Saddam has won. Kofi Anan says the war was illegal.

It's time for a new leader in the UN. Annan has proven himself to be an ineffective leader.

Also, I would like to point out that steve's "facts" are mostly wrong.

We have not "lost" anything, We control most of the country with the exception of a few urban areas where we choose to not kill everyone, no one is hiding behind anything in Iraq except the cowardly insurgents who know they would be instantly slaughtered if they faced the US and it's allies as soldiers.

Fortunately, the UN does not make decisions regarding US policy and US Defense.

Those two responses were so expected I could have written them myself.

I would hope they would be. How else would you expect a peice of propaganda like the one above?

I could argue that your statement regarding the UN is also propaganda. And also your characterization of the insurgents. I don't think there is anything cowardly about not presenting yourself to the enemy in a way that would accomplish nothing but your certain death. It's called guerilla or urban warfare -- and it was anticipated.

You see nothing cowardly about kidnapping civilians? Car bombing civilians? Create terror and havoc for civilians? I consider that the height of cowardice.

I am not alone in believing Kofi Annan an ineffective leader in the UN. We wouldn't be in Iraq at all if the UN had the courage of it's convictions. What good does a resolution do if the body issuing it is afraid to enforce it?

Oh, you were talking about kidnappings and car bombings. I thought you were talking about guerilla warfare. Yes, I find kidnappings abominable. I find creating terror and havoc for civilians abominable -- but that's what war does and we brought war to Iraq, so I'm not prepared to lay the blame at the feet of the Iraqi fighters.



I know you are not alone in your beliefs about Kofi Annan -- which is why I said it could also be called propaganda. Part of convincing the American people that we needed to invade Iraq was convincing us that the UN was a useless foreign body and completely irrelevant. Part of doing that was to discredit its leader.

The idea of the UN's not being able to enforce its resolutions could be debated on a whole other thread, but one might be curious as to our criteria for choosing which resolutions we will unilaterally enforce.

Saddam has won? In the same terms, then, Bush has lost. I've lost my certainty of the need for the invasion, but I'm still sure one of the above leaders sleeps in prison, and the other, in The White House.

Shock and awe, shock and awe
Avenge my paw, avenge my paw
Shock and awe, shock and awe
Avenge my paw, avenge my paw

In the White House, the Whitey White House
The Liar sleeps tonight . . .

Duck says "The idea of the UN's not being able to enforce its resolutions could be debated on a whole other thread, but one might be curious as to our criteria for choosing which resolutions we will unilaterally enforce."

Only the ones that directly effect the security of the United States of America.

Usual sides drawn.

I'll just concentrate on the fact that Kofi Annan has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I had the honour to sit on an aeroplane with him some time ago (though I admit we didn't speak - we just exchanged eye contact accross the row!).

It was a moment of humility for me, faced with a man who has achieved so much by peaceful means to the immense benefit of the world. You may disagree with the position he has taken on Iraq but do not demean a great man because you disagree with one point of view.

There was no concrete evidence that Iraq had WMDs. It was for that reason that the UN was taking its time to come to a decision over what action would be taken over Saddam's prevarication regarding inspections, which NEVER constituted a "real and present danger".

I heard a part of the interview in which the interviewer put words into his mouth. The Secretary General stated that the invasion contravened the statutes of the UN. It is for international lawyers to determine whether any law binds the USA in its actions. The UK lawyers who advised Blair indicated that, in their view, the invasion was not illegal.

Of course many legal actions are unjustified and generate more trouble than they solve!

Now there are some facts and some opinions.

If you asked me whether I would rather spend one hour with Kofi or one day with W, I'd pick the former, who I consider to be a man of principle.

KP

For woiyo: Well, like I said, we could do this on another thread. It's not clear at all that the resolution we chose to enforce directly affected our security. I'll leave it to you to show otherwise.

I didn't know that being a suckup to the American Administration was an important criteria for being UN Secretary General. Other than this, Annan seems to be doing a good job with dignity and consistancy by using his voice to champion human rights and peace.

As far as Annan's glaring difficulty kowtowing to the Bush administration... perhaps Colin Powell would make a good replacement.

Yassir Arafat also won a nobel peace prize. Since then. it has become a meaningless token of ineffectiveness.

Both Bush and Annan are men of priciples. Annan is guided by what he thinks is best for the UN, Bush for the United States. As a citizen of the US, I prefer to have my leader make decisions for my country.

That is an example of the pot calling the kettle black. I have as much use for the UN and Kofi as I have for Bush. The both are not worth the powder to blow them to blow them up.

Tony Blair is keen to move on from Iraq. I can understand why. What I don't understand is why he hasn't resigned. I'm getting very tired of Iraq too and this might be my last on the subject for a while but then...

We were assured that wmd would be found, that coalition forces would be welcomed, that peace and security would be rapidly restored and that Iraq would become a free and democratic country. We were told that the removal of the Iraqi regime would reduce the threat of international terrorism.

And how did it turn out? Well for a start no wmd. American and British forces are still attacked every day. There is no peace and security. The media is censored. Free elections can't be held because of the security situation. Meanwhile a country which never supported militant Islamism (unlike the United States), has become a magnet for every type of terrorist, suicide bomber and religious fanatic keen for an opporunity to attack the infidel invader.

But of course more cynical observers never believed in the stated reasons for war. The real objectives were to safeguard oil, protect Israel, strengthen the dollar, boost the economy and award fat reconstruction contracts to friends of the Republican elite.

So how did the "hidden agenda" go? Oil pipelines and the main export terminal at Basra are continually under threat of attack. Oil exports have yet to reach pre war levels. At least one oil major (BP) has said they wont go near Iraq, its too dangerous.

Israelis are attacked by Palestinian militants at home and by Islamic extremists around the world. Iran is near to acquiring nuclear weapons and has missiles that can hit Tel Aviv. The so called peace process is all but abandoned. Regarding the dollar, its fallen. Even the contracts for Bush's friends haven't been quite so fat and juicy as was hoped because it was all predicated on boosting oil exports and that's not happened.


So sum total of the benefits of the Iraq war (open and hidden) zero.

Now the costs

We have killed and injured countless thousands of Iraqis. (Countless because we don't bother to count them). We have lost thousands of coalition troops killed or injured. Its cost a fantastic amount of money. Its turned America and Britain into international pariah states. Bush and Blair are laughed at and despised in equal measure in every capital city. The price of oil has shot up. Terror attacks have increased. Osama bin Laden is inspired to do more. The very freedoms we were determined to impose on Iraq are being eroded at home.

So was it worth it?


Was it ****

I want to reply to your statements Steve, but I feel I would only be wasting both of our time.

Yes, Steve, we were assured that wmd would be found. They weren't. We were also assured, if you recall, we were told that if they weren't there, they would be found anyway. They weren't.

I don't agree with Anan in total - but the essence of what he said is correct.

Never have so few screwed up a country and its status in the world so effectively as this pathetic gang that couldn't shoot straight.

How anyone can consider voting to continue them in power is beyond reason.

Almost the only thing they've gotten right is "the need for regime change"...and even that they got wrong by choosing the wrong regime.