cont'

>> you don’t seem to care that they might actually be true – just that they might make the war look bad.

You really are beginning to reach aren’t you. You can’t seem to accept that your figures might be significantly inflated because it suits your purposes. I can acknowledge, as I have already done, that the Iraqis have suffered significantly. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that the Iraqis were very badly off in the first place and that sanctions caused a significant amount of suffering.

>> the death toll from the invasion of Iraq has now surpassed that Where is the outrage in the media?

Most of the outrage generated by the Rwandan conflict was directed at the UN and NATO, because there was enough forewarning to have prevented, or at least significantly mitigated, the genocide. That the acts were genocidal was also particularly horrifying. The UN deserved a significant amount of blame for allowing the events to occur, yet I’m sure you didn’t complain that those incompetents were the ones sent in to clean up the mess.

The socialist alliance doesn’t care about UN mandates and resolutions This is obvious when you look at the first gulf war, which the “leftists” hysterically opposed. Never mind that it was supported by specific UN resolutions. Even arab countries fought alongside the west in ousting Saddam from Kuwait.

It was no lie to suggest that Saddam developed significant chemical and biological weapons. It is no lie to suggest that had he stared the west down in 2003, he would have again pursued these weapons. Perhaps the imminence of the threat was overstated but its inevitability was clear.

You have consistently refused to comment on what you thought would happen if the coalition security presence were to simply pack up and go. I can only take this as a sign that you are in general agreement that a real civil war would be inevitable, and that would quite likely pull in other countries in the region. BTW, Would you have returned Saddam to the presidency if you had the chance?

Oooooh,

Vicious.

A couple of points:

1. As to your comments: “And the socialists were the ones who wanted to give sanctions time to work. Those were the sanctions which caused the starvation and malnutrition of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as well as impoverishing the country and allowing its infrastructure to wither and die.”

WSWS opposed the sanctions. Here is a selection of articles on them.

Another vote to starve Iraq: http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/may1998/iraq-m1.shtml,
The people of Iraq are dying: http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/july1998/iraq-j01.shtml , http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/iraq-j29.shtml,
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/dem2-a21.shtml,
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jul1999/iraq-j05.shtml & http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jul1999/iraq-j06.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/aug1999/iraq-a14.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jan2000/iraq-j05.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/feb2000/iraq-f25.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/mar2000/iraq-m11.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/iraq-a13.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/may2000/iraq-m29.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/aug2000/iraq-a10.shtml
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jan2001/gulf-j19.shtml

Rather comprehensive, don’t you think? Perhaps you ought to take back your untruthful comment, and reassess the rest.

I would also ask you oh wise one, who were the main drivers of the sanctions regime? Oh, was that the US and the UK? Gee, I wonder why they would want to cause “starvation and malnutrition of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as well as impoverishing the country and allowing its infrastructure to wither and die”. Same reason they bombed the crap out of Iraq I suppose, just out of the goodness of their hearts.

2. The WSWS is not the Socialist Alliance, and is completely opposed to the SA’s perspective. But you wouldn’t want to know anything about that would you? No need to be accurate or “objective” during your tirades, it would spoil a good story.

As I said, it is pointless continuing this discussion with you. You’re obviously too busy spewing bile at everyone you disagree with to get your facts right. Why would anyone take you seriously?

Tao,

Grow a pair. Talk about changing the subject. I didn’t claim that WSWS supported sanctions as you could see if you looked. I said the ‘socialists’ preferred option was to give sanctions and inspections time to work. So all your pointless reseach means nothing, comprehensive though it may be.

The main opponents of the sanctions regime, China Russia and France all had Iraqi oil contracts in their sights and so their opposition was self serving and therefore irrelevant. Saddam refused to co operate with the inspectors for 12 years and attempted to subvert what work they did achieve. You forget that the sanctions were a direct result of Husseins’ invasion of Kuwait. You also neglect the fact that it was Saddam who starved the people of Iraq, not the Coalition. He had the money and the food to prevent the suffering of his people. Yet he decided that he would get the sanctions removed faster if his people were obviously suffering. So he withheld the help and spent the money on his palaces and his armed forces and Mukhabarat.

All this is irrelevant to what we should do now. And you don’t have an answer beyond bringing the troops home.

You still won’t comment on what you think might happen were the troops to just pull out. This is because you are very shaky ground there and you know it. One of the responsibilities of advocating policy is having regard for the consequences. That you have no idea of the consequences merely reinforces the idea that you aren’t interested in helping Iraq; you are only interested in punishing the US, your self declared enemy.

You also avoided the question” Would you have reinstated Saddam if you were given the chance”. I’ll bet you don’t answer it again. Too scared?

PauLL,

“I didn’t claim that WSWS supported sanctions as you could see if you looked. I said the ‘socialists’ preferred option was to give sanctions and inspections time to work. So all your pointless reseach means nothing, comprehensive though it may be.”

The point is that you portray all supposed “socialists” including WSWS and me as having a certain position on something which you either don’t even know is true, or know the truth but lie about it. Either way, your credibility is an issue, and any discussion with someone who argues blindly without accuracy is pointless.

“You also avoided the question” Would you have reinstated Saddam if you were given the chance”.”

This question is underscored by a simplistic and incorrect logic, used by all proponents of the war, which says that those who oppose the US invasion of Iraq support Saddam Hussein. It is a fallacious argument.

Similarly, it is a logical fallacy to say that opposition to Saddam’s regime means support for the coalition’s actions. One can be opposed to Saddam’s regime, and opposed to the coalition’s course of action.

In answer to your question ” Would you have reinstated Saddam if you were given the chance”. Clearly not, but again, that doesn’t mean that I agree with the invasion, or the way he was deposed.

Your attempt to paint the world in black and white demonstrates a childish logic.

“You still won’t comment on what you think might happen were the troops to just pull out. This is because you are very shaky ground there and you know it.”

Again, you engage in a logical fallacy.

I don’t know exactly what might happen, just as you can have now way of knowing. Just because you believe you know, doesn’t mean it will happen and doesn’t mean your “solution” is right.

As I have said, a full withdrawal of troops would be accompanied by billions of dollars of compensation and civilian support in rebuilding the physical and social infrastructure of Iraq.

Cont….

...cont

This will not eventuate without the mobilisation of the US working class on a socialist program in opposition to the entire political system. The US working class will then provide economic and practical assistance to the working class in the Middle East who will decide their own fate – their lives will not be dictated to by a foreign capitalist power and its stooges. Under the capitalist framework, the US simply will not pull out and not stop meddling in the Middle East. Its reasons for being there are economic and have nothing to do with terrorists. If the US working class is mobilised against the ruling class, then the world political situation will have undergone a fundamental shift, including in the Middle East, and conditions will be quite different to what they are now.

“One of the responsibilities of advocating policy is having regard for the consequences. That you have no idea of the consequences merely reinforces the idea that you aren’t interested in helping Iraq;

If as you say, one of the responsibilities of advocating policy is having regard for the consequences, and that having no idea of the consequences for Iraq merely reinforces that someone isn’t interested in helping Iraq, then clearly the “piss-poor planning” on the part of the coalition for the consequences of the invasion reinforces the fact that the US ruling class and its allies were and are not interested in helping Iraq.

“you are only interested in punishing the US, your self declared enemy.”

Another falsehood. You are the one trying to portray the US as my self declared enemy. However, that you say it, doesn’t make it true.

Nowhere have I declared the US my enemy. I oppose the US ruling class, and that of every country in the world. I don’t want the US working class punished, I want them to overthrow the US ruling class and take political power into their own hands. How the working class choose to punish their former oppressors for their crimes against humanity will be up to them.

Tao,

>> Your attempt to paint the world in black and white demonstrates a childish logic.

This from the person who believes the world can be divided into two groups, working class and ruling class. Its clear that words like irony and hypocricy aren’t a part of your lexicon. The whole logic of Marxism is childish and has demonstrably failed everywhere it has raised its ugly head.

>> a simplistic and incorrect logic, used by all proponents of the war, which says that those who oppose the US invasion of Iraq support Saddam Hussein.

What is clear from your answer is that you accept that the regime change was a positive outcome, irrespective of how it was achieved.

>> I don’t know exactly what might happen, just as you can have now way of knowing. Just because you believe you know, doesn’t mean it will happen and doesn’t mean your “solution” is right.

You just can’t bring yourself to deny that Iraq will fall into civil war if the coalition were to leave immediately. Your dancing around the issue suggests either

1) you haven’t done any research on the probable outcome of such a security vacuumn, or
2) you’re aware of what will likely happen but you are prepared to pretend it might not happen in order to further your cause.

Clearly the military analysis is beyond your understanding however the political ramifications aren’t all that hard to work out. The Sunni and Shia are fighting each other now, why would the early exit of the coalition help solve that problem. The kurds are the Turks are very close to open conflict. How will leaving help that?

cont'