Iraq Survey Group

[Dudley]

Our innocent politicians were taken in by that tricky Saddam bloke.  Here's how the trick  worked:

a) We demand he disarms
b) He disarms, exactly what we didn't expect, the sneaky bastard
c) We tell him that he hasn't disarmed
d) He sends us 12,000 pages showing that he has.  Wierdo.  Who does that?
e) AS HE WAS EXPECTING, we didn't believe him
f) Our weapons inspectors failed to find any evidence, because he'd hidden it.  only he didn't have anything to hide, so the twat PRETENDED to have hidden it.
g) Our army, provoked beyond endurance by his pretence not to have something that he didn't have, got ready to invade his country.
h) He made some sort of devious appeal to the United Nations and Arab League, KNOWING they wouldn't listen.
i) We got ready for war.  That'd show the cunning foreign devil.
j) As our bombers got into the air, he suddenly changed his story and ADMITTED he had WMD.  His exact words were "I don't have any", but we can see through that kind of subterfuge.
k) We liberated the cheering crowds of the poor oppressed people of Iraq.  Yay for us.

[JayzusB.Christ]

'...how those active in the anti-war protests deal with these ironies - such as how some wars, even illegal ones save more innocent lives than they cause'

Alright, I don't pretend to be the most politically aware person in the world, and I've only skimmed through this thread, but I'll throw in my shillingsworth.
I was on some anti-war protests during the Iraq war (which, we are told, has now ended). All this time, I believed the invasion of Iraq may lead to a better Iraq, and it may still do. I believe that the majority of Iraqis wanted the murderous despot Saddam out of power, and now he is. Although the country has descended into a state of near-anarchy, I believe that it may, eventually, become a better place to live than it was before the invasion.
However, I marched because that is not the reason Bush and Blair gave the world for going to war. I marched because I believe that the tragedy of 9/11 has been twisted and exploited to fool the majority of Americans (over two thirds, I think) into thinking Iraq had a part in the terrorist attacks on the US. I also believe that Bush and Rumsfeld pig-headedly defied and put into jeopardy the greatest aid to world peace we have, the U.N. (Alright, it's not perfect, but we have so far avoided a Third World War). Yes, even pre-emptive wars can be justified, but not by massive lies. If leaders tell us their wars are to liberate a country's people, they should try doing it before a war rather than after it.
I am prepared to change my mind, but only when those weapons of mass des-bleeding-struction are found.

[longmanshort]

"My problem with Christianity is that the existence of God part is a stupid superstition,"

Um ... no offence Dudley, I don't mind your opinion that it's superstition but I do kinda object to the use of the word 'stupid' on the grounds that ... well, I find it grossly offensive to my own beliefs and the beliefs of more than 1.5 billion people. There's nothing 'stupid' about believing in something. It's just a matter of faith and basing those beliefs on what you feel to be true. Now, I'm not going to get into this argument again because everyone had a massive bust up over it a while ago. I'm happy to discuss points of interpretation of religion, but please don't call us 'stupid' just because you don't share our belief in God ...

"not with the moral philosophy that goes along with it. Indeed, the problem with the Christian churches is the fact that they quite blatantly go against the spirit and letter of the words of their founder."

I'm in agreement with you there. Certainly Catholicism and Anglicanism, as well as plenty of other denominations, have a lot to answer for. But at the end of day, following the word of Jesus is bloody difficult, and (as you point out quite rightly) I defy you to find a single Christian who could claim they have. But that's not to say there are those of us trying to steer the church in the right direction ...

[Adrian Bamforth]

"Yes, even pre-emptive wars can be justified, but not by massive lies."

We can still see through the lies as best we can though and decide for ourselves though. If Bush makes claims about 9/11 link (though I think it's more wishful thinking be the American people) or Blair gives undue emphasis on a particular piece of intelligence it cheapens their argument but doesn't mean that regime change wouldn't be a good thing overall, just that polititians are falliable. Bush is bound to say whatever goes down best for domestic consumption, we know he's corrupt. But the moral arguments were still there among the politics. Unfortunately, moral arguments about human rights and saving lives don't fire up the international community as much as a good  invasion or imminent world threat, since countries (and polititians) nearly always put their own interests first. You could see the war as a professional foul against a very dirty team indeed. The best thing that could happen if for Bush to be the fall guy as I believe he will.

ADE

[Generally Contrary]

But, while we may all agree that Saddam was bad, and that he should no longer be in power - who carries out the regime change and why is of great importance.

If there is one thing that the West should have learned from Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in particular it is that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.  It's all very well backing Islamic terrorism to destabalise the Evil Empire's border republics, but these are not good people doing this for the benefit of western civilization.  

And I do not believe that the American government invaded Iraq to save the Iraqi people, to offer them self-determination.  I don't think they even give a shit about terrorist threats, at least outside of their immediate environment.  They are doing this for all the wrong reasons.

[Dudley]

I find it grossly offensive

Then I apologise: as I think you can tell from the main tone of my post the intent wasn't to offend.

In that phrase I was expressing my own beliefs.  I continue to hold with those beliefs, but didn't mean to express them in quite such a blunt fashion and appreciate that they tread on the sensitivities of others.

[Quirkafleeg]

Interesting program on C4 re the Hutton enquire by Tom Mangold

Points included: the 45 min thing was spun to a rediculous degree; Kelly did commit suicide; he had be stiched up on all sides but he screwed up by lying to his bosses about how much he had told reporters... this fact was about to come out and he would have be disgraced and lost everything (job and prob pension - he had a disabled wife to support

[longmanshort]

Thank you Dudley :o)

[judge dreddd]

BUT if the intelligence report that saddam had tried to buy uranium from africa was true and he had bought some, made a nuke, used it then the price of oil would have gone up and tooth would cost more...a war for tooth - well worth the effort ...that and to protect our 'low fuel cost based' way of life

[Dudley]

Michael Moore - Guardian - Today (G2, pp2-4).  Addresses the really big questions on the American side of things.

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1056628,00.html" target="_blank">Full article here.