I was cut wide by the latest event, so for newcomers; I suggest that you read the 1st part.
This time it's (me) who is going to talk.
Remember this is not about the past. Yes, the war happened, but we have to have a solid opinion about it, as this is not the end and I think we will face similar situations sooner or later.
One of the main objections towards the war is that it will further increase the USA control of the world, and the claims that it was a war fought for some narrow economic gains (oil firms, contracts...etc). While inside USA it seems that some people fear that the success in Iraq will greatly increase the chance of bush being reelected.
Now let's deal with each presumption one by one.
First off all spare me the nonsense of (occupation) and (resistance) and the (chaos) that the USA had thrown the world into, only for some individual economic and political gains. As for saying that bush and Blair went to the war to increase their popularity, I must say that it's the most absurd assumption.
In fact these great and brave men actually risked not only their chance of being
re-elected, but also their entire political career [especially in the case of Mr. Blair (one of the most brilliant and brave politicians the UK have ever had)] what if the war didn't go as was planned? The exact course of War is always hard to predict. What if there were huge casualties among the armies as happened in Vietnam? No one had ever seek popularity by committing such an unpopular and hard risk against the will of most of his people (as in the UK) and against the will of most of the world. And we can see now what great popularity both men achieved, with all this unjust war on the media. No these 2 leaders together with the other coalition governments, didn't go to war for popularity, not for the (Iraqi fortune), as I stated in a previous post. And I'll discard the opinion that those governments went to war just to free the Iraqi people.
This leaves us with 2 possible and logical reason; control of the Middle East and eventually the world (anti war camps' claims), and fighting terrorism and eliminating the danger of wmds through establishing prosperous democracies in the region (the coalition claims) and the far less reasonable belief of a Zionist or republican conspiracy to control USA and eventually the world.
But today I'll discuss your reasons for opposing the war. Apparently you didn't believe that Saddam was not a mad dictator and a brutal tyrant that should be toppled. You had already admitted this fact. And certainly not to spare the poor Iraqi people the miseries of the war. As, such emotions play a very minor role -if any - in the political decision of any governments. And you know, as I and every sane man knows, that the only possible way to relieve the suffering of Iraqis was to get rid of S.H. and after 12 years of sanctions it was obvious that this man couldn't have been removed by any other mean than extreme force. I wonder what your real reason was. Allow me to present some of my presumptions:
The German councilor, for instance, had made a pre-election promise that he will not support any aggression against Iraq, and breaking this promise-although it saves the souls of a 25 million human being-it will seriously affect his creditability. Putting it in a more vulgar way, it means kiss the presidency good bye. But let us not be too hard on the man. His government, as well as others on the peace camp, had made huge investments in (Saddam's Iraq) and bet a lot of money on that horse. So in the noblest reasonable causes, these governments were thinking of their own people interests, which are sadly-despite the resulting sufferings of other nations-quite acceptable in the world of politics. But by eliminating the moral factor from both sides of the equation, it seems strange why it isn't acceptable for the US and the UK governments to do so as well.
But that's not what it's all about. These powerful nations can't bear it to see what were once theirs, or at least a (gray zone), being taken by the US piece by piece and stand by and watch.
No one can deny them that right, but please at least be honest and don't hide behind our suffering of Iraqis under occupation, and stop encouraging the terrorists that are causing damages to us that are much more than what they are ding to the US army. Oh sorry but you can't do that you would loose your only wild card.
But above all that I do think that here you have been a little bit short sighted. "What!??" one on the other camp may say "what a great politician you think you are, to judge the intelligence of such brilliant politicians? Who gave you that right?" my answer will be; yes I don't know much about politics and these people are sure much more smart and sophisticated than me when it comes to politics. But doesn't the same thing apply to you, judging the wisdom of action of men like; Blair, bush and Powel using more impolite descriptions than I had used? One may respond" I'm not saying that they are stupid, but I'm saying that they are mean". well..it seems that you have the right to do that and by doing so you give me the same right to say the same thing about the men on the other side. Shall we call it even, then, as you and I are only debating how concerned these men about their countries interests and their creditability (some thing that only history may reveal beyond reasonable doubts) and not their intelligence or depth of analysis. That seems to make us even, yet it doesn't satisfy me. Why? Here is my answer:
Casting away the moralities (that is responsibility towards their countries and the whole world) it leaves us with the political judgment and depth of analysis on both sides. And as we presumably, admitted that we are no match to those people when it comes to politics, allow me to say that I understand their fears and agree with most of their presumptions with only two insignificant details that I don't agree with;
1st of all I have lived my whole life in a remarkable example of tyranny and what effect can it lay on the minds and souls of men. I have watched it mutilate peaceful simple ignorant men into criminals and mad terrorists, changing teenagers into cruel monsters, through its cruelty, injustice impoverishing, and poisonous propaganda. This fact makes me- as humble minded as I'm- more aware of the dangers of such regimes on the stability of the region and the entire world in the long terms. If you think that Iraqis and other Arab countries exports mainly oil, then you should go back and check the passports of most of the terrorists and there secret bank account, and please do me a favor and show me the list, as I have actually haven't seen it yet but I'm only guessing. And they don't have to live in Iraq, to be affected by her propaganda or sponsored by her former government.
Another point were I think I'm more aware about than your brilliant politician (there is absolutely no sarcasm here as anywhere else in this post, as I don't deny their great qualifications) is that they seem to think that the vast majority of the destructive wave of terrorism is directed towards Israel and USA (the great Satan), and that this priority will never change at least not until those 2 countries are destroyed. And as this possibility is nearly impossible, they thought that they are some what safe and could enjoy watching the terrorists being defeated with the sacrifices of others, while they can continue to lead a peaceful productive and prosperous life. And after 20 years from now, there would be no terrorism and the economically and militarily exhausted USA would no longer be (no. 1 ) in the world and their chance (the other camp) of re-dominating the world would be much greater. It seems that this dream was so attractive to the degree that made them actually support the terrorism behind the curtain.
I must admit that this is only a theory and that there maybe some other causes that I'll probably talk about in the future. But let me concentrate on this seemingly reasonable attractive, yet illusionary vision.
From the ethical point of view this dream seems meaner to me than any accusation they are putting on the USA. And Yes, here again the humble mind of mine can see better than them (in case this was their theory) and not only me, but any Muslim and some non-Muslim, know that these fundamentalists have declared war on the whole infidel world (people like me included). Bin-laden and his likes may make some kind of deals with (infidel governments) to help them in attacking their greatest enemies; Israel and USA. But their convictions had, and will never change. Their ultimate dream is to conquer the whole world, and in case that proves to be impossible then at least destroy their enemies, meaning destroying the whole-civilized world. They believe; that their obligation to Allah/God is to fight and kill any non-Muslim who lays a foot in Muslim land (that extends in their beliefs from china to Spain). And the only way that could save those non Muslims, is to change their religion into Muslims or pay a certain tax (jizea) and if (theoretically) their dream comes true, then its not the end as their ultimate goal is to spread Islam through the whole world, even (or maybe favorably) if by force, or at least make the rest of the world pay the jizea. You can see that these peoples' hero or idol is not Mohammed it's more close to Haroon Al- Rashid.
Now their domination of the world seems to be a very ridiculous idea and doesn't have the slightest chance, but destroying the world seems not as impossible as we all hope it is. After all it takes a few hundred (martyrs) and a mad dictator- armed with a few tiny nuclear bombs or a single virus to- unite. Such unity seems to be very possible if not now then in the future and that hard technology is getting cheaper and easier every day.
Please just tell me what kind of a barrier those (peaceful ) governments are working on, and then the whole strategy of the peaceful governments that I was hallucinating about would prove more solid than I think it is.
I think this should be enough to state that war on terrorism, eliminating the danger of WMDs and establishing democracies in the M.E. were important reasons for the war.
That leaves us with 2 additional possible and unacceptable reasons for the current USA policy; the battle for more control and the republican or Zionist-American conspiracy. If you have any other reasons (morality not included) please do not hesitate to through it in my face.
To be continued….