What Should Have Been Done About Iraq?

[Hugo]

Bearing in mind that so many people on this forum have a really serious problem with US/Coalition involvement in Iraq, what do they think should have been done to address the Iraqi problem?

Please bear in mind the following:

1) Iraq failed to comply with 14 UN resolutions that all stipulated that force would be used if compliance was not forthcoming peaceably.

2) According to Global Business Network, on each average day in Saddam's Iraq between 70 and 125 innocent Iraqis were put to death. When Gulf II began, that number fell to 38 per day (and that's using the highly suspect and doubtless inflated figures from the Iraqi (mis)information Ministry). So basically, war improved Iraqi life expectancies - that's how bad they had it.

3) While no WMD have yet been found, the fact remains that for 12 years Saddam suffered great economic hardships that resulted from his failure to fully disclose and disarm - and continued to do so. What, apart from madness, is the explanation for this?

4) Weapons inspections and UN embargoes had been ongoing for 12 years, and yet Iraqi people were still being tortured and killed at the same pace, and the threat of Iraqi WMD could never be laid to rest.

It's my opinion that the left has thought of nothing constructive, and is instead concerned purely with complaining about US policies.

So I say, if you have a better plan I'd like to hear it.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo,

While I am definitely playing 'left wing', I do appreciate your constructive way of criticizing.

in regards to #1: The number of resolutions and the fact that there were some is moot. The UN cannot enforce them until it, as a governing body, is revamped. 14 is a pittance compared to Israel, yet I will not criticize Israel for having dozens against them. Further, that fact (of the 14) was never a key issue for the US/UK coalition's case to invade. If they used that parameter for justification for invasion, they would have gone after Israel first.

#2. While this is indeed a critical issue, most of those deaths were Kurds, including the use of WMD's. The Kurdish question is a sticky one, for they desire to secede. They also would have taken the northern oil fields with them. Both Iraq and Turkey (and the US) covet them, and it would be no surprise for any one of them to use force to quell a seccesionist movement. The use of poison gas, though, should have been severely reprimanded.

#3. Forgive this cheekiness, but: why didn't the teamster organize unions there to improve wages and collective bargaining? Aside from the fact that unions are communist, and would have been deplored by both Iraq and the US, neither can forsee profit being squeezed out of the Iraqis through unionization. Seriously, though, I think poverty is a different animal and not central to the concerns of the invasion.

4:You are right. Embargoes hurt the people, not the gov't.

Just like fines against large corporations, the execs won't suffer, the small shareholder and employees will.

So, what would I do as a leftist? The UN is in dire need of an overhaul. I would ask the UN to formalize a military contingency plan, and demand that each member nation place at it's disposal a percentage of those member's military, to be used with discretion. If the UN were also to get rid of the veto system, democracy could legitimately decide what we all value.

The UN could have gone into Iraq with full support of it's member nations, rather than being held ransom for the interests of the few or the one. (I mean that as a reference to TotalFinaElf's ability to influence the position of France).

[nova_satori]

What is the difference between 14 and 15 resoultions?

Is 14 twiddle your thumbs, and 15 is let all the bombs fly?

What is one more resolution?

The UN fails because it lacks a military force behind it. When the US assumes that role, things go smoothly. When the US forsakes that role, all the UN can do is cry and send food.

The UN needs the strongest military force that is independent on all countries. And it needs to cut much of that beaucracrcy.

3) While no WMD have yet been found, the fact remains that for 12 years Saddam suffered great economic hardships that resulted from his failure to fully disclose and disarm - and continued to do so. What, apart from madness, is the explanation for this?

Not quite. Saddam lived quite comfortably. It was the Iraqi people that got smacked.

before you rant about Chemical weapons saddam used, the US released numerous biological and chemical agents into CONTENT, LAW ABIDING populations from the west coast (inculdung Hawaii) To the east coast. These weren't rebellious Hawaiian soverginty fighters. They were pro-US populations.

[Craig Read]

The UN fails because of the following:

-Anachronistic security council

-International affairs are anarchic not subject to world governance

-There is good and evil in the world

-The UN is bloated, wastes money and is trying to do too much

-The UN stole $21 billion from Iraqi's during the 1990s - the money is sitting in French banks

-The UN is hostage to dictators and 3rd world cranks

-The UN has never proven itself able to resolve any notable conflict including Somalia; Kosovo; Central Africa; Afghanistan; Iraq; Palestine; Chechnya; Ivory Coast; Falkland Islands; East Timor.

The UN is a socialist experiment at equality, sameness, bromides about love and fear mongering regarding the environment, capitalism and progress.

It is a waste of time and money and needs reform, to be scaled down and have the security council reconstituted.

[Craig Read]

The UN fails because of the following:

-Anachronistic security council

-International affairs are anarchic not subject to world governance and selfish interests dominate

-There is good and evil in the world which the UN blithely and ignorantly ignores

-The UN is bloated, wastes money and is trying to do too much

-The UN stole $21 billion from Iraqi's during the 1990s - the money is sitting in French banks

-The UN is hostage to dictators and 3rd world cranks

-The UN has never proven itself able to resolve any notable conflict including Somalia; Kosovo; Central Africa; Afghanistan; Iraq; Palestine; Chechnya; Ivory Coast; Falkland Islands; East Timor.

The UN is a socialist experiment at equality, sameness, bromides about love and fear mongering regarding the environment, capitalism and progress.

It is a waste of time and money and needs reform, to be scaled down and have the security council reconstituted.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Read,

I agree with you that the UN needs a serious overhaul before it can be effective. However, except for the last sentence, actually just part of the sentence,

...and needs reform, to be scaled down and have the security council reconstituted.

is the only thing relavent to the post. Are there any suggestions that you might have, besides this half sentence, that would be constructive?

[Whistler]

The UN as now assigned is a peace keeping institution not a peace making one.

[KrustyKidd]

Dear Mr. Read,

I agree with you that the UN needs a serious overhaul before it can be effective. However, except for the last sentence, actually just part of the sentence,

...and needs reform, to be scaled down and have the security council reconstituted.

is the only thing relavent to the post. Are there any suggestions that you might have, besides this half sentence, that would be constructive?

Once again, I appologise to Craig for answering for him.

No, that sentence says it all. In order to be scaled down it has to be made effective. Would you rather it be made larger and more ineffective and cumbersome? Of course not. I would further suggest that third world nations be cut out of any form of voting until they show reforms of some kind. Rather than putting Lybia as chairman of the human rights I would give it certain points for admitting resposibility for Lockierbie and such. China loses points for human rights and so on and forth. Stop giving carte blanche to nations that are scum just to make them feel good.

[Craig Read]

KK thanks for the answer you are right on.

The UN rapes Iraq for $21 billion in revenue during the 90s.

It was at the forefront of eliminating DDT from Africa - result thousands are dead from Malaria.

It has been a spectacular failure in Somalia and Central Africa.

Like I said; refugee relief, humanitarian aid, child relief, a totally reformed Security Council and less overlap. For instance ECOSOC overlaps completely with the IMF and World Bank. Get rid of it. Reform the IMF - it has wasted billions propping up corrupt regimes. The World Bank needs a thorough audit as to what it actually does. Rhetoric aside, its activities are not proven essential. If they are wasting money, shut it down.

The UN is one giant 3rd world labor exchange. This is its main mandate - enforce socialism, transfer monies to the 3rd world, socially engineer our modern life via Kyoto and spend taxpayer dollars on dubious projects, and firmly adamantly resolve not to implement Security Council Resolutions.

It is a body that has outlived its usefulness. Reform is urgent and mandatory.

[Black Dog]

1) Iraq failed to comply with 14 UN resolutions that all stipulated that force would be used if compliance was not forthcoming peaceably.

No UN resolutions specifically mentioned the use of force. The pertinent one that Bushco cited as the reason for the recent Anglo-American aggression (1441) specified "serious consequenses"-wording that was far less severe than the resolution calling on Iraq's withdrawl from kuwait in '91.

That said, the fact is that the invasion violated the UN Charter. So to use flouting of international law as a reason to flout international law is a bit much.

2) According to Global Business Network, on each average day in Saddam's Iraq between 70 and 125 innocent Iraqis were put to death. When Gulf II began, that number fell to 38 per day (and that's using the highly suspect and doubtless inflated figures from the Iraqi (mis)information Ministry). So basically, war improved Iraqi life expectancies - that's how bad they had it.

"Put to death" or "died"? Now who's spreading misinformation? After 12 years of sanctions and bombings caused by skyrocketing rates of malnutrition and disease, what would you expect? As for anything pre-1991, keep in mind that all atrocities commited by Saddam were done so with a wink and a nod from Washington. So excuse me if I think the humanitarian concern emanating from the DC hawks reeks of hypocrisy.

3) While no WMD have yet been found, the fact remains that for 12 years Saddam suffered great economic hardships that resulted from his failure to fully disclose and disarm - and continued to do so. What, apart from madness, is the explanation for this?

Becuase the sanctions allowed him to firm up his regime. People aren't going to rise up against you when they don't have any food or are too sick to walk. Besides, whatever Saddam's reasons, his non-compliance proves one thing only: he didn't comply. Infering the existence of WMD from that is a pretty flimsy justification for war.

Continued inspections, monitoring and intellegence field work would have been able to better track his WMD asperations (all withour violatining international law).

4) Weapons inspections and UN embargoes had been ongoing for 12 years, and yet Iraqi people were still being tortured and killed at the same pace, and the threat of Iraqi WMD could never be laid to rest.

You kniow, there's plenty of other countries that flout UN resolutions, hav eatrocious human rights records, and are pursuing WMD, yet there's never a big rush to attack all of them. Why Iraq? And why now (er...then)? Why not North Korea? Why not East Timor under Suharto (oh, right: he was a client)? Why not Pakistan?

[Hugo]

No UN resolutions specifically mentioned the use of force.

In that case, then, Bill Clinton was in violation of international law for airstrikes in Iraq and completely unsanctioned involvement in Kosovo.

"Put to death" or "died"? Now who's spreading misinformation? After 12 years of sanctions and bombings caused by skyrocketing rates of malnutrition and disease, what would you expect?

OK, let me get this straight:

People in America are homeless because they're on drugs or whatever, and that's the President's fault.

People in Iraq are starving because Saddam refuses to fulfill conditions that would allow them to be fed, and this is not Saddam's fault.

If Iraqis starved because of war that Saddam brought upon himself by invading a neighbouring country and refusing to leave peacefully when commanded to do so by the UN, or because Saddam refused to fulfill the conditions that would lift the trade embargoes, or because Saddam sold the drugs and food he did get to neighbouring countries for guns and tanks, then their deaths are the fault of Saddam as much as the ones that his minions directly tortured and executed.

Becuase the sanctions allowed him to firm up his regime. People aren't going to rise up against you when they don't have any food or are too sick to walk.

Historically, that's exactly when they would rise against you.

Embargoes weren't the foundation of Saddam's power. If they were, how did he get along before the embargoes were in place? Easy: the same way he did afterward, by running a brutal police state.

You kniow, there's plenty of other countries that flout UN resolutions, hav eatrocious human rights records, and are pursuing WMD, yet there's never a big rush to attack all of them. Why Iraq? And why now (er...then)? Why not North Korea? Why not East Timor under Suharto (oh, right: he was a client)? Why not Pakistan?

Why not China, who Clinton opted to sell supercomputers and missile technology to against the warnings of human rights groups and the advice of the NSA? You have to start somewhere, and George Bush picked Iraq because he believed it was the most pressing threat and certainly a good candidate for overthrow.

Why not NK? Probably because it means war with China, and a diplomatic solution would be preferable. Why not Pakistan? President Musharraf has promised elections and reform, why not give him a chance before you start firing cruise missiles?

For a leftist, you seem remarkably trigger-happy.

[Craig Read]

To follow on from Hugo a couple of points;

1. The US wanted to lift sanctions against Iraq as soon as Hussein complied with the UN resolutions. To line his own pockets and portray his country as a martyr Hussein refused. The US then had to incur the costs of ringing Iraq with troops and posts. This was very expensive. I don't remember the UN reimbursing the US for this cost.

2. Hussein used the food and other supplies and distributed them to cronies, friends and exported them. Yes Iraq exported UN food supplies and medicines. In Arab countries it is reported that people preferred 'Iraqi' medicine since it was Western and of better quality. US Troops found warehouses of such supplies this past spring.

3. NK is an entirely different set of geo-political pressures. China, Russia and Japan all have interests. There is nothing comparable to this in the Middle East.

4. The Lie-berals are hypocrites. First they laughed that NK was a threat. Then they laughed that Iraq was a threat. Now they cry that NK is a graver threat than Iraq but you can be sure that IF NK was invaded, they would be dead set against the war, much as they were dead set against invading Iraq and upending a very important part of the Terrorist network and support structure.

Basically the Liberals have no idea about realism and geo-politics.

[Black Dog]

In that case, then, Bill Clinton was in violation of international law for airstrikes in Iraq and completely unsanctioned involvement in Kosovo.

I agree 100 per cent. Despite the straw man approach that paints anyone with a progressive bent as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, I think Clinton was a huge slimeball. It's merely a testament to the current regime that Bush II makes Clinton look like a genius and a saint.

People in America are homeless because they're on drugs or whatever, and that's the President's fault.

People in Iraq are starving because Saddam refuses to fulfill conditions that would allow them to be fed, and this is not Saddam's fault.

Nope. Saddam's fault but aided and abetted (directly or indirectly via the ridiculous sanctions) by the west.

Embargoes weren't the foundation of Saddam's power. If they were, how did he get along before the embargoes were in place?  Easy: the same way he did afterward, by running a brutal police state.

You'll find no argument for Saddam as a ruler here. But he was able to crush the largest popular uprising against his rule after the war (with the U.S. watching disinterestedly from the sidelines). That set back any resistance movement, and the sanctions put the nail in the coffin.

Why not China, who Clinton opted to sell supercomputers and missile technology to against the warnings of human rights groups and the advice of the NSA? You have to start somewhere, and George Bush picked Iraq because he believed it was the most pressing threat and certainly a good candidate for overthrow.

Why not NK? Probably because it means war with China, and a diplomatic solution would be preferable. Why not Pakistan? President Musharraf has promised elections and reform, why not give him a chance before you start firing cruise missiles?

For a leftist, you seem remarkably trigger-happy.

You clearly missed the point, which is its not the U.S.'s job to "impose democracy" on anyone, let alone in nations that have not attacked them directly.

and George Bush picked Iraq because he believed it was the most pressing threat and certainly a good candidate for overthrow.

"Pressing threat" or easy target?

1. The US wanted to lift sanctions against Iraq as soon as Hussein complied with the UN resolutions. To line his own pockets and portray his country as a martyr Hussein refused. The US then had to incur the costs of ringing Iraq with troops and posts. This was very expensive. I don't remember the UN reimbursing the US for this cost.

hey, maybe if teh Sates piad some of their back dues to the UN, they'd get a little more financial help. besides, the no-fly zones etc. were not under UN auspices.

4. The Lie-berals are hypocrites. First they laughed that NK was a threat. Then they laughed that Iraq was a threat. Now they cry that NK is a graver threat than Iraq but you can be sure that IF NK was invaded, they would be dead set against the war, much as they were dead set against invading Iraq and upending a very important part of the Terrorist network and support structure.

Basically the Liberals have no idea about realism and geo-politics.

Still whacking that straw man, I see. Personally, I always said NK was a greater threat than Iraq, though "greater" in this case still amounts to a negligible threat. And I'd opose invading NK or any other soverign country as I'm solidly against the PNAC doctrine of pre-emptive war. There's another word for that: terrorism.

[Derek]

Both countries are F*cked up. Personally i feel that NK was the bigger threat. Plus we really don't know what they all have. They are sneaky little bastards. Iraq however was something we could easily fix and did. NK won't change untill Kim Jong Ill dies. Hopefully soon. The country starves its people. Its disgusting. Eventually we will be forced to put the same pressure on NK. Most likely after Kim is out. NK, right now is the most pathetic nation.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Derek,

I agree with you that NK is more serious, but

Iraq however was something we could easily fix and did.

I do think Iraq is far from being 'fixed', in any lasting sense of the word.

Dear Hugo,

Indeed, airstrikes against Iraq was strictly a US and UK affair. They were to remind Iraq of the overwhelming power of the US, not any mandated UN resolution. I remember reading, and laughing, at the Iraqi reports on their website (INA.com, now defunct) about how the 'brave Iraqis sent the aggressive infidels back to their nests of evil'. Lots of propaganda all around.

Yes, though, the US commits many illegal acts of international aggression.

[SirRiff]

what should have been done in IRaq?

first- hold a position of morality

america has not been held accountable for supporting saddam while he gassed his own people

or while he waged war against Iran mindlessly. the oil was flowing and nobody asked any questions (just like saudi arabia)

thus they have no position of moral authority despite thier words to the contrary

secondly- tell the truth.

as we all see now as Bush backpeddles from WMD to human rights, IF america was truly a great nation the true justification for "liberating" iraq, namely humanitarian reasons, should have been sufficient.

the fact that the US gov had to lie to its own people and the world with these pathetic "intelligence" papers is a sure sign that given the opportunity to do the right thing, the american people would never have moved for such boring reasons as rape, murder, and torture.

since there was no obvious immediate threat from iraq, a third world nation, the US should have gone to the UN and worked out with the world a moral and ethical case for removing illigetamate dicatators.

IF, after making a passionate humanitarian case for the removing of violent and oppressive dictators based on universal human rights and global instabilty, THEN the US can go it alone and could legitimately wag a finger at europe as being useless.

this is not what happened, and no amount of revisionist history will credit the US after the fact with making a sensible case for war, instead the lies and fanatical distraction will leave a legacy that will harm future humanitarian missions.

its astonishing that a nation with so many resources did such a bad job in making its case.

Sirriff

[Derek]

since there was no obvious immediate threat from iraq, a third world nation, the US should have gone to the UN and worked out with the world a moral and ethical case for removing illigetamate dicatators.

We did go to the UN. we had enough so we went in. The UN is worthless Bush knows this, thats why he said we didn't need the UN's support. We never did, we never will.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Derek,

Why does Bush continue to plead his case for more support if they need no help?

We did go to the UN. we had enough so we went in. The UN is worthless Bush knows this, thats why he said we didn't need the UN's support. We never did, we never will.

I am afraid this post is quite laughable. No offence intended, it is just that I see every point made refuted in the news on a daily basis.

[FastNed]

SirRiff, you stated:

since there was no obvious immediate threat from iraq, a third world nation

How exactly do you reach this conclusion? You have access to better intelligence than everyone else?

You wish to present this as some sort of moral contest and claim that fifty years of American actions, as viewed with your mindset, make our actions v.v. Iraq an immoral act. The moral tone for our War against terrorists was set on 9.11; we have not responded on that level, as yet, but reserve the right to do so if, as and when necessary.

Saddam provided aid, comfort and support to terrorists. R.I.P.

[nova_satori]

So did the US. you're point is....

Saddam was a terrorist in his own state.

Hirohito was a terrorist to the Asian contient and Australia.

Stalin was a terrorist to Europe and Asia.

Bush is a terrorist to the world.

[SirRiff]

How exactly do you reach this conclusion? You have access to better intelligence than everyone else?

have you been living under a rock fastned?

all reports have come back no WMD to be found.

saddam would obviously never attack his neighbors becuase he knew it would bring a full US retalization

iraq is a third world nation as we can all plainly see by thier non existent defence and broken infrastructure.

its obvious iraq was not a threat to the US as the american propaganda claimed.

lies, lies, lies

SirRiff

[daniel]

Earth to FasNed, Earth to FastNed:

9-11 and the invasion of Iraq are two different and unlinked events.

George W Bush admitted this too.

The war on terrorism had UN approval. The war on Iraq did not.

[Craig Read]

That is nonsense. Did you not read one posting on this ? I listed a long list of Iraq-Al Qaeda links. Refute one of them. Argue with some facts. I will list them again since apparently you can't read.

[Craig Read]

here is one:Ansar Al Islam is an Iraqi terrorist group operating in Palestine and elsewhere with close links to Al Qaeda. The head of the Kurdish security forces in the north was quoted as saying a few days ago that Ansar al Islam followers have been sneaking across the border with Iran and are setting up cells in Baghdad.

Whoops.

Training camps have been found in northern Iraq along with Al Qaeda operatives and manuals on chemical warfare.

Whoops.

Yesterday the wonderful Muslim extremists blew up the UN building in Baghdad. The UN refused US security and paid the price for their ignorance of how reality works.

Whoops.

Yesterday's bombing was notable in that it wasn't against U.S. soldiers but against non-American civilians trying to restore normalcy to post-Saddam Iraq.

As a "soft-target" the U.N. was of course more vulnerable to a truck bomb. But the U.N. was no doubt also chosen to intimidate countries that are now contemplating the dispatch of either troops or civilian experts to help rebuild Iraq. The persistent attacks on water mains, oil pipelines and other essential infrastructure are also designed to prevent stability from returning to Baghdad.

Welcome to the real world Post Modernists.

Still want to hide behind your skirts and shriek about 'socialised health care' and 'all people and cultures are equal'?

Thought so.

[Craig Read]

here is a 2nd which i had posted 9-23

Not one of you brainless anti-American racists can refute any of the following. So I suggest you stop your ranting and address some real issues.

-Iraq and Al Qaeda had contacts stemming from 1993 in Sudan.

In fact:

-Iraq supplied AQ money funnelled through various AQ factions dating from 1993 [when the terrorists would meet in Sudan yearly at the Arab Congress]

-Iraq supplied chemical materials to AQ

-Iraq supplied fake documents and passports for AQ men

-AQ operatives have been found in Iraq

-Training facilities in Iraq [1 sw of Baghdad, 1 near Iran], have found AQ operating manuals

-AQ documents have been found in Iraq on chemical weapons production [iraqi's are the world experts in producing Zyklon B [hydrogen-cyanide gas for the illiterate]

-Hussein and Bin Laden in 1998 before the East African embassy bombings were both releasing the same threats to the US if sanctions were not lifted against Iraq

-2 US embassies in East Africa were attacked on August 7th 1998 exactly 8 years to the day that US troops first went to Saudi Arabia [a huge issue for Bin Laden]

-Israeli operatives firmly believe that Iraq help fund and sponsor the 9-11 attacks and that in 2001 many meetings were held between Iraqi officials and AQ

-Atta who lead the 9-11 attacks met with Iraqi officials many times, the last in Prague [Czech authorities are adamant the meeting took place]

-Only Iraq failed to condemn the 9-11 attacks, other Arab League members did condemn them

The whole idea that Bin Laden, in a loose federation of terrorists, is able to launch 9-11 style attacks without a nation state helping him is ridiculous.

Bin Laden has a net worth of $30 million more or less, he lost his shirt in the Sudan, when the contracts he built were not paid for. AQ needs the $. What more likely country to supply it than Iraq ?

Or is of the above just a little too much for the left liberal apologists.

We need to understand 'root causes'. Excuse me while i laugh my ass off.

Sources [unlike the left liberal girls i prefer evidence], many sources are liberal ones. At least i am fair minded.

-Forbes March 17 2003

-Daily Telegraph, April 17 2003

-UPI Sept 25 2002

-Knight Ridder, Feb 6 2003

-New York Sun, March 12 2003

-Guardian Weekly, Feb 14 1999

-Jane's Foreign Report, Sept 19 2001

-Time, Sept 24 2001

-AEI Press, 'Study of Revenge', 2001

-fas.org

-Guardian, May 23 1998

-Journal of Counterterrorism, 2001, vol. 7 #4

-NY Times, Feb 6 2003

-Washington Times, Bill Gertz, Sept 21 2001

-CNN Sept 12 2001

-LA Times Dec 9 1996