Pete on War on Iraq

simon malia malias40 at
Thu Jul 8 03:49:57 CDT 2004

Marcus Surrealius wrote:

"Maybe he means the war on terror, not the invasion of
Iraq. Pete's far too intelligent to buy into the
initially flimsy and since proven utterly false
reasoning for invading Iraq."

Nope. Don't think so. Can't speak for the folks on your side of the 
Atlantic, but for many of us here, when the debate was raging *before* the 
invasion of Iraq, many of us (including me, to my utter shame) weighed up 
the pros and cons, and thought there was *possibly* some justification for 
taking this action.

David Aaronovitch (then a feature writer with "The Independent" newspaper, 
now with the (slightly left-leaning) "Guardian" was one such, for example.

My own position was that I didn't want war: it *always* means that innocent 
(and involved) women and children get killed, maimed, hurt, traumatised, 
displaced - you name it, shit happens to them.

But - I didn't want Saddam Hussein's regime to continue either - for the 
very same reasons. I was (for a time) seduced by the WMD argument. A lot of 
people were - but many are now revising their own histories, claiming to 
have consistently opposed the war.

Pete - characteristically - isn't. Daft he may be, with a wonky persepective 
at times - but give him credit for his sincerity. I do.

Get fast, reliable Internet access with MSN 9 Dial-up – now 2 months FREE!

More information about the TheWho mailing list