13 Comments »

1. Translation – there is no oil there so what do we care what they are doing?

   Comment by Uncarved Block — 2 Aug 2004 on 7:11 pm | Link

2. That’s a bit harsh – the resolution proscribes the limits to what can be done until that deadline is reached: i.e., PR, and little else.

   Comment by Gregory Block — 2 Aug 2004 on 7:45 pm | Link

3. It is a bit harsh, but it seems that we have twisted priorities. We couldn’t wait for weapons inspectors to verify that Iraq had no WMD but we are happy to sit on our hands while people are being murdered or starving to death. The situation in Sudan is not ‘news’, it been going on for months but everyone only seems to be taking an interest now that GWB has decided to use it as an example of humanitarian US foreign policy to win votes.

   I know thats a cynical point of view but sometimes I feel thats all I have left.

   Comment by Uncarved Block — 2 Aug 2004 on 8:16 pm | Link

4. The other option is to send troops in, and risk broadening the target of the militia to peacekeeping and humanitarian forces; any kind of violence in the areas currently being helped out by humanitarian aid workers would immediately result in a loss of security in the area and the complete inability of those NGOs to actually provide any support to the starving millions; violence in those camps would be a death sentence for those people on the edge of starvation in that area.

   Do the wrong thing, and those people starve. If there’s a nonviolent way to handle this, that’s going to be the best option for the people who are already in reach of the aid workers; however unhappy a result that may be. Sending in troops against the wishes of the government, without a UN resolution, risks making it impossible to feed the starving. Sending in troops even with one doesn’t necessarily ease that risk – but it’s a darn sight less likely.

   Comment by Gregory Block — 3 Aug 2004 on 3:07 pm | Link

5. Theres actually plenty of oil in Sudan which is one of the reasons were not doing anything. The oil pipeline goes from north to south and we don`t want to risk breaking the shaky north/south truce.
   Gregory Block point that sending in troops would make the situation in humanitarian areas worse is crap. They desperatly need a cordon set up around the areas because at the moment the militia are just out side where the people have to go to collect firewood. When the women collect the wood they are raped. The men would go but they would be killed.
   We should send troops into humanitaRIAN AREAS NOW. Then later on we should use them to reign in the militas and help the people get back to their homes. Then we should leave them all over the country as a "peace keeping force". The govt would have no choice but to accept. Then of course we should use them to topple the govt and set up a democratic one.

   Comment by John Murphy — 4 Aug 2004 on 10:08 am | Link

6. Isn’t that pretty much how we ended up in such a mess in Iraq, John? Messing about with regime change?

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 4 Aug 2004 on 1:53 pm | Link

7. Yep exactly. However peoples lives in iraq are better now than they were with Saddam in power. Just ask them. And their lives are going to keep getting better once they have democracy.
   You call it regime change I call it getting rid of evil murdering basterds but whatever.

   For people who say we shouldn`t invade Sudan I say sure lets just ignore it. Its hardly a tourist hot spot and we can just turn over when its on TV. Plus war is always wrong no matter what, it just is.

   Comment by John Murphy — 4 Aug 2004 on 7:53 pm | Link

8. People’s lives in Iraq are not better now than they were with Saddam in power. They still face the same risk of being taken in the middle of the night for no apparent reason, tortured or killed in prison and then dumped by a roadside. They have had one mad dictator replaced by another (chose either Bush or Allawi, they both fit the category) and they have no say or representation in government. Thanks to the war the country’s economy has been destroyed (what little of it there was) and as well as being unemployed the Iraqis also now have very little in the way of public services. The US has devoted its resources to getting oil and ignored schools and hospitals. The reaction to the invasion has led to terrorism on the streets of Iraqi cities which was unheard of before.

   Iraq has the potential to be better now that Saddam has gone but it will probably take 10-20 years and a there will be a lot more pain, suffering and death before then.

   Wars make the world better in the same way that earthquakes provide opportunities for new architecture. Anyone with any sense would choose the alternatives to achieve the same results.

   Comment by Uncarved Block — 4 Aug 2004 on 9:07 pm | Link

9. If Saddam was an evil murdering bastard, what does that make all those who supplied him with weapons, support & advice over the years? Because don’t forget, that includes us (via our government – ok, we don’t have a say, but that’s what representative government is all about), the Americans, France, Germany and Russia. Among others, no doubt. Surely, if you put a gun in someone’s hand and they kill someone, that makes you at the very least an accessory? Is there any such thing as being a "mass accessory"?

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 4 Aug 2004 on 9:59 pm | Link

10. Uncarved Block- Nice one.
    You`ve taken a few media articles and turned your ideas of what might be happening in Iraq into definitive pronouncements. Can you find one shred of evidence, one fact or figure to back up your theories?
    "The US has devoted its resources to getting oil and ignored schools and hospitals." according to you. Before the war you might have been justified in saying this is what the US might do. But now you say it as if its true without anything to base your opinion even in your own mind.

    Also uncraved block what alternatives would you have had us used in Iraq? What alternatives to war could we use to sort out Sudan and Zimbabwe?
    War is the answer war is the key.
    I would attack a man rapin an old lady what would you do.
    As far as im concrened you have that rape on your conscience.

    Comment by John Murphy — 4 Aug 2004 on 10:17 pm | Link

11. I don’t think you need facts or figures to back up those "theories"; you just need to watch the news every day. Before, during and after the war the US has made abundantly clear that they care not one jot about the Iraqi people. The only reason they pretend to care from time to time is to win public opinion, who, much like yourself, take little persuading because they don’t check out other sources. Watch the news, read the neds, from as many different sources as you can, and you will see the truth.

    No-one is saying that the war in Iraq was wrong, per se. All we have ever complained about is the way it was done and the lack of planning for after the conflict. I find it a bit rich for people to suggest that Iraq is now better off, when they don’t even have the basic amenities they had before the war and they are also dying faster than they were under Saddam. They may EVENTUALLY become better off, but as Uncarved Block says, that is a long long time off. If it wasn’t about oil as you are so adamant, why has the US turned down its own production? I would agree it isn’t ONLY about the oil in Iraq; there’s a lot more to it than that (military presence in Central Asia, for one), and the Iraq thing is only a stepping stone. Wait and see, if Bush gets re-elected – Iraq won’t be the last, and it won’t even be the worst, I’m quite sure.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 4 Aug 2004 on 11:23 pm | Link

12. So long as people run around thinking that people with guns are the solution to the problems of the world, we will always have militias killing innocents and soldiers forcing a peace down the throats of people who would much rather pick up a gun.

    Diplomacy doesn’t solve all problems – but the problems it does solve are solved faster than military solutions, every time. Every time. Ignore the instantaneous "they’re all dead", and remember that what war leaves behind is destruction and a power vacuum; things that diplomacy avoids.

    Call me a leftist pinko commie bastard if you like, but I stick to what I said before – sending in troops where they are specifically not wanted (and by that I mean not wanted by the state, not the militants; peacekeeping forces, by definition, are almost never wanted by the militants who wanted war in the first place) will yield nothing but death and the inability to provide basic humanitarian assistance.

    I’d have thought we’d all have learned that from Iraq, where a complete lack of security resulted in almost a complete pull-out of humanitarian aid workers. The only people who get fresh water and medical assistance on a battlefield are troops; not innocent bystanders and oppressed populations.

    Comment by Gregory Block — 5 Aug 2004 on 9:13 am | Link

13. I’ll believe that Iraqis are better off when they have all of the basic things that their dictator used to provide them. You know, schools that stay open, running water, food in the markets, electricity in the cities that doesn’t cut out for hours at a time.

    There’s no excuse for that taking as long as it has. That fact alone is a sign that perhaps those blowing sunshine out of their butts about how wonderful everything is should sit down and figure out whether the average Iraqi is actually any better off at all.

    You can’t eat freedom. Freedom doesn’t feed your children, or dress them, or send them to schools. Freedom doesn’t cure illnesses, fight off disease, or mend broken bones. Freedom doesn’t fill the pit at the bottom of your stomach that fear of danger creates, nor does it automatically give you a voice. Freedom does not heal the scars of 25 years of outsiders meddling in your culture; it cannot bring your parents back from the dead, nor your children. Freedom will not repair your home, or give you a job.

    War? War leaves your children starving, destroys their clothes and schools, spreads illness and pestilence, breaks bones and hospitals. War is the fear that gave you that ulcer, war is the fanatics’ cry that lost you that voice in the first place. War leaves mental and physical scars that last as long as the rest of your life, will make you bury your parents and children, destroy your home, and lose your job.

    We got the war part pretty good. Our stupidity, our ultimate failure, was believing time and time again that freedom could heal the damage that war would do.

    Comment by Gregory Block — 5 Aug 2004 on 9:19 am | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.