, in the same breath, to talk about North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Palestine and maybe even a few others then with this geopolitical dexterity they would have met your criteria for being a human being who is really concerned about suffering. This person is clear that they would like Saddam Hussein dead and they would like their government to take part in this killing. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Regards Vartis.

Li, funny cigs and bollocks was not aimed at you rather at the initiator of this thread… It is a fact that heavy cannabis users have over a period hardwired a kind of paranoia into their brains and when their speak through this their language is a recognizable (for me) monotone… It irks me no end when this is presented as some kind of ‘insight’. (Now I am prepared to completely eat my words and apologise profusely if this is not the case here.. but I doubt that it is not) Rokkitnite, I could return your argument to you.... on what basis do you completely distrust Blair, is it the extensive research you have done.... In any case, I said 'liable'. Whilst a healthy ration of cynicism of those in power is a necessary feature for any democracy it is clearly nonsensical to automatically denounce every word a politician utters on principle (to my mind, it is the very same mind trap as those that accusedly swallow wholesale official propaganda without any due consideration). Clearly you cannot expect the 'whole truth' in this situation, but there is a balance to be struck somewhere and it is not enough for me for someone to argue 'I do not support the war because there is more to THEIR reasons than they are letting on to me) On balance, with access to multifarious sources of competing information of which we are fortunate to have access to, your experience etc What is YOUR reading of the situation? If we are looking purely inwards in the old national way, the case for this war is no doubt a hard one to make. Are we in imminent danger from Saddam and his cronies? If we think the threat of terrorism is reason enough to be preemptive, is the link between Saddam and terrorists of today proven conclusively? Enough to risk the short term death and destruction that war will definitely bring? The answer on this premise alone is arguably No. However over the last decade and especially in the wake of 9/11, there are those of us who argue that a new premise has emerged internationally. It is a global perspective which in retrospect should have been recognisable as a trend and acted upon earlier... In our increasingly linked world where communication is instantaneous, the global economy is directly linked from the New York Exchange to rice paddy fields in wherever, worldwide travel and the migrations of millions across old national borders is unprecedented, the global pot of ideas is homogenising at the top yet spreading at the bottom... It is madness not to acknowledge that gross injustices perpetrated on foreigners and in foreign lands is of concern to us. Increasingly their problems will find their way to ‘us’ whether we like it or not, and in more and more violent ways… (An illustration of this global scenario: An attack in Bali is perceived as a direct attack on the West (I would say the International Community)) It is getting harder to differentiate beteween pure national interests from international ones… My argument in such a context is then that the International community of Nations (and lets face it, currently this means powerhouse America and its allies showing leadership until the UN acquires teeth) has to be more interventionist in its approach towards a global foreign policy… Where there are these recognizable gross injustices they have to be tackled at source and if necessary it is imperative to act militarily and decisevely if there is a reasonable chance of success… It is in all our interests that this happens sooner rather than later. "To remove Saddam would immediately make a better world for millions of Iraqs citizens, for its neigbours and ultimately for us..." Why Saddams Regime. Why now? If he had not been held in check as a result of the Gulf war and its aftermath (and I remember the antiwar brigade then), where would he be now? He, had prosecuted expansionist wars against his neighbors, had the wealth, the organization and the capability to amass terrible weapons, had shown no compunction against using them against his enemies and at home… And as an example of the madness he was capable of, in the course of the Gulf war saw fit to throw some of his arsenal against a third country (Israel) just so as to try and ignite a regional conflict… The truth is that even despite the enforced control of the past decade he is and remains a complete maverick in the region… the fact that he holds access to those large oil reserves makes him even more dangerous and not less so… Since the end of the cold war there has been a general trend away from totalitarianism and dictatorship and towards liberalism and democracy in many regions of the world… see eg the great strides made in even China… and yet… Its difficult to see any progress whatsoever in the Middle East (you could make a case that the situation for many of its citizens has worsened). I would argue that Saddam’s Iraq and the ready made security excuse that he makes for the inflexible and corrupt regimes in the region have contributed in no small way to this stasis… I would argue that the Israel/Palestine problem stands an even lesser chance of resolving due to the uncertainties and interference of Saddam’s influence in the Middle East…. (now books could be written to flesh this out… for me it is transparently obvious that Saddam’s regime has acted as a brake on any democratic progress in the whole region in many cases with America and the West’s propping up of quite distasteful regimes in a calculated ‘lesser evils’ scenario). I am under no illusion that what I have outlined above are necessarily the impetus behind Bush’s action, (perhaps more sympathetic to Blair in taking the mantle in curbing America’s excesses and insisting on the UN’s involvement)… however they… America/Britain have recognized that their previous Middle Eastern Policy is failing and failing badly and that the more extreme elements of America and the West’s enemies are in fact festering and growing within the corrupt regimes that they are directly propping up and which probably are not sustainable any more…. Yet before they can redirect energies to these problems… Saddam has to be out of the way and the Oil channels have to be freed up.. To my mind and my calculation, the removal of Saddam would be a good outcome altogether, for all sorts of reasons not least that he is not a nice man as explained in my previous posts. There is hope that some new thinking may even emerge thereafter in Iraq and its surrounds… (it is not right to say there will always be dictatorships in the Middle East.. I can think of a few dictatorships/totalitarian regimes in my lifetime that have made transitions to mor reasonable forms of government) In my opinion this war is only the start of quite a grim period for all of us… but it is a necessary one, the alternative of doing nothing is very short sighted.. and would force even more horrible retrograde illiberalism worldwide.. even amongst the western democracies… (we are already loosing our freedoms at an alarming rate as a direct response to 9/11) Hen, it must be annoying for you that despite being obviously quite a clever chap you still come across as lopsided (perhaps one of these days I shall try and explain my opinion of why to you). If you have heard it oft enough then perhaps there may be a grain of truth in it for yourself to take away and work with... Now I am quite often accused of talking bollocks myself.. but then it is rarely verbatim repeated stuff of no value like some of the arguments above.. why not North Korea indeed.

I wouldnt call any of the above Verbatim repeated stuff... unless you know different and can explain where they are copied from? But you find often that people will have a similar argument when they agree with the premise... i cant however see many agreeing with yours at present? I wish some more people WOULD come on and discuss your angle...Im prepared to change my mind, but doubtful at the evidence Ive seen thus far... Now, slightly off topic here, but Id like to say how much I really dislike it when stuff descends to the personal - one thing to remember on these threads is that many dont actually know the people that they are talking to - Hen isnt lopsided at all, hes an incredibly bright and observant man, who is more than prepared to change his mind if well persuaded Ive found. Anyone reading your post would imagine you to be a patronising bigoted obsequious man... the comment "perhaps I will one day try and explain why to you" for example... Knowing you in reality, of course, I am perfectly aware that you are not at ALL like that...

"One method of debating is when you address a person and, say, ask; 'why is your attention...' is to wait for their answer and then respond to that." You obviously haven't been to many debates! You *never* leave a gap like that for the other debater to fill in unless you're certain there's no getting out of it, because you know that they'll somehow twist it to suit themselves. The question I asked was rhetorical - I did not fill in a gap with an idea from my own imagination. I answered it with what immediately presents itself as the solution. You seem to think I asked 'WHY is your attention...etc.' because I couldn't possibly imagine the answer. Are you familiar with the concept of rhetorical questions?? "Okay, so if that poster had gone on, in the same breath, to talk about North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Palestine and maybe even a few others then with this geopolitical dexterity they would have met your criteria for being a human being who is really concerned about suffering." You cleverly miss the point again. To have talked, not afterwards, but in the same breath about people suffering under other regimes would make my criteria for a person who has really read enough, remembered enough and learned enough to make a decent assessment of the situation, as opposed to someone who is just going by their reaction to what they have recently read on the paper and seen on TV. Your model of war equals no more suffering for Iraqis seems to me based on a woefully simplistic appreciation of the situation in the Middle East. As I keep trying to tell you, Saddam is not the root/head honcho of a device for causing pain - he is the unwholesome part of an engine and culture that perpetuates suffering in ordinary people throughout the Middle East. If he is removed, he will be replaced because he is not the root of the problem. The root is something that no one knows how to tackle over the short-term - it is a very deep and difficult affair that has arisen from various mistakes over history. It is extremely diffficult to sum up here, and I would have to spend a longer time researching it to even comprehend it fully, but your alternative assessment is clearly based on a few columns and your insistence on comparing the situation to what it would be like here if we were ruled by a warlord. "This person is clear that they would like Saddam Hussein dead and they would like their government to take part in this killing. Wouldn't that be a good thing?" No. And he'd get away anyway. They always do. This is exactly the same discussion I had after 9/11 with Osama Bin Laden, and no doubt it will be had many times in the future. Every time the US wants to get rid of a regime in the Middle East, we get a load of rhetoric and a bunch of journalists writing about how much better life would be in the Middle East if we removed such and such a regime. And a load of people pick up on their logic because they assume the Middle East works the same way as Europe or the US - get rid of a Hitleresque character and everything's hunky dory. So you get your history books out and point out to me one Middle Eastern war in the last half of the century that has improved the situation in the long-term, then tell me why the Saddam situation will work the same way.

'No. And he'd get away anyway. They always do. This is exactly the same discussion I had after 9/11 with Osama Bin Laden' Name dropper. Longer reply to follow. Vartis.

lol

So all Americans aren't thrilled by this middle east action? What is the news like there? Informative.. or just whipping up patriotism?

Its hard... people are afraid to sound un-patriotic. I knew the truth on 9/11. Many of us are demanding answers, but this is a very touchy subject and my people are sometimes easily misled via the Television. News these days is strictly American dogma and propaganda... On an underground level, there is talk of all sorts... but know this, many belive that America knew, allowed, and exploited those events... and this new addition to the axis of evil, is more of the same. right? Me personally, I dont want this. None of it. No more blood for money. Its all so tragic.

American news is dogma and propaganda..... whatta shock... at least you are getting information about other places in the world now... i remember when the Balkans conflicts were at their height, it was impossible to see anything on the news there about it.. many americans never even heard of milosevic... i also saw a report somewhere that 6 out of 10 americans didnt know that any other nation was involved in the gulf war. they thought that it was just america...

'You cleverly miss the point again. To have talked, not afterwards, but in the same breath about people suffering under other regimes would make my criteria for a person who has really read enough, remembered enough and learned enough to make a decent assessment.' With all due respect you have no idea what I have read remembered and learnt. What is a decent assessment? An assessment which is the same as yours? 'Your model of war equals no more suffering for Iraqis seems to me based on a woefully simplistic appreciation of the situation in the Middle East.' I do not believe this and never have. I have never suggested at it, hinted at it, or in any way whatsoever indicated that this is what I believe. For the exact reason that I do not believe it. Then you move on from something I have never said to comment on my 'woefully simplistic appreciation'. That's one way of having a debate. [see 'you don't need me then for further details....] http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/61/108/frameset.html At the beginning of chapter 1 Von Clausewitz defines war thus: 'War therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will'. Do you mean that you would never support a war? Or do you mean that, as it stands, with no weapons of mass destruction discovered after weeks of unrestricted searching, plus all the other points you mention; that to launch a war against Iraq now would be unjustifiable. Or do you mean in every circumstance it would be unjustifiable? If weapons of mass destruction are discovered and the evidence, by your standards, seems sound. Would you reassess your position? You describe the: 'theoretical stability of an act of violence that is preventative ie. that takes place in order to prevent a greater act of violence. Like punching a chap about to gun down a squad of schoolgirls.' In this situation you see an act of violence as an example of stability. Perhaps our positions are not so far apart. Regards Vartis http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/61/108/frameset.html

I agree.

well that sounds about right. But do we not get fed just the right amount of propaganda too. Strange ain't it how it looks as if there is no evidence to back a war against Iraq......yet suddenly we are fed the story about Raicin.........just enough to whip up enough emotion to get support from the British when we rally around the Americans. And guess what it turns out today that Iraq have factories that make Castor Oil........so it MUST be them that are importing it into Britain....... Do any people of any country ever get the whole truth?

Aj- Yes... when the people stand up and demand it. One voice may be easy to cover up... but millions? its like this: Look at what Liana Said. Even when it came to crucial recent news, Americans tend to be oblivious. They dont care because they feel safe and comfortable with two oceans and what ammounts to a near third world country on its borders... and never a peep from our neighbor to the north. My own country has to trick its people into wars. You can start more or less with the spanish-american war and go forward. Its always about money, and "we the people" pay the price.... I personally think that the only way to wake us up, it to challenge our views as other nations. Right in our face. Hit that fragile ego we surround ourselves with. Shatter it. Then maybe... change can come. As long as my own people dont even know the Capital City of the state they live it (Some people really dont!)... hopes of a more thoughtful america are impossible.

yeah we do.. of course we do.. but whilst there are cynical and suspicious americans, they appear to be in a minority.. whilst us arsey brits tend to disbelieve almost everything we hear... we are born with a raised and cynical right eyebrow... perhaps because we are plonked amongst other nations in the middle of europe whilst america is one great huge place....

I actually used 'worefully simplistic' because it was used on me once, and I decided I needed to get it in at some point. Sorry. "With all due respect you have no idea what I have read remembered and learnt. What is a decent assessment? An assessment which is the same as yours?" Everything you've said brings up points that have been made in recent press articles - talk of the present situation made without any references to the historical or cultural context of the Middle East - as if present Iraq were an isolated phenomenon. It is fair to conclude, therefore, from this evidence, that you're basing your assessment on recent reading. A decent assessment would compare Iraq's present situation with all the other 'evil regimes' encountered in the past in that area and observe the effects of our responses to them. It is something I myself am not capable of making - only agreeing with. My argument is based on analysing what others have said, and deciding who, in the battle of logic that takes place in my head, wins the debate. Nothing of what you've said defeats the points others have made about this war being unhelpful - it is a repeat of all the wars the US wants against Middle Eastern countries, in all cases because the dictator is not US-friendly. You can guarantee a scummy dictator because warlords rule the Middle East across the board, with the exception of Israel, you can guarantee suffering and half the time you can guarantee that the west originally supported the dictator in question! Saddam has a pair of golden spurs given to him by Ronald Reagan, you know. I won't support a war that is set to achieve nothing but the elimination of an anti-American regime, at best. "Do you mean that you would never support a war? Or do you mean that, as it stands, with no weapons of mass destruction discovered after weeks of unrestricted searching, plus all the other points you mention; that to launch a war against Iraq now would be unjustifiable?" The second one. If there is no proof of him threatening the rest of the world with nuclear weapons, then there is no justification in war, because I do not believe it will help the Iraqis. There'll still be beheadings in the street and occasional massacres as more warlords come to fight for the country, and the US continues to interfere with the sole purpose of trying to make the region US-friendly.

Argh! All these nasty and untrue comments about Americans! I must defend! Ya know ... I really doubt that Mr. Bush is going to do anything to Iraq except threaten them a lot. At least on the news programs and articles that I watch and read, there doesn't seem to be any good reason for it (except for the fact that there might be some really bad weapons there) ... and a lot of people are against it on the terms that America can't really afford such a war. Geez... my mother's even against it (and she likes that bandwagon more than anybody)! (And we get that oil connection beautifully, thank you.) Sure, we all thought the whole Afghanistan bombing was necessary ... the president was even upfront about it and said that innocent people would die. It's an ugly issue but I think it is necessary (and that is my own voice talking ... not some one-sided arguement I gathered from the "propaganda") Do you even watch American news? Many of those statements made above are grossly miscalculated. As a journalism student, I do know that the profession is all screwed up (with the sad reliance of PR), and there are probably some things they're just not telling us... but I certainly don't see them pushing for war! Calling American news "propaganda" is an oxymoron considering that the American government has no power over what is printed or aired. The only way the American government could possibly tamper with the press is through bribes, or just the PR man leaving out some key details... which I don't think happens to any significant degree. There is still such a thing as an investigative reporter ... there are still people out there like Bernstein and Woodward (sp?) who thirst for journalism recognition and awards. I mean ... Watergate for Christ's sake! If they were able to uncover THAT, then they would be able to uncover ANYTHING ... anything unjust going on in the world would be known ... especially if it were caused by us. (And we are very aware of the innocent people dying in Afghanistan, and most informed Americans ... including countless American editorialists ... are very skeptical about our ties with Israel). So, we're not half-witted incompetants! At least the ones who participate in the government. It's just that some people here choose to be incompetent, because they think they have better things to be getting on with. (And why shouldn't they? They're a product of their own environment ... and most of these people don't vote anyhow.) These people have no say over the government (technically, they do, but they don't excersize it). So enough of this unrelenting America bashing! Any talk about American officials knowing about the Sept. 11 attacks beforehand is rubbish... they said the same thing with FDR and Pearl Harbor, and it sounds like a wild conspiracy theory. I mean ... what motive could there possibly be, other than blockbuster movie logic? They didn't really land on the moon, either... Okay, I'm done. Sorry about all that. (%$*%$...)

Check it out. http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,870379,00.html

I've never met an American who wasn't plenty cynical about their government and its dealings - I've known a few who are as vehemently anti-war as us, without the need of encouragement, and the even the worst case was only harpy Besse, who didn't want to hear about it. Then again, the only Americans I've ever met in person are the ones who've come to Britain, and they're all young. The ones on the Al Stewart Mailing List are a shifty bunch - some riotous Bush-haters but Israel-supporters, others Republican all the way who pity Palestine. With the availability of rebel and political Internet sites, the proportion of Americans who adhere to alternative views is surely growing. Unfortunately it means the racists and religious fanatics can group themselves too. As for David Aaeaearaenovitch - point well made, but made before, and refuted. Yes, I'm sure the Iraqi people would be prepared to endure a period of (more intense) hell in order to become a liberated nation under democratic rule. But as with Afghanistan, what do we think is going to happen when the 'evil regime' has been got out of the way? I have no faith at all in our ability to construct a decent replacement, so we'll likely end up with another Saddam (I'm sure there's plenty of candidates out there!) or an equally vile puppet regime. And *that* is not worth another load of 'accidental' deaths. It is, in every which way, a case of the lesser of two evils - allowing the regime to continue is nor 'right' per se. But we *know* the American government isn't proposing war as part of a long term human rights plan, and without a long term plan, any war is a short term fix.

Agree totally and 100% Henstoat... I too know many Americans who are cynical, funny and questioning.... I was not making a blanket assumption or accusation. that grauniad interview is just surface bollocks. as hen says, wtf will they get once saddam is gone? don, its NOT america bashing, if you like, its world bashing.. but as america appears to have installed itself as the worlds police force (i didnt vote for them - did anyone?) then they have to accept some responsibility for all this... what really appalls me is the way that they bang on and on about iraq breaching UN laws... erm... that'll be like isreal then? American govt only take action against other countries when it's threatening something they hold dear to them. You think Bush gives a @!#$ about a torturous regime? Does it hell as like. Oil. Oil. Oil.

I raise my hat to you Henstoat. Vartis I sit in one of the dives On Fifty-second Street Uncertain and afraid As the clever hopes expire Of a low dishonest decade: Waves of anger and fear Circulate over the bright And darkened lands of the earth, Obsessing our private lives; The unmentionable odour of death Offends the September night. Accurate scholarship can Unearth the whole offence From Luther until now That has driven a culture mad, Find what occurred at Linz, What huge imago made A psychopathic god: I and the public know What all schoolchildren learn, Those to whom evil is done Do evil in return. Exiled Thucydides knew All that a speech can say About Democracy, And what dictators do, The elderly rubbish they talk To an apathetic grave; Analysed all in his book, The enlightenment driven away, The habit-forming pain, Mismanagement and grief: We must suffer them all again. Into this neutral air Where blind skyscrapers use Their full height to proclaim The strength of Collective Man, Each language pours its vain Competitive excuse: But who can live for long In an euphoric dream; Out of the mirror they stare, Imperialism's face And the international wrong. Faces along the bar Cling to their average day: The lights must never go out, The music must always play, All the conventions conspire To make this fort assume The furniture of home; Lest we should see where we are, Lost in a haunted wood, Children afraid of the night Who have never been happy or good. The windiest militant trash Important Persons shout Is not so crude as our wish: What mad Nijinsky wrote About Diaghilev Is true of the normal heart; For the error bred in the bone Of each woman and each man Craves what it cannot have, Not universal love But to be loved alone. From the conservative dark Into the ethical life The dense commuters come, Repeating their morning vow; "I will be true to the wife, I'll concentrate more on my work," And helpless governors wake To resume their compulsory game: Who can release them now, Who can reach the deaf, Who can speak for the dumb? All I have is a voice To undo the folded lie, The romantic lie in the brain Of the sensual man-in-the-street And the lie of Authority Whose buildings grope the sky: There is no such thing as the State And no one exists alone; Hunger allows no choice To the citizen or the police; We must love one another or die. Defenceless under the night Our world in stupor lies; Yet, dotted everywhere, Ironic points of light Flash out wherever the Just Exchange their messages: May I, composed like them Of Eros and of dust, Beleaguered by the same Negation and despair, Show an affirming flame. September 1 1939 WH Auden

Li, you are too kind. No harm meant to Henstoat. As a matter of fact I quite like and have learnt from his erudite postings.. He has a way with words, usually has interesting things to say and says them in an informed and considered manner... not to say a bravery and an enquiring spirit which I would admire in anyone... however where I was trying to draw him out with my comments (not skilfully) is this lack of an emotional depth that sometimes come through in his writings... and manifests itself in an automatic trivialising of others point of view as resorting to weak devices whenever there is reference to anything of an emotional or experiential nature... (now, just because you have never felt the sun on your back and I struggle to find adequate means to describe the effect to you... whilst you may remain sceptical, it is an altogether different thing to deny that thus it could not obviously be true) Defeat me with Reason, Logic, Reason he cries as he springs sword in hand into the cut and thrust of debate... yet his emotional pants are around his knees... The rational aspects in man are fine for analysis and extrapolation but there is a limit to how far you can take this. The emotional aspects are the impetus for action and creativity and ultimately (for me) the more rewarding as they can alter the landscape of the debate... (To argue on historical precedents about anything for me usually falls into the first category and is only partially useful --- but not necessarily how the story can end) To be human is to recognise and nuture and to try and maintain an effective balance between the emotional and rational aspects of oursleves.. not to deny one at the expense of the other ( The respective Western and Eastern diseases) (And this is not aimed at Henstoat) As becomes clearer to some of us as we get older and hopefully 'emotionally' wiser, woe betide you if you deliberately neglect and do not nurture that aspect of yourself... call it emotional intelligence if you will... the psychic dropout is painfully evident in the twisted, schitzo personalities that these internal conflicts can produce , take our very own Ralph for instance. Familiarise yourself with the works of C J Jung if interested in any of the above... Now, these sort of comments above may be irrelevant, kooky, cheeky and (whatever long words you used to describe my posts)... but they reflect my interests... and why post at all if one cannot occasionally put oneself on the line in an attempt to come up with something new and challenging, especially when all you ever see is recycled rhetoric whenever these sort of important debates come up.. But I will now retreat into my cubby hole... far too busy for this self indulgent stuff...

I agree, emotion instigates logic and reason. Compassion is an important element. The reason I am always wary of emotional appeals is because far too many people use them to their own personal gain. Our emotions are easy to manipulate. Debates like this, and the 9/11 one, often descend into a battle of who can instigate the most hatred towards their enemies, or pity for victims. After 9/11 we were bombarded with reports about New York heroes and victims - certainly in part as a propoganda campaign to win support for war. The left fought back with reports of suffering Afghanis, the right turned that around and said we'd save them as well (which we haven't) and, as with this case, I found the most reasonable voices to be those who *didn't* lament endlessly about victims and 'sickos' - the pitiable and the contemptible. Those commentators were, in the end, those who were proved right - they said war was inevitable in order to save face, the the Taliban would probably be brought down and that it would then be forgotten until another enemy dictator took control. The other reason I try to remain cold is that I go very wrong when I become, say, passionate. Passion and empathy for one cause goes hand in hand with contempt and animosity towards its enemy - I've been far too aggressive towards people in the past and it doesn't help - it just drives us further away from each other. And lest we forget, much violence and atrocity is committed in the name of justice - if we rely on emotions as our leaders, then we will always war because no emotional sense of 'right' is going to agree with everyone else's - we need logicand reason to compromise. We have to try, as best we can, to empathise and understand all points of view, which is what I do *try* to do.

Quite some bollocks on this thread already... At this juncture I support the war against Iraq so long as the aim is theoverthrow of Saddam and his repressive regime. He has been around too long, there is no sign of him going and millions of Iraqis will breathe a palpable sigh of relief when he is gone. When your lives and those of your children and loved ones have been blighted for years by the fear induced by this regime. When just below the surface of your existence all your actions and aspirations are thwarted by their cruel and vindictive methods of remaining in power at all costs. Believe me, you do not keep awake in the night for fearing America's bombs and/or future domination by Western powers. In your impotence and anger it is Saddam, Uday and the rest of their evil (in the real sense of the word) regime that you direct your thoughts too. Its directly for those millions, and ultimately for us (as the world is a connected place) that we should go to war, if it is in our power to do so with a reasonable chance of success. However I fear the war talk is all rhetoric, just as in the past, and will not happen. It will take real courage and leadership for Bush/Blair and the rest of the international community to see this through, against the background of wailings of appeasers and the 'do nothing, nothing to do with us' brigade. Not to mentioned the vested interests in the Middle East too eager to maintain the corrupt status quo. (As for the whys and whatnots and the dozens of complex motivations and conspiracy theories --- just an excuse to prevaricate when courageous decisive action is called for) Now, I wish I had more time for well thought out points, but this will suffice for the time being...

I was mostly trying to dispute Troy Leon ... that while some American's don't care what's going on, they don't typically choose our leaders (though you'd have a point if you brought up the last election). And the news is not dogma nor propaganda. Yes, I find the Iraq thing pretty ridiculous as well. It makes Pres. Bush look like a war-thirsty savage on some angles. What's wierd is that he'll probably get elected for another term, too, just because the WTC thing made him so popular. I don't understand this whole oil thing. There are plenty of places around the world, including the US, where there are plenty of untapped oil resources! There are even some dormant wells in Kansas that have been out of operation due to the falling oil prices some three-odd years ago. Arrgh! I just don't understand!

Argh! Argh! Argh! Argh! Can there ever be a pro-war argument which doesn't roll out the word 'appeasers,' a word that is *totally* irrelevant to this argument? Appeasement is when you offer an enemy a certain amount of leighway in the hope that he will stop there and peace will reign. As far as I know, no one has said, "Saddam's actually a pretty nice fella, and his problem's are understandable - let him carry on his torturous regime and I'm sure everything will work out." No one but the people whose pockets he lines believes that he's reasonable, or worth dealing with. The anti-war argument is about what good it will do the Iraqi people to subject them to a war and attempt to remove Saddam Hussein. Answer: infinite, if you can actually fulfil the promise, *and* back it up with a plan to fill the power gulf with a stable and promising regime. NONE, if you can't actually remove Saddam without blowing the country to pieces, or if you don't know what you're going to do with the country afterwards. Now we know we *can* remove oppressive regimes successfully, so maybe it'd be worth a shot if that was the only condition. But Afghanistan is about to fall back into the hands of warlords and so will Iraq - a war without a long-term plan is a short term fix. It is being planned purely because Saddam is not the West's friend any more, with human rights wheeled out as a tear-jerking argument. Despite what you may think, Saddam Hussein is not a one in a million individual. Dictators spring up wherever there is the opportunity, and to whatever extent they can get away with it. If our only reason for going to war is to remove Saddam because we don't like him, then we are merely picking a scab. It's highly presumptuous to think you know exactly what the Iraqi people are thinking and feeling, 1leg. It's a bad habit you've picked up off unscrupulous journalists who use the 'imagine you're an oppressed person' line to bolster a weak argument. No doubt they *don't* like their situation, but I sincerely doubt that Middle Easterners look forward to more wranglings with the USA, considering the result of its past efforts.

*I support the war against Iraq so long as the aim is the overthrow of Saddam and his repressive regime* awwwww bless -7 legspider... awwwwwwww By the way - Its not the aim at all. Ps...I especially like the way you start your post with such a reasoned and well observed comment about people who disagree with what you think...