Peace Protesters: Where were you?

[smiling bandit]

I apologize in advance. I know full well that what I am about to say is probably not fair, and must surely be due to some deep error on my part. But dammit, I can't understand it.

So, I'm saying to those who preach peace with Iraq, "Where were you?" To those who want to stand atop Iraqi installations (military or otherwise) in the belief that you will protect it or become a martyr, "Where were you?"

I admire, on some level, people who are willing to go that extra mile for peace. Yet I have to wonder, when tyrannical dictators crush their populace, "Where were you?" Why didn't you help then?

Now I am a young man. I couldn't have stopped men like Kim Jong-Il and Hussein and Mugabe from destroying their nations. I wish I could have. But WHY do you want peace now, after what was worth saving has been kicked and muddied and stained with blood so much already?

*Sigh* I'm sorry. Maybe this belongs in the Pit.

[jjimm]

Do your really believe that blatant military intervention is the only solution to ghastly problems? Do you believe that the repercussions of such interventions will necessarily be better than exploring other means of solving them?

[Saen]

Originally posted by jjimm
Do your really believe that blatant military intervention is the only solution to ghastly problems? Do you believe that the repercussions of such interventions will necessarily be better than exploring other means of solving them?

Thes are both leading questions. And is a red herring unless you wish to ginore the last twelve years.

[Saen]

ginore=ignore

[jjimm]

I don't want to debate the minutae, because this isn't what the thread is about, but what I was attempting to illustrate with my "leading" questions is that (some of) the peace protestors are saying there is still a way to remove Saddam peacefully. That military intervention now might be worse than Saddam is now. That, since 1998, Iraq disappeared from everyone's radar, and has only recently been a global issue since the 2002 SOTUS. Given that, many people think there is a way out that doesn't involve aerial bombing campaigns and occupying forces.

It's not a case of standing by and doing nothing, but urging the US and UK to exhaust every available diplomatic means before invasion.

Also, the OP is implying that the forthcoming military intervention is on human rights grounds, and muddles wannabe tyrants with tyrants-in-residence. smiling bandit, you and your nation could still stop Mugabe: he's been around as long as Saddam. But you won't, because it's not strategically beneficial.

[Sterra]

Originally posted by smiling bandit
I admire, on some level, people who are willing to go that extra mile for peace. Yet I have to wonder, when tyrannical dictators crush their populace, "Where were you?" Why didn't you help then?

You could say that they are doing that right now. There is some reason to believe that after we crush Iraq things will get better there. Things could also get worse.

[Saen]

Originally posted by jjimm
I don't want to debate the minutae, because this isn't what the thread is about, but what I was attempting to illustrate with my "leading" questions is that (some of) the peace protestors are saying there is still a way to remove Saddam peacefully. .

And I am saying that if the protestors are using your tactics to push their agenda, then they are ignoring the last twelve years.

NO i do not really believe that blatant military intervention is the only solution to ghastly problems. NO i do not believe that the repercussions of such interventions will necessarily be better than exploring other means of solving them?

What the hell does that have to do with the last twelve years and what we are trying to do today compared to what we have been doing?

[lekatt]

I don't know if this is pertinent or not, but back in 1935 the world stood around watching Adolf Hitler built his military machine. He was not supposed to do that. There were sanctions against Germany and how big a military it could have. When FDR wanted to do something about it the doves yelled to the skies for peace. Several years later World War II begin and it ended with 150 million causalties. Now if Germany had been stopped from building its military I don't think that would have happened. So what is best, small war now, or huge war later.

[smiling bandit]

I guess I'm really just peeved that the world I've inherited sucks so much for so many, and that I'm not even sure its possible to "fix" things.

Man, when God said life wasn't fair, he meant it!

[tagos]

I was damn well protesting the US and UK arming of Iraq, since the early 80's, WTF were you then?

[msmith537]

Originally posted by jjimm
Do your really believe that blatant military intervention is the only solution to ghastly problems? Do you believe that the repercussions of such interventions will necessarily be better than exploring other means of solving them? [/b]

I believe that crying peace in the face of aggression is a sure fire way to encourage an aggressor.

There is no way of removing Sadam peacefully...short of him dieing of old age...like Castro. He will never step down so either the Iraqi people must remove him (which they can't) or some outside force (like the USA) has to. So take your pick...so we allow an insane dictator to continue to run Iraq or do we simply issolate him and his sons for the next 50 years and hope for the best?

[Beagle]

I was damn well protesting the US and UK arming of Iraq, since the early 80's, WTF were you then?

Got a cite for that?

[tagos]

Originally posted by Beagle
Got a cite for that?

Grow up.

[I, Brian]

I was damn well protesting the US and UK arming of Iraq, since the early 80's, WTF were you then?

Sorry about that - I was still in school believing that world leaders were honest people seeking only altruistic goals. Well, that's immature youth for you...

[smiling bandit]

Sorry about that - I was still in school believing that world leaders were honest people seeking only altruistic goals. Well, that's immature youth for you...

Well, I was in diapers.

[MEBuckner]

Moderator's Note: Edited thread title.

[MEBuckner]

Originally posted by tagos

Grow up.

That's not really a very helpful reply to a request for a cite. If people don't have to back up what they say, then they could say anything: "We need to invade Iraq because otherwise they'll invade the U.S. again, just like when the invaded Iowa back in 1982." So, if you make an assertion about a question of fact ("the US and UK arming of Iraq, since the early 80's"), and someone asks for a cite, give them a cite.

[matt_mcl]

Where was I in 1982? In Saint John, New Brunswick, being breastfed.

[monstro]

So you're saying your excuse for not doing anything is that you are young and cannot do anything to stop the evil men of the world. And yet you expect more from people just like yourself who want peace. You're right, this isn't a fair argument. It also doesn't make any sense.

One could argue that protesting IS doing something. Hell, it's a lot more than throwing your hands up and saying, "I'm but one person, there's nothing I can do."

[smiling bandit]

So you're saying your excuse for not doing anything is that you are young and cannot do anything to stop the evil men of the world.

Actually, I'm all for fixing past mistakes. The Baathist party of Iraq must be removed from power. But now, I can see no way to do it peacefully.

[ITR champion]

Originally posted by lekatt
I don't know if this is pertinent or not, but back in 1935 the world stood around watching Adolf Hitler built his military machine. He was not supposed to do that. There were sanctions against Germany and how big a military it could have. When FDR wanted to do something about it the doves yelled to the skies for peace. Several years later World War II begin and it ended with 150 million causalties. Now if Germany had been stopped from building its military I don't think that would have happened. So what is best, small war now, or huge war later.

No matter how many times I hear this argument I don't get it. We've left Saddam alone for twelve years. And he hasn't hurt us or any of his neighbors. And that is somehow proof that he will hurt us if we continue to leave him alone. I've often challenged people to give me one good reason to believe that he's a threat and I still haven't gotten one.

[Beagle]

How will I ever "grow up" if you adults keep tricking me about who sold arms* to Iraq in the early 1980s?

In 1987 the Paris-based Le Monde estimated that, between 1981 and 1985, the value of French arms transfers to Iraq was US$5.1 billion, which represented 40 percent of total French arms exports. Paris, however, was forced to reschedule payment on most of its loans to Iraq because of Iraq's hard-pressed wartime economy and did so willingly because of its longer range strategic interests. French president François Mitterand was quoted as saying that French assistance was really aimed at keeping Iraq from losing the war. Iraqi debts to France were estimated at US$3 billion in 1987.

You might be referring to the story circulating around all the left-wing websites which recounts the biological weapons precursors which allegedly got to Iraq through some US corporations and corporations in other Security Council nations.

*Thanks, jdavis

[John Mace]

I certainly don't begrudge the peace protesters their right to be out in the streets expressing their views. And this last weekend's turnout, around the world, was pretty impressive. The way I read the OP, and I do kind of agree, is why have these people never protest AGAINST the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein? The guy has been a brutal tyrant for years, and yet none of these groups were out protesting his actions. And you gotta know he's just laughing right now at all the "allies" he suddenly has.

Today's NYT Week in Review section has an intersting article with interviews of Iraqi refugies in Jordan, and gives some grissley details of what life is like under Saddam Hussein.

Anyway, let the protesters air their views. They would be more credible, though, if we saw these groups out protesting the dictators as well (didn't see many anti-Iraq protests after the invasion of Kuwait, did we?).

[Sam Stone]

I remember what I was doing in 1982 - I was participating in a town hall debate in Canada over the 'evil' United States and it's horrible new weapon, the cruise missile. Back then, the peace crowd was arguing that the cruise missile was intended to be used by the U.S. as a first-strike weapon against the peaceful Soviet Union. People marched in the streets that year against the cruise missile, and the protest-de-jure was to declare whatever little town you lived in a 'nuclear free zone'.

I wonder how many of those protesters still wanted the cruise missile banned after they watched the first Gulf War?

[Kempis]

I think that the Clinton administration should have forced Saddam to allow weapons inspectors in the country. When Saddam kicked them out, the US didn't threaten force to let them back in, so Hussein got his way and got bolder. Almost the same thing happened in North Korea.

It seems if the peace protesters really wanted peace they'd really be pushing to enforce UN restrictions on aggressive countries, not protesting the enforcement when it happens.

Now GW has some bug up his butt about Iraq, much less so than North Korea. Perhaps he knows something we don't. Either way I applaud him doing this, though I wish he'd do the same for Korea.

-k

[lekatt]

Originally posted by ITR champion
No matter how many times I hear this argument I don't get it. We've left Saddam alone for twelve years. And he hasn't hurt us or any of his neighbors. And that is somehow proof that he will hurt us if we continue to leave him alone. I've often challenged people to give me one good reason to believe that he's a threat and I still haven't gotten one.

Did you know that what you say is exactly what the protesters said back then. Sorry, I guess no one really knows for sure.

Hitler ordered some of his "brown shirts" to dress as Polish solders and attack a German outpost. Oh, he was outraged at the news Poland attacked his outpost. Soon German Panzers were rolling into Poland to "right the wrong."

I don't trust dictators, maybe you do.

[John Mace]

The US is an easy target-- we're the big guy, and it's easy to protest against the big guy.

I still don't understand why we didn't ensure that Iraq's disposal of weapons was supervised by either the UN or the Gulf War coalition nations instead of having them do it and then we go in afterwards to verify.

[tagos]

US support and arming of Iraq for those who unable to utilise the wonders of Google and lack a basic knowledge of recent history.

I make no apologies for the broad range of sources. There are hundreds more articles and documents, I just got bored.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/795649.asp

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in519036.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in534798.shtml

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60702,00.html

http://www.jonathanpollard.org/1991/091391.htm

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...212120,00.html

http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/3885701.htm

http://www.sundayherald.com/27572

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6356

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Dec29.html

http://www.rense.com/general32/suppe.htm

http://www.taz.de/pt/2002/12/19/a0080.nf/textdruck

http://www.webcom.com/~pinknoiz/covert/bnl.html

http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2002/506/506p12.htm

http://www.rense.com/general28/chmm.htm

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/pub.../iraqgate.html

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/flow/iraq/seed.htm

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/cong...2/h920721g.htm

http://lampresource.tripod.com/readlamp/10_02.htm

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/de...n20021023.html

http://vander.hashish.com/articles/m...espitegas.html

http://www.boulderweekly.com/coverstory.html

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1991/C231.html

http://www.sfbg.com/News/32/21/Features/iraq.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...866942,00.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com...2/13_iraq.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...4_sean24.shtml

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Klare_Iraq.htm

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/l...erful/iraq.php

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/colin10.html

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/525/525p24.htm

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=6356

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2002/8/19/11s.html

http://www.lecour.net/richard/archives/000290.html

[jjimm]

Cite?


::d&r::

[smiling bandit]

Now GW has some bug up his butt about Iraq, much less so than North Korea. Perhaps he knows something we don't. Either way I applaud him doing this, though I wish he'd do the same for Korea.

I'm not sure N. Korea [BTW: does the N in N.K. stand for North or Nuclear?] would respond in the same way. In any event, its probably better for us to take it slowly.

[smiling bandit]

Should have put this in before:

Yes, the US did help arm Iraq. That was a mistake, though at the time it probably did not seem to be like a bad idea. I can understand why people would do that, since Saddam was apparently being wooed by the Sovs and we certainly did not want him allying with them. Our shame is that we let moral justice fall to expediency.

Nevertheless, we have a chance to set right our wrongs now.

[I, Brian]

Originally posted by lekatt
I don't know if this is pertinent or not, but back in 1935 the world stood around watching Adolf Hitler built his military machine. He was not supposed to do that. There were sanctions against Germany and how big a military it could have. When FDR wanted to do something about it the doves yelled to the skies for peace. Several years later World War II begin and it ended with 150 million causalties. Now if Germany had been stopped from building its military I don't think that would have happened. So what is best, small war now, or huge war later.

So let me get this straight - Saddam Hussein is building up a massive military machine to make Iraq the dominant world power? After all, that's got to be the case if we're using metaphor re; Hitler.

If not then the argument is inapplicable. Especially if you want to avoid us Brits repeating lengthy detail about the entire WWII issue.

[asterion]

And why aren't these peace protesters out there protesting in NY and DC today? They can't be very serious if they don't protest for the full 3-day weekend.

[tagos]

Originally posted by I, Brian
So let me get this straight - Saddam Hussein is building up a massive military machine to make Iraq the dominant world power? After all, that's got to be the case if we're using metaphor re; Hitler.

If not then the argument is inapplicable. Especially if you want to avoid us Brits repeating lengthy detail about the entire WWII issue.

I invoke Godwins Law and declare the case against a unilateral war the official winner. As you were chaps.

[smiling bandit]

While I don't believe Saddam's Iraq is directly correlated with Nazi germany, I think there is a strong parrallel. Saddam certainly has displayed enough past aggression that I think it foolish to think he will not try again.

[gex gex]

Originally posted by lekatt
I don't know if this is pertinent or not, but back in 1935 the world stood around watching Adolf Hitler built his military machine. He was not supposed to do that. There were sanctions against Germany and how big a military it could have. When FDR wanted to do something about it the doves yelled to the skies for peace. Several years later World War II begin and it ended with 150 million causalties. Now if Germany had been stopped from building its military I don't think that would have happened. So what is best, small war now, or huge war later.

Not pertinent at all. The differences between 1930s Germany and contemporary Iraq are so vast that any comparism is useful only to make pro-war types feel a little self-righteousness in their warmongering.

Germany was at the time a military power. Iraq tried for ten years and still couldn't invade a third world country like Iran. If you feel like looking for a country that could be a threat to world peace, try turning your attentions to North Korea.

[tagos]

Originally posted by Beagle
How will I ever "grow up" if you adults keep tricking me about who sold arms* to Iraq in the early 1980s? You might be referring to the story circulating around all the left-wing websites which recounts the biological weapons precursors which allegedly got to Iraq through some US corporations and corporations in other Security Council nations.

*Thanks, jdavis

Look, I'm sorry for snarling but i'm sick of the cite? cheap debating trick as if everything is on the net and not in books, memory and personal experience. If you are partaking in this thread you should start by fighting ignorance at home and getting some basic understanding of history before jumping in with Cite? We are not your personal research assistants (although my long lists of cites shows I have been dragooned.)

And yes, of course others helped, the USSR provided the crap hardware too. As the USA and the UK are claiming the moral highground it's legitimate to highlight their involvement.

At the time of the Kurd gassing the USA and the Uk and probably the West in general denied it happened as Saddam was, in the words of one US politician, "a son-of-a-bitch but our son of a bitch."

In case your history doesn't encompass this too. The USA and the UK opposed the Vietnamese liberation of Cambodia from the Pol Pot regime in the 80's and, as the Times reported, armed and trained the Khymer Rouge to fight back instead of seeking a UN led coalition to attack him when in power and committing genocide. Notice any similarities?

I'm sorry everything is not on the net but there you are. Some of us were on the streets protesting this sort of crap so you will understand if we now don't believe Iraq is about morality and take offense at the snide nature of some of these posts.

Without any sign the leopard has changed its spots you can expect claims to the moral high-ground to be met by a sorrowful sneer, fuelled by the gap between the good heart of the american people and it's noble rhetoric and the sordid, cynical reality of the actions of the State.

[yojimbo]

Where were the peace protestors? They were with the people who are now saying that we've had 12 years to sort this out. They/I/We all had our collective head in the ground minding our own business hoping this would go away.

It hasn't and now everybody’s awake again. Some are more grumpier than other though

[tagos]

Originally posted by yojimbo
Where were the peace protestors? They were with the people who are now saying that we've had 12 years to sort this out. They/I/We all had our collective head in the ground minding our own business hoping this would go away.

It hasn't and now everybody’s awake again. Some are more grumpier than other though

I was cheering on Gulf War 1, fuming at Saddam being let off the hook and protesting at the later betrayal of the Kurds and the continued oppression of the Palestinian people by UN Resolution defying Israel. I supported the war in Afghanistan and Kosovo and was proud the UK stood with the USA after 11/9.

Now, in the face of the weaseling hypocricy, lies and cant of Bush and Blair i don't believe a word the US or the UK says about their motives.

I support, as i have always done, a rigorous and ever harsher inspections regime backed by the threat of the use of force under a UN mandate along the lines of the French/German plan.

Now we hear the post-war plan is to keep the Ba-athists running things my cynicism monitor has gone off the scale. And let's not even talk about the coward Bush's Vietnam war record along with the rest of the chickenhawks.

People who oppose the war are not knee-jerk pacifists but to me it seems the supporters of war are knee-jerk warmongers, impervious to counter arguments.

Where were you lot, I could ask, when (insert favourite disgraceful piece of Western Cold War and after, real-politick here) if we want to play that game?

[tagos]

And I might add, I was from bombing the crap out of the Serb army back in the early 90's when my own craven government was turning a blind eye to Serb sponsored ethnic cleansing. A European problem Europe could and should have nipped in the bud without dragging in the USA. Gutless.

[Gyrate]

Originally posted by tagos
I was cheering on Gulf War 1, fuming at Saddam being let off the hook and protesting at the later betrayal of the Kurds and the continued oppression of the Palestinian people by UN Resolution defying Israel. I supported the war in Afghanistan and Kosovo and was proud the UK stood with the USA after 11/9.

Now, in the face of the weaseling hypocricy, lies and cant of Bush and Blair i don't believe a word the US or the UK says about their motives.

I support, as i have always done, a rigorous and ever harsher inspections regime backed by the threat of the use of force under a UN mandate along the lines of the French/German plan.

Now we hear the post-war plan is to keep the Ba-athists running things my cynicism monitor has gone off the scale. And let's not even talk about the coward Bush's Vietnam war record along with the rest of the chickenhawks.

People who oppose the war are not knee-jerk pacifists but to me it seems the supporters of war are knee-jerk warmongers, impervious to counter arguments.

I agree with pretty much all of that.

The mistake the anti-protestors seem to make is in assuming that everyone who marched was a hardcore "no war ever under any circumstances" left-winger, when in fact it was an extremely broad cross-section of the population. Yes, there were some "No War Ever" people there - but there were also the "No War Yet" crowd, the "No War Without UN Approval" crowd, and the "No War Until Bush/Blair Actually Provide Us With Some Evidence That Doesn't Look Like They Made It Up" crowd. One of the issues involved is the credibility of the US and UK governments, which has been squandered in some amazingly foolish ways, and if they want public support for the war, the public will need to be convinced.

So that's where I was -- waiting for the government to treat me like an adult for once.

[Beagle]

I looked at your list of cites, dutifully clicking each one. The closest you get to arming is "battle planning," and "logistics advice." Nothing you cited actually indicates that the US "armed" Iraq during the 1980s. Yes, some US officials helped Iraq "battle plan" against Iran.

The French did arm Iraq, with vigor, during the 1980s, as did the USSR. Why blame the US for everything that happens in the world, when you can actually find out who did things?

You did, as I suggested, conflate the 'bioweapons' stuff that has been floating around for a while with actual arms sales. So, yes, you have cites, many - no they do not indicate that the US and UK "armed" Iraq.

I hate "cite" also, but I knew you were going to give me cites that did not indicate that the US and UK were large arms suppliers to Iraq in the 1980s, because the US and the UK were not large arms suppliers to Iraq in the 1980s.

It helps to be precise when you criticize the US, otherwise I will never know which slander to defend against.

[RandySpears]

Hm i posted this on the Reactions to Powell thread, but this one seem more active so i'll repost it here:

Some "European" takes on this

I. There is widespread opposition to the war in most European states. Even in a state like Spain, where the government supports the US policy, 87.1% of the public still oppose military action. In Italy, another state supporting the US, 90 % of those surveyed opposed war against Iraq. In Britain, the US strongest ally, there is still a (slight) majority opposing the war. The same for France. In Russia 53% against, 26% for. In Canada the majority is anti-war. Germany likewise. Etcetera.

Is the reaction to these feelings by the American public really to dismiss the rest of the world as wimps / weaks / ill-informed / pro Saddam?

II. Neighbouring states of iraq neither asks for, nor supports, US intervention, but in fact opposes it.

III. The matters at hand, viewed in the light of past US foreign policies, suggests that guaranteeing access to iraqi Oil, as well as consolidation of political influence in the area, for the same reason, is at least one (of many) motives for an intervention. In my view, it being one motive is bad enough. No matter how many altruistic anti-dictator, pro-democracy motives also comes with the bundle. Add to this the suspicion (a speculation for sure, you decide) that the conflict with Iraq has an impact on US domestic politics, and the next presidential election.

IV. Head of CIA, George Tenet, recently characterized Iraq as posing no major security threat to either the US or its neighbours.

V. None of the "evidence" brought up by Colin Powell even comes near of constituting a material breach of resolution 1441. Prove me wrong, please!

VI. Why not supply information concerning Iraqi attempts to dupe inspections directly to the inspectors, so as to ease their work? Maybe that material had a greater rethorical use..

[lekatt]

Originally posted by gex gex
Not pertinent at all. The differences between 1930s Germany and contemporary Iraq are so vast that any comparism is useful only to make pro-war types feel a little self-righteousness in their warmongering.

Germany was at the time a military power. Iraq tried for ten years and still couldn't invade a third world country like Iran. If you feel like looking for a country that could be a threat to world peace, try turning your attentions to North Korea.

See you don't know much about history.

Germany was defeated totally in World War I and sanctions put on the number of troops, tanks, etc.

Iraq was defeated in its attempt to hold Kuwait and sanctions put upon the number of arms, missiles, etc.

Both eventually built up their military, Germany to the point of attacking, but Iraq has not yet built theirs, they don't have the atomic bomb, but are working on it. What do we do, leave them alone and let them get it before they are ready to attack.

Just wondered?

[Beagle]

I'll give you this, tagos, the US enthusiastically cheered and encouraged those that were supplying Iraq. Maybe, metaphorically, we handed them little water cups and energy bars. How about that?

Some US companies gave biological material that some claim could have been turned into bioweapons. I've even cited your evidence (shock, yes I have read your websites before) against the anti-war claim that Saddam has no biological weapons. But, you guys say we gave them to him.

The US did help the Iraqis battle plan against the Iranians. We gave the Iraqis US intelligence information.

I just don't understand why you don't want to acknowledge that in weapons sales to Iraq, the French and the USSR / Soviets have always been Iraqs biggest suppliers.

[Sam Stone]

I. There is widespread opposition to the war in most European states. Even in a state like Spain, where the government supports the US policy, 87.1% of the public still oppose military action. In Italy, another state supporting the US, 90 % of those surveyed opposed war against Iraq. In Britain, the US strongest ally, there is still a (slight) majority opposing the war. The same for France. In Russia 53% against, 26% for. In Canada the majority is anti-war. Germany likewise. Etcetera.

This is disingenuous. These numbers typically reflect the opposition to the war, provided it's only the U.K. and the U.S. fighting it, and with the U.N. Security Council opposing.

If there is a U.N. resolution, support throughout most of Europe climbs dramatically. For example, in Britain support for a war with a U.N. resolution is at 86%, which is about as high as it is in the U.S. But support for a war without a majority in the U.N. is very low, at 28%. However, support for a war with a majority in the U.N. but no resolution (say, if France is the main stumbling block) is still over 60%.

The same kinds of numbers can be seen in Australia. When asked simply, "Do you support a war in Iraq", 68% of the public said yes. However, if you frame the question, "Would you support the U.S. engaging in a unilateral war in Iraq", support plummets to 12%. But again, support is slightly over 50% when phrased as support for a 'coalition of countries' attacking Iraq without a U.N. resolution.

[Latro]

Please, Lekatt,come off it!
These appeasement comparisons are silly.
You could, with as much ease, turn the tables and say that we have been appeasing the US for the past decades.

How many countries has Iraq invaded over the past 50 years? And after how many did anyone intervene?
How many countries has the US invaded the past 50 years? And after how many did anyone intervene?

Or how's this one;
Hitler: "What? We cant re-arm? We pull out of the Leage of Nations"
Bush: "What? We can't wage war? The UN is irrelevant."

Beagle, did you really click all of Tagos' cites?

Just a random one (well third actually, first two were on chemical and biological sales)

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html

1983
A SD report concluded that Iraq continued to support groups on the SD’s terrorist list.[5]
Iraq reportedly began using chemical weapons (CW) against Iranian troops in 1982, and significantly increased CW use in 1983. Reagan’s Secretary of State, George Shultz, said that reports of Iraq using CWs on Iranian military personnel "drifted in" at the year’s end.[6] A declassified CIA report, probably written in late 1987, notes Iraq's use of mustard gas in August 1983, giving further credence to the suggestion that the SD and/or National Security Council (NSC) was well aware of Iraq's use of CW at this time.[7]
Analysts recognized that "civilian" helicopters can be weaponized in a matter of hours and selling a civilian kit can be a way of giving military aid under the guise of civilian assistance.[8] Shortly after removing Iraq from the terrorism sponsorship list, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters.[9] Later, and despite some objections from the National Security Council (NSC), the Secretaries of Commerce and State (George Baldridge and George Shultz) lobbied the NSC advisor into agreeing to the sale to Iraq of 10 Bell helicopters,[10] officially for crop spraying. See "1988" for note on Iraq using U.S. Helicopters to spray Kurds with chemical weapons.
Later in the year the Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq U.S. howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons.[11] Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[12]

I thought you were asserting that NO sales were made by the US.

[Beagle]

DAMMIT, USSR / "Russians."

Regarding the OP more specifically. My feelings are nicely summarized by Tony Blair in my second post on this thread. Especially the part at the end where he sounds like he might just wait before starting any major hostilities. Basically, I'm conflicted. I agree that "Saddam must go." - GWB / Blair. But, sometimes realpolitik is determined by regular politics. If Blair ignores the seeming overwhelming oppositon to the war he might not even survive long enough to start one. As Sam mentions, it may hinge politically on a second resolution - which presently France, Russia, and China won't allow.

Tony Blair:
So if the result of peace is Saddam staying in power, not disarmed, then I tell you there are consequences paid in blood for that decision too. But these victims will never be seen. They will never feature on our TV screens or inspire millions to take to the streets. But they will exist nonetheless.....

[Beagle]

Latro, the irony of your mentioning dual-use technology does not escape me.

I know it is much simpler to argue against an argument I never made. Let me spell this out. The US and the UK did not "arm Iraq" in the 1980s. Dozens of nations provided Iraq with weapons. Mostly France, Russia, China, many others. To suggest that the US and UK were the major players is crap. To conflate the bioweapons allegations with US arms sales is crap. To mention some helicopters with dual use as a smoking gun to prove that the US and the UK put together the Iraqi war machine makes me laugh.

Why not just be specific when you make an allegation against the US? Rather than simply slinging random slanders with no evidence. I can debate the bioweapons stuff. I can debate the US involvement with Iraq during the 1980s. Fine, but don't make misleading generalizations - designed to mislead the listener into thinking that the US and UK shipped boatloads of F-16s and Harriers to the Iraqis. Then, get snippy when asked for a cite. Then, cite the same bioweapons crap I've seen before and predicted. Also, don't confuse intelligence support - though it was probably itself a mistake - with "arming" someone.

[Latro]

Yes, Russia and China were the biggest suppliers for the conventional stuff.
I thought you were denying any arms deals wit the UK and US.

I can debate the US involvement with Iraq during the 1980s. Fine, but don't make misleading generalizations - designed to mislead the listener into thinking that the US and UK shipped boatloads of F-16s and Harriers to the Iraqis.

OK, if that is your point, fair enough.