Branch Debate - "Iraq, Right or Wrong?"

This is the text of the Deane-cum-Heaton Branch's debate on the threatened war against the Iraqi dictatorship, taken from the minutes of the March meeting.

The following resolution was proposed by John and seconded by Noelene:

"This Branch opposes US/UK lead military action against the oppressive Iraqi dictatorship regardless of whether or not such action is supported by the United Nations. We call upon the Bolton West Constituency Labour Party to take a similar stand."

In proposing the resolution John emphasised that he was no apologist for Saddam Hussain who had murdered, tortured and imprisoned tens of thousands of his own people as well as attacking neighbouring countries. John said that war is wrong and usually only leads to death, pain and suffering for the innocents. Usually the dictators escape unscathed. He questioned the need for military action now. The Weapons Inspectors are in Iraq and doing their job and the effects are beginning to be seen. If the US and UK governments are so sure that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction why don't they tell the inspectors where they are? Saddam Hussain isn't the only bloody dictator in the world who has murdered, tortured and imprisoned thousands of his own people, keeping them in abject poverty, as well as threatening the countries around. Other countries are as oppressive and as great a threat to their neighbours. What about the Pakistani military dictatorship, which encourages separatists in Kashmir, has nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them against India? And how about the Chinese dictatorship, an even more oppressive nuclear power regime that has occupied surrounding countries, especially Tibet or decades? And then there's Israel, also a potential nuclear power oppressing the Palestinians, and North Korea and Zimbabwe. Not only that but China has most favoured nation status with the US and, of course, the US bankrolls Israel. Of course these are countries that either don't have oil or have oil that the Americans can't get. It's all about the cost of a gallon of petrol for greedy American's gas guzzling cars.

John said that the argument for getting rid of Saddam on democratic grounds couldn't be justified either. After all, apart from Israel, how many other democracies are there in the Middle East? Even if the UN were to support military action it would only be because of immense American arm-twisting and bribery of the smaller, poorer UN Security Council members.

Craig opposed the resolution. He said that wars have never been fought for just reasons. The allies tried to hide the holocaust. If the Second World War had been just the allies would have tackled Stalin after defeating Hitler. We cannot allow Saddam Hussain to have and use nuclear weapons. He said that he was sickened by the way in which some countries have been responding and mentioned the part that France had played in the Rwandan genocide. He didn't believe that the war was about oil. If that were the case the US would have done something more drastic about the Venezuelan strikes that have stopped oil exports from that country.

Craig added that it was unclear what would happen in post-war Iraq, the Middle East could blow up and millions could die but he believed that the people of that region are beginning to feel their feet in a very different way than in the west.

John M. said that he is fundamentally against war and that he is 80% against military action in Iraq but that war is not always wrong. The invasion of Afghanistan was partly successful but didn't meet all of its objectives. He believed that the US/UK/UN have been wrong and indecisive about Iraq for the last ten years but that doesn't meant hat we should be doing nothing now. The Iraqi leadership have said that they do not have weapons of mass destruction and have been destroying some missiles lately. He wondered whether Blair/Bush knew something that we don't and thought that we would probably never know. He didn't think that the existence of oppressive regimes elsewhere in the world was an argument for doing nothing against Iraq. He added that a lot of people he respects have declared themselves against a war at any cost but, equally, many other well-respected people support the idea.

George and Eve both expressed their strong support for Tony Blair agreeing that he had done very many good things since he came to office. He deserves our support and we should trust him.

George added that Blair is a victim of a set of circumstances that he must wish had never occurred. The US has such enormous economic power that it's hard to resist going along with them. He added that Israel only exists at the expense of the Palestinians.

Pat declared herself to be a natural pacifist. She asked why we should go to war now when we have put up with this appalling regime for such a long time? What has changed? She said that she is horrified by the situation we are now in but does respect Tony Blair for what he is trying to do, even though she opposes him.

Paul expressed broad agreement ad said that the UN is very important. There must not be a war without explicit UN agreement and at some time the vetoes will have to stop. We should do what we can to reinforce the authority of the UN. We need to keep the US within the international community.

Leilia agreed. She referred to the Telegraph headline that said the US will go to war alone and believed that that would be wrong. She said that the inspections, negotiations and diplomacy must go on and believed that a UN peacekeeping force in Iraq could be a way forward and to avoid war. Saddam must be constrained.

Anne said that she was in a dilemma. By giving Blair support de facto we support George Bush and his ultra right wing religious fundamentalists. She shares no "political point of contact" whatsoever with Bush and failed to grasp what brings him and Tony Blair together. Knowing Clare Short she added that she believed that Clare's resignation threat hadn't been done in the best way but she supported her principled stand. She said that she feels herself vacillating and would carefully consider where she stood should a war go ahead with explicit UN authority.

Noelene agreed with Anne to a large degree. She declared herself a complete pacifist and said that war could not be right under any circumstances. She said that she could not support Bush and Blair and didn't think that they had information that other countries do not have. Nobody seems to be taking into account the terrible suffering that hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis will be subjected to if there is a war.

Pauline agreed with what Craig had said and Gwen said that Saddam Hussain is an evil man who must be dealt with.

Graham summed up. He said that he couldn't remember ever being so confused about an issue. He doesn't like the people on any other the sides - Bush, Saddam or Chirac. He added that he supports John M's 80% against war view and said that one thing you cannot doubt is Tony Blair's sincerity even if it may be misplaced.

John proposed an amendment such that the final resolution read:

"This Branch opposes US/UK lead military action against the oppressive Iraqi dictatorship unless such action is supported by the United Nations. We call upon the Bolton West Constituency Labour Party to take a similar stand."

The resolution was put to the vote and defeated by one vote. The Chair thanked all those present for participating in an excellent debate in which all recognised and respected the opinions of others. He declared the meeting closed at 21:40

Return to our Talks and Discussions page.