Updates on War in Iraq 2116
New Developments on the war in Iraq:
Oil Fields ablaze in southern Iraq.
Turkey opens airspace to U.S..
US Forces 3rd Infantry Fire Heavy Artillery at Southern Iraq.
The schedule has been accelerated due to infrastructure destruction.
CT: Explosions and heavy anti aircraft fire heard in Baghdad.
We'll continue to update as new information warrants.
USA PR (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:5, Informative)
They have great coverage (of what can be covered anyway).
- OrbNobz
And the rockets red glare...the bombs bursting in air...
War Blogs ... (Score:2, Informative)
BBC blogs
Raed in Baghdad [blogspot.com]
What is this, though? Today post on explosions in Iraq and yesterday news the explosion of guest workers in the US. What's up, is slashdot getting serious or something? No news on some geek painting his computer case?
Faster. Better. Just as Free(er) (Score:5, Informative)
They seem to be keeping it pretty fresh.
Personally, it seems they'll do better than the Slashdot crew in the News for Everbody realm.
www.blogsofwar.com (Score:1, Informative)
Re:War Update (Score:4, Informative)
I am watching a CNN feed on my desktop while I try to get work done. I must admit that I am quite a war news junkie.
As far as hiring him away. Nic Roberts is Senior Foreign Coorespondant for CNN. I think he is making pretty good dough.
Do you think these guys get hazard pay?
Re:War Update (Score:4, Informative)
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
If he stays online this could be an interesting viewpoint.
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Scud Missles launched (Score:5, Informative)
More coverage in streaming video (Score:3, Informative)
Available in the netherlands only, sorry :(
Re:Scud Missles launched (Score:1, Informative)
(info from Kuwait and England forces)
Re:Scud Missles launched (Score:1, Informative)
We have a new problem (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:5, Informative)
Not exactly a great feed [or unbiased!], but a good way to keep in touch of what's going on.
Re:And it all could have been avoided... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A488 56-2003Mar18.html
Re:War Update (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:War Update (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thoughts From An American (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I think you misunderstand me. I do NOT in any way approve of the US invading North Korea. The costs would simply be far too high, even if the DPRK did not possess nuclear weapons (which it might). Even now, there are North Korean artillery in place which can fire 50,000 rounds an hour into downtown Seoul. A military conflict there would be disasterous.
What I am advocating is that we step up negotiations with North Korea, which China, South Korea, and Japan are all trying to persuade us to do. If our senate would have ratified the 1994 treaty, which would have given North Korea a couple of nuclear power plants jointly run by the US and Japan, this nuclear standoff could likely have been averted. In the meantime, North Korea's goals are still basically diplomatic: the regime there wants normalization of relations with the US, a non-agression treaty, and a return of fuel and power aid.
Additionally, I would like to note that China's government does have mixed feelings about North Korea. On the one hand, China has always enjoyed having another communist state as a "buffer" in the region. On the other hand, North Korea has become an albatross about China's neck. Without assistance from the Chinese government, North Korea would essentially collapse, both politically and economically, and the cost to China of maintaining that regime keeps getting higher. Additionally, China has (albiet slowly) been making economic and political reforms aimed at democratizing Chinese society and promoting more private industry. North Korea is not making similar efforts, which has caused the two countries to be farther apart politically than ever before. If anything, China is interested in being a partner with the US in resolving the Korean crises. The PRC, like the US, realizes it is in noone's interested to have a nuclear Korean peninsula.
Re:And it all could have been avoided... (Score:5, Informative)
The SCUD itself is banned. His missiles are limited (by UN mandate) to have a range of no more than 150km.
irc newsfeeds (Score:4, Informative)
slashnet -> #newswire (periodic updates)
efnet -> #cnn-live (live closed-caption feed from CNN)
These are the only 2 I've found so far. If anyone has other suggestions, please reply to this comment.
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:5, Informative)
I believe CNN used to have their own server, and I believe somebody decided to steal the nick of President Clinton while there were people transcribing an interview.
Re:Scud Missles launched (Score:4, Informative)
2 were Scuds [reuters.com], 2 were Chinese made missiles, codenamed Seersucker by the West.
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:5, Informative)
Try Reuters Focus Iraq [reuters.com]. Reuters is governed by Trust Principles [reuters.com] which ensure that unlike CNN or the BBC, there is no political bias. Wherever you get your news, it's highly likely that it came from Reuters originally, then was repackaged by your newspaper, TV station or web site.
(Disclaimer: I am a Reuters employee, but I'm nothing to do with the news side).
Re:need suggestions, please (Score:3, Informative)
We lost a stealth already. (Score:2, Informative)
One loss in how many bombing runs isn't that shabby for a weapon of war. It's a moot point, actually.
The Iraqis are just covering the air with AA fire, hoping that they hit something. There was a large bit o' outrage about our 'invincible' weapon being shot down back in Bosnia - Iraq's probably hoping for that to happen here, too.
Tip to military commanders: Never let the politicians insist you are undefeatable, otherwise, when your inevitable defeat happens, everyone gets whiny on your ass.
Re:Thoughts From An American (Score:4, Informative)
During WW2, we basically declared war on Hitler. A lot of "innocent Germans" were killed during that war, but I think most agree that sometimes a terrible price is necessary to bring peace to the world.
The US didn't declare war on Germany. Germany was the agressor. WW2 was triggered when Hitlers took Poland. Europe was then fed up by Germanys imperialism and declared war. The US on this time stood back and watch. When they entered it was in true self defence (perl harbour) and it was allready a fullscale war where Germany couldn't complain about losses (they were the agressor, remember.)
Re:Advice to troops (Score:5, Informative)
In explaining the mission of our soldiers, we can't do any better than Major-General J.N. Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division now heading somewhere into Iraq. Here is what he told his troops in his "Message to All Hands" on the eve of war:
"For decades, Saddam Hussein has tortured, imprisoned, raped and murdered the Iraqi people; invaded neighboring countries without provocation; and threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction. The time has come to end his reign of terror. On your young shoulders rest the hopes of mankind.
"When I give you the word, together we will cross the Line of Departure, close with those forces that choose to fight, and destroy them. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who choose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression.
"Chemical attack, treachery, and use of the innocent as human shields can be expected, as can other unethical tactics. Take it all in stride. Be the hunter, not the hunted: Never allow your unit to be caught with its guard down. Use good judgment and act in best interests of our Nation.
"You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on your left and right and Marine Air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit.
"For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of the men who carried the Division's colors in past battles -- who fought for life and never lost their nerve -- carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world there is 'No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy' than a U.S. Marine."
don't use the word WAR (Score:5, Informative)
It is a conflict!! The media is fixated on using the word "war".
Re:Mmmm Oceans (Score:2, Informative)
At least, at this point in Europe, people are actively looking for ways to avoid killing and war. Trying, for once, to put the power of thinking, and applying rational arguments to reach a solution.
Europe's large gripe with the US at the moment is that it didn't follow international law (which up to now, it's been clamouring for), and, as far as can be seen, simply got bored of waiting for the weapons inspectors to come to conclusions. So went ahead and waged war.
Many of the inspectors came to the conclusion that there was nothing more to find.. Incidentally, I wonder what would happen in the US was forced to account for all it's fissile material.. Last accounts were that there was a lot that couldn't be accounted for.
The politicians know that just because nothing's been found, you can never conclusively say there was nothing. However, finding one thing proves your argument. The know they can 'keep searching' forever for something that's not there, and still hold the moral high ground. It just got to the point that this was a pretty shaky argument, that most of Europe found too flimsy to wage a full war on.
So, to the eden free of bloodshed. Most of Europe wanted to keep this free of bloodshed. Guess which country plowed right on in there to spill blood at this current moment of time?
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Scud Missles launched (Score:3, Informative)
Further info:
In Kuwait, the four missiles fired by Iraq were not Scuds, but shorter-range weapons. Two were Ababil 100's, which were shot down by Patriots. Another was a tactical ballistic missile, but no name or type was made available. The fourth was an antiship missile, which landed near the marines at Camp Commando.
(nytimes.com)
Re:Thoughts From An American (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:5, Informative)
The BBC's streaming radio may be worth checking out; radio 4 is the main spoken word station, has lots of news, usually on the hour. Dunno if they're carrying their new CNN-alike 24 hour rolling news TV channel though, if you can't get it on satellite or cable.
Just for the record, I'm against the war, but sadly as a news junkie I find it horribly compelling...
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:3, Informative)
Good reply on Zmag (Score:2, Informative)
The Hitler regime was possessed of imposing military might, backed up by an advanced industrial complex that was working flat out and was a leader in various spheres, including weaponry. The Führer, who had come to power through democratic means, boasted of the superiority of his State and his model of society and did not conceal his intention to seek world control. Such was his power and arrogance, and so obvious was the fervour of his support, that he was able to cow most Western governments. In the face of their cowardice, he was able to flout international law, aided by the Western governments' approval of his ferocious antipathy to communism, whose adherents the Nazis accused of terrorism (vide the trials for the Reichstag fire).
So how does this compare with the regime of Saddam Hussein? The Iraqi dictator - whose army could not defeat Iran despite backing from the United States and Russia - is in no position to contemplate attacking anybody. Industrially, the country lacks the means even of defending itself, with an underfed population and half its territory subject to foreign-imposed no-fly zones. Indeed, Saddam for many months has resigned himself to ever-increasing humiliations as inspectors are allowed even to look under the carpets in his own home.
Re:but Saddam (Score:3, Informative)
"Scud" is now used (in this country, the UK) to mean any Iraqi missile capable of targetting a near by foreign country but not necessarily reliable enough to hit the city it was aimed at. In a technical sense it is a particular type of Soviet (?) missile sold to the Iraqis a long time ago.
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:2, Informative)
The show "Mosaic: World News from the Middle East" has news broadcast from around the world, including Al Jazeera.
These news stations have a lot more reporters scattered throughout Baghdad.
You can see their episodes streamed here:
http://video.csupomona.edu/streaming/worldlink/wor ldlink_index.html [csupomona.edu]
Oscar
Re:YES SCUDS (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong! It DOES matter. The US dollar is currently the standard currency in the world. We make money off of this every time someone coverts their currency to dollars. If the Euro becomes the standard we (the US) loose out on the conversion. Duh! It's not completely freely interchangeable. The is a percentage on the exchange.
Re:GPS (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mutually Assured Destruction? (Score:3, Informative)
Because the UN inspectors were a very bad security risk. Their communications were monitored by the Iraqi government, they were driven around by Iraqi informants, and it's quite likely that their movements and plans were often known well in advance. We shared a great deal with them, but you don't give your most sensitive intelligence data to people who can't keep secrets. (All assuming that we actually had the current data then, anyway.)
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:4, Informative)
Mind you discussion is available in #livenews-discuss on that network also.
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Oh and how it matters. Money is not interchangable by all means, if you buy too much of one currency you decrease the value of your own. The U.S. foreign trade deficit is so high that the only way oil (and other) imports can be made without causing the domestic finance system to go bankrupt is to make these transactions using the dollar as currency, so that the spendings are reinvested by the foreign exporters in the u.s. finance market. Otherwise u.s. importers would have to massiveley buy foreign currencies to pay the imports, which would lead to an enourmos decrease of the value of the greenback, resulting in higher inflation, less consumer spendings and thus to a decrease of the u.s. economic output over long.
On the Bosnia thing... (Score:3, Informative)
But I do know a fair amount about the Bosnian conflict. Or at least I know the region pretty well. I've been to Bosnia, to Slovenia and to Crotia. I've met Paddy Ashdown, the High Representative of the UN. I know local journalists. My best friend was in Sarajevo last weekend. Please don't tell me I know nothing about it.
I am not saying the US is or was perfect, heck they make mistakes all the time. But they intervened in Bosnia for reasons that had nothing to do with oil, or money. They intervened to save further needless bloodshed. Maybe they were right, maybe they were wrong. But you can't maintain they put Americans live on the line for narrow nationalistic purpose, or out of a desire to gain power, prestige or money.
Roadmap for War on Iraq (Score:2, Informative)
Elliott Abrams [alternet.org] , Gary Bauer [motherjones.com]
William J. Bennett [amazon.com], Jeb Bush [observer.co.uk]
Dick Cheney [time.com] , Eliot A. Cohen [foreignaffairs.org]
Midge Decter [writersreps.com], Paula Dobriansky [state.gov]
Steve Forbes [realchange.org], Aaron Friedberg [princeton.edu]
Francis Fukuyama [amazon.com], Frank Gaffney [centerfors...policy.org]
Fred C. Ikle [csis.org], Donald Kagan [financialsense.com]
Zalmay Khalilzad [truthout.org], I. Lewis Libby [larouchepub.com]
Norman Podhoretz [pravda.ru], Dan Quayle [xmission.com]
Peter W. Rodman [nixoncenter.org], Stephen P. Rosen [harvard.edu], Henry S. Rowen [stanford.edu]
Donald Rumsfeld [washtimes.com] , Vin Weber [mediatransparency.org], George Weigel [eppc.org], Paul Wolfowitz [defenselink.mil]
xyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzy
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
To put the role of oil in this conflict in perspective I think it's important to note the following quote by congressman Dennis Kucinich, which the Washington Post chose not to print:
"For what major Iraqi resource has Saddam Hussein denied contracts with the largest U.S. and U.K. multinational companies? (Note, those companies are the #2 (ExxonMobil), #4 (BP-Amoco), #8 (Shell) and #14 (ChevronTexaco) largest companies in the world, and the Bush Administration has been known to listen when large energy corporations speak.)"
Obviously the answer is oil. His full statement is available at http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15359
Say again? (Score:5, Informative)
Uhm-hm. I came across this text from Thom Hartmann which you may find interesting. The closing pieces about federally empowered corporations are especially interesting, and may ring a bell with the Slashdot crowd.
When Democracy Failed: The warnings of history
18 Mar 2003
The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.
It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.korpios.org/resurgent/CIAtimeline.ht
Reuters principles?
Operation MOCKINGBIRD -- The CIA begins recruiting American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda. The effort is headed by Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham is publisher of The Washington Post, which becomes a major CIA player. Eventually, the CIAs media assets will include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service and more. By the CIAs own admission, at least 25 organizations and 400 journalists will become CIA assets.
lemonde.fr (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:3, Informative)
Had. It seems to have been closed. (chat.cnn.com still opens up to a mostly barren chat with links to non exsisting web pages and email addresses which bounce)
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:2, Informative)
The Serbs used Microwave Ovens as Decoys (Score:4, Informative)
The Serbs used to bypass the door interlocks and leave micorwave ovens outside during an attack with the door open. A $50K missile or smart bomb then takes out a $150 microwave oven.
Re:Ask the Iraqi's (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.icarusindie.com/waroniraq [icarusindie.com]
in the documents folder. I'll update the mirror every day or so.
If you havn't already, please vote at
http://www.icarusindie.com/survey [icarusindie.com]
You can view the current results of that poll at
http://www.icarusindie.com/survey/results.php [icarusindie.com]
Thanks,
Ben
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:2, Informative)
The fact that Fox is popular is because they know what sells. Murdoch didn't get to be where he is by being stupid. I agree that, most of the consumers of Fox (and maybe news in general) are looking for a conservative, pro-govt mouthpiece. Cool. They got it and it seems there's a lot of them. I just wish there was something more reasonable and balanced.
Re:We lost a stealth already. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Anti-aircraft fire & F-117 Stealth detectio (Score:3, Informative)
I state it as "fact" because it is as close to fact as you can get. It was on CNN last evening with CNN military advisors (retired military) stating point blank that it was a "golden bb" in the moonlight allowing the fighter to be visable.
Simply knowing the route of an aircraft doesn't make it very easy or likely that you will be able to shoot it down with small arms or AAA fire. SEEING a plane, whether you gained intel on its route or not increases the odds of a hit immeasureably.
Through all of Desert Storm, with the Iraqi's spraying FAR more ordinance into the air than the Serbs managed, they didn't have much luck hitting aircraft - and they had knowledge that the aircraft were there (they took looks with radar VERY briefly to get a general bead) and they could clearly hear them as well. I was there and thus have first-hand experience in that regard (Desert Storm, not Bosnia).
Parent Incorrect (Re:The Inspections are Working!) (Score:3, Informative)
It's been known for most of the day that the initial reports of SCUD launches had no basis in fact - even CNN has reported that the missiles were not SCUDs (go check it out!).
Of course, the sibling post is equally incorrect - troops did _not_ don chemical gear because any chemicals were detected, but simply as a precaution, and took them off a short time later when the all-clear was sounded (about 3 times so far today).
Please, people - by lying, you make it look like there really is no justification for the war, and that, more than any Iraqi missiles, is the biggest threat to US security and interests now.
Re:France is NOT major customer - USA is (Score:4, Informative)
The U.S. is the major consumer of Iraqi oil (at least in 2002).
You can get the statistics here [doe.gov], and I apologize in advance that they're Excel format. Check out Table 3.14.
Quick summary: Iraq exported (on average) 10.726 million BPD in 2002, of which (on average) 5.316 m BPD came to the US. France imported 0.953 m BPD from Iraq.
Oh, and in case you're curious - that makes Iraq the 4th largest OPEC exporter to France, and probably at best 6th largest overall exporter (GB & Norway being 2 other major suppliers). And in both cases, Iraqi oil made up ~3.5% of the total oil imports to each country (slightly higher for the US than France).
Arrogance of Power Today, I Weep for my Country.. (Score:3, Informative)
Arrogance of Power
Today, I Weep for my Country...
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Speech delivered on the floor of the US Senate
March 19, 2003 3:45pm
I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.
But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.
Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.
We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split.
After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.
The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.
There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.
The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.
But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.
The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home?
A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.
What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for dip
Re:Thoughts From An American (Score:2, Informative)
----
Obviously Oil
By Rep. Dennis Kucinich, AlterNet March 11, 2003
Editor's Note: Although Dennis Kucinich was aggressively attacked by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen for suggesting that the preemptive strike on Iraq was based on oil, the Post refused to print the presidential candidate and Ohio Democrat's response. This was especially frustrating, since the Post editorial stance and balance of editorial page columns have been decidedly pro-war. You can tell the Post how you feel about this ommission at ombudsman@washpost.com.
Is President Bush's war in Iraq about oil? Of course it is. Sometimes, the obvious answer is the right one: Oil is a major factor in the President's march to war, just as oil is a major factor in every aspect of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf.
Ask yourself:
What commodity accounts for 83 percent of total exports from the Persian Gulf? What is the U.S. protecting with our permanent deployment of about 25,000 military personnel, 6 fighter squadrons, 6 bomber squadrons, 13 air control and reconnaissance squadrons, one aircraft carrier battle group, and one amphibious ready group based at 11 military installations in the countries of the Persian Gulf? (Note, the disproportionate troop deployments in the Middle East aren't there to protect the people, who constitute only 2 percent of the world population.)
What was Iraq's number one export when the U.S. made an alliance with Saddam Hussein, sold him biological and chemical weapons agents, and then did not object when he gassed his own people?
For what major Iraqi resource has Saddam Hussein denied contracts with the largest U.S. and U.K. multinational companies? (Note, those companies are the #2 (ExxonMobil), #4 (BP-Amoco), #8 (Shell) and #14 (ChevronTexaco) largest companies in the world, and the Bush Administration has been known to listen when large energy corporations speak.)
For what Iraqi resource did French and Russian multinational companies receive lucrative contracts from Saddam Hussein? What valuable commodity does one reprehensible, megalomaniacal tyrant (Saddam Hussein) control that another reprehensible, megalomaniacal tyrant (Kim Chong-il) does not?
How do the White House and State Department plan to pay for a post-Saddam occupation and reconstruction?
The answer to all of these questions is oil, of course. Oil obviously drives U.S. policy in the Middle East. So who can doubt that this war in Iraq concerns oil?
Meanwhile, the justifications the Administration has made for this war can be rather easily dismissed. Contrary to Administration assertions, a war against Iraq will not be in self-defense: Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the United States. It doesn't have the ability, nor has it ever had the ability, to shoot a missile or send a bomber to harm America. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
No credible link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda has been made. Iraq did not have anything to do with the anthrax-containing letters that killed several Americans.
Contrary to the Administration's portrayal of an Iraqi threat, Iraq is hardly uniquely threatening. Sixteen other countries in the world have or might have nuclear weapons, 25 countries have or might have chemical weapons, 19 other countries have or might have biological weapons, and 16 other countries have or might have missile systems. Yet the Bush Administration is not on the verge of invading them.
Contrary to their denials that this war has anything to do with oil, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle wanted to go to war in Iraq long before they became Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. In a 1998 letter they sent to then-President Clinton, they stated "it hardly needs to be added that i
For anyone that cares - raed's web blog is u/dated (Score:2, Informative)
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
good luck to him.
www.fuck-bush.org (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Senator McCain responds to Senator Byrd.
by US Senator John McCain
Speech delivered on the floor of the US Senate
March 19, 2003
I observed the comments of the distinguished senator from West Virginia concerning the events which are about to transpire within the next hour or so, or days. I did not really look forward to coming to the floor and debating the issue. It has been debated. It has been discussed in the media. It has been discussed at every kitchen table in America. But I felt it would be important for me to respond to allegations concerning the United States of America, its status in the world, and, in particular, what happens after this conflict is over, which I do not think we have paid enough attention to, perhaps understandably, because our first and foremost consideration is the welfare of the young men and women we are sending in harm's way. But to allege that somehow the United States of America has demeaned itself or tarnished its reputation by being involved in liberating the people of Iraq, to me, simply is neither factual nor fair.
The United States of America has involved itself in the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein, and now freedom for the Iraqi people, with the same principles that motivated the United States of America in most of the conflicts we have been involved in, most recently Kosovo and Bosnia, and in which, in both of those cases, the United States national security was not at risk, but what was at risk was our advocacy and willingness to serve and sacrifice on behalf of people who are the victims of oppression and genocide.
We did not go into Bosnia because Mr. Milosevic had weapons of mass destruction. We did not go into Kosovo because ethnic Albanians or others were somehow a threat to the security of the United States. We entered into those conflicts because we could not stand by and watch innocent men, women, and children being slaughtered, raped, and "ethnically cleansed.'' We found a new phrase for our lexicon: "ethnic cleansing.'' Ethnic cleansing is a phrase which has incredible implications.
The mission our military is about to embark on is fraught with danger, and it means the loss of brave young American lives. But I also believe it offers the opportunity for a new day for the Iraqi people.
Madam President, there is one thing I am sure of, that we will find the Iraqi people have been the victims of an incredible level of brutalization, terror, murder, and every other kind of disgraceful and distasteful oppression on the part of Saddam Hussein's regime. And contrary to the assertion of the senator from West Virginia, when the people of Iraq are liberated, we will again have written another chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America, that we will fight for the freedom of other citizens of the world, and we again assert the most glorious phrase, in my view, ever written in the English language; and that is: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people of Iraq , for the first time, will be able to realize those inalienable rights. I am proud of the United States of America. I am proud of the leadership of the president of the United States.
It is not an easy decision to send America's young men and women into harm's way. As I said before, some of them will not be returning. But to somehow assert, as some do, that the people of Iraq and the Middle East are not entitled to those same God-given rights that Americans and people all over the country are, that they do not have those same hopes and dreams and aspirations our own citizens do, to me, is a degree of condescension. I might even use stronger language than that to describe it. So I respectfully disagree with the remarks of the senator from West Virginia. I believe the president of the United States has done everything necessary and has exercised every option short
Re:The Inspections are Working! (Score:1, Informative)
Funny how the US Marines sitting still in the desert have already seen more banned SCUD missiles than the inspectors found in six months of active searching!
Well, it's debatable whether these were SCUDs. From what I've heard, they were missiles that Iraq was permitted to have. They were only banned from having missiles with a range more than a certain distance.
Re:Ask the Iraqi's (Score:4, Informative)
If you'll recall, however, the beginings of the English Parlimentry Democracy were set forth in the Magna Carta (the first step to establishing a democracy is to neuter the king).
Now the Magna Carta was signed by John the Softsword (John II? I forget) while Richard the Lionheart was off fighting a crusade (the 3rd I think).
At this point John was forced to sign the Magna Carta (Runnymede in 1215). John wasn't happy about this, and tried to go back on his word.
In 1216 he intentionaly violated the Magna Carta. His barrons declared war on him shortly thereafter.
So as you can see, it took two wars to give birth to the British Democracy. One of them involved killing Muslims. No wonder Blair thinks that's how its done.