Peace Protesters: Where were you?

[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 *
**:rolleyes: 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.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

*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.

'30s Germany was a modern industrial nation building a conventional millitary force that was high-tech enough to be equal (Or better) in quality to any other country’s millitary forces.

Iraq, on the other hand, has a millitary force that is straight out of the 60s, and is a fraction of the size it was when it got smacked down in the '90s, not to mention that the gap between their newest units and most western countries (Or Israel’s, for that matter) forces has grown, due to Iraq’s millitary stagnation over the past decade.

The portrayal of those two countries and the circumstances around them as being the same is simply not accurate. There are some vague similarities, but that’s it. The Iraqi conventional millitary force is a joke, and there’s no way they could hide a buildup of forces to their previous levels, much less anything that could be a serious threat of invasion for nearby countries. They do not have Germany’s industrial base, and we have much better intelligence gathering ability and rapid deployment ability than we did in the 30s. If Iraq tried a conventional force buildup, it would be suicide; The US could deploy their (Even more advanced) forces and strike before Iraq could even build up to pre-Desert-Storm levels.

[RandySpears]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**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%.
**

Not quite. For example the Spanish figugers was for people that opposes a war on iraq even with UN backing. But you are quite right in stating that how you phrase the question effects the outcome.

So then, should i take your reply as admitting that Bush and Blair (and possible other allies) lack a publicly supported platform (outside the US) for moving without a new UN resolution? In your view, should they pay any attention to this or go ahead anyway?

[Sam_Stone]

If Blair and Bush think that there is a threat to their security, they should go forward. After all, they are privy to information we don’t have. And we don’t run governments by poll.

Doesn’t it bother you that Tony Blair is willing to stick by Bush even under threat of a vote of no confidence? Why? Do you think it’s ‘all about oil’? Does Bush have some Svengali power that can cause politicians around him to self destruct in blind loyalty?

The simplest explanation is that Blair knows what Bush knows, and both are agreed that the threat is real and cannot be ignored.

[RandySpears]

Some counter-questions then: is it so then that Chiraq and Schröder does not know what Bush and Blair knows? Why then not let them in on the deal?

The head of the Cia, George Tenet, recently characterized Iraq as posing no major threat to the US. Isnt that where mr Bush gets his info?

[John_Mace]

Randy:

Good points, but Sam’s argument makes more sense. It’s easy for a leader (Chiraq or Schroeder) to sway with public opinion, but hard to one (Blaire) to go against it.

Frankly, the French have NO credibility in the US. We almost never see eye to eye with them. And how about Chiraq chastizing the Eastern Europeans for supporting the US-- threatening to block their entry to the EU. He’s not helping his cause.

BTW, if Sweden were to come under the threat of a foreign power, who would you prefer to come to your aid: Germany, the French or the US? Just a thought. I know Sweden was technically “neutral” in WWII, but just writing “Germany” in that last sentence made my spine shiver. As for the French, well I’m not even going to comment on that.

[RandySpears]

Well, John, i’ll answer your points in reverse order:

You are for sure refering to Germanys record in warfare in the previous century. I will not comment on the US history in warfare after WW2. But it is still interesting that the fact that the nation who has been responsible for so much suffering (and i am speaking of Nazi Germany) now rather seeks out peaceful solutions, is now made out to be a bad thing.

I am aware that the french is often caricatured as a snotty, anti-american, strung up people in the US. Not all of those generalizations are common in Europe, but of course some of them are Still a more common and, I believe, also more accurate generalization over here, is that of a western world where the US, by it’s superior military and economic power often sets the agenda more or less as they please. In the light of that you can’t help but sympatizing with the french and their need to revolt. It’s another matter that i happen to think the revolt justified.

Well Blair has not had any poll problems with going along with the US on most everything up until now. Let’s see what happens. The public opinion in France differs from that in England only mildly.

It is striking how often people who glorifies the institution of “democracy” praises the ability of a “statesman” of taking decisions contrary to general opinions!

[Gyrate]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**If Blair and Bush think that there is a threat to their security, they should go forward. After all, they are privy to information we don’t have. And we don’t run governments by poll.

Doesn’t it bother you that Tony Blair is willing to stick by Bush even under threat of a vote of no confidence? Why? Do you think it’s ‘all about oil’? Does Bush have some Svengali power that can cause politicians around him to self destruct in blind loyalty?

The simplest explanation is that Blair knows what Bush knows, and both are agreed that the threat is real and cannot be ignored. **

Oh, how this made me laugh. What Bush has over Blair is economic power; the UK is more dependent on its ties with the US than other European countries by a long way. Do you think the UK economy could stand up to even mild economic sanctions? There’s also national security issues; given the current state of the British military establishment, the UK needs the US to defend its borders should the occasion arise (not that I think Iraq is going to invade; I mean in general). If the UK turns its back on the US (and Bush has made it perfectly clear that any country opposing the US on this issue will find it hard going in the immediate future), where’s it going to turn for support – France? Again, I laugh.

Bush doesn’t need charisma – he’s got power, and he’s wielding it like a flamethrower. The problem is that someday the US will need something from some of the countries it’s currently horking off, and will discover that there are a lot of burned bridges to rebuild.

As for the French themselves, the French government has generally been well-disposed towards the US. I hardly think one can blame them for getting a little annoyed at another country attempting to force them into military action, either directly (via NATO) or indirectly, without at least listening to their views first.

[smiling_bandit]

Do you think the UK economy could stand up to even mild economic sanctions?

Just like the ones we’ve imposed in France, Russian, and China?

The problem is that someday the US will need something from some of the countries it’s currently horking off, and will discover that there are a lot of burned bridges to rebuild.

We didn’t burn the bridges. We just now realized that the other guys put up roadblocks on them.

As for the French themselves, the French government has generally been well-disposed towards the US. I hardly think one can blame them for getting a little annoyed at another country attempting to force them into military action, either directly (via NATO) or indirectly, without at least listening to their views first.

I don’t recall the US asking the French for anything. Quite franckly, they can stay at home or go to the moon, and neither course will bother me at all. In fact, I’d rather they didn’t show up in Iraq at all. We didn’t force them into anything.

[RandySpears]

smiling bandit:

you may be content with the US striking alone, but the population of your country seem to be behind a war, only if there is a strong coalition to back it up.

Such a coalition naturally consists of members of NATO, such as France.

[SentientMeat]

bandit, I must wholeheartedly back up jr8’s assertion that Blair’s stance is economic in origin. I cannot think of any feasible situation in which a British PM would jeopardise the “special relationship”, no matter how unpopular it temporarily made the ruling party.

Back to your OP, alas I was also playing footy with jumpers for goalposts back in the day. I venture that the best way to heretofore prevent the investiture of undesirable regimes would be to create an International Criminal Court forthwith, having powers to try defendants in absentia.