DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Iraq

**no02rSx2** · 01-18-2008, 04:13 PM

More than that, there was a vote in Parliament on March 18 2003 on whether Britain should go to war. Blair stated Britain would not invade and he would resign as Prime Minister if the government lost the debate. A debate on a war, having never been done before in Britian, struck a new precedent and Brown is now working on plans to constitutionally transfer powers of declaring war from the Prime Minister to Parliament.

If the invasion was justified on moral grounds (removing a repressive regime from power and installing a democracy), it should have been sold on that basis.

Iraq was the same dictatorship before 09/11. Would the people of Britain and the US have supported the war plans if 09/11 had not occurred?

The justification for the invasion was that Iraq was a threat to the US. Given that this view was not merely an error in judgment, but a deliberate distortion; I don't see how you could call the invasion morally justified.

Your WWII example is a poor one. Regardless of what was done after the war, the reason the Allies went to war had nothing to do with removing repressive regimes and installing democracy. There was reason and opportunity to do that long before the war began.

It's true that Britain didn't declare war on Germany to spread democracy, although I would argue self-interest only played a part in the decision. Naivety and unwillingness to deal with reality combined with a justifiable long-term view explains the ultimately successful policy of appeasement under Chamberlain. But anyway, I don't see how the weak argument that a lack of history of democracy somehow makes democracy impossible is anyway altered by the reasons for WW2. I also gave the examples of Eastern Europe, which now have very strong democracies despite over 40 years of Soviet domination.

I accept that the war probably would have encountered more opposition, certainly in the US, if it had been proposed before 9/11. I wish Iraq had been sold on humanitarian interventionism from the start, although to be fair Blair's speech to Parliament on the day of the vote spoke of regime change in these terms:

"But [regime change] is the reason, I say frankly, why if we do act we should do so with a clear conscience and strong heart.
I accept fully that those opposed to this course of action share my detestation of Saddam. Who could not? Iraq is a wealthy country that in 1978, the year before Saddam seized power, was richer than Portugal or Malaysia.
Today it is impoverished, 60% of its population dependent on food aid.
Thousands of children die needlessly every year from lack of food and medicine.
Four million people out of a population of just over 20 million are in exile.
The brutality of the repression - the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political opponents, the routine beatings for anyone or their families suspected of disloyalty are well documented.
Just last week, someone slandering Saddam was tied to a lamp post in a street in Baghdad, his tongue cut out, mutilated and left to bleed to death, as a warning to others.
I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it must be under the lash of Saddam.
"But you don't", she replied. "You cannot. You do not know what it is like to live in perpetual fear."
And she is right. We take our freedom for granted. But imagine not to be able to speak or discuss or debate or even question the society you live in. To see friends and family taken away and never daring to complain. To suffer the humility of failing courage in face of pitiless terror. That is how the Iraqi people live. Leave Saddam in place and that is how they will continue to live." March 18, 2003

If you read the assessment of the British government prior to invasion, the evidence appears pretty strong. I don't recall any government opposed to the war at the time saying that Iraq didn't have WMDs...

01-18-2008, 04:13 PM	#45
no02rSx2 Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 412 Senior Member	More than that, there was a vote in Parliament on March 18 2003 on whether Britain should go to war. Blair stated Britain would not invade and he would resign as Prime Minister if the government lost the debate. A debate on a war, having never been done before in Britian, struck a new precedent and Brown is now working on plans to constitutionally transfer powers of declaring war from the Prime Minister to Parliament. If the invasion was justified on moral grounds (removing a repressive regime from power and installing a democracy), it should have been sold on that basis. Iraq was the same dictatorship before 09/11. Would the people of Britain and the US have supported the war plans if 09/11 had not occurred? The justification for the invasion was that Iraq was a threat to the US. Given that this view was not merely an error in judgment, but a deliberate distortion; I don't see how you could call the invasion morally justified. Your WWII example is a poor one. Regardless of what was done after the war, the reason the Allies went to war had nothing to do with removing repressive regimes and installing democracy. There was reason and opportunity to do that long before the war began. It's true that Britain didn't declare war on Germany to spread democracy, although I would argue self-interest only played a part in the decision. Naivety and unwillingness to deal with reality combined with a justifiable long-term view explains the ultimately successful policy of appeasement under Chamberlain. But anyway, I don't see how the weak argument that a lack of history of democracy somehow makes democracy impossible is anyway altered by the reasons for WW2. I also gave the examples of Eastern Europe, which now have very strong democracies despite over 40 years of Soviet domination. I accept that the war probably would have encountered more opposition, certainly in the US, if it had been proposed before 9/11. I wish Iraq had been sold on humanitarian interventionism from the start, although to be fair Blair's speech to Parliament on the day of the vote spoke of regime change in these terms: "But [regime change] is the reason, I say frankly, why if we do act we should do so with a clear conscience and strong heart. I accept fully that those opposed to this course of action share my detestation of Saddam. Who could not? Iraq is a wealthy country that in 1978, the year before Saddam seized power, was richer than Portugal or Malaysia. Today it is impoverished, 60% of its population dependent on food aid. Thousands of children die needlessly every year from lack of food and medicine. Four million people out of a population of just over 20 million are in exile. The brutality of the repression - the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political opponents, the routine beatings for anyone or their families suspected of disloyalty are well documented. Just last week, someone slandering Saddam was tied to a lamp post in a street in Baghdad, his tongue cut out, mutilated and left to bleed to death, as a warning to others. I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it must be under the lash of Saddam. "But you don't", she replied. "You cannot. You do not know what it is like to live in perpetual fear." And she is right. We take our freedom for granted. But imagine not to be able to speak or discuss or debate or even question the society you live in. To see friends and family taken away and never daring to complain. To suffer the humility of failing courage in face of pitiless terror. That is how the Iraqi people live. Leave Saddam in place and that is how they will continue to live." March 18, 2003 If you read the assessment of the British government prior to invasion, the evidence appears pretty strong. I don't recall any government opposed to the war at the time saying that Iraq didn't have WMDs...
	Quote