Middle East and the Left

>1. The claim that the Allies intervention in Iraq was illegal.
>a. No international court has ruled such. It is only the legal opinion
>of some lawyers, not all lawyers. After all, you or I could buy a legal
>opinion (argument) to support one¢s case. It is just a legal opinion; I
>could go to the very same lawyers and pay them to formulate a totally
>different opinion?
>b. The claim that the present Iraqi government is not legitimate. It
>seems a lot more legitimate than that of the previous Saddam regime, which
>came to power in a military coup. At least the present regime has had
>elections, despite the interference from both domestic and external anti
>democratic forces.
>c. It's odd when we hear demands from old anti American lefties like
>Tony Benn and George Galloway for the Allies to withdraw; I don't recall
>them demanding the withdrawal of external fascistic antidemocratic forces
>or the encouragement of domestic groups to work towards a peaceful solution
>in Iraq with the present government, neither have they put forward workable
>solutions that will help turn Iraq into a democratic and prosperous state.
>If the claim of these groups is to encourage the Allies to withdraw, they
>are certainly going about it in a strange way. The most logical way, surely
>would have been to work with the Allies to rebuild Iraq; this would have
>saved lives, brought both prosperity to Iraq and the early withdrawal of
>the Coalition Forces.
>d. What especially saddens me is the lack of active support by many in
>the anti American left for the many brave Iraqi men and women and in the
>rest of the Middle East fighting for trade union rights, women¢s rights and
>civil liberties. Perhaps, this lack of support is explained because they
>prefer to be professional contrarians, rather than uphold the principles of
>their founders; Jefferson. Wilberforce, Paine and Pankhurst etc.
>2. As for the maritime boundary between Iraq and Iran.
>a. Many seem to be implying that the Iranian claims on this issue are
>correct and have been ratified by both sides. This is not the case. You
>will also find Iran has maritime and territorial disputes with many of its
>neighbours including the Gulf States. Many Gulf States feel intimidated by
>the historic expansionist or imperialist policies that Iran has practiced
>in the region for centuries. For examples
>· http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4619604.stm
>· http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/849068.stm
>http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=499&language_id=1
>· http://www.didyouknow.cd/story/disputes.htm#gulf
>b. In this light the developments of Iranian missiles that can strike
>Munich from Tehran, I suppose make a sort of sense. Could it be Iran wants
>to intimidate European countries as well? This makes it understandable that
>EU states like Poland and Britain support the installation of an anti
>missile shield by NATO.
>c. As to why there has only been luck luster support for Britain¢s case
>in this maritime dispute or it could be that countries like France and
>Germany fear for the potential loss in trade they have with Iran.
>3. But what I find truly astonishing is despite the plethora of
>articles, books, speeches etc I have not seen attempt to try to set out
>what the present position would be in the Middle East or the World if no
>action had been taken against Saddam.
>a. If he had been allowed to stay in power and able to continue his
>reign of terror, gassing or murdering any dissident Shia or Kurd, probably
>invading Saudi Arabia, sponsoring terrorist cells around the world,
>building up atomic material (only for peaceful purposes of course!) as Iran
>is doing etc. Would we still be arguing he should stay in power?
>b. What would your prediction be?