Hi Dave,
I thank you for your thoughtful and well intentioned post as I know that these debates can be somewhat heated at times. I'm glad that you are level head and are good at making a point.
With regards to the war being illegal. I was referencing the fact that under international law there was no basis for the invasion of Iraq. There was no sanction or 'ok' from the UN. The war was of course voted for by the senate and the house. Alas these fine institutions do not have the final say with regards to international law.
There was no real justification for either US or UK entry into Iraq. You can of course argue that it was the right thing to do in hindsight. This does not however explain the lies told by both messers Blair and Bush about Weapons of Mass Destruction and the manipulation of intelligence reports (see the writings of former intelligence advisor Richard Clarke, who adamantyl states that Cheney and Rumsfeld were pushing Iraq into the fray following 9/11)
The military ground troops. I do not deny that a lot of the troops are dedicated to finishing the job. The only problem is... they were given no plan by their government as to how to ensure peace following the toppling of Sadam. There is still no definite framework that they are working from to effectively rebuild Iraq.
Check out the case of Kevin Benderman, a career officer who filed as a conscientous objector, who was convicted on trumped up charges because he did not want to serve in Iraq, having previously been involved in desert storm. The GIs against the war movement is gathering momentum, with several organisations, books and movies being made representing their objection to the war, which they should have the right to do.
Oil. There are countless examples of Iraq being put on the table pre-9/11 due to several reasons, its geogaphical importance, its oil and the fact that the mission was not accomplished first time around.
Here is one such example provided by the BBC, which details the deals between oil companies and the government.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/n ... 354269.stm
The book 'The War on Truth' by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed provides other fascinating examples of how the war in Iraq was planned pre 9/11 and was made to seem as part of the global 'war on terror' (Its debatable how you can have a war on terror when terrorism is a concept, not an organisation).
I would not say that Baghdad is safer than New York, Baltimore and other cities, perhaps statistically it may be so, though I have not seen anything detailing this (perhaps you could provide me with some info). The fact of the matter is that in New York and Baltimore there are not daily bombings in the streets, in places of worship or upon queues of people signing up for the police force.
The most conservative estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq are placed somewhere near 30,000 people since 2003, that would suggest more than 3,000 a year.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Hussein was a brutal dictator, who was previously backed by the US. Iran was also backed by the US before the Islamic Revolution. The fact of the matter is that the US did business with Hussein while he was using chemical weapons against Iranians. ( Its also worth noting that the Iranians possessed similar weapons but chose not to use them during this conflict).
I agree that we must know how the media and politicians influence people. That is why I don't trust a fact unless I find its source.
This war is in fact illegal and it has not been proven to be legal, that is why so few other nations took part in the invasion. France helped out in the first Gulf War when there was good reason given for the invasion, their refusal this time around was not simply apathy towards the situtation in the middle east, it is because there was no legal basis for the war, nor was their adequate intelligence to suggest that WMDs existed in Iraq or that the Hussein regime was linked to Al Qaeda or any islamic Jihadist group.
I'm from Ireland Dave. The US military uses my country as a stopover for military personnel and also, according to the council of Europe, the CIA also used it for the illegal transportation of detainees.
Under Irish law no other country can use Irish airports or airspace for the purposes of carrying out military operations. The US has violated Irish neutrality. There is another example of an illegal, unsanctioned action by the US government, but this time it is thrust upon a friendly nation.
Sadams regime resulted in the deaths of many Kurds, Iranians and Iraqis, at times with the backing of the US government (see photo of Rumsfeld with Saddam). Only time will tell whether the numbers of the dead under Saddam will be surpassed by the turmoil created by the current climate of Jihadism gripping Iraq, carried out by foreign terrorist groups. After all was Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi not Jordanian?
If you ask the reporters on the ground in Iraq who the locals say are carrying out these attacks they will say 'foreign people'.
The CIAs National Intelligence Council even says that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the worlds primary centre for terrorist training. This shows that before the war it was not a center for terrorist congregation and this scenario was created follwoing the destabilisation of the country following the invasion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... ge=printer
The assassination plots against Castro were indeed illegal, I am not debating that and I feel that it is largely irrelevant .
This article in the nation states that a recent poll states that 29% OF GIs want immediate withdrawl.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060508/parenti
This amount want 'immediate' withdrawl, how many more want withdrawal within a years time? It also describes how the military uses unit cohesion to prevent some from breaking ranks.
These are some of mybliefs and my feelings about the war, I do not expect everyone to agree with me. I have come to these conclusions by staying objective and trying to get a grasp of both sides of the issue. I understand the position you take Dave as it is understandable, I do however feel that this is a more romantic and unrealistic way of viewing the war and the reasons it happened. Politics is much more complicated than just fighting for whats right. People have money to make and objectives to be fulfilled through war, I don't like it so I make my feelings known.
Thats my two cents for now.
I hope that I have portrayed myself in a balanced way and do not come accross as attacking your views, as that is not my intention.
If you have anything to add or rebut please do so as debates like these are good for both of our understanding.
All the very best,
John Geraghty