Strike on Iraq 4183
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.
PsyOps (Score:4, Informative)
The Iranian news agency is also reporting that there may be explosions on the peninsula near Basra. Tony Blair will be addressing the UK at 10:30 EST (3:30 AM GMT, I think).
PsyOps web style (Score:5, Funny)
prayers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:prayers (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy is a culture which can only be learned by experience in a long time. You can't just put democratic institutions into a country and expect it to work without some democratic seeds in minds.
We are trying to walk on this road in Turkey for the last 100 years and still have many flaws. This part of the world is tough. Think about this.
Re:prayers (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking as an American against the Iraq war, I also agree. Unfortunately, I don't think this is going to happen considering the "Shock and Awe" [google.com] tactics proposed.
I have friends and family that have been in the military, so consideration for our troops is a significant factor in my opposition to the war. The way I see it, our troops have 2 major risks:
If Hussein fears for his life I don't think he is above not using what little is left of his WOMD to take out the whole of Iraq, and all the troops massing the borders.
If the Iraqi citizens feel that our government is out to kill every last man woman and child, they are going to fight with a desperation. As the cliche goes, there is nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing to lose.
I've heard it said by people for the war that this is a war against Hussein, not the Iraqi people. If this is true, why are we proposing Shock and Awe? Why not just send in assasins? The Iraqi people are probably torn between which they hate more, Hussein, or the US Government, especially after 12 years of sanctions and repeated bombings. However, I don't think a lot of Iraquis would have a big problem with us taking out Hussein. They might even be able to forgive that our government put him into power and gave him all his nasty weapons.
Containment seemed a much more effective strategy then all out war. Scott Ritter says that 95% of Iraq's weapons have been accounted for. This means that only a small fraction are left. Hussein does not enough to go on the offensive, but if we attack he is almost certain to use what is left. And considering that most of his weapons came from the United States, and heavily subsidised by our tax dollars, I don't think it is likely he is going to get anywhere near his old strenght he had as a US Ally. So attacking Iraq is the strategic equivilant of hitting a bee hive with a baseball bat.
I was listening to Talk Radio on Sunday evening, and the host was compairing our then future war with Iraq, with Vietnam, and explaining how it is different. It is a lot different, but then I think a better analogy would be Somalia. In Somalia our politicians supported a despot for around 30 years. By the time US withdrew support for the fascist Somali government, they were carpet bombing their own cities.
Now, what is different is that the warloards overthrew the fascist government. But when American troops went in to feed them, the Somalis considered it insult to injury, because our politicians played a major part in their suffering. I've read that Iraqi citizens differentiate between the actions of a politician, and the citizens whom they rule. I hope that they can also differentiate between our soldiers and our politicians. And I hope that our soldiers remeber that this is supposed to be a war against Hussein, not Iraqi civilians.
Re:prayers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:prayers (Score:5, Insightful)
Would shouldn't have stopped the genocide in Bosnia because it was not on our soil?
Well, there is a huge difference between ending a war and starting one. This is what separates justified and unjustified military action.
Democratic nations... (Score:5, Insightful)
Democratic nations are entitled to defend themselves.
Iraq posses no verifiable threat against the US or the UK. Or do you think Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Russia and China, all closer to Iraq, are posturing against the US while under such a suppossed ominous threat?
Nah, the truth is that they know sure as hell that there is nothing to be afraid off.
Rumsfeld, Cheyney, American Century. That explains it all....
Re:prayers (Score:5, Insightful)
- Gas its own people
- Physically torture its national athletes when they fail
- Purposely place weapons near civilian facilites in hope of colleteral damage
- Spend its money on palaces while children starve
Re:prayers (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey did you know that Iraq only accounts for %3 of that?
Hey did you know the only reason we get _any_ oil from them is because of the oil 4 food program
Hey did you know that all oil on the planet is the same price no matter what country it comes from?
Hey did you know we could buy all the oil from Iraq we wanted, but we aren't a morally impotent country
like France who is funding Iraq dispite the laws _they_ put in place against such a thing?
I wanted to mod this down but the thread was too long.
How this got modded +5 is nothing less than insanity to me. And shows how uninformed people are.
Instead of their knee jerk reaction to bash America you should attempt to inform yourselvs on your
views instead of hearing it on BBC, CNN, FOX, ETC. accepting their bias view as your own.
If America puts in a fake government (they wont)is that so much worse than the puppet government already inplace?
France built a nuclear plant in Iraq, It's documented fact and it was destroyed by the Israeli's
China is the one who set up Iraq's communications system to disable GPS guided bombs, and the missles
lauched today at american troops from guess where?
Guess who Frances biggest trade partner is?
How about the 40 BILLION [cnn.com]dollar Russia/Iraq deal, not to mention the 7 billion they're already owed?
Notice a trend here yet?
Okay how about Germany being Iraq's #1 weapons supplier [dw-world.de]
I am only saying all this because It's obvious to me why there is anti-american rhetoric comming from all these countries (who funds [aim.org]those anyway?) THEY WANT TO GET RICH off a tyrant who gasses his people, starves them, A man who wants to take over the middle easts oil and defend it with the weapons from countries mentioned above. He thought he could do it in '91 with the worlds #6 ranked military.
well I've ranted enough already
Re:prayers (Score:5, Insightful)
These 500,000 kids that died...
Couldn't these kids have been saved via the oil-for-food program? The UN put into place after the end of Desert Storm a program that allowed Saddam to sell a limited quantity of his oil for food and medicine.
The US has been buying that oil. So have other countries.
Where did that money go, if not to keep those 500,000 children alive? Where did the money to build all those palaces come from, if Saddam couldn't afford food or water or medicine for his poor starving malnutritioned children?
Now in the last few months we find out that France and Russia have been engaged in deals with Iraq above and beyond the legal oil-for-food sales allowed by the UN. Where did THAT money go?
I'll accept the UN Coalition's responsibility for targetting water purification supplies in Desert Storm.
I will NOT accept that Saddam is blameless for spending his money on palaces and weapons rather than feeding his people.
How many children can you feed for the cost of ONE Al Samoud 2 missle? How about 120 of them?
-l
Re:prayers (Score:5, Informative)
Re:prayers (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Iraqi government had complied with the terms of the cease-fire they signed in March, 1991, the sanctions would have been lifted.
Saddam Hussein's aggression started this war; his defiance has allowed it to continue. Every civilian casualty, every last one, caused either directly by Coalition military action or indirectly by action or sanctions has been the responsibility of Saddam Hussein.
Very soon now, Saddam Hussein will no longer be in a position to cause any more harm to anyone.
Demonizing people (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (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!
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.Waiting (Score:5, Interesting)
I hate the war, but I support you (Score:5, Insightful)
It requires immense bravery to fight for your country, and I have a deep respect for anyone that does, I just wish the leaders of the country for which you are fighting actually deserved your loyalty.
Re:Waiting (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: Early weird news reports (Score:5, Insightful)
> BBC is extremely liberal by US standards. They won't even bother hiding it.
Why should anyone hide being liberal "by US standards"? Most of the political spectrum is "liberal" by US standards.
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)
Thankfully, we ARE! (Score:5, Informative)
Nuclear stockpiles continue to be reduced. The Treaty of Moscow, signed by Bush and Putin last summer and ratified by Congress this month, promises that another 2/3 of each nuclear stockpile be dismantled - the logical conclusion of decades of nuclear cuts.
As long as hostile nations continue to possess (or seek) nuclear arms, the rest will have several hundred as a deterrant... but we've all come a LONG way. NATO, Russia, China... none are inclined to ever use a nuke ever again. I expect to live to see the day it's down to 200 warheads or less, here...maybe I'll be very very old, but I expect it in my lifetime.
Re:I'm for the war... but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And how exactly does one use WMD for "defense only"? A weapon of mass destruction has only one purpose. It is interesting how the propaganda parrots do not hesitate to condemn Iraq's use of chemical weapons but always find a justification for US's use of nuclear weapons -- on a civilian population, mind you!
On the other hand, Sadam is a mad man and he has killed many of his own ppl.
With your support! Who the fuck do you think provided the chemical and biological weapons to Iraq? Why, it was the good old US of A! You give WMD to a madmen and what do you expect him to do with them?
Did US protest when Saddam used chemical weapons -- back in the 80's mind you? Did it issue a condemnation? Nope. For propaganda parrots to come out now -- almost 20 years since Saddam used the chemical weapons -- and codemn him is hypocritical beyond belief.
You see, back in the 80's Iraq was US's ally. At the time Iran's dictator -- whom CIA had installed back in 1953 -- had just been overthrown, so US needed someone to bitchslap Iran. Iraq was a convenient ally.Of course US military contractors did not hesitate to profit from the war by selling weapons to both sides...
Oh, and speaking of dictators, I wonder if the new democratic government of Iraq will be of the same sort of democracy that you brought to Iran (or Guatemala, or Chile, or...)
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.
Moderators: Please show restraint with mods here (Score:5, Insightful)
Afghanistan Exit Realized (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to quote Bill Maher [safesearching.com] to get my point going:
"As of this writing, the most depressing thing about war in Iraq was how easy it was to sell. Shouldn't it be a little harder than this to sell people a war? ... [and]how amazed I was that, of all the lies told by presidents in my lifetime, the one so many people couldn't get over, and which the media treats as the standard for mendacity, was: 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman.'
"Huge, astounding lies that affected each and every one of us in very real ways: that we were winning the war in Vietnam; that we weren't trading arms for hostages, and if we were it was a soldier's duty to lie about it; that global warming and marijuana needed more study before we could consider policy changes about them; that there'd be no new taxes; that Clarence Thomas was the most qualified person a nation of 250 million could find to sit on the Supreme Court...
"All these lies, all these giant, steaming-turd whoppers, and the one that broke the bank was 'Blow jobs aren't sex.' Wow, that's a stupid country."
Yes it is.
From Ted Rall [yahoo.com]: "Decades of budget cuts in education are finally yielding results, a fact confirmed by CNN's poll of March 16, which shows that an astonishing 51 percent of the public believe that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."
Monday night George W. Bush, our legally if not ethically elected leader stepped up in front of the world and told us that Iraq had "ties" to Al Qaeda (and thus WTC responsibility) and that he was a danger to the world, though nothing has ever been produced to prove this (But it's okay, there are some things the government doesn't need to explain fully, they need their secrets right?). Saddam was a danger to Kurds, Israelis, Iranians and Kuwiatis because our government helped gain him that power (the only thing about the Iraq-Contra affair that this country remembers is that a brave man in uniform with an honest face was grilled in front of a big mean Congressional panel).
Afghanistan? An exit strategy was thought up as soon as we went in, and Iraq was it. This is public record. (see current Mother Jones issue). Also see the archived streaming video debate [rcn.com][scroll down] on the Christopher Hitchens Web against Mark Danner.
Everyone involved in Bush's world going back decades has been involved in Oil. Everyone in his government holding any kind of power is involved in Oil. We now have bases spread from Kuwait to deep ex-Soviet Territory in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan.
Bush and his Puppeteers lied to us.
It's like we see but we don't see.
Putting up a bumper sticker or flag is our way of getting involved. Cafeteria Managers are renaming French fries. Major newspapers editorialize that the French are pissing on the graves of D-day soldiers. Most Americans don't approve a pre-emptive war, but since Bush's Monday speech his ratings are rocketing. Look, He's doing something. We're like predators only interesting in moving things, in action, overshadowing the consequences.
This is a stupid country.
In response to the pithy "then why don't you just leave" argument, I say:
Because it is the best going, and there's the logistics involved in repatriating. Also, I live on many different levels, in a community, a town, a state, a geography and ecosystem, in cyberspace. The notion of belonging to a nation is but one of many, but hardly my overarching modifier. Is America the best on its way down? Does being the freest nation on earth require colonial domination over the rest of the planet? If another country without the addiction to war and oil can offer the freedom
Here's a different perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
My parents didn't want to explain the dirty truths [gwu.edu] of the world to a little child. I had no idea that the bombs being dropped on my city were guided by America, but they were. I didn't know that the chemicals being used against my drafted uncles and cousins were provided to Iraq by America, but they were. I didn't know that my life was not as important as providing more oil for America, but I was not important. I am an American. I am an Iranian. I don't hate Iraqis. I don't hate Americans. I don't hate Saddam. I don't hate Bush. Hate is ignorance within fear. Fear is the mind killer [coker.com.au].
But all occupied people rebel against their occupiers. No matter how wonderful they may be treated, they will rebel. Not because they hate their occupiers. Not because "they hate our freedoms" [freecannon.com] as my fearless leader so arrogantly phrased it. They will rebel because they are Iraqis, not Americans.
Why did America support Iraq when it attacked Iran? Iran had the audacity to tell America to leave. Iran no longer wanted to be a puppet state, and Iran deserved to be punished for that. Iraq will be the same. Conquerors often cloak themselves as liberators.
It might be easy for the average American citizen to accept that this is a "Just War." But, for someone who has been on the receiving end of a missile, this coupling of words is a mockery of logic and respect for human life.
If you don't agree with me that is fine, but don't advocate war unless you feel so strongly that you are personally willing to run into a wall of enemy soldiers, armed with only a sword, knowing that you are going to die, and accepting it as the right thing to do. If you are not willing to do such a thing, then you do not truly believe that the fight is just.
But all that I just wrote is pointless because the spice must flow.
Please check other news sources than CNN!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
You may hear other sides, different perspectives, maybe things will start to sound really complicated, but thats how it is in the world.
The last media you should trust is your own. No matter where you're from.
War is HELL (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, no American (unless he has been in war) should express their opinions on war at all since their country has not seen a real war on its soil for a long time. My home country has suffered in quite a few wars, never willingly, and we've almost always lost because we are a small nation. We know the real meaning of war.
We know that war is not about brave faces on a TV screen, not about hi-tech and shiny metal.
War is about homes being destroyed, people crawling on the streets using only their arms because they have lost their legs, and children being burned alive.
And there is absolutely no justification for that as long as there are any alternatives.
There will be many many crimes on the soul of American government tonight.
Re:War is HELL (Score:5, Insightful)
It certainly worked for Chamberlain in 1939, almost as well as it worked for the Tutsi in Rwanda. I'm sure they're delighted that the USA Administration of the time was too gutless and scared of the polls to step in and stop what was KNOWN to be happening. Ah, besides, they were all brown-skinned anyway, right?
War is abhorrent. War is also sometimes necessary to stop a greater evil.
If, in 1938, the US or Britain had said "hey, this new democratically-elected leader of Germany is a psychopath. Everything he says is based in hatred, he's a bully, he's disregarded, evaded, and finally ignored the Versailles disarmament restrictions. He *must* be removed." There would have been worldwide hand-wringing and worry about the 'costs of war'. Well, the final tally ended up higher.
A modern-day Hitler wouldn't NEED millions of troops, marching armies, and years of conquest. Weapons of mass-destruction make warfare quick and devastating.
(And before all of you roll your eyes "here's another conservative American comparing Saddam to Hitler", well yeah, I am. I'm not sure how Hitler scores higher on the totalitarian brutal genocidal dictator scale - maybe more industrially efficient, perhaps? But if Hussein ISN'T as bad as Hitler, is he an ok guy if he's only, say 0.8"Hitlers"? 0.65"Hitlers"? What's your personally acceptable level of brutal dictatorship?)
Damn Dupes! (Score:5, Funny)
The Former British Foreign Secretary's resignation (Score:5, Interesting)
Robin Cook saw this secret intel, was not convinced, and his resignation speech is (for me) an extremely eloquent explanation of why this war is *NOT* justified, and why it has done severe and possibly irreparable damage to western relations.
The speech is here:here [bbc.co.uk] but I've cut and pasted it below:
Karma Burn (Score:5, Interesting)
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Iraq 2003-????
Does anyone have any omissions? Does anyone have a similar list that dates to the Founding of The USA? Any "non-bombing" missions?
One further note, to Non-Americans: Im Canadian, I live on the border, I can tell you without a doubt that Americans* are COMPLETELY out of control. They are myopic and ignorant. Watching CNN is about 1% of what its like in the street. These people *REALLY* believe that it is their RIGHT to do this, that they are special in the world, that opposition is manafest 'jealousy' - they BELIEVE this tripe about "terrorists hating their Freedom"... its like a bad, surreal movie.
Like Nazi Germnay before the invasion of Poland, Americans* are completely and absolutely drunk with Nationalism, Jingoism and Arrogance (its amazing) to the point that Im scared (literally) for the future of Canada and the world. This Iraq effort is the natural progression of American Empire, of 250 years of American history.
If Iraq manages a retalitory strike on American Soil, they are going to start WWIII (nuke Iraq off the planet - the citizens will be all for it).
An interesting Notice to Americans: Listen to this PLEASE and THINK ABOUT IT. [mac.com]
*That I work with, that my wife works with and that Ive spoken to. Im not generalizing - i live in Windsor - this is the most busy border in NorthAmerica, the two cities literally live together.
Canadian Apology to America (Score:5, Funny)
On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.
I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but, it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.
I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own.
I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours.
I'm sorry we burnt down your White House during the War of 1812. I notice you've rebuilt it! It's very nice. I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but, we feel your pain.
I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.
And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this - We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.
Thank you.
Re:the draft (Score:5, Insightful)
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
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.
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*.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
Re:And today (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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?
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.
Re:And today (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And today (Score:5, Insightful)
He had help [washingtonpost.com].
I really wish the US would admit to its own involvement in the atrocities we are supposedly invading over. The air of moral superiority makes me wanna puke. As a US citizen, I'll root for the guys stuck fighting this "war" for us, but I think the proclaimed reason to invade is a sham.
If the sole reason to remove Saddam comes from his posession and use of WMD, we should have removed him from power 2 decades ago. If Iraq's support of terrorism is our reason, there are at least a dozen other countries we should have hit already.
There are lots of reasons to attack Iraq and remove Saddam, but if we're attacking just because of some chemical weapons and ties to terrorism, we are ignoring both US history and current world events by focusing just on Iraq.
WRONG! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WRONG!-- And (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a real issue here though. Personally I am deeply opposed to this war, and I think that if the Bush Administration could make any more real diplomatic blunders.... well, thank god this isn't the cold war. This could get far more ugly than many people think if diplomacy is further botched (say if Turkey moves troops into Northern Iraq).
However, now that it has started, I think the focus needs to be on the Iraqi people. This means that I am willing to reserve my judgement until I see the Bush Administration backing down on his promises he has made to the Iraqi people. Any time these promises are not upheld, I will be the first to criticize the government. But it will be far worse for everyone (Europe, US, Iraq, etc.) if we abort the war right now and don't fulfill these promises. Of course it will be even worse if we in the military war, but face deep insurgencies by the people. That is the worst way things could go.
Re:WRONG!-- And (Score:5, Insightful)
> be the first to criticize the government.
Then you can start with Afghanistan. Remember those grandiose promises of democracy and rebuilding? Well, last week Bush sent Karzai home mostly empty-handed. And it seems we're only hanging around Afghanistan in the hope of catching some more of Bin Laden's thugs. I don't see much rebuilding of any kind going on, and certainly no financial aid that would do the original promises any justice. What reason is there to think that Iraq will be any different?
Re:WRONG! (Score:5, Interesting)
Face it: Bush has engineered the situation to justify a war.
Re:WRONG! (Score:5, Informative)
But if you want to play it that way, let's have the full, accurate list shall we? And let's just see where these countries are today...
France 1942-45 Republic
Germany 1942-45 Federal republic
Belgium 1942-45 Parliamentary democracy
Netherlands - 1944-45 Free
Italy 1943-45 Republic
Japan 1942-45 constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government
China 1945-46 Free from Japanese, conquered by communist dicatorship.
Korea 1950-53 Republic, see South Korea
China 1950-53 Communist tyranny
Guatemala 1954 Constitutional republic
Indonesia 1958 Republic
Cuba 1959-60 NO BOMBS community tyrants take over
Guatemala 1960 Constitutional republic
Congo 1964 Thank the Belgians
Peru 1965 Constitutional republic
Laos 1964-73 Communist tyrany
Vietnam 1961-73 Communist tyranny, and how about them French?
Cambodge 1969-70 Multi-party democracy
Guatemala 1967-69 Constitutional republic
Grenade 1983 Constitutional monarchy with Westminster-style parliament
Lybia 1986 - Dictatorship
El Salvador 1980s - Republic
Nicaragua 1980s -Republic
Panama 1989 - Republic
Iraq 1991-99 - Give us time
Sudan 1998 - Authoritarian regime
Afghanistan 1997-2002 - Republic
It's a pretty great list. In fact, it looks like getting bombed by the U.S. is a great way to end up with a free country.
Re:WRONG! (Score:5, Insightful)
Possibly. Then again, perhaps so did the US. Until now the US were careful never to piss off more nations than they could handle. But this time it seems the whole world is pissed. The so-called coalition of the willing consists of three types of nations: those run by right-wing administrations (Italy, Spain, Denmark), those bought off with US money or influence (eastern Europe), plus the UK and Australia, who have yet to defy the US. None of these administrations have popular support at home. For this "war" that won't matter, but after the respective next elections, W will have much fewer friends in the world.
Re:WRONG! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well thats easy when your definition of what is right is whatever it is your doing at the time.
even when their "allies" capitulate in the face of danger.
Wha... you think france is opposed to this because they are afraid of iraq. you think canada is afraid of iraq. you think germany is afraid of iraq. if they aren't fighting the big bad iraq it must be because they don't see it as the face of danger or they aren't afraid if it is. capitulate to what.
and remember these are countries (except canada) that have had their fair share of terrorist action over the years. so its not as if they don't understand the potential threat.
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".
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.
Re:And today (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:And today (Score:5, Insightful)
Iraq HAS Weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq HAS violated the terms of the Cease Fire from the end of the 1st Gulf War
Iraq HAS ejected weapons inspectors in the past when they were 'inconvinient'
Iraq HAS been given twelve years to disarm
And guess what? It's none of out business! Name 1 time that Iraq has attacked the USA? Wars to prevent wars are complete foolishness.
The United Nations HAS noticed that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction.
The United Nations HAS passed resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm.
The United Nations HAS noticed that Iraq has been thumbing his nose at the world body for over a decade.
The United Nations HAS shirked its responsibility in dealing with Iraq's abrogration of its obligations under UN resolutions.
And the United Nations HAS the United States as a permanent Security Council member.
So where the FUCK do you see that this is none of our business?
You logic is totally falacious. We're part of a world body that is supposed to be designed to maintain the world peace. There have been specific resolutions demanding that Iraq disarm. We are merely enforcing the resolutions that the UN doesn't have the balls to do itself. Yes, starting a war to maintain the peace may sound paridoxical, but what do you suggest we do instead? Give me some solid suggestions for alternate actions. I think it's a telling point that, despite all the nauseating rheteric from France, Russia, and China over the US using force, I have not seen a single article yet citing any of these countries calling for a condemnation of the US for its actions. I'll bet they are simply quietly hoping that the US will bust Saddam's butt and be done with it.
I DON'T like the fact that war is the final answer here. I don't like it one bit. But sometimes that's all you're left with. If the allies had moved against Hitler when he made his outrageous demands in Europe leading to the Munich Pact, we might not have had the heinous war that we did when we finally did move against him.
And before someone bites my butt or mods me into oblivion for comparing Hitler to Saddam, I am NOT. I am comparing the SITUATION, not the PEOPLE.
Re:FLAMEBAIT MY ARSE (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
"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.
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.
Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror" (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, after WWII we encouraged home rule. There haven't been any "official" wars since then. And the parent said "in the last 50 years" which WWII wasn't. Not exactly "consistant."
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: [...]
I can add to that.
What about the military supplies and technology we sold / are continuing to sell to Israel?
What about our intermittent cruise-missile attacks into Afghanistan and Iraq, even during "peace time"? (I don't care whether they were shot at "terrorists," most of them didn't hit terrorists).
If you want to look back a bit further, what about arming Muslim fundamentalists (including bin Laden) to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan? They thought we would help rebuild the country, but we left them in ruins. Iran / Iraq war? Basically the same thing. Afghanistan, part 2? Same thing again. And what are we going to do this time around? The very same, unless Bush has a sudden change of heart. History repeats itself.
The US, with a VOLUNTEER Armed Force, can beat any 12 other nations, even if they have help from France and Germany.
A war between two industrialized, democratic countries would be just about the worst thing that could happen short of a nuclear war. Even if the terrorists blew up New York, it would be better than fighting France.
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.
Conduit, nothing. If Saddam has any clue how to play his hand, he's already given plenty of VX and C4 to al Qaeda. Until the war started, they couldn't use them for fear of retaliation. But now, it's free-for-all...
Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror" (Score:5, Insightful)
Try to smoke a joint in public and you will see how "FREE" the U.S. really is...
Go to Iraq and try to loudly and publicly criticize the government, and you'll understand the difference between freedom and the lack of criminal statutes. Whether you agree with the drug laws or not, at least in the US you're free to have, express, publish and even lobby for your opinion, and if you succeed in convincing enough people that you're right, the law will bend your way.
We in the US have lost some of our freedoms to the various Wars on X, and that's a damned shame, and something we need to get fixed, but our fundamental freedoms are intact. Arguably, there are other nations in the world whose people are more free in many ways than we are, at the moment, but they learned it from us. Hopefully we can learn it back.
When I hear Americans lamenting that they're not free, I just chalk it up as yet more proof our school system sucks, particularly in the area of civics. The important freedoms, we have; the minor ones, we need to regain.
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.
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?
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.
Re:First war post! (Score:5, Informative)
We finally get to see a few good battles without the risk of being there.
People have been trying to watch people getting killed in battles since the Civil War when some people carried picnic lunches and alcohol to watch the Union fight the Rebels at the Battle of Bull Run (Sharpsburg).
Re:First war post! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First war post! (Score:5, Funny)
My fave was the BBC graphics early on in 9/11:
T he
W ar
A gainst
T error
They kept it up for a good few hours before anyone noticed.
cLive ;-)
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.
Hey You Win! (Score:5, Funny)
(Score:5, Troll) Sweet!
-Sean
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.
My reply to michael moore (Score:5, Insightful)
As you do, I oppose the current war with Iraq. So we're in agreement on that point. I also consider President Bush rather incompetent as a President, and greatly wish he was not currently in office. So we're in agreement on that point as well. I consider the UN important, and France an important ally, and deplore the various attacks on both of them by the current administration. So we agree on that too.
However, your "Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War" is the most juvenile piece of tripe I have had the misfortune of reading in the past few days at the least. It consists of very little but ad hominem attacks on President Bush and recounting of the 2000 Florida election debacle. Justified though any such ad hominem attacks may be, they do nothing to present coherent reasons for opposing the war in Iraq; they are mere vitriol, and nothing more. As an actual opponent of war in Iraq, I would ask people like yourself, who do nothing to add to reasonable discourse on the issue, to please refrain from speaking until you have something intelligent to say. As it is, you make the rest of us look bad. Worse, the rest of the public tends to associate reasonable opponents of the war with people such as yourself (or perhaps even the "no war but the class war" nutjobs at rallies), and thus they tend to dismiss the anti-war people out of hand as a bunch of wacky hippies who have an unreasonable personal hatred for Bush. Giving the anti-war movement such an image does a disservice to the cause you claim to support.
So I would like to request that you refrain from any further idiocy. Unless perhaps you become conservative. In that case, please redouble your efforts; another Rush Limbaugh is just what we need to discredit the Republicans. But a Democratic Rush Limbaugh is something we certainly do not need.
Thank you for your consideration,
[Trepidity]
---
write mike@michaelmoore.com if you feel similarly.
Re:Typical Leftist "bovine scatology" (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) As others have pointed out: No Iraq-Al Qaeda link. No matter how far they stretched it.
(2) Bush Sr. & Regan funded & fucked the mujhadeen in Afghanistan, etc. They funded & assisted Saddam Hussein. Don't forget the Iraq invaded Kuwait with American hardware.
(3) You think the 3,000+ dead think an unjustified, immoral, illogical war should be waged in their names?
(4) Michael Moore went toe-to-toe with Clinton on a lot of issues. Why do you think he backed Nader.
Re:Typical Leftist "bovine scatology" (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless I'm wrong in my assumption that you didn't lose a family member that day, you have no right to speak for her or her brother or people like them who were directly affected by 9/11.
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.
Even MORE vehement positions (Score:5, Interesting)
> people hold vehement positions even though they don't follow the news
Scarier is that this Slashdot discussion is refreshingly civil compared to what I've encountered the last few days! Last Sunday I released a version of Nmap [insecure.org] and included a very short peace plea at the top of the announcement. I received well over 50 replies. While a few people such as Ilan Meller of Israel and Amir Safayan from Iran for presenting reasoned cases for preemptive action against Iraq, most of the replies were the worst flamage I've seen in years!
For suggesting that perhaps Bush could have been a little more patient with the UN & weapons inspectors, one person said I am "obviously a terrorist". Another concluded that Nmap "is spyware to spy on the american people." Chet from Hotmail explained that we must attack because "the religion of Islam seeks to destroy the USA". Jason from CMITexas said "Stick it up your ass! .... You are another resentful
European loser. I demand an answer now asshole!!!!" Another crazy
Texan said "Iraq will bow to the most powerful nation in the world and
you will stand by and observe. Your representatives are powerless
against gods chosen nation. No country has the power or the intellect
to do anything about it." Guys: I am a proud US Citizen residing in
California -- please tailor your invective appropriately.
Fortunately I sent out a second mail [insecure.org] yesterday which noted the flames above and also clarified my points. I was quite gratified that this one already has elicited more than 220 replies, with 95% being civil! Many still disagree with me, but at least they respected my right to have and express my beliefs. It restored some of my faith in humanity (or at least in Nmap users). I can appreciate alternative views too. What frustrates me are the people who believe Saddam is linked with Al Qaeda or a bigger threat to the US than North Korea only because Bush says so.
I wish I had time right now to go through the hundreds of mails and piece together some of the very best arguments on each side. But I guess /. has no dearth of comments already :). So I'll just leave you with a few links I found interesting or funny ;).
And on a completely different (and much happier) note, I am pleased to announce just-released version 3.20 of the Nmap Security Scanner [insecure.org]. It is the first "stable" release since last July and contains hundreds of improvements (release notes) [insecure.org])
--Fyodor
Re:The only thing war has ever done is... (Score:5, Funny)
You know, it's people like you with defeatist attitudes like that who drag this country down.
Instead of complaining that something's "hard", or "impossible", or "unthinkable", why not set some goals, roll up your shirt-sleeves, and get to work?! If we all pull together and work honestly and hard at it, you'd be surprised at what we could accomplish! I'll bet we could kill every single person on the face of the earth in, say, six months tops.
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.
Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time? (Score:5, Informative)
She was fired by the Bush administration shortly thereafter.
Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Btw, note that the last war didn't involve any urban warfare at all, it was mostly in the desert. This time, it is probably going to be in city of 5 million, probably meaning 6-digit civilian casualties. This is very very hard to justify by any means, and not even counting all the people who are going to be disabled or lose their homes.
Somehow, I am very doubtful about this war buying anything positive for America. You know, once your children have been killed by bombs, you really don't buy the arguments that it brought you "freedom" and was for your own good.
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.
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.
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....
Rebuilding? Like we rebuilt Guatemala? Iran? (Score:5, Interesting)
- Guatemala: urged by the United Fruit Company (outraged that the democratically elected socialist government was going to take their land, paying them exactly what they originally paid for it), we engineer a coup d'etat, installing a repressive dictatorship who proceed to kill and torture political opponents for the next 30 years. The U.S. continues to pour millions of dollars of support to the dictatorships. Only recently has Gautemala emerged from the long shadow of this brutal regime which was supported almost exclusively by the U.S. government.
- Chile: After a socialist government is democratically elected (and mismanages for a couple of years), we support Pinochet and his military junta in a coup d'etat. The military dictatorship, under guise of fighting communism, establish a brutal police state, torturing and "disappearing" political opponents (labeled Marxists and including American citizens) for the next two decades. The U.S., again pours millions of dollars of support into the dictatorship. You know the rest.
- Vietnam: The American backed South Vietnamese government reneges on a promise to hold national elections (fearful that Ho Chih Mihn might actually win a fair election) and civil war breaks out. The U.S. attempts to prop up the repressive South Vietnamese government with money and advisors, eventually, sending American troops into battle against the Viet Cong (South Vietnamese rebels) and the N.V.A. The U.S. is supported by many troops from Canada, ANZAC and the R.O.K. Millions of people are killed in the conflict before the U.S. withdraws its troops. You know the rest.
- Iran: After the democratically elected government takes steps to nationalize the oil industry, the CIA engineers a coup, where the Shah of Iran replaces a Constitutional Monarchy. The Shah, while stealing billions of dollars from the country, represses political freedom so fiercely that it political dissent squirts into the only haven it has, extremist religion. The formerly unpopular religious extremists gain thousands of converts, they overthrow the Shah and kidnap the American Embassy. You know the rest.
- Iraq: Pissed off at the betrayal of Iran (and unable to muster the balls to outright declare war on Iran after the specter of Vietnam), we support Saddam Hussein with materiel and money, as long as he continues his war against Iran. We turn a blind eye to his use of chemical weapons as long as he continues this war. You know the rest.
- Afghanistan:... nevermind, look it up for yourself, how we trained, armed and supported the extremists who created the core of Al Qaeda. The chickens coming home to roost indeed.
All of this is well documented and easily verifiable by reading some modern history books or googling around on the web. I would say that our record of "rebuilding" countries into democracies (especially when large corporate interests area involved) is about as shitty as it gets. The cynic in me wants to say that the only reason that Japan and Germany succeeded in becoming democracies was because they had no natural resources for post-war American companies to exploit. Hence there was no need for the U.S. to go in and "intervene". BTW, those same democracies appose our unilateral attack on Iraq.Re:It's about damn time (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, Bush is likely to lose re-election at this point.
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.
Re:Does anyone find it odd... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Defying the UN (Score:5, Insightful)
A fair question. The answer is very long, but the short version is this: Iraq is in defiance of the United Nations, but the United States and our parters are not.
In 1991, after the Coalition forced Iraqi troops out of Kuwait, Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement that has come to be known as the Safwan Accords. (Safwan was the closest town to the random point in the desert where the generals from both sides met.) One of the terms of the Safwan Accords was that Iraq would comply with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions to reestablish peace in the region.
On April 3, 1991, the UN Security Council (UNSEC) passed resolution 687 which, among other things, called for Iraq to produce, within 15 days, a complete and accurate declaration of all their chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and weapons programs as well as all ballistic missiles capable of flying more than 150 kilometers. Resolution 687 further demanded that Iraq, having made that declaration, then submit to the verifiable destruction of everything included in that declaration under the watchful eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM).
Iraq never did make that declaration. They spent the next twelve years diddling around. They never complied, even partially, with resolution 687.
Now, UN resolutions come in three flavors. General Assembly resolutions and resolutions adopted by UNSEC under chapter VI of the UN Charter are not enforceable; the Charter provides no legal authority for any party, inside or outside of the UN, to enforce those resolutions. But UNSEC resolutions adopted under chapter VII are enforceable. The Charter calls on the member states of the Security Council to enforce chapter VII resolutions when the Security Council authorizes it.
UNSEC resolution 678-- not to be confused with 687-- authorized the members of the Security Council to use all necessary means to force Iraqi occupation forces out of Kuwait, and to enforce all relevant resolutions both existing and subsequent to resolve the conflict. Resolution 678 was adopted under chapter VII; the members of the Council were not only authorized to enforce it, they were actually obligated by the UN Charter.
So the situation in late 1991 was that there was a binding, enforceable UNSEC resolution on the books (687) with which Iraq was not in compliance, and another resolution (678), also binding and enforceable, obligating the members of the Council to use all necessary means to enforce that resolution.
Did anybody use military force during that period? Yes and no. The Coalition threatened Iraq regularly, and attacked Iraq on several occasions, most notably in December, 1998, during Operation Desert Fox. These threats and attacks were all perfectly legal, because of resolutions 678 (authorizing force) and 687 (with which Iraq was not in compliance).
Recently, certain members of the Council have expressed an unwillingness to pass another resolution explicitly authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. That's okay; we don't need one, because 678 already extends that authorization. Nobody on the Council has even so much as suggested trying to rescind resolution 678, so that mandate is still in effect.
Nor has any member of the Council suggested a resolution condemning the Transatlantic Alliance-- the United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain-- for their actions in this war.
The net result? Iraq is in blatant defiance of the United Nations, but the United States and our partners in the Alliance are not. In fact, according to the resolutions we have on paper tonight, the United States is, in fact, acting with the full authorization and sanction of the Security Council.
Don't be too surprised if you hear talk about changing that situation with another UNSEC resolution in the next few days. But then again, Germany, Russia, and China are already giving us their tacit support in private, and France knows which side their croissant is buttered on, so don't be too surprised if you don't.
Re:Just because ... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the whole "violations of the Iraqi people's basic human rights", that is an internal affair of a sovreign nation. I don't see that we have invaded any other countries that have in that past commited random acts of agression, have weapons of mass distruction and/or commited acts of human rights abuse against their own people, and that list is quite long: China, Japan, Russia (the entire USSR and Soviet block), India, USA, Colombia, Cuba, the list goes on.