Slashdot Log In
Strike on Iraq
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:05 PM
from the here-it-comes-folks dept.
from the here-it-comes-folks dept.
According to CNN and various other news sources, Iraq is now under attack by
the US. Here is a link to the current story running at CNN right now, but there's really not much except that it has started. CT Cruise missiles launched against "Target of Opportunity". The full assault has not begun. CT The attack was specifically intended to take out Saddam. CT Saddam appeared on iraqi TV to condemn the US, and Iraqi missiles have been fired at Kuwait.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
prayers (Score:5, Insightful)
War Pigs (Score:5, Insightful)
Lyrics (Score:5, Informative)
------------------------
Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerers of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds.
Oh lord, yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away.
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah.
Time will tell on their power minds,
making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
wait till their judgement day comes, yeah.
Now in darkness world stops turning,
ashes where the bodies burning.
No more War Pigs have the power,
Hand of God has struck the hour.
Day of judgement, God is calling,
on their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercies for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings.
Oh lord, yeah!
Parent
Inside Sites/Blogs (Score:5, Informative)
-- Debka (Middle East News) [debka.com]
-- Official Iraqi News [uruklink.net]
-- Where is Read? - Iraqi Blog [blogspot.com]
-- Kuwait Blog [qhate.com]
-- Back to Iraq Blog [back-to-iraq.com]
-- Iraq today [einnews.com]
-- Warblogs.cc [warblogs.cc]
-- Kevin Sites [kevinsites.net]
-- Sky.com [sky.com]
-- BCC News Live Feed [bbc.co.uk]
-- Agonist [agonist.org]
CBSnews also has a beautiful high detail webcam without all the crap on the bottom of the screen.
God bless our soldiers.
Davak
Re:Inside Sites/Blogs (Score:5, Informative)
As well as the BBC WorldService, BBC News 24 [bbc.co.uk] is broacasting a video feed live.
Al.Parent
Waiting (Score:5, Interesting)
Not How its Supposed To Be (Score:5, Insightful)
Early weird news reports (Score:5, Insightful)
Another news station reported that a CNN reporter had been shot live on camera. Again, nothing.
During Aaron Brown's chat with some Pentagon bigwig or another, you could distinctly hear laughing and clapping in the background of CNN's studios. Brown's face showed that he heard it too.
All in all, considering how little has actually happened, it's been one hell of a weird night.
to the tune of "if your'e happy & you know it" (Score:5, Funny)
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.
If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me,
'Cos it's all the proof I need to
Bomb Iraq.
If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.
If your corp'rate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.
Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.
I was going to be a karma whore and (Score:5, Interesting)
Some geek in Iraq, who just doesn't want to be involved in the fighting is sitting on his pc same as me, reading slashdot (if they're a fan) and probably see's thousands of people fleeing the streets, heading for the hills. Maybe he's just some student hoping to come here someday, but now has to face the horror of war.
Iraq is no stranger to war, the middle east has had ongoing wars as long as the bible has been written. Before USA intervention, who was the country trying to break up fights between middle eastern neighbors? Was it the british? the french?
I just heard a jet fly overhead, and it scares me, but that poor shmuck, who probably isn't too different than you or me, is hearing gunshots, sonic booms, and people running and screaming for cover.
On top of all that, his leader, wouldn't hesitate to turn the world into one giant jonestown. Rumors of anthrax, smallpox are everywhere.
If anyone is out there going through this shit right now, could you be brave please? Stay where you are and let the rest of us on slashdot know how you're doing?
Good luck if you're out there Iraqi slashdoter. May whoever you worship watch over you and keep you safe.
Same goes for the US troops too.
I'm for the war... but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
A chance to make up for past injustices (Score:5, Insightful)
On to a more cynical note. The war is only justified if it kills fewer people than would have died in the remainder of Saddam's rule. Over 150,000 Iraqis, military and civilian, died as a direct result of Allied attacks in the Gulf War [businessweek.com]. That's about how many Saddam killed himself in previous gas attacks against his own people. If this war truly is about the welfare of the Iraqi people, we have to make sure it doesn't make them suffer more than they would otherwise. And we have to be ready to follow up with massive amounts of aid. Not just food and medicine, but capital and technical expertise.
As for the other reasons that justify the war? They are nonsense. Yes, Saddam has WMD, and yes, he has used them against civilian populations. AMERICA has WMD and AMERICA has used them against civilian populations twice - in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We also used chemical agents in Vietnam that cause birth defects to this day.
In the end, I think that America is very vaguely doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. This should have been done twenty years ago, and the war now doesn't even begin to make up for America's failures in the past. Maybe things will start to change (but, to be cyncial again - OF COURSE AMERICA WON'T CHANGE. America doesn't give half a shit about the rest of the world). We'll really have to wait to see who is vindicated, and who isn't.
I hope they have good reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
If not, I agree with Putin - he is not a threat to the US so why go in now? I agree that the UN is pretty limp, but I think that we finally had their attention and that another month would not make a difference. By that time, maybe Chirac would have gotten off his "I am france, I have veto power...let me use it before I give it to the germans" stance.
I stand 100% behind our troops and wish them the best of luck. We will be able to recover from whatever world opinion we get, but my biggest concern if for the general Iraqi populace. When the bombs start dropping, there will be civilian casualties. Hopefully they will remain small.
Too bad SAS or some other team could not have gone in and just taken out who we need to take out and that is it. A few apache's and low altitude jumps in the middle of the night and who knows what we could have done.
Best of luck to everyone. No matter where you stand on this issue, this is a dark day. War is never good.
blogging from baghdad (Score:5, Interesting)
who knows? maybe we'll catch a first hand account. cross your fingers for him. please post updates if you notice a glimmer of activity.
i found it through an msnbc.com story [msnbc.com].
he updated the site at 5:46 AM... which is 9:46 PM EST here in the US i believe. about an hour ago at the time of this post, half an hour before president bush made his 4 minute speech.
if you can't get to his blog, here is the top most few paragraphs right now...
air raid sirens in baghdad but the only sounds you can here are the anti-aircraft machine guns. will go now.
It is even too late for last minute things to buy, there are too few shops open. We went again for a drive thru Baghdad's main streets. Too depressing. I have never seen Baghdad like this. Today the Ba'ath party people started taking their places in the trenches and main squares and intersections, fully armed and freshly shaven. They looked too clean and well groomed to defend anything. And the most shocking thing was the number of kids. They couldn't be older than 20, sitting in trenches sipping Miranda fizzy drinks and eating chocolate (that was at the end of our street) other places you would see them sitting bored in the sun. more cars with guns and loads of Kalashnikovs everywhere.
The worst is seeing and feeling the city come to a halt. Nothing. No buying, no selling, no people running after buses. We drove home quickly. At least inside it did not feel so sad.
The ultimatum ends at 4 in the morning her in Baghdad, and the big question is will the attack be at the same night or not. Stories about the first gulf war are being told for the 100th time.
The Syrian border is now closed to Iraqis. They are being turned back. What is worse is that people wanting to go to Deyala which is in Iraq are being told to drive back to baghdad, there was a runor going around that baghdad will be "closed" no one goes in or out [check the map go from Baghdad in a N/E direction until you reach Baqubah, this is the center of Deyala governerate] people are being turned back at the borders of Baghdad city. There is a checkpoint and they will not let you pass it. there are rumors that many people have taken the path thru Deyala to go to the Iranian border. Maybe, maybe not.
If you remember I told you a while ago that you can get 14 satellite channels sanctioned by the state, retransmitted and decoded by receivers you have to buy from a state company. This service has been suspended. Internet will follow I am sure.
Re:the draft (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:the draft (Score:5, Informative)
"The United States is not going to implement a military draft, because there is no need for it, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Jan. 7."
hand waving by Charlie Rangle notwithstanding
Parent
Re:Not necessarily the war yet (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a lot of good reasons we shouldn't have done this. Now that we're committed, though, I want the war to end quickly, and I want us to win. I figure that's the best way to minimize the loss of lives (both American and Iraqi).
But being against an unjust war doesn't make one against our troops.
Parent
Re:Not necessarily the war yet (Score:5, Insightful)
The troops wouldn't even be in mortal danger if the anti-war side got their way. Think about *that*.
Parent
Re:Not necessarily the war yet (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll never happen. The US military is entirely voluntary. Those unwilling to go to war are encouraged not to join. Those that join anyway are unlikely to stay, as one can leave without prejudice any time during the first 6 months of service. Those miniscule few that might remain in and then start saying "I don't wanna go to war" when called upon to do what they've been training to do for months or years-- well, there's not a lot of sympathy for those few. It ain't the 60's anymore, friend. There ain't no draft. That's one of the main reasons why the US military is effective as it is.
Parent
Re:And today (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree with the "Flamebait" mods. I think any American has the right to say, "I'm ashamed to call myself an American."
Now, if you were in, say, Iraq, you probably wouldn't have that freedom. And that's one reason I'm proud to be American (at risk of sounding like some hokey Country singer).
But there's nothing inherently insulting about saying you're ashamed to be from a certain country. I'm not entirely sure why people would feel so insecure in their own pride to mod you down for being honest about yours.
Parent
Re:And today (Score:5, Insightful)
I swear I am about to throw my monitor against the wall.
How in the hell do you equate a flamebait mod with a restriction of someone's rights? That's insane. Making foolish statements is a protected right. Pointing out that your statements are foolish are protected as well. Quit playing the victim.
Parent
Re:And today (Score:5, Insightful)
Michael Moore [michaelmoore.com] (of Bowling for Columbine fame) has posted an interesting piece on the subject. I don't know how much of his assumptions about the american people are true, since I'm not American, but from here it sure looks as though there are lots of gung-ho, french-hating americans. Or probably they're just speaking louder than everyone else.
OTOH, as a foreigner, I can tell you guys that "freedom fries" and pulling back your dead soldiers from WWII cemetaries in France looks fucking childish
Seeing as how everyone who has dared speak against the war to date has been modded down, my karma will surely go down in flame. Well, shit, there goes freedom of speech (and what the fuck did Taco expect by posting this anyway?)
Parent
Re:And today (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And today (Score:5, Interesting)
So I'm going to deprive myself of all this marvellous entertainment and go on a War Fast. I will not be a consumer of the war - that's just what the bad guys want me to do. No CNN, no BBC, No Reuters, no newspapers, no magazines, no 60 minutes, blah blah blah. Slashdot's OK cause it's not focused on the war - just so long as I don't follow the links to the CNN pages. So no RTFA for me! :-)
I'm sure I'll be able to read all about it when my collegues tell me it's over.
Parent
Re:And today (Score:5, Interesting)
allow me to point you here [cnn.com] and if you're lazy, the link is a transcript of clinton's rational for that action, and i quote:
"The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." clinton himself is now denouncing our action against iraq.
daschle 2 months ago: we ought not politicize the war.
daschle this week: i'm saddened at the thought that we might lose american lives due to the president's inability to obtain a diplomatic solution.
it just seems that most people against the war are either uninformed or too hardened in their opposition to the bush administration.
2 yrs ago, i didn't think guys with boxcutters could knock down the wtc. wonder what a guy with a suitcase nuke could do?
Parent
I guess I have no reason to call you one then. (Score:5, Interesting)
All throughout American history, every American has had it in their blood to stand up for what they believe is to be wrong. Parents not letting you be out past curfew...boss not giving you the raise you deserve...people telling you that, because of your skin color, you are only counted as 3/5ths as a person for determining state population...the list goes on.
I mean, truly. Look at yourself. You should be ashamed for standing up for what you believe in without knowing why you can do exactly that.
Something that a lot of people don't know about the American Revolutionary War: it was a war fought by the minority of the Untied States. Most of them at the time really didn't care about how lousy a job the British was doing running the US...they only cared about themselves. There was a small minority who was actually smart enough to know that their way of life could not go on forever under British rule. Most people didn't see it that way. Many patriot soldiers were kicked out of towns because the town wanted nothing to do with the war. But, because of a small minority of men who stood up for what they knew would preserve the country in the years to come, you can speak your mind today.
I can't be certain about Bush's goals in this war, but I am certain about Blair's. Anyone who thinks for a moment that this war is all about unfinished business or about oil fields or about revenge really needs to look at Blair. He was the most popular prime minister in UK history. He turned it all away, because he knows that Saddam is dangerous.
Anyone who needs to actually see biological weapons in the hands of Saddam himself truly needs to do the math. He went to power in '78, when Iraq was the most flourishing Arab nation at the time. He went to war with Iran in '80. Fought them until '88, when his country had gained nothing at all except poverty. When he couldn't get the riches of Iran, he took after Kuwait. While fighting the US in '91, he fired missles at Saudi Arabia. During the same time, he was testing biological agents against the Kurds in northern Iraq (I know this first hand, because we have Kurdish immigrants who fled Iraq at that time because of what Saddam was up to). He kicked out UN weapons inspectors five years later, when they knew he still had biological and chemical agents. He let them back into his country seven years later, with no trace of them remaining.
In 1976, he convinced Jacque Chiraque, then a high government official of France, that it would be in France's best interests to help them establish a nuclear power plant to aid France who needed oil & economic support at the time. During the 1980 war against Iran, he convinced the U.S., who was still butting heads with the USSR at the time, that it was in US interests to help Iraq against the USSR-friendly nation of Iran. After the Gulf War, he convinced economic-ailing Russia to establish trade with Iraq when in return he would supply them with cheap oil and open markets, even though he was under sanctions from the UN. Now, he's convincing the UN (that before had been his enemy) that the US is out of line in going to war with him.
He's a master manipulator. He is not afraid to use destructive weapons whenever he sees fit. He's not afraid to go to war, despite how much he's driving Iraq economically and socially into the ground.
I'm ashamed that the world didn't see this coming sooner.
Parent
Re:And today (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
WRONG! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:And today (Score:5, Insightful)
Not an idiot. Maybe a little confused.
There has not been a military action in all of history that has been perfectly deplorable or perfectly justifiable.
I have, as a patriotic American, struggled to perform my responsibilty - make the politicians aware of my opinions and try to exact change. In this particular incident I have failed, but that doesn't make me ashamed to be an American.
I'm not going to discuss the specific political history behind the attacks, and why I find them, on balance, unjustified, as you clearly have at least some background, and an opinion that you are willing to defend with nasty words.
Regardless of the validity of your ideas, the right word to respond to another's shame is never "idiot".
Parent
Re:And today I am ashamed to call myself American (Score:5, Insightful)
Today he would have my vote for permanent dictator.
You are correct, I hvae no idea how Al Gore wouldve reacted, but something tells me we would not be having this discussion.
Parent
Re:And today (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:dang (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, I'm secretly hoping Bush is saying to himself, "Damn. They called my bluff." But I know that won't happen. People are gonna die in this one, a lot more than last time. World war 3, no, but there will be blood.
If Saddam drags this one into the streets, it could get really ugly. Less chance of chemical bombs, yes, but inner city combat... Children with AK 47s that they found off their father's bodies, women and children getting caught in the crossfire. Bloody ugly.
Or everybody might just surrendur, the oilfields will explode, and Saddam will enver be seen again, aside from really crappy home videos of the type Ossamma is STILL sending us. Whatever happened to him anyways? Why have we stopped caring about him? I hear people saying "remember 9-11, go to war with Iraq..." and then I think about it, and it's so stupid. Saddam and Bin Laden are different people with different goals. Both assholes, but they are not connected really. I remember 9-11, and I don't want to see innocents get killed over something that has nothing to do with it. Sure Saddam is a despot, but HOW MANY FRICKING DESPOTS ARE THERE CURRENTLY IN AFRICA COMMITTING GENOCIDE, MURDURER, AND SPAMMING TECHNIQUES?
Grr.
Parent
"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror" (Score:5, Insightful)
<sarcasm>Ah, but the Bush clan has had a long-term agenda with Saddam. Bin Laden only killed off a few Americans.</sarcasm>
I want to know how attacking Iraq is going to do anything whatsoever to reduce terrorism. I see attacking countries, occupying them, and setting up puppet goverments as having exactly the same effect it's had every time we've done it for the *last* fifty years, which is to piss people off much, much more and produce more people with dead parents/brothers/sisters/cousins/sons/daughters who are willing to die to strike at the United States. People don't just say, entirely unprovoked, "Gee, it's a rainy Saturday. I think I'll go blow myself up on a bus or crash a plane into a building." Getting in a war with a nation, as history has shown, is a fantastic way to produce long-lasting ethnic hatred.
I see the Saddam campaign not just unrelated, as you do, but actively damaging any effort to reduce terrorism in the world.
Parent
Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror" (Score:5, Insightful)
It reduces the training grounds available, such as the terrorist training ground devoted to how to highjack a 747, located in Iraq. Also, it removes a source of weapons such as bio and chem agents for the terrorists.
I see attacking countries, occupying them, and setting up puppet goverments as having exactly the same effect it's had every time we've done it for the *last* fifty years, which is to piss people off much, much more and produce more people with dead parents/brothers/sisters/cousins/sons/daughters who are willing to die to strike at the United States.
Well, that explains Germany and Japan... Oh wait, no it doesn't. Since WWII, we have consistantly not only allowed, but encouraged home rule after war. We have helped rebuild every country we went to war against, once the peace treaties were signed. (Vietnam and Korea do not count, since there has never been an end to the war, just a perpetual "cease-fire." Same thing for Iraq after Gulf War I) If we DID set up puppet governments maybe we wouldn't have the problems we have with France, Germany, etc. when we ask them for help.
People don't just say, entirely unprovoked, "Gee, it's a rainy Saturday. I think I'll go blow myself up on a bus or crash a plane into a building."
True, it takes a lot of planning to do these sorts of things. That makes it better? The "provocation" you seem to cite would be something similar to this:
Getting in a war with a nation, as history has shown, is a fantastic way to produce long-lasting ethnic hatred.
True, except when the people who comprise the nation are begging for the yoke to be lifted. This is not a war against "Iraq," this is a war against "Hussein." And if it does spawn a long-lasting ethnic hatred, how are you going to tell that this is different than what we have now? Here's a clue, most of the Middle East ALREADY hates us. We're not going to all switch to the Muslim faith, we're not going to pay tribute to a tinpot dictator, we're not going to regress into the middle ages and live as serfs and peasants to the royal houses, and we're not going to give up support of the only true democracy in the region, Israel. Ignoring Iraq is like ignoring a bee hive. Once you get stung, you start looking for ways to remove it.
I see the Saddam campaign not just unrelated, as you do, but actively damaging any effort to reduce terrorism in the world.
If it removes onc conduit for explosives, chemicals, biologicals, or nukes, then it is a huge step forward. An ounce of prevention is worth pounds of cure.
Parent
Bad logic (Score:5, Insightful)
How many of the "FRICKING DESPOTS" you mention
have attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States? How many of them have used VX nerve gas to kill thousands and can't currently account for large quantities of the stuff? How many of them are in a geographic position that could enable them to severely disrupt the world economy?
Your AK-47 comment doesn't stand up, because that assumes that you're going to have a bunch of Iraqis individually defending their homeland. In reality, you're much more likely to see them welcoming in anybody who can get rid of Saddam Hussein.
Are there going to be civilian casualties? Probably, despite the best efforts of our military -- the fact is that Hussein is deliberately (and illegally) deploying his military in civilian areas. That's why you see anti aircraft batteries on top of hospitals and munitions depots in schools. But, the point here is not to decimate Iraq, but to liberate it. The allies will therefore go far beyond what is required to avoid civilian casualties.
War, in general, is something to be avoided. But, it's not something to be avoided "at all cost" -- sometimes the cost of temporarily avoiding war is too great.
Parent
Re:First war post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yea, gotta love all the epic music and the quick edits, it's like watching a movie trailer.
What have we become in 200 short years?
Parent
Re:First war post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost as if the press was disappointed. They wanted the "movie" but the "Gov't" only gave them the teaser trailer.
Get a clue. War is war. If they want their casualties, if they want death, destruction, and chaos -- it will come.
But this is not something we should be anticipating like a movie. This is something we will all have to live through whether we want to or _not_ -- and the consequences will be mixed at best.
Parent
Re:First war post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
From this single line, I can extrapolate Michael Moore's attitude, and deduce just about how much weight you can give anything he says (read: none).
The bottom line is that everything he says comes tainted by his axe-grinding over the outcome of the 2000 presidental election. Even if I were to ignore his mockery of 9/11 victims and other tragedies for his own personal profit, I can't take his rants against Bush seriously for the simple reason that it's obvious he simply hates the man.
Parent
Hey You Win! (Score:5, Funny)
(Score:5, Troll) Sweet!
-Sean
Parent
Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush (Score:5, Interesting)
Dubya got out of Vietnam because Bush Sr. got him into the Coast Guard. Nice how the Bush clan wants the war and yet doesn't bear the brunt in the least.
I kinda liked the Middle Age approach -- the king/lord leads his men into war. Makes people a bit less likely to wage war. Kind of drives home the whole mortality and human cost bit.
That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty
Incidently, they built and paid for the thing, and then we refused to pay to have it shipped to the US. Pretty goddamn pathetic, I have to say. In the end, after a long campaign, Hearst managed to get enough people together to pay for shipping.
Parent
PsyOps web style (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:The only thing war has ever done is... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the reason the Nazi's needed to be defeated was the fact that they attacked and invaded other countries, just as the US is now doing.
Parent
Re:Support our troops. (Score:5, Insightful)
Once upon a time, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. From where I sit, Dubbya and crew are a bigger theat to our Constitution than Saddam and his cronies. How come Slick Willy gets impeached for getting a hummer in the oval office while Dubbya gets away with wiping his ass with the Constitution?
I will support our troops -- several of whom are members of my family -- by insisting loudly and continuously that they be brought home immediately.
Parent
Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time? (Score:5, Informative)
She was fired by the Bush administration shortly thereafter.
Parent
Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a link:
http://www.futurenet.org/iraq/morecostofwar.htm [futurenet.org]
And here's relevant text:
Approximately 3,500 civilians were killed during the U.S.-led air strike campaign in August 1990, and more than 9000 homes were destroyed. The civilian death toll rose to 110,000 after the bombing stopped, and of those 70,000 were children under the age of 15. Civilians in Iraq continue to suffer as a result of "Operation Desert Storm," despite the cessation of military attacks in 1991. Incidents with landmines and unexploded ordinance have added thousands of victims to the total. According to Unicef, the U.S.-led economic sanctions imposed on Iraq, in effect for more than a decade, have claimed over one million lives, the majority of whom are children and the elderly. In the wider "War on Terror" more civilians have now died in Afghanistan than did in the World Trade Tower and Pentagon attacks combined according to Professor Marc W. Herold at the Whittemore School of Business & Economics, in Durham, New Hampshire.
Parent
Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time? (Score:5, Informative)
>civilian casualties resulting from this war, but
>I'm somehow not sure I should take their word for
>it. Does anyone here know the read civilian death
>toll from the last Iraqi war?
I don't know the answer to your question, and for that I apologize, but I will offer this: In 1988 President Saddam Hussein ordered the destruction of the Iraqi city of the Halabja. Chemical weapons were used to contaminate the city. It was over in 2 hours. 5000 civilians were killed in that attack.
The bleeding hearts on this blog are making me ill. Hussein did in 2 hours what the US/coalition avoided in an entire war. And this was just one chemical attack. If the war lasted an entire year it is unlikely that as many civilians would be killed as those ordered to death by Hussein. I don't care what reasons Bush has for killing Hussein, but I have my own and so I wish the American president well.
Go here:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-
Read it. All of it.
Parent
Re:Doublespeak (Score:5, Insightful)
Iraq on the other hand was a chunk of land arbitrarily carved off the side of the crumbling Ottoman Empire -- for centuries it had been under the control of what is now Turkey. There are three major ethnic groups with no particular mutual loyalty. If it weren't for the Ba'ath party and Hussein's iron fist, the country probably would have falled apart decades ago. And even Hussein wouldn't have been able to remain in power for so long if it weren't for US support over the decades to prop up his regime as a bulwark against Iran.
In short, with Hussein gone there will be nothing holding Iraq together, and a lot of tensions pulling it apart.
So what then are the post war possibilities? Long term US military occupation to hold the country together? We could be there for decades. Spin down our involvement over time? If we leave the country weaker than it is today, it could end up being carved into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish regions by its neighbors -- Iran may invade the south to protect its own stability, just as Turkey may invade the north for similar reasons. The middle could either remain independent & feeble, or be absorbed by a neighbor.
So many things can go wrong. This is going to be a fucking nightmare for decades. When your kids ask why we're constantly occupying chunks of the middle east, and why we're constantly worried about new terrorist incidents, why nobody can afford to buy gasoline anymore, etc -- remind them that this was the night it all started. :-(
Here's hoping that history proves me wrong....
Parent
Re:It's about damn time (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, Bush is likely to lose re-election at this point.
Parent
Re:What does "supporting the troops" mean, exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Common sense says that the the soldiers out there who are risking their lives fighting for one's country are not the people who make the decisions to go to war; and, in fact, are probably not the most politically astute people, either. They're not responsible for the decision to fight, and they're compelled to do so on punishment of execution for desertion. They are mostly going to be ordinary people, probably some you might have gone to school with, or are the brothers and sisters and sons and daughters of people you know, or of your neighbors. They are, loosely speaking, kindred. They are merely tools in the execution of a political policy, and some of them will die for it. That alone is enough reason to morally support them, as individual human beings.
Of course, all this is probably true of the bulk of the enemy forces, as well. Except they're not kindred in any sense, and that makes all the difference. Whether it should or not is another question. But it does to most people.
The historical reason for this sort of expression from Americans, whether or not they oppose the war, has to do with the legacy of Vietnam. During Vietnam, many American protesters explicitly condemned all the US soldiers, and there were news photos and accounts of them being spit upon by protesters when they returned home. In the years after the war, there was a growing realization that--especially because of conscription--these soldiers were as often as not as much victims of the US war machine as anyone else. For liberals, there was a realization that it was the underclass, including many African-Americans, who disproportionately made up the young men that were conscripted into the military. There was also growing guilt by a portion of the anti-war left that avoided the draft through student deferrments and other loopholes. The end result was a legacy of shame for so villifying the young men who were conscripted and forced into a war that maimed them or took their lives. And so in the American psyche as a whole, there is now a strong desire--because of the common sense reasons I mention above and because of recent history--to be careful not to blame the soldiers for what their political bosses command them to do.
All that begs the question of the issue of when the line is crossed from doing what is considered "acceptable" in wartime, to comitting war crimes. There's no doubt that some US soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam, such as in the Mai Lai massacre. And, of course, other military forces at other times in recent history have committed atrocities. Clearly, they are not deserving of anyone's support. But I, for one, don't think that US forces are any more likely to commit a war crime than any one else, and, in fact, are better-than-average in this regard; so it seems to me to assume innocence until guilt is proven. So, in general, I support the US troops because I think they are blameless. Of course, if one is a pacifist, one may disagree.
In some sense I support the Iraqi troops, as well; except that, of course, they're trying to kill the US troops that I preferentially support. Wouldn't it be nice if only the people who actually create the conditions for a war and make the decisions about fighting the war were the ones to actually fight it? It has always seemed one of the most abhorrent aspects of war to me that the political masters who wage the war are hardly ever at any risk. And just regular folk--poor folk, usually--are the one's that actually pay the price for the decision with their lives. Hmm. It occurs to me that the political leaders on the losing side should have (or be forced to have) the honor to "fall on their swords". I wonder if Bush's own life were on the line if he would have pursued this war so aggressively. Somehow, I think not.
Parent