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.
And today (Score:2, Insightful)
prayers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And today (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
About time. (Score:-1, Insightful)
Re:the draft (Score:5, Insightful)
Doublespeak (Score:4, Insightful)
The "opening stages" of military action against Iraq have begun, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer announced Wednesday night.
I don't have a degree in Doublespeak, but I did take some of it in high school. In non-Beltway words, the "opening stages" of a vast military assault against a hopelessly undertrained and underequipped military are now underway.
My thoughts go out to all the involved combatants, American and Iraqi, and for anyone else who may come to harm. May this war be as brief and as painless as it can be made; and may we succeed afterward in rebuilding Iraq the way we succeeded in rebuilding Japan and Germany after World War II.
Remember this day (Score:1, Insightful)
Remember our troops (those from the coalition of the willing).
And don't forget those nations who, while agreeing that the Iraqi leader violated 17 UN resolutions demanding that he disarm himself of WMD, were willing to put their own selfish interest ahead of that of the people of Iraq, its neighbors, and the world at large.
This is a day of soberness and courage.
the ILLEGAL war has begun (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
It will not be over by summer (Score:4, Insightful)
That is, while Saddam will be gone by summer, US troops will have to be there forever, and they are likely to find themselves under guerilla attack from various factions who don't accept US rule.
Re:And today (Score:2, Insightful)
First war post! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not How its Supposed To Be (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not necessarily the war yet (Score:4, Insightful)
It is still possible to protest the war but support the troops. Remember that those troops are over there so the protesters CAN protest.
WAR IS COMING (Score:0, Insightful)
I believe in those foretold prophecies of doom
They say the end is close, it's coming fast
Not every single one of us is gonna last
So, stand and fight or kill yourself right now
It'll be one less motherfucker to kill
Skin shot, burned, stabbed, scorched and torn
This pain is real - you can't ignore...
War is coming
Arm yourself with the right to kill at will
Shoot to kill it's them or you
Time to choose, time to choose or die
Blood's pouring from the hole in your side
Take the pain - it'll focus and strengthen you
Take the pain - or your life's fuckin' through
Face the pain - let it become part of you
Take the pain
War is coming
Prepare yourself for the worst it's coming soon
I believe in those foretold prophecies of doom
They say the end is close, it's coming fast
Not every single one of us is gonna last
So, stand and fight or kill yourself right now
It'll be one less motherfucker to kill
Skin shot, burned, stabbed, scorched and torn
This pain is real - you can't ignore...
War is coming
WAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Re:And today (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about damn time (Score:2, Insightful)
And how long, I wonder, before the next dictator and his thugs are in place.
FLAMEBAIT MY ARSE (Score:0, 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.
Re:And today (Score:2, Insightful)
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: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?
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.
The only thing war has ever done is... (Score:2, Insightful)
May God Bless our/the US troops. Right or wrong, I'm behind our "troops" 100%.
Let's all hope for minimal casualties...
Re:Not necessarily the war yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not necessarily the war yet (Score:2, Insightful)
Support the troups. Bring them home!
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.
Re:First war post! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not a troll: How many civilians died last time? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, I would think it'd be relatively low, what with all the expensive gagetry we're using nowadays.
Re:And today (Score:3, Insightful)
And as such, he gets to dictate as much as he wants within his own borders? Right?
Not that I'm all for the horrors you mentioned but Iraq didn't do anything (that I'm aware of) to provoke the US.
People keep calling this a war when in fact its just a plain old INVASION. The Iraqi military is a farce and will offer next to no resistance to the US troops.
Just my $0.02
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:Not necessarily the war yet (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm from Australia and we (unfortunately) are also involved in this mindless war. I don't think we should be going anywhere without a UN mandate but _of course_ I wish our troops all the best.
Incidentally many of our troops have openly said they don't support the war on a personal level but they respect that fact that it's up to the elected representatives to decide and they are prepared to do their duty. Are you going to accuse our troops of being against themselves?
Moron.
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:PsyOps (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not necessarily the war yet (Score:2, Insightful)
"Support our boys in Vietnam. Send them home."
KFG
Prayers (Score:2, Insightful)
First Gulf war killed 1.5 millions of them.
Re:Doublespeak (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hope America pays dearly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Saddest Day In American History (Score:0, Insightful)
And you're not the majority. Thank the Gods for that.
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant. He's used biological and chemical weaponry time and time again. He's had twelve years to disarm. He's continually attempted to shoot down allied fighters patrolling the no-fly zone.
He had his own relatives shot. His sons rape and pillage in Baghdad. Iraqi people are starving, while he's building mosques and giant statues, that he might put his own name on them.
The man needs to be removed. And if we're the only country with the balls to do it, so be it.
Read the Declaration of Independence sometime. If you can't figure out why we're attacking Iraq, you should spend some more time in a third-grade history class.
Mommy's Skirts (Score:2, Insightful)
For years, Mommy (The UN) has been saying "Wait until your father gets home! He's gonna be mad!" and Jr. (Saddam) has just said, "Oh yeah? What's he gonna do to me?"
Now suddenly, Daddy's home. And guess what, Junior is gonna get punished for misbehaving. Now where's Junior? Hiding behind Mommy's skirts saying, "Don't let him hurt me and I PROMISE I won't do it again. And this time I REALLY MEAN IT!"
We've put up with his broken promises and his lies for 12 years. He's violated 17 sperate UN resolutions. He's continued building stockpiles of chemical and biological warfare weapons. He's evil. And he needs to go.
Support our troops by BRINGING THEM HOME (Score:1, Insightful)
"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.
a very sad day (Score:3, Insightful)
My thoughts on this entire episode...
There's always going to be war.
Peace is not a natural state for human beings. It has to be courted, it has to be persued. People easily grow complacent without strife, and thus the efforts for peace begin to seem unnecessary and burdensome.
Hopefully this doesn't cost us, and I mean all of us, as much as past conflicts.
Re:About time. (Score:3, Insightful)
It didn't solve anything because Bush SR only had our troops kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait -- once Kuwait was liberated, our job was done. Bush wanted to kick Saddam's ass, but the political situation didn't allow him to. This is different than in '91 -- I remember watching the war start live on the evening news -- they were talking to their correspondant in Bagdad and he said all was quiet. They were just about ready to break away when he started hearing explosions. They stayed on the story the rest of the night. This looks like a single bombing (so far...) as I look live I don't see any active bombing at the moment (22:35 EST)...
This time it's for keeps...
Re:Not necessarily the war yet (Score:3, Insightful)
True, you can't protest the potential war anymore but you can still express your displeasure in the fact that there is a war.
I have no problems with people protesting the US presence in Iraq but the troops should never be disrespected (like many were after/during Vietnam).
Mind you, I'm not a tree hugging hippy chick (or dude) but in a democratic nation...being able to express your displeasure with the administrations current policies is what makes the US a great nation.
So to recap....
Both supporters and dissenters of the war should be able to experss their opinions, but both groups should support the troops 100%.
Spin (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish the media would get off their knees long enough enough to report events the way they are as opposed to the way the news is handed to them. The word "assasination" can apply to actions taken by US officials, even if they choose not to describe their actions that way.
-Lux
Re:Not necessarily the war yet (Score:3, Insightful)
I support our troops. I hope and pray that none of them come home in a body bag.
Please pray for my son.
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.
Re:dang (Score:1, Insightful)
Ask France; they support every single one of them: Mugabe, Rawlings, Arap Moi, Obasanjo, et al.
WRONG! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GWB is a tool. (Score:2, Insightful)
And here is my Bush bash:
Right-wing Texan Fundementalist Christian on a Crusade; an alcoholic, coke-raddled, chimp IQ'ed, dupe of the even more rabid and dangerous Cheyney and Rumsfeld, who've been slavvering for a war for a decade.
I wonder if Georgey-boy (the "W" stands for Warmonger) used his Christian "affiliations" to peddle a moral crusade to Poodle-boy Blair?
Whatever they're really thinking (and I believe Rumsfeld is on the record as saying that this is just the start of America's vision for converting the the world as it now is, into one more befitting his (no doubt divine) vision,) this is the end of the UN, and the end of the rule of law.
Hell, the fella was even pressing for the use of chemical weapons ("calmatives," pepper spray and CS Gas - all banned under International Law) because when the US wants to do something, it's OK, and the White House only has the best intentions, yada yada.
This is a return to "Might Is Right," and George with his Born Again Christian moral certitude, is the greatest threat to peace and stability in this age.
The greatest damage that will take place because of this invasion of Iraq, will not be the thousands killed, or those whose lives are devistated by the effects of dispersed particles of Depleted Uranium, for generations to come, it will be the damage that is caused to what constitutes lawful behaviour by nation states against other nation states for... well, who knows for how long.
George has pissed the good will and sympathy the US had after 9-11, up the wall, and damn him that.
Damn him for all his deluded visions of himself as Churchill, and damn him for deluding (apparently) a good proportion of the US public, with the help of his corrupt media friends.
And people wonder how Nazi fucking Germany got it's people all singing from the same hymn sheet: name an enemy, lie and lie and lie about them, and go in for the kill, for the protection of the people.
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:The only thing war has ever done is... (Score:3, Insightful)
And the only way you will defeat terrorism is to kill every single person on the face of the earth.
After all, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
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*.
It's about time. (Score:0, Insightful)
Fun facts to know and tell:
Although it is unclear how far their development has progressed, Saddam has been proven to have a nuclear weapons program.
Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other nation in history. Over 1.2 Million Iraqi civilians (more than EIGHT percent of the population of Iraq) has been killed at the hands of Iraq. There is no family in Iraq that hasn't lost a friend or relative to Saddam's murderous behavior.
This is not a preemptive strike. Saddam's forces have fired on US planes in the no fly zones on numerous occasions. In addition, Saddam's regime funds and harbors Al Queda and other terrorise groups.
It is illegal, punishable by death, to belong to any other political party than the Bath (sp?) party which is that of Saddam.
Children as young as 3 years old are bombarded with Pro-Saddam propaganda in their schools. Their first words of English which they learn are words of love and praise for Saddam.
This war is long overdue. Anyone who doesn't agree that Saddam needs to be removed from power is either a communist, a terrorist, or just plain stupid. The leaders of the US have been trying to resolve this peacefully for many years. Saddam is obviously a mad man who can not be reasoned with; he must be eliminated by force.
God be with our Troops and with the non-agressive civilians of Iraq.
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 necessarily the war yet (Score:3, Insightful)
It absolutely has not passed. Dissent is not disloyalty. and supporting troops has nothing to do with supporting war. Supporting troops means that when they come home, they don't come home to people calling them baby-killers and crap like that.
If going to war means that once action starts that all voice of dissent must cease, then who will take up the call to stop war when its time? You want to hand bush a blank check to continue making war on iraqi-style regimes wherever they may be? How about we go to Colombia and take up this war on terrorism against the drug cartels and FARC? Or any of two dozen african countries ruled by dictators who hold power through thuggery and murder?
no, now more than ever, the time for protest has not passed.
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:The only thing war has ever done is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And today (Score:4, Insightful)
You call violation of 18 resolutions to be unjustified?
Re:And today (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:And today (Score:3, Insightful)
If you go to great lengths to stifle it or denounce the person, you're one step closer to becoming them.
"Support the troops"? (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought "I was just following orders" was considered by most to be a poor excuse for committing immoral acts. One example of this is statements by Nazi soliders who worked in concentration camps during WWII. A large percentage of people would agree that the concentration camps (both the idea and the implementation) were immoral. I suspect that many of those people would agree that "I was just following orders" was not a morally justifiable reason.
So if one truly believes that this campaign against Irag is immoral, would American soldiers claiming "I am just following orders" be absolved of moral judgement?
Note that I'm not necessarily agreeing with this. In fact, I'm undecided on whether or not the position that the U.S. is taking has a moral component to it. It's just confusing to me everytime I see "support the troops" here on
Re:prayers (Score:3, Insightful)
-Erwos
Re:Support our troops. (Score:4, Insightful)
Misguided nationalism like this is what the leaders like Bush is banking on. Ignore the dissidents knowing full well that "we" will all support our troops, and Apple Pie once it starts.
Keep on being against this "War of Choice" as it has been so aptly named.
Are you *daft*? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hell, no. You really want to support the soldiers? Pull them *out* of Iraq where they aren't going to get *killed*. Make peace -- anyone who thinks that Iraq is stupid enough to not accept a peace offer is on crack -- and then do the damn inspections. What Blix turned up was some guesswork, a very small number of warheads, and now there are people *dying* because of it?
Beating the shit out of someone else until they're willing to do anything to avoid being hurt even more is really *not* the only way to resolve a conflict.
And people that try to associate patriotism with believing that Bush's War should go on are full of it. Patriotism is doing what's best for your *country*, not blithely following through what your leader spouts (if that were the case, Iraqis would be in the same boat, but the opposite way).
Finally, "protecting your family"? Yeah, Iraq is such a terribly nasty threat to your family. Christ. I can just see it now "January 2007 -- Iraq Invades United States!"
Re:And today (Score:4, Insightful)
You just need more than two braincells, which an unfortunately large part of this country seems to lack.
I'm for the war... but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And today (Score:1, Insightful)
oh yeah, jacques chiraq wears panties
Re:Bullshit (Score:1, Insightful)
Bin Laden himself eagerly expresses contempt for Saddam.
Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror" (Score:3, Insightful)
</cynicism>
Who was in the initial bunker... (Score:2, Insightful)
On CBS they were interviewing some expert, speculating on who this surgical strike was directed against.
The expert's response was essentially a listing of hardware involved. He closed up by saying something to the effect, "Well, we just spent 50 million dollars on that attack, so we can presume that it was a group of top party leaders."
I'm not sure if I'm glad that someone is pointing out the cost of the war, or disturbed that he's analyzing an attack based on the cost.
-mezz
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: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....
Re:And today (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't a new war--it's a continuation of the First Gulf War, extended due to Iraq's deception, 12 long years ago. They haven't learned their lesson yet.
And oh yeah, Saddam tried to organize an assassination of George Bush (the first). Remember that too.
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:And today (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The only thing war has ever done is... (Score:3, Insightful)
on both sides.
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.
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:CNN IRC newsticker? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you point an IRC client to chat.cnn.com and then join the channel #CNN_Newsfeed, you get a continuous transcript, all caps and in short lines, of what CNN is currently broadcasting on television.
Re:And today (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:First war post! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WRONG! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Support our troops. SHUT UP! (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, who doesn't? Really? They consist of poor saps who joined the military to pay for college, and some meatheads who *want* to shoot guns and beat up brown people. You know what? They are all someone's kid. Of course we support the fucking troops!
I am so sick of hearing everyone say "Support our Troops!" like it's some sort of talisman against Osama appearing in our midst. What does it mean, 'Support our Troops'? Does that mean you're going to go and help soldiers load missles on some Apaches? Take your turn in the mess hall mixing up powdered eggs?
NO
You are going to sit here at home and you will wonder when your kid, pal, husband, wife, mom or dad will get back, and if they will return in one piece.
If you want to *really* 'support our troops', question the war, the president, the demise of civil rights, and the chilling effect that 'Bandwagon Patriotism' has on real discussion. Like where these 'terrorists' got their training and weapons in the first place (US)
There used to be a piece of paper that was pretty important to this country. It doesn't say life, safety and the persuit of happiness. It mentions Liberty. Something that is in short supply in this country of 'Freedom Toast', 'Patriot Acts' and 'Support our Troops' feel good phrases.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans gave up their lives so you could sit home and say "Support our Troops" or "Screw our crappy President" or say what I'm saying right now.
They gave us Liberty, and a pretty good country to use it in. Don't reduce it to throwaway phrases or we won't have either.
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.
Re:And today (Score:3, Insightful)
and just because he is a nut...
- He claims to be a direct decendent of Mohammad but he is the least religious leader in the middle east (he has attacked two other islamic nations)
Do I need to go on? Do you really think this is an innocent man?
I'm not taking a stance on whether or not I think we should be attacking Iraq, but come on.. don't be an idiot.
Request for the Moderators (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot is fast becoming THE point of our community internation, and this is shown how important it can be during SEP11.
Many of us geeks will be reloading often, even us poor modem users. Allow us non moderators to set the viewing level to +3 or so, and rely on MODs to mark up those worth reading.
Trolls are a matter of perspective and culture. What we need now is Informative and Funny.
TIA
Re:Waiting (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:And today (Score:2, Insightful)
Since Iraq agreed to nothing, their violation of the rules of cease fire merely mean that we may continue the war Saddam Hussein started by invading Kuwait. Do you understand my point?
Re:WRONG! (Score:2, Insightful)
And still, the people in power don't listen to their people. Is that what you call democracy?
What if another coutry did the same ? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am proud of the few among you, /. readers and US Citizens who *are* complaining about these
horrible attacks. Poor Iraquies had to suffer Saddam Hussein's - former ally of the US - dictatorship, and now many of them will be killed by the bombings. Just like it happened with civilians in Alfghanistan, tortured by the Taliban regime and afterwords bombed by the US. Again, some of these Talibans were allies of the US when fighting a prior "evil", the Soviet Union. You have to stop this nosense. It will bring more terrorism, more hatred, and innocent civilian deaths, once more.
Who cares about those people ? I do. Human rights should prevail. A dead kid is a dead kid, be him or her, poor angel, Palestinian, Israeli, Iraqui, or whatever. It is a sad day in History, I feel like vomiting, I feel like crying, I already am ...
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:2, Insightful)
Supporting the fighters (Score:2, Insightful)
None of this matters. The plain and simple fact is our sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, cousins, friends and enemies are there fighting for what is believed to be the greater good. Whether you agree wholeheartedly with what is being done or think the United States is full or warmongerring lunitics, it does not matter. War has begun. That can not be changed. Now is the time to support our fighters. Time to support those putting their lives on the line. Time to stop bickering about whether or not it is right and show our troops, and the troops of all the nations there that we support them. They are doing what is ordered of them. Be there for their families. Mow somebody's lawn whose husband/father is gone. Make a meal for someone whos mother/wife won't be home for months. Don't disrespect the troops or their familes, care for them. When this is done, and it will not take very long, speak out with your votes about what you consider to be right or wrong. Speak out with your $$$.
Now is the time to rally behind our brave soldiers and their families. The time to speak out against the governemnts will come again.
Thank you brave men and women of the armed forces. I, for one, will be in line to give you a hero's return.
Re:WRONG! (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes America great is that they aren't afraid to do the right thing, even when their "allies" capitulate in the face of danger.
A Human.
Re:And today (Score:3, Insightful)
Bzzzt, wrong.
There was no treaty; not even an armistice. Just a ceasefire.
As a matter of international law, there was no need for any diplomatic maneuvering whatsoever; the US has every legal right to rescind the ceasefire as and how it wills. This is, for instance, why it was completely legal for Clinton to dump bombs into Iraq for four days straight during Desert Fox, back when all these bleating anti-war types thought war was cool because it was a Democratic president doing it so it must, of course, be good; just as, of course, now that it's a Republican president doing the EXACT SAME thing it must naturally be bad.
Of course, if anyone thinks this is an unfair characterization of them as stupid, bigoted, and hypocritical, I'll certainly retract it in their particular case just as soon as they show me some evidence of their outspoken and principled opposition to the Desert Fox action. Going by the evidence so far, that's about 0.125% of the "anti-war" protesters out there, but dammit, the 99.875% or so who really ARE just irrational ideologues blinded by their hatred make a bad name for everybody on that side of the fence, unfair though it is...
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.
Emotional Blackmail: Support the boys at war? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush (Score:3, Insightful)
Shouldn't be too hard. Let's see...
By the way, Gore lost the election. Deal with it.
And of course, following another paragraph full of hate and ad hominem, he closes with the old saw that this is just an oil grab. News flash: we don't need Iraqi oil, and even if we did we could get it just by lifting the sanctions Saddam earned by invading his weakest neighbor. It's a nonsensical accusation on its face. It's high time to drop it.
Was there really peace in Iraq? (Score:2, Insightful)
was there really peace in Iraq?
Considering Saddam Hussein got 100% of the votes in the last Iraqi election, he is quite the popular man.
Problem is, most of us do not know what it is like to live in a dictatorship. While people snub their noses at the "evil" president Bush and wag their fingers at the "war-mongers", they have been turning their backs on the suffering of the Iraqi people to fulfill political idealism.
Face it, Saddam Hussein can't be negotiated with. We have tried for the last ten years, and he still kills Iraqis. He still oppresses women. He still hangs chemical weapons over the heads of his own people.
Do you think he wouldn't use them against his own people, as he did in 1988, if we didn't put pressure on him?
I don't know about you, but I'd rather live with America's imperialism with the world's cameras scrutenizing than with the tyranny of Saddam Hussein any day. At least protesters won't get executed and they will be able to vote for more than one person to be president.
And, no, there will not be another dictatorship after Saddam Hussein is gone. Do you think the world would allow that?
Re:And today (Score:4, Insightful)
What about the world leading 32 UN resolutions that Israel has ignored since 1968 including 242 which relates to Israel withdrawing from the occupied territories?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/breakfast/23 84905.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Is the US going to invade Israel as well while their troops are in the Middle East?
Re:Support our troops. (Score:1, Insightful)
Slick Willy got impeached for lying under oath. How come you idiot democraps always try to cloud the real issue?
Re:And today (Score:3, Insightful)
You disgust me (Score:2, Insightful)
I served in the First Gulf War in the US Navy, and am now a Naval Reservist called to Active Duty for the Second Gulf War. I'm here in Turkey, putting my life on the line to protect yours. While you sit in the comfort of your home, shaking your head and wishing it would all go away, I'm willing to die and kill to protect our way of life. This war isn't about oil, it isn't about revenge, it's about protecting America and our friends (even the ones who are ungrateful for what we've done in the past, and will do in the future). It's about bringing freedom to an oppressed people. Some of you make the statement that the Iraqis are oppressed because of past US actions. In the 80's, Hussein may have seemed like the lesser of two evils compared to Iran. But just because we supported him then is no reason to not go in and fix our mistake now. What would you rather do? Let the Iraqis rot? Just walk away and pretend it never happened?
Saddam Hussein has lied and obfuscated for 12 years. He's shown his willingness to use horrible weapons and methods. He pays the families of suicide bombers, encouraging a despicable form of terrorism that purposely attacks innocent civilians. Will civilians die in our attacks? Most likely. Will fewer civilians die from American bombs than from Saddam's secret police and support of terrorists? Most definitely.
Lastly, for those of you claiming Saddam never did anything to us, remember that prior to 9/11 the twenty hijackers never did anything to us, either. We no longer live in a world that allows us to merely respond to terrorists and those who support them. The costs are too great to allow that naivete.
Moderators: Please show restraint with mods here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And today (Score:4, Insightful)
So if you agree that he isn't a nice guy and that he also probly has some "bad weapons" then the next thing to decide is what to do about it. If the threat is imminent and the consequences for delaying are worse than an immediate attack, then a strike is prudent. If the threat isn't immediate and there is a good chance that more time and inspections will be more useful, then we should wait.
I do not know the intimate details going on in reality right now. I don't know what plans the "greedy" US oil tycoons have. I don't know what multi-million or billion dollar deals that france, germany, russia, or other countries stand to lose if there is a regime change. I don't know what weapons Iraq has or if he would be able to hide them from inspectors if he had them. I don't know if inspections would work since Saddam has continually eluded them for sooo many years.
I don't know the details. I don't know which conspiracy theory is the correct one. I don't agree with anti-war tactics since they are often very uninformed and embarassingly trendy. (as if its' cool to be against war). I also don't appreciate people who immediately flock to war like it's going to be fun. But those are the extremes here, folks. Sit back and really think about the situation... NO ONE IN THIS ENTIRE WORLD IS FREE FROM FAULT. it just so happens that Iraq hasn't complied with some UN resolutions and the US believes it's time to pay up. Is this correct? who is to say for sure? It's so easy to criticize the US since they have a hand in soooo many aspects of the world.
I suppose the bottom line is that some see this action as unfortunate, but we don't know what the truth is. And I agree, just because you disagree, you shouldn't have to leave. But saying you are ashamed to be american? Come on! Do you honestly believe that Bush is the anti-christ who simply sees a war as dollar signs and a rise in the polls? I admit, I would have liked to see the UN flood Iraq with inspectors... thousands of them, with armed UN escorts. I think that would have been the best solution. But no one in the UN could agree. Is war the correct action? Perhaps... only time will tell. In the meantime, let's hope for the well-being of all the troops over there.
Sincerely,
John
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:I'm Sorry... (Score:3, Insightful)
Be careful what you say there. The US has not been ordered by an International community to disarm. The US community has not disobeyed orders after being defeated in a war to disarm. The US government hasn't gassed thousands of rebels. Bush's children haven't tortuted and killed citizens to strike fear in others to never go against the government.
We have a president in office right now that didn't even get a majority of the popular vote. I like Bush more than Gore, but quite frankly, the fact that Bush is in office right now shows just how different we are from Iraq. Remember Iraq's last election? Saddam got 100% of the vote. You can't honestly think that's realistic, can you? It's a dicatorship -- and a horrid one at that.
Bush has ordered thousands of men into the line of fire; which one could equate to being a poor decision, but these are all men and women that signed up for the task. They aren't random people being executed arbitarily for their beleifs. I have one friend already in Kuwait, and more on the way one they're through basic training. They signed up -AFTER- the shit hit the fan. Heck, I'm giving a guy firearms training before he signs up for the Air Force because he's never fired a gun in his life. We got done with session #2 today, went to the pub and found out that the war has started already.
To equate Bush to Saddam is insane to me. The fact that you can do that, assuming you're a US citizen, and get away with it is proof that Bush, and the US, is far better than Saddam. You'd be dead or tortured in short order had you said the same thing in Iraq. Don't forget that.
Aside from that, remember, that while I disagree whole heartdly with your statement, and it disgusts me to think that somebody in the US would make such a comparision; I'd still fight for YOUR right to say that.
Make no mistake... this is not a war against Iraq. This is an assasination attempt. Period. We want Saddam's regime out of control which means the assisination of him and his sons. Nothing more. As far as I'm concerned NOBODY in Iraq is being targetted except them. The soliders that wish to fight for Saddam have every opportunity to get out and quit. Some will stay and fight, and they will die. That's their choice.
Your opinion disgusts me, but living in a nation where your opinion would get you killed would disgust me far more. Be thankful for what you've got.
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:And today (Score:2, Insightful)
First the Administration said it was about disarmement. When disarmament started working, they said it was about regime change (not part of the resolutions). When there started to be credible ovetures to Saddam for asylum, the Administration said they'd invade Iraq ANYWAY.
If it were about Security Council resolutions, either the US or the Israel would also be on the list. (http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/ira
This is the most important thing, and I hope you and others read this:
This notion of preemptive strikes upsets the entire world balance. It justifies every war based on fear of something that may or may not happen in the future. Preemption means that war is not only a valid form of dealing with international disagreements, it's the FIRST thing a country can try.
To go to war is to admit failure. Those that wage war have failed. This Administration didn't even try to avoid failure. They wanted war since the 90's (http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonlet
Re:dang (Score:4, Insightful)
No, Saddam won't use them. Probably not even if cornered. Here's why; using them would prove he has them and would somewhat justify this whole mess. Better for him to escape and let the conspiracy theorists think anything found in Iraq was planted.
Re:And today (Score:2, Insightful)
I've always been skeptical. And now I no longer believe in it at all, period.
Why? Because they didn't rubber stamp an American war? No... Because they passed resolutions ordering Iraq to disarm and failed to have the courage to enforce their resolutions. Regardless of whether or not you believe that Iraq should disarm and whether or not the UN should be authorized to make those demands, the fact that the UN is the de-facto authority but yet failed to face its responsibilities makes it a useless organization. Talk, talk, talk. Was the UN so arrogant to believe that Saddam was going to disarm because they said so?
The UN was based on very idealistic hopes that by having all countries assembled together we could talk out our differences and avoid war. There have not been a lack of wars since the UN was founded, and the general avoidance of WORLD war has been avoided because of the stability "enforced" by the superpowers (now singular).
The UN is useless and now obsolete. Not because the U.S. ignored its will but because the UN itself didn't have the will to lend credibility to its resolutions. The US may topple the Iraqi government, but France toppled the U.N. RIP.
Re:dang (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure Saddam is a despot, but HOW MANY FRICKING DESPOTS ARE THERE CURRENTLY IN AFRICA COMMITTING GENOCIDE, MURDURER, AND SPAMMING TECHNIQUES?
Quite a few, unfortunately. Equally as unfortunate is the fact that the United Nations had not passed tough resolutions on many of them.
That, I think, is the key difference here. Iraq has been the subject of MANY resolutions from the United Nations calling on him to disarm, and he has abrogated every one of them. IMO, the United States is simply fulfilling what the UN has already stated but is refusing to follow up on.
I would LOVE to see the UN get tough with these guys. I'd applaud the day that happens, and it will be that day that I will state that the UN is truly acting in the best interests of the people of this planet.
Re:Not How its Supposed To Be (Score:2, Insightful)
To be fair, this is easily as much the reason why the U.N. is in jeopardy, where its tempting for European nations to use their disproportionate leverage to frustrate the U.S. For Chirac and Schroeder, it's free political points... why wouldn't they oppose the U.S.?
Oh... this is far off topic. Sorry slashdot.
Re:And today (Score:1, Insightful)
You also need to stop trying to defeat the removal of Saddam's Government with bringing up the U.S. propping it up, and arming it.
1. The U.S. is a Republic, and as such its Government changes. It is reinvented periodically as jobs change hands.
2. It doesn't make Saddam any less of a problem, that we helped make him that problem. If anything, it only increases our responsibility to dismantle our failure and remove the yolk from the people of Iraq.
You also need to keep in mind the following when considering the time-scale of the Iraq campaign:
1. As much as everyone wanted Saddam's Government to topple in the Gulf War, there was no UN mandate to allow U.S. forces to move on Baghdad. If the U.S. had attempted unilateral action, the same nonsense that the UN went through this time would have been played out then, only without the acceptance of the people of the U.S. to engage in proactive defense.
2. The continual minor and less minor actions by Saddam during the Clinton administration, were largely not acted upon. Sending cruise missiles wasn't enough, but there wasn't sufficient political capital to embark on another campaign.
3. There wouldn't have been the political capital now, had terrorists not decided to reawaken the citizens of the U.S. to the idea that you can't simply ignore small threats and expect them to fade. There is, though, that awareness in the U.S. now. All of those inexecusable and disgusting acts Saddam's Government has committed are brought up, because they are signs of the small pest that one day may cause much larger problems.
The Iraqi people will be better off, and the U.S. will both make up for mistakes for its past, and help remove potential threats to the future of that region of the world. Nothing is free. There is always a price to be paid for anything. People will die, the U.S. will be resented by those that will suffer from removing Saddam's Government. In the end, though, they will be better off, and we will be better off. That's all that matters.
Re:Glued to the TV... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have yet to get a "connection refused" message when turning my TV to ABC, CNN, or Fox News, so...
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:Not How its Supposed To Be (Score:0, Insightful)
Both orginizations did themselves in. Or rather other members did it in. There is evidence that both Russia and France oppose this war in part because they have been investing in Iraq oil since the first Gulf war, and do not want their investments to loose money. If they weren't dealing with tyrants I could agree with them.
If the UN wasn't weak it would have done something about Iraq when the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in the first place! Instead they sat on their rear ends, making symbolic gestures like electing human rights experts like Lybia to lead thier human rights group.
The EU is purely Europe. If Europe was totally behind the EU it would not be weakened. If Europe could disagree, then the EU can stand strong where there is agreement despite serious disagreement elsewhere. In any case though, the EU is Europe not America. As an American I don't care one way or the other if it succedes or fails. (I perdicted years ago it would fail though, I don't think you Europens can agree with each for long, but that is opinion, and I would be happy if you could prove me wrong)
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: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:prayers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does anyone find it odd... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waiting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FLAMEBAIT MY ARSE (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The only thing war has ever done is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed, although I would bless them in lower-case to avoid sounding cliche.
Right or wrong, I'm behind our "troops" 100%.
Bad idea. If you believe that something is wrong, you shouldn't be behind it at all. If you're not sure, think about it some more; you certainly shouldn't be behind it 100%. Blind loyalty is one of the biggest dangers to freedom. Consider Nazi Germany; I'm sure the German death-camp guards were thinking something very much like this.
Let's all hope for minimal casualties...
Amen.
I don't hate the war, just GWB (Score:4, Insightful)
Iraq sucks. No way to pretend otherwise. It would be nice to see someone go in there, oust the facists, and put some sort of populist government in place. Not that that will happen this time; even if we oust the government, we're just going to put another facist in charge. We're the US, that's what we do.
The thing that really bothers me is our attitude about the whole thing, like we have a right to move in there because we "know" he has weapons of mass destruction. This is the most utterly flimsy excuse. We're not invading India, Pakistan, or N. Korea, are we? We don't care about anyone else's weapons. No, its all about the #$^@^#$ oil. The senate wouldn't let him drill in the arctic national wildlife refuge, and so he's got to invade something in the middle east.
And the whole terrorism excuse? Dear god! We should be invading the Saudi's if that was really our point. But, of course it isn't.
No no, this is W's war, his chance to get his jollies by acting like his dad. I'd rather have a hunk of spam in the oval office. At least then there would be a chance of ONE good descision coming out of the white house.
If there is any justice in the world this will come back and kick him in the nuts.
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:What if another coutry did the same ? (Score:1, Insightful)
Afghanistan. Again you acknowledge that the Taliban tortured the people Afghanistan. And the U.S. DID support Afghanistan in the fight against communism (you didn't think communism fell by itself). But, you fail to mention that we LIBERATED Afghanistan from a terrorist organization, that by their own words vowed to shed the blood of Americans - which according to them, you are evil because you ARE an American.
Now let's go to Human Rights. Do you think Saddam gives a damn about your rights as a human? The answer is no. If you speak out against Saddam while in Iraq, you get your tongue cut out, and then you are tied to a street post and left to bleed to death.
GOD Bless our troops, our President, and our Country.
God bless those of you who would rather sit in your safe homes, happy and content in a free America. Where you are safe to be cowards and shy away from the deeds that need to be done to insure our continued saftey.
God bless the men and woman who are over seas for America, servering our country in the most noble of ways.
Re:The only thing war has ever done is... (Score:2, Insightful)
And here's an important part. Community is formed for various reasons, and probably many have decided to commit to open source just because they saw "Blue Screen of Death" once, just once. And that's it; they'd hate Windows for the rest of their lives.
Imagine a boy in Baghdad, his father/mother/sister/bother/uncle gets hit by US troop and dies right in front of this boy's eyes. He'll hate US from his soul for the rest of his life. He's like last standing BeOS developer trying to destroy Microsoft empire.
Last BeOS guy might not be able to do much, but the last standing terrorist can do a lot. And scary, there'll be many of those in Baghdad today and tomorrow but I'm sure that there weren't that many yesterday.
The Propaganda machine is already running. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to admire this in a purely tactical way. Take out the national broadcaster and replace it with your own content.
I like how G.B. can call a radio station a site of "military importance" or whatever term he used in his speach.
This is from a letter I mailed my Prime Minister. I apologize to anyone directly involved with the World Trade Center disaster, my words are not intended to diminish the loss you ahve suffered, only to prevent an even larger tradegy.
This is a sad day, but I suspect there is worse to come.
Re:Early weird news reports (Score:2, Insightful)
They were probably opening a bottle of champaign to "celebrate" the start of war.
You know how good ratings are when you are covering war.
Re:What if another coutry did the same ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, by the way: show me the Iraqis in your anti-war protests. Better yet, listen to this [komo1000news.com] Iraqi on the subject. And while you're at it, show me the other country that has ever pledged to avoid civilian casualties at all turns. China? Russia? And while I'm at it, imagine a world in which either of those lovely fellows dominate the world. Having trouble? Ask a Tibetan or Hungarian (that thought courtesy of John Derbyshire).
Finally, you are factually incorrect about no consensus in the U.N. We absolutely have a consensus; it is simply that there are countries that oppose us and possess veto power.
Why do you cry only now, when Hussein's regime has caused the death of more than 2 million Iraqis? Note sadly the innocents that will die in this conflict, and then weep with joy at the lives they will be free to live when this is over.
Re:WRONG! (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the old guard saw it as more advantageous to play toward its next election, and had no other way to show that they are "real 'Merkins"
I can only hope that the citizenry will throw them out for the damage they've done to the long-term viability of the US.
As it stands, it seems the noble experiment is on its way out.....
Re:First war post! (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. I take deep offense with the way CNN et al cover this material. Minutes ago I heard a woman broadcasting from the deck of an aircraft carrier trying to get the soldiers on the runway to wave at the camera. Wave!? WTF is that all about? The gross assumptions these broadcasters make is ridiculous as well. I remember on 9/11 seeing headlines that stated the National Mall was on fire. What service does this do for the public?
The countdown timers and journalistic techniques of yesterday only seem to create a sense of expectation in the audience. We all knew after Bush's speech that force was inevitable, but drumming up this sense of urgency in people is wrong. They want people to hang on their every word and worry like crazy about missing things.
I'd like to see more accountability and professionalism in broadcasting. On all but C-SPAN I see content designed to push every human button. The purpose of the media is to inform the public, not jump to conclusions. It's purpose is also, as you said, to remind us that this is not a game, rather than play one of its own
Robin Cook -Resigned British Foreign Sec. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why I had to leave the cabinet?
Robin Cook
March 18
I have resigned from the cabinet because I believe that a fundamental
principle of Labour's foreign policy has been violated.
If we believe in an international community based on binding rules and
institutions, we cannot simply set them aside when they produce results
that are inconvenient to us.
I cannot defend a war with neither international agreement nor domestic
support. I applaud the determined efforts of the prime minister and
foreign secretary to secure a second resolution. Now that those attempts
have ended in failure, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution
was of no importance.
In recent days, France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic
criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for
inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed, at
no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second
resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international
hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of
President Chirac.
The harsh reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war
without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a
leading member. Not Nato. Not the EU. And now not the Security Council.
To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year
ago we and the US were part of a coalition against terrorism which was
wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible.
History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so
quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.
Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected, not by
unilateral action, but by multilateral agreement and a world order
governed by rules. Yet, tonight the international partnerships most
important to us are weakened. The European Union is divided. The Security
Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of war without a
single shot yet being fired.
The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the
death toll of civilians in the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq. But the US
warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely
that casualties will be numbered at the very least in the thousands.
Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size at the time of the
last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are
so weak that we can even contemplate invasion. And some claim his forces
are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be
over in days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and
at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a
serious threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the
commonly understood sense of that term -- namely, a credible device capable
of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still
have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had
them since the Eighties when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the
then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a
military capacity that has been there for 20 years and which we helped to
create? And why is it necessary to resort to war this week while Saddam's
ambition to complete his weapons programme is frustrated by the presence
of UN inspectors?
I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to
disarm, and our patience is exhausted. Yet, it is over 30 years since
Resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of
Israel to comply.
Re:Typical Leftist "bovine scatology" (Score:4, Insightful)
From the article
An official of the Taliban, Afgahanistan's Islamic rulers, reported 21 were killed and 30 were injured in the missile strikes in eastern Afghanistan.
In the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, the El Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries factory -- which U.S. officials say also has ties to bin Laden and produces chemicals that can be used to make deadly VX nerve gas -- was heavily damaged.
Clinton didn't just sit on his ass. Well, until the stupid Lewenski stuff, then he was too busy defending himself. Perhaps if the right just left him alone, he would have been able to do his job.
Re:WRONG! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spin (Score:4, Insightful)
Semantics? Sure. But of such things history is made.
As Tacitus Said (Score:3, Insightful)
Peace is patriotic! (Score:4, Insightful)
There was no need for an Iraqi invasion unless the Iraqi government was found to be in violation of UN resolution 1441 (passed in Nov 2002). Iraq, while having a long history of obtaining, developing, and deploying weapons of mass destruction, had no choice but to comply with weapons inspectors and the UN. The US has yet to produce any verifiable evidence that Iraq had any active WMD programs. The only item that inspectors found were missiles that slightly exceeded the prescribed range when launched without a warhead. Iraq destroyed these at the international community's urgings. At the time of the departure of the inspectors in 1998, Iraq was mostly disarmed, although there is some evidence that they still had some biological capability. Weapons inspectors were looking into this issue as well as ensuring that weapons slated for destruction prior to 1998 remained scuttled before the US decided to attack. There is nothing like disarming a country before invading.
A full invasion will likely cause the death of ~500,000 Iraqi citizens (UN estimate), mostly due to the disruption of the state welfare service and damage to food, electrical, and water supplies (which are war targets). This is how our 1991 invasion killed so many citizens. In addition we will be again using depleted uranium shells, which have been documented to increase cancer rates. A Kurdish uprising is also very probable, as they have been trying to create their own country for years, which could destabilize parts of Iran and Turkey.
Pre-emptive warfare is wrong. The CIA, for all their transgressions (Venezuela, Chile, Guatemala, Congo, Indonesia,
Should Saddam be tried and sentenced for war crimes? Yes. Should Bush be tried and sentenced for war crimes against Iraq and Afganastan? Yes. Should the international community help Iraq become better country and improve the lives of its citizens? Yes. Should the money derived from oil sales be returned to Iraqi citizens to help improve their well-being instead of being diverted to international mega-corperations? Yes. Will a US/UK/SP/AU invasion achieve any of these goals. In all likelihood, no.
Thank you Bush for putting every American at risk worldwide.
Google around, this has all been documented.
Illigal War
http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr26-72.htm
REAL AUTHORS OF IRAQ DOSSIER BLAST BLAIR
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.c fm?obje ctid=12620001&method=full&siteid=50143
UK accused of lifting dossier text
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sp rj.irq
Why invade when the U.N. system is disarming Iraq?
Slashdot Censorship (Score:1, Insightful)
The previous first post was 'And Today...I am ashamed to call myself an American.'
Now the first post is a little more....texas friendly: 'dang. that was fast'.
Slashdot 'the voice of the free', get your act together, stop thwarting the comments and let people say what they want to say.
This isn't flamebait, just fact, slashdot has a chance here to standout from the rest of the US media and offer a forum for genuine world wide opinions on this war. I vote for all scores to be abandoned (or just set to 2). STOP THE CENSORSHIP!
Keith Ahern
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
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:didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too? (Score:1, Insightful)
How about:
hitler = bush
poland's president (or whatever they had) = saddam.
This comparison make much more sense (power of armies, who attacks who, fake evidence as reason for attacking, world is against attack,
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...)
Re:prayers (Score:0, Insightful)
Remember there is no god and I am his prophet. God is dead. Religion is Santa Claus for adults. It's what the common people find true, the wise people find false and the rulers find useful.
Re:What if another coutry did the same ? (Score:3, Insightful)
"I wonder what would be the reaction here in
It all depends on why the "poor" country is being bombed, doesn't it? "Just because?" Just about nobody would be happy about that. "To stop the government from slaughtering its own people," on the other hand, is something completely different.
"against the willing of millions of protesters around the world"
Protesters who themselves agree that Sadam's government is slaughtering its own people. Protesters who seem to be OK with acts like this as long as it doesn't affect any other country.
"with no consensus from the United Nations."
A UN which also didn't give consensus to intervening in Cambodia or Rwanda. The only rule that the UN has truly enforced in the past 50 years is "Don't slaughter your neighbor's people." From inception, the UN has been silent on matters of genocide within a member's borders.
"Yes, everybody would be talking about a coward attack, a massacre, a genocide."
I'm sorry, are we talking about current US actions, or Iraqi actions in the past two or three decades?
"I know I will be modded as a troll by people who care more about Nacionalism"
No, the true nationalists are the ones that don't want to interfere in a country's "internal matters," no matter what they are. National Socialism got to where it was not only from internal nationalism ("Yay Germany!"), but also external nationalists who agreed that Germany had a national right to Austria, the Sudetenland, etc.
IMO, the anti-war protesters who are against the war because the Iraqi government poses no (immediate) therat to us are the nationalists in this debate. It shows that the protesters value the lives and livelihoods of their fellow citizens than citizens of a country a world away.
"Poor Iraquies had to suffer Saddam Hussein's - former ally of the US - dictatorship, and now many of them will be killed by the bombings."
Anybody who thinks that more civillians will die as a direct or indirect result of US actions in this war than who would die by Sadam's hand if this invasion didn't happen is a shot-sighted fool. It's a given that not only more Iraqi people will be alive because of this, but also with more personal and collective freedom. By arguing that it would be better to leave Sadam in power than for the US to invade you are holding the US to a double standard (It's more OK for Sadam but not the US) that is based on a nationalist viewpoint (It's more OK for Sadam because he's an Iraqi).
At the very least, we're not the ones actually trying to slaughter civillians.
"Just like it happened with civilians in Alfghanistan, tortured by the Taliban regime and afterwords bombed by the US."
Again, more would have died in continued Taliban rule. And no rational person could argue that the Taliban would have gone away without a fight. And I submit that the US invasion was far less bloody and racist than any potential internal uprising against the Taliban. All Pashtuns probably would have been hearded up and systematically killed, just like what has happened in every other revolution in the world (with one exception).
"Again, some of these Talibans were allies of the US when fighting a prior "evil", the Soviet Union."
"It will bring more terrorism, more hatred, and innocent civilian deaths, once more."
If we do nothing, if we were to suddenly adopt a foreign policy that rese
Re:prayers (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention none of our reasons for war have panned out yet. The document about Iraq trying to purchase nuclear materials was a forgery. We still haven't seen a WMD. 10 y/old WMD are more of a danger to himself than a threat. He can't even get enough chlorine to purify water, yet they say he has biological weapons.
Bush's support is going to fall quickly if the war goes by without a single WMD bding used. He'll have a hard time showing that the hurt to foreign relations with most of the world, death of many innocents, our losses, and even the cost of the weapons spent during the war were worth the outcome.
Before anyone posts "Saddam gasses his own people, their freedom is worth it" you'll have to justify those 500,000 children's deaths because we targeted water purification plants during the last war, and our sanctions that include a chlorine embargo to keep them dieing. If you cared about the people, I tend to believe that you would have said something sooner.
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:"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:prayers (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Inside Sites/Blogs (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.warblogging.com/ [warblogging.com]
Breaking news, analysis, also covers related events in the US. Cynical slant.
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
An Iraqi blogger. Hoax? It's well done
>> Wherever you go you see closed shops and it is not just doors-locked
>> closed but sheet-metal-welded-on-the-front closed,
>> windows-removed-and-built-with-bricks closed, doors were being welded shut
http://volokh.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Excellent analysis of causes and outcomes. Breaking news, too.
http://www.sgtstryker.com/ [sgtstryker.com]
Military / conservative perspective on Iraq and the news. Liberal and conservative views in the discussions.
http://www.defensetech.org/ [defensetech.org]
It's all about the gear. The Slashdot of war technology.
http://timblair.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
Conservative and irreverant news analysis
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/ [andrewsullivan.com]
http://uswarblog.tripod.com/warblog/ [tripod.com]
http://www.nowarblog.org/ [nowarblog.org]
"Stand Down: The Left-Right Blog opposing an invasion of iraq"
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/ [back-to-iraq.com]
Back to Iraq 2.0
http://www.warblogs.cc/ [warblogs.cc]
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
Re:prayers (Score:2, Insightful)
Fixation on Democracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: War IS Terror (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The only thing war has ever done is... (Score:3, Insightful)
The funny thing is, people barely even know the meaning of words now...it's as if you're exterminating this mystical race known as "communists" as if it were a physical country. Same goes for "terrorists". Hell, there are terrorists living in your own country, and not every turban-wearing arab is one in any other country.
Get out of that cloud of red white and blue smoke, tear that dramatically waving flag out from behind yourself and take a closer look at what war has done.
The number of direct and indirect civillian casualties (oh, I'm sorry...I'm supposed to call it 'collateral damage' nowadays) in the first gulf war alone was ten times what happened at the world trade centre. The numbers for this new war are going to be astronomical, both casualties of civillians and millitary personel alike. Let us not forget what this entire conflict is about!
Have they found weapons? No. Have they found anything that could become weapons? Aluminum tubes...whoopdy fscking doodle. Have there been any direct threats against the people of the free world? None. Have there been any threats of the american oil supply being cut off? Sure...but how is this going to accomplish anything?
What the hell is wrong with president Bush? Find out next week on 'as the world turns'.
Re:And today (Score:2, Insightful)
AIE! Amen for WAR! (Score:1, Insightful)
Amen to who? Amen the pagan deity? Congratulations, you have successfully been modded +5 for your pagan comments. You are worse than the enemy you claim is yours. YOU are your OWN enemy.
Of'course, you know what a prayer is, no?
Re:WRONG! (Score:1, Insightful)
How will we be remembered? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not that long ago that there was a leader who led Germany who was a brilliant orator and who was able to convince people that what Germany was doing was right. Now I'm not for a second wanting to equate the leaders of the 'alliance of the willing' to that particular person. However what I do wish to point out is that the majority in Germany at that time believed the spin doctoring coming from a position of authority. Are we doing the same now? I believe we are.
People can come up with a whole bunch of justifications as to why this action is morally right, however those justifications can equally be applied to many other countries that the 'alliance of the willing' is not attacking. Futher if those justifications are valid, wouldn't they have also been valid say 5 years ago? What has changed in the last five years, besides the sad but unrelated events of 9/11?
I surely hope that someone in power will see some sence and stop this nonsense before it goes to far, otherwise we will not be remembered kindly.
Re:WRONG! (Score:3, Insightful)
The big question here is: what IS the right thing to do.
Just because ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because the Bush Administration has failed to argue the case for war coherently and convincingly (Saddam Hussein has links to Al Quaida
Just because the case for war isn't clearcut doesn't mean that there isn't a case to be made. After all: if we say that Mr Hussein's violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement, his violations of 18 UN Security Council resolutions, and his violations of the Iraqi peoples' [sic] basic human rights do not, put together, consitute a sufficiently strong case for war what exactly would?!?
'Innocent' (whatever that means) Iraqi civilians will inevitably die in this war. But is that really the same as saying that no 'innocent' Iraqi people will die if Mr Hussein is left to his own device and in power?
In the immortal words of the leftist Swedish band Hoolabandoola Band (admittedly à propos their supporting the then-guerilla the Sandinistas of Nicaragua) [I'm paraphrasing]: 'Är det verkligen fred vi vill ha? Och till varje enskilt pris?' (Is it really peace we want? And at any cost?)
Re:Why care about being hated? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to disagree on a few points.
Firstly, the media in general in America is not particularly fond of Bush. Granted there are news outlets that are decidedly pro-bush, but more than half of our media takes an anti-bush, anti-republican stance on issues. This war has proven no exception. I will say, however, that the media in that regard is rather sick, as they are eating up war coverage like a cheap chinese buffet. But then, that's the media.
Now, removing all economic issues for a moment, let's say America sat on the side and waited for something to happen, perhaps it was an attack on Tel-Aviv, or Jerusalem, or even a terrorist attack on the American mainland, or even an attack elsewhere, like London or Berlin or Paris or Toronto. The attitude then would be, "We should have seen this coming. We should have done something to stop it."
Well for once we are doing something to keep things from happening before they happen.
I can not argue in any way that a conflict is backed by pure motives. I am certain that because of the nature of people, this one is not either. However, I do not think that just because a part is spoiled you throw out the entire idea. You can't sacrifice saftey because you don't like who might happen benefit economically from it.
And FWIW I concur that international sentiement does not seem to be anti-Americans, but rather anti-American-policy.
NPR Commentary (Score:4, Insightful)
Listen to the commentary. [npr.org] Transcript follows...
PETER FREUNDLICH:
All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war. The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will. Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?
Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it.
Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot afford dissension among ourselves. We must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We are sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does. And we are twisting the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition. We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them.
Listen. Don't misunderstand. I think it is a good thing that the members of the Bush administration seem to have been reading Lewis Carroll. I only wish someone had pointed out that "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" are meditations on paradox and puzzle and illogic and on the strangeness of things, not templates for foreign policy. It is amusing for the Mad Hatter to say something like, `We must make war on him because he is a threat to peace,' but not amusing for someone who actually commands an army to say that.
As a collector of laughable arguments, I'd be enjoying all this were it not for the fact that I know--we all know--that lives are going to be lost in what amounts to a freak, circular reasoning accident.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Why care about being hated? (Score:3, Insightful)
scripsit Dr. Transparent:
Well, I don't read Hebrew, so I thought I'd check the Vulgate. Exodus 20:13 reads (in its entirety) ``non occides.'' That means ``do not strike down'' or ``do not slay'' -- the verb occidere has nothing whatsoever to do with legality. It just means don't kill people. Sorry.
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.
Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror" (Score:2, Insightful)
Twaddle. How can you honestly think attacking Iraq will take a away terrorist training grounds? Most terrorists operate quite succesfully without resorting to training in friendly countries. Timothy McVeigh succeeded within the US itself. The IRA spent 30 years attack the British and N. Irish. Eta in the Basque region of Spain have no problems, nor do the Farque, although they have some local jungle. Anybody who thinks this will do anything to reduce terrorism is extremely naive and deluded.
As it stands, there are many sources of bio and chemical weapons, some of which originated in the US. Iraq is the least of our concerns. Disgruntled and poor ex-Soviets are more of a concern than some two-bit Iraqi.
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: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.
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, 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.
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
Fucking warmongers! (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdW
Why in fucks name should they install an american as a leader on arab soil when endless amount of opposition is prepared and come from good educations out being refugees in european countries? I think that USA wants to install an America friendly puppet gov in iraq.
Whats next, China, Israel, Cuba, North Korea, Mocambique, Germany or France?
This war has no legatimicy whatsoever and is an attack without reason. Am mad as hell and if I am mad as hell think how people thinks in arab countries? This if anything is going to bring out endless streams of terrorists raving mad and pissed of at USA. Even if they are liberated they arent happy at all with how and why that happen in iraq either.
USA wanted war on terrorism and they have just begun recruting terrorists for the opposite side, stupid fucks!
Then we have the issue of civil war in iraq/turkue. Half of kurdistan is in iraq and half of it in turkue. Both the turks and Saddam have been threating the kurds as garbage and there will be an uprising if the turks invade northen iraq, from the kurds. This war creates terrorism and instability wich is precisely what the USa set out to reduce.
Is USA that stupid? I really dont think so. Something else is behind this, money and power. The terrorists obviously succeded in what they set out for in September 11, make USA behaive like assholes. Now they have a fresh supply of eager people willing to die for their rights.
PS I dont hate Americans but something i hate is warmongers. DS
Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
There are many countries who did arm Iraq many years ago.
There was France who built their nuclear reactor (destroyed later by Israel) and who sold them many weapons (missiles, aircraft,
But there were also England, Germany and US who sold them many standard weapons and
Who in terms of $$ has the most business with Iraq?
Do you really believe that the US government started this war only for humanity reasons ? As for a fact, US imports much more oil from Iraq than France does.
Re:WRONG! At least they're not dying of starvation (Score:2, Insightful)
If the US wanted to be helpful, they could have started by spending that vast amount of money in helping underdeveloped countries.
It would have probably been much cheaper, and it would have improved the US's reputation.
Just my 0.02 yen.
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.
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.
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.
242 is no longer strictly in effect (Score:4, Insightful)
The main current Israeli violation is settlement construction, which the US *has* pointed out, and is currently exerting fairly strong pressure to bring an end to.
Re:And today (Score:1, Insightful)
Probably not, given that the US has vetoed another 35 security council resolutions regarding Israel (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.htm
Hardly a surprise people in the Middle East are angry at the US government.
(What is a little more surprising is that they take pains to draw a distinction between American *people* - who they rather like - and the American *government* - which they hate with a passion and see as an oppressive force in the region.)
Re:And today (Score:2, Insightful)
A guy with a 'suitcase nuke' could:
1. Benchpress his own weight, and not only that, carry it around like, well, a suitcase!
2. Convince people that hauling around obsccenely heavy luggage, while looking extremely supiscious, was no big deal because it was "filled with heavy papers".
3. Die fairly quickly, because there wasn't enough room for shielding, OR have the above really heavy "suitcase".
Steamer-Trunk-nuke is what you're looking for, or, maybe "a normal warhead put into large luggage".
The movie version of "Sum of all fears" had it right. You want a coke-machine nuke, or an SUV-nuke, for effective deployment... (hmm... damn SUV folks... they might be terrorists!)...
Not a suitcase.
The smallest the soviets got was 8x16x24 inches, and 60 pounds, which would look far too suspiscious lugging around, even though it fits in that form factor.
Unless you want to buy this Sun E-10K suitcase/laptop I'm making... lots of CPU, but you may need a small team to carry it.... :-)
Re:Waiting (Score:3, Insightful)
Just remember what Bush said to the Iraqi on Tuesday evening: "And it will be no excuse to say, 'I was just following orders.' "
Mind that this also applies to you.
Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay, I'll bite...
"...no one want to see innocent Iraqi civilians dead." And yet, after 10 years of war and sanctions, there are close to 100,000 (some reports claim more) civilians dead. Saddam is a tyrant and he's no human rights activist, but I'd say the Bush's win the race for innocent civilians killed.
"Iraqi expatriates living in the U.S. are very glad indeed that this war is happening." I see. So you polled a sufficiently large sample size of Iraqi expatriates to make this claim? Funny, because it so happens that I grew up in Saudi Arabia. I happen to know some Iraqis who now live in the U.S. They are happy to live in the U.S. because the opportunities are good. And they are grateful for them. They are NOT happy about the war, because it is being waged on their homeland by people who have no authority there. They may not be happy with the government, but they are unified and independent. You are very very very mistaken if you think that means they want the U.S. to invade them and throw their country into chaos. Just because someone is happy about living here doesn't mean they've turned their backs on their homeland. You may want to rethink your logic. Should we now wage war on China, India, Russia, etc., because they have expatriates who came here in hopes of a better life? And by the way, you should stay away from generalizations, especially when you don't even have a small sampling of proof. There are more than 250 million people in the U.S. That you think you can accurately assess their feelings about the war is beyond arrogant.
"Blaming Bush for the economy is senseless." We're not blaming Bush for the economy. At least I'm not. I'm blaming him for putting it on the backburner for a war that isn't justifiable. AND, to add to that, he's asking Congress for an additional $70 BILLION for war funding. Now, just where do you think that money's going to come from???
Gore lost an election in which he received more votes. Hmm, maybe the Iraqi government isn't the only one that needs some changes. But maybe you should just learn to live with that too?
"UK, Spain, Australia" Gee, I don't suppose this could've been political at all, do you? Or do you actually think they are only worried about the 'oppressed' Iraqi people. Plus, you may not want to be so naive as to mistake the government's support as being equal to the popular opinion. Watch Tony Blair lose in the next elections.
But all that is really besides the point. To be honest, I could care less how many GOVERNMENTS support Bush. This war hasn't been justified. All avenues have not been exhausted. Are you really going to blindly follow your government into war just because they say you should? I'm sure the Germans won't make that mistake again. Let's not make it for the first time.
Let's look at we claim are the objectives for this war...
- To liberate the Iraqis and to rid the world of a ruthless dictator with weapons of mass destruction.
First off - where exactly are these weapons of mass destruction? Don't you think that if there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction and there was a threat of them using it, that the people most worried would be the Saudis? And yet, they denounce the war. Don't you think their opinion counts a little more than the UK's, Spain's, or (*cynical snort*) Australia's? Up until the Gulf War, Iraq was a thriving Middle East nation. Yes, Saddam made some bad decisions. The government made mistakes. But we made the entire nation suffer for it. Their economy and social structure now stands in ruins. So how exactly is dropping more bombs and missles on them going to liberate them? Or do you think it might, just MIGHT, create a whole new generation of people who hate us even more and become potential terrorists? Let's stop putting on these airs of pretension that we are liberators, shall we? There are many other nat
Re:prayers (Score:3, Insightful)
Or if you believe the 500,000 children dying from the sanctions, pragmatically then swift military action now followed by a lifing of embargos would save hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives wouldn't it?
Phillip.
Re:Don't see why it's so hard for some (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:prayers (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, we're ending a war that began 12 years ago. After Saddam is deposed , we'll be able to cease the intermittent bombing, root out any WMDs, and (most importantly) end the economic sanctions that have killed thousands and driven the entire country into ruin. Hell, I'd say that military and civilian casualties are *worth* that outcome.
The facts (Score:3, Insightful)
Censorship in slashdot? (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope that metamods will take this into account and that they will be more objective than those people who do not know how to use the privelege of modding and who turn it into a tool of censorship.
My thoughts (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm late to this discussion, I can't read everything, I just want to post my thoughts somewhere...
I'm so confused about this war.
Saddam Hussein is going to go. Great.
This war is totally illegal. The international community will hurt for years.
150,000 Iraqis died in the Gulf War, half of them civilians. This war is more extreme, and will have urban warfare. Double that at least. :-(
If this war is a good thing, it's NOT because of the reasons the US is giving. Iraq is not a threat. There are no ties with Al Qaeda. I don't believe in significant amounts of chemical/bio weapons in Hussein's hands. Bush just wants war for war's sake. I guess Syria or something will be next, North Korea is too dangerous.
But what's important is not this war. It's what comes after. And I have a really bad feeling about that. It will be really, really hard to keep this country from falling into civil war. It's basically impossible. And there's no way the US is going to keep this level of military presence there for five years, or how long it will take.
Look at Afghanistan. They were going to support it, build it up after bombing it. Currently there is military presence in Kabul (German and Dutch troops), and there are Americans chasing terrorists. Hardly any presence to support the new government in the rest of the country. There's no money earmarked for Afghanistan in next year's budget. They're already forgotten. Iraq will hardly be different.
And the result? More war in the middle east, fertile ground for terrorism and anti-americanism, etc... A good climate to keep war for war's sake going on indefinetely.
Re:WRONG! (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell me where, if any, people can now say they are free. Tell me where the government is now a democratic one and respects human rights.
Just to know...
Re:prayers (Score:3, Insightful)
> terms of the cease-fire they signed in March,
> 1991, the sanctions would have been lifted.
If you believe what Scott Ritter said when he resigned from the UN weapons inspection team in 1998, Saddam Hussein was indeed trying to rebuild its weapon capability, but at the same time he said that weapons inspections were working very well, so well that the Iraq leaders hated him and accused him of being a spy. He resigned because he didn't feel that the US leadership in particular (at that time the Clinton administration) had not make it a priority for the weapons inspections to work (and neither has the Bush administration, to be fair).
Scott Ritter later spoke against the economic sanction saying that they were targetting the innocents in Iraq, and that tough weapons inspections backed by a strong UN security council lead by the USA would have done the job of disarming Saddam Hussein.
Please read interview [guardian.co.uk]
To me this whole Iraq story is an international debacle for all concerned, from the Iraq leadership to the US via the UN security council. Sure Saddam Hussein is bad, but there was a way to declaw him and contain him all the while not forcing the Iraqi people to starve or to be blown up by bombs.
I think the narrow focus of the allies on putting maximum pressure on Saddam to resign and listing this as the only condition for the lifting of sanction has caused hundreds of thousands of people to die in Iraq. Now more must still die there because not a single leader could make the right decision.
I'm truly ashamed to be associated with this as a Westerner.
Re:WRONG! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well the prosecutor, US, was not happy with that, so they simply decided to ignore the ruling and pass their own judgement. And in doing so made the UN irrelevant. I can't fathom how the US can call it self a justice state, when they blatantly ingnore the ruling of the highest authority in international justice. Just imagine if in a criminal court the prosecutor was not happy with the jury having dismissed the charges and went ahead and executed the defendant anyway. Is that justice?
Bush had made up his mind to attack Iraq long before he ever went to the UN to seek approval. I don't need to remind you that we had put inspectors in Iraq, they we doing their job, Iraq was dismentaling missiles the inspectors had said were illegal and Iraq was all the time delivering new information about its weapons programs to the inspectors. Granted this was largely due to the pressure put on Iraq by the US forces, but that doesn't change that fact that the system was working and there is absolutely no justification for the use of military force at the momen as France, Germany, Russia, China and others have pointed out. America at the same time ignored all the positive results coming from Iraq and failed to give the World any credible evidence to back up their own claims that Iraq possesses WMDs.
Most people, myself included, agree that Saddam is a cruel dictator, but the way US has gone about this 'trial' is completely against every shred of international law. Maybe this just highlights Bush's total lack of knowledge and experience about international politics.
Sins of the father. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My reply to michael moore (Score:3, Insightful)
Ad hominem is never justified. It's a crutch for those who can't think of any actual arguments to sustain their positions.
How to spend 400billion... (Score:1, Insightful)
Like researching other energy sources so that control over oil was of no importance.
Anyway... can't hurt to have a colony in the Middle East. Get the Britney Spears and Hollywood gospel out to the Muslims.
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....
I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
I realize that Saddam had years and years to disarm, and that he's (supposedly) got weapons of mass destruction, and he's violated the UN decisions time and time again... But he's not the only one. North Korea openly admits to having nukes, while Saddam continues to insist that he got rid of all the mass destruction stuff. There are plenty of nations out there that have ignored and/or violated UN decisions, and we can now add our name to that list, but we aren't attacking all of them.
What really bothers me about this is the fact that we're the bad-guy. In just about every other war I can think of, and especially anything recent, the US was the good-guy. We were going in there to make things better. To fix something that was broken. And generally speaking, the world stood behind us. This time around, it looks as if the only ones who want to go to war are the US and Brittain, while everyone else screams for peace.
I wouldn't find that nearly so disturbing if our reasons didn't seem to shift with every new day. First we had this "war on terror" thing, and Iraq was linked to terrorism. Then it was about him not disarming and ignoring the UN. Then it had something to do with pre-emptively attacking so he couldn't hit us. Now we're "liberating" Iraq. Sure, all these reasons could be true.... That's possible. But the way they're being presented feels like a kid fishing around for excuses.
I've taken plenty of comparative religion and anthropology courses in college, and I just can't shake the feeling that we shouldn't be going over there to "liberate" anyone. Maybe they're oppressed...maybe they aren't. I don't know. But it seems to me that if a nation wants liberation, it should come from within. Who are we to say that they need to be liberated? Who else around this world needs to be liberated? Who is next?
I'm also more than a little saddened to see history repeating itself... We've funded more than one extremist group in the Middle East beause it served our purposes at the time. We give them money, hardware, training...tell them that we'll help them rebuild after it is all over...and they attack our enemies. Sounds great, but then we leave them high and dry, with no help on the rebuilding. This, understandably, leaves a sour taste in their mouth and eventually leads to a new enemy for the US. And then we go in and "liberate" the country from these horrible, awful people. That's how Bin Laden and the Taliban got their start...that's how Saddam got his start... And if you'll notice, it looks like we're leaving Afganistan high & dry at the moment.
I suppose, if I had more faith in the President, that I wouldn't be objecting nearly as much. The fact of the matter though, is that I don't like Bush. He seems like an idiotic rich kid who just got voted in because of his daddy. I know this probably isn't true, I doubt if it is really that easy to become president, but that is the image that he portrays. Add to that the questionable evidence of drug use, alchoholism, and his ties to big business... I don't like his politics. I don't like how he's handling the international scene. I don't like his assorted tax cuts and school reforms. In short, I can't wait to vote him out.
I can't help but wonder if we'd be better off if Gore had been elected. Maybe we'd still be going to war, maybe we wouldn't.... Nobody can know that. Maybe this war is completely necessary, and there's no way it could have been avoided. But, with this idiot behind the wheel, I have a very hard time feeling good about anything the US is doing these days. When so much of the world is against us on this decision, it just makes me wonder even more. Is this really necessary? Are the motives really humanitarian? Is there no better way?
yrs,
Ephemeriis
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: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?)
American Isolationism (Score:2, Insightful)
After the war, the US became a "Super Power" (a term I really hate btw) as a counter balance against the Soviets. It is quite probable the Soviet Union would have overrun the rest of Europe without the US presence.
Now we are the lone "Super Power". No one wants a Super Power, even a benevolent one, without some counter balance. Also, there is always pressure from allies and from our own politicians to use that power for their own national/political interests. An example of this is the Bosnia/Kosovo wars. Our allies in Nato put pressure on the US to get involved there. Another example is Somalia. As long as the US is out front in military confrontations, even justified ones, we will continue to create enmity even with those who wanted us to get involved.
I see 2 paths we can take here. We can continue slowly becomming more imperialistic in response to attacks by people we have made enemies creating even more enemies in the process or we can begin withdrawing our military from bases all over the world. I for one favor the latter. It is time for a return to isolationism.
We can keep the bloated, unnecessary military budget as long as the military takes in people our schools are unable to educate and teach them. We can keep the bases within the US that politicians find so hard to close for political and economic reasons. It would be a social/education program of sorts. Perhaps not the most efficient one but it would have more political support and the military/industrial complex would go along with it.
Re:And today (Score:2, Insightful)
The number of people who actually opposed it sort of boosted my faith in humanity and reason but the fact that it didn't help much shook this faith.
Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror" (Score:2, Insightful)
>whose people are more free in many ways than we
>are, at the moment, but they learned it from us.
We did not learn it from you, you arrogant arse.
You Americans deprived your own citizens of the power to vote simply based on their skin pigmentation until about the 1960s.
Re:prayers (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't impose "democracy" anyway. The concepts are fundermentally mutually exclusive. Let alone that it's most unlikely that the US wants a democratic Iraq. The US wants a pro-US government in Iraq. It's most unlikely that one which represented the Iraqi people would be anything other than strongly anti-USA.
Re:prayers (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that and needing someone to take out the Iranians (and by weapons from us to support the Contras)
Re:prayers (Score:3, Insightful)
Most Gulf oil goes to Europe and Asia. It always has. Our oil mostly comes from other sources. And if we wanted to free up the oil supply, all we had to do was ease the embargo on Iraq.
Its important to remember that the first Gulf war started in August 1990, not January 1991. Iraq invaded and conquered Kuwait in order to take control over thier oil reserves. That's also why Iraq tried to invade Iran in the 1980s. Hussein wants to control oil. So yeah, the first Gulf war was about oil, because that's what Hussein intends to use to build an empire.
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
U.S. can "throw U.N. in the dustbin?" (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it would be a mistake to assume that the U.N. represents perfect moral and international authority; it's better than nothing, but it is still just a forum where nations bicker and politic as usual.
Remember that the Security Council did not authorize force in the Balkans either (thanks, France and Russia). The U.N. also voted the U.S. off of its human rights commission, in favor of Sudan and Libya. This is the organization that declares what international justice is?
I only claim that America is no worse than other nations in pursuing its national interests while pursuing international interests as well. Tone done the rhetoric, eh? I find all this hyperbole about the evil U.S. hurtful and narrow-minded.
Re:prayers (Score:3, Insightful)
- ignore the will of the international community
- kill thousands of innocent civilians just to get to one man...twice
- still purposely go after civilian facilities just to take out the weapons
- spend billions of dollars on war while it's economy is falling
- claim to observe democracy but ignores hundreds of thousands of it's own people shouting for peace
Personally, I believe the problem lies in bush. I'm pretty sure or at least sincerely hope that most americans, pro-war or not, aren't really that dumb. You got to admit, he wasn't an all too intelligent person to begin with but the sept 11 tragedy must have sent too many shocks to his brain and fried some circuits. Being the president, he has the authority to make his country go to war, even if some aren't too sure about it. And being american citizens, they're expected to be patriotic and support the country. It's easy enough to convince most of your own citizens to offer support and make them believe what you need them to believe through pro-government mass media and whatever other means.
Now look at what the bush is doing. He's making the government defy the international community and forgo the consent of other major powers to do as he wishes. Maybe he has some personal vendetta or something but this is leading a whole nation and probably many of it's allies into alot of trouble. When was the last time a country defied the international community and went unilateral? Think WW2.
While i really don't think this will be the immediate cause of WW3, i'm pretty sure that in future, people are going to look back and curse that bush for doing this. Just take a look around. How many other major powers are split and unhappy about the US doing this. The bush has single-handedly(or with the help of a government and an army) managed to plant the seeds of doubt and displeasure in so many other countries. In time these divisions would grow wider and set the stage for certain parties to group together to rival certain other parties. Unless of course the US starts some major public relations after this. At least give a reason for ties to improve. No one wants to fight over an issue in a country far far away...though of course there are other issues
Anyway, to most of us slashdot readers,especially the more youthful , war is just something where you camp(use tactics) with a sniper on a ledge behind some tree and wait for some assaulter to run to the door of the convoy truck.
Try living a day in the front lines and you'll realize that you'll never want anyone else to go through this, american or not.