I supported doing *something* on the basis that Saddam flouted UN resolutions for 11 years. He hindered weapons inspectors at every corner until forced via some amount of diplomatic pressure (threats basically) to let them do their work. It was no wonder a lot of people to believed he had something to hide. I also supported an attack on him because he was never held to account for his Gulf War crimes (our 'coalition' stood off while he violently quelled any hope of uprisings). Saddam only ever reached out to the UN and showed any sign of being complicit with UNSCRs when thousands of troops were already on his doorstep... it seemed to me more like an evil "relax guy!" rather than "Please. Take a look. We've got nothing to hide, international community". In the end, his posturing against the west let the war mongers get their way.
I was disappointed that the US and UK didn't get support from the UN. But then, I personally think the UN has proved itself completely impotent anyway. This is why I wasn't totally against America setting the precedent of ignoring it. The UN has been too slow now on many occasions in the past 20 years, and it costs lives!! The overwhelming voting power of the founding nations and old super powers has plagued not only this war, but it has aided the oppression of the Palestinian people (through the US support of Israel funnily enough). Like it or not, this is what rallys members of the Arab world to terrorism. This is at the very epicentre of the Arab world's disdain for the West.
I still believe that France, Germany, Russia and China were reluctant to stand against Iraq for strategic, socio-political and economic reasons. France controlled over 20% of Iraq's imports. France, like the others but moreso, was a principal trader in the oil-for-food programme. France had a contract with the Iraqis to develop oil fields in the south. Its thought some countries didn't want to see Saddam go to trial for the gas attacks on his own people -- and that maybe his execution was expediated to reflect that. There's speculation that Germany and the UK didn't want to see it happen because the finance and weapons deals involved would eventually be traced back to those same powers in the West. The US is often criticised for going after the Ba'athists because they previously backed them many years ago. Consider this in light of how the UN voted: the top three suppliers of defence technology to Iraq between 1981 and 2001 were Russia, China and France. Maybe the US did go to war on a false premise! But I say also, that maybe these countries opposed a united front against a known tyrant because thats what suited them! They DIDN'T do it purely out of some benign wish for peace.
Without the broad co-operation G Bush snr enjoyed in the first gulf war though, its been a disaster.
I've watched in horror as our governments failed to impliment any decent plan of action once the invasion was over. Both they and the military didn't seem to forsee the massive ethnic and religious divides that have opened up. There's been nothing but scandal in some campaigns -- I recall hearing that we 'evacuated' Fallujah (was it Fallujah?), supposedly leaving only insurgents... I also recall hearing that when men tried to leave we turned them back. Next thing I know, I'm on Youtube watching a soldier shoot an injured, unarmed man. There's Abu Ghraib and similar abuses... forgive me if I'm not spelling the locations correctly. Even the video of the soldiers teasing the kids with water sickened me. Then there's the fact that more people have died there since that famous "Mission Accomplished" picture, than during the actual invasion. That 100+ people can die on any given day. That our soldiers are falling victim to roadside bombs etc.
I'll now very carefully reconsider my stance on these matters in future. Maybe I'll be more inclined to think its better to not get involved. I just hope that in time, something positive comes out of this for Iraq and the wider region. Its not over yet.
I said this thread is safe. No one will bash you.
