Major Strike on Iraq Underway 2574
The major news sources are reporting that much larger scale attacks are now underway in Iraq. Here is CNNs story. Pentagon officials have confirmed that this is "A-day" for war, presumably the so called "Shock & Awe" mentioned by the White House earlier. In other words, it starts now. Update: 18:01 GMT by CT : Iraq has apparently ordered
CNN out of Baghdad.
Updates as events warrant.
mer? (Score:0, Insightful)
Dupe! (Score:0, Insightful)
And the day before that.
Seriously, let us get our news somewhere else. Noone's discussing anything here, just spewing crap and insults.
I was praying the last of these would be crapflooded with Old Ike stories, I got so sick of reading the "America Sucks" tripe.
Come on editors, step up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the TV Bagdad looks pretty quiet...
More info at this blog... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, he's an asshole?
I feel safer already. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Come on editors, step up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you complain about this story... (Score:4, Insightful)
To the third group: Why are you reading this, then? Nobody forced you to click on the story. Unless there's some sort of reverse-censorship software out there now. In which case, that would definitely be a good Slashdot story.
That is all.
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just waiting for the environmental groups to step up to the plate and show their support for this war. Has anybody caused as much deliberate environmental damage as Hussein?
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course, your reason makes sense too.
No extensive coverage of Iraqi Deaths? (Score:5, Insightful)
S
[*] for non US ppl, PG-13 is a movie rating covering content appropriate for ages 13 and up.
Tip of the day #2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It starts NOW? (Score:2, Insightful)
And by "started", I mean it was too late to stop it from happening.
I support our troops, but question our government.
Re:So um... (Score:5, Insightful)
(ducks) Kidding! Kidding! Sorry!
Anyhow, I'll feel better when these guys get tossed out of the White House. This whole war was so contrived and forced down people's throats it's not even funny (okay, wars aren't funny in general, but you know what I mean).
The most depressing part for me has been that this war really points out the lack of sophistication in many Americans. First, the rational is pretty much invented and set up in a schitzo way (the lack of proof is proof!) and then repeated, basically, until people bought it. Now, we have to deal with idiots being all excited that we're going to blow stuff up and kill people.
You'd think after 9-11 we'd be a little more empathetic, but then maybe it's only human suffering if you have endless TV specials with mournful music and lingering shots of the flag to back it up.
Ignore me. I'm feeling angstful today.
New updates... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course, I don't remember those protests when Bill Clinton launched cruise missiles at Iraq. Or when he invaded Haiti, Bosnia, or Sudan, without UN approval.
Oh, that's right, They're not protesting the war, they're protesting against George Bush. You don't see Iraq citizens protesting the american invasion, do you?
Re:Oh brother... (Score:5, Insightful)
except that this is really the WWE equivalent of The Rock beating on a retarded 11 year old kid. If it has to be done, get it over with but please don't brag about it, and don't hype it up as if the outcome were in question.
Re:Helpful tip. (Score:2, Insightful)
BTW, Saddam is not an Islamic militant. He is just a regular dictator. Iraq is also a secular nation. He just pissed off papa Bush and Dubya wants revenge (and oil).
S
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:2, Insightful)
>Kinda like when he told us last December that he didn't >have any SCUD missles and then used some yesterday, or >when he told us 12 years ago that he didn't have any WMD.
Those were al samoud missles, not scudsRe:OK folks, this is it (Score:5, Insightful)
That shouldn't surprise anyone. If I was an Iraqi soldier I would be lining up to surrender. Who wants to give their life defending Saddam Hussein? Heck, If I was an Iraqi soldier I would like to think that I would have turned my gun on that regime a long time ago.
Even if Saddam is alive people that give a crap about what he has to say are almost certainly few and far between.
Re:Good GOD help us all (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:war crime (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Watch it live on CNN... (Score:5, Insightful)
"'It would appear that the United States has launched a military acion against Libya,' shouted Glass, trying to sound grave. But you could hear the boyish enthusiasm creeping into his voice the way it always does when a reporter manages to get himself right smack-dab in the middle of something god-awful."
Go tell this to the residents of Dresden (Score:2, Insightful)
Just great. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anything good on TV? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Link:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/2
However, protests in Germany, Egypt and France are totally irrelevant to what the US and UK governments should do. Last I checked, it was the _citizens_ of a country that dictated what a country does. Right now 66% of Americans support the war - thus the war goes on, protests or not. I don't know how British citizens feel about this - I've heard varying numbers. It did survive a vote in their parliament, which does seem to say something.
But, in any event, protesting the war at this point is pretty much useless, since you can't really just "stop" once you've started an invasion, and it would cause a worse outcome anyways - would you prefer regime change or have Saddam become leader of the Arab world because he just "beat" the US? If faced with two bad choices, I highly recommend you take the one which is "less bad". In this case, the former is obviously better than the latter.
In other words, complaining about how the US shouldn't be in Iraq is a little useless once they're already deep inside. Make the best of a bad situation, and pressure the coalition to actually do what they claim they're trying to do: free the Iraqi people. That's a lot better plan than advocating a non-solution.
-Erwos
Re:So um... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which attacks would these be? What attacks on America was Saddam directly the cause of?
Can you imagine a world with a peaceful Middle East? Our President can.
Anyone who thinks that taking over Iraq will cause peace in the rest of the reason is either insane or dumber than a bag of hammers.
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Conventionally. Carpet bombs and man-to-man combat. We loose people. They loose people. We're better trained and better equiped, so they loose more than we do.
2. Shock and Awe. Scare the living hell out of men that, for the most part, don't want to be there anyway, and tell them how to surrender. Drop smart bombs on targets that will destroy their ability to fight with as little dammage to civilian targets as possible.
People are getting bent out of shape by the number of bombs to be dropped, without realising that this tactic will save Iraqi lives, as well as American.
Re:So um... (Score:3, Insightful)
I know what you mean about the atrocities in his own country, but as regards the part above, please could you clarify for which direct attacks on America Saddam Hussein is responsible? I'd be particularly interested to hear about ones in the past decade or so since the "first Gulf War".
Re:Before you complain about this story... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this war a good thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Iraqi Amercans are cheering this war on. Some are planning to return to Iraq.
Sadaam should be overthrown just for setting the oil fields on fire in Kuwait 13 years ago. The environmental damage he did was a crime against nature.
And for all those protesters shoutng no blood for oil. Screw the oil there are other reasons to take Sadaam down.
But speaking of oil. France gets most of their oil from Iraq and they are against the war. DO you think they are afraid of a disruption in their oil supply?
The French would rather see the Iraqi's suffer than disrupt their oil supply? That may not be true but it might.
Here is a quote from somebody on another website I was talking too.
"I read an account of an Iraqi political dissenter who was forced to watch his 8 month old baby boy tortured. I don't care if the original reason for invasion and subsequent regime change was not for human rights issues, but if taking Saddam out for whatever reason stops the atrocious violation of human rights, I say its a good thing.
There was already footage of Iraqis cheering and waving the American flag. If the people of Iraq want to be free, and want the coalition's help, who are we to say this war is bad.
I was trying to drive through a war protest yesterday in San Francisco, and I saw protestors waving anti-war posters out of a car with a "Free-Tibet" bumper sticker on it. I yelled, "WHY FREE TIBET, AND NOT IRAQ?" They had no answer."
""--Let's recall this quotation from Dominique Dord, a deputy from French President Jacques Chirac's own party: "We would look really stupid if Iraqis applaud the arrival of Americans." Well said.--"
Iraqis in the newly liberated Souhtern Iraq are indeed cheering. "
Re:I feel safer already. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Oh brother... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No extensive coverage of Iraqi Deaths? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder why the media is not covering the news of Iraqi deaths. Is it some sort of a PG-13[*] coverage of the war?
CNN has no way of really covering the Iraqi casualty situation. The CNN crew was thrown out of Baghdad, and Iraqi military units are off limits to them. It's not self-censorship; CNN would cover any garbage that gets ratings; they are bloodthirsty as the ratings support.
The Gardener
Re:Are you sure? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Helpful tip. (Score:5, Insightful)
But you're point is entirely correct. If the US wanted Iraqi oil, then Bush could have just puches the UN into dropping sacntions in place since 1991. Then we;d have had lots of cheap oil.
It shouldn't be forgotten that furing the 80's Saddam was a moderating influence on OPEC, perceived as a sort of level head, kepping prices fairly low. Simple economic motivations would have led us to support Saddam in the 90's and develop a close friendship.
People who argue that this war is being fought for oil are, to be charitable, gravely misinformed.
-Matthew
Re:Cannot find WMD (Score:2, Insightful)
What if the US invasion uncovers no weapons of mass destruction? That would mean that Bush's entire line of logic for the invasion is a big lie.
Of course, the US administration would quickly manufacturer some "evidence" -- and hopefully it would be a better forgery than the "Iraq is trying to buy African uranium" lies that the weapons inspectors refuted. In such a case, the rest of the world would see the truth, but the US media I'm sure would cover it up quickly as a non-story.
If you were Hussein, wouldn't you use your WMD early in the war, just in a case of "use it or lose it"?
Oh no, it's probably those sneaky Iraqi bastards -- they're hiding their WMD just to get political propaganda mileage out of the war...
Re:Are you sure? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:5, Insightful)
The Iraqis will be far more likely to be friendly to the US if we _don't_ destroy their best income source. But they'll be pissed off even if we let Saddam do it. Thus, we ask the Iraqi troops not to torch them.
This makes a lot of sense once you get by your hatred of GWB.
-Erwos
Re:Oh brother... (Score:3, Insightful)
The 11 year old has a twenty year history of killing innocents, and stands up in the streets saying "Fuck You" to everyone who walks by.
Sometimes you've just gotta smack some people.
Re:Iraqui people will love the freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Patriotism != Nationalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Love of and devotion to one's country.
Nationalism:
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
I love my country which is why I oppose this war and the people who fight it - yes, that means the troops. And before you froth at the mouth and label me a troll, Check this out [capwiz.com].
I will be happy to support the wounded on both sides when the fighting stops - but I will not support the systematic murder of thousands of people whether they be Iraqi or American. Murder is still murder whether it be on battlefield or at bus stop.
CNN Out? Ha ha ha ha. (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously though. Fox News is still going strong, along with it's affiliate, Brittain's Sky News. This is one hell of an interesting conflict. Strike, move, Strike, move, BIG FUCKING STRIKE. And all the while, they're trying to keep it so that the Iraqi people know that they are only after Saddam and his military government.
So here's how this is going to work. Saddam, if he's not dead already, will either be ousted or on the run. The opposition will be given control of Iraq, and along with it, Iraq's oil. Humanitarian aid will come in to help the Iraqi people get on their feet. Aid will rebuild Baghdad, and modernize the nation.
In short, the USA will be kissing their asses.
We've been all friendly. And look! You've got this natural resource right here to fuel your economy. And guess what? It just so happens that we'll be buying. Now, since we were so nice, how about dropping the price of that crude? Hmmm?
On Fox News at this monment, they talked about Coalition Forces and when they will be able to say they've achieved their goal. I think we know what Bush and company's goals are. How convenient. Here's some oil, we want it. Oops. It just so happens that country's leader is a flaming asshole with weapons we don't like.
One thing, though. If Dubya does get his way, we all might see a break at the pump. Wouldn't that be nice...
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:war crime (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you talking about the US gov't jailing thousands of innocent Muslim people as suspected terrorists, blowing up cars full of "suspects" (including an American citizen) by remote control, and torturing Al Queda members that they've caught?
Back when the US didn't do such things, you may have had a point. Now the US has no claim to the moral high ground.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So um... (Score:3, Insightful)
If not, I think the odds of him being re-elected are pretty high. Most people support the war now (according to popular polls, certainly my personal experience doesn't agree with those). Also, recall what happened after the Afganistan conflict -- nothing. We didn't take really any effort to rebuild their government, other than reinstating the Northern Alliance, who's history was even shadier than the Taliban's. Also, we never accomplished our secondary objective, which was the elimination of bin Laden. Yet, nobody really seemed to mind at all.
Both the Afganistan and Iraqi conflicts have one alarming similarity: both of these conflicts were started by Bush to eliminate one person who he believed to be a major threat to the security of the United States. For this reason, both of these conflicts have been effectively inconclusive (well, we have yet to see in Iraq, but I do not suspect a nice happy action-movie type ending here).
Re:For that matter... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh brother... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the war needs to be won quickly and decisively. No, we don't need to brag about it, but at the same time it's not anything to be ashamed of.
Also, if you replace "retarded 11 year old kid" with "neighborhood bully", then it might be more accurate. When I was growing up, we had a bully, too. One day he was in the midst of beating the crap out of my brother when the bully's older brother came out and beat the crap out of HIM. "How's it feel to get beat up? How's it feel to have someone bigger than YOU beat you up?" He didn't bully us for a good long while after that. (And ever notice that the people who scream and yell about the US being a big bully are the people that.. well.. we don't allow to bully their own people either? See Serbia, etc).
Or not (Score:1, Insightful)
The article does a good job of using fear to shape public opinion. How does it feel to scare people into your belief system?
Further, I should point out that the article is quite liberal in re-interpreting and ignoring details which don't support the analogy between Bush and Hitler. For example, a detail which was left out:
"I don't have to worry about justice; my mission is only to destroy and exterminate, nothing more!" - Hermann Göring, March 3, 1933.
Fifty one anti-Nazis were murdered. The Nazis suppressed all political activity, meetings and publications of non-Nazi parties. The very act of campaigning against the Nazis was in effect made illegal.
Was Bin Laden's home bombed prewar Afghanistan? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Are you sure? (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not bombing blindly, and they're not bombing infrastructure. They're bombing palaces and military, nothing else.
Re:Helpful tip. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember...the anticipation of an event is often enough to get you completely worked up. Try being told a 20mile carravan of tanks is coming at you, and they're 50 miles away. I'd be thinking 'surrender', wouldn't you?
--trb
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Believe it or not, the US has spent a good deal of monies in minimizing the inadvertent casualties that come from war. And for those that die anyway--we grieve, but our grief will not stop our country's will.
This is as just a war as any we have fought since the founding of the United Nations. Allow us to revel in the glory of our armies--for we fight not to conquer, but to liberate a people who can no longer fight for themselves.
Ok, enough PR from me. I just wanted to offer an alternate argument to your one-sided post.
Re:Watch it live on CNN... (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't make them bad people.
Re:Sun Tsu, on Shock and Awe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patriotism != Nationalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of spewing your disdain for our brave military personnel from a distance and behind an anonymous internet name, go to your local VFW post and say that.
If you can do that and look those veterans straight in the eyes, then you can come back here and speak again.
I'm sorry, but people like the parent poster sicken me with their cowardly drivel.
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's the case, what gave Dubya the right to order a leader of another country to step down? It's just because he's got the bigger bombs and Iraq's a threat to him. The US was also a threat to Iraq and by your arguments if Iraq had more bombs it would have been legitimate for Saddam to order Dubya to step down, "or else". Of course you claim Saddam is evil and Bush is nice, but some citizens of Iraq claim the exact opposite. And now, just watch as the Dictatorship of USA rise. Or you can do something about it and go demonstrate, and vote against Bush come next elections.
Re:Oh brother... (Score:2, Insightful)
actualy in this case i would much rather have seen a small special ops team go in, incapacitate saddam and his sons and then go in to make sure nothing got out of hand. it would have been cheaper, put fewer lives in danger, and would have caused a lot less political bad blood. either way though we are/would be setting a bad precident for other coutries.
Re:So um... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm... what "direct attacks on America"?
The standard for proof has sunk really low. Repeat something often enough now and it becomes true.
I know the war has some costs, and we may even lose a few American lives, but we will bring freedom to Iraq, and how can you put a price on that?
We will NOT bring freedom to Iraq- that much is certain. Unless you define "freedom" as "pro-American", which so many people do reflexively without a second thought. True democracy in Iraq would not give us results that we would like or tolerate. People there tend to vote for Islamist parties, and our outrageous behavior of late doesn't help. Starving people and dropping bombs on them won't make them vote for you.
The most we can hope for is something like another Saudi Arabia. Frankly one is enough.
Can you imagine a world with a peaceful Middle East? Our President can.
Wow, you've been exposed to a lot of propaganda. Are you listening to the baseless statements coming out of your mouth? A critical thinker just doesn't say things like that.
Imagining something and actually making it happen are two different things. I can imagine a world with candy cane trees, but that doesn't mean I actually have a coherent plan for making it happen! There are a lot of people with naive views that are in for a rude awakening before this is over. Wishful thinking is not good foreign policy.
Start bashing the Americans... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's interesting to note that people have a hard time differentiating between American people and the American government. It's funny when I hear someone's surprise when they realize that some Americans might actually be against the war.
Believe it or not, there is just as much dissention and discussion (if not more) among the American people about the war as there is between Americans and those of other nations. Indeed, America is a free country, and they're allowed to speak up against their government. And they do.
I'm quite divided myself, and I think those that are either against or completely in bed with this war aren't looking at all sides of the issue. Strangely enough, many of those who claim that Bush is simplistic and biased don't seem to have any problems with Chirac. Additionally, "the quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded than the shouts of a ruler of fools," in which case the silent majority seems to be saying a lot to me about what the real feelings of the people are. Unfortunately, the "silent majority" is not as newsworthy as the destructive protesters ("stop this war or we'll kill the ambassador!").
Please don't use these forums as a medium for bashing the US Americans.
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:1, Insightful)
Hahahahahahaha...yes, there's nothing Bush is more concerned about like the environment.
Or that we're trying to preserve _infrastructure_.
Then why are we blowing up everything else?
This makes a lot of sense once you get by your hatred of GWB.
He's earned my hatred and contempt, again and again.
I don't think the oil fields are the main reason he's going in, you just made that assumption. I do, however, think they factor into his decision. If he wants to convince us and the rest of the world that it has nothing to do with oil, he should make sure the Iraqis grant drilling rights to non-American companies to avoid the appearance of impropriety. What are the odds that he's going to do that?
How dumb are you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bin Laden wants this war, he knows that anything he does to reduce the distance between him and Saddam will bring the war closer (he succeeded). Now that the US is attacking Iraq, it is a lot easier to recruit new terrorists, and popular support for existing ones is growing.
So Bin Laden has great incentive to associate him self with Hussein in the media, regardless of whether or not any factual link exists. I am not saying there is no link between the Ba'ath party and Al-Queda (I don't think there is, I have not seen the evidence), but to think that tape establishes a link is idiotic
Even if you believe this war is just, you have to acknowledge that it will strengthen Al-Queda.
Re:No extensive coverage of Iraqi Deaths? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Patriotism != Nationalism (Score:4, Insightful)
I may or may not agree with the foreign policy of my government, but the soldier who volunteers to take a bullet for my freedom deserves my respect.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:1, Insightful)
American Government changes, yeah we made mistakes in the past but that doesn't mean we're making the same mistakes in the future. Saddam uses chemical weapons on innocent civilians. Thats why we attack Saddam. Not because previous governments of that country have, but because the CURRENT government has.
Re:News Flash... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Shock and Awe - A history lesson (Score:2, Insightful)
Although many of the comparisons made are superficially similar the differences are overwhelming. This might be somewhat funny as a humor column, but as a serious editorial it does nothing to usefully compare the two situations.
Re:Overated (Score:3, Insightful)
Kent
Re:funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more exciting to see everything as the events unfold, but you'd have to be stupid to think you're going to get anything near a complete or accurate picture of what's going on.
It takes years until documents are unclassifed, interviews can be done, military personnel retire, etc. and then a few more years for a good writer to digest it and put it into a good book.
The truth will come out sooner or later, and eventually some one will put it into a coherent package. Don't look for it on live television...
Re:Overated (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry folks, I know you hate to hear it, but the truth speaks for itself.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:3, Insightful)
Iraq is also at a serious disadvantage with the age of their tank fleet. They have nothing of recent design. Their newest tank is a Soviet designed T-72, first built in 1975. Their other two tank models, the T-62 & T-65 was from the 60s and 50s respectively. Most of their tanks that they do have a are seriously aging rust buckets that have been through two wars already. I seriously think that they are of very little concern when compaired to our Abrams.
Uh, then I want Al Gore (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US is invoking "majority rules" for this, then I want Al Gore as president.
A Passion to Avoid Collateral Damage (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Overated (Score:2, Insightful)
Context.
Re:So um... (Score:3, Insightful)
God forbid that America might use its power to get rid of fascist dicators. Maybe the real problem is that the elitists in America have forgotten that they owe their freedom to a war against another tyrant, George III. Or maybe that war was "contrived and forced down people's throats" as well?
Re:Oh brother... (Score:2, Insightful)
While we might prefer to put such a dangerous child in a place where he can do us no harm, taking pity on his inability to understand why he is a danger, our first resposnibility is to protect ourselves.
One sure fire way to do this is, yes, blow the fuck out of the threat before he can hurt us. There is no denying that this will protect us from the immediate and future related threat. Of course, there may be other repurcussions: some people might not like our use of such heavy handedness.
Fair enough.
Let them that criticize offer more humane solutions that guarantee our safety. And, let us listen when their ideas do, in fact, provide our safety in a more humane manner. But, that has not happened here: more scurrying about and talk and "inspections" might create busy-work for one Hans Blix, but it does squat for U.S. interests. The UN has failed to avert this war due to, mostly, its own inane bureaucracy that has usurped the original purpose of that organization with the need to perpetuate that same bureaucracy.
Having failed to remove the real threat that the Iraqi leadership represents to the U.S., on the basis of unarguable prior words and deeds, in a less violent manner, on a timely schedule, the UN opens the door for, and legitimizes, all out American destruction of that same regime, complete with collateral damage.
One can therefore only hope that the war will be swift, and the same American military technological power that insipres convidence in victory will also lead to a minimization of unsavoury collateral damage (which is really the thing that makes war so reprehensable in the first place).
The analogy with the retarded child isn't even a good one: Saddam Hussain, while a masochist and suicidal, does not strike me as retarded. So, tone down the pity and compassion waves, please.
This is one Canadian that, while finding U.S. action somewhat of a distasteful business, notes that it is UN, and not American, incompetence that has led to this last refuge.
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So um... (Score:1, Insightful)
>Also, we never accomplished our secondary objective, which was the elimination of bin Laden.
We are still after OBL, and show no signs of letting up.
>other than reinstating the Northern Alliance
Since when is Karzi a part of the Northern Alliance.
I hear lots of people bash this war as unneeded, but I have yet to hear plausable solution to these problems from this same group.
Inspections would not work, Blix admitted that yesterday.
Containment does not work, ask the starving Iraq people or Poland.
Unfortunatly with people like this force seems to be the only option.
Re:For that matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Watch it live on CNN... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the fire-fighters actually fight the fire, and the soldiers actually fight the war. The journalist is just there to take pictures and write a story about the fire or war.
Because of this, a fire-fighter hopes for a small, contained fire; a soldier hopes for a short, limited war. The journalist's interests are exactly opposite. The bigger the fire or bloodier the war, the better the story and the higher the ratings. I think Don Henley summed up this phenomenon well: "We got the bubbleheaded bleach-blonde comes on at five, She can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye, It's interesting when people die, Give us dirty laundry."
It doesn't make them bad people.
Any more than Necrotizing Fasciitis [diseaseworld.com] is a "bad" bacteria.
Re:Hitler and Goering had a name for 'Shock & (Score:2, Insightful)
Now the politics....Ashcroft scares me....
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thousands of civilians died on 9/11, during the previous attack on the WTC, during kidnappings, and bombings of embassies. Woohoo.
Difference here being, we gave them at least a weeks notice.. we warned them we were going in.. we didnt just suddenly and randomly attack them out of the clear blue sky on a crisp september morning.
_that_ is the difference.
Maeryk
TV Beat Internet On This One (Score:3, Insightful)
I was working on my PC, glanced over at the TV and saw all these orange mushroom clouds. I immediately unmuted the TV and stepped away from the PC. I support the war, but I'm not "happy" about seeing things and lives destroyed like this. I don't think many people who support the war are happy about it either. It's just that this is better than the alternative.
Re:funny... (Score:4, Insightful)
He has no ability to counterattack conventionally.
Our only worry now should be toxic boobytrapping in and around Baghdad.
Re:Overated (Score:5, Insightful)
To imply the media is 'liberal' is absurd.
how much air time was devoted to Clinton getting a blow job? weeks, if not months
how much time was devoted to the connection between bush, and enron? hours, maybe days.
clinton cheated on his wife, then enron scandal cost many many people any hope of retiring, ever. Destroyed peoplels lives.
Where were all the protest when we liberated kawait from an aggressor(Saddam)? there were very little protesting, yet there wasn't a liberal in office.
maybe, just maybe, these people feel this offensive in unjust and thats why there protesting?
Not everybody lets there party beliefs infect there thinking.
Re:Less American Propoganda (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For that matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Fear will keep the local systems in line..." (Score:3, Insightful)
Someone explain to me, please, whom this attack is directed at? If, as all reports indicate, the Iraqi command structure is already isolated from local units, then what will it accomplish to "Shock and Awe" them into more confusion? They're already ineffectual.
This is meant to awe the world, not just Iraq, and it won't have the effect Rumsfeld et al want. As a demonstration of American Military Might (all in caps of course), it's going to fail if one, ONE member of the Iraqi high command survives in a bunker somewhere. You think that won't happen? It doesn't even matter if it's NOT intended to kill everyone in a bunker, either. The Arab world will see that America's thrown everything it has at Iraq, but that all America had wasn't enough to kill Saddam Hussein or whoever.
It'll backfire, like this entire arrogant foreign policy approach. True strength is more often demonstrated in restraint than in action.
oil (Score:5, Insightful)
1. burning oil is bad for the enviornment. very, very, very bad. the U.S. takes shit for the Exxon Valdez, but that was nothing compared to the burning oil fields of the first Gulf war.
2. oil is/will be the Iraqi peoples' bread n` butter.
3. Why the fuck should we let Saddam's regime successfully institue a scorched earth policy?
4. burning oil fields creates lots of smoke, enough smoke to cause confusion on a battlefield, enough smoke to kill people, etc.
Furthermore, the U.S. won't get any of that oil unless the new government chooses to sell it to us. The U.S. isn't going to "unilaterally" install a new government in Iraq. It will be a process with all the civilized nations of the world.
Speaking of "unilateral", this action is definately not unilateral, despite what the French, German, and Russian governments would have you believe. The U.S. has the support of over 40 other nations, including England. You want to see unilateral action, look up what France has done militarily in Africa this century. France can hold its own in setting up puppet governments. What we have these days is a case of the pot calling the U.S. black, and a bunch of blind people who won't even Google to find out what France, Germany and Russia's ulterior motives are.
I'll lay them out for you...
France: France has illegally been doing business with Iraq, against the U.N. sanctions, for years now.
Russia: Russia, with it's pathetic GDP, is owed roughly 8 billion dollars by Iraq, and has also illegally done business with Iraq against U.N. sanctions.
Germany: Germany gets a lot of cheap oil from Iraq through the food for oil program.
So, in short, if they just let them burn the oil fields, ignorant dicks like yourself would be complaining about the harm to the enviornment, taking away the Iraqi peoples' natural resources, etc.
FWIW, I support this war solely for giving the Iraqi people a chance to create a prosperous country, and so Iraqi refugees can go back to their own country, as they wish to do.
Good or bad news? (Score:2, Insightful)
Could be good because if this kind of things is very sucessful the war will end sooner and will be no more life loses.
In the other hand, if the war ends, was "easy" and without a lot of lost lives, and Bush feels sucessful and invincible, what will be next? North Korea? the rest of the arab countries? China? France?
Re:Overated (Score:4, Insightful)
The folks who say Bush is an evil oilman are motivated in part because even the most casual overview of American foreign policies will show that we don't give a rats ass about evil dictators. In fact, we often support them. Remember, Hussein was considered our friend the whole time he was gassing Iranian troops and the Kurds. Ethnic cleansing? We didn't even lift a finger to stop the horrors in Rwanda. Shall we talk about the many years we turned a blind eye to the Taliban? Shall we talk about the many years of support we gave to the "evil men" who ran brutal dictatorships in Latin America? Shall we talk about our support of the Shah of Iran?
Oh, and here's a fun picture. It's Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983. After Iraq invaded Iran. After Iraq began using chemical weapons. But to his credit, before Iraq killed 37 Americans onboard the USS Stark in 1987. (not that that ended our support of Hussein) Rumsfeld and Hussein [msnbc.com]
Re:For that matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:For that matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, if you consider US sorces suspect, you have to consider Iraqi sources suspect too.
The truth is, there probaly is no one who knows the Iraqi body count.
Why not tell this to the Iraqi people then. (Score:2, Insightful)
And wars are not wanted.
But unfortunately sometimes they are necessary. There's only so far you can get with "Stop! Or I'll say 'stop' again!"
This is a concept that many of the anti-war crowd find impossible to grasp.
No, I'm sure you are feeling pretty self-righteous typing your post from your comfy padded chair, but ever wonder how the people of Iraq would have felt about us just leaving Saddam alone?
Why don't you listen for yourself? [komo1000news.com]
"Shock & Awe" == "Terror" (Score:1, Insightful)
This seems double-plus ironic to me.
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:4, Insightful)
But we're Americans. What use do we have for facts?
Re:Come on editors, step up! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For that matter... (Score:1, Insightful)
You are no better than the mindless drones that say kill them all and let god sort them out. Just the flip side of the coin.
Re:For that matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would prefer they didn't say that. It can't be said (yet). I don't support this war, but from what I can tell, the precision warheads have not destroyed the city. That's why the lights are still on.
Re:Oh brother... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree.. It sounds like a name for a japanese product with en english name to sound 'hip'. They might as weel have named it "the super terrific 100% bombing ocurrence!".
It's a fucking war, and CNN sounds like they're about to show the good part of the movie.
(and I have a new signature ;)
Dancing in the streets in Safwan (Score:5, Insightful)
It would seem they want him gone too.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:4, Insightful)
The United States has ignored all of these happenings and then attacks Iraq to liberate its citizenry. This is why I doubt this is the true motivation behind the attack on Iraq.
Re:For that matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
We have very little information on that. We do know, or at least believe, that there was one civilian casualty, a Jordanian taxi driver who ran into a nearby building during a bombing run, only to have that building bombed shortly thereafter.
We can't take a guess at military casualties because of two things. First, we simply have no information about how many military personnel were killed by stand-off weapons like bombs and cruise missiles. We simply don't know. And we can't talk about how many soldiers have been killed in engagements with our ground forces because we can't talk about where our ground forces are or what they're doing. That's operational security, not propaganda.
So, in other words, you're asking for something that is, for several reasons, impossible to provide.
Re:Overated (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the president who signed into law welfare reform (over the objections of the League of Women Voters), pushed NAFTA (over the objections of the Democratic Party), and who had a number of Republican holdovers in his administration (Alan Greenspan, David Gergen, etc.).
And liberals aren't the only ones opposed to intervention: remember Pat Buchanan's opposition to Gulf War I and involvement in the Balkans? For most of the last decade, conservative lawmakers and pundits advocated a neo-isolationist policy, especially where national interest were hazy at best, and other institutions (such as the European Union) might have stepped up to resolve such situations.
Opposition to involvement in Kosovo was muted (though not non-existant; there were protests, but the participants numbered in the hundreds, not thousands) because of these two words: ethnic cleansing. Bombing Serbia to halt a genocide in the making fulfilled some people's definition of a "righteous war". Not all, and not exclusively liberals, conservatives, or any of the other misnomers that cheapen political dialog in the US.
Labeling Clinton a liberal is laughable. Jacob Javits was a liberal (and a Republican). Tip O'Neill was a liberal. Clinton was not, just as Tony Blair is a departure from the Labour party socialists of the '60s and '70s.
k.
Thank You Mr. President (Score:3, Insightful)
Brasilian writer Paulo Coelho
---
Thank you, President Bush
by Paulo Coelho
Thank you, great leader George W. Bush.
Thank you for showing everyone what a danger Saddam Hussein represents. Many of us might otherwise have forgotten that he had used chemical weapons against his own people, against the Kurds and against the Iranians. Hussein is a bloodthirsty dictator and one of the clearest expressions of evil in today's world.
But this is not my only reason for thanking you. During the first two months of 2003, you have shown the world a great many other important things and, therefore, deserve my
gratitude.
So, remembering a poem I learned as a child, I want to say thank you.
Thank you for showing everyone that the Turkish people and their Parliament are not for sale, not even for 26 billion dollars.
Thank you for revealing to the world the gulf that exists between the decisions made by those in power and the wishes of the people. Thank you for making it clear that neither Jose Maria Aznar nor Tony Blair give the slightest weight to or show the slightest respect for the votes they received. Aznar is perfectly capable of ignoring the fact that 90% of Spaniards are against the war, and Blair is unmoved by the largest public demonstration to take place in England in the last thirty years.
Thank you for making it necessary for Tony Blair to go to the British Parliament with a fabricated dossier written by a student ten years ago, and present this as 'damning evidence collected by the British Secret Service'.
Thank you for allowing Colin Powell to make a complete fool of himself by showing the UN Security Council photos which, one week later, were publicly challenged by Hans Blix, the Inspector responsible for disarming Iraq.
Thank you for adopting your current position and thus ensuring that, at the plenary session, the French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin's anti-war speech was greeted with applause - something, as far as I know, that has only happened once before in the
history of the UN, following a speech by Nelson Mandela.
Thank you too, because, after all your efforts to promote war, the normally divided Arab nations, at their meeting in Cairo during the last week in February, were, for the first time, unanimous in their condemnation of any invasion.
Thank you for your rhetoric stating that 'the UN now has a chance to demonstrate its relevance', a statement which made even the most reluctant countries take up a position opposing any attack on Iraq.
Thank you for your foreign policy which provoked the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, into declaring that in the 21st century, 'a war can have a moral justification', thus causing him to lose all credibility.
Thank you for trying to divide a Europe that is currently struggling for unification; this was a warning that will not go unheeded.
Thank you for having achieved something that very few have so far managed to do in this century: the bringing together of millions of people on all continents to fight for the same idea, even though that idea is opposed to yours.
Thank you for making us feel once more that though our words may not be heard, they are at least spoken - this will make us stronger in the future.
Thank you for ignoring us, for marginalising all those who oppose your decision, because the future of the Earth belongs to the excluded.
Thank you, because, without you, we would not have realised our own ability to mobilise. It may serve no purpose this time, but it will doubtless be useful later on.
Now that there seems no way of silencing the drums of war, I would like to say, as an ancient European king said to an invader: 'May your morning be a beautiful one, may the
sun shine on your soldiers' armour, for in the afternoon, I will defeat you.'
Thank you for allowing us - an army of anonymous people filling the streets in an attempt to stop a
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:1, Insightful)
IMHO, all this is over oil, and Dubya trying to win the war that his dad didn't have the brass to finnish.
But I'm just some crazy white boy. What do I know?
Re:Overated (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that's true. Barring some particular international treaties, the mere possession of these weapons is not illegal, and not just cause for waging war.
However, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and during the war to expel them, they fired ballistic missiles on Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. It was decided, when discussing the terms of a cease-fire that could end the war, that in order to "restore peace and security to the area" (the UN's words) Iraq would have to be disarmed of some specific classes of weapons.
It's just like losing your driver's license. If you get picked up for DUI, you might have your driver's license revoked. You did something wrong, and therefore the authority with jurisidiction over you has decided that you have to give up your license. Along comes the bailiff to take your license from you.
"But that's not fair," you respond. "The bailiff still has a driver's license! He drives even more than I do! Where does he get off trying to take my license from me?!"
It's the same situation. Iraq did something wrong (started a war), and therefore the authority with jurisdiction over Iraq (the UN) decided that Iraq had to give up its weapons. Iraq refused, for twelve long years, to give up their weapons. So along comes the bailiff (the Alliance) to take away their weapons from them.
Does that clear it up any?
No to War (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:For that matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, the BBC tends to be more US independent, but they have British objectives, just as CNN has US objectives. True, they're not the kind of propaganda machine CNN&Co have become, because they are the kind of propaganda machine the BBC&Co have become.
Human Nature... (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole situation leading up to the war is obviously complex, with all parties (eg, Iraq, US, UN, UK, France, Turkey, etc.) pushing their own agenda while claiming that they do what they do in the name of [choose one] humanity, religion, security, etc. Ultimately, though, we do what we do because it is human nature:
Despite knowing right from wrong, we will usually choose what feels good. Mostly that means the one with the biggest stick wins.
Sucks to be human sometimes...
Re:For that matter... (Score:1, Insightful)
Exactly.
The only people that a bully respects are people who can beat the shit out of him. While we were doing our finger-waving over the past twelve years, Saddam was hiding behind body guards and body doubles, smiling like Mona Lisa while the Kurds were being gassed and millions of his own people were starving to death.
People like Saddam are only impressed by, and thus motivated by, force. Because he is *very* familiar with the application of force.
Re:Troop ratio's. (Score:2, Insightful)
Absolutely we do. The Brits have been our staunchest allies, and its a testament to your Prime Minister's integrity that he ignored the hype and went with what he believed was the right decision.
And FYI, approximately 70+% of Americans support [go.com] this war. Don't take Slashdot posters as an accurate Sampling of the American public!
no, it's not funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Case for the War (Score:5, Insightful)
let's talk about democracy's role in all this. is ignoring war protests tantamount to ignoring democracy? no, i say, democracy is still winning. current polls place opposition to the war at around 30%, maybe 40% at most. that means the majority of Americans still support getting rid of Saddam.
This is troubling on so many levels. Democracy cannot be just about the majority and winning. Hitler was elected by a majority and no one had a problem with his attempted genocide. Slavery was considered ok by a majority people in the US for a very long time, and those who even thought about protesting or abolishing slavery, like Lincoln, were killed.
People risk their lives trying to bring unpopular issues to the frontline of political debates. In 1965 it was a demonstration in Selma, that results in the cold blooded murder of the minister James Reeb, presumable by a person intent on keeping black from achieving equal rights. Should Reeb have ignored Dr. Martin Luther King's plea for help in his effort to liberate the black population from oppression? Should the goverment have lables them terrorists??
In Dogma, right before Bartebly exacts holy vengeance on the boardroom of sinners, he has a speech in which he says
Fear. And therein lies the problem. None of you has anything left to fear anymore. You rest comfortably in seats of inscrutable power, hiding behind your false idol, far from judgment, lives shrouded in secrecy even from one another. But not from God.
And I think this is the issue. There are people so powerful, so spoiled, so in need of clue, that they respect and fear almost nothing. The exception are the few things demonstrable equally powerful. People this powerful feel that the world is there to service their needs. Furthermore, even if they claim to believe in God, that belief is not reflected in their actions. They do not have maturity or self control to realize that just because you can take something, doesn't mean you have to. In words from the original Star Trek, we can choose not to kill today.
As I mentioned such people will fear things or people that are equally powerful. For example, a few years ago Texas was in the midst of passing a hate crime bill. Dubya was governor. The impetus for this bill was the lynching and dragging of James Byrd, Jr in Jasper. The bill was not great, but it was needed. It was eventually supported by Dubya, after a bit of embarrassing publicity, and would have had very little trouble becoming law except for one problem. It not only wanted to protect minorities, but also homosexuals. There was a basis for this, as about 1/3 of all hate crimes are directed to homosexuals. Dubya could not afford to offend the religious right, so he fought to remove the protection for homosexuals, which killed the bill. From this we can see that those without power, homosexuals can be sacrificed, while there is genuine fear of the fundamentalist Christian right.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:4, Insightful)
When you watch CNN or FOX News, you're getting one camera angle in a country the size of California. You're seeing a tiny slice of the grand war campaign. Most of the explosions and fire fights are not in any media camera's view.
Re:It starts NOW? (Score:3, Insightful)
"shock and awe" == blitzkreig (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, check out this article [indymedia.org], which compares the rise of Hitler to the current U.S. administration. For example, Hitler used the attack on the Reichstag as an excuse for a pre-emptive strike on Austria.
Re:Overated (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry folks, I know you hate to hear it, but the truth speaks for itself.
That's great. Your 'truth' is obviously impervious to facts.
Kosovo had the backing of the UN, and the EU, and every single member of the security council. Including France and Germany.
The reason people have a problem, amazing that you haven't deduced this yet, is that the US is acting without any agreement in the international community. The US is jumping the gun on inspections that should hae been finished. In short, the US is acting on its own accord, citing incredibly shaky terrorist evidence.
But of course, I won't convince you. That's the amazing thing about a lot of Americans; their rights don't need defending. They are automatically self-censoring.
Re:For that matter... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is exactly what _you're_ doing. CNN has video, veteran reporters, story-writing, along with the fact that what they're reporting is also being reported in news outlets around the world.
What do you have? Hatred for America. It's blinding you my friend....
Re:Shock and Awe - A history lesson (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For that matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically it says that the various TV news media are more likely to put administration sources on camera than so-called "grass-roots" sources or "anti-war activists." The reason for this is blindingly obvious: administration officials have facts to report, while "grass-roots" and "activist" sources have nothing but an agenda to promote.
When Ari Fleischer gives a briefing, he doesn't stand up and say, "Woo, the USA rocks, get your war on!" He stands up and says, "The president spent three hours on the phone this morning, and then he had a ham sandwich for lunch."
Compare this to your average "grass-roots" or "activist" source. Do you see now why news producers do what they do?
Re:Are you sure? (Score:3, Insightful)
So we're told. But the contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq are already being passed out, mostly to corporations "with close ties to the Bush administration" [yesterday's Washington Post; I'll look for the link if you like]. First in line is a subsidiary of Halliburton. Remember Halliburton? The company run by Dick Cheney before he became VP? The one that gave him $25 million just before he took office?
No tears will be shed by Bush & friends if Baghdad is devastated; it's just good business. So if you see "Shock & Awe" starting even though nobody's fighting back, at least you'll have an idea why. Plus, war is basically entertainment for many of the 70% who are said to support it, and calling off the fireworks display now would be like cancelling their favorite reality show.
Nice to see we're using napalm in Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the Sydney Morning Herald:
Marine Cobra helicopter gunships firing Hellfire missiles swept in low from the south. Then the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald.
"Dead Bodies Everywhere"
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/10477
I don't know about the rest of you, but watching the bombing of Baghdad depressed me horribly.
A dark day for the United States of America. .
$500,000,000 spent on cruise missles today alone
What have we become?
Re:For that matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
While remarkably leaving power, radio, television and transit services operational... <sarcasm>damn, that *is* amazing.</sarcasm> ... or perhaps your friend is merely being ignorant... and melodramatically so.
-ZK
Re:For that matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For that matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, we can legitimately (under the order) target military leaders... and Saddam put himself in uniform a few days ago, neh?
See here [worldnetdaily.com] for some more information about the order, and how it can be "circumvented" (although that word does carry some subjectivity).
--ZK
Re:For that matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now of course, surely some bombs will hurt other poeple and things. But that's a long way from destroying a city. The military is well aware of aware of how to do that (historically, consider Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc...) but as far as I can tell, doesn't plan to do so in Iraq.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
ah, the american double standard at work. when un's "authority and jurisdiction" are convenient they are quoted. when they are inconveneint, they are ignored. the war which the u.s. is engaging in right now is not sanctioned by the u.n. your "baliff" is not a cop, enforcing the law, but just a guy with a gun taking the law into his own hands. in real democracies we have a word for people like that: criminals.
the bottom line is this. you do not know that iraq has these so-called weapons of mass destruction. the inspectors found some old and empty containers. that is the extent of the proof. on the pretext of this "proof" the united states is waging a war against the wishes of the united nations and without the support of many of your so-called allies.
here's the real analogy: you got a dui 12 years ago. yesterday you were pulled over at a checkstop and blew negative - so now some guy with a gun (not a baliff or a cop, just some guy with a gun) shoots you in the stomach.
the united states is not concerned about peace int he middle east... hell they propped up hussein in the eighties to wage proxy war on iran! they are not concerned about the "people of iraq" (except when convenient for public relations). you will notice that the "people of iraq" were never mentioned until two weeks ago and the people of myanmar, east timor and zaire are never mentioned (the afformentioned countries having no resources the u.s. wants, the people are worthless). the united states is only concerned about one thing: securing iraqi oil for american capitalism.
Re:For that matter... (Score:2, Insightful)
scripsit Tworlip of the Mists:
(Jeez, and Americans don't know why they're so unpopular...)
More facts and less cheerleading would be a start.
Not repeating every bit of propaganda that comes out of the Pentagon would be another step. For example, quit telling us that this isn't a campaign of conquest but a campaign of liberation. They told us that we were going into South Vietnam to support a democratically elected government which was being attacked by Russian proxies, remember?
Re:For that matter... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:For that matter... (Score:2, Insightful)
While the U.S. can't solve the worlds problems on it's own, there are times where stuff like this is required and we're more than willing to get involved.
This morning I was listening to KSL radio (www.ksl.com). They interviewed a lady who immigrated from Iraq with her family. Quite enlightening. She has the same opinion. War sucks but consiering it's So Damn Insane at the helm she's glad we're going in after him. She and all her family/friends never had enough to eat. She speaks about times where they had to dig with their hands to find water. The crap people were taking from the Dictator Government.
It goes on. Hopefully they still have it on their web sit (most article on the radio are put on the web site). Her story was agonizing to hear. It makes me wonder why the hell Clinton (don't start
Sorry to get all political on you guys but it's my heart felt believe that we're going to war not for oil. We're there because things got that bad.
Re:What brought you to your current stance on the (Score:2, Insightful)
Reading PNAC essay on how they plan to stay the worlds dominant power which has strong connections to Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Realising that Middle East oil will become more important as places like the North Sea deplete.
Looking at Afghanistan at the moment.
Now I agree with you that freeing the iraqis is a nobel cause, I just don't trust some of your current administration to do a good job, and may cause more hatred for us (I'm from the UK) in the region. Which would be counter productive.
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush promised to go after _any_ nation that harbored or helped terrorists.. and he is makign good on his promise. That is what it has to do with it.
Maeryk
(waiting for a beer and a burger and the lightshow over baghdad in Dolby tonight at home)
Re:The Case for the War (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the Taliban oppressed their own people, brutally. And they were terrible to women. While saddam has taken part in ethnic cleansing in the past, he hasn't done anything like that in over a decade. A few months ago he released almost all political prisoners in the nation. And in any event, most Iraqis have 'economic freedom' in that they, including the women, can do whatever they want as long as they don't directly oppose the government. Iraqis can even legally purchase guns, just like in the US.
Anyway, the US ads far, far more 'fuel' to the Isreal/Palistine situation with billions in aid to the Sharon government --which kills about three times more innocent civilians then suicide bombers do -- then does Saddam with a few thousand dollars to the families of suicide bombers.
Re:Watch it live on CNN... (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't speak for every soldier in the militaries of the world. But I served in the US Army during the 90's, and neither I nor anyone I ever served with sat around hoping for a nice, big war to go to. Every soldier knows that going to war is a possibility, and I never knew anyone who enjoyed that prospect.
I don't know how old you are, or what kind of background you have. But I can tell you that childish ideas of action-movie heroism fade away the first time you ruck up and make ready to deploy for real. There is nothing heroic about war. Once you get off that plane, it's just a matter of doing whatever it is you have to do to get the job done so you can get back home.
In a war zone, there is no such thing as "reasonably safe," even in the rear or on a carrier 100 miles away. Whether you buy it in a mortar attack or you buy it when your transport helicopter malfuctions and crashes into the carrier deck, you're still dead. Look at this war in Iraq. So far, more Americans have died from accidental causes than from enemy gunfire. What could possibly be heroic or romantic about that?
Every soldier has a different reason for joining the military. But from my experiece, there aren't many who join hoping to see action and become a war hero. And for those that do, I'm quite sure that most change their minds as soon as they realize that military life is real, and not just some game of GI Joe.
Re:Shock and Awe - A history lesson (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok now, lets get rolling:
Comparing Hitler's early years to the current situation here in the US is quite just. Lets face some facts:
* Bush is using the same populism tactics / propaganda that Hitler used (Media, Nationalism etc)
* The rights granted by US constitution are being curtailed every day more and more
* US invades other countries
* International Community objects, but doesn't do shit
Don't believe me? Look at all the calls to support 'our' troops even if you disagree with the politics behind it, look at what the media is printing/showing, look what happens to people that voice opposition (I.E Dixie Chicks, Shawn Penn etc.), but hey, perhaps they were right and we will like our new motto in the near future: "Arbeit Macht Frei"
It is really sickening to witness what is happening to this great country. (Hey at least I can go live somewhere else)
Anyhow, if you think that all this is not true, and that this war is self defense then take a look at this article (http://www.newamericancentury.org/AttackIraq-Nov
Just mark my words: this is not the last invasion under Bush's term as a president.
Re:Good or bad news? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the kind of reasoning that ignorantly applied moral relativism will take you to. The difference between Saddam and the others is as follows:
1. He has a recent and personal track record of using Weapons of Mass Destruction. North Korea doesn't.
2. He has not only threatened other countries in the Middle East, he has invaded them. Twice.
3. After twelve fruitless years of attempting to get him to disarm peacefully, the UN has relatively little to show for its effort.
4. He was rebuilding an arsenal of offensive weaponry.
5. He has established substantial ties to the Palestininan terrorist causes.
Now, I admit, he probably wasn't an immediate danger to the US. But he wasn't all that far from the goal. Were we to wait for him to attack on his terms, as past experience suggests he would do, or do we preempt him and attack on our terms?
In the long run, the latter is the choice which will probably be least destructive. If we had waited for him to attack, we wouldn't be able to respond with this much accuracy and finesse. Instead, we'd be looking at our arsenals of ICBMs, not cruise missiles, aircraft, armor and troops.
The other security council nations were prepared to wait. I think it was partly because they didn't think they'd be in Saddam's crosshairs, and partly because they wouldn't mind seeing the US foreign policy and influence pushed back.
Another reason I think the other security council members objected to this course of action is because they have probably been selling all sorts of interesting things to Saddam and they don't really want the rest of the world to find out what it was. In truth, I'm sure even the US and UK have sold all sorts of interesting things to this regime too. The difference is that hopefully our two countries stopped this sort of trade after 1991. The others probably didn't.
I hope "Shock & Awe" works as planned. I had hoped that the initial decapitation was 100% successful, but clearly the armed forces wouldn't have moved ahead with S&A if it had been. My condolences to the Iraqi people. I hope the damage to life and property is minimal, and we can all get this over with shortly so we can all breath easier.
War for Oil? (Score:2, Insightful)
So, I did some research. I found this:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2002/0602c
It was the first thing that came up when I googled for "US Oil Suppliers".
I also learned that Iraq only produces 2% of the worlds oil.
I went to OPEC's website (www.opec.org) and found this on their FAQ:
Which countries produce the most oil?
Country
Crude oil production
(million barrels per day)
Saudi Arabia*
7.889
Russia
6.730
United States
5.801
Iran
3.572
China
3.297
* Including share of production from Neutral Zone.
Iraq isn't even on the list. If you don't agree with the war, that's fine, but it doesn't seem to be over oil so maybe you should have a different chant.
How about "I Don't Like War!" or "The US is being a big Bully" or "War SUCKS!". Shouting "No War for Oil!" doesn't seem to be a valid argument.
Quote from Dennis Miller:
If your only anti-war slogan is "No war for oil,"
sue your school district for allowing you to slip
through the cracks and robbing you of the
education you deserve.
Re:The Case for the War (Score:1, Insightful)
With his democracy comment, the original poster was working to support his argument that the War in Iraq is just, regardless of what one thinks of the President. He needed to point this out because some of the less serious people on this forum have suggested that the War is unnecessary except for the personal hatred and ignorance of President Bush. In pointing out that the decision is ultimately the president's, but that it was arrived at by a general concensus of a representive government, he is refuting the claim that the war is an atypical travesty of one man's ambition and spite.
Your argument was a rather banal observation that sometimes a decision made democraticly looks shabby in hindsite. Of course it may, but that doesn't mean the democratic process is to blame. What would you replace it with?
You're right that democracy isn't about winning. It is about short-circuiting some of the nastier parts of human nature to the benefit of a larger group. (In your case, I'm guessing you're being saved from self-deception.)
Thanks to democracy, the minority of people who hate the President to such a degree that they can't see the common good that is being done, aren't impacting the safety and well being of the rest of us.
Comment removed (Score:0, Insightful)
'Nuff said (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:The Case for the War (Score:1, Insightful)
This is a paranoid observation, and its success depends on tapping into the psychology of class warfare and racism by identifying and then villifying another group. In this case, the Bush Administration.
Let me re-phrase what you said:
There are people so powerful, so spoiled, so in need of clue, that they'll sneak into your house at night and eat your babies.
After depicting the administration as an unstoppable uncontrollable group, you can then tack any terrible and sinful intent to them. There's no justification behind your words; just the action of fear.
For that matter, I thought you were were arguing with the last guy by saying that democracy doesn't work. I think what you mean is that democracy worked well enough that you didn't get what you wanted. And now from your perspective the boogie man is coming to get us all.
Just because you're dim enough to fall for the fear mongering, doesn't mean that all of us are going to. Bush is right, and you are very very wrong.
Re:Where will it end? (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if the primary rationale is merely a justification for his oil interests gaining economic monopoly
We won't really know until we see how this plays out. And by the time we do, it will be too late. Or we will have been quite fortunate.
Slashdot War News Updates? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm talking both sides, mind you, pro-war and anti-war. Having spent my share of time up close and personal with the "shock and awe" of combat, I can say from first hand experience that war is extraordinarily serious business, business that requires extremely careful consideration before action.
And having seen, again first hand, the results of a tyrannical maniac, I have a very good understanding of the necessity of fighting from time to time.
However, I'm not going to weigh in on the pros or cons of this war in this forum simply because there are an appalling number of blithering idiots who don't seem to have a basic understanding of international (or national) political and military relationships and necessities.
Instead, I'd suggest that just about every person participating in Slashdot discussions do some studying on the real-world political and social situations that exist around us. Instead of spouting off the typical line of what we should do, perhaps it's better to consider what we can do. There is a significant difference, particularly when viewed in a global context.
Perhaps, then, a few pro-war activists will find that there is less of a need to fight and a few anti-war activists will find that sometimes it's necessary to shoot now and then.
-h-
Re:For that matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
BBC has an agenda.
Re:Nice to see we're using napalm in Iraq (Score:2, Insightful)
They were given the chance to surrender and chose not to. If the way you wage war is to not attempt to defeat those who oppose you, then you would be one pathetic adversary!
Re:Nice to see we're using napalm in Iraq (Score:1, Insightful)
liberators [yahoo.com] of an oppressed people.
Dark indeed.
great (Score:3, Insightful)
But I have a couple questions.
1. What happened to that Bin Laden guy?
2. How many innocent people were killed by US sanctions and bombing in the last war with Iraq?
Oh, and I guess I might have one more question...
What if there are 5 billion terrorists in the world?
Re:For that matter... (Score:2, Insightful)
YES, and Russians now acknowledge the fact too.
Re:So um... (Score:2, Insightful)
Y'see, civilized people don't "disarm" countries who aren't a threat to us or to our friends. Clinton had a plan to invade Iraq, just he was never forced to use it, and he *certainly* didn't *make* the opportunity to use it.
Oh yeah, and he allowed Israel and India and Pakistan to develop nukes too. What, we have some monopoly on intelligence? Obviously not.
Clinton also worked to unify the Koreas, something we've wanted to do since the 50s, tried and failed to do by force, and *almost* managed to do with diplomacy before Bush FUBARed things with his "Axis of Evil" speech. Seriously, that impromptu poll the reporter took before the elections where Bush couldn't name one major world leader was prescient -- the man is a foriegn policy nightmare.
You do realize that when Clinton handed Bush the reigns of the US, the world *wasn't* rapidly spiralling into the maw of its destruction? If Bush really wanted peace, he would've prosecuted this war very differently than he has.
Think about it -- Bush hasn't even said "it's a step in the right direction" whenever Saddam makes a move to let inspectors back in or destroys missles or whatever. Always Bush is saying, "he's lying, he's a scumbag SOB and we need to kill him now". So, if you're Saddam, you think, "He wants me to destroy my weapons so he can invade. Like Hell." Which isn't an unreasonable position to take.
Ever since Bush started talking war in February of 2002, he has *made* *sure* that there would be no other possible outcome.
Regime change begins at home!
Re:President for 8 of 12 last years? (Score:1, Insightful)
Furthermore, John Ashcroft voted against Clinton's bill to extend surveilance capabilities, only a few short years before we get him championing a much more extreme and invasive bill to do the same.
It should even further be noted that your statement that Clinton did not achieve anything of consequence on the international scale over that period of time is patently and demonstrably false. Such rhetoric is better used in a medium where people do not have such ready access to the facts as they do on the Web. Try television, next time. Fox News knows that they can make all sorts of ridiculous claims without being called on them because you'd have to go out of your way to discover that they're blatantly lying to you.
Then again, I suppose if you use the standards of the Republican presidents before (and even the one after) him, Clinton's international policy was a failure in that he did not fund or give weapons to Iran, Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden.
Try to keep all of this in mind when you claim or hear one of your ilk claiming that we should now be supporting Bush in a preemptive war. The very members of Congress who today deign to call me anti-American or, even, a seditionist, for simply disagreeing with the Bush Doctrine spent those eight years being downright disruptive and, even, destructive towards the Clinton Presidency.
It is now and always has been petty politics with your breed. The Republicans then were so concerned with Clinton's legacy that they made repeated attempts at smearing it, including the single most unjust, hypocritical, and farcical act that can be imagined: they attempted to impeach the President of the United States over a blowjob. To this day, your type is sore over this issue. And principally because they spent millions of tax dollars trying (and failing) to dig up dirt on Clinton. This, of course, doesn't stop you or yours from implying that Clinton did all sorts of illegal things which, despite the scrutiny that a few million dollars of wasted money earns, were never substantiated.
Lastly: for anyone truly interested in looking at events surrounding Saddam, I would suggest going back 22, not 12 years, and getting the whole picture on our involvement with Iraq. While it's convenient for our hypocritical, biased friend, here, to lay the blame at Clinton's doorstep -- after all, he got a blowjob, he must be evil -- the fact is that much of the blame belongs to Reagan and Bush.
I won't say that Clinton was perfect or didn't have his serious failings; there's much to complain about in politics. At the same time, I won't stand to hear another idiot trying to blame Clinton for things which are either (1) contrived, or (2) a consequence of dirty politics on part of the Republicans (who continue to use the same tactics, today).
What would happen if the US pulled out of Iraq? (Score:2, Insightful)
That says it all . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
That seems to be the GWB approach to everything. "Once we win, everyone will support us." "It'll be easy--if they surrender because of the Shock and Awe, we'll barely have to fight." "Don't worry. If we are welcomed as liberators, there won't be any street-fighting." Why talk about the risks and consequences of failure when you can talk about the benefits of success?
While we're at it:
When will people who support Bush for philosophical reasons realize that he's a fraud? He's not a strong leader, he doesn't have moral clarity, and he couldn't speak his mind plainly if you put a gun to his head and demanded it.
Re:Who will we "LIBERATE" next? (Score:3, Insightful)
BTW, the largest estimates of the cost of the war relative to the federal budget is still quite small. There's no reason that the budget couldn't include tax cuts FOR THE POOR, or an increase in minimum wage, or any number of economic stimuli. That would increase the deficit, but if we are really in danger of imminent terrorist attack using WMD *and* the economy is "in the shitter", when exactly would a better time be to borrow some money? Pay it back when we're not at war and when the economy is strong again.
But, Bush is showing his true colors as a tool for the rich and religious conservatives: tax cuts for the rich and funding cuts across the board (except for defense and "faith based programs").