Slashdot Mirror
Strike on Iraq
According to CNN and various other news sources, Iraq is now under attack by
the US. Here is a link to the current story running at CNN right now, but there's really not much except that it has started. CT Cruise missiles launched against "Target of Opportunity". The full assault has not begun. CT The attack was specifically intended to take out Saddam. CT Saddam appeared on iraqi TV to condemn the US, and Iraqi missiles have been fired at Kuwait.
I am ashamed to call myself an American.
I want the fire back.
Here's hoping it'll be over quickly with minimum casualties. My prayers go out not only to the allied troops, but to the Iraqis (Assyrians, Chaldeans, Kurds and Turkmen) aswell.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
no need. With games like SOCOM and America's Army floating around, people are joining the army like crazy. They're still turning most people down who want to join, so a draft won't be happening for a while.
The "opening stages" of military action against Iraq have begun, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer announced Wednesday night.
I don't have a degree in Doublespeak, but I did take some of it in high school. In non-Beltway words, the "opening stages" of a vast military assault against a hopelessly undertrained and underequipped military are now underway.
My thoughts go out to all the involved combatants, American and Iraqi, and for anyone else who may come to harm. May this war be as brief and as painless as it can be made; and may we succeed afterward in rebuilding Iraq the way we succeeded in rebuilding Japan and Germany after World War II.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I'm against the war, but I don't see being against the war as being against our troops.
There are a lot of good reasons we shouldn't have done this. Now that we're committed, though, I want the war to end quickly, and I want us to win. I figure that's the best way to minimize the loss of lives (both American and Iraqi).
But being against an unjust war doesn't make one against our troops.
That is, while Saddam will be gone by summer, US troops will have to be there forever, and they are likely to find themselves under guerilla attack from various factions who don't accept US rule.
I know, this isn't a joke, but let's pretend the war was taking place in the US. Imagine it in your mind. Then turn on the TV and look at their cute little "Showdown with Saddam" graphics and glitz. I bet many of the people at the television station have absolutely no idea what war is like. It's degrading to anyone fighting the war that it is treated like a game. This is, of course, no game.
This is the start of somthing bad. As a British parlament member said few days ago, The weakening of the United Nations and the European Union are huge casualties to have before a bullet has been fired. This is a perfect example of why everyone hates the US. We are arrogant and feel the rules dont apply to us.
I think when the fighting starts those anti-war protestors should switch to SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS! I know if I was over there I wouldn't want to hear about protests at home, I would want to hear about support.
It is still possible to protest the war but support the troops. Remember that those troops are over there so the protesters CAN protest.
Prepare yourself for the worst it's coming soon
I believe in those foretold prophecies of doom
They say the end is close, it's coming fast
Not every single one of us is gonna last
So, stand and fight or kill yourself right now
It'll be one less motherfucker to kill
Skin shot, burned, stabbed, scorched and torn
This pain is real - you can't ignore...
War is coming
Arm yourself with the right to kill at will
Shoot to kill it's them or you
Time to choose, time to choose or die
Blood's pouring from the hole in your side
Take the pain - it'll focus and strengthen you
Take the pain - or your life's fuckin' through
Face the pain - let it become part of you
Take the pain
War is coming
Prepare yourself for the worst it's coming soon
I believe in those foretold prophecies of doom
They say the end is close, it's coming fast
Not every single one of us is gonna last
So, stand and fight or kill yourself right now
It'll be one less motherfucker to kill
Skin shot, burned, stabbed, scorched and torn
This pain is real - you can't ignore...
War is coming
WAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
I hope you die painfully and alone.
The world will be a better place once Saddam Hussein and his thugs are out of the picture.
And how long, I wonder, before the next dictator and his thugs are in place.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Still, I'm secretly hoping Bush is saying to himself, "Damn. They called my bluff." But I know that won't happen. People are gonna die in this one, a lot more than last time. World war 3, no, but there will be blood.
If Saddam drags this one into the streets, it could get really ugly. Less chance of chemical bombs, yes, but inner city combat... Children with AK 47s that they found off their father's bodies, women and children getting caught in the crossfire. Bloody ugly.
Or everybody might just surrendur, the oilfields will explode, and Saddam will enver be seen again, aside from really crappy home videos of the type Ossamma is STILL sending us. Whatever happened to him anyways? Why have we stopped caring about him? I hear people saying "remember 9-11, go to war with Iraq..." and then I think about it, and it's so stupid. Saddam and Bin Laden are different people with different goals. Both assholes, but they are not connected really. I remember 9-11, and I don't want to see innocents get killed over something that has nothing to do with it. Sure Saddam is a despot, but HOW MANY FRICKING DESPOTS ARE THERE CURRENTLY IN AFRICA COMMITTING GENOCIDE, MURDURER, AND SPAMMING TECHNIQUES?
Grr.
Just before 9pm est, CNN Headline News said something about a hijacked Cuban airliner being escorted by military jets into Miami. When they came back after commercial break, no mention of it.
Another news station reported that a CNN reporter had been shot live on camera. Again, nothing.
During Aaron Brown's chat with some Pentagon bigwig or another, you could distinctly hear laughing and clapping in the background of CNN's studios. Brown's face showed that he heard it too.
All in all, considering how little has actually happened, it's been one hell of a weird night.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
defeat Nazism, Communism, and [hopefully] Terrorism.
May God Bless our/the US troops. Right or wrong, I'm behind our "troops" 100%.
Let's all hope for minimal casualties...
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
Sir, one of the reason I oppose this war is because I don't want to see my friends in the Army and Marines killed for what I see as no good reason.
The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.
I totaly agree.
Support the troups. Bring them home!
From this single line, I can extrapolate Michael Moore's attitude, and deduce just about how much weight you can give anything he says (read: none).
The bottom line is that everything he says comes tainted by his axe-grinding over the outcome of the 2000 presidental election. Even if I were to ignore his mockery of 9/11 victims and other tragedies for his own personal profit, I can't take his rants against Bush seriously for the simple reason that it's obvious he simply hates the man.
Most anti-war people I hear talk about all the civilian casualties resulting from this war, but I'm somehow not sure I should take their word for it. Does anyone here know the read civilian death toll from the last Iraqi war?
I mean, I would think it'd be relatively low, what with all the expensive gagetry we're using nowadays.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
It'll never happen. The US military is entirely voluntary. Those unwilling to go to war are encouraged not to join. Those that join anyway are unlikely to stay, as one can leave without prejudice any time during the first 6 months of service. Those miniscule few that might remain in and then start saying "I don't wanna go to war" when called upon to do what they've been training to do for months or years-- well, there's not a lot of sympathy for those few. It ain't the 60's anymore, friend. There ain't no draft. That's one of the main reasons why the US military is effective as it is.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
The PsyOps have been in effect for some time now. Impressive gains are being reported from their lead operatives in the field (CNN, FoxNN, The Big 3). To believe that the military does not affect your daily news feed is akin to believing that Abraham Lincoln never told a lie.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
In the words of Pete Seeger:
"Support our boys in Vietnam. Send them home."
KFG
Please everyone don't pray for the american soldiers, pray in whatever you believe in for the civilians of Irak. They are by far the ones in most danger and least deserving harm...
First Gulf war killed 1.5 millions of them.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
First, we're the world's greatest Republic (well, arguably at least since Rome fell), not a democracy.
And you're not the majority. Thank the Gods for that.
Saddam Hussein is a tyrant. He's used biological and chemical weaponry time and time again. He's had twelve years to disarm. He's continually attempted to shoot down allied fighters patrolling the no-fly zone.
He had his own relatives shot. His sons rape and pillage in Baghdad. Iraqi people are starving, while he's building mosques and giant statues, that he might put his own name on them.
The man needs to be removed. And if we're the only country with the balls to do it, so be it.
Read the Declaration of Independence sometime. If you can't figure out why we're attacking Iraq, you should spend some more time in a third-grade history class.
Here's an easy way to understand the situation:
For years, Mommy (The UN) has been saying "Wait until your father gets home! He's gonna be mad!" and Jr. (Saddam) has just said, "Oh yeah? What's he gonna do to me?"
Now suddenly, Daddy's home. And guess what, Junior is gonna get punished for misbehaving. Now where's Junior? Hiding behind Mommy's skirts saying, "Don't let him hurt me and I PROMISE I won't do it again. And this time I REALLY MEAN IT!"
We've put up with his broken promises and his lies for 12 years. He's violated 17 sperate UN resolutions. He's continued building stockpiles of chemical and biological warfare weapons. He's evil. And he needs to go.
- No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades really cramps his style.
Saddam and Bin Laden are different people with different goals.
<sarcasm>Ah, but the Bush clan has had a long-term agenda with Saddam. Bin Laden only killed off a few Americans.</sarcasm>
I want to know how attacking Iraq is going to do anything whatsoever to reduce terrorism. I see attacking countries, occupying them, and setting up puppet goverments as having exactly the same effect it's had every time we've done it for the *last* fifty years, which is to piss people off much, much more and produce more people with dead parents/brothers/sisters/cousins/sons/daughters who are willing to die to strike at the United States. People don't just say, entirely unprovoked, "Gee, it's a rainy Saturday. I think I'll go blow myself up on a bus or crash a plane into a building." Getting in a war with a nation, as history has shown, is a fantastic way to produce long-lasting ethnic hatred.
I see the Saddam campaign not just unrelated, as you do, but actively damaging any effort to reduce terrorism in the world.
May we never see th
My thoughts on this entire episode...
There's always going to be war.
Peace is not a natural state for human beings. It has to be courted, it has to be persued. People easily grow complacent without strife, and thus the efforts for peace begin to seem unnecessary and burdensome.
Hopefully this doesn't cost us, and I mean all of us, as much as past conflicts.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
It didn't solve anything because Bush SR only had our troops kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait -- once Kuwait was liberated, our job was done. Bush wanted to kick Saddam's ass, but the political situation didn't allow him to. This is different than in '91 -- I remember watching the war start live on the evening news -- they were talking to their correspondant in Bagdad and he said all was quiet. They were just about ready to break away when he started hearing explosions. They stayed on the story the rest of the night. This looks like a single bombing (so far...) as I look live I don't see any active bombing at the moment (22:35 EST)...
This time it's for keeps...
Beware of Sleestak
Yes, you can protest the war and support the troops, but once action starts, the time for protest has passed.
True, you can't protest the potential war anymore but you can still express your displeasure in the fact that there is a war.
I have no problems with people protesting the US presence in Iraq but the troops should never be disrespected (like many were after/during Vietnam).
Mind you, I'm not a tree hugging hippy chick (or dude) but in a democratic nation...being able to express your displeasure with the administrations current policies is what makes the US a great nation.
So to recap....
Both supporters and dissenters of the war should be able to experss their opinions, but both groups should support the troops 100%.
Watching on TV, I keep hearing that this is a strike against a "Leadership Target." Other "Leadership Targets" in history have included Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy.
I wish the media would get off their knees long enough enough to report events the way they are as opposed to the way the news is handed to them. The word "assasination" can apply to actions taken by US officials, even if they choose not to describe their actions that way.
-Lux
See, that's the great thing about America and democracy in general: we can disagree with our government and people in power, call them names, and still have every right to stay here. THAT'S what makes America (and Canada, and the UK, and France, and Germany, and...) great. Annoying, ain't it?
Here here.
And here is my Bush bash:
Right-wing Texan Fundementalist Christian on a Crusade; an alcoholic, coke-raddled, chimp IQ'ed, dupe of the even more rabid and dangerous Cheyney and Rumsfeld, who've been slavvering for a war for a decade.
I wonder if Georgey-boy (the "W" stands for Warmonger) used his Christian "affiliations" to peddle a moral crusade to Poodle-boy Blair?
Whatever they're really thinking (and I believe Rumsfeld is on the record as saying that this is just the start of America's vision for converting the the world as it now is, into one more befitting his (no doubt divine) vision,) this is the end of the UN, and the end of the rule of law.
Hell, the fella was even pressing for the use of chemical weapons ("calmatives," pepper spray and CS Gas - all banned under International Law) because when the US wants to do something, it's OK, and the White House only has the best intentions, yada yada.
This is a return to "Might Is Right," and George with his Born Again Christian moral certitude, is the greatest threat to peace and stability in this age.
The greatest damage that will take place because of this invasion of Iraq, will not be the thousands killed, or those whose lives are devistated by the effects of dispersed particles of Depleted Uranium, for generations to come, it will be the damage that is caused to what constitutes lawful behaviour by nation states against other nation states for... well, who knows for how long.
George has pissed the good will and sympathy the US had after 9-11, up the wall, and damn him that.
Damn him for all his deluded visions of himself as Churchill, and damn him for deluding (apparently) a good proportion of the US public, with the help of his corrupt media friends.
And people wonder how Nazi fucking Germany got it's people all singing from the same hymn sheet: name an enemy, lie and lie and lie about them, and go in for the kill, for the protection of the people.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
This day has been long over due.
Fun facts to know and tell:
Although it is unclear how far their development has progressed, Saddam has been proven to have a nuclear weapons program.
Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other nation in history. Over 1.2 Million Iraqi civilians (more than EIGHT percent of the population of Iraq) has been killed at the hands of Iraq. There is no family in Iraq that hasn't lost a friend or relative to Saddam's murderous behavior.
This is not a preemptive strike. Saddam's forces have fired on US planes in the no fly zones on numerous occasions. In addition, Saddam's regime funds and harbors Al Queda and other terrorise groups.
It is illegal, punishable by death, to belong to any other political party than the Bath (sp?) party which is that of Saddam.
Children as young as 3 years old are bombarded with Pro-Saddam propaganda in their schools. Their first words of English which they learn are words of love and praise for Saddam.
This war is long overdue. Anyone who doesn't agree that Saddam needs to be removed from power is either a communist, a terrorist, or just plain stupid. The leaders of the US have been trying to resolve this peacefully for many years. Saddam is obviously a mad man who can not be reasoned with; he must be eliminated by force.
God be with our Troops and with the non-agressive civilians of Iraq.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Once upon a time, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. From where I sit, Dubbya and crew are a bigger theat to our Constitution than Saddam and his cronies. How come Slick Willy gets impeached for getting a hummer in the oval office while Dubbya gets away with wiping his ass with the Constitution?
I will support our troops -- several of whom are members of my family -- by insisting loudly and continuously that they be brought home immediately.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
but once action starts, the time for protest has passed.
It absolutely has not passed. Dissent is not disloyalty. and supporting troops has nothing to do with supporting war. Supporting troops means that when they come home, they don't come home to people calling them baby-killers and crap like that.
If going to war means that once action starts that all voice of dissent must cease, then who will take up the call to stop war when its time? You want to hand bush a blank check to continue making war on iraqi-style regimes wherever they may be? How about we go to Colombia and take up this war on terrorism against the drug cartels and FARC? Or any of two dozen african countries ruled by dictators who hold power through thuggery and murder?
no, now more than ever, the time for protest has not passed.
Not trying to flamebait or anything, but what does it mean "support the troops" even if you're morally opposed to the war? I just don't get it.
/. or on the news somewhere...
I thought "I was just following orders" was considered by most to be a poor excuse for committing immoral acts. One example of this is statements by Nazi soliders who worked in concentration camps during WWII. A large percentage of people would agree that the concentration camps (both the idea and the implementation) were immoral. I suspect that many of those people would agree that "I was just following orders" was not a morally justifiable reason.
So if one truly believes that this campaign against Irag is immoral, would American soldiers claiming "I am just following orders" be absolved of moral judgement?
Note that I'm not necessarily agreeing with this. In fact, I'm undecided on whether or not the position that the U.S. is taking has a moral component to it. It's just confusing to me everytime I see "support the troops" here on
Misguided nationalism like this is what the leaders like Bush is banking on. Ignore the dissidents knowing full well that "we" will all support our troops, and Apple Pie once it starts.
Keep on being against this "War of Choice" as it has been so aptly named.
Help fight continental drift.
So now we're supposed to support Bush's War because there's a higher scale of the same bombing going on that's been going on for seven years?
Hell, no. You really want to support the soldiers? Pull them *out* of Iraq where they aren't going to get *killed*. Make peace -- anyone who thinks that Iraq is stupid enough to not accept a peace offer is on crack -- and then do the damn inspections. What Blix turned up was some guesswork, a very small number of warheads, and now there are people *dying* because of it?
Beating the shit out of someone else until they're willing to do anything to avoid being hurt even more is really *not* the only way to resolve a conflict.
And people that try to associate patriotism with believing that Bush's War should go on are full of it. Patriotism is doing what's best for your *country*, not blithely following through what your leader spouts (if that were the case, Iraqis would be in the same boat, but the opposite way).
Finally, "protecting your family"? Yeah, Iraq is such a terribly nasty threat to your family. Christ. I can just see it now "January 2007 -- Iraq Invades United States!"
May we never see th
I think American's conveniently forget sometimes that we have weapons of mass destruction too. What's different about us? If we force other countries to disarm, we should as well. A world with NO weapons of mass destruction would be much better off. Iraq's weapons do need to go, but so do ours.
I thought this was interesting...
On CBS they were interviewing some expert, speculating on who this surgical strike was directed against.
The expert's response was essentially a listing of hardware involved. He closed up by saying something to the effect, "Well, we just spent 50 million dollars on that attack, so we can presume that it was a group of top party leaders."
I'm not sure if I'm glad that someone is pointing out the cost of the war, or disturbed that he's analyzing an attack based on the cost.
-mezz
On to a more cynical note. The war is only justified if it kills fewer people than would have died in the remainder of Saddam's rule. Over 150,000 Iraqis, military and civilian, died as a direct result of Allied attacks in the Gulf War. That's about how many Saddam killed himself in previous gas attacks against his own people. If this war truly is about the welfare of the Iraqi people, we have to make sure it doesn't make them suffer more than they would otherwise. And we have to be ready to follow up with massive amounts of aid. Not just food and medicine, but capital and technical expertise.
As for the other reasons that justify the war? They are nonsense. Yes, Saddam has WMD, and yes, he has used them against civilian populations. AMERICA has WMD and AMERICA has used them against civilian populations twice - in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We also used chemical agents in Vietnam that cause birth defects to this day.
In the end, I think that America is very vaguely doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. This should have been done twenty years ago, and the war now doesn't even begin to make up for America's failures in the past. Maybe things will start to change (but, to be cyncial again - OF COURSE AMERICA WON'T CHANGE. America doesn't give half a shit about the rest of the world). We'll really have to wait to see who is vindicated, and who isn't.
I haven't tested this yet, but one of the hits I got googling for 'cnn irc' was this:
If you point an IRC client to chat.cnn.com and then join the channel #CNN_Newsfeed, you get a continuous transcript, all caps and in short lines, of what CNN is currently broadcasting on television.
Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away. -Rob Malda
I mean, who doesn't? Really? They consist of poor saps who joined the military to pay for college, and some meatheads who *want* to shoot guns and beat up brown people. You know what? They are all someone's kid. Of course we support the fucking troops!
I am so sick of hearing everyone say "Support our Troops!" like it's some sort of talisman against Osama appearing in our midst. What does it mean, 'Support our Troops'? Does that mean you're going to go and help soldiers load missles on some Apaches? Take your turn in the mess hall mixing up powdered eggs?
NO
You are going to sit here at home and you will wonder when your kid, pal, husband, wife, mom or dad will get back, and if they will return in one piece.
If you want to *really* 'support our troops', question the war, the president, the demise of civil rights, and the chilling effect that 'Bandwagon Patriotism' has on real discussion. Like where these 'terrorists' got their training and weapons in the first place (US)
There used to be a piece of paper that was pretty important to this country. It doesn't say life, safety and the persuit of happiness. It mentions Liberty. Something that is in short supply in this country of 'Freedom Toast', 'Patriot Acts' and 'Support our Troops' feel good phrases.
Hundreds of thousands of Americans gave up their lives so you could sit home and say "Support our Troops" or "Screw our crappy President" or say what I'm saying right now.
They gave us Liberty, and a pretty good country to use it in. Don't reduce it to throwaway phrases or we won't have either.
I am not against the war if it justified, but I hope that they have more information than just "he's a menace to the US". To me, that says nothing. Do they have some proof of operations Saddam is planning? Do they have proof of him funding al quida or something?
If not, I agree with Putin - he is not a threat to the US so why go in now? I agree that the UN is pretty limp, but I think that we finally had their attention and that another month would not make a difference. By that time, maybe Chirac would have gotten off his "I am france, I have veto power...let me use it before I give it to the germans" stance.
I stand 100% behind our troops and wish them the best of luck. We will be able to recover from whatever world opinion we get, but my biggest concern if for the general Iraqi populace. When the bombs start dropping, there will be civilian casualties. Hopefully they will remain small.
Too bad SAS or some other team could not have gone in and just taken out who we need to take out and that is it. A few apache's and low altitude jumps in the middle of the night and who knows what we could have done.
Best of luck to everyone. No matter where you stand on this issue, this is a dark day. War is never good.
MARK UP!
Slashdot is fast becoming THE point of our community internation, and this is shown how important it can be during SEP11.
Many of us geeks will be reloading often, even us poor modem users. Allow us non moderators to set the viewing level to +3 or so, and rely on MODs to mark up those worth reading.
Trolls are a matter of perspective and culture. What we need now is Informative and Funny.
TIA
Robert Anton Wilson
Its important to understand that people such as yourself who are fighting in the name of your country have my full support and best wishes. I am however ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTED with the leaders who have sent you to war and will be protesting at every opportunity to try and end this war.
I am proud of the few among you, /. readers and US Citizens who *are* complaining about these
horrible attacks. Poor Iraquies had to suffer Saddam Hussein's - former ally of the US - dictatorship, and now many of them will be killed by the bombings. Just like it happened with civilians in Alfghanistan, tortured by the Taliban regime and afterwords bombed by the US. Again, some of these Talibans were allies of the US when fighting a prior "evil", the Soviet Union. You have to stop this nosense. It will bring more terrorism, more hatred, and innocent civilian deaths, once more.
Who cares about those people ? I do. Human rights should prevail. A dead kid is a dead kid, be him or her, poor angel, Palestinian, Israeli, Iraqui, or whatever. It is a sad day in History, I feel like vomiting, I feel like crying, I already am ...
Right or wrong? Threat or not? Madman or dictator? Weapons of mass destructions or rusty scuds? Liberals and conservatives. Right wing radio talk hosts versus left wing media moguls. Televised bombings. Do we get to use the airspace or not? We will rebuild or not? Is this right?
None of this matters. The plain and simple fact is our sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, cousins, friends and enemies are there fighting for what is believed to be the greater good. Whether you agree wholeheartedly with what is being done or think the United States is full or warmongerring lunitics, it does not matter. War has begun. That can not be changed. Now is the time to support our fighters. Time to support those putting their lives on the line. Time to stop bickering about whether or not it is right and show our troops, and the troops of all the nations there that we support them. They are doing what is ordered of them. Be there for their families. Mow somebody's lawn whose husband/father is gone. Make a meal for someone whos mother/wife won't be home for months. Don't disrespect the troops or their familes, care for them. When this is done, and it will not take very long, speak out with your votes about what you consider to be right or wrong. Speak out with your $$$.
Now is the time to rally behind our brave soldiers and their families. The time to speak out against the governemnts will come again.
Thank you brave men and women of the armed forces. I, for one, will be in line to give you a hero's return.
Knightfall
Common sense says that the the soldiers out there who are risking their lives fighting for one's country are not the people who make the decisions to go to war; and, in fact, are probably not the most politically astute people, either. They're not responsible for the decision to fight, and they're compelled to do so on punishment of execution for desertion. They are mostly going to be ordinary people, probably some you might have gone to school with, or are the brothers and sisters and sons and daughters of people you know, or of your neighbors. They are, loosely speaking, kindred. They are merely tools in the execution of a political policy, and some of them will die for it. That alone is enough reason to morally support them, as individual human beings.
Of course, all this is probably true of the bulk of the enemy forces, as well. Except they're not kindred in any sense, and that makes all the difference. Whether it should or not is another question. But it does to most people.
The historical reason for this sort of expression from Americans, whether or not they oppose the war, has to do with the legacy of Vietnam. During Vietnam, many American protesters explicitly condemned all the US soldiers, and there were news photos and accounts of them being spit upon by protesters when they returned home. In the years after the war, there was a growing realization that--especially because of conscription--these soldiers were as often as not as much victims of the US war machine as anyone else. For liberals, there was a realization that it was the underclass, including many African-Americans, who disproportionately made up the young men that were conscripted into the military. There was also growing guilt by a portion of the anti-war left that avoided the draft through student deferrments and other loopholes. The end result was a legacy of shame for so villifying the young men who were conscripted and forced into a war that maimed them or took their lives. And so in the American psyche as a whole, there is now a strong desire--because of the common sense reasons I mention above and because of recent history--to be careful not to blame the soldiers for what their political bosses command them to do.
All that begs the question of the issue of when the line is crossed from doing what is considered "acceptable" in wartime, to comitting war crimes. There's no doubt that some US soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam, such as in the Mai Lai massacre. And, of course, other military forces at other times in recent history have committed atrocities. Clearly, they are not deserving of anyone's support. But I, for one, don't think that US forces are any more likely to commit a war crime than any one else, and, in fact, are better-than-average in this regard; so it seems to me to assume innocence until guilt is proven. So, in general, I support the US troops because I think they are blameless. Of course, if one is a pacifist, one may disagree.
In some sense I support the Iraqi troops, as well; except that, of course, they're trying to kill the US troops that I preferentially support. Wouldn't it be nice if only the people who actually create the conditions for a war and make the decisions about fighting the war were the ones to actually fight it? It has always seemed one of the most abhorrent aspects of war to me that the political masters who wage the war are hardly ever at any risk. And just regular folk--poor folk, usually--are the one's that actually pay the price for the decision with their lives. Hmm. It occurs to me that the political leaders on the losing side should have (or be forced to have) the honor to "fall on their swords". I wonder if Bush's own life were on the line if he would have pursued this war so aggressively. Somehow, I think not.
Many people have asked for this not to start in the first place, but George was hell-bent on starting it anyway. What are you really supposed to do? Support the troops enthusiatically, and also the bad decision and encourage him to continue it. Believe me this isn't the end, it's only the beginning of a huge mess. [think war with Eurasia type mess] or.. protest the poor choice to the detriment of the troops & country's morale. That's not fair to the troops either. They didn't choose the battles; they just fight 'um. Unfortunately, there isn't really a support the troops, but repremand the president option! The first rule of politics is to make sure people emotionally can't hold "you" accountable.
Shouldn't be too hard. Let's see...
By the way, Gore lost the election. Deal with it.
And of course, following another paragraph full of hate and ad hominem, he closes with the old saw that this is just an oil grab. News flash: we don't need Iraqi oil, and even if we did we could get it just by lifting the sanctions Saddam earned by invading his weakest neighbor. It's a nonsensical accusation on its face. It's high time to drop it.
And the brethren went away edified.
My question to the war protesters:
was there really peace in Iraq?
Considering Saddam Hussein got 100% of the votes in the last Iraqi election, he is quite the popular man.
Problem is, most of us do not know what it is like to live in a dictatorship. While people snub their noses at the "evil" president Bush and wag their fingers at the "war-mongers", they have been turning their backs on the suffering of the Iraqi people to fulfill political idealism.
Face it, Saddam Hussein can't be negotiated with. We have tried for the last ten years, and he still kills Iraqis. He still oppresses women. He still hangs chemical weapons over the heads of his own people.
Do you think he wouldn't use them against his own people, as he did in 1988, if we didn't put pressure on him?
I don't know about you, but I'd rather live with America's imperialism with the world's cameras scrutenizing than with the tyranny of Saddam Hussein any day. At least protesters won't get executed and they will be able to vote for more than one person to be president.
And, no, there will not be another dictatorship after Saddam Hussein is gone. Do you think the world would allow that?
Slick Willy got impeached for lying under oath. How come you idiot democraps always try to cloud the real issue?
Please, in this thread more than ever, concentrate on moderating up rather than down. This issue is bound to foster a great deal of passionate discussion on all sides. If you disagree with a post in this thread, post a reply or mod up a reply that represents your point of view. This is not the time to suppress opinions we disagree with.
But I feel bad for the United States troops in this ordeal, as well as the Iraqi people. Yeah, Saddam might be a dick, but Bush is being no better at this point.
Be careful what you say there. The US has not been ordered by an International community to disarm. The US community has not disobeyed orders after being defeated in a war to disarm. The US government hasn't gassed thousands of rebels. Bush's children haven't tortuted and killed citizens to strike fear in others to never go against the government.
We have a president in office right now that didn't even get a majority of the popular vote. I like Bush more than Gore, but quite frankly, the fact that Bush is in office right now shows just how different we are from Iraq. Remember Iraq's last election? Saddam got 100% of the vote. You can't honestly think that's realistic, can you? It's a dicatorship -- and a horrid one at that.
Bush has ordered thousands of men into the line of fire; which one could equate to being a poor decision, but these are all men and women that signed up for the task. They aren't random people being executed arbitarily for their beleifs. I have one friend already in Kuwait, and more on the way one they're through basic training. They signed up -AFTER- the shit hit the fan. Heck, I'm giving a guy firearms training before he signs up for the Air Force because he's never fired a gun in his life. We got done with session #2 today, went to the pub and found out that the war has started already.
To equate Bush to Saddam is insane to me. The fact that you can do that, assuming you're a US citizen, and get away with it is proof that Bush, and the US, is far better than Saddam. You'd be dead or tortured in short order had you said the same thing in Iraq. Don't forget that.
Aside from that, remember, that while I disagree whole heartdly with your statement, and it disgusts me to think that somebody in the US would make such a comparision; I'd still fight for YOUR right to say that.
Make no mistake... this is not a war against Iraq. This is an assasination attempt. Period. We want Saddam's regime out of control which means the assisination of him and his sons. Nothing more. As far as I'm concerned NOBODY in Iraq is being targetted except them. The soliders that wish to fight for Saddam have every opportunity to get out and quit. Some will stay and fight, and they will die. That's their choice.
Your opinion disgusts me, but living in a nation where your opinion would get you killed would disgust me far more. Be thankful for what you've got.
Dude, get a grip. they don't have 356 cameras to point in every possible angle. They had no idea that it was gonna even happen, how could they have possibly known where to film?
Thank you for posting this. Seriously. I respect your views on what is happening in the world. And I have to agree with you, many atrocities in history were commited because of people just doing what they were trained to do. But people like me? I don't think that's a fair comment. You don't know anything about me. Please don't make presumptions just because I am in the military.
I think that if this country was going about it in any way other than as the big bully on the playground, the international community would not be so opposed.
Iraq sucks. No way to pretend otherwise. It would be nice to see someone go in there, oust the facists, and put some sort of populist government in place. Not that that will happen this time; even if we oust the government, we're just going to put another facist in charge. We're the US, that's what we do.
The thing that really bothers me is our attitude about the whole thing, like we have a right to move in there because we "know" he has weapons of mass destruction. This is the most utterly flimsy excuse. We're not invading India, Pakistan, or N. Korea, are we? We don't care about anyone else's weapons. No, its all about the #$^@^#$ oil. The senate wouldn't let him drill in the arctic national wildlife refuge, and so he's got to invade something in the middle east.
And the whole terrorism excuse? Dear god! We should be invading the Saudi's if that was really our point. But, of course it isn't.
No no, this is W's war, his chance to get his jollies by acting like his dad. I'd rather have a hunk of spam in the oval office. At least then there would be a chance of ONE good descision coming out of the white house.
If there is any justice in the world this will come back and kick him in the nuts.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I have to admire this in a purely tactical way. Take out the national broadcaster and replace it with your own content.
I like how G.B. can call a radio station a site of "military importance" or whatever term he used in his speach.
This is from a letter I mailed my Prime Minister. I apologize to anyone directly involved with the World Trade Center disaster, my words are not intended to diminish the loss you ahve suffered, only to prevent an even larger tradegy.
This is a sad day, but I suspect there is worse to come.
Democracy isn't about no one telling you what to do. It's about everyone telling you what to do.
This letter was published in the Hindustant Times - an Indian newspaper.
Why I had to leave the cabinet?
Robin Cook
March 18
I have resigned from the cabinet because I believe that a fundamental
principle of Labour's foreign policy has been violated.
If we believe in an international community based on binding rules and
institutions, we cannot simply set them aside when they produce results
that are inconvenient to us.
I cannot defend a war with neither international agreement nor domestic
support. I applaud the determined efforts of the prime minister and
foreign secretary to secure a second resolution. Now that those attempts
have ended in failure, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution
was of no importance.
In recent days, France has been at the receiving end of the most vitriolic
criticism. However, it is not France alone that wants more time for
inspections. Germany is opposed to us. Russia is opposed to us. Indeed, at
no time have we signed up even the minimum majority to carry a second
resolution. We delude ourselves about the degree of international
hostility to military action if we imagine that it is all the fault of
President Chirac.
The harsh reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war
without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a
leading member. Not Nato. Not the EU. And now not the Security Council.
To end up in such diplomatic isolation is a serious reverse. Only a year
ago we and the US were part of a coalition against terrorism which was
wider and more diverse than I would previously have thought possible.
History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so
quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.
Britain is not a superpower. Our interests are best protected, not by
unilateral action, but by multilateral agreement and a world order
governed by rules. Yet, tonight the international partnerships most
important to us are weakened. The European Union is divided. The Security
Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of war without a
single shot yet being fired.
The threshold for war should always be high. None of us can predict the
death toll of civilians in the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq. But the US
warning of a bombing campaign that will "shock and awe" makes it likely
that casualties will be numbered at the very least in the thousands.
Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size at the time of the
last Gulf war. Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are
so weak that we can even contemplate invasion. And some claim his forces
are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be
over in days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the basis that Saddam is weak and
at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a
serious threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the
commonly understood sense of that term -- namely, a credible device capable
of being delivered against strategic city targets. It probably does still
have biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions. But it has had
them since the Eighties when the US sold Saddam the anthrax agents and the
then British government built his chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a
military capacity that has been there for 20 years and which we helped to
create? And why is it necessary to resort to war this week while Saddam's
ambition to complete his weapons programme is frustrated by the presence
of UN inspectors?
I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to
disarm, and our patience is exhausted. Yet, it is over 30 years since
Resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of
Israel to comply.
It is a sad time for America. Through the Bush administration's actions America is now the most prosperous terrorist state in the world. No international or national law or policy legalizes these attacks on Iraq. No resolutions of the United Nations' Security Council or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization could provide a legal justification for these attacks. Bush has undermined the credibility of the United Nations. Bush has made this country look like complete fools in the eye of the international community.
...) is against the war, as well as many West Point professors and senior military advisors. Even so, the Bush administration bangs the war drum, and continues to lie to the American public about Iraq. The best documentation of this lies in the fact that a majority of Americans think that Saddam was directly involved with 9-11 even though Osama himself calls Saddam an infidel coward and none of the hijackers themselves were Iraqi. The US and its allies have a 10 trillion dollar prize for direct control of the region (and OIL company contracts have already been signed). The US already has plans to invade Saudi Arabia after the Iraq campaign as part of a larger goal of obtaining a majority share of the world's energy supplies. There is a reason why the rest of the world is against the US/UK/SP campaign.
.uk.dossier/index.html
There was no need for an Iraqi invasion unless the Iraqi government was found to be in violation of UN resolution 1441 (passed in Nov 2002). Iraq, while having a long history of obtaining, developing, and deploying weapons of mass destruction, had no choice but to comply with weapons inspectors and the UN. The US has yet to produce any verifiable evidence that Iraq had any active WMD programs. The only item that inspectors found were missiles that slightly exceeded the prescribed range when launched without a warhead. Iraq destroyed these at the international community's urgings. At the time of the departure of the inspectors in 1998, Iraq was mostly disarmed, although there is some evidence that they still had some biological capability. Weapons inspectors were looking into this issue as well as ensuring that weapons slated for destruction prior to 1998 remained scuttled before the US decided to attack. There is nothing like disarming a country before invading.
A full invasion will likely cause the death of ~500,000 Iraqi citizens (UN estimate), mostly due to the disruption of the state welfare service and damage to food, electrical, and water supplies (which are war targets). This is how our 1991 invasion killed so many citizens. In addition we will be again using depleted uranium shells, which have been documented to increase cancer rates. A Kurdish uprising is also very probable, as they have been trying to create their own country for years, which could destabilize parts of Iran and Turkey.
Pre-emptive warfare is wrong. The CIA, for all their transgressions (Venezuela, Chile, Guatemala, Congo, Indonesia,
Should Saddam be tried and sentenced for war crimes? Yes. Should Bush be tried and sentenced for war crimes against Iraq and Afganastan? Yes. Should the international community help Iraq become better country and improve the lives of its citizens? Yes. Should the money derived from oil sales be returned to Iraqi citizens to help improve their well-being instead of being diverted to international mega-corperations? Yes. Will a US/UK/SP/AU invasion achieve any of these goals. In all likelihood, no.
Thank you Bush for putting every American at risk worldwide.
Google around, this has all been documented.
Illigal War
http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr26-72.htm
REAL AUTHORS OF IRAQ DOSSIER BLAST BLAIR
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.c fm?obje ctid=12620001&method=full&siteid=50143
UK accused of lifting dossier text
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sp rj.irq
Why invade when the U.N. system is disarming Iraq?
I notice the first post has been modded down in the last 20 minutes to below the default score so most viewers will not see it.
The previous first post was 'And Today...I am ashamed to call myself an American.'
Now the first post is a little more....texas friendly: 'dang. that was fast'.
Slashdot 'the voice of the free', get your act together, stop thwarting the comments and let people say what they want to say.
This isn't flamebait, just fact, slashdot has a chance here to standout from the rest of the US media and offer a forum for genuine world wide opinions on this war. I vote for all scores to be abandoned (or just set to 2). STOP THE CENSORSHIP!
Keith Ahern
I'd like to quote Bill Maher to get my point going:
"As of this writing, the most depressing thing about war in Iraq was how easy it was to sell. Shouldn't it be a little harder than this to sell people a war? ... [and]how amazed I was that, of all the lies told by presidents in my lifetime, the one so many people couldn't get over, and which the media treats as the standard for mendacity, was: 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman.'
"Huge, astounding lies that affected each and every one of us in very real ways: that we were winning the war in Vietnam; that we weren't trading arms for hostages, and if we were it was a soldier's duty to lie about it; that global warming and marijuana needed more study before we could consider policy changes about them; that there'd be no new taxes; that Clarence Thomas was the most qualified person a nation of 250 million could find to sit on the Supreme Court...
"All these lies, all these giant, steaming-turd whoppers, and the one that broke the bank was 'Blow jobs aren't sex.' Wow, that's a stupid country."
Yes it is.
From Ted Rall: "Decades of budget cuts in education are finally yielding results, a fact confirmed by CNN's poll of March 16, which shows that an astonishing 51 percent of the public believe that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks."
Monday night George W. Bush, our legally if not ethically elected leader stepped up in front of the world and told us that Iraq had "ties" to Al Qaeda (and thus WTC responsibility) and that he was a danger to the world, though nothing has ever been produced to prove this (But it's okay, there are some things the government doesn't need to explain fully, they need their secrets right?). Saddam was a danger to Kurds, Israelis, Iranians and Kuwiatis because our government helped gain him that power (the only thing about the Iraq-Contra affair that this country remembers is that a brave man in uniform with an honest face was grilled in front of a big mean Congressional panel).
Afghanistan? An exit strategy was thought up as soon as we went in, and Iraq was it. This is public record. (see current Mother Jones issue). Also see the archived streaming video debate[scroll down] on the Christopher Hitchens Web against Mark Danner.
Everyone involved in Bush's world going back decades has been involved in Oil. Everyone in his government holding any kind of power is involved in Oil. We now have bases spread from Kuwait to deep ex-Soviet Territory in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan.
Bush and his Puppeteers lied to us.
It's like we see but we don't see.
Putting up a bumper sticker or flag is our way of getting involved. Cafeteria Managers are renaming French fries. Major newspapers editorialize that the French are pissing on the graves of D-day soldiers. Most Americans don't approve a pre-emptive war, but since Bush's Monday speech his ratings are rocketing. Look, He's doing something. We're like predators only interesting in moving things, in action, overshadowing the consequences.
This is a stupid country.
In response to the pithy "then why don't you just leave" argument, I say:
Because it is the best going, and there's the logistics involved in repatriating. Also, I live on many different levels, in a community, a town, a state, a geography and ecosystem, in cyberspace. The notion of belonging to a nation is but one of many, but hardly my overarching modifier. Is America the best on its way down? Does being the freest nation on earth require colonial domination over the rest of the planet? If another country without the addiction to war and oil can offer the freedom
Why is it NOT okay when Saddam defies the UN, but it's okay when President Bush does it? Could someone explain that to me, please?
A fair question. The answer is very long, but the short version is this: Iraq is in defiance of the United Nations, but the United States and our parters are not.
In 1991, after the Coalition forced Iraqi troops out of Kuwait, Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement that has come to be known as the Safwan Accords. (Safwan was the closest town to the random point in the desert where the generals from both sides met.) One of the terms of the Safwan Accords was that Iraq would comply with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions to reestablish peace in the region.
On April 3, 1991, the UN Security Council (UNSEC) passed resolution 687 which, among other things, called for Iraq to produce, within 15 days, a complete and accurate declaration of all their chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and weapons programs as well as all ballistic missiles capable of flying more than 150 kilometers. Resolution 687 further demanded that Iraq, having made that declaration, then submit to the verifiable destruction of everything included in that declaration under the watchful eyes of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM).
Iraq never did make that declaration. They spent the next twelve years diddling around. They never complied, even partially, with resolution 687.
Now, UN resolutions come in three flavors. General Assembly resolutions and resolutions adopted by UNSEC under chapter VI of the UN Charter are not enforceable; the Charter provides no legal authority for any party, inside or outside of the UN, to enforce those resolutions. But UNSEC resolutions adopted under chapter VII are enforceable. The Charter calls on the member states of the Security Council to enforce chapter VII resolutions when the Security Council authorizes it.
UNSEC resolution 678-- not to be confused with 687-- authorized the members of the Security Council to use all necessary means to force Iraqi occupation forces out of Kuwait, and to enforce all relevant resolutions both existing and subsequent to resolve the conflict. Resolution 678 was adopted under chapter VII; the members of the Council were not only authorized to enforce it, they were actually obligated by the UN Charter.
So the situation in late 1991 was that there was a binding, enforceable UNSEC resolution on the books (687) with which Iraq was not in compliance, and another resolution (678), also binding and enforceable, obligating the members of the Council to use all necessary means to enforce that resolution.
Did anybody use military force during that period? Yes and no. The Coalition threatened Iraq regularly, and attacked Iraq on several occasions, most notably in December, 1998, during Operation Desert Fox. These threats and attacks were all perfectly legal, because of resolutions 678 (authorizing force) and 687 (with which Iraq was not in compliance).
Recently, certain members of the Council have expressed an unwillingness to pass another resolution explicitly authorizing the use of military force against Iraq. That's okay; we don't need one, because 678 already extends that authorization. Nobody on the Council has even so much as suggested trying to rescind resolution 678, so that mandate is still in effect.
Nor has any member of the Council suggested a resolution condemning the Transatlantic Alliance-- the United States, the United Kingdom, and Spain-- for their actions in this war.
The net result? Iraq is in blatant defiance of the United Nations, but the United States and our partners in the Alliance are not. In fact, according to the resolutions we have on paper tonight, the United States is, in fact, acting with the full authorization and sanction of the Security Council.
Don't be too surprised if you hear talk about changing that situation with another UNSEC resolution in the next few days. But then again, Germany, Russia, and China are already giving us their tacit support in private, and France knows which side their croissant is buttered on, so don't be too surprised if you don't.
I write in my journal
lets look at this as hitler = sadam, churchill = bush.
...)
How about:
hitler = bush
poland's president (or whatever they had) = saddam.
This comparison make much more sense (power of armies, who attacks who, fake evidence as reason for attacking, world is against attack,
I was born in Louisiana and now I live in Virginia. I was 3 years old and living in Tehran when Iraq attacked. I don't remember the war as a series of news reels on TV. I remember the war as nights filled with bombs whistling down on me. I remember the war by the faces of the uncles and cousins I lost. I remember the war by the silent nights that punctuated the months. All this time I knew that I was American. I remember, when I was 5, I thought that America was going to come and help me. They weren't going to let me die.
My parents didn't want to explain the dirty truths of the world to a little child. I had no idea that the bombs being dropped on my city were guided by America, but they were. I didn't know that the chemicals being used against my drafted uncles and cousins were provided to Iraq by America, but they were. I didn't know that my life was not as important as providing more oil for America, but I was not important. I am an American. I am an Iranian. I don't hate Iraqis. I don't hate Americans. I don't hate Saddam. I don't hate Bush. Hate is ignorance within fear. Fear is the mind killer.
But all occupied people rebel against their occupiers. No matter how wonderful they may be treated, they will rebel. Not because they hate their occupiers. Not because "they hate our freedoms" as my fearless leader so arrogantly phrased it. They will rebel because they are Iraqis, not Americans.
Why did America support Iraq when it attacked Iran? Iran had the audacity to tell America to leave. Iran no longer wanted to be a puppet state, and Iran deserved to be punished for that. Iraq will be the same. Conquerors often cloak themselves as liberators.
It might be easy for the average American citizen to accept that this is a "Just War." But, for someone who has been on the receiving end of a missile, this coupling of words is a mockery of logic and respect for human life.
If you don't agree with me that is fine, but don't advocate war unless you feel so strongly that you are personally willing to run into a wall of enemy soldiers, armed with only a sword, knowing that you are going to die, and accepting it as the right thing to do. If you are not willing to do such a thing, then you do not truly believe that the fight is just.
But all that I just wrote is pointless because the spice must flow.
http://www.warblogging.com/
Breaking news, analysis, also covers related events in the US. Cynical slant.
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
An Iraqi blogger. Hoax? It's well done
>> Wherever you go you see closed shops and it is not just doors-locked
>> closed but sheet-metal-welded-on-the-front closed,
>> windows-removed-and-built-with-bricks closed, doors were being welded shut
http://volokh.blogspot.com/
Excellent analysis of causes and outcomes. Breaking news, too.
http://www.sgtstryker.com/
Military / conservative perspective on Iraq and the news. Liberal and conservative views in the discussions.
http://www.defensetech.org/
It's all about the gear. The Slashdot of war technology.
http://timblair.blogspot.com/
Conservative and irreverant news analysis
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/
http://uswarblog.tripod.com/warblog/
http://www.nowarblog.org/
"Stand Down: The Left-Right Blog opposing an invasion of iraq"
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/
Back to Iraq 2.0
http://www.warblogs.cc/
--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu
Why does it seem that everyone is obsessed with setting up a democracy in Iraq? Okay, sure, better than the current system, but why democracy? It surely isn't the most fair of governments. Why not try to esatablish socialism? I mean, as far as I understand it, socialism is like Democracy+ right? I'm really not an expert, so please feel free to correct my (probable) mistakes, but just food for thought I hope. :)
Amen for a war we don't need to fight... send someone young! Send those annoying highschool graduates! Tell those damn dropouts and AWOL bastards to move to Canada! Amen! Amen!
Amen to who? Amen the pagan deity? Congratulations, you have successfully been modded +5 for your pagan comments. You are worse than the enemy you claim is yours. YOU are your OWN enemy.
Of'course, you know what a prayer is, no?
In the future will the world remember us 'alliance of the willing' kindly? Will they think that the spin doctoring by our leaders justified our actions?
It's not that long ago that there was a leader who led Germany who was a brilliant orator and who was able to convince people that what Germany was doing was right. Now I'm not for a second wanting to equate the leaders of the 'alliance of the willing' to that particular person. However what I do wish to point out is that the majority in Germany at that time believed the spin doctoring coming from a position of authority. Are we doing the same now? I believe we are.
People can come up with a whole bunch of justifications as to why this action is morally right, however those justifications can equally be applied to many other countries that the 'alliance of the willing' is not attacking. Futher if those justifications are valid, wouldn't they have also been valid say 5 years ago? What has changed in the last five years, besides the sad but unrelated events of 9/11?
I surely hope that someone in power will see some sence and stop this nonsense before it goes to far, otherwise we will not be remembered kindly.
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
Just because there isn't a second UN Security Council resolution doesn't mean that it was necessary to have one (when the first resolution spoke of 'grave consequences' what did that mean -- watching the French quip and quibble?).
... no, he tried to kill my dad ... he has nukes ... er ... well, anyway he is bad and Wolfowitz always said so) doesn't mean that e.g., Tony Blair, John Howard , Tim Collins, Timothy Garton Ash, Julie Burchill, and Christopher Hitchens haven't.
Just because the Bush Administration has failed to argue the case for war coherently and convincingly (Saddam Hussein has links to Al Quaida
Just because the case for war isn't clearcut doesn't mean that there isn't a case to be made. After all: if we say that Mr Hussein's violation of the 1991 Gulf War cease-fire agreement, his violations of 18 UN Security Council resolutions, and his violations of the Iraqi peoples' [sic] basic human rights do not, put together, consitute a sufficiently strong case for war what exactly would?!?
'Innocent' (whatever that means) Iraqi civilians will inevitably die in this war. But is that really the same as saying that no 'innocent' Iraqi people will die if Mr Hussein is left to his own device and in power?
In the immortal words of the leftist Swedish band Hoolabandoola Band (admittedly à propos their supporting the then-guerilla the Sandinistas of Nicaragua) [I'm paraphrasing]: 'Är det verkligen fred vi vill ha? Och till varje enskilt pris?' (Is it really peace we want? And at any cost?)
The liver is evil and must be punished.
I have to disagree on a few points.
Firstly, the media in general in America is not particularly fond of Bush. Granted there are news outlets that are decidedly pro-bush, but more than half of our media takes an anti-bush, anti-republican stance on issues. This war has proven no exception. I will say, however, that the media in that regard is rather sick, as they are eating up war coverage like a cheap chinese buffet. But then, that's the media.
Now, removing all economic issues for a moment, let's say America sat on the side and waited for something to happen, perhaps it was an attack on Tel-Aviv, or Jerusalem, or even a terrorist attack on the American mainland, or even an attack elsewhere, like London or Berlin or Paris or Toronto. The attitude then would be, "We should have seen this coming. We should have done something to stop it."
Well for once we are doing something to keep things from happening before they happen.
I can not argue in any way that a conflict is backed by pure motives. I am certain that because of the nature of people, this one is not either. However, I do not think that just because a part is spoiled you throw out the entire idea. You can't sacrifice saftey because you don't like who might happen benefit economically from it.
And FWIW I concur that international sentiement does not seem to be anti-Americans, but rather anti-American-policy.
Listen to the commentary. Transcript follows...
PETER FREUNDLICH:
All right, let me see if I understand the logic of this correctly. We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war. The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will. Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?
Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy, as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a little thing like democracy as they define it.
Also, in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at home, we cannot afford dissension among ourselves. We must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein's failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We are sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make the point that might does not make right, as Saddam Hussein seems to think it does. And we are twisting the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition. We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in the world, fail to understand that, then we have no choice but to ignore them.
Listen. Don't misunderstand. I think it is a good thing that the members of the Bush administration seem to have been reading Lewis Carroll. I only wish someone had pointed out that "Alice in Wonderland" and "Through the Looking Glass" are meditations on paradox and puzzle and illogic and on the strangeness of things, not templates for foreign policy. It is amusing for the Mad Hatter to say something like, `We must make war on him because he is a threat to peace,' but not amusing for someone who actually commands an army to say that.
As a collector of laughable arguments, I'd be enjoying all this were it not for the fact that I know--we all know--that lives are going to be lost in what amounts to a freak, circular reasoning accident.
It requires immense bravery to fight for your country, and I have a deep respect for anyone that does, I just wish the leaders of the country for which you are fighting actually deserved your loyalty.
I urge all Americans to actively seek other sources for news, than CNN. please. You may be surprised at hearing actual news instead of propaganda but this is a good thing.
You may hear other sides, different perspectives, maybe things will start to sound really complicated, but thats how it is in the world.
The last media you should trust is your own. No matter where you're from.
scripsit Dr. Transparent:
Well, I don't read Hebrew, so I thought I'd check the Vulgate. Exodus 20:13 reads (in its entirety) ``non occides.'' That means ``do not strike down'' or ``do not slay'' -- the verb occidere has nothing whatsoever to do with legality. It just means don't kill people. Sorry.
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
It makes me really sad to see a bunch of Americans eat pizza, watch TV and joke over the war. And it makes me even sadder to see comments moderated as 'Funny' on this page. Folks, you have no idea what war is about.
In fact, no American (unless he has been in war) should express their opinions on war at all since their country has not seen a real war on its soil for a long time. My home country has suffered in quite a few wars, never willingly, and we've almost always lost because we are a small nation. We know the real meaning of war.
We know that war is not about brave faces on a TV screen, not about hi-tech and shiny metal.
War is about homes being destroyed, people crawling on the streets using only their arms because they have lost their legs, and children being burned alive.
And there is absolutely no justification for that as long as there are any alternatives.
There will be many many crimes on the soul of American government tonight.
When men used to be men
I know im about to blow my carma and i dont care. This is the most stupid thing the States has done since slavery. Sure Saddam is a fucking dictator and sure he should go. But is the USA mature enough to take on the responsibility? I dont think so and it is widely believed that this war has nothing to do with dictoatorships an everything to do with omney and power over the oil.o rld/di ctators.html http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_In dex.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdW
Why in fucks name should they install an american as a leader on arab soil when endless amount of opposition is prepared and come from good educations out being refugees in european countries? I think that USA wants to install an America friendly puppet gov in iraq.
Whats next, China, Israel, Cuba, North Korea, Mocambique, Germany or France?
This war has no legatimicy whatsoever and is an attack without reason. Am mad as hell and if I am mad as hell think how people thinks in arab countries? This if anything is going to bring out endless streams of terrorists raving mad and pissed of at USA. Even if they are liberated they arent happy at all with how and why that happen in iraq either.
USA wanted war on terrorism and they have just begun recruting terrorists for the opposite side, stupid fucks!
Then we have the issue of civil war in iraq/turkue. Half of kurdistan is in iraq and half of it in turkue. Both the turks and Saddam have been threating the kurds as garbage and there will be an uprising if the turks invade northen iraq, from the kurds. This war creates terrorism and instability wich is precisely what the USa set out to reduce.
Is USA that stupid? I really dont think so. Something else is behind this, money and power. The terrorists obviously succeded in what they set out for in September 11, make USA behaive like assholes. Now they have a fresh supply of eager people willing to die for their rights.
PS I dont hate Americans but something i hate is warmongers. DS
HTTP/1.1 400
Who armed him at the beginning?
...).
... chemical and biologic weapons.
There are many countries who did arm Iraq many years ago.
There was France who built their nuclear reactor (destroyed later by Israel) and who sold them many weapons (missiles, aircraft,
But there were also England, Germany and US who sold them many standard weapons and
Who in terms of $$ has the most business with Iraq?
Do you really believe that the US government started this war only for humanity reasons ? As for a fact, US imports much more oil from Iraq than France does.
...like it's happening in many third-word countries.
If the US wanted to be helpful, they could have started by spending that vast amount of money in helping underdeveloped countries.
It would have probably been much cheaper, and it would have improved the US's reputation.
Just my 0.02 yen.
My site
Just remember what Bush said to the Iraqi on Tuesday evening: "And it will be no excuse to say, 'I was just following orders.' "
Mind that this also applies to you.
It's amazing to me how easily some people rationalize war and the arrogance with which they do it.
Okay, I'll bite...
"...no one want to see innocent Iraqi civilians dead." And yet, after 10 years of war and sanctions, there are close to 100,000 (some reports claim more) civilians dead. Saddam is a tyrant and he's no human rights activist, but I'd say the Bush's win the race for innocent civilians killed.
"Iraqi expatriates living in the U.S. are very glad indeed that this war is happening." I see. So you polled a sufficiently large sample size of Iraqi expatriates to make this claim? Funny, because it so happens that I grew up in Saudi Arabia. I happen to know some Iraqis who now live in the U.S. They are happy to live in the U.S. because the opportunities are good. And they are grateful for them. They are NOT happy about the war, because it is being waged on their homeland by people who have no authority there. They may not be happy with the government, but they are unified and independent. You are very very very mistaken if you think that means they want the U.S. to invade them and throw their country into chaos. Just because someone is happy about living here doesn't mean they've turned their backs on their homeland. You may want to rethink your logic. Should we now wage war on China, India, Russia, etc., because they have expatriates who came here in hopes of a better life? And by the way, you should stay away from generalizations, especially when you don't even have a small sampling of proof. There are more than 250 million people in the U.S. That you think you can accurately assess their feelings about the war is beyond arrogant.
"Blaming Bush for the economy is senseless." We're not blaming Bush for the economy. At least I'm not. I'm blaming him for putting it on the backburner for a war that isn't justifiable. AND, to add to that, he's asking Congress for an additional $70 BILLION for war funding. Now, just where do you think that money's going to come from???
Gore lost an election in which he received more votes. Hmm, maybe the Iraqi government isn't the only one that needs some changes. But maybe you should just learn to live with that too?
"UK, Spain, Australia" Gee, I don't suppose this could've been political at all, do you? Or do you actually think they are only worried about the 'oppressed' Iraqi people. Plus, you may not want to be so naive as to mistake the government's support as being equal to the popular opinion. Watch Tony Blair lose in the next elections.
But all that is really besides the point. To be honest, I could care less how many GOVERNMENTS support Bush. This war hasn't been justified. All avenues have not been exhausted. Are you really going to blindly follow your government into war just because they say you should? I'm sure the Germans won't make that mistake again. Let's not make it for the first time.
Let's look at we claim are the objectives for this war...
- To liberate the Iraqis and to rid the world of a ruthless dictator with weapons of mass destruction.
First off - where exactly are these weapons of mass destruction? Don't you think that if there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction and there was a threat of them using it, that the people most worried would be the Saudis? And yet, they denounce the war. Don't you think their opinion counts a little more than the UK's, Spain's, or (*cynical snort*) Australia's? Up until the Gulf War, Iraq was a thriving Middle East nation. Yes, Saddam made some bad decisions. The government made mistakes. But we made the entire nation suffer for it. Their economy and social structure now stands in ruins. So how exactly is dropping more bombs and missles on them going to liberate them? Or do you think it might, just MIGHT, create a whole new generation of people who hate us even more and become potential terrorists? Let's stop putting on these airs of pretension that we are liberators, shall we? There are many other nat
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
If I had to choose between living in a democratic state and not having to go through having someone bomb the shit out of me, having a large number of my friends and relatives die, and my children being born deformed as a result of depleted uranium shells, I'd choose the totalitarian government any day.
Definitive facts Iraqi military threath is minimal. Iraqi may support major terrorist attacts. USA and other countries are not more secure after Iraq operation than before, because even after Iraq demolition there will be several countries/groups capable of major terrorist attacts. Opinions USA wants to show its power. It wants to get into a position with a power-of-veto on other countries internal affairs. (Such as "who is Irag's president". Any president can produce weapon of mass destrucion and Saddam Hussein is not himself any greater threath than leaders on Libya, N-Korea, Iran, ...)
Conclusion
Where does this lead ?
Hardly to a safer world. The future will show the real objectives and how they were achieved/failed.
After reading some comments, and having a look on the kind of modding they received, I couldn't help noticing that almost every anti-war comment has been characterised as mod. This is not objective modding, but censorship in one of it's worst forms, which you, Americans, say that you hate and fight against.
I hope that metamods will take this into account and that they will be more objective than those people who do not know how to use the privelege of modding and who turn it into a tool of censorship.
Today it begins. Is there not ANYONE with a brain to see where it goes? Last night on cnn, they said Bush is going to go on war until no war is left to be fought. That is his dogma. The dogma of a mad man who wants to be dictator of the world. The world is not free and would not be free because of Bush. Bush claims that the Iraqi people are poverty and wants their country freed, so that they could have goods again. But if it was not for the embargo this would have happened without war. I won't say that Saddam is not a criminal, but it's all over again the same thing as Osama. He was brought to power by the US meddling for oil. I am not an American, but I love America. I love New York, even I have never been there and Sept.11 made me cry too. It also made me see the road ahead. But how can you, the American people tolerate this? A president who got elected by mischief, a president who acts like world dictator. He is like the real life Doctor Doom without IQ.
I don't know... I haven't ever had 400billion to spend. But I would guess that we could have done something a little more productive with it.
Like researching other energy sources so that control over oil was of no importance.
Anyway... can't hurt to have a colony in the Middle East. Get the Britney Spears and Hollywood gospel out to the Muslims.
... are not agressors.
Democratic nations are entitled to defend themselves.
Iraq posses no verifiable threat against the US or the UK. Or do you think Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Russia and China, all closer to Iraq, are posturing against the US while under such a suppossed ominous threat?
Nah, the truth is that they know sure as hell that there is nothing to be afraid off.
Rumsfeld, Cheyney, American Century. That explains it all....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I realize that Saddam had years and years to disarm, and that he's (supposedly) got weapons of mass destruction, and he's violated the UN decisions time and time again... But he's not the only one. North Korea openly admits to having nukes, while Saddam continues to insist that he got rid of all the mass destruction stuff. There are plenty of nations out there that have ignored and/or violated UN decisions, and we can now add our name to that list, but we aren't attacking all of them.
What really bothers me about this is the fact that we're the bad-guy. In just about every other war I can think of, and especially anything recent, the US was the good-guy. We were going in there to make things better. To fix something that was broken. And generally speaking, the world stood behind us. This time around, it looks as if the only ones who want to go to war are the US and Brittain, while everyone else screams for peace.
I wouldn't find that nearly so disturbing if our reasons didn't seem to shift with every new day. First we had this "war on terror" thing, and Iraq was linked to terrorism. Then it was about him not disarming and ignoring the UN. Then it had something to do with pre-emptively attacking so he couldn't hit us. Now we're "liberating" Iraq. Sure, all these reasons could be true.... That's possible. But the way they're being presented feels like a kid fishing around for excuses.
I've taken plenty of comparative religion and anthropology courses in college, and I just can't shake the feeling that we shouldn't be going over there to "liberate" anyone. Maybe they're oppressed...maybe they aren't. I don't know. But it seems to me that if a nation wants liberation, it should come from within. Who are we to say that they need to be liberated? Who else around this world needs to be liberated? Who is next?
I'm also more than a little saddened to see history repeating itself... We've funded more than one extremist group in the Middle East beause it served our purposes at the time. We give them money, hardware, training...tell them that we'll help them rebuild after it is all over...and they attack our enemies. Sounds great, but then we leave them high and dry, with no help on the rebuilding. This, understandably, leaves a sour taste in their mouth and eventually leads to a new enemy for the US. And then we go in and "liberate" the country from these horrible, awful people. That's how Bin Laden and the Taliban got their start...that's how Saddam got his start... And if you'll notice, it looks like we're leaving Afganistan high & dry at the moment.
I suppose, if I had more faith in the President, that I wouldn't be objecting nearly as much. The fact of the matter though, is that I don't like Bush. He seems like an idiotic rich kid who just got voted in because of his daddy. I know this probably isn't true, I doubt if it is really that easy to become president, but that is the image that he portrays. Add to that the questionable evidence of drug use, alchoholism, and his ties to big business... I don't like his politics. I don't like how he's handling the international scene. I don't like his assorted tax cuts and school reforms. In short, I can't wait to vote him out.
I can't help but wonder if we'd be better off if Gore had been elected. Maybe we'd still be going to war, maybe we wouldn't.... Nobody can know that. Maybe this war is completely necessary, and there's no way it could have been avoided. But, with this idiot behind the wheel, I have a very hard time feeling good about anything the US is doing these days. When so much of the world is against us on this decision, it just makes me wonder even more. Is this really necessary? Are the motives really humanitarian? Is there no better way?
yrs,
Ephemeriis
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Before WWII the US was a rabidly isolationist country. Over 90% of Americans were against going to war until Pearl Harbor.
After the war, the US became a "Super Power" (a term I really hate btw) as a counter balance against the Soviets. It is quite probable the Soviet Union would have overrun the rest of Europe without the US presence.
Now we are the lone "Super Power". No one wants a Super Power, even a benevolent one, without some counter balance. Also, there is always pressure from allies and from our own politicians to use that power for their own national/political interests. An example of this is the Bosnia/Kosovo wars. Our allies in Nato put pressure on the US to get involved there. Another example is Somalia. As long as the US is out front in military confrontations, even justified ones, we will continue to create enmity even with those who wanted us to get involved.
I see 2 paths we can take here. We can continue slowly becomming more imperialistic in response to attacks by people we have made enemies creating even more enemies in the process or we can begin withdrawing our military from bases all over the world. I for one favor the latter. It is time for a return to isolationism.
We can keep the bloated, unnecessary military budget as long as the military takes in people our schools are unable to educate and teach them. We can keep the bases within the US that politicians find so hard to close for political and economic reasons. It would be a social/education program of sorts. Perhaps not the most efficient one but it would have more political support and the military/industrial complex would go along with it.
History is so yesterday!
Those who charge the U.S. with "throwing the U.N. in the dustbin" implicitly admit that the U.N. comes to little or nothing without the U.S. -- its money and military force. The U.S. provides 25% of the U.N.'s budget, and over 30% of its peacekeeping force costs. Please remember this when you accuse the U.S. in this way.
I think it would be a mistake to assume that the U.N. represents perfect moral and international authority; it's better than nothing, but it is still just a forum where nations bicker and politic as usual.
Remember that the Security Council did not authorize force in the Balkans either (thanks, France and Russia). The U.N. also voted the U.S. off of its human rights commission, in favor of Sudan and Libya. This is the organization that declares what international justice is?
I only claim that America is no worse than other nations in pursuing its national interests while pursuing international interests as well. Tone done the rhetoric, eh? I find all this hyperbole about the evil U.S. hurtful and narrow-minded.