I never understood why the anti-Iraq war lot so frequently resorts to pathetic and ridiculous conspiracy theories, since there are plenty of legitimate reasons against the invasion. I welcome open and challenging debates. However, I am tired of arguing with people who do not even know the basic facts required to distinguish between incontrovertible evidence and popular opinions.
Against the background of the recent “Blood for Oil” conspiracy and in preparation for the upcoming Chilcot report and expected new outbreak of PoPNI (Period of Profound National Insanity), I have composed a set of golden rules for debating the Iraq war.
* Tony on Twitter asked me to add: you’re wasting your time with anyone who uses the phrase ‘took us to war on a lie’
* Further amendments coming in from Peter : “you can’t drop democracy from 30,000 ft” and don’t debate “anyone who describes jihadi suicide murderers as the resistance”
* Livy does not welcome: “the sort of people with the straight faced conceit to say, Not in My Name”
*Cathy says no-go is: Iraq war was “signed in blood”
* Jamie strictly bans: “referring to TB as a poodle, despite being an interventionist PM when Bush was still Gov. of Texas” and “complaining we invaded a ‘sovereign’ country – as if it were Holland and not a country held hostage by vile gangster regime”
* Thomas rejects: “anybody who shouts “it was illegal” without ever opening a single book on international law”
* I’d like to add: anyone who greatly exaggerates casualty number aka. “one million (+) died”. Iraqi Body Count is only reliably source
*New rule coming in from Ian: “people who have never read Blair’s 18.3.03 Commons speech esp col 772″
* Max prohibits: anyone who asks ‘Why not Bahrain/Syria/Zimbabwe?’ without admitting they would be against attacks on Bahrain/Syria/Zimbabwe for identical reasons and using identical arguments
* Erik adds: anyone who “calls Britian W.’s peripheral poodle”
* It just does not stop: people who speaks of “sexing up intelligence” are now banned from the debate
* Ex-soldier on BBC Radio 5 adds another no-go: “We launched this war for all the wrong reasons”
* Latest IWGDR: everyone describing Brian Haw as “another war casualty” is immediately excluded
* “Bush is dumb” leads to immediate disqualification
Let’s suppose, then, that control of oil reserves was not a reason for invading-occupying.
The reason Blair gave was: Saddam was a threat (e.g. within 45 mins).
Everyone now accepts that Saddam was no threat to British interests (there were no WMD).
Do you think the invasion was therefore a mistake (based on faulty intelligence)?
Rippon,
Just because ‘British interests’ weren’t directly affected this should not prevent us from intervening to help the democratic rights of others. That would be a terribly isolationist view.
Saddam was a serious threat to the region and the wider world. He had the capacity to develop and to use chemical and biological weapons. He was probably trying to get a nuclear capability. He had already committed massive genocides on the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq, he also funded and harboured terrorists. He commanded the most brutal dictatorship since the thirties.
Any of these reasons qualify intervention from the outside world and we should be glad it happened – and proud that the UK played a major part. Despite the terrible decisions made since Iraq’s liberation, surely the world is better off without the likes Saddam and Milosevic and to still be moaning about the 45 minutes red-herring is missing the point.
Iraq is now a middle-eastern, oil rich democracy with free elections and a free press. When its GDP per head and literacy rate is higher than ours will you still be moaning about ’45 minutes’?
JPW,
Firstly, you are completely at odds with Tony Blair, then.
Blair was very explicit, speaking to parliament, no less, that Saddam’s presidency was not an issue, as far as Blair was concerned. Blair was explicit that the only issue was Saddam’s (alleged) WMD. He explicitly said ‘Saddam could stay so long as he proves that he has given up his WMD’ (a convenient self-serving demand, because, logically, it is impossible to prove that you don’t possess something – you can only prove that you do possess something, by producing it). One reason why Blair took this line was because he well knew that regime-change is an illegal goal of war.
You, JPW, apparently regard adherence to international law as something optional. Blair does not, at least not in his rhetoric. Blair’s intention was regime-change, but at least he had the decency to lie about that, as a courtesy to the rules of international law. Your position, JPW, is that we shouldn’t even pretend to respect international law; we should just do whatever the hell we like.
You display woeful ignorance and/or dishonesty.
You say Saddam “funded and harboured terrorists.” The only terrorist connection that was ever alleged (not even alleged, actually, merely implied, because the people smearing Saddam knew full well that the charge does not stick) was that Saddam was connected to the 9/11 crime. But now that the invasion-occupation has been done, US intelligence openly admits that there was never any evidence to connect Saddam to 9/11.
Previous US presidents can be connected to IRA terrorism against UK forces in Northern Ireland. You apparently think, then, that it would have been justified for the Brits to send a team to assassinate the US president or even a military force to attack Washington.
You say that Saddam “commanded the most brutal dictatorship since the thirties.” There are many dictatorships around the world. Saddam’s was far from being “the most brutal”. You simply choose that colourful language because it serves your argument.
Moreover, your logic is truly appalling – and self-serving.
For example, you correctly note Saddam’s crimes, e.g. massacre of Kurds. But you will not support the prosecution of western leaders who enabled Saddam’s crimes, e.g. Margaret Thatcher, Douglas Hurd, Donald Rumsfeld. These people continued arming Saddam even +after+ his crimes (e.g. massacre of Kurds at Halabja).
Your justification for attacking Iraq is based on what Saddam wanted, or might have wanted, to do in the future. In that case, then, you would have no basis for objecting to a pre-emptive military attack by Iran against Israel: Iran has good grounds for fearing Israel’s intentions in the future, and you are providing a perfect pretext for Iran to do that.
Your final para is deeply insulting to victims of holocaust, racism and war. Would I still be complaining when Iraq is a thriving democracy? you ask. By that logic: no Jews should continue complaining about the Nazis (and their western accomplices), because Germany is now a thriving democracy; no South Africans should continue complaining about the crimes and legacy of apartheid, because South Africa is now a thriving democracy; no Brits should continue complaining about Japanese treatment of POWs, because Japan is now a thriving democracy.
Good article once again. Thumbs up!