Western Oil Imperialism in the Middle East

[Charlie-Brown]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/19/arab-spring-seven-lessons-from-history

 

Interested to hear S.L's opinions on this excellent Guardian article given he was such a staunch defender of the necessity for western military er i mean humanitarian intervention in Libya......

[P-Dizzle]

What do some people suggest we do? Just cut off all ties with the Middle East and watch them tear each other apart in various territorial, ethnic and resource disputes. The fact that Post-WWI imperialism caused major problems in the region is no argument against intervention, in fact, it gives us an even bigger obligation to right the wrongs our predecessors made. Iraq was a conflict long overdue. It's a disgrace that it took until 2003 for the rest of the world(or at least some of it) to actually take action against a sadistic madman and his regime of terror, whose sole purpose was to bleed the country dry of it's natural resources and line their own pockets. A bloodbath was always coming when a minority group control the majority Shia and Kurdish people with brutal force in order to maintain their grip on oil, if people think this could have been avoided then they're being ahistorical.

 

We can look back at history and see what imperialism did to these places, but I think that only reinforces the need to stand up and be counted for the role our countries played in these problems. We are by no means the sole cause of conflict in the region, Europe's had it's fair share of war and genocide without any outside influence, why do people assume it can only be us to blame?

 

It's not so much a war for oil, more a war of oil. Nobody is for war, but I'd say pacifism in the face of fascist tyranny is more immoral than standing up and taking responsibility for enforcing standards that we hold ourselves to and not allowing the rights of people to be trampled just because they live in the wrong country. The anti-war movement aren't anti-war at all, they're just isolationist, they'll bitch and protest over human rights as much as they can, but when it actually comes to doing something about it, they're nowhere to be seen. Infact, much worse than that, they're openly opposed to action to remove despots that crush the lives of the people they control and bring them to justice. They don't mind the mass graves and the torture of innocent people, just as long as we don't get involved.

 

Democracy and freedom is not for export... I disagree, and it doesn't make me an imperialist for pointing it out.

[Charlie-Brown]

So what about when we topple these nations democratically elected leaders because they are anti-western or else help rig their elections or overlook rigged elections or support tyrants if it suits our imperialist agenda and commercial interests? That's all in a good cause is it?

[Boris]

What do some people suggest we do? Just cut off all ties with the Middle East and watch them tear each other apart in various territorial, ethnic and resource disputes. The fact that Post-WWI imperialism caused major problems in the region is no argument against intervention, in fact, it gives us an even bigger obligation to right the wrongs our predecessors made. Iraq was a conflict long overdue. It's a disgrace that it took until 2003 for the rest of the world(or at least some of it) to actually take action against a sadistic madman and his regime of terror, whose sole purpose was to bleed the country dry of it's natural resources and line their own pockets. A bloodbath was always coming when a minority group control the majority Shia and Kurdish people with brutal force in order to maintain their grip on oil, if people think this could have been avoided then they're being ahistorical.

 

May not have happened had we let Iraq evolve naturally rather than partion the region unilaterally?

 

We can look back at history and see what imperialism did to these places, but I think that only reinforces the need to stand up and be counted for the role our countries played in these problems. We are by no means the sole cause of conflict in the region, Europe's had it's fair share of war and genocide without any outside influence, why do people assume it can only be us to blame?

 

It's not so much a war for oil, more a war of oil. Nobody is for war, but I'd say pacifism in the face of fascist tyranny is more immoral than standing up and taking responsibility for enforcing standards that we hold ourselves to and not allowing the rights of people to be trampled just because they live in the wrong country. The anti-war movement aren't anti-war at all, they're just isolationist, they'll bitch and protest over human rights as much as they can, but when it actually comes to doing something about it, they're nowhere to be seen. Infact, much worse than that, they're openly opposed to action to remove despots that crush the lives of the people they control and bring them to justice. They don't mind the mass graves and the torture of innocent people, just as long as we don't get involved.

 

Democracy and freedom is not for export... I disagree, and it doesn't make me an imperialist for pointing it out.

 

If you believe that Western influence in the Middle East is about spreading western style democracy then I think you are well off the mark. Any adventures are simply to control the supply of oil to feed the Western consumer capitalist economies.

 

If the West were truly bothered about democracy and freedom they would have

 

• noised up Israel
• noised up Saudi Arabia
• never been involved with theses shabby regimes in the first place e.g. supporting Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war

but they haven't. The scandalous double standards exhibited by the West are precisely what that article was pointing out.

 

 

 

 

[P-Dizzle]

So what about when we topple these nations democratically elected leaders because they are anti-western or else help rig their elections or overlook rigged elections or support tyrants if it suits our imperialist agenda and commercial interests? That's all in a good cause is it?

 

There's a degree of realpolitik that goes with dealing with these types of people, I can't say I'm in favour of propping up the likes of Mubarak or bringing Gaddafi back in when he wanted to avoid a similar fate to Saddam. There are various western-backed coups throughout history. Not all were done in the name of spreading democracy, and I'm not here to defend the various actions of the likes of Nixon and his cohorts. My problem is that you seem to think that every instance of western intervention is for innately immoral reasons.

 

I mean, would you have opposed British, and then US, intervention against Germany in the second world war? It's easy to look back now and claim that it was obviously the right thing to do, but there was major opposition to entering the war on both sides of the Atlantic at the time. Did you oppose British intervention in Sierra Leone or US opporations in the likes of Somalia and Kosovo? What, in your mind, is a justified intervention?

[Charlie-Brown]

There's a degree of realpolitik that goes with dealing with these types of people, I can't say I'm in favour of propping up the likes of Mubarak or bringing Gaddafi back in when he wanted to avoid a similar fate to Saddam. There are various western-backed coups throughout history. Not all were done in the name of spreading democracy, and I'm not here to defend the various actions of the likes of Nixon and his cohorts. My problem is that you seem to think that every instance of western intervention is for innately immoral reasons.

 

I mean, would you have opposed British, and then US, intervention against Germany in the second world war? It's easy to look back now and claim that it was obviously the right thing to do, but there was major opposition to entering the war on both sides of the Atlantic at the time. Did you oppose British intervention in Sierra Leone or US opporations in the likes of Somalia and Kosovo? What, in your mind, is a justified intervention?

 

Intervention to prevent genocides and offering humanitarian aid or furthering democracy only ever seem to occur when they are aligned with our commercial interests or aspirations. Where these commericial motivations are absent unsurprisingly so are we?

[shaun.lawson]

 

 

If the West were truly bothered about democracy and freedom they would have

 

• noised up Israel
• noised up Saudi Arabia
• never been involved with theses shabby regimes in the first place e.g. supporting Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war

but they haven't. The scandalous double standards exhibited by the West are precisely what that article was pointing out.

 

A tired, hackneyed old argument, which routinely ignores the reality of international affairs, and of the Realpolitik embodied by the United Nations. As tired, hackneyed old arguments are all Seumas Milne ever does, this latest one comes as no surprise.

 

The West only fights wars it can win, not those it cannot win. The West only intervenes on humanitarian grounds where it can, not where it cannot. The West isn't interested in creating complete chaos in the Middle East; but it acted against Iraq because of the perceived danger of rogue states developing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, then joining forces with terrorists (a catastrophe scenario); and it acted against Libya because of the imminent likelihood of its people being massacred. A massacre which, for once, we could do something to stop.

 

We didn't act in Darfur because China blocked it. We didn't act in Tibet because China blocked it. We didn't act in Chechnya because Russia blocked it. We don't act against North Korea because one of the most lunatic governments on the planet has a huge nuclear arsenal, meaning action on our part would precipitate World War Three: and a nuclear war at that.

 

We don't act against Israel because the US blocks it. And we don't act against Zimbabwe because, wholly unlike in Libya, no African power (least of all its key regional neighbour, South Africa), wants us to. The charge of imperialism against Britain would be far too powerful, and wholly counter-productive.

 

Is any of the above really that difficult to understand? Folk want a war with China, Russia or the US, do they? I see.

 

The intervention in Libya occurred thanks to comprehensive UN backing, and featured a broad, multilateral coalition, which crucially included the Arab League. Unlike the case of Iraq, it also chimed in with Arab popular opinion; and the US played a strictly limited role throughout. The intervention demonstrated that the lessons of Iraq have been learned - but I know I for one am pretty sick of the pro-genocide, pro-tyrant apologists who, apparently, would rather the people of Libya had been slaughtered just so their consciences could be clear.

[Charlie-Brown]

We don't act in certain instances because we have no economic or political interests to further even though we could act if we wanted to ie Bahrain in February - staggering hypocrisy compared to Syria.

[P-Dizzle]

May not have happened had we let Iraq evolve naturally rather than partion the region unilaterally?

 

Of course, and we can look at the problems Britian caused in the Indian subcontinent with similar negligence. We can do this all day and go throughout the last 100 years and pick through all the things our great grandfathers should've done differently. Although mentioning the fact that lines were poorly drawn when we carved up the Ottoman Empire doesn't change the current situation and it doesn't exactly get us anywhere, does it? I'd suggest that reparations should be made for the problems British imperialism caused throughout the world. The answer is not washing our hands with it and just blaming history.

 

If you believe that Western influence in the Middle East is about spreading western style democracy then I think you are well off the mark. Any adventures are simply to control the supply of oil to feed the Western consumer capitalist economies.

 

If the West were truly bothered about democracy and freedom they would have

 

• noised up Israel
• noised up Saudi Arabia
• never been involved with theses shabby regimes in the first place e.g. supporting Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war

but they haven't. The scandalous double standards exhibited by the West are precisely what that article was pointing out.

 

No shit? Remember, I said it's war of oil, not for. If we had no need for oil then there wouldn't be people like Saddam using imprisonment and murder to keep his hands on the oil revenues. Surely it's our obligation as consumers of the main source of revenue from the region to make sure that it goes into the hands of the people of Iraq rather than a dictator? A democratic, stable Iraq is in our interests, and very much in the interests of the Iraqi people. That oil revenue is what will rebuild Iraq after 30 years of brutality, and could well turn it into a prosperous nation. Maybe then we could see a diplomatic process take place that would allow the unification of the Kurdish people under more amicable circumstances. I think that's a better potential future than anything that could've come from Saddam's rule, and whatever bloodbath came from his inevitable demise and the power struggle that would ensue. There's no question Iraq has many problems and can expect tough times ahead, but it comes down to a regime change or not, I can't side with any stance that would mean he was left in control of that country for a day longer.

 

On the point about Saudi Arabia, Iraq is now a potential competitor with large deposits of oil. In a country that was run properly, they could develop serious revenue and challenge the Saudi's dominance. It wasn't in their interests to see Saddam removed for that reason and the fact that it acted as a buffer between them and democracy.

 

I'm not sure what your thoughts on israel are, I think we've discussed this before and we were more or less on the same lines. You'll find no support from me when it comes to zionist nutjobs and their desire to steal land. The US could and should have done much more to help.

 

The fact that Saddam was supported by the US during that horror show that was the Iran/Iraq war, again, is no reason to let him stay in power.

[P-Dizzle]

Intervention to prevent genocides and offering humanitarian aid or furthering democracy only ever seem to occur when they are aligned with our commercial interests or aspirations. Where these commericial motivations are absent unsurprisingly so are we?

 

You didn't answer my question.

[Charlie-Brown]

Iran had a democratically elected arab-nationalist leader in Mossadeq, the West toppled him and imposed a puppet monarchist leader who was then toppled by islamic revolution which some western powers have been agitating for war against since before 9/11 ... no doubt sooner or later we will be proposing they should have a freely elected democratic leader ... like they had originally unless of course he turns out to be populist and anti-western.....

[Boris]

A tired, hackneyed old argument, which routinely ignores the reality of international affairs, and of the Realpolitik embodied by the United Nations. As tired, hackneyed old arguments are all Seumas Milne ever does, this latest one comes as no surprise.

 

The West only fights wars it can win, not those it cannot win. The West only intervenes on humanitarian grounds where it can, not where it cannot. The West isn't interested in creating complete chaos in the Middle East; but it acted against Iraq because of the perceived danger of rogue states developing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, then joining forces with terrorists (a catastrophe scenario); and it acted against Libya because of the imminent likelihood of its people being massacred. A massacre which, for once, we could do something to stop.

 

We didn't act in Darfur because China blocked it. We didn't act in Tibet because China blocked it. We didn't act in Chechnya because Russia blocked it. We don't act against North Korea because one of the most lunatic governments on the planet has a huge nuclear arsenal, meaning action on our part would precipitate World War Three: and a nuclear war at that.

 

We don't act against Israel because the US blocks it. And we don't act against Zimbabwe because, wholly unlike in Libya, no African power (least of all its key regional neighbour, South Africa), wants us to. The charge of imperialism against Britain would be far too powerful, and wholly counter-productive.

 

Is any of the above really that difficult to understand? Folk want a war with China, Russia or the US, do they? I see.

 

The intervention in Libya occurred thanks to comprehensive UN backing, and featured a broad, multilateral coalition, which crucially included the Arab League. Unlike the case of Iraq, it also chimed in with Arab popular opinion; and the US played a strictly limited role throughout. The intervention demonstrated that the lessons of Iraq have been learned - but I know I for one am pretty sick of the pro-genocide, pro-tyrant apologists who, apparently, would rather the people of Libya had been slaughtered just so their consciences could be clear.

 

I don't see how any of the above answers why the West doesn't do something about Saudi Arabia, or did nothing (other than sell the means of tyranny) to Bahrain.

 

Action against Israel, for example, need not be military. Economic sanctions perhaps?

 

However the point of the article is really that we are historically hoist by our ownpetard in terms of the Middle East. Any bleating about democracy is null and void when you look at the West's track record in supporting undemocratically elected/authoritarian regimes in the past.

 

And finally, what gives us the right to treat these nations as second class? Surely they should be allowed to follow their own route?

 

Our smug self satisfaction at the type of society we have produced distorts the fact that not all is rosy in our own garden. Western democracy is inextricably linked with liberal economics and a system that has been shown time and time again to exploit these nations that are being "liberated". Just because it allegedly "works" for us, doesn't mean that the same system can be applied to a set of peoples with a completely different social and political culture.

 

So, in short, intervention has in reality nothing to do with democracy or to a lesser extent humanitarianism. It is merely a tool used to expand the economic exploitation of these "under-developed" countries.

[Charlie-Brown]

You didn't answer my question.

 

There are lots of cases for just wars or interventions however we only intervene when it suits or threatens our economic or political interest - we should at least be honest about our true intentions and nature and drop the reeking hypocrisy - in foreign policy we are fascists/imperialists with a veneer of democracy when it suits us and covert sabatouers or supporters when it's doesn't.

[P-Dizzle]

A tired, hackneyed old argument, which routinely ignores the reality of international affairs, and of the Realpolitik embodied by the United Nations. As tired, hackneyed old arguments are all Seumas Milne ever does, this latest one comes as no surprise.

 

The West only fights wars it can win, not those it cannot win. The West only intervenes on humanitarian grounds where it can, not where it cannot. The West isn't interested in creating complete chaos in the Middle East; but it acted against Iraq because of the perceived danger of rogue states developing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, then joining forces with terrorists (a catastrophe scenario); and it acted against Libya because of the imminent likelihood of its people being massacred. A massacre which, for once, we could do something to stop.

 

We didn't act in Darfur because China blocked it. We didn't act in Tibet because China blocked it. We didn't act in Chechnya because Russia blocked it. We don't act against North Korea because one of the most lunatic governments on the planet has a huge nuclear arsenal, meaning action on our part would precipitate World War Three: and a nuclear war at that.

 

We don't act against Israel because the US blocks it. And we don't act against Zimbabwe because, wholly unlike in Libya, no African power (least of all its key regional neighbour, South Africa), wants us to. The charge of imperialism against Britain would be far too powerful, and wholly counter-productive.

 

Is any of the above really that difficult to understand? Folk want a war with China, Russia or the US, do they? I see.

 

The intervention in Libya occurred thanks to comprehensive UN backing, and featured a broad, multilateral coalition, which crucially included the Arab League. Unlike the case of Iraq, it also chimed in with Arab popular opinion; and the US played a strictly limited role throughout. The intervention demonstrated that the lessons of Iraq have been learned - but I know I for one am pretty sick of the pro-genocide, pro-tyrant apologists who, apparently, would rather the people of Libya had been slaughtered just so their consciences could be clear.

 

Good post Shaun. I often mention the fact that these types seem to just mention the next place we're not doing something as if it wins the argument. China is responsible for some pretty horrific human rights abuses, the sad fact is there's not much we can do about it other than apply any political pressure we dare to. Fair play to Cameron, I recall him bringing it up the last time there was a state visit here and I think I'm right in saying it lost us a billion pound trade deal to Germany because we dared to mention human rights.

[Tazio]

Iran had a democratically elected arab-nationalist leader in Mossadeq, the West toppled him and imposed a puppet monarchist leader who was then toppled by islamic revolution which some western powers have been agitating for war against since before 9/11 ... no doubt sooner or later we will be proposing they should have a freely elected democratic leader ... like they had originally unless of course he turns out to be populist and anti-western.....

 

Or should we say BP?

[Boris]

Good post Shaun. I often mention the fact that these types seem to just mention the next place we're not doing something as if it wins the argument. China is responsible for some pretty horrific human rights abuses, the sad fact is there's not much we can do about it other than apply any political pressure we dare to. Fair play to Cameron, I recall him bringing it up the last time there was a state visit here and I think I'm right in saying it lost us a billion pound trade deal to Germany because we dared to mention human rights.

 

Yet we are very quiet aboput our own human rights abuses.

 

Rendition flights.

Guantanamo Bay

Bloody Sunday

 

Christ, it's not even 50 years since black people had the vote in "the Land of the Free"!

[Boris]

Or should we say BP?

 

A good point that alludes to the fact that the economic interests of capitalism are primary in Western foreign policy.

[P-Dizzle]

Iran had a democratically elected arab-nationalist leader in Mossadeq, the West toppled him and imposed a puppet monarchist leader who was then toppled by islamic revolution which some western powers have been agitating for war against since before 9/11 ... no doubt sooner or later we will be proposing they should have a freely elected democratic leader ... like they had originally unless of course he turns out to be populist and anti-western.....

 

:Vlad-Stupid:

 

Again, just rattling off things from history is no argument. Fact is there is a huge demand for democracy in Iran, it's actually a really interesting story and one worth looking up. Ironically it's becuase of the Iran/Iraq war. There was a huge fear that Iraq would destroy Iran, so they started a massive subsidy programme, giving lots of money to mothers for having many children, the more children you had the more you would recieve. This was done with the idea of building an army, and now it's coming back to bite them. Something like over 50% of the population of Iran is under 25, and a large number of them are pro-democratic with internet access and a good understanding of the western world. There's a big call for democracy, and these people are being cut down in their thousands for daring to challenge the mullahs. Obviously I'd like to see a peaceful resolution, but a theocratic Iran with nuclear capabilities is going to be a game changer in world politics, I think it might come to a stage where action is no longer a choice.

[P-Dizzle]

There are lots of cases for just wars or interventions however we only intervene when it suits or threatens our economic or political interest - we should at least be honest about our true intentions and nature and drop the reeking hypocrisy - in foreign policy we are fascists/imperialists with a veneer of democracy when it suits us and covert sabatouers or supporters when it's doesn't.

 

You're still not answering my question...

[P-Dizzle]

Yet we are very quiet aboput our own human rights abuses.

 

Rendition flights.

Guantanamo Bay

Bloody Sunday

 

Christ, it's not even 50 years since black people had the vote in "the Land of the Free"!

 

All those are incompatible with being a free democratic nation, and I can oppose them and still oppose your isolationist, rather nonsensical stance. Still, you can't compare any of that to the scale of the Kurdish massacres or what actually went on at Abu Ghraib before the US ever got there.

[Charlie-Brown]

You're still not answering my question...

 

How can we preach freedom and democracy and human rights when we've often overtly or covertly toppled democracies or supported dictators when it has suited our commercial interests / foreign policy?

[Boris]

All those are incompatible with being a free democratic nation, and I can oppose them and still oppose your isolationist, rather nonsensical stance. Still, you can't compare any of that to the scale of the Kurdish massacres or what actually went on at Abu Ghraib before the US ever got there.

 

 

Who is being an isolationist?

 

My point is that if we (the West) are to intervene it should be for the moral reasons stated, not simply an attempt to hoodwink people to exploit their resources and then burden them in an economic system that essentially enslaves them.

 

What I'm trying to show is the contradiction with why the West does what it does. To think of it as simply "doing the right thing" is, and I mean you no disrespect, simply naive.

 

The West doesn't just go into places righting wrongs like a white knight on a charger. There is always an economic benefit to what they do.

[P-Dizzle]

How can we preach freedom and democracy and human rights when we've often overtly or covertly toppled democracies or supported dictators when it has suited our commercial interests / foreign policy?

 

Because self-serving, and in some cases outright corrupt, individuals have carried out some terrible acts because of their own interests. Bad policy in the past does not prevent us from acting in the future, you'd be better looking at the reasons for these various operations and who they were dealing with, rather than just looking at the aftermath. To relate this to the Hitchens thread for a second, his critiques of Clinton and Kissinger are brilliant on this point.

 

This was my question to you though -

 

I mean, would you have opposed British, and then US, intervention against Germany in the second world war? It's easy to look back now and claim that it was obviously the right thing to do, but there was major opposition to entering the war on both sides of the Atlantic at the time. Did you oppose British intervention in Sierra Leone or US opporations in the likes of Somalia and Kosovo? What, in your mind, is a justified intervention?

 

Given the stance you've taken on recent conflicts, I think I'd be right in saying that you would take a similar position during WW2, citing the horrible losses we sustained in previous wars as reason not to tackle the current threat. The other 3 I mentioned are just as relevant though, and don't tie in to your argument about us only doing it for economic benefit. I want to know if you thought the right action was taken in these interventions, and if they were justifiable, what made them different to other recent cases that you oppose.

[P-Dizzle]

Who is being an isolationist?

 

My point is that if we (the West) are to intervene it should be for the moral reasons stated, not simply an attempt to hoodwink people to exploit their resources and then burden them in an economic system that essentially enslaves them.

 

I agree that it should be for the moral reasons stated, that's why the wartime propaganda that was wrongly espoused by our government holds little weight with me as an argument. Exploit their resources? What was happening before 2003, were they not under even worse exploitation? Was Saddam's dictatorship not more of an enslavement than federal democracy? I know you want to live in your marxist fantasy, but don't pass off that stuff like it's fact.

 

What I'm trying to show is the contradiction with why the West does what it does. To think of it as simply "doing the right thing" is, and I mean you no disrespect, simply naive.

 

No more naive than those that think crying about oil as an argument against intervention. You ever read any of these anti-war movement websites? ******* painful viewing, and showing a total disregard for those people in these countries that were harmed so much under the brutality of these regimes.

 

The West doesn't just go into places righting wrongs like a white knight on a charger. There is always an economic benefit to what they do.

 

I'll put the same questions to you that I did to CB re WW2, Kosovo, Somalia etc.

[Charlie-Brown]

I agree that it should be for the moral reasons stated, that's why the wartime propaganda that was wrongly espoused by our government holds little weight with me as an argument. Exploit their resources? What was happening before 2003, were they not under even worse exploitation? Was Saddam's dictatorship not more of an enslavement than federal democracy? I know you want to live in your marxist fantasy, but don't pass off that stuff like it's fact.

 

 

 

No more naive than those that think crying about oil as an argument against intervention. You ever read any of these anti-war movement websites? ******* painful viewing, and showing a total disregard for those people in these countries that were harmed so much under the brutality of these regimes.

 

 

 

I'll put the same questions to you that I did to CB re WW2, Kosovo, Somalia etc.

 

Why did Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki say only just recently to his population "We have repelled the Invaders" ? hardly enduring gratitude for our nation building efforts or toppling Saddam.

[P-Dizzle]

Why did Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki say only just recently to his population "We have repelled the Invaders" ? hardly enduring gratitude for our nation building efforts or toppling Saddam.

 

He's a divisive figure, but that comes with a democratically elected offical when there has been great tension between the different groups that make up Iraq, and the factions within each of those. Doesn't support your argument that we're there to install puppets as we bleed the country dry though, does it? You've still not answered my question.

[P-Dizzle]

So history is relevant when it supports your argument, but not when it doesn't. That clears things up nicely.

 

It neither supports or opposes my argument, I'm asking their views on historical conflicts invovling western powers. He was listing historical events that have no bearing on the current situation in Iran and our position on it, I've said it before, we can sieve through history picking out things that were right or wrong, it doesn't change the situation as it is now. So there's a distinction to be made about what I said there. Nice try though.

 

I'd argue that WW2 is not relevant in that it was a war to remove a power that was invading other countries, as was the 1st Iraq war and to an extent Kosovo.

 

The second Iraq war is a continuation of the first, it was fixing a problem that wasn't resolved the first time around. Saddam was allowed to remain in power when he should have been removed after his various atrocities against his own people and those of neighbouring countries. The point on WW2 was that we often have a very narrow minded view of that war because it's distant in the memory of most people. Looking back now, it's obvious that it was the right thing to do, but that wasn't universally agreed at the time. People often forget this, I'd say it is relevant for that reason, but also the need to take a stance against fascist regimes. We intervened in Kosovo because there was a fear of genocide against the people, although that charge has been cleared by a UN court there was still massive displacement of the Kosovan people which cannot be ignored.

 

I'd also argue that how the West's dealings with countries directly involved in this discussion - Iran - are entirely relevant.

 

I don't think I said our dealings with Iran were ever irrelevant. Infact, I made a point of saying any moves to bring democracy to Iran would be greatly appreciated, and acknowledged the harm that would be caused by this current theocracy gaining nuclear weapons.