Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

War, Now
Blair and opposition debating the routes we should take in order to alleviate the suffering of the Iraq people, and from time to time, Iraq's neighbours.

Iraq has lots of oil. It should be (and was) a rich country. 60% of it's populace only survive because of UN aid. There are 1,000,000 refugees from Iraq (about 100,000 per year over the last 12 years?). No internal political opposition exists to Saddam's dictatorship, all such opposition has been killed, as have all civil opposition movements.

His people are living in suffering, oppression and fear, and since the first UN resolution asking him to disarm, in 1991, he has continued his oppression... Blair says that when people says "we should give him more time" that the Iraq people have suffered increasingly over 12 years, and that we have already failed the Iraq people.

What is the right course of action? Should we continue sanctions, which affect the people (as Saddam sells the oil) and keep up UN aid to his people, and allow their suffering to continue? War is always the last resort... but I believe we are at the time of last resort, and have been since Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998.

Every time he has had the opportunity, he has attacked his neighbours, since 1998, he has been building up WMD again. In the face of this, the continued oppression of his people, and his non-co-operation with 12 years of UN resolutions, we have already left it 3 years too late.

Many people are anti-war on principal... but if the suffering of innocents is what we want to avert, then Saddam and his regime must be removed. If the more potent argument is "the innocent must not suffer", then we should go to war. If the more potent argument is "our economy will suffer", then we shouldn't go to war. Which is more important, our economy, or the Iraq people? We have spent, through the UN, a vast amount of money already on humanitarian aid to the Iraqis, is there even an local economical case, selfish though it may be, for abstinence?

Allowing Saddam and his regime to continue is immoral and, if the last 12 years are anything to judge by, costly in terms of life and money for both the Iraq people and Western countries who contribute to their aid. Iraq should be a rich and prosperous country, with an economy based on oil. Instead, it's people are destitute and it has a dictatorship with an oppressive army based on oil.

Even if some merely want the oil, I would rather we have it than Saddam. If we want innocent people to stop suffering, then we have to deal with Saddam, and after 12 years of cat and mouse games, of defiance then minor concessions by Saddam, after his history of oppression of his people and aggression towards his neighbours, how can we call ourselves moral or justified in keeping on our blinders and refusing to acknowledge what must be done? War is the last resort... and the time is overdue for the last resort to be taken, anything less is moral weakness, short sightedness and frail minded incompetence.

This is overdue: WAR, NOW, is the overdue last resort, the only moral action.

Vexen Crabtree
Satanic Acolyte.
Tags: , ,

  • 1
I am not wholly in agreement with you but am pleased to see that someone has had the nerve to express the pro-war viewpoint!

Ya I know most people don't agree... thanx for being nice about it :-)

Your Humble Narrator largely concurs with your analysis. My usual reply to the anti-war types is something along the lines of "So we've tried the nicey-nicey-asking-Saddam-to-disarm thing for the last 12 years and it clearly hasn't worked - now, just what do you suggest we do to get rid of him?"

They rarely if ever have a coherent answer.

Vexen, I see your point, but...I believe that launching an attack on Iraq is useless if what you're pursuing is eliminating Saddam. This war is about much more than just Humanitarian causes, UN violations...and even oil. George Bush is to me a far too shady, hypocritical, liar and I believe that anything he pursues is purely out of personal interest and benefit. Why Blair is supporting him so much, I don't know. In my opinion, war is not the answer...more killing, and the ones who are going to get the bombs are the already suffering Iraqi people, not Saddam. If you really wanted Saddam out of there and in a box...both the US and UK have agencies like the CIA and MI6, that I'm sure have more than enough resources to track Saddam down and assasinate him.
Is Saddam a brutal dictator? Of course he is...there is no such thing as a nice dictator. A dictator must always eliminate opposition because that's the only way to get the job done. Do I agree with Husein? No, but I seriously do not think that Bombs over Bahgdad will bring any solution. The consequences to all the world will be devastating.

I also believe that Saddam Husein is a very intelligent person and is not dumb enough to try anything against any powerful country, it would be stupid and with no objective. I don't think Saddam is a suicidal Jihad warrior like many terrorists, I think he is a very smart businessman, and doing anything stupid would not be good for business.

Saddam is intelligent, and paranoid, etc... we *have* tried to assassinate him, on multiple occasions... Saddam has (this is fun) multiple stand-in Saddam's - look alikes - who do his big speaches, etc... his techniques of evasion are (apparently) the best, along with Osama bin Laden. But, assassination of Saddam will not end his regime. His government is almost a cult of personality - any who think differently to Saddam have been murdered or imprisoned.

Saddam (quite a paranoid person... dictators often are!) has killed members of his own family, and many others, in purge after purge of his own government, military and people, his entire regime *is* a brutal one, if there is opposition in there, hiding, we might actually know about it, but Blair et all are not capable of revealing it without losing it. So, of course, there is a lot we don't know.

However in the early nineties and from then on, we've stopped trying to assassinate him because there is no-one to replace him. His family is insane, his government is tyrannical - not just Saddam - and we scared that if he died, someone worse would replace him. That was our official government line on the issue. Saddam, as the most experienced in his regime, is the best in control because he has learnt his limits... he works very closely within those and has, through that restraint, avoided having to change his ways. But someone new and less experienced, our intelligence has said, is going to be worse because the entire regime is bad, Saddam has removed anyone who thinks differently to himself. No-one is there to replace Saddam, the country is in a permanent state of terror and is destitute... we have tried everything, over more than decade, to change the ways of Saddam and his regime, but nothing has worked.

The biggest problem is actually the UN... the biggest argument for us not going in to war is that the UN does not think it is the right time - "not yet" - the UN is a very good thing, and undermining it (as war without it's approval) will have long term detrimental affects on the world. Blair, for this reason, is not willing to act without the UN, which he made clear in his address, but, he is willing to pressurize the UN and raise awareness of the need to do *something*, hence his current backing of Bush's aggression.

I think.

(no subject) (Anonymous) Expand
By the way...check out really interesting, it has all the facts about the war.

War Now

I'm pretty sceptical about the links with WMD or Al Qaeda, but I am pro-war because I believe Saddams dispicable regime needs to be got rid of.
The point I would like to make is that many anti-war people say that they are against war because they believe that it is just about the US governments thirst for oil, or securing lucrative contracts for defense companies in the US or any other number of theories. This is missing the point entirely. Just because the reasons for going to war may be "wrong" (on the part of the US govt) this does not mean that war itself is wrong. Even if GWB's only motive for this war is oil, as far as I'm concerned, I would still support the war because I believe it will be beneficial for the Iraqi people. People should look beyond any feelings they have about US motives and simply ask the question, Will this war be beneficial for the Iraqi people in the long run? I believe the answer to this is overwhelmingly Yes.
In coming to this conclusion I found this article of particular interest:

Finally, another argument made by the anti-war group (inc Peter Tatchell) is that we should be arming the Kurds and other opposition groups to overthrow saddam, instead of the invasion by US/UK. What a bloody moronic suggestion - promote a huge civil war that could last for years and cost a thousand times the number of innocent lives. The additude of these sort of people seems to be that war and killing of innocents is fine- as long as it is not us doing it.

1. I still support the war even if USA was in it just for oil, because I too think the Saddam's government needs to be replaced, hopefully with one that feeds it's people rather than building palaces!

2. Arming the rebels has always backfired on us, many times (the Taliban are just one example) those we have armed have not been bribed ideologically, and when we no longer need them as an ally, we realize we've created yet another monster.

Re: War Now (Anonymous) Expand
Re: War Now (Anonymous) Expand

My Contention

To call the Persian Gulf debacle that has unfolded in recently "necessary" is both fallacious and disturbing. To call it "moral" is a testament to the swaying power of the myopic mass media currently festering on our screens.
There are many ways to attack a supporting view on Iraq distraction, but i'll begin with the posting from Vexen that provoked me to write this.

"Blair and opposition debating the routes we should take in order to alleviate the suffering of the Iraq people, and from time to time, Iraq's neighbours."

A democracy has the checks and balances of constructive criticism from the opposition that refines any motion from the party in power. However, the final word is with the latter. Why then, did Mr. Blair have to rely on the deciding votes from the opposition? Because hefelt that his party were morally corrupt in comparison, or did he rely on the votes of people who had more to gain from preferential post-conquest treatment in Iraq? This of course is quite apart from the fact that the US was never going to wait for a second resolution and any pro-american votes were welcome.

"His people are living in suffering, oppression and fear, and since the first UN resolution asking him to disarm, in 1991, he has continued his oppression...."

Let's talk about suffering and it's roots. Why were the Iraqi people not in these dire straights before? Would is be because for a long time before we here in the cradle of affluence were cohabiting with the Hussein regime? At the time America (uber alles...) were engaged in a "moral war" against the Iranian "despot" Iatollah Khomenai. Religious issues aside, Khomenai is clearly the test run for the American media's "photo-fit bad guy". That we swallow the same basic nonsense our parents did is enough to show how effective this new model is (enough to make us think we have never seen it before, but of course we Arnie movies). However, after President Carter's pact to give "all necessary internal and external protection" to Iran (and and further copitulating Arab nations).

"Many people are anti-war on principal... but if the suffering of innocents is what we want to avert, then Saddam and his regime must be removed."

I am anti-war on principle, as i am a pacifist. I am anti military intervention in Iraq on the as i believe that many more people will die as a result than if we try forceful diplomatic routes. Diplomacy is always attempted with rogue nations (except America) at all times, though never with the forcefulness somehow found when under worldwide scrutiny. America knew that such a route would lacked media velocity to service their agenda. By this i mean Oil. The wells secured first (ahead of hospitals and other humanitarian sites) for "strategic" purposes. The Oil that now rests in "trust funds" (Father Ted?). The Oil that paid for the Bush government and is housed in the Condleeza Rice tanker. As for civilian aid, where is 3/4 of the aid promised to Afghanistan after we saved them from tyrannical rule?
To base a pro-military argument on the risk to innocents is, to my ears NewSpeak babble. The evidence for a link to Al-Queda was fiction. The weapons of mass destruction have not been found, and if they are it will be found within parenthesis. The moral argument begs both questions and ridicule. The questions being:





North Korea?


East Timor?


To avoid repeating myself, i will turn away from money, and instead focus on the fact that if Saddam is a real threat to world peace (emphasis on "world", not Arab nations) to cause the U.S. to break international convention and intervene, why have we not seen evidence of a build up of military forces in the post war days. Why are they using defunt Russian hardware (n.b. not Syrian) instead of up to date hardware you expect in a G10 level country. The anwser is this: Iraqi military capabilities are bloated out of proportion to make it seem like war (where TWO sides fight) is not only credible but necessary.

I apologize if i left anything out, i am tired and fueled only by my distaste for 1984-ish ramblings going unanswered.

Bravo, that is one of the most consise argument's against the war I have heard. where precisely are all these fabled weapons? Every night on the new's is another "The inspector's THINK they MIght have found some empty chemical heads" my thats conclusive isn't it? glad we killed all those people now aren't we?

Anyone who is pre-occupied with 'Sadam and his riches' and thought that invasion of Iraq will bring an end to the suffering of Iraqui people should know better by now.

A recent report by the charity, Christain Aid, revealed that $4 Billion out of the $5 Billion worth of oil produced since the invasion, is not accounted for and gone 'missing'!

There is no balance of power in the world today. History has shown us time and time again what happens when there is uncontrolled power.

'Fight against Terrorism' is a just an excuse as was the 'Jewish Peril'.

For an in depth special report see "The war on Iraq: justifications and motives" at

"Five thousand children are dying every month ... I don't want to administer a programme that results in figures like these."

-Denis Halliday, former UN Humanitarian Coordinator

Who is the Biggest Threat To Peace?
Which country poses the greatest danger to world peace?

Survey by the TIME Magazine (not Al-Jezeera!) in which 706,842 people voted. 87% of the voters thought it the US.

luckily facts arent determined by popular vote

(Deleted comment)
No, although I am not completely against the war, I am now more strongly against USA unilateral action and would not condone the war.

If we done it right, with international support, we would now have a democratic, non-oppressive government in Iraq. The dominance and ignorant arrogance by the USA has invalidated all the reasons we went to war.

(no subject) (Anonymous) Expand
(no subject) (Anonymous) Expand
  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account