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.
Um, is this really News for Nerds? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just my 0.02.
Scud Missles launched (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't forget that Saddam's troups are launching Scud missles that the UN promissed us he didn't have.
The UN has discredited itself. Hans Blix is a tool.
News for nerds??? Stuff that matters??? (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the point of this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just curious.
I just dont get it (Score:1, Insightful)
Who is it going to be next?
Mmmm Oceans (Score:5, Insightful)
I oftern wonder if our stance would be different if we were part of Europe, or if England was originally part of North America and we had fled to what is now Europe.
Are we isolationists due to geography?
WELLS != FIELDS (Score:5, Insightful)
A well is just one pump/tower combo. It is several of these that are burning. A field is a whole darn field full of the things. Several of these are NOT what has caught fire, which will be a major mess when (if) they do.
Short, Victorious War... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe there is some of the Short, Victorious War thinking that lead to our current situation. Perhaps the politics of succeeding where his father had failed was motivation enough to lead a country to this point.
But I don't care, do you know why? Because the Son of a Bitch has it coming. I long ago gave up needing a reason to feel that Saddam Hussein had to be "removed" from the world scope.
If there was a shred of diplomacy, decency, reality or reasonability in the man, he would have, at one point in the past 12 years, delt fairly with the United Nations. How much rope do you give to someone, before you hang them with that rope?
Nah, screw it...it was time for War.
Craenor - Gulf War Veteran
Thoughts From An American (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I have opposed this war for a long time. I agree absolutely with the Bush administration that Hussein is a terrible dictator, but I have a hard time grasping why we are not dealing with a fundamentally more dangerous situation in North Korea, or why we are at this very moment "allied" with a military government in Pakistan, a Monarchy which is only nominally friendly in Saudi Arabia (interesting note: about half of all Americans believe most of the September 11th hijackers were Iraqi, not Saudi). Anyway, I believe that supporting bad governments for short-term gain is only going to wind up hurting us in the long run (as it did with our support of Hussein in the 1980s).
Furthermore, it is impossible to declare war on one man. If we could truly only direct our action against Hussein and his thugs, this would be an entirely different matter. The fact is, though, that the Iraqi people, as well as the American and allied troops, are going to suffer terrible losses in this war. War is always hell, no matter what the reason, and if a war can be averted, and the noble goals of disarmament and democratization achieved through peaceful means, then the path of diplomacy, however difficult, should be pursued.
That said, it is now entirely apparant that we are at war. I, like the vast majority of anti-war Americans, support our troops. I am grateful that my country has so many brave young men and women who are willing to endure the horrors of combat for their country. I pray that their lives and the lives of the Iraqi people are spared. I still, however, disagree with my president's decision. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, it is even more important for the people of America to scrutinize their leader's actions of time of war than in time of peace. I hope for the best possible outcome to be salvaged from this conflict, but I am deeply saddened that it came to this.
Re:God Bless America (Score:2, Insightful)
an american
Re:What is the point of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
What can Slashdot possibly contribute to this other than posting an article that is going to result in a whole lot of political flaming?
You just answered your own question. The forums on CNN and the BBC are heavily moderated, to the extent that they exist at all -- /. is one of very few popular sites where people can post their thoughts, some of which are flames, but many of which lead to interesting discussion. I bet this article receives the most comments of any this week.
Iraq & Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether this is good for the United States or the world is not important to him. He sees things as black and white. Either its good or its bad. People like that are dangerous because they are incapable of seeing someone else's point of view. It's especially dangerous if that person is in a place of power. They should be able to see many peoples view points if they are in power, otherwise they are not representing the interests of the people they govern. And George has done that. He has taken it upon himself to go to war to route-out evil doers. Even if most of the United State's allies dont want war.
George has let the economy slide and has paid more attention to a country that's doing nothing that to his own country. This war will not be quick, it will take a long time. We will be in Iraq and the middle east for years to come. Well beyond when Bush's term ends, we will still have soldiers in the middle east. If we dont, all the factions and groups of militants and regular citizens will begin to fight for power, just like they have for thousands of years. Certain groups in the middle east will begin to hate us even more, the Saudis, the Iranians, the Turks, and especially the terrorist groups for hire. They will all have reason to attack the United States, when before they had none.
This is not a quick & simple war. It is not going to solve our problem with terrorism. George Bush has gotten the United States involved in something far worse than Vietnam.
Re:Oil? (Score:3, Insightful)
and this war isnt about oil .. is it?
Of [sundayherald.com] course [evworld.com] not [theage.com.au].
It's not really about the oil, it's about "OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard".
Re:Mmmm Oceans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why is this on /.? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you said it best yourself in the last sentence. What Slashdot does best is discussion, and this story will most certainly lead to a LOT of discussion.
Support the Troops! (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason you keep hearing this, is that this country is still ashamed at its treatment of Vietnam War veterans. A lot of people still think of war protesters as hippies who scream accusations of "Baby killer!" at veterans.
Everyone wants to make sure that no matter how much you disagree with the politics of the administration or the military as a whole, you never turn your anger on the individual solders, sailors, airmen and marines who are out there doing their jobs.
Re:USA PR (Score:3, Insightful)
Human Nature. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:USA PR (Score:1, Insightful)
The problems with this are:
- Iraq never had the capability to strike the United States
- it never even demonstrated the will to strike the US, and it was completely uninvolved with the whole Al-Qaeda 9/11 thingy
- with weapons inspectors and no fly zones, Iraq was mostly under the thumb of the UN
However, this invasion dismisses the US's moral high ground by violating international law, and clearly weakens the UN, a body the contributes to global stability. Further more, it gives Americas enemies a cause around which to rally. This war is probably inspiring terrorists, not discouraging them.
At best, this war is an id-driven attempt to lash out for the WTC attacks. It can't improve security in the long run.
Re:Thoughts From An American (Score:5, Insightful)
We cannot move on NK without China being OK with it. Well, we could, but then we'd have to deal with a very pissed off China. Why? Well, how do you think we'd feel if China invaded Mexico, even if it was provoked? Now, multiply that by about 10, because China does not want the U.S. installing a democracy to their south. See why we can't do jack and shit until China decides diplomacy has failed?
I don't feel like getting into the rest of your post, because I"m tired of arguing about the war. However, claiming that NK is a more pressing issue is just uninformed. It's a big deal, yes, but not one that we can do much about right now, especially given how quiet they've been since China's new leader was installed. Until China believes diplomacy has failed with NK, us moving on NK would likely cause China to move in on thier side, if only to assure that no democratic government was installed. And that is something that we really can't risk happening right now.
I know this will get me modded down, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
----------
Samuel P. Huntington
Re:Thoughts From An American (Score:3, Insightful)
Roosevelt also said something about carrying a big stick.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oil? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Mmmm Oceans (Score:5, Insightful)
Those big oceans give rise to a huge amount of ignorance in the American populace about how the rest of the world works. And more so, they honestly don't care about this ignorance.
In Europe, we're all forced to understand that there are other cultures, and other ways of thinking. This expands the mind somewhat, and stops the narrow, blinkered view that your way is the only way.
Just a couple of years ago, near the whole world was behind America. It was the sole, largest chance I think that has ever been seen to rise up and start things in motion that would have helped true world peace, and formed a lasting tribute to a 'land of the free'.
However, Bush has squandered this freely, used the excuses to repress his own people, and start down the road of a police state, while giving the rest of the world the view of America as an aggressive empire builder.
A large portion of world view is now against America. The land that places so much in the law, and the freedom of a vote. The land that wouldn't let the resolution to go to war hit a vote, as it knew it would lose. And thus broke international law to go to war. Strange, American law should be worldwide (Can you say Sklyarov?), yet the views of the rest of the world mean so little.
I think that's what the parent meant by isolationist. American politicians think they're in a nice little container apart from the rest of the world. They can do what they want when the want, anywhere they want, and the rest of the world doesn't exist in their calculations of the effects.
This doesn't mean I dislike America, or it's people. It just means I have absolutely no faith in it's politicians, or their thinking.
Re:Scud Missles launched (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thoughts From An American (Score:2, Insightful)
However...
However, claiming that NK is a more pressing issue is just uninformed.
Strongly disagree. NK producing plutonium is a larger problem by an order or two of magnitude than Saddam's carefully watched arms supply and thoroughly in check regime. There is no ideological friction between NK and most fundamentalist terrorists, unlike Iraq, and also unlike Iraq, NK needs money badly. They could easily become Plutonium-R-US of the world.
Re:Thoughts From An American (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a hard time grasping why we are not dealing with a fundamentally more dangerous situation in North Korea,
Well, we are trying to deal with it, but the situation is complicated. I think the difference is that Saddam has shown no willingness to cooperate, while North Korea has at least shown a willingness in the past to cooperate. Say what you want about NK, but at least they're *openly* defying us.
or why we are at this very moment "allied" with a military government in Pakistan, a Monarchy which is only nominally friendly in Saudi Arabia
Because sometimes you have to deal with reality, and the reality is that the middle east is not going to turn into stable western-style democracies overnight. Better to hold our nose and try to influence them toward modernity than isolate them and them let them fall toward more fundamentalism.
Anyway, I believe that supporting bad governments for short-term gain is only going to wind up hurting us in the long run (as it did with our support of Hussein in the 1980s).
Yes, unfortunately there are no perfect policies, and there are no crystal balls.
Furthermore, it is impossible to declare war on one man. If we could truly only direct our action against Hussein and his thugs, this would be an entirely different matter. The fact is, though, that the Iraqi people, as well as the American and allied troops, are going to suffer terrible losses in this war.
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. There are a scary number of parallels between Saddam Hussein of today, and Hitler of the 1930s. The same debates about preemptive striking took place back then, and Europe showed the same policies of appeasement back then about dealing with him.
I for one am glad that the US is taking care of Hussein now rather than later when it really would have turned into WW/III with Hussein invading the entire middle east (as he also tried to do back in 1991).
Advice to troops (Score:5, Insightful)
-----------
UK troops told: Be just and strong
British troops waiting to attack Iraq have been told to behave like liberators rather than conquerors. But they have also been warned some of them may not return from Iraq alive. Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins gave the battlegroup of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish the pep talk as the US deadline for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq or face action ticked away.
Reporters said the men listened in silence to the address at Fort Blair Mayne desert camp, 20 miles from the Iraqi border.
"We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country," he said.
"We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.
"There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.
"As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.
"Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there.
"You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.
"You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.
"Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.
"If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.
"Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves."
To his 800 men - an arm of the 16 Air Assault Brigade - he said: "It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign.
"We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow.
"The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.
"There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam.
"He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity."
He said: "It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly.
"I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.
"If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.
"The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please."
He warned the troops not to get carried away in the heat of battle.
"If you harm the regiment or its history by over enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer.
"You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation."
Warning that the troops were very likely to face chemical or biological weapons, he said: "It is not a question of if, it's a question of when. We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack."
His closing words were resolute: "As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there. Our business now is north."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2866581.stm
Quote from Nuremberg (Score:5, Insightful)
Those words were uttered by Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, the U.S. representative to the International Conference on Military Trials in Nuremberg at the close of World War II. But what did he know? That was in 1945, when everyone was complacent and comfortable. After 9/11, "everything is different" or something. A logical foreign policy is apparently a luxury we can no longer afford.
On the war coverage in general... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think I'm going to resolve to sticking with the 6:00pm news for the most part...get a nice overview with the days events and move on, or possibly look for more info if something has happened.
Re:Glorious! (Score:2, Insightful)
1.) They show us respect in return and stop treating everyone like suspects (DMCA, Patriot act, etc).
Or
2.) When I go into boot camp and my opinion on this issue no longer matters.
Re:God Bless America (Score:2, Insightful)
I pray that Bush's irresponsible actions won't harm our relations with other world countries as much as I fear it will.
And I pray for the families of those American soldiers who will die in this war.
And I pray for the Iraqi people. All of them. Even Saddam Hussein and his cronies. May the lives of as many as possible be spared, and may this war leave them better off than they were under Saddam.
Re:Thoughts From An American (Score:2, Insightful)
People act like it was some knee jerk reaction to resume military action against Hussein's regime. They sit around saying the inspections "need time". I mean come on, they've had 12 years. If Iraq was even remotely interested in a diplomatic solution, it would have happened by now.
Economic sanctions dont work, and why? Because Saddam and his henchmen are still "livin' large". He still gets his palaces built and all of that, and could care less how impoverished his people are. The only hope there was that there'd be a rebellion to remove him. No such luck. Simply being accused of being against his regime is a death sentence in Iraq.
Sometimes you simply can't reason with people. It's been shown quite clearly that Saddam has absolutely no intention of honoring the ceasefire agreement or any UN resolutions.
I'd much prefer that a diplomatic solution would work, but it simply was not possible in this case.
I mean, there he is, boobytrapping his own oil fields so that when he's gone the Iraqi people won't have the revenue to rebuild the nation.
How do you reason with that? It reminds me of the vengeance weapons Hitler used against Britian when it was clear he had lost the war (and was frantically working on a version of the V2 rocket that could carry a 'dirty' radioactive bomb to New York). Absolutely no tactical value, just trying to hurt people.
I don't feel too bad for the Iraqi people. I know a fellow who fled Iraq back in the late 80s. He assures me that they're safer when the Iraqi military is focused on the invading armies, and not on torturing civilians.
He also tells me that he doesnt know of one single ex-Iraqi who's opposed to Saddams removal. He misses the country he grew up in, and hates what Hussein has turned it into.
Well, I'm rambling. War is terrible, but the human race simply hasn't evolved past it.
Re:Hit them hard, and hit them fast (Score:2, Insightful)
Why does it have to be too late for saying you are opposed to this war? I see this type of thinking everywhere. I don't understand why people think that now that the fighting has started, those of us that are opposed have to shut up. I don't want ANYBODY to die for no reason at all, not just *our* troops. So, I will continue to speak in opposition to this unjust war/conflict/police action.
To the inevitable flame that will come my way:
No, the troops aren't fighting for my freedom of speech. They are fighting because Dubya doesn't understand what diplomacy is for.
No, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. In fact, Saddam Hussein is a socialist and Islamic freaks don't like the guy.
No, Iraq is not an immediate threat to anybody. Not even it's next door neighbors.
Saddam is not the only *evil* dictator in the world. Who is next? Uzbekistan? Zimbabwe? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? This tyrant argument should be applied evenly, not just in this case.
Yes, in fact, I do love French wine. Burgundy actually has some pretty good Chardonnays. And Wine Spectator [winespectator.com] just said that the 2000 Bordeaux's are the best in 39 years. If I had the cash, I'd buy a few bottles today.
Whew, I feel better. Now if this war would just end....
Re:Oil? (Score:1, Insightful)
People in the US (and Britain) don't like the idea of a future Earth where English is second to Mandarin. The aggressive game plan is to get a lock on the Earth's natural resources that will require China to play friendly with English speaking Westerners so that we have some degree of control over their economic growth.
This perspective also helps us understand why "North Korea cannot go nuclear". It may even explain why we'll probably never see a decent solar panel on the market until it's engineered and mass-produced in China.
BTW, I don't support this war. I'm not afraid of China. I'm not afraid to deal with demography.
Re:Thoughts From An American (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not, "Oh North Korea is worse."
It's not, "The UN Securitry Councel doesn't agree."It's not, "It's all about Oil and Profits."
There's only one reasonable reason to be anti-war:
It's just plain wrong to attack until attacked. Never ever start a war.
Anything else, smells of partisanship.
Re:USA PR (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of people, including the Security Council of the UN, which has passed over a dozen resolutions over the last decade or so demanding that Iraq disarm (to which Iraq agreed in word but not in deed).
One thing to remember is that it's not like we just whipped up a bunch of troops all of a sudden and headed over to Iraq. We've been patrolling the no-fly zones since the end of Gulf War I. Are we supposed to keep doing that indefinitely? If not, then do we just cease patrolling? Then what happens when Saddam rolls in and stamps out the Kurds - the world would chastise us for abandoning them to a brutish dictator. The problem, of course, dates back to Gulf War I and the failure to finish the job at that time. This is merely a rekindling of a long-smoldering fire.
Support the troops - not the war (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that there's a huge, gaping black hole in the discussion of this war. According to the Poll du Jour, we have the choices of:
A) being all for the war, supporting the president and the troops 100%, and let's nuke Iraq 'till it glows!
or
B) War is bad. Always Bad. Never go to war. NEVER. Anybody who goes to war (i.e. members of the military) is a murder.
Unfortunately, back here in reality-land, it's not so simple....and I've heard from several personal sources, that the people who are over in the Middle East right now are being told that the Anti-war protests are against them. Personally. That's a problem!
About 10 days ago, a group of military families formed in Suburban Chicago to support each other and to remind their loved ones overseas that while many of us do not support or endorse the politics behind this war, we DO love and support the soldiers whose job it is to go fight it. Being the techy I am, I of course felt the need to help this group get online...if anyone is interested in joining this growing online community, and expressing your support, you can visit www.family-vigil.org [family-vigil.org].
And I'll brace for the /.-ing...be kind to my little server!
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, had the guy actually approached something of importance, he'd have gotten nowhere near it, and may even have been shot. What he did, on the other hand, is sensationalism, and pointless. He wants people to believe that the security is lax, when in reality, he "broke into" an area that security couldn't give a shit about.
BIASED MODERATOR ALERT - PARENT IS NOT FLAMEBAIT (Score:5, Insightful)
I am 99% sure that the parent post was not intended to be flamebait, and that the moderators have been abusing their mod-points in labelling the parent post and similar posts (n.b., one of which I wrote) to be flamebait.
Re:And it all could have been avoided... (Score:5, Insightful)
"I hope you get a new Vietnam" - do you know how many innocent Vietnamese lost their lives? Do you have any idea idea how many 100,000s of thousands died? No. The best thing for the Iraqi people now is for the war to be over as soon as possible with as few as possible casualities.
And - as a Brit - your knee-jerk anti-Americanism irritates me beyond belief. It is so fashionable to hate America and claim that it is horrible place run by a madman. America is a liberal democracy where freedom of speech is respected. By and large, citizens are not tortured (something you can't say for China or Russia) and public dissent is allowed. Best of all, citizens are allowed to force a "regime change" every four years.
America (and this was never meant to come across as a homily) has been remarkably un-territorial in its behaviour. When did it last attack a country to gain its territory? When did it last extract reperations from defeated countries?
The last two times the US has used force were:
* Afghanistan - where an incredibly illiberal and un-democratic regime (which banned women from being educated, which had no freedom of religion, which allowed its citizens few rights) was gotten rid-off. Ask yourself, would you rather live in Afghanistan following US intervension, or before?
* Bosnia - in a, not sactioned by the UN move, the US protected Muslims from being ethnically cleansed. Would rather have been a Muslim in Greater Serbia or in (UN run) Bosnia?
I would have happily have given Saddam six more months to dis-arm. But it's too late for that. Lets hope as few people as possible die in the current conflict, and the Iraqi people end up with a propserous, secular, liberal democracy at the end of this.
Robert
Re:Advice to troops (Score:1, Insightful)
Why? Because you just have to throw in some inane "USA sucks" comment?
Because Europeans are so suave and refined, and americans are just big mean bullies?
Why must you choose to taint those wise words you posted with your own idiocy?
The american soldiers know exactly what they're in Iraq to accomplish, and exactly why. They know who the bad guys are, and who the innocents are.
Apples, Oranges and other stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
North Korea is a repressive regime that pretty much keeps to itself. Frequent spying and assassignations into Sough Korea though. North Korea likely already has plently of WMD capability and has not chosen to use them against their own population or a neighboring one.
You analogy with Pakistan doesn't hold up. By that measure Turkey would be an enemy also. Whatever you want to say about Musharraf, he has resisted some pretty dserious political pressure to keep doing the right thing for his people.
Moth importantly though, as with any religious belief: if a beleief system can survive two generations unimpeded, it will become entrenched. Not only one Saddam, but an entire nation of Saddams.
Diplomacy only works iif there is a real threat to a faiure to act diplomatically. Twelve years of diplomacy hasn't worked.
Re:USA PR (Score:3, Insightful)
I do, because he promised to do so. When he invaded Kuwait, and on UN charter America stepped in and stopped Iraq. He promised to disarm, and he failed.
Make good on your word or be punished; now he is being punished.
Every person on earth knows that if a single nuke were launched from any rougue nation (like Iraq), they'd be vasprozed from the planet by every nuclear power that existed. They'd get only one shot.
Lets say you have a wife. If someone pulls a gun and aims it at her head, do you wait till he pulls the trigger until you do something? If you have the capability to stop him before he pulls the trigger, you know that you can stop him but you have to kill him. Who do you choose?
Re:Thoughts From An American (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I doubt if you have made any effort to grasp why the US is dealing with Iraq first, because there are dozens of political, and military, commentary sites that provide explanations. "The New Republic" (a generally pro-Democrat political comentary magazine provides a fairly good explanation on their site).
Roughly speaking it comes down to two factors. Military action is far more difficult in the case of North Korea, and even if a military solution is eventually sought it is in the interests of the US to delay such action for about 2 years. In the 2004-2006 timeframe the US will have in place roughly four components of its missile defense program. Military action before that time would be ill-advised to say the least.
North Korea is also a client state of China which makes military action more difficult, and diplomatic action more likely to succeed. However, diplomatic action has *no* chance of success until the US gets the powers surounding N. Korea to get behind such action. So far US efforts to marshall the support of China, Japan, Russia, and S. Korea seem to be working quite well. Japan and S. Korea have just come on board publicly, China is said to be comming around privately. I have no idea where Russia stands on the matter at the moment. You can find a pretty good discussion of the diplomatic efforts at the Reason Magazine website.
why we are at this very moment "allied" with a military government in Pakistan
To some extent it is a marriage of convenience. Do you seriously think it would make sense at the moment to take a confrontational attitude with Pakistan? Especially when they have been co-operating with efforts to secure their own nuclear weapons?
Monarchy which is only nominally friendly in Saudi Arabia
Again you need to think about the alternatives (not to mention the alternatives available to the Saudi Regime). What exactly do you think the US should be doing instead? Bombing Mecca? Abandoning what influence it does have with the Saudi's? Pushing them towards Theorcracy (like Iran)?
War is always hell, no matter what the reason...
Sometimes peace is also hell. War is not and never has been the worst possible state of affairs. A peace in which good people are left at the mercy of bad people is almost always worse. I suggest you take a look at the Atlas of 20th century atrocities. You will find many human catastrophes that involved war. You will find many others that did not.
Here's a link:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm
Dealing with international problems often involves choosing between bad options. It is not any sort of objection to a policy to point out that it is a bad option. The only objection to a policy is that there is some better option available.
Re:Scud Missles launched (Score:5, Insightful)
It may be true that 70% of the American public favors the war, but I've found that most people also believe that the Iraqis were behind 9/11 and haven't heard that much of the "evidence" cited by Colin Powell in his "brilliant" speach to the UN was forged, and crudely at that. For that we can thank our free press, which feels its role is to function as publicist for the current leadership.
In short, if you're really concerned about truth, I'd be careful about believing any information disseminated by either side.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: sorry moderators, not insightful, inflammatory (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, Bush may have plans to get the UN back into Iraq after the US is done, but the UN may not want to. The UN is a wholy separate organization from the US. It is composed of nations like France and Russia. THEY have to agree to any UN involvement after this war is over. With the way Bush has interacted with them, I don't expect they'll want to take any part in what Bush has started.
Re:God Bless America (Score:2, Insightful)
As a Canadian, I say this:
Americans are over-bearing cowboys who will fight at the drop of a hat. They swager around the world forcing thier ideas and thier morals on everyone else whether they want it or not. They flex thier military muscles for all to see, hoping to generate fear. Every other country in the world has a dislike for thier way of taking a leadership role when they weren't asked to, a distaste for thier "We're number one" attitude when they weren't told they were number one. Gosh they piss me off at times.
God love 'em.
You're freinds accept you for who you are, not what you should be. Our two countries are true friends - we accept your way of handling this situation, if you accept our reasons for not joining you over there. K? Come up for a beer sometime - you're always welcome here.
Soko
Re:Lets all applaud Turkey... naught (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you being sarcastic or what? IMHO, there is a good possibility that the Turks kept the U.S. troops out because they are more concerned with keeping the Kurds down in their own country, and discouraging any uprising to unite with Iraqi Kurds.
The Kurds are a substantial minority in Turkey, and have long been oppressed there. Kurds are discouraged/prevented from speaking their own language and expressing their own culture, for fear that they might get the notion of breaking away from Turkey to form their own country. Therefore, there's a strong motivation on the part of the Turks to be able to protect their border and prevent any Kurdish uprising. They might even make an incursion into northern Iraq to assure there's no "trouble". I am sure they didn't want the Americans around kludging things up.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like us being at war with Iraq. But I think the motivations of a lot of countries to be part of the "coalition of the one, er, willing", is self-interest, and not the enlightened kind either.
Re:May free speach and free thought live on (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? - For all those who continue to ask. (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Because we cannot continue to monitor and control nuclear weapons proliferation.
We have about another 10 or 20 years of this "control" before the technology to enrich heavy elements for use in weapons will get too small to easily find, and too technically feasible to prevent through restricted access to plans and hardware.
We need a regime change in the gulf region, not for oil*, but to:
2) Introduce Democracy in the region. Democracies do not wage wars of aggression. If you want the planet to be safe any time soon, if you want our species to aspire to something greater than self-inflicted violence, we need to be rid of fascists, isolationists and xenophobes. That starts with Saddam.
* No blood for oil is lame 20th Century rhetoric. The only possible connotation of that catch-phrase now is "No (innocent Iraqi) blood for (French) oil." If you think this war is about oil, you need to wake up.
Who says "they" want Democracy, you ask? Everyone deserves a higher quality of life. The Iraqi people will have a much higher QOL when this is over with, because they will have a Democracy. Don't they deserve it? The anti-war protest folks need to realize that they are fighting AGAINST a better life for the Iraqi people.
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
U.S. Defense spending is less, as a percentage of GDP, than it was in the 70s and 80s. We were able to support the higher level then, why couldn't we now, especially when the US is less dependent on natural resources, like oil.
Secondly:
Money is fluid, and interchangable. It doesn't matter if the oil countries want US Dollars, Euros, Suiss Francs, or Beanie Baby Futures, as long as it's freely exchangable, then it doesn't matter. I know it fits into some people's idea that this whole thing is "(old) Europe vs. America", but c'mon, there'd be better ways to do it than this.
:p
Of course, never mind the fact that France has, over the last 10 years, signed deals with Saddam Hussein giving them rights to 25% of Iraq's oil reserves. Or that Russia is currently owed at least $10 Billion by Iraq. That wouldn't explain those reluctance on their part to remove Saddam Hussein, would it? Of course not... Because... well... uh... George W. Bush is a Cowboy! Yeah!
Re:Short, Victorious War... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadam was a nasty, spiteful perhaps evil person, yes.
But, what has war achieved, apart from splitting Europe (hey, America now has one less 'federal superpower' to contend with..), putting a good many people's lives in danger (all the troops, and Iraqi civilians, who're supposed to be being saved), and generally costing a fortune?
Not a lot that some nice covert actions couldn't have achieved at a fraction the cost, no great upheaval, and allowing the US to keep the good will it had a couple of years back. Not to mention, not getting the innocent killed.
Re:Quote from Nuremberg (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. has proven time and again its tactical incompetence in its application of foreign policy in this region. But our foreign policy expertise has suddenly gotten really bad. Never before has merely demanding a logical case for war branded one as a "traitor". This war is a huge gift to Al Quaeda, who have apparently been recruiting like mad now that the conventional wisdom across the entire Arab world is that the U.S. is fighting a "war on Islam". Unfortunately, nobody has yet come up with an excuse for the war that is believed by anybody outside our own borders. Instead, we're content to come up with excuses that play well in the "red states". U.S. foreign policy has had inconsistencies since the fifties, but never before now have we acted so violently against our own self-interest for what are looking more and more like ideological reasons. I think you agree with me and didn't realize I was being sarcastic.
"You can support our troops without supporting the President." - Trent Lott during the Kosovo crisis
This is not a war, yet (Score:2, Insightful)
Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power... To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"
Now last time I checked, Congress had not declared war, so the US is not at war with Iraq anymore than we our at war with Canada. Checking out CSPAN it looks like Congress is still in the middle of some finance debate, so don't expect a declaration of war anytime soon. If you look at Bush's speech you see that he never said we are at war with Iraq, now if only slashdot was as smart as Bush
Cost to USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Since then, industrialized countries (except the U.S) have realized that economic realities now completely overshadow military force, hence the de-emphasis on military spending. If the world's largest military power were to go to war with its almost completely undefended neighbour, sure they could conquer it more easily than Iraq, but the economic disruption in trade would shut down about a quarter of the U.S economy.
Furhermore, distrust of the U.S and economic sanctions would probably kill another third, even after the war was over and trade could be resumed. Without its industrial base, it's military ability would go the way that Russia's has (5 million military personnel about a decade ago, approaching 800,000 in a few years).
In the situation with Iraq there is still economic uncertainty for the U.S. An essay here [ratical.org] makes a claim that the reason for the Iraq war involves the currency used to purchase oil. While I don't think it's correct, it does outline some of the problems which the U.S could encounter by squandering it's begrugingly earned goodwill in economic matters.
Basically, the U.S economy has been powered by a few factors that prop up the value of the U.S dollar, which allows the U.S treasury to keep printing them without causing devaluation. Printing money is a economically equivalent to taxation, in that money disappears from elsewhere (value falls, leading to inflation) and appears somewhere else (treasury).
However, the importance of the U.S economy following World War II made the U.S dollar a standard currency for world trade, such as for oil (which is priced in U.S dollars). This means that even when not buying U.S goods and services, countries elsewhere need U.S dollars. In addition, most countries prop up their own currencies by buying U.S dollars and keeping them in their treasuries (it used to be gold, but while currencies were released from the "gold standard" in theory, in practice it's useful to have something of relatively fixed value for controlling exchange rates).
The result of this is that the U.S treasury could keep printing U.S dollars and the value doesn't go down because they are taken out of domestic circulation. However, when the trust is gone, countries will start looking for alternatives, and it's beginning to look like the Euro is that alternative. Iraq has switched to Euros for selling oil (is main customer is France, after all), and Iran (also on the "Axis of Evil") is looking at it too. Finally countries are starting to exchange U.S dollars for Euros for their reserves - Russia and Vensuala are examples.
If the U.S dollars start returning to circulation, you can expect (and it's happening now) a devaluation of the U.S dollar. Once countries realize that their treasury reserves are losing value relative to Euros, there's a good chance they'll switch, essentially leading to a run on currency - the U.S dollar will plummet, U.S trade deficit will inflate, and the U.S economy may suffer a recession that makes the current problems look like a pleasant memory.
That is the potential cost for the U.S spreading ill will. That's not the worst case, either - think Russia-style meltdown. Hopefully it won't come to that, but the more the U.S alienates the rest of the world, the more the rest of the world is likely to abandon the U.S economically - and without the economy to sustain it, the U.S military won't last either.
Mutually Assured Destruction? (Score:3, Insightful)
And another thought - Mutually Assured Destruction. Has everyone forgotten about the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction? I brought this up to some folks the other day and they told me Saddam was crazy and does not care about his life. Yeah, I agree he is crazy, but come on, the guy moves from place to place to avoid being detected. He has body doubles, food tasters, a plethora of bodyguards. Does that sound like someone who is is not afraid to die?
The fact of the matter, above all Saddam desires power. There is not much power if your country gets incinerated off of the face of the Earth...
Just my $.02 as an American who is displeased with the actions of his government.
--Jon
Re:I know this will get me modded down, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
fact is the west has pushed through with science and universal human rights sooner and to a greater extent than the other parts of the world, most certainly the ME.
This war may be for Oil and Israel but it doesnt negate that much of what the West achieved is deserved
Re:Ask the Iraqi's (Score:5, Insightful)
No one inside Iraq is for war (note I said war not a change of regime), no human being in his right mind will ask you to give him the beating of his life, unless you are a member of fight club that is, and if you do hear Iraqi (in Iraq, not expat) saying "come on bomb us" it is the exasperation and 10 years of sanctions and hardship talking. There is no person inside Iraq (and this is a bold, blinking and underlined inside) who will be jumping up and down asking for the bombs to drop. We are not suicidal you know, not all of us in any case.
I think that the coming war is not justified (and it is very near now, we hear the war drums loud and clear if you don't then take those earplugs off!). The excuses for it have been stretched to their limits they will almost snap. A decision has been made sometime ago that "regime change" in Baghdad is needed and excuses for the forceful change have to be made. I do think war could have been avoided, not by running back and forth the last two months, that's silly. But the whole issue of Iraq should have been dealt with differently since the first day after GW I.
The entities that call themselves "the international community" should have assumed their responsibilities a long time ago, should have thought about what the sanctions they have imposed really meant, should have looked at reports about weapons and human rights abuses a long time before having them thrown in their faces as excuses for war five minutes before midnight.
What is bringing on this rant is the question that has been bugging for days now: how could "support democracy in Iraq" become to mean "bomb the hell out of Iraq"? why did it end up that democracy won't happen unless we go thru war? Nobody minded an un-democratic Iraq for a very long time, now people have decided to bomb us to democracy? Well, thank you! how thoughtful.
The situation in Iraq could have been solved in other ways than what the world will be going thru the next couple of weeks. It can't have been that impossible. Look at the northern parts of Iraq, that is a model that has worked quite well, why wasn't anybody interested in doing that in the south. Just like the US/UK UN created a protected area there why couldn't the model be tried in the south. It would have cut off the regimes arms and legs. And once the people see what they have been deprived off they will not be willing to go back, just ask any Iraqi from the Kurdish areas. Instead the world watched while after the war the Shias were crushed by Saddam's army in a manner that really didn't happen before the Gulf War. Does anyone else see the words (Iran/not in the US interest) floating or is it me hallucinating?
And there is the matter of Sanctions. Now that Iraq has been thru a decade of these sanctions I can only hope that their effects are clear enough for them not to be tried upon another nation. Sanctions which allegedly should have kept a potentially dangerous situation in Iraq in check brought a whole nation to its knees instead. And who ultimately benefited from the sanctions? Neither the international community nor the Iraqi people, he who was in power and control still is. These sanctions made the Iraqi people hostages in the hands of this regime, tightened an already tight noose around our necks. A whole nation, a proud and learned nation, was devastated not by the war but by sanctions. Our brightest and most creative minds fled the country not because of oppression alone but because no one inside Iraq could make a living, survive. And can anyone tell me what the sanctions really did about weapons? Get real, there are always willing nations who will help, there are always organizations which will find his money sweet. Oil-for-Food? Smart Sanctions? Get a clue. Who do you think is getting all those contracts to supply the people with "food"? who do you think is heaping money in bank accounts abroad? It is his people, his family and the people who play his game. Abroad and in Iraq, Iraqis and non-Iraqis.
Re:BIASED MODERATOR ALERT - PARENT IS NOT FLAMEBAI (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if the post had said that 'Bush is a fuckwit', and all Americans had their heads up their arses, that would be flamebait, and I'd concur entirely with the rating of it as such.
However, the opinion that Bush sees things in 'Black and White' seems to be cropping up in the press here in Europe quite a lot. As does the conclusion that this is a very dangerous way to react when trying to achieve foreign policy.
It remains an opinion, and a reasonable one, if you hold that viewpoint. It is most definately NOT flamebait, however.
Why is it that we didn't get any Demonstration cov (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:but Saddam (Score:1, Insightful)
I was pretty shocked by Saddams speech, vowing that the invaders would find certain fiery death and whatnot. How's he going to kill all those invaders, with weapons he pinky-swore he doesn't have?
Re:Advice to troops (Score:5, Insightful)
PEACE vs. PROTECTION (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Advice to troops (Score:3, Insightful)
Americans can't seperate gov't and culture (Score:5, Insightful)
You make the same mistake that many Americans do.
People around the world, including the Middle East surprisingly enough, generally (and likely still) love *Americans* and American *culture*.
The same does not hold true for the American *government* and its *leaders*.
They are not diametrically opposed ideas. Liking Russian vodka does not mean I support communism. Drinking German beer doesn't mean I'm a Nazi. Enjoying anime doesn't mean I'm a big fan of the Japanese government.
Judging by the French/Freedom Fries/Toast nonsense, it seems many Americans are incapable of seperating a country's culture from a country's government in their minds.
Still, it's too bad that Bush has squandered nearly all the *respect* that President Bill Clinton built up for the US in a lot of countries. Many people didn't necessarily agree with his policies but they respected him as a leader, which led to respect to the United States.
They do not respect Bush.
Is he really an Iraqi? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Hit them hard, and hit them fast (Score:2, Insightful)
Me too, Saddam should have stepped down or been forced out 11 years ago.
Re:Who really set the wells on fire? (Score:2, Insightful)
Isn't this kinda dubble morale? (Score:2, Insightful)
Just wondering....
You don't solve voilence with voilence...
Re:Thoughts From An American (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, the joys of quoting irrelevant statistics...
Yeah, Iraq, with its EMBARGO THAT PREVENTS IT FROM SELLING ITS OIL is supplying less than 2% of the US's oil. But that won't be the case when the embargo is lifted after Bush's buddies take over the Iraqi oil production. Duh!
Island Life (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine you are one of 20 people on a small island. One of the other people has a gun. They are the only one with a gun.
One day there is a loud gun shot, and everyone runs over to find that the guy with the gun shot someone else dead. He claims "He was evil. Trust me."
You might think that he might shoot you next. Everyone treats the guy with the gun nice and all, like Billy Mummy in a Twilight Zone episode. "Yes, you did a good thing. That was really good. Shot the evil people. That's good."
Unlike a TV show, the guy with the gun does need to sleep, and will be killed shortly.
This is how I worry other countries will see us. If we make them worry about the gun we have, they will find unity in taking it away.
I'd give the Major-General's Speach a D (Score:2, Insightful)
My Score... D
Re:Who really set the wells on fire? (Score:2, Insightful)
I would assume none because of the lack of money in it.
Oil on the other hand is why the US is attacking Iraq... rather that sorting out North Korea who are blatently being naughty (but luckily don't possess miles of oil miles).
May I make a proprosal... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously.
I love Slashdot. And I feel very strongly about the war in Iraq. The thing is that for some time in the very near future there will be no shortage on the web for coverage of the war. The newsites are going to run with every damn rumor like it is fact. And I (along with many, many other people) am going to be firmly addicted to that.
It is nice to know that I can placate the geeky side of me in a politic free zone on Slashdot.
It almost seems ironic, but Slashdot offers a unique site this day in age. Slashdot can serve the slashdot community best right now by being what Slashdot is.
Maybe I didn't make that statement very well. I am just trying to say that Slashdot is the best site I know of for geeky news, and I love it.
I also take great comfort that when I am all politicd out, wether it be the war on Iraq or whatever, I can go to Slashdot and enjoy it and my politics, or anyone elses don't matter.
Your greatest service might be to stay a politic free zone.
Thanks for listening.
Re:Mutually Assured Destruction? (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the articles of the UN resolutions again. The inspectors were not there to find weapons, but to be shown weapons. It's a subtle but important difference. The UN made it quite clear that Iraq had to tell the inspectors where the weapons were, not lead them on a wild goose chase.
He has body doubles, food tasters, a plethora of bodyguards
Yes, Saddam is a very different threat from Osama. Saddam loves living in palaces, he loves having his portrait on billboards, he loves hearing the crowds chanting his name. Saddam's objective is to maintain his lifestyle, he's not an ideological obsessive like Osama. I don't think he ever believed seriously that the West would actually attack him, just like he was surprised that the West cared when he invaded Kuwait.
Re:Wrong, I say (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course someone in Baghdad has no idea how the Iraqi people feel, but you, living thousands of miles away know exactly how he feels. Shut the fuck up, troll
Re:Ask the Iraqi's (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, asshole. Guess what? There wasn't one time a coup was organized, but TWO, right after Gulf War I. You know what happened? The air support that the US promised to provide was pulled completely. The Shi`a in the southand the Kurds in the north both tried and the good old democracy-loving, anti-despotic USA allowed Saddam's army to mow them down from the sky INSIDE THE SO-CALLED NO-FLY ZONE.
Re:PEACE vs. PROTECTION (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, one might say that it's the job of the intelligence community to pre-empt, not the army. There have been several critiques that have shown an inter-agency breakdown was a key factor in the 9/11 attacks.
There used to be collection boxes for the IRA in the North East (Boston, etc). The US has supported terrorism in the past, and will no doubt support it in the future.
Re:Is he really an Iraqi? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just read the blog... its much too detailed to be faked... nervousness of Iraqis at the market, what pattern to use when taping up the windows... I'm pretty sure this is authentic. I got it bookmarked and printed out here beside me.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with the fact that a single country can effectively destroy any other country at whim. It has nothing to do with the weakening of the UN. And, of course, it really has nothing to do with the current Administration's track record on energy concerns.
Incidentally, when countries have differing interests in a political situation, they use a technique called "Diplomacy." This technique allows opposing parties to resolve differences by equalling dissatisfaction. Please note that George Bush's poorly-worded, buzzword-laden speeches telling other nations what to do is not considered diplomacy.
And not least...
The 70s....wasn't there a few nice, fat recessions in the 70s? Remember what inner cities looked like in the 70s? Oh, but our military was big......
Puppet regimes (Score:4, Insightful)
I see what you are saying, the slavish obedience of puppet regimes in the conquered vassal states of Germany and France is truly stunning. The sense of cruel oppression by American puppet regimes in Austria, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the Philipines, Panama, and Bosnia stands in stark contrast with the freedom and prosperity enjoyed in nations like Vietnam, North Korea (and until now Iraq) where the US failed to install our oppressive puppets.
Re:Americans can't seperate gov't and culture (Score:3, Insightful)
That is probably because American identity is tied up in government and politics in a way that it isn't in other countries.
Think about it. France and Britain have had national identities some several hundred years before they had parliaments. The Germans had a common culture before Germany was even a united country. (Germany as a unified state only came to exist in, IIRC, the late 19th or early 20th century.) In contrast, the things that tend to identify the U.S.A. as the U.S.A. are more political than ethnic; while things like civil rights, freedom, and democracy are considered wonderful things in Europe, they are considered an inextricable part of American identity.
In the U.S., our culture is more intimately tied up in our political ideals than it is in other places.
Re:Mmmm Oceans (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish people would stop acting as if Europe "learned the lessons" of World War II and the US did not. It simply isn't true. What the Iraq tussle has made evidence is that Europe learned different lessons from WW II than the US. An awful lot of American diplomacy from 1945 forward can be read as our reaction to WW II, and the failures that led to it.
It might be that Europeans, faced with constant reminders of the scourge of war, have actually risen above their bloody past. But one could equally argue that the Europeans, traumatized by the constant reminders of war, are no longer about to think rationally about force. Which view is correct? It seems to depend on which camp you fall into.
The fundamental difference seems to be this: Many Europeans feel that the use of force cannot be justified, ever. Many Americans feel that the world is not a civilized place.
There is arrogance in the European position every bit as much as in the American. That's the real failure here... neither side is listening anymore.
Re:The political bent is amazing... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sad to see so many anti-american people here (Score:2, Insightful)
-SUV Drivers who use their vehicles to carry two grocery bags a mile and a half down the road. (I drive a used Nissan Sentra that gets decent gas mileage.)
-Lunatic gun owners who *think* they know what a militia means in today's society. Although their argument about needing to overthrow an unjust government is starting to have some validity these days.
-Corporate types who seem to think that profit at any cost is a worthwhile thing. Always arguing that when they make money, their underlings make money. Tell that to the single mother working at McDonalds for peanuts and living in a shithole hovel. We REALLY need to re-evaluate the damage that was done to the welfare system by the conservatives.
-The general asshole that seems to be more prevalent in our society. You know the type. The guy with an IQ of 20 going around saying "I RULE!!" when he displays some violent act of agression. Or the woman who thinks she "rules" when she puts other women down.
In general the United States has become a VERY ugly place.
Thoughts of a soldier (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about the 200 odd journalists in Baghdad? (Score:3, Insightful)
POWs are a different story. Soldiers don't go into dangerous situations by choice, rather, they avail themselves to our orders and we put them into those situations. I am much more in favor of rescue missions for soldiers then I am for reporters.
Re:don't use the word WAR (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cost to USA (Score:3, Insightful)
That certainly isn't the impression I've gotten. Having such a huge reserve of oil - particularly when we're all worried about how much longer our reserves will last - seems like it is going to be worth a lot more than the cost of war. And don't forget the most important part -- while the cost of the war is supported by all the taxpayers, the profits from selling the oil is shared only by the energy companies. So as long as you care more about energy companies than taxpayers, the equation comes up a big positive.
Ignorance is no excuse for criticism... (Score:4, Insightful)
If we look at the strict "cause and effect" of the Gulf War, not the current conflict - we find that the UN resolution that ended the war in the first place explicitly stated that the loser (Iraq) had to succumb to the wishes of the winner (the United Nations). The wishes were pretty simple - I'll paraphrase for those who have forgotten:
"Dear Saddam, we, the clear winner, will discontinue kicking your ass, the clear loser, and accept your surrender if you abide by the following: completely disarm your weapons of 'mass destruction', withdraw completely and vow not to attack Kuwait again, and allow UN inspectors into your country without any stipulations to witness and categorize the complete disarmament of offensive weapons and munitions of your country. We will continue to examine your munitions manufacturing process to make sure you are in compliance with said terms."
This was the terms of the surrender. This was not forced upon Hussein. This was agreed upon by his government in order to end the conflict waged in his country. By choice, the Iraqi government chose this method to continue operating without being completely defeated and occupied by UN peacekeeper forces.
History lesson of the "democratic process of the UN" up until now:
During the beginning of the Clinton administration, our UN inspectors (comprised of a multitude of factions - including the United States) were being given the run around as to the locations of their scud missiles (banned) and their chemical agents they were so fond of using in the 80s versus the Iranians. This spurred a number of UN security council resolutions which said (paraphrase): "Dear Saddam, you are a bad boy for not being upfront with the locations of your armament. If you do not be upfront with the required resolution that ended the war, we will continue to the act of kicking your ass."
Shortly after, the Iraqi government revealed more locations of weapons. The UN inspectors seemed to be achieving success through the threat of the security council. We would continue to see the games of cloak and dagger throughout the disarmament process while the world looked on in hopes that the Iraqi government would live up to the agreement it pledged to uphold - the complete disarmament of offensive (hostile) armament.
During the latter part of the Clinton administration, we (the United States) had our men and women in uniform be fired upon while performing reconnoissance via military aircraft. This act of aggression was responded to, with the support of Congress (both democratic and republicans alike) with an order by William Jefferson Clinton to bomb the anti-aircraft sites of the Iraqi government. This was aligned with the wishes of the security council because UN inspectors did not need to die with a country that pledged to willingly disarm.
In 1998, the UN security council learned that the Iraqi government kicked out the inspectors and were told to immediately leave their sovereign terrority, completely forgetting that "all their b[ass]es belong to us." Our response? The world, including the United States, sat back and took the defiance of a dictator to reneg on its pledge.
It took a change of government in the United States and the will of the citizens of the United States to finally say enough is enough.
The democratic process of the UN? 17 complete resolutions - all of which said "disarm or else!" - were filed and agreed upon by the security council. The last resolution (the now infamous 1441) was simply restating the original resolution - disarm or else! The unanimous vote of the security council, now a complete joke or a replay of a childern's classic "Cry Wolf!", spoke once again to the Iraqi government.
The change? It had been more than
Re:Cost to USA (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm really puzzled by the number of people who claim that European countries get away with small militaries because the U.S. protects them. Aside of the issue of who exactly we are protecting them from, there's also just the ridiculousness of saying that their own militaries are not sufficient. What exactly is the threat that the combined militaries of France, Germany, and the U.K. (just to pull 3 European NATO members out of the air) can't handle? The only thing that comes to mind is China, and I really don't think the U.S. wants to go there either.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:but Saddam (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the best thing in a war is to get right in and win it. That should be obvious to almost anyone. But not by ignoring international law and by commiting human rights violations. While we're only two days into this mess, and there's no evidence of war crimes committed by either side yet, it should be clear why so many oppose the current US led strikes, and doubt that this will be a war without completely unnecessary atrocities. The US doesn't exactly have a clean track record here.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the current Iraqi government is brutal and repressive. That doesn't mean that war is the answer. Look how much good it's done for the Israelis and Palestinians. Look at what US regime-change did for Iran. You can see why people have so little confidence in the US government here.
As a Canadian, I'm proud that my country is refusing to take part in this war. At the same time, I'm not for a moment absolving the Canadian military of war crimes either. In Somalia the 1st Airborne was without question guilty of war crimes as well. And as much as that was an embarrassment to our country, it cannot compare to what the unarmed Somali teenager who was roasted alive over a fire had to go through as he begged for his life, screaming the only word he knew about the men who tortured and killed him: "Canada".
I don't think anyone who has seen a country in the aftermath of a war would be so quick to ignore the alternatives. When war happens, innocent civilians die. It should be an absolute last measure when everything else has failed... not in the middle of weapons inspections.
Re:Ask the Iraqi's (Score:1, Insightful)
Every democracy has been established through war. Tyrants don't value the lives of their people enough to willingly give up power to avoid killing them. Tyrants didn't avoid killing people while in power, so why should they avoid killing them when losing power?
Now that Iraq has been thru a decade of these sanctions I can only hope that their effects are clear enough for them not to be tried upon another nation. Sanctions which allegedly should have kept a potentially dangerous situation in Iraq in check brought a whole nation to its knees instead.
Sanctions are the only reason Saddam hasn't already nuked us. True, he spent his country's entire economy on himself and his cronies, but he would have done that regardless of how good or bad his economy was-- sanctions had nothing to do with it.
The writer could have helped lift sanctions by rebelling against the cause-- Saddam. The writer's logic is just as rational as the children of jailed murderers who blame the cops instead of their parents for their poverty. Stop whining and take personal responsibility for not pulling yourself up by the bootstraps.
When American colonists had enough of British sanctions, we overthrew them. Iraqis who failed to overthrow Saddam have only Saddam and their own cowardice to blame for their poverty.
Sanctions are necessary to control Tyrants. They have a dual purpose. First, they limit the resources available to the Tyrant. Second, they give the oppressed ample motivation to overthrow the Tyrant. Sanctions against Saddam succeeded to slowing his weapons buildup, but success on the second count was in the hands of the Iraqi people, who proved themselves too cowardly for the task. A sabateur or suicide bomber should have taken out Saddam long ago.
Re:Ask the Iraqi's (Score:4, Insightful)
England was not established through war, unless you count the fact that they reformed because they were scared poop-less over the French revolution.
I am sure there's lots of other examples, but there are 2 big ones.
Personally I think the "liberate the people" reason is pure propaganda. We were Iraq's ally for many years as a tyrannical dictatorship. This war is about disarmament. We told dude: "don't make big guns." He made big guns. We squish him now. Creating a democratic republic is just a side benefit.
Re:Support the troops - not the war (Score:3, Insightful)
Did they kill babies? If not, then it's unfair. (But you don't get to say you didn't, just because you couldn't see who you hit.)
Otherwise
I can see justifications for removing Hussein. I'm not a total isolationist. But armies are much more effective at killing other armies, and civilian populace, then they are at killing specified individuals. I still don't see any reason to believe that they ever got bin Laden, who was the supposed reason for the invasion of Afganistan. Supposed.
When people do things that are so ineffective for achieving their stated ends, but are quite effective for achieving other ends, I find myself wondering which ends they were really after.
Maybe his just likes big explosions? Maybe that's the only way he can get he rocks off.
Re:Island Life (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many people all over the world who are even more likely to look for an opportunity to strike the U.S. now that America has basically decreed that they are above the law.
I grew up in a world where the U.S. was the good guys, and we were happy to be good guys too. Now this war has proven that America is a bully. Funny how sometimes the bullied kids fight back. Does the word 'Columbine' mean anything to you?
But what the hell, you've got God on your side, right?
Re:Ask the Iraqi's (Score:2, Insightful)
At the same time, comparing pre-Revolutionary War American and British relations and sanctions to current day-to-day life in Iraq is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a long time. Fighting a foreign government is an entirely different thing than fighting your own government...
Oh boy... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Spanish American War.
World War I
World War II
Korean War
Vietnam War
The Gulf War
War On Iraq
War On Poverty
War On Drugs
War On Terrorism
The First group isn't that alarming by its self, war happens, it's sometimes unavoidable from the standpoint of one side. But when combined with the second group I become worried.
Re:Ask the Iraqi's (Score:5, Insightful)
Care to poin out who provided the US with that right? And since when it's ok for a nation to attack another because they feel like it (read "it is in their self-interest")?
Re:Thoughts of a soldier (Score:3, Insightful)
Not like dropping MOAB's on innocent civilians, now that is truly heroic.
According to the quote above we should all admire Hitler.
"Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal"
Martin Luther King
Re:Ask the Iraqi's (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ask the Iraqi's (Score:4, Insightful)
We saw you trying to create a few democratic republics by now and how do those people live now? How is Cambodia doing? Vietnam? Do i need to name more? Are they all swimming in wealth? Are they celebrating you as heroes? If USA want to eliminate unjustice regimes from this world why don't they free Tibet? Oh they would have to face someone who is at least as powerfull as they are. Better to pick on someone who they starved allready with years of sanctions.
Re:Ask the Iraqi's (Score:2, Insightful)
The patriot act certianly infringes upon the rights of us citizens. Is the US suddenly illegitimate?
A person who abuses his rights is a criminal, and therefore, forfeits his rights.
thats not one of the ideals our country was founded on. rights to a fair trial, to know your accuser (even if you are guilty), etc.
but if they feel it's necessary to protect their own interests, they have the right to do so.
So the soviet union had every right to topple the us gov't, b/c it was in thier self interest?