Conservative Home's debate blogs

Advertising

  • DVD rental
  • Conservative Books
My Photo

Conservative blogs

Blog powered by Typepad

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker

« Chris Woodhead: 97% A-level pass rates are bad for students, universities and business | Main | Sunday Times: A flat tax could boost growth, incomes and tax revenues »

Comments

Selsdon Man

It appears that Mr Kristol wants to use Iraq as base to attack Syria (and probably Iran too). A combined US-Iraqi force (without other countries?) would be an even greater target for terrorism by insurgents.

The US and UK must put right the mess they made of Iraq's infrastructure. Pulling out is not an option now but we should not stay any longer than necessary.

Conservatives must be wary of the neo-con strategy for US domination of the Middle East - it can only lead to a lengthy and catastrophic war. It will only increase the terrorist threat here.

The son of Man

The whole point of the Iraq war, let's face it, was to secure it's vast oil reserves. Facing strong approval from all parties (a few hundred people.)
And strong disapproval (the two million people who marched through the streets of London in open defiance) It had a mixed reception from the start, in other words. What about the weapons of mass destruction, that the UN inspectors didn't find when they were LET IN? The closest thing to a weapon of mass destruction that Iraq has is Mustard gas. (Please remember that the Americans sold it to them in the first place) Other than that Iraq was clean. Despite this being an illegal war from the start, (Sirrea are next) they continued anyway. Musilms all over the world turn on their TV, open the newspaper, or turn on the radio. What do they hear? The media making them out to be an ethnic minority full of evil terrorists! All of this is aside from the main point, however. Ours, and Americas troops are still dying in Iraq: America's death toll has risen over the 1000 mark; and Britain's is fast approaching. William Kristol wants us to stay!? This not only angers the Muslim community; (seeing themselves deamonized by the media) it is the thing killing our soldiers; not all the evil in the world, but Mr. Bush and his greedy hunger for oil! William Kristol? Who the hell is he anyway?

Bruce

"Son of man", your spelling and grammar ("deamonized"; "Sirrea are next"; "it's vast oil reserves"; "Americas troops") are on a par with your political analysis.

Editor

Well said Bruce!

Gary Monro

Reid's amoralist approach to the war - basically, it doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong so long as something good comes of it - is typical of an authoritarian-minded government for whom ends can be achieved by any means.

Hopefully things will work out for the Iraqis and the coalition forces will be able to leave a country that is prosperous and peaceful. There are reasons to doubt this though. One possible outcome is that the adoption of sharia law - a distinct possibility now - could result in Iraq becoming another Islamic autocracy.

Then where would we be?

GM

Bruce

Gary, it seems to me that if "something good" comes out of a war, that's a pretty good argument in favor of the war. Such thinking by Mr. Reid is not only NOT amoralist, as you assert, but precisely the opposite.
As to the rest of your posting, you mistake what the war is all about. It is, as named, a "war on terror", not a war to make Iraq "prosperous and peaceful". The Iraq part of the war on terror is (among other goals) aimed at removing the regime (Saddam's) that aided the terrorists, and attempting to set up a new democratic regime that will be less likely to sponsor terrorism. Iraq's democracy (and prosperity) is thus a means to that end, rather than an end in itself. The new Iraq may end up an autocracy, but so long as that autocracy doesn't aid any London bombings.... On another level, I'm sure glad that terrorists who otherwise would be targeting London are instead being killed in Iraq by Coalition forces.

malcolm

Bruce,as far as I was aware,Saddam Husseins regime as dreadful as it was, did not 'aid the terrorists'.
I also think you are being very premature if you think that the 'democratic' government that eventually emerges will be any more friendly to the west than was Saddams regime.Rather more likely that they will ally themselves with Iran,the nightmare scenario which so excercised the minds of our ministers in the 1980's.
Whilst I'm as pleased as you when 'terrorists' are killed in Iraq my heart goes out to the thousands of entirely innocent Iraqis who have been killed as much as it does to my fellow Londoners.

Bruce

Malcolm, I can point to a hundred places where the connection between Saddam's regime and terrorism is proven. For example, the US's 9/11 Commission report notes several such connections. Are you seriously positing that Saddam's murderous regime, alone among the midEast Muslim nations, rejected anti-Western terrorists?

As to whether the emerging democratic Iraq will be "friendly" to the west, you miss the point. We'd all like Iraq to be "friendly" to the west, but what we really want is an Iraq that won't attack its neighbors and won't support terrorism.

malcolm

Yes Bruce Saddam Husseins regime was not friendly with Al-queda and even the best attempts of Alistair Campbell and his 'dodgy dossiers' failed to prove otherwise.
My point is that Iraq will probably soon be ruled by equally unsavoury people who will be closely allied with Iran which is a nation with a much worse reputation for sponsoring terrorism against the west.
George Bush 1 knew this,it's a pity that his foolish son and his neo-con cronies didn't follow his advice.
Bush and Blair have in my opinion made a massive strategic mistake in the war on terror and it saddens me hugely that so many thousands of people have paid for this mistake with their lives.

Bruce

Malcolm, you attempt to deny the connections between Saddam Hussein and terrorists by asserting that "Husseins [sic] regime was not friendly to Al-queda". Remember that what we are engaged in is a War on Terrorism, NOT a War confined merely to "Al-queda" or ANY specific Muslim terrorist group. In the fact that Hussein's regime had contacts with terrorist organizations, including known members of Osama Bin Laden's organization. Whether Hussein was friendly with bin Laden, whether he drank beer with him at the pub or got tattoed with him, does not even address the question of whether he aided terrorists and terrorism. Hitler and Stalin certainly weren't friends, but they just as certainly aided each other in 1939.

malcolm

Bruce,I'm not sure if you are deliberately choosing to misunderstand my point.I am not an apologist for Saddam Hussein but as far as I'm aware his regime did not sponsor terrorism from Al-queda or other fanatic muslim groups in the way that Iran does (or for that matter Blairs new mate Gaddaffi) and that the mistakes and lies told by Bush and Blair will make the west less safe from terrorism now than it was before the invasion took place.
Iran is likely to be the biggest benificiary of this war,surely an outcome that will not be to your liking.

Bruce

Malcolm, your "point" seems to have shifted around in the space of two replies: from no Saddam-terrorist connection at all--"Saddam's regime ... did not aid the terrorists." to some connection, but not as much as Iran--Saddam's regime "did not sponsor terrorism... in the way that Iran does".
The original contention I've already dealt with in my reference to the 9/11 Commission report. Should you (or anyone else) wish to be made aware of further Iraq-terrorist connections, I suggest you take a look at the online articles of Stephen F. Hayes in the Weekly Standard, particularly the article of July 18, 2005. The link to that article is http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp.

malcolm

The link doesn't work and my 'point ' has not changed at all.ie That Saddams regime was not aiding Al-queda and was much less dangerous to the west than Iran.
I'm sure Stephen F. Hayes and his articles in the Weekly Standard are very eminent and even 'though I've never heard of him I look forward to reading him one day.

Selsdon Man

Malcolm is spot on again.

Bruce, you can only have a war against a specific enemy. Then you can determine when that enemy is defeated and the war is won.

The War against Terror is a deceit that enables governments to move the goalposts. They can then use the war to trample over civil liberties and maintain monstrosities like ID cards.

The key task is to defeat Al Quaeda. They and their support networks are the real threat. However, we should ask ourselves why Britain is a target when other European countries are not - even though they have Muslim communities too.

The comments to this entry are closed.

About Conservative Home