Two weeks ago, an invited group of BBC News Online readers debated whether going to war had been a mistake. Now following the fall of Saddam's regime, do they think it was justified?
Here the proposition is put by Jos Joslyn from Hampshire. A vote on the motion open to everyone is running at the bottom of the page.
PROPOSITION:
THAT GOING TO WAR WAS A PRICE WORTH PAYING FOR THE LIBERATION OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE
Proposing
Name: JOS JOSLYN
From: HAMPSHIRE, UK
Age: 47
Occupation: SOFTWARE SPECIALIST
No war is surgical, all war is painful, and comes at a cost in both human terms and the initial ensuing confusion that predominates any country "post-conflict".
|
FLASHBACK
Part one of the debate discussed if going to war had been a mistake
In the vote which followed, readers backed the anti-war motion 78%-22%
|
The consequences of the liberation of Iraq will finally allow Iraq to return to prosperity, economic stability, and the democratic will of its people. None of which would have been possible had Saddam remained as dictator.
When all sanctions are removed, and no longer restricting Iraq to only selling "oil for food and medicines", I believe that the country will soon repair, and the recovery will be spectacular. The resources that Iraq has naturally means that this is not a Third World country by design, these conditions have been imposed by the world community as a result of the intransigence of the leadership.
Whether Iraq stays there is now - quite rightly - entirely in the hands of the people of Iraq, where it should have been all along.
In the first debate, Jos Joslyn argued that anti-war people were "Nimbys", and that freedom comes at a cost
|
There is a "post Iraq" responsibility upon the countries involved in the conflict (US, UK, and Australia) to ensure that efforts are made to build towards stability within the entire region. The US obviously has the bigger part to play - given their relationship with Israel. If this can be addressed, and addressed with heart and determination, then the wider Arabic world will then believe they can start to live in peace with Israel, and the wider world community.
This is the first step on a very long road towards regional stability. Therefore it is justified. I propose the motion.
Opposing
Name: SALIK FAROOQI
From: WASHINGTON DC
Age: 27
Occupation: LEGAL CO-ORDINATOR
One cannot "liberate" those that one has oppressed.
Critics of the US invasion of Iraq did not doubt a US military victory, they never denied Saddam's tyranny, nor did they think that Iraqis would not welcome the regime's departure.
What they said, and continue to
say is that it is disingenuous for the US to claim to be "liberating" Iraqis, after having themselves armed
Saddam so that he could stay in power.
In the first debate, Salik Farooqi argued that the interests of the Iraqis only became an issue when the US wanted to justify its "more overtly aggressive acts".
|
Lives have been lost. Many have been maimed. One cannot quantify the resulting suffering. Nor for that matter
can one calculate the value of the irreplaceable
relics and records that have been destroyed.
Such heavy losses, and we have not even begun the hard part - the occupation of Iraq. US claims of acting "in the interests of the Iraqi people" once again appear hollow as Washington promotes the likes of Ahmed Chalabi and shockingly, Nizar Khazraji, a former Iraqi army general.
Instability has set in - there is widespread looting in all urban areas, a leading pro-US Shia cleric has been murdered, and the largest Shia grouping, SCIRI, has condemned US occupation. With such ominous signs so early on, I fear that future generations will look back at this invasion in much the same way that we look back at the British act of putting King Faisal in power after WWI, and the American support of Saddam in the 80s - talk of a "judgment error," and empty pity for all that was lost because of it.
Given these facts, I oppose the motion in the clearest terms possible.
Other comments from the members of the group:
Name: ANDREY BARABANSHCHIKOV
From: TULA, RUSSIA
Age: 31
Occupation: SALES MANAGER
Like millions of people I saw Saddam's monument being pulled down by jubilant Iraqis and for sure I'll remember this remarkable moment of mankind's history for the rest of my life.
In the first debate, Andrey Barabanshchikov said he thought democracy and aggression were incompatible
|
Yes and thousands times yes that any dictatorship cannot be justified. Neither can the war. Both notions have much in common - death and suffering.
If you disagree with this you sort of lie to your conscience. People do change their points of view - so do I, but this is not the case. Under current circumstances my standpoint may probably seem naive but I keep asking myself if thousands of civilians and hundreds of soldiers killed, cities looted, chaos and humanitarian disaster across the country is the price of freedom for Iraqis.
Who knows the answer? White House politicians or Downing Street residents? Or killed soldiers' families or Iraqi orphans, or parents who lost their kids under precise bombing?
I heard a lot of times that human life is value number one of democracy. May it be in word and deed.
Name: NEIL MONK
From: YORKS, UK
Age: 19
Occupation: CUSTOMER ADVISOR
War was a price worth paying for the liberation of Iraq.
Scenes of jubilation fill our television sets, newspapers, and websites. These are the people of Iraq welcoming the coalition into their country. These are the people who have been caught up in some of the bombing and firefights that has taken place during the coalition advance, and the liberation of Iraq.
Neil Monk argued, in the first debate, that the world needed the war to oust Saddam Hussein
|
These people, normal, everyday people, like you and me, who have, for so long lived under the constant rule of the evil dictator that was Saddam Hussain.
Of course, the civilian, and our own (coalition troops) casualties cannot be forgotten. Who can say that the plight of the young Iraqi boy Ali has
not touched them?
What the coalition needs to do now is to rebuild Iraq, reinstate power an water supplies, and most of all, not abandon it. Forces should be kept in Iraq for the next few months at the very least.
A lot of lessons ought to be learned from this war, but will the coalition, and particularly the "Bush Administration" take heed of the mistakes that have been made?
While the casualties (that always come with war) and low points, have been regrettable, I think that war was a price worth paying for the liberation of Iraq.
Name: ALEXANDRA AHMAD
From: LEBANON
What remains now is a situation that no one can predict the outcome of. Therein lies the real test for the coalition.
The Iraqi people have been "liberated" from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein but their future remains uncertain. The looting and civil disobedience is the first test for the coalition, simultaneously; they need to secure the villages and towns that were bypassed during their push into Baghdad and the North.
Last time Alexandra Ahmad said that just because Saddam Hussein was evil, war was not justified
|
They also need to capture their 55 most wanted or at least confirm the whereabouts of Hussein and his two sons.
They need to win over the growing numbers of Iraqis who are opposing the presence of the coalition in Iraq and let us not forget the ever elusive search for weapons of mass destruction (remember those?).
They must also convince the Iraqis and the world at large that they can form a representative government according to the will of the Iraqi people, taking into account the needs of the various factions of Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, Christians, Assyrians, Marsh Arabs, and Turkmen within Iraq as well as those of the external forces such as Turkey, Israel, the US, the UK, Europe, and Iran.
Jos assumes that just the mere advent of "liberation" means this is possible, stability in Iraq is a daunting task. The coalition went in with guns blazing the question is will they remain involved until the job is complete or will they try diverting attention from their lack of success in non-combatant tasks by waging war against Syria?
It is impossible to know if going to war was a price worth paying before we know what we are paying for. If order is restored and a stable democracy established then it would give the war an element of legitimacy. But if this is not the case then the war would have removed Hussein but left international order in a state of anarchy.
Name: BRIAN STEWART-COXON
From: ABERDEENSHIRE
Age: 50
Occupation: PROJECT MANAGER
I still support the war that has given the Iraq people the opportunity to join the rest of the world.
I can understand some of the anti-war feeling that still is apparent but what would they do instead? The US with other countries did put Saddam in power and support him during the 80's, but who has been keeping him their since and providing weapons and military advice, even during the invasion?
Last time, Brian Stewart-Coxon said the people of Iraq should not be abandoned a second time
|
I have no doubt that the US and UK governments of the past got it wrong in supporting Saddam, but if they had not done so someone else would have. That is the way of the world - this has been seen in the recent discoveries in Baghdad.
But who is condemning the Russian government for their total disregard for the rules of the Kuwait ceasefire and the subsequent UN resolutions? Certainly not the anti-war protesters.
The horrific testimonies of families who have been tortured, imprisoned and victimised by this wicked regime more than justifies their removal. To place this against the loss of artefacts from a museum is testimony to the now empty arguments of those who are in support of inaction, to place artefacts above oppressed and tortured people.
There are difficult times ahead still for Iraq and its people, slowly the details of what has been happening in this country will be released, we can find out what has happened to the tons of chemical and biological weapons that are missing. Daily we will see wanted terrorists being picked up and in the next few years we will see free elections in Iraq.
1. Good riddance to this regime
2. Well done to all the forces who have been involved
3. Its time to put pressure on ALL governments to change their foreign policy
I support the motion.
Name: ANDREY BARABANSHCHIKOV
From: TULA, RUSSIA
Jos,
Would you specify how you can be so sure that "the consequences of the liberation of Iraq will finally allow Iraq to return to prosperity, economic stability, and the democratic will of its people".
Sorry, but in my opinion it sounds a bit bombastic. There are a lot of countries all over the world that are not aware of freedom, prosperity and democratic will. So, I suppose there can be a broad field for coalition forces to carry on imposing democratic values via precise bombing elsewhere.
True it may cause hundreds of casualties (of course, no war is surgical, all war is painful) but finally people will be set free and get all the blessings possible.
I can even see people rejoicing and giving thanks to smart missiles. Indeed, the war is fantastic! It reminds me of the way Soviet propaganda used to work during the cold war era, trying to justify the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
We also wanted to liberate the Afghan people from regime in the name of their lives. Someone said, "History always repeats: once as a tragedy and then as a farce."
Thank you. Best regards, Andrey Barabanshchikov
Name: JANAKI MACKENZIE
From: NETHERLANDS
Age: 50
Occupation: SECRETARY
My mind has not changed at all - in fact on the contrary I am even more convinced that the US intervention has cost dearly in terms firstly of lives and suffering to both sides and secondly of economics. And what for?
Janaki Mackenzie argued that the new millennium was about lessons learnt, and that the better model for Iraq would be the peace process in South Africa
|
Of course it is early days yet but the terror, the fear, the loss of civilian and military life and now precisely who is going to negotiate a future for the Iraqi people? And in whose interests are the new leaders going to act? Will life be better for the Iraqis on a daily level?
Scenes of jubilation particularly on US television (CNN) only portray a very small part of the last weeks. How often and how much have we seen the other side of this horrific war? It became almost like an addiction for many people rushing off to get the next bit.
The fact is there will always be those pro and those anti - but what is for the common good of the Iraqi people? And who decides? How long will it take before Bush and his administration decide to go to war with other Arab countries - already there have been threats to Syria.
And, by the way, where are all those weapons of mass destruction and where are all the chemical weapons and, of course, where is Saddam? Hopefully he's not in hiding with an even better chance of doing more damage in the world.
Name: ADAM SOFRONIJEVIC
From: BELGRADE
Age: 29
Occupation: SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR
First of all, it's extremely hard to talk in terms of "price worth paying" when human lives are in stake and when we are confronted with human casualties. Nor do I believe that we should use such big word -"liberation".
In the first debate, Adam argued that just as Belgrade had been liberated from Milosevic by bombing, the Iraqi people deserved the same chance
|
What we saw was the elimination of one dictator and his regime, and at the same time we saw that some people died in the line of duty, and we saw, unfortunately significant civilian casualties, but with an armed conflict around they were inevitable. This was a short and efficient US led-intervention and I haven't changed my opinion that it was justified.
When we are discussing looting in Iraq or social instability we have to put things in perspective. We saw the fall down of the regime that was completely incompetent and that brought injustice toward Iraqi people.
We saw that, apart from words and sporadic fighting, the regime of Saddam Hussein was easy to topple. For instance, even that they were informed and aware of the forthcoming intervention they were unprepared to evacuate art goods from museums or to protect hospitals, not to mention to secure decent or safe living for ordinary people. It seems that Iraqis leaders were only competent to flee the country after the collapse.
I agree that countries involved in conflict have now an even bigger responsibility upon themselves to rebuild Iraq as a decent country, and that they have to give to Iraqis an active role in governing their own country from the very beginning.
And I also agree that the oil factor will rather be to Iraqi's advantage than disadvantage. Too often oil was mistakenly taken as the main reason for Iraqis' "misfortune" as many of the pro-peace activists had underlined. Now comes the time that they should benefit from the fact that they live in a country rich in natural resources.
At the same time, I'm sure we'll see some more "ominous signs" during this transitional, post conflict time. But return from Saddam-hell won't be easy. Normal everyday life or democratic behaviour are the goals that Iraqis yet have to achieve.
Even if this war was a mistake, which I seriously doubt, Iraqis now have a new chance, which they didn't have only a month ago.
I strongly believe that Iraq can and will have a new shape from now on, and people living there will have some new opportunities. And, as I said, a month ago, they lived without choices, underprivileged and voiceless. At least, Iraqis now have a chance to fight for or to uphold their civilian rights and finally they have possibility to stream toward better life.
Name: ALEXANDRA AHMAD
From: LEBANON
Neil seems to be disregarding the absent millions during these scenes of jubilation in Iraq. Those watching from the outside have begun celebrating Iraqi liberation while the majority within Iraq, who have suffered for the past 25 years and are still suffering, are waiting to see this liberation take the form of something other than looting and empty promises.
Additionally, Jos claims that with the removal of Hussein Iraq can "return to the democratic will of the people". Have the Iraqis been liberated to the extent that they may elect their own government, even if that government happens to be supporters of Iran or certain groups the US does not approve of? I think not.
No one should pat themselves on the back before finding out what the successor of the Hussein regime is going to be and how the opposition to this successor will be dealt with.
Name: JANAKI MACKENZIE
From: NETHERLANDS
There is an assumption by many pro-war people that the US/UK coalition has certain rights to dictate how other countries must govern. This smacks of the typical colonial attitude that we have had to endure in our world and that has created such a split society - the haves and have nots.
Democracy is not a new concept. It has been adopted in indigenous cultures and so-called civilized countries throughout the ages. However, there are many ways of translating democracy - Bush and his administration seem to think they have the sole rights on the interpretation of what democracy is.
Saddam's regime was clearly NOT democratic but it does not therefore become the US's right to go to war before sufficient dialogue has taken place and the UN have been given a fair chance to deal with the possibility of whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and chemical weapons and how to then ensure that they were disposed of.
"Might" is not automatically "right" but the way the US is dictating to the world, it is looking increasingly like they believe it is and the rest of the world has become virtually powerless to stop them. That is a very dangerous situation for our planet to be in.
Name: THOMAS NATHAN HADDAWAY JR
From: VIRGINIA, US
Age: 21
Occupation: STUDENT
"Critics" fail to realise that the "arming" of Iraq came about trying to maintain an Iraqi border in the Iran-Iraq war. In which the US sold arms to both Iran and Iraq (in which if one country got too strong, the US would sell arms to the other country to hopefully achieve a stalemate) leading to the Iran Contra case.
After that Saddam never got a thing from the US. After the misuse of all of his arms in 1991 Saddam's US arms were pretty much destroyed (I look to the recent events for proof of this). However France, Germany, and Russia were pretty good suppliers. Hence their fears of war were actually fears of being exposed.
First it was "war for oil", then it was "too many casualties", now its "oh no looting and instability"! Can the critics be serious? First the coalition was morally wrong, then it was a fight for 9/11 revenge, now it's unpredictability?
It seems as though the criticism is losing some ground now that their previous assessment has been proven wrong. The argument about looting and instability being so bad is absurd.
It's actually not so bad at all. Countries like the US, most middle eastern states, and anyone else who has suffered an oppressive government knows that instability is just an immense amount of potential! It can go both ways, but given that the most successful of these countries is helping in the re-establishing of the Iraqi people, I would predict success rather than empty pity and resentment.
When looking for a smoking gun over the size of a country equal to my California I expect the process to be long and involved. Predictably though Saddam's dying request was revenge so he decided to hide the munitions or just move them to Syria. Whatever you may think as a WMD to US policy a single terrorist let alone an al-Qaeda camp and PLO criminal is just as good any. Oh did I mention Damascus has approximately 20 terror organizations in it?
The war was a success: minimal casualties, Iraqi freedom, and the potential for a new government exist. The price of war, although terrible and depressing, is real. I would however like to point out that the cost of the entire war wouldn't compare to the human suffering that lasted in a month of Saddam's regime, and that's pretty good by me.
Name: ANDREY BARABANSHCHIKOV
From: TULA, RUSSIA
Brian!
I understand your special love and concern for Russian government. Can you accept apologies for what it did?
I am absolutely sure we are here not to debate which government is to blame, we are here to answer rather a simple question.
I personally put it for myself in the following way. Will the world use the same approach when trying to solve such Gordian knots in the future?
Will the world or at least part of it keep on acting in a violent manner to achieve noble goals? Will the military action become the best decision of setting the peace? Will one human being's life remain priority?
These are the questions easy by form and I think complicated by matter. One polar world is a reality of nowadays life - no-one argues. We can see the new world order is being set up.
Since the world community goes this way there must be some firm restrictions otherwise the consequences in the future can be sadder than expected at present.
Name: DAVE BENNETT
From: STOCKHOLM
Age: 29
Occupation: TELECOMS ENGINEER
To be honest, I was mostly undecided whether the invasion was the best
solution. My fear was that it would become long and painful.
However, seeing the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled to the ground was
the turning point. I see pictures of Iraqis celebrating, and stamping on
pictures of Saddam. I see images of the torture chambers he used. All
these things tell me that so far we have made the right choices.
As for the disorder and looting going on - this will be resolved. Given
time, Iraq will be a better place and the Iraqi people will be happier.
Name: SALIK FAROOQI
From: WASHINGTON DC
The testimonies of Iraqis tortured by Saddam are indeed horrific. But what is perversely ghastly, is the fact that their torture occurred in chambers paid for by US taxpayers, who were footing the Pentagon's bill under the impression that they were helping Iraqis.
One would like to believe that the Pentagon's men will act as knights in shining armour and rid Iraq of the darkness that had befallen it. One still hopes that this will happen.
But unfortunately, historical record goes against such hopes. The US has bolstered oppressive regimes to its convenience (the Shah in Iran, Saddam in Iraq, Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan, Noriega in Nicaragua) and continues to do so - the $10 billion aid package to Israel is proof enough.
US foreign policy has never been crafted in the interests of "others". To think that it will be now, seems naive and counterfactual given that Washington is promoting people like Nizar Khazraji, who not so long ago would have been included in the deck of 55 cards the US is handing out.
Given these facts, it is incumbent upon us to act contrary to what happened in the 80s, and really question the proclamations of the US government, lest history repeats itself, and we become accomplices, yet again, of tyrannical US foreign policy.
Name: JANAKI MACKENZIE
From: NETHERLANDS
What really are the facts in all this? We hear the bias from the Saddam regime and we also hear the bias from the US/UK governments. Nobody is above reproach, clearly. The war has taken a very high toll. The real question is - is it really all worth it in the end? The answer at this point is mere speculation.
I believe Jos has a rather simplistic view of the current situation in the Middle East.
Finally what are we really talking about? Will Iraq be a better place? Will the US be a better place? Will the world be a better place? And it all remains speculation.
Perhaps it is time for us all to look inside ourselves and see where our war is, where our prejudices lie, where our violence is and heal those before we sit in the comfort of our homes and make judgements on the situation outside.
Let there be peace on earth and let it begin with me!
Going to war was a price worth paying for Iraqi liberation
I agree  37.05%
I disagree  62.95%
none  0.00%
These results are purely indicative and do not necessarily reflect public opinion
|
Now is your chance to vote. Results of this vote will be published on Monday - return to BBC News Online then to see if the motion is carried.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~44~RS~)
One-Minute World News
News services
Email this to a friend
Printable version
