A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| What do Prominent Britons Think about War? |
|---|
| Anonymous |
| 01/21/03 at 17:56:39 |
| Sunday January 19, 2003 The Observer Simon Weston, Falklands war veteran I believe Saddam has something but until you find it, how can you attack? If you attack and you still don't find anything where are you then? Why hasn't the US given the evidence they say they've got to the UN? None of us wants to see this evidence, you just want independent observers to have seen it. At the moment it seems too much like one man's obsession and everyone has to fall in because he's the head of the most powerful country in the world. I don't want it to be like that. I'm not against British soldiers being sent into action, but this isn't as black and white as the Falklands, the last Gulf war or even the Balkans. Whatever the outcome, people must remain united behind our boys and girls who go out there. Alan Bleasdale, Screenwriter I just think, passionately, it is the wrong war at the wrong time with the wrong ally against the wrong people. Bill Emmott, Editor, The Economist I am against war, but in favour of it if it proves to be necessary. We must be prepared and willing to invade because Saddam is a brutal, genocidal, dangerous dictator who has stuck two fingers up at international law for the past 12 years. Susan Greenfield, Director of the Royal Institution My feelings on the prospect of an attack on Iraq is that it is contributing to a general sense of insecurity and uncertainty, combined with an edginess and anxiety caused by the recent events concerning Ricin and Stephen Oake. People are not feeling completely at peace, and are insecure in all aspects of life. Freddie Forsyth, Writer Why has the greatest power in the world decided it has no choice but to disarm a man it is convinced has mass weapons of destruction and is likely to use them? If you said George Bush has decided on a whim to invade a country miles and miles from his own home which doesn't threaten him, then you have to be insane. He has persuaded Mr Blair to do that and Mr Blair is not insane. Maybe they know something that we don't. I think Saddam has lied and I think they know he has lied. Susie Orbach, Psychoanalyst I feel very uneasy and deeply concerned. I feel very uneager to see any conflict. I don't think it will contribute to the longterm stability of that area. It is not something we ought to be doing. The situation in Palestine seems critical to me. The link between the secular Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda does not seem clear. Ian Roberts, Professor of public health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine This is a war about North American car dependence. The physical and economic infrastructure of the US is so highly car dependent that it is pathologically addicted to oil. If this war was really about weapons of mass destruction, then the US would have opposed (rather than being complicit in) their use against the Kurds and against Iran. Salman Rushdie, Writer There is a strong, even unanswerable case for a 'regime change' in Iraq that ought to unite Western public opinion and all those who care about the brutal oppression of an entire Muslim nation. Saddam Hussein and his ruthless gang of cronies from his home village of Tikrit are homicidal criminals, and their Iraq is a living hell. This obvious truth is no less true because we have been turning a blind eye to it - and 'we' includes, until recently, the government of the United States. But, as I listen to Iraqi voices describing the atrocities of the Saddam years, I am bound to say that if the US and the United Nations agree on a new Iraq resolution, then the rest of the world must stop sitting on its hands and join the Americans and British in ridding the world of this vile despot and his cohorts. Shirley Williams, Leader of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords First, if the inspectors ask for additional time they should be given it. My view is that it would be unjustified and immoral to go to war unless there were clear evidence from the inspections of a deliberate and systematic breach of the terms of the United Nations resolution, or unless Saddam refused to co-operate. But I would not rule it out completely, because I think it is vital to keep up the pressure. I think containment has been rather remarkably successful in Iraq. Gordon Taylor, Chief executive, Professional Footballers' Association To consider a war on Iraq just with ourselves and America would be not only dangerous but foolish. It is imperative that because of the repercussions that would follow throughout the world, that any such action has the full support of the UN, otherwise Britain will be at the end of a backlash the British people don't deserve. Our priorities should centre at home, on sorting out the firemen's dispute, and financing improved transport, education and health. Rev Houston McKelvey, Church of Ireland, Dean of Belfast We are being asked either to trust Saddam or Tony Blair on the question of weapons of mass destruction. I know which one I would trust. It is wrong to say that the only moral position is to be opposed to the war against the Iraqi regime. Blair is a practising Christian and I accept his motives are morally guided. I think that in the case of stopping Saddam Hussein we have to trust our government. John Sulston, Led Britain's involvement in the decoding of the human genome and was awarded a Nobel Prize for medicine My view is that we should under no foreseeable circumstances invade Iraq, other than through an explicit UN mandate.We are told that unilateralism is being pressed on us by the US. Whatever its provenance, I consider it to be dangerous in the extreme. It is not only immoral, but also in the long run is liable to be counterproductive to our security. For long-term world peace we need to strengthen the UN. Unilateral actions have the reverse effect. Zia Sardar, Writer and critic Most Muslims accept the fact that Saddam is a brutal dictator and they can't wait to see the back of him. However, Iraq should not be equated with Saddam. We also have to consider the people of Iraq who have suffered immensely not just at the hands of Saddam but also from the Gulf war and the sanctions. Another war on Iraq will simply increase their suffering. The best estimates are that at least half a million innocent people will be killed. This is too high a price to pay simply to remove Saddam. It also suggests a total failure of imagination that we cannot find other ways to undermine Saddam's regime and usher in democracy in Iraq. Daniel neep, Middle East and North Africa specialist at the Royal United Services Institute, London There are some good reasons for confronting Iraq with the credible threat of military action, but we haven't heard them yet. Blair's arguments are couched in rhetoric more appropriate to America than to the UK. The potential collusion between Iraq and terrorist organisations, for example, may haunt American sensibilities but seems far-fetched over here. Instead, the UK Government needs to focus on the failure of Western policy towards Iraq since the end of the Gulf war. The only way to resolve this policy impasse is by radical change - as unpalatable as is, there seems to be no way to effect this change other than removing Saddam . Robert del Naja, Musician with Massive Attack No one I talk to believes it is really about regime change. It is about controlling the oil in the Middle East in the face of a new recession and because of worries about continued access to oil in Saudi Arabia. We seem to be living in an age of transparency, where these motives are clear, but nobody is saying it. So in another sense, at the leadership level, everything is opaque. The issue for me is also that, after a long period of Tory Government, I voted for this Blair Government and now they are doing this to us. It is very frustrating. Dr Beverley Malone, General secretary of the Royal College of Nursing The consequences of war can have many devastating results and the Royal College of Nursing believes such conflicts should be avoided at all costs. It hopes that solutions can be sought peacefully through organisations such as the United Nations. Martin Jacques, Writer The threat of war against Iraq has nothing to do with some new-found threat and everything to do with the new era of international relations, in which the US is determined to exercise its global omnipotence in the wake of 11 September. It wants to reorder the Middle East in the cause of oil and to impose its civilisational view of the world, its contempt for those of another colour and religion barely concealed. Contemptible as the Saddam regime is, deploying such overwhelming might against such a poor people is obscene. At least in the Cold War, each superpower acted as a constraint on the other. We are returning to something that looks more like high imperialism where the most powerful nation, the US, carves up the world for its own purposes.Who says history can't go backwards - by almost a century in this case? The fact that the United States and Britain are prepared to act without a UN mandate only serves to emphasise the point. John Nichol, RAF officer captured by Iraq during the Gulf war of 1990-91 I've real concerns with any war. Since 9/11 there seems to be a link between Iraq and terrorism that politicians have allowed to grow despite there being no evidence. This is a real double standard. When Iran has weapons of mass destruction no one seems to be concerned. Libya has weapons of mass destruction too and we send Ministers there to talk about trade instead of the possibility of a conflict. For me, whatever the moral arguments, you have to ask if any conflict is going to make the region safer? I just don't think so. J.G. Ballard, Writer My feeling is one of great anxiety. We've been told so little by the Prime Minister it's almost impossible to come to any kind of decision. I assume Blair has information he hasn't passed on to the rest of us, and it's a great shame. It's impossible, without knowing whether Saddam has these weapons of mass destruction or not, to know if the war is justified. What's really frightening is all the possible consequences of a war ... the hatred of the entire Arab world focused on the US and Britain. The Americans can look after themselves, but I'm not sure if we British can look after ourselves. The possibility of a terrorist attack in London or elsewhere in Britain is frightening. Air Chief Marshal Sir Timothy Garden, Air Former assistant chief of UK defence staff Inspection is a better way of disarming than bombing. It has not been shown that there is any near term threat from Iraq to Europe or beyond. War is always an uncertain venture, and may lead to a situation worse than the one we have now. James Moore, Gulf Veterans' Association We shouldn't go to war. In 1990-91 everyone who served felt we were in the right. A country had been invaded, bullied by another state. This time around we would be the bullies. UN inspectors have been given free access and have yet to find anything. Blair seems happy for us to become the fifty-first state of America with himself as governor. It beggars belief that the Government is willing to send soldiers into an area that has been responsible for so many deaths. Since troops returned home in 1991, 558 have died as a result of Gulf war syndrome. For the past 10 years, British and American planes have been using uranium-coated bombs on the Iraqis and now we want to send troops there? Servicemen shouldn't be made into guinea pigs. There are huge problems with the SA80 rifle too and there are also serious concerns over the Challenger tank, the radio system they use and even the boots they're wearing. Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London War against Iraq is being planned to further the oil interests of the US. It is a diversion from tackling the problem of groups such as al-Qaeda. A new Gulf war will deepen, not resolve, the sense of injustice that is felt not only in the Middle East but also in most of the so-called Third World.A war that is unjustified in the eyes of most of the people of the world will act as a recruiting sergeant for Islamic fundamentalists and - ultimately - a new generation of terrorists. I cannot stand by as mayor of a city that would inevitably become a potential target of terrorism without saying that such a policy would be a terrible folly. Rev Wendy Saunders, Vicar of St Saviour's, Eltham, south-east London I'm very conscious of the history of the Thirties and the fact that not enough was done then to stop Hitler. But there the parallels end. The sort of things Saddam is doing do not correlate. He's not obviously building up to launch an attack against anyone. And there's so much confusion about what weapons of mass destruction he holds. It doesn't seem there is any clear immediate intent to use them. The massive number of British and US personnel being shipped out could be perceived by the Iraqi people as a clear act of intended aggression. That can't be helpful. Like most people, I am confused about the facts. Mary Warnoch, Crossbench peer and author of Nature and Morality I can't help being reminded of 1956, the year of Suez. It was an appalling shock for people of my generation to find ourselves the aggressor nation, having been certain till then that we did not go to war unless in defence and under imminent threat. I do not believe we are under imminent threat from Iraq much as we may deplore the activities of Saddam. The link between terrorist extremists and Iraq has not been conclusively proved; and for all the rhetoric, there is a confusion of aims. If the point of the war is to eradicate terrorism then it seems likely to have the opposite effect. Terrorists are not confined to Iraq and they will feel themselves doubly justified in striking against both Britain and America if they initiate a war. If the aim is to compel Saddam to conform to the instructions of the UN then it is unthinkable that we and the Americans should go into Iraq without further explicit UN backing. To do so would be to demonstrate total contempt for the UN. It is a far from a perfect body; but it is all we have, and we cannot justify abandoning it. I fail to understand how anyone who pretends to an interest in the 'peace process' between Israel and the Palestinians can conceivably enter a conflict which will exacerbate hostility throughout the Middle East with unforseeable consequences. Max Clifford, PR expert If it's proven beyond doubt that Iraq is linked with international terrorism and building these weapons, then obviously it has to be stopped. But right now I would say I don't feel they've done enough to justify an attack. If I had to make a choice today, I'd say err on the side of caution. At the moment my mind is 55/45 against going to war. Richard Dawkins, Oxford biologist First, I believe a declaration of war, even when provoked by an attack on one's own soil, is a grave decision that should be taken only after a full debate in Parliament. Neither of these two conditions is met at present. Second, it is humiliating to find ourselves alone in the world poodling behind any American Presi dent, but especially an illiterate, uncouth, unelected one. Third, I believe an unprovoked attack on Iraq, coupled with America's conspicuous lack of interest in obtaining justice for the Palestinians, will unite the entire Arab world against the West, just when we need their support most. Al-Qaeda will be laughing with glee. Rear Admiral Richard Cobbold, Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies Saddam is a malign dictator and the world would be better off if he ceased to rule Iraq. He will not be deposed by sweet reason, elections or economic sanctions. Disarming him short of getting rid of him, may prove fanciful. He can be deposed by use of force. One such use is the threat of force to back up unremitting diplomatic pressure, the other is open conflict. Up to the start of actual conflict, the two approaches - coercion and preparations for war - must be identical. The first approach is much preferred and should be exhausted before talking up the second. Saddam is a serial abuser of the will of the international community, and has used chemical weapons ruthlessly on his own and other people. In the last resort, a sound legal and moral case is capable of being made for direct military action. The military, political and humanitarian risks of conflict are very real, and all steps should be taken to reduce them. The risk of doing nothing however, may be higher. Rosie Boycott, Broadcaster and journalist In the light of the recent findings which I'm led to believe were Scud missiles, they need to remove Saddam. But this should only be done under the auspices of the United Nations. No war should ever be undertaken without the legitimacy of the UN. Gurbux Virk, Editor of Punjabi weekly Des Pardes In this age and day of internationalism, dialogue is a better option than war. The issue cannot be resolved with bullets. We should stop the situation from worsening. If attacked, even a weak enemy will strike back viciously. There is no preventing Saddam from using deadly weapons if the war breaks out. The destruction that the war brings in its wake will not justify any purpose. Sir Lawrence Freedman, Professor of war studies, King's College, London The British debate has got bogged down on the question of whether the country should support the United States if President Bush decided to declare war without convincing evidence of an Iraqi material breach and without significant Security Council support. This question assumes the worst of Bush and the best of Saddam. The eventual debate is more likely to take the form of whether we take military action in support of a new Security Council resolution confirming an Iraqi breach. This would be fully justified if the UN is to have any credibility in the future in the management of comparable issues. It has to show that it can deal with a regime that has acted so viciously and duplicitously against its own people, its neighbours, and the UN. There would also be some chance in such circumstances of urgent and peaceful regime change. Sir Peter Davis, Chief executive, Sainsbury's We've been to war several times in recent years and London has learnt to look after itself in times of terrorism. We've had regional wars, like the Falklands, Gulf and Afghanistan. This isn't a repeat of World War II. People will still need to eat, and in the past there has been a short-term increase in shopping as people squirrel stuff away in case times get bad. We all want to look after our families. There are questions over the fuel supply, which is an important part of how people live their lives and of our business. Its also, I'm sure, one of the reasons George Bush is pursuing Iraq. Prof Victor Bulmer-Thomas, Director, Royal Institute of International Affairs Since the end of the Cold War, the world has had a unique opportunity to establish a rules-based system with the UN at its heart. That opportunity has largely been wasted, but the option is still there. By going to the Security Council, the US has raised the possibility - however remote it may seem to some - of reasserting the role of the UN in the international system. The weapons of mass destruction issue has to be tackled. For reasons that are still obscure, Iraq was chosen as the focus (rather than the much more dangerous North Korea). That decision has now been taken and Iraq must therefore disarm. If Saddam does so in co-operation with the UN inspectors, that would be the best outcome. If he defies the inspectors, the Security Council will need to pass a second resolution authorising war. Either way this will send the most powerful signal that proliferation of WMD is unacceptable. John Browne, Chief executive, BP We have let it be known that the thing we would like to make sure, if Iraq changes regime, is that there should be a level playing field for the selection of oil companies to go in there if they're needed to do the work there. A.S.Byatt, Writer My reaction is one of extreme apprehension. I don't want Britain to go to this war. I understand it is almost impossible for Tony Blair not to follow. Bush. I have hoped and believed Blair was trying to hold Bush back, but I believe it less now. I really question the motives of the American administration and I partly believe what people say about the oil. I supported the campaign against the Taliban because there's been a clear connection between al-Qaeda and 9/11. But it seems to me there's no such connection now, and I don't like to listen to the false logic that there is around. It makes me feel the Government takes me for a fool. |
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board |