Well, today is the day – the 5th anniversary of the liberation of Iraq and I have been watching and listening to the BBC coverage, have you?
Last evening’s “Newsnight” was a special devoted to the Iraq situation five years on and a more one-sided programme one could hardly conceive. I believe that the BBC aligned itself from the start with the anti-war pro-Saddam rabble and not a lot has changed since. The Newsnight mood music and the tone of the voice-overs was sombre, and even the charts that showed JUST how successful the Surge has been were caveated to ensure that no good news was let out untainted.
There was an interview with Jonathan Powell, the man who is so steeped in appeasement care of his work with the murderous IRA that he thinks we should be talking to Al Qaeda, Hamas et al. Then there was a panel of experts in the studio weighted 3:1 against the liberation, sorry, I meant occupation. (Always best to get the terminology right) There was Charles Kennedy, the uber liberal who wants troops taken out right now , no matter what the Iraqis think. Kennedy got away with blue murder making all kinds of claims suggesting that he was on the high moral ground when in fact he lies in the moral sewer. Then there was a former assistant to the first Iraqi PM who had nothing good to say about the US liberation. He was also a dissembler of the truth, lying through his teeth when he claimed AQ had no presence in Iraq prior to the war. Then there was a “wise old cove” from our diplomatic service, who had been based in Basra, whose insights extended to a complaint that there was no post-victory plan in place and it was all chaos. I wonder which wars he could point to that were on an orderly and bureaucratic basis?
Finally, the only voice in favour of what has been done was Richard Perle. With 3 voices against his, the BBC stacked this to ensure that the anti-war “all is doom and gloom” message got across loud and clear. Was there NO UK commentator that Newsnight could find to both defend the liberation and indeed warmly applaud what has been done by our armed forces?
I laughed when the anti-war panel all agreed that “everyone” knew that victory over Saddam would be quick. Total rubbish. At the time, we were regaled by the BBC over the prowess of the elite Iraqi Revolutionary Guard, and how they would constitute a formidable opposition. Remember? As we know, they scarpered when faced with the US armed forces.
It struck me that this was NOT a debate on the war in Iraq five years on, this was a debate on how the war had all gone wrong. This was a typical pre-determined BBC set-up, and I felt sorry for Richard Perle. Paxman is idolised by some as the tough talking no-nonsense journalist but he let Kennedy and co get away with some outrageous claims.
Questions he might have asked could have included;
-
Is it morally right to allow genocidal butchers like Saddam to stay in situ rather than risk military action?
-
What was Churchill’s post-war plan?
-
With Al Queda declaring Iraq the front-line in its war with us, what message would a sudden withdrawal send?
-
With US troops still in Germany and Japan 60+ years later, does that make these wars a failure? What about the failure of the EU and UN to rally behind this liberation?
-
Apart from the Ba’athists, who obviously enjoyed patronage from Saddam and have been resentful ever since, how do the rest of the Iraqi people feel five years on?
There IS a real debate to be had here but the BBC is not facilitating it. How about balancing the panel so we can have it? How about starting from the point that Saddam headed up a degenerate tyranny that funded terrorism and propagated genocide. Five years on, we have one less monster in power, an Iraq that is showing signs of improvement, and whilst it may not be a fully functioning Jeffersonian democracy, it is way better than what is was.
Phew.
Paragraphs, please.
I also watched the Newsnight report, till I got bored with the panel discussion, and was actually rather surprised – it was slanted anti-war, but much less than I had expected. The bits by Mark Urban explaining background were pretty balanced and reasonable. The panelists were – Kennedy excepted – much more measured than the usual foamers, and the “experts” who were called on to chip in during the report, though all anti-war, weren’t foamers either. And the 10 minute skit on Tim Collins’ speech was done pretty sympathetically to the army. It also made the point very clearly that the army expected to face chemical weapons. Paxman’s later “But there were no WMDs” to Powell, was easily answered by “We didn’t know that.”
What was stupidly biased was Paxman – we got the expected failure failure failure stuff in spades, not just in the questions but also in his intro to the programme. But Paxman aside, the programme only registered about 3/10 on my “give me strength” meter.
Incidentally, having looked at this :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/20/newsid_2544000/2544121.stm
where the BBC is very free with the word “atrocity” I think we can call a truce now on the semantics. Presumably we can all now agree, including the BBC, that people who set off bombs in stations and market places etc are not “terrorists” or “militants” but “atrocitists.” Doesn’t slip off the tongue but we’ll get used to it.
David, a few paragraphs. Without them it all meshed up, and a link to the iplayer of the designated programme would be helpful for those of us who missed the show, but who would like to see it, in order to reply to your judgement on the programme.
May I add, when posing questions as you’ve done: ie 1) 2) 3) etc could you bullet them – or even give them a sentence on their own?
here is a link to the newsnight from last evening on the iplayer available for those within the UK.
Serious media outlets have got wise to spin put out be the BBC,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8122846a-f233-11dc-9b45-0000779fd2ac.html
“In all of this, there was not one hint of more than a sentence that the war was fought against one of the 20th century’s greatest monsters…This, for the defining conflict of the early 21st century, is what our media [BBC] do: that is, they render it unintelligible.”
I’ll admit that the Iraq “war” has achieved some very good things, most notably the removal of Saddam from power.
At the same time though, I find it morally reprehensible that we went in under false pretences. If the government had said “look, Saddam is bad news. We have the power to take him down and make the world a better place” then we might wonder why they didn’t go after some others (Mugabe, Kim Jon Il, etc) but at least we’d be aware of the plan and the reasons for it. Instead they lied.
They knew that the dodgy dossier couldn’t be relied on – and they had no evidence of AQ activity in Iraq (at least none that I’ve seen – the last I heard, AQ were themselves against Saddam) – it seems like Saddam was just a target of opportunity.
And that’s why I’m against the war. I do not appreciate being lied to, and I do not appreciate the whole opinion that seems so prevalent in government that they know best, and the public don’t have the right to know or the intelligence to understand the issues.
Fair enough, but as I posted earlier, there’s an argument that he pretty much said that very thing. Here he is in the Parliamentary debate that took us to war:
“I have never put our justification for action as regime change. We have to act within the terms set out in resolution 1441. That is our legal base.
But it is the reason, I say frankly, why if we do act we should do so with a clear conscience and strong heart.
I accept fully that those opposed to this course of action share my detestation of Saddam. Who could not? Iraq is a wealthy country that in 1978, the year before Saddam seized power, was richer than Portugal or Malaysia.
Today it is impoverished, 60% of its population dependent on food aid.
Thousands of children die needlessly every year from lack of food and medicine.
Four million people out of a population of just over 20 million are in exile.
The brutality of the repression – the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political opponents, the routine beatings for anyone or their families suspected of disloyalty are well documented.
Just last week, someone slandering Saddam was tied to a lamp post in a street in Baghdad, his tongue cut out, mutilated and left to bleed to death, as a warning to others.
I recall a few weeks ago talking to an Iraqi exile and saying to her that I understood how grim it must be under the lash of Saddam.
“But you don’t”, she replied. “You cannot. You do not know what it is like to live in perpetual fear.”
And she is right. We take our freedom for granted. But imagine not to be able to speak or discuss or debate or even question the society you live in. To see friends and family taken away and never daring to complain. To suffer the humility of failing courage in the face of pitiless terror. That is how the Iraqi people live. Leave Saddam in place and that is how they will continue to live.
We must face the consequences of the actions we advocate. For me, that means all the dangers of war. But for others, opposed to this course, it means – let us be clear – that the Iraqi people, whose only true hope of liberation lies in the removal of Saddam, for them, the darkness will close back over them again; and he will be free to take his revenge upon those he must know wish him gone.”
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/
Sorry, that was very long.
f***ing hell, is it grammar school in the comments today? why not get your red pens out and be done with it…
unfortunately the problem is that irrespective of ones personal views of whether it was right to remove saddam it’s almost impossible to find someone with expertise who doesn’t think the planning (or lack thereof) was a monumental f*** up. can anyone think of anyone authoritative (not some half arsed right wing media commentator with ostrich tendencies)???
‘liberation’ seems like a pretty sh*t choice of word in the circumstances as well and the ‘better than what it was’ seems to be an assumption of people who’ve never been within a thousand miles of the place rather than reality. it’s a bit sad that some of the more ideological 2003 pro-warrers can’t just acknowledge mistakes and learn from it for next time.
however i agree that the beeb rarely if ever contextualises the current horrors through comparison with saddam’s regime and certainly the opinion polls look better and the success of the surge seems pretty indisputable.
Hugh: That’s all well and good, but resolution 1441 does not provide for war to be made. And if we are to make ourselves the world’s new police force, why haven’t we moved against others?
Such as Sudan: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/09/sudan18026.htm
Burma: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/01/11/burma17719.htm
Uzbekistan: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/11/23/uzbeki17406.htm
Zimbabwe: http://hrw.org/reports/2008/zimbabwe0308/
China: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/03/18/china18310.htm
Saudi Arabia: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/02/14/saudia18051.htm
I could go on for a lot longer… So why Iraq? Was Saddam really so much worse than any others? Was it just the combination of Opportunity (resolution 1441) + PR (WMDs)? Or was it because America wanted access to the Oil?
Lots of people have lots of opinions. As far as I’m concerned, the war was started on false pretences. They did nothing to inform the public that the whole WMD threat was nonsense, instead playing it up massively (remember the 20 minute warning?) for PR and spin purposes.
As far as the war itself went, I don’t think you can expect anything like that to be over quickly. It certainly hasn’t been a massive failure, although the continuing troop attrition rate is a little high, the BBC does seem to be rather anti-war in it’s reporting. I’d rather they pointed out that the war was ill-conceived from the beginning (but hasn’t been that badly handled) instead of claiming that it was a shame from the get-go. If we’d lost, that would be a big screw-up, but we didn’t.
“ill-conceived from the beginning (but hasn’t been that badly handled)”
I have to say, I would argue precisely the opposite, but less intelligently than has been done elsewhere and I’m sure you’ve heard it all before. The only part I’ll really take issue with therefore is the chronic understatement that the BBC has been “rather anti-war” in its reporting. It’s the one area where even those there who are normally pretty good seem to have completely given up on impartiality.
Corlan
I think we should be able to ask hard questions of those who unleash war on others. However I think the “lies” has become received wisdom because StW drones shout it so many times, and are given unending space to do so by the media. There is little evidence that we were lied to. Rather, factual error, wishful thinking and group think may have been more responsible.
I wish people like Kennedy would also tell us exactly how they would have solved the Saddam problem. They usually skip this part of the discussion. On what basis can some people be so sure that the Iraqis are worse off now? Probably not on the basis of death rate. And surely the Iraqis have some hope now – they had none under Saddam. It would be nice to see Kennedy answer some of these questions honestly.
I was against the war before it started. However, now Britain’s future is on the line, I support it. There is no way we can run away from this one. If we so, it will be ‘open season’ on Britain.
Have reformatted. I find the blogger architecture a little bit more limited than what I use over on my own site – hope this now reads a little better. I try not to be too wordy but in truth there is a lot to be said on the BBC’s coverage of the Iraq war and I felt it warranted what was posted!
No attempt in the post to answer questions put by Paxman to Pearle, that the WOT didn’t do the US any favours internationally, and that there is now empirical evidence of the loss of credibility in US power and the failure of it to extend its will.
‘Then there was a “wise old cove” from our diplomatic service, who had been based in Basra, whose insights extended to a complaint that there was no post-victory plan in place and it was all chaos.’
Iraq IS chaos, because the coalition DID get into an occupation, when they hadn’t planned for it. As a result of that it is not a better place . Iraqi lives haven’t benefitedas was pointed out in the programme – they expected huge changes, and as a result of not meeting those expectations of young people in particular we ‘now have an insurgence against the west as a whole’.
The point raised about the mood music being sombre, war IS sombre? Gasping at straws there. Lets see 4,000 US dead, 176 British lives, what music would you like them to play?
As for Powell – talking to the IRA. You cannot solve conflicts today by military means alone. He’s learnt that from NI, time the rest of us did.
ps top marks for the formatting. lol.
thank you.
Typhoo said: “they expected huge changes, and as a result of not meeting those expectations of young people in particular we ‘now have an insurgence against the west as a whole’.”
I’m curious about this. Is it the contention that because we went in, removed Saddam and made their lives a little better, they are complaining? Because we didn’t make their lives a lot better?
Oh, and as far as the war, I have to agree with Grimer. We can’t back out now, we’re committed. I think we should be more willing to commit, when it is necessary. For example, when the Iranians kidnapped our sailors, I’d have gone in then, rather than sit back and look completely powerless. But that’s another debate, for another time.
Cormer, we can’t back out now because it would lose Britain face, or because it would lead to civil unrest there?
I’m asking because the two are totally different?
Typhoo: “Iraq IS chaos, because the coalition DID get into an occupation, when they hadn’t planned for it. As a result of that it is not a better place . Iraqi lives haven’t benefitedas was pointed out in the programme – they expected huge changes, and as a result of not meeting those expectations of young people in particular we ‘now have an insurgence against the west as a whole’.”
That’s alright then. I thought for one awful moment that there was still debate about some of these points that the BBC was failing to present.
Hugh, any debate from you on offer?
“Or was it because America wanted access to the Oil?”
Oil is a global commodity.
“the whole WMD threat was nonsense”
Far from it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack#The_attack
If he could ‘solve’ the Kurdish problem though genocide, are you really so naive to think he would not have used chemicals on others?
The coalition acted within the terms set out in resolution 1441.
Gog
Well said. However history is already revised, and not just in the realms of Galloway and Benn, but in almost every media organisation in the country.
Gog
Well said. However history is already revised, and not just in the realms of Galloway and Benn, but in almost every media organisation in the country.
Typhoo: Hugh, any debate from you on offer?
Fair enough. My point is I’d prefer to stick loosely with topics to do with BBC bias. All your arguments are fair enough, but it’s I hear from the BBC. My argument on that score is that the BBC seems broadly aligned with the Stop the War Coalition.
Personally I was always against the war in Iraq. But the reason I opposed it was simply I don’t give a **** about Moozlums or their dictators. So what if Saddam put people in mincing machines or gassed his own people. Were they English? No. Why why should I give a ****?
What concerns me is the gay BBC mafia spouting crap about how peacful Islam is and how good it would be to have Sharia law here in England.
I notice that the “Sharia” marriage that took place over a phone between a woman in England and a man in Bangladesh with a metal age of 3 was ignored by the media.
But this is what Sharia is all about.
I say stuff the Iraqi’s. Get our lads home and let them kill each other.
I enjoyed the Iran Iraq war. Sit in front of the TV and watch CNN live at they slughter each other. Great TV. Bring it on.
And yes Blair and the rest of the politicians who voted for the war should in my view be dragged in front of a court for their crimes. But so should every simgle person who voted Blair back into power in 2005.
Hugh, I’ve heard those arguments on ALL the media. Over the last five years we’ve had polls etc telling us that the locals thought it was making things worse for the Brits/US army to be there. Not just from Iraq but Afghanistan.
We’re at a point now, five years on, where some sort of reckoning needs to be done. The BBC when they report from those lands, are hardly lying, when they have taken a look even from the men on the ground. Taken together, the view of the armed forces on both sides of the coalition, the local people, the commanders we see before us on our screens, all of them have over time given thier viewpoint.
When I quoted the programme, obviously I agreed with it, as I assume you did with the excerpt you lifted from Harry’s place. That is what people do, they lift quotes and excerpts that agree with their view point.
I’ve watched and read the fate of Tim Collins, remember him, the hero with his speech pinned up on the wall of the Oval office? Look at his fate. And at the hands of the media, so I’m not pro BBC as if it were a dissembler of truth, but everything cannot be discarded, and as to Iraq, well I know from personal experience what it is like to live under marshall law with bombs going off, and no security. I don’t wish that on others. If they are saying get out, I advocate we facilitate their wish.
As to the local people, eventually they will come to terms with things, as we did here. For instance there is now a call through out west Belfast that Gerry Adams needs to go. The revelations from Powells book and the state of this constituency has sealed his fate. Right flourishes in the end.
I believe eventually a balance comes. There is no evidence of any quality IMO to suggest that Iraqis on the ground have benefited from the ‘liberation/invasion/occupation.’ As we – the ordinary every day civilian on the streets of Belfast haven’t benefited from peace on the ground.
Well that pretty much disproves the idea that anti-war bias = left-wing bias.
One point, though: They’re not saying “Get out”, are they? The polls show they want the troops to stay until security improves.
Alex, I’ve no idea how you reached that conclusion. Broadly an anti-war bias does reflect a left wing bias, although of course there are exceptions. Look at the Hitchens brothers.
That’s not surprising as Typhoo inserted a huge post between Martin’s tirade and my comment on it.
Hey alex, don’t get angry at me cos I posted 😉
It’s down to you to make it clear who it is you are responding to, not down to others to with hold posting until you decide to reply.
Alex. No, I appreciated you were talking about Martin’s post. But his argument is hardly a common one forward by those who are anti war is it? It did occur to me that you might be joking though. In which case, sorry.
David Vance , Once again you have excelled with your News night Watch.I now consider the BBC to be Britain’s Lord haw haw.. David, keep up the good work.…
Yeah, that was a flippant comment which lost a lot of its flippancy when Typhoo posted his non-flippant monster just ahead of me.
Alex: You are a typicla left wing idiot. So do you approve of the Iraq war then?
I don’t and never have. I objected to the first Gulf war as well. Stuff the Moozlums I don’t care about them.
I didn’t care about them in Kosovo either. Funnily enough I don’t remember a single “Moozlum” Country coming ot the aid of their fellow “Moozlums” in Kosovo either.
They love killing each other. Just look at Iraq now. The vast majority of them have died not at the hands of the “evil Americans”, but at the hands of each other.
Just how stupid are these people?
Get our lads out and let them kill each other. The more the merrier I say.
Oh and I’ll still buy their oil.
Alex you are full of double standards.
At least you admit it’s their oil.
”We’re at a point now, five years on, where some sort of reckoning needs to be done.”
Why?
What’s so special about 5 years having passed?
Why not 4 years or 6 and a half years.
Wars don’t work out in convenient chronological terms
Well yoy, at what stage should the reckoning be done? 30 years, with more dead and perhaps no further on?
Time scale please?
Alex: You really don’t get it do you? Of course it’s their oil. They can do what they like with it. None of our business.
We shouldn’t go around sticking our noses in where it’s not wanted either.
But like I said I don’t care about them either. I strongly object to my taxes being given by Gordon Brown to the Palestinians for example.
Let the Moozlum Countries help them out. They are quick to give them money to kill, so let them feed them as well. I just don’t give a ****.
By the way, it’s spelt ‘muslim’. Short ‘u’ and an unvoiced ‘s’. The ‘z’ sound is comparatively rare in Arabic.
Corlan | Homepage | 20.03.08 – 12:04 pm |
At the same time though, I find it morally reprehensible that we went in under false pretences. If the government had said “look, Saddam is bad news. We have the power to take him down and make the world a better place” then we might wonder why they didn’t go after some others (Mugabe, Kim Jon Il, etc) but at least we’d be aware of the plan and the reasons for it. Instead they lied.
Well, I realize the BBC and other Leftoid media has squashed any debate or truth-telling, but originally that’s what Bush and Co. did say. But that wasn’t good enough for Leftoid anti-war (read: anti-any war started by a Republican, but pro-lots of other military action, regime change included) crowd. Not only that, but half of Europe and Russia was in bed with Sadaam at that point, and would have none of it. The French were giving him weapons and other material aid, the Germans were building his bunkers, and the Russians were helping him stay in business. Not to mention George Galloway, and plenty of others. And don’t get me started on Korrupt Kofi and his UN Keystone Kops.
So I would imagine that you would have been against taking out Sadaam in the first place. It was only after nobody wanted to help that they started talking about Sadaam’s potential weapons threat, etc. That was the only way Blair or the US Congress would finally go along with the plan.
They knew that the dodgy dossier couldn’t be relied on – and they had no evidence of AQ activity in Iraq (at least none that I’ve seen – the last I heard, AQ were themselves against Saddam) – it seems like Saddam was just a target of opportunity.
Yes, because taking out L’il Kim would be impossible. And let’s be honest, these days, only African nations are allowed to do anything about African dictators. Collective post-colonial guilt and all that, don’t you know.
In any event, Sadaam was much more than a target of opportunity. He and his henchmen were key linchpins in the movement of terrorist money, terrorist leaders, and other ugly business. Iraq was/is also the only country with a nominally secular or non-monarchist leader (Lebanon doesn’t count, for obvious reasons), so there was less blind support for him like there would be for a mullah or king or whatever. Iraq is strategically located, and a resulting US-friendly country would be in a strong position to have a positive influence in the reason.
It wasn’t all about oil. If there was no oil, none of the terrorist countries would have any money in the first place, but the US could never have gone in there and expected to just own all the oil in Iraq. That is fantasy, and could never happen. Sure, the hope was that a US-friendly Iraq would give us a sweet deal or something, and it would be a good ally in OPEC (desperately needed), but the US was never going to control all the oil. Ever. That’s another lie you’ve been fed.
And that’s why I’m against the war. I do not appreciate being lied to, and I do not appreciate the whole opinion that seems so prevalent in government that they know best, and the public don’t have the right to know or the intelligence to understand the issues.
You weren’t really lied to, in the end, contrary to Andrew Gilligan’s interpretation. Even Sadaam thought he had something going on there. In any case, the government did say, “Look Sadaam is bad news, etc.”, but people like you still didn’t accept that as good enough. So, if it was left up to you and the anti-this war crowd, and the BBC, Sadaam would still be in power, still slaughtering people, still allowing his family and henchmen to slaughter people, still distributing money to all sorts of unpleasant terrorists, families of suicide bombers, and other members of Parliament. Of course what you also conveniently forget is that the wonderful Uday and Qusay would be only a couple years away from taking over and splitting up the country in a real civil war. The reality if we had gone along with you and the anti-this war crowd would be infinitely worse than what is going on now.
But it’s uncomfortable to think about that, isn’t it?
Paxman never liked Bush, and turned against Blair because of Iraq. Old Jeremy may be one of the best at the BBC in playing devil’s advocate during interviews, but it’s usually very obvious when he’s going on about something he believes in.
If it’s his opinion, the histrionics increase exponentially, the sighing takes over the whole body, his voice rises in pitch. If it’s not really his opinion and he’s just asking challenging questions as a good reporter ought to do, he manages to sound very serious (doesn’t mumble like Marr or rush through like Frei when they’re pretending to be challenging), and is more wont to slow down the second half of the question, and overact the interrogatory inflection at the end.
I’ll watch this tomorrow night when they do the weekly Best Of for United Statesians. But just looking at the panel gives the impression of a stitch-up. It’s so silly to have Perle on. While he may seem the obvious choice because he is supposedly the godfather of the whole thing, he is hardly qualified to give anything other than the same opinion he had before it started. Even if it was an unqualified success and the panel was done from the BBC’s plush new offices in the New Islington borough of Baghdad (down the road from the bathhouse, and surrounded by the kind of bars you find in Soho these days), Perle’s opinion in a wrap-up discussion wouldn’t have any value.
Why not have a general on, BBC? No, never mind. Judging from the viewer comments on the Newsnight blog, you’ve already done your job. The comments are almost cliché – a limerick about how stupid Bush is, Bush is the real terrorist, why didn’t Paxman get after them about the lies Labour told us, there’s a whitewash at White City about not telling the viewers the truth that the US really just wanted military bases in Iraq to control the world’s oil, Zionists, 9/11, Paxman let Perle tell lies unchallenged.
Another BBC success story.
And color me a naive, foolish, prudish United Statesian, but I have no respect for a news division that shows little dramatic films with famous actors as a lead up to a supposedly serious news programme. No wonder so many people react emotionally instead of using their critical faculties.
Ah – but here is one of the few things the BBC thinks Brits should be proud of:
“World’s best-known protest symbol turns 50”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7292252.stm
Doesn’t matter that Direct Action Committee Against Nuclear War (DAC) and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) were on a suicidal quest to make the West disarm unilaterally, while the Soviets were piling up their nuclear war heads.
I recently saw an interview with an ex-KGB. He said that during the Cold ware Soviets were spending billions every year to spur “anti-war” movements in the West.
(I guess much like what the Saudis are doing now).
The invasion of Iraq was NOT a new conflict,but a continuation of the Gulf War,which had ended in a ceasefire,not a peace treaty.This ceasefire was on the absolute condition that Saddam Hussein eschewed all weapons of mass destruction.Moreover he was bound,somewhat like a paedophile, to stay away from any form of contact.
There is no doubt that Iraq retained the knowledge base to reconstitute WMD should there be an opportunity.
There does not seem to be any consideration that with the “no fly zones” and embargoes there was still a low level war going on.Iraqi air defences regularly targeted patrol aircraft.
The vast Oil for Food scam generated the wealth that Saddam needed to rearm.
All far more complex than simply an “illegal war”.
This 10 Days to War series and the associated follow up discussions on the flagship news programme Newsnight have formed the backbone of the BBC’s coverage of the 5th anniversary of the war. It has sought to provide a retrospective of the issues around the motivation for war: the legality, planning, execution and aftermath.
Over a fortnight of discussion, never once has the subject of oil been touched upon. Whether you agree with Alan Greenspan when he said “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil”, or not, it is incumbent on the BBC to talk about the subject as part of a balanced discussion. Political inconvenience – you would have thought • has no significance for independent broadcasting, so why the silence? Iraq has the 3rd largest proven oil reserves in the world.
Another consideration for the motivation for war which went unacknowledged through numerous interviews was the desire for the US to site permanent military bases in the Middle East. The Project for a New American Century report signed by many of the Iraq war architects outlined their strategy for the region by saying “Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein” Since then the US has spent millions of dollars building what they term ‘enduring bases’. This was ignored by Newsnight.
The usually incisive and combative Jeremy Paxman has spent the last two weeks doting like a puppy to the words of those responsible or justifying the decisions to go to war. The pinnacle of his acquiescence occurred last night when Richard Perle cited the reasons for going to war as WMD, 9/11 & al-Qaeda; none of these issues are related to Iraq and no legitimate link has ever been proved for the last two. Paxman allowed these very obvious lies to go unquestioned.
No matter what your stance on the correctness of the war in Iraq, I’m sure you’ll agree that it is incumbent on the BBC to be fair, balanced and provide a range of views. As the BBC’s own guidelines say “Impartiality involves breadth of view, and can be breached by omission.” This retrospective on Iraq has failed to give voice to a vast swathe of British public opinion; it has instead sought to pursue an extremely narrow view which is strikingly similar to government policy.
Alex: Oh dear. “Moozlum” is the way the jocks pronounce it. If you’ve ever listened to that prat George Galloway you will know what I mean.
I treat “Moozlum” as a sort of joke an insult if you like.
I’ve never really believed all this “we did it for oil” crap anyway.
Saddam could have easily been brought back onside (like Gadaffi has) and we could have helped arm him again to go and fight Iran again.
I also really get annoyed with the limp wristed lefties like Alex here. They get all upset that we were “lied to”
Well Alex that prat Bliar started lying ot us beofre Iraq!!
How about the following
1. He lied to Gordon Brown about how long he’d stay leader
2. He lied about not putting up income tax (NI is income tax)
3. He lied about education, education, education
4. He lied over being “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”
All politicians lie. Fact is the left were happy to see Bliar lie to get McLabour elected. But they all had a big girlie hissy fit when he lied over why we went to war in Iraq.
Anyone remember the Bernie Ecclestone “bung”?
Remember Tony then say “I’m a pretty kind of straight of guy…”
Of course, it was just a “coincidence” that Formula 1 would be exempt the tobacco advertising ban.
Oh dear, the left really are THICK.
Saddam Hussein – Ties to al Qaeda and international terrorism.
Its clear to me that although many here know much. All of you know very little that is important or relevant.
This because all your opinions are based on what you have been told by the MSM including the BBC.
May I suggest that you are all effectively wrong for precisely this reason. The BBC not only tells lies by means of what it says. It tells simply massively vital lies by what it either does not know or what it has no intention or permission of saying at all.
The reasons for this war should after 5 years be obviously NOT what any of either the so called left or so called right media constantly indicates or implies.
The truth is in fact neither.
The truth is far more complicated and potentially damaging, not just to the interests and freedoms of the Iranians or the Iraqis but to us in the UK. Please be aware of this because freedom once lost during war is very difficult to regain during peace.
It is clear to me ,as far as the Middle East is concerned, that the powers that be are making a long planned move to control the political and financial assets there of, once and for all.
A multi-national Fascist inspired corporate take over, which we the ordinary people will hardly if at all benefit from, but will be paying the price for, all the same.
Nothing new here, its the way THIS countries establishment has been running the world for hundreds of years.
Now, you can have a debate on whether this is a good or a bad thing, thats fine. You could therefore even discuss the potential benefits if you wish.
But please try your absolute best to not completely stop seeing the real FOREST for all the masses of working entirely for the interests of the British Establishment, smoke and mirrors, divide and rule, acutely dishonest, highly clever BBC propaganda from start to finish, SHAPED TREES.
Otherwise IMO it only encourages the bastards at the BBC to carry on with their tried and tested methods of disinformation. Every time the BBC’s top brass reads this blog, they must end up giving themselves a massive collective pat on the back. Which is why after over 5 years of this site the BBC gets forever more worthlessly and expensively dangerous FOR EVERYONE.
Maybe some of you think a Neo-Maxist Neo-Fascist New World Order dictated to by unknown unelected despots, where democracy freedom private property and liberty are well and truly things of the past, is a good, fine and wonderful thing. If so just say so. Otherwise start thinking for yourselves, and quick.
David Preiser (USA):
Well, I realize the BBC and other Leftoid media has squashed any debate or truth-telling, but originally that’s what Bush and Co. did say. But that wasn’t good enough for Leftoid anti-war (read: anti-any war started by a Republican, but pro-lots of other military action, regime change included) crowd.
So they approached it correctly and the people said no. At which point they decided to lie? That doesn’t make it ok.
So I would imagine that you would have been against taking out Sadaam in the first place.
Personally, I don’t much care. Tell me how it benefits the country to spend our money taking him down and I’ll think about it. Removing him just because he’s a bad man is not acceptable, there are an awful lot of bad people out there.
In any event, Sadaam was much more than a target of opportunity. He and his henchmen were key linchpins in the movement of terrorist money, terrorist leaders, and other ugly business.So very precisely defined. Prove it. Iraq was/is also the only country with a nominally secular or non-monarchist leader (Lebanon doesn’t count, for obvious reasons), so there was less blind support for him like there would be for a mullah or king or whatever.That makes it ok to attack? Iraq is strategically located, and a resulting US-friendly country would be in a strong position to have a positive influence in the reason.That argument I can agree with. I’m just not sure that it alone justifies the costs of the war.
It wasn’t all about oil. If there was no oil, none of the terrorist countries would have any money in the first place, but the US could never have gone in there and expected to just own all the oil in Iraq.
Why the hell not? If they went in there with guns, tanks, planes etc (as they did) and defeated all who stood against them (as they did) what’s to stop them simply claiming all the oil there? Or the land? Why not prove that you’re devoted to giving the people of Iraq a better deal by making them a part of the USA? If they were a new US state, that would give you carte-blanche to do whatever you wanted – provided that you made it plain that anyone who wanted to leave could do so (possibly with some cash for resettlement).
If they told me the war was all about the natural resources of Iraq, I could at least rest easy – because then I’d know what was in it for the country as a whole.
…if it was left up to you and the anti-this war crowd, and the BBC, Sadaam would still be in power, still slaughtering people, still allowing his family and henchmen to slaughter people, still distributing money to all sorts of unpleasant terrorists, families of suicide bombers, and other members of Parliament. Of course what you also conveniently forget is that the wonderful Uday and Qusay would be only a couple years away from taking over and splitting up the country in a real civil war. The reality if we had gone along with you and the anti-this war crowd would be infinitely worse than what is going on now.
Why should I care about crap that’s happening halfway around the world? People are dying at a crazy rate all over the show – we don’t invade Ethiopia and take over the transport infrastructure then force-feed the people to stop the dying there, why is it different if they’re dying in Iraq? Because they’re being killed by other people? Sorry, but that doesn’t bother me – it’s what we’ve been doing to one another for most of the last 20,000 years.
The thing is, if we hadn’t gone in we’d have spent less on military matters. We’d have less soldiers who could still spend time with their families and friends because they hadn’t been wounded or killed in this war. We’d have a lot less people thoroughly pissed off at us on the international stage. I don’t see that what we have gained from the war makes all of this worthwhile.
“We’d have less soldiers who could still spend time with their families and friends because they hadn’t been wounded or killed in this war. ”
I meant more soldiers. Sorry, long day…