con't

Do you honestly think the Iraqis would be better off if the coalition packed up and left? Do you deny that the country would almost immediately break into full scale civil war? Please don’t even suggest that the current level of conflict is a civil war, it is nothing compared to what will happen if the three major groups were let loose at one another. Do you deny that with the Kurdish groups given free hand the Turks will feel they have to invade Iraqi Kurdistan to protect themselves. Do you deny that the Iranians will not stand idly by and watch the shia population attacked. Do you deny that the Sunni Arab countries equally won’t stand by and watch as Sunnis are driven from their homes?

Your focus on the legalities and justifications for the original invasion unfortunately diverts your attention from the correct approach to take now. What I notice about your posts is that you don’t talk about what’s best for the Iraqis. How can the immediate withdrawl of coalition forces help the Iraqi people? Keep in mind that the vast majority of violence over the last three years has been sectarian in nature.

There is so much resistance to the figures because
1) the estimates vary over such a wide range.
2) there is political gain to be had by both inflating and underestimating the actual figures.

PauLL,

I have no doubt that a socialist website has a particular bias. However, you seem to be implying that the rationale which underlies your thinking is not biased, and the places you get your information from are not biased.

“If the average person is so clued up with respect to Iraq why wasn’t a bigger deal made about our involvement there?... The lefties would like to pretend that Australians are strongly opposed to the war, but where is the evidence? Where are the moratorium marches?”

Actually, millions of people in Australia, and all over the world demonstrated against the war. The problem is, merely protesting against the powers that be will not work – as they found out. What they are going to find out is that voting won’t work either.

“I don’t see how you think the casualty figures help your case.”

I didn’t refer to them to help my case, I simply made a comment about your exchange with Kevin. You said the Lancet study was out of step with “other” monitoring bodies. I pointed out a poll that supported the Lancet study, that the study was methodologically sound, that there are problems with the IBC, and gave Kevin some additional information.

Regarding what you call “resistance” to the figures produced by the Lancet study, given that the methodology used was that used by the UN and US government itself, why do you think those in favour of the war are disputing only these particular figures? It can’t just be coincidence. There wouldn’t be a ‘bias’ would there?

The fact is that the massive death toll, and destruction of a society is a war crime of mass proportions

As I and many others have said, there was no immanent threat. Regardless of the lack of integrity of the UN, after WWII it was established by international consensus that waging an aggressive war was illegal. Regardless of what the UN does now, DO YOU now think that consensus was wrong? Perhaps you think the Nazis shouldn’t have been tried?

“Your focus on the legalities and justifications for the original invasion unfortunately diverts your attention from the correct approach to take now. What I notice about your posts is that you don’t talk about what’s best for the Iraqis. How can the immediate withdrawl of coalition forces help the Iraqi people? Keep in mind that the vast majority of violence over the last three years has been sectarian in nature.”

Prior to the invasion, and the first gulf war, Iraq was secular, and one of the most advanced countries in the middle east. The “insurgency” and sectarian violence, and the rise of religious intolerance is a consequence of the invasion – everything which has occurred in Iraq since the invasion, and under the occupation, flows from the initial illegal aggressive act. It was the invasion and occupation which caused the mess, what makes you think that those who orchestrated “shock and awe” with such callous disregard for Iraqi people know what is best for the Iraqi people now? What makes you think continuing a brutal occupation will make it any better?

What is best for the Iraqis is that their country is not occupied by a brutal military force whose sole purpose is to control their oil resources. Billions of dollars of compensation should be paid to them and civilian assistance given to rebuild their physical and social infrastructure.

Don’t even try to pretend that the US ruling class, and its allies, have the best interests of Iraqis at heart.

Tao,

>> You seem to be implying that the rationale which underlies your thinking is not biased

What I was pointing out to you was that a socialist website has just as much bias as Fox news and Geraldo Rivera. That’s why you will not find me quoting rabid right wing groups even if their material supported my arguments. I was suggesting the bias of your sources not your arguments.

As for the demonstrations; populist politicians can always detect such strong community sentiment and they ALWAYS jump the band wagon. The depth of sentiment you suggest doesn’t exist.

>> After WWII it was established … that waging an aggressive war was illegal. Perhaps you think the Nazis shouldn’t have been tried?

Do I think the Nazi’s shouldn’t have been tried? And I was beginning to think you actually might be intelligent. There is no resolution which considers the Iraq war an “aggressive war”. The legal opinion given to all the gov’ts which participated in the intervention stated that the previous DOZEN UN resolutions regarding Iraq gave the coalition the legal authority under the UN. For me this is secondary anyway, to the question of what we do now.

>> Prior to the invasion, and the first gulf war, Iraq was secular, and one of the most advanced countries in the Middle East.

Iraq was only secular because the ruling dictator and his regime made sure of it, violently. Religious leaders would have been a direct threat to Saddam’s rule and he would not have stood for that. Iraq was a nation bankrupted by Saddam and was not remotely technologically advanced. Saddam is the major cause of the religious intolerance which now exists by ensuring the power of the ruling Sunni elite and the oppression and punishment of the Shia and Kurds. Al Qaeda’s destabilisation attempts, which were centred around sparking a civil war between Sunni and Shia, is also responsible. Are you suggesting Iraq would have been better off under Saddam?

Cont'

Cont'

>> What makes you think that those who orchestrated “shock and awe” with such callous disregard for Iraqi people know what is best for the Iraqi people now?

Shock and awe actually killed VERY FEW Iraqis. It was a very well executed plan which decapitated the regime very effectively whilst minimising Iraqi civilian casualties. It was the piss poor planning for the aftermath which was appallingly neglected. So there is no evidence whatsoever that there was a callous disregard for the Iraqi people in planning shock and awe, quite the contrary.

What makes me think the coalition presence will make thing better is the realisation that

1) Iraq is day by day getting closer to becoming the free, democratic and peaceful country which is our goal
2) The country will otherwise break up into its sectarian and ethnic parts creating far greater violence, instability and suffering.

The nonsense that the sole purpose of the coalition is to control Iraq’s oil is naïve. Regime change was the primary motive initially. And besides their intention to foster a democratic nation in the heart of the Middle East, the coalition is also putting pressure on Iran, sandwiching them between Iraq and Afghanistan. They are also ensuring that America doesn’t lose prestige, and therefore deterrence capability, by being defeated by a rag tag army once again. There are many reasons, some are humanitarian, some not. Without the humanitarian reasons however, there would be no support at all for the coalition to remain. The best compensation for Iraqis would be a peaceful, democratic, stable country with substantial reconstruction assistance. Whilst we can still deliver that I believe we have a duty to do so.

BTW You didn’t address whatsoever my argument that Iraq would be worse off if the coalition just pulled out. You didn’t bother to deny any of my points about the likely results for the Iraqi people of such a decision. This says to me that you and the leftists don’t care much about what happens to the Iraqis as long as America is punished.

What I was pointing out to you, PauLL, is that the views you espouse quite obviously have a right wing capitalist bias. It is very obvious to me because you use all the arguments which the proponents of the war use. Whether you get them from FoxNews or somewhere else, I can guarantee you this – your views are not unbiased. The fact that you don’t cite your sources, or pretend you are impartial, does not make you any less biased. We all have a standpoint or perspective from which we view the world – to deny it would be ridiculous, and dangerous.

The ‘bias’ of the World Socialist Web Site is what is called an international socialist perspective – it takes the standpoint of what is in the interests of the international working class, of which the Iraqi working class forms a part. Its standpoint is that the interests of the Iraqi, American, Australian and every other working class are same – an end to war and militarism and exploitation of man by man, and the application of technology to the betterment of all of humanity, which necessitates the reorganisation of society on the basis of human needs instead of profit. This means that the capitalist ruling class, including its lackeys in the UN, must be overthrown by the working class. The WSWS is therefore dedicated to exposing the machinations of the ruling classes of all countries, and their consequences for ordinary people, and to unify the international working class in opposition to them.

The ‘leftists’ have been opposed to the inevitable destruction of Iraq, and the humanitarian-disaster which has eventuated, since before the war began. So your comment that “This says to me that you and the leftists don’t care much about what happens to the Iraqis as long as America is punished” is patently false.

However, you obviously believe that those whose planning for the aftermath was so “piss-poor” now miraculously know what is in the best interests of the Iraqis, while the ‘leftists’ who predicted and opposed the devastation which would ensue have no idea.

Continued…