War - what does it really mean ?

[Tillysmummy]

Im feeling very worried and sad about this today. Is anyone else feeling like this - silly question im sure most people are. I am very nervous about the implications. Its amazing how since having my daughter all these emotions and fears are heightened I guess out of an instinct to protect her.
I'd be very interested in other's opinions and feelings.

Find it all very scary. Although the Netherlands (where I live) will not (for the moment) be directly involved you never know what might happen if it should escalate. My brother & his wife are both in the armed forces and my sister-in-law is in Kyrgystan at the moment as a flight control officer for the F16's patroling over Afghanistan. Although things seem to be relatively quiet over there at the moment it is still scary, as it is still a warzone. And what will happen if the war with Iraq starts... Will she be able to come home as planned on April 2nd?
hmb & seahorse, I wish you strength and hope your loved ones will come back safe. Although I'm not sure a war will solve it all I still think something should be done, as Saddam is a scary b***d in my opinion. I have depressing thoughts sometimes about all the western world losing what we have now and becoming refugees. Don't want to think about it as I wouldn't know what to do. Let's hope it's all for the best and things will turn out well soon, so that our children can grow up as happy and carefree as we did.

I think the build up to this war will be greater than the event and am hopeful that we will be one dictator less quite soon.

Can you all remember the Gulf War? that was pretty quick and didn't affect many innocent people. So I can't see why this war would be so different. In fact from what I read I can't imagine that Saddam's army are really behind him at all - and they will take the first oppertunity to jump ship and be rid of him.

Must give credit to Tony Blair for standing by what he truly believes in. Not many politicians would dare fly in the face of popular opinion for their principles.

Am probably being dim, but as far as I'm aware no one has successfully made any direct connection between Saddam and Al Quaeda ? fifteen of the nineteen suspects involved in the September 11 attacks were Saudi and none of them Iraqi, Saudi has a horrible regime which involves public stonings and beheadings ? however they do supply the US with a huge quantity of oil.
Yes, Saddam Hussein is a horribly cruel dictator, but surely there's a long list of horrible dictators in the world, some of whom pose a much more direct threat to international security in my opinion (north korea) and I worry about what this war will do to the situation in the middle east as well as relations between people everywhere of different cultures. I don't believe ousting Saddam will have any positive effect on terrorism worldwide ? quite the contrary.
I feel desperately sad for all those who are going to risk their lives for this cause, which I don't believe is moral, just or legal under international law. I feel sad that institutions such as the United Nations, who have done so much to promote unity and peace in the world, are being disregarded by our goverment.
I just hope it will all be over quickly.

Front line Iraqi troups on the Kuwait border have beeing trying to surrender for weeks. The Americans have to send them back, and tell them to wait until the war starts. I only hope that those poor people have not been shot by their Iraqi officers.

I feel very down about the whole thing and hmb's and seahorse's families are very much on my mind.
Like Frieda, I understood that Al Qaeda was mostly bankrolled by dissident factions within Saudi. I think the Iraqi regime has its hands full terrorising its own people, especially the Kurds. I just hope it is over quickly with a minimal loss of life on both sides. I do wonder whether the US/GB forces will be able to walk unhindered into Baghdad while Saddam and his inner circle make for Yemen or some other less accessible haven.

Haven't had time to read this whole thread. But Frieda - you're not being dim. There is no link at all between Iraq and Al-Quaeda (except that they now have a common enemy). In his last broadcast, Bin Laden even said that he didn't care about Saddam or his government, but that he objected to the US throwing their weight about in the Middle East (or words to that effect).

What drives me mad is that the whole thing is based on a don't-let-him-get-away-with-it-and-to-hell-with-the-consequences mentality. Sometimes bad people do "get away" with bad things, but the best option is to simply stop them rather than punish them (as the weapons inspectors would have stopped him using any weapons even if they do exist and are well hidden).

I hope it's over quickly and that they do manage to find some weapons.

Frieda, am curious why you say that North Korea is MORE of a threat to us than Saddan Hussein? Sure they are a threat to South Korea....but to us??

and I can't see why the fact that there are plenty of other dictators around should stop us getting rid of this one. Its an excuse not ot do anything about anyone!

The argument (in the US govt "mind" for attacking boils down to this: that Sept. 11th moved the goalposts. Suddenly everybody, but particularly US, should see themselves as vulnerable to the most appaling attacks. Iraq would make such attacks if it thought it could get away with it, and they probably do, certainly did, have some pretty nasty weapons. Attacking Saddo is both prevention and showing the rest of world that US won't hesitate to attack proactively to defend its interests.

I don't agree with much of any of that, but that's what US govt. thinks.

I reckon the Iraqi people will be immensely better off after this war -- some will die in short term but many fewer will die in the long term. I just don't know if the rest of the world will be better or worse off after this war.

Agree with your last point Zebra, its like the attack on Afghanistan, I was v. pro that, not because of the Al Quaeda per se, but because the people would be so much better off without the Taliban. Again now some good will come of this, and it must be better than the 'old Europes' policy of burying your head in the sand while civilians suffer - oh make that civilians of non-European countries..so it doesn't matter eh!

I still feel this is a dreadful step to take, although I was really heartened by the MP vote - makes me proud to be represented FINALLY by someone who's prepared to put principles over career.

I disagree with the comments below about Clare Short (and the media hounding she's got), while I can see it would have been a strong immediate point she could have made by resigning, I agree with her that it would have made no difference as to action. And right now this government needs a strong voice to remind us of our commitment to afterwards. So far, the UK government has committed £1million to aid and £2billion to war. The US troops are costing $2billion a DAY to keep in the gulf but they have given a measly $16million to aid. We need Clare Short, desperately, and so do the Iraqi people.

lil, just had to take issue with your comment that the last gulf war didn't affect many people. It has been estimated that 100,000 Iraqis died during the last war and (hmb and seahorse, please don't read this) 148 allied soldiers, 1 in 3 by friendly fire. The anticipated death toll of this new attack, assuming it lasts the 2-5 days as anticipated by the US is 48,000 - 260,000, with an additional 20,000 dying in the civil war following the invasion and 200,000 dying from 'post-war adverse health effects'. That's a lot of people by anyone's count. The number of children dying as a direct result of sanctions (I realise the fault here lies both the the sanctioning countries and with SH) is estimated at 500,000. Incidentally, the number of Kurds gassed by SH was estimated at 5,000 (as a bit of an aside, the FBI used gas at the Waco seige and killed several children in the process who were too small for gas masks).

Personally, I don't think SH has much in the way of weapons of mass destruction any more that work or the US wouldn't actually be risking attack (hence their attitude to North Korea, afterall the US does actually have plans in place to react to a nuclear attack from NK on US soil).

hmb and seahorse - all the best to you both. I can't imagine how tough it must be for you day-to-day. Feel free to ignore what my views - I know for you it must be important to believe the war is the right thing to do, and I'd feel the same in your place.

Hasn't Saddam been responsible for the deaths of 1 million people?

Lil ? I'm no expert, but I understand that NK recently announced it was reinstating its nuclear programme, whereas I do not believe Iraq has any nuclear capability either now nor in the immediate future. During the first Gulf War the Iraqis had only the most primitive of missiles which they launched at Isreal (At that time my bf's family was in Tel Aviv and said their strikes were a bit like the odd double-decker bus being catapulted over the border ? not very nice, but not exactly nuclear). The Iraqi army is very underequipped and resourced. Kim is evidently highly strange and unpredictable and spends something like 25% of his GNP on the military ? he's on GB's list of "axis of evil" dictators, which surely won't please him.
I understood that under international law there are only two reasons for military action: if one country agresses against another or invades their territory. Iraq has done neither of these ? we can't just go around bumping off dictators just because we feel like it however horrible they appear to be. It just seems to me as though GB wants a "big name" to show the American public that he's "got" someone for September 11 ? especially before the election. He couldn't find Bin Laden, so perhaps Saddam's the next best thing.

Frieda, your last point about there being only 2 excuses for war...doesn't that mean the overthrowing of Milosevic was also illegal..and yet every aid worker and amnesty group were in favour of that? He murdered his own people too, and hence was 'taken' to court. Surely Hussein is no diferent and should also be taken to court??

Philipat, I appreciate that the gulf war lead to actual deaths but whereas 148 allies dead is a proven figure - who produced the figures for the no. of Iraqis killed. Saddam Hussein? where did those 'anticipated' numbers come from? Its just that I always wait to see the oft quoted ' hundreds of thousands of innocent children killed by sanctions'...and yes you quoted it! I wonder where that number comes from? A PR exercise? In a country which does not give figures for the number of civilians that are murdered by their own leader...who on earth is counting the number of children dieing let alone working out how their death was caused, and by what sanction.. which can be blamed on the West of course...sigh. Big pinch of salt

Lil, the 500,000 children dying as a direct result of sanctions is UNICEF's figure.

The figures for Gulf War 1990-91 come from Beth Osborne Daponte, an analyst in the US Census Bureau's international division (figures do vary depending on the exact question, I gave the lower figure - in a study published in the quarterly publication of the Physicians for Social Responsibility, Daponte estimated the final death toll to be 205,500. 56,000 deaths to soldiers, 3,500 to civilians, 35,000 people died in internal postwar fighting, 111,000 after the destruction of the nation's infrastructure, women who died from health effects of the war 16,500, child deaths 70,000, 8,500 senior citizens)

Not SH's propoganda.

The Army HQ aare banking on a 2 week war with minimal casualities (of course) then a temporary Military government in place in Bagdad - Special Forces are already in Iraq - (I don't think that's confidential to anyone!.) Reprisal attacks over here and elsewhere in the world are a worry but that is not a good engough reason not to remove an evil and murderous dictator like SH. I truly don't beleive that TB would risk blood on his hands - of our troops unless he was certain it was whoolly justified - I've yet to read any argument from the anti war lobby which counters that view. Mind you I don't have the same views of other MPS - when DH was in Kosovo, members of the defence select committe came to visit him and his men and had been drinking so much on the flight over they stank of booze when talking to the men, who aren't allowed to drink at all on operations! dh also had to ask his chef to cobble together a 4 course dinner as this is what the MPs seem to expect when being hosted in the field. TB isn't of that ilk but a lot of new labour have no military background whatsoever and have no understanding at all when visiting troops!

Oops just realised I've had another rant - sorry all - just ignore the last bit

Sorry, should also have mentioned UNICEF has been active in Iraq and has a partnership with the Iraq Ministry of Health (total aside but 92% measles vaccination funded by EU, note they don't make them have the mmr!!!), so the sanction figure is actually generated by someone on the ground not someone in another western office wanting to write a good press release.

Philipat,

You may not chose to believe the following, but I know this to be true. During the last Gulf war Allied airmen put their lives at direct risk but taking second and third runs at targets so that they could be a sure as possible that civilians would not be harmed. Dh was never a ground attack pilot, but many of our friends were, and I have spoken to them about it. Yes civilins sadly will die, but allied forces will put themselves at risk to make sure that is minimised. This time 80% of amunition dropped will be 'smart', last time it was 20%. All of this will minamise the damage. Compare this to the way that SH wages war. To compare American action at Waco with SHs action at halabja is missleading.

Phillipat - I have a healthy cynicism of any statistic used to support an argument! UNICEF is indeed a noteable organisation, and I just logged on but although I have skimmed through some of their papers on sanctions in Iraq I have not come across any figures stating the number of children killed thru' sanctions.e.g.

www.unicef.org/emerg/ImpactSanctions.htm

Am happy to be proved wrong Philipat, but where did you get your figures, was it actually from UNICEF or from someone else quoting it?

or mis-quoting it!!

There are a number of other sources who put the Iraqi death toll fogure at considerably less than 100,000.

Tony Blair is a Dictator and has a cheek, saying that Saddam Hussein is a dictator, although Blair hasn't inflicted the suffering on British citiszens the was Hussein has.

For Robin Cook to resign, it must have taken a lot as he has been one of Blairs most loyal supporters over the years. I also think that there will be more resignations within the Labour Party as well.

And I always thought Tony Blair was voted into power. Mind you, having to listen to John Prescott murder the English language has certainly caused me suffering.

Tigger darlin', lovely to hear from you after so long but...I have to disagree with you a dictator pushes his own views through without democracy. Blair was in fact voted into parliament by UK citizens and was supported in his action by the majority of the house last night. He is not dictating anything.

...and Robin Cook, what a weasel, his parliamentary career has crashed since his being caught out with very 'unethical' arms movement, and being demoted from the key cabinet a couple of years ago. This is a great way for him to get noticed again and be waiting in the wings if old Tony gets booted out..yuk yuk.

hmb, I know you are right about the targeting of bombing (I'd actually seen a figure of 9% smart bombs last time so the difference should be even greater), although as we saw in Afganistan when they bombed the wedding and killed 200 people, it does rely on good intelligence to make it work.

Although obviously I don't want the bombing, I was trying to say that the impact of war goes much deeper than those killed in the bombing campaigns. lil, for someone so opinionated, you sure are cynical , I'll look out my reference for you. I hope you donated to Unicef when you loggon on to their site...

Yes, Tigger ? he may have been elected but agree he sometimes does seem to behave like a dictator ? find it highly insulting that he paid no heed to more than a million ordinary people who felt moved to march in protest at the forthcoming war. And he certainly seems to be keeping very dodgy company of late.
Think it's a great shame ? and also highly significant ? that Robin Cook the "architect of Britain's ethical foreign policy" elected to go.

Agree about the dreadful Prescott ? however at least we don't have to put up with TB droning on about concepts such as "the legs of responsibility" as GB was at the Azores at the weekend. And for one moment, with all his analgies about poker, dealing hands and putting cards on the table, I thought he was going to launch into that 60s classic "the deck of cards". Did anyone else notice that?