Critics say attacks justify early opposition to Iraq war

[leftchick]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0507100342jul10,1,5329060.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

LONDON -- And now, the political fallout.

George Galloway, the sharp-tongued member of Parliament who flummoxed a U.S. Senate panel at a hearing in May on the Iraq oil-for-food scandal, struck first.

"We argued, as did the security services in this country, that the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, would increase the threat of terrorist attack in Britain," he told Parliament on Thursday. "Tragically, Londoners have now paid the price of the government ignoring such warnings."

Galloway, who was drummed out of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labor Party for his opposition to the Iraq war, drew sharp criticism from both sides of the aisle for his comments, with Conservatives calling him a "disgrace" and Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram accusing him of "dipping his poisonous tongue in a pool of blood."

But Galloway, who represents a heavily Muslim district in East London, was undeterred. He urged the government "to remove people in this country from harm's way, as the Spanish government acted to remove its people from harm, by ending the occupation of Iraq."

[CJCRANE]

1. I agree.

More about Iraq than Afghanistan, as that was mainly done by proxy through the Northern Alliance and had mostly support from the rest of the world.

The Iraq invasion on the other hand was opposed by most of the world (including the UN Security Council), was carried out incompetently and remains a mess exacerbated by clearly racist policies at Abu Graib etc and massacres at Fallujah etc.

[damntexdem]

10. Well, duh!

Dubya was warned about Iraq, but went ahead and broke it. Among the warnings WERE warnings that, although there was no evidence of terristic activities aimed anywhere outside Iraq under Hussein, Iraq could become a hotbed of terrorists if Hussein were ousted. It has come to pass.

Afghanistan was different, in that the terrorist organization that attacked on 9/11 was headquartered there -- although Saudi Arabia would have made almost as much sense. But, as we know, Dubya did not seriously go after OBL in Afghanistan, always having been focused instead on Iraq. By treating 9/11 as an excuse to do what he had wanted to do but previously couldn't, Dubya has managed to make Al Qaeda a much-larger threat than it was before.

[zanne]

2. I'm glad people are starting to speak out

Whenever there's a disaster with a high human toll, like London, Madrid, 9/11, etc., it's considered inappropriate at first to criticize our government or those of our allies. It's as though there's a period of mourning we have to get through before anything at all critical can be said. I'm glad it's starting to happen now, rather than in a few weeks when the western world will be completely brainwashed by the media.

[zanne]

26. Let's take out an ad in the NYT.

Just one sentence, in letters five inches high. It could go like this; WE TOLD YOU SO! from the DemocraticUnderground.com

[pretzel4gore]

3. the terror attacks also succeeded- ie $3 billion for palestinians!

all sorts of stuff for africa, and a new committment to fix problems, as announced by blairbush at the g8....while the pigmedia tries to present the giveaways as fresh initiatives not connected to the terr bombings, the pigmedia is a fukking liar (as usual :()

[LivingInTheBubble]

4. they could be something to do with the last few months

intensive live 8 campaigning?

nah it most be those bombings that convinced them to wipe out *some* of the debt after all african debt and london bombings are so closely inter-related :sarcasm:

[pretzel4gore]

6. i was being tong in cheek :)

haha...i was trying to abuse logic in a fox'news' way by saying the g8 leaders 'gave in' to terror by announcing the initiatives....the g8 of course want to say the announcemnts are not related or affected by ther blasts, but they also want to get the propaganda out that they will do 'something' about africa etc, which they won't, but they sort of stuck with london bombings: fukkem i say....haha

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. If those items hadn't been on the table to begin with

you might have a point.

[MeDeMax]

7. BBC story of same

Londoners have paid the price for Iraq and Afghanistan, says George Galloway


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4661633.stm

[leftchick]

8. nice pic too!

:loveya:

[MeDeMax]

11. pic unsuitable for the context though

I highly doubt Mr. Galloway is walking around with that twinkle in his eye and a smile after the recent incidents.

imo, BBC should have shown a pic from current context of atleast chosen one appropriate.

[leftchick]

25. I hadn't thought of it that way

You are indeed right and in this instance my sig line pic would be perfect!

[MeDeMax]

30. i agree...n/t

[Zenlitened]

9. I wish he'd separate Afghanistan from Iraq. They're 2 separate issues IMO

Invading Afghanistan and scrubbing out the Taliban was entirely justified. The problem there is that Bush didn't have what it takes to finish the job. As the evidence all around us shows.

And why didn't he finish the job in Afghanistan? Well... the answer to that could go on for several pages, all under the heading "Iraq Lies." :(

[wuushew]

12. Was it justified?

The only way one country can legitimately attack another is if the danger of attack is imminent. We suffered no additional attacks in the one month that we waited before attacking. The country of Afghanistan did not attack us, but rather the non-state entity of Al Queda did.

Afghanistan was not the source of Al Queda funding nor the original home of its members. The targets that Al Queda chose were not Afghani, far from it.

It seems like we could have met all of our required goals by shutting off the tap elsewhere or at the very least meeting the Taliban's preconditions for the extradition of Bin Laden. Instead we dropped plenty of bombs which can easily be spun as attacking yet another Muslim country.

[Zenlitened]

13. Yes, it was justified. The taliban ruled Afghanistan...

... and al Qaeda ruled the Taliban. They were effectively one and the same.

"Meeting the Taliban's pre-conditions?" I don't even know where to go with that one. It seems to me they needed to hand bin Laden and his advisors over, plain and simple. When they didn't, they lost any reasonable expectation of being treated with kid gloves.

That said, as I noted above, everything that followed was a classic example of Bush's incompetence. From letting bin Laden walk away, to failing -- utterly -- to support the re-building of Afghanistan.

If we wanted a "shining example" of modernity, peace and democracy for the region, Afghanistan was the place to do it. Instead, Bush dropped the ball in favor of this mad neo-con scheme to invade Iraq, a plan that had been on the shelf for years and years prior to 9-11.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Did you see Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911?

You would have seen how the Bush Administration welcomed the Taliban delegation to Washington Dc, back when OIL was on the agenda.

Are you proud of the fact that we have killed 10 innocent civilians in Afghanistan for every innocent civilian that died on WTC? Doesn't that put us on the same moral plane as Osama bin Laden?

[WhiteTara]

40. if we wanted binLaden so bad

why didn't we "arrest" him in the hospital in Dubai?

Because there was no true inquiry into the events of 9/11, we do not even really know who did the bombing. There are many pieces of evidence that point to our misadministration as the actual culprits, but the msm drumbeat was bin laden bin laden bin laden hussein hussein hussein.

[Imajika]

14. How about we just surrender?

A fanatically oppressive government harbors a terrorist organization that slaughters 3000 innocents in the United States, and you think it might not have been justified going in and removing said government and attacking the terrorists residing in the country?

Very sad.

Unfortunantly, your opinion is shared by many here on DU. I recall those days when we were going into Afghanistan in the months after 9-11. I remember that what appeared to be majority opinion here on DU was against it, even though every single Democrat other than Barbara Lee supported that war (and largely still do).

It reminds me just how tone deaf, out of touch and completely out of the political mainstream this forum can be sometimes.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. Afghanistan was more than justified. NATO supported us, the UN supported us, virtually the entire world supported us.

Imajika

[wuushew]

16. Politicans do what is politically expedient

using constituent's fear and righteous anger is a good way to keep your job. Unfortunately such actions play into a never ending cycle of chicken and egg. American neo-imperial aims are in constant conflict with indigenous customs and traditions.

Our own arrogance and sense of cultural superiority is the cause of all our problems in the first place. We have no authority or right to meddle in the affairs of people who have no representation in our system of government. Our justness is just a smokescreen to spread the ever growing blight of corporatracy and its hunger for oil, gas and cheap labor. Invading Afghanistan was not going to bring those 3,000 people back. Also why the hell didn't we attack Libya when it harbored the Locker bee terrorists? Seems like sanitations and patience paid off in the end.

What a long long way we have fallen from the founding father's original intentions of avoiding entangling alliances and such. When is someone going to invade for our sins of civilization(of which there are many)?

[Imajika]

20. Utter nonsense

"Our own arrogance and sense of cultural superiority is the cause of all our problems in the first place."

That's a bunch of bull. There will always be aggressors in the world that threaten the interests of others. Were we to overnight become the kindest, gentlest of nations - others not so inclined would immediately take advantage of this new found atmosphere to wreak havoc and seize whatever they could get away with. It's called human nature - and it ain't gonna change. If America becomes diminished, something else just as big and bullying would arise to take her place in time.

"What a long long way we have fallen from the founding father's original intentions of avoiding entangling alliances and such. When is someone going to invade for our sins of civilization"

A long, long way we have fallen? Are you joking? America's past history is far more brutal than it is today. We completely wiped out the native Americans simply because we thought we had a right to the entire continent. We waged wars wherever there was a perceived threat to our interest then, as we do now. Nothing has changed.

The idea that things were all wonderful years ago, and only Bush and the Republicans are mucking things up is crap. Bush is an idiot and the GOP are bloodsuckers, but quite frankly, they probably do reflect the American public pretty well.

Are you hoping we get invaded? Tell me, do you dislike the United States so much that you take some pleasure when it is attacked? By the way, NO successful civilation gets that way by being benevolent and good hearted. Life just doesn't work that way. Deal with it. The best we can hope for is intelligent leadership that institutes progressive change over time. That means electing Democrats, but they will often act just the same as Republicans because the public will simply demand it.

The American public will ALWAYS insist its elected leaders protect their standard of living - just as the citizens of most other democracy's do. This is why the Democratic Party has moved so far to right on defense issues after 9-11. When the population feels threatened, it demands whatever action necessary to protect it. Sometimes it is reasonable and justified such as in Afghanistan, sometimes it is questionable and probably counterproductive such as in Iraq.

Imajika

[reprobate]

22. That soesn't explain why we invaded central and south america 52 times....

....since 1889. That's US army boots on the ground with rifles at the ready invasions.

Sure, a nation of sweetness and light, with only the best interests of the indiginous populations in mind. Not to forget the Americna Corporations.

[manic expression]

24. We have caused most of our problems

If such foreign aggressors did attack countries who are "peace loving", then Sweden, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Mongolia and other nations would be attacked all day long.

It is not human nature to attack others, it is caused by ignorance and a lack of understanding, as well as reactions to that.

Our actions around the world have led to the dire situation we face today. The way to help ourselves is to act not out of greed and arrogance but out of well-meaning intentions, and only then will people's sentiments toward us change.

Our "democracy" has elected leaders that have NOT given us protection, and this is through confusion and illusion. Similarly, the US as a whole needs to act without these characteristics.

Oh, and Afghanistan wasn't really justified, as the al Qeada is completely separate from the Taliban. Pakistan "harbors" terrorists, and under the Bush admn.'s definition, so do we (terrorists lived in Florida for a long time).

[wli]

33. Afghanistan

The Afghanistan invasion was for a Unocal pipeline and to get opium production back on track. They aren't even bothering looking for bin Laden or the Taliban, both of whom are wandering about the Afghan countryside with little cause for concern regarding the US pursuing them. Also, the Afghan invasion was planned during the Clinton regime..

[WhiteTara]

39. Surrender? What are you talking about?

Surrender is when you are attacked. Not the other way around. We should not have gone to Afghanistan. If we were looking for the hijackers and Bin Laden, we should have gone to Saudia Arabia and fought the battle there...oh we couldn't I remember now, they have the oil and would have just shut us out of the pipeline. Remember when the Taliban came to Sugarland and DeLay told them...either we will carpet you with money or we will carpet you with bombs. I assume they told DeLay to f*ck off, because they got the bombs. Haliburton signed a contract within days of the invasion to build a pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan. All of this is about money, oil and power.


Barbara Lee Speaks for Me

[heidler1]

23. Your getting close to the truth IMO.

Have we actually accomplished a damn thing in either Afghanistan or Iraq? Other than totally pissing off a whole bunch of Muslims?

The Taliban, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia believed in treating women like personal possessions and still do. How can you change a peoples view on a issue like that while befriending some of them while killing others? It's a farce, of course oil is the hidden motive and the Muslims know it. Just because more countries signed on to invading Afghanistan don't mean it was justified or a functional solution or that it will work out for the better for anybody. My guess is that Bin laden is just as popular as ever even though he would probably cut off selling oil to the non Muslim industrialized nations. Perhaps because he would.

[CJCRANE]

35. I'm not sure

if the Afghan action was justified or not, but it seemed like the Al-Qaeda strongholds were the very last places to be attacked in the war, thus giving them ample time to get away.

[Imajika]

17. He doesn't separate the two...

...because Galloway did not support going into Afghanistan either. He and the likes of Tony Benn (who didn't even support the UK military effort to recover the Falklands) and Robert "Baghdad appears an impregnable fortress" Fisk would have us do nothing but appease Islamist murderers.

Some people believe that Muslim fanaticism is all the fault of the West, that we brought it all on ourselves, and that the only solution is to give in to the demands of religious fanatics.

Sorry, but that view of the world is dangerously wrong. Go ask the Bhuddist monks and school teachers in Southern Thailand who are being armed by the government because Islamic fanatics are beheading and slaughtering hundreds of innocent people (an "insurgency" very much like what is occuring in Iraq). Check in with regular Muslims in Indonesia that have Islamists seize power in town after town and deprive women of basic human rights and impose Shari-a law on the populace at gun point. Neither of these examples have anything at all to do with what the US or UK does in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else. Nor do they have anything whatever to do with Israel.

Islamic terrorism is a real problem, and to believe it is all our (the West's) fault is foolish.

Imajika

[wuushew]

19. The Falklands(Islas Malvinas) are worthless rocky outcrops

why was it so important to spend millions of pounds and many sailor's lives on something that could have been resolved through diplomacy?




Argentina considers that the islands were a Spanish territory and that they passed to Argentine sovereignty when Argentina became independent in 1816. (The Spanish maintained that while they allowed a British settlement on the islands, they did not concede sovereignty to the British).


Memorial to the fallen, Cordoba, ArgentinaWhen Argentina established a settlement on the islands in 1820 they were uninhabited.

Thus they consider the British 'invasion' of 1833 to have been in breach of international law. It is sometimes claimed that this was not contested due to the fact that Argentina was engaged in the 'conquista del desierto' (desert conquest) against the indigenous peoples of Patagonia.

Another argument advanced by the Argentine government is the fact that the islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give, as stated in the 1958 UN "Convention on the Continental Shelf". It is also mentioned that the islands are 550 kilometres from Tierra del Fuego, compared with the over 8,000 kilometres from Great Britain, and that the UN considers the territories as territories to be considered for decolonization.

Finally Argentina states that the fact that the current population of the islands is purely British is not a valid argument for British possession of the islands as it is a result of the British occupation of 1833, which Argentina considers to have been illegal, after which the Argentine population was expelled by force.

In Argentina it is considered that in 1982 Argentine forces "retomaron" (retook) the islands, while in the UK the word "invaded" is normally used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

[Imajika]

21. Because...

..if a nation does not respond violently to the seizure of its territory by aggressors, it demonstrates weakness that invites such attack from others.

You can't know whether it would have been solved by diplomacy or not. Sometimes aggressors aren't willing to give up territory without a fight. Did you think Hitler would surrender continental Europe had we all just chatted about it over tea? It was precisely initial European weakness in the face of Nazi aggression that encouraged Hitler to conquer and enslave nation after nation.

It strikes me that you may be hopelessly naive. I'd advise you read up on human history and study human nature. It might give you a more realistic worldview.

Imajika

[julianer]

31. People don't want to 'give in'

to the demands of 'religious fanatics'. What people want is the universal application of law and human rights, rather than the 'might is right' approach of western neo-imperialism.

Your framing of anti-war opinion is inaccurate and unlikely to lead you to a reasonable understanding of the situation. Indeed, your characterisation of Islam as somehow inherently prone to mindless fanaticism is frankly racist and objectionable.

You are unable to draw any distinction between Islam as a religion and Islamism as a fundamentalist reactionary force in societies, and this inability renders your opinions worthless.

[gratuitous]

15. The headline isn't quite right

Because the attacks in London don't "justify" my opposition to war; it's simply the inevitable consequence of what the United States did in attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. No more mystical than eating a big meal and then having to poop later.

Continued violence does not end violence, it just raises the stakes, and anyone who watches Major League Baseball knows this -- it's even written into the rules. When a pitcher hits a batter, depending on the circumstances, the pitcher may be immediately ejected, removed from the competition. Or the umpire may warn both benches that any further throwing at the batter will result in immediate expulsion for the pitcher and the manager. What would happen if that wasn't the rule? Red Sox fans? Yankee fans? Giants? Dodgers?

[CJCRANE]

36. Yeah,

RWers don't seem to understand action and reaction.

For instance: Joe the arsonist goes into another neighbourhood and burns down a bunch of houses. Some-one from that neighbourhood retaliates and burns down Joe's buddy's house.

Now...Joe's buddy is gonna be pretty pissed off at the guy who burnt his house down but...he might also wish that Joe hadn't burnt down that bunch of other houses in the first place.

In this case neither action is right, but the retaliation is a predictable outcome of the first action.

ed: grammar

[Zorra]

18. Truth, common sense, and common human decency justified opposition

to the war.

Bu*h and the PNAC/neocons are a bunch of psychopathic liars and killers and they did not fool me for a second with their insane lies which led to this tragic debacle.

[jazzjunkysue]

27. Chicago Tribune. It's a start.

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[daleo]

29. The negative over-reaction just shows he is pointing to the truth. n/t

[MattSWin]

34. it's possible...

This attack would've occured even had Britain not been Iraq. British Muslim youths clearly have other issues involving integrating into British society.

I think it's more about them thinking they're surrounded by a secular and immoral British society hostile to Islam. This is mixed with the social immobility immigrants tend to have in Britain.

[CJCRANE]

38. Not sure I agree

Muslims in the northern towns do seem to have problems of integration and economic problems but that has spilt out into minor unrest occasionally but nothing more.

However, the attack on London was a specific kind of attack used by al-Qaeda to show opposition to occupation of muslim countries as per their statements and previous attack on Madrid, which had the same MO and objective (get the country to take troops out of Iraq).

[montana_hazeleyes]

37. Notice they call Mr. Galloway "sharped tounged"?

Why is that? Because he tells the TRUTH?