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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
And the reason the Nazi's needed to be defeated was the fact that they attacked and invaded other countries, just as the US is now doing.
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?
Uhm ... when did it defeat Communism?
...
And the only way you will defeat terrorism is to kill every single person on the face of the earth.
After all, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
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"?
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.
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.
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 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.
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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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
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.
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.
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
Exactly what would constitute a case for war? How about solid proof of capability to, or inmminent intent to commit an act of agression.
As for the whole "violations of the Iraqi people's basic human rights", that is an internal affair of a sovreign nation. I don't see that we have invaded any other countries that have in that past commited random acts of agression, have weapons of mass distruction and/or commited acts of human rights abuse against their own people, and that list is quite long: China, Japan, Russia (the entire USSR and Soviet block), India, USA, Colombia, Cuba, the list goes on.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
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
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.
... 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.