And who sustained Saddam in power all those brutal tyrannical years? Who sold him the weapons? Who gave him nerve gas? Who turned a blind eye to all of the murder and torture of the Iraqi people because it was convenient to do so? Isn't the war as much about a puppet who has become inconvenient while sitting on the second biggest oil reserves in the world? I think so. You don't need to be Einstein to work out that the ordinary people of Iraq have counted for nothing in this nasty politics, and anyone who seriously thinks that the relief of oppression was the reason for war needs their tiny mind examined.

The argument 'anti-war = pro-saddam' is propagandist bullshit. For example, saddam offered to allow US forces into Iraq to aid the search for WMD and to hold elections within 2 years (quicker than the likely US timetable) (1). Regime change without the bloodshed. The US refused to accept this offer saying only a complete surrender (= new puppet regime) and confession of WMD possession (= a lie) would suffice. The war was completely unnecessary, even on humanitarian 'liberation' grounds since Saddam had already conceded elections supervised by the US and France. Maybe he was lying, but don't pull the 'war was a last resort' bullshit. At least 10,000 civilians are now dead for no good reason, and that is a crime against humanity. And if the war was so humanitarian, why did we use Depleted Uranium? The MoD has lied about its 'safety' (2) and thw World Health Organisation has suppressed a report outlining the devastating long-term health effects, the US is even denying access to UN radiation inspectors (UNEP)! (3). Saddam was a war criminal and the war was a war crime. There is no dichotomy here, both master and former client should stand trial in the ICC.



(1)  http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1079722,00.html
(2)  http://www.sundayherald.com/40306
(3)  http://www.sundayherald.com/40096

...from "commentator", also known as "rockwell".

Ever since September the 11th, the United States has been at war with the forces of reaction. May I please entreat you to reread the preceding sentence? Or perhaps you will let me restate it for emphasis. The government and people of these United States are now at war with the forces of reaction.

This outcome was clearly not willed, at least on the American side. And everybody with half an education seems to know how to glibly dilute the statement. Isn't Saudi Arabia reactionary? What about Pakistani nukes? Do we bomb Sharon for his negation of Palestinian rights? Weren't we on Saddam's side when he was at his worst? (I am exempting the frantic and discredited few who think or suggest that George W. Bush fixed up the attacks to inflate the military budget and abolish the Constitution.) But however compromised and shameful the American starting point was--and I believe I could make this point stick with greater venom and better evidence than most people can muster--the above point remains untouched. The United States finds itself at war with the forces of reaction.

Do I have to demonstrate this? The Taliban's annihilation of music and culture? The enslavement of women? The massacre of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan? Or what about the latest boast of al Qaeda--that the bomb in Bali, massacring so many Australian holidaymakers, was a deliberate revenge for Australia's belated help in securing independence for East Timor? (Never forget that the Muslim fundamentalists are not against "empire." They fight proudly for the restoration of their own lost caliphate.) To these people, the concept of a civilian casualty is meaningless if the civilian is an unbeliever or a heretic.

Confronted with such a foe--which gladly murders Algerians and Egyptians and Palestinians if they have any doubts about the true faith, or if they happen to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time, or if they happen to be female--exactly what role does a "peace movement" have to play? A year or so ago, the "peace movement" was saying that Afghanistan could not even be approached without risking the undying enmity of the Muslim world; that the Taliban could not be bombed during Ramadan; that a humanitarian disaster would occur if the Islamic ultra- fanatics were confronted in their own lairs. Now we have an imperfect but recovering Afghanistan, with its population increased by almost two million returned refugees. Have you ever seen or heard any of those smart-ass critics and cynics make a self-criticism? Or recant?

To the contrary, the same critics and cynics are now lining up to say, "Hands off Saddam Hussein," and to make almost the same doom-laden predictions. The line that connects Afghanistan to Iraq is not a straight one by any means. But the oblique connection is ignored by the potluck peaceniks, and one can be sure (judging by their past form) that it would be ignored even if it were as direct as the connection between al Qaeda and the Taliban. Saddam Hussein denounced the removal of the Sunni Muslim-murdering Slobodan Milosevic, and also denounced the removal of the Shiite-murdering Taliban. Reactionaries have a tendency to stick together (and I don't mean "guilt by association" here. I mean GUILT). If the counsel of the peaceniks had been followed, Kuwait would today be the 19th province of Iraq (and based on his own recently produced evidence, Saddam Hussein would have acquired nuclear weapons). Moreover, Bosnia would be a trampled and cleansed province of Greater Serbia, Kosovo would have been emptied of most of its inhabitants, and the Taliban would still be in power in Afghan-istan. Yet nothing seems to disturb the contented air of moral superiority that surrounds those who intone the "peace movement."

There are at least three well-established reasons to favor what is euphemistically termed "regime change" in Iraq. The first is the flouting by Saddam Hussein of every known law on genocide and human rights, which is why the Senate--at the urging of Bill Clinton--passed the Iraq Liberation Act unanimously before George W. Bush had even been nominated. The second is the persistent effort by Saddam's dictatorship to acquire the weapons of genocide: an effort which can and should be thwarted and which was condemned by the United Nations before George W. Bush was even governor of Texas. The third is the continuous involvement by the Iraqi secret police in the international underworld of terror and destabilization. I could write a separate essay on the evidence for this; at the moment I'll just say that it's extremely rash for anybody to discount the evidence that we already possess. (And I shall add that any "peace movement" that even pretends to care for human rights will be very shaken by what will be uncovered when the Saddam Hussein regime falls. Prisons, mass graves, weapon sites... just you wait.)

None of these things on their own need necessarily make a case for an intervention, but taken together--and taken with the permanent threat posed by Saddam Hussein to the oilfields of the region--they add up fairly convincingly. Have you, or your friends, recently employed the slogan "No War for Oil"? If so, did you listen to what you were saying? Do you mean that oil isn't worth fighting for, or that oil resources aren't worth protecting? Do you recall that Saddam Hussein ignited the oilfields of Kuwait when he was in retreat, and flooded the local waterways with fire and pollution? (Should I patronize the potluckistas, and ask them to look up the pictures of poisoned birds and marine animals from that year?) Are you indifferent to the possibility that such a man might be able to irradiate the oilfields next time? OF COURSE it's about oil, stupid.

To say that he might also do all these terrible things if attacked or threatened is to miss the point. Last time he did this, or massacred the Iraqi and Kurdish populations, he was withdrawing his forces under an international guarantee. The Iraqi and Kurdish peoples are now, by every measure we have or know, determined to be rid of him. And the hope, which is perhaps a slim one but very much sturdier than other hopes, is that the next Iraqi regime will be better and safer, not just from our point of view but from the points of view of the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples. The sanctions policy, which was probably always hopeless, is now quite indefensible. If lifted, it would only have allowed Saddam's oligarchy to re-equip. But once imposed, it was immoral and punitive without the objective of regime change. Choose. By the way, and while we are choosing, if you really don't want war, you should call for the lifting of the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. These have been war measures since 1991.

What would the lifting of the no-fly zones mean for the people who live under them? I recently sat down with my old friend Dr. Barham Salih, who is the elected prime minister of one sector of Iraqi Kurdistan. Neither he nor his electorate could be mentioned if it were not for the no-fly zones imposed--as a result of democratic protest in the West--at the end of the last Gulf War. In his area of Iraq, "regime change" has already occurred. There are dozens of newspapers, numerous radio and TV channels, satellite dishes, Internet cafes. Four female judges have been appointed. Almost half the students at the University of Sulaimaniya are women. And a pro al Qaeda group, recently transferred from Afghanistan, is trying to assassinate the Kurdish leadership and nearly killed my dear friend Barham just the other day.... Now, why would this gang want to make that particular murder its first priority?

Before you face that question, consider this. Dr. Salih has been through some tough moments in his time. Most of the massacres and betrayals of the Kurdish people of Iraq took place with American support or connivance. But the Kurds have pressed ahead with regime change in any case. Surely a "peace movement" with any principles should be demanding that the United States not abandon them again.

for a site supposedly dedicated to the "struggles for a world based on freedom", it's strange how much censorship takes place here. If comments are wrong then let people rationally demonstrate why they are wrong. I don't agree with the poster who claims that Iraq/Afghanistan wars were right etc, but they shouldn't be censored. If they are, where does the line get drawn? how will anything ever move forward if all criticism is silenced?

While I recognise your right to free speech I also have to disagree on a number of points. Presumably you are American otherwise you wouldn't have spelt favour as 'favor'. You seem keen to label one side (the Americans) as being at war with the 'forces of reaction' which seems biased.

You also equate a disagreement with western culture (Taliban approach to women, music and 'culture') with 'forces of reaction'. Surely other cultures should be free to disagree with our interpretation of 'freedom'? You mention 2 million returned refugees but not the fact that they still have no democracy and are ruled by an American puppet. The killing also continues. Peace by tyranny is not real peace.

You use the word 'peaceniks' which has come to be used exclusively as an insult to anyone who wants peace or is anti-war. I have never seen the word used in any other context. The prisons and mass graves have never been denied by the anti=war movement. What about the alleged 'weapons sites'??? Where are the WMD's that Bliar alleged to exist - they simply haven't been found!!!
As to the 'ignited' oilfields of Kuwait, despite reports from the mass media, I have heard from people who were there that Kuwaiti oil wells were not ignited. I don't know who to believe but think that that still needs to be proven.

Yes exactly. Why were these comments removed. There is no explanation. WHY IS ROCKWELL BEING LABELLED AS A 'TROLL'. THIS IS CLEAR CENSORSHIP. FOR THIS TO ACTION TO BE CARRIED OUT ON AN 'INDEPENDENT' MEDIA SITE IS VERY QUESTIONABLE AND LENDS NO CREDIBILITY TO THE SITE.

The term "troll" defined:
 http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/t/troll.html

Further info on our editorial policy is available here:
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/editorial.html

Trolls, spammers etc. have a right to free speech, but Indymedia doesn't have a duty to give them a platform.

This newswire is meant for posting news articles, and for commenting on the articles, not for discussions of editorial policy. If you would like to discuss Indymedia editorial policy further, please get in touch by email:
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/contact.html

Thanks,

There are a small number of people who abuse the open nature of indymedia to post repeated negative and right wing sometimes racist posts and comments. It's happened in the past, with some individuals posting hundreds of right wing comments. This is an abuse of an open participatory system.

There will always be debate about hiding such spam trolls, that's the nature of indymedias open wire. Indymedia is not free speech per se, get that straight. It is not a noticeboard for right wing views. If you read the documentation it clearly states the position of Indymedia. Many indymedia vulunteers and users would argue for the rights of right wingers to set up their own websites, ie free speech, but here is not the place.