An open letter to the anti-war movement

That is correct the decision whether or not to go to war in each individual international crisis needs to be considered on its own merit.Thats why I would prefer to consider myself a pragmatist rather than any of the political labels. I believe in doing what is best in each set of circumstances rather than following a strict ideology.

Sometimes you have no choice but to wage such a war. If a country is threatening its neighbours or committing crimes against humanity then waging war against the aggressor country is a neccessity. The former Iraqi regime for example committee gross crimes against humanity such as the mass sluaghters of hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Shias after the failed uprising at the end of Gulf War One. I would therefore consider military action to remove such a terror regime a moral neccessity. The hard left has been guilty of the years of ignoring such suffering in the name of anti-imperialism. For example the hard left ignored Stalins' Russia's purges and slave camps throughout most of the 20th century. Then they ignored Saddams' reign of terror at the start of Gulf War One because they considered the Gulf War imperialist.
http://www.protestwarrior.com

 

Dragging up things like the two British invasions of Iraq. Both of which ended in failure, withdrawal and more instability in the region. How about this from an article published in the Sunday Times in 1920

“The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Bagdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows … We are today not far from a disaster”.

Then the US got involved in February 1963 a coup with the active assistance of the CIA brought the Baath party to power. Now who ended up head of the Baath party? Lets see it was Saddam somebody. Hummm but that old history stuff does not have anything to do with what’s going on right NOW.

 

What was the British publics attitude about the situation at the time ?... Was the Times reflecting or rejecting the publics view ?.

It states what you wish..that is possibly why you chose it ?. Many many articles from newspapers can be given for another perspective of the situation.

I don't suppose it is a new concept that newspapers have a agnda and bias..

It all seems horribly like the Times 'Downing St memos'..

Both can be interpreted as desired..

Ok Ok history plays a part.. what i am saying is that you have missed swathes of what happened in both situations...it is in part a reflection of your POV.. it is clouding the issue.

It could quite easily be true on the other hand..

Thats why i think it is irelevant..who is too know ?.

Quote me reports from those involved , not from the media ..then it might be a different matter..


Does that sound rude or missing the point .. i dunno it seems to make sense to me ??.

 

Different view..

The British mandate over Iraq began in October 1920, but the lessons of the insurrection had been learnt. The proposals that had been announced on 17th June 1920 before the outbreak of the insurrection (for Iraqi ministers and high officials, with a considerable amount of internal self-government leading to full eventual independence) now became official policy, and it became the duty of Sir Percy Cox who returned as Commissioner in mid-October to implement that programme. The choice of the Hashemite Faysal (recently ejected by the French from Damascus) as King of Iraq was approved by a referendum in July 1921 and he was enthroned officially on 23rd August 1921. During the 1920s the borders of the new state with Transjordan, the Nejd under 'Abdul-Aziz Al Sa'ud, and Kuwait were secured and an increasing amount of the government of the country was undertaken by Iraqis. The British hoped for an end to the mandate and complete independence for Iraq in 1931 - this proved premature, and independence was finally achieved in October 1932 when Iraq became a member of the League of Nations.

http://www.archiveeditions.co.uk/Leafcopy%5C360-8.htm

 

The US has always blocked real democracy, The US backed a military coup to overthrow the democraticaly elected Venezuela goverment and even though the people of Venezuela made it clear that they want Chavez and 80% voted for him the US still tries to impose its will over the people of Venezuela.

You can bet if the Iraqis try to empower themselfs like France May 1968, the Anarcho-Syndicalist during the Spainish Civilwar, Argeninta worker uprising of 2002 or even if they just elect their own version of Chavez, the US will try to suppress Iraqi democracy.

Expecting the US to bring democracy is as naive as thinking the USSR (when it existed) would.

 

This open letter is yet another example of right-wing dominance in America. If you so much as raise a single miniscule objection to ANY of our countries plans and actions, the Nazi right wingers will send their "armies of compassion" to stamp your ass down.

 

Natzi ???... Is this what can be expected when somebody raises the miniscule amount of objection in the opposite direction. Please it would be nice if you commented on what has been said...rather than posting derogatory generic insults.

We shall see....

 

There is only one end game that would be a win for the US in Iraq that would be to have a powerful Sunni government. It cannot be Shi’a or the country will slide into Iran and be a menace to Saudi Arabia. It cannot be Kurd because Turkey would have a cow having a Kurdish sanctuary on its borders. It has to be Sunni. They are the closes thing to a secular group in the country. There will be a huge amount of opposition from the Shi’a majority, which will see the government as a target of jihad and as a tool of the US. Therefore, we need a very strong very well armed leader. I suppose we could let Saddom out of jail.

 

The preceding paragraph



The future of these three occupied Vilayets of Mesopotamia was the subject of much discussion after the armistice, with the people of Iraq looking forward to immediate independence - nationalist feeling being heightened by the declaration of an independent Arab kingdom in Syria under the Hashemite Faysal. But the announcement on 28th April 1920 from the peace conference at San Remo that a mandate over Iraq would be offered to Great Britain put paid to these hopes of immediate independence for Iraq, and an armed insurrection against British rule broke out in July 1920. This insurrection was put down by the British by the autumn of 1920, but with considerable effort and at a cost of 40 million pounds.

 

I thought you might pick up on that.. it does not mention anything about the British publics viewpoint..nor anything that reflects '' the two British invasions of Iraq. Both of which ended in failure, withdrawal and more instability in the region.''.. possibly quite the contary... either way did you appreciate tha point i was attempting to raise ?.

 

By the way I think the antiwar movement should take a good look at itself. If it wants to really oppose aggresive wars then it should call for action to halt the wars currently raging in Africa and call for China to get out of Tibet.

The anti-war movement should also understand that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were wars of liberation NOT conquest. We have brought democracy and freedom to those countries.

The anti-war movement should also stop bashing Israel. Sure Israel can come in for some criticsm but the war in the Middle East is two sided. The Palestinians are as much to blame if not more for the violence in the Middle East than the Israelis. But how many times do you see a left wing anti-Palestinian terrorism demo - never!
http://www.protestwarrior.com

 

Dude, you are soooooo out of touch.

 

Wars dont solve anything! absolutly nothing! I mean what r u gonna do when the wars over, If it even ends? Oh look wars over and we still hate them....Its better to leave them alone or talk it out! peace!

 

Yes, I understand that you are making the point that we are both picking information that supports our position. However the fact remains that the there were two British invasions of Iraq one in 1918 that led to a period of direct rule until 1932. This was followed by a period of Independence until a coup lead to a German leaning government in 1939, which led to the 2nd British intervention that lasted until 1945 when the area was cut up into areas of influence by Brittan and France. This was followed by an unstable period until the first republic was set up in 1958. This lasted until there were problems with the split of oil wealth, which led to the coup of 1963 after a period of chaos the Baath party took over in 1968 followed by the Iran Iraq war from 1980 to 1988 in which the US supported Iraq. Now can we agree that this is an outline of the background to the current sitution?

 

Does the US do this? Yeah our government does. In a big way.

Maybe it's time to wage a PEACEFUL war against our government. Not with guns and bombs, but instead with words and sentences...which most of our Congressman and our own president can't do without sounding like complete idiots. It's obvious the military and US officials are doing DISGUSTING things to people. Including the torture and abuse at both Abu Ghraib and Guantanemo Bay.

War is always the easy way out. Yup, let's drop a bomb on them...that will shut them up...

Yeah, right...please.

I have a sticker that says: "For every bomb we drop, we could build a school." Our children are suffering because we want to start wars and disputes all over the world. Here, "University A", have my left arm in order to change the system. It's ridiculous. We need to start concentrating on the things happening here at home before we worry about what's going on in countries that scratch our backs.

And wasn't it our government that lied to us in order to weasel our way into the Middle East in the first place? Oh yeah...I forgot

 

[

And where were you fleebag laureates during Kosevo and the bombing of Iraq by Clinton? Where were all the "die-ins" and "vomit-ins" and Clinton=Hitler signs? You hypocrite. I guess as the great foreign diplomat from the Improve, Janeane Garofalo, said "it just wasn't hip" to criticize Clinton. Janeane is so illustrative of leftist hypocrisy. She verbally assaults Bush for this war but was the host of an event which Bill Clinton was the guest of honor,at a fund-raiser for seeds of peace. This after the former Clinton administration mercilessly bombed Kosevo and Iraq, all without UN authority.

Clinton is also a member of the Bilderbergers....do your research people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I can agree.. it was just the picking of information that supports your position.. with the added 'spin' that ignored ceratin realities.. thats all.

 

We get on with Germany now.. we are civil and have trust.
I suppose ardent football supporters still hate the germans and vice versa.. ''66 forever'' .. Gee sometimes the war never does end for some i agree.
Thats idiots not goverments though..
If we left Hitler alone.. heaven knows what else would have happened..
If it was possible to talk with OBL [he does not wish to speak with us] who knows what PEACE could be resolved..

It takes BOTH sides to realise and share the same goals or at least compromise .. a one sided conversations ends in continual war even if that is a 'cold war'...

 

And you know this how precisely Matt? Some news snippet that you take as definitive truth?

If anything is most likely OBL is long dead from liver failure. Plenty of archived CIA footage of him, though, to cook up the periodically necessary propaganda footage to keep the fraudulent WoT going for the boys making the big bucks off it.

But since you research nothing and question nothing you hear from the parade of "official" suits, don't let such liklihoods deter you from you swallowing it all as they hope you will.

 

double post