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.
Newsfeeds? (Score:2, Interesting)
OK folks, this is it (Score:1, Interesting)
As a aside issue, can anyone tell me why Saddam sets fire to the oil fields?
I concur!! (Score:0, Interesting)
Watch it live on CNN... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:3, Interesting)
To make us have to slow down to out them out, but I think the real question is why so few have been set ablaze. The Iraqi military response has been so inconsistent so far (a few wells on fire, a few missles from a few sites) that I wonder if Saddam isn't dead and there's nobody really in charge.
I, too, hope for minimum casualties all around.
Shock and Awe etc. (Score:3, Interesting)
"Shock and Awe" is not going to be the outcome of the "new regime" and "friendly democracy" that will be put in place after the war (if the political side does not collapse) - more like same old same old. You can't impose American free market orthodoxy on a country in this stage of development (look at all the discussions on patents and trade abuse).
Afghanistan is now perilously close to the position it was in that led to the taliban takeover - warlords and chaos.
war crime (Score:0, Interesting)
"Shock and awe"... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why? The answer is simple. (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the facts - if there is no elite Republican Guard to fight, the war will quickly end. Morale destruction is a classic strategy for all organized militiaries (for really awesome "shock and awe", read about the Roman armies and their tactics to draw to a quick completion to conflict).
Seeing is believing.
I suppose you're right (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right, there are militant muslims out there, and many of them may indeed be terrorists. However, there are many, many more non-militant muslims. Of course, our war actions may encourage more than a few of those to become militant and possibly even become terrorists...
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:1, Interesting)
Huum (Score:1, Interesting)
100K + of normal bombs == "wepons of mass destruction" ?
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that this is the most important thing right now. Two thirds of the Iraqi
population have become dependend on the "Food for oil"-program.
Since the program can hardly run during a war, these people are likely to starve.
Current estimates are that around two millian Iraqis are likely to die of hunger.
Re:Helpful tip. (Score:2, Interesting)
We're helping Osama bin Laden by taking out a non-extremist, and making the area a more fertile recruiting ground for extremist terrorist! Osama bin Laden couldn't be more pleased with this war!
Re:Watch it live on CNN... (Score:2, Interesting)
It's quite a bit different in the UK. The BBC struggles for "objectivity", while the UK still maintains a broad spectrum of news positions from its major papers -- everything from rapidly pro-war to anti-war. It's refreshing, especially in contrast to the lock-step march of the US corporate mass media.
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:2, Interesting)
Nothing quite ups the contempt level like watching your president on TV begging Iraqis not to set fire to the oil fields.
Re:Bust a Cap in Their Collective Ass (Score:3, Interesting)
Perfection, of a kind, was what he was after
And the poetry he invented was easy to understand;
He knew human folly like the back of his hand,
And was greatly interested in armies and fleets;
When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter,
And when he cried the little children died in the streets.
Why Today? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I suppose you're right (Score:3, Interesting)
You know the war's really on when.... (Score:3, Interesting)
(B-52s launched from Emgland a few hours ago.)
Overated (Score:4, Interesting)
The U.N. didn't approve either action, so it doesn't seem likely. Both Saddam and Milosevic are very evil men who commited "ethnic cleansings." Why is everyone getting so angry and childish? "Bush is an evil oilman/warmonger" "I'll never buy anything from France again"
Re:Huum (Score:2, Interesting)
Fuck, we're b*mbing Iraq
Re:Will there be a battle? (Score:3, Interesting)
Try to think like a defender in this case. Would you (a) move out to engage the enemy in the open so you could be ripped apart by their superior long-range weapons and air power, or (b) let 'em come into the cities to fight, where recent history shows they're vulnerable (imagine Mogidishu with trained troops with real weapons rather than some militia with AKs)?
I'd think (b), personally -- set a few guys you don't like out in the desert to put up token resistance and place your loyal troops in areas where they can't be easily MOAB'ed.
It's too soon to call this a victory. I still think the US will win this particular battle, but it's probably not going to be as bloodless and easy as it seems so far.
But we can hope for a quick peace with minimal casualties. Hell, that's all we can do at this point.
Re:I suppose you're right (Score:4, Interesting)
And keep in mind that though we may perceive a large majority of moderate muslims and Westerners who wish to keep the peace, live in harmony, etc, still the fundamentalists are either in a position of political power, or rich (and so ostensibly in charge), or religious zealots (and thus commanding power by way of God). Some of our "leaders" are all three.
In America, we could be said to be even more guilty, since we elected our fundamentalist and militant leaders. Whereas, in non-democratic areas, fundamentalists and militant fundamentalists have power via money or religion.
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to be a pain - but as an environmentalist and a proud American, I would say that we (and the war) are also to blame for his lighting the oil wells. We knew he would do this (Bush mentioned it in his address) and we still gave up on diplomatic means that were slowly proving effective (according to the people who were actually there).
That said - I hope the war now underway goes quickly, I hope Saddam's party is dethroned, and I hope we have the conviction to follow through on an effective rebuild.
Remember, its not about the oil (Score:4, Interesting)
It is interesting the US Army has choosen to liberate the oil wells [cnn.com] before liberating any people. Okay neocons and dittoheads step up and let the flames begin.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:3, Interesting)
Something scary (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sun Tsu, on Shock and Awe (Score:4, Interesting)
The idea here isn't to destroy the Iraqi army; they could do that by pressing a few buttons.
The idea here is that the Iraqi army blinks, and suddenly finds itself surrounded by loaded and cocked weapons. They shake their heads in bemusement, and slowly lift their hands above their heads.
Iraqui people will love the freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
American Army during the war.
Otherwise, all the remaining Iraquis left alive will love democracy and freedom.
I just expect the vast majority of Iraqui people don't vote for extremist leaders right in the first free elections.
Looking at the current Iraq demographics and the meadle east social movements, I think we might risk having an elected government in Iraq worst than the present one.
Re:Oh brother... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this is an example of the press trying to take the juciest bits of out context. Presumably, someone somwhere at one point used "shock and awe" when they wanted to say Blitzkrieg, but didn't want to associate with Ze Germanz. This was said once. Then, the media began pumping out this one phrase over and over again until everyone is sick of it like we are now. Watching the original speeches and press releases around 9-11 and then watching the news later that day showed me that this is how this sort of stuff really works.
Re:Bust a Cap in Their Collective Ass (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, those darn Iranian theocrats--
Oh, I mean, those darn Taliban fantaics--
er, that extremeist Al---oh, never mind.
Iraq is as secular a state as America. We got in this mess because Iraq invaded Kuwait, we invaded to get Kuwait back, Iraq bristled at the sanctions and restrictions we left them wtih--and then a terrorist attack gave the USA the moral capital to take the initative against the terrorist centers in the world.
Yes, we probably have spent all of the political capital that Sept. 11 gave us--but if a free Iraq results, it will have been worth it.
Anyway, just remember that religon had almost nothing to do with the USA/Iraq conflict, up until some religious terrorists sparked us to action and a religious president carried the momentum to clean up a petty tyrant who should have been removed from power twelve years ago.
Personally, I've had enough of that sort of bullshit; I think 1000+ years of East-West conflict would be enough to convince anyone of that.
The default state of mankind is at war. Deal with it, or start campaigning to replace the UN with a strong intercontinental government.
A dozen buildings went up in about 60 seconds (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, shock and awe is an appropriate description, even when you're watching a feed on the internet at 56K.
The Case for the War (Score:5, Interesting)
This administration has some of finest strategic minds in country. Bush may be unreliable, but Colin Powell's integrity is unquestioned. even as a general, he was extremely conservative and patient. he refused to make hasty decisions on unreliable or unconfirmed information, and I can't imagine that his nature has changed since then. I think we have to have some amount of faith that the US is in possession of still-classified information that Saddam definitely has something up his sleeve.
we already know for a fact that Hussein offers large cash rewards to the families of Palestinians that act as suicide bombers in Israel. that crime alone damns the Iraqi government nearly as much as the Taliban. we demolished Afghanistan simply because they let terrorists set up training camps. if Saddam places a bounty on Israeli casualties, that's almost as bad. so that right there is a pretty strong reason to attack, and one which Bush doesn't seem to have placed enough emphasis on.
does that mean our intentions are entirely honorable? no, not at all. I'm sure Bush would love to drive oil prices back down ( and for my part, I hope he does it quickly; filling up my SUV every 2 weeks with $1.65/gal gasoline isn't cheap ). and protecting Israel always helps grease the wheels when it comes time to solicit campaign contributions. cleaning up dad's mess is a nice bonus, too. I'm sure all those factors weigh in to the equation. but even in post-9/11 america, the system still has enough checks and balances to prevent a war based SOLELY on those reasons.
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. Congress voted overwhelmingly to give Bush the power to invoke military action. that same Congress received a significant message from the people who elected a Republican majority just a few short months ago. all that adds up to representative democracy, folks.
right now it seems like we're pissing off a lot of the world, and yes, we probably are. the muslim terrorist groups are going to be especially irate, and they're going to come back swinging. very true, but frankly, they would have attacked us anyways sooner or later. unless we suddenly pulled all of our forces out of the Middle East, AND dissolved the Israeli state, Muslim fanatics are always going to hate us. the question is, do we want them to hate us with the support of a chemical- and biological-weapon producing madman, or without him? I'd say, "without him", definitely.
some people may be troubled by the way the US is so blatantly calling for a regime change in Iraq. it seems really wrong to hear that kind of talk out of an administration that won its own power in a very dubious manner. but of course the big difference is we know that our tyrant will be held accountable by the voting public in 2 years; Hussein will not. and the fact is, we've forced regime changes before. sometimes covertly with the CIA, sometimes very obviously, like the capture of Manuel Noriega in Panama. that one was just as economically motivated as this: you really think anyone wanted a madman in control of something as vital as the Panama Canal? Saddam Hussein is probably a convenient boogeyman now that Bin Laden has disappeared. but don't kid yourself, Hussein DOES deserve to b
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you kidding? Last night was nothing but news about the local protest here. They preempted a bunch of TV shows to watch 4 hours of people sitting in an intersection.
Maybe it's different elsewhere, but the only problem with protestor coverage I'm seeing here is that the pro-troops rallies are being largely ignored. (arguably, at least here in Portland, they were a lot more polite though...)
Re:Oh brother... (Score:2, Interesting)
In all reality, if there are weapons that are hidden, tanks that are hidden, then surely enough, there are planes that are hidden. Deductive reasoning, that is all.
Re:For that matter... (Score:3, Interesting)
As an American, I find this insulting.
I'd love to know what the Al-Jezzera perspective was on the authenticity of Hussien's address to the nation (for example).
War Photo Site (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Are you sure? (Score:3, Interesting)
Thats highly [hartford-hwp.com] debatable [dannen.com].
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now if Bush does what he says and lets the Iraq people build their own governemnt, a government that doesn't starve its' people, a government that doesn't gas thousands of its' own people, a government that doesn't have rape chambers, then I would say Bush is the "nice" one.
Paying for the war.... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.madison.com/captimes/news/stories/45
The Feingold amendment is taking $100b from Bush's tax cuts over the next ten years to pay for the war.
Thank God someone in Washinton is still sane -- maybe we'll have an economic rebound in the next ten years after all...
Isn't the "D" for Demarcation??? (Score:2, Interesting)
my
Re:For that matter... (Score:3, Interesting)
Troop ratio's. (Score:5, Interesting)
are helping the US, the Americans have made the greater sacrifice.
I wanted to set the record straight.
100,000 US ground troops fighting - from a total of 250,000 people out there. 40,000 British ground troops fighting (I don't know the total number of Brit's out there).
So, when you look at the guys who *might* get killed - that's 0.04% of the US population and 0.06% of the British population. By that measure (and of course there are ways to look at this), the British commitment is 50% larger than the US.
Against a background where 80% of Brits are against the war and only 40% of Americans are - I sure hope the US appreciates that!
Re:Isn't the "D" for Demarcation??? (Score:2, Interesting)
No, I'm serious. I saw in a 'making of' sorta disney film that Donald Duck was the radio codeword for the invasion of Normandy.
And D-Day was Donald Day.
Where will it end? (Score:4, Interesting)
I was reading Yahoo this morning and found this quote [yahoo.com] from a Bush advisor:
I guess this means that once we beat up Iraq, we'll invade North Korea. Iran and Cuba aren't far behind.
Re:For that matter... (Score:2, Interesting)
Talking about WMD's (Score:2, Interesting)
Goering on War (Score:3, Interesting)
On the subject or Goering...
Goering: But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship."
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Goering: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
--Nazi leader Hermann Goering, interviewed during the Easter Recess at the Nuremberg trials
Lesson Learned: CNN out of Baghdad. (Score:3, Interesting)
Reading the story, though, that doesn't appear to be the motivation for this latest move (the invasion is a "fabrication"? Give me a break!). Also, the coalition has enough intelligence to not need CNN pictures for targeting purposes. Still, I'm kinda surprised that they chose to let CNN stay in the first place, even if they had expected to feed them their own propoganda.
PLEASE MOD PARENT UP AS USEFUL COUNTERPOINT (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Patriotism != Nationalism (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No relation to d-day (Score:1, Interesting)
Boop, wrong again.
The 'D' in D-Day actually stands for "Doo-dah" named after the popular song "Ode to Doo-dah Day" which was very popular in the 1940's.
Re:Come on editors, step up! (Score:5, Interesting)
A couple things that I learned: Iraq has 3 main models of tanks, T-72, T-62, and T-55. While I can only guess what the numbers represent, they do correspond to the decade that they were first built. The T-72 is a 30 year old tank design. Most of their tanks have gone through several wars and are only running buy scavanging other tanks for parts.
My brother just a few weeks ago finished his AIT for repair on track vehicles. He said that the some of the shells that the Abrams fire will penetrate a tank shoot through the tank, and exit out the otherside. It does this with so much force that just about anything not solid (i.e. human bodies) are usually sucked out of the small exit hole. Also, I read somewhere that the Abrams can/will shoot through sand dunes and still inflict serious damage to a tank. I also remember seeing once on TLC or Discovery Channel that the Abrams can track either 8 or 16 different targets at a time and fire accurately at 40 mph over bumpy terrain.
I'm not sure if you should take this all as religion, but it just sounded interesting.
Re:No relation to d-day (Score:3, Interesting)
From http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/t/0
(DOD) (C-, D-, M-days end at 2400 hours Universal Time (Zulu time) and are assumed to be 24 hours long for planning.) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff normally coordinates the proposed date with the commanders of the appropriate unified and specified commands, as well as any recommended changes to C-day.
L-hour will be established per plan, crisis, or theater of operations and will apply to both air and surface movements. Normally, L-hour will be established to allow C-day to be a 24-hour day.
C-day. The unnamed day on which a deployment operation commences or is to commence. The deployment may be movement of troops, cargo, weapon systems, or a combination of these elements using any or all types of transport. The letter "C" will be the only one used to denote the above. The highest command or headquarters responsible for coordinating the planning will specify the exact meaning of C-day within the aforementioned definition. The command or headquarters directly responsible for the execution of the operation, if other than the one coordinating the planning, will do so in light of the meaning specified by the highest command or headquarters coordinating the planning.
D-day. The unnamed day on which a particular operation commences or is to commence.
F-hour. The effective time of announcement by the Secretary of Defense to the Military Departments of a decision to mobilize Reserve units.
H-hour. The specific hour on D-day at which a particular operation commences.
H-hour (amphibious operations). For amphibious operations, the time the first assault elements are scheduled to touch down on the beach, or a landing zone, and in some cases the commencement of countermine breaching operations.
L-hour. The specific hour on C-day at which a deployment operation commences or is to commence.
L-hour (amphibious operations). In amphibious operations, the time at which the first helicopter of the helicopter-borne assault wave touches down in the landing zone.
M-day. The term used to designate the unnamed day on which full mobilization commences or is due to commence.
N-day. The unnamed day an active duty unit is notified for deployment or redeployment.
R-day. Redeployment day. The day on which redeployment of major combat, combat support, and combat service support forces begins in an operation.
S-day. The day the President authorizes Selective Reserve callup (not more than 200,000).
T-day. The effective day coincident with Presidential declaration of national emergency and authorization of partial mobilization (not more than 1,000,000 personnel exclusive of the 200,000 callup).
W-day. Declared by the National Command Authorities, W-day is associated with an adversary decision to prepare for war (unambiguous strategic warning).
not morally equivalent (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush isn't torturing and murdering policital dissenters... I'll bet if you check on all those protesters arrested yesterday in San Francisco, most of them are already out of jail. In Iraq, they'd all be six feet under. Saddam is an evil guy, by any cultural standard (murder, rape, torture, etc are almost universal cross-cultural evils). Do you tolerate evil, or do you dispose of it? I won't shed one tear when Saddam is gone, and neither will any of his neighbors.
You may not like Bush, you may not agree with his policies, you may think he's stupid, and that he stole the election... fine. Go demonstrate against him; you're free to do so. Isn't America great?
Bush is no Saddam... he's not in the same ballpark... he's not even in the same game... Let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples.
Shock and Awe? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Where will it end? (Score:3, Interesting)
Cuba. Some conservatives would like to invade Cuba (not to mention a whole lot of Cubans), and some are even talking about bio-weapons programs there, but there is no chance that an invasion will happen or even be seriously discussed. In fact nothing at all will happen with Cuba. The Cubans will lie low and the US will ignore them.
Iran. This will be the next big story, but an invasion will not be necessary. By the time the US takes up the problem of ending the Iranian nuclear weapons program the US will have strategiclly encircled Iran. Iran is already on the knife-edge of revolution. There is no way that they will risk US intervention, so a diplomatic solution will be found.
North Korea. Who knows. Probably the US will convince the Chinese that the US is serious about using military action, and the Chinese will whip the N. Koreans back into line. This action in Iraq will certainly make a diplomatic solution much easier.
Re:Overated (Score:1, Interesting)
for those that say iraq supports terrorist and al-quieda(sp?), or that al-quieda(sp?) and osama are associated with iraq/911 all i would like is some proof. the cia and bush can't connect the two even if osama IS guilt.
snipped from site to save from
During one of his rare press conferences, President Bush admitted something which completely contradicts what we've been hearing from him, most other politicians, and the mainstream media. Not surprisingly, the media have completely ignored this; I couldn't find a single article that mentions it in any news source, domestic or foreign.
The occasion was a press conference with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, which took place in the White House on 31 January 2003. Here's the key portion:
[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?
THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question
http://www.thememoryhole.org/index.htm, [thememoryhole.org]
Re:Good or bad news? (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe you have just voiced the fear that underlies much of the international opposition to this war.
I am an American citizen, and I am not an imperialist. I don't know anyone who advocates American imperialism. I teach my children, as most Americans do, to mind their own damn business. So, I can tell you honestly that countries which do not threaten the U.S. need have no fear of us. Unfortunately, that still leaves three problems for the rest of the world:
1. What if I (and the U.S. government) are lying about our intentions?
2. Who decides what constitutes a threat? (apparently, we do)
3. What if our attitude becomes more imperialistic later on?
I don't know what to tell you. Direct U.S. involvement in this mess began in 1979, in Iran, and since that time there have been over 800 U.S. citizens killed in Middle East-related violence before 9/11. Many Americans think we have been patient bordering on negligent. The WTC/Pentagon attacks pushed us into action; now we all have to work to find a peace that everyone can live with. This cannot even begin until the aftermath of the current fighting, when it will be seen that (as in Afghanistan) we were as good as our word insofar as returning Iraq to the Iraqis, and helping the citizens of Iraq to rebuild their country.
After that, who knows? The U.S. seems to be attempting to execute the Paul Wolfowitz plan to remake the Middle East into a region of free societies. This is a risky course which seeks to preempt an ever-increasing spiral: terrorist attacks followed by military retribution (against people who may or may not have been involved in the terror) followed by terrorist attacks... Eventually, many of us think, this would lead to World War III, especially if terrorists succeed in using a nuclear device against a U.S. city. I support the President and his advisors in this attempt. However, I know many well-intentioned people who think it's a bad idea, for reasons that range from "fuck it, just nuke 'em all now", to "Arabs can't make a free democracy work" to "we brought it all on ourselves with misguided foreign policy".
I very much hope that our course is the correct one. Only time will tell.
Re:For that matter... (Score:4, Interesting)
Firstly, if we wanted to level the city and kill everybody, we have the capacity to do it much more efficently.
The whole awe and shock thing is to hit every military target simultanously, and to do so with amazing ferocity.
I'll leave the reader to speciulate on the specific effects this will have (other than turning iraqi armor columns into molten puddles)
On a side note, I think the US/UN should have worked harder in the last 12 years to get prohibited weapons out of Iraq. Instead the UN (including the US) did lots of finger waving but didn't back it up with boots on the ground.
War tech and news tech... (Score:3, Interesting)
Some of the weapons used by both sides are positively ancient. The M2
What I really find compelling is not these high- and low-tech implements of destruction, but the advances in communication and news-gathering that have taken place over the last 12 years. Not just the Internet, though that's certainly worthy of note, but the satellite phones and cameras used by reporters embedded with the troops and correspondents in the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad.
True, Peter Arnett was reporting from his room in 1991, when the 43-day air war started, but he was tied to landlines and an Iraqi-controlled dish. Now he can send realtime audio and video with gear that can fit in a briefcase. Sat phones have gotten smaller, better, clearer. Yes, the frame rate suffers when more than 10% of the picture changes, and there are visible compression artifacts, but given time I'm sure it'll be just as good (or crappy) as NTSC video.
At the risk of sounding flippant in the face of the inevitable loss of human life and injuries, military and civilian, I can't help but think that this is the first High Definition War, and that they'll have the DVD box sets on the shelves for Christmas.
k.
Re:For that matter... (Score:5, Interesting)
scripsit Twirlip of the Mists:
I can't speak for the OP, but I can for myself. What turns my stomach about the way the media oligopolists (and even to a large extent NPR now, unfortunately) treat it as though the war is one big football match. There's endless discussion, for example, of how PFC Smith's mother misses her boy, but never a suggestion that PFC Ahmed's mother not only misses her boy, but will probably never see him again, or even have a body to bury. There's endless speculation on just what the Pentagon's plan might be, or how militarily effective ``shock and awe'' (what a stupid term) will prove, but never any indication that the talking heads have the foggiest clue that a real city is actually being destroyed.
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:2, Interesting)
Algiers, Kenya, Sudan, Senegal: French colonies
Tripoli, Morocco, Liberia: Spanish colonies
Chad, Nigeria: German colonies
New Guinea: divided into German, Dutch, and British colonies
Every world power in history had gone forward and conquered other countries. Where are the colonies of the United States?
If Al Queda has attacked the Roman Empire, the entire Muslim world would have been razed, the men killed, and the women and children sold into slavery.
What you people are seeing today is monumental: for the first time in world history, a superpower...no, a hyperpower...that has been attacked by a sneaky bunch of brutal little shits is not seeking retribution. It is seeking to guarantee its ability to carry about its own business without being threatened. No more, no less.
America has problems. The goverened and the government are made of flawed people like you and me.
But spewing nonsense like "the US has always been an imperialistid asshole" is brainless, inflammatory, and incorrect.
Why is it, if the U.S. is so utterly dominant... (Score:1, Interesting)
Sure, I understand that we don't want to send our troops up against AK wielding 'bad people' with nothing more than a portable defibrilator, but there should be some other means than punching various sized holes in our meaty opposition.
It's unfortunate I suppose that most non-lethal solutions have extremely limited range or are lack to the finite control to ensure they don't kill people, but it'd be a lot nicer if the 'bad guys' simply found themselves waking up with a massive splitting headache and dry mouth as opposed to not waking up at all.
Perhaps worldwide R&D should think more on the term 'neutralize' as exactly that, instead of a nice way of saying kill,rend,maim,destroy.
Just a thought.
List of Hussein Crimes (Score:1, Interesting)
Couple KNOWN actions by Saddam:
Re:For that matter... (Score:4, Interesting)
ABC News and Fox News have journalists in Kuwait City, in Baghdad, aboard our carriers, and embedded in military units in theater. Fox News and ABC News both have guys with the 3rd Infantry, and ABC News has somebody with the 1MEF. Sky News, who co-carry with Fox News in the States, have a guy with the SEALs in Faw, and I think either they or Fox has somebody with some unit or other in the north. We're getting real-time, firsthand, eye-witness reports from the various battlefields.
What would you prefer, exactly?
the point is that the US media is not doing the greatest job of representing the fact that there is significant American opposition to this war
There is basically no significant American opposition to the war. There are a few thousand kids who have been stopping traffic, but that's not significant in any sense other than the fact that it makes it inconvenient to get through blocked intersections.
The problem with the anti-war crowd is that it's composed primarily of various radical groups like International ANSWER that are either opposed to US policy on principle or supportive of the Hussein regime, college kids who have no idea what they're talking about, paranoid nutjobs, anti-Israel groups, subversives, and the occasional reasonable individual who has something valid to say. So if you pick an anti-war activist out of the crowd at random, you're virtually guaranteed to get a freak. There's zero reason to put freaks on television because they're not even remotely representative of any kind of popularly held opinion, and at worst they're actually breaking the law. (Read Title 18.)
See, when you put somebody on TV, you give them instant credibility. If you put a loon on television, you're giving him more credibility than he's actually worth, and you're not doing your job as a journalist.
There's simply no reason to pay attention to the nuts, and it's just too much work, unfortunately, to separate the nuts from the people who are actually worth listening to.
Which is why I've been saying for over a year now that the best way to get your opinion out if you're opposed to the war is to stay as far as possible from groups like NION and ANSWER. Don't associate yourself with groups that you KNOW the reasonable people of the world aren't going to be listening to.
Re:Troop ratio's. (Score:2, Interesting)
Aussie Newspaper: Saddam's Son Abusive Pedophile (Score:3, Interesting)
Like father like son. This just underscores how corrupt and abusive Saddam's regime is, and it shouldn't be terribly surprising. It's a pretty stomach-turning article for a major newspaper, and not for the squimish.
Shock and awe (Score:1, Interesting)
I am neither shocked, nor awed, that the United States has picked a fight with the weakest opponent it could find that could be linked, even so tenuously, to the 9/11 attacks.
Watching the amazing barrage of million dollar missiles killing the enemy "army", and murdering innocent civilian women, children and elderly, I cannot help but be swept up by the majesty unfolding before us. Yes, I shall now go and affix a "Protestors Shut Up!" sign above the flag on my giant SUV.
Copied from www.arabnews.com (Score:1, Interesting)
My Dear Americans
Tariq A. Al-Maeena, clsencounters@hotmail.com
US President Bush has declared a war on Iraq. He calls it "Operation Iraqi Freedom." In a televised address to the nation he said, "These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign." But the truth is far from it. It is not a war. It is willful and premeditated murder, and should be dubbed Operation Iraqi Slaughter.
With each weapon of mass destruction landing in Iraq, Bush is condemning thousands of innocent Iraqis to death. And his stated purpose? To set them free of tyranny. But the horrors of what Bush has unleashed on the civilians of Iraq will undoubtedly leave few of them around to enjoy the so-called freedom Bush so grandly envisages.
The preliminary missile and bombing attacks on Iraq were just a taste of what will soon be unleashed on a weary and helpless population. As the US secretary of defense grandly announced in Washington last Thursday, "What will follow will not be a repeat of any other conflict. It will be of a force and scope and scale that is beyond what has been seen before."
Hundreds of cruise missiles, to give just one example, are to be launched in the first days of the attack. Those who survive the initial onslaught will be struggling to survive in cities from which there is no escape, and in which the water supplies, the sewage systems, and the electrical grids, have been deliberately destroyed. Diseases will be rampant, and death multi-fold.
American and British forces will use thousands of depleted uranium (DU) shells -- widely regarded by 1991 veterans as the cause of Gulf War syndrome as well as thousands of child cancers in present-day Iraq -- to batter their way across the Kuwaiti-Iraqi frontier. The long-term health effects of this invasion will not be determined for decades.
And once the soldiers are in combat, you will be expected to unite behind the war. Images showing "smart bombs" exploding while Mr. Rumsfeld assures you that civilian casualties are being kept to a minimum will dominate the TV screens of a country far removed from the horrors.
You can be assured too that you will be spared the bloody realities of the dead and wounded of Iraq, as the human tragedy unfolding in Iraq will be told in numbers, in abstractions, in brief video clips, and not in the stories of real human beings, real children, real mothers and fathers. But remember that those abstractions were living flesh and blood.
And in defending their purpose to continue with this mass slaughter should any horrific incident be exposed, your government will be sure to pacify your consciences with apologies such as: "The death of this family was an accident," "We apologize for the dismemberment of this child," "This was an intelligence mistake," "A radar malfunction" -- and perhaps even some more imaginative ones.
Then the US will conveniently find the weapons of mass destruction that supposedly provoked this bloody war. In the journalistic hunt for these weapons, any old rocket will do.
Why? To get rid of Saddam, a tyrant, a threat to the world? To defend ourselves? To destroy his mighty arsenal? Then how come the rest of the world, much closer to Iraq, does not want war? If indeed he had such an arsenal under his control, shouldn't we wonder why he isn't using it now, when he risks being destroyed himself?
Why, for God's sake, this sudden urgency to create a threat where hardly any existed? Why were the inspections not allowed to continue? Was anybody being threatened during the inspection process? Were bodies being blown to bits? Just a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.
Or is it that Bush, in pursuit of his own agenda, was afraid that a vote against war by the Security Council would have formally declared the United States
Illegal war (Score:3, Interesting)
An interesting discussion would be, what can/should the world do to punish America for this? They are flouting international law, they are intentionally discrediting and destroying the UN, and they are bombing a foreign country with nuclear waste with no provocation whatsoever.
In a simple world, it would be clear that we should demand that the US withdraws, destroys its weapons of mass destruction, and cease selling arms around the world. But it's not a simple world. Every member of the older generation has massive amounts of their retirement money tied up in the US, so they're not going to be inclined to do anything too disruptive. Facist America (aka Corporate America - learn [prorev.com]) has its fingers in the industry of most nations around the world, and has always been pretty brutal about using its economic power to crush opposition. So doing something about America would require most countries to seize American ownership of business and infrastructure within their own nations and redistrbute it, while also dealing with the political and military aspects of the task... an expensive logistical nightmare.
That said, America is an ever growing threat to world peace. Take a look at www.newamericancentury.org [newamericancentury.org]
So what do we do? Cause it beats the hell out of me.
Re:Dupe! 25 reasons that America Sucks (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm getting bored with the Hitler/Saddam comparison, I see no simularity between them, at all. Yes, Saddam is an ass, yes, he's a bad guy, but Hitler? Appeasment didn't work ONCE, count the number if occurances carefully, once. SO STOP USING IT AS A BLOODY EXAMPLE! Saddam didn't declare war on us or our allies this time, Hitler did (after pearl harbor [the real reason we joined WWII, not the Jews]). Sadam has shown no further external hostility, meaning HE IS NOT A DIRECT THREAT.
If the world was concerned, you'd think they'd do something, no? But a majority of the world doesn't agree, hell most of our so-called allies don't agree, their only in the game for their own self-interest. And then their Britan... Ahem.
Yeah, the french HELPED, after we revolted. The Iraqi people haven't revolted, the Iraqi people will not be allowed to found their government, in their own cultural/historical image. We will force an oil exporting, capitalist economy down their throat, along with some icky democracy, which WILL NOT WORK. That region has never seen a democracy, democracy is ALIEN to that region, alien to that culture. Capitolism and Democracy is not some sociopolitical panacea.
And, I do not forget my origins, I am a son of Prussian draft dodgers. My ancestors escaped a superpower to avoid silly wars.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:2, Interesting)
Like this one [guardian.co.uk], for instance? No wait a minute, the US refuses to sign that treaty, perhaps this one [miis.edu]? Or maybe that'll end up the same place the anti-ballistic missile treaty did about a year ago.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Troop ratio's. (Score:2, Interesting)
Britain has really impressed me over the past year or two as being a true friend of the US. While we may, and often do, disagree on any of a variety of issues, it seems that whenever it comes down to the line we're always back to back fighting the same cause. I think that really means something in the world today. I just hope that our politicians in Washington understand how much Britain's stance means to the rest of us, and that we use this to strengthen our mutual relationship. In other words, we're going to owe Britain big after this one, and I don't want to see some idiot politician doing something to make them hate and resent us as much as France (and, sadly, many other countries) do(es).