Why has Saddam changed his tune?

by Johnno Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:40

"Despite hundreds of searches by UN inspectors, no evidence has yet been found of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programmes.

"Attempts to link the Iraqi regime to Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups have also been met with scepticism.

by Ray Tue Mar 04, 2003 11:45

The details submitted by the Iraqi regime was evidence of the destruction of chemical weapons, not of their continued existence.
According to the Guardian, the US has been boarding an everage of 6 ships a day in the Indian Ocean, looking for Iraqi WMD. They haven't found any. These 'mysterious three ships' are a chimera, an artifact of hopeful briefing, just like the chemical weapons Blair kept telling us inspectors were about to find.

If this war is about weapons of mass destruction, where are they? (Answer 1: North Korea Answer 2: The US)
If this war is about democracy, why does the US keep supporting coups and dictators elsewhere?
If this war is about Saddam's treatment of his citizens, why didn't the US care about it in the 80's, when Saddam was an ally?
If this war is about preventing invasions, why isn't the US patrolling Kashmir?
If this war is about enforcing UN resolutions, what about Israel?

If this war _isn't_ about oil, why do so many supporters of war say that it is?

by Seanin Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:34

Don't rely too much on the Guardian, it gets a bit hysterical at times.

This business about "supporting coups and dictators everywhere" was a Cold War phenomenon. It was all on a macro scale back then, now it's gone micro. It was simply a matter of backing a right wing dicatorship instead of a communist dictatorship. They're all gone now, except for Saddam, who is exiting shortly.

You are poisoned to the very core with hatred of America, it's irrational.

by Ray Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:39

If all that stuff about supporting coups and dictators is a bit of cold war history, why did the US support the attempted coup against the elected president of Venezuela just last year? And why did the State Department welcome General Musharraf's coup in Pakistan?
US foreign policy hasn't changed at all. Democracy simply isn't a priority.

by Cathal Tue Mar 04, 2003 14:18

... you're right there. Its become the mantra of the foreign policy position, but does not exist in any true sense, not in their rhetoric, nor in the present practice of democracy in the EU or the US. Since when did choosing between pepsi and coke become a choice? The choice is made for us before we get to choose, we only choose from existing choices, choices that are suitable to existing powers, existing powers that aim to sustain the status quo.

by murtang Tue Mar 04, 2003 14:25

Wow Stan, you've really convinced me that this war will be just, and fought for the right reasons, such as being anti rag-head. Now it all makes sense. Those damn bastards! What could be more of a threat to world security than people wearing turbans!

by gaillimhed Tue Mar 04, 2003 17:25

If anyone has any doubts just cast your mind back to the Nice referendum, 'sorry guys wrong answer, back to the polls and get it right this time'.
We have absolutely no right to be smug about our democratic 'freedoms' when that kind of bullshit goes on here.

by Seanin Wed Mar 05, 2003 01:20

You lot compalining about western democracy. Have you any notion of waht people suffered to get us where we are today. Human life has always been a war of all against all, and remains so in most parts of the world.
It's not utopia but it's a damn sight finer than the misrable existences of most humans on the planet.

by simon - self Wed Mar 05, 2003 11:14

S
In light of the facts your assertions are hollow. Yes we need to care for the oppressed worldwide and remove dictators that punish their own people. But war is an old shesnut at this stage. How about directed sanctions against saddam and his chums not the Iraqi people. This could be in the form of freezing international bank accounts. How about UN (or something) controlled democratic elections. Maybe then we might have an idea of what the Iraqi people want and not what saddam or bush and the rest of the world say they want!! etc etc there are loads of options.

The hypocrisy of the US (and pretty much everyone else) administrations policies are sickening. The old story of how US/UK funded and armed Saddam with the WMD that he used on IRAN and his own people now they want them back. We thought that dog to squat but how dare he do a shit in our own back yard.

If they were driven by humanitarian aims would they have stood by when 1 million people were being slaughtered in Rwanda or any other such conflict?

Do you want to live in a world based on 'pre-emptive' self defense where all the legal and moral defenses of war are out the window. Why did America oppose the international criminal court ? - good place to bring Saddam I would have thought. Were they nervous about something.

If somebody says for you to disarm and then when you begin to you are told you are playing games there must be a pre-written agenda. Saddam could play a game of Ill show you mine if you show mw yours.

Pity those Cold War tendancies havent faded and if your not aware of what happened in Venezuela you should educate yourself.

word.

by Seanin Fri Mar 07, 2003 12:30

Directed sanctions?? Against Saddam?? Cut off his supply of Quality Street?

What on earth are you talking about?

You don't know what evil is. War will always be necessary.

You may say that this is a pre-emptive strike. I think 17 UN resolutions and over 1,000,000 dead Iraqi's are enough already.

There must be a change of governemnt in Iraq now.