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.

Comments

And today

[Daikiki]

I am ashamed to call myself an American.

Re:And today

[Anonymous Coward]

Then leave. Nobody forces you to remain an American.

Re:And today

[gnuadam]

An alcoholic is always an alcoholic. George Bush, probably by his own admission, is simply an alcoholic who has stopped drinking.

Re:And today

[freaq]

This from your post:
He's trying to avoid the war, even at this point.

So, ordering a military strike is part of trying to avoid a war? Back in the day, I could never get drugs so good.
The correct spelling is 'Warmonger', or, more accurately, 'war criminal'. And no, I'm not going to hang myself.
===
(sorry for feeding the ac troll. it's good practice)

Re:And today

[tha_mink]

War Criminal? Really? ... Exactly how? Simply waging war doesn't make someone a war criminal. Maybe attacking your own civilians could qualify someone, but...who in the world would do that?

Re:And today

[UniverseIsADoughnut]

>> Yep, Clinton was a class act, you're right he was a draft-dodging, cocain snorting, alcohol drinking, intern fuckin, moron!

don't know about the cocain smoking but anyways. Even if he was all these, it doesn't matter.

Clinton will still go down in history as one of the best presidents the United States had. The US and the world is a much better place for what he did. The things you mention have jack shit to do with what he did as president. Are you saying those who drink alcohol are bad? theres a lot of bad people then. Draft dodging? so your saying doing what you beilive in is wrong? some may not like it if he did it, but he felt one way. Others did to, it's his right to do such. And far as the intern. Get it threw your fucking head, it was his personal life, it had no effect on the US. The republicans are the one's who assamed america. They showed the world how no one can have a personal life or privacy. They showed how you can be put on trial for things that arn't even ilegal. Clinton had his faults, but they were nothing that anyone else doesn't have. To hold him to such standards would be hipicritical for nearly every american.

The saddest thing is those who say clinton was so awful turn a blind eye to Regan who sold missles to Iran and should be in prision, along with Oliver North who they get their news from. And Nixon got away from his shit on a helecoptor ride away from his resignation.

Re:And today

[Goldberg's Pants]

War criminal? Do some research into this "war" instead of being a sheep that believes what the media tell him. Saddam has

A) Never done anything to the US. The attack is unprovoked. (Do the research. Bush admitted last week that there was absolutely no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.) Unprovoked attack=War crime in my book.

B) The chemical weapons that Saddam allegedly used on his own people were, in fact, from Iran, and it was during Iran/Iraq war. There is no evidence that Saddam gassed his own people.

C) How do the US know he has these weapons? They checked the receipts. UK and US are who sold them to him. It seems the US sell arms to countries, and then blow the shit out of them for having the arms they sold them.

D) The attack is without UN backing. End result: Either the UN dissolves, or boots the US from it. The US have no place in the UN when they don't follow the rules.

But then why am I wasting my breath, you're just another sheep who believes what the mass media (who admit they've been hamstrung by Bush) tells you.

Re:And today

[geekee]

That 1994 treaty Clinton brokered with N. Korea was a real winner. Plus he let Saddam off the hook after he kicked out the inspectors. He failed to take out bin Laden when a clear opportunity presented itself. One of the best presidents my ass.

Re:And today

[very]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
As long as no one is shoving it down anybody else's throat.

Re:And today

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Unprovoked attack=War crime in my book.

So the 1991 war was a war crime? You remember, the one called for by the UN, which the United States led? Even though the United States hadn't been attacked, or even threatened?

You have a very naive view of what constitutes a legal war, my friend.

There is no evidence that Saddam gassed his own people.

Okay. I don't agree, but for sake of argument, okay. So?

How do the US know he has these weapons? They checked the receipts. UK and US are who sold them to him.

Again, okay. I don't agree-- in point of fact, many countries, including France and Russia, have provided Iraq with weapons and weapon precursors that are now proscribed; Iraq got their first weapons-related nuclear reactor from France, and all those fancy-schmancy Scud missiles that Iraq had in 1991 came from the USSR. But okay. Again, so? You have successfuly demonstrated that the United States of America is not perfect. Whoopty-shit.

The attack is without UN backing.

As a matter of fact, it isn't. The United States, along with all the other members of the UN Security Council, is authorized explicitly under UNSCR 678 to use "all necessary means" to resolve the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait. Because Iraq has never, not even for a split second, been in compliance with the terms of the cease-fire that temporarily ended hostilities in 1991, the Security Council members are fully authorized by the UN to use whatever means they see fit, including war, to achieve Iraqi compliance.

Re:And today

[tetro]

What did he do to benefit the country? He kept on swaying back and forth on issues and used vagueness to keep himself scott free. If he's considered the best president because of the economy, you have to realize that a single president can't have that effect. Oh yeah, wasn't the dotcom boom going on around that time? Strangely, the dotbomb happened towards the end of his presidency, thus drastically affecting the economy. Having GWB come in during that time was coincidental. Best president still and always has been Lincoln. He ended slavery and reunited a split country. Don't use best so loosely, it just kills its meaning.

Re:And today

[thynk]

It's probably a good thing that I'll never be President. I don't want the job for one thing, I'm not qualified for another, and last but not least I'd probably get in a lot of trouble for making a parking lot out of any country that pissed me off before my morning coffee, and let me tell you, before that first cup of Joe in the AM, it doesn't take much.

A few points about your post... Adultry is illegal, lying under oath is illegal. Commiting adultry while "on the clock" makes it a public matter - not a private one, and is detramental for the organization that it occures in.

I've YET to hear one backed up fact that President Clinton did to benift the United States of America, much less the world.

President Bush had my vote in the last election, he'll have it in the next one to come. We must accept that his decisions come from information that the general public is not privy to, and that he has the a support staf of experts to assist those decisions, and has to have the vast majority of his decisions approved by congress.

Is the war right or wrong? I feel in my heart that it is, but I don't think about it every day, nor do I do in depth research into the reasons why. It's not my job and I doubt that the vast majority of people do not have the information at their disposal to make a truly informed decision. I spoke with my vote during the election, and trust those that I helped put into office to do their jobs. If I feel strongly about something, then I ensure that my voice is heard to my elected represenatives.

Wow, and this started off as an attempt to be funny. OOPS.

Re:And today

[stiggle]

And the first this Bush has done is ALLOW the largest terrorist act in the world to happen. Many allies - including the likes of Germany (using information from the same sources as available to the US) warned about 9-11 in the June before it happened. He's now started a war and destroyed the integrity of the UN, ignored International Law and by saying its perfectly legal as a "pre-emtive defensive strike" for the likes of North Korea to nuke Washington because the USA has threatened them. They can say it was a pre-emptive strike to stop the USA attacking them in the future. Clinton - Israel-Palastine agreements, Northern Ireland, various international trading agreements. He didn't bin the Kyoto Agreement on the Environment where as Bush binned it and allowed more pollution from the Energy Industry buddies.

Re:And today

[smagruder]

There is no evidence that Saddam gassed his own people.

This is the problem with leftists. They won't acknowledge evidence that is widely available and agreed with (basically facts that are in front of their face) in order to madly oppose this just war.

Re:And today

[Bedouin X]

Well it's funny. The US government said the same thing.

Re:And today

[nkv]

It is kind of depressing that such even with protests all over the world by so many people, the US has decided to go ahead with the war.I don't think any of the "pre emptive" strike stuff is justification for actually bombing the country. No matter where it is. Saddam needs to be ousted true but bombing the place and hurting civilans is not the way to do that.
The number of people who actually opposed it sort of boosted my faith in humanity and reason but the fact that it didn't help much shook this faith.

Re:And today

[MilesBehind]

Attacking your own civilians does not make you a war criminal, you cockmonger. It's when you attack another country and don't abide by the rules of international warfare and human rights. Like denying imprisoned combatants red cross help and holding them incommunicado in Cuba, even without declaring war properly.

This is what scares me the most. Not that Saddam is getting ousted, he should've been by UN a long time ago. It's the fact that it is done by a nation comprised of people who can't spell for shit and have the foggiest of understanding of what the hell they are doing in the world, and why they are doing it.

Now, if I was a wee muslim lad, watching Baghdad burn on CNN, I'd grow up admiring americans for their love of liberty, democracy, sovereignty and human rights. Sure.

Re:And today

[bigmouth_strikes]

The United States, along with all the other members of the UN Security Council, is authorized explicitly under UNSCR 678 to use "all necessary means" to resolve the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait.

No, you are wrong.

Resolution 678 says that "all necessary means" are allowed to enforce resolution 660.

Resolution 660:

1. Condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait;

2. Demands that Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally all s its forces to the positions in which they were located on 1 August 1990;

3. Calls upon Iraq and Kuwait to begin immediately intensive negotiations for the resolution of their differences and supports all efforts in this regard, and especially those of the League of Arab States;

4. Decides to meet again as necessary to consider further steps with to ensure compliance with the present resolution.

Now, tell me how resolution 678 gives the US authorization to attack Iraq.

References:
678
660

Re:And today

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Resolution 678 says that "all necessary means" are allowed to enforce resolution 660.

S/RES/678 (1990)
29 November 1990

RESOLUTION 678 (1990)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2963rd meeting on 29 November 1990

The Security Council,

Recalling, and reaffirming its resolutions 660 (1990) of 2 August (1990), 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 662 (1990) of 9 August 1990, 664 (1990) of 18 August 1990, 665 (1990) of 25 August 1990, 666 (1990) of 13 September 1990, 667 (1990) of 16 September 1990, 669 (1990) of 24 September 1990, 670 (1990) of 25 September 1990, 674 (1990) of of 29 October 1990 and 677 (1990) of 28 November 1990.

Noting that, despite all efforts by the United Nations, Iraq refuses to comply with its obligation to implement resolution 660 (1990) and the above-mentioned subsequent relevant resolutions, in flagrant contempt of the Security Council,

Mindful of its duties and responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance and preservation of internationalnd peace and security,

Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter,

1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwil, to do so;

2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;

3. Requests all States to provide appropriate support for the actions undertaken in pursuance of paragraph 2 of the present resolution;

4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;

5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

dang

[LBArrettAnderson]

that was fast.

I still think they should wait a day or 2 for some more psychological effect on the people, and possibly more defections.

anyone know if the sandstorm is worse for American troops and equipment or iraqi visibility?

Re:dang

[sx10]

I think huge bombs exploding will produce a sufficient psychological effect...

Re:dang

[nyc_paladin]

The military is more concerned about how the dust is going to affect night visiblity.

Re:dang

[Peterus7]

Oh, the sandstorms... Yeah. The general just saw the Children of Dune trilogy on sci fi channel and has gone fremen on the Iraqis.

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.

Re:dang

[frankthechicken]

Still, I'm secretly hoping Bush is saying to himself, "Damn. They called my bluff."

Mmm, I was sort of hoping there was am agreement between france etc. and the US etc. one set of countries playing good cop, the other playing bad cop, just to un-nerve Saddam, keep him on edge, create the tension required for him to get rid of his weapons, get his ass out of Iraq. Unfortunately it just seems that the coallition was just hell bent on regime change. Let's just hope it's quick, clean and simple.

Still gives me an oppurtuntiy to respout my favorite palindrome:-

Drat Saddam, a mad dastard.

Re:dang

[Ninja Master Gara]

They said it was an attack of opportunity, there was no time for psyche effects, they just rolled the d20 and crossed their fingers like the rest of us.

Re:dang

[Typhon100]

Mmm, I was sort of hoping there was am agreement between france etc. and the US etc. one set of countries playing good cop, the other playing bad cop, just to un-nerve Saddam, keep him on edge, create the tension required for him to get rid of his weapons, get his ass out of Iraq

I think a unified front would have put a LOT more pressure on Saddam. Ironically, if the French hadn't opposed us, we might actually have had a peaceful resolution.

Re:dang

[Ponty]

For God's sake -- do you really believe that? Do you honestly beleive that there was any result but war for the administration? If so, you really need to stop drinking the kool-aid they're feeding you.

Re:dang

[DJPenguin]

Drat Saddam, a mad dastard

Now if only his name was Sabdam !

the draft

[King of Caffiene]

i'm looking forward to the draft, whos with me?

Re:the draft

[LBArrettAnderson]

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.

Re:the draft

[Gimpin]

Yes, words of a true anonymous coward. Weather you support it or not, have the balls to stand up.

Re:the draft

[YrWrstNtmr]

The military neither wants nor needs a draft. The volunteer force is more than capable enough to handle any potential adversary.

"The United States is not going to implement a military draft, because there is no need for it, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Jan. 7."

hand waving by Charlie Rangle notwithstanding

Re:the draft

[Gimpin]

Read the post stupid...it's addressed to anonymous coward. I didn't tell you and your anonymous buddies to make a choice to do anything, I said quit hiding and speak out with your identities. If I was to tell you to do anything, it would be to go fuck yourself, whatever your stance is.

Re:the draft

[penguinboy]

I contend that many companies don't look at prior military service as an asset. Many companies don't operate like the military, and expertise in a large, bloated organization is usually exactly what managers DON'T need. They need fast, independent thinkers.

In an ideal world, yes. However, reality is far from ideal.

Re:the draft

[jxs2151]

You are sadly misinformed, projecting your desires as if they are the truth.

The fact is that the military is well-educated and businesses love us former military types. Pieces of shit like you get pushed aside as the hiring manager wants someone who can think for themselves and WHO THEY CAN COUNT ON, not some slacker who is full of himself, bathes every week, and wanders in to work on occasion.

I loved applying for jobs knowing that I had the advantage and watched as the degreed losers like you got to continue their job search while I got a letter offering me more money than I really wanted- all because of four letters on my resume. I'll see if you are smart enough to figure them out.

Also, please tell me just how you know that the "best and brightest" avoided military service? Care to back up that assertion with facts?

Me and my fellow ex-military peers have and will continue to leave pukes like you whining behind us as we advance up the ladder while you console yourself with the idea that you are better than someone because you are too chickenshit to defend your freedoms.

See this document on the honorable way to server your contry

Re:the draft

[dogfart]

Personally, I've found folks with the right type of experience in the military to be an asset - I mean maybe 4 yrs in a good technical position. Sharp, responsible, yet adaptable enough to function in the most nimble civilian environment.

Now the dinosaurs who have spent their entire adult lives in the military are an entirely different matter....

Re:the draft

[standards]

Sorry that I hurt you.

I'm just saying it like I see it. Please don't cry.

Re:the draft

[FatalTourist]

I could go for a brew myself!

Re:the draft

[Chester K]

I'm waiting to see how the playoffs go first, myself.

Re:the draft

[cheezedawg]

With the B2 bomber and JADM precision guided weapons, a bombing raid that took 10,000 troops to support in WWII can now be carried out by 2 people. Technology has eliminated the need for a draft.

Re:the draft

[finkployd]

My experience matches what you said, Millitary experience does help a career in many cases, and there are some pretty intelligent people who served in the military (and some drolling morons, fortunatly they rarely go far in their service)

However, had you have expressed your point with a little less profanity and without the insults, you might have convinced someone.

Finkployd

Re:the draft

[micromoog]

I got a letter offering me more money than I really wanted- all because of four letters on my resume. I'll see if you are smart enough to figure them out.

BDSM?

Re:the draft

[cehardin]

>Sorry that I hurt you.
>I'm just saying it like I see it. Please don't cry.

You are obviously are very immature person with little experience in the world. Please don't cry.

Re:the draft

[Bangback]

Busted link but an interesting article. Unfortunately, its thesis is that the hawks lack military experience and thus may be somewhat casual in their quest for war; not that military experience is useless as you suggest.

Actually most big companies are large and bloated just like the military. That's why they like military guys -- we know how to get the mission accomplished in that environment through fast, independent thinking.

I wouldn't call most of the "chicken hawks" the best and brightest, just the highest ranking. They are a sad commentary (even for a Republican) on the curse of a presidential system. Frankly, I neither wanted or expected Paul Wolfowitz when voting for Bush. (Though Gore's equivalents were likely equally extremist and unacceptable).

Re:the draft

[ndogg]

It's not going to happen for a few reasons...

The military hates conscripts. They learnt their lesson in Vietnam. Conscripts are the worst soldiers you could have in an army. They're going to be first soldiers in Saddam's army to be surrendering. Actually, they already are.

We already have an enormous force. The only other military force that has higher numbers of soldiers is China, but the reason for that is pretty obvious.

While we've deployed many people over there, we haven't deployed all of them. I have friends who could still be deployed, but haven't been (they're actually bummed that they haven't been yet, and we occasionally give them crap about it all.)

Technologically, we are the most advanced military on this planet.

Re:the draft

[jxs2151]

Not what I had in mind but same thing in a way :-)

Re:the draft

[someguy]

Is America's Army really driving up enlistment? I thought most geeks had a pretty decent sense of dividing reality from gaming...

Re:the draft

[jxs2151]

little less profanity

Sorry I hurt your sensitive little feelings.

Re:the draft

[jxs2151]

Hurt me?

Hahahahaha

Is that the best you could come up with?

OMG, I have had better arguments with sixth graders.

Re:the draft

[LBArrettAnderson]

i have 7 or 8 non-geek friends who play AA... (and 30-40 non-geek friends all together). I played it a few times, the people who played it were not geeks for the most part.

Re:the draft

[Gortbusters.org]

What constitutes a need for it? How about a war on multiple fronts, like with North Korea and Saddam at the same time? What if the so-called Axis of evil wants to divide our forces and conquer... I'm sure the nukes would fly before then, but hey.. maybe we'll avoid world destruction yet!

Re:the draft

[joeyspqr]

i am too, especially since i'm too old for it. have fun kid, and thanks for doing your part to keep my SUV on the road. i hope you and the rest of the troops think the flag sticker on the rear window is thanks enough, because i'm not willing to pay higher taxes to support you and the rest of grunts doing what it takes to keep the world safe for my stock portfolio.

Re:the draft

[ZaMoose]

It's JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition), not JADM.

[/Pedantic]

Re:the draft

[KalvinB]

A draft would just result in a lot of untrained individuals mucking up operations out of ignorance or spite for being there. The people who are there are TRAINED to be there.

Imagine having a draft for people to do server maintainance for Fortune 500 companies with only your birthdate as a credential. Or, as a real world example, look how dedicated the Iraqi soldiers are. Surrendering before the war even started.

Yeah, it'd be something like that.

Ben

Re:the draft

[mrselfdestrukt]

Draft? Doh! I thought you said draught .As in beer.

Re:the draft

[MegaHamsterX]

That's why Government jobs give points to military vetrans.

Re:the draft

[DrMaurer]

Well, of course, all the marines I've ever met have given me this attitude, it's interesting, really. Army folk don't have this; Air Force, nope; and Navy, the folks who sign your checks, last I heard, sure as hell don't. Even officers for the other branches don't even come close.

"But they're not Marines!"

Navy Seals don't act that way, seriously.

Take your four letters as you will, you are free. If I disagree, threaten to stomp my guts out, go ahead and kill me; it won't make you any more right.

Not that I agree with the fellow you're replying to, either, I really just want to pick on the fucker who's been taking all the jobs from me.

Ass.

Re:the draft

[nelsonal]

FYI, China includes a very large number of quasi-military personell in their totals. The last time I checked on figures (in the mid 90's) the PRC army was about 4 million, but only about 1 million of those were regulars, the rest were the police, and other security and infastructure forces. At the time that was just over our numbers, if you include reservists and active.

Re:the draft

[delong]

The United States is not going to implement a military draft, because there is no need for it, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Jan. 7."

Especially since Rumsfeld was one of the principle architects of the all-volunteer force.

Derek

Re:the draft

[ratamacue]

The United States is not going to implement a military draft, because there is no need for it, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Jan. 7.

I'd feel much better about it if their reason was because the draft is immoral and unconstitutional, not because they simply "don't need it" this time around.

A free people cannot be forced to fight in a war they don't support.

Re:the draft

[Rai]

*starts learning the words to Oh Canada*

Re:the draft

[jxs2151]

And what happens when you start using grammar like that? Do you still climb up the corporate ladder?

Nah, we then become lame-ass Anonymous Coward spellcheckers on /.

Re:the draft

[Reziac]

If I were an employer, one thing an honourable discharge tells me is that here's someone who can do a job and stick to it, even if they don't like it (after all, not many folks accuse basic training of being a picnic). It doesn't matter if the applicant is a bright guy or just getting by -- a military veteran (whether he's seen combat or not) has already demonstrated at least general reliability and the ability to follow lawful orders. And that's worth something to an employer.

Re:the draft

[bofkentucky]

You mean like my boss...It's wierd, most of the (male) management in the place is retired USMC or Army. Only 2 of the executives have not served at least some time (Human Services and Telecom Operations) at least a draft enlistment during Vietnam. Its wierd because everyone at the top is drawing a pension check for their service, and their paycheck. My manager (101st Airborne) fell off his roof in September, was in surgery on monday to set pins in leg and was on ordered FMLA, but came into the office on Tuesday just to hang out becuase he was bored...I go to the office to be bored most days.

PsyOps

[MaximumBob]

The talking heads are reporting that this may or may not have been a PsyOp, saying that it was likely targeted at Iraqi leadership or command and control.

The Iranian news agency is also reporting that there may be explosions on the peninsula near Basra. Tony Blair will be addressing the UK at 10:30 EST (3:30 AM GMT, I think).

Re:PsyOps

[The Tyro]

The psyops have been ongoing for a while... leaflets, Email, etc.

By contrast, this is an actual combat operation, with real ordinance being launched.

Let's hope this conflict is short and effective... hooah!

Re:PsyOps

[ihatewinXP]

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.

Re:PsyOps

[ngv1024]

Notice the activity of D.C.'s and San Fran's routers on www.internetpulse.net

Re:PsyOps

[McCarrum]

PsyOps Operation #31: Drop Microsoft EULA's on the Enemy.

Re:PsyOps

[dogfart]

PsyOps? Wasn't this called "propaganda" in Oldspeak? My how the English language has changed.

Re:PsyOps

[mythr]

I'm quite sure there's something in the Geneva Treaty about that, and if there's not, there should be!

Re:PsyOps

[JonnyCalcutta]

The Iranian news agency is also reporting that there may be explosions on the peninsula near Basra. Tony Blair will be addressing the UK at 10:30 EST (3:30 AM GMT, I think)

Eh, try PM. Even if you can't work out the difference between -5 hours GMT and -5 hours did it not seem odd that Tony Blair would be making a speach to his own country at 3:30 in the morning?

Re:PsyOps

[Black Parrot]

> The talking heads are reporting that this may or may not have been a PsyOp

More likely the Bush Administration is disappointed that Saddam didn't give them the political cover that they so desperately need and want by carrying out the much predicted preemptive attack using weapons of mass destruction, and this is their way of telling him he's got one more chance to do that.

Somebody in Washington wants political cover for the invasion a heck of a lot more than they're letting on. They keeps saying "We don't need authorization from the {Congress,UN}", but they've been trying like heck to get it.

Traditionally when you want to fight an unjust war you arrange an "incident" to get your citizens' dander up, and I'm starting to think that's the strategy they've adopted. Don't be surprised at anything you hear on the news this week.

And don't be surprised at what you find out about this month's events several years from now, either. This might be a good time to recall the "Tonkin Gulf Incident".

Re:PsyOps

[EllisDees]

Seriously. Watch international news and be amazed at how the American media is just a bunch of cheerleaders.

prayers

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:prayers

[BFaucet]

"Impossible, you got to choose a team."

Is that a joke?

Re:prayers

[Erwos]

Amen. Speaking as an American who supports this war, I would be extremely happy if we could have zero casualties on all sides, yet remove our friend Saddam and his boys from power and replace them with a democracy. Unfortunately, I don't think that'll happen without a few people gettnig killed. A shame, I think. Sometimes, war is justified - but it's never a good thing, and we should pray that body counts on all sides are as low as possible.

-Erwos

Re:Prayers

[redelvis]

While we are at it, let's at least have the decency to get their name right : civilians of "Iraq".

Mind you ..... Keep up this talk of "Irak" and Bush will think he is bombing the wrong country and get the Atlas out looking for "this damn Irak place".

Re:Prayers

[Alternity]

Sorry for that mistake of mine... Turns out the french (my first language as a french Canadian) name for that country actually is Irak and not Iraq...

Re:Prayers

[cK-Gunslinger]

First Gulf war killed 1.5 millions of them.

That's a highly disturbing statistic. Do you have any origin for this number? It has a slight anal-smell to it, as if you perhaps recently pulled it from somewhere...

I hate people who sneak in misleading propaganda like this in an otherwise valid post.

Re:prayers

[ktambascio]

I too support this war, and I hope and pray for as few civilian casualties as possible. I want every Iraqi citizen to enjoy freedom and liberty after that asshole dictator has been blown into 1000 pieces.

Re:prayers

[Anonymous Coward]

read this on a t-shirt, it seems appropriate: Fighting for peace is like having sex for virginity.

Re:prayers

[dudle]

No. War does not always bring peace. Look at the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Blood brings blood.

Re:prayers

[Anonymous Coward]

No you're satan.

Re:prayers

[Paradise Pete]

No you're satan.

That's Know your Satan.

Re:prayers

[CameronGary]

Do you understand hyperbole and sarcasm that badly? The phrase compares one statement with another, obviously false statement. Thus, the first statement looks false. It's called an analogy ...

Re:prayers

[LilGuy]

By democracy you mean a government that would ally with us and give us cheap easy access to the oil fields, right?

Re:prayers

[foniksonik]

Amen.

Re:Prayers

[KiahZero]

"At the same time, we are reasonably confident that the total number of civilians killed directly by allied attacks did not exceed several thousand, with an upper limit of perhaps between 2,500 and 3,000 Iraqi dead. These numbers, we note, do not include the substantially larger number of deaths that can be attributed to malnutrition, disease and lack of medical care caused by a combination of the U.N.-mandated embargo and the allies' destruction of Iraq's electrical system, with its severe secondary effects (see Chapter Four)." -- Human Rights Watch. The quote is in the intro.

Note that we bombed a country back to the stone age for 2500 to 3000 civilian casualties (and caused about 3000-3400 there).

Re:prayers

[ToraX242]

"Sometimes, war is justified..."
No. Not at all. War means killing people. If you've ever heard anything about Jesus-part of the bible, then you'll know that killing other people is the worst of all sins, even worse than not believing in god at all.
May the gods of all the responsible people have mercy upon their souls and show them only a fraction of what they did to this earth.

ToraX
--
What's the opposite of good? - well meant

Re:prayers

[gakguk]

"...replace them with a democracy."

Democracy is a culture which can only be learned by experience in a long time. You can't just put democratic institutions into a country and expect it to work without some democratic seeds in minds.

We are trying to walk on this road in Turkey for the last 100 years and still have many flaws. This part of the world is tough. Think about this.

Re:prayers

[targo]

Speaking as an American who supports this war

This sentence really says everything.
As an American, you shouldn't really have any say over any war unless you've personally partcipated in one because your 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.
Are you saying you support all that?
There is absolutely no justification for that as long as there are any alternatives.
And the current American administration certainly didn't want to use any of these alternatives. Why the hell was there such a hurry to start this war?

Re:prayers

[ehiris]

War doesn't bring peace. Peace is always after war because there's nothing else to replace it if it ends.

Re:prayers

[wdr1]

Your rational is completely off base.

So we shouldn't have helped with World War II since it was not on our soil?

Would shouldn't have stopped the genocide in Bosnia because it was not on our soil?

-Bill

Re:prayers

[Halo1]

A war that is not finished is a war that is not finished.

War brings peace.

Yeah, and a storm that's not finished is a storm that's not finished.

Storms bring sunshine.

Re:prayers

[targo]

So we shouldn't have helped with World War II since it was not on our soil?
Would shouldn't have stopped the genocide in Bosnia because it was not on our soil?

Well, there is a huge difference between ending a war and starting one. This is what separates justified and unjustified military action.

Re:prayers

[Threni]

Yeah, and when there's love on the table, who needs gravy?

Re:prayers

[slashmenno]

But who put the bad guy in place? And who gave him the so called weapons of mass destruction? Yeah, the Bush administration still has the receipts and a copy of the invoices...

War indeed is BAD! The US is just cleaning up the mess THEY made in order to gain more control of the region.

Re:Prayers

[PyroMosh]

Agreed. According to Human Rights Watch the numbers of civilian dead couldn't have exceeded 2500 to 3000. Probably much lower.

The allies admits to two strikes that killed civilians. One was a technical failure on a British RAF smart bomb that hit a market instead of a nearby bridge. Since it was a technical malfunction, and the target was legitimate no blame was assigned.

The other was an intelligence failure. An air attack on the Al-Firdus command and control bunker. It was thought to be a legitimate target. A military command and control bunker. But for reasons that as far as I know are still unknown today, there were civilians in it. Several hundred of them were killed. General Chuck Horner, the Allied Air Component Commander during the gulf war (in other words he ran the entire Air War) talks about the incident in the book he coauthored with Tom Clancy Every Man A Tiger. He goes on to say that they should have asked harder questions. It had a low enough priority that it wasn't hit until the Air War was nearly 4 weeks old. He argues that if it was that low a priority, then did they really need to hit it? He makes good arguments for *why* the mistake was made, and he admits that it was a combination of factors including an allied intel failure that led to the tragedy.

Look, nobody likes war. But sometimes it's necessary to end ongoing suffering. I hardly agree with Bush on anything. I question his motives. But I do think Hussein has had this coming. He's a tyrant, and there are more parallels between him and Hitler than most people realize. The Allies in the Gulf War took more precautions to prevent civilian casualties than any other force in any other war in history. And they were largely successful. The technology of smart bombs allows us to do that. This isn't WWII or Vietnam. There's no REASON to carpet bomb and endanger civilians. And it's just plain wrong. I hope that this war ends quickly and that casualties are kept to an absolute minimum. The Iraqi people have certain human rights. And they're not getting them living under the rule of Hussein.

I don't agree with Bush's motives. But the liberation of Iraqi people is just the right thing to do! How can we be against that?

They say the U.S. "can't be the world's police force". Maybe. But I'm not sure it's that cut and dry. It's like walking by someone who's drowning in a river and saying "I can't be the river's lifeguard". Are you responsible for saving the person? No. But I think that you're morally obligated to do everything in your power to help. I see no reason that this logic shouldn't scale up to nations. If there is suffering and one nation can help to end the suffering, they *should* take action. Using military force, economic aid, disaster relief personnel, whatever. But sort of like a Hippocratic oath, it's important that whatever actions are taken not cause more suffering than they eliminate.

General William Tecumseh Sherman said "War's Legitimate Object Is More Perfect Peace." (thanks to Wyatt Earp (1029) for the quote). It's true. That's the only legitimate reason to go to war. And hopefully that's what we'll get with as little loss of life as possible.

I only wish that our current President hadn't botched things so badly that we have virtually *no* international support. Other Presidents would have acted differently. G.H.W. Bush understood the importance of building a coalition. Clinton certainly had his finger on the pulse of the international scene and he was a competent diplomat. Reagan liked to act unilaterally, but he wasn't a bat-shit crazy cowboy when he did so. Carter would have found a diplomatic solution, or at least he would have put so much effort into finding one that nobody would ever be able to question the legitimacy of going to war. I just think that this is embarassing. Hussein definitely needs to go, but I wish there were someone else to do it other than a G.W. Bush.

Re:prayers

[slashmenno]

Moreover, the US has supported Saddam Hussein for many years when they needed him, even though he was already terrorizing his people. Now that they don't need him anymore, they say he is evil and try to get rid of him. He's got weapons of mass destruction, they say. The US government can know, because they sold them to him. Ah, but Bush is going to end the killing of innocent people and torturing, right? Is he finally going to do something about the death penalty is his own country? And what about the people from Afganistan they keep on Cuba? Are they being treated well? Guess not. And what's the next target? The US simply needs to have an enemy. My guess is that North Korea will be next, but perhaps China can prevent that. Let's hope so and let's hope that that can be resolved more peacefully.

Re:prayers

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Speaking as an American who thinks that an act of aggression against a supinely compliant nation of children bombed and blockaded into disease and starvation for 12 years is a war crime...

Um. Which nation are you talking about, exactly? Iraq? Iraq isn't supinely compliant; they're openly defiant. They're obviously not a nation of children, and they haven't been blockaded into disease or starvation. Iraq's imports of food and medicine are not now and have never been affected by any of the various sanctions regimes imposed by the UN or the US. In fact, on many occasions representatives from the UN have pleaded with Iraq to import more food and medicine, but the Iraqi government refuses.

As for the rest of your post, it's unsubstantiated folderol. Would you care to provide an example, please, of "lies, propaganda, subterfuge, bribery and bullying threats" perpetrated by the Bush administration? And remember, this is a discussion of fact, not of opinion; simply posting a link to an editorial that accuses the administration of one of those things without substantiation is not going to convince anybody. Let's hear some facts, or let's drop it.

Re:prayers

[triptolemeus]

Starvation after war

Another one

Iraq's imports of food and medicine are not now and have never been affected by any of the various sanctions regimes imposed by the UN or the US.
You might want to update your knowledge here

And at the risk of starting a flamewar: an example, please, of "lies, propaganda, subterfuge, bribery and bullying threats". Let's think for a moment about the way George Bush has become 'president'. Here is something to get you started reading on that one.

Makes me wonder how you can install a democracy if you aren't a democratic leader yourself.

Re:prayers

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there is a huge difference between ending a war and starting one.

Yeah, we're ending a war that began 12 years ago. After Saddam is deposed , we'll be able to cease the intermittent bombing, root out any WMDs, and (most importantly) end the economic sanctions that have killed thousands and driven the entire country into ruin. Hell, I'd say that military and civilian casualties are *worth* that outcome.

Re:prayers

[ZeLonewolf]

By democracy you mean a government that would ally with us and give us cheap easy access to the oil fields, right?

Actually, the ENTIRE Persian Gulf region only accounts for 10% of US oil imports...and Saudi and Kuwait each have far more oil than Iraq. Go look it up, it'll be good homework for you...

Re:prayers

[LynXmaN]

Only for your information.
The US entered WWII in Europe because there were Germany plans to invade the US that were discovered by the UK, you can inform yourself about that in any history and cryptography site.
The US entered in war with Japan because they were threatening the Phillipines, the attack on Pearl Harbor was known several weeks before it happened, but the US high rank office decided not to inform Pearl Harbor's responsible about that attack so they could enter the war for "protectional" reasons, you can inform yourself about that on Internet also.

Re:prayers

[Carbonite]

No, I believe he meant a government that doesn't:

- Gas its own people
- Physically torture its national athletes when they fail
- Purposely place weapons near civilian facilites in hope of colleteral damage
- Spend its money on palaces while children starve

Re:prayers

[Gauchito]

Or look at Afghanistan, which had a brutal regime replaced by a "democracy" that only exists in the capital, so that all that was replaced was stability for chaos.

The US is terrible at nation-building, and Iraq is the biggest and most divided country they have yet tried. Without a well-thought out post-Iraq plan, which we DON'T have, we aren't doing the people any favors.

Re:prayers

[JeanBaptiste]

israel-palestine
the big problem there is that the US wont let either side achieve complete victory, and there will not be peace until one side is completely victorious.

I really dont care much either way, but I think if the US were to go hands off in that region, the country of Israel would probably own the middle east in 5-10 years. Their military is soooo far ahead of its neighbors, and their neighbors would stupidly attack them first, then get wiped. I think the US is deterring Israel from doing that with $$$. Oh, and arabs hate jews and want Israel gone. They hate us cause we give Israel money, mostly to restrain them from retaliating in the manner they would prefer. You think if Sharon had his way there would even be talk of a palestinian state? So the arabs think were helping the jews, when in reality were helping the arabs not get their butts kicked. Israel has never lost a war. Its a big mess over there and there probably isnt a way out of it for some more time.

but you really cant simplify something like that to 'blood brings blood' or 'war brings war'. Yeah, it would be great if there was no war, but pick up your history book. Its gonna happen for your grandkids and their grandkids. No amount of protesting is going to change that.

Re:prayers

[xtermz]

GWB Was in power in 81-82 ? Wow...I thought Ronald Reagan was. Hell, GW wasn't even governor yet.....

just another mindless moron spouting off "facts" you heard from your other hippie friends and your "peace rallies"....

oh! bring on the one about this being a "war for oil"......

Re:prayers

[pmz]

Look at the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Blood brings blood.

This is because they are all a bunch of selfish bigoted stubborn jerks. They bring it upon themselves.

Re:prayers

[mpe]

Democracy is a culture which can only be learned by experience in a long time. You can't just put democratic institutions into a country and expect it to work without some democratic seeds in minds.

You can't impose "democracy" anyway. The concepts are fundermentally mutually exclusive. Let alone that it's most unlikely that the US wants a democratic Iraq. The US wants a pro-US government in Iraq. It's most unlikely that one which represented the Iraqi people would be anything other than strongly anti-USA.

Re:prayers

[cascadefx]

Wait a second. That was supposed to be what happened when we (and by "we" I mean the Presidential and CIA leadership of the time)put Saddam in power.

Well, that and needing someone to take out the Iranians (and by weapons from us to support the Contras)

Re:prayers

[mpe]

Makes me wonder how you can install a democracy if you aren't a democratic leader yourself.

A democratic leader would probably know that the concept of "installing a democracy" is meaningless. Indeed a democratic leader would be concentraing on their own citizens, even those who didn't help elect them. Only going and bothering another country if they were a threat to those people. By those criteria Iraq shouldn't even be on the radar on the US government.

Re:prayers

[SubtleNuance]

Then you are obviously not listening to the UN Secruity Council and the Weapons Inspectors.

Repeating something on CNN 100000 times *DOES NOT* make it true. As for your refutation of American "lies, propaganda, subterfuge bribery and bullying" PLEASE READ THE FOREIGN PRESS. You will find ample evidence that the US supplied the UN inspectors obiously forged docuemnts relating to Iraq's attempt to buy Nuclear materials, aluminum tubes are not nuclear-weapons related, the drone was a toy, the NSA was bugging the UNSC members, Brussels was bugged, there is no ties between Iraq && OBL (your own CIA said so), the proof given by Britain/US of WMD was stolen from a 12 yr old student's reasearch paper, Powell's pics to UNSC were 12yrs old -- etc etc etc etc etc

I dont have time to find all this stuff - and it will ONLY BE NEWS TO YOU(!) - but if you did even the most MINOR research you will have no trouble finding it. Start by reading BBC.co.uk and cbc.ca...

Re:prayers

[MoogMan]

As opposed to a government that decides to ditch UN- (that is, practically/intendedly world-) backing in the search for what they think is right? The country that thinks that their opinion is always right is the most scariest government there is.

Re:prayers

[Yet Another Smith]

As opposed to the current regime, which gives France and Russia cheap and easy access to its oil fields?

Most Gulf oil goes to Europe and Asia. It always has. Our oil mostly comes from other sources. And if we wanted to free up the oil supply, all we had to do was ease the embargo on Iraq.

Its important to remember that the first Gulf war started in August 1990, not January 1991. Iraq invaded and conquered Kuwait in order to take control over thier oil reserves. That's also why Iraq tried to invade Iran in the 1980s. Hussein wants to control oil. So yeah, the first Gulf war was about oil, because that's what Hussein intends to use to build an empire.

Re:prayers

[yoshi]

Well, there is a huge difference between ending a war and starting one. This is what separates justified and unjustified military action.

Oh, c'mon, that is a patently ridiculous assertion. Just a couple of examples:

• US Revolutionary War - started to secure freedoms denied by the British crown - that's unjustifiable?
• French Revolutionary War - much the same, but if the cause of revolt against tyranny is justifiable, then was all of the bloodshed and infighting justified?
• US Civil War - fought against secession and slavery - again, by your reckoning, the Confederacy should have been left alone.

There is no hard and fast rule about justifiable war; aggression, "he started it," defense of this, opposition to that, it doesn't matter. History will ALWAYS make assessments of justifiability after the dust has settled; that's the way of it.

Regardless of justifiability (and no, the point of this is not to defend this or any other particular military action), the critical thing is how the war is conducted. In fact, views of justifiability are always going to be informed by actions like rape/torture/murder vs. active effort to keep civilians out of harm's way. The US military is far from perfect, but I don't believe that there is another army out there with a better record of accountability in recent years. Unfortunately, this became policy because of the horrific atrocities in Vietnam.

Let's face it; every war has atrocities, and every country has been at various times responsible for horrible and aggressive action that has resulted in massive deaths. This includes the US, France, the UK, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Turkey, Germany, Russia, India, Pakistan, China, Japan, Nigeria, Australia, the Vatican, Spain, et. al. There are no "peace-loving" peoples; everyone wants peace. There are no "war-mongering" peoples, everyone gets involved in wars. Everyone and no-one is innocent.

If your goal is peace, fighting wars rarely makes sense; however, if your goal is better world relations, neither does demonizing 280 million people.

-Yoshi

Re:prayers

[Pros_n_Cons]

Hey did you know the US gets %55 of its oil domestically?
Hey did you know that Iraq only accounts for %3 of that?
Hey did you know the only reason we get _any_ oil from them is because of the oil 4 food program
Hey did you know that all oil on the planet is the same price no matter what country it comes from?
Hey did you know we could buy all the oil from Iraq we wanted, but we aren't a morally impotent country
like France who is funding Iraq dispite the laws _they_ put in place against such a thing?

I wanted to mod this down but the thread was too long.
How this got modded +5 is nothing less than insanity to me. And shows how uninformed people are.
Instead of their knee jerk reaction to bash America you should attempt to inform yourselvs on your
views instead of hearing it on BBC, CNN, FOX, ETC. accepting their bias view as your own.

If America puts in a fake government (they wont)is that so much worse than the puppet government already inplace?
France built a nuclear plant in Iraq, It's documented fact and it was destroyed by the Israeli's
China is the one who set up Iraq's communications system to disable GPS guided bombs, and the missles
lauched today at american troops from guess where?
Guess who Frances biggest trade partner is?
How about the 40 BILLIONdollar Russia/Iraq deal, not to mention the 7 billion they're already owed?
Notice a trend here yet?
Okay how about Germany being Iraq's #1 weapons supplier

I am only saying all this because It's obvious to me why there is anti-american rhetoric comming from all these countries (who fundsthose anyway?) THEY WANT TO GET RICH off a tyrant who gasses his people, starves them, A man who wants to take over the middle easts oil and defend it with the weapons from countries mentioned above. He thought he could do it in '91 with the worlds #6 ranked military.
well I've ranted enough already

Re:prayers

[mdurham]

Spend its money on palaces while children starve

Which could never happen here.

Re:prayers

[AC5398]

The CBC? Oh, now there is a bastion of unbiased reporting! Jeeze louise!

Re:prayers

[Kishar]

Jesus ... isn't that the fellow in whose name more people have been killed than any other cause, ever?

Re:prayers

[betat]

and also a government that doesn't:

- ignore the will of the international community
- kill thousands of innocent civilians just to get to one man...twice
- still purposely go after civilian facilities just to take out the weapons
- spend billions of dollars on war while it's economy is falling
- claim to observe democracy but ignores hundreds of thousands of it's own people shouting for peace

Personally, I believe the problem lies in bush. I'm pretty sure or at least sincerely hope that most americans, pro-war or not, aren't really that dumb. You got to admit, he wasn't an all too intelligent person to begin with but the sept 11 tragedy must have sent too many shocks to his brain and fried some circuits. Being the president, he has the authority to make his country go to war, even if some aren't too sure about it. And being american citizens, they're expected to be patriotic and support the country. It's easy enough to convince most of your own citizens to offer support and make them believe what you need them to believe through pro-government mass media and whatever other means.

Now look at what the bush is doing. He's making the government defy the international community and forgo the consent of other major powers to do as he wishes. Maybe he has some personal vendetta or something but this is leading a whole nation and probably many of it's allies into alot of trouble. When was the last time a country defied the international community and went unilateral? Think WW2.

While i really don't think this will be the immediate cause of WW3, i'm pretty sure that in future, people are going to look back and curse that bush for doing this. Just take a look around. How many other major powers are split and unhappy about the US doing this. The bush has single-handedly(or with the help of a government and an army) managed to plant the seeds of doubt and displeasure in so many other countries. In time these divisions would grow wider and set the stage for certain parties to group together to rival certain other parties. Unless of course the US starts some major public relations after this. At least give a reason for ties to improve. No one wants to fight over an issue in a country far far away...though of course there are other issues ...**money!**. and of course no superpower wants to sit by and watch as another attempts to gain more control and power.

Anyway, to most of us slashdot readers,especially the more youthful , war is just something where you camp(use tactics) with a sniper on a ledge behind some tree and wait for some assaulter to run to the door of the convoy truck.
Try living a day in the front lines and you'll realize that you'll never want anyone else to go through this, american or not.

Re:prayers

[SubtleNuance]

See that map? Do a little digging on that site to learn that A) Canada has the #1 Most-Free Press on the Planet && B) Equal access of opinion to the CBC is a main reason.

Jeeze Louise - Get a clue pal.

Re:prayers

[geekoid]

"Hey did you know that all oil on the planet is the same price no matter what country it comes from?"

It could be said thatt US oil companies want more control over the price setting.

"China is the one who set up Iraq's communications system to disable GPS guided bombs, and the missles
lauched today at american troops from guess where?"

I'm a litte confused, are you saying China set up Iraq'a communication system to disrupts missles fired from Iraq? if so, wht did the Iraq's let them do it?

Re:prayers

[geekoid]

A continous string of Terrorist attacks is not war.

It is mostly tit for ta, not a planned military offence to accomplish a goal.

Re:prayers

[Pros_n_Cons]

"It could be said thatt US oil companies want more control over the price setting"

All country's control the price setting, thats why Russia started selling us oil because the price was going high and they found it valueable, dropping the price again.

"I'm a litte confused, are you saying China set up Iraq'a communication system to disrupts missles fired from Iraq? if so, wht did the Iraq's let them do it?"

Maybe you're right I wasn't clear on this: The GPS technology they sold was to prevent OUR gps guided bombs/missles from hitting Iraq government sites. Now, the missles China gave them are currently being flung at American, UK, Aus, Spain troops as we speak. According to the first news reports.

Re:Prayers

[Alternity]

Your concerns are totaly valid, and I have to admit I made a gross mistake in my post... I had read that number in a Canadian newspaper I consider credible, thing is they made a mistake they corrected. Seems that the actual number of civilian casualties was around 150,000 (which is still WAY too many). I don't remember the exact source of that information (and can't take the time to check it since I'm at work) but I know someone else has posted it in this thread...

Sorry for my mistake...

Re:prayers

[Dread_ed]

It might be beneficial to note the true meaning of "amen" at this point.

The proper translation is similar to what one says when recieving an order from a superior officer.

It could be translated as "Acknowledged" or "I acknowledge," or even "understood" though this is more loose.

Re:Prayers

[cK-Gunslinger]

Sorry for my mistake...

np, just trying to keep it honest..

Re:prayers

[Dread_ed]

Not to sound arrogant or insensitive, but you obviously know nothing about the Bible or its contents. Really, you lack knowledge in the area, so please don't misquote, mischaracterize, and slander the Bible and/or Jesus with your baseless and malformed ideas.

Take note please:

The Bible says capital punishemnt is necessary for the proper function of government and law enforcement.

The Bible says that war (against evil nations and agressors) is necessary for freedom and peace.

The Bible says that murder is wrong, yet murder is quite different than war and capital punishemnt.

Re:prayers

[ToraX242]

Well. I don't know which bible you are talking about, but in my version there are two parts:

An old testament where all of the things you state are true. ("Eye for eye", the ten commandmends, the psalms)

A new testament which gives one more and superior rule: love everyone as you love yourself. It says nothing about government, law enforcement and necissity of war.

If you do not share my oppinion: please prove me wrong and tell me where to find these statements.

Re:prayers

[freestyle-fiend]

> How is it possible to pray for both sides?

Both sides? You say that like there are only two. Even assuming that the US and allied forces are perfectly united, there are Iraqi civilians (some not on the side of any forces) and most likely soon there will be Turkish forces trying to prevent the Kurds achieving freedom (or maintaining the freedom that they have now in Iraq). I see this conflict very much as civilians versus military, but the two sided view is not compatible with the idea that some of the military action is justified.

> Impossible,
> you got to choose a team.

Yes, but I hope that no more suffering than absolutely necessary to stop them is experienced by those whose actions I oppose.

> let's hope this nightmare
> is over soon, for civilazation has not advanced
> very much to (at minimum) provide us with peace.

It is a nightmare. It is now unreasonable to expect there to be no casualties, but there is a best possible case. We can pray that there are few deaths, that depleted uranium, cluster bombs and daisy cutters are not used, that Bush keeps his word, ending the terror of the Iraqi people, and that there is no retaliation for the military action.
This is not praying for one side or the other, it is praying for the best possible outcome.

Re:prayers

[slashmenno]

I'm not saying Bush was in power in those days. I'm saying that the US is a (major) part of the problem that the guy is there!

Re:prayers

[juhaz]

Good you remember to remind that you're ending a war that you started 12 years ago.

Nice you also mention that you're hoping you'll be able to root out WMD's that may not even exist, end bombing you've been doing and economic sanctions you pushed onto them on the first place that have killed thousands and driven the entire country into ruin.

Well, guess that about sums it up. Nice one.

Re:prayers

[Reziac]

Speaking of facts, would you please direct me to your post of about a week ago, where you mentioned the different types of UN resolutions under the charter, and how the one regarding Iraq makes us legally obligated to take action... if you don't mind, I'd like to quote it as needed. (Tried to find it again myself, but no luck.)

Quoting as best I could remember to someone who was on the fence got exactly the same reaction I had: *blink* "Oh!" and a complete shift of understanding re the rationale for this action. (And why on earth hasn't this been put forth thru press conferences and news media? I think it would do wonders to mitigate kneejerk "it's the thing to do" antiwar protests, which seem to be the very ones that ironically lead to street violence.)

Also, ISTM this is the very definition of an "international police action" rather than a war.

Re:prayers

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Speaking of facts, would you please direct me to your post of about a week ago, where you mentioned the different types of UN resolutions under the charter

I'd love to, but the fact is that I don't know where to find it. But I've got nothing to do right now but watch the pretty lights over Baghdad, so I'll give it to you again from scratch.

Speaking of facts, would you please direct me to your post of about a week ago, where you mentioned the different types of UN resolutions under the charter

I'd love to, but the fact is that I don't know where to find it. But I've got nothing to do right now but watch the pretty lights over Baghdad, so I'll give it to you again from scratch.

There are three kinds of resolutions that the UN can adopt: General Assembly resolutions, and two kinds of Security Council resolutions. All three of these are defined by the UN Charter.

The powers of the UN General Assembly are defined in chapter IV of the Charter, "The General Assembly." Article 14 says,

Subject to the provisions of Article 12, the General Assembly may recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, regardless of origin, which it deems likely to impair the general welfare or friendly relations among nations, including situations resulting from a violation of the provisions of the present Charter setting forth the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

So the General Assembly can adopt resolutions that are essentially recommendations. These resolutions are not binding on the membership, and there is no authority granted in the UN Charter either to the membership or to any agency to enforce them. The most famous General Assembly resolution was 181, the resolution in which the UN proposed its partition plan for Israel and Palestine.

The Security Council has the power to pass two different types of resolution. The first is defined in chapter VI of the UN Charter, "Pacific Settlement of Disputes." Article 36 says, in relevant part,

The Security Council may, at any stage of a dispute of the nature referred to in Article 33 or of a situation of like nature, recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment.

These resolutions are just like General Assembly resolutions: they're not binding, and no authority is granted to anyone to enforce them.

The other type of Security Council resolution is defined by chapter VII of the Charter, "Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression." Article 39 says,

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 41 gives the Council the authority to impose non-military means to resolve threats to peace:

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42, the big one, gives the Council the authority to use military force to enforce its resolutions.

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

And, finally, Article 43 places on the membership

Re:prayers

[Reziac]

Thanks -- saved this time on first encounter, where I *think* I can find it again (you haven't seen the "info" tree on my hard disk... :)

I agree that nothing is going to change the minds of people who've already made their minds up; that's pointless head-banging. But the average citizen is more likely to be open-minded. And even in the abbreviated form I could remember, LIS the immediate reaction from folk I know was more like "Why didn't they TELL us that? Now I understand!"

Your first explanation, the one I was looking for (but you talk too much so I couldn't dig it outta your posts list :) actually got the point across in completely comprehensible terms in a mere 3 or 4 short paragraphs, so it's not like it's in need of full-page exposition.

That to those "in the know" it might have seemed either too obvious, or too politically complex, I can understand, but never underestimate the power of people in the mass to ignore the obvious, nor the power of individuals to understand complex issues :)

BTW, where does this leave countries who are *refusing* to enforce the resolution? Is there any sort of sanction process against them for failing in their duty per the charter??

Re:prayers

[Twirlip of the Mists]

BTW, where does this leave countries who are *refusing* to enforce the resolution? Is there any sort of sanction process against them for failing in their duty per the charter??

If I recall, there's a clause in the Charter that says that states that persist in refusing to uphold their obligations under the Charter can be subject to various different measures, ultimately culminating in getting kicked out of the UN. But in terms of doing anything specific and serious, no, not really. The UN can't "punish" France for defying their obligations without a chapter VII resolution, just like they can't "punish" the US for acting without explicit authorization (though none was needed, as I explained) without a chapter VII resolution.

Re:prayers

[xtermz]

Yea, and mother fucking bush is taking care of it, so why do you keep harping on the subject. how about i hold you accountable for shit your grandfather did...

Re:prayers

[Reziac]

Hmm. Seems the lack of internal enforcement is yet another problem, and yet another unenforced or unenforceable resolution isn't likely to make any real difference. Tho presumably such behaviour is reckoned into the tally when such reluctant nations next request our favour or help.

Re:prayers

[foniksonik]

I thought it was related to Hebrew enslavement by the egyptians. Amenhotep the current pharoah of the time... Amen, being the then current invocation of 'God' in the guise of the pharoah, converted and empowered by the Hebrews to mean the one God... so they might worship in secret...

kinda like how rappers use 'nigga' these days as a term of brotherhood.

Re:prayers

[X-rated Ouroboros]

He thought he could do it in '91 with the worlds #6 ranked military.

Fun Fact: An aircraft carrier has the 7th largest air force in the world.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I can imagine why

[shayborg]

The goal is to get it over with before summer. Do you know how hot those Iraqi summers can get? Can you imagine our patriotic American soldiers toiling away in defense of their country with the hot, foreign Middle Eastern sun beating down mercilessly on their heavily camouflaged backs? Heaven forbid!

-- shayborg

Re:I can imagine why

[TheFr00n]

I thought the idea was to have it over just before the next election ...

Not full scale yet

[bsharitt]

So far these are just surgical strikes against the leadership, not the big bombing yet.

Doublespeak

[PhxBlue]

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.

Re:Doublespeak

[RocketScientist]

I couldn't agree more about your statements on rebuilding. If we don't do a half-assed job of occupation and rebuilding, Iraq could become an very potent force for stability and peace in the region. Look at Post WWII Japan for example, we helped rebuild the country and they almost buried us economically in the 1970's and early 80's, and while Japan's struggling some economically, overall compared to most of the Arab world they've got an insanely great economy.

Re:Doublespeak

[PD]

They didn't nearly bury us economically. They drove the US television manufacturers out of business and severely reduced auto companies' market share. Not to mention the fact that they sold us a lot of sushi and made the ninja mythos more important than the cowboy mythos. Other than that, they didn't do much to us.

Re:Doublespeak

[babbage]

Unfortunately, I for one am not optimistic about the post war rebuilding chances being anything like Japan & Germany were. Both of those lands are more or less ethnicly homogenous (roughly with Germany, very much so with Japan), and they have a strong sense of national identity. They wanted to rebuild.

Iraq on the other hand was a chunk of land arbitrarily carved off the side of the crumbling Ottoman Empire -- for centuries it had been under the control of what is now Turkey. There are three major ethnic groups with no particular mutual loyalty. If it weren't for the Ba'ath party and Hussein's iron fist, the country probably would have falled apart decades ago. And even Hussein wouldn't have been able to remain in power for so long if it weren't for US support over the decades to prop up his regime as a bulwark against Iran.

In short, with Hussein gone there will be nothing holding Iraq together, and a lot of tensions pulling it apart.

So what then are the post war possibilities? Long term US military occupation to hold the country together? We could be there for decades. Spin down our involvement over time? If we leave the country weaker than it is today, it could end up being carved into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish regions by its neighbors -- Iran may invade the south to protect its own stability, just as Turkey may invade the north for similar reasons. The middle could either remain independent & feeble, or be absorbed by a neighbor.

So many things can go wrong. This is going to be a fucking nightmare for decades. When your kids ask why we're constantly occupying chunks of the middle east, and why we're constantly worried about new terrorist incidents, why nobody can afford to buy gasoline anymore, etc -- remind them that this was the night it all started. :-(

Here's hoping that history proves me wrong....

Re:Doublespeak

[uradu]

> may we succeed afterward in rebuilding Iraq the
> way we succeeded in rebuilding Japan and Germany

While I fully agree with your sentiments, the US did about as much rebuilding of Germany as they did of France and England. Actually, quite a bit less. Germans did all the rebuilding themselves and repaid their share of the Marshall funds in time for Elvis. Iraq will be requiring a heck of a lot more active external participation, especially of the financial kind, which I am certain the US is quite unprepared and unwilling to contribute long-term. If our "rebuilding" of Afghanistan is anything to go by, we'll be doing a road and some bridges and then calling it quits. Promises are made in the early stages, while the knickers are still on. Afterwards during the smoke, it's quite ok to say that you've had better.

Re:Doublespeak

[qbwiz]

We could always Balkanize it....

Re:Doublespeak

[Wakkow]

That's the problem. Look what happened to Germany after WWI when the world turned their back on Germany rather than rebuild them. We -have- to build them back up. I'm more worried about the billions it will cost to do so.

Re:Doublespeak

[RocketScientist]

I'm not sure about that. The TV thing was relatively minor compared to the fact that they nearly drove Chrysler bankrupt (Chrysler ended up taking unprecedented governmetn loans in order to stay solvent) and they hurt Ford and GM real bad. Detroit is still recovering (I don't just mean the automakers either, the entire town is still recovering). Japan managed to make everything we made better, faster, and cheaper for a really long time. The only thing that really saved us was that we managed to ramp our productivity up, and (unfortunately) displace a lot of jobs to asia and Central America for cheaper labor. Not a great solution, but it kept them solvent and got them to the point they could modernize and produce good cars again.

Re:Doublespeak

[Gortbusters.org]

Well let's be honest.. what do you REALLY think a "rebuilding" will look like. With most of the nation already poor (not much running water, electricity, education, or even food), do you think we'll rebuild those aspects of society first...

Or, do you think the big wig oil companies will move in and secure the oil fields and refineries.

Will we put in another quality leader, like we did Castro?

Do not forget the template for an empire.

Re:Doublespeak

[PD]

That's interesting, but your entire hypothesis rests on the assumption that "burying us economically" is the same as "the auto company that made the Plymouth Fury II going out of business".

I don't buy it. For example, Japan never challenged our leadership in:

-Jet engines
-Commercial
-Spacecraft and satellites
-Rockets
-Computer programming
-Advanced microprocessor design
-metallurgy and materials science
-biotechnology

and on and on and on. Let them have cars and steel manufacturing. Those are old technologies, and working in those factories is mind-numbing anyway.

Re: Doublespeak

[Black Parrot]

> So what then are the post war possibilities? Long term US military occupation to hold the country together? [...] So many things can go wrong. This is going to be a fucking nightmare for decades. When your kids ask why we're constantly occupying chunks of the middle east, and why we're constantly worried about new terrorist incidents, why nobody can afford to buy gasoline anymore, etc -- remind them that this was the night it all started.

Notice that the rise of pseudo-Islamic terrorism against the USA is a direct result of putting US troops in Arab nations during Gulf War I and leaving them there for 12 years afterward. It's hard to imagine that long-term occupation of two more Islamic countries is going to help with the terrorism situation.

Re:Doublespeak

[Best_Username_Ever]

may we succeed afterward in rebuilding Iraq the way we succeeded in rebuilding Japan and Germany after World War II

The aim isn't to rebuild Iraq, the aim is to control it. The US doesn't want Iraq to return to its former days of glory. Much better that the Iraqi people are impoverished to the point where they have to give up their oil in return for food rations, just like they do now.

Unless of course you are talking about rebuilding oil wells. Those will be rebuilt in record time. Then the US will all be able to say that they have spent billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, and providing food rations. How very Magnanimous.

Re:Doublespeak

[voiceofthewhirlwind]

I for one am not optimistic about the post war rebuilding chances being anything like Japan & Germany

In addition to all your Iraq specific points, there was also a remarkable thing called the "Marshall Plan", billions of dollars in reconstructive investment, and a whole generation of visionary military men and civil servants who pulled together to make democracy and great economic growth possible in the defeated countries.

Part of the success in Japan and Germany would have been fueled by the need for strong allies against the USSR.

Re:Doublespeak

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

That's actually an excellent point regarding the immediate result of reconstruction. I would point out, however, that there ARE many countrys who do just fine with a multitude of ethnic groups. DOne right, the upcoming Iraqi government might just do the job and bring a great thing to the region.

Re:Doublespeak

[bofkentucky]

Why not ask a Korean or Chinese person who was alive during the Japanese occupation of their countries about how benevolent the Japanese were from 31-45. Modern estimates put total deaths (both sides) of an invasion of the 4 home islands at well over 1 million. I hate to say it but 120000 dead is better that ten times that number.

Re:Doublespeak

[KITT_KATT!*]

Yes, I fear you're right. The present situation in Afghanistan is probably a more realistic outcome than post-WW2 Japan or Germany.

Re:Doublespeak

[Slime-dogg]

Mod me off-topic if you must.

Yeah, but the ninja mythos is so much cooler than the cowboy mythos. It's also much much older.

The whole qi/chi thing is quite possibly the coolest thing on the planet.

Re:Doublespeak

[NeuroKoan]

If there is anything I've learned in life, it is this simple fact. Ninjas make everything cooler. Ninjas or pirates. or maybe even Ninja Pirates.

Re:Doublespeak

[jmccullough]

The Nanking Massacre was awful. 300,000 people killed over a couple weeks, women of all ages raped and murdered. There are reports of two japanese officers having a race to see how many lined up civilians they could decapitate in a given period of time.

Japan invaded Manchuria after Japan blew up part of their own railroad and blamed it on the Chinese (Japan, and many others had concessions occupied in China). I hope that we aren't doing something similar (as far as picking fights, not the Nanking Massacre). I have heard rumors that we have fabricated some of the weapons evidence, I have no idea how valid they are.

Bush's speech declaring war was vague and jumped around a lot. I thought that the part asking Iraqis not to set their oil wells on fire was a little sketchy if not indicative of other intentions in the war. I feel like we aren't being told everything to make a very good judgement on what is happening.

Re:Doublespeak

[m1a1]

"In non-Beltway words, the "opening stages" of a vast military assault against a hopelessly undertrained and underequipped military are now underway."

Umm, Iraq was at one point the third largest military in the world. They still are the most militarily powerful country in the area that isn't named Israel.

Re:Doublespeak

[TKinias]

scripsit Gojira Shipi-Taro:

I would point out, however, that there ARE many countrys who do just fine with a multitude of ethnic groups.

As much as I would like to be optimistic, I have to ask: Can you give some examples, other than CH?

Re:Doublespeak

[stefanlasiewski]

As much as I would like to be optimistic, I have to ask: Can you give some examples, other than CH?

Brazil? Mexico?

Here's a list from the CIA world factbook listing ethnic percentages for various nations.

Re:Doublespeak

[danielobvt]

of course, rebuilding Iraq can be a self funded affair.. Nothing like those handy oil fields to finance Iraqs reconstruction.

Re:Doublespeak

[PD]

I wasn't complaining at all! I'm a sushi fan myself. If all the food in the world disappeared with the exception of sushi, I would be happy. It's the one food I could eat every day for the rest of my life and never get sick of it.

Re:Doublespeak

[stinky wizzleteats]

Here's hoping that history proves me wrong....

Uh, well, given that Iran would have to first conquer Saudi Arabia to invade Iraq from the south, I'd say odds are good that your hopes are well founded.

Re:Doublespeak

[TKinias]

scripsit stefanlasiewski:

Brazil?

Brazil is no more a multinational state than is the U.S. -- it's an immigrant-descended society (including involuntary immigrants, i.e. slaves) with a tiny smattering of indigenous peoples.

Mexico?

That would be the same Mexico that has an Indian insurgency still going on?

Re:Doublespeak

[Twirlip of the Mists]

There are three major ethnic groups with no particular mutual loyalty.

Two. There are two main ethnic groups in Iraq: Arabs, comprising 75%-80% of the population, and Kurds, comprising 15%-20%. All other ethnic groups add up to about one in twenty individuals.

There are, however, three main population groups: the Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunnis. The Shiites are the majority with 60%-65% of the population, but the Sunnis make up the Baath party and most of the government and the officer ranks of the military.

The Kurds want to remain in Iraq as part of a new federal state; they have made great progress in their democratic, free market experiment of the last 12 years, and they are in no hurry to see that change. Besides, they're realists; they understand that Turkey is so opposed to a Kurdish state that it makes it possibility of one nearly nil.

The Iraqi Arabs have no particular hatred for each other; they disagree on religious issues, but not in a way that leads to separatism or acts of genocide.

All three main groups have committed to participation in the Iraqi Interim Authority and the new federal government.

You do know about the IIA, right? It's not like we'd go into this blind; we already have the framework for the post-Baath Iraq in place and ready to go. It's not going to be anywhere near as difficult as you think.

Long term US military occupation to hold the country together? We could be there for decades.

The plan calls for a military or military/civilian occupation of no more than two years, and probably considerably less. The plan is to keep most of the Iraqi ministries intact during the transitional period, then create a constitution and establish a new federal republic over the coming months.

We have the support of all the major Iraqi opposition groups in this; we've been meeting with them both in secret and openly over the past several years, and have built a consensus since about last December.

Iran may invade the south to protect its own stability

The Iraqi Shiites have no particular tie to Iran. They are from a different ethnic group-- the Iraqis are Arabs, and the Iranians are Persian and other groups; Arabs make up only 3% of Iran.

Turkey may invade the north for similar reasons

That was a real possibility until just recently. As long as there is no sovereign Kurdish state, the Turks will be satisfied with the post-Saddam situation.

The middle could either remain independent & feeble, or be absorbed by a neighbor.

Jordan. In fact, a proposal was floated early this year to partition Iraq into Kurdistan in the north, a sovereign Shiite state in the south neighboring Iran, and for the central part of the country (including Baghdad) and the western desert to become part of Jordan. Everybody-- everybody-- rejected the plan. The Turks hated the idea of a sovereign Kurdistan, because of their own troubles with KADEK; the Iraqi Kurds, on the other hand, have no particular love for KADEK-- KADEK is a Stalinist organization that advocates terrorism, while the Iraqi Kurds are dedicated to democracy and the free market-- so they're not eager to gain their own state, either. The Shiites and the Sunnis were equally unhappy with the idea, for their own reasons.

Basically, the idea that Iraq might break apart into separate countries is one of the least likely of all the possible endgame scenarios.

When your kids ask why we're constantly occupying chunks of the middle east, and why we're constantly worried about new terrorist incidents, why nobody can afford to buy gasoline anymore, etc -- remind them that this was the night it all started.

Geez, guy. Lighten up. Take a deep dose of facts, calm your fears, and relax. The State Department is not staffed entirely by idiots. They've already thought of all of this stuff, as well as plenty of things that you haven't even considered yet. They're pros; they know what t

Re:Doublespeak

[PLANETARY MECANIK]

"When your kids ask why we're constantly occupying chunks of the middle east, and why we're constantly worried about new terrorist incidents, why nobody can afford to buy gasoline anymore, etc -- remind them that this was the night it all started."

Geez, guy. Lighten up. Take a deep dose of facts, calm your fears, and relax. The State Department is not staffed entirely by idiots. They've already thought of all of this stuff, as well as plenty of things that you haven't even considered yet. They're pros; they know what they're doing. Nobody can see

Ya they knew what they were doing when the installed Castro.....and they knew what they were doing when they funded Saddam...or even better...when the CIA secretly funded Al-Quida to the tune of $2 Billion US.Your country is run by a war mongering moron, even dumber than dear old dad.....

How about you guys first figure out how to build a real car before you invade other countries. O thats right you think buses are cars....(Lincoln Navigator anyone??)

Re:Doublespeak

[Des Herriott]

He said "invade the south", not "invade from the south". Southern Iraq shares a border with Iran, there's no need to go through Saudi Arabia at all.

Re:Doublespeak

[daveq]

Probably the main factor in Japan's financial success today is that the U.S. dropped a cartload of cash buying tanks and supplies for the millitary from Japan for the Korean war. It was a lot cheaper than shipping the stuff from the U.S. mainland and it gave Japan a great starting point to build a modern economy. Then factor in the Japanese work ethic and dedication to quality.

On a seperate note, they make great cameras too.

Re:Doublespeak

[PD]

Cameras, Oh yes, I forgot about them. Their cameras are really excellent, but they never managed to convince everyone that Nikon lenses were better than Zeiss. Equal, maybe, but better hasn't been proven. And when it comes to professional medium format cameras, Hasselblad still rules.

Re:Doublespeak

[Elbereth]

Very good post. I'm about as liberal as they come, but I totally agree with you here. Our country may make policy decisions I disagree with, but they don't walk into these policies blind.

War with Iraq is not something I like, but the worst case scenario is not as bad as many people make it out to be. What bothers me most of all is the precedent being set. Oh well.

No sense in crying over spilt milk. Might as well get with the program and make the best of the situation, that's what I say.

Re:Doublespeak

[2RockStars]

A decent accounting of the facts, but there's one big one that you forget which wrecks your analysis of them: oil, and who controls it. The Kurds will control the oil-rich cities to the north. Why they would then submit to joining a weak middle section of Iraq, in a federation dominated by an different ethnic group, isn't immediately obvious. The Shia in the south would get Basra and its oil, plus the coastline, too. The Sunni in the middle inherit Baghdad and a huge reconstruction bill (if the war takes a long time to wrap up). I think an Iraq Federation is a recipe for another Balkan war, unless we install a new iron-fisted dictator. (Any of the INC people would do just fine in that role, by the way -- they've got plenty of righteous anger, and an invincible backer in the US. Or maybe they won't. Only one way to find out, right? -- install one of them from the outside!)

Sounds like a recipe for total destabilization to me, even factoring in the Turkish/Syrian desires regarding the Kurds. How are we going to extract oil from the region during the Iraqi Federation's civil war? I don't think Condi Rice and the other Exxon-Mobil executives have thought this through.

I'm honestly not sure how to resolve this, except to blame the British for the inexpert way that they redrew their former colonies' borders in the first half of this century, then to hop in our time machine, and go back and "fix" everything...

The State Department is not staffed entirely by idiots. They've already thought of all of this stuff, as well as plenty of things that you haven't even considered yet. They're pros; they know what they're doing.

This is kinda funny -- obviously, they're not pros, or our diplomatic efforts would've been more effective. A few of our highly experienced "pros" have resigned because of our bungling, arrogant "diplomacy." The straw man of blaming the French for their threatened veto is just so much "killing the messenger" instead of listening to the message. It's our fault for getting caught telling lies and fabrications on the floor of the UN, and for not finding any of the "obvious" WMD that would've provided a pretext, and for prolonging policies of thumbing the nose at UN resolutions in some parts of the world (Israel-Palestine?), while sanctimoniously demanding letter-of-the-law adherence to UN resolutions in others. This sorry mess didn't have to get to this point. The "pros" fucked up. It didn't have to get to the point of Gulf War I, either, but that's another story.

It's time for all Americans to work right now at preventing Gulf War III, "Operation Enduring Ratings," which is scheduled for China in 2009, unless we start educating ourselves about the world we live in, where the trouble spots in the world are, how they got that way, what our govt's positions there are, etc. etc. etc. Let's listen to what people in those regions have to say. Let's learn about their cultures. Let's form educated opinions, then vote based on them.

Re:Doublespeak

[Twirlip of the Mists]

This is kinda funny -- obviously, they're not pros, or our diplomatic efforts would've been more effective.

You don't write for the Times, do you? The position that this war is the result of a failure of diplomacy cannot be argued with. The position that the failure was on the part of the United States is as absurd as it is widespread.

Iraq has never, not even for a second, been in compliance with the Safwan Accords. On a foundation of defiance, diplomacy cannot succeed. Even if the entire world had done everything perfectly every time, diplomacy still would have failed, because Iraq still would have been in blatant defiance of the cease-fire to which they agreed.

Basically the diplomatic process was doomed from the start here. We started with the position that the terms of the cease-fire were not open for negotiation, and that Iraq was unwilling to comply with those terms. From there, there's simply nowhere to go but down.

It's our fault for getting caught telling lies and fabrications on the floor of the UN

Sorry, but that never happened. It turns out that one piece of information that the US turned over to the IAEA was false, but we simply passed on what we knew in good faith. It's unfortunate that everybody was equally fooled by that document.

and for not finding any of the "obvious" WMD that would've provided a pretext

Are you familiar with the concept of burden of proof? I'm not trying to be pedantic; it's entirely possible that you may not have heard the term. In a criminal trial, people often talk abou the burden of proof. What they mean is that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to demonstrate that a crime took place, and that the defense is under no obligation to prove that one didn't. If the prosecution fails to prove their case, the defendant is acquitted.

This wasn't a criminal trial; the burden of proof was flip-flopped in this case. In this case, the burden of proof, as established by Security Council resolutions, was on Iraq to prove that they had no proscribed weapons. They didn't do that. There was no burden of proof on the US or any other party to prove that they did; it was, put simply, not the responsibility of the United States or any other nation to prove that Iraq had proscribed weapons. It was the responsibility of Iraq to declare their weapons and weapons programs, and then submit to their destruction under UNSCOM supervision. That process never even got off the ground.

and for prolonging policies of thumbing the nose at UN resolutions in some parts of the world (Israel-Palestine?), while sanctimoniously demanding letter-of-the-law adherence to UN resolutions in others.

This gets back to the issue of the way the UN works. There are three kinds of UN resolutions as defined by the Charter. General Assembly resolutions carry no authority; they are binding on the members to which they apply, but neither the member states nor the Assembly itself has any authority to enforce GA resolutions. Security Council resolutions adopted under chapter VI of the Charter are the same way: they're technically binding, in the sense that the member states of the UN agreed to abide by them when they signed the Charter, but neither the member states nor the Council has any authority to enforce its resolutions. If UNSEC adopts a chapter VI resolution that a country (say, Israel) fails to abide by, nobody can legally do anything about it except shrug and say, "Well, that sucks." This is a design feature, if you will, of the UN Charter.

Chapter VII of the Charter, on the other hand, provides for a different type of resolution. Resolutions adopted by UNSEC under chapter VII are not only binding, they're also enforceable. If UNSEC chooses, it can call on the member states to act, either with military force or through other means like sanctions, to enforce chapter VII resolutions. When that happens, the members of the Council are not only authorized but actually required, by the Ch

Re:Doublespeak

[majestyk2000]

Ninja Pirates would be a great name for a rock group (apologies to Dave Barry and anyone else that thinks that bit has been run in the ground already).

Re: Doublespeak

[mfrank]

It's the Saudi bases that really piss them off. What possible reason would there be to keep American troops in Saudi after this war is over?

Re:Doublespeak

[2RockStars]

You don't write for the Times, do you? The position that this war is the result of a failure of diplomacy cannot be argued with. The position that the failure was on the part of the United States is as absurd as it is widespread.

Man, it's safe to say that the Times usually pisses me off more than you, but for completely different reasons. No, I don't write for them. And it's the aggresion of the US, not the "diplomacy" of the US, that started this phase of war.

On a foundation of defiance, diplomacy cannot succeed. Even if the entire world had done everything perfectly every time, diplomacy still would have failed, because Iraq still would have been in blatant defiance of the cease-fire to which they agreed.

I certainly didn't see any semblance of US diplomacy reported in the media (of course, I had to read between the lines, since reporting isn't what the mass media does well anymore). Instead, I saw the US "defiance" in refusing to believe that inspections were working. I saw a cynical shifting of compliance goalposts further and further back -- starting before '98 with the Clinton administration, and obviously gathering steam with Bush's administration in the past year. There would never be a moment, "even for a second," when Iraq would be able to comply with the Safwan Accords. Yes, I understand the meaning of "burden of proof," and yes, we totally jobbed the Iraqis throughout the '90's, in a way that guaranteed they'd never be able to satisfy us, then or now. Resolution 687 turned into a trap that we could spring on Saddam any time we wanted, as there was no way for him to satisfy us with his compliance if we didn't want to be satisfied. We could move the goalposts right off the field and into the parking lot, if we wanted to. And we did. In that sense, I agree with you that "We started with the position that the terms of the cease-fire were not open for negotiation, and that Iraq was unwilling to comply with those terms."

I could've been satisfied with the surrender terms if there was some sort of incentive for the Iraqis, like gradually loosening the sanctions the more he complied with inspections. Some sort of rehabilitative measure taken in good faith -- 'cause after all, we were apparently willing to do business with him with a clean conscience throught the '80's. See, the point of diplomacy is to give the person sitting at the table across from you a reason to comply with your wishes, not to only brandish a stick without offering a carrot. Think back to the Weimar republic and how "well" that sanctions regime worked out for France in the end... Of course, Iraq's far weaker now, relatively speaking, than Germany was after WWI. Inspections, sanctions, and the 12-year old no-fly zones (without a UN Resolution granting legitimacy, by the way) totally humiliated and incapacitated Iraq, the sanctions alone causing dire circumstances for a large segment of Iraqi civil society. Can anyone possibly deny that no country on earth has ever been more contained than Iraq was through the '90's? The containment process, including UNSCOM in the '90's and UNMOVIC, had most certainly "gotten off of the ground." So why the disregard for diplomacy, and the rush to war? I'll leave that answer to the conspiracy theorists.

Given their weakness, and given the stated policies of this administration by the Project For A New American Century, and with the catalyst of 9/11 removing any domestic reaction besides cringing fear, it became obvious to any observer, Saddam included, that we were simply going to have our war, no matter what. And it was equally obvious that during the preparations, the tyrant Saddam would dig in his heels -- again, he's totally predictable that way. Why should he comply with our bad-faith offer to disarm him before we attack? We could use our permament membership in the (broken) Security Council to ram through resolutions loaded up with any proof-burdens we wanted, such as proving that he doesn't have an invisible dragon pe

Re:Doublespeak

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I certainly didn't see any semblance of US diplomacy reported in the media...

How do you define "diplomacy?" Every senior official in the administration spent pretty much every minute of their day in contact with administration officials from other governments. The president spent most of his time on the phone and in face-to-face meetings with heads of state of nations large and small alike. Every day right before lunch, Ari gets up at the podium and tells the pool what the president has been doing that morning. His briefings in the weeks leading up to the recent ultimatum were a laundry list of diplomatic efforts.

Instead, I saw the US "defiance" in refusing to believe that inspections were working.

Um. Inspections weren't working, in any meaningful sense of the word "working."

There would never be a moment, "even for a second," when Iraq would be able to comply with the Safwan Accords.

We gave Iraq an opportunity to do just that back in November, with 1441. They refused yet again.

Resolution 687 turned into a trap that we could spring on Saddam any time we wanted, as there was no way for him to satisfy us with his compliance if we didn't want to be satisfied.

You say again and again that the United States kept "moving the goalposts," and that we would never have been satisfied. What evidence to you have to support that idea? When have the goalposts ever been moved, short of early this week when we said that regime change was inevitable?

Let me ask this question again. When has Iraq ever come anywhere even close to compliance?

I could've been satisfied with the surrender terms if there was some sort of incentive for the Iraqis

Iraq had an opportunity to haggle over the cease-fire, in March, 1991, at Safwan. They didn't. They said "okay."

That said, if you want to argue that the world could have handled this situation better, you're not going to get much of a fight from me. Hindsight is always 20/20; it's easy to think that if we'd done this differently, or that differently, or if we had zigged when we zagged or what have you that the present situation might have been averted. But I don't really find that to be a very useful position to take when discussing what we ought to be doing right now. When we look back on this and collect the lessons of history, it'll be a good time to think about what we could have done differently. But sitting on your ass-- no offense-- and saying "The US blew it" doesn't get us anywhere in the present circumstance.

So why the disregard for diplomacy, and the rush to war?

One: because the diplomatic process was not accomplishing our goal. Our goal was compliance, and the diplomatic process wasn't getting that done. And as for a "rush to war," the past dozen years surely constitutes the slowest rush to war in all history.

it became obvious to any observer, Saddam included, that we were simply going to have our war, no matter what.

Friend, that's bullshit, and you know it. In September, 2002, President Bush upbraided the UN for not bringing the Iraqi conflict to a peaceful conclusion: disarmament according to the terms of the 1991 cease-fire. In response, UNSEC passed resolution 1441 which yet again reiterated the terms with which Iraq had already agreed to comply. Iraq never complied, even slightly, with those terms.

The idea that war was inevitable simply doesn't jive with the facts.

We could use our permament membership in the (broken) Security Council to ram through resolutions loaded up with any proof-burdens we wanted...

Is that so? Funny, we didn't have a very easy time "ramming through" a resolution that did nothing more than declare that Iraq wasn't in compliance with resolution 1441. Even such a simple resolution as that, one consisting of less than a page of whereas's and therefore's and concluding only with a simple, unequivocal statement

Re:Doublespeak

[2RockStars]

You say again and again that the United States kept "moving the goalposts," and that we would never have been satisfied. What evidence to you have to support that idea? When have the goalposts ever been moved, short of early this week when we said that regime change was inevitable? Let me ask this question again. When has Iraq ever come anywhere even close to compliance?

Apparently never, if you only asked US policy wonks. But to quote Scott Ritter: "Today, Iraq no long possesses arms of mass destruction." - From an interview with the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat, March 31, 1999. Now, I know you won't be impressed with Ritter's credibility, but I wasn't impressed with Richard Butler's credibility, what with his UNSCOM spying scandal and all. Even then, I thought that it was better for the inspectors, including Richard Butler, to destroy Iraq's WMD than for us to remove UNSCOM and proceed with the pointless Operation Desert Fox in 1998 (Clinton had a bad habit of bombing people). Furthermore, I think we could both agree that El-Baradei and Blix are both more credible than either of the previous mission leaders. Why not let them work? How much bending over does Iraq have to do, before they are allowed out from under the sanctions? I can see that you interpret these Resolutions quite strictly, so you must certainly see how the wording of Resolution 687 (namely "future ongoing monitoring and verification") allowed Iraq's prosecutors (chiefly the US) to determine the timing and nature of "compliance." "Moving the goalposts," as I use the phrase, means "Make Iraqi civilians feel like they might all shit themselves to death until Saddam leaves, and never release the pressure until he does." This was of course, US policy for a decade, and "regime change" doesn't appear anywhere in the relevant resolutions that set up the sanctions. Ain't no way that tin-pot dictator was going to leave -- but that doesn't mean that Iraq isn't complying under the sanctions protocol. At some point, we should've agreed that Gulf War I was over and Saddam Hussein was contained, but that wasn't part of US strategy. For an example of US tactics, we turn to:

Okay, I've had it. What about resolution 1441, or any other demand placed on Iraq, was "undanceable?" What part of it could they not have complied with? You've made this assertion repeatedly in this post; back it up. What part of the US and UN demands were unreasonable?

Don't get angry; I think you're arguing quite diplomatically so far, and I mean that with all due respect. Removing 8,000 pages of the 12,000 submitted to the UN before the UN received it seems unreasonable to me. The huge effort by the Administration to paint anything the Iraqis did as a "material breach" of Resolution 1441 (such as AA fire on hostile fighters in the no-fly zone) seemed pretty unreasonable to me. Rediscovery of the empty battlefield mustard gas shells (originally found by UNSCOM, who were removed before destroying them in 1998), and trumpeting to the world that they were a deal-breaker, was unreasonable. But the main problem is that it didn't suitably define the vague moment to end the sanctions after the endless "future ongoing monitoring and verification" mentioned in the relvant paragraphs of Resolution 687. Since the US, through its "diplomacy," had tied the end of Saddam to the end of sanctions, that endless future could never arrive. Resolution 1441 was a fig leaf for the US, which would allow us to declare Iraq to be noncompliant at a time of our choosing, but also provided Iraq with a few more ways to blunder in the endgame. At the same time, it was a fig leaf for the rest of the members of the UN, who thought that through it, they could buy more time before the US declared war. I guess they thought that they might blindly find an acorn somehow. Instead, of course, the US simply declared Iraq to be in noncompliance once the troops were in position. Perhaps the UN also thought that drafting a resolution and providing the US with political

Re:Doublespeak

[Twirlip of the Mists]

But to quote Scott Ritter: "Today, Iraq no long possesses arms of mass destruction."

Um. Mr. Ritter was obviously seriously wrong. We have found proscribed weapons in Iraq since he made that statement, including the al Samoud 2 missiles that caused such a fuss last month. Hell, Iraq fired a Scud missile-- we believe; we think we have confirmed this, but it's always possible that it's not correct-- just today, a weapon that Iraq swore up and down and left and right that they didn't have.

Furthermore, I think we could both agree that El-Baradei and Blix are both more credible than either of the previous mission leaders. Why not let them work?

Because they weren't getting the job done. Imagine we're trying to get from Chicago to New York. We get on the highway and I head west instead of east. I realize my mistake and start to turn the car around, and you say, "No, no, don't do that! We're making great time! Let's keep going!" Yes, we're making good progress, but no matter how long we keep at it, we're never going to get where we're going.

It's not that UNMOVIC or the IAEA are bad guys, but simply because it's not possible to do the job in that way that they were trying to go about it. Iraq was hiding weapons, which they were specifically told not to do. All the inspections in the world wouldn't have solved that problem.

How much bending over does Iraq have to do, before they are allowed out from under the sanctions?

It's all right there on paper. Among the other terms dealing with prisoners and whatnot, Iraq had to make a complete and accurate declaration, and then submit to the destruction of the weapons and associated materials and facilities included in that declaration. That is precisely how much bending over Iraq was required to do.

They decided they didn't want to do that. That wasn't anybody's first choice, but we're willing and able to work with it.

As to your specific points... I'm just not going to bother. It seems fairly clear that you've got your mind made up that things happened in the way that you remember them, so I'm not going to waste time and keystrokes trying to argue with you. I'll just say that your account of the events doesn't even remotely jibe with what I saw as they transpired.

I mean, isn't unilateralism a failure of diplomacy by definition?

Some forty nations representing over a fifth of the world's population. You have some definition of "unilateralism" that is new to me.

This administration had already proven that they don't like to talk to others with regards to the International Criminal Court, the Kyoto Protocols, the ABM treaty (how do you unsign a treaty?) and other accords.

The ICC is a mess. The structure of the court as defined by the Rome agreement runs completely counter to our American tradition of checks and balances. There is absolutely nothing preventing the abuse of the ICC for political motivations. That, among other less important reasons, is why we didn't support the ICC.

Kyoto is a crock of shit. It's a terrible treaty, and was rightly shot down by the Senate. President Clinton signed the treaty but never even submitted it to the Senate for ratification because he knew it would never pass. All President Bush did was acknowledge that the United States would not be ratifying or implementing the treaty.

As for ABM, it's easy to "unsign" a treaty, when the treaty includes a procedure for withdrawing from it. At any point, all either side had to do was notify the other side within six months that they would be withdrawing, and poof! All nice and formal. And, of course, since ABM had served its purpose-- putting the brakes on the Cold War arms race-- and was preventing the US from moving in an important new direction, it was entirely appropriate for the treaty to end.

And that's not bullshit, and that queers the outcome of diplomacy a hell of a lot more than some French veto.

Everybody inv

Re:Doublespeak

[2RockStars]

Morning!

Okay, as long as we're playing armchair president, let's go all the way with it. It's January 1. Resolution 1441 is on the books, and you've got Iraq's declaration of December 7. You know, by know, that the declaration is neither complete nor accurate, which is technically a violation of 1441. What do you do? And how do imagine events would have resolved themselves?

Well, since you've already made up my mind for me, in a very enfranchising way (thanks, boss!), that "the declaration is neither complete nor accurate," and since you've already obtained resolution 1441 for me, then I, as president, would be in a pretty limited policy space. This wouldn't mean that I would have to do what Bush opted to do, though. But I don't like the current situation -- let's relax the time constraints instead, say, back to 1998 or thereabouts. I would have ended the sanctions back then, as they only strengthed Saddam Hussein's hand, at the cost of Iraqi civilian lives. I would then allow the Iraqis to determine their own history. I would accuse Hussein (as well as Kissinger and Ariel Sharon, but later for that) of war crimes, with the idea of building respect for future US policy in the area. I would gather representatives from Turkey, Syria, the PKK, and even Iraq (yes, even though I've accused their dictator of war crimes), and work out a solution to the Kurdish question that the parties could agree on. Carrot and stick again. I would insist on an equally valid, good faith roadmap to peace in Occupied Palestine -- taking as long as it takes, and without Clinton-style election bumrushing -- one that wouldn't be abused like Oslo was. I would use the UN in its peacekeeping and humanitarian roles in both areas. I would engage the Iranians, in order to strengthen the moderates' tenuous grasp in that country. The Sudanese, with their civil war, would not have their medicine factory bombed if I was caught getting a blow job, but would instead get free blow jobs as well ^H^H^H^H -- strike that, I don't know why I said that! In short, as your president, I would push for a solution of the Iraqi crisis as part of a wider regional diplomacy (that word again), concluding agreements that would respect the actual aspirations of Iraqis, Iranians, Palestinians, Israelis, Kurds, etc., without forcing them to accept, at the point of my guns or in the noose of my sanctions, my idea of a proper way to run their affairs.

Moving back to our discouraging reality: the current "war" is looking like a cakewalk so far -- which doesn't surprise me, and begs the question "What did those 12 years of sanctions actually achieve politically, besides misery for Iraqi civilians?". Obviously, Saddam didn't rebuild either his army, the Osirak reactor -- to say nothing of Iraq's conventional power grid -- or is WMD to prewar status. So I guess a good result of the sanctions is that they ensured that no US soldiers will die at Iraqi hands in Gulf War II, at least so far. Pretty cynical strategy, though, since the best way to protect American lives is to not invade another country.

I hope that there's no need for a siege of Baghdad, which would be the worst possible result. GIs would die in that case. As your president, I would avoid the "Shock and Awe" terror bombardment, and I'm glad that Bush has avoided it so far. But if there's a siege, my prediction is for constant bombing until nothing is left alive, then tanks rolling in to lift cement blocks off of the heads of the shocked and awed survivors. Yay! Liberation! Think Stalingrad redux, but again, with only one side dieing. I honestly doubt it'll come to that, though, if the reports of the surrender of the Revolutionary Guardsmen are true. The next phase would have to be immediate humanitarian aid, using the current Iraqi distribution network, to avoid mass starvation. Dennis Halliday estimated that civilians will have 6 weeks of food or so -- this war had better be over before the NCAA tournament, or we will have succeeded in showing the average Iraqi that "American rule = starvation, Saddam = no starvation."

What do you think?

Re:Doublespeak

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Well, since you've already made up my mind for me, in a very enfranchising way (thanks, boss!), that "the declaration is neither complete nor accurate,"

Surely you're not going to argue about this. The declaration didn't include Saddam's VX stockpiles, it didn't include his al Samoud program, and it didn't include the Scud or Scuds he fired at our troops yesterday. That's just the stuff that's been in the news over the past week or so.

We must not ignore this, as you seem wont to do. Iraq was told, before anything else, to make a complete and accurate declaration of their weapons programs. They never did that. How would you, armchair president, deal with this fact? You have two choices: let Iraq off the hook, or don't. Which do you do, and how?

Don't read any further until you answer this. If you don't have an answer for this, there is no point in going on.

I would have ended the sanctions back then

On what grounds? Let's look at the facts here. Iraq had not done anything that it was required to do. Nothing at all. So on what grounds would you have lifted the sanctions?

Wait. Before I get to that, would you have done that before or after Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM? In October, 1997, Iraq demanded that the American members of UNSCOM leave the country. UNSCOM pulled them out temporarily, but they went back in in November. Then, in January, Iraq stopped cooperating with UNSCOM entirely on the grounds that too many members of the team were American and British. In February they started cooperating again, but they threatened to stop in August, and then stopped entirely again in October. The US threatened military action, and Iraq started cooperating again in November. Then they stopped again in December, which is the point where UNSCOM pulled their inspectors out.

So be more specific. Would you have lifted the sanctions in early January, while the Americans were still in Iraq, or in late January and February when they weren't cooperating at all? Iraq went back-and-forth all year. Would you have lifted the sanctions during a period of total non-cooperation, or during a period of partial non-cooperation?

Now that we've covered when, let's go back to why. On what grounds would you lift the sanctions? Like I said, and illustrated, Iraq was not cooperating. They spent 1995 through 1998 jerking UNSCOM around. I mean, the resolutions say that sanctions won't be lifted until Iraq cooperates. They're not cooperating. So what reason-- what pretense, if you will-- can you come up with to lift them? And how would you spin it to make it seem like we're not rewarding Iraq's defiance?

I would accuse Hussein (as well as Kissinger and Ariel Sharon, but later for that) of war crimes, with the idea of building respect for future US policy in the area.

Anybody who would accuse Secretary Kissinger or Prime Minister Sharon of war crimes clearly has no concept of what "war crimes" means. I'm this close to shutting this dialogue down right now, because you're sounding more and more like the typical left-wing fool. Please prove me wrong on this.

I would gather representatives from Turkey, Syria, the PKK, and even Iraq (yes, even though I've accused their dictator of war crimes), and work out a solution to the Kurdish question that the parties could agree on.

Sorry, but you're going to have to give me more than just hand-waving here. "What would you do?" "Well, I'd solve the problem." "How?" "By finding a solution to the problem." That's not especially enlighening. How would you gather those representatives? How would you "work out a solution?" And, most importantly, how would you justify the fact to the people of the United States that you are negotiating with a Marxist-Stalinist group with the declared purpose of bringing down a legitimate ally of the United States through terrorist means? Finally, how would you repair our relationship with Turkey after this a

Re:Doublespeak

[2RockStars]

Wow. OK, I suspect that the person who is disinterested in diplomacy might be you, moreso than even our government. And I've definitely become left-wing, and I'm definitely not typical. And if you want to "shut down" our conversation, perhaps with an exciting televised MOAB bomb on my personal palaces, or even by not responding, that's cool -- although I'd prefer to not be on the receiving end of the MOAB, thanks...

The UNSCOM inspections were compromised by Iraq's well-founded suspicions of Richard Butler's spying. He was certainly "guided" by the US. After him, Iraq wasn't going to trust inspectors. That's why El-Baredei's currently in UNMOVIC -- he doesn't offend Iraq as much. Good cop to Blix's bad cop, is the way I see it. But back to UNSCOM: I think that Scott Ritter was able to get a lot done, before we yanked the inspectors out for Operation Desert Fox. He was able to find and destroy those Russian-built centrifuges, and dump that yeasty precursor goop into a pit back in '97, remember?

Al-Samoud missles, and their extra 10 km range, aren't weapons of mass destruction without warheads, which was apparently how their range was determined -- but you're right, they were proscribed by the unending, sanctions-preserving Resolution 687 -- so good thing the inspectors found them and started destroying them, right? Whoops, that means that inspections were working, and we mght be nearing an end to sanctions, which would be results achieved through (slow and steady) diplomacy! I don't know why this administration seemed to resent when the inspectors didn't find a smoking gun, and actually reduced whatever was left of Iraq's pathetic military. This administration, and you too, presumably, appreciate the UN when it advances short-term US interests at the expense of future stability, and dislike it otherwise. Correct me if I'm wrong. You might also want to look at this article for the reasons why Iraq might not have had anything left to declare with regards to chemical and biological weapons.

Now, at least we agree that sanctions didn't do a damn bit of good -- if for wildly different reasons, of course. That's at least a starting point. You are a serious hanging judge, and I'm the bleeding-heart "left-wing fool," who believes that US policy in that region was servely limited by our clumsy diplomacy, typified by the way we're currently acting. Let me try to convince you of some of our failures by elaborating on the earlier examples. Had we performed better in the mideast during previous crises, including never propping up Saddam mutherfucking Hussein's regime in the first place, we would have had a much better outcome in future crises.

Regarding "a solution to the Kurdish question that the parties could agree on:"

How would you gather those representatives? How would you "work out a solution?" And, most importantly, how would you justify the fact to the people of the United States that you are negotiating with a Marxist-Stalinist group with the declared purpose of bringing down a legitimate ally of the United States through terrorist means? Finally, how would you repair our relationship with Turkey after this abortive attempt at negotiation?

This is obviously the most important nut to crack, and was the source of my worries about the outcome of this war waaay back in my original post. Since you demand total satisfaction, and insist on peaceful conflict resolution in 500 words or less, I guess I'd better roll up my sleves and get started, which is of course more than anybody else (including you) seems to want to do. Remember first of all that the US, as the sole hyperpower with excellent-looking jets, can bring anybody to the table. We need to be in the national mood for it, of course, which is why American politics is international politics. If we're not quite able to galvanize ourselve into action when important events call for it, there are int

Re:Doublespeak

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The UNSCOM inspections were compromised by Iraq's well-founded suspicions of Richard Butler's spying.

That's heavily debateable-- here's a hint; believe nothing Scott Ritter says unless you also hear it from two independent, credible sources-- but it doesn't matter. The rules are not ambiguous. They're crystal-clear, and they're on paper. Iraq was to present a declaration of their weapons programs by April 18, 1991. They didn't. They still haven't. Everything that happened subsequent to that was basically irrelevant. The inspectors never even should have gone into Iraq, because the declaration was unacceptable.

I think that Scott Ritter was able to get a lot done, before we yanked the inspectors out for Operation Desert Fox.

Richard Butler pulled the inspectors out in 1998, after Iraq shut down their cooperation for the third time that year. Not "we."

Al-Samoud missles, and their extra 10 km range, aren't weapons of mass destruction without warheads, which was apparently how their range was determined -- but you're right, they were proscribed by the unending, sanctions-preserving Resolution 687 -- so good thing the inspectors found them and started destroying them, right?

Wrong. The fact that the inspectors had to find them, that Iraq didn't declare them and submit them for destruction voluntarily, is evidence of the fact that the disarmament process wasn't working.

Before we go any further with this I want you to fire up Google and read resolution 687. The whole thing, start to finish. Read it, and understand it. Virtually everything you've said on the subject of the inspections so far is indicative of the fact that you just don't understand how the process was supposed to happen, and if you don't understand how it was supposed to happen, you can't understand why it was a failure.

As far as your worries about the dreaded "Marxist-Stalinist" boogeyman that has it out for Israel...

I'm lost now. What are you talking about? The organization formerly known as the PKK, now called KADEK, is a Marxist-Stalinist terrorist organization that used to operate out of Turkey, but since 1999 has been based in northwestern Iraq. Bringing them to the bargaining table, as you suggested, would be a diplomatic nightmare for the United States. But that's okay; it could never happen. Turkey will never negotiate with that group.

...or we mollify Syria by holding Israel's feet to the fire over it's UN obligations.

We can't. You are aware of the difference between chapter VI and chapter VII UNSEC resolutions, yes?

The Ba'athist parties in Syria and Iraq should be allowed to build its economy any way it wants to (that's Democracy)

No, it's totalitarianism. The Baath party maintains control in Iraq through brutal violence. This is your idea of democracy?

Sharon's provocation at Al-Aqsa...

You know what? Drop it. Right fucking now. We are not going to have a conversation about Israel, okay? Your opinion is so utterly wrong, I refuse to even listen to it. If you want to talk about Iraq, go for it. But shut the fuck up about Israel.

Re:Doublespeak

[2RockStars]

I read Resolution 687 after finding it using AltaVista three or four years ago :). It's the "future ongoing verification" part of the language in that resolution that jobbed the Iraqis. That language was used by the US and UK to cement the sanctions, for all practical purposes.

I'm lost now. What are you talking about? The organization formerly known as the PKK, now called KADEK, is a Marxist-Stalinist terrorist organization that used to operate out of Turkey, but since 1999 has been based in northwestern Iraq. Bringing them to the bargaining table, as you suggested, would be a diplomatic nightmare for the United States. But that's okay; it could never happen. Turkey will never negotiate with that group.

My bad, and I'm sorry -- you were mistaken, because I was mistaken -- I assumed that you were calling Iraq the Marxist-Stalinist organization, and Israel the only US ally in the region! Of course you're right, it's the future relations between Turkey and the PUK that are critical currently -- not the PKK, no matter how much they change their name -- especially since there are radical Islamic elements among the Kurds that the PUK can't control whose actions might offer pretexts for Turkey to start running Kashmir-style counter-insurgencies. I think we have to make sure that we deal fairly with all the parties involved, and soon, since nation-building is hard work, and you can't keep a strong nationalistic movement down forever...

Which leads me to a new point, which you don't want me "the fuck" to talk about: Why isn't Israel considered to be part of the discussion for any regional solution? Every member of the "Arab street," and every member of the Iranian street, for that matter, would consider its treatment of the Palestinians to be the pressing issue. Shit, the fact that the occupation is ongoing strengthens any radical in the Arab world that you care to choose, Saddam included. We can only talk about legitimate enforcement of UN resolutions when we start holding Israel to be in the same contempt that we hold Iraq to be in, and that's why this war has damaged US relations with most of the mideast so badly. We can also only mention WMD nonproliferation when we can admit in the same breath that Israel has a strapping young nuclear program. Serious talks, not fear-mongering and provocations from both sides, are what are required. Only the US can compel it. Remove the conflict, and you've removed the rhetoric and the radicalization from any splinter group you care to name.

We are not going to have a conversation about Israel, okay?

Someday, we have to. For now, it's apparently a "red line" for you to even discuss examples of bad judgement in American policy. You're not the only one, of course -- MSNBC and Fox News specialize in it. But that's the wrong way to go! There's an awful lot of bad news about to come raining down on my head (and in the worst case, perhaps actual chunks of buildings) because of attitudes like that. We can all sit around and say "why do they hate us," (which is what the Iraqis will say if their humanitarian aid isn't forthcoming at the end of the war), and refuse to listen to the "utterly wrong" things that we hear in reply, only hearing what we want to hear. Or, we can use the right kind of preemption -- diplomacy, not war -- when we still have the chance, and before things get bad. Let's hope we give everyone involved a fair hearing, too, and not just play favorites for short-term strategic gain. We would take the first step. Think of the example we could set to the rest of the world if we would try it. Whenever I see how things are done with my taxes, things I think are terrible mistakes, my feelings of disenfrachisement reappear -- although "disenfranchisement" isn't the right word, you're right, it should be more like "lack of agency" or something. That rosy picture you painted at the beginning of this too-long thread two days ago about the shiny new Iraqi Federation had better come true, all of it, and super-quick, or the responsibility will be all of ours (50% yours, 25% mine, quit whining) for whatever intentionally-unforseen consequences occur.

You're up.

Re:Doublespeak

[Guipo]

stands up...claps....

Thank you guys. This is the best thread I think i have ever read on the subject. Its rare that someone stands even somewhat close to twirlip, on this. just really great. Best time spent all day.

Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[EvilBastard]

Got this in Email this morning, passing it along:

Published on Monday, March 17, 2003 by Michael Moore
A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War
by Michael Moore

George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC

Dear Governor Bush:

So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few truths I would like to share with you:

1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of the White House and on to any street in America and try to find five people who are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why? 'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi has even threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans think: If a certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then, believe it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!

2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are not fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real issues are that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in Q. Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you took office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if their retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs almost two dollars -- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go away. Only you need to go away for things to improve.

3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against you, Mr. Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.

4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope! But even worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it have to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like when you went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.

5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota) has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really want to stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait right now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their kids for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well, hey, guess what -- we don't think so either!

6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal screw-ups. Yes, some of them can pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we wouldn't even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French? That it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That our greatest thinkers and founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, etc. -- spent many years in Paris where they refined the concepts that lead to our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution? That it was France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And now they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth about yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them for getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled more (like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not only made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get out of.

Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this war, more than likely it will be

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[chunkwhite86]

In addition to being just plain wrong on all your points, you sir, are a Troll. May you be modded down as such until the end of time.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Zigg]

Dear Governor Bush:

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.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[ralphart]

It's going to be hard to post much of anything that somebody doesn't think is a troll.....I'd say mentioning Rush Limbaugh is troll bait, but that's just me.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Zigg]

Hmm, you agree with Michael Moore. What a surprise, to hear your opinion of those who listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[chrispycreeme]

What exactly is he wrong about? Getting the letter this morning? Or that he passed it on? Try using facts to make an argument instead of just calling people trolls. Troll.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Picass0]

I support the war.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[egg troll]

The bottom line is that everything he says comes tainted by his axe-grinding over the outcome of the 2000 presidental election.

Well...I'm still pretty pissed about the outcome of the 2000 election. The majority of Americans did not want Bush to be the president. Based upon Bush's post-9/11 actions, I wish even more that Gore had won.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[JBhoy]

Michael Moore is a clueless ass anyway. Virtually everything he says in the letter is either wrong or a lie, but that's nothing new. Truth has always been the first casualty where Michael Moore is concerned.

He's just pissed because he screwed up his London stage show by being a jerk.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[OpMindFck]

I have always been a big fan of Michael Moore. I've read his book and went out of my way to see him speak at my University two years ago.

He is wrong. Sure, I can find people who disagree with this war too. I just need to ask my friends who dont watch the news or read... at all. They hate Bush as much as Mr Moore, so they share his opinion of the war.

Everyone that I speak to who actually has any knowledge of world events supports our president. I do too.

And I voted for Nader (in MA, not FL, thank you very much)

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Resnikov]

Stop being a flag waving loon. Every body is entitled to their opion be it right or wrong. And by the way the rest of the free world dont want a war and this leaders of the free world stuff is all "BS" as know voted you to lead us

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Get OVER it already. That's how the Electoral process works. If you don't like it, try within the system set down by the Constitution to get it changed, but try to accept reality and support your country now, please.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Snagle]

lol i wasnt saying michael moore is right, just pointing out what i found humorus. Michael Moore makes some good points in that letter, but it is anything but correct.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[stu42j]

Ok, maybe you "support the war" but are you "PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis"? I think this is an important distinction.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Brushfireb]

I am not passionate about killing ANYONE, EVER.

I dont think Pres. Bush is "Passionate about wanting to kill iraqis" either. That is not what this is about at all.

I am, as are the 4 people I asked, passionate about wanting Saddam dead, gone, history, etc.

Let me say one more thing. MOST Iraqis, at least as far as I have read, ARE passionate about getting Saddam out as well. And they should be. Bring In Freedom, Democracy, Open Trade, etc etc. This war is about Saddam and his regime, not about killing innocent iraqis.

My point originally was just to show that there ARE people who support this. I am not republican and I do not particularly like bush, but i DO support this war. You can call it illegal or whatever, but in the long term, this will be better for everyone, and thats all that matters to me. Brushfireb

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[intermodal]

yes, but he worked for those he considered the lesser of two evils. dipshit.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[cehardin]

I support the war

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[CaptainCarrot]

Anyone else want to take points 2-6?

Shouldn't be too hard. Let's see...

1. Characterizing supporters of this war as "wanting to kill Iraqis" is slanderous. Admittedly, there's a handful of Iraqis, all of them with the surname "Hussein", whom we'd like to see dead. But no one wants to see innocent Iraqi civillians dead. Too bad Saddam would rather put some of them through a paper shredder himself. No, few are "passionate" about this war. Many supporters of it feel a certain ambivalence. It's something we have to do, but few are happy that we have to do it. There are a few exceptions. Iraqi expatriates living in the US are very glad indeed that this war is happening. Why don't you find one and ask why they came here? Hint: it usually wasn't for the cheese.
2. Blaming Bush for the economy is senseless. Anyone who was paying attention could see that the economy was beginning to tank in 1Q 2000, while Clinton was still in office. It's fitting, really, that an economy puffed up by lies and foolish business models occurred during the administration of the biggest liar we've had for a President since LBJ. Bush arguably hasn't done a whole lot about it. There's arguably not a lot he can do about it. No one's savings or retirement funds are going away any time soon just because the stock market is no longer inflated beyond all reason.

   By the way, Gore lost the election. Deal with it.

3. "The whole world" with more than a few minor exceptions like the UK, Spain, Australia, etc. Minor, yeah. The UN resolution that might have authorized war had a majority of the Security Council supporting it. It was withdrawn under the threat of a unilateral veto by France. Only in the mind of an unusually arrogant Frenchman does France constitute the "whole world".
4. The Pope? My, we have come a long way since JFK was elected over the objections of those who feared, unreasonably, that he'd be a papal puppet. (Ironically, this was another very close election with the candidates separated by .2% of the popular vote. A single switched vote per precinct would have sent the election the other way. Did Kennedy steal the election?) Now the President is supposed to obey the Pope! That's funny. When you're done laughing, read and understand the following: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." You should recognize it; it's part of the same Constitutional Amendment that also allows you the right to post a lying, hate-filled tirade like this one without fear of government reprisal. As for "the poor" being shipped to Vietnam, it's a lie.
5. I remind the writer that we no longer have the draft. Anyone now in the military has volunteered of his or her own free will. The possibility of being sent to war is a risk they knowingly took upon themselves when they joined up. This second attempt at drawing a Vietnam parallel is even more pathetic than the first.
6. Ah, yes. The French. Oh, please. Could they perhaps be supporting Iraq because of the nuclear reactors they're selling there? Or the French oil company operating there, the biggest in Iraq? Could the French possibly have their own business interests in mind when they oppose this war? Ya think?

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.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[incom]

Many people consider a court overturning an election and appointing a leader undemocratic. And seeing as how America is a democracy, then GWB is not president.So would you prefer Dictator Bush to governor Bush?

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[cheezedawg]

What election were you watching? The Supreme Court did not "install" the President. Florida Law required the vote to be certified by November 26th- those were the rules going into the "game". Vice President Gore tried to change those rules in the middle of the contest by extending the deadline. The US Supreme Court rightfully ruled that unconstitutional.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[egg troll]

...but try to accept reality and support your country now, please.

Why should I now support a war that my conscience tells me is both wrong and immoral? Why should I support a war that will only further inflame anti-American sentiment in the Middle East? Why should I support a gov't that has money for a foolish war but not enough for education?

I could go on....

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

Many people consider a court overturning an election and appointing a leader undemocratic.

My guess is that you're complaining about the US Supreme Court "appointing" Bush.

You're wrong.

The election board in Florida found Bush to be the winner by the slimmest of margins. Regardless of what you think happened in the election, that's what the board said. Gore didn't like it, so he took it to the Florida Supreme Court. They said to count again--they overturned the election result. Bush filed in the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court agreed with Bush that the election result, as determined by the Florida Elections Board, should stand--that is, the US Supreme Court refused to overturn the election. And regardless of any court's determination, he would not have been "appointed;" that word has specific meaning, and the court didn't do it. Appointment implies an open field for selection; the court made a determination about the validity of an election, and their determination may have affected the results certified by the Board (though recent studies and recounts indicate that Bush would have won under any recount with objective standards), but that is not the same as an appointment.

And seeing as how America is a democracy...

Really? I thought we were a Republic. Do me a favor, please, and point out to me anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution/Amendments, or the like, the word "democracy" (or derivative). I'd love to see it, because in my reading (of every word, I might add), I never came across it.

All the previous aside, though, regardless of what you think of the process, George W. Bush is the President. He holds the office, he resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the military takes orders from him, he signs the bills, and, most importantly, he took the oath of office. Like it or not, he is the President.

No, I'm not particularly fond of it either.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Beatbyte]

I agree.

Bush is also ensuring 100% that he's not the president who let 9/11 happen TWICE!

You can cry all you want about this being about oil, but anyone with brains knows we MOST our oil from south america.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[saskwach]

His own personal profit? I see no profit in making a formal statement of dissent, other than satisfaction of those who agree and the dissatisfaction of those who disagree. Michael Moore's web site appears devoid of banner ads (I block popups so I can't really be sure that there aren't any) so he's not profiting monetarily, at least directly. It seems to me that, along with some satire, Michael Moore makes some powerful statements, not the least of which is that the majority of voting citizens of the United States of America did not vote for George W. Bush to become president.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[drasfr]

The US did not had support for the war and that is the only reason they did not put up the resolution at the UN.

They were SCARED of democracy and loosing.

Other countries could have express their vote and still stay yes we favor the war, or no we are against, even if France would have expressed its Veto, governments around the world have their OWN mind, and showing support from 9 countries for the war against the veto of France would have isolate France even more and still given some legitimity to the war !!

So, at the contrary it would have been favorable for the US, and unfavorable to France. Unfortunatly the US is NOT a democratic country, as soon as a democratic vote is needed, they chicken away. (No I will not start on how Bush was elected...).

Bush is Arrogant, and show himself as wanted to be the master of the world, that is WHY most countries are against him.

You can't stay countries support the US. The government might support, not their people.

The people are the one that makes a country. Look at the poll from yesterday on CNN. Spanish government support the US, well, only 17% of the spaniards support !! Is that support from the people ? less than 50% of the brits support the war. in average in most European countries where the governments support the US (in talk only), less than 25% in average of their people are in favor.

IS THAT SUPPORT ?

and for your point, 6. Nuclear reactors were sold a long time ago to Iraq... and I have a question... Who put Sadam in power ?????? Who armed him at the beginning? Who in terms of $$ has the most business with Iraq? Certainly not France.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[quitcherbitchen]

Why should I now support a war that my conscience tells me is both wrong and immoral?

The decision is made. Try to accept that and support the men and women that pledge their lives to support your freedoms.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[johnstein]

Good points. Very good points. hurrah hurrah for common sense for a change. :) -John

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Anenga]

Good Post. Mod em' up.

Characterizing supporters of this war as "wanting to kill Iraqis" is slanderous. Admittedly, there's a handful of Iraqis, all of them with the surname "Hussein", whom we'd like to see dead. But no one wants to see innocent Iraqi civillians dead. Too bad Saddam would rather put some of them through a paper shredder himself. No, few are "passionate" about this war. Many supporters of it feel a certain ambivalence. It's something we have to do, but few are happy that we have to do it. There are a few exceptions. Iraqi expatriates living in the US are very glad indeed that this war is happening. Why don't you find one and ask why they came here? Hint: it usually wasn't for the cheese.

So true. Saddam doesn't give a crap about his people. So much that he has civilians (men, women and children) creating a "Human Shield" ring around himself. Wow, how nice.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Slime-dogg]

In fact, Michael Moore makes some very bad points in his letter.

He says "NO ONE" (with exception of ...), but I'm for the attack/invasion/war (whatever your doublespeak wants to call it). I have a feeling that Michael feels too much in order to make a valid argument. In fact, all of his movies are steeped in this sentamental "fight for the underdog" mentality. Saddam, obviously, is the underdog. The difference is that Saddam is less than guilty, he's just an evil man.

I watched "Bowling for Columbine." I liked a lot of it, until he confronted Charlton Heston. That was perhaps the worst peice of journalism anyone has ever done. He not only offended Charlton, by cornering him in a way to make him appear completely evil, but he offended me. Maybe that's his point, to be offensive, but he sure didn't help his cause in his search for those things that cause American society to be more violent than others.

Michael doesn't have a logical bone in his body. He also doesn't have the ability to see a situation from all sides. All he sees is a big thing picking on a little thing. Maybe he's venting his gradeschool angst, with him being the unpopular fat kid in school that was made fun of. You may disagree with me on that, but it's fine... It seems to make more sense in explaining his arguments than anything else.

Michael is unqualified to make any judgements in this arena, as are any Hollywood actors/acresses, and any media reporters (read Jennings). Yeah, I'll admit that I'm not a liberal. I'm not really conservative either, though... so the label thing isn't an issue. I hope that I can keep a clear head on these issues, instead of getting my emotions into the whole argument, and risking that I may lose rationale.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Your_Mom]

Who put Sadam in power??????

Uhm, sorry, not us. He came to power while Iraq was on our Terrorist States list. We were still friends with Iran then.

Who armed him at the beginning?

Again, not us. We helped him /after/ the begining, long after he took power, and also, I can't seem to find anything about Nuclear reactors, link please?

Who in terms of $$ has the most business with Iraq?

Right now, that would be Russia. They are knee deep in contracts with Iraq.

Again, I may be wrong, I am pretty sure about 1 and 3, and iffy about 2, so feel free to post contrary evidence.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[socialist fish]

Freedom? What freedom are you talking about?

You bush-supporting americans make me sick. Your freedom has NOTHING to do with Iraq, was is about Iraq is oil and nothing but oil, are you stupid or what?

Please, please, please, explain me how your freedom is affected by Saddam's regime? And now tell me about the iraq's people freedom? Do you care about democracy and all... and freedom? freedom to live? freedom to let the bastard of Saddam be in power, but it is THEIRS problem. Sure, the international community could help, with diplomatic pressure and that.But please explain me how the fuck 1000 bomb over the people and then an invasion -followed by the implantation of a puppet regime, as you did all over the world- will give them freedom?

You are SO full of shit.

PS: hope the Iraq's soldiers and civilians show your baby-killing-marines some guts and this becomes another Vietnam.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[jimmyharris]

The US imports the majority of is oil from South America?

Wrong.

The US only imports oil from one South America country (Venezuela - http://www.ott.doe.gov/facts/archives/fotw246.shtm l) and it certainly doesn't import anywhere near a majority of oil from there.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Brushfireb]

Couldnt have said it better myself (and why I didnt try). Thanks Carrot.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Slime-dogg]

The parent post is not flamebait. Some of us are not fans of Michael Moore, and we recognize him as a irrational sensationalist fuck-up. Big deal.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[ralphus]

Dear Governor Bush: 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)

Because an argument is polemical does not mean that it should not be given any weight. Polemics is a classic and a necessary form of argument.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Slime-dogg]

Mod this dude up. He actually uses his brain to think, and not a rash emotional reaction. Even though he may not be fond of it, he has not blatantly denied the truth, and in so doing has accepted that which has been a part of this country for 100's of years.

Anyone who says that Gore was really the winner should check into a psychiatric ward, because they really are not thinking with a human brain.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[CaptainCarrot]

No, thank you! :)

I just noticed I repsonded to point one again, after you did. Oh well.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[CaptainCarrot]

Simply that France doesn't want its business interests threatened. It's immaterial who else they're doing business with.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[socialist fish]

Some 20 or 30 years ago, I can't recall now, Iraq was US's ally; that was the time when Iraq gained some bad-ass guns kindly selled by the USA.

I would not say that Saddam is a good guy, neither deny the invasion of Kuwait, the dictatorship, etc. That has nothing to do with *your* security. It could not endanger nobody outside mid-east.

> Somtimes the policies of the world must be backed up with force

OK, the policies of the world asks you kindly to destroy all of your WMD, pleeease. Oh, and to stop polluting the globe, not to mention the international court, which YOUR nazi governor is forcing small countries to refuse it. Why? because in the IC YOUR war crimes could be punished. Also, have you heard of human rights? then, why the fuck did your government helped Videla (argentina's dictator during the 70's, responsible of 30K+ murders) during so much time?

Please, you give me some interesting fact to deal with.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[socialist fish]

Your arguments seems like the ones you will read on a Superman comic, you people can't be sooo gullible...

Hey, you've got some fucking expensive universities and all there...

I did a little research (it took about 60 seconds) and find this (note the .gov suffix) http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves .html

If you look carefully, the estimated reserves of oil for the whole world are about 1213 x 10^9 barrels. Iraq has the third position (after Saudi Arabia and Canada) with about 10% (112 x 10^9) of the total reserves of the world. If that seems little to you, then may be you are retarded

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Ghorin]

Who armed him at the beginning?

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 ... chemical and biologic weapons.

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.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[balthan]

First, the UN is not a democracy. At best, it's at least twice removed from the people.

Second, the UN is a farce. Iraq heading the disarmament committee and Libya chairing the human rights commission? Hello?!

Third, when was the last time France even tried to get UN support for their military actions? (Answer: never.)

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[ensignyu]

"Blaming Bush for the economy is senseless. Anyone who was paying attention could see that the economy was beginning to tank in 1Q 2000, while Clinton was still in office."

Obviously, a large part of the economic decline is due to the bubble of the 1990s. However, I do blame Bush for not even trying to help the economy (his tax cuts definately will not help the economy in the short-term, and it's uncertain to unlikely whether it'll help in the long term either)

""The whole world" with more than a few minor exceptions like the UK, Spain, Australia, etc. Minor, yeah. The UN resolution that might have authorized war had a majority of the Security Council supporting it. It was withdrawn under the threat of a unilateral veto by France. Only in the mind of an unusually arrogant Frenchman does France constitute the "whole world"."

Most people will agree this: if ONLY France had vetoed it, we would still have the support of the world by majority vote. But no, it looked like we weren't going to get enough votes for a majority, so we just blame it on France. We're the arrogant ones. Remember, Germany, China, Russia, and a whole slew of other countries are dead against the war. And of 180+ countries, only 30 or so actually support the U.S.

The key word is "might." Because it looks as if there's a good chance it wouldn't have, and the U.S. didn't even give the vote a chance. Cowards.

"Ah, yes. The French. Oh, please. Could they perhaps be supporting Iraq because of the nuclear reactors they're selling there? Or the French oil company operating there, the biggest in Iraq? Could the French possibly have their own business interests in mind when they oppose this war? Ya think?"

Of course they have business interests in mind. So do we. Does that mean we should go to war because of them? Oh wait, I think we may have just done that. We've already promised reconstruction projects to U.S. companies and U.S. companies only.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[greenrd]

The Office of the President of the United States of America merits respect.

Um. I have one question for you. Why?

Try telling that to an anarchist, and see what kind of reaction you get.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[hahn]

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

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[billstewart]

While Michael Moore writes entertaining flames, I disagree with him more than half the time :-) However, while you may believe, as Nixon appeared to, that the Office of the Presidency deserves respect, that doesn't mean that the occupant of that office lives up to the chair he's sitting in, and when he falls short of that, as the current Occupant so blatantly has, respect for the office includes upbraiding him for it. Bush lies through his teeth - he's worse than his father, who at least did so competently, and worse than Clinton, who mainly lied about his personal life, not that any of them had any more principles than Nixon.

In particular, respecting the office includes respecting the process of Getting Elected To It, and in my opinion, delaying and preventing recounts of the votes through any procedural tricks possible, which the Florida Republicans did, and taking it to the Supreme Court to prevent a recount, doesn't strike me as respecting that process. (That doesn't mean that the Democrats didn't incompetently botch their part of that job - they did. It also doesn't mean that they wouldn't have stolen it if they could - they've had some small experience with that in the past... Or that having his brother in charge of the gross mismanagement of elections didn't make the situation look worse than it was.)

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[billstewart]

Maybe those men and women have pledged their lives to support our freedoms - many of the soldiers I've known thought that was the job they were signing up for, though many others signed up just because they wanted to make some money for college or gain some experience with the world and get off the farm or out of the ghetto or play in the marching band, and some were chaplains who want to serve the needs of the men and women who are in the military. That's not what Bush is using them for, and to say that we should support his imperialist actions because they're brave men and women is to disrespect their bravery.

Furthermore, just because they've pledged their lives to support our freedoms doesn't relieve them of the individual responsibility to do the right thing - not only is that straightforward moral principle, it's US law: the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires US soldiers to disobey illegal orders, and that doesn't mean they can depend on their superior officers to tell them what's legal - those rules are there because of the Nurnberg "I vas only following orders" defenses, and the importance of them was reinforced by events like the My Lai massacre of unarmed civilians in Vietnam.

Furthermore, under the US Constitution, Congress is supposed to be in charge of deciding whether to have a war, and the President is only in charge of getting the job done once they've told him what to do, just as they're also responsible for setting foreign policy, which the Executive Branch is in charge of implementing. They've wimped out and let the last few Presidents walk all over them, and Bush should be roundly criticized for continuing this tradition, which of course he has largely gotten away with because of 9/11.

Separately from the immorality of Bush's actions, there's the problem that he *is* increasing the chances of terrorists attacking the US territory, and attacking Americans overseas, and attacking our allies such as Israel, because he's increasing the number of people who are severely pissed off at the US, like the bunch of Saudis who did the 9/11 atrocities, and by using them to provide military aid and training to other civilian-oppressing militaries around the world (like the Indonesians, and many of the Latin American tyrannies over the years), he's doing more of this.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[billstewart]

Bush and his friends in the Florida government tried very hard to delay the process to get past the deadline, and succeeded in changing the rules several times during the process, and Gore and the Democrats were not competent enough to play the game successfully and beat them (or to figure out which counties the _real_ cheating was happening it, which apparently were some areas that the press didn't notice.) The fact that the Supremes are in charge of deciding who won, and did so, is separate from the fact that Bush was *trying* to prevent the votes from being counted accurately, which he shouldn't have done, and preventing the votes from being counted after the fact by the press, which was even more important, and of course there's the problem that the voter registration system had serious problems, incorrectly disenfranchising a large number of Floridians who would primarily have voted Democrat.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[CaptainCarrot]

It's amazing to me how easily some people rationalize war and the arrogance with which they do it.

It's amazing to me how easily some people construct straw men and the arrogance with which they proceed to demolish it as if they were making a genuine argument.

If you think I made a weak case for the war there's a reason for that. I wasn't making one. I was addressing only the letter from Michael Moore. There are a number of good reasons not to go to war, but he didn't offer any. Neither do you really, but it's far to late at night (or too early in the morning) to address everything you got wrong.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[HuguesT]

So let's see, something fishy is going on with those votes, but we've got a deadline. Which is more important: the deadline or the fishiness?

The supreme court ruled the deadline, but that wasn't obvious.

By fishy I don't mean the hanging chads, I mean the African Americans that brother Jeb Bush struck off the register for having names that *sounded like* convicted felons.

Read this story if you don't believe me.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[MullerMn]

"The whole world" with more than a few minor exceptions like the UK, Spain, Australia, etc. Minor, yeah. The UN resolution that might have authorized war had a majority of the Security Council supporting it. It was withdrawn under the threat of a unilateral veto by France. Only in the mind of an unusually arrogant Frenchman does France constitute the "whole world".

Assuming you're American, my irony meter just exploded.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[HuguesT]

A republic can be a democracy, the two are not incompatible.

A republic is a type of government, with an elected president as the head of state and various legislative assemblies. Non-republics include consitutional monarchies (with a king or queen as head of state) for example.

A democracy is a system where the power ultimately resides with the people. In the case of the US, the people elect the president, congress and judges. All three branches of government. Therefore it is considered a democracy. France also has a republican system which is a democracy for example. Non-democracies include oligarchies (power with a few), ploutocracies (power with the rich), gerontocracies (power with the old) and tyrannies (power with a tyran).

I think you equate democracy with the system of direct representation (roughly the Athenian model) which is not the only one.

The UK have a consitutional monarchy which is a democracy as well, in the sense that they elect their prime minister who has the real power.

China has a republican system which is not democratic -- it calls itself the People's Republic of China (PRC), in the sense that the Chinese people does not elect its leaders, only the unique party members do.

See the wikipedia entry on democracy for more information than you need.

Apologies for being pedantic.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Myopic]

point of order: we have a 225 year history of strong presidencies, of presidents setting foreign policy, of presidents waging war when they deem it necessary. i don't think there's much argument to that.

also, congress has control over the declaration of war as a check to the president's power to wage war; but that doesn't mean that congress is "supposed" to set the agenda then tell the president to go implement it. why? because that wouldn't work. most of us agree that a president is in a unique position to know what is best, militarily, and thus should have some power to act, militarily.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Vantage13]

Non-democracies include oligarchies (power with a few), ploutocracies (power with the rich), gerontocracies (power with the old) and tyrannies (power with a tyran).

hrmm strangely the US matches all of the above as well...

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[tsoquark]

why should the iraqi people suffer for the sanctions saddam "earned" for himself? those sanctions have starved millions of iraqi children and assorted others.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[Nidoizo]

Ah, yes. The French. Oh, please. Could they perhaps be supporting Iraq because of the nuclear reactors they're selling there? Or the French oil company operating there, the biggest in Iraq? Could the French possibly have their own business interests in mind when they oppose this war? Ya think?

Sure, but BTW, the compagny you're talking about is in big part owned by US investment funds. Even, if French are defending their interest, Russia also said they would use their veto and we were expecting a majority of security counsil to oppose US/England resolution. So why shit on French? Isn't US defending their interests? US have used their veto many more times than France, so what's the problem?

In England, Blair has succesfully voted his motion for war, but with the biggest rebellion of its own deputies in 100 years and with the demission of 3 ministers.

Yes, US have always been a symbol of democracy, and yes Irak is far from democratic, but there's a world democracy and it's called the UN. Don't say you agree with war in Iraq, we all want Saddam out. Think about the long-term consequences of ignoring UN. What next country will attack another one pretending doing it for its security? It's a shame what is happening right now. A shame for all of us, even if the operation is successful.

BTW, Irak can't attack US, so what is the real reason for all that? Many analyst said Bush need to correct economy situation to be reelected, and lower oil price would do it. Might not be the truth, but I think that makes sense.

Regards

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[gotan]

They tried diplomatic pressure and other means with America alongside. It didn't work.

But it did work, in the end there were results and that's why a lot of countries wanted the weapons inspectors to go on with their work. If there is proof, that the Iraq has a significant number of B- or C-weapons the USA never presented it. In the end the Iraq was complying (though grudgingly) with the demands layed down by the UN. In the meantime north Korea more or less publicly announced their intention to produce nuclear bombs, so shouldn't Bush et al. strike at north Korea before going for the Iraq?

So when Bush couldn't convince the world that Iraq was threatening the world with weapons of mass destruction he switched rhetorics and talked about having to free the Iraq of that evil dictator Saddam. Now Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator, but that's none of the USAs business, as it hasn't been for the past 20 years (like when the USA even supported the current Iraqi regime). The last demand that Saddam now leave the country within 48 hours is not an ultimatum, it's a joke. Everyone can imagine that that'd be suicide for Saddam.

This war isn't about terrorism either, it's easier to construct a link from Osama bin Laden to Bush than to Saddam Hussein, and war isn't a means to get at terrorists who're probably not even in the attacked country. As a result of the war even more terrorist attacks are expected in the US and the threat level is raised.

So the war isn't about chemical weapons or terrorists, neither is it an idealistic mission to free the Iraq people from their evil dictator (or do the USA now intend to attack any country where the government isn't to their liking?). Many people (even inside the US) see it that way and that's how they arrive at the conclusion that the war isn't justified but is just about oil and distracting the american people from their problems at home.

This war is also a very bad precedent, as it shows that the USAs government doesn't care what the UN have to say on the issue, they do what they damn well please anyway. So now whenever any country wants to start a war all they need are some unsupportable and made up reasons and then they can go ahead? Or is that only right for the USA but noone else?

Also the arrogant way the USA dealt with the UN and other nations (and also opposition at home) has weakened the UN and hurt diplomatic relationships worldwide. More and more the USA is percieved

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[revery]

Not per capita, noy by far, and France and Russia both have huge oil extraction operations in Iraq. That's the primary reason for their fear.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[SubtleNuance]

so his argument is not relevant unless its delivered with a favourable "attitude"?

I believe Michael Moore is 100% dead on.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[cheezedawg]

Yes- I have read that article by Greg Palast.

First, ask yourself if the author of that article is really objective when it comes to President Bush. It looks like he has staked his career on undermining the Bush Presidency. Surprizingly enough, he is the only one making these claims- it was never picked up by other "mainstream" media. There is a good reason for this- it is a complete non-story. In fact, Salon.com ran a correction 15 days after that story for some of the untrue things in the article (Catherine Harris did not hire the firm).

I mean the African Americans that brother Jeb Bush struck off the register for having names that *sounded like* convicted felons.

Ok- lets start out with the blatent lies in that statement. Jeb Bush had nothing to do with the story. In 1998, after discovering widespread fraud in the elections where several conviced felons and dead people ended up voting, the Florida Legislature passed a law (yes, the legislative branch makes the laws, not the Governor) that called for the creation of a statewide list of possible felons. That year, Florida Division of Elections Director Ethel Baxter, a democrat, hired the firm Database Technologies to compile the list. The list had around 100,000 names on it.

The Florida statute stated that this list was to be sent to each county elections board as a guideline. The counties were not required to use the list (many chose not to use it at all), but they were required to verify the accuracy of the names on the list if they did decide to use it. Therefore, if a voter was incorrectly struck from the voter registration, by law it is the county supervisor's fault, and not Catherine Harris' or Jeb Bush's fault.

Now, every voter that was removed from the voter registration based on this law was notified months in advance and given a procedure to dispute the removal. Greg Palast was only able to find 5 or 6 people that claim this was the case (they were incorrectly removed, so they had to dispute). Aside from that, there is only anectodal evidence of innocent people actually losing their vote (Rep Corrine Brown, a democrat, claimed that she saw "2 or 3" black people get incorrectly turned away, but when the media pressed her, she was unable to give any details).

So it boils down to this:

An unknown number of innocent people were put on the original list of 100,000 names

Of that unknown number, an unknown number lived in counties that actually used the list

Of that unknown number, an unknown number were actually removed from the voter registration lists by the county election supervisor

Of that unknown number, an unknown number failed to dispute the removal

and of that unknown number, less than 50% turned out to vote anyway (general voter turnout)

Really- there is NOTHING to this story.

So were minority voters specifically targeted? The NAACP, who came in to represent these minorities, stated VERY plainly in this settlement that there is no allegation of discrimination or misconduct in regards to this voter list. They did file suit because of the sloppy implementation of the list, but they admitted that most of the changes that they were seeking were already implemented by the state of Florida by the time the suit was filed.

If innocent people were prevented from voting, that is a tragedy, but it is not the huge scandal that Mr Palast wants it to be. It also has nothing to do with the parent's claim about the US Supreme Court.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[SubtleNuance]

What? These young men and women are being used as tools at best, and are happy participants in this immoral war at worst.

"This Supporting yoru freedoms" bullshit is newspeak for Love The Leader. im sorry, but this mon-speak mantra of "support the troops" is a smoke screen to crush dissenting voices under a tidalwave of jingoism. Fuck that.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[kfx]

>The majority of Americans did not want Bush to be
>the president.

Newsflash, neither did the majority of voters cast their ballot for Clinton. And if not for Perot, H.W. Bush would have been reelected by a very comfortable margin. Unfortunately the same electoral system that let Bush "steal" the election from Gore (who by the way didnt get a majority either, thanks to Nader) is a sword that cuts both ways.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[billstewart]

Go read the Constitution for a while, and the history that goes along with it, particularly the Anti-Federalist papers and the Federalist papers.

Declaring war and waging war are much different issues - declaring war is a policy question, and that's Congress's responsibility. As Commander in Chief, yes, the President is better positioned to know militarily how to send the right soldiers to the right places to kill the enemies that Congress wants killed, but it's Congress's job to decide who those enemies are and whether to kill them or negotiate with them, which is NOT a military decision. It can be _influenced_ by military decisions (if the head of the Army says we're not strong enough to kill Enemy A, and they're not currently invading us, Congress should probably decide not to try to kill them.)

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[CaptainCarrot]

No, Saddam has starved millions of Iraqi children and countless others. There's plenty of money going into the country. If he chooses to build palaces and other self-aggrandizing monuments with it instead of feeding his starving people, that's no one's fault but his own.

Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush

[egg troll]

He has been a problem to human rights all over the region and in the future may be a threat to the world. Do you dispute this? The international community didn't and doesn't now. They tried diplomatic pressure and other means with America alongside. It didn't work. Somtimes the policies of the world must be backed up with force, even when others are reluctant to do so. Yes that means terrible things might happen.

By your reasoning, we should be invading Israel, too.

Cruise Missle Attack

[nyc_paladin]

According to CNN there was a cruise missle attack sent to Iraq on a "target of opportunity". Have to wait till Bush speaks and lets us know what is going on.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[MaximumBob]

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.

It will not be over by summer

[JoeBuck]

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.

Re:It will not be over by summer

[shayborg]

I was just being sarcastic; I wasn't intending to make, and I'm not going to make, any statement regarding how long I think the war will take or how long US troops will stay in Iraq.

In all seriousness, now that they are there, I wish them the best of luck in their mission, and I wish for the fewest possible casualties on both sides. I don't particularly want this war to have started, and I of course have a right (and in fact a duty) to disagree with the declaration of war if I believe it is unjustified, as I do. But now that this nation is at war, I do think it is my duty as a citizen -- and that of all other citizens -- to at least wish success to our troops.

-- shayborg

Re:It will not be over by summer

[YrWrstNtmr]

...US troops will have to be there forever...

We have already been there for 12 years. Flying missions 2-3x daily, providing cover for the Kurds, and denying Saddam the Insane the ability to reconstruct his military.

Time to start to end this thing.

Re:It will not be over by summer

[YrWrstNtmr]

Really? But wait...I thought there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda. At least, that's what everyone says.

And why then did he not attack France and Britain? Operation Provide Comfort I & II, and Operation Northern Watch were also maanned by the Brits and French. (I was in Turkey for all 3, got the sweatshirt)

They were flying missions right beside us, each and every day.

hmmm...could it be that there IS a connection? Or could it be that no matter WHAT the US does, OBL would have done his thing anyway?

Re:It will not be over by summer

[tq_at_sju]

not if we do what we did in the philippines.
1.treat their people with respect
2.reward information (intelligence from factions)
3.treat prisoners like human beings
4.don't kill innocent people
5.do as much as we can to help educate, nourish

Re:It will not be over by summer

[Mattsson]

Wouldn't be surprised if you're right.
Not many countries would silently accept an occupation by a hostile force.
If Iraq had invaded the US (not very likely, but if) I don't think the Americans would have accepted this without a fight.

But the troops won't "have" to stay there...
They only need to keep Iraq under occupation if the US want to control the oil.
But since that's one of the bigger reasons for the war anyway, that's probably what'll happen.

Re:It will not be over by summer

[JoeBuck]

You've got to be kidding. The US conduct in the Philippines is a national shame, widely condemned at the time by people like Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain). But there is a parallel: we promised them freedom from Spain, then decided to keep it as a colony, and the people rebelled.

What we did in the Philippines was to kill about a million people, according to reports by US generals! See here, for example.

Re:It will not be over by summer

[SubtleNuance]

I do think it is my duty as a citizen -- and that of all other citizens -- to at least wish success to our troops

Why? As long as the administration has started a war you have to support it... do you ever think that this particular pointofview is fostered by them? With an attitude like that you can be assured of two things - they will continue to start new wars and you will be in a CONSTANT state of war (war on terror is a pretty good example).

Re:It will not be over by summer

[shayborg]

Why? As long as the administration has started a war you have to support it... do you ever think that this particular pointofview is fostered by them? With an attitude like that you can be assured of two things - they will continue to start new wars and you will be in a CONSTANT state of war (war on terror is a pretty good example).

Of course this point of view is fostered by any administration -- but that doesn't mean that it's a wrong point of view. As a citizen of this country, someone who is bound to the oaths taken by citizens to support this country in all it does, I cannot in good conscience wish more American military deaths or an Iraqi victory.

However, I can speak with my vote, and I do have the right of free speech, and that is how we should express our disagreement with the war, not by some illogical desire to see fellow citizens die.

-- shayborg

Re:It will not be over by summer

[tq_at_sju]

i was talking about the first time sorry

War begins

[56ker]

but what's more important is the endgame. If you read the simulation the US had with Van Riper (who since resigned) it's going to be messier & longer than they think it will. How many casualties will the US get before they get cold feet?

BTW in the last Gulf War more American soldiers died in training and motor vehicle accidents than actual combat. Have the lessons of GWI been learned and things changed (by all accounts they are very similar to the way they were in '91).

Re:War begins

[Your_Mom]

I read the Van Riper story when it first came out. It was a Pentagon simulation. Now, there are two types of people in the Pentagon, just like in every other office, the PHBs and the clueful. The PHBs are the 5 star generals who play wargames, and the rear admirals and Lt. Cols who know how things work in the world.

When peacetime is around, the Five star generals slash budgets and figure out funding, but when the shit hits the fans, its the people who know what the fsck to do who are calling the shots.

I read this from an interview by Tom Clancy (and it's reflected in a few of his books), so whenever I read the story, the first thing that popped in my mind was Riper, who sounded like a clued individual, was playing against a bunch of whiny PHBs.

I didn't know he resigned, /that/ is a shame.

Re:War begins

[cascadefx]

BTW in the last Gulf War more American soldiers died in training and motor vehicle accidents than actual combat

and let's not leave out our old buddy "Friendly Fire." As if getting shot at by your own troops makes it a little more acceptable. Check out this recent broadcast of This American Life in which a Marine talks about being on the recieving end of "Friendly Fire."

My dad was in the military for 21 years and I spent roughly 16 years following him around the world. I really respect the men in uniform... so much so that unprovoked war is sad.

I was in Germany during the Gulf War... luckily my dad wasn't called up. He was near the end of his career and he was in communications, so not as much call for him. Anyway, I went to an DoDDS (Department of Denfense Dependent School system), Wuerzburg American High School to be exact...

Anyway. The Gulf War starts (at midnight our time). We lived in military housing that was just off the main Wuerzburg kaserne (or base)... no fencing, nothing. Wake up in the morning and it was like we were being invaded. Humvees (with machine guns) everywhere and people pulling barbed wire around the perimeter of our housing area (which included the high school that I went too). Full chain-link and regular patrols began began the next day.

So... it was wierd. Then you get to school. the kids whose parents had already shipped down are freaking out (mom or dad is now in real danger of getting hurt). In the weeks that follow, some other kid loses it as his mom or dad is called down to Iraq.

What did I take from that? Well, Bush Sr. wasn't sending his kids, the fathers and mothers of his grandchildren, to war. Neither were many (if any) of Congress. Instead they were sending people like my dad. The mothers and fathers of my classmates and friends. While "we" were victorious, I can only think that the casualties from our side included families that had no decision in the matter. Luckily, I didn't know any of them. I hope the same occurs with this "war." At least the invasion of Kuwait gave some pretext of Justice... the "He started it" argument.

The other thing (besides the war) that all those distraught kids knew about is just what 56ker mentioned. Massive troop movements always mean casualities whether a shot is fired or not. After all, their families had participated in at least one REFORGER exercise (when it was still in its heyday). Even though it was just an "exercise" people (people just like their moms and dads) died from these sorts of accidents in every single one. So, just the act of being "called up" meant that there was a risk of death or serious injury.

Re:War begins

[Minna Kirai]

The simulation Van Riper was involved with was Millenium Challenge 2002. It was a poorly-executed experiment in futuristic warfighting possibilities. There was no relationship between that simluation and an Iraqi invasion- it assumed the existence of weapons that haven't been built yet, and it also assumed that only a handful of guys commanded the whole US fleet.

Their results weren't valid for 2007, and they certainly don't apply to 2003. Van Riper protested that MC02 was scientifically bankrupt, and he was right. It was so inaccurate that no predictions about actual combat should be based on it.

in the last Gulf War more American soldiers died in training and motor vehicle accidents than actual combat.

That is correct. For a while the ratio was 3 accidental deaths per 1 combat casualty. (And of the combat casualties, more than 1/5 were friendly fire) The US army has lost more men in a single day of training than were killed by Iraqi forces in all of Desert Storm.

In the years since, the Pentagon has tried to recatagorize some accidental deaths as somehow combat-related. (Which isn't completely invalid, as the threat of attack forces people to pay less attention to normal safety)

Re:War begins

[Minna Kirai]

I didn't know he resigned, /that/ is a shame.

Van Riper had already been retired from military service. He was hired as a contractor to command the OPFOR in a simulation, and quit after not being permitted to fight at the best of his ability.

That "resignation" cut maybe 2 weeks off of 1 month of employment.

Re:War begins

[56ker]

I think my statement has been verified by current events... Do the maths yourselves (the ratio will probably be different by the time you read this anyway). However there are also deaths and long term health problems of veterans post-conflict. For instance the ones that suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, various health ailments as a result of their service. To just take one example - the controversial Persian Gulf War Illness (sometimes referred to as Gulf War Syndrome) - the existence of this was denied for years by both the US & UK governments.

There are various other health ailments of veterans too - for example those caused by carbamates, oil and smoke and being in various conditions not conducive to good health. Despite all the warnings on sunburn and heat exposure last time these still happened. You can order someone to put on suntan each day, even provide them with it - but it doesn't mean that in the heat of the moment they won't forget. That is just one minor example. I could go into detail but it's late at night here.

We could discuss the Millenium Challenge all night - however compared to 2002 - 2003 is "futuristic". I'm not disputing the fact that the challenge covered weapons that are still on the drawing board/ prototype stage - but wasn't it really to test out tactics and various scenarios? Also to find out what can go wrong and prevent it?

Re:War begins

[56ker]

1) A lot of money has been put into researching ways to cut down on friendly fire casualties. Yes it is galling to get hit by a depleted uranium shell fired by your own side.

2) My pedal bike has already been removed and locked up as an "anti-terrorist measure". I through no choice of my own left it locked up at a station platform in York, England for a few hours last Saturday. When I returned at about 6p.m. their office was closed. What was strange was that on platform 1 - there was about a hundred or so pedal bikes for hire from Europcar that hadn't been removed by GNER staff (who first asked for authorisation from the British Transport Police). I hate to think what civil liberties they are encroaching on now conflict has already started!

Oh and P.S. they expect me to make a 400-mile round trip and hand over $2.25 to get it back! *sighs* Sorry - it's minor compared to your tale.

Regarding what you said about military schools - I take your point. However, at least on the UK military schools side - the discipline is better than in civilian schools. As to American bases in Germany - well... I think I'd better forget what I know about them.

Re:War begins

[56ker]

Yes, sorry if that out of context comment seemed to imply something that it didn't. He now works for Hicks and Associates Inc - see this biography. There are long reasons on both sides regarding his resignation - but you can look up the press cuttings and each side's arguments yourselves. What the above poster writes is AFAIK true (eg parts of it check out).

Re:War begins

[Minna Kirai]

We could discuss the Millenium Challenge all night

I have some first-hand experience. The Pentagon briefly employed me to code MC02 software. I did my job (which was a small fixup task), observed some of the overall planning, and went back home. I followed the remainder closely, though, and interviewed some full-time participants.

wasn't it really to test out tactics and various scenarios?

MC02 had 3 separate tasks:

1. Experiment- Supposedly, this was the overall goal: determine "What-If?" outcomes for missions conducted with new equipment, new techniques, or against new threats. Primarily done virtually- with combat units that are 100% computer simulated (maybe AI controlled, or maybe driven by a human pilot in a flight trainer)
   
2. Train- Allow warfighters to rehearse accomplishing their missions. Conducted by real troops on training grounds who marched, drove, or flew with GPS/INS telemitry inserting their positions (and gunshots) into the computer-simulation world.
   
3. Demonstrate- Occasionally, a new piece of hardware had an event scheduled for it. VIPs (local Congressmen) had appointments to watch the new gizmo do it's job at a preplanned time.
   

Plainly, those goals conflict with each other. Any scientist will confirm that an "experiment" loses all validity if it's forced to be either training or demonstration at the same time. In fact, to be strictly scientific, an experiment should only have 1 variable changed at a time.

The goals of training and demonstration interfered with experimentation not only by diverting dollars and focus from it, but worse, by pre-determining the outcomes of engagements. If troops are deployed to train and conduct fake missions, then CGFs ("Computer Generated Forces"- like NPC enemies) simply couldn't kill 100 of them and leave them lying on the dirt for 15 days of a 21 day exercise- those guys came to march and shoot, and that's what they'll do! And the CGF likewise couldn't flee the attackers entirely- they had to hold their positions so they can be defeated by trainees pretending to fire artillery shells.

Likewise, there were a few occasions where the deployment of an impressive new vehicle was scheduled so that the Representatives whose constituents would build it could come watch. So once again, the scenario had to give it enemies to chase at an exact time. And of course, no enemy was allowed to kill it earlier.

So, the requirements of training and demonstration really destroyed any opportunity to learn from computer simulation. The progress and outcome of the battles were determined ahead of time by a few "experts" using their best judgement and imaginations. Well, if these expert analysts were smart enough to predict what would happen, why did they need all that computer modeling? In the end, MC02 was designed to lend objective legitimacy ("the computer plays no favorites") to decisions about future-force composition that had already been made. It was a high-tech, expensive rubber-stamp.

(There were other things wrong with the experimentation too- inconsistencies on what guns can kill what tanks, how wide is the Persian Gulf, and how far you can see from the bridge of a CVN, for instance- but they were minor factors in comparison, and they might've been fixed if scheduling constraints had allowed time to pause the simulation and resolve it. But no- with live training participants, time of day must go on...)

What was the most postive outcome from MC02? Looking at it from a software developer's perspective, the prime task for MC02 was to simply integrate combat simulation software from all 5 services. That's 50+ independent programs that have to be made to run in the same WAN game. (Note that they considered SOCOM, not Coast Guard, to be the 5th service). Maybe in the future, MC02's legacy will be the ability to run similar exercises at less cost. That might really help us learn something new.

Re:War begins

[56ker]

"In fact, to be strictly scientific, an experiment should only have 1 variable changed at a time."

Yes, but this is not always possible. I do numerical data modelling in oceanography. The weather changes all the time. You can't do experiments with just changing one variable. The whole point of modelling though is to build an "approximation" of the real world which can lead to "predictions". However there are great similarities between what I do and this. In this model what is wanted is to win a conflict. (In mine it's to predict the weather). Surely AI could play both sides - and an algorithm written so that it learned better tactics. These tactics could then be printed or the AI routine used to predict the course of future conflicts. However real life would be slightly different from what the model predicts. That's why you work hard to make the model make itself better. Admittedly I don't have any experience of programming military applications - but the two applications - weather prediction and wargames seem pretty similar.

This is boring

[LooseChanj]

First down and Bagdad, let's hope it gets a little more exciting.

Target of Opportunity

[jkc120]

Until we hear from Bush, we don't really know what's going on. However, the AP is reporting that this was perhaps the US going after a 'target of opportunity', implying some Iraqi officials were found and targetted. It may not be the full-scale war yet, we'll have to wait and see.

Inside Sites/Blogs

[Davak]

Other than typical news sites...

-- Debka (Middle East News)
-- Official Iraqi News
-- Where is Read? - Iraqi Blog
-- Kuwait Blog
-- Back to Iraq Blog
-- Iraq today
-- Warblogs.cc
-- Kevin Sites
-- Sky.com
-- BCC News Live Feed
-- Agonist

CBSnews also has a beautiful high detail webcam without all the crap on the bottom of the screen.
God bless our soldiers.

Davak

Re:Inside Sites/Blogs

[aallan]

As well as the BBC WorldService, BBC News 24 is broacasting a video feed live.

Al.

Re:Inside Sites/Blogs

[pphrdza]

Right. This is war - let's slashdot their websites.

Re:Inside Sites/Blogs

[PatMouser]

Just to correct one:

The URL is http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/

The AI is eating the underscore. :(

Re:Inside Sites/Blogs

[trentfoley]

All of these sites worked for me except one:

- Official Iraqi News [uruklink.net]

I wonder what could have knocked them offline?

Re:Inside Sites/Blogs

[jelle]

"The URL is http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/ The AI is eating the underscore. :("

For good reason, because the underscore is not an allowed Internet host name according to IETF RFC952:

1. A "name" (Net, Host, Gateway, or Domain name) is a text string up
to 24 characters drawn from the alphabet (A-Z), digits (0-9), minus
sign (-), and period (.). Note that periods are only allowed when
they serve to delimit components of "domain style names". (See
RFC-921, "Domain Name System Implementation Schedule", for
background). No blank or space characters are permitted as part of a
name. No distinction is made between upper and lower case. The first
character must be an alpha character. The last character must not be
a minus sign or period. A host which serves as a GATEWAY should have
"-GATEWAY" or "-GW" as part of its name. Hosts which do not serve as
Internet gateways should not use "-GATEWAY" and "-GW" as part of
their names. A host which is a TAC should have "-TAC" as the last
part of its host name, if it is a DoD host. Single character names
or nicknames are not allowed.

Bind will complain in its logs if you use it. I guess register.com doesn't check RFC compliance ("dig dear_raed.blogspot.com NS")...

Re:Inside Sites/Blogs

[namespan]

Correct URL for Where is Raed: http://dear_raed.blogspot.com

Re:Inside Sites/Blogs

[yppiz]

Here are my picks:

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

Re:Inside Sites/Blogs

[phyxeld]

Davak: God bless our soldiers.

Good idea. Lets ask imaginary beings to "bless" the men and women who have willfully chosen to leave their country, enter another, and kill people.

First war post!

[whereiswaldo]

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.

Re:First war post!

[Tokerat]

Yea, gotta love all the epic music and the quick edits, it's like watching a movie trailer.

What have we become in 200 short years?

Re:First war post!

[TopShelf]

My personal pet peeve is the "name" that each channel has, like Countdown Iraq, Zero Hour, Showdown With Saddam, etc. It's the friggin' news, and we know it's about Iraq, OK? No need to try to establish a "brand" here...

Re:First war post!

[shadowlight1]

I couldn't agree more. In a way I felt like I was watching a teaser trailer. "Here's the approximately 30 seconds of war footage..less than we expected..."

Almost as if the press was disappointed. They wanted the "movie" but the "Gov't" only gave them the teaser trailer.

Get a clue. War is war. If they want their casualties, if they want death, destruction, and chaos -- it will come.

But this is not something we should be anticipating like a movie. This is something we will all have to live through whether we want to or _not_ -- and the consequences will be mixed at best.

Re:First war post!

[jvj24601]

My personal pet peeve is the "name" that each channel has, like Countdown Iraq, Zero Hour, Showdown With Saddam, etc. It's the friggin' news, and we know it's about Iraq, OK? No need to try to establish a "brand" here...

Or cnn.com's STRIKE ON IRAQ...

Re:First war post!

[aengblom]

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.

We don't have to. We saw Sept. 11.

For better or worse, the glitz was well entrenched by nightfall.

Re:First war post!

[voiceofthewhirlwind]

This is, of course, no game.

Tell that to our National Guard 'veteran' president...

Re:First war post!

[Rayonic]

> Yea, gotta love all the epic music and the quick edits, it's like watching a movie trailer.
> What have we become in 200 short years?

Incredibly cool, apparently.

Re:First war post!

[glenebob]

It was the same back when it was on U.S. soil. Remember 9-11? I used to go around with my best monster truck announcer voice saying "The Day of Deeaath" every time I saw something on TV about it. Yes, it's very annoying and no most of us don't have the slightest clue what war and death and destruction is about.

I try not to let the reality (however inaccurate my perception of reality might be) of war effect my opinion of its necessity though.

Re:First war post!

[mattdm]

You know, like Canada or Australia. Hmmm. How necessary was the American Revolution, again? Things could have ended up quite a bit differently -- for example, maybe we would have had an end to slavery in 1834 instead of the 1860s, and could have skipped that whole Civil War thing too.

Re:First war post!

[Mezzrow]

Absolutely.
The way we market things here in america is disturbing, often insulting, and very, very effective. The buildup to this war has been an amazing example of modern marketing in action.

As far as your slick widgets and gadgets, you're right on. I saw a clock last night on CNN. It was a 'countdown' clock till the end of the deadline. The first thing that I noticed during the presidents speech were the pictures and frames to each side. I was concerned that they were going to be props.

I'd bet that many at the television networks do understand what war is like. I've been watching Dan Rather's presentation so far. I haven't seen much glitz. Right now, theres a map on the screen with a hand holding a pencil pointing out particular places.

I'll switch to Fox news and see If theres any difference.

Re:First war post!

[DrJay]

Actually, i don't have to pretend. I live in New York City, which is a very likely target of any reprisals. At the moment, i can hear helicopters passing near our apartment; this morning, one from the coast guard went by my balcony at eye level, while one of their patrol boats went tearing up the East River towards Long Island Sound. Police were searching cars at a checkpoint near my subway stop as i commuted home this evening.

For the most part, the post-9/11 nervousness had passed. Since the orange alert in the fall and the ramping up for war had begun, it all came back. It doesn't have the inevitability that's present in Baghdad, but it sure feels like life under threat.

JT

Re:First war post!

[Knightfall]

A country that will remove a tyrant, who terrorizes who own people, from power. That's what.

Re:First war post!

[jvj24601]

... which has now changed to DECAPITATION ATTACK. Nice.

Re:First war post!

[Mezzrow]

Huh.
Dan just signed off of the west coast. Instead we get...

"Survivor".

I can hear the conversation now.
"Sorry Dan. We're cutting off the west coast. We know theres a story afoot, but America is dying to know whether Cindi or Jen is going to get kicked out this week."

Re:First war post!

[breon.halling]

It's the friggin' news...

News? And here I thought I was watching the War Pre-Game Show. ;)

Re:First war post!

[Gortbusters.org]

Yeah, the excellent media machine was working hard to sell another war to us. Peace was viewed as something for hippies. If people really knew what war was like, they might have a different view.

My grandfather recently died, he had skin cancer on the face from flying in old bombers and sitting in the sun w/o skin protection. I wonder what sort of lack of protection we'll see this go around!

Re:First war post!

[br0ck]

Military Promises 'Huge Numbers' For Gulf War II: The Vengeance

WASHINGTON, DC--At a Pentagon press conference Monday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld touted the military's upcoming Gulf War II: The Vengeance as "even better than the original."

"If you thought the first one was good, just wait until you see the sequel," Rumsfeld said of Gulf War II, scheduled to hit Iraqi theaters of operation March 22. "In the original, as you no doubt know, we defeat Saddam Hussein, only to let him slip away at the very end. This time, we're going back in to take out the trash." ...

Re:First war post!

[heliosnorf]

Well, the "friggin' news" is not in the business for public service.. They're trying to make a "buck or two," so it makes sense that they try to come up with their own "brand."

Re:First war post!

[the gnat]

I once saw a 30-second film clip assembled from coverage of the first Gulf War by all the major networks. The joker who made it simply took all the computer animated logos and miscellaneous tripe associated with the newscasts and ran them together- when you view it that way, the true tastelessness really shows through. Best part, however, was adding the title music to the David Lynch version of "Dune". I've been trying to find this for years - I first came across it on the 'net in 1998.

All this glitz is sort of pointless after seeing footage of the WTC attacks. . . watching the towers collapse is like a punch in the nuts. These color-coded terror alerts just seem moronic.

Re:First war post!

[quitcherbitchen]

I agree. I take deep offense with the way CNN et al cover this material. Minutes ago I heard a woman broadcasting from the deck of an aircraft carrier trying to get the soldiers on the runway to wave at the camera. Wave!? WTF is that all about? The gross assumptions these broadcasters make is ridiculous as well. I remember on 9/11 seeing headlines that stated the National Mall was on fire. What service does this do for the public?

The countdown timers and journalistic techniques of yesterday only seem to create a sense of expectation in the audience. We all knew after Bush's speech that force was inevitable, but drumming up this sense of urgency in people is wrong. They want people to hang on their every word and worry like crazy about missing things.

I'd like to see more accountability and professionalism in broadcasting. On all but C-SPAN I see content designed to push every human button. The purpose of the media is to inform the public, not jump to conclusions. It's purpose is also, as you said, to remind us that this is not a game, rather than play one of its own

Re:First war post!

[cliveholloway]

My fave was the BBC graphics early on in 9/11:

T he
W ar
A gainst
T error

They kept it up for a good few hours before anyone noticed.

cLive ;-)

Re:First war post!

[ehiris]

What have we become in 200 short years?

We finally get to see a few good battles without the risk of being there.

People have been trying to watch people getting killed in battles since the Civil War when some people carried picnic lunches and alcohol to watch the Union fight the Rebels at the Battle of Bull Run (Sharpsburg).

Re:First war post!

[MSBob]

your country is lame and moronic. Live with it or emigrate.

Re:First war post!

[jon787]

Don't get me started, I've already heard the "new war movie" and "reality TV show" jokes.

Re:First war post!

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

From a Gulf War I edition of a comic strip which a family friend writes:

"I want a new law. From now on anyone who talks about war like it's a %^$@! video game gets drafted."

Re:First war post!

[ayjay29]

The BBC had an animation showing the build up of troops, and backed it with the music from "The Two Towers" trailer.

Re:First war post!

[dardem]

Try Radio Free Europe (http://www.rferl.org)

Re:First war post!

[quax]

Is this supposed to make it better? People also always loved to watch public execution.

Re:First war post!

[goon america]

The purpose of the media is to inform the public, not jump to conclusions.

That's a contextual definition. There's no law that says that must be true.

Using this, some people define the purpose the the media as Entertainment and/or cash cow.

I'd like to see more accountability and professionalism in broadcasting.

So would I.

Re:First war post!

[Altus]

wow... the moderaters here suck more than ever.

Re: First war post!

[Rysc]

Moderators: parent post was not so much a troll as the bitter, bitter truth. No verifiable connection has ever been made between Iraq and the destruction of the towers in new york. This is simply another Bush wanting his name in the history books selecting a scapegoat of opportunity. America is the aggressor here; we were not in any way under attack from Iraq.

You can't call it self defense when it's preemtive.

Re:First war post!

[rock_climbing_guy]

With all the epic music and all, it's almost like it was when we were watching the OJ Simpson trial, now isn't it?

Seriously though, I think the networks are doing the best they can to present the news. This is how they cover everything else. Everything has to have a catchy title and graphic. Remember "Crisis in Kosovo?"

Re:First war post!

[Tokerat]

I also remember "Name That Stain"... :-\

News Restricted to Canada on Yahoo!

[shirai]

Interesting usage of technology to restrict access to information. Just tried to access the news on the war on Yahoo! and I could not access these stories. Very surprising since Yahoo! typically doesn't have access or bandwidth problems. Plus, I can access sports stories just fine.

However, if I try to access the war stories through a U.S. Proxy (amegaproxy.com) I can call up the stories just fine.

Re:News Restricted to Canada on Yahoo!

[alaffin]

That's funny... I didn't have a problem accessing anything on the yahoo website - I'm on a high speed residential connection in Eastern Canada and can see no reason why I could access it and you could not unless there was a problem perhaps with your local server...

Re:News Restricted to Canada on Yahoo!

[adri]

Perhaps - or perhaps Y! host some servers in Canada and they haven't caught up with the news being originated most probably from the US.

"one website" != "one server" or "servers at one location" these days.

Waiting

[ELCarlsson]

I'm in the US Air Force stationed Germany at work right now and we've been watching CNN non-stop all night. There is definatly a nervous tension in the air right now. But we're ready. I may not totally agree with Bush but I'll do the job I was trained to do.

Re:Waiting

[Mezzrow]

Good luck. Hope all goes well.
I'm curious, what is your job in the armed forces? How long have you been in the (Air Force)?

Re:Waiting

[krony]

Stay strong, and proud, as I know everyone back here on the American shores is proud and supporting of you and your fellow troops! I live close to Offut AFB in Omaha, and we are all very much behind our troops here and abroad.

Re:Waiting

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Waiting

[scootles]

speaking as a UK citizen, I fully support our *military*.. as has been stated on TV many many times, they are there to do a job, no more no less.. the fact that I don't feel that anyone has presented me with a truthful reason for them being there is what gives me more concern

Re:Waiting

[ELCarlsson]

I'm a Communication Computer Operator. Basically I could work help desk, server management, account management, system administrator, those types of jobs. I personally work in the messaging center. And last week was my 2 year mark in the AF. Just 4 more to go in my tour.

Re:Waiting

[bnenning]

I may not totally agree with Bush but I'll do the job I was trained to do.

And you have my thanks for that.

Re:Waiting

[ELCarlsson]

I am one of the most vocal people I know on opposing what the administration is doing. But you have to love America, a country where you are allowed to voice your opposition to the govermnent. Very few countries in the world would allow the amount of protest against the government as has been happening in the US for the last few months. But no matter who is the President I will do all I have to do to protect America and all the freedoms that we are given. Bush was already elected when I joined and I had strong feelings against him then. But that didn't stop me from joining. I joined because I love my country as a whole. Bush won't be around forever and America will survive him.

Re:Waiting

[corbettw]

Buck up, Airman. It could be worse. You could be living in a tent at Incirlik AFB, Turkey. 'Course, I could be in Kuwait with most of my shipmates from home, so everything is relative.

Re:Waiting

[Ty]

This is such a bullshit statement. There is seldom honor in doing what you're trained to do. Many of the atrocities in history were made possible because of people like you, who justified their actions as duty.

Shame on you. Shame on my brother who is over there now. And shame on any other soldier who takes part in this.

Re:Waiting

[ELCarlsson]

I'm practically thanking God right now I'm in Germany. Many of my friends and co-workers are somewhere in the desert and I was almost one of them. Trust me, I know how lucky I am right now.

Re:Waiting

[ELCarlsson]

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.

Re:Waiting

[quitcherbitchen]

I may not totally agree with Bush but I'll do the job I was trained to do.

There may be some that would criticize you for doing so. Not me. The job you were trained to do was to protect this country and its values. Doing so, even amidst personal conflict, deserves the highest amount of respect. God bless.

Re:Waiting

[coolmacdude]

What an ass!

Re:Waiting

[Ty]

I made a presumption about you based on what you posted - specifically your willingness to do something you don't agree with. "People like you" refers specifically to your comment about doing what you were trained to do, nothing else. I don't feel I entended anything beyond what you said.

Re:Waiting

[cosmosis]

The job you were trained to do was to protect this country and its values. Doing so, even amidst personal conflict, deserves the highest amount of respect. God bless.

Please tell me how bombing and killing thousands of innocent civilians, mostly under the age of 15 is protecting this country? Really, please, I really want to know.

Re:Waiting

[sly]

The military can only function if everyone follow orders. I don't like the war either, but that's not for the average soldier to decide.

If you want blame someone for the war, then blame Bush. Shame on Bush. Shame on the voters. Shame on the Republicans. Shame on Florida. Shame on the Supreme Court.

Re:Waiting

[ELCarlsson]

But please don't take this the wrong way. While I may disagree with many of Bush's views, not just about the war with Iraq but also many other issues like the environment and abortion rights I can't help but respect the man. He is in a very difficult position. He did a good job handling 9/11. I fear what would have happened had Nader been President. He is under a great deal of pressure and is pretty much responsible for the world. His is a job I do not envy.

Re:Waiting

[Dun Malg]

I'm a Communication Computer Operator. Basically I could work help desk, server management, account management, system administrator, those types of jobs.

Heh heh. Lucky bastard. You chose a military job with a civilian counterpart. I was a signal intelligence analyst. My first job after getting out of the army was putting handles on plastic buckets at a factory! (that'll teach me)

Re:Waiting

[mikael_j]

Very few countries in the world would allow the amount of protest against the government as has been happening in the US for the last few months.

Not trying to be disrespectful or anything but there are actually quite a lot of countries where you are allowed to say worse things about the government than you are allowed to in the US, you may have been one of the first but that doesn't give you a monopoly..

/Mikael

Re:Waiting

[mindriot]

I may not totally agree with Bush but I'll do the job I was trained to do.

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.

Re:Waiting

[Oneflower]

I may not totally agree with Bush but I'll do the job I was trained to do.

I remember a scene from a war movie from a while back. The sergeant says to his special ops unit: "Well boys, the politicians have fucked up again and it's our job to go get our asses blown off for CNN."

Re:Waiting

[knewman_1971]

I may not totally agree with Bush but I'll do the job I was trained to do. That statement just makes me proud to be an American. We may not be totally in agreement with ANYTHING or ANYBODY, but we'll By-God get the job done. My thoughts and prayers are with you and the men and women serving with you.

Re:Waiting

[osgeek]

And shame on you for trying to make others sit on their hands while thousands of people are slaughtered every year by a real asshole of a dictator and his boys.

You can chant your "no bloood for oil" slogans all you want, but a lot of us really believe that the world will be a far better place without Saddam in it.

Re:Waiting

[Thrakkerzog]

Hey, I know a lot of people in the military, and I know it's tough being over there. Is there anything you guys would like over there? Some playboy/hustler mags? I can pick some up and mail them to you if you want.. :-D

Re:Waiting

[fruscica]

ELCarlsson,

How are you? I hope all is as well as can be expected. I am writing to ask your opinion of an Op-Ed article that I am preparing to circulate. The article can be seen at www.opportunityservices.com/oped.html (I tried to include it here, but Slashdot's "Lameness Filter"(?) objected).

Thanks for any consideration you can extend, and best of luck in the days and months ahead.

Regards,

Frank Ruscica
Founder
The Opportunity Services Group :: Have Fun to Get Ready
www.opportunityservices.com

Re:Waiting

[Ty]

You can chant your "no bloood for oil" slogans all you want, but a lot of us really believe that the world will be a far better place without Saddam in it.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth! Anyone who makes the argument that this war is purely about oil is a simpleton. Anyone who assumes that everyone opposing the war claims it's "blood for oil" is just as much of a simpleton.

Re:Waiting

[ichthus]

(Italics added by me)

If you want blame someone for the war, then blame Bush for insisting that the UN resolutions actually be enforced. Shame on Bush for liberating the Iraqi people -- freeing them from that murderous bastard. Shame on the voters for exercizing their constitutional right. For being sick of having a morally bankrupt democrat for president. Shame on the Republicans for voting with their conscience, and not with what the polls say. Shame on Florida for giving credence to so many idiots who are unable to punch a simple ballot. Shame on the Supreme Court.

Re:Waiting

[Anonymous Cow herd]

And shame on you for trying to make others sit on their hands while thousands of people are slaughtered every year by a real asshole of a dictator and his boys.

Well, we'll get another chance to get him out of power in the 2004 elections. :-)

Re:Waiting

[phyxeld]

ELCarlsson: I'm in the US Air Force stationed Germany at work right now and we've been watching CNN non-stop all night. There is definatly a nervous tension in the air right now. But we're ready. I may not totally agree with Bush but I'll do the job I was trained to do.

I just watched Donald R's speech on cnn. He said to iraqi soldiers (really, to the american public, as i doubt many iraqis were watching...) that they may be ordered by saddam to do heinous things, and that no matter what, they must not follow those orders. He said, the excuse "I was just following orders" will not be accepted. He said any (of the iraqis) who commit war crimes will be prosecuted for them, and those who throw down their arms and surrender will not be harmed.

It's lucky for you that you're on the side that isn't accountable for it's actions. It's lucky for you that you happen to live in a time when killing for your government makes you an "honorable" person instead of a murderer. It's lucky for you that Americans can't possibly be convicted of war crimes. It's lucky for you, but not so much lucky for the helpless people who's blood is on your hands.

(Remember, it's never to late to stop killing.)

Re:Waiting

[cosmosis]

The consensus of the world is that Iraq poses a threat.

Whose consensus would that be? Name a single country in the world besides the UK who supports this war? And in the UK, over 80% of the PEOPLE do not support the war, and even Tony Blair's his own ministers are resigning in protest.

So what is this world consensus you speak of? Must be that propoganda soaked brain of yours. Please, do yourself a favor, stop watching Bill O'Reilly, turn off Fox News, wake up and see REALITY.

Re:Waiting

[quitcherbitchen]

So what is this world consensus you speak of? Must be that propoganda soaked brain of yours. Please, do yourself a favor, stop watching Bill O'Reilly, turn off Fox News, wake up and see REALITY.

I said threat, not war, and that's reality. For proof you can refer to 1441 and the UN deliberations. In any case Spain and Australia are countries besides the UK that support the war. Do yourself a favor and inform yourself of world events, stop hating Bill O'Reilly, grow up and quit ignoring REALITY.

Re:Waiting

[osgeek]

Actually, in the first version of that reply, I had used "mad man", but I knew that someone would employ the tactic of implying that I was referring to GWB. I guess that "dictator" still left me open, and I should have used "Saddam" instead.

Anyway... what in the hell is the left going to do if GWB gets elected in 2004? They're so sure that he never won in the first place, so how will they feel about an American populace that tells them that they were wrong all this time?

Re:Waiting

[Lodragandraoidh]

Ty,

You are among the same people who spit on the veterans coming home from Vietnam.

Shame on you!

Our soldiers (and the word 'soldier', btw, means a person in the Army), sailors, airmen and marines get paid squat, train and fight in life threatening environments, and put thier lives on the line so you don't have to be drafted and put your soft body in the line of fire.

Now, you may not agree with all of the policies of the current administration, and I can guarantee you that there are many military men and women who don't either; however, the moral imperative to start a rebellion because of it is not there. Given that, the airman's statement is true and a fair reflection of duty, and honor - qualities you seem to be lacking.

While I may believe that diplomacy should have been more adroitly managed to avoid this, now that the president has made the decision, my duty as a soldier would be to follow his orders; again, I don't see the war in Iraq as a moral delema requiring protest at this point. The key for the troops to come home safely is for them to be able to concentrate on thier missions without needless distractions from back home.

You should be praying for the safety of everyone deserving of it in that region - your brother included - instead of spouting your vitriolic comments about those who put everything on the line, so we don't have to.

Re:Waiting

[Lodragandraoidh]

'I was just following orders.' "

Mind that this also applies to you. - mindriot

mindriot,

Please don't compare the attrocities of the Germans during WWII to the war fighting that is going on in Iraq. There is no really 'fair' fighting in war. In order to survive you must call down artillery and air support when you make contact with large formations, and you must maneuver to fire from covered and concealed positions if possible. You must pursue your enemy and bring him down so that he can not live to fight another day. Most of the time the enemy does not see it coming. That is war. As Sherman said during the Civil War: "War is Hell". The way we fight is not in and of itself a war atrocity.

Now, if we wantonly kill civilians or execute prisoners, these are attrocities and punishible under the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice). Any soldier, sailor, airman or marine has a duty to disobey orders to perform such acts - and I would support thier decision whole-heartedly.

Don't confuse combat with attrocities. They are two different things.

Re:Waiting

[fiftyfly]

I too am uncomfortable when another seems to take pride in 'just doing my job' regradless of their misgivings. That being said your comment:

"Of course the situation is in no way comparable - the USA is a democratic and free country, and whatever you think about this war, it's not comparable to World War II. And this is not meant as a personal offense against you."

is, well, a little off the mark. Hitler was voted in, eh? Germany is & was a democracy. No, the situation is very comparable to prewar germany and I, for one, being a Canadian am just a little concerend about becoming the great white Poland of the north.

In short, I wish all those who are away from home today well, may your efforts & the efforts of those in opposition be traded for something more constructive. May everyone's fathers, brothers, sons, uncles & cousins come home tonight. Until then, well, FUCK OFF bush

Re:Waiting

[freestyle-fiend]

> a lot of us really believe that the world will be a
> far better place without Saddam in it

All of the anti-war movement (except a tiny minority of the population of Iraq) want to remove Saddam. Do you feel unable to argue for war without misrepresenting the anti-war argument?

Some of us also want to remove dictators from many other countries. This is an aim that the people responsible for the war (but not the bulk the pro-war movement) seem to lack.

Re:Waiting

[freestyle-fiend]

> The military can only function if everyone follow
> orders.

That's why orders should not be followed. If you have to use force in order to get peace/freedom/democracy, then you have already failed.

Re:Waiting

[juhaz]

Consensus of the world is that Iraq may pose some threat but not a threat big enough to justify a war.

That's what UN said. That's what most _people_, of countries other than US seem to be saying. But you don't listen. Please don't try to claim _THE WORLD_ has consensus on something when you clearly mean the US.

- Citizen of the World, out.

Not How its Supposed To Be

[Snagle]

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.

Re:Not How its Supposed To Be

[Snagle]

I agree they have been ineffective of late and they probably need some revising, but if countries go around attacking each other at will despite what others may think, then that is a step in the wrong direction. I just dont think we did all we could to avoid this war, and that we should be focusing on why the vast majority of middle east people hate us, not taking out all these "threats" to our country

Re:Not How its Supposed To Be

[srowen]

Anti-Americanism that I have observed in Europe is pretty well irrational and just plain human nature... no one likes to cheer for the big guy, do they? The U.S. is an easy scapegoat.

To be fair, this is easily as much the reason why the U.N. is in jeopardy, where its tempting for European nations to use their disproportionate leverage to frustrate the U.S. For Chirac and Schroeder, it's free political points... why wouldn't they oppose the U.S.?

Oh... this is far off topic. Sorry slashdot.

Re:Not How its Supposed To Be

[evilWurst]

"We are arrogant and feel the rules dont apply to us"

True of a huge number of UN members. Nations frequently go against the will of the UN when it benefits them to do so. Conversely, the UN frequently blocks neccessary progress when it serves them to do so (Afghanistan part 1? Kosovo?). It's a flawed system, but it's better than anything else yet designed, and it's survived worse than this.

Re:Not How its Supposed To Be

[quitcherbitchen]

Money to gain? Do you have any idea how much money the U.S. has already given in aid, will spend on the war, or will commit to the rebuilding of Iraq? People like you that describe the war as a cheap way to get oil are sorely misguided. I'd like to see your significant evidence that proves otherwise.

Re:Not How its Supposed To Be

[volkris]

No, rational and open minded economic surveys of the situation shows that the US will lose a lot more than it gains on this thing.

If it was just about oil and monetary gains from it there are much, much more effective ways to use the situaiton.

Re:Not How its Supposed To Be

[cyril3]

Russia and France oppose this war in part because they have been investing in Iraq oil since the first Gulf war

I thought US had agreed ealry in the piece that russian and french oil contracts would remain in place if there was a change in regime. so i cou;dn't understand why this was used as a rational for beating them up. it is too easy anyway to suggest that oil is the US reason for going in. (which i don't believe either).

making symbolic gestures like electing human rights experts like Lybia to lead thier human rights group.

I think the chairmanship of that committee is by rotation. so libya was next on the list. no-one voted them in.

Re: Not How its Supposed To Be

[Black Parrot]

> I agree they have been ineffective of late and they probably need some revising, but if countries go around attacking each other at will despite what others may think, then that is a step in the wrong direction.

Yep. Bush was right when he said this makes the UN irrelevant, but he was wrong about why it makes the UN irrelevant. It's irrelevant because there's a rogue superpower on the Security Council, with both the will and ability to ignore both diplomacy and international law.

> I just dont think we did all we could to avoid this war

The sad irony is that the war is starting right when disarmament is starting to make progress. If Bush weren't pursuing a "higher agenda" he could have taken a lot of credit by claiming that it was his threat of force that finally made Iraq start disarming.

Unfortunately, Bush doesn't want disarmament: he wants regime change.

> and that we should be focusing on why the vast majority of middle east people hate us

Yes, but that would mean giving up too many goals that are too important to too many powerful people in the USA.

> not taking out all these "threats" to our country

Another sad irony is that most of the 9/11 hijackers came from our "allies" citizenry.

The war on terror needs good, pedestrian police work, not invasions and puppet governments. We are about to do ourselves much harm.

Re:Not How its Supposed To Be

[bonch]

The UN has become irrelevant. If they won't enforce 12 years of broken resolutions, they weakened themselves.

Re:Not How its Supposed To Be

[balthan]

That's like saying because you caught your wife cheating on you, you're responsible for the divorce.

The UN and EU are weakened because France is trying to make a play to become relevant again. Do you think they give a damn about Iraq? Or taking military action not sanctioned by the UN? They are the ones who threatened to veto anything that established a timeline. They are the ones who tried to silence the eastern european countries like they were unruly children and threatened their memberships if they dare go against France.

Yes, it is sad that the UN and EU have been weakened. Just make sure you're pointing the finger in the right direction.

Re:Not How its Supposed To Be

[Myopic]

i hate to point out the obvious, but the UN as ALREADY weak, and the EU hasn't really become STRONG yet. all Bush did was make everyone TALK about how lame the UN is. in fact, i never realized how often the UN has dropped the ball (summary: always) until this whole war thing. anyone who thinks the UN is the seat of peace on earth is wrong. only now maybe they'll work on making it true.

Re:Not How its Supposed To Be

[argStyopa]

""The prospect of thousands possibly dying, innocent or guilty, "us" or "them," fills me with a dark sense of dread and uncertainty. Children will die. Their parents and grandparents will die."
When you have a doubt about this war, try to think of the dread that tens of thousands of Iraqi's have felt constantly for the past 12 years. People will make a comment about Saddam during a dinner party and by the end of the weekend their WHOLE FAMILY - cousins, uncles, etc - are GONE. FOREVER. Women are brutally raped in front of their brothers, husbands, and fathers (before they in turn are killed). The sociopath Uday routinely has good looking women abducted and then beheaded after he's through with them. Saddam has paved FAMILIES into roads with hot asphalt.

These people - an intellectual, enlightened, secular people - have been under the life & death power of this homocidal dictator for a dozen years, and what have we done? Nothing. We've left them there.
Yes, people will die in a conflict. But they're dying NOW.

People complain that Bush has "failed at diplomacy, unlike Gulf War I" - hardly. I think he's acting in a very principled fashion. Everytime you get someone else on board an alliance, they come with conditions for their participation. Yes, we had a Grand Coalition in 1991 that paid for 90% of the conflict - but I'll remind all the Monday-morning quarterbacks that is why we stopped when we did in 1991, and PROBABLY left ourselves this mess now. The UN certainly couldn't be trusted to grow a spine suddenly and resolve it. We HAD to stop there, or the alliance would shatter.

Sometimes, if friends constrict your principles, it's better to do without those friends at all. We let !millions! die in brutal genocide in Rwanda because, frankly, we were 'afraid' of the cost, 'afraid' of the public relations cost, 'afraid' of the polls, 'afraid' of the consequences, 'afraid' we didn't have an exit strategy. Well, that was a different administration.

Now we have a US government that isn't afraid to say: This stops now. All that's needed for evil to prosper, is for good men to do nothing. We're not going to 'do nothing' any longer, no matter how squeamish our moral relativist friends in Europe feel about such language.
There was a point on NPR that the Europeans feel they've gone 'beyond' the use of force to solve problems. That's an easy position to take when someone ELSE guarded your door for the last 50 years.

These are the same vaccilating dilettantes that abhorred the idea of going into Bosnia. 'A quagmire' they said. 'We'll never resove it' they whined. Well, Mr. Milosevich awaits trial for genocide and the ethnic cleansing has stopped. They said the same thing about Afghanistan. These nattering nabobs will continue to wring their hands about the dangers. Sometimes, one has to accept the dangers and step in to stop something bad from continuing.

God bless our troops & president.

Re:Not How its Supposed To Be

[mfrank]

From what I've read, Bush has assured Putin that they'll at least get what's owed to them. But I think the French are going to take a bath. Figuratively, not literally :)

Re:Not How its Supposed To Be

[acarey]

Hey, you're right! Next on the list, perhaps the UN can enforce the 30 FRIGGING YEARS worth of resolutions requiring Israel to stop invading Palestine and setting up camps within Palestinian borders? No, wait, THE USA KEEPS VETOING ACTION ON THESE RESOLUTIONS!

The hypocrasy that continually streams out of the Bush White House is truly phenomenal.

Re:Not How its Supposed To Be

[bonch]

Gee! You're right! We should let Saddam stay in power because of that! What a world! Let's bring up something totally unrelated!

What about the opportunity Palestine was given to set up a state...and rejected?

Next.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[bsignorelli]

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.

Sorry, not top of my list....

[Brushfireb]

Sorry, Southpark has a new episode tonight.

War takes a close second.

Brushfireb

oy..

[Derg]

[name of spiritual leader / deity] Help Us. Its the begining of the end.

i just heard...

[- rayyyy -]

...that the US inteligence found a "target of opportunity" in Baghdad...meaning that there was a senior or high-ranking official sighted that US intelligence thought they could hit. thats why the bombings came so unannounced.

Re:i just heard...

[bluGill]

I don't belive it. A very important part of war is surprize. Even if everyone knows you are going to attack, doing so before they expect it, or where they don't expect gives you a big advantage. In Gulf war one the latter was used, the US attacked where they were not expected. Now we are pretty sure Iraq knows where we are, so we attack early, and hope for the best.

Mind you targets are always selected, and withing the bounds of attacking early they considered what targets can be hit at any given time, trying to maxamise the number hit early.

Re:War Pigs

[RLiegh]

Time will tell on their power minds (?)
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes

That's what I remember from memory; for some reason looking it up on google doesn't seem esp important at the moment.

wow I can only imagine

[JeanBaptiste]

the moderation and meta-moderation that is about to happen on this thread...

"unlike anything"

[dcmeserve]

From the CNN front page:

Navy commander tells sailors attack will be "unlike anything anyone has ever seen before"

Isn't that what Steve Jobs said about the new iMac?

Re:It's about damn time

[stefanlasiewski]

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.

Support our troops.

[PearlJamFan]

Regardless of whether you agree with the war or not (I sure as hell do not) we all have to support our troops.

Re:Support our troops.

[dartboard]

We absolutely do NOT have to support the troops. That's just more pansy-ass middle ground. If you're against the war then you're against what the troops are doing.

Re:Support our troops.

[Tassach]

Yeah, support them by bringing them the hell home! Speaking as both a Veteran and a Citizen, this pointless, counterproductive, and un-Constitutional war makes me ill.

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.

Re:Support our troops.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe this got an "Informative" moderation, I didn't realise it was a hard fact that we have to support the troops, I must have missed that memo.

Re:Support our troops.

[bstadil]

No we do not.

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.

Re:Support our troops.

[dogfart]

Regardless of whether you agree with the war or not (I sure as hell do not) we all have to support our troops.

Yeah right, just like the NRA opposes gun regulation but supports the nice folks in the BATF. Not like every government official having to support a law unpopular with some part of the population has not had public abuse heaped on them (and their families). What makes it so essential for us to "support our troops" when every other government employee puts up with deliberate abuse from the citizenry?

Re:Support our troops.

[Anonymous Coward]

How come Slick Willy gets impeached for getting a hummer in the oval office ...

Slick Willy got impeached for lying under oath. How come you idiot democraps always try to cloud the real issue?

Re:Support our troops.

[corbettw]

We can disagree about whether the war is pointless and/or counterproductive, but how is it unconstitutional? Congress gave the President plenty of authority to use force against Iraq months ago. So where is the unconstitional bit?

Re:Support our troops.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

this pointless...

Nope. It's entirely pointy. The point is to (1) enforce chapter VII UNSEC resolutions, and (2) remove a threat to the United States of America.

counterproductive...

Well, I suppose that depends on what your idea of "productive" is. If your job is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, then this war isn't counterproductive at all.

and un-Constitutional war

Wrong, wrong, wrong. First, the president is the chief executive of the armed forces-- as you, as a veteran, should know well-- so he has the sole and ultimate authority to employ the military in whatever way he sees fit. Second, though it was not required by the Constitution, Congress approved the use of the military for just this purpose back in October. All nice and legal.

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?

First of all, no veteran I know would ever even consider being disrespectful to the commander in chief. No matter what you think of the man who holds the office, the president is entitled to be addressed, even in the third person, with respect.

President Clinton was brought up for impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice. The articles of impeachment, of course, did not pass the Senate.

And I have yet to hear of a single act that President Bush has done, or even been associated with, that could be called even questionable, much less criminal. Care to back that accusation up with something, sir?

Re:Support our troops.

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

More importantly, sir, how did you manage to survive in the military without understanding this basic concept of honor? Clearly, you couldn't have gone through the service acadamies; if you did, you might recognize this phrase:

"We will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate among us anybody who does. [Emphasis mine]

That would be the USAF Academy's Honor Code. The other acadamies have something similar. Even without that code, though, you should have grasped the concept that lying, among other things, is a great way to get booted. President Clinton lied under oath (sometimes referred to as "perjury"), and obstructed justice, in an attempt to cover his lies. That's why he was impeached.

Just out of curiosity, do you also think Kelly Flynn was booted because she committed adultery?

Re:Support our troops.

[quitcherbitchen]

I don't agree with what they're doing, so I don't support them.

The troops carry out the orders and the interests of the United States of America at the direction of the President. If you don't agree with what they're doing, don't support him. The members of the armed forces make your life possible. They volunteer to protect your rights perhaps without knowing what they were getting into... only that they support this country, it's citizens, and it's values.

These people don't need to earn your respect, they deserve it.

Re:Support our troops.

[lord sibn]

Karma was meant to be a yo-yo anyway...

Don't be such a pussy. When they enlisted, it was under the realisation that they may be deployed in wartime. If they are in Iraq, then it is because either they wanted to be there, or they thought it was an acceptable risk to take for the benefits they received by joining the army. You can't expect to volunteer for 6-8 years of service, and then complain when you actually have to WORK for your benefits.

And while I'm at the risk of losing karma, it's worth mentioning that I believe that when we're through with Fraq, we should invade France and divide it evenly between its immediate neighbors. I'm beginning to grow weary of Chirac's incessant whining. Now, it may be a little bit premature to assume that we'll win, but hell, I AM talking about France, whose mighty military has (almost) never seen victory on the battlefield!

Re:Support our troops.

[bonch]

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. By the way, he bombed Iraq too. Even Daschle supported it. We also bombed Yugoslavia. Were you "ill" then?

Why does Saddam get to stay in power another decade and break even more resolutions and never disarm just because you have a chip on your shoulder against Bush? I may not entirely agree with this course of action myself, but I realize Saddam would not comply with any other option. SOMEBODY has to enforce authority over there. The UN certainly isn't doing it.

Re:Support our troops.

[Spectra72]

"Just following orders" didn't work for many Germans in WWII, I don't see why it would work now.

Re:Support our troops.

[lord sibn]

Hah. if france deployed nuclear weapons, what would the world think? have you considered that there is a whole world outside of france? Who struck first does not matter- Well, it does, but it's a seperate offense, and would be dealt with. On the other hand, for any country to launch nuclear weapons is going to ensure that country's total annihilation, regardless of "who started it." not withstanding. This is why you will not see North Korea launching an attack on the USA with nuclear weapons. Yeah, they have them. Are they going to use them? Pigs will fly.

Re:Support our troops.

[quax]

Nukes are the ultimate detterent. That is why we will see more countries than ever striving for them.

The world noticed that the USA attacked Iraq but not North Korea. What will your average 3rd world dictator make of this? Well, North Korea has nukes and rockets to at least reach Japan.

They will draw the perfect logic conclusion, that in order to not be at the mercy of the USA they will need nukes and intercontinental rockets.

This amongst other good reasons is why my government (Germany) and the French tried to tell the US administration (long standing allies after all) that this war at this point in time with that little international support is a really bad idea.

Now we can just hope for the best and pray that things will not develop like this

have a drink

[r00tarded]

gulf war drinking game

Re:have a drink

[voiceofthewhirlwind]

If a reporter uses the phrase 'literally dying' to express urgency when the people are actually dying.

Re:have a drink

[McCarrum]

Can be applied to slashdot also.

Set your filter to -1, grab the rules and a SHITLOAD of booze and start reading!

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[McCarrum]

Absolutly. I am against this war *at this point in time* but my beef is with those who decided on this action, not those ordered into action.

Interestingly, EVERYONE that I've spoken to also think this.

May the Godhead of your choice watch over us all.

Lamebait

[bottlerocket]

From the CNN story: "Navy commander tells sailors attack will be 'unlike anything anyone has ever seen before'".

Does that mean they're sending in Janet Reno? I mean, she really got the job done at Waco.

Scary world we live in..

[dave1212]

I'm listening to the anti-aircraft fire etc. right now, pretty scary.

He just said "On my orders.." *shivers*

I can't begin to imagine where this might take us..
19

The Beastie Boys released a song (mp3 link) relating to some of this insanity, it's a decent track. Relevant links: Link1

Win Without War

True Majority - Democracy in Action

Helpful Stuff

Re:Scary world we live in..

[Zigg]

He just said "On my orders.." *shivers*

I for one am glad that Bush takes responsibility for what we've trusted him with here. By contrast, our last president couldn't be found for an hour when the CIA had bin Laden in their sights, then waffled for another hour until the window of opportunity was gone.

I can't begin to imagine where this might take us..

It will take us to a safer world and it will take the Iraqi people to liberation, simply put. None of it would be necessary if the man who invaded Kuwait in 1991 respected the disarmament required of him. His choices are what brought this on.

Re:Scary world we live in..

[dave1212]

True enough.. though I see some scary so-called "security" measures being taken against things in our general life, including the net and our freedom thereof. Glad your current guy is around to take responsibilty, I'm just not looking forward to having some of the US's laws eventually forced upon us. (up here in the Great White North)

Re:Scary world we live in..

[Zigg]

True enough.. though I see some scary so-called "security" measures being taken against things in our general life, including the net and our freedom thereof.

Certainly. I reserve some of my highest distaste for those who exploit national security to further their own agendas. But I'm not sure what your links have to do with that? (Not that I think UCITA et al is a good thing...)

Reported as a "Window of Opportunity"

[abcxyz]

On GWB's orders, they are stricking selective targets, opening efforts of the war. Previously reported as an early opportunity for specific targets. Based on what GWB is saying right now, this is the start. Guess he gave the Hussein family 2 hours and 15 min. to spare...

From this point, he appears to have headed into the political speech.

Really said nothing else in the 4 minute disertation.

I wonder if this will be deployed

[mikeophile]

Wall of Fire

Do you think it will be restricted to airborne targets?

Early weird news reports

[freeweed]

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.

Re:Early weird news reports

[billh]

The plane was escorted by military aircraft to Key West, the hijackers surrendered. They probably just wanted to leave Cuba. It wouldn't be the first time.

Don't know about the other news items.

Re:Early weird news reports

[Zigg]

Knowing CNN, none of this surprises me.

Re:Early weird news reports

[Anenga]

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.

I heard that too. Perhaps they calculated they'd beat American Idol in ratings tonite?

Re:Early weird news reports

[discovercomics]

hijack reported in Miami

Thursday March 20, 2003 3:50 AM

KEY WEST, Fla. (AP) - A Cuban airliner carrying 29 passengers was hijacked at knifepoint Wednesday night and landed under U.S. military escort in Key West, U.S. authorities said.

Still nothing on the Shot reporter though

IS it just me or is Slashdot suffering load issues ...I'm on the east coast and the turtle like speed is miserable

Re:Early weird news reports

[Anonymous Coward]

On Monday at 7:45am, MSNBC was covering the tragic deaths of 3 Jews in Israel. Apparently, in an effort to avoid the risk of bio or chem warfare, a mother had taped up the living quarters airtight. She was using a barbeque type grill to keep her and two children warm...

As they broke away from the field reporter and back to the newsroom, one of the staffers could be audibly heard laughing at the incident. The MSNBC morning anchor's face went pale and had a look of shock, she seemed aware that the staffer didn't realize it was audible.

Re:Early weird news reports

[Cantus]

I heard the background laughter on CNN.

They were probably opening a bottle of champaign to "celebrate" the start of war.

You know how good ratings are when you are covering war.

Re:Early weird news reports

[caseyc]

You know how good ratings are when you are covering war.

True, but I have to wonder...with this deviation from their normal format, are they going to be airing less commercials? Is this really going to be that much more profitable for CNN, in the end?

Re:Early weird news reports

[quitcherbitchen]

I'm through with CNN for good. Their unprofessional journalism and fallacious content-on-a-whim mislead the public and show disrespect for world events. The sad thing is that beyond C-SPAN there aren't any good alternatives. It's too bad we don't get the BBC here.

Re: Early weird news reports

[Black Parrot]

> BBC is extremely liberal by US standards. They won't even bother hiding it.

Why should anyone hide being liberal "by US standards"? Most of the political spectrum is "liberal" by US standards.

Re:Early weird news reports

[Knobby]

IS it just me or is Slashdot suffering load issues ...I'm on the east coast and the turtle like speed is miserable.

I'm on the east coast also, and I don't think it's /. that's suffering. I think the sheer number of posts is causing your browser to work pretty hard to render the page (lot's of nested tables!)..

Re: Early weird news reports

[quax]

Reminds me of the comments of a cap driver I had once in the states on a business trip. He was from Liberia, and was really happy that I knew a little bit about this country (pretty war torn).

While chatting with me he told me that he couldn't stand the American media. He felt he was getting no real information, no insights, no background, no analysis. He told me in order to not go crazy he was always listening to Canadian radio stations.

Re: Early weird news reports

[LordMyren]

for the life of me, i cannot understand how we're taking further steps to the right, given how conservative we are now.

Re: Early weird news reports

[fiftyfly]

> BBC is extremely liberal by US standards. They won't even bother hiding it. Why should anyone hide being liberal "by US standards"? Most of the political spectrum is "liberal" by US standards.

Well I guess the fact that being liberal, and god knows what else, might be considered justification for those who are conservative (even by US standards) to carpet bomb the fuck out of you might be considered a good reason for lying low.

just reading some quick facts

[cygnusx197]

Iraq admitted to making 3.9 tonnes of VX, which it said it destroyed, created 8300 litres of anthrax spores, and admitted to creating 812, then changed that to 790 tonnes of sarin

Damn.

Re:About time.

[MattCohn.com]

Flamebait?

It's a view!

And an appropriate one too.

Please mod parent up.

The only thing war has ever done is...

[bergeron76]

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...

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Sanity]

Defeat Nazism, Communism, and [hopefully] Terrorism.

The USSR brand of authoritian communism defeated itself, it was not defeated by the US and terrorism has never been defeated by war, just ask the British in Northern Ireland.

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.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Hektor_Troy]

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 ...

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[smart.id]

terrorism has never been defeated by war, just ask the British in Northern Ireland.

That's why he said hopefully. We will probably never finish off terrorism but we can lower it to a point where no one gives a crap about it. I don't see communism or nazism as a threat to the United States, even though they still "exist."

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[dogfart]

In 1918, we founght to make the world safe for democracy. We ended up making it safe for Stalin, Hitler, and another World War.

War is a devil that you conjure up to give you unprecedented power. You think you are using the devil for good, but he has other ideas....

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Alternity]

You forgot kill innocent civilians among the only things war has ever done...

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Karhgath]

defeat Nazism, Communism, and [hopefully] Terrorism.

And destroyed and ravaged europe and countless of countries, atomic bombs obliterating cities full of innoncent civilians, destroyed(...) our all-time ennemies the vietcongs, let a lots of good soldiers dies, etc.

War is NEVER one sided. War itself is bad for everyone, every side, despite what a lot of people says. It's not because you aren't affected directly that it is 'good'. I hope the casulaties will be kept to a minimum and the war will end quickly. That's all we can hope for at this point.

While I am happy that Canada didn't sent any troops, I wish good luck to all the coalition soldiers out there.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[quantaman]

I hear ya!

And lets kill all bigots while we're at it!!!

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[bakes]

Let's all hope for minimal casualties...

on both sides.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[robson]

The only thing war has ever done is... defeat Nazism, Communism, and [hopefully] Terrorism.

One of these things is not like the other. Nazism and Communism are, respectively, political and economic ideologies. We didn't defeat these ideologies; we defeated countries that were governed by regimes who practiced these ideologies.

Terrorism is a methodology. You most certainly don't "defeat" a methodology. It's an abstraction.

Now... the West may... may be able to defeat specific militant Islamic groups. I hope so. However, please don't get wrapped up in this administration's linguistic antics.

I might argue here that Iraq doesn't fall into the category of "militant Islamic group", but I have a feeling I'll be spending a lot of time in this thread tonight, and want to survey the landscape of posts before proceeding.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[alaffin]

Well, you know, as long as we're drawing loose historical parellels all over the place...

Nazi Germany was ruled with an iron fist, killed all opposition to the ruling party, had a thing against jews, were agressive towards their neighbours, were supposed to disarm under a Peace Treaty they signed and (ultimatly did not)...

Kinda like Iraq.

But you know...

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[embedded_C]

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.

I think you're oversimplifying things here. Nazi Germany set out on its invasions because it was exactly what Hitler said needed to be done in Mein Kampf, years earlier. He was doing it to gain back land which he thought was Germany's and also felt he needed to help the superior German people expand.

That is not what is happening here.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[praksys]

The USSR brand of authoritian communism defeated itself, it was not defeated by the US...

Maybe you should point that out to all the countries in Eastern Europe who came out early and voiced their support for the US even though France threatened to keep several of them out of the EU in retaliation.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[SN74S181]

Well, there is actually an objective truth. Yes, there is good, there is evil. I am not talking in terms of any religious dogma. There is a common humanist concept of what is good.

Which reduces your 'moral relativism' to drivel when you try to claim 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' You're talking about propaganda there, dude. There are terrorists (people who attack civilian populations to terrorize and get power over them), and there are freedom fighters (people who attack unjust governmental organizations, and have the support of civilian populations).

People who blow up a bus full of civilians are terrorists. It's really not very complicated...

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[SN74S181]

And surprise, surprise, that sounds a lot like the reason Saddam justifies his invasion of Kuwait.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Dirtside]

The point still stands -- war didn't defeat Communism. (Actually, nothing defeated Communism; it's still around.) However Communism isn't the bogeyman that it was in the 50s; a lot more people now realize that it's just a different economic system, not ravening hordes of Russkies thirsting after our precious bodily fluids... or something.

Your point is that spending lots of money on military power, but not actually using it, led to the downfall of the USSR... which is not even remotely the same as "War defeated Communism." The Cold War was not a shooting war, which is the kind of war under discussion.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[SN74S181]

Definitely. The sooner the Iraqi soldiers lay down their arms and surrender the fewer casualties there will be. There is limited popular support for Saddam. The sooner his dictatorship crumbles and the sooner all outside forces can be out of the country, the better.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Dirtside]

You left out, "Took over half of Europe."

So your point is, what? Because there's similarities between Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq, therefore similar military action is justified?

How about the differences between them? Germany was a superpower when World War II began. They had a massive industrial base, and some of the most advanced military technology in the world. Iraq has neither of these things -- they may be more advanced than Germany was in 1938, but they are far less advanced than many other nations are now, in 2003. Iraq invaded one tiny, defenseless country, once, and was immediately kicked out. Germany invaded several countries and held them for several years, controlling most of Europe.

Does this mean that war therefore is or is not justified? Of course not; it's never that simple. But to throw a few similarities onto the field, as if that justifies something, is hardly acceptable.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Tycho]

I think the defeats to communism that he is refering to are Korea and Vietnam.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Dirtside]

How, exactly, would war affect terrorism? War is made against static entities: buildings, bases, and large, identifiable units like military forces. Terrorists work in small, fluid groups, and their identities are (ideally, in their eyes) kept secret. The only way to fight terrorism is either to enforce a totalitarian state, so that everyone is constantly monitored (which hardly seems like an improvement -- see 1984), or to remove the motivation of the terrorists to commit terror.

It would be nice if war could "lower [terrorism] to the point where no one gives a crap about it," but that's not the kind of thing war can do.

Re: The only thing war has ever done is...

[Black Parrot]

> Maybe you should point that out to all the countries in Eastern Europe who came out early and voiced their support for the US even though France threatened to keep several of them out of the EU in retaliation.

And the USA threatened to cut handout$ to Turkey if they didn't let us into their sandbox.

There are no good guys here; it's just politicians trying to get their way.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[alaffin]

If you're going to reply to my comments angrily, at least read them before you jump to your conclusions.

I didn't make a comment on justified or unjustified (as far as I'm concerned it's justified, but that's another kettle of fish). I simply said that as long as people are going to make a comment like "George Bush is being like Nazi Germany" someone needs to say "Yeah, well so is Saddam." Which is pretty much what you're saying - except your seizing the chance to jump on a more or less pro-Bush comment and try and make your anti-Bush statement look more potent by 'disproving' me.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Hektor_Troy]

People who blow up a bus full of civilians are terrorists. It's really not very complicated...

Well, if you're being suppressed, occupied and have no army, blowing up civilians just might make the occupying country give up their occupation.

It's not very complicated. Just look at it from more than one angle.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The USSR brand of authoritian communism defeated itself, it was not defeated by the US

You could not be more wrong.

President Reagan essentially put the last nail in the coffin of the USSR at Reykjavik in 1986. In one, shining moment that was almost ignored by all involved at the time, President Reagan forced the Russians to commit to an arms race that they could ill afford, and more importantly handed Mr. Gorbachev a humiliating defeat at the negotiating table that led directly to the coup that effectively destroyed the USSR as a political entity in 1991. For more on this important piece of history, read this.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[BushLad]

Ever hear of a little country in the Middle East known as Kuwait?

Rumor has it that not so long ago, they were invaded.

Which is apparently justification for us to wage war on the country that invaded them.

Does that make sense to you?

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

After all, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter ...

No, that's not true.

Terrorism is, put simply, the deliberate targeting of civilians for the purpose of affecting political change through the infliction of mass casualties. Okay? The deliberate targeting of civilians. This has never been an acceptable tactic, either for armies or for guerilla freedom fighters.

The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is that a freedom fighter blows up a tank, or a military base, while a terrorist blows up a bus or a pizza parlor.

Do you see the difference now?

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[mikeee]

Actually, the original Terrorists were the Assassins. Nowadays, of course, we use that term to refer to their favored form of terrorism, rather than to the original Assassins.

Why?

Because the Mongols eventually got pissed off about it, rolled into the middle east, and slaughtered them.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Dirtside]

someone needs to say "Yeah, well so is Saddam."

Why would someone say that, except to justify the invasion? My point was that the similarities between Saddam and Hitler, or Nazi Germany and modern Iraq, do not necessarily justify an invasion, by themselves. I also did not draw any conclusion on whether the invasion was justified. What infurates me is when people use a small, selective pool of all the available evidence to make a decision. "Saddam's regime is oppressive" -- which no one will argue -- "therefore we must invade." Or, for example, "There's not enough evidence for the existence of WMD, therefore we must not invade Iraq." It would be nice if it were that simple -- and most people want it to be, so they willfully ignore everything else.

except your seizing the chance to jump on a more or less pro-Bush comment and try and make your anti-Bush statement look more potent by 'disproving' me.

I neither said nor implied anything about Bush.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[bergeron76]

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.

So you're implying that the Americans and the VAST MAJORITY of the United Nations are "invading" Iraq? You should probably tune in to the reality that is the world around you.

Let me brief you:
a) Iraq has been found to be in BREACH of resolution 1441 which was passed UNANIMOUSLY a few months ago by ALL 15 UN permanent members.
b) France has disrupted the UN coalition because they have a multi-billion dollar stake in Iraqi oil.
c) They (the UN [with the exception of the few cowardly countries that France has "jaded" by their biased beligerence]) have decided to "remove a rapist/killler/torturer" dictator from power, and demonstrate that the UN is more than just a typical debate society which accomplishes nothing, but talks about "a lot".

If you're convinced that Saddam is a good guy, or that he should stay in power, or that the UN is in the wrong, perhaps you should move to Iraq.

Of course by doing so, you'd only end up being "liberated" by the majority of the UN nations as they free Iraq from it's tyranny.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[alaffin]

Allow me to quote the person I was talking to:

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

Thus implying a connection between the Nazi's and the USA. Now I said:

Nazi Germany was ruled with an iron fist...Kinda like Iraq.

Why? Because lots of people are out and about spouting half truths and that bothers me. I don't have a problem with people having a few opposite mine, but I do have a problem with them using comparisons that are about as valid as calling a television a computer because there are some common features between them.

Which is what you are saying - you just seem to have missed that fact. Like I said - no statement on justification or not, just a simple statement.

Anyways - drifting slowly away from the topic, unless the discussion has shifted to one that focuses on the propoganda spouted by both pro and anti war spokespeople.

Cheers!

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[flacco]

And the only way you will defeat terrorism is to kill every single person on the face of the earth.

You know, it's people like you with defeatist attitudes like that who drag this country down.

Instead of complaining that something's "hard", or "impossible", or "unthinkable", why not set some goals, roll up your shirt-sleeves, and get to work?! If we all pull together and work honestly and hard at it, you'd be surprised at what we could accomplish! I'll bet we could kill every single person on the face of the earth in, say, six months tops.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[ranald]

Wrong, Grasshopper. Terrorism has been defeated by war. Depends on how you wage it. Defeated in Malaysia and in the Phillipines (the Huk rebellion), for instance. (Screw up the politics, you lose, like Viet Nam.) The Irish in the South continued to kill each other with gusto after the British threw in the towel there. Expect more of the same if the Brits leave up North. Unless Irish-Americans suddenly stop funding Gerry Adams and his Boyos. Oh and while we are on our ex-pals the Germans, let's look at some other ex-pals: Chinese out of Tibet, Russians out of Chechnya, and the French out of whichever West African country (Ivory Coast? Chad?) their troops are stomping around in now.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[juhaz]

That's economics.

Even if the economic crash came because of arms race, those arms were never used. No war here.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

No war here.

What's that got to do with it? The assertion, which I was backing up, was that the United States defeated communism. Whether we did it with diplomacy or with bombs isn't at issue.

Now, if you want to talk about whether war has ever accomplished anything, I'm afraid that's gonna open up a whole 'nother can of worms.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[quitcherbitchen]

Terrorism must be funded, accomodated, encouraged, and allowed by people that have static entities such as buildings, bases, and large, identifiable units like military forces. You're wrong anyway about terrorism. Terrorists can be large groups with known identities, even nations. War is a viable (hopefully last resort) means to deal with it in some cases.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[quitcherbitchen]

So your point is, what? Because there's similarities between Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq, therefore similar military action is justified?

You didn't really understand his post, did you? Been jumping around on your "jump to conclusions mat?" As far as the comparision of Iraq & 1940 Germany is concerned, it's not a worthless one. It was a time that showed the severe consequences that inaction can have on a nation's security. And take things into context now. Weapons are much more than they used to be. When measured in destructive capability, a nation does not need to have a large economy or population. All the poster seemed to say was look at history and learn something from it. That's the point.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Bobzibub]

You mean like:
"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" written for Bush's pals, by Bush's pals.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsre po rts.htm

"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

Is this "Lebensraum"?

Just causing trouble. ; )
-b

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[TKinias]

scripsit Twirlip of the Mists:

The deliberate targeting of civilians. This has never been an acceptable tactic, either for armies or for guerilla freedom fighters.

I recommend you brush up on your WWII history. Read up on the bombing of Tokyo and Dresden, for example. Or on the actions of the Allied ``resistance'' movements.

War is evil. People engaged in war do evil things. Don't pretend that white, English-speaking people don't do them too.

Re: The only thing war has ever done is...

[Black Parrot]

> Ah yes... handouts. The US wasn't threatening to withdraw the free money they always give Turkey. They were threatening to not give tens of billions of ADDITIONAL aid.

Actually, the US threatened to reduce what we are already giving them (in addition to withholding the new carrot).

Re: The only thing war has ever done is...

[Black Parrot]

> Parot are you out of your fucking mind ? Threatening someone with not giving him a handout is considered a fucking crime. Are you living in a real world ?

What amazes me about the political discussions on Slashdot is how many people hold vehement positions even though they don't follow the news well enough to know what's going on in the world without having every little reference explained to them.

It's no wonder half the US public supports the war.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Sanity]

I think the defeats to communism that he is refering to are Korea and Vietnam.

Ah yes, never forget Vietnam - if those evil Vietnamese actually got to have the government they wanted, then it would have been the beginning of the end for freedom - except they did (after immense suffering at the hands of the US), and it wasn't.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Read up on the bombing of Tokyo and Dresden, for example.

Where the targets were military and industrial targets, yes. And where many civilians died, yes. See, there was an important word thrown in there that you might have missed: deliberate. Something else was important as well: for the purpose of affecting political change through the infliction of mass casualties. If I bomb a city to destroy a port or an industrial district or a stronghold, and thousands of civilians die, that is a tragedy. But it's not terrorism. If I bomb a city for the sole purpose of inflicting terror, through which I hope to achieve my political goals, that's terrorism. And it is unacceptable.

War is evil. People engaged in war do evil things.

Sure. But painting the tragedy of war and the sheer monstrousness of terrorism with the same broad brush is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Ozymandias_KoK]

Vietnam doesn't make a very good example of a defeat to communism.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[foniksonik]

SO that whole HOLOCAUST thing was just a little side show? Hitler was an inherently evil individual with malformed, distorted and perverse ideals.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Wolfrider]

--Invasion wasn't *THE* reason. Duh, ever hear about the HOLOCAUST, dummy??

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Temporal]

I'll bet we could kill every single person on the face of the earth in, say, six months tops.

Been there, done that.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Sanity]

SO that whole HOLOCAUST thing was just a little side show? Hitler was an inherently evil individual with malformed, distorted and perverse ideals.

Sorry to challenge your world view, but the Holocaust was not the motivating force for either British or American involvement in the second world war - they have ignored similar events before, during, and since WWII (Stalin anyone?), in fact, the Holocaust didn't really become a big deal until the 60s (read "The Holocaust Industry" - written by a Jew - for a very enlightening perspective on all this)

In the case of the US, they are no stranger to genocide themselves, talk to a native American, they know all about it.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Sanity]

Nazi Germany was ruled with an iron fist

Try being a Muslim in today's America.

killed all opposition to the ruling party

Fortunately, there is no real opposition to the ruling party in the US, so this isn't necessary.

had a thing against jews

Try being a Muslim in today's America.

were agressive towards their neighbours

Has anyone else lost count of the democratic South American governments overthrown by the CIA?

were supposed to disarm under a Peace Treaty they signed

At least they got as far as signing the treaty in the first place, more than can be said for the US .

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Sanity]

Rumor has it that not so long ago, they were invaded. Which is apparently justification for us to wage war on the country that invaded them.

They did, you did, that was a decade ago. What is today's excuse?

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[TKinias]

scripsit Twirlip of the Mists:

If I bomb a city for the sole purpose of inflicting terror, through which I hope to achieve my political goals, that's terrorism. And it is unacceptable.

I really do encourage you to read up on the firebombing raids. When I first did, I was sickened. I am an American citizen, and I was raised on the idea that Americans didn't do that sort of thing. We were misled.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[robinjo]

So you're implying that the Americans and the VAST MAJORITY of the United Nations are "invading" Iraq? You should probably tune in to the reality that is the world around you.

How about some unsensored reality? The vast majority of the United Nations is against the war. 30 countries support it publicly. 15 not publicly. That leaves 147 countries not supporting. Tell me how 45 out of 192 is the vast majority and I'll nominate you for the Nobel prize of mathematics.

Furthermore, the people of USA's most important allies are against the war. Examples are Great Britain, Spain and Turkey.

In other words: GWB started an illegal war that the world opposes. Starting this war is already a war crime. Doing it this way is pure insanity.

What makes this even more disgusting is the way how France has been blamed for this war. Wars are started by those who pull the trigger.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[linzeal]

Man if the stoners ever organized again that would be scary, stoned stormtroopers would need more than GPS and luck to find their way around a battlefield.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[maxcray]

>
> After all, one man's terrorist is another man's
> freedom fighter ...

Umm...no. Combatants target military targets. Terrorists target civilians.

Thanks for participating, though.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[FyRE666]

Yeah, just relay the CNN news feed to Iraq 24/7 and they'll have all laughed themselves to death within a week.

Seriously, has anyone watched CNN in the early hours in the UK? The male presenter is probably the most inept, inarticulate fool I've ever seen in the role of a news wH^anchor. And he shouts all the damned time - I think he's on from around 4:00AM to 6 or something - pretty damned funny...

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[targo]

Maybe you should point that out to all the countries in Eastern Europe who came out early and voiced their support for the US even though France threatened to keep several of them out of the EU in retaliation

I am a citizen of one of those Eastern European countries. Our people were actually quite outraged by our government's support to the US because polls show 80% of people opposing the war. In fact, common people consider USA and USSR to me much closer to each other (at least where foreign policies are concerned) than USSR and Iraq. The fact that so many Eastern European countries' governments have voiced their support is mostly because they are relatively poor and weak, making it much easier to bribe and pressure them. If you check the public opinion then there is only one country in the world where >50% of the population is for the war and it's the US.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Ed_Moyse]

This is kind-of a troll, but I've lived with IRA bombs in london for a large portion of my life ...
As you correctly say "terrorism must be funded, accomodated, encouraged, and allowed by people [...]" does this mean that the "War on Terror" extends to the US citizens who funded the IRA? Remember that most of the sponsorship for the IRA came from america.... I'd really like to see the sick fucks who contributed money to the murder of innocent british citizens charged and locked up. (Oh, and the same goes for any protestant sympathisers, and any guilty members of the british armed forces)

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[praksys]

If you check the public opinion then there is only one country in the world where >50% of the population is for the war and it's the US.

Actually there are at least three countries where public opinion is 50%+ in favor of the war - US, UK, and Iraq. Of course Iraqi public opinion is the most diffcult to assess, but it is also the least divided. Support for the war runs extremely high among ex-pat Iraqi's, those in Northern Iraq who can speak freely, and even in the rest of Iraq journalists have been saying for days that Iraqi's have started to speak out candidly in favor of the war.

So it looks like everyone who is actually involved in the war is in favor of it. Why are you opposed?

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[alaffin]

Try being a Muslim in today's America.

I won't bother with the other points. They're bigger jokes than this. Because while I'm sure that the Muslim's in "today's American" suffer an amount of suspiscion due to the fact that certain sects of their religion have declared holy war on American, I have yet to hear of one American Muslim being thrown into a gas chamber or shot dead in the streets, or forced to live in Ghetto's.

Hell, the simple fact that you can make such a statement against the government suggests that - guess what - you, and everyone else (including Muslims) live in a far superior situation to the Iraqi's (who are killed for speaking of Saddam Hussien without a preceeding epithet that sounds something like "The Almight Ruler, Most Holy Servant of Allah, The Sword of the Almighty, long may he reign).

But yeah, sure. American Muslims suffer so much and the Americans are such bad people because they mistreat their populace....

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[SN74S181]

Yes, and killing one of the people at your party might get you to turn down that damned stereo.

Ends don't justify means.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[praksys]

The only reason Eastern Europe countries "voiced their support" for the US is to improve their chances to get in NATO.

The *most* vocal supporters of the US (Poland and the CR are already in NATO. Get a clue.

Actually the real reason is most likely that they took a look at their own security concerns and made an educated guess that in the long run the US was more likely to back them up in the future, than any European power.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Dirtside]

Terrorism must be funded, accomodated, encouraged, and allowed by people that have static entities such as buildings, bases, and large, identifiable units like military forces.

False. Terrorism can be funded this way, but it can also come from grass-roots movements -- a few individuals who band together secretly, and are funded secretly by sympathizers. Money that funds terrorism is usually transferred surreptitiously; so even if it is coming from "large, identifiable units" (like, say, a drug cartel), the very fact that that transaction is happening is secret. War isn't going to help with finding that out.

Terrorists can be large groups with known identities, even nations.

Yes, they can be... but they usually aren't, because being a terrorist doesn't work very well when everyone knows that you're a terrorist, and knows where you live. Terrorism is clandestine by nature; state-supported terrorism means that money, training, and equipment are given surreptitiously to those who perform the actual terrorist acts, so that the state can deny responsibility or knowledge for the actions. Governments that admit to terrorism get destroyed rather quickly.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[Reziac]

Cool. I knew Reagan had more or less maneuvered 'em into their own downfall, but not exactly how. The guy was a lot better at his job than some folk would credit.

I remember when the old-hippie contingent were running in circles before and after Reagan was elected, insisting that he was absolutely positively going to start World War Three. Pretty funny in retrospect.

Re:The only thing war has ever done is...

[foniksonik]

My great grandfather was Iroquois and Osage Nation, I, like many a black man of african descent no longer take offense to the ignorance/prejudice or relevant situation of the American people during that time period.

Sorry but you have a completely inconsequential chance of changing my worldview. I was stating the obvious response to a blatant generalization of world events. So I responded with a generalization.

No further comment.

Re:About time.

[houseofmore]

"This should have happened 10 years ago."

Uhhhh.... it did. And, well that seemed to solve a lot didn't it?

Re:War Pigs

[TopShelf]

Damn you - the least you could do is provide a link to an audio stream...

'Lectric Funeral! 'Lectric Funeral!

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Anenga]

Interestingly, EVERYONE that I've spoken to also think this.

Yep. According to all of the forwarded "Chain IM"'s I'm recieving, that seems to be true.

"we pray that all the people who have gone to war will come home safe and be unharmed and that the war will not start and Saddam Husain will destroy all of his nuclear weapons
please put your status on busy to show a sign of respect to the soldiers
pleaze send to everyone online"

Re:War Pigs

[deadsaijinx*]

you're right! I don't know the lyrics.

But that doesn't mean I'd mod ya down. Offtopic is a stupid mod. who is ever ONtopic on /.?

Re:Low Casualty

[Call Me Black Cloud]

As opposed to other rapes, which you want to last as long as possible?

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[jdkincad]

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.

I'm not!!!

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Oh wait, I'm already in the Marines. Dohhh!

Re:I'm not!!!

[Anonymous DWord]

Well what the hell are you doing posting on Slashdot? They started the war without you, dude! Hurry up!

Yeesh, some militaries...

Re:I'm not!!!

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Double Dohhh!

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[missing000]

I totaly agree.
Support the troups. Bring them home!

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[robkore]

Good luck to all the US soldiers, 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.

Awesome. While we're at it, why don't we start cheering on domestic violence once the beatings start, and rape once the act starts. It's all well and good to support the idea of these crimes, but we wouldn't want to not support the people out there with the balls to commit them, would we? We might upset them.

In other news, the bill of rights were finally found. Now maybe someone in Washington will take the time to read them...

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[iceburn]

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.

Why can't you understand, that if somebody protests the war, they can also support the troops. I protest the war BECAUSE I support the troops. I don't want my friends to die for nothing.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[mattdm]

I'm VERY supportive of our troops. I want their lives to NOT be risked and possibly wasted in an unjustified aggressive war.

Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[Rayonic]

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.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[dogfart]

There was a demographer, Beth Osborne Daponte , for the US government that estimated the following:

13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system, she calculated. In all, 40,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed in the conflict, she concluded, putting total Iraqi losses from the war and its aftermath at 158,000, including 86,194 men, 39,612 women, and 32,195 children.

She was fired by the Bush administration shortly thereafter.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[fflewddur]

The last war took place in the desert, while this one will be fought in the streets of Iraqi cities. It's a pretty safe bet that a lot of people are going to lose their lives. This will not be remembered as a proud day in world history.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[Serra]

Maybe those anti-war people are concerned with any civilian casualties - Iraqi or American.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[TrevorB]

Seen this quoted in a few places... Best to search around for other numbers. I can't find any US numbers, just Iraqi and 3rd party (i.e. UN) numbers.

Here's a link:

http://www.futurenet.org/iraq/morecostofwar.htm

And here's relevant text:

Approximately 3,500 civilians were killed during the U.S.-led air strike campaign in August 1990, and more than 9000 homes were destroyed. The civilian death toll rose to 110,000 after the bombing stopped, and of those 70,000 were children under the age of 15. Civilians in Iraq continue to suffer as a result of "Operation Desert Storm," despite the cessation of military attacks in 1991. Incidents with landmines and unexploded ordinance have added thousands of victims to the total. According to Unicef, the U.S.-led economic sanctions imposed on Iraq, in effect for more than a decade, have claimed over one million lives, the majority of whom are children and the elderly. In the wider "War on Terror" more civilians have now died in Afghanistan than did in the World Trade Tower and Pentagon attacks combined according to Professor Marc W. Herold at the Whittemore School of Business & Economics, in Durham, New Hampshire.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[km790816]

25 mintues and no one has an answer?

A search on Google doesn't bring up much.

Odd, isn't it? As if no one wants us to know.

I hate conspiracy theories, but even *I* am curious about this.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[Rayonic]

It's pretty well known that the "Smart" weapons weren't so.
I mean what was the interception rate of the Patriot missles?? Guess.
ZERO.

and that's the shit that's supposed to protect the GOOD GUYS.
How good could the weapons that were supposed to KILL the bad guys?

I'd imagine that it's much easier to hit a large stationary building than a small flying missle.

Back, back ye troll!

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[praksys]

About 2500 civillians were killed in the First Gulf War. Both the US and Iraqi governments agree on figures close to that (2,248 according to the government of Iraq). Many more died from disease or malnutrition after the war. A higher number of civillian deaths is expected in the Second Gulf War because there is likely to be more urban combat, but on the other hand the number of deaths that follow the war is likely to be far lower.

You can get estimates of death tolls for various wars, and other man-made disaters here:

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatx.htm

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[voiceofthewhirlwind]

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?

One thing is for sure, don't try any major U.S. owned media outlet for that kind of information, they'll just be repeating how much worse it would be without the expensive gadgetry and gloss over the real numbers.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[mchappee]

>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 don't know the answer to your question, and for that I apologize, but I will offer this: In 1988 President Saddam Hussein ordered the destruction of the Iraqi city of the Halabja. Chemical weapons were used to contaminate the city. It was over in 2 hours. 5000 civilians were killed in that attack.

The bleeding hearts on this blog are making me ill. Hussein did in 2 hours what the US/coalition avoided in an entire war. And this was just one chemical attack. If the war lasted an entire year it is unlikely that as many civilians would be killed as those ordered to death by Hussein. I don't care what reasons Bush has for killing Hussein, but I have my own and so I wish the American president well.

Go here:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-0 00918.h tm

Read it. All of it.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[Dirtside]

Assuming that a "regime change" is the optimal solution, a lot of people have a problem with the U.S. appointing itself the executor of that task, especially when it initially agreed to let the U.N. handle international disputes. The other half of the problem is that our stated reasons for invading Iraq have little to do with "Sadaam is a mean guy." They're more along the lines of, "Iraq is a threat to our national security because they have weapons of mass destruction. No, we can't show you any real proof -- just believe us, we have it." If the U.S. said that Sadaam was a brutal asshole, and should be brought down, we'd probably have a lot more support -- but that's not what we're doing.

The problem with that method, though, is what kind of precedent does it set? Where is the line drawn? Sure, Sadaam may be "obviously" evil, but how many deaths do you have to be responsible for before it's okay for the U.S. to come in and take you down? How about when the government, under Clinton, invaded the Branch Davidian compound in Waco? It was a complete debacle, and Clinton was at least indirectly responsible for it (being Reno's boss), but would Canada have been justified in invading the U.S. and killing Clinton because of it? Almost certainly not. So where do you draw the line? Once you start down that dark path, how long before every nation starts wondering when the U.S. will decide that their leader is a jerk, and needs to die?

Does this mean we shouldn't invade Iraq for that reason? Nope. It's a big, complicated, tangled web -- and anyone who thinks they know all the answers is arrogant. Including me.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[badasscat]

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.

More important, it seems to me, are the civilian casualties that will occur if we do not go to war. Saddam Hussein has killed 100,000-150,000 of his own people with chemical weapons, and that's not including his "executions" or those who have died in prison captivity during torture sessions. This is what gets forgotten when people talk about civilian casualties as the result of war. It may sound callous to say it, but what's the lesser of two evils here?

Does anyone here know the read civilian death toll from the last Iraqi war?

The estimates I saw at the time said between 2,000 and 3,000. Quite a lot fewer than Saddam has killed himself, and quite a lot fewer than the 100,000 Iraqi soldiers estimated to have died (terrible in itself, as most of them did not choose to be in the military, as our guys have the luxury of doing).

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[Anonymous Coward]

putting total Iraqi losses from the war and its aftermath at 158,000, including 86,194 men, 39,612 women, and 32,195 children.

I don't trust this. You've got nice round numbers like "70,000" "40,000" and "158,000" (that don't add up: 13k+70k+40k = 123k, not 158) and then extremely specific numbers. I wouldn't expect such exact numbers for one thing.

So what do the specific numbers add up to? 158,001 Almost exactly the nice round number.

Possible, but not statistically likely.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[prator]

Why is it that so many people forget to put any sort of blame on Saddam and his government?

The reasons that the sanctions have been in place for so long is that Saddam has never cooperated with the UN resolutions passed regarding Iraq and disarmament. And he has not used the money he has gotten from aid programs to help his own people.

I'm digging up a bunch of links on this now. This PBS link has has a lot of info and viewpoints.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/san ctions.html

-prator

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[!splut]

I mean, I would think it'd be relatively low, what with all the expensive gagetry we're using nowadays.

You'd think. Except for the fact that it isn't infantry shoot-outs in the desert that result in large numbers of civilian casualties. This high tech gagetry, which produces bigger, more powerful bombs that can fly farther and with less ground guidance is what creates the most collateral damage. Bombing a city from a hundred miles away and ensuring that the targeted structures are populated exclusively by enemy combatants is difficult.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Does anyone here know the read civilian death toll from the last Iraqi war?

The Iraqi government reported 2,278 civilian deaths caused by Operation Desert Storm. This figure has been very widely reported; pretty much typing "gulf war 2278" into Google will get you sources. Here's one; scroll down to the section heading "Military Deaths in the Gulf War."

Note that this is the official Iraqi government death toll. If anything, one would expect this figure to be inflated; in fact, it seems to be one of the lowest figures reported, by a wide margin.

One of the reasons this gets confusing is because of the meaning of the word "casualties." In military parlance, a "casualty" is anybody who is killed or injured. So when people talk about "casualties," they are referring to the combined total of deaths and injuries. But some people misinterpret "casualties" to mean "deaths," which results in absurd overestimates of the number of people actually killed.

Also, many of the higher-- over 10,000-- estimates of Desert Storm deaths are reached by casting a very wide net. Some estimates were made by including deaths attributed to lack of health care services in the aftermath of the war, and so on. These indirect deaths are certainly significant, but they're basically impossible to estimate-- who knows if little Timmy (or whatever) would have died of a burst appendix if there had been no war-- so those figures are unreliable at best, and complete fictions at worst.

So the best number to use is the Iraqi government's own figure: 2,278.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[lakeland]

Simple, they count the people who starved to death because sanctions took all their money.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[oh]

So, where do these people come up with numbers near 1 million?

The honest answer is no one knows for sure. The biggest killer (IMHO) was the lack of modern medical supplies for Iraqi hospitals after the war. If you kept you eye out you might have seen the odd story about doctors that would travel to iraq with their personal luggage full of meicine.

Non-pescription medicine, stuff that you can buy over the counter in western countries, and giving these to hospitals in Iraq. If customs detected them the medicines were conficsated because they were breaking the trade embargo in place against Iraq for the last 12 years.

How many people died because they couldn't get basic medicine? How can you tell if they would have survived if they had received it? No one knows but when senior members of the Clinton administration (I think Madeline Albrecht) say that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children would be worth it to get rid of Saddam I am horrified. Even if they are off by a factor of 10 its a scarily high number.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[Gortbusters.org]

I believe it was 150,000. That's what I heard at a Ramsey Clark speech.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[kootch]

I didn't know that medicine was banned as part of the embargo (i'd like to see documentation of that)

Meanwhile, instead of buying food and medicine for his people (oil -> food trade program), saddam spent money building/buying weapons and palaces, and probably putting it in the same places as all of those african despots.

Blame the correct person for the deaths of the Iraqi citizens: Saddam

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[Lord Omlette]

Look for "Highway of Death" or "Basra Kuwait Gulf War", you'll find plenty of stuff.

What you won't find is anyone claiming that the people being fired on were firing back or even capable of firing back.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[sql*kitten]

Approximately 3,500 civilians were killed during the U.S.-led air strike campaign in August 1990, and more than 9000 homes were destroyed. The civilian death toll rose to 110,000 after the bombing stopped, and of those 70,000 were children under the age of 15.

You can see the attitude here. If Saddam builds a command center under a hospital, it's his fault if civilians are killed. Where in the West is there a military installation deliberately placed in a civilian area for the specific purpose of using those civilians as "human shields"? I'll give you a clue: nowhere. Decent folk don't work like that. We are not the bad guys here. All civilian casualties are Saddam's fault, not ours.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[Dun Malg]

It's pretty well known that the "Smart" weapons weren't so. I mean what was the interception rate of the Patriot missles?? Guess. ZERO.

Incorrect, pal. I don't know the ratio of hit-vs.-miss, but it sure wasn't 0:1. The patriots worked fairly well, considering the fact that their ballistic missile interception software was a last-minute hack (in the good sense). Actually, the intercept rate for patriots vs. SCUDs wasn't the issue. The problem was the patriot warheads' proximity sensors. Patriot missiles were designed as surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles. The proximity fuses take a fraction of a second to detect the target when it comes into range. When it's a mach 4.5 missile vs. a mach 1.0 airplane (mach 5.5 closure speed), it works fine: the warhead blows up right next to the pilot. When it's a mach 4.5 missile vs. a mach 6.0 ballistic missle (mach 10.5 closure), by the time the warhead detonates, it's next to, or even slightly past, the aft section of the SCUD. Thus, the rocket motor and empty fuel tanks are pulverized, leaving the SCUD warhead unharmed. Whether Patriot-vs-SCUD was simply a morale booster is another issue entirely...

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[Mac Degger]

There's just one minor inconsistency: at the time, the Iranians used gasses working on the blood, and the Iraqi's has mustard gas. Turns out the Kurds where not killed with mustard gas, but with the nerve agent which acted through the blood stream.

And you know what? We don't know more than that...not a thing more. Could be that the Iraqi's used a nerve agent which they'd never used before (and which doesn't show up in any records), or it could be that the Iranians did it and used it as a great PR stunt...I dunno...and neither do you.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[targo]

13,000 civilians were killed directly by American and allied forces, and about 70,000 civilians died subsequently from war-related damage to medical facilities and supplies, the electric power grid, and the water system

Btw, note that the last war didn't involve any urban warfare at all, it was mostly in the desert. This time, it is probably going to be in city of 5 million, probably meaning 6-digit civilian casualties. This is very very hard to justify by any means, and not even counting all the people who are going to be disabled or lose their homes.
Somehow, I am very doubtful about this war buying anything positive for America. You know, once your children have been killed by bombs, you really don't buy the arguments that it brought you "freedom" and was for your own good.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[MochaMan]

I find it odd that your linked document describing Saddam Hussein's war crimes, it carries on about atrocities committed during the Iran-Iraq war, but fails to mention that this was wholly supported by the US. The US helped fund and provide arms to Saddam Hussein during that conflict.

Now, I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein is a good guy (he's not) or that he isn't guilty of what he's being accused of in this document (there is very convincing evidence he is guilty of much of it), but the US certainly bears a lot of guilt in this case too.

Don't fool yourself. The US government doesn't give a crap about human rights violations or democracy for the people. If it did, we'd see action from the US in Sierra Leone (ranked last place in the last UN Human Development Report) or in the Democratic republic of Congo, or in a ton of other countries. If it did, we wouldn't see the US installing and/or supporting dictatorships all over the planet. US foreign policy is based on what's good for the US, not what's good for the countries it deals with. If a democratically elected government gets in the way (eg. Guatemala), and a US-sympathetic dictator is more convenient (Armas), so be it. A few human rights abuses never hurt anyone, right?

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[NoOneInParticular]

Why is it that so many people forget to put any sort of blame on Saddam and his government?

Because expecting a sadist who has in the past thrown nervegas at his own population to actually care about that same population dying of starvation is, to put it gently, naive.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[mcbevin]

There will be civilian casualties, but not many, as they are bad PR. I am against the war, but not because of the civilian casualties. The UN sanctions have killed 1.5 million Iraqis - if the war kills a few thousand more but puts a stop to the sanctions that would be justifiable. Heres an essay from my website regarding why I do not believe this war is a good idea - see the website for facts backing up the essay, plus a more viewer friendly version of the argument -

1. Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism. The Iraqis, arabs and muslims around the world will see such a war not only as a war on Islam, but also for what it largely is about - an imperialistic grab for oil. Anyone doubting this need only consider Iraq's history. The CIA played a hand in overthrowing the government in Iraq in 1963 which led to Saddam's party and thus Saddam himself coming to power. The reason was that the government had moved to nationalise oil (exactly the same thing also happened in Iran). Going back further also gives a long history of the colonial power Britain treating Iraq atrociously in order to control their oil.

Anyone still doubting that oil is a motive behind the war need only consider the Bush Administration's deep ties with the oil industry, read about the English and US oil companies already lobbying over who gets to drill the Iraqi oil (Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world), read the report submitted to Dick Cheney suggesting the use of military force in Iraq because the US needs the oil, or consider that a result of the war in Afghanistan was the US finally getting to build a pipeline through the country, or that high oil prices are currently threatening the US economy and could be reliably kept significantly lower if the US were to control Iraq's oil.

2. There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda. The best intelligence agencies (those of the US and Britain) in the world have been working flat out to try and find one, yet both reported no link (despite this fact, both Bush and Blair repeatedly cite information discredited by their own intelligence agencies as evidence of a link - if they are so convinced of the case for war they shouldn't need to lie in presenting it). British intelligence reports that even the possibility of a substantial link is unlikely, given that Osama is in ideological conflict with Saddam (in a recent tape Osama termed Saddam and his regime 'infidels').

3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. At least for his own people he had thus done a better job than most other Middle Eastern leaders, and now we're supposed to be saving his people from him? I'm not saying Saddam is all good, far from it, but he is also not the evil tyrant Bush depicts him to be (i.e. he did not gas his own people as Bush repeatedly claims).

Worth also noting is that the reason an estimated 5000-6000 children die due to starvation and lack of water and medication in Iraq every week is not Saddam or even solely the UN sanctions, but the fact that the US and UK have blocked the efforts of the oil-for-food program. The two successive UN leaders of the oil-for-food program resigned due to this fact, saying that Saddam had done his best to provide his people with food, and calling what the US and UK were doing 'genocide'. If the US and UK have pursued a genocidal policy at the cost of 1.5 million Iraqi lives over the past 10 years, can we believe their claim to now be taking war to the people of Iraq for their own good?

4. The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny. Iraq probably still has some 'weapons of mass destruction' of course, but an insignificant amount which pales in comparison to that of many other countries (including of course the US and Britain, but also less stable places such as Syria and the nuclear states of North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel).

Saddam

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[ratamacue]

And people wonder why the US is the #1 target for terrorists.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[osgeek]

It's not about expectations that he'd do any better. It's about making sure that blame is placed squarely at the feet of the most guilty party. From what I've seen, Iraqi civilian death toll numbers are circulated first by people who are opposed to this war. They don't like Saddam to take any blame for them, so they leave his part in all of this out.

Fine, let's remember the civilian costs to all this, but don't forget about the dictator who keeps making those civilian costs inevitable. Leaving out either part is somewhat intellectually dishonest.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[osgeek]

What a pussified statement to make.

Yeah, it would be easy to be liked in the world because your country never took unpopular ethical stands on anything. It'd be easy to do nothing while fundamentally flawed political systems (communism and dictatorships) wreaked havoc on other human beings around the world.

Everyone would just fucking love you... right up to the point where the whole world went to shit because nobody cared enough to take decisive action.

Sometimes, you just have to face the fact that even when you do "the right thing", people are going to hate you for it. It doesn't mean that what you did was wrong.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[ratamacue]

I'd like to see you assert that 9/11 would still have happened had the US government not been practicing foreign intervention by force over the past century or so. I'm not trying to say that all examples of military force are unjust; what I'm trying to say is that terrorism is a direct backlash of the use of military force.

Common sense tells us that foreign intervention breeds resentment and hatred. Common sense tells us that terrorism -- evil as it may be -- is a direct response to evil.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[nullard]

IIRC most of that money was taken back befire Iraq ever saw it as repayment of debt.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[TrevorB]

Who was talking about assigning blame?

I just care that people are dying.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[prator]

You should care about what is needed to stop future deaths in that area of the world. I don't think that removing/killing Saddam is some magic fix-all. I don't think that anyone believes that.

I do think that it needs to be done. I only wish we had done it a decade ago. What happens after Saddam is gone is the real issue. I know we can't just install Democracy XP over there and leave, but maybe we can work to help create some sort working government for the people of Iraq that allows them the freedoms that we have.

-prator

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[TrevorB]

I know that deaths don't occur if there is no action as well.

As Wally Schirra would have said: "I'm not happy with the situation".

Ideally, the combined pressure of miliary threat (providing a level of containment) while inspections occured and more time to come up for a peaceful solution. Slow and methodical disarmament, even if it's resisted grudingly

I know that's not an ideal ideal either... :(

The whole thing just sucks.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[osgeek]

I'd like to see you assert that 9/11 would still have happened had the US government not been practicing foreign intervention by force over the past century or so.

I'd like to see you assert that the world would have been better off if the United States hadn't intervened with Hitler. I'd like to see you even begin to assert that the world would be better if the US hadn't protected Europe from the very predatory Soviet Union.

Common sense tells us that foreign intervention breeds resentment and hatred. Common sense tells us that terrorism -- evil as it may be -- is a direct response to evil.

Yes, intervention breeds resentment and hatred. No, intervention isn't necessarily evil, so the second part of your argument is quite invalid.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[acarey]

Saddam Hussein has killed 100,000-150,000 of his own people with chemical weapons

Really? And you've got some links to prove that, of course?

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[acarey]

What about the 5,000 Kurds gased at Halabja?

Yes - gassed using chemical weapons only available to the Iranians at the time, not the Iraqis. Curiouser and curiouser.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[Reziac]

I agree -- the public campaign has been, IMO, mishandled, and has focused on the wrong issues:

Saddam slaughters his own people in mass quantities -- check.

Per what Twirlip said, the US is obligated by UN charter to enforce the resolution -- check.

Terrorist connexions -- well, per Twirlip (who I've concluded is generally very well-informed and not fanatically biased), they're in plenty, but this has never been made *clear* to the American public -- it's remained a nebulous "terrorists are everywhere!" threat, and between the PATRIOT act and media overkill, has almost become a joke.

Weapons of mass destruction -- who cares! We have 'em, India has 'em, China has 'em, etc. Big deal.

So why haven't presidential press conferences concentrated more on Saddam's evil deeds inflicted on his own people, and on how we are *required* to act (not just acting on our own because we're the planet's 800 lb. gorilla, which is the impression most protesters seem to have)??

I think in light of 9/11, someone misread what the American people will support, and designed the press campaign around that, and now it's too late to change course without looking foolish.

So in short, yeah -- "Saddam is a brutal asshole" would likely have garnered much more popular support and popular understanding, and there would have been more direct evidence available (such as death tolls of his own people from his own acts). We can't very well go saying "Well folks, there are N-many nuclear warheads at X-location" without giving away too much of our own intelligence network.

Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?

[Project Bomns]

Two quick comments: 1) Last Iraqi war? We've been bombing them constantly for thirteen years, and killing them through sanctions since before that. 2) The already frightening death toll rises even higher if you consider the number of those in the Iraqi army who are only there for a means of a support for their family. 80% of Iraqis depend on their government for food, and many must enlist to assure that their families are able to eat. Their options are watch their mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, and daughters starve to death or support them by working for the government. Of course, my stance is that EVERY death should be avoided, not just those of civilians. Just because your leader is claiming to have a dick as big or bigger than my leader doesn't mean that you need to commit hundreds of thousands of troops to fight and possibly die.

PsyOps web style

[r00tarded]

gulf war drinking game - drink em under the table!

Re:PsyOps web style

[NeuroKoan]

Oh dear god. I wouldn't last through the night.

Re:PsyOps web style

[Thing 1]

I'm drunk already.

Saddam just used the word "zionist" three times in his "You missed me NYAAAA" speech on CNN.

Re:PsyOps web style

[Thing 1]

Wow, reading further I'm struck by the irony:

The united states bombs anything in iraq before the fighting 'offically' starts

someone compares the size of iraq to california or france

1. The US did a "decapitation attempt" to kill Saddam before the 48 hours were up.

2. CNN compared Iraq to CA.

Re:PsyOps web style

[junkgrep]

Did he actually mention the strike at all? I don't remember it (the translation was so immediate and rough though) It could have been pre-recorded, couldn't it?

Re:PsyOps web style

[linzeal]

I wish they would do a decaptation stike on gov davis. He is funded by the prison guard unions and every year more prisoners.

Re:PsyOps web style

[doormat]

The united states bombs anything in iraq before the fighting 'offically' starts

Crap. Does that mean I have to drink 40 times???

(3 dozen cruise missiles, 4 2000lb bombs)

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[WilliamX]

Yes, you can protest the war and support the troops, but once action starts, the time for protest has passed. I am glad to see that so far (I haven't read all the comments, just those +2 or higher) most of those posting intelligent comments are taking that tact, regardless of their position on the events leading up to the war.

'Decapitation Strike'

[Geekenstein]

CNN is reporting that the strike was at a command bunker believed to have Iraq's leadership in it. Take with as much salt as you like.

Not needed here!

[MavEtJu]

We already have enough troubles with keeping a DMZ between hackers and crackers, linux-zealoots[sp] and BSD-morons, pro and contra M$ and a whole load more.

Please keep this place real-life war free.

to the tune of "if your'e happy & you know it"

[Mumford]

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me,
'Cos it's all the proof I need to
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.

If your corp'rate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

Re:FIRST BOMB!

[Morky]

In Soviet Russia, that would be a good one.

Re:War Pigs

[pyite]

I happen to be listening to the Gov't Mule cover of War Pigs off of Live With A Little Help From Our Friends.

didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too?

[frankm_slashdot]

yeah, and in the post wwII days joseph stalin called winston churchill a war monger. churchill warned for years about hitler and what he was slyly trying to do... and knew that action had to be taken before he actually succeeded. look what happened. hitler rose to amass great power and it wasnt until japan struck us (as the history books say) that we actually realized that something had to be done.

lets look at this as hitler = sadam, churchill = bush.

now granted.. bush is no churchill... (america needs another churchill) but at least hes trying.

not a flame (as some have taken my previous posts.)

just my $0.02.

frank mattia

Re:didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too?

[cranos]

Damn right Bush is no Churchill. Not even Churchill advocated invading Germany to prevent a war. What Churchill wanted was to upgrade the Armed Forces to be able to fight when the fight came.

On the other hand Saddam is no Hitler, Hitler was a mad man who had visions of ruling the world, Saddam is a tin pot dictator with neither the vision nor the means to achieve a hundredth of what Hitler did.

Comparisons are so difficult especially when you start comparing chalk with cheese.

Re:didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too?

[Anonymous Coward]

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, ...)

Re:didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too?

[MxTxL]

What Churchill wanted was to upgrade the Armed Forces to be able to fight when the fight came.
And when the fight came, he and the other Allies had no trouble bringing it back to Berlin to end the war. Coincidentally liberating France and the rest of western Europe in the mean-time. This war started in 1991 with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, was postponed contingent to Iraq disarming (which they clearly haven't) and is being continued today. We're going to Baghdad to end the war. It's a stretch to compare that to the allies going to Berlin... but while we're making comparisons...

Saddam is a tin pot dictator with neither the vision nor the means to achieve a hundredth of what Hitler did.
Thank goodness this is true. But the fact that it is true doesn't mean he wouldn't if he could.

Re:didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too?

[kbonapart]

"America needs another Churchill"

When did we have the first one?

Re:didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too?

[tnak]

(america needs another churchill)

You're point might be a little more persuasive if you didn't leave the reader with the impression that you think Churchill was American. You did know he was British didn't you?

Re:didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too?

[MadEagle]

One major difference though: Hitler actually started a war and always stated that he wants to expand and make Germany bigger. Saddam did neither.

Just my 0.02

Re:didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too?

[meringuoid]

Churchill? This Churchill? The guy who used weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations - specifically the Kurds?

'I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.'

Churchill is remembered for 1940, making a desperate stand, his country alone against overwhelming power. Now, who's making a stand against overwhelming power in this situation? Bush, is it? I don't think so.

Re:didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too?

[MadEagle]

Sure he did but he got subsequently thrown out again which was good. But attacking him now without being attacked first is bad. Or do you want to punish him twice for the same crime?

Re:didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too?

[frankm_slashdot]

yes, i did. i was adapting a line from an article (it was more like prose) that i had read before which stated something similar.

-frank

Re:didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too?

[frankm_slashdot]

yeah, my mistake.. sorry.. i meant PRE wwII days. not Post.

-frank

Re:didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too?

[riski]

And this reminds me of the hollywood movie "U-571". A movie about a heroic american crew that stole an enigma from a sinking german u-boat during WWII. Yes, it happened, but it was a british crew and the actual event took place before the americans joined the war.... And for that I will never see the movie - I have heard it's crap anyway

Re:didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too?

[hexxx]

Churchill WAS a warmonger in almost everyway possible way. He really wasn't a great man. Also worth noting is his use of alcohol.

Churchill however WAS the right man at the right time and place. I wouldn't probably be living in a free Europe without him.

I hope that Bush is the right man at the right time and place. At least he isn't really a great man in any normal sense of the word "great".

Re:didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too?

[k_187]

America never had a Churchill. We had a FDR but never a Churchill.

Re:didnt stalin call churchill a warmongerer too?

[frankm_slashdot]

actually, hes being punished for not complying with the rules that were set forth after he was thrown out... that war hasnt ended... the time between the "end" of the gulf and now as really just us killing time while we wait for him to destroy/reveal the chem/bio weapons hes been mass producing. i mean.. come on.. how many tonnes of sarin and anthrax did iraq admit to producing.. then you could in theory take that number and just multiply it by any random number and you still might not even be close to the truth... the war was postponed so he could disarm/reveal his chem/bio weapons and the only thing hes been doing is making more...

so no.. its a new crime.. completly unlike the first one... ;P *wink* lol

A War?!

[rinkjustice]

Why does the media persisit on calling this a war? If me and a couple of my buddies wail on a wheelchair-bound paraplegic, is that a fight?

No, it's bullying.

Re:A War?!

[The_Unforgiven]

And, for those of us who still follow the constitution, only Congress can declare war.

Re:A War?!

[nullard]

And, for those of us who still follow the constitution ...

Aha! I found you. I knew there were some of us left. It seems everyone else has switched to the new "Heil Bush" model of being patriotic.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Mirus Nex]

That's fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But, I ask that you keep quiet DURING the war. You've preemptively protested against the war, but now that it's underway stand behind the troops and your country. When it's over go back to complaining about how it could have been handled differently or whatever.

God Bless America!

I wish the best to those serving my country and protecting my family when I am unable.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Dun Malg]

What if the troops stopped fighting and started protesting? I don't want to hear about innocent people dying over there, i want to hear about soldiers over there refusing to fight. That is the kind of support i want.

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.

Lyrics

[Rayonic]

Black Sabbath's War Pigs
------------------------

Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerers of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds.
Oh lord, yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away.
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah.

Time will tell on their power minds,
making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
wait till their judgement day comes, yeah.

Now in darkness world stops turning,
ashes where the bodies burning.
No more War Pigs have the power,
Hand of God has struck the hour.
Day of judgement, God is calling,
on their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercies for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings.
Oh lord, yeah!

Re:Lyrics

[blair1q]

Sung to the tune of every song Ozzy Osbourne's ever sung.

Re:Lyrics

[BrianDeacon]

Cut to the geriatric Ozzy flipping through channels with his laptop-sized remote control. "Bloody hell, there's nuthin' but the fuckin' war on the tellie. Umf... unh... how do I turn this bloody thing off? Jack! Jaaaaaaack! Come turn this bloody fucking machine off!"

Re:Lyrics

[stinky wizzleteats]

Prophetic and profound words which I will take to heart the next time I watch the Osbournes.

Re:Lyrics

[linzeal]

Um prophetic? You forgot this was during vietnam.

Re:The Saddest Day In American History

[geek]

You always have Korea!

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[kfg]

In the words of Pete Seeger:

"Support our boys in Vietnam. Send them home."

KFG

Prayers

[Alternity]

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.

Aliens quote..

[Planetes]

Couldn't help but think of one of my favorite movie quotes.. "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

Now, where did I put that REM disc?

TV

[WiKKeSH]

tommorow is going to rule. ncaa basketball and war on tv in the same day!

Saddam futures

[f97tosc]

The financial markets are currently predicting a 65% chance that Saddam will be gone before the end of this month, and a 95% chance before the end of April.

There seem to be a lot of Slashdotters posting self-confident predictions of the outcome of the war. If you really believe in what you say, you should start trading (unless, of course, your predictions coincide with those of the market's).

Tor

Camera Showing a intersection with Trafic Lights..

[BrookHarty]

Anyone else watching that damn Traffic light in Baghdad?
Interesting that at 6am, and bombings, people are obeying the traffic lights.

Also, Sadam is also watching CNN and those cameras, wonder how long he leaves them up.

Time warp

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm. Space Shuttle blows up . . . A Bush in office. . . . War in Iraq . . . Did we go back in time? Hmmm. Early 90's - what's next - the return of grunge?

Re:casualties

[Picass0]

Well then just who the hell are you talking about?

must hold back flamebait...

[MiTEG]

Is anyone else having connection troubles? I've been getting timeouts like crazy servers all over the internet for most of the afternoon.

Looks like we may be seeing something similar to 9/11, people hitting ctrl-r constantly looking for more news. Or, on the other hand, it's entirely possible that I borked my router box.

Mommy's Skirts

[QuickSilver_999]

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.

Re:Mommy's Skirts

[daemon lover]

Or we could understand the situation for what it is. Bush has tried to link Al Qaida unsuccessfully with Iraq so that he can take his war on terrorism to Iraq and get his friends some cheap oil.

Yes, Saddam kills and oppresses his own people, but he was doing that much more and with a larger army back in the 1980s with U.S. support. Now we are going to go kill tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians in order to "liberate" them.

Bush is a liar, and a tyrant. He is using our troops to further his corporate and imperialist agenda. Robin Cook, the UK version of Colin Powell, quit Blair's government in protest of the intended atrocities. It's unfortunate that we don't have anybody brave enough in our government to take such a stand.

Get away from your CNN and FOX News and get the whole picture.

Re:Mommy's Skirts

[alaffin]

Mmmhmmm....

Yeah, I agree. CNN and FOX are big propoganda machines for the US. But don't kid yourself. Bush and each and every one of his advisors would have to be complete and total morons to go into Iraq just to get oil. That's just counter-propoganda spouted by the anti-war crowd trying to make Bush appear to be greedy.

If you take the cost of buying all the crude Iraq produces and then subtract the extra costs the US or US based companies would have to spend getting the oil back to the US, and then compare it to the cost of conquering Iraq - buying the oil is cheaper. They say forty cruise missiles have been launched already today. They cost a couple million each to build. That's 80 million for a couple minutes action. Not to mention the cost of fueling the armour, feeding the troops, getting them to Iraq...

Re:Mommy's Skirts

[Tycho]

Are you sure Jr. isn't Bush?

Re:Mommy's Skirts

[schnits0r]

whats with all this talk about bush and skirts? (mod this funny)

Re:Mommy's Skirts

[evilWurst]

from the South Park movie a few years ago...

"I can change, I can chaaangee...I can learn to keep my promises I swear it! I'll open up my heart and I will share it any minute now I will be born again!

Yes I can change I can change, I know I've been a dirty little bastard... I like to killIliketomainyesi'minsane but it's ok 'cause I can change!"

etc, etc =)

Re:Mommy's Skirts

[bucky0]

I stopped reading after your first paragraph because it was so ridiculus. Show me concrete proof of Bush's intentions to invade iraq to 'get his friends some cheap oil' and then come talk to me. That argument is nothing more than a ploy to detract from the actual purpose of the war. We have given iraq chance after chance to follow the agreement that he signed. Eventually enough is enough, we gave him an ultimatim and he chose the latter. I can understand people disagreeing on whether or not they think iraq is a real threat and whether or not war is nescessary to defend ourselves, but the argument that Bush is going into iraq merely to assert US imperialism abroad, or Bush trying to fulfill some alterior motive is nothing more than a rumor. Say what you want about his policies, his intelligence, etc... but the man has morals and is comitted to this country, and I would much rather choose to believe him as opposed to saddam(which is what most debates about this war can be boiled down to, trust Saddam or trust Bush).

-An irate

Re:Mommy's Skirts

[daemon lover]

You are right, it is much more than just oil, but your argument also assumes that this is costing the oil industry anything or that it's done for our benefit. Our tax money is being used to do this, not theirs. We don't benefit from it, they do.

But if you want to see who else is going to profit from all of this just read the Wall Street Journal to see which corporations are lining up for contracts to "rebuild" Iraq. Each one of them has intimate relations with Bush's cabinet and advisors. They are very large campaign donors. They are going to be given our tax money to rebuild Iraq.

So not only was our money given to defense contractors for weapons and equipment to attack Iraq, not only is the oil industry going to be given contracts to sell Iraq's oil in Iraq's people's best interest, but the profits from that money that actually reaches the Iraqi people will then be given to contractors such as Halliburton to rebuild what we destroyed.

It's easy to see what shapes Bush's foreign policy.

Re:Mommy's Skirts

[ebbomega]

Except Saddam isn't asking the UN for help.

The UN is giving it.

What is with people and bad analogies today? Christ.

Saddam is like a celery stick, and the UN is cream cheese. Now, the US missiles, those are the raisins... now watch happens when I... eat... them....

Re:Mommy's Skirts

[etcpasswd]

Dad comes home and beats the living shit outta the kid. If Mommy tries to stop, he just gives the finger and beats anyway. Remember that Dad is always right.

Re:Mommy's Skirts

[alaffin]

There is little doubt that American companies will make a killing controlling the Iraqi oil supply and 'rebuilding' Iraq. But trust me, the profits do not mitigate the financial losses that the US will suffer trying to pursue this war. And while they are American Tax Dollars, those dollars are dollars that could be much more easily used to to line the pockets of a defence contractor directly.

People have been making a big deal about how much money Bush and his corporate friends are making, but I assure you that it's costing him quite a bit. Which in the end hurts him.

If you want to see an example of Bush's forigen policy, check Afghanistan (another costly operation, but no oil there).

You'd have better luck convincing me that Bush is motivated by a strong sense of revenge than by oil. The oil and rebuilding is just gravy for him.

Re:Mommy's Skirts

[nullard]

If you take the cost of buying all the crude Iraq produces and then subtract the extra costs the US or US based companies would have to spend getting the oil back to the US, and then compare it to the cost of conquering Iraq - buying the oil is cheaper.

Ah... But the war is an expense on the taxpayers whereas the profits go to oil companies. See, for the oil companies it's glorious war:
they artificially inflate domestic prices.
they sell oil to the military.
then they are given(!) oil fields.

We lose:
we pay high gas prices
we pay ($ in the short term, increased terrorism in the long term) for an unjust war
we buy oil from the oil companies.

Re:Mommy's Skirts

[alaffin]

Ah... But the war is an expense on the taxpayers whereas the profits go to oil companies.

Then wouldn't it make more sense to simply give what is being spent on the war to the oil companies in the form of tax breaks?

I mean really - there'd be less public outcry, there'd be less instability on the stock market (which costs these oil companies) and the oil prices are artifically inflated anyways.

Like I said - the war is not about oil. It's a wonderful bonus to the war, but Bush has other motivations, be they altruistic or not.

"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[0x0d0a]

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.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Why yes. the threat of Japanese Kamakazi pilots is just as great now as it was in 1943. And those damned Nazis spreading hate all over Europe for the last 50 years, what will we do?

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[87C751]

I want to know how attacking Iraq is going to do anything whatsoever to reduce terrorism.

It won't. That's not the real agenda, anyway. Aside from the grudge over threats to his father and the obvious Big Oil Man mentality, this action is tailor-made to provoke some kind of response within our country. And once that's done, once the threat level goes red, our Friends In Government will finally be able to rid themselves of that pesky Constitution that's been so restrictive against their proliferation of power.

</cynicism>

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[QuickSilver_999]

I want to know how attacking Iraq is going to do anything whatsoever to reduce terrorism.

It reduces the training grounds available, such as the terrorist training ground devoted to how to highjack a 747, located in Iraq. Also, it removes a source of weapons such as bio and chem agents for the terrorists.

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.

Well, that explains Germany and Japan... Oh wait, no it doesn't. Since WWII, we have consistantly not only allowed, but encouraged home rule after war. We have helped rebuild every country we went to war against, once the peace treaties were signed. (Vietnam and Korea do not count, since there has never been an end to the war, just a perpetual "cease-fire." Same thing for Iraq after Gulf War I) If we DID set up puppet governments maybe we wouldn't have the problems we have with France, Germany, etc. when we ask them for help.

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."

True, it takes a lot of planning to do these sorts of things. That makes it better? The "provocation" you seem to cite would be something similar to this:

• The US supports the right of Israel to exist
• The US, which is a country that has managed to throw off the worst of the medevial superstitions, has managed to become the highest technological country in the world
• The US is a free and independent nation
• The US is NOT a Muslim state
• The US, with a VOLUNTEER Armed Force, can beat any 12 other nations, even if they have help from France and Germany

Getting in a war with a nation, as history has shown, is a fantastic way to produce long-lasting ethnic hatred.

True, except when the people who comprise the nation are begging for the yoke to be lifted. This is not a war against "Iraq," this is a war against "Hussein." And if it does spawn a long-lasting ethnic hatred, how are you going to tell that this is different than what we have now? Here's a clue, most of the Middle East ALREADY hates us. We're not going to all switch to the Muslim faith, we're not going to pay tribute to a tinpot dictator, we're not going to regress into the middle ages and live as serfs and peasants to the royal houses, and we're not going to give up support of the only true democracy in the region, Israel. Ignoring Iraq is like ignoring a bee hive. Once you get stung, you start looking for ways to remove it.

I see the Saddam campaign not just unrelated, as you do, but actively damaging any effort to reduce terrorism in the world.

If it removes onc conduit for explosives, chemicals, biologicals, or nukes, then it is a huge step forward. An ounce of prevention is worth pounds of cure.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[unitron]

"The minute the threat of Iraq is gone (threat to Kuwait/Saudi Arabia), the US can leave..."

At which point Iran will be in there in a heartbeat.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[swillden]

Try to smoke a joint in public and you will see how "FREE" the U.S. really is...

Go to Iraq and try to loudly and publicly criticize the government, and you'll understand the difference between freedom and the lack of criminal statutes. Whether you agree with the drug laws or not, at least in the US you're free to have, express, publish and even lobby for your opinion, and if you succeed in convincing enough people that you're right, the law will bend your way.

We in the US have lost some of our freedoms to the various Wars on X, and that's a damned shame, and something we need to get fixed, but our fundamental freedoms are intact. Arguably, there are other nations in the world whose people are more free in many ways than we are, at the moment, but they learned it from us. Hopefully we can learn it back.

When I hear Americans lamenting that they're not free, I just chalk it up as yet more proof our school system sucks, particularly in the area of civics. The important freedoms, we have; the minor ones, we need to regain.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[unitron]

They can only be next if we don't leave and I was answering someone talking about our being able to leave the minute the threat of Iraq is gone. I'm thinking it'll be more like one minute plus a couple of generations.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[lorenlal]

Hold on there Bronco.

Gulf War I was all about oil. Rememeber, the reason we were involved was because of the oil interests we held "in the area."

So I assume you're implying is that we oust Saddam, and then take over the oil business in the area? Why on Earth didn't we just get it over with 12 years ago? The US beat back the Iraqi army, and had their chance, why didn't they grab it then?

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[wirelessbuzzers]

Since WWII, we have consistantly [sic] not only allowed, but encouraged home rule after war. We have helped rebuild every country we went to war against, once the peace treaties were signed. (Vietnam and Korea do not count, since there has never been an end to the war, just a perpetual "cease-fire." Same thing for Iraq after Gulf War I)

In other words, after WWII we encouraged home rule. There haven't been any "official" wars since then. And the parent said "in the last 50 years" which WWII wasn't. Not exactly "consistant."

True, it takes a lot of planning to do these sorts of things. That makes it better? The "provocation" you seem to cite would be something similar to this: [...]

I can add to that.

What about the military supplies and technology we sold / are continuing to sell to Israel?

What about our intermittent cruise-missile attacks into Afghanistan and Iraq, even during "peace time"? (I don't care whether they were shot at "terrorists," most of them didn't hit terrorists).

If you want to look back a bit further, what about arming Muslim fundamentalists (including bin Laden) to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan? They thought we would help rebuild the country, but we left them in ruins. Iran / Iraq war? Basically the same thing. Afghanistan, part 2? Same thing again. And what are we going to do this time around? The very same, unless Bush has a sudden change of heart. History repeats itself.

The US, with a VOLUNTEER Armed Force, can beat any 12 other nations, even if they have help from France and Germany.

A war between two industrialized, democratic countries would be just about the worst thing that could happen short of a nuclear war. Even if the terrorists blew up New York, it would be better than fighting France.

If it removes onc conduit for explosives, chemicals, biologicals, or nukes, then it is a huge step forward. An ounce of prevention is worth pounds of cure.

Conduit, nothing. If Saddam has any clue how to play his hand, he's already given plenty of VX and C4 to al Qaeda. Until the war started, they couldn't use them for fear of retaliation. But now, it's free-for-all...

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[aCC]

[...] we wouldn't have the problems we have with France, Germany, etc. when we ask them for help.

Oh, how I love that argument. Makes me smile about the stupidity behind it.

Translated it means:
"We have no evidence and no real reason other than that Saddam is a BAD guy (but you know that which is why you want to disarm him peacefully), but hey come on, we (forget about Russia and the other allies) saved you 60 years ago, that must be reason enough to kill thousands of innocent people! You are SOOOO ungrateful!"

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[nursedave]

When I hear Americans lamenting that they're not free, I just chalk it up as yet more proof our school system sucks, particularly in the area of civics. The important freedoms, we have; the minor ones, we need to regain.

I like to say that we're the healthiest patient in the cancer ward. Kind of sums up the whole 'but we're more free than them' belief, at least for me it does.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[number11]

The US is NOT a Muslim state

Lets just take one point. Neither is Iraq. (It's not particularly "Arab", either.) Iraq is probably the most secular state in the region.

ObDisclaimer: Not that this makes it a paragon of "good government" either.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[QuickSilver_999]

Ignoring the name calling, you have missed the point entirely. We did not set up "puppet" governments that would do our bidding.

As for the translation, all I can say is quit reading just your liberal news sites and read BOTH sides of the story (as I do.) We have evidence of training camps in Iraq for terrorists, we have very hard suspicions, as well as some evidence, that Saddam has not been destroying the weapons banned to him by the United Nations. It is well known that Saddam pays money to families of "suicide" (actually homicide) bombers in the Middle East. The Czechs have been saying for quite a while that the leader of the 9-11 attackers met repeatedly with Iraqi intelligence agents.

We also have proof that Germany and France have repeatedly sold Iraq banned material in the last 12 years. We know that Iraq refuses to produce proof that they have destroyed their WMDs. We know that inspectors are not allowed to meet with Iraqi scientists in a neutral setting. We have suspicions that the families of scientists have been sequestered and threatened to prevent them from testifying.

Personally I have no problem with any particular country having WMDs. I do have a problem with homicidal maniacs who have killed large portions of their own population having access to WMDs. Especially ones with ties to terrorist organizations. Especially ones where the most common political statement is "Death to America."

We've tried the peace route for 12 years. It may have worked if members of the UN hadn't been violating the very rules they set up to rearm Iraq. It didn't. We've given him 12 years. How much time SHOULD he be given? 12 decades? Maybe if he just dies in his sleep in 2050, it will all be over. Maybe that's the ticket. I personally do not believe so. And now France wants to give them more time? Why? So they can make more money selling him chemicals while they pump the oil from his fields?

The peace protesters are right about one thing. It is about oil. The only problem is they throw the accusation in the wrong direction. It's about the French assisting Saddam, and attempting to derail the UN resolutions which he has flouted so long, in order to keep pumping cheap oil from the ground. France has helped make the UN irrelevant. Yes, the US has helped with that, but oh well. If it isn't working, maybe it's time to scrap the whole concept and start over. Maybe with one that has a few less veto powers. Or maybe has a check on the powers that have them.

How come no one seems upset about the French and Germans and their own imperial ambitions during this war? They intend, IMHO, to use this war as a catalyst to get them what they couldn't get in WWII, total domination of the European continent. We saw that with the sit down and shut up attitude of Chirac to the Eastern Bloc nations. When any in the EU dare to speak against France and Germany's wishes, they are immediately branded as child-like and not worth being in the EU. Their opinion only means something if it is the same as the French opinion.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[Ponty]

And Saudis will continue to train people to blow themselves up in the cities of the white men.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[t-10056]

If it isn't working, maybe it's time to scrap the whole concept and start over. Maybe with one that has a few less veto powers. Or maybe has a check on the powers that have them. Looks like your dream is have US police the whole world. How about we just let US and UK have the veto power

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[QuickSilver_999]

Wrong.

My dream is to have the United Nations show the balls to back up their own resolutions.

As for veto power, perhaps there should be a rule that any 2 or 3 veto powers can override the veto of another veto power? Vetoes are a good thing, but you need to have a check that allows them to be over turned. Otherwise it becomes a dictators club hanging over the organization. Whether it's a sewing circle, the US government, or the UN, there should ALWAYS be a way to override a veto.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[Malc]

I want to know how attacking Iraq is going to do anything whatsoever to reduce terrorism.

It reduces the training grounds available, such as the terrorist training ground devoted to how to highjack a 747, located in Iraq. Also, it removes a source of weapons such as bio and chem agents for the terrorists.

Twaddle. How can you honestly think attacking Iraq will take a away terrorist training grounds? Most terrorists operate quite succesfully without resorting to training in friendly countries. Timothy McVeigh succeeded within the US itself. The IRA spent 30 years attack the British and N. Irish. Eta in the Basque region of Spain have no problems, nor do the Farque, although they have some local jungle. Anybody who thinks this will do anything to reduce terrorism is extremely naive and deluded.

As it stands, there are many sources of bio and chemical weapons, some of which originated in the US. Iraq is the least of our concerns. Disgruntled and poor ex-Soviets are more of a concern than some two-bit Iraqi.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[Tokerat]

How can you honestly think attacking Iraq will take a away terrorist training grounds?

Once Iraq is contolled by someone reasonable enough to realize that Islam != Jihad against the West (or at least shouldn't be) they will take steps to prevent terroists from training there? Maybe? Just a thought?

Most terrorists operate quite succesfully without resorting to training in friendly countries. Timothy McVeigh succeeded within the US itself.

Yea, and I can fill a truck with fertilizer and a detonator and park it in front of a federal building, too. Big whoop. Timothy McVeigh was as big an asshole as the other terrorists. Don't blow people up, start a peaceful campaign. If that fails, fuck them over, that takes brains to do fair and square. But killing only makes you look bad. For instance, if Osama Bil Laden was a protester and a leader who stood up and got an entire nation behind him, perhaps we would have listened a little bit? Embassador Bil Laden sound a little wiser and more respectable? But not, the bastard has to go and kill because it "proves" something. Allah must be going into coniptions.

Anybody who thinks this will do anything to reduce terrorism is extremely naive and deluded.

Yea, because all the Hussien funded groups will have no problems with cash flow. The new U.S. "puppet government" as it has been called will simply keep giving them money. They'll build some anthrax bombs, too, just for giggles. (well...actually, knock on wood for that one)

As it stands, there are many sources of bio and chemical weapons, some of which originated in the US.

I'm sick of hearing this. Yes, it's all true. Let's clean up our mess before it's too late. Sucks but would you rather this psycho dictator who kills his own people use them?

Disgruntled and poor ex-Soviets are more of a concern than some two-bit Iraqi.

If the Soviets are so poor, shouldn't they be spending their money on, oh, I dunno, SURVIVAL, rather than organizing a strike on the US? And if you mean all those little nations, please, I think they'd rather fix the troubles they have before attempting to piss off the largest armed forces in the world. Unless they're extremely naive.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[Yokaze]

Um, you are aware, that Japan and Germany had democracies (in the case of Japan a parliamentary monarchy) before the World War? Both countries where relatively prosperous nations before and after the war.

And do you know, what effort the allied forces and especially the US goverment put into rebuilding these nations after the war?
You are aware, that Japan and Germany both faced another threat, the Soviet-Union, which united the people of both countries with the US?

Not to mention, that both Germany and Japan attacked first and the people where aware of the consequences that would have.
OTOH, the reasons for the current war are not as clear as those where in WWII or at least in the previous Gulf War. At least in the eyes of most parts of the world, as represented by their Foreign Minister in the Security Council, and including General Schwartzkopf.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[Yokaze]

> When any in the EU dare to speak against France and Germany's wishes, they are immediately branded as child-like and not worth being in the EU.

In the EU, every nation has veto-power. The move was unwished for, because France wanted to discuss a common stance. After that, France took its own stand.

> We saw that with the sit down and shut up attitude of Chirac to the Eastern Bloc nations.

Ok. It is not possible, that those goverments shut possibly up, because they have no public support on that matter? Because France pressured them? Why didn't then the other Security Council members changed their minds after being pressured?
Does France and Germany has more economical and political power?

> Especially ones where the most common political statement is "Death to America."

Yeah, that's what Hussein or all the people in the party are shouting: "Death to America".
IRC, his words were "I don't have anything against the American people, but when they come in our country, we will fight them on our soil."
Not that you have to give a lot on these words, but when you are "citeing", you should.

> We know that inspectors are not allowed to meet with Iraqi scientists in a neutral setting.

Well, actually in the last week, the first Iraqi scientists have been questioned in a different country, without sending tapes back to the regime.

> The Czechs have been saying for quite a while that the leader of the 9-11 attackers met repeatedly with Iraqi intelligence agents.

No, they said once. And it was objected by the CIA, shortely after.
Then it was never mentioned by both agencies again. Of course, you are free to construct your own theory on that matter, why this should be another reason to wage a war.

> I do have a problem with homicidal maniacs who have killed large portions of their own population having access to WMDs.

Well, Saddam is certainly not homicidal. And he killed his people with weapons delivered by the US, France and Germany, to fight Iran. No outcry came from the US goverment that time. No news item on CNN. Curiously, it currently makes more news today, than the day it actually happened.
What was the goverment stance on such a man like him?
"He may be a son-of-a-bitch, but he is our son-of-a-bitch" (FDR about Somoza)
The US goverment stance towards Saddam was a similar one the other nations have today. Removing him creates most likey more instability and pain than keeping him.

> If it isn't working, maybe it's time to scrap the whole concept and start over. Maybe with one that has a few less veto powers

Maybe one, where only the US has a veto power?
Not to mention that, the war was not sanctioned because of a veto, but because there was no majority for it.
Scrap democracy, when it is against your opinion. Way to go.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[Nil_gnusec.com]

Hello, I'm a spanish citizen and I read a few posts here, in slashdot that confirm that I suppose about american people: not all american citizens are thinking the same shit that their leader thinks.

Think about it: ALL THE WORLD IS PLANNING TO MANIFESTATE TODAY, AND SATURDAY AGAINST THE WAR. Myself will go to the door of US Embassy in Madrid with many more to shout about how is possible this medieval war in XXI century.

Please reconsider your point of view. Killing people for peace?, this is nosense. US Goverment present FALSE evidence to the UN against Iraq. If you don't see now Bio/Chemical weapons, simply DONT EXIST, if exist and used against your army, think that these CHEMICAL WEAPONS are shell by your own goverment 15 years ago.

Thanks for reading my opinion.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[ratamacue]

Freedom does not throw citizens in jail without due process. Freedom does not take private property by force because another private owener would generate more tax revenue. Freedom does not spy on peaceful citizens as if they are criminals. Freedom does not take my earnings and distribute it to failing private businesses. Freedom does not throw citizens in jail where there is no initiation of force. I could go on all day, but I hope you get my point. US citizens may have more freedom than citizens of certain other countries, but the US is by no means a shining example of freedom.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[ph1ll]

>Arguably, there are other nations in the world
>whose people are more free in many ways than we
>are, at the moment, but they learned it from us.

We did not learn it from you, you arrogant arse.

You Americans deprived your own citizens of the power to vote simply based on their skin pigmentation until about the 1960s.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

If you don't see now Bio/Chemical weapons, simply DONT EXIST, if exist and used against your army, think that these CHEMICAL WEAPONS are shell by your own goverment 15 years ago.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. No one has denied (at least recently) that yes, the US sold arms to Iraq. Once Iraq used those arms to invade Kuwait, however, the US (and the World) united to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, and one of the terms of Iraqi surrender was to destroy all those armaments.

If Iraq uses any chemical or biological weapons, it doesn't matter where they came from. It will be proof that they did not follow the terms of surrender and were all along betraying the trust of the world.

Still, I for one hope they do not use such weapons, even though it would mean vindication for much of my country's behavior, because it would result in the grizzly death of thousands of American troops, or more likely, thousands of Kuwaiti, Israeli, and even Iraqi citizens whom Saddam chooses to strike instead.

US Goverment present FALSE evidence to the UN against Iraq.

Please present your counter-evidence. I'm not a big fan of this war, either, without UN backing. I'm a fan of letting France, Germany, and Russia take the fall when Saddam eventually does rebuild his nuclear weapons programs and uses them to strike. The major problem with that is that by that time, hundreds of thousands of people will have just been killed, but apparently that is the only justification for war. So be it. However it is much preferable to be called liars, murderers, and thugs than to sit back and wait for a hundred thousand people to die just to be able to say "I told you so."

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[swillden]

You list a variety of violations, nearly all pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. And you forgot a lot of others, like "Freedom does not take my earnings and distribute it to other people against my will". The only ones you mention that are really important are freedoms that we've lost recently (due process, privacy) and which we haven't yet had time to get back. Plus, it's not really accurate to say that we've "lost" them: there have been some egregious violations and the results are still working their way through the system.

Your last item is interesting, though: "Freedom does not throw citizens in jail where there is no initiation of force." Do you really mean that you do not believe non-violent criminals should be incarcerated? Prison is really the only significant punishment we have to mete out. How would you propose we punish serious offenders whose offenses are not violent in nature.

Oh, and I don't believe for one instant that you could "go on all day". You were clearly reaching by the end of the list you did make. It's an old rhetorical trick, listing everything you can and then adding "etc." on the end, to imply there's a lot more, even though you really can't come up with it. I use it myself :-)

The US is imperfect, certainly. So's everyone. But, on the whole, the US system works pretty well. We're still trying to figure out how to cope with these "Wars on X" and their impact on our freedoms, though. Frankly, I think we'll be troubled with them until our citizens get slapped around enough to realize that they cannot be protected from everything and should not want to be. We've been so sheltered and so privileged for so long that we're weak, and all too willing to give up our freedoms so the government can save us.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[swillden]

We did not learn it from you, you arrogant arse.

Then from who? The French?

You Americans deprived your own citizens of the power to vote simply based on their skin pigmentation until about the 1960s.

Eh? Try 1870 (15th amendment). If you want to whine about that, you should complain about women's suffrage; they didn't get to vote until 1920 (19th amendment).

No one ever claimed we're perfect. Well someone probably did sometime, but it certainly wasn't me, and I'd argue with anyone who did claim it.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[chasm!killer]

So, unimportant freedoms include:
1) Right to vote (ask any former felon or
suspected felon in Texas, Florida or
several other states -- several percent
of the population).
2) Right to a trial by jury (judges can overrule
jury verdicts in almost every state and the
District of Columbia, and if you are accused
of drug dealing or supporting terrorists, you
can be held for an awful long time without a
trial at all).
3) Freedom of speech (try your "loudly and
publicly critize the government" here and you
will quite likely wind up in jail with no
access to a lawyer, or worse -- not a lot
different from what would happen in Bahgdad
-- ask all those arrested Al Quaeda
sympathizers arrested since Sept 11, if you
can get a chance to talk to them).

Just because no one you know has become a victim
of a particular organization, and you don't see
those victims portrayed sympathetically on your
new station doesn't mean that there are no
victims. The tree still fell, even if you didn't
see it fall.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[flyneye]

"The US, with a VOLUNTEER Armed Force, can beat any 12 other nations, even if they have help from France and Germany "

the u.s. with a VOLUNTEER girl scout troup could beat france alone.LOL

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[Chris Burke]

If 3000 people die and someone cheers, then the people cheering should be shot in the back of the head while his family watches.

I disagree, because then we'd have to shoot all the people who cheered when Bush announced we were at war, and I'm pretty sure not all of them deserve to be shot. Maybe when George said "We've gone to war" someone thought he said "We've gone too far" and cheered for that, but then we went and shot him... It'd be a big mess.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[QuickSilver_999]

1) Right to vote (ask any former felon or suspected felon in Texas, Florida or several other states -- several percent of the population).

Voting isn't a right, it's a privilege. If someone commits a felony in certain states, their "right" to vote is abridged due to their own actions. Most of those states also have a method to get their privilege back. Do you also get upset when drunk drivers lose their driver's license? This is more aggregious than losing the vote, since losing the ability to drive can cost people jobs, houses, etc.

2) Right to a trial by jury (judges can overrule jury verdicts in almost every state and the District of Columbia, and if you are accused of drug dealing or supporting terrorists, you can be held for an awful long time without a trial at all).

Judges can overrule juries in specific cases where the results of the jury verdict are in the eyes of the judge a flagrant disregard for the law. And in the appeals process, they get another chance to get the sentence overturned. Judges in the US rarely overturn jury VERDICTS, but often overturn jury SENTENCES OR AWARDS when the punishment does not fit the crime.

As for being held "an awful long time without a trial," as a bail boondsman, I can tell you that at least in Pennsylvania, this is incorrect. In PA you have "a reasonable" amount of time (typically no more that 12 hours) to be arraigned on charges. At this point you are incarcerated until your preliminary hearing. This must be scheduled within 10 days of incarceration. However, you are eligible for bail IMMEDIATELY after being arraigned. Only capital offenses can be refused bail, and the judge must be able to atriculate his reasoning behind a no bail situation. Minor drug dealers in our area are typically released on a $5000 Cash/Property/Bondsman bail, many of which are given a 10% option. They pay $500 and they're out the door. Even large drug dealers in this area historically have been given bonds of $150,000 or less. Compare this with the middle east where petty theives often have their hands cut off. As for terrorist supporters, yes there have been delays, many due to overflowing dockets in the federal courts. Support for terrorism is a federal crime, not a state one.

3) Freedom of speech (try your "loudly and publicly critize the government" here and you will quite likely wind up in jail with no access to a lawyer, or worse -- not a lot different from what would happen in Bahgdad -- ask all those arrested Al Quaeda sympathizers arrested since Sept 11, if you can get a chance to talk to them)

My God yes! Just ask Susan Sarrandon, or the Baldwin Brothers. It's tough to ask them since they're rotting in jail. *bah* Let's see some specific examples of citizens of the US being held for criticizing the government. Bet you they're all also being held on other charges, such as blocking traffic, tresspass, assault, etc.

Most if not all of those held in jail with no access to a lawyer "or worse" (what does that mean? Let's have some specific examples. Have they been executed without trial? Officially tortured? What?) are ILLEGAL ALIENS! Therefore they HAVE no rights under the US Constitution. The Constitution is a pact between the American people. It does NOT mean that people who have illegally entered or remained in our country have the same legal protections. Oh, and it is QUITE a lot different from what would happen in Bahgdad. There, these people would most likely already have been placed against a wall and shot. Here they're placed in cells with access to mullahs, prayer rugs, special meals, etc.

Just because no one you know has become a victim of a particular organization, and you don't see those victims portrayed sympathetically on your new station doesn't mean that there are no victims. The tree still fell, even if you didn't see it fall.

Again, specific examples please. Anyone can make accusations, but please be prepared to back them up with specific cases. Your own argument is

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[Just Some Guy]

Harvard hangers-on notwithstanding, I'd dare say that about 99.9% of Americans would much rather fight France than lose New York (although how you managed to turn that into an either-or position is beyond me).

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[quax]

I said it in an earlier post and backed it up with a link Germany did recover amazingly well in the 20th given the burden of Versailles. It was less the economic hardship than the fact that Hitler exploited the fact that Versailles was pretty unfair.

My Grandmother still refers to "die Goldenen Zwanziger" when times were good. And my Grandfather felt pretty betrayed when Hitler started a war. Whenever he talked about it he always said that "every second word this bastard uttered was peace". You may have guessed by now that I am German.

Hitler also had to instigate a "terror attack" to get to power. You can read all about it here

The first elected head of state of the 2nd German republic already served as elected mayor before Hitler took over. There was democratic tradition to fall back to.

Iraq lacks these democratic traditions and from 1st hand accounts of exile Iraqis I hear that as much as the Iraqis hate Saddam they hate the US as well, because the blame the US for supporting Saddam in the 1st place and then making war on them twice, with murderous sanction in the mean time.

The US troops will not be welcome. I feel sorry for the soldiers who have to carry out such a poorly thought out campaign.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[geekoid]

"... I just chalk it up as yet more proof our school system sucks...."

please take a moment to think about what they mean. If you start hearing it a lot, maybe something is going on that you should think about, instead of just writing it off.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[wirelessbuzzers]

It's not an either-or position, it's a comparison of two hypotheticals. And I don't mean a lightning France-style surrender, I mean a shooting war. You know, where we bomb each other and launch cruise missiles at each other's stuff and invade with tanks. The damage from such a war would probably be much greater than a nuke to New York, both in the US and in whoever we were fighting against.

Furthermore, the overall effect on world stability would be dreadful, and such a war would either escalate or be followed by more, increasingly destructive wars. A war between industrialized, democratic countries would be a disaster, and I would bet that there would be nukes going off within 5 years.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[swillden]

Thanks, you said it better than I would have.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[Shanep]

Disgruntled and poor ex-Soviets are more of a concern than some two-bit Iraqi.

If the Soviets are so poor, shouldn't they be spending their money on, oh, I dunno, SURVIVAL, rather than organizing a strike on the US? And if you mean all those little nations, please, I think they'd rather fix the troubles they have before attempting to piss off the largest armed forces in the world. Unless they're extremely naive.

I think he's refering to the problem that there are/were desperately poor individual Soviets working in nuclear science (often unpaid or not paid enough to survive), pushed to the point of stealing and selling substances that could be used to make nukes.

Disgruntled or not, desperate people do desperate things.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Arguably, there are other nations in the world whose people are more free in many ways than we are, at the moment, but they learned it from us.

Uh, no offence. But I find this hard to belive. Maybe in some cases, but not all. The idea of democracy existed before the US was even born.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[LordMyren]

or not.

land of liber-what?

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[LordMyren]

or not.

land of liber-what?

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[swillden]

Huh?

Let me get this straight:

• The Dixie Chicks used their constitutionally-protected freedom of speech to *very* publicly criticize the president.
• Outraged fans used their constitutionally-protected freedom of speech to criticize the Dixie Chicks. They also chose to publicly destroy CDs (that they owned and had the right to do whatever the liked with) by way of protest.
• Radio stations used their constitutionally-protected freedom of speech to criticize the Dixie Chicks and further chose, as is also their right, to refuse to play the Chicks' music, also by way of protest.
• Some bozo in the South Carolina House of Representatives called for a resolution asking the Chicks to play a free concert by way of apology. It passed.
• The Chicks refused to do it.
• South Carolina did nothing. Can do nothing. The Federal government did nothing. Can do nothing.

... and you somehow find evidence of a lack of freedom here? Where? Seems like a lot of idiots running around in complete freedom, acting just as stupid as they want to.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[swillden]

Uh, no offence. But I find this hard to belive. Maybe in some cases, but not all. The idea of democracy existed before the US was even born.

But who had figured out how to actually do it? Or demonstrated that it could work in the real world, rather than just on paper.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[Tokerat]

Hmmm, interesting point. Thing is, the ex-Soviets aren't exactly the ones creating the weapons and stockpiling them, so perhaps that's why we look at the two-bit Iraqi who's looking to become not quite to two-bit anymore, he's a more immidiate threat. It wouldn't matter if we cut off his source because he'd already have what he has, and that is in direct violation of a UN treaty.

Just my two bits. ;-)

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[LordMyren]

Its the whole bozo in SC house or representatives making a resolution to force the dixie chicks to play a concert in apology for bashing the president.

The government has performed legal action to silence something it deems distasteful (insulting the president), and is demanding an apology.

the rest of it is just moron chasing moron. but when moronic issues like start involving government censorship over so much as questioning the government, this start becoming seriously dangerous.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[swillden]

ts the whole bozo in SC house or representatives making a resolution to force the dixie chicks to play a concert in apology for bashing the president.

I see the misunderstanding here -- you have to understand what a legislative resolution is and is not. What resolutions are not is enforceable. They're simply an expression of the preference of the legislature. Because the legislature, as a body, is considered to be worthy of respect, such preferences do carry weight, but no force of law.

And, even if the house had chosen to pass a law requiring the Chicks to play for free (and if the senate had also passed it, and the governor of SC had signed it -- passage of a law requires all of that), the courts would have slapped it down in a heartbeat.

This resolution is just a very formal suggestion; the Dixie Chicks are not obligated to provide the concert, and it appears they're not going to.

Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"

[ph1ll]

>>We did not learn it from you, you
>>arrogant arse.

> Then from who [sic]? The French?

Nope, but you guys did when you went independent.

France has an excellent history of enlightened policy towards its former colonies. People in many of its former colonies are considered citizens of Greater France with the rights to live and vote there irrespective of their skin colour.

>> You Americans deprived your own
>> citizens of the power to vote simply
>> based on their skin pigmentation
>> until about the 1960s.

> Eh? Try 1870 (15th amendment). If you
> want to whine about that, you should
> complain about women's suffrage; they
> didn't get to vote until 1920 (19th
> amendment).

But the law was not enforced. What use is that?

"Less than a quarter of the South's voting age black population could vote, and in certain southern counties blacks could not vote, serve on grand juries and trial juries, or frequent all-white beaches, restaurants, and hotels. "

http://www.gliah.uh.edu/database/article_display.c fm?HHID=362

Is this what you mean about America teaching the world about freedom?

Good Omen....

[Hallowed]

Seems like this sandstorm in Kuwait is a good thing.....too bad we don't have sandworms to ride into Iraq!

Just a shame we have wasted 12 years to clean up this mess.

"There is no escape--we pay for the violence of our ancestors."

--from "The Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan

Re:Good Omen....

[cranos]

Just a shame we have wasted 12 years to clean up this mess.

That would be the mess that the US made in the first place right?

Re:Good Omen....

[Bladesnitz]

Err, as far as I remember, it wasn't the US that invaded a country and used chemical weapons against a city in Iraq...

Look to the person who did those things and then realize who started it...

Re:Good Omen....

[cranos]

Nope it was the US who sold him the matrials to conduct a war with Iran and the invade Kuwait, same with Bin Laden, America supplies him with money and arms and he turns around and bites you on the arse. Funny I am seeing a pattern here.

And while I am here lets just mention the Kurds and Shi'ites who were left to hang by the Americans after the first Gulf War.

Re:Good Omen....

[Hallowed]

The mess I am talking about is leaving Saddam in power in the 90's, equivalent to pushing the Germans to Berlin, then packing up and going home after telling Hitler not to do it again...Probably the biggest mistake overall was leaving all of northern africa and the middle east to fend for themselves after WWII...

Re:Good Omen....

[Bladesnitz]

Okay..

I give you a gun
You use it
Is it my fault? No.

You make your decisions. Saddam made his. He chose to use what we gave him in a corrupt fashion, then he will be punished.

Re:Good Omen....

[cranos]

You give a man a gun knowing that he will use it to rob a bank then you are just as guilty as he is. The US supplied Saddam even though they knew he was in the middle of a war with Iran and that he had a track record of abusing his own people. The US has no moral high ground on this one.

Re:Good Omen....

[Elentar]

Reprinted without permission...

January 31, 2003, Friday

EDITORIAL DESK

A War Crime Or an Act of War?

By Stephen C. Pelletiere ( Op-Ed ) 1128 words
MECHANICSBURG, Pa. -- It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking
smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of
the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion:
''The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons
has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own
citizens dead, blind or disfigured.''

The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its
citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence
most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the
town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year
Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's ''gassing its
own people,'' specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam
Hussein.

But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were
bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any
certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not
the only distortion in the Halabja story.

I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence
Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war,
and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was
privy to much of the classified material that flowed through
Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed
a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war
against the United States; the classified version of the report went
into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came
about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq
used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the
town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The
Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that
exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United
States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a
classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence
community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was
Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the
battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies,
however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent -- that
is, a cyanide-based gas -- which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis,
who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known
to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily,
as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A
much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make
reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that
Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the
report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof,
that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq
in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He
has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But
accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of
genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have
goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These
were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq,
but Halabja is not one of them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has
bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was
Iran so keen

Re:Good Omen....

[Bladesnitz]

Ok.. an editorial, one man's opinion.

The article also is just trying to say maybe Iraq was framed for this. But waht about the other thousands upon thousands of people Saddam himself has had killed by his "vote for me or die" campaign? I'm sorry, but even if Iraq isn't responsible for this incident, they are still responsible for MANY MANY more!

a very sad day

[Kunta Kinte]

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.

Re:a very sad day

[Bladesnitz]

Peace didn't exist before this war. Do you think the murder of thousands of innocents by a dictator is peace?

It's sad to me that others dont support the right of a people's country to rule. The US started as an attempt to liberate us from dictatorship rule, surely we could support countries doing the same.

Re:a very sad day

[bigberk]

There's always going to be war . . . Peace is not a natural state for human beings.

I'm sorry, but I feel differently (and I'm not the only one). I think peace is attainable, but we have to work hard for it.

Re:a very sad day

[voiceofthewhirlwind]

There's always going to be war.

Peace is not a natural state for human beings.

That's an extremely defeatist attitude.
"People always complain about human nature, but no one does anything about it."


Hopefully this doesn't cost us, and I mean all of us, as much as past conflicts.


Hope that the repercussions for the sins of the leaders are not visited upon their constituents... though it always seems to end up that way (I'm being defeatist, right).

Re:a very sad day

[Gortbusters.org]

While even the native americans had some conflicts, they were nothing like have been in the past couple hundred years. In fact, some of the native american "wars" were more like games, not intended to kill your opponent at all.

Maybe a better statement is that middle-east based culture (those that spawend from Mesopatamia) are heavily war like and can't keep the peace.

Forget the various cultures, let's just examine the state of people:

If most people claim to be good Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists, why is there still violence? What person that serious believes in the teachings of Jesus wants to melt/murder/kill people in war? Maybe people are just sheep, and the media doesn't give the Pope or any serious religious figure any time to speak out and tell us to learn to live in peace.

Re:a very sad day

[m1a1]

The US started as an attempt to liberate us from dictatorship rule,

This is ignorance at best, or a boldfaced lie at worst. The United States was ruled by a Parliamentary government before the Revolutionary War. The war was NOT fought because people felt a Parliamentary government was unfair. It was fought because the people were being taxed without having representatives in the government. That is what was unfair. Chances are if the Great Brittain would have wisened up and given us Parliamentarians, we would not exist today as the U.S.A. That said, am glad they didn't.

Re:a very sad day

[Minna Kirai]

While even the native americans had some conflicts, they were nothing like have been in the past couple hundred years

Population-wise, the majority of "native americans" weren't the peaceful woodland tribes of (what is today) Canada and the US. They were citzens or subjects of the Aztec empire in mesoamerica, and their wars were of a similar (or worse) ferocity than those in 19th century Europe.

In a way, just looking at population density is a better way of predicting belligerence than cultural traditions. (It is more accurate to use "density" to mean "people per unit of life-sustaining resource", rather than "people per square meter")

From that perspective, it is natural that "Indians" of North America had little incentive for lethal conflict, since their land was capable of supporting many more people. But put a large number of people in a barren desert (either 1600s Mexico, or 1900s Middle East), and we should expect strife as water resources (and the oil which can buy more food/water) are contested.

middle-east based culture (those that spawend from Mesopatamia)

Very nearly all civilized cultures spawned from Mesopotamia. (And GW Bush claims that his favorite philosopher was from the Middle East...)

If most people claim to be good Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists, why is there still violence?

The orthodox teachings of Judiaism and Buddhism are hardly pacficist- they realistically grant violence will be part of a normal society. Truely orthodox Christianity is non-violent, but it's hardly ever practiced. (One modern example are the Quakers)

Interestingly, the modern, high-membership religion that appears to signficantly restrain it's members from violence is one you didn't mention: Hinduism.

Re:No explosions on TV.

[Kierthos]

*nod* I heard about this too. Apparently some Iraqi soldiers tried surrendering to British paratroopers (in the version I heard) who were part of the live fire exercise. The Brits told the Iraqis they "couldn't surrender yet, the war hasn't started."

Dunno how true that is though...

Kierthos

CNN IRC newsticker?

[Chuck Chunder]

During the (first) Gulf war I remember there being an IRC channel that had the closed captions from CNN being relayed.

I don't suppose anyone knows if this still exists and if so where?

Re:CNN IRC newsticker?

[Serk]

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.

Re:CNN IRC newsticker?

[Chuck Chunder]

That was the one, but the channel seems to have gone and #CNN is silent.

Re:CNN IRC newsticker?

[ahaning]

On Slashnet (us.slashnet.org, for instance) join #newswire.

Re:CNN IRC newsticker?

[Serk]

If anyone's still reading this thread, I finally found one...

Pick an Idlenet server (http://www.idlenet.org/servers/)

and go to channel #cnn-live

Re:About time.

[Gonarat]

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...

Address to the Nation?

[Chymaera]

...Am I just sleep-baked, or did the article at first say that President Bush was going to make an address to the nation at 10:15 Eastern? I didn't see it on the news at 10:25, so I thought perhaps the address was already over...then the part about that was gone when I refreshed a few minutes ago. What was that about?

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[bsignorelli]

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%.

Re:It's about damn time

[dcmeserve]

There's been waaaay to much in the way of "talks" and "negotiations" prior to this war.

Yeah, and Bush did such a great job of it, didn't he?

Man, we could've been doing the same thing as we're doing right now, only with UN backing, if he'd've played the game right:

1. He should've shut up and let the inspectors do their work. Then, after a good long time of hindered inspections, he could've said "enough is enough", with some punch. Instead, he started complaining about the inspections within a few weeks of the start. That just clued everyone else in on the fact that he really didn't want to do this UN thing anyways. Made the other countries rather less willing to buy his arguments, no?

2. If he *really* wanted to kill two birds with one stone, he would've proclaimed: "a post-Saddam, American/UN-administered Iraq will honor ALL existing oil contracts between the current Iraqi regime and other countries." That would've A) silenced the critics that say this war is just about oil, and B) removed the economic incentive for France and Russia to resist kicking Saddam out. But Bush didn't do this, did he? Hmmmmm....

Turn on your radio

[Montag2k]

Seriously. Go to any NPR station and have a listen for some intelligent input. I know that they are public-funded but for some reason they are always the most objective news source I can find. Avoid the flashy TV crap and have a listen.

Well done America

[Johny Jihad]

Congratulations you've let a retarded reneck start World War III. I sure do hope that thinking of all the innocent people that you're killing makes you feel safe and free tonight.

Re:Well done America

[kalislashdot]

Don't blame me. I voted Libertarian. I would rather have boring Al instead of dumbshit GW.

Re:Well done America

[Johny Jihad]

I'm sorry where do you get hypocritical from? So you're definition of protect is infact blow up?

Re:Well done America

[cygnusx197]

Well said. Why do good comments come from Anonymous Cowards. Register, people!

Re:Well done America

[Johny Jihad]

Thanks all the same but I dont really need that sort of protection. And you really think that the motivation behind this war is to protect the iraqi's?

Re:Well done America

[Bladesnitz]

Blowing up the dictator = freedom for the people.

Re:Well done America

[ThePretender]

Let it go, son. You'll feel better once you get over it. Gore would have wet his pants and cried for mommy 2 minutes after 9/11 anyway.

Re:Well done America

[Equinox]

That woulda been a helluva lot cheaper...

Re:Well done America

[ThePretender]

a lot cheaper, and final proof for terrorists that we were cowards. Which is exactly what we'd be under a liberal regime.

Is the media making anyone else sick?

[nyc_paladin]

What is up with the media and their stupid questions? I understand the need for getting the story but asking how the troops are going to handle the stress and what they plan to do is ridiculous. Does anyone in the media realize that the military are just regular people and don't have all the answers? Let them do their job and keep the press in the rear with the gear.

Re:Is the media making anyone else sick?

[Spamlent Green]

I'm sick of their lack of decent friggin reporting. The job of the press is to investiagte, question, and present alternate viewpoints, not just regurgitate whatever the gov't feeds them. Liberal Media Bias my ass. These days everything sounds like Fox'News'.

They're reporting on the troops because that's what the average joe sixpack wants to see, and that's all the command will give them access to. Clearly nobody seems to want a thorough analysis of how screwed up (or rather, non-existant) Bush's foreign policy is.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Rob Simpson]

"Remember that those troops are over there so the protesters CAN protest."

Yeah, 'cause the greatest threat to freedom of speech is Saddam Hussein. Suuure. Then again, you might mean they need the gas for their SUVs to get to the protest...

Spin

[Lux]

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

Re:Spin

[bnenning]

The word "assasination" can apply to actions taken by US officials, even if they choose not to describe their actions that way.

And I have no problem with that. I'd much rather kill one psychotic leader than 10,000 of his conscripted soldiers.

Re:Spin

[Twirlip of the Mists]

In a time of peace, killing the leader of an enemy country is an assassination. In a time of open war-- such as this is; 250,000 troops amassed on your border with orders to go on the C-in-C's command qualifies as open war-- it's a military attack against a leadership target.

Semantics? Sure. But of such things history is made.

Re:Spin

[GMontag]

How did this get modded up?

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.

Those were assasinations. If they had been killed by countries they were at war with then they would have been leadership targets. If Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or FDR were killed by the nations they were at war with then it is a leadership target.

Simple English should not be beyond so many people.

Re:Spin

[Lux]

That's fine. Those are your ethics. And I'm mostly fine with this decision too: if this is the kind of war he wants to fight, I say no one has a right to accuse him of personal cowardice.

But thanks to conformist reporting, the white house is choosing the color of the lens through which this event is viewed in the United States. This will not be how the lens is colored in Qatar, or the U.K., or France, or China. This is a key reason why Americans don't understand why we're so hated abroad: we're largely sheltered from examining the morality of the foreign policy decisions of our leadership.

Re:Spin

[Citizen of Earth]

The word "assasination" can apply to actions taken by US officials, even if they choose not to describe their actions that way.

But war was declared, so the "assassination" was all nice and legal-like.

Re:Spin

[Minna Kirai]

but my morals tell me that even in a time of war, assasination is wrong

Not just your morals. Ronald Regan said it was wrong too, as did most every US President. The current rule in effect is Executive Order 12333, sections 2.11 and 2.12.

Of course, while most US Presidents pay lip-service to the principle of no assasinations, hardly a term expired without the Commander-in-Chief ordering something that looks exactly like one. (Regan tried to kill Quadafi, Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden... they all do it)

(Bush attempted to rescind this order in specific regards to alQuaeda)

You can get entertaining articles on the subject by searching for 12333.

What are the implications?

Actually, the implications could be positive. Traditional "no assasination" rules are a way of making warfare more paletable to heads of state. It gives them some assurance that just their soldiers' lives are risked, not their own. The US claims to have such a rule as a way to protect it's own president (whose exposure to assault from a single operative is much higher than Saddam Hussein's, or other enemy leaders)

Wrong

[missing000]

defeat Nazism, Communism, and [hopefully] Terrorism.

Not true.
All of the above are still around.

One can no more win a war than win an earthquake.
-Jeannette Rankin

Re:Wrong

[cK-Gunslinger]

Not true.
All of the above are still around.

Yeah, but do you lay in bed at night, worried about Nazis or Communists? Not anymore we don't. We need to make terrorism just as irrelevant.

Re:Wrong

[stefanlasiewski]

Yeah, but do you lay in bed at night, worried about Nazis or Communists? Not anymore we don't.

No, I lay awake at night, worried about the imperialists in my own government, fighting questionable wars over oil, breaking alliances... and I dream of the consequences to come.

Let's hope it remains a dream...

Re:Wrong

[Dirtside]

The point is that war is incapable of making terrorism irrelevant in the same way that it (debatably) made Communism and Nazism irrelevant. Anyone can be a terrorist, and terrorist cells can be very fluid in nature; but it takes large, centralized, stable (or at least static) bureaucracy to have Communism or Nazism. There's something to attack, there: military bases, governmental buildings. With terrorism, they can establish new bases as fast as we can destroy them; and the identities of those who hold power are much more secret than they are in actual governments.

War, by its very nature, cannot defeat terrorism -- not unless you kill every person on Earth.

Re:Wrong

[NamShubCMX]

War, by its very nature, cannot defeat terrorism -- not unless you kill every person on Earth.

Well Bush said he'd do everything he could to destroy terrorism didnt he?

WRONG!

[uradu]

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?

Re:WRONG!

[helix400]

People in Iraq can't say "we are ashamed to call ourselves Iraqis." Soon they will have that freedom.

Re:WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes Canada, France and Germany great is the courage shown while resisting American pressure to join this war and implicitly toss the UN in the dustbin.

Shame on the American political leadership for not respecting an institution they helped design, and a principle their nation helped define.

A Canadian.

Re:WRONG!

[golfeninherdecke]

Sure? They will be a kind of americans then. >;)

Re:WRONG!

[mdvolm]

The UN tossed itself in the dustbin! And once again, America will pull it out and dust it off. It won't be the first time, or probably the last.

What makes America great is that they aren't afraid to do the right thing, even when their "allies" capitulate in the face of danger.

A Human.

Re:WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know dead people could speak.
Well, then again..Dead people can vote in America, so I guess anything is possible.

Re:WRONG!

[jsgf]

No one inside Iraq is for war (note I said war not a change of regime), no human being in his right mind will ask you to give him the beating of his life, unless you are a member of fight club that is, and if you do hear Iraqi (in Iraq, not expat) saying "come on bomb us" it is the exasperation and 10 years of sanctions and hardship talking. There is no person inside Iraq (and this is a bold, blinking and underlined inside) who will be jumping up and down asking for the bombs to drop. We are not suicidal you know, not all of us in any case.

That sounds like someone who's got the freedom to speak his mind. Wonder where lives... Hm, Baghdad perhaps?

Face it: Bush has engineered the situation to justify a war.

Re:WRONG!

[uradu]

> The UN tossed itself in the dustbin

Possibly. Then again, perhaps so did the US. Until now the US were careful never to piss off more nations than they could handle. But this time it seems the whole world is pissed. The so-called coalition of the willing consists of three types of nations: those run by right-wing administrations (Italy, Spain, Denmark), those bought off with US money or influence (eastern Europe), plus the UK and Australia, who have yet to defy the US. None of these administrations have popular support at home. For this "war" that won't matter, but after the respective next elections, W will have much fewer friends in the world.

Re:WRONG!

[grumpygrodyguy]

I ran across this Iraqi citizen's blog if anyone is interested. It's updated daily.

Re:WRONG!

[grumpygrodyguy]

Sorry bad link, for some reason Slashcode filters an underscore from the link. You'll have to copy paste to get there manually. Here it is:

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/

Re:WRONG!

[catalina]

Not to mention that this administration lost a really good opportunity to bring the UN along, and help make it something useful.

Unfortunately, the old guard saw it as more advantageous to play toward its next election, and had no other way to show that they are "real 'Merkins"

I can only hope that the citizenry will throw them out for the damage they've done to the long-term viability of the US.

As it stands, it seems the noble experiment is on its way out.....

Re:WRONG!

[jnana]

Wrong. Said person would try to change his country for the better, probably by trying to influence the opinions of others who hold the shameful attitutes.

Re:WRONG!

[cyril3]

What makes America great is that they aren't afraid to do the right thing,

Well thats easy when your definition of what is right is whatever it is your doing at the time.

even when their "allies" capitulate in the face of danger.

Wha... you think france is opposed to this because they are afraid of iraq. you think canada is afraid of iraq. you think germany is afraid of iraq. if they aren't fighting the big bad iraq it must be because they don't see it as the face of danger or they aren't afraid if it is. capitulate to what.

and remember these are countries (except canada) that have had their fair share of terrorist action over the years. so its not as if they don't understand the potential threat.

Re:WRONG!

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

or haven't you heard of the Patriot Act? evidently not....

compare that to the professional "violator of women" employed by the Iraqi government and it doesn't seem like the U.S. is really all that bad.

Re:WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes America bad is that they often fuck things up even though they think doing the right thing because they're so short-sighted. Not taking Saddam out the first time around is one example. Somalia is another. So is Vietnam. American foreign policy is historically very inconsistent, and it's bitten us in the ass (e.g. Sept. 11th).

Re:WRONG!

[sirius_bbr]

What makes America great is that they aren't afraid to do the right thing

The big question here is: what IS the right thing to do.

Re:WRONG!

[Iguanaphobic]

FLQ crisis. 1970. Terrorism in Canada.

Re:WRONG!

[rusty spoon]

"...plus the UK and Australia, who have yet to defy the US. None of these administrations have popular support at home"

What? The UK is behind the action in Iraq. The UK government, and the government opposition, is fully supportive of the armed forces and the decision to take action. This was clearly demonstrated in the recent commons debate.

Yes of course there are demonstrators against the action in Iraq but they do not in any way form the majority, or even close to the majority.

The UK government has put forward a compelling and intelligent case for this war and has won the hearts and minds of the nation because of it.

Read what you will but you cannot claim the UK government does not have support at home for the action.

Re:WRONG!

[Ost99]

The UK government has put forward a compelling and intelligent case for this war and has won the hearts and minds of the nation because of it.

This is just not true. The people in the UK are firmly set against the war. From the Guardian:
"Our ICM poll this week showed a 44-38% majority against a military attack".

Blair has not convinced the people in the UK.

- Ost

Re:WRONG!

[Yokaze]

According to he BBC almost 70% of the British people are opposed to a war without UN backing.

And I may be wrong, but "record rebellion against the government in a House of Commons vote" (BBC) does not sound like very strong support for the action.

Re:WRONG!

[Goth Biker Babe]

Is this the same freedom that the US prisoners down in Cuba have. They are not prisoners of war (and so the Geneva convention is not being followed) and they are not prisoners of the State (because they have no legal representation). The US was one of the few countries that did *NOT* sign up to the UN anti-torture pact in 1984. And despite finally signing up to it 10 years later tried to block the treaty.

For any country (including the UK) to have the moral imperetive it must be *seen* to be better than the bad guys. That's just not happening.

Re:WRONG!

[le_jfs]

USA bombed the following countries:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodge 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenade 1983
Lybia 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1997-2002

Tell me where, if any, people can now say they are free. Tell me where the government is now a democratic one and respects human rights.
Just to know...

Re:WRONG!

[pnot]

Read what you will but you cannot claim the UK government does not have support at home for the action.

Bollocks. Of course I can, and I have an ICM poll to back my claims up. 44% of the public opposed to war, 38% supportive. I'd be delighted to know where you got your figures fr... oh, hang on, you don't have any, it was an entirely unsupported assertion (cue shouts of "You're new around here, aren't you?").

As to political support, bear in mind that many Labour ministers are unwilling to oppose a war publicly for fear of damaging the party. Nobody wants Blair's head on a plate, since he's the most successful leader they've had in years. But the parent post referred to "popular support" so this is not really relevant.

Re:WRONG!

[SunnyElLoco]

No, it is America that tossed the UN into the dustbin. America went to the Security Council to prosecute Iraq for having WMDs and seeking justification to use force againt Iraq. The SC agreed that Iraq must be disarmed, but did not see the use of force justified in this case. Instead they ordered inspections to make sure Iraq did not posses any forbidden weapons.

Well the prosecutor, US, was not happy with that, so they simply decided to ignore the ruling and pass their own judgement. And in doing so made the UN irrelevant. I can't fathom how the US can call it self a justice state, when they blatantly ingnore the ruling of the highest authority in international justice. Just imagine if in a criminal court the prosecutor was not happy with the jury having dismissed the charges and went ahead and executed the defendant anyway. Is that justice?

Bush had made up his mind to attack Iraq long before he ever went to the UN to seek approval. I don't need to remind you that we had put inspectors in Iraq, they we doing their job, Iraq was dismentaling missiles the inspectors had said were illegal and Iraq was all the time delivering new information about its weapons programs to the inspectors. Granted this was largely due to the pressure put on Iraq by the US forces, but that doesn't change that fact that the system was working and there is absolutely no justification for the use of military force at the momen as France, Germany, Russia, China and others have pointed out. America at the same time ignored all the positive results coming from Iraq and failed to give the World any credible evidence to back up their own claims that Iraq possesses WMDs.

Most people, myself included, agree that Saddam is a cruel dictator, but the way US has gone about this 'trial' is completely against every shred of international law. Maybe this just highlights Bush's total lack of knowledge and experience about international politics.

Re:WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, you left a few out and you included some pretty spurious examples.

But if you want to play it that way, let's have the full, accurate list shall we? And let's just see where these countries are today...

France 1942-45 Republic
Germany 1942-45 Federal republic
Belgium 1942-45 Parliamentary democracy
Netherlands - 1944-45 Free
Italy 1943-45 Republic
Japan 1942-45 constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government
China 1945-46 Free from Japanese, conquered by communist dicatorship.
Korea 1950-53 Republic, see South Korea
China 1950-53 Communist tyranny
Guatemala 1954 Constitutional republic
Indonesia 1958 Republic
Cuba 1959-60 NO BOMBS community tyrants take over
Guatemala 1960 Constitutional republic
Congo 1964 Thank the Belgians
Peru 1965 Constitutional republic
Laos 1964-73 Communist tyrany
Vietnam 1961-73 Communist tyranny, and how about them French?
Cambodge 1969-70 Multi-party democracy
Guatemala 1967-69 Constitutional republic
Grenade 1983 Constitutional monarchy with Westminster-style parliament
Lybia 1986 - Dictatorship
El Salvador 1980s - Republic
Nicaragua 1980s -Republic
Panama 1989 - Republic
Iraq 1991-99 - Give us time
Sudan 1998 - Authoritarian regime
Afghanistan 1997-2002 - Republic

It's a pretty great list. In fact, it looks like getting bombed by the U.S. is a great way to end up with a free country.

Re:WRONG!

[boaworm]

Well, the US also bombed the following countries.

Japan 1941-1945

Germany 1941-1945

Italy 1941-1945

Does these dates ring a bell ?

Furhter.. you mention Korea 1950-1953. Funny, i'd say atleast half of Korea (South) is a democracy. But i guess you dont agree.. you even talk about "Korea" as one nation.

Now lets see.. Taiwan, Hong Kong ? No direct bombs, but severe threats from the US kept those two countries free. (Hong Kong's lease contract ran out though, not much to do about it, but it was great in 99 years atleast)

Re:WRONG!

[smagruder]

Hmmm... maybe national security is also a reason to bomb? Get a clue!

Re:WRONG!

[smagruder]

OK. So let's go with the "consistency" of the French. Let's let America be run over, and we'll just drop our weapons and surrender. For this new consistent policy, we'll first need to convert our national petroleum preserve to petroleum jelly.

Re:WRONG!

[Goth Biker Babe]

"Right, they aren't prisoners of war. To be a prisoner of war you have to follow the Geneva convention ON THE BATTLEFIELD. You know, wear a uniform, identifiable markings"

Ok, so what are they? If they were imprisoned on the US mainland then surely they are subject to US law and so are *innocent until +proven+ guilty*. They haven't been allowed the minimum of justice. If they are not prisoners of war then they should be held and tried in the country they were captured in. You can't have your cake and eat it.

"They're brigands. Little more than pirates. Frankly, they're lucky they weren't just lined up and shot."

So why are they any different from, say McVeigh the Oklahoma bomber. Is it because they aren't US citizens? So the US state is racist now? You can't just arbitrarily remove the rights of individuals because of what they did or who they are. That is how the rot starts as it has done before.

"You got evidence of torture? Bring it on. There is none. Three squares, clean clothes, prayer mats, exercise yard, the works. Their conditions are equal to and better than typical prisons".

So prisoners are typically led around with bags on their heads? People in the US are regularly locked up, deprived of their freedom, with out trial? You *must* treat everyone equally. Anything else leads the road to ruin.

"I wonder how France would have treated these guys...you might want to check out their kindly ways during the Algerian and Vietnamese wars..."

I don't care how France treated people. That is past. How they and other nations treat people now and in the future is important. As I said before you don't just have to carry out justice you have to be seen to be carrying out justice. Anything else just isn't good enough and makes you as bad as the bad guys.

Re:WRONG!

[uradu]

> Right, they aren't prisoners of war.
> Frankly, they're lucky they weren't just lined up and shot.

Well, the second statement sums it up nicely. Let me understand this correctly: do the US grant human rights to their population because that is a reflection of their deeply held beliefs, or do they do so only because they're forced to by their constitution and various other legal constructs? You'd hope that is was the former, but lately it seems the US are looking for any excuse to exclude certain human beings from their treatment as such. That seems to be a very disturbing departure from the intent of the founding fathers.

Re:WRONG!

[jweatherley]

Yeah - and the Daily Telegraph's YouGov (pdf) poll showed 50% in favour.

Re:WRONG!

[jweatherley]

And I can refute your ICM poll with a YouGov poll commissioned by the Daily Telegraph and ITN which shows 50% back the US/UK.

Re:WRONG!

[d2003xx]

s/human/american

Re:WRONG!

[antaeogo]

"Let me understand this correctly: do the US grant human rights to their population because that is a reflection of their deeply held beliefs, or do they do so only because they're forced to by their constitution and various other legal constructs?"

No, we grant rights/powers to the government - not the other way around.

Re:WRONG!

[Anonymous Coward]

You call Guatemala a republic? Probably a bit - er -"optimistic".

Same with Afghanistan. And when I look at Cambodge during the seventies (AFTER the bombing) - actually I wouldn't call this a republic.

If you look at the list carefully, I can't see real achievements in terms of democratic development.

Re:WRONG!

[jvervloet]

In my opinion, war is *never* `the right thing' to do.

I'm active in a kind of youth movement. If two kids are fighting, they always both are convinced that they are right themselves, and the other one is wrong. So then they fight, and after that the `winner' thinks that he has made his point clear to the `loser'.

Wrong. The loser gets frustrated, because he's still convinced that he's right, and now the other one has even beaten him up ! You can be sure that the problem won't be solved this way.

I'm sure Bush is convinced that he's doing the right thing. I'm sure Saddam is convinced that he 's doing the right thing too. These two people should talk to each other. On a grown-up way. They should try to understand why they are mad at each other. They should try to find a solution together.

It's not easy. It's very difficult. But I think it's possible. They are both human beings, aren't they.

Probably all this is a little naive. But how can I tell my children not to fight, when the great leaders on this earth do ?

Re:WRONG!

[daniel23]

can you spell propaganda lie ?

Re:WRONG!

[JonK]

A poll done for The Sun (a Murdoch-owned and hence very pro-war British tabloid) by MORI indicated that if "UN inspectors do not find proof that Iraq is trying to hide weapons of mass destruction, and the UN security council does not vote in favour of military action", 63% opposed military action and a further 11% were undecided. See MORI's website for the full details. I don't know if the Sun published these results...

Re:WRONG!

[bpdlr]

OK, lets study this logic:

UN says more inspections are needed.
US says no, Iraq is in breach of UN resolutions, there must be war.
US then breaches UN resolution and bombs Iraq.

So we have one country which has ignored the UN bombing another country for ignoring the UN.

When are the B-52s planning to hit Washington then?

Re:WRONG!

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

hmmm, I find it very odd that he was universally accepted as a brutal dictator when he invaded Kuwait, but these days he seems to be the victim of propaganda.

I feel bad about the war for the Iraqi people, but I can't say the same about the government.

Re:WRONG!

[IXI]

for some reason Slashcode filters an underscore from the link

probably because undersores are illegal in internet domain names.

Re:WRONG!

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

we also set the stage for the Taliban. unfortunately, there wasn't too a lot to choose from, either time. the Soviet troops were just as guilty of human rights violations in Afghanistan as either of those sects. the only difference is the Soviet Union stood down after it was over.

Re:WRONG!

[rppp01]

Afghanistan 1997-2002 - Republic

You are kidding, right? Republic? Which part? The capital? And, what else?

This country was dropped like a hot potato when Iraq became an issue, and funding is looooow. BBC reports that they are turning back to Poppy seed exports (read: opium) since there is no aid coming in. Also, the Taleban and Al Queda still hold the vast majority of the country. Republic indeed. I'd hate to ask you what Anarchy looks like.

Re:WRONG!

[daniel23]

The Iraqi dictator is not a victim of propaganda. His regime produces lots of propaganda, too. His propaganda doesn't reach us, however, the propaganda originating from the US government does.

Re:WRONG!

[IXI]

it doesn't seem like the U.S. is really all that bad

that was what could be said about Germany prior to 1933 and the proclamation of the "Ermächtigungsgesetz", something like the "Patiot Act".

What US citizens should remember is that Germany *was* democratic *before* 1933, that the democracy was abolished by more or less democratically elected people and that these people seized power step by step.
One of this steps was the Ermächtigungsgesetz, another one the attack of a sovereign state which was disguised as self defence.

I just hope the people of the USA use the options of their constitution to avoid such escalation of power as long as they still can.

Re:WRONG!

[uradu]

> No, we grant rights/powers to the government - not the other way around.

Nice theory.

Re:WRONG!

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

unforunately, the U.S. has never been a democracy, so we deal with the republic we have. we elect people, they carry on their agenda.

the rest world just seems to hate Bush, so comments like this seem to be the rule. BUT, the American people love freedom and love being left the hell alone, so don't be silly. escalation of power is the least of our worries, atm. we survived Joseph McCarthy, and that ordeal was orders of magnitude worse that this.

Re:WRONG!

[uradu]

> I don't think that anyone is pissed enough to go to war.

Well, we're working on rectifying that.

> Socialist and communist politics are morally bankrupt.

Someone forgot to tell Jesus that his ideas could be considered socialist. Then again, American fundamentalist Christianity is hard a work crafting a market-friendly Jesus.

Re:WRONG!

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

that particular allegation originated with Britain. heh, not that you'll care.

Re:WRONG!

[IXI]

and love being left the hell alone,

So then why do you complain about Old Europeans not supporting your wars?

When it comes to clean up the mess you prepare it seems the rest of the world is very welcome to you.

seems to hate Bush

Not hate but despise and he makes it hard not to.

Re:WRONG!

[blibbleblobble]

The UK government has put forward a compelling and intelligent case for this war and has won the hearts and minds of the nation because of it.

Yeah, the UK parliament is all in agreement. Not. Did you ever see so many ministers resign in a week?

Re:WRONG!

[WickedLittleSlaveBoy]

So then why do you complain about Old Europeans not supporting your wars?

heh, when did I complain about Europeans not supporting the war? I could really care less if the war is supported or not. I can tell you this, IMO, I find that the U.N. and those Old Europeans have been very ineffectual dealing with the situation. they have had 12 years, after all.

that said, I'd prefer that we remove all sanctions, remove our troups and let the little dictator have his way. let the countries around Iraq deal with him this time.

When it comes to clean up the mess you prepare it seems the rest of the world is very welcome to you.

I've prepared no mess. I don't have any designs on the "rest of the world". quite frankly, I feel that the U.S. should maintain a few strong relationships, but otherwise take on an isolationist policy. if the "rest of the world" doesn't care for us, perhaps we shouldn't deal with them anymore.

Re:WRONG!

[Iguanaphobic]

Now as I recall you saved the French in WW1 and WW2

But only after being forced into these conflicts, long after their supposed allies had joined. The US supports its own interests. Period.

Re:WRONG!

[ShwAsasin]

You've got to be reaching to use this as evidence...There is nothing that says it's illegal.

Re:WRONG!

[ShwAsasin]

Are you going to tear down your beloved Statue of Liberty next? It's certainly not American. It was a present from France, so destroy it as well...

Re:WRONG!

[mfrank]

Yeah, but dead people (and pets) predominantly vote for Democrats. JFK probably wouldn't have been president if Daley hadn't swung the dead people vote in Chicago :).

Re:WRONG!

[IXI]

heh, when did I complain about Europeans not supporting the war?

Don't be silly it's obvious this wasn't meant personally.

they have had 12 years, after all

12 years? First of all they achieved a lot in the beginning and secondly there were no attempts to achieve anything in the last 4 years and then some weeks of weapons inspections which are abandoned as soon as they start to show results -- this argument, countlessly repeated by the US administration, is just ridiculous.

Taken into account how Bush mocked the weapons inspectors it shows they were just thought as a means to trick the UN into backing the war Bush urgently needs to boost his popularity.

if the "rest of the world" doesn't care for us, perhaps we shouldn't deal with them anymore

ROTFLBTC
you're taking the symptom for the cause. It's just that a lot of people in the world don't like the arrogance they are treated with by the US administration.

Re:WRONG!

[mst76]

What makes America great is that they aren't afraid to do the right thing, even when their "allies" capitulate in the face of danger.

I thought that what makes America great is that they have more and better weapons than everybody else.

Re:WRONG!

[stanmann]

So, when two kids are fighting, or one kid is hitting another, do you stand off to the side pleading with them/her to stop, or do you step in, stop them and keep them stopped?

Re:WRONG!

[mfrank]

Interesting article. You did notice, though, it was mall security guards asking him to leave, and then charging him with trespassing when he didn't? He wasn't arrested for disagreeing with the government, he was arrested because private citizens charged him with trespassing on private property.

Of course, a mall is a public place, and they'll likely be sued, and most likely will lose, as they should.

Re:WRONG!

[forii]

not only that, the mall dropped charges when everyone saw that the mall was being stupid about it.

And just to reiterated, private security guards != government authority.

Re:WRONG!

[neocon]

And if you want to know how Mr. I is so sure of his claims, check out this thread, in which he links to a site which sells holocaust-denial books and claims 9/11 was carried out by the US government, as `evidence'.

Re:WRONG!

[Goth Biker Babe]

"Citizenship in a country does not connote race"

I'm sorry but I think you'll find in the most of the world it does. If I start attacking, lets say Belgians (ie. people holding a belgian passport), it would be considered racism. There are white West Indians for example, who's families have been living there as long as those of African origin. If someone started attacking West Indians (generally) but only the attacks against those with African ancestry were considered racism, that is in itself racist!

What about the Italians or the Irish. Both comprise a large proportion of the US population. Is discriminating against someone because they're Irish or Italian racism? If so why? What constitutes being Irish or Italian. Place of birth? Can't be most of them are born in the US. Genetics or family history? So someone who isn't genetically Irish and wasn't born in Ireland but has an Irish passport isn't Irish?

It's a tough one isn't it. Just how do you determine when discrimination is racism or not? I think the only fair approach is that any discrimintation due to nationality, race, colour or creed is unfair and must be stopped.

Re:WRONG!

[quitcherbitchen]

I'm sure Bush is convinced that he's doing the right thing. I'm sure Saddam is convinced that he 's doing the right thing too. These two people should talk to each other. On a grown-up way. They should try to understand why they are mad at each other. They should try to find a solution together.

Some people just aren't rational and no amount of constructive thought or discussion will get them to see the other's argument. In the case of Iraq vs. The World, people are being oppressed and others could be at risk whilst the diplomats plead for more time to sit on their hands. I have no doubt that if there were alternatives they would be explored.

Probably all this is a little naive. But how can I tell my children not to fight, when the great leaders on this earth do ?

It is naive. Teach them that the best way to proceed through life is rationally with respect for logic and procedure. Those things and a well developed sense of morality should show them that a peaceful route is usually the best option, but also that force must sometimes be used.

Re:WRONG!

[rusty spoon]

Um, oh, okay. So your poll shows one thing and another poll shows something completely different. That's fine because the newspapers and 24/7 news channels etc. all have different audiences with different needs and different world views.

The true test came with the debate in the commons when the representatives of the people voted. I think it's worth remembering that many of these people can be voted out themselves very easily so it's in their interests to be representative.

Say what you will but the current UK government got the support they needed as the amendment was squashed and the decision to attack iraq was passed.

Looks like support to me.

So some people resigned. Good, I'm glad they felt compelled and strong willed enough to take such a bold decision and I would have been disappointed otherwise. Their action just goes to show how serious the issue and the debate were and WHY the result is so clear.

Anyway, this is just "serious consequences" (talk my friend, just talk) now as the war is in full swing.

Re:WRONG!

[nullard]

Iraq vs. The World

Where do you get that from? The U.S. wouldn't even have won a simple majority in the Security Council. It is more like Bush (w/ sidekick Blair) vs The World.

I hope that Blair is ousted for this. Too bad we have to wait until 2004 to get rid of Bush.

Re:WRONG!

[quax]

Look I am German and live much closer to Iraq. I did not feel threatened. Saddam was perfectly contained.

Then again moving in there is opening a can of worms. Our troops are already deployed in Afganistan and that still quite a piece of work.

If your president convinced himself that he has to do this all we can to is to make painfully obvious that we think that this is a mistake. We tried to convince him that it is a mistake, but since he did not change his mind, we won't interfere. But sorry guys we have enough to swallow in Afganistan, we will not help with what we perceive as a pointless war.

Re:WRONG!

[jamesmrankinjr]

Wha... you think france is opposed to this because they are afraid of iraq. you think canada is afraid of iraq. you think germany is afraid of iraq.

They're afraid of their domestic Muslim populations, among whom they believe are terrorists that they would rather go attack America than themselves.

Peace be with you,
-jimbo

Re:WRONG!

[sbszine]

The so-called coalition of the willing consists of three types of nations: those run by right-wing administrations (Italy, Spain, Denmark), those bought off with US money or influence (eastern Europe), plus the UK and Australia, who have yet to defy the US.

As an Australian, I think my country should be counted amongst the bought off vassals. I suspect England is much the same.

Re:WRONG!

[RacingEnglishCars]

I wouldn't call Denmark a right wing administration, just not as far left as it had been before 911.

Re:WRONG!

[jvervloet]

So, when two kids are fighting, or one kid is hitting another, do you stand off to the side pleading with them/her to stop, or do you step in, stop them and keep them stopped?

If they are kids, I step in, and stop them. If they are the president of the United States, I expect them to solve their problems on a constructive way theirselves.

Re:WRONG!

[jvervloet]

Some people just aren't rational and no amount of constructive thought or discussion will get them to see the other's argument.

To be honest, I don't think that the discussion has been very constructive so far. For a constructive discussion, both parties should be `open' for a solution they both can agree with.

I have the impression that both Saddam and Bush have the idea that the other party is `laughing in their face', and for restoring their sense of honour they have to punish their opponent. This way, a constructive solution is never possible. (Nobody will ever agree being punished.)

I think Bush should have gone to Saddam. He should have proposed to forget the past, to look at the problem now, and to search for solutions. If this wouldn't work out, an independent person, with some experience in discussing difficult topics, could moderate the meetings.

If Saddam wouldn't react on a rational way, I think people would organise manifestations against the attitude of Saddam, instead of the anti-American manifestations we're seeing now.

Re:WRONG!

[stanmann]

So, you condemn the president for acting as you do. The two kids are Saddam and his citizens, and the president is you. Stepping up, and stopping it.

Re:WRONG!

[quitcherbitchen]

To be honest, I don't think that the discussion has been very constructive so far. For a constructive discussion, both parties should be `open' for a solution they both can agree with.

Right. Add France and their assured veto of any solution that required force. Any possibility for a constructive discussion and procedure from that point becomes impossible. Assuming that conflict is not a viable option to solve problems is naive in my opinion. In any case, an infinite compromise is not possible so a decision should rest on majority opinion based on a rational argument. If that isn't possible, then I think it's right to stand up for yourself.

I have the impression that both Saddam and Bush have the idea that the other party is `laughing in their face', and for restoring their sense of honour they have to punish their opponent. This way, a constructive solution is never possible. (Nobody will ever agree being punished.)

Iraq has been laughing in the face of the world for over a decade. America is not fighting to restore our honor. However, the credibility of the UN is at stake. America is not fighting to punish our opponent, but instead is fighting to enforce the punishment set against them after the Gulf War. Since they don't agree to that punishment, you're right, a constructive solution isn't possible (because it didn't work) and force is our last alternative. I think it's sad.

I think Bush should have gone to Saddam. He should have proposed to forget the past, to look at the problem now, and to search for solutions. If this wouldn't work out, an independent person, with some experience in discussing difficult topics, could moderate the meetings.

No. No. No. The problem now stems from the problems in the past and the problem in the present and the problem in the future. None of this should be either forgotten or ignored. Are you serious about an independent body arbitrating for Bush and Saddam or are you generalizing this to be an example that applies to two kids on a playground? Global politics is a much different playground.

If Saddam wouldn't react on a rational way, I think people would organise manifestations against the attitude of Saddam, instead of the anti-American manifestations we're seeing now.

America is often the country people love to hate. I think you would see the anti-American sentiment now no matter what leading position we take. Personally I belive that most of it springs from existing predjudice about this country and manifests itself more as anti-Bush sentiment than anything anti-American or pro-peace. In the majority of people I have talked to, their opinions are what they are because of a well-tuned ability to ignore facts and reality. However, there are certainly those who believe the way they do and I won't argue with that. I have my own thoughts, that's all.

Re:WRONG!

[bensagenius]

For a minute there I thought Saddam had deleted your blog!

Re:WRONG!

[jvervloet]

So, you condemn the president for acting as you do. The two kids are Saddam and his citizens, and the president is you. Stepping up, and stopping it.

I see it differently. When my kids are fighting, I don't stop them by killing the one of which I think he's right. I don't need any violence to stop them either. If I put myself between them, and ask them to stop, they stop. This has to do with some kind of respect I created.

The president tries to kill Saddam, because he thinks (and he's right there) that Saddam is doing wrong things. But Saddam kills his citizens because Saddam thinks they're doing wrong things too. So from this point of view, they are doing both the same.

Heck, I think this whole situation is very difficult, and I guess that's why I don't ever want to be president of a country with an army like the one of the US...

Re:WRONG!

[bensagenius]

you're not "a little naive," you're a fucking retard.

Re:WRONG!

[Truth101]

France is only sympathetic to the money that they will lose with the removale of Saddam.

By the way, has anyone else seen the CHEERING Iraqi people, hugging the America troops that have freed them from Saddam?

Re:WRONG!

[jvervloet]

Right. Add France and their assured veto of any solution that required force. Any possibility for a constructive discussion and procedure from that point becomes impossible.

I follow you there. But I don't think the errors of other people can justify the ones of your own.

Assuming that conflict is not a viable option to solve problems is naive in my opinion. In any case, an infinite compromise is not possible so a decision should rest on majority opinion based on a rational argument. If that isn't possible, then I think it's right to stand up for yourself.

But what do you call a rational argument ? I think that America thinks there arguments are rational, but the French will think there arguments are rational too. What if every country stands up for itself whenever it doesn't agree with the UN ? Or is the right to act independently some exclusive US right ? I don't see a reason for that, except maybe that they have more weapons than everyone else. I really hope that this isn't the reason...

Re:WRONG!

[cyril3]

I apologize unreservedly.

Re:WRONG!

[lfourrier]

...because France guaranteed a veto...

If us and british journalist made a little effort to learn french, and report correctly, you could not honestly write that.

Re:GWB is a tool.

[Blue Stone]

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.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[dogfart]

Yes, we've found it is better to pay the folks who love killing rather than forcing a bunch of reluctant civilians to do the job. Terrible idea, having the draft during Vietnam, you actually inducted a lot of guys who thought the whole thing was pointless. Made for morale problems, when the soldiers had the same ideas as the civilians. This is a big problem with a democracy, when citizen volunteers make government run, instead of dedicated paid professionals. Get rid of those pesky citizens, and the paid professionals can run things much smoother.

Re:About time.

[OpMindFck]

spent the last of my mod points this morning. :-(

Lets support our troops now whatever our politics have been.

Foreign exchange

[gaph]

American pacifist, seeking shelter in foreign land, preferably Canada, Mexico, Spain, or Italy. Willing to accept any aid. Will provide tech support for food.

NPR has live coverage

[bahwi]

Without all the commercials, etc..

NPR. Click up top, Real, Windows Media, or Quicktime. Gotta love NPR.

More stuff on NPR about Iraq over here.

CSPAN is slashdotted, er, wardotted? err.. nevermind, CSPAN is dead.

And chances are, live protests in your local metro.

CBSNews has a big "WAR" picture that looks like an ad for a RTS. Thanks to the media for desensitizing us to war(or making it into a fun, enjoyable experience kind of like a game or a "faces of death" tv channel(gotta love duckman!) without the seriousness).

I hope this ends quick. The last thing Slashdot needs is a war vs. anti-war flamewar. We've already got BSD vs. Linux, Perl vs. Python vs. Ruby vs. Java vs. Everything Else, KDE vs. Gnome, etc... So I think we're good.

As an interesting note, CBSNews calls George Bush "Mr. Bush" in this article.

Re:NPR has live coverage

[bahwi]

Damnit. Forgot the /a tag. Mod it down I guess. Friend woke me up to say war had begun, figured I'd check slashdot. (My first place for all news, geek or non-geek. OMG. What have I become?!)

Re:NPR has live coverage

[TKinias]

scripsit bahwi:

The last thing Slashdot needs is a war vs. anti-war flamewar. We've already got BSD vs. Linux, Perl vs. Python vs. Ruby vs. Java vs. Everything Else, KDE vs. Gnome, etc... So I think we're good.

Strange, in a way I feel the opposite. It's really hard to see how I could get worked up about my choice of text editor when people are dying at my government's hands...

I was going to be a karma whore and

[t0qer]

Post a bunch of links to high tech weapons like the ABL, and the new mobile artillery we have, then I thought, is this appropriate?

Some geek in Iraq, who just doesn't want to be involved in the fighting is sitting on his pc same as me, reading slashdot (if they're a fan) and probably see's thousands of people fleeing the streets, heading for the hills. Maybe he's just some student hoping to come here someday, but now has to face the horror of war.

Iraq is no stranger to war, the middle east has had ongoing wars as long as the bible has been written. Before USA intervention, who was the country trying to break up fights between middle eastern neighbors? Was it the british? the french?

I just heard a jet fly overhead, and it scares me, but that poor shmuck, who probably isn't too different than you or me, is hearing gunshots, sonic booms, and people running and screaming for cover.

On top of all that, his leader, wouldn't hesitate to turn the world into one giant jonestown. Rumors of anthrax, smallpox are everywhere.

If anyone is out there going through this shit right now, could you be brave please? Stay where you are and let the rest of us on slashdot know how you're doing?

Good luck if you're out there Iraqi slashdoter. May whoever you worship watch over you and keep you safe.

Same goes for the US troops too.

Re:I was going to be a karma whore and

[AbRASiON]

I beleive your post to be well thought out and respectful, but some of us really would like some information on the cool weaponry / toys / equipment we have.

I distinctly recall enjoying reading about the very large truck (pick up) or some such with some amazing stuff inside it, was very interesting.

If anyone else feels like posting some of these pics I would appreciate it (or information)

Re:I was going to be a karma whore and

[lwbecker2]

Good info at military.com

Re:I was going to be a karma whore and

[Gortbusters.org]

Methods for karma in this story:

- 1. Fabricate reason for war 2. Convince public 3. ??? 4. profit!!

- In soviet russia, war is declared on YOU!!!

- Post the michael moore article for the 10th time

- Tell us you're ashamed of living in america
- tell the person above to leave

Re:I was going to be a karma whore and

[tshak]

Uhm, do you really think that Saddam allows Iraqi's to read slashdot?

Re:I was going to be a karma whore and

[DeVilla]

In case someone was actually going to stay online in Iraq to provide reports, don't. I'm as curious as the next guy, but don't feed the vultures. We will have time to learn what happened. Don't risk your life needlessly.

Much of the world is praying for you.

Re:I was going to be a karma whore and

[McCarrum]

Yeah, the infamous Saddam's Anti-Slashdot Republican Luddites are well documented ...

Re:I was going to be a karma whore and

[Featureless]

There are several posts from Iraq on this very story.

Propaganda victim.

Re:I was going to be a karma whore and

[greenrd]

Due to United Nations Sanctions, Iraq does not have any direct internet access.

The only Iraqis you will find posting on Slashdot are those who are currently outside the country.

According to my cd insert...

[loucura!]

The lyrics to war pigs (Verres Militares) are as such:

Centuriones convenerunt
sicut magi sacris nigris--
mentes malae destructionis
artifices omnes mortis.
Campis corpora comburit
belli machina laborans.
Mors et lis humanitati
perturbarunt mentes sanas.

Eheu, Deus!

Venefici se abstrudunt nunc,
qui bellum inceperunt.
Ipsi pugnam cur ineant?
Cogunt ire pauperes, vae!

Poena subit verribus,
qui per jocum belland.
Gentes tractant sicunt pecudes,
dum nigra venit hora, vae!

Nunc tenebris munus horret,
cum auditis: flammae torrent.
Verres non jam habent nervos.
Dei manus trudit fervens.
Hora nigra Dei advenit.
Supplicantes verres repunt,
peccatores precanture.
Satan ridet, laetatur.

Eheu, Deus!

I dunno about you, but I don't see any resemblance from this song to the current "military action" in Iraq. First, the Iraqi speak arabic, and the very likely, none of the invading forces speak Latin. Unless you were making a thinly veiled reference to this being a police action.

That's just... unpatriotic. :)

Re:According to my cd insert...

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Did you do that translation to Latin yourself? impressive. I haven't had High School Latin in over 16 years, but I remember enough to know that's very very good, and in time with the song too. Nice.

Re:It's about damn time

[ManUMan]

What of the other thugs we haven't taken time to address? We seem to be selective about the thugs we take care of. What of the thugs in Uganda? Or what about the situation in Sudan?

If our justification for this war is to remove a thug, why do we tolerate other thugs? Why haven't we brought our full diplomatic and other strength to bear on them?

My guess? It is about the $$.

Re:About time.

[0x0d0a]

"For keeps", eh?

So what, specifically, is "Bush's War" going to do differently from the Gulf War that's going to suddenly eliminate the hatred of the United States in the country? You can't commit genocide in Iraq. You knock off the leader and install your own puppet government, you just produce a lot more hatred (think how we'd feel if China did that to us). So now you've killed one man that's fairly representative of national feeling in Iraq. We've spent lots of money profiling and monitoring him, so we throw out all that work, and we now have the same number of people who hate the US.

Saddam the man is not dangerous. If Iraqis disagreed about the United States, he wouldn't be an issue. Saddam is only nasty because the Iraqi people feel the same way he does about the United States. That being said, killing Saddam will, in my estimation, do nothing but produce more anti-US sentiment.

I am sometimes ashamed to be American.

[binford2k]

And other times, like now, I am glad that I don't live in a place like New York City.

Not my choice...

[pyg]

... but that of the mislead/violent corporations [the true leaders] of this country. I apologize on behalf of it's people.

Chad Knepp

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[bsignorelli]

Yeah, 'cause the greatest threat to freedom of speech is Saddam Hussein. Suuure. Then again, you might mean they need the gas for their SUVs to get to the protest.

No one said anything about WHY the troops are over there. But the fact is, whereever our troops go...they are there to defend the Constitution and to uphold the Democratic values that all Americans cherish.

Oil...could be a reason for GW sending our men and women into harms way. I don't really see ANY good reason for sending them there.

Fact remains though...feel free to express your displeasure or pleasure over the war but remember to support the troops.

But feel free to spit on any politician that strikes your fancy!

7:37, hearing many explosions.

[stefanlasiewski]

It's 7:37 pacific. I hear many explosions on the Baghdad camera now.

Now it's really, really begun.

It's really odd. You can still hear the birds in Baghdad. The cars have stopped honking, however.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Control-Z]

It wouldn't be hard for the troops to think if you're against the war you're against them. I know it's possible to support the troops but protest the war, but it's hard to convey both at once.

We're doing this Iraq thing, the senate has approved it, the president obviously has made up his mind long ago, protesting over and over isn't going to help morale at this point.

Re:About time.

[Zigg]

Uhhhh.... it did. And, well that seemed to solve a lot didn't it?

It should have, but Bush Sr. dropped the ball, on bad advice (not that I think that excuses him). Saddam should have been taken out in 1991. He wasn't, and the Iraqi deaths since then because Saddam was sacrificing his peoples' well-being in order to build up his own military could have been averted.

But now that we have a president who can make the hard decisions, and we will make it right, and be safer for it.

I'm Sorry...

[HaloZero]

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.

Yes, the situation at hand sucks.

That's why I like Slashdot. I was hoping it could be avoided here.

So, unless these cruise-missiles are sporting some new build of BSD, or are hosting an Apache webserver or SOMETHING, I really would rather not hear about it.

Just my $.02.

Re:I'm Sorry...

[NixterAg]

Listen to this mp3 and tell me how Bush is just as bad as Saddam. You'd have your sorry ass murdered for equating Bush to Saddam if you were in Baghdad and your family would be billed for the bullet (unless of course the Iraqis decided to kill you with their human shredder).

Re:I'm Sorry...

[pi_rules]

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.

Re:I'm Sorry...

[chefren]

I seem to remember that Iraq *was* disarming and the US didn't really get UN acceptance for this attack. This seems to be what is pissing people off. A peaceful way was working out fine, but the US attacked anyway. Since Iraq was not going to attack anyone with UN officials all over the country, it didn't matter if the disarming process was a bit slow.

There have been no published proof that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attack. The US has not published the proof they claim to have of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction "because we gave them to them". Since there is no proof to base our oppinion on, we have to assume the obvious: this is yet again a war for oil. I think the US has yet to justify its attack to the world, or at least the UN. At least the last war was justified by liberating Kuwait.

Re:I'm Sorry...

[HoaryCripple]

Dude, thanks for the mp3! That was awesome!

Re:I'm Sorry...

[pi_rules]

Iraq -was- disarming? They had 12 yeard to do it! Saddam has, and has never had, the intention of disarming. Do you really honestly think that it takes a country as small as theirs to disarm themselves of their long range weapons?

The idea that diplomacy was working is pure and utter bullshit.

Aside from that, we've got a humanitarian point to this whole thing. I was watching CNN tonight as they interviewed a group of Iraqi immigrants to the USA today in Dearborn Michigan. They were happy and smiling that Saddam was the target of this war. In fact, they had interviewed an Iraqi man who's house was hit by a US missle in 1991 -- and he had no qualms about it, he was just a casulty of an anti-Saddam war.

To see the look of joy on their faces to know that the USA is doing something about the horrid circumstances in their country is enough reason for me to support this "war".... and it's not a war. Think about that... there are Iraqi's in this country that are -glad- to see their homeland bombed by the USA if that means getting Saddam out of power. That's our goal -- to get this nutjob and his sons out of the country. They chose death over exile; and so be it. At one point an Iraqi man asked his fellow's how many wanted to see Saddam gone.. they all raised their hands. He asked how many had lost a family member because of Saddam and nearly all of them left their hands up. That's plain fucked up.

Raise your hand if you lost a loved one from Bush... we'll get less than 100% return on that one.

I'd chalk it all up to propoganda, as I'm not a pro federal government type of guy, but frankly seeing Iraqi's cheering on the war just shows me how much this needs to be done. It's not a very popular opinion, but it's mine. Lets take theese three sons of bitches out.

Yes, this country will see an increase in terrorism for our actions. I have no qualms about that at all though. If a bunch of radical Muslims want to take out their anger on us on our homeland that's fine by me -- they'll soon find out why no country has ever tried attacking us on our home land.

If you're against this campaign so be it. But, if you are, head to Dearborne where there's a group of Iraqi's watching an Al Jazera satelite feed and explain to them why their leader is deserving of another chance, and that you think he's a good guy. If you make it out of there alive my hat's off to you.

This man's own people want him dead. I will show zero remorse when it happens too.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[McCarrum]

God Bless America!

Sigh. Shame about the rest of us non-Americans.

God Bless Us All.

First Strike

[ajakk]

The strike on Slashdot has begun. We will soon learn if My-SQL and PERL can handle Enterprise level loads while being slammed by sleep-deprived nerds who have nothing better to do.

Decapitation Attempt

[abcxyz]

Looks like an opportunity to hit Iraq command forces (maybe Saddam) prior to the main attack. Used cruise missles, dozen or so, along with F117 stealth fighhters. Apparently launch from the Persian Gulf area.

The end of the UN?

[roboguy]

Now that the war is underway, the interesting thing to see will be the political fallout. Will the UN been seen as a worthless cause when the US unilaterally decides what is best for the world?

Re:The end of the UN?

[burns210]

we did not decide alone, we only lead the cause. All along, England stood beside us. And, if my information is correct, something like 30 nations have signed on with their support along with anoth 15 supporting us privately. It is the loud, opposing countries(read France) that make us look as bad as we do(worse than we deserve), even though we are not the only nation who thinks this is a just cause.

My Prayer

[cleetus]

is for a speedy, swift and relatively bloodless victory, followed by focused, sustained, and earnest redevelopment effort.

So that History might look favorably upon this, let us make our bed and able to sleep soundly in it.

It will be much harder than any of us think, whether we choose to accept our post-war responsibility or not.

cleetus

WarTV

[MikeFM]

I really agree with you. I am sitting here watching it in the background and find myself wishing something would happen just because it's boring. I thiink of playing Civ instead (as it's more fun). I know that is a horrible thing to think but it feels like a tv show.

I sit here feeling that if they want people to watch they'll blow more shit up and show some good mass destruction. Does this mean next year the new survival show will have six lucky contestants going into terrorist camps and trying to defeat the bad guy with out viewers voting them out of the show? (Makes me think of Snow Crash.)

There is just something wrong with watching a war take place in real time over the tv or Net. It lacks respect to the lifes being destroyed. I'd love all this data to hit the Net some time later as a history archieve but it shouldn't be streamed live. At least they could remove their logo and advertising so it'd have a little respect given these events.

6am in Iraq..

[gmuslera]

that Bush say bad things about Saddam, ok
that a lot of soldiers and bombs will go over Iraq in the next few hours, ok.
that the world seems to be against Iraq and/or Saddam, ok

But that they wake up Saddam 6am with the first misile even before a declared war was a BIG mistake. Now Saddam will get angry and take revenge on Bush! Who likes to get nice dreams interrupted in that way?

Please, people, a bit of ettiquette, even on war.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[tongue]

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.

What does "supporting the troops" mean, exactly?

[Gorimek]

As someone from a country that never fights wars, I am confused by the constant pledges from Americans that they "support the troops", whether they're for or against the war.

Can anyone who uses this expression explain what it means? Is it just that you wish they will not be harmed? Or that they will be successful and reach their objectives? The second seems incompatible with with at least some reasons for being opposed to the war.

Obviously, "the troops" did not decide to start this war, so being for or against the war must be independent of your view of the troops. But that's an other issue.

Better than any news coverage...

[eldimo]

Follow somebody blogging from Baghdad

Re:About time.

[Picass0]

In '91 President Bush and UN coalition forces removed Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The UN did not target Saddam, and the US went along with the UN resolution. That's a fact. Go read a history book.

Re:Of course.

[AbRASiON]

Imperial Sardaukar

Those mofo's kicked ass in Dune 2 - and they were purple to boot! (if I recall)

MMMMMMMmmmmmmmm Sardaukar (ok so i don't have much intelligent to say about all this - but one comment, that web blog by the iraqi is damn interesting)

good luck to all parties involved - let's hope only the "bad guys" whoever they may be are removed.

Hmmmmm

[AvengerXP]

Target of opportunity? Did the installations make a five feet step? Oh come on we can all use a little humor in these troubled times. There's not much you and i can do. Those anti war protests sure worked.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[corellen]

If we refused to fight we would tried and convicted and imprisioned. My fellow members of the Armed Forces do not have the right to protest in the maner that you are suggesting. Plus the majority of my fellow service members I work with support this war. It is our lives that are on the line, and personly all the bleeding heart liberals that complain that we are putting our son's and daughter's in harms way sould stop and ask US do we feel our lives are being put on the line for a good cause. Personly I feel our opions matter more for we are the ones at risk.

plane

[lapey]

well may be that is because NOONE wants war. noone wanted WWII to happen but it needed to. yeah you are right the iraqis have done nothing, but it's government has and that is who we are going for. Iraq has trained Al Qaeda in a plane in northern Iraq.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Rob Simpson]

Yeah, I understand. It's just that appeals to "support the troops" usually also demand that you support what they are doing. But they don't deserve insults or disrespect either - it's not their fault that the ones calling the shots are idiots.

Re:War Pigs

[scootles]

yeah, I've been listening to that track a lot recently actually.. not a lot changes, does it?

There is only one way to stop this war now...

[No. 24601]

Another courageous European or Asian country must come to Iraq's aid. The US wouldn't risk waging war against the whole world... and this conflict will be at an end.

Cyberwar start yet?

[neutz]

Does anyone know major Iraqi hosts we can ping? I tried www.iraq2000.com and got no response.

"odds with", not "ends with"

[0x0d0a]

"odds with", not "ends with". Oops. Sigh.

"Support the troops"?

[jvj24601]

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.

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 /. or on the news somewhere...

Re:"Support the troops"?

[LBArrettAnderson]

you're supporting the troops because they're risking their lives to liberate a country that has little to nothing to do with their lives back home.

there's a big difference between following orders to murder 12,000,000 people and following orders to liberate a country.

Re:"Support the troops"?

[jvj24601]

there's a big difference between following orders to murder 12,000,000 people and following orders to liberate a country.

I agree that there is a difference - an obvious difference - but aren't you now talking about a matter of degree? One may be "more" immoral than the other, but immoral is immoral (regardless of degree).

Re:"Support the troops"?

[LBArrettAnderson]

not exactly. Is it worth a couple hundred innocent lives to possibly save tens of thousands in the future? Yes. (even with the possibly, I have to say yes) Is it worth it to get rid of 12,000,000 people to increase the "scapegoatness"? No, that's not even a question because Hitler was a madman and it's completely illogical.

Re:"Support the troops"?

[Feanturi]

The "Just following orders is no excuse" line depends on what you're applying it to. Stuff that happens in a concentration camp and stuff that happens on a battlefield are two very different things.

It's the difference between thugs and warriors.

Our guys are warriors, support them.

Re:"Support the troops"?

[Samrobb]

There are conventions on war - agreements between nations as to what kind of conduct is allowed and what is not allowed during times of war. It is legal for your superiors to order you to do that which is allowed ("Kill those soldiers!") and illegal for your superiors to order you to do that which is not allowed ("Kill those children!").

I don't know about the military forces of other nations, but the US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes a distinction between legal and illegal orders:

UCMJ, Section 14c(2)(a)(i)
Inference of lawfulness. A order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.

Aside from that, you can take a look at what the US US Army training on the UCMJ has to say about illegal orders:

Illegal Orders

Definition: Orders that do not relate to "military duty." They do not:

• Accomplish a military mission or
• Safeguard or promote morale, discipline, and usefulness of soldiers and
• Directly connected to good order in the Army
• There is no obligation for a soldier to obey an illegal order. However, soldiers disobey at own risk.

Your Response to an Illegal Order

• Clarify the order with the superior (You might have misunderstood!).
• Next, inform the superior that you believe the order is illegal.
• If the illegal order stands, request to speak with the company commander or a higher-level commander.
• Finally, disobey the illegal order if necessary.

Re:"Support the troops"?

[sql*kitten]

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.

It's like Vietnam, the anti-war crowd took their displeasure out on ordinary soldiers returning from Vietnam, many of whom were conscripts. Why? Because they were too stupid to realize that the military is an instrument of policy, it does not make policy. The way it works in the West is that the democratically-elected government decides what's right or wrong and if necessary the military makes it happen.

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.

At an individual level, no Western soldiers are committing immoral acts. They aren't raping civilian women, looting museums and so on, as Nazi troops did in Europe or Iraqi troops did in Kuwait. If a US/UK soldier did do something like that, then the excuse "only following orders" wouldn't save him from punishment, even if a commander had ordered him to.

But whether or not you think the war is justified (and personally, I do) a UK soldier, after a declaration of war, who fires on a uniformed member of enemy armed forces is committing no moral crime. The politicians make the decision to go to war.

Re:"Support the troops"?

[Dictator For Life]

But whether or not you think the war is justified (and personally, I do) a UK soldier, after a declaration of war, who fires on a uniformed member of enemy armed forces is committing no moral crime. The politicians make the decision to go to war.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this.

Hypothetical situation: let's suppose the politicians in country X declares war on country Y simply because they've decided they like the mountains in country Y and they want to be able to vacation there. Such a war would be intrinsically evil and unjust, and no amount of "well, my duly elected representatives declared the war, so I'm not committing any crime if I obey their orders and go and kill members of the Y-ian military" is going to change the fact that this is no more and no less than the "I was just following orders" defense. Soldiers have brains and consciences; they have to use them just like politicians allegedly do.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Patoski]

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.

One does need to realize the effect of one's actions on the morale of our troops though. The troops are over there risking life and limb and when they tune into TV and they see all these protesters demonstrating against the war they're fighting it could potentially be very demoralizing.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Gonarat]

It will never happen. Actually what I want to see is IRAQI troops say "fuck it" (or however you say it in Iraq) once they see Saddam is gone or going to be gone, and quit and/or surrender. That way our guys/gals can stop fighting, they just round 'em up and go after Saddam and sons. Once they are gone, work can begin on rebuilding Iraq and our people can begin coming home the way they went -- alive and in one piece.

Canadian Perspective

[dBLiSS]

I was just watching Bush address the national as well as listening to some of our political leaders talk about the war. Since Canada has decided to stay out of the war on Iraq due to the lack of a UN resolution on, will the US look at Canada any differently now?

Re:Canadian Perspective

[Erwos]

I was under the impression that the Canadian and US militaries were pretty much integrated at this point. That is to say, if somebody nukes Detroit, the Canadian military is allowed to immediately move south (no 30 day wait) and comes under control of the ranking American officer in the area, and vica versa - if Toronto is hit, US forces don't need to wait, they just go under Canadian control when they cross the border.

So, no, who cares? Canada is like National Guard North for the most part. Nice to have around, I think.

There's also:
1. That Canada might not be up for the war, but they've been fairly rational in their non-support. Compare this to say, France of recent days. Even Germany's been quieter.
2. That Canada's military has been taking cuts for years, and really isn't equipped to help that much anyways.

So, in other words, Canadian help wouldn't have been much, and they haven't been loud and obnoxious about not wanting the war. No reason to be upset.

-Erwos

Re:Canadian Perspective

['cool mode' spook]

As a Canadian I'm very relieved that Mr. Chretien announced that our military would not be participating in this war. What I find funny is the fact that our military is still participating on the 'War on Terrorism', so if there's an American ship and a Canadian ship floating in the sea all happy and buddy-like (exchanging homemade jam hopefully!), and an Al Qaeda ship comes up and starts chuckin' some shells around, well we're allowed to fire at that ship, but if an Iraqi ship comes around the corner and starts blasting away at the American ship, all we're allowed to do is sit there on deck and eat toast and jam and watch the Americans and Iraqis destroy each other. If I was a skipper or something on deck at that time, I'd throw my spoon at the Iraqi ship because it's not very nice to kill people, then I'd go get a life-raft and take in the poor souls that lost their ship. Then we could have some more jam and be friends, like the way it should be! And even if you, Mr. Anonymous hate me, I'll still give you jam and hugs. Everyone deserves at least that.

Re:Canadian Perspective

['cool mode' spook]

Yes. There will be Jam, Tea, and Hugs for all!

Nice place to live?

[iceburn]

Strange thing to say, but after seeing all of the footage of Baghdad and Kuwait City over the past couple of weeks, those places actually look like beautiful cities; even the live footage on CNN right now. Its a shame that some people seem to enjoy bombing them.

Re:War Pigs

[dpt]

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

George W. Bush weaseled his way out of going to Vietnam. How can anyone possible respect him when we speaks of fighting for freedom, and so on? My father, who was in the army at the time, actually *did*. And many others, who had no rich Daddies to save them, were conscripted, and also actually *fought*. He is a coward. Can that possibly be disputed?

Re:About time.

[jmv]

Yes, but it they had overthrown Saddam 10 years ago, who would they be fighting today. I mean having a well known vilain is always useful when a war is all you can do to make people forget about your stupidity. Yes, this should have been done 10 years ago. It would have made less deaths than with 2 wars. The only reason why they didn't do it is because they were afraid they wouldn't like the replacement (with links with Iran), so they decided that having Saddam there wasnt' too bad.

Are you *daft*?

[0x0d0a]

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!"

Re:Are you *daft*?

[bnenning]

anyone who thinks that Iraq is stupid enough to not accept a peace offer is on crack

Um, have you been paying attention at all for the last 3 months? We were perfectly willing to allow Saddam to remain in power and continue abusing his subjects as long as he got rid of his banned weapons, which he has repeatedly refused to do.

What Blix turned up was some guesswork, a very small number of warheads

And a complete lack of cooperation from Saddam. The mission of the inspectors isn't to find the hidden weapons, that simply isn't possible. Their mission is to verify Iraqi claims that the weapons have been destroyed, which they have been unable to do.

Yeah, Iraq is such a terribly nasty threat to your family. Christ. I can just see it now "January 2007 -- Iraq Invades United States!"

More like "8000 dead from gas attack in San Francisco". Saddam and his army aren't a threat. His weapons are.

Re:Are you *daft*?

[Mirus Nex]

You don't have to support the war. Just don't stand in the way. Support the troops, the last thing they want is to put their life on the line to save your sorry ass who thinks they're job is meaningless...

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

Anyone thinking Saddam would comply with a peace offer is on crack! History has already proven he wouldn't...

What Blix turned up was some guesswork, a very small number of warheads, and now there are people *dying* because of it?

He wasn't supposed to have ANY. And what about the unreported drones? Ah, that's just dirt we can dust under the rug.

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!"

Tell that to the victims of 9/11... Who would have thought on 9/10/2001 that terrorists from across the globe would be killing thousands of people in the US tomorrow?

Do you mind if I quote you if an Iraqi led terrorist attack on US soil occurs?

Re:Are you *daft*?

[IndependentVik]

More like "8000 dead from gas attack in San Francisco". Saddam and his army aren't a threat. His weapons are.

Saddam's missles can barely reach Israel, much less the US. Also, Iraq has never directly attacked the US. Not only is preemption without provocation a morally dubious idea, but you've also failed to explain why Iraq is more of a threat than Iran, North Korea, Pakistan or even China. They all have dangerous weapons. They're all ruled severely by a select few who don't quite have all their marbles.

And no, "because they broke UN resolutions" is not a valid reason. Israel has broken more UN resolutions than almost anyone else, but only an idiot would suggest that we invade them.

Many in the pro-war camp are simply fear-mongering. We Americans suffered a great psychic blow on the 11th, and that's being taken advantage of to pursue a personal agenda.

Re:Are you *daft*?

[bnenning]

Saddam's missles can barely reach Israel, much less the US.

True, but chemical and biological weapons can be sold to the highest bidder and smuggled into the US.

you've also failed to explain why Iraq is more of a threat than Iran, North Korea, Pakistan or even China.

I'm not saying they are. Iran and North Korea are also on the "axis of evil" list, so don't think we're ignoring them. But Iraq is the only one of these for which conventional military force is a reasonable option.

And no, "because they broke UN resolutions" is not a valid reason.

Correct, the UN has pretty well established its irrelevance. The reason is that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to Americans. You may disagree, and that's fine. But then you're taking the chance that these weapons will not find their way into the US (or other countries) and be used against civilians. Disarming Iraq by force is actually the *safer* choice.

Re:Are you *daft*?

[0x0d0a]

You don't have to support the war. Just don't stand in the way.

Why not? I don't agree with it. None of the people I've talked to at my university agree with it. The professors I've talked to are strongly against it. I don't see why I should support something that, as far as I can tell, is only supported by the stupid propaganda-influenced in the country.

Support the troops, the last thing they want is to put their life on the line to save your sorry ass who thinks they're job is meaningless...

Supporting the troops means wanting them not to be hurt, not wanting us to continue fighting or to crush Iraq.

Anyone thinking Saddam would comply with a peace offer is on crack! History has already proven he wouldn't...

No -- Saddam wants very much to be at peace. He simply doesn't want to be so under onorous conditions. If we pulled out and simply said "We're willing to stop fighting if you are as well", Saddam would most certainly stop.

He wasn't supposed to have ANY. And what about the unreported drones? Ah, that's just dirt we can dust under the rug.

Do tell? We aren't supposed to be flying armed unmanned drones into countries that don't want us there controlled by non-military intelligence elements, and simply murder people (along with innocents that were in the wrong place at the wrong time) because we *think* (sans trial) that they are a member of an organization that has members that crashed a plane into a US office building. You can't say the US is taking some sort of moral high ground in this, because they aren't.

Tell that to the victims of 9/11... Who would have thought on 9/10/2001 that terrorists from across the globe would be killing thousands of people in the US tomorrow?

Funny how said terrorists aren't from Iraq, aren't associated with Iraq, and were mostly from the strongest US ally in the region, Saudi Arabia. Gee, could be because of the puppet government we keep propped up there...nah.

Do you mind if I quote you if an Iraqi led terrorist attack on US soil occurs?

Now? After we just made a massive unprovoked attack on the Iraqi people which they have no remote chance of responding to via conventional warfare? Hell, no. See my posts above -- we're bringing problems on *ourselves* by running out and attacking countries.

Re:Are you *daft*?

[0x0d0a]

True, but chemical and biological weapons can be sold to the highest bidder and smuggled into the US.

By any number of countries. There are lots of ways to kill someone, and the United States is the largest arms exporter in the world. Funny, that.

I'm not saying they are. Iran and North Korea are also on the "axis of evil" list, so don't think we're ignoring them.

You mean "Bush ignoring them". I sure as hell wasn't paying any attention to North Korea before Bush decided to play cowboy.

Correct, the UN has pretty well established its irrelevance.

As in "they failed to cave in to US demands, despite the opposition of most of the rest of the world"? That makes it irrelevant, eh?

But then you're taking the chance that these weapons will not find their way into the US (or other countries) and be used against civilians.

You know, if we weren't an enormous arms producer, and hadn't trained and equipped terrorists in the *past* against other countries -- bin Laden was assisted by the United States against the USSR, remember -- it might be easier to take this more seriously.

Re:Are you *daft*?

[bnenning]

By any number of countries.

Yes, with Iraq having a substantially higher probability of exporting such weapons than, say, Paraguay.

I sure as hell wasn't paying any attention to North Korea before Bush decided to play cowboy.

Well, that's not your job. But I prefer that our leaders take notice of psychopaths with nuclear weapons (and not assist them in development of said weapons, as our previous administration did).

As in "they failed to cave in to US demands, despite the opposition of most of the rest of the world"

As in they unanimously agreed that Saddam had blatantly violated the terms of the cease-fire and numerous resolutions, and not only refused to do anything about it, but (tried to) refuse to let us and our allies do anything about it.

You know, if we weren't an enormous arms producer, and hadn't trained and equipped terrorists in the *past* against other countries

Irrelevant. Yes, we helped some unsavory characters in the past because of our struggle against communism. Just like at one time we allied with Stalin. (Hopefully skirting the edge of Godwin there). Maybe in retrospect it was a mistake, but the fact is that it's done and we have to deal with the present.

Re:Are you *daft*?

[0x0d0a]

Yes, with Iraq having a substantially higher probability of
exporting such weapons than, say, Paraguay.

So you consider "possibility of exporting weapons in the future which
may be used against the United States" as grounds for *war*? I'll bet
every country in the world with arms manufacturers (*including* the
United States) has supplied enemies of the United States with
weaponry.

Well, that's not your job. But I prefer that our leaders take
notice of psychopaths with nuclear weapons (and not assist them in
development of said weapons, as our previous administration did).

It's lovely how every world leader that we have friction with ends up
being branded as a psychopath. I'm sorry, but there's not that much
correlation with insanity. Kim Jong Il is eccentric, perhaps, but
hardly a psychopath.

As for assisting with nuclear weapons production, that's bullshit, and
I strongly suspect that you're aware of it. Assisting a country in
building clean energy sources is very much legitimate, *especially*
when the reactors being built are useless for producing weapons-grade
matter (unlike the existing reactors that they are replacing). If you
can believe that Bush didn't know that Kim had a nuclear weapons
program for years, I don't see how you find Clinton not knowing being
entirely implausible.

And by "not paying attention" I mean that North Korea is hardly any
kind of immediate threat to the United States, and branding it as a
member of an "axis of evil" is just stupid.

As in they unanimously agreed that Saddam had blatantly violated
the terms of the cease-fire and numerous resolutions, and not only
refused to do anything about it, but (tried to) refuse to let us and
our allies do anything about it.

Okay, first of all, this is hardly abnormal. The UN stance is that
war is a last-ditch effort.

Saddam violated international law as regards us? Take a look at this
facinating document, where someone went to the trouble of documenting
all of *our* violations of international law as regards Iraq here.

What if the UN enforced international law the way you want them to, by
declaring open season on violators? They say "Hell, anyone who wants
to take potshots at the United States is free to go for it?" I'm
using your own criteria...

The stated goal of the United Nations is to try to work toward peace.
Nobody wanted a World War III. The United Nations is at least aiming
for a pretty obviously good goal.

Irrelevant. Yes, we helped some unsavory characters in the past
because of our struggle against communism. Just like at one time we
allied with Stalin. (Hopefully skirting the edge of Godwin
there). Maybe in retrospect it was a mistake, but the fact is that
it's done and we have to deal with the present.

So why is it irrelevant when *we* are involved with terrorism, and
should be judged innocent after the fact, and not anyone else?

Some of the people here are struggling against secular capitalist
government, which they view as dangerous and morally bankrupt, and
something that spreads easily. Very much the same way we viewed
communism. Why does this carte blanche to do anything to fight
against opposing ideologies only apply to us, and not to them?

Re:Are you *daft*?

[geekee]

"Funny how said terrorists aren't from Iraq, aren't associated with Iraq, and were mostly from the strongest US ally in the region, Saudi Arabia. Gee, could be because of the puppet government we keep propped up there...nah."
Tell that to the million people Saddam has killed. Oh wait you can't because they're dead.

Re:Are you *daft*?

[kcelery]

True, but chemical and biological weapons can be sold to the highest bidder and smuggled into the US.

You need not worry whether the price is CIF or FOB. The damn thing can be manufactured locally.

Re:Are you *daft*?

[0x0d0a]

Maybe also because Saddam hasn't killed a million people while he has been in power?

In addition, in the past hundred years, the US has killed far, far more people than Iraq has. Mortality numbers are against you.

Re:About time.

[f97tosc]

This should have happened 10 years ago.

You are absolutely right. By now, almost everybody agrees.

But did you have the insight to say so then? Almost nobody did. Those few who did were ridiculed as war-mongers and unilaterals against international cooperation. Of course, the UN did not support such an action, in particular not the French (who, by the way, initially suggested that Iraq should be allowed to keep parts of Kuwait).

Tor

Ok...

[inertia187]

...this looks like a re-run. Where's the shock-and-awe?? Stay tuned, I assume.

I'm for the war... but..

[billethius]

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.

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[OneFix]

Simple...

The US uses their WMD as defense only...the US protects many smaller countries and we will not use anything unless there is due cause.

On the other hand, Sadam is a mad man and he has killed many of his own ppl...he is most likely to use his WMDs as an offensive weapon...probably against a mostly helpless nation (like Kuwait)...

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[Phosphor3k]

Maybe that we don't have a history of using them on our own population as well as our neighbors?

Yes, we should disarm, and we are, but we are doing it slowly. If we dumped all our Nukes right now, do you think North Korea with increase or decrease the speed of their nuke program? I'd wager they would increase the speed.

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[RelliK]

The US uses their WMD as defense only

And how exactly does one use WMD for "defense only"? A weapon of mass destruction has only one purpose. It is interesting how the propaganda parrots do not hesitate to condemn Iraq's use of chemical weapons but always find a justification for US's use of nuclear weapons -- on a civilian population, mind you!

On the other hand, Sadam is a mad man and he has killed many of his own ppl.

With your support! Who the fuck do you think provided the chemical and biological weapons to Iraq? Why, it was the good old US of A! You give WMD to a madmen and what do you expect him to do with them?

Did US protest when Saddam used chemical weapons -- back in the 80's mind you? Did it issue a condemnation? Nope. For propaganda parrots to come out now -- almost 20 years since Saddam used the chemical weapons -- and codemn him is hypocritical beyond belief.

You see, back in the 80's Iraq was US's ally. At the time Iran's dictator -- whom CIA had installed back in 1953 -- had just been overthrown, so US needed someone to bitchslap Iran. Iraq was a convenient ally.Of course US military contractors did not hesitate to profit from the war by selling weapons to both sides...

Oh, and speaking of dictators, I wonder if the new democratic government of Iraq will be of the same sort of democracy that you brought to Iran (or Guatemala, or Chile, or...)

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[canadian_right]

Much of the world does not agree that "due cause" is preceeding the current USA attak on Iraq. For myself the most disturbing part of the USA attack on Iraq is the idea that the USA can premptively attack anyone who makes them uneasy. Saying this a continuation of the 1990 gulf war (and other similiar arguments) are just sophistry.

Can anyone explain what about Iraq has scared the USA so much that they are willing to completely ignore most of the rest of the world's opinion regarding attacking Iraq? I don't believe for a second this is about oil - something has scared the crap out of the current USA administration.

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[Gortbusters.org]

Let's face it, we need superman for that one.

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[m1a1]

What's different about us?

You conveniently forget that we have not signed a peace fire agreement saying we will disarm. Sadam has.

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[ehiris]

What's different about us?

We don't have a psycho dictator governing the country.

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[Tailhook]

"What's different about us?"

If you don't know, you're part of the problem.

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[cyril3]

The US is about to fire 3000 large guided explosives into a relatively small piece of iraq. when your arse is strewn into 1000 pieces about the desert and your house and that of your 2000 closest friends is in 2001 heaps on the ground it is difficult to see what the functional difference is between one or two really immense bombs and 3000 little ones.

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[socialist fish]

Thank you for answering this idiot with some clue.

I will also add some interventions of the US:

Almost any country in southamerica had its sovereign and democratically-elected government replaced with a military dictatorship, all of them promoted from the US, all of them defeated human rights.

Here in argentina we had 30k people dissappeared (torturated , killed and their body hidden) by a government which the US supported.

Remember Panamá, do you know why Panamá exists as an independent country?

And I'm forgetting about Haití, República Dominicana and Nicaragua. The three were occupied by the US forces: 19, 9 and 21 years respectively. After that bloody dictatorships were enforced: Duvalier, Trujillo and Somoza. Oh yeah, ol' good democracy!

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[cyril3]

No but he is only a heartbeat away form the job.

and he has an undisclosed location just like saddamm

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[bucky0]

And how exactly does one use WMD for "defense only"? A weapon of mass destruction has only one purpose. It is interesting how the propaganda parrots do not hesitate to condemn Iraq's use of chemical weapons but always find a justification for US's use of nuclear weapons -- on a civilian population, mind you!
I wouldn't have a problem, nor do I think a vast majority of the world would have a problem with Saddam posessing WMD, except for the fact that he signed an agreement strictly forbidding him from doing so. Several countries have WMD and we're not jumping down their throats because they havn't been prohibited. Also, when we dropped nuclear weapons on japan, we had a tough choice before us, either use this newfangled atomic weapon to scare the japaneese into surrendering, or risk hundreds of thousands of american lives in a beachfront assault of the mainland(keeping in mind that said assault would probably still result in many civilian casualties).

On the other hand, Sadam is a mad man and he has killed many of his own ppl. With your support! Who the fuck do you think provided the chemical and biological weapons to Iraq? Why, it was the good old US of A! You give WMD to a madmen and what do you expect him to do with them?

I agree that it was a ridiculusly stupid thing for us to do, but that still doesnt excuse his actions. Those weapons wouldn't have harmed anyone if he hadn't chosen to use them, just like the weapons that gun owners keep locked up, weapons that countries posess etc...(excluding stealing etc..) I'm curious, in your mind, does us giving weapons to Iraq(or anyone else) remove all culpability from Iraq?

Did US protest when Saddam used chemical weapons -- back in the 80's mind you? Did it issue a condemnation? Nope. For propaganda parrots to come out now -- almost 20 years since Saddam used the chemical weapons -- and codemn him is hypocritical beyond belief.

Although I don't know enough about the incident your talking about, if he used that weapon on a military target during the iran-iraq war, it's a completely different situation than Saddam gassing an entire city of his own civilians. War is war, and whatever means are necessary(within war crimes guidelines) to shut down the opposing force in order to protect your own. cheers-

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[Citizen of Earth]

A world with NO weapons of mass destruction would be much better off.

Yes, we must disarm all western nations of all weapons of mass destruction. Then, we must all learn to speak (North) Korean.

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[Big Toe]

Not that I'm a fan of WMD or anything, but nukes and other fear inspiring weapons do have a defensive purpose. Watch "Dr. Strangelove" or take a PolySci international arms class and the answer becomes fairly clear. WMDs are defensive because they cause a mutually acceptable stalemate of power. During the Cold War the USSR had a ton of ICBMs and so did the USA. But nobody was stupid enough to use them for obvious reasons. The fear of ICBMs or all-out nuclear warfare creates a fear that prevents governments from being idiots. In fact adding nuclear capabilities to submarines even further improves the situation since even if the USA or USSR could attack and destroy the enemy completely, the submarines would always be there to launch a backup attack.

Granted, thinking a WMD could be used in a defensive manner is a confusing twist of logic, but if you think more along the lines of the psychological effect they have on countries, it makes a lot more sense.

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[sxpert]

hell, what about Cuba, where the CIA installed Castro, who bit them back after a while

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[Chris Y Taylor]

"Who the fuck do you think provided the chemical and biological weapons to Iraq? Why, it was the good old US of A!"

Care to give any proof of that statement? Other than "everyone else I know says it, so it must be true." Sixty-two thousand repetitions does NOT make a truth, no matter how much you wish it did.

Acording to SIPRI (http://www.sipri.se/) the number one arms supply for Iraq from 1973 to 1990 has been the Soviet Union for $25 billion worth of arms, followed by France and China at $5 billion each.

I wonder what else of your belief system is based on "commonly known facts" that you have never investigated.

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[skeptikos]

Don't be impatient. We are getting there.

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[juhaz]

You VERY conveniently forget who didn't only force Saddam onto that agreement on a gun pipe, but actually used that gun before.

A contract forced is not valid by any means. Bombing someone to stone age and then beat them to agreement threatening more violence if they don't comply is not a very convincing argument.

Re:I'm for the war... but..

[juhaz]

How about, "You cross our border and we launch." Was that so hard to figure out?

That works both ways. I assume that if small Iraqi special ops team now that you're ONCE AGAIN crossed their border would smuggle a WMD(s) into US and activate them, you and the rest of the US population would think like you hint in this post and admit it was justified and defence only?

Re:About time.

[houseofmore]

"Saddam should have been taken out in 1991"

You don't honestly believe that if you remove Saddam there wont be any more of the so called 'evil doers' to take his place? You can't be so naive to think that killing peoples fathers, brothers and mothers will actually induce a population that smiles wholeheartedly in the fact of America?

Re:Iraq, Arrakis

[Coolfish]

the spice must flow..

err, oil.

Terrorism can not be defeated

[Gorimek]

Terrorism is different from Nazism and Communism in that it is a military tactic that anyone can use. Which means it can never be defeated. Which means the War on Terrorism, and the "exceptional war time" security measures need never be lifted.

This is very similar to the totalitarian tactics described in Orwells 1984. I know it's a tired cliche, but read the book and compare!

Not yet...

[YrWrstNtmr]

Keep your pants on. This is a shot at a 'target of opportunity'. Just a little softening up.

The main attack, when/if it comes, will be unmistakable.

However you feel, in favor or against....

[siasl]

VOTE in 2004. More is at risk then we have seen for a couple generations..... scientia est potentia

Who was in the initial bunker...

[Mezzrow]

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 Treason:

[Jett]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt

What is this story doing on SLASHDOT ??

[Macka]

This "news" is going to be getting enough air time on TV and coverage on every paper in the world over the next few days!

Can we please have SLASHDOT declared a 'war free zone', so that the 'Nerds' of this world have somewhere to go to escape it all for a bit when we feel like a break.

U.N.

[jhunsake]

The USA should withdraw from the United Nations, as it's absolutely fucking worthless.

Re:U.N.

[cranos]

I agree, its a shame really, it had so much potential and for a while there it was doing good, but now its just the tool of the cynical and ignorant. Ohh you meant the UN was useless did you, whoops.

Re:U.N.

[jhunsake]

All the better, it would save us (the USA) a lot of money and time, since we don't benefit at all from being a member.

Re:U.N.

[jhunsake]

I think so. I've always wanted to be a "Holy Minion"! My dream has come true...

Re:U.N.

[anonymous cupboard]

Organisations like the World Bank and the WTO are part of the UN. US businessed benefit from WB financed projects and definitely from their access to international markets facilitated by the WTO.

Re:U.N.

[jhunsake]

I'm sorry but you're full of shit. The World Bank has wasted tons of our money. Do a little search on Google for that one. The WTO frequently makes decisions that aren't in our national interests (more frequently than not, which really isn't unexpected given it's nature).

Re:U.N.

[anonymous cupboard]

You probably don't understand how the World Bank works. What happens is that WB contracts must be placed with donor countries. Perhaps with the headquarters in Washington, US firms get more than their fair share of the contracts.

As for the WTO, it helps put into place multlateral trade agreements. This means instead of individually negotiating trade treaties with every country, one agreement gives you access to all the other members markets. If youy feel that the WTO has been making judgements against the US, yes that is correct, but at the same time, it has made judgements against other countries (the EU bananas)

There are many other organisations coming under the UN as well, for example the ITU. Again it sets a framework for the clearing of international call costs as well as setting standards and regulating communications.

Yes, the UN has its problems (like any large organisation) but it is better than the alternative.

Re:U.N.

[hughk]

The thing about the World Bank is that it is large and bureacratic and probably wastes too much money on administration. OTOH, with its headquarters in DC, it is in good company.

Re:U.N.

[jhunsake]

Yes, I do understand how the World Banks works. And if you would do some research into history, you'd see how many US taxpayer dollars have ended up in dictators and warlords' hands through World Bank deals. I'm not saying it doesn't do some good, but the US wastes an aweful lot of money on it.

Why do I care if the WTO equally screws over other countries? All I care about it is it hurting the USA. If you punch some other kid before you punch me, it doesn't make it hurt any less.

What is the alternative? Governments actually acting in the best interests of its own citizens rather than worrying about others?

Re:U.N.

[jhunsake]

The difference being that usually when the US government wastes money, it is still putting it into the US economy. When the WTO wastes money, my taxpayer dollars go to some degenerate on the other side of the planet.

Re:U.N.

[hughk]

In either case, your tax dollars end up in the Cayman Islands or Switzerland.

Re:U.N.

[anonymous cupboard]

One of the reasons behind the international aid agencies is enlighteneed self-interest. If my neighbour is desperate and sick, then I can suffer because not only will he not buy anything from me, he may rob me. If my neighbour is sick, I can be infected too.

The other thing is fairnesss. We have it built in. We are more likely to act in a way that is better for the sake of the community if we see others who get out of line being disadvantaged. This is something that is built into the way we behave in society. In short, it goes for countries too. The rule of law is of paramount importance and is a vital difference between the US and Iraq.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[voiceofthewhirlwind]

It wouldn't be hard for the troops to think if you're against the war you're against them. I know it's possible to support the troops but protest the war, but it's hard to convey both at once.

I'm sure the government encourages exactly that sort of confusion. If they can turn people-vs-government into hippies-vs-soldiers the administration can avoid a lot of flack.

Surrender? How? I can't read english!

[c4tp's friend]

CNN is reporting the US is already taking in defectors. But, the surrender leaflets are in english. I would like to know how many Iraqi soldiers can read and write the english language.

Re:Surrender? How? I can't read english!

[c4tp's friend]

But, how do YOU know for sure? It says 'millions' have been distributed right underneath the English version. This leads me to believe the 'millions' are in English.

Re:Surrender? How? I can't read english!

[Steve B]

all our leaflets are in english AND arabic

They should probably drop some with those speaker chips they put in greeting cards, to cover folks who can't read whether it's English, Arabic, or Swahili.

Re:About time.

[DataPath]

The persian gulf war ended in a cease-fire, with cease-fire terms imposed on Iraq. Some of the terms imposed a no-fly zone that Iraq never respect, a prohibition of weapons of mass destruction, including missiles with long-range capability, which they were found to possess about a month ago, and several other terms, some I believe involved the Kurds.

It didn't solve a lot because UN only treats symptoms, not diseases.

ABC News Report

[abcxyz]

The first salvo was a barrage of 40 tomahawk cruise missiles and attacks by F-15 airplanes in a surgical military strike against a "target of opportunity" near Baghdad, believed to include Iraqi leaders, U.S. officials said.
Attacks on Iraq were not planned until a later time, but American intelligence revealed possible targets, so U.S. leaders decided to strike early, sources told ABCNEWS.

"On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance," President Bush said in an address to the nation.

"We have no ambition in Iraq except to remove a threat and restore control in that country to its own people," Bush said.

Air raid sirens began howling just before daybreak, followed by about 10 minutes of anti-aircraft fire, according to ABCNEWS' Richard Engel, who is in Baghdad.

Later, another series of explosions could be heard outside the city, and subsequent bursts of explosions erupted periodically.

It was unclear exactly what the missiles hit, but sources said they were "regime targets," perhaps palaces that house the Iraqi leadership.

First official word of the attacks came from White House press spokesman Ari Fleischer around 9:45 p.m. ET.

"The opening stages of the disarmament of the Iraqi regime have begun," Fleischer told reporters, before walking away from the podium.

you bought "sabbatum"?

[mekkab]

How is it? :)

I think that's better than what I have- a sabbath doing war pigs live- BUT with Ronnie James Dio singing! yeccchh! MP3s are bad for your health, kids.

Re:you bought "sabbatum"?

[Ozymandias_KoK]

I don't recall...where in the song is "Look out!"

For those who havn't seen the footage:

[KalvinB]

I'll be posting various clips from the news (including Bush's latest speech) at

http://www.icarusindie.com/waroniraq/

No one is gung ho about killing Iraqis and the fact someone wrote a letter pointing it out shows just how out of touch they are. 70%+ of people polled on MSNBC today are for the war to GET SADDAM. GOT IT. WE'RE GUNG HO TO GET SADDAM. NOT IRAQIS. Maybe if people would stop shouting "NANANANANA I'M OPEN MINDED" while covering their ears every time pro-war people speak they'd be less prone to make fools of themselves by writting such ill informed dribble.

Way to succumb to the anti-war BS and miss the boat. I'm proud to be an American. It's great to be a part of a country that takes an active role in taking out leaders who oppress people.

Ben

Re:For those who havn't seen the footage:

[Guy Harris]

I'm proud to be an American. It's great to be a part of a country that takes an active role in taking out leaders who oppress people.

Except, of course, when we help put them in power, or don't take them out.

A chance to make up for past injustices

[mbkkelsey]

The only merit that this war has is that it will remove Saddam Hussein. It is a chance to make up for grievous past mistakes made by the United States in its foreign policy. If the Iraqi people are fully and unconditionally supported by America in the next few decades, Iraq has a chance to once again become one of the most stable and prosperious regions in the Middle East.

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.

Re:A chance to make up for past injustices

[atlantis_tin]

The war is only justified if it kills fewer people than would have died in the remainder of Saddam's rule.

Since when did you become a trader of lives?

Who gave you the right to decide what's the fair number of deaths to justify this war?

Are you willing to take responsibility for anything that happens in it? If not, then just shut the fuck up!

Re:A chance to make up for past injustices

[joeybananas]

The left's inability to make fundamental distinctions astounds me. America did use nuclear weapons against Japan. If was brutal and in some moments shameful, but Pearl Harbor was Japan's idea.

President Bush is not trying to make up for past failures. Although, I guess we failed when we liberated France in WWII. They aren't exactly grateful.

If America doesn't give a shit about the rest of the world why do we send billions of dollars in aid around the world? American tax payers feed more hungry people than any other nation on earth

Take a look at what John F. Kennedy (everyone's all-time favorite Democrat) said during the Cuban Missile Crisis and get off this unjustified war routine. Read the 8th paragraph.

Re:A chance to make up for past injustices

[visionsofmcskill]

"AMERICA has WMD and AMERICA has used them against civilian populations twice - in Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

That is hardly a valid reason for iraq to have or use WMD (weapons of mass destruction). The use of the atomic bomb in 1945 was unprecedented and wasn't banned by international treaties and/or laws, nor had the US signed any regulations/resolutions banning their use of said weapons, AND The US happened to be involved in a WORLD WAR that the japanese dispite their loosing at that point werent going to give up.

To equate the US using Nukes in the conclusion of a WORLD WAR (WWII) to saddams possesing of WMD or his willingness to use them is ludricris.

I as well feel that bush makes any US intrests sound ridiculous.... but dont help him.

The real key here is the US is doing the dirty work of fifty or more years of mistakes that need cleaning.... And the US is doing them for nothing more than oil. We all know it, even if we dont want to talk about it. Saddam needs to go if anything is to get even slightly better for the iraqi people... and the only ones willing to do this dirty little job are the greedy americans... us...

Im proud to be a US citizen, and i believe that this war as sad as it may be, is necesary, i think our president is a moron, but i also think the world should step back and realize something.

At least saddam will be removed
At least the Iraqi people will have a slightly better ruler.... and a chance at a democratic republic to respresent the needs of THEIR people.

-- Enter the sig --

Re:A chance to make up for past injustices

[flacco]

The war is only justified if it kills fewer people than would have died in the remainder of Saddam's rule.

That's a pretty stupid metric.

For starters, who comes in after Hussein shits the bed? One of his sons? If you believe the news reports, Uday is even more of an animal than his father.

Secondly, measuring by numbers of lives alone is ridiculous. How many people died in WWII? Is it more than would have died had Hitler been appeased? Quite possibly.

And, as distasteful as it is, the fact remains that the US has vital interests in the middle east - among them the war on terror, and OIL. Yes, oil. Without foreign oil imports, life for the average US citizen would become virtually pre-industrial. I'm not talking about having to give up the SUV and buy a Geo Metro - think late 1800's: horse-drawn wagons, wood stoves, etc. It's a VITAL INTEREST of the US to keep oil available at a reasonable cost. That doesn't mean we go in and plunder oil from the countries that produce it; but we make clear to the countries that produce it that we will not stand for malicious actions on their part that would UTTERLY PARALYZE our society. Is that wrong in terms of international law? Possibly - but when the very economic viability of a society is at risk, you can expect that it's going to flex some muscles to keep things reasonable.

And don't kid yourself that it's just the US that benefits from these low oil prices: as has been repeatedly stated in the press, the world market for oil is a commodity market. When the price is low for us, it's low for the rest of the world too.

Re:A chance to make up for past injustices

[andymac]

I agree with much of your post. One thing that seems to often be (conveniently) forgotten is that 20 years ago, the US was *actively* supporting Iraq in it's conflict against Iran. By actively supporting we're talking money, arms, training. Oh and turning a blind eye when Saddam uses biological weapons on his own people (Kurds).

Re:A chance to make up for past injustices

[LordMyren]

How do you factor in the health care travesty? Bombings wiped out existing civilian Iraqi infrastructure 12 years ago, US Sanctions kept them from rebuilding it, and importing virtually all medical supplies. Well over half a million under the age of 5 died as a result.

Iraq will presumably be allowed to rebuild its once top notch health care (people came from far and wide for Iraqi health care) after the war. Once upon a time it was extremely socialist: care was rarely denied. We were the cause of this pain in the first place. I sense it will never regain its former glory. Capitalism will set in.

The exact same goes for education, although I suspect over 500,000 children under the age of 5 did not die because of its destruction. And education continues, since it relies less on physical means than the medical profession.

We blew up a 1st world nation once. We didnt let them rebuild. Now we're back for more.

Myren

saddam is a threat to the *world*

[Theolojin]

I am sick and tired of hearing people state that Saddam is not a threat to the United States or any other country.

"What if he [Saddam] fails to comply [with disarmament] and we fail to act? He will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then go right on building up his arsenal. Someday, someway, I guarantee you, he'll use that arsenal."

The above statement was spoken by none other than former President Bill Clinton in *1998*. If (read since) the statement is true, why did he (Clinton) not act five years ago? Why is George W. Bush now criticised by Tom Daschle et al for allegedly failing to diplomatically solve the problem? This problem has unfortunately been allowed to fester and grow. We now have an American president willing to use America's power and might to once again fight evil and totalitarianism to protect fellow humans. This war is just and necessary. After his defeat, Saddam will no longer be able to harm, rape, murder, etc. a single person, let alone millions (as he has done) of his own people.

Re:It's about damn time

[0x0d0a]

And how long, I wonder, before the next dictator and his thugs are in place.

Actually, Bush is likely to lose re-election at this point.

Does anyone find it odd...

[cr0sh]

That in regards to the "explosions" they are "showing" happenning in Baghdad right now - that the camera seems to be facing away from them? I mean, you can see the flashes light up the side of the mosque in the center of the frame. Why are the cameras facing away? Are there cameramen with the cameras? Are they remote cams faced in one direction? Are they facing away for other reasons? The explosions are large, sound large, anyhow - why aren't we (ie, the American people) being allowed to see the destruction that some of us implicitly (and explicitly) support?

Re:Does anyone find it odd...

[xee]

the destruction that some of us implicitly (and explicitly) support?

What is implicit or explicit support? Sounds kinda fishy...

Re:Does anyone find it odd...

[Guppy06]

"Are there cameramen with the cameras?"

Are there government minders with the cameramen?

The Iraqi government doesn't want:

• The US to have confirmation that its attacks hit the mark.
• Anybody else to have confirmation that the US attacks hit the mark (especially the Iraqi people).
• The US to be shown blowing something up that isn't a hospital, mosque, school, etc.

Re:Does anyone find it odd...

[cehardin]

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?

Re:Does anyone find it odd...

[Gortbusters.org]

You would think with every gort strapped to their TV for the night, they would at least give the people what they want: some big explosions on camera.

Maybe it's not time to see the exploding people.. yet.

Re:Does anyone find it odd...

[madcow_ucsb]

Well, I imagine the cameras are mounted on the tops of buildings for the most part (you probably don't want to be a cameraman standing outside as a war starts around you - it's common sense). But in any case, MSNBC anyway addressed this - everyone was expecting the first attack to be within downtown Baghdad. But these were on the outskirts. The anchors said that the cameras had been positioned to provide a good vantage point for where they thought the action would be...unfortunately for them, they guessed wrong.

Re:Does anyone find it odd...

[cr0sh]

True, didn't think about that but you are correct - f'ing propaganda - politics and war SUCK.

Re:Does anyone find it odd...

[cr0sh]

I am not agonizing over this, and the way things look the cameras look like they are mounted and pointing in one position, strangely enough at what appear to be "significant" targets, I suppose (religious centers and downtown). I still would have rather seen a shaky video camera type image with the cameraman panning and yelling "holy $$%&%!" while ducking. Personally, I hate this sham war, I don't think it is going to do us or our future any good, and will likely set us back in some ways (diplomacy, in the least). But if I have to see this damn report on every damn channel of my telly, give me something interesting to watch. Perhaps if we could see the actual live destruction and pain of war, we would be lest apt to wage it (yeah, I know, utopian vision there - one would think the pain and sufferring caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been enough - for fsck sake, people's skin literally *fell* off - people were *boiled* in rivers, trying to escape the heat - I have not been in a war, nor served in the military - but I don't need to do either of those things to see that war causes pain and suffering, regardless of the reasons for waging it)...

Re:Does anyone find it odd...

[Matrix2110]

Interestingly enough the news agencies expected a massive strike like in the beginning of the first gulf war, if that had happened it would not have mattered which direction the cameras were facing. Also notice that their are several live cameras placed about the area, I found that suprising myself. There will be more footage available as soon as the regular (tape based) camera crews figure out how to smuggle the footage out of Bagdad. Be patient, there will be lots of amazing video to come. This will be the most televised war in history.

Re:Does anyone find it odd...

[bettiwettiwoo]

... that Peter Arnett of CNN looks like something out of a Dracula movie? Has he spent the decade since the 1991 Gulf War buried in Baghdad ... or merely in a coffin with soil from his homeland?

On an even less somber note: it appears the internet entire has been slashdotted by the Iraqi crisis.

Re:Does anyone find it odd...

[goon america]

"Dude, get a grip. they don't have 356 cameras to point in every possible angle."

WHAT ARE YOU HIDING IN THE OTHER 4???

Re:Does anyone find it odd...

[horza]

Indeed. The flashes seem to last a long time to us because it burns into our retina for a short while. Try going outside with a normal camera and taking pictures of a spectacular lightening storm. I once wasted half a film, thinking I'd caught at least a couple. Zip. Nada. By the time they turn to catch the flash it will have faded. And if they kept trying to catch every flash the camera would be careening around making you sea-sick. The only thing you can do is plonk it down in the general direction.

Phillip.

Jerry Bruckheimer oughta plan these things....

[saviorsloth]

maybe it's just me, but when i heard the 48 hour deadline, i was expecting that it would be some times square dropping the ball type shit. you know, the clock hits zero, Bush comes on and gives a stirring speech about war and freedom etc, and as soon as he's done you see the might of the american military unleashed in a brutal flurry of cruise missles and whatever. not this little whimper of a start of a war

Re:Camera Showing a intersection with Trafic Light

[stefanlasiewski]

I'm amazed that the birds are still chirping.

From the explosions, it's clear that the military has now gone beyond the "Target of Convenience" point in time.

Unless I'm hearing explosions caused bya coup inside Iraq...

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[stratjakt]

If it was about oil and money, it'd be much cheaper to lift the embargo, and turn a blind eye to Saddams persecution of his own people, and his funding of suicide attacks in Israel.

Saddam is a threat to you. If America was like Iraq, or if the Bush administration was half what you'd like to fantasize it is, you're throat would be slit and you'd be dead in the street.

The ANTI-WAR movement is about money and oil. Frances opposal to the US has to do with the 4 billion they have invested in Saddam. Germany has something like 2 billion on the line, Russia 6. The rub is, they cant get their oil so long as there's an embargo. And if the regime changes, they have to compete on the world market for it. Altruism and humanitarianism my ass.

Be a pacifist if you want, but for gods sake don't be so dense.

Here's to a quick victory

[teslatug]

I don't think the war is necessary, but since it has began I hope it will end quickly and without too many lives lost (on any side).

I certainly hope they get Sadam with one of these strikes and spare the Iraki people the pain of having to deal with the war.

I find it very interesting how all the news channels are tripping over themselves trying to get every detail they can, as soon as they can. I can't decide whether it is so that they can get the story out or if they just want to be the top dogs (the equivalent of "first post"). I also can't keep myself from watching the news. It is in a way adictive. I abhor war, yet I am overcome with anticipation. The news media and the administration have really done a good job in getting people interested. Whether you are for or against the war, they have your attention. enough of a rant for now...

Re:Here's to a quick victory

[sxpert]

don't count on this... I'm still waiting to see Osama Bin Laden's scalp

The choice: Ethics or Material Considerations

[repoleved]

Islam says that this is a choice that we all will face. In conflict or in crisis, will we choose what we know to be ethical, or will we choose that which we know will benefit us.

I think that Bush chose material considerations over ethics. It seems to me that he sacrificed his ethics because the Pope himself declared that war with Iraq is a sin, and Bush is publicly Christian. But it is possible that Bush really thinks that he is doing the right thing. Only God and Bush know for sure why Bush is doing this apparently unethical thing.

Anyway, it's a choice we all will have to make before we die, and reflects what kind of person we are. That's life.

Re:The choice: Ethics or Material Considerations

[MikeBabcock]

Just because one person or another is or is not a Christian doesn't mean they support the views of other Christians. The same goes for Muslims, as we should all know since 9/11.

Re:The choice: Ethics or Material Considerations

[repoleved]

Actually, what I said is one of my theories about 9/11 - that those who organised it, whoever the hell they were, made a choice that this was a cause that was more important than ethics. That is because no credible religion or system of ethics condones killing innocent people, yet there are definitely some people who have benefited and will continue to benefit from 9/11 in the material sense.

Re:The choice: Ethics or Material Considerations

[repoleved]

I'm no expert on the Qur'an, but just like anything else, you must take what is said in the right context. Otherwise you will get the wrong message. The Qur'an was revealed 1400 years ago, so you're going to have to work a little bit harder than just reading some translation of it to understand what it is really saying.

Fortunately, the circumstances surrounding the revelation are extremely well documented.

Finally, what you said just goes back to what I said, which is that there is a choice that people need to make between that which benefits them in the material sense and that which is ethically right. I do not doubt that the suicide bombers were assured that their families would be richly taken care of - probably better than they would have been had it not been for their actions. If they knew that what they were doing was ethically wrong, and how could they not, then they made a clear choice.

Even if the bombers themselves were deluded into thinking that what they were doing was ethically right, then one might look further and further up the chain of command. The people at the top had to be pretty smart to organise such an attack, thus one would expect them to know that it was ethically wrong. At some point that mattered, I am sure that someone chose material considerations over ethics.

Re:The choice: Ethics or Material Considerations

[Beliskner]

The sad thing is that people form communities and will usually rally behind their own communities regardless of whether they are the scum of the Earth. Even intellectuals have carnal and emotional attachment to family which makes them unable to kill their own evil people, instead they delude themselves into believing other people are seperate from their own group. This is one of the reasons why the Iraqi people cannot overthrow their Government.

Afghanistan had nothing to lose. If you have nothing to lose then you can do anything.

A democracy is representative of its people - Americans don't make 50-year investments, so Saddam has to be killed fast for the Americans to achieve a success. Otherwise the American MTV people (and therefore Bush) will look elsewhere and the troops will disappear overnight.

Re:The choice: Ethics or Material Considerations

[repoleved]

Hey, good to hear from you again Beliskner!

>The sad thing is that people form communities and will
>usually rally behind their own communities regardless of
>whether they are the scum of the Earth. Even intellectuals
>have carnal and emotional attachment to family which
>makes them unable to kill their own evil people, instead
>they delude themselves into believing other people are
>seperate from their own group. This is one of the reasons
>why the Iraqi people cannot overthrow their Government.

Maybe.

>Afghanistan had nothing to lose. If you have nothing to
>lose then you can do anything.

That would be a logical fallacy, even if it were true that
Afghanistan had nothing to lose, which itself is debateable.

>A democracy is representative of its people -
true

>Americans don't make 50-year investments,
not always true, but I follow

>so Saddam has to be killed fast for the Americans
>to achieve a success. Otherwise the American MTV
>people (and therefore Bush) will look elsewhere and
>the troops will disappear overnight.

If only that were true then I would have one less complaint against
the war. I am afraid, however, that America will never leave
Iraq, because getting rid of Saddam is just the beginning of
what they want to do there.

It is written all over the walls. America is claiming that they
want to protect all of those oil wells because they belong to
the Iraqi people, and because they're banking on the oil wells
to pay for reconstruction.

Conveniently, that implies that America and others will be
"buying" that oil in exchange for Iraq to be reconstructed.

It is hard to believe that this will be a short-term arrangement.

And history tells us that once America sets up bases in a country,
it is damned near impossible to get them out.

The MTV crowd might look elsewhere.. I believe that. But I will
only believe that American forces will be withdrawn, if I see that with
my own eyes.

Re:The choice: Ethics or Material Considerations

[Beliskner]

It is written all over the walls. America is claiming that they want to protect all of those oil wells because they belong to the Iraqi people, and because they're banking on the oil wells to pay for reconstruction.
Conveniently, that implies that America and others will be "buying" that oil in exchange for Iraq to be reconstructed

Precisely. I recommend you read this document.

If a US-sympathetic ruler heads Iraq, then he could collapse OPEC from the inside, and could sell cheap/free oil to the US which would upset the French and Russian oilfield stakeholders. France and Russia may get the money from oil, but at what prce will the oil be sold? Undoubtedly the Americans will bill the Iraqis for invading, like they did to the Kuwaitis. From where can the Iraqis get this money apart from their oil? No arab state has a thriving diversified manufacturing economy. If not for oil, all arab cities may be consumed by the desert from whence they came.

The decadence of their oil tycoons is astonishing, my friend in UAE told me that they buy Mercedes and Rolls-Royces, and then do a wheelie whilst leaning out of the window and lighting a match. Many of these six-figure priced cars get trashed but they don't care because there's plenty of money to go around. These stories are censored in the West because there would be race riots, they're doing this with our petrol money after all.
Good to hear from you also.

Re:No explosions on TV.

[ThePretender]

No no no no... they said "you can't surrender before the French show you how to do it properly!"

Re:About time.

[DataPath]

My vague impression of France's position on war is "avoid it at all costs, at any costs to whomever."

Not to dis the french - they've had a rather bitter history. Having Napoleon (who encouraged the french proletariat to take some power from the nobles) forcibly taken from them by an alliance of European nations seemed to have broken their spirit.

Or Afghanistan...

[MSBob]

How much has Dubya has done to rebuild Afghanistan? Diddly fuck that's how much! Don't expect much of Adolf Bush.

Re:Or Afghanistan...

[jsinger]

STFU. Your baseless namecalling adds nothing to this discussion.

Afghanistan had nothing to rebuild.

Re:Or Afghanistan...

[ArmedGeek]

Afghanistan had nothing to rebuild.

Well, the least we could do is pile the rocks back up like they were.

Re:The Saddest Day In American History

[BlueGecko]

Well as I've posted elsewhere I did what I could, I protested, called my representatives and in the jacked up country that is supposed to be the worlds greatest democracy, I (and many others) got ignored.

I hate to point this out, but in a democracy, the biggest group gets its way. The polls indicate that 60% to 70% of Americans support the action (depending on whose poll you're using). If we had decided not do this, then the warhawks would be bitching about how in the "world's greatest democracy, I (and many others) got ignored." Just because it's a democracy doesn't necessarily mean that things turn out the way that you personally want them to, and that is not a failure of the democracy. This time around, more Americans disagree with you than agree with you. The ones who agree with you are noisy, but outnumbered. My honest apologies, but that is how a democracy works, and I refuse to see this as a failing of American democracy. At worst, what we have here is one hell of a misinterpretation of the United States' role in global affairs by its own citizens. Get them to change their minds and the government will have no choice to follow or to truly give up democracy. Until then, American democracy may stand for something a bit weird, but it does stand.

just reported: the target of opportunity was....

[- rayyyy -]

...saddam hussein himself...just reported by an NBC reporter @ the pentagon

In 1991...

[BawbBitchen]

I am going to say this once and I am not going to respond to anyone. I still keeps me awake at night.

I was in the US Army durining the 1st gulf war.

We went in to Kuwait City early. As the Iraq Army was leaving. There was this orphanage. The soldiers had raped all the girls. Some as young as 8. They killed the workers from the Red Cresent that were there. There was this room in the hotel in downtown. There was a bed frame - metal. On it was a body of a man. Next to it was a bucket of water and a set of car batteries. We found over 50 people that had be killed like that.

I hope Sadam burns in hell.

I believe that peace is a noble cause and I wish that I still can still be as idealist as the rest that are outraged by this war. But I cannot. You seeI have seen the evil that men can do. The only way to a true and lasting peace is for good men to take a stand and fight evil when it appears - period.

I challenge EVERYONE

[mykey2k]

To listen to this and think hard about it.

An Iraqi-born American speaks on WLS-AM Radio Chicago Tuesday morning.

Re:I challenge EVERYONE

[teamhasnoi]

I listened. She tells all those who disagree with the war or the reasons behind it to 'shut up'. Ironically, she uses our first amendment to speak out against our first amendment.

This government she is praising is working hard profiling and illegally detaining people just like her to keep America *safe*.

Lets kill Saddam and get our giant pipelines built already, so we can vote our great 'protector/defender of freedom' the hell out of office.

I'm just curious as to what little dictator the US will sponsor and knock down next.

Re:Support our troops. SHUT UP!

[teamhasnoi]

First of all Shut up with 'Support our Troops'.

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.

Saddam was more dangerous when he had U.S. support

[daemon lover]

We need to understand the situation for what it is. Bush has tried to link Al Qaida unsuccessfully with Iraq so that he can take his war on terrorism to Iraq and get his friends some cheap oil. The world laughed in his face because he had no evidence of any Iraq-Al Qaida ties. Bush was caught spying on the UN offices to coerce the security council to vote with his desired war. They saw through him and rejected him. Saddam is contained and the world agrees the inspections were working. Now that there is going to be chaos in Iraq who knows where those weapons will finally end up.

Yes, Saddam kills and oppresses his own people, but he was doing that much more and with a larger army back in the 1980s with U.S. support. Now we are going to go kill tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians in order to "liberate" them.

Bush is a liar, and a tyrant. He is using our troops to further his corporate and imperialist agenda. Robin Cook, the UK version of Colin Powell, quit Blair's government in protest of the intended atrocities. It's unfortunate that we don't have anybody brave enough in our government to take such a stand.

Get away from your CNN and FOX News and get the whole picture.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:The Saddest Day In American History

[feydakin]

No, you were out voted by people like me supporting this military action..

Few americans have experienced war

[Zane Edwards]

I just got back from Bosnia and was the only time I have been in a place that there has been a recent war. This is absolute insantity. I went to a grave yard in Tuzla where they burried 80 or so young people who were in cafes on a friday night in the center of town. I was looking at the DOB and they were all born before me! ('72) Fsckin insanity. The people who were my age are still in shock. The buildings are sprayed with bullets. buildings demolished. I cant believe with even tv media documenting what is happening people are still pro war.

Re:Saddam Hussein, Dead at 55

[AbRASiON]

Ahhhhhhhhhhh this old joke - so wrong and yet to this day I still find it fantastically funny

I hope they have good reasons

[Sabalon]

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.

Re:I hope they have good reasons

[MikeBabcock]

A well-coordinated SEAL attack came to mind, however it was commented by a CBC reporter (www.cbc.ca) that some of the american special forces have been noted in border countries in civvies ... probably marking targets in Iraq.

Re:I hope they have good reasons

[Efreet]

I imagine that assassinating Saddam wouldn't be very easy to do. He never goes ouside except with a bullet-proof vest and armored hat. He has a bunch of doubles. He sleeps in a different place every night. And finally, he is just plain paranoid.

Mind you, I agree that assasination would probably be one of the best possible ways to end the war with a minimum of casualties. Its just that I don't think we'll be able to do it without occupying Iraq first, defeating the purpose.

Re: I hope they have good reasons

[Black Parrot]

> 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.

Ah, but another month would have made a difference, because disarmament was starting to make tangible progress and another month's delay would have made the invasion seem even more unreasonable than it does now.

Remember, Bush has been singing "regime change" for a whole year now. This isn't about disarmament, disrespect for the UN, tyranny, genocide, or any of that stuff: it's about installing a pro-US government in Baghdad. The doctrine goes back at least to a document Wolfowitz wrote during the Bush(1) era, which Bush(1), unlike his idiot son, was smart enough to reject.

Since 9/11 most of the Bush Administration has been in the grips of a neocon agenda that calls for "benevolently" invading unfriendly nations and setting up pro-US puppet governments. If this one doesn't give us a black eye you can bet your yarbles that they'll be spinning a case for invading someone else next year, probably Iran.

No, wait. Next year's an election year, they'll have to be more careful about public opinion for 8-9 months. Iran will get it's chance in 2005, if we're fool enough not to have a "regime change" here at home in 2004.

Re:I hope they have good reasons

[Sabalon]

Yes...he won't disarm and the UN is like the League of Nations - but is he a threat to the US?

Re:I hope they have good reasons

[juhaz]

Maybe he doesn't disarm because he doesn't have anything armed.

I've yet to see your so-called proof about those WMDs (I do, however know you have plenty of them and have shown will to use them as well)

What we did today

[Enrique1218]

What we did today? We subverted the United Nations. We broke international law. We have hurt the credibility of American leadership. We alienated key allies and partners.
This all for what could happen. 9/11 has really brought out the coward in many of us. We are blindly following Bush's miltiarism. As of a few minutes ago, I no longer have a choice but to give my support because we can not lose to a tyrant, we can not have another Vietnam for the American soldier, for the Iraqi citizen.

just my humble opinion

Re:What we did today

[jebell]

We enforced 18 U.N. resolutions that no one else had the balls to do.

Iraq? Rebuilt? No way

[LinuxXPHybrid]

> may we succeed afterward in rebuilding Iraq the way we succeeded in rebuilding Japan and Germany after World War II.

Not likely. Japan was located at the eastern border of the former communism region. Germany (West Germany) was located at the western border of the former communism region. Two key points; they must have had been rebuilt in order for US to stabilize the western world. Now the communism is gone, US does not need these countries. Look back and recall what's been happening in these two countries for the last 10 years. They have been in depression since Berlin wall, and they don't have much to look for. Why? Because US doesn't need these countries any more.

Iraq? Rebuilt? No way, why should Iraq be rebuilt and prosperous? How does it benefit US? It's Ok for US to see Iraq to stay poor and miserable as long as its leader takes side with US like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (after the war). That's the whole point, right?

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[bsignorelli]

But they don't deserve insults or disrespect either - it's not their fault that the ones calling the shots are idiots.

Here, Here!

Thats the best comment I've read all night. Buy the man a drink and mod him up :)

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[daniellabee]

"Yes, you can protest the war and support the troops, but once action starts, the time for protest has passed."

I agree. I understand that many feel that this war should not happen, but it has begun and there are so many husbands, brothers, wives, daughters etc. fighting for our country and our continued freedom. Living in America we are given the right to choose and I would not want that any other way. Protesting is a choice, but realize people are giving their lives to protect you so please don't protest them. We are lucky to be so free so I am choosing now, as I always have, to support our armed forces because I want to see my friends and family come home exactly as they left... alive.

It sounds funny, doesn't it

[Featureless]

But in five years, when the death toll is deep in the thousands from the festering guerrila resistance to American colonial occupation in the middle east, and the "volunteer" force is a demoralized from spending years as a police force under fire in a hostile and inhospitable environment for what has clearly not been a war for "liberation," and the resignations and awols start coming in droves, all of those vietnam analogies won't be as easy to deride.

No one can predict the future, but we all have to take a decent shot at being judges of character. I'll tell you one thing I'm pretty sure of. If Bush is still in power, and he thinks it will help keep his people on top of that oilbed, he will not hesitate to use the draft.

Re:It sounds funny, doesn't it

[Keebler71]

Dude, Your comments are laughable. American colonial occupation... there is a huge difference in having military bases in a country and being a colonial power.

Re:It sounds funny, doesn't it

[Selanit]

Dude, Your comments are laughable. American colonial occupation... there is a huge difference in having military bases in a country and being a colonial power.

The physical infrastructure of the country will certainly be damaged during the war. How bad that damage will be is anybody's guess -- it could range anywhere from light to extremely heavy. But the organizational infrastructure of the country will also be damaged -- even if all the governmental buildings are still intact, the people who have been running them up to this point probably won't be. Senior officials in the Ba'ath Party will have to go into hiding. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the lower level member went into hiding too -- partially to avoid American troops, but also to avoid domestic political enemies in a vengeful mood.

Also, it would fit Saddam Hussein's style to adopt a "scorched earth" policy. He can't win this war. But he can make its aftermath as difficult as possible, in many ways. Such as: 1) setting oil wells on fire like he did in Kuwait; 2) destroying vital records; 3) murdering his potential successors.

When the dust settles and it's time to start establishing this new democracy that GWB keeps talking about, we're going to have to start well and truly from scratch. Governments take time to build. At the start, the American military will be running the country . . . at least while they work out some kind of interim government to hash out the details of how the new government will work. Given the marked and often violent division of the country's population into ethnic factions, establishing a government capable of representing everybody well enough will take a long time.

In the meantime, continued control over Iraq would have some definite advantages for America. First and foremost, if we could ensure a cheap supply of oil from Iraq, we would become a lot less dependent on other countries, eg Saudi Arabia. That in turn would make it much easier to pursue new foreign policy with regard to the Middle East. What those new policies might be I hesitate to guess; but note that Iraq could serve very nicely as a staging ground for a war with Iran, another member of Bush's "axis of evil." Such considerations make it tempting to drag our feet on the installation of a new, wholly independent government.

At the least, the new government of Iraq will pursue policies that harmonize with America's interests in the region. We'd have to be daft to go to all this trouble if we were just going to install another government that didn't behave friendly to us. At the worst, the new Iraqi government will be nothing but a puppet regime.

When you think of it like that, calling this whole mess a "colonial occupation" isn't laughable -- it's scary. I could be wrong about this. I really, really hope I'm wrong about this. Maybe the new government will get established fairly quickly, and be a truly independent body that takes care of its people and doesn't merely pander to American interests. It's waaay to early to make any sort of judgement. The war is a huge knot of uncertainty in our future. A zillion different things depend on how it goes. Let's all hope it goes well.

Re:It sounds funny, doesn't it

[Featureless]

That was really a pleasure to read.

I would add a few things, just tangents.

Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north will welcome the troops. They will also be busily stringing up Saddam's Ba'ath party officials from lamp posts, and chaining them to their bumpers and dragging them through the streets. It will be funny watching the 101st airborne trying to "keep the peace." I wonder if any "embedded" journalists will be allowed to broadcast footage of the nastier stuff.

I wouldn't be surprised to see oilfields sabotaged in other ways than setting fires. Radioactive contamination would be the brass ring, but there are other options as well. It's not clear whether they have the wherewithal or the resolve for that. But it's got to be on the minds of a number of people tonight. "Serious" contamination of Iraqi oil reserves will put a nasty stain on the whole affair.

The U.N. won't even wait for the dust to settle to start clamoring for democracy in "liberated" Iraq. France, Germany, and Russia will champion the cause. After all, they didn't get their share of the goodies. The U.S. will be in the awkward position of needing to prevent a free and open election, since the majority of Iraqi voters won't be satisfied until their oil industry is nationalized and the white people are gone. The U.S. will thus stretch out military rule as long as possible.

The CIA's local representatives will have a field day weeding out "Saddam loyalists" and other "hostile agents" among the Iraqi populace. Whoo boy.

There are a number of Iraqi contenders for the successor government who have been rather painfully jockeying for position for the past several years. To my knowledge, none of them look very good, but who knows. And there's the matter of U.N. election observers. It will not be as easy as having the village elders trek to Baghdad for a little closed-door conference. Not with the world watching.

It will be interesting to watch how far they go. Or should I say how far they get.

Aside from making shitloads of money both on the military/industrial side and the oil side, I'm not clear on our next move either. One theory is that when we ramp up production again, we will seriously disrespect OPEC's price controls.

OPEC wouldn't like that very much. They would have a number of options; expelling American troops, denominating oil transactions in euros, radical trade sanctions, and not least of which, backing insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. You may see where this is going - these are avenues for the conflict to expand.

Re:About time.

[The Phantom Buffalo]

If the attitudes here are an accurate reflection, We(Americans) are going to be hated no matter what we do. If we're not waging war, we are poisoning other cultures with our ways. We will never win any world popularity contests.

Request for the Moderators

[McCarrum]

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

Re:Today, I'm ashamed...

[ainsoph]

Hey Dittohead!!!!!

Instead of regurgitating drivel, why not study the *LAW* and then realize how we are BREAKING it.

When I watched the president tonight, I heard him become the man he sopposedly opposes.

Oh and fuck off too.

Thanks

uruklink already offline

[js7a]

bovik ~ 8:03pmWed19 > traceroute www.uruklink.net
traceroute to uruk.uruklink.net (62.145.94.235), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
...
7 so-7-0-0.mp1.SanJose1.Level3.net (64.159.1.73) 1.613 ms 1.635 ms 1.595 ms
8 so-0-2-0.bbr1.Washington1.level3.net (64.159.1.86) 72.171 ms 72.009 ms 72.066 ms
9 so-2-0-0.mp1.London2.Level3.net (212.187.128.137) 171.216 ms 171.377 ms 171.291 ms
10 so-2-0-0.mp1.London1.Level3.net (212.187.128.50) 171.357 ms 173.192 ms 171.512 ms
11 so-7-0-0.gar1.London1.Level3.net (212.113.3.2) 171.640 ms 171.517 ms 171.357 ms
12 unknown.Level3.net (212.113.3.26) 171.622 ms 171.681 ms 171.567 ms
13 195.50.116.14 (195.50.116.14) 163.327 ms 163.963 ms 163.427 ms
14 62.32.32.46 (62.32.32.46) 167.269 ms 166.901 ms 167.371 ms
15 * * *
16 * * *...

Re:uruklink already offline

[sploxx]

Actually, I've seen that this will happen and took
a mirror of the uruklink.net/iraq/ website today (12:00 MET).
I anyone is interested in miroring it (I can't provide the bandwidth probably needed), post me your eMail here and I will give you a link to a zip archive.
Just don't want to get my isp angry, that's all.

Re:uruklink already offline

[unborracho]

In related news, there was an apparent attack on Iraqi government servers this evening after a link to their website was posted on slashdot.org. No reports as of yet as to if this was an official government decision part of the American "bombing" campaign.

Re:uruklink already offline

[yppiz]

It's not totally down. I'm in the middle of mirroring it with wget. I'm seeing requests repeat 30+ times (running at a rate of 1 req/sec) before getting a successful copy.

I'll bet someone is running a denial of service attack.

--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

Re:uruklink already offline

[an_mo]

how about pushing it onto freenet how that it seems to be growing?

Re:uruklink already offline

[sploxx]

I've found it. It's at KSK@uruklink-net-iraq.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Mirus Nex]

Sorry, how selfish of me...

God Bless the World!

the first gulf war was necessary though

[Trepidity]

What's often left out is how many civilians suffered as a result of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Thousands of Kuwaitis were taken away to detention camps, and many are still missing, over ten years later. Kuwaiti oil wells were burned, anything in sight looted, and so on. There's a reason that Turkey is wavering on supporting the U.S., but Kuwait has been with us since the beginning -- they've suffered at Saddam's hands, and want him gone. As an added bonus, they hope that some Kuwaiti POWs and kidnapped civilians are still alive in Iraq (500-1,000 are still unaccounted for), and hope that the U.S. invasion will free them.

Re:What does "supporting the troops" mean, exactly

[Mezzrow]

Yeah. After the Vietnam war, returning troops were scorned by the country that put them in that mess in the first place. I think that 'Support our Troops' started largely as a slogan meant to disarm any arguments against a military action.
Its still used that way today, by and large, although you often see signs in protests that say 'Support our Troops, Bring them Home.'

To me, it means 'Whether or not I agree with the action you're being ordered to do, we're not going to hang you out to dry or hold it against you once you get back.'

Re:What does "supporting the troops" mean, exactly

[ender81b]

Supporting the troops means literally that, you wish them the best of luck and hope and pray they do not die.

You can be against the war, as I am, and still wish for the quickest, fastest, and least bloody conclusion to the war. That is MY view of "Supporting the troops." It also means that you won't call the troops baby killers or stuff like that because they are following orders (blah blah blah nazi's blah blah blah leave it alone) of their duly elected officials and politicians. When it comes right down to it I think supporting the troops means, your elected officials have decided to go to war and your country men are out there risking their lives so while you may oppose the war -- and continue to do so -- you shouldn't wish for your soldiers to die or fail at their objectives.

Re:to the tune of "if your'e happy & you know

[AWhistler]

I completely disagree with everything you said in this post, but if I had mod points, and I could, you would get them all! This is a very amusing and creative post. If you didn't write this...nevermind.

My view is that this shouldn't have taken 12 years to finish, and it's about time it's happening. This situation is like a parent who believes in corporal punishment being criticized by neighbors for wanting to spank a bad child. It's not a perfect analogy, but it kind of fits.

A Marine General on War

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Double Medal of Honor Winner Smedly Butler

I don't think I've ever seen so many responses ...

[petabyte]

In all my time here I don't think I've ever seen a story get to a second page of comments (and this is the first story up at the moment).

War tends to bring out comments from everyone. Given the nature of war, comments and analysis of why it is being pursued is extremely important so here is my $.02 as someone who studies International Relations for a living.

The US has been committed for some time now to removing the threat of Iraqi weapons by forcing "regime change" in the region. It is both important for those that oppose the war and those that support their friends and family in the military to have the ability to do so. Personally I have reservations on whether this was the right course to go down but we have reached a point now where the road back is as steep as the road ahead. Pushing this far ahead and then backing down would likely have its costs in terrorism. Continuing onward will likely have its costs in terrorism and the cost of occupation of Iraq. When friends and family ask me what I think of the current situation I tell them "its a mess no matter how you slice it." And honestly, I've never had anyone argue with that point of view.

That said I hope this ends quickly and that friends and love ones can be back with their families as soon as possible.

That's my two cents.

What if another coutry did the same ?

[InodoroPereyra]

I wonder what would be the reaction here in /. if another country, ANY country, was bombing a poor country against the willing of millions of protesters around the world and with no consensus from the United Nations. Yes, everybody would be talking about a coward attack, a massacre, a genocide. [I know I will be modded as a troll by people who care more about Nacionalism than about other people. Ironically, that was the root of Nazism.]

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 ...

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[chundo]

I came across an interesting article about yet another motivation for the war. If you are like me in believing that Bush is destroying years of foreign relations that we will have to start from scratch to rebuild once he finally gets kicked out of office, read the last two pages of this article - it paints a relatively positive picture of how the US will have to abandon its arrogant unilateral foreign policies and become a respectful and democratic member of international society again.

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[Truth101]

You have got to be kidding me. In your own words, Iraqis suffered at the hands of Saddam (a dictator who not only killed off all opposition, but killed their families and all of their friends). Yet the U.S. is wrong for removing him and the threat he posses?

Afghanistan. Again you acknowledge that the Taliban tortured the people Afghanistan. And the U.S. DID support Afghanistan in the fight against communism (you didn't think communism fell by itself). But, you fail to mention that we LIBERATED Afghanistan from a terrorist organization, that by their own words vowed to shed the blood of Americans - which according to them, you are evil because you ARE an American.

Now let's go to Human Rights. Do you think Saddam gives a damn about your rights as a human? The answer is no. If you speak out against Saddam while in Iraq, you get your tongue cut out, and then you are tied to a street post and left to bleed to death.

GOD Bless our troops, our President, and our Country.

God bless those of you who would rather sit in your safe homes, happy and content in a free America. Where you are safe to be cowards and shy away from the deeds that need to be done to insure our continued saftey.

God bless the men and woman who are over seas for America, servering our country in the most noble of ways.

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[kiggs]

It will be an unfortunate prediction, but I believe that China will use this precident to do exactly the same thing to Countries it is having a problem with.

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[burns210]

Human rights?! Dear god man, we are not shooting up schools! We are attacking the military bases, weapons, and going after the Dictator. You think Saddam gives a damn about human rights? There is a reason why we are coming to liberate the iraqi people, whether you like it or not, the freedom gained by millions(sadly, but truly) out weighs the few civilians who MIGHT die.

We are not attacking houses, we are attacking military bases. We do not want to kill innocent people, we want to set them free.

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[CommieLib]

The truth is, unfortunately, is that it is certain that innocent Iraqis will die. The only question will be whether they die in a war to liberate their countrymen or, for example, in machine designed to shred plastic, or with their son's limbs in the jaws of wild dogs. Sorry for the harsh language but if you can't distinguish this as evil, the problem is with you.

Oh, by the way: show me the Iraqis in your anti-war protests. Better yet, listen to this Iraqi on the subject. And while you're at it, show me the other country that has ever pledged to avoid civilian casualties at all turns. China? Russia? And while I'm at it, imagine a world in which either of those lovely fellows dominate the world. Having trouble? Ask a Tibetan or Hungarian (that thought courtesy of John Derbyshire).

Finally, you are factually incorrect about no consensus in the U.N. We absolutely have a consensus; it is simply that there are countries that oppose us and possess veto power.

Why do you cry only now, when Hussein's regime has caused the death of more than 2 million Iraqis? Note sadly the innocents that will die in this conflict, and then weep with joy at the lives they will be free to live when this is over.

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[joeybananas]

Do you live in a country in which the government controls the press? Most people on this earth do.

You can not care about human rights and not be behind a regime change in Iraq. Saddam has already killed many, many more innocent Iraqui people than the United States and their allies are likely to kill in this war.

Think the war is about oil? You are wrong. America buys oil when it needs it.

Think the opposition to the war from counties like France and Russia is about saving lives? You are wrong. France and Russia want to preserve Saddam so that his regime can pay them the money Iraq owes them. Want proof. Alcatel rebuilt the Iraqui telephone system after the last Gulf war. Russia has significant oil rights within Iraq. Both countries sell Iraq weapons.

Oh God, I don't know if I can stop.

As for the UN. Where was the UN in Cambodia, Kosovo or Rewanda? And who provides 80% of the UN budget? The United States.

U.S. Troops should come home. Home from places like France and Germany.

This sniff, sniff (crying poor Iraq, poor me) stuff has got to stop. Ask yourself what might have happened if Hitler had nuclear weapons and stop telling the world President Bush is a monster. He has got more courage than you will ever have.

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[evilWurst]

"Poor Iraquies had to suffer Saddam Hussein's dictatorship"

Yes. So let's leave him there to keep butchering them, until he dies, and his crazy son spends another lifetime doing the same, and perhaps *his* son after that! Let's also ignore the Kuwaitis he beat and robbed, and the Iranians and Kurds he burned the lungs and eyes out of with chemicals! Let's let it go on forever, and let him do it to more people! Let's let him do it to our allies, too! Let's let him do it to us! In the name of not repeating mistakes of the past, let's let worse new mistakes happen by letting the madman run free!

The longer term view you take, and the more moral factors you examine, the stronger moral obligation there is to remove Saddam.

If you "feel like vomiting" because we're about to end this farce, consider if we had decided to do nothing, and _then_ vomit all you want.

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[www.supportwar.org]

* As of 1997 - 16,000 disappearances realted to the government reported. * 100,000 Kurds "disappeared" * 4000 villigage and towns destroyed and razed * 5000 Kurds killed in 1988 with chemical weapons * Since UNSCR 1441 Iraqu force have fired on U.S and British pilots 264 times. * The UN estimates that Iraq has 25,000 liters of anthrax, Iraq has decalred 8,500 liters Unaccounted for weapons: 550 artillery shells with mustard gas (Saddam has used mustard to kill thousands of Kurds and Iranians), 300,000 empty munitions enabling the stockpiling of as much as 500 tons of chemical weapons, 6,500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq war (aprx 1000 tons of chemical agents. * 1.5 tons of VX gas unaccounted for. * Chemical and biological weapons were tested on 1600 death row inmates in 1995. It's interesting to note that one could be a death row inamte in Iraq by simply speaking out against Saddam. Once other logic question, If he doesn't have any chemical weapons capabilites, how is he testing it on inmates? ** Saddam Quotes ** http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/oct2002/a101 802a.html This is the man you defend.

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[Guppy06]

First off, I'd just like to start my flame by saying that the voices of millions have little effect on my moral decisions on what is "right" and what is "wrong."

"I wonder what would be the reaction here in /. if another country, ANY country, was bombing a poor country"

It all depends on why the "poor" country is being bombed, doesn't it? "Just because?" Just about nobody would be happy about that. "To stop the government from slaughtering its own people," on the other hand, is something completely different.

"against the willing of millions of protesters around the world"

Protesters who themselves agree that Sadam's government is slaughtering its own people. Protesters who seem to be OK with acts like this as long as it doesn't affect any other country.

"with no consensus from the United Nations."

A UN which also didn't give consensus to intervening in Cambodia or Rwanda. The only rule that the UN has truly enforced in the past 50 years is "Don't slaughter your neighbor's people." From inception, the UN has been silent on matters of genocide within a member's borders.

"Yes, everybody would be talking about a coward attack, a massacre, a genocide."

I'm sorry, are we talking about current US actions, or Iraqi actions in the past two or three decades?

"I know I will be modded as a troll by people who care more about Nacionalism"

No, the true nationalists are the ones that don't want to interfere in a country's "internal matters," no matter what they are. National Socialism got to where it was not only from internal nationalism ("Yay Germany!"), but also external nationalists who agreed that Germany had a national right to Austria, the Sudetenland, etc.

IMO, the anti-war protesters who are against the war because the Iraqi government poses no (immediate) therat to us are the nationalists in this debate. It shows that the protesters value the lives and livelihoods of their fellow citizens than citizens of a country a world away.

"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."

Anybody who thinks that more civillians will die as a direct or indirect result of US actions in this war than who would die by Sadam's hand if this invasion didn't happen is a shot-sighted fool. It's a given that not only more Iraqi people will be alive because of this, but also with more personal and collective freedom. By arguing that it would be better to leave Sadam in power than for the US to invade you are holding the US to a double standard (It's more OK for Sadam but not the US) that is based on a nationalist viewpoint (It's more OK for Sadam because he's an Iraqi).

At the very least, we're not the ones actually trying to slaughter civillians.

"Just like it happened with civilians in Alfghanistan, tortured by the Taliban regime and afterwords bombed by the US."

Again, more would have died in continued Taliban rule. And no rational person could argue that the Taliban would have gone away without a fight. And I submit that the US invasion was far less bloody and racist than any potential internal uprising against the Taliban. All Pashtuns probably would have been hearded up and systematically killed, just like what has happened in every other revolution in the world (with one exception).

"Again, some of these Talibans were allies of the US when fighting a prior "evil", the Soviet Union."

• Some of the Mujaheddin were in the opposition as well
• Would you rather the Taliban still be in power? You seem to be arguing that the US overthrowing the Taliban is somehow worse than letting the Taliban continue to fester.

"It will bring more terrorism, more hatred, and innocent civilian deaths, once more."

If we do nothing, if we were to suddenly adopt a foreign policy that rese

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[Cyryathorn]

To perhaps answer your question on what the reaction would be if another country was bombing a poor country etc, here are some examples:

When Egypt nationalized the Suez canal, France and the UK invaded without UN approval. Russia invaded Afghanistan without UN approval. In Bosnia, the US skipped the UN Security Council and ran that whole deal via NATO. Had the USSR not been boycotting the UN at the time, the Korean War would've likely been done without UN approval.

And, lest we forget, Iraq invaded Kuwait without UN approval -- and the US stopped the invasion well short of Baghdad when there was really no reason we had to, and instead made peace with Iraq under certain conditions, such as ongoing weapons monitoring and the no-fly zones. Iraq has been in breach of those conditions pretty much continuously since Gulf War I ended.

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[CommieLib]

Convenient. So anyone who is with us is bribed, but of course, our opposition is simply principled.

What you're describing is unanimity. It doesn't matter anyway. Three undeniable facts:

1. Hussein has WMD (he has refused to account for the ones that Tariq Aziz has admitted to having as recently as six months ago)
2. Hussein burns with hatred for the U.S.
3. Hussein could easily pass WMD's to terrorists in a way that would make them untraceable (we still have no f*cking clue where the Daschle anthrax attack came from)

So why wouldn't Hussein pass weapons to terorrists? Issue closed. Next issue...

Let's assume, stupidly, for the sake of argument, that Israel and Iraq are the same thing. According to your argument, you would prefer that we be consistently wrong rather than consistently right. What is so frustrating about dealing with the anti-war left is that there is no substance to the opposition: if some media talking head said "we should oppose the war because it's high in carbohydrates" suddenly you guys would be on the Atkins diet.

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[www.supportwar.org]

Get your head out of your ass. Where's your proof that we've paid off those who are part of this? With reagrds to Isreal, I could find only 16 UNSCR's, and most of them deal with Isreal's handling of the conflict with Palistine over Jeruselem. They are... UNSCR 49 UNSCR 50, UNSCR 54, UNSCR 60, UNSCR 127, UNSCR 162, UNSCR 250, UNSCR 251, UNSCR 252, UNSCR 267 UNSCR 271, UNSCR 298, UNSCR 476, UNSCR 478, UNSCR 672, UNSCR 1073. Given this, I'm really starting to believe that the UN is commited to handling any conflict in the world by simply hoping to "diplomacy" it away. But they fail to understand that IS evil in the world, and it is sometimes necessary to cut it's head off.

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[foniksonik]

Saddam did the same to Iran. He did the same to Kuwait. He did the same to the Kurds. He did the same to his own people, his own family. He supports groups who did the same to our people, our embassies, our children.

He did it. Not an elected government of representative of the Iraqi people. That is the difference. Bush was elected, Congress was elected, our military are volunteers, our people are free to speak their mind and choose their course of freedom.

Saddam has denied the Iraqi people the choice to be lead by another. He has threatened them with death if they choose to support another leader and has followed through with it. He has weakened Iraqi people who do not support him by denying them food, medicine and the supplies necessary to live; food, medicine and supplies the free world has offered in trade for oil, has traded for oil but was stolen from the Iraqi people by Saddam.

Who are you to deny the Iraqi people the chance for freedom?

Saddam apologists are like abused wives. They say that everything was 'okay' while he was beating them. "Don't make him angry, he might hurt me more. Don't call the cops, he'll hurt my children. He only gets violent when he's drunk or if I make him angry." As if things will ever get better, they don't they only get worse. Then the sons of abuse will take power and the cycle will continue.

The Iraqi people have an abusive leader and they need a good friend to come in and rescue them.

Many may give their lives for freedom, their families will be free to grieve for them. Many Iraqis have died in the past 30 years whose family could not even grieve for them in public.

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[_Eric]

You're damn right. Expect Taiwan to be a threat for China anytime soon. ;-(

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[Truth101]

You are a joke. Do you really think there was any other way to remove Saddam? Diplomacy?!? Grow up and face facts. Wars are what destroy evil, not peace protesters. Where whould America be to day if we never fought for OUR freedom? Where would we be today had the likes of Jon Hancock and company said hey "let's just talk to the Brits". Here is reality. No one wants to see innocent civilians die (with the exception of Saddam who is hiding among woman and children). But the only way to create stability in the region is to remove the tyrants who would not hesitate to assist terrorist in killing innocent Americans. And by God, do you think he would forgive those that stood by and said "they haven't attacked us, let Saddam be?" That is how Hitler became so powerful.

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[Truth101]

Well put. It is nice to see people who think through their posts - and have the curage to disagree with ignorance.

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[Bake]

ever pledged to avoid civilian casualties at all turns

Am I the only one who thinks this phrase reminds me of a comedy skit when he talks about people bragging about doing stuff that SHOULD be taken for granted.

It's just like saying "I take care of my kids", which is, well, something EVERY parent should be doing without being told to do!

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[vanza]

Sorry, but I can't help replying to this. When I see someone telling that the US is doing this to protect "the people of Iraq", the only images that flash in my mind are the military dictatorships in Latin America during the 60s/70s/80s. Specially the ones in Brazil, Argentina and Chile (since I'm Brazilian, those are the one's I'm most familiar with). You know, these "governments" were heavily supported by the US government. I don't know how much you americans know about what used to happen over there, but I'm sure you have heard of how the football ("soccer" to you) stadiums in Chile were used as mass prisons (and even "Death Rows") for "communists" (basically, people that did not agree with the government). To day, we yet have a countless number of people unaccounted for in Brazil - people that were taken from their houses, taken to government facilities, and tortured, sometimes to death, in "the search for evil and subversive behavior". And I don't remember any US-led action to end this. Much on the contrary. Guess it was nice to have "someone on your side in the battle against communism", even though this people were killing their own people...

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[TamMan2000]

I am proud of the few among you, /. readers and US Citizens who *are* complaining about these horrible attacks

you are not alone, my friend.

Re:What if another coutry did the same ?

[acarey]

You do realise that the main reason why those resolutions condemning Israel and demanding they withdraw never get enacted is because THE USA KEEPS FRIGGIN' VETOING THEM, right?

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[ragnarok]

Yes, we've found it is better to pay the folks who love killing rather than forcing a bunch of reluctant civilians to do the job.
...
This is a big problem with a democracy, when citizen volunteers make government run

Do you actually think about what you're typing or does it just sort of spew forth from your fingers like diarrhea?

Re:War Pigs

[NixterAg]

Yes it can. George W. Bush did not go to Vietnam. That's all you know. You have then extrapolated that bit of information into "George W. Bush weaseled his way out of going to Vietnam" and "He is a coward".

I have read your post and now I use my freedom to assume you're an idiot.

Slashdot getting slashdotted?

[dsb]

And apparently slashdotters couldn't wait to get in their pro/anti war opinions.

I support the troops!

Re:About time.

[LinuxInDallas]

I agree. Actually during Dessert Storm I was attending highschool overseas on a military base. I remember one teacher mentioning that she had heard that the real reason we went to war then was that we had information about weapons that Iraq was developing. The invasion of Kuwait simply gave us a good excuse to go in there. Unfortunately we didn't finish the job we should have started.

blogging from baghdad

[circletimessquare]

i don't know how appropriate it is to slashdot this, but this guy's ability to blog is probably already somewhat sketchy due to oh, about 25 different reasons you or i can think of right now, so here it is: blogging from baghdad.

who knows? maybe we'll catch a first hand account. cross your fingers for him. please post updates if you notice a glimmer of activity.

i found it through an msnbc.com story.

he updated the site at 5:46 AM... which is 9:46 PM EST here in the US i believe. about an hour ago at the time of this post, half an hour before president bush made his 4 minute speech.

if you can't get to his blog, here is the top most few paragraphs right now... :: Thursday, March 20, 2003 ::

air raid sirens in baghdad but the only sounds you can here are the anti-aircraft machine guns. will go now. :: salam 5:46 AM [+] :: ...
It is even too late for last minute things to buy, there are too few shops open. We went again for a drive thru Baghdad's main streets. Too depressing. I have never seen Baghdad like this. Today the Ba'ath party people started taking their places in the trenches and main squares and intersections, fully armed and freshly shaven. They looked too clean and well groomed to defend anything. And the most shocking thing was the number of kids. They couldn't be older than 20, sitting in trenches sipping Miranda fizzy drinks and eating chocolate (that was at the end of our street) other places you would see them sitting bored in the sun. more cars with guns and loads of Kalashnikovs everywhere.
The worst is seeing and feeling the city come to a halt. Nothing. No buying, no selling, no people running after buses. We drove home quickly. At least inside it did not feel so sad.
The ultimatum ends at 4 in the morning her in Baghdad, and the big question is will the attack be at the same night or not. Stories about the first gulf war are being told for the 100th time.
The Syrian border is now closed to Iraqis. They are being turned back. What is worse is that people wanting to go to Deyala which is in Iraq are being told to drive back to baghdad, there was a runor going around that baghdad will be "closed" no one goes in or out [check the map go from Baghdad in a N/E direction until you reach Baqubah, this is the center of Deyala governerate] people are being turned back at the borders of Baghdad city. There is a checkpoint and they will not let you pass it. there are rumors that many people have taken the path thru Deyala to go to the Iranian border. Maybe, maybe not.
If you remember I told you a while ago that you can get 14 satellite channels sanctioned by the state, retransmitted and decoded by receivers you have to buy from a state company. This service has been suspended. Internet will follow I am sure.

Re:blogging from baghdad

[Ryvar]

There's been a ton of back and forth on the forums over whether it's authentic and the final conclusion is that yes, through multiple proofs Salem has demonstrated - while staying mostly anonymous - that he is indeed a citizen of Baghdad. An architect with a good bit of techie knowledge, and his friend Raed is missing :(

Definitely a much better read than anything the mainstream media has, although fairly one-sided for obvious reasons.

Re:blogging from baghdad

[Entropy248]

You may have just found my generation's "Diary of a Young Girl"

Re:blogging from baghdad

[Enigma2175]

tracer[ou]t[e] life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness

$ traceroute life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness

traceroute: unknown host life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness

Pretty much says it all :(

Re:What does "supporting the troops" mean, exactly

[Erwos]

Good question. Let me try to explain:

"Support the troops" probably does mean different things to different people. But, I think that when most people say it, they understand it as:

Yes, there's a war on. Whether you're for it or against it, it doesn't change the objective reality that we're fighting now. If we want anyone to win, sure as hell, we don't want it to be Saddam. _No one_ wants that, even our friends in France and Germany.

In other words, even if you didn't want the war, the next best thing is for us to win it and rebuild Iraq. Thus, we support our troops unconditionally.

-Erwos

Freedom requires vigilance

[stevens]

The states of Iraq, along with Iran, Syria and Saudia Arabia condone and finance militant anti-Western terrorists. They routinely call for the destruction of "infidels" (read: Western non-Islamic nations).

I support the values of the Founders of America, and fear that, undefended, America could become overrun with the sorts of terrorist acts that Israel suffers every day. Anyone who thinks there is no precendent hasn't been watching the last twenty years of overseas bombings, attacks on Americans, threats, and indoctrination of children.

Whatever flaws the US has, or mistakes it has made, it is still the closest thing to a free constitutional republic, and I support defending that freedom, both from outside aggressors and it's own politicians, if need be.

I know this isn't popular on slashdot, but karma's just karma and it had to be said.

Re:Freedom requires vigilance

[unitron]

"I support the values of the Founders of America,..."

So does that mean we're going to steal all the good parts of Iraq and herd the natives onto reservations on the worthless parts? Oh well, at least this time we know to check for underground petroleum deposits before we give any of the otherwise useless land to the natives.

Re:War Pigs

[dpt]

And peacenik anti-american hippies like yourself spat on your father when he returned

No, I would never do that. You are constructing a straw man.

Re:It's about time.

[ainsoph]

Hey Dittohead!!!!

Where you get them facts jack? Rush? Nice one mate!!!

My first call would be for you to learn to spell before you start reciting Limbaugh propaganda.

its a well known fact that fake conservatives (like yourself) align to the ideology because of a complete lack of interest in being *educated*.

So, while I admire your trailer trash, slightly greater than 80 IQ clogging up the airwaves tonight, I will ask you one simple question, I would love you to respond to:

What is COINTELPRO????

Thanks!!! Dittohead!!!

We Will All Support Them, I Promise

[Sloppy]

"Supporting the troops" is pretty much unavoidable, and not much of a choice. It's guaranteed. Yes, I will pay next year's tax increase. Yes, I will pay higher prices on most everything I buy, due to inflation, the most insideous tax ever invented.

The troops will get my full, unconditional, and unreserved support, right out of my pocket. (Well, they'll get some of it. Most of my "support" will be directed to those who are owed favors by my political leaders. Dick Cheney, you have my support!)

In other news....

[Frogbert]

In other news... .iq domain names are going for a record low.

slow...

[LBArrettAnderson]

looks like /. got slashdotted...

Re:Today, I'm ashamed...

[Dukrous]

I have to agree. Many shortsighted people in these boards.

No one quite understands that removing Hussein from power is the first step towards a Palestinian state. Hussein has openly funded the efforts of Hamas, the most feared terrorist group in the world (al-Qaeda is a mom & pop shop compared to Hamas), and other Palestinian terrorist groups. Removing that source of funding and forcing Israel into recognizing a Palestinian state by the end of the year is the goal of this war.

Also, removing a dictator who uses the people of his country as sheep is necessary in every country it exists. Sometimes, it can be done economically or diplomatically. In Iraq's case, military force is needed to remove him.

I'm cuban. See the damage a lone man has done to Cuba, which used to be a rich and thriving nation...the Monaco of the West. It's now barely a third world country. One man did that. He destroyed my homeland and made it impossible for me to ever know what it was like. The Cuba of my parents' and grandparents' youths is dead. Think about that...

None of you will ever understand that feeling unless you've lived it. There is no way you can attempt to understand it. The people in eastern Europe who were choked by the grip of Communism understand...it is why they support us. The Iraqis living here in the United States understand, and they support this too.

This is a moral and just war. It is the duty of the United States to defend a single person's freedom to pursue the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And any leader who openly denies their people those basic human rights is a monster who needs to leave power.

War has come, and no one wants it...it's a terrible thing.

But it does not come lightly. We tried for twelve years to get Hussein to concede to international opinion and law, and he did not. Eighteen UN resolutions were passed and ignored. We have no choice. Hussein has brought this on himself. We are not at fault...we are the ones who are right.

Supporting the fighters

[Knightfall]

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.

Re:Supporting the fighters

[Lord Bitman]

"Dont worry if it's right or wrong. Act like it's right."

Fuck you.

Re:Supporting the fighters

[Knightfall]

Your use of language is simply underwhelming. Did you even read my post? I said nothing of the sort. I said support the troops and the families that are following orders. They are our bretheren and need the care and support of their countrymen and women.

Crawl back into your hole and return when you have a grasp on reality and some compassion for the brave.

Re:Supporting the fighters

[Lord Bitman]

What do people do for things which they believe are right? They support them.
What do people do for things which they believe are wrong? They don't support them.

I didnt say "Believe it's right!", I said "Act like it's right."

There is no logic in supporting something you disagree with, Can Be no logic in doing so.

March 17th...

[TrevorB]

A little phrase I've been working on..

On September 11th, every one of us became a New Yorker.

On March 17th, every one of us, in one way or another, became a terrorist.

Think about it a bit...

---

On another note, which side are you on? Saddam Hussein's or Osama Bin Laden's?

Anti-war protester? Not supporting the American war machine? Then you support Saddam! You bastard.

Pro-war patriot? Taking out Saddam (the leader of a secular regime and Osama's enemy) and setting the middle east on fire in an Anti-American Rage, breeding a new generation of future terrorists? Then you support Osama Bin Laden! You bastard.

Pick your poison... Or perhaps take a deep breath and count to 10 before you start pointing fingers and calling names.

I've got Karma to burn tonight.. Bring it on...

I will not keep quiet

[IndependentVik]

But, I ask that you keep quiet DURING the war. You've preemptively protested against the war, but now that it's underway stand behind the troops and your country.

You can ask, but the rest of us aren't going to keep quiet. People keeping quiet, scared they'd be deemed unpatriotic, is what got us into this nonsense in the first place. And what's all this about "standing behind your country"? Should the Northern Alliance have done that? If so, they'd still be under the Taliban. It's been said that sometimes dissent is the most patriotic course of action. So it is in this case.

No, you don't always stand behind your country--not when you believe with all your heart that your country is doing the wrong thing. I'll even go one step further: those of us who believe the war to be unjust have a moral obligation to speak out against it. Was Kronkite being unpatriotic when he offered his editorial claiming that the war in Vietnam was a mistake? Was his take on the war a slam against the troops? Of course not.

We're a democracy, and many men--every bit as brave and courageous as our boys and girls in Iraq--have died so that we, the minority, would be able to have our say.

God help us all.

Un-Real

[bstadil]

As if the war atrocities was not enough.

They are streaming using RealAudio.

Re:Un-Real

[caluml]

At least they use a format that has vendor supplied players for Windows - and some unixes.

I suppose you'd like to use Windows Media or something, and to hell with the 5, 10, however many percent use something else?

Recovery

[miracle69]

Detroit is still recovering (I don't just mean the automakers either, the entire town is still recovering).

So is Kid Rock a sign of the recovery?

Re:War Pigs

[dpt]

I have read your post and now I use my freedom to assume you're an idiot

Well, looking at your previous posts I *know* you're an idiot. Finish that degree *before* posting again. Thanks.

The latest reality show phenom: Freedom Iraq

[wm_destroy]

Can't believe the media build up to a freakin WAR!!! The sets/stages were made months ago. The TV computer graphics of bombs hitting different parts of Baghdad looks incredible.

I wonder if Vegas has a pool going on how many Iraqis will be killed?

The Americans are totally lost in their insulated world. Have no consideration of any world culture (unless it bows to them or can make them a $).

On a side note, Tom Brokaw is an idiot. He just said this attack is "a 120 degrees opposite" to Gulf war I. 120!!! And Iraq was a secular state UNTIL Saddam came. That tells you how much he knows. (By the way, Saddam as evil as he is, has kept fanatics out of Iraq. Iraq is supposed to be the most secular, tolerant arab state).

Watch out for MAD COW-BOY disease!!!

Re:What does "supporting the troops" mean, exactly

[kmellis]

" As someone from a country that never fights wars, I am confused by the constant pledges from Americans that they "support the troops", whether they're for or against the war."

There's two reasons for this, one common sensical and the other historical.

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.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[bnenning]

Dissent is not disloyalty.

I support this war but I agree with you here. There's no inconsistency in opposing the policy of war while hoping that our troops are safe, and I don't like the far-right rhetoric that equates antiwar protests with treason any more than I like the far-left propaganda that compares Bush to Hitler.

The Onion

[yoderm]

It's degrading to anyone fighting the war that it is treated like a game.

You are absolutely correct. The Onion makes a similar point, in their usual over-the-top manner:

Military Promies 'Huge Numbers' for Gulf War II: The Vengeance

-Mike

Emotional Blackmail: Support the boys at war?

[mabhatter654]

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.

Re:Today, I'm ashamed...

[ThePretender]

LMAO... say anything exposing any part of the liberal bullying tactics here and get modded in the Slashdot community's favorite method of censorship!

Re:Support our troops. SHUT UP!

[Rayonic]

The "Support Our Troops" slogan (which I'm pretty sick of myself) mainly stems from the Vietnam war, when returning troops were spat upon and treated with disrespect.

It's trite and overused nowadays, but the basic jist of it is "don't blame them for doing what the government tells them. In fact, thank them for being willing to do it in the first place."

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.

Ahem... it also includes not brandishing unfair stereotypes about them, and dividing them up into either vicious killers or scared teens, both with less-than-average intelligence.

Was there really peace in Iraq?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Was there really peace in Iraq?

[wm_destroy]

Dude, lets get a few facts straight.

Saddam is a bastard and he should fry in hell. That does not give Americans the right to take over Iraq. The world has many 'evil' characters worse than Saddam. You have to realize that the US government has an exceptional ability to paint any person, regime or government as the reincarnation of the devil himself. I can name several African and Asian leaders that are worse than Saddam. I'm not here to argue who's the worst baddy of them all. Here are some facts (which you can easily research on the web, but not on cnn.com)

Iraq is the most secular and tolerant Arab state

Women are allowed to vote and can choose the wear veil.

The US till this day has not been able to prove Saddam's link to Laden. It's a well known fact that Laden wanted to overthrow Saddam and has several allies in the Kurds that the US has now jumped in bed with.

The US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons the fight off the Iranian threat

2 days before Iraq launched the chemical attack in 1988, Rumsfeld met with Saddam. After the attack, the US abstained (hence supported diplomatically) in the UN debate about the use of chemical weapons in Iraq, saying it was an internal matter. By the way, the last time he used those weapons was in 88.

His longest range missile can't hit Israel, let alone the US. How long do you think it would take him to build a ballistic missile and send satellites into space, under the watchful eye of the international community?

The Saudi's and Kuwaiti's have funneled more than 10 times the money to Al-Qaeda than Iraq has.

Let's recap the reasons for war

To enforce the will of the UN resolution 1441. Against the will of the UN? No good.

Is an eminent threat to the US. Every arms expert, including the CIA, agree that his army is in shambles. Nope.

Posesses WMDs. Yeah maybe, but let the international community find it. Honestly, the gun to Saddam's head technique was working great. Should have let them do there job.

Links to Sept. 11th. GW has tried very, very hard to link them, but hasn't been able to show hard proof to either the US public or the security council.

"He tried to kill my dad". Possible. With his IQ, highly possible.

Oil. A good outside chance.

To free the Iraqis. Pleez. Save the sob story. The UN sanctions have caused more human tragedies than Saddams chemical attacks.

Don't get me wrong, I support our troops (I have a cousin in the Marines), but I DO NOT SUPPORT OUR President. Do some research.

Moderators: Please show restraint with mods here

[robson]

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.

War is Terrorism

[elite lamer]

Especially this war. Dictionary.com defines terrorism as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

unlawful - the USA does not have the UN's approval to use force or violence against Iraq. The intention is clear to everyone: to coerce Saddam to leave the country and/or relinquish control of the country, which is certainly a political reason.

We're waging a "war against terrorism" but we are committing terrorist acts ourselves.

Re:War is Terrorism

[intermodal]

that was some of the dumbest nitpicking i have heard in months. The UN is worthless and is not a governing body, but is rather a group of wishful thinkers who accomplish nothing worthwhile. The difference between this and terrorism is vast. War = attacking a country in a military confrontation. Terrorism = anonymous or afterwards-claimed attack on a target chosen for its ability to make citizens fearful, aka terrified. When was the last time a terrorism put out a worldwide press release saying when and where he would strike? I dont recall one.

No such luck

[reconn]

That channel doesn't exist.. too bad: I was just thinking about a need for a more text-based 'net during times of war.

What should have happened here...

[Slime-dogg]

Well, the first post should have said ...

FLAME ON!!!

Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. wars

[aztektum]

Like father like son

I was just thinking as I looked at my DVD's...

"Begun this "Clone" War has..."

Re:About time.

[Zigg]

You don't honestly believe that if you remove Saddam there wont be any more of the so called 'evil doers' to take his place?

That has to be one of the most inane arguments I've heard against dispensing any kind of justice. By that logic, no criminal should ever be arrested, no court should ever convict -- because, well, there are more bad guys out there.

You can't be so naive to think that killing peoples fathers, brothers and mothers will actually induce a population that smiles wholeheartedly in the fact of America?

Our goal is to remove the regime that threatens the world, and in removing that regime liberate Iraq. Seeing as today, Saddam tortures dissenters in ways that can only with great charity be called "cruel", I think most would prefer our strategy of taking out the regime while doing everything possible to limit collateral damage to the status quo.

War is never pretty. Saddam forced our hand. We'll make the best we can of it. In the end, the world will be safer -- Iraq included.

Or maybe America should have never fought for its independence, since it necessarily involved killing people? I'd like to see you say what you say today, if that had not happened.

He should stand down as president

[agm]

I have an idea:

Any world leader who declares war on another country must, after the war, stand down as leader. Wars will still be waged, but the leaders will think damn hard about waging them.

Do you think such a policy would have changed Bush's mind?

Re:He should stand down as president

[magadass]

Well put...But gotta love how them Anti-War people stand out their with their little signs like fools thinkin they are making a difference in the world by pouting like little kids and praying to god for help. But if im not mistaken god is all about gettin rid of evil in the world???

Re:He should stand down as president

[barjam]

Sounds like a GREAT! idea, if this was the rule we wouldn't be at war right now BECAUSE SADDAM WOULD HAVE STEPPED DOWN IN 92.

Dumbass.

Coverage on CBC from a Canadian perspective

[MikeBabcock]

For all the flames this may bring me, the CBC webservers are still up and going well unlike CNN's (last I checked).

If you want to see the canadian news coverage of this event; try the CBC homepage above or http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/19/war030319.

One hour in and I'm sick of this already.

[RedCard]

Well, to the surprise of no one, the war has started, the media is carpet-bombing us with what amount to zero information, and bush's address is playing and nauseum on the networks.

So what do we know so far? A small number of bombs have been dropped on baghdad, and that is all. On the networks I've seen:
-speculation about what kind of bomb/s it was/were
-speculation about what's next
-speculation about this, that and the other
-reports on the emotional status of troops on an aircraft carrier
-reports on the emotional status of troops on the ground
-what kinds of bombs, planes, etc the US and UK have.

So, I mean really how much of that is ACTUAL NEWS?
Speculation and emotional status updates are of no real relevance, now are they? And we already know what the arsenal consists of, that's not news either.

One gets the sense that the media has had most of this crap stored up "for release in case of war" - there's really no REAL news on the "news", and it's already driving me nuts.

I just wish they would report NEWS - not filler interspersed with nuggets of news. If there's no news yet, then don't report filler. It's bloody annoying.

Un-Spun News

[Trevalyx]

I've been looking for, but not finding, a good, un-spun, un-restricted news source. The big media outlets are.. Well, not even worth considering. The smallest ones are dubious.. Anyone have any suggestions?

Re:What does "supporting the troops" mean, exactly

[iceburn]

For some, "supporting the troops" does mean that they will be successful in their objectives. For others, it means that they wish the troops didn't have to be there. For many others, its a thing to say so others don't think you are Anti-American. For everybody, it means we hope they will be safe.

* Warning, rant below *

Personally, I wish they didn't have to put their lives on the line over this stupidity. I'm an American, and I support the Iraqi troops just as much as our own. Oooh, I bet that'll piss off Supreme Commander George W. Bush and his Orwellian Friends: Mr. Tom Ridge and D. Rumsfeld.

Survey: Who Do You Think the US Should Strike?

[KalvinB]

The anticipated War on Iraq is pissing a lot of people off. There are polls all over the place. Nobody really knows how many people actually support it. Some even question who the US should attack. So I propose a survey ( http://www.icarusindie.com/survey ). All you need to do is enter who we should attack (if anybody) and then click on that country's location on the map to submit your vote. Eventually, a more formal report will be created showing exact percentages for every country submitted. Your IP is logged and only one vote per IP is used to create the map so don't spam please.

You can see the live results map at
http://www.icarusindie.com/survey/results.php

Thanks for your participation.

Ben

Concerning "Bush the war mongerer" statements

[mao che minh]

Bush didn't demand that Saddam disarm or face war, the UN did. Specifically, the UN stated this with one of their resolutions. Powell was the one that pushed for the most recent of such resolutions, true, but such resolutions were already pre-existing. The UN basically refused to act upon it, and instead turned to a policy of appeasement. That is certaingly their right, since again, no one likes armed conflict (well, no one but Muslim terrorists that is, but anyways...). Some in the ranks of the British government were of course at odds with such a policy, as was the United States. So we decided to follow the resolutions in place and reject appeasement. The outcome: forced regime change (there could be no other logical conclusion. You can't expect to force a man like Saddam to disarm, leave him in power, and expect him to remain that way).

War sucks, I wish it didn't have to be the "way", but I don't see any other choice. If the country in question was North Korea, or the target of disarmament some African regime of warlords, no one would be complaining (no one expect the warlords or Kim Jong Il, that is). But in this case, it is a nation of an Islamic majority that has strong business deals with France. The leader of Germany would rather have strong political ties to his neigbors then to the US (not to mention the fact that he rode the peace ticket into office). So, we arrive at today.

Gotta love politics. Fun stuff.

Re:Concerning "Bush the war mongerer" statements

[ainsoph]

Time to review:

http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=web ac tive/demnow/dn20030319.ra&start=1:07:49.0

Get educated! Thanks!!!

Bonus gift! The full text of Robin Cooks reason for resigning from the House of Commons:

Why I Had to Leave Blair's Cabinet
This Will be a War Without Support at Home or Agreement Abroad

by ROBIN COOK

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 seri ous 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 1980s 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

Re:Concerning "Bush the war mongerer" statements

[ainsoph]

How am I misinformed coward?

Re:War Pigs

[NixterAg]

I've got my degree, thanks for your concern. Good to see you've got the night off away from the drive-through window so you can go online and play intellectual.

Just keep hating the same people who have provided you with the safety and prosperity your cowardly ass takes for granted.

Wake the fuck up

[know_op]

Right now as we read these posts, people are fucking dying. I mean, they are fucking dead. Can we stop posting stupid witty posts for 2 seconds? Just stop and think. Right now, some one else is dead. Stop with the goddamn pro-war rhetoric for just a brief moment, and really stop and think about what it means to be alive. Wake up from your psuedo-intellectual rantings, and really think about what it means to be alive.

Why care about being hated?

[Dr. Transparent]

If someone could explain to me in a rational, reasoned argument why it matters that other people hate America, I might have respect for these people's arguments.

Why is anyone concerned with what the rest of the world thinks of us? Do we have reason to believe that they're opinions are based on some large dataset of information from which they can draw an objective opinion? Or perhaps (say it isn't so!) these people are victims of propoganda and lies (oh the horror!)?

It seems to me that the more that people are able to hear why America is doing the things it is doing then perhaps people will not harbor the same hatred.

This does not take into account simple religious hatred, which you cannot combat by complacency or capitulation. Religious hatred is a deep-seeded cultural ideology that you will not remove from a people without significant internal reform.

I for one am thankful that we are finally being led by a man with PRINCIPLES. A man with principles that haven't changed and continue to be the basis for his actions. I find it far more attractive to be led by someone who believes something and lives for and towards it than someone who believes what everyone tells him to believe on that day.

I am VERY proud to be an American.

Re:Why care about being hated?

[ainsoph]

First of all, I am not a Christian as Bush is. I have been a Buddhist since age 15.

I am though, pretty well versed in Christian ideology. I do understand that one of the ideas that both Christians and Buddhists share is the premise:

"Thou shall not kill"

My question is, as a sopposed man of "principles" as you claim, and as a born again christian, who continually uses Christian ideas and language in his speeches, how is there justification for the continued mass slaughter on multiple fronts, including the apparent action about to be waged on Iraq?

There has not been a failure of diplomacy, there has been no diplomacy. There has been a complete disregard for international bodies of law and governence. All things that would lead to a credible "Christian" solution to this conflict.

When you speak of religious hatred, it is very easy to turn the tables on the current crop of christians and their hatred of a group of religous folks who they claim are full of hate. Its simply insane how one side can justify their hatred in the name of some god.

I am very ashamed to be American, when it is so obvious America can hide behind a wall of lies in the name of peace.

I simply want peace.

Re:Why care about being hated?

[xutopia]

I don't want to sound patronizing but you clearly are ignorant about quite a few facts.

People are not anti-American in Europe, France or any other democratic country. I was in France just recently and spoke a great deal with the French. They are however very concerned about the people in power. Never in the history of the USA has there been such a self serving administration. This war is making your leaders richer than before and they don't care about anything else than arrogantly telling other countries that they are wrong to even bother them in their quest to become richer.

Your biggest and most popular media sources are controlled by big compagnies that create WMD and other military equipement. They have a great deal to gain when a war is declared as their stock rises. http://www.cjr.org/owners/ge.asp

The Bush administration said brought up some "proofs" about the Iraqi regime attempting to get Uranium to create nuclear warheads. The UN found out it was faked. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A594 03-2003Mar7.html

The great concern from people outside the US about the bush administration is that one of the first things he did when he gained power (in a very weird manner too), is that he went to great lenghts to make sure that the US would not participage in an international court of war (that deals with crimes against humanity, a little like what you see now in Iraq). When it was once decided that the US would not participate he also did some arm twisting so that the International Court would not attempt to try any Americans because Americans never do crimes against humanity.http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,73 69,774105,00.html

Understand that people fear the US because it is a democracy that fits too well the 1984 scenario of a Big Brother that is always watching and appearing on TV.

The Bush administration as well as the media outlets that do everything in their power to support Bush are doing as much propaganda as they can. Record number of people in the US believe that Iraq has links with Al Quaeda. http://www.npr.org/programs/wesun/transcripts/2002 /nov/021117.schorr.html The rest of the world understands that this is ridiculous and is just propaganda to make Americans believe that this war is legitimate.

You feel you absolutly need to tell the world you support Bush and that you are so proud to be American. Too many Americans seem to not understand that they can be proud of their great nation, proud to be american without aproving Bush and his war of agression.

If you think the rest of the world believes this war is unjustified because of propaganda maybe you have to read news sources outside of the US. In London there are 11 daily papers and they all have different opinions about things. In the US almost every news broadcasters just show live what is happening, repeat what was said by the Bush administration and never comment on anything. They just spurt out the same propaganda your goverment emits without analysing it at all. I think the people that are most likely to succumb to propaganda are Americans. Try to listen to what countries like France, Russia, China, Canada etc... have to say about the war. Certainly some of it might sound anti-American to you at first but maybe there is logic when they say that Bush is arrogant and undiplomatic. Also to keep in mind this criticism isn't directed towards you nor your freedom and other values you wish to protect. People love freedom, but people in other countries are finding it odd how your administration is signing a patriot act and other things to reduce your freedom without any Americans doing anything about it. The US democracy is a democracy of cash and goverment officials that just want more. They don't care about you and your freedom, only their money and their power.

So yes I comment on Bush and his right-wing fundamentalists. Yes I disagree with the foreign policy of

Re:Why care about being hated?

[Dr. Transparent]

I respectfully disagree.

The scripture reads, "Thou shalt not murder." as opposed to "Thou shalt not kill." Scripture gives many examples of the responsibilities of governments to defend the innocent and protect the people. It is not at all outside the scripture to engage in war for this purpose. That is not to discount the seriousness of war, nor glorify the death of innocent people in the course of seeking a solution to a great problem.

If America will not liberate the Iraqi people, who are killed by the thousands by their leader and the rewards for their work taken to build bigger palaces and bigger weapons, who will? Certainly not the French, nor the Germans.

Re:Why care about being hated?

[Dr. Transparent]

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.

Re:Why care about being hated?

[TKinias]

scripsit Dr. Transparent:

The scripture reads, "Thou shalt not murder." as opposed to "Thou shalt not kill."

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.

Re:Why care about being hated?

[eechuah]

It may be true that bombing the lights out of Iraq may be the way to PREVENT further terrorist attacks, but how do you know this is true? IMHO, bombing other countries generates more hate, which fuels terrorist training camps, and terrorist funding.

What happens if there is another attack after the war on Iraq? Will the US bomb Saudi Arabia next?

Regardless, the world is watching very carefully on America's actions after the war. A lot of effort and publicity into rebuilding will help the US gain favour and slow down terrorist attacks. However, most probably there will be none (when have you last seen any news on Afghanistan?)

Re:Why care about being hated?

[Micah]

Hi,

Ok -- I'm a Christian and (for the most part) a Republican. I'll bite. For the record, I myself am not particularly happy about this war.

> "Thou shall not kill"

Correct, that is one of the ten commandments, and God's condemnation of murderors is clear in the New Testament (which is important since the Ten Commandments were abolished at the Cross with the rest of the Law):

"Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him." (1 John 3:15)

But if I understand it correctly, the Bible primarily says that *murdering* is a sin. That would indicate an individual intentionally killing another. I'm not sure that it applies to governments, since Romans 13 clearly gives the government authority to protect its citizens, saying things like "But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he [the government] does not bear the sword for nothing" and "an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." So if a government, along some reasonable justifiable lines, decides to kill someone for the protection of others, I don't believe anyone is sinning.

> There has not been a failure of diplomacy, there has been no diplomacy.

What do you think the UN has been doing for the last 12 years since the first Gulf War? They've given Iraq chance after chance after chance. Iraq has consistantly violated its own agreements and other UN resolutions.

> When you speak of religious hatred, it is very easy to turn the tables on the current crop of christians and their hatred of a group of religous folks who they claim are full of hate.

I for one don't believe this has anything to do with Islam. Most Muslims are nice, peaceful people (even though the Koran says some less-than-flattering things about Christians and Jews). I don't by any means want to kill Muslims. On the contrary, I want them to come to a knowledge of Christ so they can go to heaven!

No, the reason we are doing this (for right or for wrong) is because we're afraid of the terrorist threat. Maybe I'm naive, but I'm taking Bush at his word on this one. There ARE a lot of militant Muslims that really DO want to cause great damage to America. You saw that on 9/11, and you can be sure that they want to do it again. Some of those people are almost certainly harbored by Iraq.

On that basis, this war DOES have SOME validity.

> Its simply insane how one side can justify their hatred in the name of some god.

I agree completely!!!

> I simply want peace.

That will come. But not until Christ comes back to earth for his thousand year reign. Unfortunately, He indicated that there will only be more and more wars until then.

I too wish this war could be avoided. Everything would have been great had Saddam simply complied with the UN, or sought exile.

Re:Why care about being hated?

[jdavidb]

I read some Hebrew, but not enough to answer definitively. The point is that the Latin translation (the Vulgate), and English translations (the KJV) are not the standard. The fact that both chose to translate it "kill" may support a position, but the definitive proof is the original Hebrew.

Now, in context, it is apparent that the same law that said "Do not kill," also commanded the death penalty and certain wars, so it is apparent from context in ANY language that it is not an absolute prohibition on all killing.

Of course, the Old Testament is not the law for Christians today, so all of this is academic. There are no admonitions for the death penalty or war in the New Testament. I'm a pacifist because of my Christian beliefs, but I can certainly see where the other side is coming from. And I'd hate to be associated with much of the anti-war crowd, because their strongest arguments seem to be "I don't like war," and "Bush is stupid."

But the Old Testament most definitely did not prohibit all killing. Whether the word implicitly carries the meaning of "murder" or "kill," the context shows it did not preclude war or the death penalty.

Great Blog

[aSiTiC]

Thanks for the link. I sure hope this is a honest Iraqi blogging and not some propaganda front aimed at bloggers. :) I doubt they are that specific however. Very interesting blog, I've bookmarked and will check frequently along with CNN.COM.

Reason for war

[pdan]

This post will probably be treated as flamebait or worse (if somebody will read it of course) but I can't resist.

In my opinion the problem is not with this war itself, but political actions leading to it. America has the most powerful army in the world. One tenth of it would be enough to conquer Europe. Nevertheless such powerful country is afraid of some little dictator. Come on! Saddam's regime is bad, but it cannot harm the US.

There are goals to be achieved by this war: oil, some sort of stability in the Middle East, removing threats to US allies in the region. These are real reasons, and they should be named! History knows many cases of just and unjust wars, but to my best knowledge US have only fought on the good side (maybe except Kosovo). Now I am afraid that this war will set a bad precedent.

Lets do our part: ANOTHER "Target of Opportunity"

[SaxMaster]

This is the official website of the Government of Iraq. Let's slashdot it :)

Iraqi Government English Homepage

Wrong, right, we're the men with the guns...

[ackthpt]

At least I have the freedom to record and review the news, which is actually pretty objective, as news goes in the USA.

(just got the video card for tv and recording for this occasion. screw video tapes. I have the last war, first days, on VHS and will attempt to digitize.)

Re:Wrong, right, we're the men with the guns...

[Goldberg's Pants]

Oh yes... MUST tape the war. Fucking idiot. You're a sick fuck.

As for the US news being objective... BWAHAHAHA! That's the funniest thing I've heard in ages! If you trust the US media to report the truth, then not only are you a sick fuck, you're a naive one at that.

Re:Wrong, right, we're the men with the guns...

[smagruder]

I don't think the guy is naive at all. In the US, we have a multiplicity of news sources, not all coming from the boob tube. Our wide access to the Internet itself pretty much guarantees that many Americans have a good handle on what's really happening in the world.

Re:Wrong, right, we're the men with the guns...

[mecanicaz]

US media? hmmm
Have you guys ever heard that an American woman got intentionaly killed by the Israelis?
I guess that's not headline news in the US media...
Diversify your sources.

Re:Wrong, right, we're the men with the guns...

[GMontag451]

It was the top story for several days in WA, although thats just because thats where the girl was from.

Re:Wrong, right, we're the men with the guns...

[Jaysyn]

Front page man. And yes the public sentiment, at least where I live, is turning against the Israiles and has been for a while.

Jaysyn

Re:Wrong, right, we're the men with the guns...

[ackthpt]

I don't think the guy is naive at all.

Thanks for your consideration.

In the US, we have a multiplicity of news sources, not all coming from the boob tube. Our wide access to the Internet itself pretty much guarantees that many Americans have a good handle on what's really happening in the world.

I do happen to live in the US and follow world news from sources outside the US frequently, for the following reasons:

Different perspective

News the US outlets don't consider/realize is important.

I have satellite in the p/u and listen to the BBC regularly, which has been airing opinions severly questioning Blair's wisdom. The US media haven't been so tough on Bush, too bad really.

Last night, when the attacks started, the media were pretty much caught off guard and weren't properly spinning news for domestic pablum. I see this morning it has changed and the spin is a terrible thing to behold.

With the Dixie Chick and Sen. Tom Daschle, these first statements out of their mouths are honest and should be respected. I feel if it weren't for what I agree with the senator (Bush's ineptitude at foreign policy) the ineptitude may have been a guise, to get us into a war. As we can see by the comments of world leaders and sages, this is an undesirable situation, as if 9/11 taught Bush and his supporters nothing.

On the tapes, I have shared my 1991 tapes with friends whom had served in the conflict and they were grateful to see how it played back home. They had no idea and found the coverage interesting.

Re:Wrong, right, we're the men with the guns...

[Mattygfunk1]

Well said. I just hope that as a whole we use that power to read from non-American sources as opposed to NBC.com etc.

________

Cheap Web Site Hosting

Re:Wrong, right, we're the men with the guns...

[Mattygfunk1]

Obviously Australia does'nt rate a mention. Bali anyone?

_______________

Cheap Web Site Hosting

Re:Low Casualty

[pedaws]

You got that from the use of the term PRISON? So if I said Coke® tastes good, that means Pepsi® tastes bad? Just meant that the US has an overwhelming military advantage. I hope the civilian casualties as low as they can be, given the situation. (And guess what, I'm not saying all human lives aren't valuable. So save any "As opposed to military personnel, whom you want to die?" posts) That makes my original post Troll-worthy? Oh well.

Waste of bombs

[jsse]

Saddam has already fled and on his way to North Korea. Don't ask me how I know.

You may think I'm trolling. Mod me down if you hear the news about him being killed or caught. Until then, wait and see. :)

Arrogence

[matman]

Wow, at ~800 comments, I doubt that anyone will read this, but, what the hell :)

I think that most people will acknowledge that the removal of Saddam (and other unstable leaders/organizations) is something to be strived for. The decision to take military action towards that goal is not what concerns me. My concern lays in the fact that the current US administration has shown contempt and arrogence when dealing with other nations and has not exhausted oportunities for a non-lethal solution to their problems. Diplomacy was attempted only as a PR mechanism - not as a genuine attempt to involve the rest of the population of the world in important decisions. In this war, the United States is choosing to sacrifice Iraqis towards the goal of liberation/stability; the noble thing to do would be to sacrifice Americans or willing allies, including some Iraqis (lets look at Iraqis killed VS Americans killed).

The United States, being a proponent of democracy, should promote democracy for the world - not just for nations. The United States is a citizen of the world; money and power shouldn't give it a stronger voice than anyone else. The actions of the United States reminds me of the recent elections in Iraq - a ballot with only one option. The rest of the world shouldn't be ignored; the rest of the world wants to be involved and respected as citizens of the world. Refusing to acknowledge the value offered by the rest of the world is insulting and alienating. Please, hear us, United States.

Re:Arrogence

[ainsoph]

I read it. I agree. With all but one point. it is simply the job of the Iraqi's to remove Saddam, and if need be, for some specfic threat of danger, then it becomes the job of the world community (as you stated) to deal with the issue.

This is not the path taken.

Re:Arrogence

[Shugart]

I agree pretty much with the first paragraph. I don't understand what you mean about sacrificing Americans or willing allies, etc. Do you mean we should kill an American or ally for ever Iraqi killed?

It is obvious many in the Administration were against going through the United Nations. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and perhaps the President himself. I believe they sabotaged Colin Powells efforts with comments like the "Old Europe" statement and the president declaring we would go to war whatever the UN did.

In the last Gulf war members of the coalition restricted targets we could hit. Rumsfeld said he wouldn't let it happen this time. That is just one reason he was sabotaging efforts to get the UN behind the war.

I don't think a world government/democracy as you suggest would be possible or desireable. There is too much enmity between peoples for it to be fair.

Technically, the US government and almost all other so called democracies are not democracies. They are republics where politicians are elected to represent the voters. A true democracy would have voters vote on every issue/bill, etc. They are designed that way for several reasons, one of which is that popular opinion isn't always the best policy. Politicians are supposed to make up their own minds with puplic opinion as a factor but ultimately politicians make the decisions. Therefore, war protests won't necessarily change politicians minds.

Re:Arrogence

[matman]

I'm just saying that with the complete contrast in technology, training and supplies, much of the American forces stand much less risk than even Iraqi civilians.

I agree that a true democracy, especially a world one, is infeasable. My point was more that the United States, which often claims to promote democracy, is actually working against the democratic ideal on the world stage by ignoring the opinion of much of the world's population. Know what I mean?

Re:Arrogence

[Shugart]

I do now :)

When he was younger...

[donnz]

Ya know, I think I prefered Dubbya when he was a cocain snorting, alcholic, boardroom fraudster. Oh for the good ol' days...

Dear U.S. Citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

NOTE: This letter was written on 2/28/2003 (approximately 2.5 weeks prior to the deadline set forth by the U.S.)

Dear Sir or Madam,

You may have recently exercised your right to free speech by voicing your opposition to the impending conflict in the Middle East. It's your right to do so thanks to our Constitution and its Bill of Rights. I'm sure you're aware of the importance of the Constitution as it pertains to our history, government, rights, and country. Another important document in our history is the Declaration of Independence. In June of 1776, Thomas Jefferson wrote these words: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I'm writing to inform you that your unalienable Rights are in jeopardy. I discovered that there is a plot against your life. Obviously, without unalienable Right #1 (Life), #2 and #3 (Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness) are somewhat ruined. Unfortunately, your killers don't really care and won't stop with just ending your life. Once they kill you, they will continue murdering those you hold dearest. They will kill your family, your friends, your significant other, your co-workers, your fellow churchgoers, and any other United States citizen they can find. They will use any means possible. If they have to run you down on foot and slit you and your childrens' throats with knives, they will. If they are able (and equipped to do so), they will more than likely fire a pistol or rifle round through your skull at point blank range.

This killing won't happen covertly in a dark alley or your home. Your murderer will do you the pleasure of killing you for your beliefs in as public and horrific a manner as possible. More than likely he will even try to torture or molest you and your loved ones to the point at which you will be glad to die.

Who are these assailants? They are people who believe that they have to kill you because you don't think the way they do. Not only do they believe they must kill you, they believe they will be amply rewarded for doing so. If you're big on equality, you'll really like these guys. They don't discriminate at all. They are dedicated to killing you no matter your race, sex, sexual orientation, height, weight, age, political views, income, geographic location, ancestry, or religious preference. The only thing that matters to them is that you are a citizen of the United States. Your citizenship alone is more than enough motive for them to do everything in their power to end your life.

Luckily there are people who are on your side. You see, I took an oath eleven years ago to defend the United States, its allies, its interests abroad, and it's Constitution against all enemies whether they be foreign or domestic. By no means am I a warmonger. I'm not even on active duty anymore. My fellow Marines and I don't pray for war. In fact, we pray for peace more often than most conscientious objectors and anti-war protestors. Why? Because much like you, we don't want to die. We're ready to die if that's what it takes, but we'd really rather not. Most of us have things other than dying that we'd rather be doing. We have families, hobbies, friends, and interests just like you. It may seem trivial to you; but we swore to protect you, your family, and your way of life even if it means we have to die in the process. We even swore to protect your right to protest the actions we take to protect your rights. Think about that!

During my enlistment with the U.S. Marine Corps I learned some rather unsettling facts. I learned all about Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare (us Jarheads refer to it as "NBC"). All three can be devastating if used correctly. In addition to specifics on NBC warfare, I had the fortunate opportunity to familiarize myself (through research) with some of the people who are going to try to kill you (possibly even using NBC warfare). Unfortunately, I can'

Re:Dear U.S. Citizen

[teamhasnoi]

What if the guy who wants to be World Dominator is our President? Or if the greatest threats to our Constitution come from our Attorney General?

Purely rhetorical questions. That'd be crazy!

Thanks for your letter.

Re:Dear U.S. Citizen

[quax]

Terrorists always kill for a reason. It amazed me that so many people seem to forget this. It does not make them any less criminal, but they are not completely irrational. Osama stroke out against US citizens because their tax dollars support Israel and American troops in his "holly country" Saudi Arabia.

The lesson of history of terrorism in many countries clearly demonstarts that military action alone will not stop terrorism. Quite often it provoked the opposit. This war effort is ill advised.

Re:Dear U.S. Citizen

[SubtleNuance]

All the most perfect and basic elements of propaganda. Do you *REALLY* think this was written by some marine?

Re:It's about damn time

[stefanlasiewski]

If, and when, there is another dictator like Saddam, we'll take him out, too.

Don't you get it? All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

But we're not talking about Good Men. The US Boosted dictators like Saddam & Pinochet, and governments like the Taliban, into power because it served our short term needs.

What, you going to support a dictator this decade, only to take him out next decade?

If anything good comes out of this, I'm hoping to high heaven that the Bush administration starts a precedent to drop the "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy. Did he use WMD? Commit genocide? Torture political dissidents? Then don't support the bastard.

Whether you like or dislike Bush

[bshroyer]

You've got to agree that he's been nothing if not consistent:

"Disarm, or you will be forced to disarm"
...repeat a few times...

"Leave in 48 hours or we bring force"

"Here we come."

The biggest surprise, for me, is that none of this has been even slightly surprising.

I refuse to watch the war... because it's not HDTV

[robinw]

Who's with me?

Read the truth

-RW out.

Re:Fucking liberals eat french fries, dolt.

[teamhasnoi]

'Freedom fries' was a 'fucking ignorant' Republican's idea. Bob Ney. Ohio.

Dumbass.

Sadness

[freaker_TuC]

I am so very sad, very sad ... the world is becoming mad, very mad, very mad ...
A war is coming, war is coming, tears are filling up my feeling, killing feelings ...

Blood will be spilled for power, spilled for power, spilled for power, all for power ...
Sadness can be found in my tears, people will be living in fear, all in fear ...

It's a very very mad world ...
a very sad world ...

People have to learn a lesson, learn the lesson, all the faces, all expressions,
People will loose their children, loose their children, which before where happy children, being children ...

I feel o so lonely, with my own expressions, people are still not learning lessons, learning lessons ...
Help us all what will become so soon, help the people, help the world, spread this poem...

It's a very very mad world ...
It's a very very sad world ...

What about all the people, thinking people, feeling people, sad people, caring people, crazy people ...
We are filled with no desire, no desire, so sad to shout, world on fire, world on fire...

What will become of the earth, where we used to feel home, lives being scattered ...
What becomes of us, what becomes of them, people loose their lives, no more being the same ...

It's a very very mad world ...
It's a very very sad world ...

No war please, pretty please, no damnation ... not to promote a nation, promote a nation, any nation...
People will loose their lives, loose their friends, please no to be a living expense, no expense ...

People not ever to be seen again, never again, ever again, a rain will be coming, rain of sadness, bloody rain, ...
When will the madness end, madness end, please do end, people get killed, getting killed, for a cent ...

It's a very very mad world ...
It's a very very sad world ...

Thanks to all the people caring for us, caring for them, caring for future, for the future ...
Please don't solve problems with violence, no violence, some are still not learning lessons, learning lessons, ...

ZKboi (18/03/2003)
I feel bad for this world... My "NO" to war!

Listen with me and feel your feeling ...
(mp3: Gary Jules, Mad World).

Elected

[daveschroeder]

From pudge's blog:

I keep hearing people say things like "Bush wasn't elected," as if there were some truth to the statement. I hoped it was just bitterness at defeat that would eventually die down. But apparently the bitterness or blindness of some knows no bounds. So let me set the record straight, once and for all.

Bush was elected. There is no sense in which it is correct to say that he was not. We have a system of elections, determined by written law, and that system and law was followed at every step.

Some say Bush didn't win the "national popular" vote, as if the total number of votes means anything. It doesn't. Our law defines an electoral college system, and there is no such thing as a national popular vote.

Some say the Supreme Court of the United States stepped in and handed the election to Bush, as if the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of Constitutionality of election law. It is such, as defined in Article II Section 1 and Amendment 14.

Some say that the decision of the Supreme Court was invalid because it was partisan, that if you look at the 5-4 decision, it is the conservatives voting in favor of Bush, with the liberals in favor of Gore. Actually, the decision that the Florida recount was unconstitutional by breach of due process was 7-2, including all but the two most liberal members of the court; if the vote was partisan by vote makeup as we've been told, then it was the two liberals who were partisan. Of course, even if the decision in Bush's favor were partisan, it wouldn't invalidate the election (despite damaging the integrity of the Supreme Court), but this is just another example of people ignoring the facts of the matter.

So you can disagree with the outcome, but you cannot reasonably say that Bush didn't win the election, unless you believe the election procedures should be determined by something other than the law that defines them, and our system of law that interprets them. To continue to say he wasn't elected is to ignore the factual truth of the matter.

Re:Elected

[Myopic]

damn i'm glad someone said that so concisely. look, i'm a bush-hating hippie like the rest of you but when my friends say dumb, dumb, dumb things like "bush lost the election" i just want to slap them. what farking outcome did they want? did they want Gore to rise above the Rule of Law (the law in this case being the electoral college) and establish himself president with a coup or something? did they want the supreme court to ignore the rules which were CLEARLY laid out before the election? did they want some body BESIDES the supreme court to make the dicision? do they think it would be better if the opinions of FOUR member of the supreme court trumped the other FIVE opinions? like, what the hell are you asking for, gorelovers?

Re:Elected

[Darby]

So you can disagree with the outcome, but you cannot reasonably say that Bush didn't win the election, unless you believe the election procedures should be determined by something other than the law that defines them, and our system of law that interprets them. To continue to say he wasn't elected is to ignore the factual truth of the matter.

What you said is true as far as it goes, but you (as well as most of those you are responding to) ignore the most important part of the whole issue.

Jeb Bush and Kathleen Harris removed the right to vote from 10s of thousands of innocent law abiding Americans. This happened before the election. They did this for the sole reason that the voters in question were Black and Democrat. Given that the most fundamental right of a citizen of a free society is the right to have their voice heard, this is the most outrageous act of treason I've ever heard of in our country's history.

Had this not happened, the election wouldn't have been close enough for any of the events you are commenting on to be at issue.

So in fact Bush was not elected according to the constitution or the laws of our nation. He came to power solely through criminal acts of treason.

This is certainly consistent with his actions since. He has led assault after vicious assault on the constitution. He ordered the FBI off of Al Queda before 9/11 (You do know who John O'Neill was don't you?), he raped the FOIA and ordered government officials to fight the requests that came through the shredded remains of that absolutely essential act.

The ignorance you show in your defense of a traitor is truly sickening.

Totally against the war.

[bretth]

I am completely against the current war on Iraq. To my mind, by attacking Iraq without there being any hint of aggression against America, and without a shred of evidence to support it's claim that Saddam Hussein is constructing weapons of mass destruction, I think the US has violated any claim they may have had about this being a "just" war. see Jimmy Carter's opinion on what constitutes a just war.

I am not arguing against those who claim that Saddam Hussein is a "bad" man. But there are lots of despotic rulers in the world, and I think the current US policy of pre-emption is morally wrong, and sets a very dangerous precedent. The US is encouraging other despotic regimes to acquire nuclear capabilities in order to fend off a US preemptive strike, and guaranteeing that terrorism will be the only perceived way to fight superior US firepower.
The US has shown clear contempt for other countries in the world, by rejecting the Kyoto protocol accords, by subverting the International Criminal Court, and by acting unilaterally against Iraq. The US has vetoed UN resolutions against Israel 41 times (putting in doubt President Bush's claim that he wants to restore the land to the Iraqi people).
I don't believe this war is legal, although I doubt anyone will be prosecuted.
The world is extremely skeptical about this essentially unilateral war.

Victory for Halliburton!

[BFaucet]

Who wants to bet the stock on this comapny is about to skyrocket when they get all the contracts to rebuild Iraq. Hey, they've grabbed billions of dollars of tax funded contracts already.
http://chart.forbes.com/graph.asp?symbol1=HAL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/ar ticles/halliburtonprimer.html

Who wants to be Cheney and Bush have a whole lot of stock in that company? I love it when war profiteers are in charge... wait... No... no I don't. Those are my tax dollars and my friends going to war.

I hope the Iraqi troops surrender, the UN survives and now that he's being cornered and offered no way out, I hope Saddam doesn't unleash any weapons of mass destruction that he might have.

Re:Victory for Halliburton!

[teamhasnoi]

Why is this a troll? Isn't Cheney still on the Board of Halliburton?

Mods, could you perhaps try moderating with BOTH hands in the future?

Re:Victory for Halliburton!

[BFaucet]

Troll... may I ask why?

Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. When he stated he was going to be running for VP of the US he stepped down to being Halliburton's chairman of the Board. Then left Halliburton in August of 2000. What's interesting is Halliburton was super nice to him and awarded him $20,000,000.00 (despite his origional severence package required he be awarded only $2,100,000.00 and required him to stay until he was 62. He's 59.) He owns more than a million shares (over $10,000,000.00 worth) of this commpany. Why was Halliburton so nice to Cheney despite his leaving before he was supposed to? Large companies aren't really known for being nice guys to anyone (especially former employees) unless it's in their best interest.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/12/ cheney.parachute.ap/

You'll also note than Halliburton was busted for extremely fishy and illegal accounting in July of 2002.
http://money.cnn.com/2002/07/10/news/cheney_lawsui t/

Well somewhere this vanished and accoring to http://www.judicialwatch.org/2221.shtml the whitehouse stopped the court order illegally. I'm not sure if I believe that story, but I haven't heard anything about this case since July of 2002. Anyone know anything about what happened to the charges?

Since Bush was elected (or placed in office by Florida's Supreme Court, rather) Halliburton has been handed many federal contracts worth many billions of dollars.

I simply can't stand the thought of my tax dollars and my friends in the military are being abused for the profit of someone who already has more money than anyone could need.

For more interesting articles concerning Halliburton and Cheney:

http://www.observer.co.uk/bush/story/0,8224,759141 ,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,912515 ,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/13/business/13HALL. html

Now there's a good chap.

[Ayanami Rei]

I've worked with your type.

Dependable? Yes
Sharp? Yes
Hygeine? Always well maintained

But they don't often like to: 1) be imaginative or speculative, and in that vein 2) take risks. Also, I find them to sometimes be ill-tempered, overly confident, or sometimes unintelligent or gullible.
The best of them, however, were the ones who went into the service to get free education and world experience. If you've been lucky enough to get a college education early without much financial obligation, avoiding a military stint is perfectly logical. Unless you really like the idea of inflicting personal and violent retribution on others without the need to understand the reasons behind it. Those people tend to be the ill-tempered and overly-confident.

Also I will warn you that you can't impress your way up the corporate ladder. Eventually your superiors will become intimidated by you and you will be silently ousted by your peers. Instead, you must take risks, and occaisionally get lucky (or be very smart), thus convincing the board, chairs or whomever that you are the mover and shaker that needs to be promoted.

Maybe I see this because of the environment I work in (defense contractor), but I think it scales across industries. And you're going to have to lose that chip on your shoulder, marine, if you want anyone to really take you seriously.

Re:Now there's a good chap.

[jxs2151]

But they don't often like to: 1) be imaginative or speculative, and in that vein 2) take risks. Also, I find them to sometimes be ill-tempered, overly confident, or sometimes unintelligent or gullible.

All very valid points. I identified those as shortcomings and continue to stuggle with exactly the items you mentioned- except the uintelginet part. Seriously, you have obviously spent some time thinking about this and observing.

...lose that chip on your shoulder, marine...

Marine is capitalized, and I am taken seriously- at least by those who count.

Cyberterrorism and warfare

[incom]

So has the hacking war begun yet? I can't wait to show my patriotism by putting a crazy mustach onto a saddam picture... Wait, someone already did that.

Re:Cyberterrorism and warfare

[Anonymous Squonk]

Perhaps, if you consider the U.S. taking over Iraqi state radio as "hacking"

Re:War Pigs

[dpt]

I've got my degree, thanks for your concern

Just recently, and you clearly slept through most of it. Did computing seem like a good idea in 1998? Sorry, the boom is over. All fucktards who would otherwise have majored in "marketing" get back to whatever else you were doing. Thanks.

Good to see you've got the night off away from the drive-through window so you can go online and play intellectual

Interesting, as I would have assumed you're far more likely to be in that situation that me, given that you've probably been working all of a year. If you've had a job at all.

I'd bet money you live with your mother.

Just keep hating the same people who have provided you with the safety and prosperity your cowardly ass takes for granted.

Bush provided me with safety? Really? Idiot. Did I actually say I was for or against the war? Try thinking before you post. I realize that people of your age and younger weren't taught to read and comprehend very well due to the decline of our education system, so I guess that's understandable.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[McCarrum]

Australia ..

remember us, we're one of the Willing Countries apparently ..

Re:to the tune of "if your'e happy & you know

[swillden]

That's the funniest thing I've seen today... wish I had mod points!

Of course, your politics are idiotic, but I salute your wit and humor!

Illegal strike and illegal war

[zebul0n]

This war is illegal since it was started without the support of the United Nations.

As far as I am concerned, the US are a hegemony that is trying to impose its will on the rest of the world.

What will you say when China will invade Taiwan (its renegade province) without consulting with the United Nations?

I think Bush and his team is really a bunch of morons.

Z.

Re:Illegal strike and illegal war

[AvitarX]

Not to entirly troll or anything, but I think you are wrong. The UN refused to back up it's own resolution, and Iraq has never fully conformed to the peace treaty at the end of the Gulf War.

Due to his failure to comply the War is justified from a rules point of view (even if the UN is failing to back those rules).

I personally am against the war, but cannot only justify my opinion on the loss of innocent life.

Their were rules laid out that Suddam had to follow at the end of the first Gulf War and he has not followed them, now Bush is finishing up what was put on hold for a decade to give the man a chance to comply.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[phoenixTMW]

If it was about oil and money, it'd be much cheaper to lift the embargo, and turn a blind eye to Saddams persecution of his own people, and his funding of suicide attacks in Israel.

Untrue. The point isn't whether the oil flows freely or not, it's whether the United States controls it.

Re:About time.

[houseofmore]

'Saddam tortures dissenters in ways that can only with great charity be called "cruel"'

There are hundreds of countries around the world that have horrendous human rights records that continue to this day. Are you going to bomb them all? You can't just spin the globe, find leaders and counties that disagree with you or don't align with your principals and wage a war on them. That sounds a little too familiar doesn't it?

You seem to think removing a regime through war equates to a liberated people. But there is far much more involved, and it is usually the rest of the world who in fact has to move in and clean up the mess of the states and its allies (notice you can count them on one hand this time)
once the carnage has ceased. Only then does anything even come close to liberation.

Psychological Effects of Media Glitz

[Alethes]

Of course war is no joke, but what if the media glitz is part of the psychological battle with Iraq in attempt to demean them and weaken their staying power? If the Iraqi army doesn't fight, this whole thing will be over relatively quickly and with much less bloodshed.

I'm not saying that's definitely the case, but it seems like an interesting and real possiblity.

Re:The Saddest Day In American History

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

The polls indicate that 60% to 70% of Americans support the action

Yes, thanks to the US Media Propaganda Machine TM. Most other countries' citizens had a majority that opposed a war. Your average Joe is just going to go by what he see's on TV. Not many people really think about it. And even fewer acctually do some research about it (and realise that the US media pump out propaganda 24/7).

Re:The Saddest Day In American History

[fafalone]

No, this is not supposed to be a democracy. ..and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..

Re:GWB is a tool.

[scootles]

an interesting read: http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmeric asDefenses.pdf

This is a lot like the connundrum of what to do...

[Trolling4Dollars]

...with an animal that is ill in some ways. Some people would prefer to keep the animal alive and do what they can to ease the pain (diplomacy and sanctions). Others would want to quickly "put it out of it's misery" (going to war). Depending on the kind of person you are, you will perceive one approach or the other as the "kinder" one. That's a tough call since putting an animal to sleep is not an easy choice, but watching it suffer isn't much easier either. Personally, I'd try to keep it alive as long as possible to give it a full life since that seems to be the kinder thing to do in my opinion. I wouldn't want the animal's life on my hands. Too much to be guilty about.

Epitaph on a Tyrant

[Skyshadow]

Perfection, of a kind, was what he was after And the poetry he invented was easy to understand; He knew human folly like the back of his hand, And was greatly interested in armies and fleets; When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter, And when he cried the little children died in the streets. - WH Auden

A War for France's Oil

[Nept]

(quoted from the wall street journal, wednesday)
...In pursuit of such deals, Russia and France have persistently undermined sanctions and the effort to disarm Saddam and bring him into compliance with his own commitments by means short of war. "Politics is about interests. Politics is not about morals," Iraq's U.N. ambassador explained to the Washington Post a year ago. "If the French and others will take a positive position in the Security Council, certainly they will get a benefit. This is the Iraqi policy."...

Don't mean to post the whole article, but this should clear up any confusion by why we are not being supported by our "allies"

Re:A War for France's Oil

[fishbowl]

>Don't mean to post the whole article, but this
>should clear up any confusion by why we are not
>being supported by our "allies"

Well, there is a world of difference between "not being supported" and "actively being opposed".

I note that none of the nations voising their opposition have taken any military action to prevent it. A bunch of hot air at the UN is one thing, but a Russian sub in the Gulf would have said "WE OPPOSE THIS ACTION. PLEASE DESIST."

Re:A War for France's Oil

[ccmay]

a Russian sub in the Gulf would have said "WE OPPOSE THIS ACTION. PLEASE DESIST."

And a big boom, a fountain of water and an oil slick would then say "F**K YOU IVAN." Not that that's a bad thing...

-ccm

Re:A War for France's Oil

[fishbowl]

Well, I don't mean to suggest that anyone can stand up to the US, even combined, not for long at least on air or sea.

But if you had to get popular support for going against anyone capable of SHOOTING BACK, you only think you've seen protests, dissent, and politics.

That's why I say, if France, China, Russia, or anyone else really was opposed to this action, they could have easily raised the stakes enough to make it a much cloudier issue. Currently, the forces commanded by the Bush administration are pretty much unopposed. That makes it real easy to get popular support.

In another scenario, say one that had 20,000 men coming home in bags every month, we might do something besides yellow ribbons, "my country right or wrong", and flag stickers on our trucks.

No, the average Joe would see that we're getting our asses handed to us, and we should have left it alone.

But, obviously, we don't take on enemies with armies. And we don't invade in theatres that would require protracted infantry battles against nonuniformed guerilla militias.
There are plenty of places where air superiority won't solve the war, and ships at sea would be irrelevant. But we don't start fights there...

More web info sources

[Draxinusom]

If you get tired of the big-media spectacle and want some real information, Slate has a good list of online information sources. Especially interesting is the blog of a Baghdad resident.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[festers]

There are many, many soldiers in the miliary who do not want to be there right now. Let me introduce you to something called "stop loss." Soldiers who were about to go on terminal leave and be done with their time of service are told they must stay, for up to a year more. I have two very good friends who were about to come home...until 3 weeks ago that is. Both of them are Captains in the Army and both of them see this as an unjust and immoral war.

Stop Loss info

Re:War Pigs

[quitcherbitchen]

Bush stood up to overwhelming global opinion to do what he thought (and many Americans agree) is the right thing. That takes cojones and integrity.

Wait a minute here....

[whazzy]

...Are you implying that Japan and Germany rose from the ashes of World War II Because USA helped them?If "bombing" Hiroshima and Nagasaki(remember,the war was almost over even without dropping those bombs in the first place!),is what u say 'helping' to rebuild the nation,then I agree.

It is morally wrong and totally insulting to attribute the prosperity,perseverance and resoluteness of post war Japan and Germany to America.

I for one,hope that you stop making such insane statements to justify this war(We are going to 'rebuild' Iraq.But in order to do that,we need to 'destroy' it,right?)

Aargh!

Re:Wait a minute here....

[RocketScientist]

Wow.

OK, let's see. "War was almost over". Go read a history book. Or quit falling asleep in history class. We hadn't even attempted an invasion of Japan yet when the shooting stopped. The estimates at the time were that something in the neighborhood of 400,000 soldiers would die on both sides in order to stop the war.

Oh, and I love this: "It is morally wrong and totally insulting to attribute the prosperity,perseverance and resoluteness of post war Japan and Germany to America." Because they were doing all those great things with thier Prosperity and Perseverance before the war. Like building up armies to invade their neighbors, kill lots of Jews and bomb our sorry asses at Pearl Harbor. Would Japan or Germany (or any of Europe) be as economically well of as they are without the rebuilding help that we provided? Go look at the Marshall Plan sometime.

Am I saying that the Japanese didn't work their asses off? Given that we were out of there in the mid-50's for the most part, I don't think that's bloody likely. But, I am saying that we pointed them in the right direction and gave them a jumpstart in the right direction, without which maybe they would have lapsed back into the fun of the dictatorial facist crap that would start the mess over again.

Let me put it this way: Democracies are all about productive people. Facist regimes are not. By pointing both Germany and Japan (and hopefully Iraq) onto that path, we gave them a good lead on building their economies quickly.

Oh, and Iraq's already a cesspool. They could surrender now, or they could have surrendered 5 years ago, and we would still have to rebuild it. Iraq has a lot of really smart, highly educated people, and not nearly enough infrastructure, due to sanctions and corruption at very high levels.

Re:the draft and sexual equality

[l337programmer]

IF there were to be a draft, eventhough there won't be, would women and men be drafted equally?

Last Iraq story on /.

[Nept]

This Slashdot story (posted by Sengan - comments originally disabled. Anyone remember that fiasco?)


2 hours ago, the US and UK started an attack on Iraq. Under international law, this attack is illegal as it was not approved by the UN security council. In fact the UN security council has rejected repeated US requests to authorize it. Under international law, this is a war-crime. Under US law it is illegal, since Congress was not asked to approve it. (CT:Sengan is wrong here. Under Executive Order, Clinton can do this) The Pentagon estimates that 10,000 people will be killed. There are disturbing reports that Richard Butler, chairman of UNSCOM, has been in consultation with the US to draft his reports. Moreover, Cofi Annan, UN-head did not instruct Butler to evacuate the arms inspectors -- the US did. France, Russia and China have voiced opposition. Of relevance is that tomorrow, Clinton was to be impeached since most of the congress members wanted him impeached. Indeed, the Senate told the Whitehouse that he would be impeached tomorrow unless he bombed Iraq.

Full story here from ~5 years ago. Where did the comments go?

Re:About time.

[Osiris Ani]

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.

See also, Live From Baghdad, a cleverly portrayed dramatization of said event (and the events leading up to them).

newz

[British]

Some of the screens they show, showing the stats on the Tomohawk missle on FOXNews looks exactly like a videogame, complete with spinning graphic of the missle

2 points

[aztektum]

1) But everyone is like "This is war! The wars on now! We're at war!"

Technically it isn't war since war can only be declared by Congress.

If the news agencies weren't spinning it into a full blown battle right now I don't think it would be such a huge deal. Right now it's only missile strikes. How many times in the last ten years have we lobbed missiles into Iraq?

2) Speaking of the news media...

Didn't they learn after their huge early call blunders during the 2000 election about overzealous journalism?

The cable news channels rarely did anything but focus on when the fighting will start today. The networks interrupted shows to say "It has begun..." then they were like "Well maybe not really..."

Chill out dude, it's "war". Don't treat it like a game show.

Re:2 points

[GiMP]

In October, Congress voted for and approved war if Bush decided for it. They pre-approved the war and stated that the war will be officially declared upon reciept of a letter from Bush indicating that war has begun.

Many people do not believe that this is constitutional, but it is how it has occurred.

Bush has sent his letter to Congress and thus war has officially begun.

Re:And you read this...

[mchappee]

OK, I read it. Nice piece of fiction. Here's another URL:

http://www.puk.org/web/htm/news/nws/05feb03ti.ht ml

It's a direct response to your link. According to the UN, FAS, and Human Rights Watch the author of your link is dead wrong. Both of us can can google all night and swap links, but what it boils down to is credibility. I'll side with the UN, FAS, and HRW on this one...

Re:War Pigs

[quitcherbitchen]

... All fucktards who would otherwise have majored in "marketing" get back to whatever else you were doing.

... I realize that people of your age and younger weren't taught to read and comprehend very well due to the decline of our education system, so I guess that's understandable.

Quite understandable.

Re:to the tune of "if your'e happy & you know

[re-Verse]

until this point in the thread i was thinking humour doesn't belong in a place where we know hundreds or more and being bombed... Then i read this - i coudn't help laughing.. and so true... I think you've added a valuable segment to the thread - and any of the idiotic insults/threats you may receive from others in here should be dismissed. Very well done.

Target of Opportunity

[xmnemonic]

A target of opportunity is just a generic military term referring to targets that are planned and designated as the battle goes, usually not containing targets of strategic importance. Target of opportunity does not mean anything especially significant.

Re:www.moorewatch.com

[Ayanami Rei]

Serious crackpot? Maybe.
But so are all the authors of the weblog.

I have never seen so many crackpots critizing so many crackpots. Jesus christ you people are MINDNUMBING and you make my brain want to ooze out onto the floor and make me climb into bed.

Re:It's about damn time

[oz_ko]

I think that should be "re-lose the election"

Re:What does "supporting the troops" mean, exactly

[miracle69]

It's an American acknowledgement and remembrance of the horrible things a section of the American public did to the soldiers of the Vietnam war - people in many cases weren't true "volunteers", but drafted into involuntary service. Many of the soldiers themselves were treated badly and unfairly for performing a duty that they didn't want to do, but were forced to.

Our military is composed of entirely volunteers, and these people agree to do the beckoning of our government, whom we put into control. Most Americans realize that the soldiers are instruments of the policies we put into power, and we don't, as a people, want to repeat the mistakes we did in Vietnam.

Re:War Pigs

[dpt]

I like "fucktards". It's my word of the month. :)

This is too much...

[The Bringer]

Wow! It is amazing to see the range of comments based on this war. I see everything from accusations of treason to full out patriotism. I am a Canadian. The leader of my country has decreed that we will not support the US in their actions against Iraq. I stand behind him 100%. I do however wish the American troops in the Gulf the best, and hope that God is with them. For the Iraqis, I hope that they have God on their side as well. No good comes of war, and I pray that this is the moral of what is about to happen. God Bless!

Maybe this will raise some thought

[The Ancients]

Whether you believe in what has started or not, it is now moot. What worries me is the innocent people who will die. My parents were on holiday, about 2 km away from the Pentagon on 9/11 and whilst there are many people who do not like Americans (for one reason or another), the horror they spoke of will be with me forever. Whenever I hear this , my thoughts always go to the innocent, whatever nationality they are. Hopefully this will also remind a few others of the fact that so many people are affected. For all the good one person's thoughts will do, I hope the war will be as swift and as bloodless as possible. ..k

my attack plan

[xmnemonic]

i wrote this about 5 months ago, so things i mention here may appear more or less realistic now.

Iraq Attack Plan

In the Gulf War, an air campaign of "instant thunder" (as opposed to rolling thunder in vietnam) was carried out. The campaign was defensive and did not penetrate Iraq deeply. The land campaign featured a massive buildup of forces for months on the border, and it would appear that a similar thing is occuring (I recall hearing of vehicles being re-painted in desert camo first in June) followed by a huge attack on Iraqi forces. Key to supporting this was the supply base (M1's only get 1mpg) the US managed to build up in the previous months.

Build up
What I've heard: spec ops in Jordan, airbase extended in Qatar, commercial shipping used for military purposes, carrier battle groups being moved to the Persian Gulf.
----

Psychological operations begin. Air dropping of US "propaganda" leaflets, broadcasting of US government radio and TV via EC-130 special operations aircraft.

Phase 1
Offensive Air Strikes.
Attack air defenses as well as C3 (command, control, communications) structures.
Strikes from carriers in the gulf, airbase in Qatar (reportedly a USAF airstrip there has been extended, to allow for the usage of heavier aircraft or aircraft with heavier payloads), long range strikes from US airbases. SAM radars attacked first with HARM's (done extensively by the US during the Serbian conflict, blinding the enemy), then move in with bombers (B-52's, B-1B's etc.). B-2's and F-117's (these are both "stealth" aircraft) used to strike heavily defended critical targets. As the IADS (integrated air defense system) is taken out, strikes are carried out farther inland. US special forces (SEALs, Rangers, Delta Force) used for coordinating these strikes (acting as FAC's- forward air controllers) as well as taking out smaller more mobile targets (generals, mobile SAM's) and disabling WMD facilities (I've heard rumors of an "agent-defeat" weapon that can neutralize NBC agents as well). Collateral damage avoided at all costs, strikes not carried out on targets potentially containing or affecting non-combatants heavily, such as power plants. Long-range missiles destroyed immediately to prevent involvement of Israel. Patriot SAMS deployed in western parts of Iraq.

Iraq's air force would be destroyed after strikes on hangars and supply (fuel, weapons) depots. Strikes on runways would have to be carried out almost constantly to keep them grounded (as was done in the Gulf War, since a runway can be repaired in several hours). Any type of "long-arm" of the Iraqi military would be gone. Also, any chances of the war spreading would now be greatly reduced.

Phase 2
Deploy mechanized infantry.
The US military reportedly has been using commercial shipping companies to transport military equipment for months. This implies tanks, since their weight prevents them from being transported easily by air (only 1 can be carried in a C-5, the US's largest transport aircraft, of which there is a very small number). Armored cavalry units sweep across south eastern Iraq facing weak opposition. Fox NBC vehicles used and units deep into Iraq equipped with extensive NBC gear (gas masks, NBC warfare suits). Virtually all of the ground forces probably equipped with at least gas masks. As US land forces proceed deeper, unmanned recce (Predators, Global Hawks) used to assess the remaining power of the Iraqi military. Forces from Jordan and the south east converge at the center, infiltrating Iraqi command centers. Targets in this phase would focus on palaces and high-risk areas. Very little collateral damage (one of the key advantages of ground forces, aircraft can't do everything), rules of engagement generally set to be very strict (fire if fired upon or at least visual id prior to engagement). High Iraqi POW count (in the Gulf War, pilots would sometimes see Iraqi tank crews waving white flags before bombs were even dropped), Iraqi military demoralized by ma

Re:Actually...Saddam's threats are varied...

[0x0d0a]

why did he want Kuwait? Oil. He already is sitting on one of the largest supplies of it in the world.

Yes. Much like the US. Except our approach is, instead of annexing a country, to simply install a puppet government (Iran, and the fact that the only reason the current Saudi government is in power is because the US props them up are both examples BORDERING Iraq), and *then* take their natural resources at cut-rate prices. Much more convenient if you decide you want to pull out.

Dare we forget, he has always been working on chem and bio weapons, and back in the era of the Kuwait invasion, he was uncomfortably close to nuclear weapons.

"close" to nuclear weapons? Okay, *that* comes off as propaganda...

However, we *have* nuclear weapons and have used them against another country. Twice. Beat that.

He hasn't played by the rules at all...he's defied the UN many times

*snort* And you consider the US a country that *doesn't* defy the UN? Heck, in *attacking* Iraq "for defying a UN mandate", we ourselves are violating a UN mandate.

because America's actions are currently unpopular, it doesn't make them wrong

I say America should do what's in her best interests. Which does not include attacking a country that has little to no ability or history of attacking it or in angering people across the world who will lose relatives and now consider taking part in terrorism.

All I see here is Bush's ego and a guy who tried to knock off his old man. And a hell of a lot of misuse of power.

I didn't see Iraq attacking the US through the Clinton years, somehow, despite the lack of war.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[commodoresloat]

Technically speaking, the troops are supposed to be there supporting us.

No, but...

[Galvatron]

it makes some sense that recruiters would be working hard right now. If there's one thing the military hates, it's recruits who decide after 6 months that they really made a bad choice. Anyone who joins up right at the outset of a war is probably pretty damn sure he wants to be in the military, so he'll make a good recruit.

This is basically the opposite of the time immediately after Sept. 11th, when the military was turning people away because most people who wanted to sign up then were not really that serious about it.

Re:It's about time.

[mshomphe]

Wow, I knew Slashdot was 75% fact-free, but this is the first time I've seen a 100% fact-free post:

(1)Saddam has been proven to have a nuclear weapons program. No, no, no, NO! No one has proved that. The UN inspection teams, expatriots, and all available intelligence indicates the ABSENCE of a nuclear weapons program.

(2) Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other nation in history. Huh? The UN embargos have a lot to do with those deaths. Back up your statement with facts.

(3)This is not a preemptive strike. Saddam's forces have fired on US planes in the no fly zones on numerous occasions.
Okay:
(a) This is a premptive strike. The Adminstration admits as much.
(b) Iraq has TARGETED US figter planes, but never fired.

(4) Saddam's regime funds and harbors Al Queda and other terrorise groups.
The Administration tried and failed to prove a link. There is NO LINK.

(5) It is illegal, punishable by death, to belong to any other political party than the Bath (sp?) party which is that of Saddam.

Prove it.

(6) Children as young as 3 years old are bombarded with Pro-Saddam propaganda in their schools.
As opposed to other contries that use propoganda?

(7)Anyone who doesn't agree that Saddam needs to be removed from power is either a communist, a terrorist, or just plain stupid.
What the hell does communism have to do with ANYTHING? no one says that Saddam's a good guy. But there are two things:
(i) There are other ways other than war to remove a leader.
(ii) There is a strong stink of hypocracy in the Administration's push for war with Iraq and not with N. Korea. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Israel.

I don't hate the war, just GWB

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Re:I don't hate the war, just GWB

[fishbowl]

"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."

If the "international community" were really opposed, they'd have put their own armies, navies, and air forces in the way. They'd have said "we don't do this because we support Iraq, but because we reject American agression."

No, if there were real opposition, the US forces would have to get past Russian subs and Chinese fighters before taking Baghdad. That would have stopped all the momentum, because I don't think the people supporting today's war would be quite as optimistic if we had to fight through armed opponents with a real military stake, before getting to the unarmed one, with purely political stakes.

No, the "international community" has given its blessing, while maintining a nominal voice of opposition merely with words. Nobody really believes the Iraqi army is prepared to do anything but surrender, after making the fireworks show with their AA that doesn't even reach the parking altitude of a B-52. And your "international community" hasn't lifted a finger to stop it. One Russian sub in the Gulf would have clouded the issue enough to put the brakes on.

So which is it? "We oppose your actions" or "We say we oppose your actions, but we do not oppose them strongly enough to take action of our own?"

Re:I don't hate the war, just GWB

[Halo1]

No, if there were real opposition, the US forces would have to get past Russian subs and Chinese fighters before taking Baghdad.

Maybe if all of those countries had a GWB or a Saddam Houssein at the head, this would have started WWIII or a new cold war, yes. Fortunately, that is not the case and those (and other) countries know that putting their own armies in the way would make matters even worse. If GWB would have called this off for any reason, he'd have to find a new enemy to crush (one which he can catch, so not Osama bin Laden / Al Qaeda), otherwise he would lose everything he built his "carreer" on: the army and "homeland security".

So which is it? "We oppose your actions" or "We say we oppose your actions, but we do not oppose them strongly enough to take action of our own?"

If we would take action, we'd be labeled as terrorists instead of as weasels. Your "take action" approach is the approach of antiquity, the simplistic approach, the survival-of-the-fittest approach. It sounds as if you would love the rest of the world to oppose the US with weapons, so you/the US could even more strongly justify their militarisation and act as if they are the poor underdogs, the ones that no-one else understands and the ones that are threatened by the big, bad world out there.

I don't want to play that game. In a diplomatic and civilized world, you take action by using your veto's and your votes. Yes, the US ignored those and went to war anyway. If you think that using a veto in the UN is "just use words and not take action", then it means you've confirmed what so many others have already said: the US and its allies just made the UN irrelevant, it's as if the UN was only their to let the US justify whatever action it wanted to take. Why would any other country still take the UN serious? The US is invading Iraq because it supposedly violates UN resolutions, but by doing that they are doing exactly the same thing!

Don't you fscking get it that the only thing that this war does, is make matters worse on all counts? More destroyed families and desperate survivors -> more recruits for Al Qaeda. The US defies the UN -> the terrorists have more ammo win people for their "cause" (or what they claim that is their cause), since the US now has very little moral ground left to stand on. A sock puppet government gets installed in Iraq -> the terrorists will use this to convince more people to join their ranks, since that's "proof" that US is in for complete world domination.

The US are helping the terrorists in a way those organisations could only dream about of doing themselves (not on purpose of course, but it is the end result)! These organisations can only get people so far that they commit suicide if these people are completely desperate and feel they have absolutely no control anymore about what's happening to their life and environment. This war will only increase and encourage such breakdowns, it will do everything but help the fight against terrorism.

Re:I don't hate the war, just GWB

[SatanicPuppy]

Heh. I have my liberal moments, true enough.

However, this isn't one of them. If we'd done it right the first time, we wouldn't be in this mess. Trust a republican to screw up the war. World War I...Democrat. World War II...Democrat. Korea, Vietnam...Democrats. Republicans only go to war over oil, against little countries that can't fight back, for the purposes of lining their own pockets. That's just my opinion, of course.

We should have gone in there, crushed the power structure, and set up a decent government. Then helped them rebuild their economy, and we'd have an ally in that region. Take Japan as an example; we beat them solidly in a war, then helped them get back on their feet. We got a top notch trading partner out of it and one less thing to worry about in the world.

That crap we pulled with afganistan is just the same. In the '70s we set up a government over there to serve our interests in that part of the world, we gave them weapons and training, wand when they'd beaten the russians, we forgot their names. At least until they smashed a couple of planes into a few major buildings. All that could have been avoided.

Iraq. We fricking armed Iraq! I don't care if we go into countries and try to make things better for them by deposing the dictator of the week, but jesus, can we at least not ARM them before we decide to fight them? This is so pointless! And we do it all the time!

And, as for the European community "supporting it" that is the same as saying that we "supported" the Serbian genocide in the former Yugoslavia because we didn't do anything about it. Or the Holocaust. Or the slaughter of the Kurdish rebels in Iraq...Of course we caused that, so I guess you could say we supported it.

The Iraqi leadership is pretty foul, and the world will be a better place without them, but, no doubt, our high-handed actions are causing many in the world to think the same about us.

Whether their right or wrong, we are complete idiots to think that their opinions don't matter.

Re:I don't hate the war, just GWB

[Gorbie]

Could it not also be said that by refusing to enforce any of the resolutions drafted in response to the conduct of Iraq under Saddam Hussein's leadership that the UN has made itself obsolete?

Think about this. This guy invaded Kuwait in '91. Everyone said "Bad Saddam...you must be punished! Disarm now!". So Saddam put up a farce for the first 5-6 years, then kicked out the inspectors.

When the inspectors went back in under the new UN resolution, the language of which is VERY strong (you can read it here)
Iraq was still not complying. The UN did nothing. It had done nothing for 12 years. At what point do you say "screw the security council!"?

I don't mean that to be antagonistic, but just to throw the question out there. When will the UN make itself relevant again? I believe in the concept, and that if you sign the charter that you should abide by the rulings. But...as soon as countries don't and nothing is done, the organization might as well not exist.

Re:I don't hate the war, just GWB

[Halo1]

Iraq was still not complying. The UN did nothing. It had done nothing for 12 years. At what point do you say "screw the security council!"?

The main problem is imho that the US didn't just say "screw the security council", but they more or less said "screw more than half the world". If almost everyone were behind this war, but some members of the security council were using their veto to block everyone else, it would be a completely different situation I think.

I don't mean that to be antagonistic, but just to throw the question out there. When will the UN make itself relevant again? I believe in the concept, and that if you sign the charter that you should abide by the rulings. But...as soon as countries don't and nothing is done, the organization might as well not exist.

I wouldn't say nothing was being done, with the embargo's and weapon inspections. They were being held up until Iraq complied. I agree that not much progress was being made on that front and that it would have been much better if other measures could be worked out that did have a more visible effect.

The problem I have with this war is that although it may indeed ultimately result in the removal of Saddam from power and making certain that Iraq doesn't have any WMD's (anymore), the people behind it don't seem to care at all that on every other imaginable front, it makes the whole world situation worse. A lot of people think so at least and I haven't seen anyone here yet arguing it isn't so when replying to my posts (only got a few new foes and friends :).

Before you go to war, you have to ask yourself whether it's really worth it. Obviously, most of the countries in the UN didn't think so. Bush wanted a war he could win (he thought it would even be easy, but it seems like he made a small mistake there), so he used the UN resolutions as a pretext to start this war.

It is certainly possible that France, Germany and Russia have other reasons to be against a war on Iraq than just that they think it's plain stupid (like someone else replied to another comment of mine), but they were/are not the only ones that are against. Of course they are the most vocal, since they are all quite large countries, but for example Belgium ("my" country) is also against. And all those millions of people that protested against the war. I don't think you can dismiss that all as "they are scared" or "they have other interests to protect" or "they are misguided, they don't know what they are talking about".

Just think about it: maybe the fact that the majority was/is against a war means that it is/was indeed a bad idea to start it and that was their way to try to prevent it. Maybe they were trying to stop the US from going to war not because they didn't like the US or because they didn't really want Saddam to follow the UN resolutions, but because they thought that waging such a war would do more harm than good.

Just removing Saddam isn't going to stop terrorism or dagers in this world, it's not even a first step in that process the way it's being done now. On the contrary, it seems like with this war, it's just become the beginning of a much larger scale armed conflict. And somehow, I can't help but think that that is exactly what several people high up in the current US government want, since that's the only way they can justify all the spending they've taken away from other important sectors and pumped into the army.

Re:I don't hate the war, just GWB

[Gorbie]

You know, I couldn't make you a foe because regardless of your opinions you present them in a well thought out fashion. You are obviously not a sheep and I respect that. I couldn't brand you friend either because your fist post sounded a bit on the anti-american side for my taste. We shall see.....

I won't try and tell you that what you say is untrue. I am not sure if you are right or if the pro war side is right. War is always a bad thing and in my opinion use of force should always be a last resort.

A big part of my point, however was that the US and it's allies are not the ones that made the Security Council irrelevant. I whole heartedly disagree. The UN as a body makes a joke of itself by not standing up to it's own stated goals and resolutions and by wallowing in inaction when members break those same reolutions. Action does not have to suggest that the UN attack every country that acts in a contrary fashion, but often times threat of force is the only thing that rougue states will respond to.

What action was taken by the security council when Saddam kicked inspectors out of Iraq several years ago? None.

I suggest reading the text of the security council's 1441 resolution. The language is very strong in the expectations that were dictated. Saddam immediately began checking out how much "wiggle room" there was in that contract. If not, it would not have taken several months for inspectors to keep finding bits here and dribs and drabs there. The evidence is fairly clear.

So my question to you is, what do we ( an I do mean a collective we, not a U.S. we) do to demonstrate to states that would defy the security council in this fashion that there are consequences for their actions? None of the tactics used so far have worked, so help come up with a better idea. "More of the same" is not useful. It hasn't worked, and there is no reason to believe that it will work in the future.

Re:I don't hate the war, just GWB

[Halo1]

So my question to you is, what do we ( an I do mean a collective we, not a U.S. we) do to demonstrate to states that would defy the security council in this fashion that there are consequences for their actions? None of the tactics used so far have worked, so help come up with a better idea.

That is indeed the big problem. Nothing they did helped, so what now. I personally also don't have a simple "do this and that and then everything will be fine"-solution either. I even doubt there is one. The US gov't decided to try to blow Saddam to bits (which is a "do this and that"-approach actually). The problem that I have with that option is that it isn't a solution either in the spirit of all those resolutions or in the spirit of the charter of the UN..

What I mean is that this invasion can only "solve" what all those resolution against Iraq aimed for in a literal way, i.e. afterwards we will be reasonably sure that Iraq won't have any WMD's anymore and that their government will be cooperative with the "democratic West", so we won't have to fear them anymore. However, accepting this as a solution to the impasse is looking at the situation with eye flaps imho.

You have to think about why those resolutions were passed: to make the world a safer place, to remove a threat from our society. As I explained before, I see the current invasion of the US & allies as the ultimate way to increase threats all around and to make a lot more enemies (even among previously neutral and even friendly nations). I can't imagine that GWB & Co don't know this, so I assume that they have other motives (GWB's ambitions - whatever they may ultimately be -, helping corporate friends, please ultra/neo-conservatives/imperialists, ... ?).

So ultimately, the UN did imho what it was supposed to do in this situation: it tried to avoid an armed conflict that wouldn't do the world much if any good (after all, the UN should have the well-being of the entire world as its highest goal). You are correct that they didn't propose a viable alternative either (though "they" is a bit weird to use, as "they" is at the same time "us" - all countries of the world, including the US), but I don't think one can use that as excuse to do something really dumb.

Imho, that's a bit like saying that in my city, we have a large problem with bike thefts and despite initiatives such as bike registrations, prevention campaigns that urge you to use two locks at once, statements by the police etc, the situation doesn't really improve.

So then I enter the picture and propose to destroy all parked bikes you can see. After all, when all bikes are destroyed, the thieves can't do anything anymore. And in the process, since everyone is looking for bikes, they may spot a bike thief that tries to take advantage of the situation as well and turn him in.

It's a completely daft proposal, but it will stop the problem of bike thefts in my city. Will the inhabitants of my city be happy? No. Will the general problem of bike theft, which obviously is not limited to this city, be any closer to be solved? No. Will it scare bike thieves elsewhere? No. Will it help in the long term "battle against bike thieves"? No.

Do the police, the city council and whoever else currently trying to stop bike theft make themselves irrelevant if they tries to stop me because their own plans don't solve the problem while mine does?

I think the current battle of the US gov't is pretty similar. Although it may solve one problem somewhere for which no-one has a solution (yet), it completely disregards any other consequences. They are simply using the UN resolution completely against its spirit (promote peace) to justify their own unjust actions and thereby completely undermining the moral authority of the UN. Although the UN has failed to solve the problem themselves as well until now, at least they're not making the situation worse. That feat is already a big accomplishment unfortunately.

PS: whenever I write "US" in these messages, I invariably mean the "current US government and its neo-conservative think-thank". I don't have anything against the US an sich. I actually like my American Macs a lot :)

Get your facts straight.

[JMPrice]

I get the feeling that you are dead-set in your facts, so I'm writing this for all those who would read your post and pause a second in consideration

Some clarifications:

There is no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. Show me this evidence if you can find it. Recently it was revealed that the documents that insisted upon the program's existence were indeed faked.

Show me the evidence of a connection between Al Queda and Iraq. Again, this is something that has been spoon-fed to us by the present administration. How many times did Bush use the term "Al Queda-type organizations" in his press conference two weeks ago? This administration will always play to our 9/11 sympathies to point at targets.

Finally, tell me whether Suddam poses an immediate threat to the United States, and how by removing him the United States will be a safer place--all of Bush's intelligence authorities tell a post-Suddam Iraq increases our chance of being attacked. Tell me how we can deal with the cultural conflict that has been quelled beneath Suddam's iron fist. Tell me that under such intense scrutiny from the U.S. and the U.N. that Suddam could have gotten away with exterminating masses of his people in the future.

Suddam is, as you say, as mad man. He is an abominable human being. He should not be in power. I can't offer you alternatives to war besides waiting--but you should not choose the most dangerous solution because you think you have no others.

Re:Get your facts straight.

[chunkwhite86]

There is no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program. Show me this evidence if you can find it. Recently it was revealed that the documents that insisted upon the program's existence were indeed faked.

Dead wrong. A surprise inspection by the UN at an Iraqi military base in 1991 caught them trying to sneak a massive ferrous magnet out the back gates. The magnet was one which was designed to enrich uranium to become weapons grade. In addition, iraqi papers were confiscated detailing a VAST nuclear program involving BILLIONS of dollars - far larger than we had expected. Do a search on google for these facts. Do you really think Saddam has since abandoned such a large and costly program just because the UN said "please"? Use some sense man.

Show me the evidence of a connection between Al Queda and Iraq. Again, this is something that has been spoon-fed to us by the present administration. How many times did Bush use the term "Al Queda-type organizations" in his press conference two weeks ago? This administration will always play to our 9/11 sympathies to point at targets.

The CIA has indicated that they had sufficient information to conclude that Hussein was funding terrorist groups and activities. period. Perhaps not Al Queda, but other terrorist groups. I suppose you are more informed than the CIA on the situation?

Finally, tell me whether Suddam poses an immediate threat to the United States, and how by removing him the United States will be a safer place--all of Bush's intelligence authorities tell a post-Suddam Iraq increases our chance of being attacked. Tell me how we can deal with the cultural conflict that has been quelled beneath Suddam's iron fist. Tell me that under such intense scrutiny from the U.S. and the U.N. that Suddam could have gotten away with exterminating masses of his people in the future.

Yes he does. He is developing weapons of mass destruction. And dont give me the typical left wing bullshit about how the inspectors haven't found anything. The impetus was not on the inspectors to find weapons - It was on Saddam to prove that he had none. And he was most evasive and uncooperative in this matter. In fact, it was a mistake made by an Iraqi General in the gulf war that allowed the UN inspectors to spot the escaping trucks carrying uranium enriching magnets, when Hussein and this general denied such a program. Your wrong about "increasing our chance of being attacked". This was is decreasing our chance by removing a tyrant known to fund and harbor terrorists, and known to be developing WoMD. Perhaps Saddam could not have gotten away in the future from exterminating masses of his people, but he is weak right now. Why wait until he becomed stronger and risk him attacking masses of our people. Ever heard the phrase "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"? I didnt think so.

Suddam is, as you say, as mad man. He is an abominable human being. He should not be in power. I can't offer you alternatives to war besides waiting--but you should not choose the most dangerous solution because you think you have no others.

The most dangerous solution in this case is to sit and do nothing. You can't have it both ways. You can't sit there and say "Yes Saddam is evil" "Yes he's a tyrant" "Yes he's dangerous" ...but... "No, it's wrong to attack him". You can't have it both ways.

Who here would of stopped Hitler?

[Apoptosis66]

At first I was ify on this war for the following reasons: 1. Who cares if another country has weapons of mass destruction. We have them, so it would be hypocritical to say others can't. 2. How much does this have to do with Terrorism? Maybe a little, but evidence is not strong. 3. Is this a Bush family grudge. Most definately. Bush even said this is a man who tried to kill my father. Then I saw the History channel specials on Saddam, and my whole view changed. The specials maybe propaganda but the seemed to back up every statement with fact. Fact: Saddam was a hitman who gained power by fear. Fact: Saddam killed everyone in his own political party who's loyalty to the party was questionable. (The video of him smoking a cigar and smiling as peoples names were called out is sicking). Fact: Upon gaining power he hung the few Jews in country in the public square as "conspiritors". Fact: He tourtures people for information by giving acid baths, cutting out eyes of their children, raping women. (Lots of exiles relating stories). Fact: He used chemical weapons against his own people. So I could care less what the "reasons" are for this war. This is a war that should happen to remove a guy who is acting much like Hitler. I will happily go to War now to prevent people like this from existing. I just wonder how many of you would of been the people saying america should stay out of WWII, that its none of our business. Its easy to act after the fact, hard to act before.

Re:Who here would of stopped Hitler?

[Soporific]

I saw part of this History Channel episode also. It was a very interesting piece. Saddam is a piece of shit, that much seems clear.

~S

* * *: Evidence of crippled comms infrastructure?

[dsandler]

It seems likely (based on accounts of weapons and aircraft used) that this strike was not so much an attack of opportunity (implying very short preparation time) as a carefully-planned prologue (prepared over the last 48-72 hours, say). Further speculation along these lines supports the notion that if in fact this was a "decapitation" action, planned in advance, that it was carefully designed to cripple communications in Baghdad (rather than take out leadership).

And now I'm having a lot of trouble getting through to well-known Iraqi hosts. (viz., uruk.uruklink.net returns very, very few packets. Star, star, star, says traceroute. Spin, spin, spin, says Safari.)

Maybe there was an EMP bomb among the ord dropped in southern Baghdad, or perhaps conventional damage was done to the telecom system, and local network health is evidence?

After all, the internet "routes around damage", but that doesn't help much if endpoint hosts have been fried (or disintegrated).

Re:War Pigs

[dpt]

Agreed, but not *that* much.

Compared to fighting with bullets coming at you from all directions, it doesn't even rate. And against the act of *going* when you know that this will happen up front, instead of taking the steps all the rich kids took to avoid it? Not even on the same scale!

Don't worry, Clinton also falls into this bracket I believe. The privilege of the wealthy and well connected to avoid going to war when everyone else is up for it knows no political boundaries :(

Re:The Saddest Day In American History

[bluGill]

Most of the media I've heard has been opposed to war. It seems only the local radio morning shows are really for it. Okay, so the US major media is for it now, but it wasn't that way two weeks ago. Then they were only showing protests to possibal war, with no mention of just what a Tyran Iraq's leaders are. The morning shows were enjoying picking on all the news reports for not mentioning the rape and other evil things done in Iraq, by it's leaders.

It seems the Media in Europe was more biased against the war all along (I heard both BBC and US based sources, the BBC anyway was more against war than anything US based, I can't comment on other world media because it isn't easially available). Appearently Europe just listens to the major media and accepts their bias instead of finding the facts they are not told (or more likely are told once so the media can claim they said it, and then ignored forever) and forming an opinion themselves.

I don't like war. However I prefer a war of my choosing to prevent many deaths that I can't choose latter.

The Propaganda machine is already running.

[oh]

From Australian ABC

There are reports that a third air strike in an hour has hit Baghdad.

The new attack is again targeting the south-east of the Iraqi capital sending huge clouds of smoke billowing into the dawn sky as the United States launches its long-threatened war on Iraq.

Meanwhile a report from Baghdad says the main frequency of Iraqi state radio appears to have been taken over by the US military.

The normal Iraqi broadcast went off the air within minutes of US air strikes starting.

Shortly afterwards an announcer said in Arabic "This is the day we have been waiting for".

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.

In any attack against Iraq, people will die. The death of some three thousand people on September the 11th pales in comparison to the over four hundred and fifty thousand military personal now stationed in the gulf region. Iraqi soldiers will die, attacking soldiers will die, and civilians will die. Iraqi young men, people my age and younger, people who do not support Saddam Hussein or want weapons of mass destruction, will pick up a gun and try to defend their home.

The though of these innocent young men and Australian soldiers shooting at each other makes me want to scream with frustration. Neither person could be blamed for their actions, and yet these two innocent people would be trying to kill each other. How can an attack against Iraq be justified when it would lead to this situation?

This is a sad day, but I suspect there is worse to come.

Re:The Propaganda machine is already running.

[fishbowl]

I like how G.B. can call a radio station a site of "military importance" or whatever term he used in his speach.

The very first steps are: disable the enemy's military communications infrastructure, and, use the civilian channels to deliver propaganda. Makes perfect sense to me.

Re:The Propaganda machine is already running.

[oh]

The very first steps are: disable the enemy's military communications infrastructure, and, use the civilian channels to deliver propaganda.

But to use the civilian channels you have to take them out, with bombs in this case. So they deliberatly targeted a civilian site in order to make the delivery of propaganda easier.

Maybe I should have added a disclamer that I used to work for a broadcaster, so I feel that if the roles were reversed this attack could have been aimed at me.

Re:Waiting (Dude, you're getting a courtmarshal)

[Anonymous Coward]

You shouldn't be online discussing the war if you're part of the military. Unplug your ethernet cable and go do your job.

Re:War Pigs

[dpt]

Good one. You certainly have destroyed my arguments with that! Care to actually debate sensibly, or are you too busy drinking your malt liquor?

What a loser.

Imagine... Words hold so much meaning right now..

[cOdEgUru]

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

Why is it that we clamour over a 12 yr resolution that hasnt been fulfilled when Israel has a 30 yr resolution to leave palestine which they are absolutely ignoring?

Why is it that one man who commands the greatest army in the world has free reign over to choose which country to attack and which one to ignore?

Why is it that the president doesnt see the fear in the common man's eyes, the pain in his voice, the desperation in his heart?

I dont fear for Iraq, I fear for America. The Land of freedom, the land of opportunity is inching towards inevitable doom. Unless, we build a fortress around the shores of United States (Escape from NY/LA style), thousands of terrorists are going to unleash their wrath on this land. Also, the millions of US citizens all over the world will be targeted and hunted over the world by bigots, fanatics and criminals.

Missiles doesnt differentiate between evildoers and children. I hope the air in iraq doesnt fill up with the wails of women who lost their children and children who lost their mother. No one would be able to justify if that happens. No one would dare to.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[mshomphe]

No, you can and should continue to protest.

If you "support the troops", call for them to return. Don't support them killing innocent people for no good reason. I won't support any aspect of this sensless destruction. No one wins. War is failure. We have failed again.

And, by the way, there were no soldiers being spit on after Vietnam.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[GiMP]

Your comments are sadly just what I've heard from the media. There is this idea that it is patriotic to keep quiet during the war, or that being vocal against a war while it is raging is 'bad'. This view by yourself and by the media is plain wrong.

The most patriotic thing one can do is to protest the wrong-doings of their government. Through protest and perhaps even (*gasp*) coup, countries can maintain democracy.

Are you to say that the USA shouldn't have broken from England? Surely, your opinions are that which would have been felt by the English. What about Vietnam? There were a lot of people against that war, were the unpatriotic? I believe that they are considered very patriotic now, even if they weren't then.

Who does actually support this war?

[freaker_TuC]

I wonder, I look at all reactions on /. and seem not to find anybody who really supports this war.

I wonder even more which president does not look to the citizens of his country, their opinions?

What kind of president is this?

Are Slashdotters (as a whole) pro- or anti- war?

[raile]

The ratio of pro-war to anti-war posts that get modded up (or down) would be an interesting barometer of the ./ community's overall attitude towards the United States actions in Iraq. Anyone care to write that script to calculate it and post the results?

Re:Moderators: Please show restraint with mods her

[bluGill]

Off topic I know...

I'd like to agree, but I've seen several posts that obviously are full of made up facts that have been moded up, when they should be troll. (Mostly against the war, but some for too) Moderators, remember that if you agree with a position you don't want to moderate it up unless it is also factual, nothing makes your side look worse than an arguement that is full of obvious holes.

What happens next?

[sashang]

The attack on Iraq is unprecedented in modern history because this time it is the US that is invading a sovereign nation. This is similar to what Hitler did to Poland to spark WW2. However, Hitler's motivation was clear. He wanted more land and to expand Germany. The motives of the Bush administration is not so clear. Are they really that altruistic and do they sincerely seek a regime change for the sake of the Iraqi people? Once Saddam is out of power and a new regime appointed, will the US army leave and let the UN take over in a peackeeping capacity?. If this is truly the case then the war will be potentially cathartic. However, if the Bush administration orders the occupation of Iraq (probably because of oil) and Iraq effectively becomes the 53rd state of the US then the actions we are witnessing now are the precursors of another world war.

Re:What happens next?

[SN74S181]

The attack on Kuwait was unprecedented in modern history because this time it is Iraq that invaded a sovereign nation. This is similar to what Hitler did to Poland to spark WW2. Hitler's motivation was clear. He wanted more land and to expand Germany. The motives of the Iraqui administration were clear.

Re:What happens next?

[sashang]

I was speculating about Bush's motives for going to war. You didn't attempt to answer that question and either deliberately or mistakenly evaded it. Your point about Iraq is already well known and understood and therefore redundant.

Re:What happens next?

[SN74S181]

I was drawing a parallel to why Winston Churchill went to war. You didn't attempt to challange that parallell and either deliberately or mistakenly evaded it.

Re:What happens next?

[sashang]

Britain went to war because Germany invaded Poland. In the 1st gulf war the US went to war legitimately against Iraq because they invaded Kuwait. This time it's different. The US have invaded in what they call a pre-emptive strike. Their actions imitate those of Iraq and Germany in the past wars. This was the point I was trying to make. Also note that it was Neville Chamberlain who declared war on Germany, not Winston Churchill.

Robin Cook -Resigned British Foreign Sec.

[Confessed Geek]

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.

well said

[IndependentVik]

I was going to reply to that other guy, but your post made that unnecessary. The only point I would add is that Saddam would be unlikely to sell his bio and chem weapons to just anybody, given that a radically islamic terrorist group would be as likely to use the weapons against him--remember he's a fairly secular leader--as against the US.

War on Terrorism leader resigns.

[UrGeek]

Well, babies, if this ain't a test of the durabilty of Slashdot, I don't a 1 from a 0.

Anyway, check this out:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030319-040 54 3-3049r

Briefly, the Special Assistant on Terror for our National Security Council, Rand Beers, has resigned, saying he's "tried, just tried". He will not say anymore. It is believed that this war will increase unleash more terror than it will stop.

It has finally got too weird for me.

"Can this dream stop?"
"Wait! There's been a slaughter here!!!"

Iraqi schoolgirls pray at the Ameriya shelter

[Pickerel]

Iraqi schoolgirls pray at the Ameriya shelter, where 400 civilians were killed by American missiles during the Gulf War.

<a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/20 /casualties/index_np.html">http://www.salon.com/ne ws/feature/2003/03/20/casualties/index_np.html</a>

Political Game

[isimbor]

Anyone else notice the extensive pictures of the Bush family on the desk where he gave his speech? Its crap like this (and other mindplay of the ignorant masses) that really pisses me off...

Re:Political Game

[fishbowl]

That is absolutely standard practice.

What you probably did not consciously notice, was the draping of the flags, particularly the one with the Great Seal.

The eagle depicted on that seal has two talons. One holds the olive branch of peace. The other holds the arrows of war. It is no accident that only one of these was presented during the President's war speech.

Everything on that set is meticulously dressed. The flags are not simply draped by some Boy Scout to hang however they fall.

Re:Political Game

[mpost4]

Most people do keep pics of their family on their desk. Since Bush is some one you don't like, does that mean he has to be non-human.

Re:Political Game

[isimbor]

No. That desk pictured is not presumably a desk that he would use in his day-to-day activities, they most likely just use it for filming (imagine a gaint studio cam sitting in front of the presidents real desk). Not thats its that big of a deal, but there is something to be said for the subtle things the US gov does in varying motives.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[TKinias]

scripsit Patoski:

The troops are over there risking life and limb and when they tune into TV and they see all these protesters demonstrating against the war they're fighting it could potentially be very demoralizing.

What will demoralize troops is a realization that the cause they're fighting for is unjust. If demonstrations cause the troops to realize that, it's not the fault of the demonstrations -- it's the fault of those who sent the troops to fight an unjust war.

Blaming the demonstrators is like blaming the oncologist for telling you the tumor is malignant.

Re:It's about time.

[corbettw]

"(b) Iraq has TARGETED US figter planes, but never fired."

I'm serving in Operation Northern Watch. I write up reports on Iraqi weapons when they are used against us. They have fired on coaltion aircraft (not just US, also UK), literally, thousands of times. They just never hit because they suck.

So, given that someone with firsthand experience can easily refute this statement, why should anyone take the rest as fact?

Peace is patriotic!

[laodamas]

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.

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, ...) 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.

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 .uk.dossier/index.html

Why invade when the U.N. system is disarming Iraq?

Re:Peace is patriotic!

[Glass of Water]

Hey, Do you have a link or reference for "The CIA, for all their transgressions [...] is against the war"? Jim

Re:Peace is patriotic!

[Tokerat]

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.

Proof, please?

Re:Peace is patriotic!

[laodamas]

C.I.A. Warns That a U.S. Attack May Ignite Terror

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/09/international/ mi ddleeast/09IRAQ.html

Thankfully, we ARE!

[evilWurst]

Our disarmament continues to this day. US biological programs were halted in, I believe, the early 70s, and all materials destroyed. Chemicals we don't have, as per the various laws of war banning them.

Nuclear stockpiles continue to be reduced. The Treaty of Moscow, signed by Bush and Putin last summer and ratified by Congress this month, promises that another 2/3 of each nuclear stockpile be dismantled - the logical conclusion of decades of nuclear cuts.

As long as hostile nations continue to possess (or seek) nuclear arms, the rest will have several hundred as a deterrant... but we've all come a LONG way. NATO, Russia, China... none are inclined to ever use a nuke ever again. I expect to live to see the day it's down to 200 warheads or less, here...maybe I'll be very very old, but I expect it in my lifetime.

Re:Thankfully, we ARE!

[Wolfrider]

--I don't know about you, but I'M worried about N. Korea.

--Personally I'm not *thrilled* with the prospect of war, but let's face a few things:

o The economy will probably start to improve now

o We're finishing the job, so to speak, that was started in the 90's - and left unfinished

o The Iraqi's should be thankful it's the *US* they're fighting. We've actually spread over 2 million leaflets over there, advising their military both HOW TO SURRENDER, and how to stay out of our way so they don't get wasted. Name *any* other country (except maybe Britain) that would try so hard to minimize casualties, both military and civilian.

--Geez. I'm not a hawk, but most of the anti-war posts I'm seeing on this article make me ill. W isn't perfect, but c'mon - this is a job that has been waiting for someone to come along and finish it. Klinton just didn't have the qualities (read: stones) needed for decisive leadership. The guy swayed like a reed in the wind, according to whatever the latest polls said.

Re:Thankfully, we ARE!

[Bastian]

US biological programs were halted in, I believe, the early 70s, and all materials destroyed.

Are these biological materials that were destroyed the same ones that were shown to be the source of the anthrax that was being mailed around the country last year?

Chemicals we don't have, as per the various laws of war banning them.

You mean we don't use them. We probably won't either, since most everythg else we have is more effective than most chemical weapons (including Sarin and VX). But do you really think that the army would get rid of any weapon technology?

Nuclear stockpiles continue to be reduced.

Yeah. The nukes that are being dismantled by the US are old nukes in the kiloton and low megaton range that aren't nearly as effective as some other things we have, as well as ridiculously large bombs we wouldn't rationally use since the fallout from them would be floating in the atmosphere for weeks and would contaminate the entire planet. The 'good' stuff is not being dismantled at all. I find it hard to believe that the US military will ever give up its neutron bombs, for example.

Might I add that the US military was openly considering the use of tactical nukes in the war in Afghanistan, and is probably considering the use of nukes in Iraq. The United States also has the dubious distinction of being the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in an attack. This fact is made even more despicable by the fact that the second one - the plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki (the one dropped on Hiroshima was a uranium bomb) was quite obviously dropped mainly for the sake of seeing how it would work.

Re:Thankfully, we ARE!

[MKalus]

Our disarmament continues to this day. US biological programs were halted in, I believe, the early 70s, and all materials destroyed. Chemicals we don't have, as per the various laws of war banning them.

I think the UN should send inspectors into the US and make sure that the US really doesn't have any of those WMD anymore.

After all, it is in the best interrest of world peace, is it not?

Re:Thankfully, we ARE!

[cev]

The US and Russia have massive stockpiles of chemical weapons. That is mainly because the weapons are very difficult to destroy. There are several depots in the US for these weapons. The only one I can name offhand is Anniston, Alabama.

The recent Treaty of Moscow does not require the destruction of nuclear weapons, only mothballing. It will not reduce the total number of nukes in either country's stockpile.

With China's introduction of heavy-lift rocketry, does anyone sane think that the number of nuclear weapons is going to fall to 200?

Re:Thankfully, we ARE!

[Knobby]

This fact is made even more despicable by the fact that the second one - the plutonium bomb dropped on Nagasaki (the one dropped on Hiroshima was a uranium bomb) was quite obviously dropped mainly for the sake of seeing how it would work.

I just returned from Japan and I visited the atomic bomb museums in both Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Hiroshima was targeted because it was a military city and because it had not been targeted for many conventional bombing runs, which made it an ideal place to investigate the destructive capacity of the weapon. Nagasaki was a secondary target, and bombed only because the primary target (I can't remember which city it was) was clouded over. The US was not targeting a civilian area in Nagasaki. It targeted the Mitsubishi ship works. A target which it missed by many miles.

Just to provide a little info to the readers: The atomic bomb dropped on Nagaski was a 20 kiloton plutonium device that killed 73,884 and injured 74,909 people. Thousands have since died and continue to suffer the effects of radiation poisoning. In 1996, there were still 80,000 people in Hiroshima that were suffering from the effects of radiation exposure.

Re:Thankfully, we ARE!

[Knobby]

The economy will probably start to improve now

With this war, we've alienated a lot of the countries we trade with. What makes you think that the economy will improve?

Re:Thankfully, we ARE!

[quax]

Nukes are the ultimate detterent. That is why we will see more countries than ever striving for them now. Prepare yourself for a new arms race.

The world noticed that the USA attacked Iraq but not North Korea. What will your average 3rd world dictator make of this? Well, North Korea has nukes and rockets to at least reach Japan.

They will draw the perfect logic conclusion, that in order to not be at the mercy of the USA they will need nukes and intercontinental rockets.

This amongst other good reasons is why my government (Germany) and the French tried to tell the US administration (long standing allies after all) that this war at this point in time with that little international support is a really bad idea.

Now we can just hope for the best and pray that things will not develop like this [idleworm.com]

Re:Thankfully, we ARE!

[$uperjay]

The economy will probably start to improve now

No, it will not.

After the gold standard was abandoned in 1973, most countries began to stockpile US dollars, instead of gold, to maintain some security in their treasuries in case of rampant inflation/deflation.

However, as countries lose respect for the United States, and as the United States' stance is seen to be less stable, more and more nations will switch to stockpiling other currencies, like the Euro.

The net result of this for Joe American will be rampant inflation. All those stacks of US dollars that were previously safely locked up in random foreign vaults will hit the currency exchange, and get forced back into the American economy. As the American dollar falls in value due to inflation, more and more nations will feel compelled to liquidate their stocks of it before they lose all value. It'll be the currency-market equivalent of Black Thursday, and could be incredibly disastrous to the stability of America as a whole - perhaps even wrecking its status as the world's sole superpower. Just look what happened to Russia when its economy collapsed.

And who can say what will happen then? Will America bounce back like it did from the Great Depression? Or will Ashcroft and co take advantage of the 21st-century equivalent of Weimar Germany?

When you're at the top, an incredible amount relies not just on being the biggest, but on being trusted, liked, and perceived as stable. The current American administration has thrown much of this out the window, and the results could be disastrous. At any rate, the war will not be good for the economy. That's something you can count on.

Re:Thankfully, we ARE!

[foilrat]

There is, however, a problem with this line of thought. Broken down rather simply thusly:

When both nations had thousands, or 10's of thousands of warheads, and the capability to deliver these, then Mutually Assured Destruction was very evident and very real.

Reduce by half. Now we have five thousand. Still enough to reduce any nation to a pile of radioactive slag.

Reduce again and again.

Suddenly you and another country only have 200 missles left.

A first strike option is now survivable.

Think of it this way: get in close with subs and bombers to reduce reaction time, hit launch sites (ICBM's aren't really that easy to hide) and command posts and rely on your defense system to get a bunch of the rest. If you take out half, then there are a hundred that can launch or be used, and since you struck first, you're on alert for counter-attacks and can plan accordingly. Your defenses are on alert and ready for any retaliation, if any is coming.

Yes, you'll take some casualties, but as a whole, you've survived and the enemy hasn't.

I don't see this happening, as the climate between the nations that could do this has warmed, and current leadership asside, neither country wants to see this happen. At least with the regimes we both have.

You can see, however, that with the right leadership, this calculus can change.

david

Re:Thankfully, we ARE!

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

The key question is: Are those nuclear weapons being dismateled? Or just deactivated. And even if they are being dismateled, how easy is it for them to re-assemble them again?

I read somehwere that they are only deactivating them. So it might be worth Googling.

Also. The US.mill is now looking at mini nukes, and also hasn't ruled out the use of nuclear weapons in Iraq. So it looks like the US is starting up again. I've even heard talk of Neutron bombs (type of nuclear bomb designed to kill living things by inflicting radiation), the Neutron bomb sounds a bit over the top, but it wouldn't suprise me if they were looking into them again.

As much as I'd like to believe that last paragraph, considering what the US is doing at the moment (dissregarding the UN, and starting a war) I don't believe the US etc will ever reduce their nuclear stockpile to 200 warheads or less (unless they just "deactivate" them). And untill that happens. Their "disarmament" looks more like an act to show us how well we're all getting along.

Re:Thankfully, we ARE!

[Toy G]

I'm sorry, but it's not true. The Bush administration has scrapped all the treaty that could have been scrapped when it comes to military proliferation. Nukes are only a small part. The Moscow treaty was a small cookie for Russia for having scrapped the more restrictive 1971 treaty about missile proliferation. The post-9/11 anthrax came from american laboratories, as reported from the NY Times, because USA is the only big state still active in developing banned chemical weapons (exploiting a loophole in related treaties). I'm not surprised that you, as americans, know less on your military policy than almost everyone else in the world: the huge media system is so happy to go at war (event that builds careers and increase viewers), it doesn't bother to mention these 'small' details...

Re:Thankfully, we ARE!

[juhaz]

I don't think you'd be very thankful if someone dropped leaflets on you that said "The bombs are coming right after, would you please move to nearest shelter? Thanks."

Bush in Baghdad (doh)

[icday]

Earlier today somewhere in Baghdad ...
(With apologies to John Cleese)
BUSH: Good Morning.
SADDAM: Good morning, Sir. Welcome to the Persian Gulf.
BUSH: Ah, thank you, my good man.
SADDAM: What can I do for you, Sir?
BUSH: Well, I was, uh, sitting in thar 1600 Pennsylvania, just now skimming
through the press and I suddenly came over old fear.
SADDAM: Old fear, sir?
BUSH: 1991.
SADDAM: Eh?
BUSH: Bad economy, falling polls.
SADDAM: Ah, trouble at home!
BUSH: In a nutshell. And I thought to myself, &quot;I'd better walk over to the
old stomping grounds, make sure the bugger has the goods,&quot; so, I curtailed
my Presidential activities, got on the horse, and penetrated your place of
evil doers to negotiate the war on terror!
SADDAM: (pause) Come again?
BUSH: 'Ee, Ah'd like te' 'ave ay WAHR wit ye!'
SADDAM: (lustily) Certainly, sir. What would you like?
BUSH: Well, eh, how about a low-yield neutron bomb?
SADDAM: I'm, a-fraid we're fresh out of low-yield neutron bombs.
BUSH: Oh, never mind, how are you on depleted shells?
SADDAM: I'm afraid we never have them at the end of the week, sir, we get those
fresh on Monday.
BUSH: Tish tish. No matter. Well, stout yeoman, four ounces of weapons-grade
plutonium, if you please.
SADDAM: Ah! It's beeeen on order, sir, for two years. Was expecting it this
morning.
BUSH: 'T's Not my lucky day, is it? Aah, dirty bombs?
SADDAM: Sorry, sir.
BUSH: VX nerve gas?
SADDAM: Normally, sir, yes. Today the van broke down.
BUSH: I see. Smallpox?
SADDAM: Sorry.
BUSH: Anthrax?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Ebola?
SADDAM: Nope&#8230;
BUSH: Microbes? Serin gas?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Any nerve gas, per chance.
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Mustard gas?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Carbon monoxide?
SADDAM: Uh, no
BUSH: Napalm, perhaps?
SADDAM: Ah! We have Napalm, yessir.
BUSH: (suprised) You do! Excellent.
SADDAM: Yessir. It's..ah,.....it's a bit runny...
BUSH: Oh, I like it runny.
SADDAM: Well,.. It's very runny, actually, sir.
BUSH: No matter. Fetch me heah the gelatinized gazzoline de jour! Mmmwah!
SADDAM: I...think it's a bit runnier than you'll like it, sir.
BUSH: I don't care how fucking runny it is. Hand it over with all speed.
SADDAM: Oooooooooohhh........! (pause)
BUSH: What now?
SADDAM: Kuwait's eaten it.
BUSH: (pause) Has he.
SADDAM: She, sir.
(pause)
BUSH: Stingers?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: M-16's?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: AK-47's?
SADDAM: (pause) No.
BUSH: Hand grenades?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Bayonets?
SADDAM: No.
BUSH: Civil War-era flintlock rifles?
SADDAM: No, sir.
BUSH: You...do *have* SOME weapons, don't you?
SADDAM: (brightly) Of course, sir. We're an evil, dangerous weapons-of-mass-destruction-bearing
nation, sir. We've got--
BUSH: No no ... don't tell me. I'm keen to guess.
SADDAM: Fair enough.
BUSH: (muttering) Insane...
SADDAM: Yes?
BUSH: What?
SADDAM: Oh! I thought you were talking to me, sir. Saddam Hussein.
(pause)
BUSH: Swords, sabers, knives, cutlery of any sort, nailguns, ballpeen hammers,
ping pong paddles, bataca bats?
SADDAM: (shakes head throughout)
BUSH: Exploding pens,
SADDAM: Uh, not as such.
BUSH: Exploding shoes,
SADDAM: no
BUSH: steel-toed boot?
SADDAM: no
BUSH: B-B Guns,
SADDAM: no
BUSH: Slingshots,
SADDAM: no
BUSH: Rubber bands,
SADDAM: no
BUSH: Damp spitballs?
SADDAM: Not *today*, sir, no.
(pause)
BUSH: Aah, how about nuclear MISSILES?
SADDAM: Well, we don't get much call for them around here, sir.
BUSH: Not much ca--they're the single most popular weaponry in

Slashdot Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: Not necessarily the war yet

[Black Parrot]

> > What if the troops stopped fighting and started protesting? I don't want to hear about innocent people dying over there, i want to hear about soldiers over there refusing to fight. That is the kind of support i want.

> 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.

I remember that at the start of Gulf War I there were some soldiers who wanted out on CO status. I wondered at the time how a CO ended up in an all-volunteer army.

Re:And you read this...

[mchappee]

>God will have mercy on your soul for participating
>in a blitzkrieg of misplaced nationalism the likes
>of which the world has not seen since Hitler.

Ah, Godwin's Law:
"if you mention Hitler or Nazis in a post, you've
automatically ended whatever discussion you were
taking part in"

>You won't believe a CIA analyst that was
>responsible for the region before it became a
>popular thing to talk about

The guys in my article aren't exactly "average Joes":

PETER GALBRAITH
former United States ambassador to Croatia ...and...

KENNETH ROTH
Executive Director
Human Rights Watch ...and...

MORTEZA RAMANDI
Press Attaché, Mission of Iran
to the United Nations

>This is a lot bigger than Iraq. Iran is next.
>Iraq is a convenient launchpad for the next blitz

Alarmist speculation. Besides, we wouldn't need a "launch pad" in Iraq. We have 5 carriers in the region.

>I'll pray for you don't worry.

Um, OK.

>Humans have never had trouble finding in their
>hearts the reasons to make murder palatable when
>it serves their needs.

I agree. But when faced with committing one murder to prevent thousands, I guess we just have to agree to disagree...

You have no memory

[Zlurg]

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.

Iraq invaded Iran. During those 8 years, they used chemical weapons.

Iraq invaded Kuwait. During those 8 months, they plundered Kuwaiti air conditioners and set fire to thier oil wells with the ancient piracy attitude of "if I can't have it, nobody can."

Iraq launched SCUD missiles into Israel. Why? Well, because gefilte is not an approved Republican Guard munition. No other reason. Well, there's that whole exaggerated-difference-of-opinion thing, but being an American has taught me to be politically correct. Grandpa would say they're fucking bigots.

If you're old enough to post to slashdot with even a slight sense of maturity, ALL of these events happened during your lifetime.

Most /.ers have no real firm understanding of what's going on Over There. The reason Arabs hate us so much is because, by and large, very few Arabs get to (a) freely speak about how tolerant Americans are of Muslims and (b) hear such a message.

I'm not pro-war. I'm not pro-death. But, come on now, capital punishment *IS* pro-choice. Going on ad nauseum about your anti-war views just proves you're not well-informed and you have a very skewed threshold of acceptable loss-versus-global consequence.

First there were pirates. Then there was a U.S. Navy. Then the pirates were gone, and the world never ONCE fucking thought, "Well, gee, the pirates never plundered YOUR land so why not leave them alone?"

Saddam is a bad guy. If what we're doing is really bad, let's see your arguments against Milosevic...or Ceaucescu...

...I dare ya!

...and show me how the Europeans (especially the Serbs and the Romanians) hate us for what we did there. Go for it. I love the violent clashes between liberals' ignorance and their arrogance.

Afghanistan Exit Realized

[uraj]

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

Re:Afghanistan Exit Realized

[filmcritic]

Guess what Mr. Anti-American? The right to speak your mind in the GREATEST COUNTRY IN WORLD HISTORY also extends to me so here it comes. First of all, don't expect credibility by quoting a fucking moron comedian. Second, do not use the word "we". Just because you have US papers does not mean you're my fellow American. "We" does not include me or millions upon millions of others. Take your side with the 28% junior.

Third, please try to use facts instead of blather and blah blah blah blah. Over 70% of Americans support the war, and that number was there BEFORE the President's speech. Just because slushfuck or the clinton news network didn't report it does not mean it didn't happen.

Fourth, if you don't care where you live, get the fuck out of my country. You don't give a rats ass about American concerns or issues. You seem to have fallen for Hilary Clinton's plagerized book about villages raising children, hence "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". I'd be ashamed to speak like that in fear people would think I was the town fool. Obviously you have no concept of national pride, and also no concept of reality. Really, you live in cyberspace? Psst, The Matrix was a fictional film.

Get your facts straight before you go foaming at the lips. Quote: "Does being the freest nation on earth require colonial domination over the rest of the planet?" Please, Mr Anti-American, enlighten us native born Americans on exactly when and where colonies were set up after military action. Come on...do tell. Time's up. You have no answer. Go ask Japan and Germany about our colonization of their countries. You'll get laughed off the planet. Hmmmm...I recall Japan got on their feet and almost buried the US economically back in the 80s, and Germany seems to be doing pretty good too.

I wonder what you'll have to blather about when Hussein is a grease spot and Iraq turns into a free country. Your little, tired oil arguement is useless in the face of the facts. Folks who hate the USA like yourself have no use for the facts because they get in the way of the lunatic philosophy that drives people like yourself. In a way it's good normal folks can see exactly how uninformed, ignorant, and downright stupid these anti-Americans really are.

As this is written, strikes are underway in Iraq and Afganistan by our brilliant military. Our outstanding intelligence tracked several top Iraqi brass gathered in one place which was shortly pounded by bunker buster bombs. Hussein supposedly was on live TV afterwards blowing hot air all over in horribly generic terms. Nothing at all specific said, with every news channel questioning whether it was really him and whether it was a live broadcast. It's only a matter of time sonny boy...

I wish you would have an opportunity to tell a soldier over there now the bullshit in your post. I don't think you'd have the balls because all anti-Americans have none. You only have guts on the beloved internet, not in reality. This slashdot crowd is so far removed from reality in all forms that it's doubtful they can even function as human beings. Go try to talk to a real, live American soldier and see how far you get. Those people are the same people who gave their lives so that today YOU can gas up the room with your hot air. Don't you EVER fucking forget it either Mr. Anti-American.

Re:Afghanistan Exit Realized

[foniksonik]

Just for you...

" So are all the smartest people in the world scientists and computer geeks and artists, and not politicians? Are we doomed to be a minority, or at least a politically ineffective contingent? Does nature work it that way? What hope peace? Evolution? Sanity?"

Yes they are. Politics leaves no legacy but a footnote in the book of history. Real change comes not from policy but from productivity. What enables a democracy or socialist or any other modern nation-state to exist without heavy handed governance?

Medical science, technology and culture. The public must be healthy enough to work and pay taxes and they must have techno-leisure time to consume and products to consume. Who creates these things? Your Scientists, Geeks and Artists.

What gives the Scientists, Geeks and Artists the freedom, resources and environment to create?

Government, civil servants and military. Government manages public trust... taxes, resources, law, etc. while civil servants exercise those trusts and military protects those trusts. Without those trusts your Scientists, Geeks and Artists would never have the freedom, resources, environment nor even the time to create. They would all be so busy protecting themselves, providing for their own welfare and negotiating interpersonal disagreements over resources to ever get any work done.

So in the end it is a partnership of sorts. The smartest can and do survive on their own but when they want to do more than survive, to thrive, they must accept the necessities of a managing body and it's requirements.

Re:Afghanistan Exit Realized

[uraj]

filmcritic, Please notice the lack of profanity in my post.

Anti-American? I'm not against America, rather I'm for it. The America conceived by Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison, Henry, and their ilk, a country envisioned to embody enlightenment and reason. This country was an idea in their minds before it happened, a sort of pre-electronic cyberspace. As far as a majority opinion and what it's worth, consider that a majority of people and even intellectuals were for the Vietnam intervention.

You are a pure troll and I can support that FACT with a history of your posts. You appeal to fact-based argument yet your post is full of ad-hominem attacks and a dozen other glaring fallacies. Criticize America? Criticize defense spending? Tell that to a soldier who gave their life, etc... That is such an easy argument, I'm sure you had some sort of autocomplete feature to type your words in for you.

You seemed to have formed quite a personality for yourself here in cyberspace. And it's such a funny one, too: "Psst, the Matrix was a fictional film." Man, what wit. But this doesn't exist. At all. These words never happened. My words had no real effect on you, to make you type in such a voice.

foniksonik, thanks for your words. I know what you're saying, and I have known it. I just need reminding. It's a chicken-and-egg argument I've had before(online usually): are we free because we envision now and our ancestors envisioned it then, or are we free only because our forebears fought the wars to get here. uraj

Re:Afghanistan Exit Realized

[SubtleNuance]

Because it is the best going
you know, in the past, you might have been able to say that... but its becoming increasingly obvious that is not true.

There is more reasonable places to live: canada, most of Europe, japan... the united states is going to be isreal in 15 years... you think the fear, paranoia, oppression and *real* terrorist threat is bad now..? just wait...

Re:Afghanistan Exit Realized

[Kintanon]

As for the "Why don't you just leave" argument, I doubt you could leave if you wanted to. At least not on a permanent basis. I've been looking into immigration for a while and almost all of the countries I would want to go to, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc... have some SERIOUS immigration policies. You have to have a rediculous amount of education, or already have a job lined up there to even think about moving there. It's not like you can just save up some cash, fly over, rent an apartment and then go job hunting. The world doesn't work that way, even if I think it should. I say down with barriers to trade! Down with barriers to immigration! Full globalization NOW! Not just corporate globalization that strips power from the citizens and gives it to the corporations, but complete globalization so that people can move at will around the planet just as they can within the US (for now).

Kintanon

Re:Afghanistan Exit Realized

[uraj]

I'm not sure if you're replying to me or not, but I hope you didn't take my "it is the best going" as "all other countries are repressive and backward." Surely you didn't mean to imply that any (even the dumbest) American would be mistaken in believing that only they enjoy advanced technological goods.

No, I think there are many countries on par with the US as far as a "standard of living", however, many of those have a few legal sticking points that I'm not willing to pack up my US operations for. For example, in many advanced democracies such as France, Canada, and the UK there is not quite full freedom of the press or of speech. In those countries the governments can prosecute people who, say, deny the Holocaust while holding educational positions or the like. (Please don't miss my point here and reply with something along the lines of "so you would defend Holocaust deniers!") In France, a country I've never visited but whose language and culture I am personally enamored of, you cannot own and communicate with personal cryptography software such as is freely available here. Despite my country's ethically wrong stance on Iraq, and its immoral imprisonment of drug-users and the perpetuation of the Drug War, I just cannot give up the right to free speech, which is worth way more than material comfort.

BTW, I have been to Finland, when I was a lad living in the US embassy in Moscow. I loved visiting your country, and look forward to doing so again. I take your point about the passport in serious consideration.

uraj

Re:Defying the UN

[Twirlip of the Mists]

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.

am I the only one who sees this?

[andih8u]

is it just a coincidence that that Mohammed Atta met with Iragi agents in Czech Republic prior to the 9/11 attacks and that the anthrax mailed around the same time had the exact same weaponization fingerprint as Irag uses?
And you ask what Iraq has ever done to us?

Re:am I the only one who sees this?

[uraj]

is it just a coincidence...

Maybe. Perhaps if you could supply some compelling support for your theory other people will see it too. uraj

Re:am I the only one who sees this?

[andih8u]

http://www.yowusa.com/Archive/November2001/atta1/a tta1.htm Although the source may be a bit biased, its odd that several media outlets would have picked up on the same story without some grain of truth behind the matter.
I would think this farfetched were it not for the fact that Saddam Hussein pays money to the families of homicide bombers in Palestine, as written about in http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/10170047 66310.html

Re:am I the only one who sees this?

[uraj]

I will accept that Saddam may be complicit in certain terrorist activities around the globe. But why wasn't this particular link exploited and investigated by the Bush Administration when making its case recently? Here's why. This a somewhat conservative source, and yours was full of speculation fresh after 9-11. Your 2nd source was 404.

The high road is long and hard. Bush and Co know they got a hard sell coming in 2004, so they know they can't wait for diplomacy.

uraj

Re:am I the only one who sees this?

[quax]

It amazes me that this old news still hangs on. It has been reported several times that this story does not hold water.

Buy Bush at War

[anonymous cupboard]

and save over 40%

Reads the ad banner on this one. Someone really has got a weird sense of humour. Anyway, kast I heard, Bush was already bought!!!

Has anyone noticed?

[Trolling4Dollars]

The din of the warmongers here on Slashdot has died down in the later posts (if you browse flat anyway). I would guess that they are busy watching CNN and Fox News being armchair generals. Dispicable.

Time for Evolution in Action

[LPetrazickis]

I keep seeing neocons use this very distasteful phrase. No more! It's time for me to play with it in an appropriate context.

This is a simple matter of Evolution in Action. If you enlist in an army, you deserve to die. It's dead simple. I hope that all American, Iraqi, and British volunteers get weeded out of the low end of the gene pool. j/k ;)

Re:Think about it

[cranos]

You give Saddam too much bloody credit by comparing him to Hitler. Hitler was a mad genius. He had managed to turn Germany around from being the joke of Europe at the end of WW1 to being the most powerful force on the European continent. Not only that but along the way he managed to instill in the majority of German people at the time a sense that the time had come for the rising of the Riech.

Saddam is a thug, he rules his country by force, Hitler ruled his by the consent of his people, and by the time they realised that he had brought them to ruin it was too late to do anything about him.

Saddam and Iraq are bit players on the world stage, their military is a pale shadow of what it was during the Iraq-Iran war, the people are suffering under both the deprevations of the Iraqi government, the UN sanctions (which US companies have broken) and the effects of the weapons the US used last time. Iraq poses a threat to itself more than anyone else, let alone a viable threat to world peace.

Re:the draft and sexual equality

[danielobvt]

No. In large part due to the fact that women overall do not make good trigger pullers, which is what you generally want in a draft situation.

I support this war...

[craenor]

And the only reason I'm going to give is a quote from the great Jack Burton,

Son of a Bitch must pay!

Craenor

Re:It's about time.

[mshomphe]

You're absolutely right. I'll admit I was wrong about that. I had thought that I had read that Iraq only did "active targeting" of planes, and that the only times they fired were on planes that were not in the no-fly zones. I sincerely thank you for straightening me out on that.

Do you believe these targetings justify war? Moreso, do you believe this Administration is using these acts as justification for war? This is the first I've heard of it.

America

[PinguinoLoco]

America is a CONTINENT!
Americans are all people of America.
By calling your self American in the assumption of only being from the USA you are just a history-less, culture-less, ignorant American.
Perhaps you call Americans your selfs because you, as a country and a culture on the making, were not created anough to give your selfs a proper name, like Colombians, Mexicans, etc., or --worse-- yuo are just supporting the Monroe's statement: "America for the Americans" and his "Manifested destiny"... sorry and shame on you...

lunatic dog.

[Pickerel]

i think u must be, fuck.

Re:CMDR Taco is wrong

[{X-Frog}]

eh

this was said for Vietnam too..!

Let the Yankistani's have their fun

[LPetrazickis]

America is two continents anyways.:)

Re:yes, I remember when

[uradu]

> oh wait, what the fuck does the UN do?

It's coming in black helicopters to get YOU--just look out the window!

Re:What, with a 70% approval rating?

[0x0d0a]

Sixty some percent of US citizens only support a war with Iraq if we have broad international support. Which we don't have.

And this is a president moving ground troops in to occupy a country where we're hated and a large chunk of the civilian population is willing to fight back. That's asking for casualties.

The last time we tried that, it was Vietnam. Didn't do wonders for presidential popularity.

Re:So, how much...

[errxn]

Do you honestly believe that "argument"? Every time I hear the "it's all about oil" mantra, I am amused by its sheer and utter stupidity.

Before you repeat it somewhere else, I suggest you ask yourself this question: if GWB is so "oil-hungry", so to speak, why the *hell* would he risk the life and limb of American soldiers, America's stance internationally, and, yes, his own political popularity, when it would have been *orders of magnitude* easier for him to cut a deal with Saddam for the oh-so-precious oil, way back when, before this all started?

I'm so sure he had this all planned out from the get-go. Just ask Cynthia McKinney, she'll tell you all about it. Wherever she is these days.

If you're against the war, fine. But, jeez, please do yourself a favor and try to come up with a better argument than that tired "it's for oil" BS.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Mattsson]

But you can't expect people to *not* protest and try to stop an invasion, just because they might hurt the feelings of the people who are going to be ordered to execute the invasion...
I mean... If they succeed in stopping the invasion, the troops won't *have* to risk their lives. Right?

Delta Force to use hackers?

[joeflies]

UK Based Times Online is reporting that Delta force will use hackers to shut down Iraqi infrastructure.

"The first job of Delta Force commandos will be to isolate Saddam from his military commanders. They plan to hack into and shut down Iraq's communications and power facilities using laptop computers"

Re:It's about damn time

[lord sibn]

Bush was never in danger of being reelected. His tenure in office has been this country's least profitable period in the last ten years, and must I remind you of John Ashcroft?

Panic has been the medium of his presidency, and I have yet to find anybody who actually genuinely *likes* him.

How to abuse your moderation points

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at the comments on this story - whenever a political comment is made that doesn't toe the jingoistic, blindly-following-bush line, it's modded down. I'm glad I browse at -1 - the mods who abused their points today ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Re:to the tune of "if your'e happy & you know

[MegaHamsterX]

That was well put together and humorous, I don't agree with your assertions however.

Good

[mpost4]

This will cost me in being moded down, but it is about time, if you tell some one to disarm and do not follow up, well why should they disarm. The UN as proven it has no teeth. Who is going to care about international law if the UN has no power. If iraq wants to play game with weapons of mass destruction, then we have to stop him, fuck the UN.

The reason france and germany do not want a war, is because they are breaking international laws by buying from iraq and selling to them. No wonder they don't want an attack it will hurt them in there wallet. I say good, if they support the theorists then they deserve to be hurt.

Also I wonder where binlauden is, could he be hiding in iraq?

Finally I love this flash movie.

http://www.madblast.com/view.cfm?type=FunFlash&d is play=1610

As opposed to?

[LPetrazickis]

Don't you know that Bush wet his pants and cried for mommy 1 minute after 9/11?:D

Oentagon calss it Decapitation

[anonymous cupboard]

other important historical 'decapitations' included the French revolution.

Re:War Pigs

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Care to actually debate sensibly...?

Are you kidding? Dude, you opened up the debate by accusing your president of being a coward, and concluding from that assertion that he can't be trusted. That's the mother of all ad hom attacks!

And then you get uppity and challenge a detractor to "actually debate sensibly?"

Pretty lame, dude.

Extremists?

[LPetrazickis]

If you are so keen on going after extremists, why don't you nuke your Bible Belt? Saddam's not even a fundy.

Here's a different perspective

[oroshana]

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.

Re:Here's a different perspective

[Shugart]

It was definitely wrong for the US to support Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. It was wrong morally and strategically. Going further back, the US should not have helped the British overthrow the Iranian government after WWII and put the Shaw in power. That lead indirectly to the rise of Khomeni and the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran along with the takeover of the US embassy. IMHO I think we should have acted directly ourselves and not through a proxy against the Iranian government when our embassy was taken. Under international law, an embassy is the sovereign land not of the country it is in but the country that owns the embassy. As such, attacking one is an act of war. The pathetic attempt at a rescue of the embassy staff was one of the worse military blunders during my lifetime.

Re:Here's a different perspective

[oroshana]

Yes, yes, yes. There are many wrong things that every nation on earth has done. Frankly, I don't care about that. More importantly: I wasn't talking about that. I'm talking about a kid in Iraq right now who has to think, hear and see bombs being dropped down from the sky. I'm talking about the little kid in the chorus of Pink Floyd's "Goodbye Blue Sky." I was also talking about what happens when people see that their local government is controlled by people who don't live locally.

Furthermore, "Islamic fundamentalism" was only a method, not a reason for the overthrow of western powers inside of Iran. People were pissed off that they are not allowed to live the way they feel like living. My grandparents are Muslim. My parents are Christian. I am Humanist. My SigOther is Buddhist. I try not to categorize human acts based on the religion of the perpetrators. That would go against the basic premise of my constitution. More immediately, it would result in at least one family member being offended by my statements. And, unavoidable, my mother will hear about it, and i will totally get smacked. So there you go. Does anyone of other religions wish to join my family? You'll be helping me be more tolerant of other people. ;o)

Has anyone here ever thought about the full 5 season Bablyon 5 plot? One might be able to argue that it is an allusion to the USA/USSR conflicts within the Middle East. The Vorlons might represent USSR: scheduled, mandated order. The Shadows might represent USA: social and cultural evolution thru conflict. If the nations of this area had come to the same conclusion as the "lesser races" in Babylon 5, there wouldn't be so many problems. The Shadows have won.

On a less serious side note: I just noticed that my post was modded up to (Score:5, Insightful). Since this is my first contribution to discussions on /., I would like to borrow the proclamation which I have heard on many occasions from my younger brother: "woot!"

Re:Here's a different perspective

[Shugart]

Yea. I guess my response was off topic. I just become pedantic when it comes to history.
Don't know from religion myself. Any religion or pseudo-religion you can name I'm not. I prefer to go without. The religion of perpetrators is irrelevant.

Never thought about the Babylon 5 connection. Loved the show for the first 2 years or so.

Gratz on the mod. Highest I've ever had is 2. Haven't posted much though.

Re:Here's a different perspective

[ajedgar]

Bush is merely a puppet of this organization.

Here's a short list of the puppet masters:

Ronald Asmus, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Ivo H. Daalder, Thomas Donnelly, Peter Galbraith, Robert S. Gelbard, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Martin S. Indyk, Bruce P. Jackson, Robert Kagan, Craig Kennedy, William Kristol, Tod Lindberg, Will Marshall, Danielle Pletka, Dennis Ross, Randy Scheunemann, Gary Schmitt, Walter Slocombe, James B. Steinberg, R. James Woolsey

Re:Here's a different perspective

[ajedgar]

And some more names you may recognize from the Statement of Principles page:

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

Re:So, how much...

[ryepup]

War is a good war to raise approval ratings before an election. Just ask ex-pres George Bush. The dow went up almost 300 points on monday. The economy apparently likes war.

I think it is about more than oil, but oil is one reason. I just don't understand what the rush is, why we can't wait until the UN council approves of action, until enough evidence is found that we're not alienating the entire world by using force.

Hell yeah

[MxTxL]

Very well said.
It's the vocal minority syndrome. They are the loudest group, so they think they are in the majority... which just isn't the case. It's sad but true.

CoolAid

[bstadil]

How was the CoolAid?

Re:Defying the UN

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Moderating this post as a troll was a mistake. I understand that it's sometimes hard to tell the difference, but believe it or not there are actually people out there who have legitimate questions and who deserve sensible answers. Remember, "troll" does not mean "opinion with which I disagree," nor does it mean "question that challenges my preconceptions and actually makes me think."

Commander In Chief @ Work

[Anonymous Coward]

Rumsfeld: "Woohoo, we now have 35 countries supporting us. Guess it's not that bad after all. Bam Bam Saddamn!!!"

Bush: "Let me re-count to make sure: United States, Great Britain, Spain, Bulgaria, USA, Etats-Unis, Espagne, Angleterre, Royuamme Uni, UK, Texas, United Kingdom, Great Britain, oh wait I already counted that one..."

Free Secular Chechnya

[LPetrazickis]

The problem with Chechnya is that Russia kept interfering in it until the rebels became fundies. I wouldn't wish that headache on anyone; there is no fast way to solve Russia's self-inflicted Chechnya question. And, yes, you are committing war crimes.

Re:Or 60 years ago: Nazi Germany vs. Poland

[fishbowl]

"Excuse me, how were the Nazi's liberal?"

The *party* was a liberal democrat socialist labor platform. The people who eventually took the government seats (NOT just Hitler! It took far more than one man to create the Germany of WWII! How convenient to assume it wouldn't have happened without him!) weilded the enormous power and popular support that the labor party enjoyed. They twisted this power, and used it toward the ends that we now see as utter atrocity. They used the political power and pointed it at *imperialist* goals. Because the people had overwhelmingly supported the rise of the Nazi party, they had a collective problem of cognitive dissonance which steered them toward continued support. Evidence that would have led them to other motivations was generally hidden from people, and all voices of dissent were silenced. The people who knew they were living under an oppressive regime didn't really get the chance to tell the people who thought they were heading back to the prosperity of the early 19th century. And those people didn't care to seek out any such evidence, until it was really too late. The war was over by the time most Germans really knew the extent of it, or its severity. Remember that in those days, most people lived in the country, without radio or tv. Most towns would have had a telephone (one, in the Mayor's office!) so would not have been a month removed from "news", and many families had members fighting. But they believed, as all who share their circumstance, that their sons were the ones fighting the good fight and defending freedom and righteousness. What reason did they have to believe any different?

Now, I'm not afraid of the Bush administration, directly, and I'm not one who will draw the idiotic comparisons between Bush and any other leader, present or historical. But what does scare me is the way the current administration has grabbed for an enormous amount of power, centralized directly under the authority of the executive branch. What scares me is that very resource might be used for purposes other than the noble intentions with with they were granted, by a future administration. A liberal democrat, running on a labor platform, who promises to bring us back to prosperity after a few dozen years of going bankrupt fighting "terrorism" and "drugs", and losing, for example.

I liked the way Slashdot was only tech news.

[elchuppa]

there are enough places to rant and rave about politics...

Mod parent up please!

[refactored]

Damn, I've wasted my mod points on other posts. Mod this guy up.

Hmm?

[LPetrazickis]

For anything? To any particular supernatural force? Just wondering.:)

Re:to the tune of "if your'e happy & you know

[!splut]

The original author of that piece of satire is John Robbins (who is, interestingly, the hier of the Baskin-Robbins ice cream empire, and now an advocate of healthy eating and sustainable living), and the original version can be found here.

Evidently, the song has been updated slightly to make it slightly more timely, and my quick googling unfortunately didn't turn up a second author to whom that may be attributed.

-ks

Re:About time.

[Catnapster]

The people I know like to rag on the French a lot for their attitude toward war, but I try not to go too hard on them.

Personally, I think that as a country, they have bad memories of World War II, and therefore tend to take the side of the country being invaded. I may be wrong, though.

Preamble to the United Nations Charter

[Discordantus]

PREAMBLE
TO THE
CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

Fixation on Democracy?

[saynte]

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. :)

Re:Fixation on Democracy?

[Wateshay]

Democracy is a political structure. Socialism is an economic structure. The two are not mutually exclusive or inclusive. You can have democracy with a capitalist economy or a democracy with a socialist economy. Similarly, you can have a dictatorship with a capitalist economy or a dictatorship with a socialist economy.

I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes:

[Mr 44]

"There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America"

Gulf war II: the vengeance

[Kyusaku Natsume]

http://www.theonion.com/onion3910/gulf_war_2.html

An old article, published 1 year ago but updated. I never espected that it wold come true..

This is so Orwellian...

Yeah

[ScriptGuru]

I couldn't imagine supporting a government that would go to war for land, use chemical and atomic weapons, commit genocide, not follow the conventions of war, or devalue human life.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Osiris Ani]

We're doing this Iraq thing, the senate has approved it, the president obviously has made up his mind long ago, protesting over and over isn't going to help morale at this point.

Regardless of how much I choose to support the troops (which I do), it's not my duty to help morale. It is, however, my absolute responsibility as a citizen to act purely in accordance with my conscience. If anything, that is the truly patriotic thing to do.

--
"So the right path might be a sinful path?"
"Isn't it always? Ask anyone who's ever fought a war."
- Micheal Miner & A.E. Eyre

Re:It's about damn time

[0x0d0a]

I think it's been a while since people really loved a president. There are some people that dislike Dems more, simply on party-based grounds. A few religious right/authoritarian types approve of Ashcroft.

You're definitely right about the economy, especially since he doesn't seem to have any interest in fixing it.

The Real Story?

[PetoskeyGuy]

I have my own opinions on the matter, but I don't trust them.

One way or another, I've only seen or heard the major media stories infotainment clips and exciting as they seemed I kept getting distracted by the other half of the screen displaying unrelating changing information.

I know that people are going to die soon, and I'm very confused and sad. Desert Storm was successful because it had the full backing of the UN and other countries.

Why now, why not wait for the inspectors to finish their job? Why did Congress allow Bush to decide when diplomacy had failed so he could start his own war? What country will be next for rebuilding and destruction?

I just hope things have gotten bad enough and rebuilding is expensive enough that Bush won't get elected and we can start changing our plutocracy into something great again.

Poor moderation means Bush eats babies!

[teamhasnoi]

I am willing to sacrifice some karma so that other posts may live. Post away! I am the defender of freedom!

Either moderators did the shittiest job moderating that I have ever seen, or contrary to popular /.faqs, this mod system does NOT SCALE.

Piss poor moderators, go to town please. Mod this down! Lets get those mod points out of the hands of babies. You might put your eye out.

BSD is dying, BTW.

PS. Make sure you check back, I probably reposted this so you can use ALL your points.

Re:About time.

[Efreet]

I pretty much agree. Of course, 10 years ago we had a lot of allies who were despots, and didn't want any sort of precedent involving the US setting up democracies in Arab states, so I can imagine that it might have been hard to do.

However, after a few years it became clear that Iraq just wasn't cooperating, and that he was taking resources meant to feed his citizens and finding other uses for them...to the tune of tens of thousands of deaths a year.

I'm scared of a lot of things right now, like VX being used withing Bhagdad or oil wells on fire; but even my most pessimistic estimates of what could be brought on by this war pail in comparison to what has been happening in Iraq every one of the last 10 years.

My eyes water as I write this, because saying this I've endorsed the deaths of more people than I can properly comprehend. I'm also sure that there must be a better way somehow, maybe even one that someone has thought of; but things can't remain as they are, and a war seems like the only thing that is going to change them.

AIE! Amen for WAR!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:So, how much...

[errxn]

Honestly, I wish that GWB would have waited a little longer, too. To be precise, I wish that he'd waited until about, oh, 45 minutes or so before the beginning of the Academy Awards ceremony.

As for the possibility of alienating the rest of the world, was it 30 or 40 countries that were with us as of this afternoon? I just glanced at the TV for a second, so I don't remember the number.

The "oil" argument falls flat on its face from every conceivable angle. There is simply no logical reason to take the current course of action over oil. It's just a nice little catch phrase for the protestors to regurgitate into the TV cameras. That, or the "racist" line. That's another beauty. With stuff like this, who needs Comedy Central?

Re:GWB is a tool.

[0x0d0a]

Do you think anybody is lying about Saddam?

What a fool!

Uh...that Iraq is any kind of a serious danger to the United States?

That attacking him will help the "War On Terror"?

That the targeted strike this night against Saddam (definitely assassination, and not kosher by international convention) wasn't just revenge by Bush for Saddam trying to knock off his dad?

Sounds like a bunch of lies to *me*.

Re:War Pigs

[junkgrep]

Are you suggesting that we should give up on the idea of civilian control over the military? Combat vets only need apply? Service brings citizenship? I don't doubt that Bush weaseled out of active duty: he even seemed to weasel out of reserve duty. But I don't buy the principle you're pushing here at all.

Check out ...

[tqft]

www.sec.noaa.gov/today.html if you want to see why there may be a small delay in some of the more tactical deployments dependent on satellite data. Also try spaceweather.com (has some gif's linked showing the flares going off). If the flares glance the Earth's magnetospehre there may be a dearth of satellite coverage for a while.

Good English Arab News Site

[Yanthor]

For those who would like to read some of how the Saudi Arabians see things:

arabnews.com

I always find this site quite interesting.

War, when did this happen?

[ajax142]

Anyone find it ironic that CNN, ABC News, etc have said that we are at 'War with Iraq'? I think someone at these news agencies should take another look at the good old U.S. Constitution...

Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power... To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"

Now last time I checked, Congress had not declared war, so the US is not at war with Iraq anymore than we our at war with Canada. I really wish people would stop throwing that word out there for fun.

How will we be remembered?

[AlanS2002]

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.

Re:Nice response!

[ainsoph]

Ok Coward!!

You must be one of these self styled armchair general w00t w00t neo-cons! neat!

Re:war

[roolmarty]

It seems to be good for the price of oil, media companies and looks great on the Presidents resume.

Yet another blunder by American president

[prabha]

I still cannot digest the fact america has started a bloody ruthless war against the interest of the World community. Certainly not a good sign for the president and the fellow americans.
Plese remember one cannot win a war without the support of the world community.
Time and again American presidents prove that they are just a bone-headed white collar thugs.
I not against the american people nor a supporter of Iraq, i live in india and iam very proud my country is against this bloody battle.
My only request to American president is, Pls inform your slave(read Tony blair) on the war decisions, he seems to be absolutely clueless. Prabhakar

Re:Yet another blunder by American president

[sql*kitten]

I not against the american people nor a supporter of Iraq, i live in india and iam very proud my country is against this bloody battle.

Good for you. Wait, doesn't India have nukes pointed at its neighbor Pakistan? Don't you have troops skirmishing in Kashmir as we speak? Funny, I don't think the "world community" is too keen on India and Pakistan "testing" (read: detonating) nuclear weapons to intimidate each other.

Get of your moral high horse and remember, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Re:Yet another blunder by American president

[prabha]

India do have nukes pointed towards Pakistan, but it not an offensive posture, remember India is a Peace loving country, Kashmir is an Integral part of our country, we have every right to protect it from terrorists.
Wait a minute, what have IRAQ done to America. Don't type like a moron, just because you have two hands.
When you are in deep shit, dont shout at others.

Re:Yet another blunder by American president

[jmarca]

Unfortunately, we probably will win this war, and quickly, and the rest of the world will forget about it and shut up. For a while.

Most repressive regimes get away with repression for a very long time until the repressed turn the tables. If this war marks the start of America as Global Thug (personally, I hope this period ends in 2004), we have probably 20 to 50 years before we really have to seriously worry about all the little kids on the playground organizing themselves to take us out.

But stupid as it is, I still think this war is just payback because Saddam tried to knock off dubya's daddy. Wouldn't you do the same thing if (a) you lost the popular vote, (b) most basic statistics texts use the Florida election returns to demonstrate that you should have also lost the electoral vote and (c) you're president anyway?

Re:Yet another blunder by American president

[Vikramtn]

Simple theory across the world is, it fair for a country to take on (fight/attack) another in the presence of UN for its personal grievances? If US defends its stand to attack Iraq today, then Iraq's action 12 years back becomes fair as well. Both are unfair!!! India and Pakisthan are acting more wisely bu not fighting or attacking eachother. There are no two personals fighting between our countries for personal problems. Our issue will be solved through bilateral talks without affecting any one!

Um...

[PKFC]

I really don't know this for sure, but luckily there is a tremendously low chance of anyone being able to prove me wrong.

I don't think Saddam Hussein is a bad person. The reason? I have never met him.

What is the chance of me actually meeting him? None. Should I form an opinion based on whatever I hear? I choose not too.

He might be flawed. Perhaps only to the extent that you and I are flawed. Perhaps more or less. Who really knows?

I think he loves his family. He wants to protect his family and make their lives happy and prosperous just as I would when I start a family.

I could be totally wrong and I won't mind admitting I am wrong if that is the case.

NOT a troll - please "un-troll" parent!

[repoleved]

The parent post is not a troll. It is my honest opinion. I was NOT trolling.

Just because ...

[bettiwettiwoo]

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?).

Just because the Bush Administration has failed to argue the case for war coherently and convincingly (Saddam Hussein has links to Al Quaida ... 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 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?)

Re:Just because ...

[gerardrj]

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.

Re:Just because ...

[bettiwettiwoo]

As for the whole "violations of the Iraqi people's basic human rights", that is an internal affair of a sovreign nation

Yes, it definitely used to be the case that a sovereign nation could treat its population however it saw fit. However, is that really true after WWII and the Nürnberg Trials? If yes, wouldn't that mean that Nazi Germany had the right to gas German Jews, but not Jews with other nationalities? (N.B. I am not making any other comparisons with Nazi Germany here: I am merely referring to the Nürnberg Trials because they are the first cases of genocide and crimes against humanity that I know of.) Personally, I don't think that is within the sovereign rights of a nation any more.

How about solid proof of capability to, or inmminent intent to commit an act of agression.

Yes, I would agree that in the normal case such proof (or at least evidence) would be necessary. However, as far as I know, Iraq agreed, as part of the cease-fire agreement negotiated after the 1991 Gulf War, to disarm. Does it appear to you that Iraq has disarmed and with whom rests the burden of proof?

Re:Just because ...

[foniksonik]

What was that whole Bosnia thing about if not intervening in the 'internal affairs of a soverign nation'. We wouldn't have had to 'Peace Keep' if it weren't for that megalomaniac Milosevic.

How about this one... why does the rest of the world think they can mess with the affairs of our sovereign nation... I mean does our attack have any impact on France? Germany? Russia? Sure it does! So does the consistent and progressive oppression of one of the most intelligent, well educated and materially and culturally wealthy populations in the world. So does Saddam's support of terrorist organizations around the world. (Just because Osama doesn't like Saddam don't think he won't do his bidding just the same, if the price is right)

Finally, don't think this isn't an example to those countries who continue to terrorize their own people, the world citizens we depend upon for commerce in materials, ideas, culture and security. When a government oppresses it's own people with terror it denies the entire world of their potential for contribution to the good of all.

God helps those who help themselves.

Re:Just because ...

[mindriot]

'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?

Problem here is, you are trading lives by saying "it's better to kill 1,000 than letting 100,000 be killed." Where is the limit? If you kill n innocent people to prevent the killing of m innocent people, for which ratio n/m do you still call your war "just"? Where do you draw the line?

The answer: you simply can't. Noone has the right to trade innocent lives. To give an example, the German constitution states in its very first article, "human dignity is inviolable." There are similar statements in most free nations' constitutions.

I personally can not support a war that is (at least partly) justified on such a tradeoff.

Re:Just because ...

[Izeickl]

If you save 1 life more than you kill then its worth it at the end of the day. Its a numbers game pure and simple, forget emotions, forget ethics, if 100 000 live because 1 000 die then damn thats worth it, your looking at it wrong, its not 1 000 you killed, its 100 000 you saved, otherwise your saying the 1000 people who die are worth more than the 100 000 who might otherwise live!!

Life is not a utopia, just be glad your one of the ones that live. The British SAS understand that, they will leave men behind rather than risk killing their whole group! Its harsh but common sense, the "dont leave a man behind" attitude just causes senseless extra deaths.

Re:Just because ...

[bettiwettiwoo]

... you are trading lives by saying "it's better to kill 1,000 than letting 100,000 be killed." ... The answer: you simply can't.

I don't recall making the argument that it is necessarily better to 'kill 1,000 than letting 100,000 be killed'.
However, even though you seem keen to infer things that aren't necessarily there: for the sake of the argument let us say that the present attack on Iraq kills 1,000 'innocent' civilians. But let us then also say that leaving Mr Hussein in power would kill 100,000 'innocent' Iraqi people. How is that a better option for the Iraqi people or for the world (and please remember: no man is island ...)

Re:Just because ...

[mindriot]

Good point. By not acting, we are also trading lives; thus, no matter how we react (war or not), we are implicitly making this trade-off.

So what follows is simply that you can not argument one way or the other with a trade-off argument. It is no justification for any action.

Although this has definitely a rather philosphical nature now...

Re:Just because ...

[gerardrj]

Does it appear to me that Iraq disarmed? If Iraq had an entry in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, it would read simply "Mostly Harmless". Of all the arms the country had, the inspectors could only find 12 points of contention/uncertany. Of those, only two (IIRC) where actually of any real signigicance.

There certainly was nothing in any U.N. resolution that enabled the U.S.A. to enforce "no-fly zones", or to deploy 300,000 troops in to the country for the purposes of removing Saddam's government.

As another poster so poigniently stated... isn't it ironic, that the U.S.A. is direspecting the U.N. in order to prove that the U.N. must be respected?

If you think that crimes against humanity is a valid reason for the U.S.A to act (mostly) alone to invade a soverign nation, oust it's current leadersip, and install one to the liking of the U.S.A., then perhaps we should also invade:
Cuba, China, India, Russia, most of the African Continent, and oh yea.... the U.S.A (we are after all the only industrial nation that still uses the death sentence).

Re:Just because ...

[gerardrj]

"God helps those who help themselves."

That is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read.

teachable moments

[rczyzewski]

Hopefully our educators can use this as a "teachable moment" and our children will learn from the stupidity of our current administration.

I support our troops, but not their mission. May God & Gates have mercy on our souls.

Re:teachable moments

[Bald Wookie]

Hopefully our educators can use this as a "teachable moment" and our children will learn from the stupidity of our current administration.

Hopefully our educators will be teaching our children the academic subjects that they're being paid to teach. Anything less does a disservice to our children.

Re:teachable moments

[jfmiller]

Would World History and Social Studies be in your list of academic subject? Or are you a product of Americas failing education system.

JFMILLER

Re:War Pigs

[dpt]

That's the mother of all ad hom attacks!

No, it isn't. The steps he, and others, took to avoid conscription are well known. Like joining the National Guard. Is anyone actually denying that?

Pretty lame, dude.

Whatever you say. Of course, with your background, one wonders what you're even *doing* on Slashdot. This is a news site for technically able people, not trolls who have some sort of newspaper fact-checking "job". Or is it political astroturfing? Given the number of your posts, *none* of which have any technical content, *all* of which are political in nature, I'm guessing the latter.

Or are you just on welfare, and therefore have lots of time on your hands?

NPR Commentary

[scoobysnack]

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.

Re:NPR Commentary

[elefantstn]

And people wonder why I have a problem with my tax dollars paying for this inane drivel.

Re:NPR Commentary

[foniksonik]

Sorry but pointing out that the right to Free Speech is being exercised by this guy at NPR isn't convincing me that the US is evil or that Bush is misguided or delusional. In fact it points out the wonder of living in a free state and though it is itself an exercise in hypocrisy should be cherished as an example of such.

Re:NPR Commentary

[hqm]

"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 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?

No, this isn't about enforcing the power of the United Nations. Who gave you that idea?

Re:NPR Commentary

[horza]

We are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that the United Nations cannot be ignored.

You are going to ignore the United Nations in order to make sure Iraq fulfuls its obligations, made primarily to the US but under the auspices of the UN.

We're going to wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war.

You are going to wage war due to the impotence of the UN to enforce its own punishments.

Peace is too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I getting this right?

Spot on.

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.

The Security Council is not a democracy, it's a talking shop where heads of state try and steer a safe path for the common good. Co-operative effort is in the best interests of everybody. It provides a greater show of strength, is less costly, and reaffirms stability. Do you really consider Iraq to have a democracy?

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.

I thought you had a vote in Congress that allowed the use of force in Iraq? In which case you had every chance to dissent. The fact is the majority don't.

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.

That's not even near the mark. He's invaded two of his neighbours, launched missile attacks at a couple of others, suppressed, tortured, killed and gassed sections of his population... He's a fly in the ointment of world peace that is about to be extinguished.

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.

Opposition... you mean allies? Who actually signed up and commited to doing the thing that only the US has the guts to do now?

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.

See couple of paragraphs above to see that he doesn't simply 'ignore' his people.

[snip]

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.

Circular reasoning debunked. Next?

Phillip.

Re:NPR Commentary

[Myopic]

point of order: the security council is not a democratic body. why the hell would anyone try to claim it is? it's not elected and it has permanant members with veto power. i don't think the security council was ever supposed to be democratic.

another point of order: who is trying to say that Bush brooks no dissent? he's had tens of thousands of protesters chanting outside his bedroom window for a whole year now. i don't think saddam allows that.

finally, a point about peace: IF you view saddam as a hitler-like figure (and Bush does), THEN it makes sense to "preserve peace" by waging war, doesn't it? it sure did sixty years ago. let's not forget the lesson of WWII.

look, i'm a hippie liberal peace-loving beatnik like the rest of you, but let's not be completely stupid about it.

All I have to Say:

[mageben]

Two Things:

"Give Peace a Chance." - John Lennon

and

I wish for Peace

Not quite

[LenE]

Medicine was allowed by the sanctions. Dual use materials and machinery is not allowed. Sadam didn't allow medicine to enter the country, so that he could blame the sanctions for causing harm to his people.

A company that I worked for sold a rather large number of bacterial/viral growing devices to Iraq, and the sale was approved by the Clinton administration. Why? Because it was sold to a medicine company owned by the government of Iraq. Oh, and the CEO made a $40,000 donation to the Democratic National Committee.

Nevermind that in one sale, they ordered almost as much as the yearly demand of the rest of the world for this device. This device was not forbidden by the sanctions (but it should have been).

By the way, it was Madeline Albright, but I don't recall her making such a statement. She was a hawk on Iraq in 1998, but is staunchly opposed to the current action.

-- Len

Re:Iraq? Rebuilt? No way

[nutshell42]

The US hasn't supported the economies of Japan and Germany for decades (in form of direct aid, both countries are export oriented but I wouldn't call that support), the idea that their troubles result from a lack of US help is ridiculous. It's more that Japan never recovered from the near collapse of their financial system at the end of the 80s Germany struggles under the burden of having paid more than 1 trillion $ to rebuild eastern germany and there's a general lack of determination to accept unpopular reforms in both countries

Iraq
IMHO the post-WWII comparison doesn't work. Both Germany and Japan had a highly trained and educated population and most damages from the war could be repaired with some work so it was only a matter of not tying them down after the war (as France tried with Germany after WWI) and a little aid at the start; Iraq has never been industrialized, the population lacks education, most industry is rotting away, and chances are that we'll see a civil war until the end of the year unless the US sustains a huge occupation force. In addition Iraqis are gonna lack the general sense of guilt which was helpful in shaping democratic structures in Germany and Japan, if the US really lets the Iraqis vote I'd guess we'll have a new theocratic regime there which probably won't be pro-US

Re:GWB is a tool.

[einhverfr]

Of course you are a troll. If GWB was a tool, he would not be a threat, anymore than nmap is a threat to your network. Pick one or the other.

I think he is a tool and is relatively harmless himself, but that there are more sinister forces at play, and also that there are simply put, inept diplomats in his organization (Rumsfeld, for example) who can't negotiate their way out of a traffic ticket :-P

This is a dangerious situation and one that could lead to international escalation (Turkey, for example). But if GWB is both a tool and a threat, then it is because he is not the right tool for the job ;-)

But feel free to mod me down

I hate the war, but I support you

[Sanity]

I am anti-war, but I sincerely hope that you, and other soldiers (US, British, *and* Iraqi) emerge unharmed.

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.

Re:I hate the war, but I support you

[Big Nothing]

This is not in particular directed at you, Sanity (1431), but to all those who refer to today's - and the coming months' - military action as "war".

What we are witnessing now is not war. What we are witnessing is the single most powerful military force on the face of the earth attacking a small, ill-equipped, obsolete, unmotivated army.

In addition, much of the casualties will not be directed at military targets, but will strike the civilian population - a population that has already had to endure a gruesome dictator, 10 years of famine, countless years of war, etc.

I was planning on citing numbers here, but I won't. Everyone knows that Iraq doesn't have a fighting chance.

Re:Whose war is it anyway?

[unitron]

To my way of thinking the interesting thing about the people on that list isn't their religion or ethnicity so much as it is how few of them have actual combat experience, as in know what it's like to get shot at and wonder if you're going home in a body bag.

Re:Waiting (Dude, you're getting a courtmarshal)

[ELCarlsson]

Here you go, straight from the Uniformed Code of Military Justice(UCMJ) "888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. " I am an enlisted member, not a commissioned officer. IANL but I'm almost positive and am betting my career that I cannot be prosecuted under Article 88 of the UCMJ.

Peace ...

[bowa]

Peace for all, also for iraqi citizens.

Re:So, how much...

[KiahZero]

You mean that "1,2,3,4... we don't want your racist war?" and various permutations? Yeah... how is viewing the life of an Iraqi civilian as fundamentally less important than the life of an American civilian not racist? This, of course, does not even touch on the predeliction of some to call the Iraqis "towel-wearing sand niggers." Nope, not racist at all.

Please check other news sources than CNN!!!

[squared99]

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.

Re:Please check other news sources than CNN!!!

[Matrix2110]

Give me a break, I have been looking at the issues from as many sides as I can. Who do you suggest I get my news from, Al Jezzera?

Seriously, NBC has been doing a very good job so far with FOX running a surprisingly good second place. (Until they broke off for Survivor and American idol, that is) NBC kept that poor guy Brian Williams on the air so long that he was starting to act punch-drunk on the air. I was happy when they switched over to MSNBC anchors at 9:30PM Pacific Time. The NBC station where I work dumped all of its programming and commercials until Thursday morning. (That is a lot of money we will not get) just to provide war coverage. If you think we are making money off of this war, you are wrong.

The first shot at commercials will come with the Today show early morning Thursday (only if they decide to run commercial breaks), guess who are the only sponsors who are willing to pay for commercials in that case? The answer is the movie studios! (I kid you not.) The current crop of movies are going to be released, War or no War.

Re:Please check other news sources than CNN!!!

[soccerisgod]

Seriously, NBC has been doing a very good job so far with FOX running a surprisingly good second place.

According to FOX News, we, that is you and I, are enemies now.

Re:Please check other news sources than CNN!!!

[Ralp]

{Thanks for offering so many great alternatives. Reading your post was time well spent.}

{This sentence is not enclosed by sarcasm brackets.}

Re:Please check other news sources than CNN!!!

[Radish03]

I'm going to assume the author of parrent was suggesting non-commercial media (you know, those that aren't influenced by multinational corporations). Here are some suggestions:
-Independent Media
-Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
-The Nation

Re:Please check other news sources than CNN!!!

[pinqkandi]

Most of the people here only seem to get news from IndyMedia or some other "hey look at us we're different!" news services.

Just because something is on a big network, or the majority of people think one way does not mean it is wrong. A lot of these anti-war people are just making a scene. I truly think many of of them just want attention. (but not all of them).

I am not pro-war. I am pro-problem solving. Sometimes war is the best solution. And in the long run I think it will be. If there was a way we could do it without deaths or fighting, I'd be all about it. But there isn't.

Re:Please check other news sources than CNN!!!

[acarey]

For God's sake, feed your mind:

http://www.guardian.co.uk
http://news.bbc.co.uk
http://news.google.com

are just three options off the top of my head.

With regards to US media: ABC news has always seemed more open to "two-sided" reporting than CNN, in my experience.

CNN is the self-appointed propaganda mouthpiece of the US Government. That's fine and dandy, since someone's got to be, but you owe it to yourself to take everything they say with healty skeptisism.

What is the american point of view ?

[MarkKnopfler]

Hi !
I am an Indian, and as far as the conflict in the middle east goes we here are helpless spectators hoping and praying that the whole thing is over as soon as possible with minimum loss of life on both sides. We are also hoping that a lot of people do not lose their jobs here and petrol ( I think you call it gasoline in the US ) remains affordable.
However I was wondering as to what might be the american motivation for the war ? I personally am not being able to comprehend the motivation behind such a massive military strike. It was as if President Bush was afraid that the UN inspectors would actually give Iraq a clean chit. I always thought that if it is about declaring war, it is always worth a wait.
Is it about President Bush trying to improve his own approval ratings ( Honestly, our politicians would do it without batting an eyelid ) or is it that the american people actually percieve Iraq as a genuine threat ? I am actually puzzled and bit scared too. If it is Iraq now, it could mean any other country tomorrow since I do not see any reason behind attacking Iraq. It is like the americans do not need a very good reason to attack any country and that certainly cannot be very good news for the rest of the world....

Re: What they are counting on

[Black Parrot]

> Is to find some "Bad Stuff" (tm) over there after the war is over, proving the weapons of mass destruction talk. [...] If they don't then there's a problem - that's the gamble.

I'm sure someone in the Bush Administration has heard of a "throw-down" before.

Hell, they lied about various "evidence" trying to make the case for war, why should we expect them to do different afterward?

What chaps me as much as anything is how much of what we're hearing (from everyone) is utter bullshit, and we won't find out for years what was real and what wasn't.

> Looks like a good bet though, Saddam was obviously just toying with the UN.

Clearly he has never intended to do anything he didn't have to do. But I'm still agnostic about what he has. Lots were destroyed in the 90's, though probably not everything, and he has had 4 years to rebuild and hide anything new. OTOH Western intelligence has been completely incapable of guiding the inspectors to a cache, so what gives? OTGrippingH, history seems to show that intelligence services aren't so hot as they're cracked up to be.

Unfortunately, if he does have anything he will almost certainly use it, since "regime change" is just a synonym for "unconditional surrender". I suspect the USA would do the same in similar circumstances.

> I've done the same things with stupid management at my own company.

We'll be invading you next, buster.

Re:Waiting (Dude, you're getting a courtmarshal)

[ELCarlsson]

However, I may lose my internet access for a while if they find out I've been posting on Slashdot. :) One question, how do I put spaces in my postings? I hit enter while typing but it all bunches back up. Thanks

On the 'it's about oil' point...

[Anonymous Coward]

Before we have too many conspiracy nuts repeat the line that "this is all about oil," try to ask yourself these questions. If oil is so important, why is it that the coaltion giving the fields back to the soon-to-be established government of Iraq? If oil is No. 1, why isn't the U.S. attacking Venezuela where you have a would-be dictator whose actions (and those of his opponents) are severely impacting world oil markets much worse than before. If it's all about oil, how come Saddam is still around? Why wasn't he taken out last time?

As far as the even more insane theories about the Bush family and Cheney seeking to enrich themselves, let me tell you that there are plenty of ways to get far larger amounts of money in the world, either anonymously or noncontroversially. These theories make about as much sense as a Lyndon LaRouche rant or a John Birch Society meeting. Full of innuendo and conjecture.

If any of these theories were actually true, don't you think the Democratic party in the U.S. would be jumping all over them? But they are not, nearly all of them favor taking out Saddam including both Clintons, Al Gore, John Kerrey, etc. These people have no love lost for Bush; in fact, they hate him, yet they have enough brains not to listen to crackpots trotting around nonsensical conspiracy theories.

There are some real reasons why this war may be wrong but the oil point is totally simplistic and utterly wrong.

Re:to the tune of "if your'e happy & you know

[Slime-dogg]

If your corp'rate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

If I didn't know any better, I'd pin this verse on the Clinton regime. :-D

Re:GWB is a tool.

[packeteer]

If Iraq is going to be so easy to attack why are they a threat? If we left them alone they would have no reason to want to hurt us. This whole thing is so confusing... we create a problem and try and solve it the same way we created it.

Re:War Pigs

[dpt]

Are you suggesting that we should give up on the idea of civilian control over the military?

I just find it ironic that someone so keen for war couldn't stomach it himself. If it were some person who never had duty call on them making these statements, then fine. There's no irony.

But history records that duty called, and he responded by running in the opposite direction as fast as his little legs could carry him.

I don't doubt that Bush weaseled out of active duty: he even seemed to weasel out of reserve duty.

Is there room for doubt?

But I don't buy the principle you're pushing here at all.

I don't believe I'm pushing any principle. I just find him generally annoying. No matter what your political leanings, you got to think we can do better!

Don't worry, I don't like Al Gore much either. Is anyone suprised that the election came down to effectively a draw with two such lacklustre, mediocre men as candidates?

Re:Fucking liberals eat french fries, dolt.

[unitron]

The way I heard it it was a restaurant somewhere along the coast of North Carolina and Representative Walter B. Jones, Jr. (R-NC) pushed for it to instituted in the House cafeteria or wherever it was.

Nobody wants to quit making money selling them, they just want to quit crediting the source (Yes, I know the source was really Belgium, not France, but that's where WWI U.S. soldiers learned about them.)

fuck the usa

[atomray]

do not destroy the oilfields!

Re:Waiting (Dude, you're getting a courtmarshal)

[teamhasnoi]

type <BR> for one line and <P> for two lines (paragraph) in angle brackets like the stuff under the submit button

If you're having trouble with the spacebar, I can't help you ;)

Re:War Pigs

[madgeorge]

Nice, dude. After reading this, I was inspired. So here's my tribute.

--madgeorge

Re:GWB is a tool.

[some damn guy]

"That the targeted strike this night against Saddam (definitely assassination, and not kosher by international convention) wasn't just revenge by Bush for Saddam trying to knock off his dad?"

Hmmm... well I may be just another member of the great gullible masses- but I thaught it was so they could avoid having a big war.

I obviously have a lot to learn.

Re:Waiting (Dude, you're getting a courtmarshal)

[teamhasnoi]

Does helping you with this count as supporting our troops?

(I couldn't help it. :)

Re: to the tune of "if your'e happy & you know

[Black Parrot]

If your corp'rate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

> If I didn't know any better, I'd pin this verse on the Clinton regime. :-D

For the Clinton version, replace all occurrences of "bomb Iraq" with "poke a ho".

Re:www.moorewatch.com

[Commutative Monoid]

I share your sentiments. So...many...ideologues...so...little...thinking.

An entire subculture of kooks fighting a war of banality. I suddenly feel like a civilian in a battlefield with bombs of stupid falling all around me.

I thought US won the "war" in Afghanistan +RANT

[Confessed Geek]

Recent update from http://www.debka.com/

"State Department issues worldwide terror alert for US citizens. Fox News TV reports 1000 US troops amount offensive against al Qaeda in Afghanistan."

Hmm according to the government propaganda machines, hadn't the US alreay "won" there? Doing a marvelous job of bringing them democracy freedom and safety arn't we...

Please don't read the rest of this post. It will make you mad, or sad, or disgusted. You will probably just think I'm an idiot.

Still here? Well you were warned.

Don't you feel safer now? Don't you just feel the urge to hop a plane and take a tour of Europe, knowing that as an American every one you meet will greet you with respect and friendship for your brave and compassionate membership in the world community?

Just say No! to Homicidal Cowboys of Mass Destruction.

How do you fight terrorism when the terrorists already won the election? Well... sort of. Kind of Ironic looking back on the court decisions saying that any more recounts would bad for the nation...

I wish I could say something insightful and compelling to persuade my fellow readers and posters of my position. But I can't. I'm just too filled with rage, fury, disgust, shame, despair, and helplessness. No good words will come. Only this filth and verbage of rage.

A draft dodging, C student, carried on his fathers coat-tails, who has never left the country and probably couldn't have pointed out Afghanistan on a map when he took office, has commited us to a war that will eliminate no threat to my nation, make it even less safe for me to travel, produce thousands of martyrs, breed a whole new generation of hating minds, put kill of those brave enough to serve the US in a capacity he cowardly fled, and alienated all of our allies. (Well I guess we've got a few select government officials in England and Spain, -wow- ,but they won't be in office much longer.) I want to pull my hair out. AND I CAN'T DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT! I have never felt as patriotic in my life - I want what is best for my nation, politically and morally, but even though I religiously vote in every election ( even my recent local one with 6 ! canidates - 2 running un-opposed) I have no way to stop this nation from commiting diplomatic suicide and morally bankrupting itself.

For the first time in US history we have engaged in a blatant, unprovoked war of aggression. We have set a precedent that we can't take back. Whats next? Will India invade Pakistan to protect the Pakastani people from their dictator? Will Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, and the new Iraqi Democracy invade Isreal for refusing to comply with the 30 year old UN security Council resolutions stating they have to get out of the Occupied Territories?

If the world accepts our actions, then we will have to accept the same when others do it. Or we can refuse, and then we are telling the world "Might makes Right," and every school yard bully DID have the right to pick on you just because he was bigger. We will be saying we accept the rule double standards - that those with power make the rules.

Please, citizens of the world. Do not judge the people of the US by the pretender who has seized power here. Most of us really didn't vote for him.* He does not represent all of us. He does not speak for all of us.

Lets talk about France. France learned its lesson in world war II. Germany learned its lesson. In the recent propaganda blitz and burst of jingoism France has been accused of "apeasement" in regards to Iraq. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is quite the reverse. The Britich Prime minister is the one most guilty of this in the current case. The French, Germans, Chinese, Russians, and just about everybody else learned their lesson and refused to apease the ol' Monkey Face. They are acting as the UN should - to stop Big nations from trying to force their will on others and arbitrate disputes between countries so as to avoid armed co

Re:I thought US won the "war" in Afghanistan +RANT

[aaaaarrrgghhh]

"Confessed Geek For President" !!!!!

Re: to the tune of "if your'e happy & you know

[Black Parrot]

> My view is that this shouldn't have taken 12 years to finish, and it's about time it's happening.

It hasn't taken 12 years. In 1991 the only goal was to kick Iraq back out of Kuwait. The agenda has grown somewhat over the past 12 years.

Even MORE vehement positions

[fv]

> What amazes me about the political discussions on Slashdot is how many
> people hold vehement positions even though they don't follow the news

Scarier is that this Slashdot discussion is refreshingly civil compared to what I've encountered the last few days! Last Sunday I released a version of Nmap and included a very short peace plea at the top of the announcement. I received well over 50 replies. While a few people such as Ilan Meller of Israel and Amir Safayan from Iran for presenting reasoned cases for preemptive action against Iraq, most of the replies were the worst flamage I've seen in years!

For suggesting that perhaps Bush could have been a little more patient with the UN & weapons inspectors, one person said I am "obviously a terrorist". Another concluded that Nmap "is spyware to spy on the american people." Chet from Hotmail explained that we must attack because "the religion of Islam seeks to destroy the USA". Jason from CMITexas said "Stick it up your ass! .... You are another resentful European loser. I demand an answer now asshole!!!!" Another crazy Texan said "Iraq will bow to the most powerful nation in the world and you will stand by and observe. Your representatives are powerless against gods chosen nation. No country has the power or the intellect to do anything about it." Guys: I am a proud US Citizen residing in California -- please tailor your invective appropriately.

Fortunately I sent out a second mail yesterday which noted the flames above and also clarified my points. I was quite gratified that this one already has elicited more than 220 replies, with 95% being civil! Many still disagree with me, but at least they respected my right to have and express my beliefs. It restored some of my faith in humanity (or at least in Nmap users). I can appreciate alternative views too. What frustrates me are the people who believe Saddam is linked with Al Qaeda or a bigger threat to the US than North Korea only because Bush says so.

I wish I had time right now to go through the hundreds of mails and piece together some of the very best arguments on each side. But I guess /. has no dearth of comments already :). So I'll just leave you with a few links I found interesting or funny ;).

• A very relevant and insightful quote from Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials.
• One of the few web site defacements I find amusing ;)

And on a completely different (and much happier) note, I am pleased to announce just-released version 3.20 of the Nmap Security Scanner. It is the first "stable" release since last July and contains hundreds of improvements (release notes))

--Fyodor

Re: Even MORE vehement positions

[Black Parrot]

> Another crazy Texan said "Iraq will bow to the most powerful nation in the world and you will stand by and observe. Your representatives are powerless against gods chosen nation. No country has the power or the intellect to do anything about it." Guys: I am a proud US Citizen residing in California -- please tailor your invective appropriately.

Ah, but when he said "God's chosen nation" he was talking about Texas, and you're a mere heathen from California.

Re:Even MORE vehement positions

[akruppa]

• A very relevant and insightful quote from Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials.
  

I, too, found this quote highly relevant and insightful, and also hautingly scary. The first thought is of course that this may be a fabricaed quote, as it almost seems to apply to the current situation too well to be historic. But a quick lookup at snopes.org confirms the quote, and has some info on it's background.

This makes me wonder inhowfar a similar choice of means can be takes as an indication of a similar choice of ends.

Alex

Re:Even MORE vehement positions

[quax]

All the people who always compare Saddam to Hitler and want to install a democracy in Iraq always seem to forget that Germany was a democracy before Hitler.

Hitler didn't even get a majority of his own, he had to rely on other support in the parliament. He also had to instigate a "terror attack" on the parliament for his power grab.

The similarities are eerie indeed. I do not want to demonize Bush but please watch out for your rights and freedoms. Observing this from the outside (I am German) it seems to me that your freedoms are more threatened from the inside then from the outside.

Best. Psyop. Ever.

[Tackhead]

> I'm drunk already.
>
> Saddam just used the word "zionist" three times in his "You missed me NYAAAA" speech on CNN.

Yeah, who the fuck *was* that guy? The guy with the grey moustache, no chin dimple, and the glasses who didn't even look like Hussein, and whose speech didn't even mention - in any detail that would confirm he survived it - the attack?

(And why did he use a double for a taped speech?!?!)

1) We played a hunch with good intel, and cold smoked his ass. The war's already over. (CNN goes into mourning at the loss of ratings points.)

2) Either "Scenario #1 and we missed" (bummer!), or we had no idea where he was, but we lobbed a few missiles into the middle of nowhere in the hopes that Saddam's troops will surrender en masse because they think we nailed him. (We take advantage of the situation and rack up the second best psyop ever.)

3) Either scenario #2 or #1, but Saddam survives, but in his paranoia, he uses a lousy double and a pre-taped speech, and quite by accident, convinces his own troops that we nailed him. We win without firing a shot. (History's Fastest Foot-Bulleting.)

4) We play Scenario #1 or #2, and we don't really care because our analysis of the guy gives good odds that he'll be dumb enough counter it with the foot-bulleting of #3. We win without firing a shot, and somebody deserves a Medal of Honor for Best. Psyop. Ever.

I, of course, am also drunk. I give 10% odds for #1, 75% odds for the "we missed" version of #2, 10% odds for the "it was all PsyOps" version of #2 4% for #3, and 1% for #4. Y'all heard it here first. Off for more beer and pizza.

Re:Best. Psyop. Ever.

[fishbowl]

"We take advantage of the situation and rack up the second best psyop ever."

Second best? What was the best? Kennedy against Kruschev?

Re:Best. Psyop. Ever.

[nathanm]

we lobbed a few missiles into the middle of nowhere in the hopes that Saddam's troops will surrender en masse because they think we nailed him

Most of his troops will surrender en masse anyways. It's only the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard forces that have any semblance of real military training and equipment.

Re:Best. Psyop. Ever.

[Tackhead]

> Most of his troops will surrender en masse anyways. It's only the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard forces that have any semblance of real military training and equipment.

I concur.

The $64,000,000 question is, if there's ambiguity as to whether their leader is alive or not, what kind of will to fight will they still have by the time our troops get there?

Not enough info here for me to even guess. (And I don't have a need to know.)

Re:Best. Psyop. Ever.

[Tackhead]

> Second best? What was the best? Kennedy against Kruschev?

In my tipsy state last night, I was thinking "second best" as "leaves room for #4" as best psyop.

As for history, I'm not sure if Cuba was a PsyOp, or just honest-to-gawd good brinksmanship (on both sides). Then again, the best PsyOps are the ones that nobody figures out :)

But if I had to pick just one, I'd say D-Day - the campaign to convince the Germans that Calais was the real target, and that the landings at Normandy didn't matter. The Germans concentrated their forces 100 miles away from Normandy, and spent most of D-Day waiting for Army Group Patton" - an army group that didn't even exist.

Germany would have lost the war anyway, and D-Day was bloody enough as it was - but that operation probably saved thousands of lives and in so doing, hastened the end of WW2 in Europe by months.

Re:Waiting (Dude, you're getting a courtmarshal)

[ELCarlsson]

It's all good, thanks for the support. Your medal is in the mail. :)

Why call him "president" Bush...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it always "president" Bush and "Saddam Hussein"? Why not "George W." and "President Hussein"...? You may say elections in Iraq are not free, but he did get more than 90% of the votes in his country. Dublya got less than 50%. And elections in America are free, right? So howcome the guy with the least votes "won"...?

AFAIK, no-one in Iraq has tried to depose Saddam. To me this looks a lot like what the US did in South America during the cold war - kicking out the presidents the people loved and putting US-controlled puppets in their place. Isn't Israel enough? No, wait, as a US government official once said off the record, "it's the other way around". The US are Israel's puppet.

Sharon and his goons have done more in favour of Adolf Hitler's image than all the nazi propaganda ever could. I'm a jew and I'm starting to think maybe old Adolf had a point after all. Of course, not all jews are murderers like Sharon. But when Dublya agrees to do their dirty work for them, and when millions of Americans just sit there like sheep and nod to everything the retarded cowboy says, it's kind of hard to blame foreigners for despising the US, all Americans, and all jews...

Re:Why call him "president" Bush...?

[xo0bob0ox]

Its hard to voice opposition to voting for someone you dislike when you have the barrel of an Ak-47 in your mouth. I mean really, how fucking goddamned stupid do you have to be to believe that the Iraqi people want a "president" who tortures them. You are truely an ignorant slut, as many have tried coup attempts against Hussein and have all been slaughtered. At the end of the gulf war many of the Kurdish and Shiite muslims attempted to overthrow Hussein but he crushed them with his left over military forces. Ask an Iraqi refugee how they feel about Saddam, you damned anti-semite.

Re:Why call him "president" Bush...?

[xo0bob0ox]

http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE140101999?O penDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CIRAQ http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq031103.ht m maby you will find these left leaning sources to suffice..

War is HELL

[targo]

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.

Re:War is HELL

[jmarca]

True enough.

But (violence always has a way of justifying itself)...

The World Trade Center strike killed a lot of people. That was war on our soil, somewhat as you describe. Americans are still willing to lash out because of this, looking for payback. This is why Bush had such an easy time linking Iraq and 9/11, and selling this stupid but "convenient" war---we don't want war on our streets, which to us is the threat of Anthrax in the mail and airplanes plowing into Disneyland. So popular opinion will be swayed (however slightly) by equating "bomb that nation" with "war on terrer".

Sure there may be more terrorism because of bombing Iraq. But maybe not. An open, mobilized military is a lot more destructive and immediate than a terror cell, plotting in secret. And so the argument of peace is a hard sell, appearing to give the terrorists more time to plan, more resources to use.

Unfortunately for everybody, it is the job of president Bush to sell peace; I think he is smart enough to know that he is too stupid to pull of that argument, so he took the easy exit and is selling war instead.

Re:War is HELL

[satanicat]

I may be wrong, but I didn't think Suddam had anything to do with the plane driving. I thought that was a terrorist group.(led by bin laden) Meh, I suppose it's only human nature to to hit SOMETHING at least.

Anyways, war is never a good idea. It just shows how far we hanvn't evolved in the last century. Wouldnt it make more sense to just put Bush and saddam in a ring for a fight to the finish? No you're right, bush would be killed.=) on with war then!

Re:War is HELL

[Ralp]

In fact, no American (unless he has been in war) should express their opinions on war at all

Sorry buddy, but as an American I enjoy exercising my right to share my opinion about whatever the hell I want.

Re:War is HELL

[argStyopa]

That's right, so "peace at any price" is totally justified.

It certainly worked for Chamberlain in 1939, almost as well as it worked for the Tutsi in Rwanda. I'm sure they're delighted that the USA Administration of the time was too gutless and scared of the polls to step in and stop what was KNOWN to be happening. Ah, besides, they were all brown-skinned anyway, right?

War is abhorrent. War is also sometimes necessary to stop a greater evil.

If, in 1938, the US or Britain had said "hey, this new democratically-elected leader of Germany is a psychopath. Everything he says is based in hatred, he's a bully, he's disregarded, evaded, and finally ignored the Versailles disarmament restrictions. He *must* be removed." There would have been worldwide hand-wringing and worry about the 'costs of war'. Well, the final tally ended up higher.

A modern-day Hitler wouldn't NEED millions of troops, marching armies, and years of conquest. Weapons of mass-destruction make warfare quick and devastating.

(And before all of you roll your eyes "here's another conservative American comparing Saddam to Hitler", well yeah, I am. I'm not sure how Hitler scores higher on the totalitarian brutal genocidal dictator scale - maybe more industrially efficient, perhaps? But if Hussein ISN'T as bad as Hitler, is he an ok guy if he's only, say 0.8"Hitlers"? 0.65"Hitlers"? What's your personally acceptable level of brutal dictatorship?)

Re:War is HELL

[transient]

That's fine, just keep in mind that simply being American doesn't make your opinion informed or worth listening to.

Re:War is HELL

[gillbates]

That's right, so "peace at any price" is totally justified.

No, what we're saying is that our options for peaceful resolution are still workable. Saddam doesn't have the capable military or the WMD to represent a legitimate threat yet. (Granted, he may have biological and chemical weapons, but he has no means to deliver them.)

The biggest problem that I have with the pro-war crowd is that they seem to lay claim to having a magic crystal ball which predicts that more people will be killed by us not going to war than by using diplomacy. They cite platitudes about Hitler and the World War 2, yet are ignorant of the differences between Hitler and Hussein:

• Hitler believed in a pre-emptive strike theory of war, Hussein doesn't.
• Hussein has actively tried to avoid a conflict - Hitler didn't.
• Hitler's armies were much more potent than Hussein's, and he practiced massive genocide before the war.

Even given that Saddam is an evil person, the US has demonstrated time and again that controlling Hussein is as simple as dropping a few bombs and threatening to go to war. For those who believe Saddam to be a legitimate threat, why is it that the US military has lost more aircraft to training accidents in the last 12 years than to Saddam's hostile fire? How is it that someone who can't even defend his own country is a threat to me, 12,000 miles away? (and don't say WMD - biological agents can be made in the US by terrorists much more easily than importing them from Iraq).

The comparison of Hussein to Hitler, quite frankly, is trollbait. I could draw similar inferences from a comparison of President Bush and Hitler (Hitler believed in pre-emptive strikes, too...)

War is abhorrent. But in this case, the evil we're trying to avoid is not as great as the evil which will be inflicted on the innocent victims of Saddam's rule by US dropped bombs.

Re:War is HELL

[argStyopa]

Whoa, let me address some of these in order:

"No, what we're saying is that our options for peaceful resolution are still workable.
In what sense? 12 years and 18 UN resolutions later, the only time Saddam decides to *start* complying is when there are 200,000 soldiers sitting over the border CLEARLY preparing to kick his ass? Or are you suggesting that Saddam would suddenly decide to be a 'good guy' and do what he's supposed to? Why?
The cost of waiting a few more days is not zero, by the way. Every day we wait is another day of research, another day of oppression - neither of which should be allowed to continue. Would I like to let the sanctions and UN action work? Sure. Have they worked without the imminent threat of force? No.

Hitler believed in a pre-emptive strike theory of war, Hussein doesn't
Says who? Now who's using a crystal ball? Hitler believed in brinkmanship, because he know the Allies had no stomach for war - and he was right, except in his miscalculation of Churchill's ability to sway public (and American) opinon. And in my experience, the majority of people saying more people will die without war are IRAQI's (that would be the ones here who can speak freely).

Hussein has actively tried to avoid a conflict - Hitler didn't
This is plain disingenuous. Hitler DID do everything to avoid conflict until he was *ready* for the invasion of Poland. That's the whole point we don't WANT to give Hussein that much elbow room. Hussein got creamed in 1991 - remember, that was the one that everyone predicted would start an Islamic Crusade against the west, everyone bemoaned the 50,000 US soldiers that would come back in body bags, the umpteen thousand Iraqi civilians that would be killed...well, the nattering nabobs were wrong. And I would STRONGLY argue that, lacking the "super coalition" that everyone hearkens back to when criticizing GWB (which was built on a web of compromises and restrictive promises that, for example, left the Republican Guard intact!) we could have finished the job and the last 12 years of deaths due to sanctions WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. The problem was we were too weak-kneed then, and look at the wonderful result of our restraint!

Hitler's armies were much more potent than Hussein's, and he practiced massive genocide before the war.
Huh? In the WW2 I've read about, the German military attacked France with about 1.3 million troops, Hussein had approx 540,000 in the Kuwait theater and IIRC about another 400,000 around the country - the 4th larget army in the WORLD.
And, when did Hitler practice genocide before the war? He had people in internment camps, but didn't start the exterminations until what, 1942-43?

Even given that Saddam is an evil person, the US has demonstrated time and again that controlling Hussein is as simple as dropping a few bombs and threatening to go to war.
This is truly wonderful logic, and indicative of a genuine desire to improve life for the Iraqis. Let's not get rid of Hussein, since any time he acts up we can just lob a bomb or two at him and he'll fall into line. Yeah. Sure. That was Clinton's logic for bombing the Sudan pharmaceutical plant too, to try to do the same thing with Bin Laden. That worked great! Face it, what you want is to avaoid the problem, try to solve it by ignroing it & hoping it will go away. Well, 12 years (and how many civilian deaths in Iraq?) later, your strategy sucks.

How is it that someone who can't even defend his own country is a threat to me...
Aside from the disingenuousness of THIS statement, maybe it's not about YOU? I don't buy the Al Qaeda/Hussein thing either, but here we have a thug. A psychotic thug. Who clearly has been TRYING to join the "you can't touch me because I have a nuke" club. Let's get rid of him now, give the Iraqis back their country, while we have the chance!

I could draw similar inferences from a comparison of President Bush and Hitler

Re:War is HELL

[apweiler]

I just posted this on Userfriendly.org, and I feel it's appropriate to add to this thread as well. I'm not going to talk at length about my own opinions, I'm German and that should answer some questions.
Anyway:
"Only the radical abolition of war and the risk of war can help.
For that, one should work and resolve not to be forced into a course of action that counteracts this aim.
This is a tough thing to demand from the individual who is conscious of his social dependence. But it is not impossible."
Albert Einstein (translation mine and probably not very good)

Just think about that. It really moved me when I first read it, and that was a while before this strike began.

Re:War is HELL

[argStyopa]

So if he'd stayed within his borders, we would have had no right or excuse to intervene?

I'm sure the Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, and his political enemies would have appreciated that fine distinction. Oh wait, they couldn't because they'd have been dead.

But we wouldn't have risked any civilians that way. Good thing we're so civilized!

Re:War is HELL

[gillbates]

you want is to avaoid the problem, try to solve it by ignroing it & hoping it will go away. Well, 12 years (and how many civilian deaths in Iraq?) later, your strategy sucks.

This is the kind of response I would expect from someone who has never took part in war, aside from watching it on television.

As someone who has stood downrange of communist artillery, I can say with certainty that war is no picnic. Having seen people die, it makes me cringe when I think that Bush & Co. want to go to war.

One of the hardest things to get across to the pro-war crowd is that the anti-war stance has nothing to do with inaction. WMD's are a cause of concern, but until they are being used against us, it makes no sense to kill people today because of what someone might do tomorrow. Rather, we should use diplomatic measures to enforce compliance.

Just like France and Germany in WWII, Hussein thought that if he appeased the US, that he could avoid war. But appeasement never works - in fact, having been tricked into destroying his weapons of mass destruction, he is now in the unfavorable position of having virtually no defenses whatsoever against the invading US armies. Hussein mistakenly believed that the Bush administration wanted him to relinquish his so-called Weapons of Mass Destruction, when in reality, the Bush administration cared not for his weapons, but rather, his oil. There was never any intention of not going to war on the Bush administration's part, but rather, they used the diplomatic measures as a means of buying them the time they needed to strengthen their position and weaken Saddam's.

This is bullying, plain and simple. For the first time in US history, we are attacking a nation that wasn't involved in hostilities against us or our allies. We have become no different from WWII Germany.

Re:War is HELL

[TamMan2000]

"hey, this new democratically-elected leader of Germany is a psychopath. Everything he says is based in hatred, he's a bully, he's disregarded, evaded, and finally ignored the Versailles disarmament restrictions..."

hmmm...

If you replace hatred with fear, and "Versailles disarmament restrictions" with "the UN security council" that sounds a lot like Bush to me.

Re:War is HELL

[argStyopa]

I simply don't understand your position. I mean, we're both speaking english, but your words make no sense.

Why is it that you inherently believe Saddam Hussein, and instinctively disbelieve George Bush?

You claim that Saddam has destroyed his WMD. Yeah. Why not come clean then? Why not say "Search me - I invite the media, and every UN member state on the planet to please come and search through Iraq. If you can find a trace of WMD, I will immediately make sure it is destroyed."

Sanctions would have been lifted 12 years ago, and life would have gone on.

But no, instead we have a 12-year shell game of 'catch me if you can!'. He'd rather watch thousands of children die than to let monitors wander freely in his country?

I don't see that as the effort of an inherently honest man. Yet your presumtion is that he's the honest one and GWB is the dastard that has this sneaky plan to what, pocket the oil revenues himself? Sure, nobody would notice that! What a load.

Re:War is HELL

[argStyopa]

Or not.

That's why the US spent the last 6 months trying to get other countries aboard. "Rogue State" is different from "US Foreign policy isn't dictated by some weenie on the Quay d'Orsay."

I'm sorry, I thought UN 1441 was unanimous? "Serious consequences" means what in your world - another threat to issue another threat (because it couldn't be an ultimatum, France said they'd veto anything that ended in conflict)?

You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.
You better disarm or else.

Think that looks stupid? That's 17 times. I'm sure an 18th resolution would have made ALL the difference. (rolls eyes)

Re:War is HELL

[gillbates]

Actually, I don't believe Saddam, either. But then, it doesn't matter.

Regardless of whether or not Saddam has WMD's, it isn't right to invade a country, or start a war, simply because they might threaten you in the future. I guess you could say that I'm ultra-conservative - I believe that just ends must have just means. And surprisingly, the UN, and the largest Christian denomination (the Catholic Church) are with me on this one.

Personally, I think Hussein had it coming. He has done evil things. But unfortunately, war is a disproportionately high price to pay for rooting out his evil. He's not going to suffer - no, our bullets will be stopping in the sons and daughters of the people whom he oppresses. If Bush wanted to go man to man with Hussein, I don't think I'd object.

But the big problem is that Bush has singlehandly divided our allies and multiplied our enemies. His "pre-emptive strike" theory gives every third world dictator justification for starting a war with a country that might threaten them. Here we are playing the hippocrit - we supposedly want Saddam to relinquish WMD's that we somehow believe that we, rather than he, have a God-given right to possess.

Bush's intentions might have been noble, but his methods and means are anything but just. Rather than appealing to the UN, and accepting their decision, he seemingly made up his own mind to go to war; regime change has always been the goal, and by hook or by crook, he was going to find some justification for getting it. He cannot fathom that a person could be evil, but manageable. It would seem that in Bush's thinking, once a person has committed a criminal act, they are forever a criminal.

And this is precisely the problem. Bush gives no indication that he's open to reason, or negotiation - disagree with the US, and you'll get bombed. Is it any surprise that North Korea is restarting their nuclear program?

This war can have farther reaching effects than we'd like to admit.

Re:War is HELL

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

(And before all of you roll your eyes "here's another conservative American comparing Saddam to Hitler", well yeah, I am. I'm not sure how Hitler scores higher on the totalitarian brutal genocidal dictator scale - maybe more industrially efficient, perhaps? But if Hussein ISN'T as bad as Hitler, is he an ok guy if he's only, say 0.8"Hitlers"? 0.65"Hitlers"? What's your personally acceptable level of brutal dictatorship?)

You're missing a key point. Hitler wanted to take over the world, and believed his race was superior and that all others must be wiped out. Saddam doesn't. He just wants to bully the people around him for a bit of fun and profit. He is a danger to his people and the people around him. But not to the entire world.
Something should be done to take him out of power. But certinaly not the way the US is going about it.

And yes, mayby there would have been less people killed if Hitler was killed earlier. But the problem with pre-emtive strikes are: What if nothing was going to happened?

The thing is, you don't know. You can only really do something when they start to attack. Now, that maybe unfortunate, but that's the way it is. Rememeber: Innocent until proven guilty. I know that Idea doesn't really fit here. But it's the easiest way I can explain while pre-emptive attacks are wrong.

Re:War is HELL

[boots@work]

So if he'd stayed within his borders, we would have had no right or excuse to intervene?

In international law at the time: yes. Sovereignty was much stronger at the time; actions within a sovereign state were not really the concern of anyone else. It was only after WWII that the concept of "crimes against humanity" developed and was accepted: crimes so abhorent that every human is hurt by the fact of their being committed, and obliged to prevent them.

And in any case, homosexuality was still illegal in much of the western world, and jews and gypsies were widely discriminated against. (Consider that Alan Turing was harassed to suicide in Britain.) Native people were not citizens in many countries. It was a matter of degree rather than substance.

Re:War is HELL

[argStyopa]

In international law at the time: yes.

So international law defines your morality? Curious. You are saying that, stripped of your justifications, that we could NOT have justified entering Nazi Germany to stop the holocaust.

Re:So, how much...

[errxn]

Sure, these things sound racist to me. I don't suppose you'd care to reveal to us exactly who in the executive branch of this country has been saying and doing these things. I don't seem to recall Ari Fleischer or any other Bush spokesperson referring to Iraqi civilians as "towel-wearing sand niggers", as you so eloquently put it, but perhaps I missed that news conference.

Please do enlighten us as to who these racists are.

Re: You forgot one

[Black Parrot]

> No, that was Serbia. I wonder if Baghdad has a Chinese Embassy?

They'll be looking for a French Embassy this time.

these are interesting times indeed

[Dillenger69]

these are interesting times indeed.
may we live to tomorrow.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Dun Malg]

Yes, we've found it is better to pay the folks who love killing rather than forcing a bunch of reluctant civilians to do the job.

Ah yes, my favorite "counter argument": people in the military are only the evil, murdering freaks of society . Why? Because they volunteered. It's inconceivable that military people might actually philosophically agree with the notion that war is an inevitability in a world where there are more than 3 people. No, the military is full of psychotic MONSTERS!
Must be hard for you to be the only one who sees things the way they REALLY are!

Re:even a witty troll deserves attention!

[Black Parrot]

> Godwin's Law after the first reply! Who'd have thunk it!

I reckon Hitler would have been annoyed by his internet experience!

Re:GWB is a tool.

[Clock Nova]

At the end of WWII they could have just said, "OK, everything is now under US control." With military forces deployed all over the globe and all other superpowers devastated by war, the US was the only thing left.

Well, yes. Except that Russia owned half of Europe. And had the bomb by 1949.

Then the Cold War began.

But besides that, we were the only think left. Yup.

Re:Will the rest of the world PLEASE remember....

[bonch]

If the rest of you can hold the world together until November 2004, we'll be able to finally dump this dangerous frat boy.

Good luck. Polls show 70% of Americans in favor of this war.

A lot of comments!

[mrselfdestrukt]

I was just wondering... What was the most comments ever associated with a story and is this not some kind of record maybe?

Re:A lot of comments!

[jfmiller]

http://slashdot.org/hof.shtml

Right now #10 on the all time list.

What's keeping you on windows is #1 @ 3212.

JFMILLER

Re:So, how much...

[KiahZero]

The "some" was not referring to members in the Administration, but rather to ordinary people. Sorry for the confusion.

You didn't address the main point of my post, however: the fact that civilian casualties are viewed as less important if they are Iraqi.

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." - Albert Einstein

Top Us Firm Vie for oin in post war Iraq

[jfmiller]

http://www.forbes.com/technology/newswire/2003/03/ 19/rtr912071.html
http://www.globeandmail.com/ser vlet/story/RTGAM.20 030320.rcomp0320/BNStory/Business
http://www.wsws .org/articles/2003/mar2003/usai-m12 .shtml

The U.S.A.I.D. has already devided up contracts to U.S. companies to sell Iraqi oil when the war is over. The profits are to go to pay for the relief effort, but it will be U.S. corperations that will make most of the money. There is no end time schedualed for this opperation. As long as the U.S. occupies Iraq companies like Halliburton Co., Vice Pres. Cheney's former company will get to suck Iraq dry.

JFMILLER

that's a big problem

[wattersa]

The more separated the military becomes from the populace, the less we seem to care about its freqent use. Haven't we all seen how the fact that service is voluntary is now used as a justification for going to war? Should it be? You're darn right that "they" (politicians in office) don't want a draft-- if they had a draft, that might actually *gasp* discourage our country from using war as the first resort because everyday people, maybe even some sons of politicians, would die without a clear good reason! Those in power now don't want a draft because it causes political problems in the latest and greatest "humanitarian effort." All I know is that I'm voting for the Democratic party in the next election.

Re: Not necessarily the war yet

[Dun Malg]

I remember that at the start of Gulf War I there were some soldiers who wanted out on CO status. I wondered at the time how a CO ended up in an all-volunteer army.

In 1990 I was deploying to the Gulf area with a whole bunch of other army guys and one of them said that, in his unit, there was someone who claimed Concientious Objector and was working his way through Chapter 10 discharge (bad) and whining about how he only joined for the college money and didn't expect to be sent to war. The PFC sitting next to me shook his head and said "What did he think all the rifle, grenade, and machine gun stuff we learned was about then?"

Lyrics: VX Gas Attack

[TPFH]

I'm not really into Black Sabbath.
How about some Skinny Puppy?

I've tried to parse it in the right places, but it is a chaotic song, even for Skinny Puppy.

For an interpretation of the samples and non-printed lyrics to the song, go here:

http://www.monmouth.com/~sgoldberg/songs/vxgas.htm

Note that this song was released in 1988.

Welcome to the morning news. In its long and deadly war with Iraq, Iran has repeatedly sought international condemnation of Baghdad's alledged use of chemical weapons. The Iranians have ??? the opportunity to make their case. A city in eastern Iraq, recently occupied by Iranian forces, (?captured ??? by the siege?), according to Iran, the Iraqis bombed the city with chemical weapons. After the defeat the Iranians said the attack killed more than four thousand civilians. Welcome to the VX Gas Attack.

at ground zero
pro independence
heavier than air fumes
city of chemical
alleged cyanide gas
on to karbala

what is the difference between israel's plight
a belief in outside
influence like scalding water
a side effect of
their faces and lungs burn
a sudden harsh smell
2 weeks after still coughing and choking livid skin blisters burn often
posters leaflets nightly radio and television programs
dead instructions in the use of such basic devices as a damp towel lined with charcoal to be applied to the face and mouth when the beep beep beep gas attack warning signal
sounds the dead were among porcelain
face of cloud of frozen gas poison
jagged fragment jew iranian iraqi bombs sun
the first cyanide gas warning vx nerve gas

To the bank!

[doorbot.com]

Blood brings blood.

Thanks to the blood banks...

The mother of all banks!

Dividents paid in blood!

Be like Kramer and take your blood out because of their "hidden charges."

OK, that's enough for now.

This War brought to you by AOL/Time Warner

[bmasel]

US military psyops is bombarding Iraq with CD's offering 1 month free AOL.

Here is a poem I wrote

[JPawloski]

here is a poem i wrote
whenever something like this happens, i find it useful to channel creative outlets.

world strife, politics, it gets too much. so i focus on music and poetry:

Its untitled, but I could call it "Saddam"

Saddam

Well the dawn was coming
Heard him ringing on my bell
He said, "My name is teacher
Or that is what I call myself
And I have a lesson
That I must impart to you
Its an old expression
But I must insist its true"

Saddam, look around, find yourself some fun
no use in sitting there hating everyone
no man's an island, and his castle isn't home
the nest is for nothing when the bird has flown

So I took a journey
Threw my world into the sea
With me went teacher
Who found fun instead of me

Saddam, what's the plan, what was that you said
Sun-tanned, drink in hand, lying there in bed
I try to socialize but I can't seem to find
What I've been searching for got something on my mind

Then the teacher told me
It had been a lot of fun
Thanked me for the ticket
And all that I had done

Saddam, what's the plan, what was that you said
Sun-tanned, drink in hand, lying there in bed
I try to socialize but I can't seem to find
What I've been looking for, got something on my mind
--

I hope enjoyed it

Re:About time.

[Efreet]

If I were there I'd be scared, rather than sad; it takes some effor, but I can Imagine myself into how I would feel if I were in Bhagdad right now. If I were a Dove, I could feel angry rather than sad, but I've wanted us to invade Iraq for about six years now, so its a bit late for a conversion. All I can say is that, in the end, I'd want someone to invade my country if I lived I present day Iraq, or Stalinist Russia, or 1984.

Re:"Demoralization"

[Panaflex]

I totally agree! Yeah man, we'll just ban evil!

Even Plato acknowledged a warrior class! It's simply not possible for a Utopia of this nature here. Whatever your moral arguments for or against Iraq, it is here and now. You want soldiers on your side in this situation.

Pan

Re:So, how much...

[errxn]

I didn't address that point because that's not exactly what you said. But, now that you have, would you care to explain why, if the lives of Iraqi civilians are not as important as any other, we are going to such lengths to free them from the well-documented and oppressive rule of a genocidal megalomaniac? If their lives meant so little, couldn't we just carpet bomb the entire country of Iraq and be done with it?

Oddly enough, that has not happened. In fact, so far, the US military seems to have gone out of their way to prevent needless Iraqi civilian deaths.

OK, so let's go down the Protestors' Checklist once again and see what we've covered so far..."It's all about oil" - refuted, check..."It's all about racism" - refuted, check.

All right, then, What's next?

Fucking warmongers!

[miffo.swe]

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.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWo rld/di ctators.html http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_In dex.html
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

Re:Fucking warmongers!

[miffo.swe]

There wasnt any 12 years of broken resolutions. The UN inspectors from the USA was spying heavily on iraq (as they did in EU parliament but thats another story) and thus iraq kicked them out demanding that no US would be allowed to inspect but all other naitons was welcome. The UN then bowed to USA and withdraw all inspectors saying that they wore kicked out.

12 years of broken resolutions you say? Well i sure hope the biggest breaker of UN resolutions get the bomb then, do you know wich it is? Guess, its a close US ally in the same region.

Re:Fucking warmongers!

[argStyopa]

Now they have a fresh supply of eager people willing to die for their rights.


Whew, that's a relief. I thought they were about to run out of terrorist/suicide bombers. Those perma-refugee camps full of Palestinians must be slowing down.

What's next, a "destabilized" Middle East?

Pardon me if I remark on the redundancy of that statement: Hahahahahahah

Re: About time.

[Black Parrot]

> > Bush wanted to kick Saddam's ass, but the political situation didn't allow him to.

> Bullshit. He could have done whatever he wanted as commander-in-chief. He chose not to. He was responsible for that decision, not "the political situation."

There was a rising outcry both at home and abroad over the perceived senseless slaughter on the Highway to Hell and reports of Iraqi soldiers buried alive in their bunkers by bulldozers. The political situation did indeed trigger the decision to cease operations.

(Yes, the US public has a foolish notion that people shouldn't get hurt in wars.)

I never cared much for Bush(1), but at least he was aware of a bigger picture than the "I want" that drives his idiot son's foreign policy. Bush(1) spent a lot of time building up international support and reacted promptly when that support started turning sour. Bush(2) thinks he inherited international support as an entitlement, and has completely squandered our goodwill abroad at a time when 9/11 should have given us more international goodwill since WWII.

It will take us decades to undo the international ill-will that Bush(2) has stirred up in a mere 26 months. I shudder to think how much more damage he'll do in the next 22 months, before we get a chance to fix the problem.

we can dismiss ad hominem attacks

[Trepidity]

There's a difference between a polemic and a mere ad hominem attack. The latter is a classic form of fallacious argument, and should not normally be given any weight.

Re:we can dismiss ad hominem attacks

[ralphus]

Excellent point, thanks. I will clarifiy what I failed to state. Arguments on the right are often, if not rarely anything but fallacies, and the left's arguments often naturally follow their own extreme fallacies to counter.

Let's be frank, is it possible to even have an intelligent debate in the public eye that isn't riddled with fallacies?

No intellectual takes Michael Moore's or GWB's 'arguments' with much weight, but they certainly do seem to get the public's panties in a bunch and serve as convincing arguments for a whole slew of those on the right and the left.

I wish we had a Cicero around these days instead of Michael Moore.

By the way, you are with us or against us. ;)

Re:GWB is a tool.

[0x0d0a]

Hmmm... well I may be just another member of the great gullible masses- but I thaught it was so they could avoid having a big war.

Ya, well, war is the legal way to do things instead of assassination on the international stage. [shrug] Probably because it's easy to assassinate someone, and otherwise there'd just be constant open season on world leaders. It's a little harder and more obvious to fight a conventional war.

Re:Defying the UN

[Mac Degger]

I'm not entirely sure about this one, but iirc, Iraq isn't a signatory on the UN resolution on the nonproliferation of Chemical and Bacteriological weapons. Which means that they're not bound by it. Which means that the UN doesn't really have anything to say about (non)compliance with that particular resolution, SC or no.

Re:Defying the UN

[mozumder]

>>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.

It's hard to be in violations of UN laws when you can just veto any resolution that you don't agree with.

Damn Dupes!

[paulcammish]

Didnt this already happen a few years back? Bloody Taco and his dupes!

Re:WRONG! At least they're not dying of starvation

[ag0ny]

...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.

The Duty of Loyalty

[JBhoy]

Right on, quitcherbitchen.

Patriotism is simply the duty of loyalty that citizens of a country owe to one another. There's room for disagreement, but not for disloyalty. In the end, fellow citizens have to be able to count on one another. It is a moral imperitive, and a practical necessity.

Disloyalty is continuing to carp and whine when the decision has been made. Disloyalty is currying favor with murderous dictators in the name of some inane devotion to "peace" which is really hatred of your own country, its ideals, its leaders, or its political system. Disloyalty is seeking to obstruct the prompt and efficient carrying out of a war, placing fellow citizen-soldiers at risk. Disloyalty is running down your elected leadership before hostile foreign audiences, giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

To be disloyal to one's country and fellow citizens is immoral. What does that say about the supposed 'conscience' of the unpatriotic? If you are an American and cannot be loyal, find a place you can be and move there. The rest of us don't need your dead weight dragging us down.

Re:The Duty of Loyalty

[Banraeth]

patriotism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ptr--tzm)
n.
Love of and devotion to one's country.

And that's just where you start to go wrong. Your facist America is no place I want to live, and I am comforted by the fact that it doesn't exist. Yet.

Re:The Duty of Loyalty

[JBhoy]

You read the definition, and still don't understand what it means, eh? I doubt you have a patriotic bone in your body. I'll try to explain it to you anyhow. Perhaps you can learn.

Loyalty to one's country is love and devotion to that country. That's patriotism. It isn't love and devotion to country to run your country down. It isn't love and devotion to country to refuse to support your country's actions once they are under way. It isn't love and devotion to country to give aid and comfort to a murderous despot like Saddam Hussein when your country is at war with him. If you don't understand that, there's no explaining it to you. It is equally evident that you don't understand what fascism is, but that's not surprising, since years of abuse of the term by the left has left the word largely devoid of objective meaning.

Re:The Duty of Loyalty

[Banraeth]

fascism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Let's see. Suppression of opposition through censorship. Check, sounds like what you're advocating. Belligerent nationalism. Check, sounds like what you're advocating. Seems appropriate from here. Blind loyalty is not the end all and be all of love. Sometimes love requires the truly loyal to stand up to bullies and fascists who would turn this beautiful country down evil paths. American hegemony is one such evil path, and should be loudly and obviously derided at every turn. The best way to support our troops is to advocate bringing them home. The fact that one power-mad conservative (who's actions no longer reflect the will of the people) has set us on this course does not require me or anyone else to be silent in opposition to his evil. My dissent is far more patriotic, in love of a beautiful and just America, than your unthinking loyalty will ever be.

5 hours, 2400 comments

[Eneff]

Can I just pick 5 random comments and mark them "Redundant"?

I mean, at some level noone's actually reading, are they?

Re:5 hours, 2400 comments

[cobbaut]

you'd be surprised how many comments are read...

This war is very scary for the 20-something-million iraqi people that will suffer the effect of bombs/rockets/missiles/no electricity/no water etc
maybe it's a good thing that this thread becomes the largest in slashdot history...because this is 'stuff that matters'

i'm still reading,
pol :)

not me! (Re:the draft)

[Kymermosst]

*looks at honorable discharge on the wall*

Been there, done that.

Re:Actually...Saddam's threats are varied...

[geekee]

"I didn't see Iraq attacking the US through the Clinton years, somehow, despite the lack of war."

Clinton didn't stay in power long enough for them to complete their development of nuclear weapons.

Non-American view - trying to see through the BS

[madmarcel]

So it begins....

I've been watching the news...it's pretty much non-stop here, but (unlike some/most people ;) I don't believe everything I see.

I've noticed that the American press is INCREDIBLY biased. (yeah...DUH! :)
They are also treating this war as a g*dd*mn game show. Bah. Sickening. No surprise from a country that glorifies war and violence.

This whole war feels like an orchestrated media event. Not as bad as the gulf-war, where hordes of reporters were waiting on the spot where the marines landed....but still...

The local media are a 'little' bit better...very skeptical I'd say. Mostly anti-war. Like most/all people that I know. Still, too focused on bringing people sensation, shock and entertainment :(

Which reminds me...a lot of people in previous posts have said: X did a poll recently and found that Y amount of polled Americans believe the War on Iraq is justified.

Why do you trust source X???
(where X = newspaper, TV channel, etc)
Statistics are open to interpretation. Most people (especially journalists and politicians) are/seem to be incapable of correctly interpreting data gathered from polls. They only report what THEY want to see in the data (DUH!)

I did statistics here at Uni, it's the first thing they warn us about.

85% of Americans polled want war??? Do you REALLY believe that? Are Americans REALLY that naive?

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics"

Talk about lies and deception:

It's hard to establish what is true and what is not. There's a lot of BS propaganda on TV.

Like this one (it's a real beaut mate):

At the moment they're jabbering on about this American pilot that was supposed to have died and didn't die in the gulf war and now they're sending out troops to go and find him 12 years later(?!?!?) and he was the first pilot on the first attack and and he got shot down and they interview his wife and his neighbours dog and his old buddy from back then, whose now a teacher and all his students are writing letters to Willy Bush and yadda yadda yadda.

All I can say is....how VERY convenient to have that on the news RIGHT now >:\
What a load of crap. Bah.

What a terrible waste of time, people and money.

I'm probably mangling this quote, but:

"In war the first casualty is truth."

Here's hoping this war is over quickly, or doesn't get started at all. And most importantly, let us hope that the US government has not set a dangerous precedent by becoming the agressor.

Re:About time.

[Jeppe Salvesen]

Not really. It should have happened in 98 when he kicked out the inspectors.

Alternatively, at some time during the inspections when his games become more obvious.

Although I like neither Bush, it as right of Sr. to stop when his mandate had been achieved. However, it was wrong to encourage the uprising. The embargo was also wrong - at least in its implementation.

Re:Actually...Saddam's threats are varied...

[0x0d0a]

Clinton didn't stay in power long enough for them to complete their development of nuclear weapons.

Yeah, I'm sure that, given another year, we would have been cringing in the face of a nuclear ICBM-armed Iraq. Yup. That doesn't come off as CNN alarmist BS at all.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Reservoir Penguin]

I dont know about the US army, but there are dozens of soldiers in Israel who refused to fight
on the occupied territories because the vied it as
immoral. Of course they were tried by the miliraty courts and jailed

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[geekee]

"It is still possible to protest the war but support the troops."

The troops I've heard interviewed on CNN don't consider anti-war demonstrators as supporting them. I would think their opinion matter's more than yours.

Re:About time.

[bcboy]

> In the end, the world will be safer

Very, very unlikely. It could be if there were a reasonable plan to do something after taking him out. But there isn't one, and Bush's gross incompetance at diplomacy have made it virtually impossible to make one. He has no credibility in the region, and creating a stable country without buy-in from anyone is not going to work.

All we will succeed in doing if this goes off like Bush plans, is creating a void in Iraq that will be quickly filled, and boosting anti-American feelings to record heights around the globe.

This will not make us, or anyone, safer. It will make us less safe.

coalition of the killing vs. hussein scum

[mekon]

...another new world order to come. thank you, mr. bush - this is exactly what this planet needs.

Re:Saddam was more dangerous when he had U.S. supp

[bonch]

We need to understand the situation for what it is. Bush has tried to link Al Qaida unsuccessfully with Iraq so that he can take his war on terrorism to Iraq and get his friends some cheap oil. The world laughed in his face because he had no evidence of any Iraq-Al Qaida ties.

Bush is attacking because the UN won't bother to enforce 12 years of broken resolutions.

The world laughed because they have financial interests.

You should talk...

[MochaMan]

The bleeding hearts on this blog are making me ill.

Really? Any country that overthrows (or tries to) governments, repressive or otherwise, that don't fit with its policies makes me ill. The US has been directly involved in political assassinations and and regime changes in the following countries in the last few decades: Afghanistan, Chile, Cuba, Guatemala, Iran, Iraq... and I'm only at the I's.

Any country who sends its armed forces flying in and out of another country in planes with Red Cross markings (a war crime) makes me ill. I'm referring to Nicaragua here (see http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c10-s05.html for more info).

Let's look at Guatemala as an example. The people come out from under a brutal dictatorship and hold the first free elections in years to elect Arbenz. Not much later, in 1954, the US government, who feel he might turn out to be a communist, overthrow him and install the dictator Armas, leading to 37 years of civil war. Any country who subjects another country -- in this case, one with a democratically elected government -- to this kind of horror makes me ill. And over bananas, no less.

I think a lot of Americans would question their government's foreign policy more if they got out and saw the results of its actions. It was definitely an eye-opener for me; seeing the effects of war first hand makes it a little tougher to justify it so easily in your mind.

Have a look at the US's record of repression:

http://www.khilafah.com/home/printable.php?Docum en tID=2180

Re:You should talk...

[MochaMan]

The former USSR didn't have clean hands either.

No, it didn't. So I guess that makes it ok then, does it? Invading other countries, and assassinating their leaders is either wrong or right, whether someone else does it or not. Assassinating foreign leaders is a war crime, unless it's a time of war and they're part of the chain of military command.

You can't expect the US to keel over and play dead.

Yeah, damn those Guatemalans for democratically electing a leader the US didn't like. We want bananas, cheap! And damn those Iranians for democratically electing someone we didn't like too. Things went so much better after the US restored the Shah to power. And damn those Venezuelans for putting that Chavez guy in power, while we're at it; the guy doesn't fit with US oil policy.

Nope, can't just roll over and play dead when it looks like another country has chosen a leader that doesn't fit with US interests. I'm sure Guatemala was gonna be a huuuuuuuuge threat to the US with all those... pineapples and bananas... and avocados.

You'd have to start calling the US, France.

France is playing dead? By standing up for what its citizens and most others around the world feel is right? By saying straight up what so many other other leaders are afraid to? That this war is an act of cowardice. That there was no immediate threat to the US? That giving weapons inspections more time would not have resulted in any attack against the US or its citizens, but would potentially have allowed a peaceful resolution?

Next thing you know...

[magus_melchior]

Live on PAY-PER-VIEW!

Dubya vs. Saddam in the ULTIMATE DEATHMATCH of the MILLENNIUM!!

Who knows, this could be the best way to decide the conflict.

Re:Next thing you know...

[mpe]

Dubya vs. Saddam in the ULTIMATE DEATHMATCH of the MILLENNIUM!!

Dubya apparently nixed this idea. There were reports that Saddam was prepared to fight a duel with the US president though.

Iraqi internet appears to be totally down

[EchelonZero]

After seeing a post in another thread regarding Iraqi news sources, I noticed every Iraqi news site, informative site, or government site that appeared to be in Iraq down, was down. Considering as of 2000 there was only one ISP in the country (maybe 2 or 3 by now at most), its suffice to say the 1 or 2 laser guided smart bombs cuts off Slashdot access for Iraqis. Some key sites down:

Iraqi Government Gateway

Iraqi news site

Iraqnet

Iraq.com

where have all the critic thinkers gone?

[Kunta Kinte]

What frustrates me are the people who believe Saddam is linked with Al Qaeda or a bigger threat to the US than North Korea only because Bush says so.

I hear you loud and clear, man. Where have all the critic thinkers gone?

I love a good argument. [ Maybe that's why I'm on slashdot everyday :) ]

But the level of conversation I've encountered both from private citizens and the press during this crisis is depressing. It's almost as if people on both sides of the argument are just parrotting what they've heard.

Common weak argument on the antiwar front...

War is never the answer.

Common weak argument from the pro-war front...

I trust that the government knows what it's doing

Meanwhile the media, especially CNN, is even adopting the "exact" phrases that the whitehouse briefings are using. And I'm not talking quotes.

I for one trust the government as much as I'd trust a camera welding R. Kelly at my teenage daughter's slumber party. Maybe a bit less even.

It's an adversarial system. Let distrust be the default stance, and work up from there.

Re:Defying the UN

[yem]

So..

687 (Chapter VI) is NOT enforcable

BUT

678 (Chapter VII) IS enforcable

And since 678 requires Iraq to comply with all subsequent resolutions, this automatically "upgrades" every other resolution on Iraq to ENFORCABLE, regardless of its usual status.

Of course this war has nothing to do with disarmament, so the point is moot.

Well, gee, guess you're right

[bonch]

Guess you're right, we should be keeping our heads in the past and never fix our mistakes.

Fuck it, Saddam should stay simply because of his tenure!

Come on...

Re:So, how much...

[KiahZero]

But, now that you have, would you care to explain why, if the lives of Iraqi civilians are not as important as any other, we are going to such lengths to free them from the well-documented and oppressive rule of a genocidal megalomaniac?

That's funny... I thought this was about the weapons of mass destruction. That's what I hear, anyway.

So far, yes, the military has gone out of it's way to prevent needless Iraqi civilian deaths, as far as we can tell. Let's not forget that all that's happened is one attack of opportunity. Let's also not forget how much the United States struggled to keep the number of casualties in the first Gulf War under wraps.

Quite simply, I can't trust the government not to kill innocent civilians in Iraq when it could be avoided. Why? Afghanistan Civilian Casualties. If we do better this time, I will retract my statement. However, I suspect that as time goes on, our concern over civilian casualties will drop.

"We" do not have troops there..

[Otis_INF]

I'm not a citizen of the US nor UK. The 'our' in 'support our troops' is not for everybody a given since 'their' troops are not there at the moment (thankfully).

People who volunteered to be in an army should face the consequences when their commanders think they should start playing cowboys and indians in some desert. Why should I support those people? Because they are 'fighting for freedom' ? 'Giving their lives for our lives' ? Freedom is degrading all over the world especially in the USA. If the fight for freedom should be held somewhere it should be in the USA and against its own government, not somewhere in the Middle East.

I'm all for freedom and peace for the iraqi people, as I also am for freedom and peace for the people in the occupied palestine territories (Israel occupies them for 30 years now, despite a UN resolution (242) which says Israel should retreat (resolution is 30 (!) years old)), as I am also for freedom for all those African citizens who suffer from war day after day for decades in a row.

However I'm against hypocrisy and a single war against Iraq solely to 'bring freedom' while ignoring all those other countries where people suffer day after day (for a much longer period!). This war is wrong, the consequences will be hard for a lot of people, the deaths of possible thousands of civilians will be caused by US lead troops.

Now, tell me, why should I support these 'freedom fighters' in killing innocent people?

my little war poem

[Emugamer]

Mindless zombies run around
Pretending to ignore those on the ground
Atrocities of war cascade down
And frolic where once great men abound

Implacable future we might face
As much as wish were erased
Those in power might wish to deface
What might have been just in case?

Do not confuse news and truth
For those of us who do not sleuth
Be wary of what you might hear
People are always out to smear

Silence will not forever loom
As much as unrighteous would assume
The truth shall not be always be entombed
In the end it will be exhumed

Re:What, with a 70% approval rating?

[Reservoir Penguin]

Lol actually we have support of 30 countries,
must have been really desperate to include political heavyweights such as Eritrea and Albania
into the colaition of the willing.

Re:War Pigs

[Ringlord]

Yes, but still it is not the right thing!

You might take this even further by saying 'Saddam Hussein stood up againts world opinion'! Doesn't make him right, does it?

same site, different document:

[seamurbile]

"Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the war--the killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents--and the Iranians do--we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack. It is also worth noting that lethal concentrations of cyanogen are difficult to obtain over an area target, thus the reports of 5,000 Kurds dead in Halabjah are suspect."

US MARINE CORPS HISTORICAL PUBLICATION
FMFRP 3-203 - Lessons Learned: Iran-Iraq War, 10 December 1990
Appendix B, pp. 100

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/docs/3203/a ppb.pdf
-

Now I REALLY don't know what to believe!

Latest joke from Main Street, Baghdad

[xcedrinod]

We've got a President Hussein,

.
.
.

And they've got a President who's not.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[today]

Get rid of those pesky citizens, and the paid professionals can run things much smoother.

Did you mean to say that our paid professionals are not citizens?

sound clips from first strike

[pbaker]

I captured the audio of the first strike, the air raid sirens 8 minutes before, and also chanting over the loudspeakers in Baghdad that were broadcast 50 minutes before then. You can listen to them from my blog.

Hah

[thejackol]

Great going Mr. President. Thanks for helping the Al-Qaeda get more support.

Yep, there will be more terrorism and 'let there be no mistake' speeches from him. The cycle revolves.

Idiots

[MC68040]

The US has no right what so ever attacking Iraq, especially without permission from the security consel. How can the people that support these actions sleep at night, and, how can Bush say that they are out to stop weapons of mass destruction from spreading when the US themselves have nuclear missiles that they also have used against Hiroshima.

Re:Idiots

[thejackol]

And like it was announced in the Security Council, there are many other countries that are a bigger threat... Like Israel and Pakistan for example.

They probably chose Iraq because they have nothing to fight back with... They used the UN to rid Iraq of whatever little defense Iraq had and now, is bombing away. It was probably their only intention since they starting chanting the 'disarm yourself' crap.

Re:Defying the UN

[Twirlip of the Mists]

No, you're missing the point. I'm not sure what Iraq is signatory to and what it isn't, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that in March, 1991, Iraq agreed to the terms of a cease-fire agreement that would eventually pave the way for a peace treaty ending the war. One of the terms of that cease-fire, embodied in UNSEC resolution 687, was that Iraq had to disarm itself. (There were others, notably one on the repatriation of Kuwaiti citizens, of which Iraq is also in defiance.)

If one of the terms of the cease-fire had been that Saddam Hussein had to put on a grass skirt and read "Goodnight, Moon" in front of a warmly applauding audience, then that's what he would have had to do. Nonprolif. treaty or no nonprolif. treaty.

Re:About time.

[MochaMan]

Try visiting a country going through war and see how you feel about that comment after seeing the atrocities. Even one under the control of a repressive dictator. You'll find that you'll be far more determined to find a diplomatic solution after you've been in a couple churches whose insides are riddled with bullet holes.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Domini]

I understand your sentiments, but they are flawed.

Your attiture "but once it has started, please end it quickly" draws attention away from the fact that it was started in the first place as we are swept up in a rush of patriotism.

This will set a precedent for next time... just ignore the people and push through to the end... once the war is started, they'll see the error of their ways.

A lot of FUD being generated by the US Goverment.

Lots of "what ifs?"... after generating enough the American people start playing the odds. They buckle. This was not a descision made based in Logic and proof.

I for one love the exiliration of war, I'm just an average testosterone-filled male. But that's my reptile brain... and I control it. My higher thought functions feel sadness and remorse. It seems some Americans lack this facility. (*nudges Bush*)

I think the statue of liberty should go to France, it may be more at home there.

America is so NOT the land of the free.
It is one huge prison where the barriers are the confines of the mind. (In that it is closed...)

To all the blindly patriotic people who will mod this down: Go ahead... My Karama is at it's ceiling anyway... it will give me something to work for again in future. -shrug-

Hey, mod me down! I've k

A text to look at

[frost22]

Somebody see where this text ist taken from ?

Article 6.
The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals [...] shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of [... their ...]countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

Article 7.
The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.

We Americans have become the New Romans

[zapatero]

Bush sold the war with easy to digest propaganda. The media ate it up for two reasons: War makes for great headlines; and since it costs too much money to do investigative reporting, the NY Times and all the rest behave themselves to stay on the governments good side and keep good access to "sources that wish to stay unnamed".

The Propaganda machine quickly crafted an aesthetic debate: those for the war were beautiful, and loved America. Those against the war were deranged, confused, and supporters of evil.

It got so bad that to say you were opposed to the war you had to quickly qualify yourself by saying "I support our troops, and I love this country, but I think..."

It's ludicrous, stupid, and just assinine to say equate opposition to this war with "support for The Iraqi Regime of Saddaam Housein."

There was never the opportunity to flesh it all out. Explore all the angles. Just talk about what we're doing. No. Bush's dogs of war wanted this bad. Cheney's old company gets the contract over Bechtel to modernize and reconstruct the oil infrastructure... How can you not be cynical?

As we march our armies into Iraq we have become the new Romans. Our will is the voice of Caesar with a few token Senators. We do not listen or talk with allies. There are no allies. There's just the world and our will to act. Imperium Singulare.

For me its not even about this war. This "war" will end soon. It's afterwards that made me oppose all of this. What happens next? Will the US sit in on OPEC meetings now that we'll control Iraqi wells? What unintended consequences await the world now that we know that the UN Security Council is impotent and meaningless?

The consequences of this New Roman Imperialism will play themselves out over the next 20 or 30 years.

Re:What does "supporting the troops" mean, exactly

[bcboy]

It's a weasel phrase for people who want to avoid the moral implications of war.

In long past wars it was generally thought in the US that people were responsible for making moral decisions even when in uniform. Stories were related of workers who pleaded "I just work here", when asked to explain their willingness to exterminate Jews. Derogatory terms were used to describe enemy peoples that did immoral things (e.g. holding your nose while the ovens burned made you a "good German", so this term became an insult).

This didn't cause any mental dissonance until we found ourselves dropping bombs on peasant farmers in Asia, and listening to US military officials saying "We had to destroy them in order to save them." We might have had this internal dialog sooner -- say, after nuking Japanese civilians -- if we hadn't at the time secretly (at times not so secretly) felt that the Japanese were less than human.

When the conflict did arise, the response of many was to decry the "good Germans" in our military who delivered death to so many Asian civilians. However many of our combatants were drafted into service, were morally opposed to their orders, but didn't see any way out. Blaming them for the crimes came to be seen as counter productive, and cruel.

So great pains are now made to distinguish between those who set policy and those who carry it out. This is supposedly what "supporting our troops" means.

However the term is almost universally only used by weasels who believe it eliminates any need to consider whether a war is just. Ask them whether we should be in Iraq and they will say "I support our troops". At some point it becomes equivalent to "I just work here." It's primarily used dismissively.

Re:Defying the UN

[Twirlip of the Mists]

It's hard to be in violations of UN laws when you can just veto any resolution that you don't agree with.

If you want to assert that the Security Council is broken by design and badly in need of remodeling, you'll get no argument from me. But the question was whether the US is in defiance of the Council, and the answer is a most resounding "no."

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[nurightshu]

If we refused to fight we would tried and convicted and imprisioned.

And worse, if my memory of my UCMJ briefing serves. IIRC, dereliction of duty in a combat situation is punishable by summary execution, and rightly so. A soldier who refuses to do his duty in combat endangers his entire unit -- far better to end his life than to forfeit the battalion's.

Re:Non-American view - trying to see through the B

[thejackol]

81% !! :))

I read an article on Yahoo that said a recent poll said 71% of those who voted said they thought Saddam Hussein was the one behind 11/07. I can't get the URL right now but you could probably find it on Yahoo news - yesterday's news.

Isn't it ironic

[FACEMILK]

Isn't it ironic that on the same day Bush defies the UN he also turns in his UN participation report? (yeah 2001, but still)

Re:About time.

[TPFH]

After the "first" Gulf war, it was irresponsible to let Hussein stay in power. The reason Bush I gave for letting him stay in power was "Stability."

I've been reading Noam Chomsky's Lettersw from Lexington, and need to look up the right quote that explains this.....

The Wall Street Jornal observes that Iraq's "clumsy attempt to hide nuclear-bomb-making equipment from the U.N. may be a blessing in disguise, U.S. officials say. It assures that the allies [read: US and UK] can keep economic sanctions in place to squeeze Saddam Hussein without mounting calls to end the penalties for humanitarian reasons." No annoying noises, then, from the PC crowd as we joyfully "watch the country starve for political reasons."

The Bush-Times conception of "the best of all worlds" is not universally shared. London banker Ahmad Chalabi, a spokesman for the Iraqi democratic opposition, describes the outcome of the war as "the worst of all possible worlds" for the Iraqi people. Another contradiction, but again only apparent and readily resolved. The worst of all possible worlds for the Iraqi people may well be the best of all worlds from the perspective of offices in Washington and New York. Right-thinking people may agree with Chalabi that "the tragety in Iraq is awesome," meanwhile recognizing that the important concerns are those spelled out by the State Department spokesman at the Times. "Before Mr. Hussein invaded Kuwait," Friedman writes, "he was a pillar of the gulf balance of power and status quo prefered by Washington," employing his "iron fist" with our approval and generous assistance. He made a false move on August 2, 1990, "but as soon as Mr. Hussein was forced back into his shell, Washington felt he had become useful again... That is why Mr. Bush never supported the Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellions against Mr. Hussein, or for that matter any democracy movement in Iraq."

-- Noam Chomsky, August 12, 1991

The question about war

[LocalHero]

What many people seams to forget is that beeing against the war doesnt mean that you are supporting sadam. But if you are stressing the situation to war to quickly and dont have any real (strong, not faked) reson to get to war you shouldnt. And people are talking about democrasity. What the americans dont see is that people dont have to think like them and that is the key part to real democrasity! Hey i thought that slashdot was free from this kind of discussions :)

The short answer

[composer777]

The answer is that if we do it then it's just, and if someone else does it then it's terrorism and aggression. If we do it, it's "defense", if someone else does it, then it's "aggression". Congratulations, you are beginning to wake up from the spell of the massive US propaganda.

"If people cannot rise to the level of applying to ourselves the same standards we apply to others we have no right to talk about right and wrong or good and evil. "
-- Noam Chomsky

The Bravery of Being Out of Range

[permaculture]

The Bravery of Being Out of Range
From the album Amused to Death(1992)
by Roger Waters from Pink Floyd

Hey bartender over here, two more shots and two more beers
Sir turn up the TV sound, the war has started on the ground
Just love those laser-guided bombs, they're really great for righting wrongs
You hit the target and win the game from bars three thousand miles away
Three thousand miles away
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
We zap and maim with the bravery of being out of range
We strafe the train with the bravery of being out of range
We gain terrain with the bravery of being out of range
With the bravery of being out of range
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range

*"Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South Dakota)
has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces" Michael Moore.

My opinion

[Matrix2110]

My opinion is that you all have the right to say what you want.

My opinion is that when I was in the military I was willing to lay down my life so that you could say what you want.

My opinion is that I don't always agree with my leaders.

My opinion is that we should support the troops who don't have a choice in what happens when they are called to duty.

My opinion is that America has a lot to answer for in its foreign policy.

My opinion is that we should give our leaders the chance to make it right in this time of crisis.

My opinion is that we as a nation should never, ever treat the soldiers with the disrespect that the Vietnam vets got when they came back.

My opinion is that we all should pray for a brief war.

That's my opinion.

Re:Defying the UN

[Twirlip of the Mists]

687 (Chapter VI) is NOT enforcable

Both 678 and 687 were adopted under chapter VII. Resolution 687 includes the line, "Conscious of the need to take the following measures acting under Chapter VII of the Charter." But other than that, yes, you've got the right idea.

Blair

[nagora]

A UK PM that's prepared to send our soldiers to die in order to establish the principle that the occupent of the White House can pick who's allowed to be in charge of any country in the world is nothing more than a traitor.

Obviously, Saddam is an evil bastard, but what happens if Bush decides to continue on to N. Korea (probably okay with most people), or to Burma (Ah, where's that again?), or Cuba (maybe we need to think about this, Mr Bush. Mr Bush? Hello?) or... The dog is off the leash and good luck getting him back on.

And what does the UK get in return? The opportunity to be a target for all the "Islamic warriors" that this attack is going to spawn. Whoopie. So much better than waiting until the end of the summer and having everyone agree to a real coalition.

TWW

Re:Support our troops. Bring them home NOW!

[_Eric]

Same old slogan, since VietNam, still true. Don't put them in harm's way and then 'support' for them.

no offense intended but US perspective here...

[fantomas]

umm, perhaps we should mention an earlier Civil War spectator reference, people have been doing this for a bit longer. I refer to the Civil War battle involving Boudicca and the Romans in Britain , A.D.61 :-) (not called England in those days, the Angles weren't to invade for another few hundred years).

Tacitius reported that the rebels thought this was going to be another slaughter of Romans, so they assembled as many spectators as possible. Mothers, fathers, grandparents, children, babies, livestock, etc., and wagons loaded with the material gains so far plundered were amassed behind the British. Everyone waited to see the spectacle and revel in their impending victory.
Of course things went the wrong way but that's another story. People have been doing this for a longgggg time.

Ref: http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/his_boudiccan_ rebellion_final_battle.htm

Re:So, how much...

[nath_de]

As for the possibility of alienating the rest of the world, was it 30 or 40 countries that were with us as of this afternoon? I just glanced at the TV for a second, so I don't remember the number.

Half of which are poor countries that were paid by the US for supporting them. Oh, and by the way, How many countries are there? How many countries oopose the US position?

US Mini-Nukes and Chemical Weapons Usage

[Scooby71]

The US is seeking to increase it's nuclear arsenal and to have first use of non-lethal chemical weapons?, a breach of the Chemical Weapons convention. These are the same non-lethal chemicals as used by the Russian military to kill over 100 people in the theatre siege.

The Guardian, Friday 7 March 2003

The Pentagon has asked the US Congress to lift a 10-year ban on developing small nuclear warheads, or "mini-nukes", in one of the most overt steps President George Bush's administration has taken towards building a new atomic arsenal.
Buried in the defence department's 2004 budget proposals, sent to congressional committees this week, was a single-line statement that marks a sharp change in US nuclear policy.

It calls on the legislature to "rescind the prohibition on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons".

If passed by Congress, the measure would represent an important victory for radicals in the administration, who believe the US arsenal needs to be made more "usable", and therefore a more meaningful deterrent, to "rogue states" that have weapons of mass destruction, or WMD.

A Pentagon official said yesterday the research ban on smaller warheads "has negatively affected US government efforts to support the national strategy to counter WMD, and undercuts efforts that could strengthen our ability to deter or respond to new or emerging threats".

Democrats fought off earlier Republican attempts to lift the ban on researching and developing warheads under five kilotons (a third of the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima), fearing they would lead to an end to the US moratorium on nuclear testing, and to a new arms race.

Rebuilding? Like we rebuilt Guatemala? Iran?

[enkidu]

Rebuilding: Let's see, how about some examples of "rebuilding" we've directly involved outselves in more recently (40 years):

• Guatemala: urged by the United Fruit Company (outraged that the democratically elected socialist government was going to take their land, paying them exactly what they originally paid for it), we engineer a coup d'etat, installing a repressive dictatorship who proceed to kill and torture political opponents for the next 30 years. The U.S. continues to pour millions of dollars of support to the dictatorships. Only recently has Gautemala emerged from the long shadow of this brutal regime which was supported almost exclusively by the U.S. government.
• Chile: After a socialist government is democratically elected (and mismanages for a couple of years), we support Pinochet and his military junta in a coup d'etat. The military dictatorship, under guise of fighting communism, establish a brutal police state, torturing and "disappearing" political opponents (labeled Marxists and including American citizens) for the next two decades. The U.S., again pours millions of dollars of support into the dictatorship. You know the rest.
• Vietnam: The American backed South Vietnamese government reneges on a promise to hold national elections (fearful that Ho Chih Mihn might actually win a fair election) and civil war breaks out. The U.S. attempts to prop up the repressive South Vietnamese government with money and advisors, eventually, sending American troops into battle against the Viet Cong (South Vietnamese rebels) and the N.V.A. The U.S. is supported by many troops from Canada, ANZAC and the R.O.K. Millions of people are killed in the conflict before the U.S. withdraws its troops. You know the rest.
• Iran: After the democratically elected government takes steps to nationalize the oil industry, the CIA engineers a coup, where the Shah of Iran replaces a Constitutional Monarchy. The Shah, while stealing billions of dollars from the country, represses political freedom so fiercely that it political dissent squirts into the only haven it has, extremist religion. The formerly unpopular religious extremists gain thousands of converts, they overthrow the Shah and kidnap the American Embassy. You know the rest.
• Iraq: Pissed off at the betrayal of Iran (and unable to muster the balls to outright declare war on Iran after the specter of Vietnam), we support Saddam Hussein with materiel and money, as long as he continues his war against Iran. We turn a blind eye to his use of chemical weapons as long as he continues this war. You know the rest.
• Afghanistan:... nevermind, look it up for yourself, how we trained, armed and supported the extremists who created the core of Al Qaeda. The chickens coming home to roost indeed.

All of this is well documented and easily verifiable by reading some modern history books or googling around on the web. I would say that our record of "rebuilding" countries into democracies (especially when large corporate interests area involved) is about as shitty as it gets. The cynic in me wants to say that the only reason that Japan and Germany succeeded in becoming democracies was because they had no natural resources for post-war American companies to exploit. Hence there was no need for the U.S. to go in and "intervene". BTW, those same democracies appose our unilateral attack on Iraq.

Re:Rebuilding? Like we rebuilt Guatemala? Iran?

[Captain McCrank]

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, putting a security alliance with the United States ahead of public opinion, reiterated his moral backing for Washington.

"At this time ... I understand, and I support the start of the use of force by the United States," he told a news conference.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/03/20/sprj. ir q.internat.reax/index.html

Being that Japan is a democracy, sure there are dissenting voices within it. But I see that your statement that "Those same democracies appose our unilateral attack on Iraq" not only has a typo, but is incorrect.

Re:Rebuilding? Like we rebuilt Guatemala? Iran?

[MKalus]

BTW, those same democracies appose our unilateral attack on Iraq.

Yeah, isn't it ironic how the "Students of the US" are now opposing the teacher?

I think both Germany and Japan have learned their lessons and are actually still believing in all the Propaganda that the US is broadcasting about itself.

A shame that the US lost it's own way somewhere along the lines.

If you watch "Band of Brothers" in the first episode they have some of the old soldiers talking. One of the thing one says was: "It was a different time, it was a different war."

How true. Morale doesn't seem to be the most important thing anymore.

Re:Rebuilding? Like we rebuilt Guatemala? Iran?

[AlanS2002]

Problem is that if you mention that sort of stuff a lot of the time people will think you're a conspiracy nut, even when it's right out in the open to be researched if one is so inclined.
And if they don't think you're a nut they'll probably accuse you of being out of touch with public opinion, don't let the facts get in the way of public opinion.

Re:Rebuilding? Like we rebuilt Guatemala? Iran?

[mowph]

Japan and Germany succeeded in becoming democracies was because they had no natural resources for post-war American companies to exploit. Hence there was no need for the U.S. to go in and "intervene". BTW, those same democracies appose our unilateral attack on Iraq.

No, Japan does not oppose your unilateral attack on Iraq. The Japanese people (well, about 80% of them) oppose your war. The Japanese government has already bowed, as they know that without the US policy that "an attack on Japan is an attack on the US" North Korea would nuke them in seven minutes.

Here are some recent press quotes from the Japanese Prime Minster, Mr. Jun'ichirou Koizumi.

"At this time ... I understand, and I support the start of the use of force by the United States."

"We do not know when there will be a threat against Japan. America has said clearly that any attack on Japan is an attack on the United States. ... The Japanese people must not forget that this provides a strong deterrent against an attack on Japan."

Re:Rebuilding? Like we rebuilt Guatemala? Iran?

[Big Nothing]

Will you PLEASE stop saying "coup d'etat"?!

"Coup d'etat" is a French expression, and we won't have any of that here. Say "Freedom..." umm... "Fries". Yeah, use the expression "Freedom fries" instead.

Re:Rebuilding? Like we rebuilt Guatemala? Iran?

[enkidu]

I find it interesting that the posts criticizing my post are focusing on the last least important statement in my post. How about some comments on the substantive portion of my post, on how (in the last 40 years) we have a shitty shitty record of "rebuilding" democracies.

Re:Rebuilding? Like we rebuilt Guatemala? Iran?

[PhxBlue]

True on all counts - which is why I didn't cite a single one of them. I think those nations should be lessons learned on how not to handle a post-war scenario.

Re:Rebuilding? Like we rebuilt Guatemala? Iran?

[acarey]

You do realise that those "dissenting voices" account for ~80% of Japan's population? As with the UK, Australia and Spain, so-called "allies" of the US, their _governments_ are allied with the US, but their populations are massively against this war.

Re:Rebuilding? Like we rebuilt Guatemala? Iran?

[Captain McCrank]

No, actually. I realiZe, that in fact, the situation is a whole hell of a lot more complex than a statistic. 80% is also a very difficult number to prove. Stating that 80% of a population believes anything based on statistical sampling is an exercise in futility. And besides, who cares? If 80% of the people believe that the world is flat, that doesn't make them any less wrong. Those I've seen on television protesting this war are chanting things like "We don't want your racist War!", or "No war for oil".

Racist?? War for oil? These statements are beyond cynical: They are idiotic. What basis is there for any of these statements other than George Bush is white (Never mind Condi Rice, Colin Powell, or any other number of examples *miguel estrada, anyone?*). Skin color does not imply someone is racist.

War for oil? Such plattitudes should be answered by the families of those who have been tortured, raped, or disappeared by Saddam Hussein's machine. I don't dispute that if we didn't have a history with Saddam Hussein, that we probably wouldn't be over there right now... But use platonic reasoning here and really consider whether or not stating that "no war for oil" is anything less then an example of someone who cannot see straight. Why not just go after Saudi Arabia if our only interest is oil. Why, since we are bucking world opinion and ditching the UN, don't we just go after whomever we feel like, since we're the toughest kid on the block? Why do we wait for a moral imperitive before launching our "war for oil"? Anyone who says "No war for oil" is either a fool or a liar.

If someone with a little intellectual honesty could step forward and give these children a deserved spanking, it would be greatly welcomed. Honestly- Colleges that churn out social studies majors should be blacklisted by employers...

Re: Religion [A bad day for international thugs]

[o'reor]

Actually, getting rid as well of corrupt/fanatical christianism (particularly, but not only, rabid baptist protestants) would also probably make the world a better place. That would at least avoid us wars declared on the basis of the lame, ignorant, simple-minded "Good vs. Evil" argument.

The short answer

[composer777]

The answer is that if we do it then it's just, and if someone else does it then it's terrorism and aggression. If we do it, it's "defense", if someone else does it, then it's "aggression". Congratulations, you are beginning to wake up from the spell of the massive US propaganda.

Here's something to think about, if Saddam had veto power, then he wouldn't be in violation of ANY UN resolutions. If you want to get an idea of our foreign policy, and the inherently hypocritical nature of it, then read our UN resolution vetoes over the last 25 years. Here's the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/8597 16/post s

You can verify this yourself if you don't believe them.

"If people cannot rise to the level of applying to ourselves the same standards we apply to others we have no right to talk about right and wrong or good and evil. "
-- Noam Chomsky

Half-Measures Kill

[MrSubtle]

I hear from anti-war types all the time claiming to "support the troops" while they oppose the war. The idea of deciding not to go to war may or may not make sense before the shooting starts, but once you cross the boundary the best way to get the most troops killed is for the war to be fought in a half-committed manner which gives the enemy encouragement to hold on and holds our guys back from winning. Promoting a policy which results in the most of our troops killed is not what I call "supporting" them.

Winning a war can be a good thing. Refraining from getting into a war can be a good thing too. Taking on all of the hazards of a war (the bad relations, the diplomatic costs, the deaths of people all around, and of course risk of the unknown) and insisting on not getting any of the benefits of victory (like liberating Iraq, removing a terrorist haven, cleaning up the WMDs, etc.) is far worse than any of the other ways of going about things.

War in Iraq is the only moral solution.

[xo0bob0ox]

I am disgusted with the overall posts on this topic. Though I do support freedom speech, I find it morally necessary to fight stupidity, ignorance, and plain evil. Too many Slashdot posters seem to hold a great ignorance that the war in Iraq is not justified. I would argue against this. They say that they do not support the regime, but they are against war. This is the most ridiculous thing one could say. There is no other conceivable way that he would leave office. President Bush gave Hussein more than ample time to leave Iraq (47 hours more than necessary ,jets to Bahrain are quite fast). Those who suggest that we indict him for war crimes while he is still in office, and think that he will magically adhere to an ICC are completely insane. This man has scoffed at the international community, though it had the moral authority to send him guidelines and orders, and he invaded another sovereign country. So the question of him leaving office peacefully is out of the question, as demonstrated by his lack of reason and humanity. The only other conceivable way that you can rid the world of him is through military action. Don't be so ignorant that you think we will bomb innocent civilians on purpose. Of course there are collateral damages in war, but those of us whom are technically inclined should understand GPS guided bombs and delta force tactics, and that this is not a war against the Iraqi people. One only needs to look at the many Iraqi's who have escaped from Saddam's control, and how they describe the life inside Iraq of torture and fear. In the 1980's when Saddam came into power, the nation of Iraq was in good financial standing, and through the years he led them to ruin. Not just economically though, he has had a atrocious human rights record of attacking and torturing his own people. Those of you who would argue that we don't have the moral authority to carry out this war are wrong again, because even though we might have somewhat dirty hands, it is more the reason that we should correct our past mistake of backing Saddam. Those of you who would argue that we are in this simply to get oil are mistaken again. Why would we attack Iraq if we wanted oil? Would we not have sought to lessen tensions and ease relations because, at least from my rational, it would be easier to get sweetheart deals from a dictator (one person) for oil, than from a democratically elected government (many people) that truly seeks its people's interest. The time for patient waiting is over. I argue that those who oppose war in Iraq are immoral because they seek to continue the tortured and fearful lives of the innocent Iraqi people. It is our moral right as a nation of free people to liberate those who live under dire oppression. I can't convey my anger enough through typing, but I swear that you immoral pacifists will soon understand why this war was not just necessary for national or international defense, but for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Sometimes doing the right thing isn't popular, and I think George Bush is wiser than any of you for realizing this. Give me some answers. How the hell would you propose helping the Iraqi people? You say that attacking Iraq would lead to instability around the reason, I say good. I do not want to be party to a would where Arab people are oppressed in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other totalitarian nations because their governments are corrupt. These people hate us because their government has long held them captive and we have done nothing. It is time to correct America's past evils in foreign policy. We are a bloodthirsty people, thirsty for the blood of tyrants and those who are oppressors everywhere. But thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Re:War in Iraq is the only moral solution.

[miffo.swe]

War is never and has never ever been the only solution unless you are attacked and have to defend yourself. Violence breeds more violence. The goal with the 11 September attack was stated by the al-queda to bring out USA in the open. They arent stupid fucks those fundamentalist muslims if you judge them by their skills in politics. Their total lack of respect for human lives is totally unacceptable but still they are pretty smart. USA swallowed the bate hook, sink and line without any thought whatsoever.

Before most of us thought of the US as a great country defending democracy in most cases and making some stupid mistakes like Vietnam way back. The perception of USA had improved over last 15 last years. Now they have blown all that goodwill to hell.

I will never ever buy an american product again. I wont support war, neither directly or indirectly.

Re:War in Iraq is the only moral solution.

[xo0bob0ox]

To believe that Al-Queda is a rational organization is one of the most evil, irrational statements one could make. The premise of their whole organization is to kill those who do not follow their strict interpretation of Islam. They are not smart in politics. They evil people who opress womens rights and basic human dignity (such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to listen to music, freedom to cut your beard). We are defending something, we are defending the Iraqi people's freedom and their right to live without the threat of being tortured or "disappearing" due to their political beliefs. Violence does not neccesarily breed more violence. Since attacking terrorist elements in Afganistand and ridding it of the Taleban government, we have saved many lives world-wide from insane fundamentalist who have utter disregard for human life. Im glad that you will never buy an American product again, we don't need your business, becuase though this may be strange to your blind following of anything against America, we are not always interested in money. We have morals, more morals than you and enough morals to stand up to tyrants. The tyrant will fall dispite regradless of your not supporting it.

Re:War in Iraq is the only moral solution.

[miffo.swe]

I did not state that they werent evil. They are infact very smart since they got USA to do the exact thing they wanted when they wiped thosw towers out. It wasnt some crazed one minute attack but something planned for years, both the performance and the outcome of the 11 september attack was infact planned by al-queda. (note, al-queda and the talibans is NOT the same thing)

"e are defending something, we are defending the Iraqi people's freedom and their right to live without the threat of being tortured o" "disappearing" due to their political beliefs"

That must be the biggest line of bullshit i have ever read. How many al-quada people right now sitting in a camp in US because of political beliefs? No trial no accussasions no chance of defending themselves.

Morals has nothing to do with this war. Why do you think the US goes after a joke of an army like the iraq when North korea has killed far more people and impose far worse tactics against opposition than iraq could ever dream of? North Korea even has nuclear weapons now. But then again, they dont have any oil have they?

Get your head out of the sand and try getting a grip on what is happening out there. This is our childrens future and not ours we are talking about. Those kids is going to inherit what we sow today. The only thing this war is going to accompplish is making it a hell of a alot easier to recruit terrorists in the future. This time they will have it pretty easy to recruit even white people wich in my perception would be far more dangerous. IF that should come true you cant easily sort em out by name or skin coulour.

The world will be a much more dangerous place and i dont want to leave that as a legacy to my kids, do you?

Re:War in Iraq is the only moral solution.

[Squidgee]

Your sig is "Linux, because my mother says so!"

Good luck not using any American products. That limits your Linux needs to nothing but SuSe.

And Bush doesn't care about what you think. He cares about protecting HIS people.

Re:War in Iraq is the only moral solution.

[xo0bob0ox]

That was by me, I forgot to log in to assign my ownership to the comment.

Re:War in Iraq is the only moral solution.

[miffo.swe]

You Americans have an ignorance level that is amazing.

"Good luck not using any American products. That limits your Linux needs to nothing but SuSe."

Heh, well first, contrary to your belief there are a bunch of dists not originating from the US. Second since linux is 100% free or at the very least very cheap i dont really give away loads of money if i dont want too.

Hey, newsflash, linux isnt an all american product ;D

Bush couldnt give more of a fuck about his people. He is protecting the big corporations.

Re:War in Iraq is the only moral solution.

[Squidgee]

You foreigners have an ignorance level which continues to amaze me. And you've continued.

The MAJOR dists come from the U.S. And I know Linux is from Finland.

And, if you weren't some ignorant foreigner, you'd know war is going to hurt the big corps. Bush is protecting his people first and foremost; I'm not so sure your leader would do the same.

Re:Defying the UN

[surfcow]

Iraq is in defiance of the United Nations, but the United States and our parters are not.

The US is a signatory of the UN charter, which states that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." (Article 2.)

Next!

=brian

Worries

[Tokens]

This is what worries me:

* Lots of innocent people die in any war. Probably more this time than in the last Gulf war.

* Weapons inspectors where making progress, why abort?

* The US/Coalition do not have UN support. What unsupported action will they take next time? And what kind of signals does this send to other countries?

* The US using their immense power to justify going against the majority of the world community.

* Blaming the french when they where representing the majority.

* Media reporting is censored both on US side and IRAQI side.

* Distasteful media reporting. Slogans, countdowns, "selling the war", etc.

* Western people sitting in their safe homes following the Hollywood type production of the war, cheering on the troops that are about to KILL PEOPLE.

* That the US actions will only spur more bitterness and terrorist action around the world.

* That North Korea thinks that they are next.

* That Saddam Hussein will use chemical weapons against US/Coalition troops or/and his own people.

OK, let's all sing a little song...

[o'reor]

(Sung to the tune of "If you're happy and you know it...")

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistanis looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.

If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me
'Cos it'all the proof I need
Bomb Iraq.

If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
And he tried to kill your dad,
Bomb Iraq.

If your corporate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.

Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

Re:Don't see why it's so hard for some

[Bastian]

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.

The US View on International Law

[pdjohe]

The US economy is going down the tubes. I have heard many views of the US loosing its role as a superpower (on the news, talks with others, and apparently some British person from some university there wrote a paper on it).

The US has a big military and weapons for its role as a superpower. And with the current strikes on Irak, the US is clearly going against international law. I don't think most Americans realize what this is and means. Military strike without approval breaks international law. Sure the United States is powerful enough to do that right now. But the US will not be a superpower for ever. Plain and simple.

I feel that the US is not looking out for its future. While it is a superpower now, it should help define and place International Law and Order to protect itself it the future. Someday there will be another superpower and the US might have to look to International Law to help itself. And unfortunately it seems as though the US is cutting off lots of ties in this world.

Re:CNN Changes words!!

[Tokens]

Are you seriously surprised about this...? It is not the first time CNN make serious errors.

oops, bad link

[composer777]

There was a space before the last character of the link in the post above. Sorry about that, for whatever reason, slashdot keeps putting a space in the text of this link if I use a version that is longer than a single line. Here is a shorter version of the same link without the "http://" in front.

www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/859716/posts

Re:to the tune of "if your'e happy & you know

[meringuoid]

You are Tom Lehrer and I claim my £5.

Re:It's about damn time

[lord sibn]

I don't give a damn about the economy. I belong to a minority of people who believes it is more important to live with good ethics and morals than it is to live with lots of money.

I really do believe that Bush has demonstrated that he is totally devoid of both, and should be impeached.

Addressing the situation is long past due, but could have been done via other means (i.e., a more surgical strike designed to capture Hussein). Our government has done assassinations for a long time now, the year 2003 does not seem like it should be any different.

US economy

[pdjohe]

Airlines are in trouble. Tourism in the states will lull. The Senate voted down the Alaskan oil reserves. Stock market has sucked for a long time now.

And now war will begin... hello?! War is expensive!

Today I have been receiving several emails and messages to to boycotting US products on the day war begins.

Mark my words: the US cannot be a superpower for ever. Take the Russian economy during the Cold War for example. The US pulled ahead because the economy could support making the massive amounts of weapons.

The facts

[Mr Europe]

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.

Finally they did it!

[NaveWeiss]

I wanted them to decide if they want to attack Iraq or not. The anticipation was killing me, and finally they are doing it! I hope they find Saddam and spank him like they should.

Seems that Kuwait isn't equipped with the Arrow missile, because 3 Iraqi missiles have already exploded in Kuwait near the border (with no casualties or damage, though), just like in the start of the previous gulf war.

Btw: I am looking for a girlfriend.

Re:Moderators: Please show restraint with mods her

[Khaed]

Wow, man, that was the perfect karma whoring. (No really, I mean, what idiot moderator is going to see that and say, "Well, I disagree! Troll!")
Just too bad I didn't think of it first...

From Denmark (+ MoveOn.org)

[Frodo420024]

Not being an US citizen (I'm Danish), I'm still ashamed to see my country mess into this dangerous war. Danger lies not in the war itself, but in the rage that Arabs and Muslims will feel afterwards, for many years (remember the Crusades? There's still anger from those, even).

France stood up with courage for peace, and saved face of many Europeanc countries (including Russia), made it clear that this is purely an Anglosaxian project (US, UK, Australia).

MoveOn.org has a Citizens Declaration (worldwide) for us all to sign and send to Whitehouse.c^Hgov:

MoveOn.org

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Re:From Denmark (+ MoveOn.org)

[Frodo420024]

Racist rant:

Grow up Denmark. You are in the muslim sights. They are destroying your homeland.

This war has nothing to do with this subject, it's an altogether different story.

Actually starting this war makes it lots harder to face the atrocitices commited by Islam with any form of moral high ground. It's just Bad.

Censorship in slashdot?

[pangel83]

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.

Re:Censorship in slashdot?

[miffo.swe]

Maybe because the warmongers doesnt have a single shred of evidence or facts to back the war up with now that the UN has rejected it as wrong?

Whip out some facts (not "news facts") and you will be modded correctly.

Doing the "Right Thing"?

[mindriot]

I definitely agree with you. But I have really been wondering: Throughout the years, the US has often displayed such an arrogant attitude. But the Americans always have such confidence that they are doing the one Right and Good Thing, and it is almost impossible to change their minds, and difficult enough to even try and create a non-biased, open discussion.

I wonder what the reasons for this "character trait" are. For one, it's probably due to the strong, sometimes blind, patriotism... but there might be more to it than just that -- historic background, ...?

(Yes, you could give me "it's the economic interests, the 'good will' is just pretent" -- but while that might be true for some of the politicians, it's unlikely to be true for the majority of Americans, who still follow their President into war.)

Can someone give some 'psychoanalysis'?

UN did it to itself

[horza]

For a long time, many have seen the UN as a toothless, expensive talking shop that gets nothing done. The US had little to do with the weakening of the UN, it did it to itself. Usually it is the Russians automatically vetoing everything (eg action over Kosovo). I hear the US tend to veto action over Israel (need to double-check this). This time it is the French who want their 30 seconds of fame, causing the failure of diplomatic talks hence the war. The stupidity of the French is going to cost us all dearly. Much as I like the idea of the UN, I'm sick of seeing them standing by wringing their hands whilst there is so much tragedy and injustice in the world. It so seldom we get the US to look outside of itself, even in the last two world wars they were dragged in at the last minute reluctantly, that any action they take to rid the world of a brutal murdering dictator I'm going to gratefully accept. They are risking their lives and are taking at the action at great cost to themselves. Thank America for having the guts when no-one had.

Phillip.

Re:UN did it to itself

[wobblie]

Do some research. the US excercises its veto on the security council more than anyone else. Aside from the tail end of Stalin's rule, the Soviet Union used their with far less frequency than the US.

The last thirty years are really telling, what with the US using their veto 64 times, the Soviets used their 8 times.

Link here.

Costs for CNN

[polyiguana]

CNN expects the war will cost $30 nillion to prepare for, according to the Orange County Register. The Washington Times reports that CNN will lose $10 million on the first day and $6 million thereafter for every single day commercial free. CNN can't afford to be cheap, as Rupert Murdoch has agreed to fund Fox News as much as possible in order to decimate CNN.

Re:Defying the UN

[yem]

Hehe. Cheers. Looks like I got lost somewhere there :-).

If you can read french read this:

[Mantees de Tara]

Le Monde article If anyone has an english translation for this it would be good for non french readers.

i'm sorry

[d0ggi3]

i'm sorry my country contributes to terrorism.
i'm sorry my country has weapons of mass destruction.
i'm sorry my country funds camps.
i'm sorry my country does not respect UN resolutions.
i'm sorry i'm religious.
i'm sorry i'm ignorant.
i'm sorry i directly fund war criminals.
i'm sorry i fund israel.
i'm sorry for bush.

no nation has the right to tell another nation how to function. that is to great of a power for any one country to hold. dictators are a horrible idea. so are dictator countries. the word dictator starts with dick... bush...heh. decisions regarding world matters need to be resolved by the voice of all nations because every single country in the world is going to have to deal with all the bullshit that is gonna result.

We are in full compliance. (Presently)

[Tokerat]

Twirlip of the Mists tells all in great detail.

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.

Then what, exactly do we do? If we let him go and this man's family was among those to die when Hussien finally strikes (not nessisarily against the US, say they lived in Israel or Kuwait) , he'd probably be the first one screaming about how this "all could have been prevented but we wussed out."

Although I must say, I'm gald people are becomming more active in their political opinions, I just wish that many of them where more informed.

Re:Defying the UN

[Ratso Baggins]

It does NOT logically or legally follow that the "Alliance" may take it upon it self at any time to act without the sanction of the UN.

Today just marks the day when Sep-11 tradgies occur frequently.

Hmm

[DaLiNKz]

Its all settled down now .. Dammit if he just picked to do this another day I wouldnt have stayed up till 12 when i needed to leave for work at 2.

The Former British Foreign Secretary's resignation

[Ed_Moyse]

This is largely for the benefit of non-Brits, and in particular Americans. Robin Cook, the former British Foreign Secretary resigned on Tuesday saying that he could not support the war. The speech is relevant because some (including me) initially assumed that there must be something awful that they couldn't reveal, some imminent danger from Saddam that made continuing with 12 years of containment futile, that we wouldn't be going to war for the shaky, rapidly -changing reasons given to us.

Robin Cook saw this secret intel, was not convinced, and his resignation speech is (for me) an extremely eloquent explanation of why this war is *NOT* justified, and why it has done severe and possibly irreparable damage to western relations.

The speech is here:here but I've cut and pasted it below:

This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.

I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.

None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.

It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.

On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.

I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.

The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.

I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.

I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.

I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.

But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.

Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.

It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.

We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.

The 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 partner - not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.

To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.

Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.

History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

The US can afford to go it alone, but 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 a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

Re:shit!

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

China has a free press?! Lebanon!syria! Egypt!

Huh? I never said China. I said most. Maybe I should have said most 1st world contries.

yes if its left wing it must be true!

You said that, not me.

Like you even thought of youre position. I would imagine youre one of the protesters comparing Bush to Hitler! Because he killed all those Jews!

Nope. Not me. You must be one of those people who just see someone not supporting the war and assume they're left wing luddies who haven't thought about the war for themselves.

In case you haven't noticed...

[Kjella]

Should Bush be tried and sentenced for war crimes against Iraq and Afganastan? Yes.

The US has been working extremely hard to grant themselves immunity against prosecution by any international court. I don't ever expect to see an American military leader face a war crime court unless we invade the US and capture him. If the americans aren't war criminals, what do you have to fear? You just have to wonder...

Kjella

Re:In case you haven't noticed...

[mfrank]

Gee, maybe we're worried that politically motivated Eurotrash leaders might want to score points with the teeming masses of unemployed socialists populating their countries. Nah, could never happen.

How about in a few months we try some French leaders in American courts for violating the sanctions?

If I had mod points, they would be yours.

[Afty0r]

If I had mod points, they would be yours.

Doing the right thing

[rogermoquin]

I find it funny that so many of you seem to think this is ok because it is the right thing to do, because saddam tortured and killed many innocent civilians, because he aided terrorists...

I am sorry to say so, but all these things can be said about the US.

They have tortured, or helped in the torture of so many that it is simply too hard to keep track of the number of civilians affected. Think Pinochet.

They have been condemned by the world court as a terrorist state and were fined a hefty amount to pay for the damages, yet they simply ignored the ruling.

They have been using their veto to block every UN resolution to make world law applicable to all.

They have been behind pretty much every dictator in Latin America for the past century.

Think about it for a second, don't you think it is time to apply the same rules to all people, instead of always punishing the weak and the poor(think embargo on Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of children).

I fail to see how America is the land of the free when any police and or military agency can monitor any civilian at any time without the need to justify itself, when it is illegal for all citizen to really own any given thing they buy(think DMCA) without fear that if they do not use the things they own the way the company wants them to they could be jailed.

I simply think more Americans should start looking at their past, present and future and realize all the pain and suffering they have caused and continue to cause.

But don't take my word for it, there is plenty of literature available on the subject, take Chomsky for instance. Yes, I know, he sometimes is far from impartiality, but don't even take his word for it, look up all the sources he takes time to mention, often times they are government papers.

This war is by far un-necessary. Most wars are. While some say the only reason for France, Germany and Russia to be against this war is because they have quite a few financial ventures in Iraq, I say one needs to look further, has it not crossed your mind that maybe it is because they have experienced war at home that they know that the burden will be on the innocents.

I think this whole subject is extremely complex and needs much attention, and should not simply be summarized in a 2 line comment.

I think it is time the world realized the US is one of the most active terrorist state there is, and that maybe we should try to understand why before we make decisions for others has the US did so many times.

Re:Doing the right thing

[NedTheNerd]

Iraq has rape rooms they rape your entire family if you are suspect to defect.

its all that needs to be said

Speaking as a Canadian

[TerryAtWork]

I have to say you Americans are doing the right thing.

A lot of Iraqies ARE asking for war as it is the only way to get rid of that cancer Saddam.

You didn't finish the job last time, but this time for sure, right?

Re:Speaking as a Canadian

[RobinH]

Get back to work, Terry! Quit slacking off!

Re:Not consensus of the world

[g.a.g]

Actually, had it been the consensus of the world that Iraq poses an immediate threat, then the UN security council would have given green light for the war.

I do not like criminals threating me with a gun

[lamikr]

I write this using simple sentences what even mr. bush can understand. I am very sorry from the war. I do not like that United States and Great Britain goes over United Nations and starts using weapons in our world. It should be the responsibility of United Nations to make decisions concerning other nations. I hope that Mr. Bush, Mr.Cheney and Mr. Blair could be get into the International Court of Justice in Hagen to respond from their crimes agains the humanity. I do not like that wars are used just for an excuse for allowing some people surrounding mr. Bush to make business. Best luck and sympathy for all the innocent people walking against the war in the USA and Great Britain. Mika

The West Wing

[Snaller]

LEO

I am making a mental list of those who are snickering, and even as I speak I'm
preparing appropriate retribution.

TOBY

Leo, wouldn't this time be better spent plotting a war against a country that can't
possibly defend itself against us?

Over reaction by the US and UK

[BFKrew]

As a Brit, I am very saddened by what has happened in the last few months.

Nobody will ever try to deny the fact that Saddam is a scumbag and the world will be a better place without him. He is a truly evil, brutal tyrant who cares little for anyone or anything.

Since Sept 11, the US has been on the rampage looking for a head. Bin Laden's head was never found and the next easiest target was Saddam. Bush made it clear from Day 1 that he wanted a war and along with Blair he conjured up a variety of reasons to do so, all of them totally unconvincing.

There is no link with al-Qaeda, there are no chemical weapons, no nuclear weapons.

He has broke UN resolutions, but so have other countries including Israel who have broke more resolutions for longer than Iraq.

However, in order to remove one man and his regime the US/UK are planning one of the biggest military operations seen. This operation is not against a nation, a sizeable or strong army or even a militia. It is remove one man.

We will see a lot of totally innocent civilians die in the coming weeks. Can anyone tell me that blowing up and invading Iraq is going to solve international terrorism? Will the world be a safer place afterwards?

As someone who was caught in two IRA bombs that were planted in Manchester/UK I will tell you that the biggest recruiter for terrorism is violence. The only way you can stop it is by talking, listening and understanding.

Unfortunately Bush and Blair will do neither.

Re:Over reaction by the US and UK

[nagora]

there are no chemical weapons,

I'd be surprised if there are none at all, but I doubt that there is any long range (ie, over 100 mile) delivery systems. Perhaps Blair is regretting refusing to sign that early-day motion calling on the then UK government to stop selling chemical plant equipment to Iraq? (I seriously doubt that he cares one way or the other, actually).

As someone who was caught in two IRA bombs that were planted in Manchester/UK I will tell you that the biggest recruiter for terrorism is violence.

I lost my grandmother and a friend to the NI troubles and I agree 100%

TWW

rule the world

[LEPP]

It is a good thing that they don't let a bunch of computer geeks run the world.

LEPP

You're the idiot.

[Genjurosan]

The security council has been useless in this entire situation. They passed 17-18 resolutions that Iraq said fuck off too. the US has missles, that we are taking apart over time due to the fact that we created them first, then we had a build-up of arms to counter USSR. Also you dope, we used them against Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the World War. You know that little war that killed somewhere around 50 million people? How can the people that don't stand up for the right path sleep at night? Again, let's just all hold hands and pretend everything will be alright. sheesh..

Re:You're the idiot.

[MC68040]

Now remind me if I'm wrong, but Japan did not start the world war you're speaking of. Japan was in comparision to Germany a very tiny actor.
Secondly, "that right path" that you mention is maybe not what others think is the right path, and you've got no right to do anything to those people, do you?
- If you think you do, you might want to put yourself into the same scenario.

And the security council has not been useless, the US did simply not let them finish their work. I see flags from a certain country beeing burnt here every day, and we're a democratic nation. Usa has lost a lot of it's support in europe for sure.

Re:You're the idiot.

[jwcoffin]

That's a pretty euro-centristic view of WWII. Japan was a very large part of the war, with over 9 Million soldiers serving. That's about half of Germany's, but more than the UK or France. At their height, they occupied/controlled a large portion of Asia and the Pacific Rim.

A lot of people (including Americans) really underestimate how large a scale the Pacific portion of the war was -- easily the largest Naval war in history.

To call Japan a "very tiny actor" is (in my opinion) very disrepectful to the millions of Chinese (only Germany and Russia suffered more losses than China), Koreans, Americans, and other nationalities who fought and died in that part of the world.

What next?

[jopet]

I was against the war, for too many reasons to list here, but of course the US, having the largest arsenal of chemical, biological, atomic, and conventional weapons of mass and non-mass destruction, can do what they please. A bit like the retarded boy in primary school who had to repeat class three times in a row ...

We will see what happens after the war. Will there be a government that magically is loyal to the US? One that makes it easy for US oil companies to get into business? One that will US currency instead of the Euro for doing business? nahhhh ...

Of course, all these things would be *good*, not *evil* especially for the US. It will help them to get even richer and help enlarging the stockpile of those weapons which they first sold to Iraq, then fight a war to get them fully destroyed. But then - if they wouldnt destroy them, you could not sell new ones to them ...

Why would anyone mod this up even a point?

[Genjurosan]

It has NO VALUE at all, and it get's a 2? How many 'all your base' posts will it take for the mods to stop modding them up past anything but zero for redundant and USELESS? slashdot is starting to suck ass.

Re:Why would anyone mod this up even a point?

[nmg196]

They didn't mod it up - posts start at 2 if you have good Karma.

I thought it was amusing and I searched for "all your base" in the thread and found nothing, so I posted. I apologise. Change your settings so you don't see level 2 posts if you're really concerned. Slashdot is configurable for a reason. You can even remove the karma bonus applied to posts like mine if you don't like the idea that some posts might be at 2 by default.

I'm still looking for the "Suppress Duplicates" option though. I can't find that fscking thing anywhere...

Nick...

STOP THE WAR!

[StopIllegalWar]

Yesterday, the USA, led by her Ultra-Right and illegally elected leader, George Bush, attacked

Iraq, violating the UN resolutions, therefore, making the attack illegal.
More than 10 civillian were killed by USA weapons, composed by Uranium, a banned substance, as

reported by Japanese media.

But US troops cannot be condemned because George Bush, didn't wanted to sign for the Internation

Justice Tribunal.

Iraq responded attacking Kuwait, without using any biological or quimical weapons. Their Missiles

only have 150Km range, and they had to be launched from the limit of IRAQ, and couldn't get

Kuwait capital city.

The USA allegged IRAQ supports terrorist and posses illegal mass-destruction weapons sold by the

USA, but they coudln't prove it.

USA refused to attack Iran, Korea, Pakistan, the only-proved countries that are known to have

nuclear weapons, and that support terrorist.
Do the USA have fear of that countries, and can only fight against an small country like IRAQ?
The USA also refused to condemn Israel, which have been violating UN resolutions for decades.

A great part of the USA citizens supported the WAR. We have to remember, that those citizens

haven't suffered a war on their civilian soil for more than one century. While other countries

like European ones still remember what does a war mean. USA citizens only know what a war means

by watching their own-produced films, where the US troops are real heros.

IRAQ citizens see this war, as a war between Sadam Hussein, an US forced Dictator, and the US

troops wanting to take out their own invested leader. That's why Iraq cityzens tend to hate the

USA.

Re:STOP THE WAR!

[d2003xx]

nothing to say.. just agreed.

Re:STOP THE WAR!

[Truth101]

We are in the process of stopping the war. It ends with Saddam's head!

without a topic...

[Genjurosan]

"Of course, all these things would be *good*, not *evil* especially for the US. It will help them to get even richer and help enlarging the stockpile of those weapons which they first sold to Iraq, then fight a war to get them fully destroyed. But then - if they wouldnt destroy them, you could not sell new ones to them ..."

All the WMD that you claim the US will 'enlarging' is nothing but bullshit. We have treaties that are going the other direction. We don't make any new WMD's, and we are in the process of taking apart our nukes and those of the former USSR at the expense of the US taxpayer. I don't see France or German writing the checks to take the weapons apart.

Sins of the father.

[unikron]

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.

Re:Sins of the father.

[Squidgee]

You got a mod up?!

This is the most fucking uneducated rant I've ever seen.

Bush went to YALE; I'd like to see you do that.

He doesn't act like a dictator, in the slightest. Congress, anyone?

He doesn't want to be dictator of the world; he's going to give Iraw BACK to the Iraqis.

God you're just a propaganda spewing idiot.

Re:Sins of the father.

[unikron]

Bush went to yale, courtesy of his father's money, I am sure of that. I don't have YALE, but you don't have to be a rocket scientist or a fancy college guy to see where your "YALE" president goes.

Congress in my opinion is just a sellout to Bush's administration. A bunch of people there, who have been assigned by lobbies (and don't deny it), the same ones who have Bush on the head.

As for giving Ira(w)q, BACK to the Iraqis, isn't this what supposed to be with the Afghanistan Case... Bush creates more osama's and terrorism now. Ponder this. Who can become a terrorist? The one who's family have been teared of by an enemy who is not even in borders with that country or the one who has a country being dicatored (I don't deny it, i told it already), and needs to be freed by ITS OWN PEOPLE however helpless they are.

Fear the bearers of false gifts and broken promises. That's what I say.

Re:Sins of the father.

[Squidgee]

They can't be freed by their own people. Especially when said dictator will gas them if they try.

Re:Sins of the father.

[unikron]

So what will Bush do if they don't want him? Nuke them?

Re:Sins of the father.

[Squidgee]

HE ISN'T GOING TO RULE!

You incipient moron, Bush is going to set up DEMOCRACY, set it up so we make sure everyone stays for their term and only their term, and leave.

God you are dense.

WW III

[koi88]

Let's hope that Adolf W. Bush hasn't started the third world war by this useless and stupid attack.

Just imagine what happens when, aided by anti-american feelings after their attack on Iraq, an islamistic government comes to power in Pakistan... they HAVE atomic bombs... or this happens in 20 other islamic countries (Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt...)

How many wars can America fight? How will American economy suffer from massive anti-american feelings throughout the world?

Re:WW III

[Genjurosan]

More CRAP from the uneducated.

How dare you compare Bush to Hitler.

Hitler was killing the jews in his own country for years, much like Saddam kills the kurds.

You just need to pray that you live in the United States, and if you don't, pray that the aid checks keep coming to help increase stability in your little world. Those checks come out of my tax money.

Re:WW III

[Mxyzptlk]

[...] pray that the aid checks keep coming to help increase stability in your little world

Boohoo... Poor you! Are we talking about the same USA that helped Saddam in his coup back in 1968? CIA gave a list to Saddam, containing names of many of those who opposed Saddam. The result? Saddam killed off practically all his opposition. CIA has in fact supported the Baath party on several other occasions.

If you create the instability, then you can't be proud about restoring it, don't you agree?Alllllrighty then!

Re:WW III

[koi88]

Hitler was killing the jews in his own country for years, much like Saddam kills the kurds.

I do not want to defend Saddam Hussein. He's a criminal and a madman. He came to power thanks to the CIA and he got chemical weapons from the US which he used against the kurds.

There were absolutely no complaints from the US because of that then.

But you can't compare Hussein with Hitler as Saddam as Germany was a superpower then and Iraq, definitely, is not.

There is no threat going out from Iraq, and, no, it was not him who destroyed WTC.

That was Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden, helped by 30 Billion $ from your tax money...

Education is the key, not war

[protektor101]

Debate over whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or more so whether the unilateral US led attack should have launched are for me, side-stepping the real issue of US Hipocracy. The US and its alies have turned their backs on the UN's global democracatic process despite being among it's founding members. How then can the US claim to be a democracy when they are unable to respect the decision process of another! The true reason for invasion without UN backing is to enable Bush to 'save face'. Liberatation of Iraq's people can only be a secondary objective when Bush's crediblity on delivering threats and promises dwindle thru countless extensions to deadlines and the ever growing chance that war will not be declared by the UN. Bush had painted him and his administration staff into a corner from which an Invasion was the easiest way out. While I would like to see Sadam's dictorial regime come to an end I do not belive that starting a war is the answer. Education and support for the Iraqi people to rise up is the answer - blowing them and their country appart is not.

Media has no right..

[Genjurosan]

The media has no given right to be on those ships or with those marines. The military grants them permission and protection after they agree to play by the rules that protect the marines lives. Pretty simple to understand. Again, somehow people keep thinking that life is all about the good of the individual, and not the good of many.

Re:I just wanted to say....

[YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT]

Hi. I thought that since you'd gone to the trouble of replying to my post, I'd get my password recovered and discuss it with you. So here I am.

There's only two things I really want to say. It seems that in disagreeing with you, I've tarred myself with a different brush - I agree with the need for regime change in Iraq, and I believe I said so in the post you were replying to. To take the example of the snake, however, I'd rather that the snake was killed with a single bullet to the head, than the repeated clubbings of its body with ironwood staves. I wish we had a better reason to give people though than atrocities which have been carried out in full sight of our governments for nearly twenty years, in some cases with our overt or tacit support. Better late than never, I guess.

To me, for a coalition that is so convinced of it's moral position as to not care about the opinion of the non-coalition nations, I don't understand why instead of an all-out war, directed assassination wasn't used against selected members of the Iraqi government. Perhaps I don't understand the logistics. I feel this, while ethically murky, is much easier on the population that this action is trying to liberate, and would result in greatly reduced loss of life on all sides.

Second, I don't understand how my country owes the United States for its prosperity. While we have certainly achieved great things together, Australia also trades with Europe, and is influenced by European, particularly English political and social ideas, values and structures. Even if we did, that is still no reason to give you a carte blanche - history seems to portray to me that America ( and practically everywhere else ) is a nation in permanent ethical and moral flux, capable of epitomising the best in human nature ( Innovation, equality, foreign aid and assistance, etc ) and the worst ( McCarthyism, Tuskegee Syphilis Study, etc ). So you'll have to forgive me, but I will never write a blank cheque for any nation - I don't trust them enough in the long run.

I hope you and your loved ones are safe and well, and I consider us both lucky to be born into progressive western democracies.

Yours,
You Likewise Fail It

Re:Think about it

[ghuw]

This analogy could be useful. Appeasement of this 'nation reshaping' doctrine is dangerous. We have effectively given into his demands (or resigned ourselves to the inevitable war), do you think it will stop with just one more country?

troups

[mschoolbus]

God bless all our troups, my prayers are with them...

I understand there are pros and cons of going to war, but when your country decides either way it doesn't hurt to support them.

we did in Japan

[Carbon Unit 549]

Democracy is a culture which can only be learned by experience in a long time. You can't just put democratic institutions into a country and expect it to work without some democratic seeds in minds.

Sure you can. We did it in Japan.

Re:we did in Japan

[Valdrax]

Sure you can. We did it in Japan.

That statement shows a complete ignorance of Japanese history. The seeds of democracy were planted in Japan at the dawn of the Meiji era in 1868, and Japan has had a national congress of legislators since that time period. Even though ultimate power rested with the Emperor the whole time, the seeds of democracy had been planted for over 80 years before the end of WWII in much the same fashion that they had been planted in Britain back in the time of the Magna Carta. Japan was primed and ready for democracy and had slowly been moving that way the whole time. It was only the belief in the divinity of the Emperor that kept the common people from demanding more of a voice faster.

I highly recommend this book if you care about learning more about this time period. It was my college textbook for Modern Japanese History, and it's extremely well written. The politics of the US occupation of Japan and how the Cold War shifted us from tearing them down to building them up as an ally is an utterly fascinating read.

Of course, Iraq isn't without seeds of democracy itself. While they've pretty much had only one party to vote for, the Iraqi people have had an elected congress for quite a while now. It's nothing but a big sham, but it at least gives the people familiarity with voting and a false sense of empowerment that we can use to lay the foundation for real empowerment. It shouldn't be as hard to establish democracy there if we wanted to as it might be in some of Iraq's feudal neighbors. Iran could be a good democracy too if we just deposed the autocratic Muslim judicial branch that they themselves have been agitating to remove. They pretty much already are one with the exception of that branch of the government.

Re:we did in Japan

[Carbon Unit 549]

I accept your critique on my knoweledge of Japanese history. But when you say, " It was only the belief in the divinity of the Emperor that kept the common people from demanding more of a voice faster." That's a pretty big "only" since most people tend to stick to their religous beliefs.

As you know, it's only the belief in Islam the directs many to fight against secular governments.

Re:we did in Japan

[Valdrax]

Well, of course I'm oversimplifying. I could spend all day laying down the history of Japan from 1868-1945, but I'd rather let others read it from the excellent book I linked to. The transformation of Japanese culture from religious ultra-nationalism during the Taisho and Showa period until the end of the war to the lightly-spiritual secularism of today was a major turning point in Japanese society. The end of WWII marked a change from national religion to humible secularism, expansionism to isoloationism, warmongering to a refusal of all war, acceptance of all who pledge to the emperor as Japanese to light xenophobia, etc. The Japanese culture was literally turned on its ear, but the roots of these changes can clearly be seen by later scholars.

Iraq has many of these roots too. However, Iraq also has the roots of becoming yet another Muslim theocracy. If we go in and then abandon Iraq like we have with Afghanistan, then we could very easily see another radical Muslim regime rise up in its place. Iraq has gotten a lot less secular since GW I and the placing of sanctions. If we aren't careful, we could make them into a government that actually does openly support terrorism against us. If we don't take care to nourish the seeds of democracy, the weed of terrorism and fundamentalism may sprout in its place.

But I digress by returning to the article's topic.

Nation of children.

[jotaeleemeese]

I believe 50% of Iraqis are 15 or younger.

How to spend 400billion...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

3001st Post!

[RedWizzard]

You don't get to say that often.

War for oil?

[LEPP]

It does not matter if you are for military action or against military action to disarm/depose Hussein. Most of the arguements given are rediculous. First there is little connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda. There is a small chance that they could give some weapons of mass destruction to Al Quaeda. There is a less significant chance that they use those weapons in the future against either a neighbor or US/Europe. There is a lot of evidence that they have stockpiles of these weapons and still seek nukes. Hussein said that his biggest mistake of invading Kuwait is that he did so before he got nukes. I think that most would agree if he ever got nukes, he would use them with little regard. Is this a reason to invade? I don't know. Also, by UN numbers, 6000 Iraqis starve each month as a result of UN sanctions. This is not accecptable. This number will exceed the numbers of innocents killed in a was (most likely). You cannot be for sanctions and against military action and have any credibility. The war for oil is the most absurd of all arguements. On one hand protestors are saying that the war is going to be horrible for the economy. On the other hand they will say that the war is for oil, implying that some how the economy is is benefitting. The other arguement is that some how the President is personally benefitting. There is a good chance that if this war is not very short and has very few casualties (US and innocent Iraqi citizens), that the president will not be re-elected. The current support is for the troops and the president but will change quickly if casualties mount and the war lingers. I don't see how this war benefits the president unless he personally takes all the oil and goes home to Texas. The same oil motives were alleged during the first Gulf war. What the protestors are not saying is that France, Russia, China, and Germany have active economic interests in Iraq. Russia and France have been activly trading with the Iraqis. They have been promised lots of oil contracts. There have been alligations of covert between France and Iraq and Germany and Iraq. These have not been substantiated and until proven should be considered just rumors. France built a reactor for the Iraqis. This reactor, the UN found, was being used to generate fissile material until the Israelis bombed it. The French still deny that the reactor was used for military purposes. The Chinese created a fiber optic communications system for the Iraqi military. The point of this is that all governments have their incentives. Don't think that the US is the only government or people are the only ones that have their own self interests in mind.
So far, most arguements for or against war are full of ad homin attacks. This weakens the arguement tremendously. It does not matter if you are against the war because the US should not act (multilaterially) without UN support or that war is necessary because Hussein has violated UN cease fire agreement for 12 years, those are good arguements. "I hate France so I am for the war" is as stupid an arguement as "the US is the evil empire so I am against the war."

Democratic nations...

[jotaeleemeese]

... 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....

Re:Democratic nations...

[mpe]

Iraq posses no verifiable threat against the US or the UK.

Or against American or British citizens. When there are plenty of countries who do, some of whom are even supported by the American and/or British governments.

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?

Iran, no friend of Iraq, is siding against the US on this issue. Then there's Jordan which also has a border with Iraq.

I wonder...

[Ephemeriis]

You know... I honestly don't know if this war is justified or necessary. We've been told about how horrible Saddam is, how he's gassing his own people and whatnot, but I really have no idea how true that is. I know from watching various foreign coverage of world news events that what we see here in the US, and what is broadcast elsewhere can be two very different things. I don't like Saddam though, and I'll be happy to see him removed.

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

Re:I wonder...

[ajedgar]

If Gore had been president the World Trade Center towers might still be standing. Really.

When the Bush administration came in, Clinton's national security team warned them very directly that they should be spending 80% of there time on this Al Qaida thing. Condoleezza Rice dropped the ball. Big time. Some have said deliberately (or under orders).

Google: clinton warned condoleezza

Why?

[larien]

Why are we going to war?

Because an unelected warmonger is in charge of a country with a stockpile of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. He flouts the UN and refuses to sign his country up for the International Court or for environmental controls like the Kyoto agreement.

And he doesn't like Saddam Hussein.

Some Thoughts To Keep In Mind

[WildThing]

I think everyone will agree that Saddam is a generally bad guy. How did he get into power ?? WE put him in power there. Guess Who else we put into power over there - the Taliban. Hey, I know people can make mistakes - even countries, but we trained and supplied Bin Laden too. Starting to sound like a country that keeps screwing up by sticking it's nose in ???

Ever wonder why all these terrorists and countries hate the United States ? Because WE keep trying to impose our will on thier countries. Oh, I know, all of you that are saying that we are just trying to ensure their freedom or keep our country safe... blah blah. But that is kind of a concieted view isn't it ?!? What makes you think they would care at all about us and the U.S. if we left them alone???

All these things coming from our Goverenment - the same governemt that doesn't care at all about it's own citizens. What - you think they do care? Why are they taking our freedoms away, our privacy away, our liberties away, our sense of well-being away?

Just think about the fact there our economy is already the worst since the depression of the 1930's and they keep tellling us it's getting better. Well the stock market is 30% lower than it was 4 years ago. Unemployment is still at horrid levels. Yes I remember Bush saying benefits were goning to be extended 26 weeks, but only about 1% of the people recieving benefits got it - the rest didn't qualify.

But we have the new Homeland Security Group - have you read George Orwell's '1984' ???

Whether you agree or disagree with what I've said, take 5 minutes and think about it all logically and not emotionally and see if you still are sure of yourself.

Re:Some Thoughts To Keep In Mind

[/dev/trash]

So because we put him in power 20+ years ago, he gets to stay and do whatever he wants now?

Re:A Lot of Thought

[ghuw]

I also tried to apply your reasoning to this war.

Assuming a best case scenario where a stable and prosperous country is formed in a short time scale, it SHOULD have been a 'simple' of balancing:

x 10s of British and American lives
y 1000s of civilian and conscript lives
z 100s of billions of $

For this we improve the situation of x million Iraqi civilians by a certain amount. (Some more than others).

There is an argument that this equation does balance.

Before we factor in the real costs of this particular war it's worth considering if you could get a better return on your investment of say.. $500 billion (you can't save everyone in dire conditions).
Spending this money on urgent humanitarian aid and long term development in Africa for example would probably improve the condition of MORE of our fellow humans to a GREATER degree.
Sadam would be doing pretty well if he managed to kill his own people at a rate to comparable to poverty and starvation. Unfortunatly elimination of poverty does not 'shock and awe'.

Here are the real cost of this war btw.

International institutions (UN, European union, NATO), rules and justice. It may be far from perfect but the UN is the best we have. We have torn up the rule book and demonstrated what a real 'global' dictator looks like.

Pre-emption prescient set for the rest of the world.

Race relations.

Increased hostility to USA and Britain, increased risk of terrorist attack on homeland and people abroad, increased propaganda for fundamentalist terrorist organisations.

Probable refugee crisis (all this nonsense and fuss about refugees coming to this country (UK).. look at places like Iran which probably takes in many times what we have)

Probable stability problems in Iraq for decades to come (Kurds, Arabs, Iran, Turkey)

Possibility of Prime Minister and army generals indited for war crimes (think Bush is ok as he didn't sign up).

All gloves are now off wrt any chem/bio that Iraq may have and the tenuous premise that it would willingly hand these over to terrorists. Knowledge of such a transaction would have rightly bought about invasion backed by the majority of the UN within months. Now what has he to loose?

Assassination

[Max Threshold]

The attack was specifically intended to take out Saddam.

So assassination is now considered fair fightin'? Somebody please tell that to the Secret Service.

Not that I disagree with this completely. I would rather see the idiots running the governments of the world killing each other than sending thousands of their citizens to die meaningless deaths.

And a policy of political assassination wouldn't really be anything new from the United States...

Or ...

[jotaeleemeese]

Monumental misinformation adn stupidity.

And lets not start with the options in which we assume he may be lying....

Dennis Miller's letter (Boo Mike Moore!)

[Captain McCrank]

I was listening to Howard Stern yesterday morning. Howard read a list purported to be from Dennis Miller, and for the sake of balance, here's a comedian from the other side of the aisle: Ten things to consider with the War in Iraq. 1) Between Saddam Hussein and George Bush, Hussein is the bad guy. 2) If you happen to have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing, keep this in mind. They have Libia heading the committee on Human Rights and Iraq is heading the global disarmament committee. 3) If you use Google search and type in ''French Military Victories'' your reply will be ''did you mean French Military Defeats?'' 4) If your only anti-war slogan is ''No War For Oil'' sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserved. 5) Saddam Hussein and bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us. 6) Despite common belief, Martin Sheen is not the President, he plays one on TV. 7) Even if you are anti-war, you are still an infidel and bin Laden wants you dead too. 8) If you believe in a vast right wing conspiracy but not in the dangers that Hussein possesses, quit hanging out with the Dell Computer dude. 9) We are not trying to liberate them. (Howard disagreed with this one and Robin said perhaps it was a typo) 10) Whether you are for military action or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all need to support them without reservation. Oh, and quite frankly, Mike Moore is a dick. He can be very funny, but he's a real asshole if you ever meet him in person. I hear the same about Miller, but Moore is a communist, so that makes him worse!

Texas Justice

[Max Threshold]

Just imagine if in a criminal court the prosecutor was not happy with the jury having dismissed the charges and went ahead and executed the defendant anyway. Is that justice?

I think that's how it works in Texas.

Mexico?

[jotaeleemeese]

Mexico is much more homogenous: mostly mixed race, mostly Catholic and mostly Spanish speaking.

Choose a couple of Mexicans and they will share at least one of the three above.

Re:Dennis Miller's letter (Boo Mike Moore!) fixed

[Captain McCrank]

Guess I should have used the preview button: I was listening to Howard Stern yesterday morning. Howard read a list purported to be from Dennis Miller, and for the sake of balance, here's a comedian from the other side of the aisle: Ten things to consider with the War in Iraq.

1. Between Saddam Hussein and George Bush, Hussein is the bad guy.
2. If you happen to have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing, keep this in mind. They have Libia heading the committee on Human Rights and Iraq is heading the global disarmament committee.
3. If you use Google search and type in ''French Military Victories'' your reply will be ''did you mean French Military Defeats?''
4. If your only anti-war slogan is ''No War For Oil'' sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserved.
5. Saddam Hussein and bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.
6. Despite common belief, Martin Sheen is not the President, he plays one on TV.
7. Even if you are anti-war, you are still an infidel and bin Laden wants you dead too.
8. If you believe in a vast right wing conspiracy but not in the dangers that Hussein possesses, quit hanging out with the Dell Computer dude.
9. We are not trying to liberate them. (Howard disagreed with this one and Robin said perhaps it was a typo)
10. Whether you are for military action or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all need to support them without reservation.

That's it. Caveat emptor. Oh, and quite frankly, Mike Moore is a dick. He can be very funny, but he's a real asshole if you ever meet him in person. I hear the same about Miller, but Moore is a communist, so that makes him worse!

reasons behind the strike

[master_p]

1. cutting Asia in half; after taking over Iraq, the US is able to block a huge amount of traffic from middle east to far east and vice versa, since it will have army in Iraq and Afghanistan. 2. controlling the Turks by freeing Kurds and making the way for splitting Turkey in half, allowing for the Kurdistan state to emerge. This state is right at the Caspian oil deposits, that are far superior to those in Iraq. 3. Be near China. Huge excuse for deploying armed forces there. 4. Be near Pakistan to control it against India. India is THE premier subcontractor for many US companies 5. be near Persia(Iran), where a lot of terrorist groups are being born. 6. protect Israel from attack. 7. Delivering a message worldwide as to who is the boss. 8. Strike a blow to the EE now that it is in its infancy politically and in the defense department; with Europe divided, there is no serious obstacles for world domination. 9. bring doll to the military sector, reviving part of the economy 10. moving attention away from scandals like Enron etc 11. taking away US citizen liberties, enforcing more legislation and more control There are a lot of reasons for this war. I don't think Bush is to be blamed. He did not know that Musharaf was president of Pakistan, remember ? (Musharaf is not elected by the way, he is a dictator). He is a puppet, just like Al Gore would be. He is told that some bad Arabs want to demolish his country, he gets angry and signs whatever he is requested. It is Cheney, CIA, DIA and the others that run this country. By the way, Al Gore has been spared his life by not winning the elections, rumours say.

Re:reasons behind the strike

[k_187]

ok I'll bite

1. Maybe, but there's more than one way to the middle east.
2. There is no way in hell that Turkey would let that happen. The resolution that they will be voting on today (3/20) has provisions that the Turkish army will follow the US army into northern Iraq and keep the Kurds from doing anything but sit there
3. How about South Korea and Japan, they're closer to China and we've already got lots of troops there.
4. Ok, Pakistan is already one of the US's biggest allies in the region and they're not going to do anything to piss us off (less we don't give them the aid we've promised)
5. Yeah, probably. I personally don't think that they've planned that far ahead, but its extremely possible that they have.
6. I doubt if Saddam would bother attacking Israel. He'd be more concerned with making as many American casualties as possible
7. Isn't that already apparant?
8. Since the USSR fell has there really been any obsticals to world domination?
9. I don't think that building stuff for the war will really help the economy, but the certanity surrounding what will happen certainly will.
10. Enron and all that is already over. Turns out that it was just limited to a few scumbags that wanted to take advantage of the system.
11. maybe, but I think that the word is finally getting out that Patriot and Son of Patriot and CAPPS II are bad things.

Bush is doing what he (and the rest of the administration for that matter) feel is the best course of action to protect America from another 9/11. Bush selected his cabinet because he knows that he doesn't know much about International relations. that's a good thing. whether or not you agree with their politics is another.

give us more!

[robbo]

surely there is more than one blogger in iraq. I'd love to see some links assembled that give first-person accounts *other* than that which is officially sanctioned.

YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR

[JeanBaptiste]

mod that guy up. Not a military person myself, about half my company is (50 people, 25 ex military). To many companies an honorable discharge is better than a college degree. Especially a degree in liberal arts (non-media jobs anyways)

If you put 'I protested ' on your resume you will give the reviewer a laugh as they throw it in the wastebasket.

Bullshit Americana

[jotaeleemeese]

The World was behind you the first Gulf War and after 9-11.

You politicians should give some consideration to that before continue with their intemperances.

Re:Bullshit Americana

[srowen]

...and was, and is, behind Security Council resolution 1441 as well. I don't believe it's fair to blame America for France and Germany's curious opposal to action they voted for only months before. Their actions are dictated by national and political interests just as much any other nation's are.

I think Americans are generally tired of lectures from a few European nations on behalf of "The World" and "world opinion," regardless of their own views. It comes across as presumptuous and arrogant (which goes both ways I suppose).

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Patoski]

But you can't expect people to *not* protest and try to stop an invasion, just because they might hurt the feelings of the people who are going to be ordered to execute the invasion...

I'm not talking about hurting someone's feelings. I'm talking about lowering the level of a soldier's motivation which can very easily cause lives.

I mean... If they succeed in stopping the invasion, the troops won't *have* to risk their lives. Right?

Its a little late to stop the invasion. Protesting a war after its already started is kinda like yelling at someone not to steal your car after they've already pulled out of your driveway and are well down the road with your vehicle. The war has begun and no amount of protesting will preempt itr. Best to support the troops are already there and fighting.

Boycott US Products: Windows

[Frodo420024]

Another reason to ditch Windows (US product) and use Linux (Finnish product) :)

Smile, this too will pass :)

We will never know, won't we?

[jotaeleemeese]

If it was only the French you may have a point.

But it was the French, the German, Chinese,, Russians and who knows how many of the non permanent members.

Your country was in the minority, so don't give us that shit that the country in the majoriy side was the obstructive one.

sigh...

[gobblez]

i'm in the U.S. Army and currently deployed (yes we still get internet in the middle of the desert). as a soldier, i should be all proud and stuff, and i am, but i still have the ability to decide for myself what is right and wrong in what we do.

i currently don't understand why we have to fight iraq. everyone who tries to explain fails to make a point. as far as i know, we are attacking because we think he has powerful weapons that he isn't telling us about. So!? He's allowed to have weapons, it's his country. We have powerful weapons, and i really don't see us letting the Iraqi's inspect our stuff.

the way i see it, if we have weapons, it's only right that he and everyone else does too. nobody gave the U.S. the divine earth ruling power to decide on how countries are allowed to defend themselves!

it's an eye for an eye, and we hit first, and for no apparent reason. he has every right to be pissed right now and fight back. maybe there is something that i am missing, even us soldiers get our knowledge from cnn. i might not see a point in all this, but i am a soldier, and i will fight if i have too. if i have to fight, i will win. but that's just my opinion, i may be wrong.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Patoski]

What will demoralize troops is a realization that the cause they're fighting for is unjust. If demonstrations cause the troops to realize that, it's not the fault of the demonstrations -- it's the fault of those who sent the troops to fight an unjust war.

I'm not saying that our soldiers would become demoralized because 'in a blinding flash of insight would realize that the protestors are so obviously right that they might as well quit.' I don't think that quite properly takes into account the military mind and the way a soldier thinks when they're at war. They're not as soft as that. I was speaking more of the protests being demotivating in the sense of 'we're over here risking life and limb and the country doesn't seem to be rallying around us. What's up with these people?'

Of course anyone is free to protest anything they want at any time. I just think it's more productive to focus our thoughts, prayers and energies into something more productive than trying to stop a war that's already started.

Re:I'm ashamed to be a slashdot reader..

[TheShadow]

Man I wish I had mod points. This deserves a +5 Insightful.

All of those things need to be said. However I have one more thing to add.

Saddam is (unfortunetely) a monster created by the US (because of our support of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war). I think one of our reasons for going to war is to correct that mistake.

Why I think this war is a bad idea

[mcbevin]

Heres an essay from my website regarding why I do not believe this war is a good idea - see the website for facts backing up the essay, plus a more viewer friendly version of the argument -

1. Such a war can only lead to an increase in terrorism. The Iraqis, arabs and muslims around the world will see such a war not only as a war on Islam, but also for what it largely is about - an imperialistic grab for oil. Anyone doubting this need only consider Iraq's history. The CIA played a hand in overthrowing the government in Iraq in 1963 which led to Saddam's party and thus Saddam himself coming to power. The reason was that the government had moved to nationalise oil (exactly the same thing also happened in Iran). Going back further also gives a long history of the colonial power Britain treating Iraq atrociously in order to control their oil.

Anyone still doubting that oil is a motive behind the war need only consider the Bush Administration's deep ties with the oil industry, read about the English and US oil companies already lobbying over who gets to drill the Iraqi oil (Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world), read the report submitted to Dick Cheney suggesting the use of military force in Iraq because the US needs the oil, or consider that a result of the war in Afghanistan was the US finally getting to build a pipeline through the country, or that high oil prices are currently threatening the US economy and could be reliably kept significantly lower if the US were to control Iraq's oil.

2. There are no proven links between Saddam and the Al-Qaeda. The best intelligence agencies (those of the US and Britain) in the world have been working flat out to try and find one, yet both reported no link (despite this fact, both Bush and Blair repeatedly cite information discredited by their own intelligence agencies as evidence of a link - if they are so convinced of the case for war they shouldn't need to lie in presenting it). British intelligence reports that even the possibility of a substantial link is unlikely, given that Osama is in ideological conflict with Saddam (in a recent tape Osama termed Saddam and his regime 'infidels').

3. Before the UN sanctions Saddam had created a country with the one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. At least for his own people he had thus done a better job than most other Middle Eastern leaders, and now we're supposed to be saving his people from him? I'm not saying Saddam is all good, far from it, but he is also not the evil tyrant Bush depicts him to be (i.e. he did not gas his own people as Bush repeatedly claims).

Worth also noting is that the reason an estimated 5000-6000 children die due to starvation and lack of water and medication in Iraq every week is not Saddam or even solely the UN sanctions, but the fact that the US and UK have blocked the efforts of the oil-for-food program. The two successive UN leaders of the oil-for-food program resigned due to this fact, saying that Saddam had done his best to provide his people with food, and calling what the US and UK were doing 'genocide'. If the US and UK have pursued a genocidal policy at the cost of 1.5 million Iraqi lives over the past 10 years, can we believe their claim to now be taking war to the people of Iraq for their own good?

4. The threat that Iraq poses to us is tiny. Iraq probably still has some 'weapons of mass destruction' of course, but an insignificant amount which pales in comparison to that of many other countries (including of course the US and Britain, but also less stable places such as Syria and the nuclear states of North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel).

Saddam has never been a threat to or threatened the US. This brings into question not only the motives for the war but also whether there is any right by international law to initiate one. Saddam's army was pathetic in the Gulf War and is much weaker now. Even CIA Director George Tenet beli

Innaction? Which innaction?

[jotaeleemeese]

Action was taken in 1991.

Or were you asleep or unborn?

Between Iraq and a hard place

[bankman]

For further information watch this to get an idea.

Re:Dennis Miller's letter (Boo Mike Moore!) fixed

[rimmon]

> Between Saddam Hussein and George Bush, Hussein is the bad guy.

> If you happen to have faith in the United Nations to do the right thing, keep this in mind. They have Libia heading the committee on Human Rights and Iraq is heading the global disarmament committee.
Well, at least the states work with the UN...

> If you use Google search and type in ''French Military Victories'' your reply will be ''did you mean French Military Defeats?''
One hell of a reason to start war.

> If your only anti-war slogan is ''No War For Oil'' sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserved.
And again: One hell of a reason to start war.

> Saddam Hussein and bin Laden will not seek United Nations approval before they try to kill us.
Well, the USA seek that approval as long as they think tey might get ist. As soon as it's clear that this approval will not be granted, they act like Bin Laden -> without seeking permission from the UN.
BTW: Saddam Hussein never tried to kill any US Citizen without beeing attacked from the US before. So your argument can only be used for Bin Laden. And do you really want to compare the USA with Bin Laden. I wouldn't (and I'm a critic when it comes to the foreign politics and policies of the USA)
Don't forget: Saddam was good friend of the USA during the 80's an before...

> Despite common belief, Martin Sheen is not the President, he plays one on TV.
Unfortunatly you're right.

> Even if you are anti-war, you are still an infidel and bin Laden wants you dead too.
Well maybe, but nobody ever proved any connections between Iraq and Bin Laden

> If you believe in a vast right wing conspiracy but not in the dangers that Hussein possesses, quit hanging out with the Dell Computer dude. We are not trying to liberate them. (Howard disagreed with this one and Robin said perhaps it was a typo)
Whatever that means...

> Whether you are for military action or against it, our young men and women overseas are fighting for us to defend our right to speak out. We all need to support them without reservation.
Well, that's what the Michigan Milita claims...

Shock And Awe

[Sazarac]

This morning all the news channels are throwing around the term "shock and awe" when they talk about the first missile strike carried out against Iraq. What exactly is that? Well, I did a little researching on the net and I found a site hosting the text of a small book written by Harlan Ullman and James Wade called Shock And Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance. It appears this was written as kind of a military playbook or "intellectual construct", written back in 1996. At the time of it's writing, this handbook had to undergo testing at something called the MRC (Military Relations Committee?) and the "Quadrennial Defense Review of 1997". Finally it had to be proven against the Operations Other Than War doctrine and training platforms. Now, I'm not certain what these terms mean, but I'm wondering if this manual is the script for the style of tactics we are now seeing Iraq. If so, the timeline suggests to me that as soon as the first military action in Iraq was over, we started planning the next one... Cross-post from my blog at www.kellytadams.com

Re:Shock And Awe

[ajedgar]

Indeed. This was all planned by late 1996 at the latest. The right-wing Pentagon hawks tried to convince Clinton to give it a go back in early 1997.

PNAC

Google: Project New American Century

Nice

[Joe the Lesser]

Conquerors often cloak themselves as liberators.

Shit, that's a fuckin' good statement.

It is true.

[jotaeleemeese]

Nelson Mandela was labeled a terrorist, as were the leader of the Israeli movement of independence.

You are wrong, normally whoever oposses your views by violent means will be labeled with any noun that makes them look unworthy.

Re:It is true.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The fact that words can be misused is not at issue here. There are terrorists and there are soldiers, organized or guerilla. Terrorists are a fundamentally different class, criminals of the highest order. Under no circumstances should the line between the two be blurred. Legitimate fighters should never be called terrorists, though as you point out sometimes they are, and terrorists must never be confused for actual warriors.

Right thing to do but for the wrong reasons

[Mossfoot]

Personally I don't like Bush. Don't like his policies, don't like his attitude, don't like his platform.

However, overall I do support a war on Iraq. I just wish it was the UN doing it.

The world needs a global policeman, but it SHOULDN'T be the US. Why? Because in the end, once you get past all the rhetoric, the interests of the US fall squarely in the US. Back during Gulf War 1 you had tens shades of evil going on in East Timor, but not a finger was lifted to help.

I could go on with the obvious rants about oil and crap, but I won't. This does have a lot to do with the economy and percieved stability of the region.

I heard that UNICEF said that 5000 Iraqi children were dying per month because of the embargo that's been going on for 12 years. If Saddam stays in power, it's obvious the embargo will remain AT LEAST until he dies. So if he lives for another ten years that comes out to, what, 600,000 kids killed slowly because of lack of medical supplies and other necessitites? Isn't it better to get the band aid off quickly? Will that many kids die in this war?

But ultimately, I think we need a stronger United Nations that CAN be a world policeman, and enforce what they say with more than just paperwork.

Re:Right thing to do but for the wrong reasons

[BCW2]

The UN should do it's job. But it has turned into a bunch of fussy old women with no ability to act. Kind of like the career diplomats at the state dept. commonly refered to as the lace panty crowd. The UN just needs to grow some balls and do something in a timely manor for once.

Then again global warming can be traced to the useless hot air emanating from the UN and the US capital.

Re:Right thing to do but for the wrong reasons

[SuiteSisterMary]

Aye, you're right. But the UN lacks the force to do anything. Hell, it's fundamentally flawed; what's the point of having a voting council if everybody has veto power?

IN THIS CASE, Bush is simply promulgating UN resolutions; they're doing the UN's job. Next time? Who can say? But the UN needs to either shit, or get off of the pot. We don't need another League of Nations style breakup; we need the UN to have the military power to get things done. We need the Security Council to reflect *current* geopolitics, not fifty year old ones.

And people need to realize that, hey, talking doesn't always work. Violence *does* solve problems; quite handily. Sometimes, you DO need to take the first shot. Sometimes, the best defense IS a good offence. But, as always, the problem is making the decision of when.

But you know what? Oftentimes, making a bad decision is better than making no decision at all.

When diplomacy doesn't work

[wayward_son]

Bush is right. Sadaam is a threat to American security and world security. He needs to go.

That being said, the administration has almost gone out of their way to offend most of the world. Why would large majorities of the world population outside of the US, Israel, and Kuwait so strongly oppose this war. Why would people seriously say that Bush is worse than Sadaam? The simple answer is that unlike his father in the first Gulf War, George W. Bush has made little to no effort to satisfy world opinion or even attempt to try to be nice to our allies and nations that may possibly help us. Hell, we even offended the Canadians! (Bush publicly snubbed Canada after 9/11 because it was believed that the hijackers came into the US from Canada, even though on that day, Canada helped the US more than any other country. And none of the 9/11 hijackers did enter from Canada.)

The administration's tactic of "join us or you're evil" should go down in history as one of the stupidist diplomatic maneuvers ever. Going to the world community with the attitude of "we're not asking you if we can go to war with Iraq, we're telling you we're going to war with Iraq", also went over like a lead balloon. It also gave an opening to America's "third party" enemies, like the fringe groups financing these violent "peace rallies". If not for the boorish talk of the administration, no one would even give them the time of day.

And this whole "freedom fries" crap is childish. While we might laugh at French failure in 1940, let's remember where the US was then: not fighting Hitler. We watched that one on the sidelines until 1941, much like the French are watching from the sidelines now. Please, give me a break.

However, the fact that the Bush administration has acted like a bunch of jackasses, that doesn't change the fact that they are right. The world, and Iraq will be a much better place without Sadaam.

Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass

Re:As a Russian

[21mhz]

As another Russian, I have to object: we do commit war crimes in Chechnya. "Disappearances" and pillage on the military's behalf didn't cease to this day. And no, we don't know what are we doing there, trying to reestablish order with one hand and making new enemies each day with the other one. Full understanding of consequences is yet to come, and it will be bitter.

While condemning the unjustified war on Iraq, let's not pretend we're on a moral high ground here. It was the Russian incompetent policy that empowered militants in Chechnya. The second Chechen war was not unprovoked or unnecessary, but we are to take the blame as much as the rebels, and our atrocity toll continues to increase.

You can ask the French (our present "allies") what did they get out of their past wars in Algiers, complete with civilian abuse, racism and all that shit we see in Chechnya now. No one will tell you it was honorable.

Minority Report is off the cinemas.

[jotaeleemeese]

You should watch other movies.

Umm. Free French anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love all this stuff about the French surrendering during WWII, when it was the Americans under Roosevelt who recognised the "Vichy" government and stupidly failed to recognised De Gaulles Free French.

As usual, the US fucked up, but don't let that stop you.

They had a choice.

[jotaeleemeese]

Like Mohhamed Ali who refused to go to war.

What really scares me now...

[burbilog]

...is that his war made one thing clear to ANY country: EVERY ONE HAVE TO OWN NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Perod. Before attack on Iraq everyone played game "nuclear is bad". Now everyone will play game "let's copy '50 technologies underground". Theory is widely known and it's not that difficult actually, any coal-fired powerplant could have secret levels with breeder reactor.

Re:umm...france is afraid of everyone...

[missi]

everytime i read this childish anti-france propaganda, i almost laugh my ass off... if somebody has a different opinion on something you should accept it and not start to discredit him!

Aight

[Hew]

Wielding our might
Is now our plight

Through the godgiven right
Of our moral height

A peacebringing flight
Surely welcome sight

Bringing freedom light
To a deserted night

Preemptive in spite
Of the human right

It's not about the oil

[bshroyer]

The US gets less than 10% of its oil from Iraq. Iraq is the seventh largest supplier of oil for US consumption. We get from Iraq as much oil as we currently care to buy. This will likely not change under any change in Iraqi leadership.

If Bush were looking at a cost-benefit analysis, most oil for the military dollar, he'd invade either Mexico or the Alaskan arctic.

History will prove wrong those who posit that this is about oil.

Re:It's not about the oil

[nagora]

You are right in that it's not about oil, but the oil is a handy bonus. What it is about is giving the US a permanent military base in the region that does not have to worry about being kicked out by the local government or ask permission to fly over. The second main reason is simply to establish the point that the US can do what it wants to who it wants when it wants and the UN can't do shit about it.

On the other hand, if oil had nothing to do with it then Afghanistan would have been good enough on both of the main counts.

Try to remember just how important oil is to everyone involved on a personal level: I mean Condoleezza Rice has a tanker named after her! It unlikely that oil will ever have NOTHING to do with what this unelected junta does.

TWW

Re:It's not about the oil

[bshroyer]

Granted: in today's world, where there is oil, there is foreign interest. It simply can't be ignored.

My point is, everyone agrees that Iraq has oil. Right now, we can buy as much of that oil as we want. When the dust clears, we will STILL be able to buy as much oil as we want from Iraq. Our ability to buy oil from Iraq has never been in jeopardy.

It is an interesting dynamic to add to the equation that Iraq is a small, less technologically advanced country with vast wealth underground. Unfortunately, the current authoritarian leadership of the country chooses to utilize that wealth, not to better its own people, but to intimidate and oppress them and their neighboring countries. It is our present government's official position that Iraq has also used that wealth to aid an attack on US soil. This position may never be proven or disproven.

Re:It's not about the oil

[nagora]

It is our present government's official position that Iraq has also used that wealth to aid an attack on US soil. This position may never be proven or disproven.

I think the burden is very clearly on the government to prove it. Since there is zero evidence of it and since Saddam and Bin Laden are know to despise each other (Saddam is an "infidel" according to Bin Laden) it is not enough to just say "well, I don't know; it might be true, and it might not". When the probability of it being true is so small, that's not a reasonable position.

So far the only attempt they've made is to show some "Al-Qaeda" training camps in a patch of desert somewhere in Iraq. Even if that's what they were, given the size and tech-level of Iraq, this is no better than saying that the US government is directly responsible for terrorist attacks on the UK because the IRA has some training camps somewhere in the Montana woods.

TWW

Nice signature.

[Dont tempt me]

>Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice Doggy" until you can find a rock.

You probably didn't intend the paradox, but it contrasted your post quite nicely.

American Isolationism

[Shugart]

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.

Re:Defying the UN

[haggar]

Thanks for an excellently informative post, dude.

nope - went to supreme court awhile back

[clarkc3]

lost 6-3 - women are not eligible to be drafted. You can read about it on the Selective Service homepage in their faq. As for me, I'm counting down the months til 2004 gets here and I am no longer eligible so I don't have to worry about some stupid politician trying to use it as a 'just in case' scenario

Couldn't disagree more ...

[bettiwettiwoo]

So what follows is simply that you can not argument one way or the other with a trade-off argument. It is no justification for any action. Although this has definitely a rather philosphical nature now...

It is not entirely clear to me what you mean by a 'trade-off argument', but it appears you mean that there are arguments both for and against a war. And because of that you draw the conclusion that there is no justification for this war and that this line of argument has now become 'philosophical'. I disagree. In real life clear-cut cases, i.e., cases involving nothing but good things (e.g., no people dying) or cases involving nothing but bad things (e.g. all people dying), are few and far between. That means that in most instances we have to make a choice, not between totally good and totally bad, but (usually and, I would and have argued, in this case) between the bad and the worse/worst and, furthermore, that we have to make that choice without the benefit of that 20/20 vision only history and hindsight confer. In this instance we have to chose between (a) doing nothing in which case people will probably get killed but by Mr Hussein's regime; or (b) doing something in which case people will probably also get killed but by 'us' (or whether that should be 'U.S.') but hopefully fewer of them and for a shorter time. Either way people will be killed. I don't see how that is a justification for non-action. Clearly, non-action has consequences too. And those consequences might actually end up being worse in the terms of number of humans killed.
Again: just because a case isn't clear-cut doesn't mean that a case cannot be made. Just because it is difficult to know where the day ends and the nights begins (as that pesky twilight interferes) doesn't mean that you don't know when it is day and when it just isn't.

Assassination.

[Grendel Drago]

Nonsense, assassination would make too much sense. If assassinating a country's leader became an acceptable mode of aggression and war, these leaders would be much, much more reluctant to "fight" each other. It's one thing to send thousands of your people to die in the trenches; it's another when it's your ass on the line.

Phrased that way, doesn't assassination look like a damned good alternative to war?

--grendel drago

Re:Assassination.

[Gauchito]

Actually, it would probably make life a lot worse for the average Iraqi. A man like Saddam stays in power by having his "lieutenants" share the power in a competitive fashion. That way they work to please the leadership, but can't unite to overthrow him. If you assassinate Hussein, all you do is substitute one single nut with all the guns for several nuts with all the guns who will probably be so busy fighting over themselves they'll care even less about the population than the current government does.

up to the minute news headlines

[mincus]

for all of you IRC junkies. irc.slashnet.org - #newswire

Re:GWB is a tool.

[k-0s]

I agree. GWB at best is a puppet. There are far more sinister forces at play here who are pulling the strings. ALOT of this has to do with big oil and defense companies. The oil companies want to get at the oil, the defense companies want to test new toys, clear out old supply and replenish stocks after the war. My guess is Bush is as clueless about this all as the rest of us.

Just following orders (Re:Waiting)

[zanderredux]

History is written by the winners!!

Lets remember that Germany and Japan do not participate in the UN Security Council and the latter was not allowed to have military until very recently.

grumpy is not trolling

[Midajo]

This statement is on topic, and no more inflammatory than 90% of any given statement posted in a typical Microsoft-oriented thread. How did it get a "troll" label?

You know what you should do,

[thatguywhoiam]

you should make a documentary about your views, or write something, and back it up.

Just saying 'Moore is obviously an idiot' doesn't cut it. Your opinion, sure, that's fine. You gotta back it up. Moore exagerrates a lot of things, but his core facts are sound. Stupid White Men is full of verifiable facts, I've checked them myself (often because they were too incredible to believe).

Re:So, how much...

[errxn]

Sorry, but you're gonna have to provide a more credible source than Cursor.org if you want me to buy into that argument.

No War

[calstars1]

Attacking Iraq and extending our presence in that region will only lead to increased resentment and augment anti-American feeling. It will not eliminate terrorism, it will sow the seeds for more.

Doesn't look like it is working yet...

[cascadefx]

Saddam appeared on iraqi TV to condemn the US, and Iraqi missiles have been fired at Kuwait.

Saddam specifically says the date in the broadcast in order to thumb his nose at the efforts.

Reminds me of Tenacious D's SNL news commentary song... "We're just stirring up one big hornet's nest."

Re:So, how much...

[EllisDees]

Well, it's not strictly about the oil. More about what currency is used to pay for the oil.

"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)

"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."

You see, the United states cannot allow the oil economy to be based upon anything but the US dollar. To do so would mean that the government could no longer operate with such an astounding defecit (almost 40% of the annual GDP). The United States would go bankrupt if this happened.

It's About Peace

[bayers]

60% of the population in Iraq and the surrounding countries is under 20 years of age. Tom Friedman says they want freedom and prospects.

The US will bring freedom and properity to Iraq and from Iraq, it will spread to the surrounding countries.

Freedom and prosperity will dry up the pool of canidates that the fundamentalists draw from.

Try to fend off cynicism. Cynicism is a poison. At least give your nation the benefit of the doubt.

Re:So, how much...

[stuntpope]

But a point you and many people miss is this: to the war protesters, the actual Iraqi casualties of Saddam are viewed as less important than the potential Iraqi casualties of US action. How come a dead Iraqi only creates a stir if a US bomb did the deed? Where were the human shields for Iraqis tortured and murdered by the Iraqi "security" forces?

Mod 5+ to parent

[theolein]

Thanks for a human view in this inhuman war.

Karma Burn

[SubtleNuance]

American Bombing campaigns since WWII:

Korea 1950-53

China 1950-53

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Guatemala 1960

Congo 1964

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1980s

Nicaragua 1980s

Panama 1989

Iraq 1991-99

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia 1999

Iraq 2003-????

Does anyone have any omissions? Does anyone have a similar list that dates to the Founding of The USA? Any "non-bombing" missions?

One further note, to Non-Americans: Im Canadian, I live on the border, I can tell you without a doubt that Americans* are COMPLETELY out of control. They are myopic and ignorant. Watching CNN is about 1% of what its like in the street. These people *REALLY* believe that it is their RIGHT to do this, that they are special in the world, that opposition is manafest 'jealousy' - they BELIEVE this tripe about "terrorists hating their Freedom"... its like a bad, surreal movie.

Like Nazi Germnay before the invasion of Poland, Americans* are completely and absolutely drunk with Nationalism, Jingoism and Arrogance (its amazing) to the point that Im scared (literally) for the future of Canada and the world. This Iraq effort is the natural progression of American Empire, of 250 years of American history.

If Iraq manages a retalitory strike on American Soil, they are going to start WWIII (nuke Iraq off the planet - the citizens will be all for it).

An interesting Notice to Americans: Listen to this PLEASE and THINK ABOUT IT.

*That I work with, that my wife works with and that Ive spoken to. Im not generalizing - i live in Windsor - this is the most busy border in NorthAmerica, the two cities literally live together.

Re:Karma Burn

[raind]

Hey Canuck dude - I live on the other side of the river. I love Windsor but rarely get to visit cause it's such a hassle doing the border crossing deal.

But listen to the clue bird will ya? Most people I know are against this war - however most people feel powerless to stop it, which we are. All the protesting in the world couldn't stop it did it? Were just like everyone else eh?

Re:Karma Burn

[SubtleNuance]

please do us a favour, dont cower to the hawks amoung you and try and shake up your electoral system. a very powerfull plutocracy has settled into america - it will be the ruin of us all.

and thanks for the message from reality - i can get not a little carried away sometimes... :) Peace.

Re:Karma Burn

[stefanlasiewski]

I live on the border, I can tell you without a doubt that Americans* are COMPLETELY out of control. They are myopic and ignorant. Watching CNN is about 1% of what its like in the street.

Gee whiz, you live on the border and that makes you an expert?

CNN isn't an accurate representation of America. CNN has a financial interest in covering the exciting parts of the war. Conflict sells commercials. CNN made itself famous during it's coverage of Gulf War I.

Before you sterotype, I can think of over a hundred personal associates who are opposed to this war, and only a few who are for the war.

So geeze, don't go over the edge there. You have allies here, in the very same country that's bombing Iraq right now...

Re:Karma Burn

[horza]

[snip list of bombings]

I don't get it. What was your point?

Im Canadian, I live on the border, I can tell you without a doubt that Americans* are COMPLETELY out of control. They are myopic and ignorant. Watching CNN is about 1% of what its like in the street. These people *REALLY* believe that it is their RIGHT to do this, that they are special in the world, that opposition is manafest 'jealousy' - they BELIEVE this tripe about "terrorists hating their Freedom"... its like a bad, surreal movie.

Wow, that's one big chip on your shoulder. They believe it's their right to do it? Er well yes. The UN resolution 1441 gave them the legal right. They can consider themselves a bit special... they've worked/manipulated themselves into the most powerful nation on the planet. There IS a lot of jealousy and resentment against this, just look at the French. And I can well see terrorists who aim to draw us all under a yoke like the Taliban regime could be interpreted by Americans as 'hating their Freedom'.

If Iraq manages a retalitory strike on American Soil, they are going to start WWIII (nuke Iraq off the planet - the citizens will be all for it).

Uh-huh, they are going to nuke a country in which they have 250,000 troops? You seriously need to take a cold shower.

Phillip.

Re:Karma Burn

[localghost]

Conflict sells commercials.

I'm confused about this. Yeah, it's great for CNN, I know that, but why did FOX cancel all their shows, and just run the news? They weren't running commercials. Now I know they're not doing this just to keep the public informed, so what's their motivation for running news with no commercials? I don't get it. There's got to be something.

I can think of over a hundred personal associates who are opposed to this war, and only a few who are for the war.

Let me try to guess a few things about you. You're middle class. Your "personal associates" are mostly middle class. You have little contact with the lower class. Non of your friends are on welfare, or have career aspirations of being the manager of their local McDonalds. Your demographic does not represent the average American citizen.

According to all the polls I've seen, even those put out by liberals, the majority of the US is for the war. (At least the majority of those that have an opinion one way or the other) You and your friends think for themselves. Most Americans let their TV do the thinking for them. I would venture to guess that our Canadian friend is fairly accurate in his stereotype.

And for the record, I'm opposed to the war.

Re:GWB is a tool.

[nottoughguy]

At least he doesn't torture and murder people for being SUSPECTED of organizing a 'subversive' intellectual freedon rally. Have you ever had a relative or friend tortured to death? Have you ever had a friend return home to Iraq only months later learn from his mother that he was tried and murdered for being a deserter. I doubt it. It is easy for people to sit safely in their cubicles and talk about how war is bad because people will die and there currently is peace because they don't see anybody dying. Peace is not letting somone get away with whatever they want just to keep thing quiet. Bash Bush with your ignorance if you will, but don't do it with the face of speaking for the meager and speechless. FYI - The French have been selling the Iraqis ILLEGAL surplus mirage and mig parts via China for the past 10 years. They are the ones with a contract for Iraq's oil after the embargo is lifted. They aren't speaking for a moral standard, they are speaking for their own selfish reasons and trying to make it look like they are the good guys.

Re:So, how much...

[errxn]

Like I had to tell someone else, find a more credible source. Indymedia is no more credible than Znet or Cursor or Newsmax.

You are all seriously uninformed!

[wrero]

Almost everyone posting here is naïve. You are pro-war, anti-war, anti-Bush, whatever - and you go on to state your reasons why your opinion is just. Many of the readers and posters here know that a good percentage of the other posters are really just spouting their ignorance - claiming "facts" that are easily countered.

Unfortunately, I am posting to suggest that every single one of you (myself included) is grossly uninformed and ignorant of the facts.

Someone posted that Blair is "hiding something". Well I'm sure he is. As is Bush, as is Saddam, as are the French and Germans.

No one has shown their cards, and we won't even see them in the history books.

Time will *not* tell. History is written by the winners, and although Bush may in fact write on this topic at some point in the future, he's sure to not share everything he knows, and certainly he cannot share what HE doesn't know.

We don't have all the facts, we will never have all the facts, and to suggest that any one of us has even a fraction of the TRUTH is extraordinarily naïve.

Face it, we have NO idea why Bush is doing what he's doing, nor why any of the leaders of the other countries have taken their positions pro or anti war.

Did Bush make this decision based on greed? oil? power? religious fanaticism? ideals? all of the above?

How about France? Are they anti-war because Iraq owes them money? Does Iraq in fact owe them anything? Again, is it greed? oil? power? public opinion? their ideals? Could it be that they are just Anti-Bush or Anti-American? Are they snobs? Or are their reasons that they simply thing that war is a BAD THING?

Again, time will NOT tell all, we will never have all the facts. TRUTH is an evasive thing, the more we learn (if in fact we listen and try to learn - many of us with our distorted facts don't bother to try) the more we realize we have NO CLUE what is going on.

I am not trying to suggest a big conspiracy. It is my BELIEF that everyone is honestly doing what they think is the RIGHT THING TO DO (including Bush, Blair, Chirac, and Hussein).

It is my naïve opinion that Saddam is a bad person. Who knows for sure? What are MY sources? Public media, history books, fourth-hand related accounts, and other naïve, uninformed individuals. Please tell me how any of my sources are not biased, uninformed, and/or inaccurate accounts? Are the sources of your "FACTS" any different?

Re:You are all seriously uninformed!

[swordgeek]

Very true, but read this article. It will add a few clues to the pot:

Who's really behind Bush

Re:You are all seriously uninformed!

[Trolling4Dollars]

Applause! This is THE ONLY reasonable post I've seen amongst these comments. The major point is that EVERYONE has an agenda and they are all trying to push it. Bush does, Saddam does, Chirac does, etc... This is something that gets lost in all the polarization that takes place in This vs. That arguments. The war and the motives behind it on all sides are no exception. Someone PLEASE mod the parent up!!!!

Re:So, how much...

[EllisDees]

Are you going to argue any of the points raised or just shoot the messenger?

Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day.

A bit OT, but hilarious

[transient]

This is slightly off-topic, but too funny not to post: http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=382 8

Re:So, how much...

[errxn]

Yeah, I'm sure we just "bought off" Australia, Britain, Japan, Poland, and Spain.

As for opposing countries, you can start with France, Germany, and Russia, all of which are more concerned about their own interests in Iraq....

Amen to that

[BCGlorfindel]

Try comparing CNN's coverage to that on bbc/cbc and you start noticing some pretty important and frequent ommissions.

Re:So, how much...

[errxn]

OK, how about I go dig you up some stuff from FreeRepublic or Newsmax or RushLimbaugh.com or whatever? Are you going to give it the time of day? I wouldn't, if I were you.

An even MORE ominous threat......

[Brown Eggs]

Anyone else feel that the scariest thing about last nights attack is that the last 10 minutes of Angel got preempted?

Sorry, just using humor as a defense mechanism. :)

Will the real Saddam please appear on Iraqi tv?

[aduthie]

Saddam appeared on iraqi TV to condemn the US, and Iraqi missiles have been fired at Kuwait.

Am I the only person who thinks the guy who showed up on Iraqi tv was one of Saddam's many doubles? I listened to an NPR reporter make several notes about how Saddam didn't look well, he's usually dapper but wore glasses, he didn't talk as long as usual, etc. -- Yet she made no suggestion that the guy was just one of Saddam's doubles! Oy. I saw one photo of "his" announcement and figured him for a double.

(This is not to say I think he's already dead, but could we please have a small dose of skepticism?)

Re:Will the real Saddam please appear on Iraqi tv?

[xutopia]

Last time I saw Bush on tv I asked myself the same question. You know the US media really takes you for a fool and something tells me they might be right!!

Canadian Apology to America

[BCGlorfindel]

Having seen a few criticisms from American officials regarding other nation's opposition to the war, I was reminded of a few word's Rick Mercer had to say on 'This hour has 22 minutes'. I present this not to criticize America, but in hopes of lightening the mood a little:

On behalf of Canadians everywhere I'd like to offer an apology to the United States of America. We haven't been getting along very well recently and for that, I am truly sorry.

I'm sorry we called George Bush a moron. He is a moron but, it wasn't nice of us to point it out. If it's any consolation, the fact that he's a moron shouldn't reflect poorly on the people of America. After all it's not like you actually elected him.

I'm sorry about our softwood lumber. Just because we have more trees than you doesn't give us the right to sell you lumber that's cheaper and better than your own.

I'm sorry we beat you in Olympic hockey. In our defense I guess our excuse would be that our team was much, much, much, much better than yours.

I'm sorry we burnt down your White House during the War of 1812. I notice you've rebuilt it! It's very nice. I'm sorry about your beer. I know we had nothing to do with your beer but, we feel your pain.

I'm sorry about our waffling on Iraq. I mean, when you're going up against a crazed dictator, you wanna have your friends by your side. I realize it took more than two years before you guys pitched in against Hitler, but that was different. Everyone knew he had weapons.

And finally on behalf of all Canadians, I'm sorry that we're constantly apologizing for things in a passive-aggressive way which is really a thinly veiled criticism. I sincerely hope that you're not upset over this - We've seen what you do to countries you get upset with.

Thank you.

Re:Canadian Apology to America

[raind]

Payback - I'm sorry your hockey teams suck; The wings rock. :)

One word: Anthrax

[gosand]

Our disarmament continues to this day. US biological programs were halted in, I believe, the early 70s, and all materials destroyed. Chemicals we don't have, as per the various laws of war banning them.

Isn't Anthrax biological?

Re:"I don't hate the war, just GWB" says it all

[SatanicPuppy]

Liberal? I would have voted for McCain in a second, just because he had a brain and a spine, unlike either of the other two idiots. And this crap where a father and son both become president is foul. I thought this was a democracy?

If there was no one better we could have chosen, then this country is in sorry shape.

Breaking News

[aliens]

Humans are nasty little beasties that continue to kill and hurt each other after hundreds of years of so called civil society. Major religions denounce killings, but they do it anyway.

Alien civilization from Alpha centauri gets fed up with what they think are war reruns and destroy Earth with a long range planet buster. No one sees it coming.

Starting Wars -- WAS Re:prayers

[JBhoy]

"Well, there is a huge difference between ending a war and starting one. This is what separates justified and unjustified military action."

You are forgetting, of course, that we were not at war with Serbia over Kosovo, and that Kosovo is part of Serbia. Nonetheless, we launched a war to prevent the genocide there. We were not personally threatened in any way, nor had the Serbians attacked us.

Nor was our entry into WWII a simple matter of 'ending a war'. You need to read history a little more closely. FDR led us into war one step at a time, acting in ways that clearly violated our supposed neutrality, and the embargo on oil exports to Japan that was the catalyst for the Japanese attack is traditionally considered a form of warfare. It certainly was at the time. The Japanese insisted that we provoked the war. We won the war in the end, and we were right to fight it, but it is naive to suggest that the U.S. played no role in starting the war between the U.S. and Japan.

Not such a huge difference after all, is there?

Re:Not consensus of the world

[quitcherbitchen]

Actually that could have happened, but with France's guaranteed veto that green light would never have been lit. 1441 revealed the security council's opinion and thoughts on Iraq. The failure of diplomacy revealed the inadequacies of the council to solve problems of global imporatance.

Iraq Or N.K. .......

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see which country is more dangerous to USA.

IRAQ - N.K. ( North Korea)

Weapon of mass Destruction - N.K

Missle that can reach USA - N.K.

Nuclear Weapon - N.K.

Kick the weapon inspector OUT! - N.K.

OIL!!!!!! - IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!

it just seem NK is more threats to USA than Iraq in my opinion. However I don't mind getting gas at $1 instead of $2.30 per gallon.

thank you aol,msnbc,cnn

[tsoquark]

thank you aol, msnbc, cnn. I love the one-sided reporting and the sensationalized reporting ala wow war is cool! watch this shit! we got the juice on the ass-whomping. never mind we've never bothered with alternate viewpoints or dissent. we want the shit on the gist. hizzle pa chizzle. thank you aol,msnbc,cnn

Re:soiled prayers

[batquux]

I believe Pearl Harbor counts as our soil.

A little bit of a rant...

[Trolling4Dollars]

You can choose to ignore this if you want, but I need to say it: What really repulses me about the way we treat war after "Desert Storm" is that they are almost trying to make it into a Reality TV experience now. It's a fucking travesty. News and information about it is one thing, but is a play by play really necessary? I am certain that we now have armchair generals saying how they would have done things differently. The only things missing are half-time and the expensive ads. I'm sure the ads aren't too far down the road though... OK. End of my rant.

Re:A little bit of a rant...

[TracerJPN_USMC]

I agree with some of what you have to say.. on the other hand I like to be informed in real time. As my name hints, I am a Marine and I have many many friends over there, and at home i stay glued to the news listening to reporters embedded in my buddies units and hearing what they are doing. I just wish I could go join then, but if my MEF left there would be no one left to keep N korea in check...

Where were all you protesters...

[BroFrog]

When Clinton was bombing Bosnia... Eveyone just pretended nothing was happening!!!

Re:Defying the UN

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Article 39:

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 41:

The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures.

Article 42:

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 48:

The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

Article 51:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Resolution 678:

The Security Council... Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter... Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.

Re:Hm....

[raduga]

Moderator, you have no sense of history!

To sum up

[Paslophunk]

This sucks.

Re:So, how much...

[EllisDees]

I would consider it based on the merits of the article, not where it originated.

It is a fact that Iraq switched to the Euro in 2000. It is also a fact that the dollar derives a great deal of its value because it is the de facto world oil currency. Is this particular reason for war any more outlandish than the administration's claims about Iraq's weapons or ties to Al Qaeda?

Quotes about the War

[cascadefx]

"You're not just dealing with bunker-buster bombs, you have guns that can take out an individual 17 miles away, and that kind of capability is going to have a profound impact on the development of the world."

REP. CHRIS CANNON
Utah Republican

Does the use of the word development in conjuction with guns scare the shit out of anybody else here?

Taken from this.

Re:GWB is a tool.

[murtix]

Dont forget the GErmany. They are in a similar deal with Iraq also. And also Russians. America hits Iraq, kills Saddam, and their deals will be off. Thats why they are crying. Otherwise, you think the afghan anc Chechen murderer Russians, would care about Iraq, or The biggest terror supporter country Frech would care about Iraq ? Dont think so... It is always the money ...

Re:Support our troops. SHUT UP!

[quax]

What possible ways out of service do exist for a American soldier who feels that the orders he was given are morally wrong?

Personal attacks are wrong, but I need to rant...

[caveat]

FUCK YOU TY. fuck you and the horse you rode in on, up and down the street, with a gigantic spiked dildo, in ways that would make the most twisted members of NAMBLA cringe.

It's people like you that give anti-war protesters a bad name, by blaming the soldiers for the actions of the leaders. No, the troops aren't entirely blameless, but as long as they fight fairly (unlike, say, My Lai), it's just outright mean-spirited and unfair to accuse them of being as bad as their commanders. Of course, I doubt you'll even comprehend this; you seem to be of the mindset that "anybody who joins the Army voluntarily is obviously gung-ho about supporting American oligarchical interests throughout the world and is automatically bad;" I expect you'll be near the front of the line to spit on the boys when they come back, just like the fuckwads did to my dad after 'Nam. Hell, even the US news sources that have been interviewing the troops are getting some interesting results - a young Lt. (West Point 02 - how's that for a post-graduation job?) was asked if he was "psyched" to roll, and after a few second pause, said "i'm...READY to go." And of course the reporter tore into him, "what was that hesitation? are you not excited that things are getting underway"..."Pause, sir? I said I was ready to do what's needed of me." They don't seem screamingly gung-ho for war, but their job is not to question. Yep, "i was only doinng my duty" has been used to cover many many atrocities in history, but I don't think we're going in to commit genocide or some other real atrocities.

What offends me so much about people like you is that you're crossing the line between disliking the government, and disliking your country. To those who have reasonable objections to military action, while wishing safety on our soliders, I say good job, keep it up, fight the power. To people like you, who seem hellbent on labeling every last individual with any tiny contact with this affair a war criminal, I say you don't deserve that navy blue passport. Your brother and many before him have willingly risked their lives to ensure that you have the freedom to accuse them of being criminals against humantity (not that this particular action is needed, at least for that), and you seem to almost want to see him shot. All I have left to say is that's really sad man, when you let your blood tie to who should be one of the most important people in the world to you be tainted and even spoiled by your petty political views. Asshole.

U.S. can "throw U.N. in the dustbin?"

[srowen]

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.

Re:Boys that fight for men

[xutopia]

yo aussi boy. Truth is not on Big Brother's TV!

Re:GWB is a tool.

[syd02]

This has almost nothing to do with Iraq. Yes it's about oil, but it's about more than that. It's about maintaining US hegemony. For years people have talked about "regime change" (installing a puppet) in Iraq. But even before that they were talking about what might happen when China becomes an economic powerhouse.

People in the US (and Britain) don't like the idea of a future Earth where English is second to Mandarin. The aggressive game plan is to get a lock on the Earth's natural resources that will require China to play friendly with English speaking Westerners so that we have some degree of control over their economic growth.

This perspective also helps us understand why "North Korea cannot go nuclear". It may even explain why we'll probably never see a decent solar panel on the market until it's engineered and mass-produced in China.

BTW, I don't support this war. I'm not afraid of China. I'm not afraid to deal with demography.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[festers]

Hey dumbass, ever hear of something called ROTC? They promised to serve 4 years. They served 4 years. They held up their end of the agreement, now it's time the Army stuck to theirs. If the Army is so "filled with people who want to be there," why are they preventing people from leaving?

Just wondering...

[RobinH]

In fact it points out the wonder of living in a free state and though it is itself an exercise in hypocrisy should be cherished as an example of such.

I'm just wondering: How does invading Iraq create freedom or liberty in the United States?

For that matter, how does invading Iraq prove that the United States can be trusted by the rest of the world? I think this war will sway world opinion against the U.S. for the next 50 years.

Re:Just wondering...

[foniksonik]

Invading then liberating Iraq creates freedom and liberty for the people of Iraq, thereby opening up a new group for US citizens to trade openly and freely with in materials, resources, ideas, politics and culture. Freedom and liberty within the US has and will be gauranteed for all time, it is the freedom to be a world citizen with open and fair access to and from all communities in the world which is at stake here.

Have you seen any of the documentaries on Iraq during the Saddam regime? There is no free flow of any thing Saddam has not approved. Nothing.

The United States should not need to prove itself to the world any more! Have we not already proven that we will stand by right? All policies of all administrations have not worked. Not all decisions are correct. People make mistakes. However overall the United States has moved consistencly in the direction of greatest benefit to the most people in the world and will continue to do so for the future... that is the nature of a democracy a republic or whatever political body you'd like to call it that the United States exemplifies in it's body of standards, laws and ethics.

The rest of the world has been in a state of economic, cultural and political chaos for the last twenty years. The breakup of the Soviet Union, the formation of the European Union, the westernization of the east, the rise of capitalism all over.... can you not see the upheaval this would create? People have had soooo much change in sooo little time that they can not imagine the added chaos of war, the added upheaval of their lives. Add to that a new global communications grid, global economy, the beginnings of a global culture. People are in doubt of the future and what it may hold, with good reason. People don't want any more change. They want 'peace' and 'stability' those two very ambiguous and relative states of being which no one has ever realized and will not recognize when they have achieved them.

This war won't be remembered in 20 years much less 50. What will be remembered is the revival of the Iraqi Persian culture and the advent of Iraqi economic independence from the state... Iraqi business initiatives in the global economy, Iraqi contributions to the global scientific community, etc.

true...

[Stalcair]

as someone pointed out before that in 1918 we fought to bring about democracy to the world... yet it also empowered the Nazi's, the Chinese and the Soviets.

The thing is, how could it have been done better? In order to learn you have to ask that, but yet even in hindsight it is hard to really get a clear and consistent answer. One that is not trumped by other more probable events from the change of action. Great sci-fi fodder, but it is still the ol' chain of consequences like the single flipping of a coin causing 1 million people to die later on. (btw, if a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a hurricane then some of my flatulence has GOT to have caused some of the big solar flares last solar max :)

Yes, I am kidding... don't over analyze this please.

How about Hebrew, the language it was written in:

[TheOneEyedMan]

...we read the sixth commandment, "lo tirtzach - You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13) The King James' translation of this command is "Thou shall not kill." But in Hebrew there is a different word for "kill." It's harog, not the term ratzach used in the imperative of this commandment. "Ratzach" always refers to the intentional manslaughter of an innocent man "Horeg" refers to one who kills (whether by accident or intent). Source 1 Source 2

Re:So, how much...

[errxn]

Ok, fine, I won't dispute that Iraq switched to the Euro. I don't know it to be true, but neither do I know it to be false. I'll assume, for the sake of argument, that it is true. It still leaves quite a few holes in the following, taken directly from your previous post:

"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."

Where is the hard evidence to back this "real reason" up? I even went back and read the article just to make sure I didn't miss something. There was little in the way of facts, and much in the way of speculation, unwillingness to name sources, and accusation. Not to mention the obvious anti-Bush leftist slant...always good for the ol' credibility.

Of course, the "real story" is "being supressed" by the government and the media, so we have to take W. Clark's word for it. Ahh, the good old "they don't want you to know" tactic. Go over to newsmax.com and you'll see them pulling the same routine. And yes, I'm trying to act in the interest of fairness. Even though I do lean moderately conservative (maybe more libertarian, actually), I do believe that a large portion of what Newsmax puts out is contrived garbage.

That being said, I considered this article, as you suggested, based on the merits of the article, and found those merits to be severely lacking. I'm also unclear as to how being a healthcare manager at a "well-known east coast university" gives W. Clark inside access to the Bush administration's foreign policy initiatives.

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Uhm, what about Raed?

[fbg111]

Here's a blog updated daily by an Iraqi living in Baghdad. The UN must have made an exception for him, right?

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/

about that bottle...

[Stalcair]

does Anthrax mix well with Jack Daniels?

Re:How about Hebrew, the language it was written i

[TKinias]

scripsit TheOneEyedMan:

But in Hebrew there is a different word for "kill."

Thanks for posting. As I said, I don't read Hebrew so that wasn't an option open to me. It would appear then that the confusion may come from the Vulgate; KJV is, AFAIK, based on the Vulgate and not the Hebrew text, so it would perpetuate any error in the Vulgate.

You're missing the point completely.

[caveat]

People who volunteered to be in an army should face the consequences when their commanders think they should start playing cowboys and indians in some desert. Why should I support those people?

I'm sure a significant percentage signed on pre-9/11; they didn't expect this, and they are facing the consequences of their commanders' actions, but that doesn't mean they should bear the blame.

Now, tell me, why should I support these 'freedom fighters' in killing innocent people?

Because you aren't being asked to suppport them in killing civilians; you're being asked for support by showing some sympathy for them, the pawns in this game, and demanding an immedate end to hostilities and their safe withdrawal.

Re:1812

[frank249]

- In the war of 1812, started by America, Canadians pushed the Americans back...past their 'White House'. Then we burned it...and most of Washington, under the command of William Lyon McKenzie who was insane and hammered all the time. We got bored because they ran away, so we came home and partied...Go figure..

Some of the other things Canadians can be proud of:

- Canada has the largest French population that never surrendered to
Germany.
- We have the largest English population that never ever surrendered or withdrew during any war to anyone, anywhere.
- Our civil war was a bar fight that lasted a little over an hour.
- The only person who was arrested in our civil war was an American mercenary, who slept in and missed the whole thing... but showed up just in time to get caught.
- We knew plaid was cool far before Seattle caught on.
- The Hudsons Bay Company once owned over 10% of the earth's surface and is still around as the world ' s oldest company.
- The average dog sled team can kill and devour a full grown human in under 3 minutes.
- We still know what to do with all the parts of a buffalo.
- We don't marry our kin-folk.
- We invented ski-doos, jet-skis, velcro, zippers, insulin, penicillin, zambonis, the telephone and short wave radios that save countless lives each year.
- We ALL have frozen our tongues to something metal and lived to tell about it.
- - A Canadian invented Superman.
- Smarties
- Crispy Crunch, Coffee Crisp
- The size of our footballs fields and one less down
- Baseball is Canadian
- Lacrosse is Canadian
- Hockey is Canadian
- Basketball is Canadian
- Apple pie is Canadian
- Mr. Dress-up kicks Mr. Rogers ass
- Tim Hortons kicks Dunkin' Donuts ass
. The handles on our beer cases are big enough to fit your hands with mitts on.
Oh yeah... and our elections only take one day.

Re:"I don't hate the war, just GWB" says it all

[quax]

How much I wish McCain would have made the race. A shame really.

certainly

[RelliK]

"Who the fuck do you think provided the chemical and biological weapons to Iraq? Why, it was the good old US of A!"

Care to give any proof of that statement?

link
link

Acording to SIPRI (http://www.sipri.se/) the number one arms supply for Iraq from 1973 to 1990 has been the Soviet Union for $25 billion worth of arms, followed by France and China at $5 billion each.

OK, I'll clue you in, just in case you've been living under a rock for the past year. We are not talking about conventional weapons (guns, tanks, helicopters, etc.). The whole disarmament thing was about chemical and biological weapons, which is what US happily supplied Iraq with.

Re:So, how much...

[majestyk2000]

...astounding defecit (almost 40% of the annual GDP).

Of course you don't mean this. The US GDP is something like ten trillion dollars a year. That would mean our DEFICIT was four trillion a year. It is arguable that it'll even be 400 billion this year (probably not), so you're rather talking about 2-4% of GDP. Don't get me wrong, the sort of deficits Bush is envisioning are obscene, but they sure aren't a large portion of our GDP.

Re:1812

[nitemayr]

You may want to know this (For those of you in 'Soviet Canuckistan' ) that Smarties as we know them are not Smarties here on the West Coast of the US of A. Here, Smarties are those nasty rolls of sugar pills we call Rockets in Canada; you know, those candies some of the bright sparks would crush and snort, or mix with pop? They are not candy coated chocolate. I really miss real smarties, please send some, today.

The reason that people in the region hate America

[BasilBibi]

is because US foreign policy is so inconsistent.

On the one hand Bush condems WMDs and says that Hussein has to go because he is in violation of UN resolutions calling for his disarmament

but on the other hand

Bush does nothing about the UN resolutions that Isreal is in violation of and they sell Isreal WMDs...

How would you feel as a citizen of this regions countries at the news today (on the day of the "war") that Bush is giving Isreal ANOTHER US$ 10 Billion to bolster up their failing economy (ie buy more military products) ???

I sometimes suspect that these things happen to deliberately provoke a reaction so that the US can 'justify' overwhelming retaliation.

When will the US taxpayers wake up and realise that their money is being spent proping up represive regimes and formenting hatred, death and terror for the sake of a few infulential industrialists who have a stake in one country in the region? And that their taxes are being used to promote the very thing they smilingly claim they're fighting?

Live by the sword, die by the sword ...

And they don't want democracy so this will be bad

[egarland]

People in that part of the world think that the US is just out to make itself more wealthy at their expense. They see our support of Israel, a country that is doing some truely horiffic things, and they can't believe that we are trying to do what is good and right.

As a US citizen, I'm a lot more afraid for my safety now than I have ever been.

Even if everything goes perfectly during the war and post-war reconstruction (which it won't) the aftermath will be bad. The effects of this will be much larger than Iraq. We are doing something that the rest of the world asked us not to do. Never mind that it probably is the right thing to do, we were asked not to and we went ahead and did it because *we* wanted to. The US has shown the world that we don't care what they think, we'll can and will use our power however we like in order to stop people *we* think are evil. If I lived in another country I would be scared of the US and very pissed off.

I hope people realize that this is George W. Bush's bad choice, not all of America's. I'm embarrased that we elected him. The American people can no longer be trusted to only elect people who are qualified to be the "leader of the free world." By placing this horrible person in control of our military we've shown the rest of the world that they have to protect themselves from us. How will they do it?

I can't imagine people in the middle east would trust any government we setup or trust us for that matter unless we stop supporting Israel. Those bastards killed a girl with a bulldozer just this week, an American college student who was over there protesting. They repeatedly use their military against people who have no military of their own to defend themselves and seem to care little that they kill innocent people in the process. I know they got rounded up, tortured and killed in WW2 but that doesn't give them the right to do it to someone else. I believe it's this fundamental wrong which is fueling much of the anti-american sentiment in the middle east and we needed to end it before we did something stupid like invading Iraq.

Re:Defying the UN

[Twirlip of the Mists]

It does NOT logically or legally follow that the "Alliance" may take it upon it self at any time to act without the sanction of the UN.

You're mistaken in a small way and a big way.

The small way is this: the United Nations does not have an exclusive license to wage war. In point of fact, the Security Council has only authorized military action twice in all history: in 1950 the Council authorized what was to become the Korean War, and in 1990 the council passed 678 to authorize the forceable ejection of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. In fact, we only got an UNSEC resolution in 1950 because of a quirk of fate: the Soviet foreign minister wasn't in the room, and wasn't given an opportunity to veto, which was their declared intention. Kind of a cheat, but that's the stuff that history is made of.

But there's a bigger way in which you're mistaken: the Security Council has already provided explicit authorization for all members of the Security Council to use force. Resolution 678 says:

The Security Council... Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.

(You can read the whole thing yourself by typing "687" into Google and clicking "I feel lucky." The first hit is this link.)

The resolution authorizes the use of force to "restore international peace and security." UNSEC has agreed, on numerous occasions, that the area has not been restored to peace and security; Iraq was most recently declared, in November, to be in material breach of its obligations, and a criterion was established by which to measure Iraq's immediate cooperation. Iraq did not meet that criterion: the declaration they submitted on December 7 was neither complete nor accurate. The authorization still stands, and has never been rescinded. Not only has it never been rescinded; nobody's even suggested that it should be rescinded.

The logical and legal authority for this war is crystal clear.

Re:So, how much...

[EllisDees]

Where is the hard evidence to back this "real reason" up? I even went back and read the article just to make sure I didn't miss something. There was little in the way of facts, and much in the way of speculation, unwillingness to name sources, and accusation. Not to mention the obvious anti-Bush leftist slant...always good for the ol' credibility.

What kind of hard evidence would you like? I doubt Bush or his advisors are exactly posting their thoughts on the oil economy switching to the Euro on usenet, so we have to infer their strategies from their actions. Before I read this particular piece, I was truly baffled by the concept of going to war with Iraq again. There are certainly more dangerous regimes around the world (N. Korea for example - who both are actively developing nukes and were just recently caught shipping missiles to the middle east) who are more likely to either attack us directly or give their weapons to terrorists. I mean, Saddam didn't even use those chemical weapons against us in the first gulf war, and there was no question about him having them then. From all appearances, Iraq has grudgingly complied with everything the UN has asked of them. From allowing the searching of 'presdiential palaces' to the destruction of those missiles. It just seems like the Bush administration wanted this war regardless of what Iraq did. So what *has* Iraq done recently that could threaten the US in any way? Nothing that I can see besides threatening the strength of the dollar.

Of course, the "real story" is "being supressed" by the government and the media, so we have to take W. Clark's word for it. Ahh, the good old "they don't want you to know" tactic.

If you watch any international news, you will see that there are many, many stories that are either not reported at all or are spun to put the US in the best possible light by our media. How much have you heard about the bugging of the security council's offices by the CIA in the US news? How much has been said about the size of the protests around the world?

Go over to newsmax.com [newsmax.com] and you'll see them pulling the same routine.

Actually, I do read both Newsmax and Worldnetdaily pretty regularly too. Most of what they write is crap, but some truth does manage to sneak through once in a while.

And yes, I'm trying to act in the interest of fairness. Even though I do lean moderately conservative (maybe more libertarian, actually), I do believe that a large portion of what Newsmax puts out is contrived garbage.

I'm almost a textbook libertarian. I think it frees us from being blinded by the 'team thought' that infects the two big parties in the US.

That being said, I considered this article, as you suggested, based on the merits of the article, and found those merits to be severely lacking.

For instance?

Yes, the article is slanted left, but the author isn't just pulling his facts out of thin air.

I'm also unclear as to how being a healthcare manager at a "well-known east coast university" gives W. Clark inside access to the Bush administration's foreign policy initiatives.

Does being in healthcare somehow keep one from writing a well-documented article?

Don't make the same mistake twice

[bigmattana]

Umm, I'm not sure if our leaders knew about these atrocities back then or not, but just because our previous leaders made mistakes doesn't mean our current leader has to follow suit. If presidents thought like this, we would still have slavery in this country.

Re:Don't make the same mistake twice

[slashmenno]

You mean you don't have slavery anymore? Wow! Well, at least you still have the death penalty!

democracy

[crizh]

'we're not going to give up support of the only true democracy in the region, Israel.'

"Arab rejection was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be [only half] Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body - a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least...The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Quoted from here

Israel? Democracy? ROFLMFAO!

If you are an Muslim Israel must be the least democratic place on the entire fu*king planet to live.

Re:So, how much...

[EllisDees]

Ack! I always do that and have to smack myself afterwards.

I meant the national debt, which is at $6.5 trillion right now.

Quality of Coverage

[mgb]

Watching SKY news earlier I noted that by 14:00 GMT that Iraq had fired max 4 missles into Kuwait. The allies had fired better than 40 into Iraq.

1 person had been reported killed in Iraq with some more injured. Nobody had been reported killed in Kuwait.

So thats a US:Iraq ratio of better than 10 to 1 in ordinance delivered and subsequent casualties. From SKY you would be led to believe the opposite happened. I assume CNN was the same.

I wonder if SKY/CNN/FOX etc whoever were to give equal coverage to every missle and every casualty and every threat, no matter the side, what would puclic opinion would be then. At least it would be informed.

Likewise; right now the Iraqis are being accused of igniting oil wells near Basra. Is a more likely explanation for the fires is that the allies are throwing tons of explosives around the area? But you won't see that on network news!

mgb

Re:Quality of Coverage

[TracerJPN_USMC]

our missles aren't 'lobbed' into iraq, we have precise guidance systems placing out weapons onto specific sections of buildings. Iraq on the other hand, has very low tech gear, and general just lobs their missles in the general direction of US troops or kuwait.

Re:GWB is a tool.

[QuickSilver_999]

Uh...that Iraq is any kind of a serious danger to the United States?

That attacking him will help the "War On Terror"?

Oh, I forgot that only the French and German opinion counts. Silly me. The terrorist training camps and money he spends to stir up terrorism against American interests has nothing to do with this war. That's right. It's all about oil, right?

That the targeted strike this night against Saddam (definitely assassination, and not kosher by international convention) wasn't just revenge by Bush for Saddam trying to knock off his dad?

So an attack against an enemy head of state using a weapon of war is assassination, and shouldn't be condoned, but we're not going to hold Saddam accountable for trying to assassinate one of our leaders? I get it. His attempt was kosher because he wanted to use a sniper or a suicide bomber, ours wasn't because we declared an end to the cease fire and used a cruise missle. Wake up. A head of state is a legitimate target in war. Period.

Tony Parsons

[The G Man]

Well, British columnist Tony Parsons has an interesting view of what's going on over here/there, and a distinct view of the differences we're seeing over the pond... article here... I found it to be an interesting read.

Project for the New American Century

[ajedgar]

What you are witnessing is the manifestation of this.

Re:Project for the New American Century

[ajedgar]

sorry. this.

Re:Project for the New American Century

[ajedgar]

Interesting group of people...

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

Domestically?

[Valdrax]

Hey did you know the US gets %55 of its oil domestically?
Hey did you know that Iraq only accounts for %3 of that?

Hey, hey. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here...

Re:Domestically?

[Pros_n_Cons]

Hey did you know the US gets %55 of its oil domestically? Hey did you know that Iraq only accounts for %3 of that? Hey, hey. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here...
Yes, in early Feb I listened to C-span as a EIA rep anwsered questions for an hour on oil issues. Canada, Mexico and Venezuela (spelling?) are our largest importers. Saudi is up there too, but don't forget we have the 12th largest reserves and live next to canada and mexico who both have oil.

Re:Domestically?

[Valdrax]

Oh, your statistics are correct, but you made it sound as if Iraq counted for 3% of our domestic oil production instead of our imported oil. I was making a joke about that. Check your phrasing there.

Starship Troopers

[JahToasted]

I kinda found the little propaganda segments in Starship Troopers to be really amusing. Now they're just scary, because now when I turn on CNN I see exactly the same kind of thing. The ads for the military are even worse

New Army Recruitment Ad:

Young people all over the globe are joining up to save the future.
Everyone is doing their part. Are you?
Join the America's Army and and be an Army of One. Service guarantees citizenship.

Anyone else watching the news is thinking about Starship Troopers?

Re:"Bush's War" at odds with "The War On Terror"

[halivar]

Ad hominim, all of it. "You're so stupid, I can't believe you said that" is not a valid argument. You have not properly addressed any of the quoted arguments.

The problem here is that the majority of Muslims (populace, not governments) hate and despise the US.

We tried to be nice. We let Saddam have his merry way for 12 years. We left Osama Bin Laden alone for 10. What did we get? 3000 dead.

So, we learned a lesson. They hate us, and being nice to them does not work. 9/11 happened ANYWAY. Yes, this will not make Muslims like us anymore. They probably hate us EVEN MORE now. But the goal is no longer getting them to like us. The goal now is to make sure their ability to harm us is impaired.

If you're an American, you're deluded. If you're not an American, you have the fortunate luck of not being a target of ethnic and religious hatred.

We, unfortunately, don't have that luxury. So we have to do things differently than you would.

Re:What, with a 70% approval rating?

[0x0d0a]

The countries we just claimed to be with us are included under ridiculously thin criteria.

First of all, most of the people of countries *don't* support it, but the governments have no reason not to throw their hat in at the last minute, though they refused up until the last day, when war was assured anyway. They aren't responsible for performing fighting at all. Bulgaria, Spain, and the UK are the only countries that have consistently and long-term been backing us on this. Second of all, this has nothing to do with what the majority of the people in a country say, just what its government's final decision regarding this list is. It has no requirements, and you get some brownie points with the US govt.

Let's take a short look at the list, shall we?

Afghanistan

Holy shit, the puppet government we just set up supports us. *There* a surprise. I have a very hard time believing that there's popular support for the US bombing the shit out of another country with jack in the way of ability to fight back, though. Too many people dead here from the same thing.

Albania, Azerbaijan, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Uzbekistan.

Yay third world countries for whom this entire conflict represents the possiblity to say something nice about the US and get more foreign aid. Their inclusion on this list has about as much to do with supporting combat in Iraq as Scientology does with religion. Uzbekistan's diplomants even were blunt enough to say that there is not popular support for the war, though the government is willing to be on the list.

Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua

The US has very little popular support for this in Central and South America. Nor have these countries been supporting the US's actions up they could get thrown on a list with zero obligation and the knowledge that the US was going to war anyway. It's actually impressive that Columbia hasn't been with us earlier, given all the military hardware we've been handing out free to them.

Japan (post conflict)

Japan is an opponent of US action. Putting them on here is an exercise in desperation to get US support. They only said they'd provide humanitarian aid to Iraq if something happens, after the fighting is over. I can't figure out how you can call that "supporting" the US attack.

Britain, Bulgaria, Spain

These guys were in for the long haul. They're the only ones serious about this on here. I don't know about Bulgaria or Spain, but polls in Britain are showing a majority of people against the war (matter of fact, I've seen speculation on how much political damage this is going to do to Blair), though the government is.

Australia

Didn't hear about them earlier, but not too surprising. They're pretty consistent in backing US military action.

Czech Republic, Denmark, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Korea, Macedonia, Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Romania

I don't know enough about what's going on in these countries to say. I do have point out that these are mostly non-influential countries, and that they jumped on at the last minute.

Turkey

Turkey voted material support down, despite the top tiers trying to push it through. They don't need a vote to be on this list, though, so they can do that much. Keep in mind that this is *after* Powell tried to buy them off with several billion dollars in aid.

France, China, Russia, and the USSR, the big players, are all opposed. Japan's opposed to the conflict, though we managed to include them anyway. Neither India nor Pakistan are on there. For Chrissake, *Israel* wasn't willing to back us!

You'll also notice the absence of even Canada and Mexico on here, who *always* back us.

Take a look at this.

Re:GWB is a tool.

[0x0d0a]

Oh, I forgot that only the French and German opinion counts. Silly me. The terrorist training camps and money he spends to stir up terrorism against American interests has nothing to do with this war. That's right. It's all about oil, right?

You're thinking of bin Laden, buddy. Feel free to identify some terrorism that Saddam has "stirred up" against the United States. Oh, wait. You can't.

As for constantly *criticizing* the United States, I hardly think that it's surprising, given that we have banned him from his own airspace (including civilian planes), destroyed his economy, killed many people, have vastly advantageous to us oil-for-food deals going...

So an attack against an enemy head of state using a weapon of war is assassination, and shouldn't be condoned, but we're not going to hold Saddam accountable for trying to assassinate one of our leaders?

So we villify Saddam for doing that, then promptly do the same thing ourselves?

We're attacking a country on the grounds that it's violated international law, yet our attack is a violation of international law, and we start it off with an illegal assassination attempt?

Wake up. A head of state is a legitimate target in war. Period.

Well, that may be your opinion, but most of the rest of the world disagrees with you.

Re:And they don't want democracy so this will be b

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

I'm embarrased that we elected him.
Did I miss something? I thought his brother 'delivered Florida' by preventing a large number of potential Democrat voters from voting and the Supreme Court (voting on party lines) rubber stamped the results.

As to Israel, I suspect that a President Al Gore would have behaved in a similar fashion. George Bush the Elder was the only recent President to actually try and pressure Israel into making a peace (cue for flames on Suicide Bombers - something I see as mistaking cause and effect) and things went a long way forward then before some fascist kid murdered the Israeli PM Rabin and caused the whole thing to unravel again. Reagan was probably worse than Bush the Younger, and Clinton took 4 years to take his foreign policy off auto-pilot.

Re:War Pigs

[SubtleNuance]

This my friends is the perfect manifestation of a victim of American-Propaganda newspeak. Please, now tell us how this is a War of Peace against Terror.

a choice between evils

[sal]

People in the anti-war crowd seem to think that those of us that support military action _want_ war. This isn't true. Most Americans don't want war. Yes, there are sarcastic remarks. Americans use humor as a defense mechanism to brace ourselves against the horrors we know will occur.

This isn't a choice between war and peace. It is a choice between the horror of action and the horror of inaction.

There is no good. All we can do is hope for the best.

Interview with an Iraqi

[Wigs]

Mark me down if this is redundant, because I didn't feel like searching through all 3000+ posts to see if this was redundant.

I thought this was an interesting radio interview (http://www.spikeyworld.com/politics/pwndhippie.mp 3).

In case it gets /.ed, a brief synopsis:

There is an Iraqi who defected (or something doesn't really say, he's in the US now) who is arguing with a lady on a radio program. The gyst of his argument is that what good will leaving Saddam in power do. The lady is unable to answer the question. I think it's funny, but also telling because I know most anti-war protesters couldn't answer the question. The Iraqi states that with Saddam in power Iraqi's are guaranteed to die, but with war a small amount will die initially, but in the end things will work out.

I haven't meet a single protestor who argues that Saddam should be left in power. For me it seems that there is no denying that he is the main issue of the war, despite any possible secondary issues that are good or bad for anyone else. No one that I know wants to argue that kicking Saddam out will be bad. Hence, for me, the strongest pro-war argument is that as the lone superpower, we will be doing more good than bad. I guess the issue up for debate is the means we use to kick him out, but honestly no one truly believes he will leave voluntarily.

Anyone care to answer the mans simple question?

Re:War Pigs

[Gorbie]

Should it be noted that only a small percentage of the US population got drafted to go to vietnam. taking your chances in the lottery was likely a more realistic way to avoid conflict.

Joining the guard and doing a necessary duty for your country is probably a lot more than most /. posters can claim. If you haven't given up your time to do it, I would not shake a stick at those who have.

Re:GWB is a tool.

[k-0s]

What oil proof? Ok, here it is:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0308-05. ht m

http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/12433 .p hp

http://quicksitebuilder.cnet.com/supfacts/id158. ht ml

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ ch ronicle/archive/2003/03/11/BU141131.DTL

I doubt you're going to click them so let me tell you what they say. Halliburton has won contracts from the White House to rebuild, contruct, and repair the oil wells of Iraq after the war. Cheney STILL gets a check from Halliburton. I wonder who go them these contracts...hmmm. Oh and I wonder why Halliburton is needed to rebuild, construct and repair the people of Iraqs oil wells. After all Bush said the oil belongs to the people of Iraq, I'm sure Halliburton is doing this out of the goodness of their heart.

The problem is we have a bunch of conservative rednecks who are so pissed off at their penis size that they have to go attack and kill anyone who they think has a bigger penis. What REALLY bugs them is Clinton, who they STILL talk about in any arguement/attack/reply/song/anything including words. (Just to paraphrase your "arguement", name calling is beyond childish but alot of your conservative buddies always sink to this level. Please keep the standards higher in this discussion and debate me in a civilized and rational manner).

Why are we attacking Iraq then from a conservative point of view? Weapons of Mass Destruction? HA! I'm sure we're going to "find" some after we go in there, even though trained and highly educated weapons inspectors couldn't find them with TOTAL access. Our proof consisted of a college students report and forged documents. Maybe to help the people of Iraq? Ok, why are they so special? Why not the Palestinians, North Koreans, any African country?

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Mattsson]

Hmm...
Well, people could stop protesting.
But since people generaly have a desire to tell other people their oppinion, preferably loud, they'll probably not stop.
The news *could* stop airing the protests.
But since conflict makes big profit they'll probably not stop either.

What people in the US *should* do is to remember if the goverment listened to their oppinions at the next election for a president. :)
Actually, they should consider if Bush is someone they want to represent the US at all... He is *not* a good image for the US. I wonder who writes his speaches.
The one where he gave Hussein 48 hours to get out of Iraq was really laughable. =)
Argh! I'm getting off topic here... Better stop. I'm tired. Ranting...
I'll be quiet now.

Libertarian party has some interesting views.

[gatekeep]

The Libertarian party website has a piece up titled 10 reasons not to go to war with Iraq. It's really an interesting read, whichever side of the debate you're on.

I happen to agree with most of what's said here, so I posted it here in hopes that others may find it interesting. I'd certainly like to see some rebuttal to those points.

When all is said and done, I sincerely hope that every one of our brave men and women return home safely. I also hope that as few Iraqis as possible, be they soldiers or civilians, are injured or killed.

Blood leads to blood.

Re:Libertarian party has some interesting views.

[Truth101]

I read point one and stopped.

We were not under attack in Kosovo. We were not under attack in the First Gulf War.

The Libertarian party obviously believes we should return to policies of Isolationism - which is why we had to deal with the Pearl Harbor attack.

Re:Libertarian party has some interesting views.

[gatekeep]

And the pearl harbor attack was so much worse than perpetuating anti-americanism and the persistant terrorist attacks that have resulted?

Re:Libertarian party has some interesting views.

[Truth101]

You lost me. The Pearl Harbor attack was horrible.

If I am reading your statement correctly, it is very cowardly. You are saying that we should let the world be plunged into WWIII before we decide to chip in again - and then only if we are attacked? Then we get criticized for being Isolationist.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. And that being the case, I would rather take the moral high ground to stomp out evil dictators who DO aid terrorist (reference Saddam's countless 'contributions/incentives' to the families of suicide bombers). Not to mention, he has broken 17 U.N. Resolutions, kicked out the UNSCOM inspectors, gassed his own people, and attacked all of his neighbors! But let's just slap is hand again and call him a bad boy.
If you are ignorant enough to blame the terrorist attacks on Americans, on the fact that the U.S. has taken an active interest in preserving our continued prosperity, well, that too is ignorant.

I blame the persistent attacks on us having a president that failed to take a firmer stand in the world. Yes, I am talking about Billy-boy (who in fact initiated Desert Fox and peppered Iraq with cruse missiles using the same argument that President Bush is using this time).

If you always wait for the war to come to you, one day you will find it has been brought with superior forces. And then your ideals will be gone. Your freedom to criticize will be stolen.

War is a terrible thing. Evil unchecked is even worse.

Re:Libertarian party has some interesting views.

[gatekeep]

I agree that the Pearl Harbor attack was terrible, but to me that still doesn't justify pre-emptive attacks to avoid it.

By your rationale, we would've started a nuclear war with the Soviet Union some years ago. Would that have been in the national interest? It would've protected us from the chance that they could hit first, but it would also have made certain the fact that they'd hit second. Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of US citizens would've died, and we'd still be suffering the effects of what would've quickly become a nuclear war, if we were here at all.

I certainly don't think Saddam is a good person, and his actions are indefensable. However, if it is violations of international law that have led us to attack, why has so little of the international community decided to help?

If we attack everyone who may pose a threat to us at some date in the future, we'll end up at war with everyone. There are several countries which pose a much greater immediate threat to us, yet they are ignored. Iraq has little to no air force, they have no long range weapons capability. So far, this war hasn't turned up evidence of any nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons which we were told existed despite UN inspection reports to the countrary. In the meantime, Korea has nuclear capability, and the capability to reach the California coast. Why is it that we've chosen Iraq to fight?

We should lead the world as an example of peace, and not an example of pre-emptive warmongering. Attacking on the basis of what might happen if we don't makes it certain that one thing will happen. Children will grow up remembering how their parents will killed by the US. And what do you think those children will do when they're old enough to strap explosives on their chest and run into a crowded area? You think they'll thank us? I certainly don't.

does anyone actually watch all the news?

[clarkc3]

Chirac did get off his "I am france, I have veto power" thing about a day and a half before bush gave his speech giving them 48 hours. Chirac addressed the media and said he would be willing to accept a 30 or 60 day period in the new resolution before the use of force. Of Course Rumsfeld and Powell said 'we've waited too long' (though I still think if they'd waited 12 years, whats 30 more days - but they seemed like they wanted to start bombing asap)

Iraqi Geeks

[LordMyren]

Iraq has virtually no technical infrastructure. Very few people in Iraq have any internet access at all, much less from their homes.

Why? Because sanctions havent allowed so much as a tape recorder in to Iraq for well over 12 years now. They're stuck with whatever decaying technology they had then.

Myren

We are...

[LordMyren]

disarming.

But only to reduce maintence costs, and because Russia agreed to as well. Of course, Russia's nukes have been in a horrible state of disrepair for a long time, so they figured they might as well get us to take down some too.

We will always have thousands of nukes though. Enough to blanket the earth, sea and all. Our penis will always be large and mighty.

Re:honor

[Maxwell'sSilverLART]

but Rebublicans stooped to a low second only to the Watergate scandal when they arranged to have Clinton questioned under oath about his sexual conduct

Pardon my ignorance, Mr. Coward, but I seem to recall that it was somebody other than the Republicans who "arranged" to have President Clinton questioned. Matter of fact, if memory serves, the arrangements were made by a prosecutor (this was long before Ken Starr), following charges by Juanita Broderick that Clinton had raped her. Yes, that's right, the whole mess came out of a criminal accusation of wrongdoing by one of his victims. The only reason that charge wasn't pursued in greater depth was the five-year statute of limitations.

Oh, and methinks you might have gotten confused in all the distraction--it was Clinton who used Saddam as a distraction during the trials; he was trying to divert attention away from his own misconduct. Hell, even Dave Barry figured that one out.

Re:War Pigs

[quitcherbitchen]

This my friends is the perfect manifestation of a victim of American-Propaganda newspeak.

You want to discount my point of view with an attack on my state of mind? Fine, go ahead. However, if you take a minute to put down your copy of 1984 and rationally analyze the headlines, you might see how they reflect the thoughts of both the citizens and leadership of America. I'm included in that group based on my own independent thoughts and choices.

Everyone who believes in the doctrine of peace and is against military action must be a vicitim of Hollywood-Music Artist-French-Propaganda then?

If you disagree with my opinions or statements, then say so. Otherwise keep your mouth shut.

Re:War Pigs

[SubtleNuance]

...but my point is that you didnt *say* anything. "He did what people didnt want him to do - that means he has a big dick" is relevant because?

Re:War Pigs

[quitcherbitchen]

He did what people didnt want him to do - that means he has a big dick is relevant because?

It's relevant because the post I replied to in the first place called Bush a coward. My opinion is that Bush and Tony Blair are anything but cowards.

IMHO people should...

[Karatheodoris]

make modules, not war

I dont like Saddam. I dont like bombing innocent people either. By the way, have you watched the stupid things the President of the United States did just before he addressed the Nation? I heard that they didnt show it in the US.

Re:So, how much...

[Miguelito]

I just don't understand what the rush is

Rush?!? Jeez, I just don't get that.. I'd hate to see what everyone that says we're "rushing" to war would consider a slow pace. Maybe we should send entire families over there now and have them raise the next generation in place to fight in 20 years or so? Completely ignoring the 12 years of UN sanctions and diplomacy that completely failed... it's been about a year now that they've been talking about Iraq, and months that we've been building up forces.

Rush indeed.. pfft.

why we can't wait until the UN council approves of action

Because it was never going to happen. France has way to many interests in their deals with Saddam to not veto every resolution that mentions force.. not to mention the seeming dream of many EU countries to stop any fighting at any cost. That's why the US helped to write 1441 the way they did.. it gave permission without specifically stating force, because they knew if force was stated, there are those that would've vetoed it no matter what Saddam did/does.

Re:this war makes no sense

[mfrank]

The only reason Saddam let inspectors back in was the threat of violence.

France has said that it will *never* approve military action. So, if the UN dictates when force is used, Saddam has nothing to fear. He can kick ot the inspectors again.

Bush can either ignore the UN resolution for Saddam to disarm, or he can ignore the UN (i.e. France's) wishes for there to never be military action. Can't do both.

Re:It's about damn time

[mfrank]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'd guess you live in California or New York, because that's about the only places I can think of where that could be true.

There is such a check.

[Onan]

Decisions of the security council, even those based upon votes of the permanent members, can be overruled by a vote of the general assembly. The procedure is referred to as "uniting for peace", though it's ironically been used more often to approve war.

The resolution would never have achieved a simple majority in the security council, it would never have been approved by all the permanent members of the council, and it would never have been supported in the general assembly. This is not a matter of France, or Russia, or any other particular country foiling the US, this is a matter of nearly every other nation in the world believing that the US is wrong. I don't know what more "checks" you would like to thwart the desires of an overwhelming majority.

Do your assertions that the UN should back up their own resolutions include the numerous resolutions against Israel?

This is Vigilante Justice

[jetsetscoot]

I think the word that best describes this war is a vigilante action. Just because you think Saddam is an evil menace, it does not give you the right to don tights and a cape and throw him off a tall tower. (I'm picturing Blair in a Robin suit right about now).

Bush may be right about Iraqi WMD's (not that I've seen any convincing evidence), but there are appropriate and legal means of weighing that evidence and Bush just couldn't make the case - at the UN or NATO.

Vigilantes are also law-breakers and it will be interesting to see what attempts may be made to bring the US to justice when this whole thing is over.

Now I see why this administration was so loathe to sign on to the international court. Unfortunately in this instance it is not Batman who is at any risk, but poor Alfred, in the person of our troops who will bear the brunt.

Peace,

-John I

"Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"

One small counter-example.

[phriedom]

The Philappines:Just one small case of how we did things right. We shielded them from outside colonialism and fostered a democracy. It hasn't been 100% successfull, but it really underscores how very badly the US performed in all of the other valid BAD examples you have cited. If only we had done Indochina the way we did the Philappines, instead of backing the French re-colonialization, we probably could have avoided the entire Vietnam war. Ho Chi Mihn was a communist because we didn't give him another choice.

Perhaps if we had fostered real democracy in South and Central America, we would have some good strong allies and trading partners as neighbors. Alas.

Thanks

[Chuck Chunder]

Now I can get CNN's constant rehashing and aimless hypothesizing when I'm at work.

Re:Today, I'm ashamed...

[chunkwhite86]

why not study the *LAW*

Advice from yet another IANAL slashdotter.

Oh and fuck off too.

Typical schoolyard antics from the left.

Indeed?

[LPetrazickis]

Have you talked to your extremists lately?:)

Re:It's about time.

[chunkwhite86]

Sir, you are so uninformed... Allow me to help you.

(1)Saddam has been proven to have a nuclear weapons program. No, no, no, NO! No one has proved that. The UN inspection teams, expatriots, and all available intelligence indicates the ABSENCE of a nuclear weapons program.

In 1991, UN inspection teams found (only by a mistake made by an Iraqi General) massive magnets used to enrich uranium to become weapons grade. These magnets were on trucks exiting the back gate of an Iraqi base as UN inspections presented themselves at the front for a surprise inspection. They later found piles of documents indicating a nuclear weapons program FAR more extensive that we ever imagined, involving BILLIONS of dollars. It's also a fact that Saddam has been trying to achieve nuclear capability since he came to power in 1979. Do you really think he just decided to give up because we said "please"? Have some sense man. Another point on the UN inspection teams both past and present: The responsibility is not on the inspectors to prove that Saddam has WoMD - The responsibility is Saddam's to prove that he doesn't. And he is VERY uncooperative, and it has been proven that he's deceived inspectors in the past.

(2) Saddam has killed more Muslims than any other nation in history. Huh? The UN embargos have a lot to do with those deaths. Back up your statement with facts.

From this link "According to the lowest estimates, over ten per cent of the Iraqi population has been killed by Saddam Hussein and his regime over the three decades of its rule."
http://jimball.com.au/Yasser.htm
Search google. It's a fact that Saddam has actively kills entire towns of people because of suspected anti-saddam sentiment. Also, a defected Iraqi General recently appeared on US TV and gave a figure of 8% of the Iraqi population, or around 1.3 million people have been killed by Saddam.

(3)This is not a preemptive strike. Saddam's forces have fired on US planes in the no fly zones on numerous occasions. Okay: (a) This is a premptive strike. The Adminstration admits as much. (b) Iraq has TARGETED US figter planes, but never fired.

I am disagreeing with the administration and saying that it is not preemptive. Here's some evidence:
http://www.ngwrc.org/news/content/TueNov0914000019 99.asp
"ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - U.S. warplanes attacked an Iraqi air defense system Monday after coming under fire during routine patrols of the northern Iraq no-fly zone, the U.S. military said."

(4) Saddam's regime funds and harbors Al Queda and other terrorise groups. The Administration tried and failed to prove a link. There is NO LINK.

The CIA declared that they had sufficient evidence to make a statement to that effect. I suppose you have more information than the CIA?

(5) It is illegal, punishable by death, to belong to any other political party than the Bath (sp?) party which is that of Saddam. Prove it.

http://www.nzz.ch/english/background/background199 8/background9810/bg981029irak.html
"The Baath party rose to power through purges, where thousands of people were killed, with thousands more imprisoned. Later, backed by the Revolutionary Command Council, Saddam took and kept power. He did this by imprisoning his relative, al-Bakar, the leader of the Baath party. Those who might oppose him were executed. "
http://www.byfaith.co.uk/pauliraq.htm

(6) Children as young as 3 years old are bombarded with Pro-Saddam propaganda in their schools. As opposed to other contries that use propoganda?

The words the iraqi children are taught are "We love Saddam, He is our Father" and other things to this effect. This is flagrant brainwashing to try and raise the children to support him, rather than forming their own conclusions based on saddams actions.

(7)Anyone who doesn't agree that Saddam needs to be removed from power is either a communi

my hat goes in

[mrpuffypants]

Since it looks like this may be the first thread to jump past 4000 posts i'll just go ahead and post so that I can say .... I was there!

Send Chimpy to the Hauge

[flanker]

As an American, I would like to apologize to the rest of the world for this atrocity being instigated by the far right of our political spectrum. We promise not to elect them in 2004 either.

Re:Not necessarily the war yet

[Dun Malg]

Hey dumbass, ever hear of something called ROTC? They promised to serve 4 years. They served 4 years. They held up their end of the agreement, now it's time the Army stuck to theirs. If the Army is so "filled with people who want to be there," why are they preventing people from leaving?

Hey dumbass, did you know that the 4 years is only the MINIMUM? The contract you sign is quite clear that you are signing up for 8 years of service, despite the fact that you'll probably only have to serve four as active duty. They make it QUITE clear that you can be held in longer in times of war, or even be CALLED BACK, even if you've already served your minimum 4 years active duty. Those guys have no legal or moral leg to stand on when they whine about not getting off easy like they expected. Next time, they should READ AND UNDERSTAND the contract they're signing.

Go War!

[Hattmannen]

This whole thing is compleatly pointless! The US has been after Iraq since ever for various reasons, some good other downright silly and it's the same for Iraq.
Another thing to give a few seconds thought is why the US have the right to force other nations to disarm when they have tons of nuclear missiles just waiting in ther silos for a launch order?
However, for everybody who hasen't already seen what this is all about, my personal opinion is that this whole war on terrorism and war on Iraq is only President Bush's way of keeping up his family honor. His father didnät succeed in getting rid of Saddam so now he has to do it. The fact that Iraq most likely posesses a variety of weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons is just a good excuse for Bush. Although I agree with that Saddam isn't the right person to lead Iraq the fact is that he managed to do that and apparently has gained some followers, because without them he wouldn't stand a chanse to rule Iraq.

Anyway, I say this "we will attack you, because you have been evil to us" vs. "we will attack you so you don't attack us" have been going on far too long now and nothing has really happened to end it. As I see it there ar now two ways to solve this situation.
1. Just give it up and forget the whole thing! Let people of their respective countries do what damn ever they please and mind your own bussines.
or
2. Go for a full scale war between the US and Iraq. The best thing would be to find a spot where they can't harm anybody who doesn't want to be involved, put all their troops, weapons and whatever there and let them settle this once and for all. Although this can't be done a full scale war between only the two nations would end this and let the rest of the world stop worrying about a WW3.

Peace is what we all have to strive for and we must all learn to respect eachother and let everyone live as they like.

War for Oil

[Nil_gnusec.com]

British and US army are acting as "vigilant" of the world, but, who watch over the vigilant ?. US is the country who has more mass destruction weapons, including Biological, Chemical and Nuclear weapons in a devastating armory that can destroy our planet, but it can say to other countries how their behaviour is good or bad, and when they are dangerous. Its possible that to US/UK the real matter is Irak's oil ?. There are many african and asiatic countries under a military regimen, killing innocent people, but... this people has nothing except their own lifes, they havent oil to sell (or to be drawn).

Re:And they don't want democracy so this will be b

[mpe]

People in that part of the world think that the US is just out to make itself more wealthy at their expense. They see our support of Israel, a country that is doing some truely horiffic things, and they can't believe that we are trying to do what is good and right.

There's a lot more involved here than just the US government's unconditional support of Israel. There is also how the US treated the last democratic government in Iraq (as well as similar happenings in South & Central America), that both SH and UBL were supported by the US in fairly recent times, etc. The Iraqis have plenty of reasons to distrust the US government, almost no reasons to trust them.

Never mind that it probably is the right thing to do, we were asked not to and we went ahead and did it because *we* wanted to.

Whilst removing SH is the right thing to do the US government has gone about things the wrong way. It isn't even clear that this is the actual primary aim of the US.

I can't imagine people in the middle east would trust any government we setup or trust us for that matter unless we stop supporting Israel.

With so many "friends of Israel" in the US Congress how likely do you think that is. They'd rather cut the budget for supporting veterans than send less money to Israel.

I know they got rounded up, tortured and killed in WW2 but that doesn't give them the right to do it to someone else.

It isn't even the same "they". Do you see any people in their 80's and 90's in the IDF? Nor is the entirity of the Israeli population made up of people who in occupied Europe in the 1940s (or their children/grandchildren). The final couple of nails in this coffin are that the Arabs had nothing to do with what happened in Europe in the second world war and the Zionists started persecuting the Palestinians in the 1920s.

Re:And they don't want democracy so this will be b

[mpe]

As to Israel, I suspect that a President Al Gore would have behaved in a similar fashion. George Bush the Elder was the only recent President to actually try and pressure Israel into making a peace (cue for flames on Suicide Bombers - something I see as mistaking cause and effect) and things went a long way forward then before some fascist kid murdered the Israeli PM Rabin and caused the whole thing to unravel again.

Interesting how you call Rabin's killer a "fascist kid" rather than an "Israeli terrorist".
As for support for Israel form the US Government the "friends of Israel" in Congress are probably far more significent that whoever is in the Whitehouse. They hold the pursestrings.

Partisan politics

[freestyle-fiend]

> It's just partisan politics at the wrong time.

It is a very difficult time, but all positions on war are partisan (unless there is a consensus against war, arguably). If you are for war, then you have to reject the conclusions of the anti-war movement, which would be partisan. Even if there was a pro war consensus, then opinion would be partisan, because if people weren't unhappy with the policies of the other side, then there would be nothing to fight about.

Please do not interpret this comment as partisan.

Re:and your solution is...

[rimmon]

>The UN is useless if it does not enforce its claims, so regardless of what you think about the UN, this war or the US you need to remember that rhetoric is useless but action is all that matters.

Well and which World Power prevents the UN from evolving into an effective instrument of world (security) politics...

> Perhaps this is a bad action, but if indeed it is proven that besides the SCUDS, Iraq does indeed have NBC weapons (any or all) then what will people say then?

You not what hypocrisy is? A nation that owns weapons of mass destruction declaring war on another nation because it owns weapons of mass destruction. It's so pathetic.

Besides that, why do I even to talk to an AC...

Strange arguments

[horza]

The USSR brand of authoritian communism defeated itself, it was not defeated by the US and terrorism has never been defeated by war, just ask the British in Northern Ireland.

We never went to war over terrorism in Ireland!

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.

The US, Italy, Spain, UK and Australia, if you don't mind (though US provides about 80% of strength). And it is NOT what the US are doing now! That is the most crass thing I have ever heard. Are the US raping Iraqi women? Mass shipping people to concentration camps? Ethnically cleansing certain religions? In fact it's not even worth dignifying by going on.

Phillip.

Three Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine...

[caveat]

OK, I'm sorry, I've never seen the big Four-Oh...

Summary

[horza]

Run out of lunch break so don't have time for a word-for-word. It's titled "Opinion Piece" and is a bitter letter to the world. It starts off saying that Saddam is a pretty nasty person. Then goes on to slag off the British most of the article. Apparently it's all our fault Europe is divided. How Tony Blair is a crap leader and a liar, and how Jack Straw has no credibility. Occasionally drifts back to attacking America saying they are all alone in the world. Oh and compares the french Minister Dominique de Villepin to Nelson Mandela. In short, load of vicious bile probably designed to pamper the socialist French. Nothing of importance or new in there though.

Phillip.

Re:Summary

[Mantees de Tara]

This is your interpretation and cannot be taken as a translation. I suppose you don't know who Paolo Coelho, the person who wrote that letter, is

Re:War Pigs

[SubtleNuance]

anyone who goes to war is a coward - both the robot-tools in the field and the paranoid powermongers who direct them. Cajoled by hawks into starting a fight, bush is AT best a tool. if he was NOT a coward, he wouldnt be killing babies in the middle east.

as ALWAYS american warmongers are running a cowboy campaign and your citiziens are ignorant myopic jinog's without the ability to see the facts from manipulative-propaganda in order to stop it.

Price of the WAR

[vijayant dhankhar]

Just heard on ABC news, the price of war as of now is already 1.1 Trillion $$.. that is a big figure I think..

Re:Price of the WAR

[fok]

give this $$$ to the starving...

Re:War Pigs

[dpt]

Should it be noted that only a small percentage of the US population got drafted to go to vietnam. taking your chances in the lottery was likely a more realistic way to avoid conflict.

Except that by joining the National Guard, he reduced his chances to of going to Vietnam to zero. Therefore, he is a coward.

No-one has managed to refute that, or even attempted to. There's been some name-calling from some assorted losers. I slapped them down hard, and they all ran off with their tails between their legs. So it looks like I was 100% correct.

Joining the guard and doing a necessary duty for your country is probably a lot more than most /. posters can claim. If you haven't given up your time to do it, I would not shake a stick at those who have.

No at all! However, in this particular case, the national guard was chosen by young Bush Jr as a better option that fighting in a war. Of course, I do not intend to take anything away from those who join for nobler reasons. I did not mean to give that impression.

Re:War Pigs

[juhaz]

"Cojones and integrity" it may well take.

But a person who has shown has he has no troubles with going against overwhelming global opinion in control of a superpower is a very frightening thought and obviously not good.

Hitler stood up to a global opinion and obviously did have cojones to do what he thought was the right thing. I don't see anyone praising him for that, though some of people of the Germany probably did, at the time. They voted for him, after all.

No, I'm not trying to claim Bush is anything like A. Hitler, I just loaned your own words to say courage combined with no respect for others sometimes lead to very bad things happening.

Re:And they don't want democracy so this will be b

[alexo]

> They see our support of Israel, a country that is doing some truely horiffic things

Like, trying to survive.

Re:And they don't want democracy so this will be b

[egarland]

Right. That college girl they crushed with a bulldozer was probably in self defense. Give me a break! They operate with complete dissregard for human life and they need to be stopped.

Re:Um, Nazi Germany?

[alexo]

Read parent.

One man's -1 Troll is another's +1 Insightful.

A bit of hyperbole, if I may

[egg troll]

Please indulge me, and allow me a bit of tired and overused metaphors to illustrate my point.

Disloyalty is continuing to carp and whine when the decision has been made.

Do you think it would have been wrong, then, for a troubled SS soldier to have spoke out about the Nazi death camps, even though the decision to use them had already been made?

Re:A bit of hyperbole, if I may

[egg troll]

Your metaphor is false and you evaded the original question. Please answer mine and then I'll do likewise with yours.

Re:A bit of hyperbole, if I may

[Qrlx]

LOL I love that sig, EggTroll. It's so....meaningless.

Re:And they don't want democracy so this will be b

[alexo]

> Give me a break!

OK.

> They operate with complete dissregard for human life and they need to be stopped.

Like this?

Or, since American citizens are closer to your heart, maybe this will interest you more.

Re:Defying the UN

[Reziac]

I've also had thoughts to the effect that the Security Council is its own worst enemy, being almost designed to ensure that no one has to do anything they don't want to.

If you could so so, how would you remodel it?

Re:Defying the UN

[Twirlip of the Mists]

If you could so so, how would you remodel it?

Already covered this one.

Re:And they don't want democracy so this will be b

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Bush the Elder held that cash back for 3 months. Shamir's Likud government collapsed in a heap on the ground and were replaced by Rabin's administration.
Then again, Bush the Elder was not reelected.
I read recently that around 60% of the US's 'foreign aid' goes to shoring up the Sharon government. Is that figure true?

Re:And they don't want democracy so this will be b

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Sharon was elected in the aftermath of the trouble caused by his 'walk on the Temple Mount' - no trouble then no PM Sharon.

Whenever things have looked like calming down, the Israelis have invaded an 'autonomous area' or launched an air strike to stir things up again. Sharon and his party have their own agenda and they seem to be happy to sacrifice a few of their own people to further it.

Why did that walk on the Temple Mount upset that Palastinians so much? It was because the man is a terrorist in the full sense of the word and has been since around 1950. His group used to go around dynamiting Palastinian villages in order to drive the survivors out, his role in the refugee-camp massacres in the 80's meant that he was unacceptable even to people like Begin and Shamir.

George W. Bush likes him. I don't know if Bush simply does not know what he represents or if he does not care. Probably the first.

My personal belief is that Israel's long-term future looked best when Rabin was in power and that things have been disintegrating ever since. Peres was never an adequate substitute but it also seemed to me that elements in the Israeli army were also trying to sabotage him in the runup to the election where Netanyahu (sp?) was elected. Shelling UN posts full of refugees was a great idea.

Israel is very strong at the moment and is happily burning it's bridges with it's neighbours. One day the US will turn some pressure on Israel again and withhold financial aid. That is when the current situation will fall apart.

Re:And they don't want democracy so this will be b

[egarland]

Suicide bombing is wrong. I certainly don't contest that.

I believe that the buldozer driver didn't intend to kill the girl. That's not the issue.

Isreal does horrible things to the Arab people in Palistine. It's not OK to do monsterous things to a group of people because you think you are entitled to revenge.

In the case of suicide bombers, the person guilty of the crime is dead. It's human nature to want some sort of revenge or justice when something horrible like that happens but the fact is the person who did it blew themselves up. You should be asking yourself why they had so little hope that blowing themself up was the best option in their life and work on doing what you can to fix that.

Isreal is has engaged in ethnic cleansing. Isreal has put the Palistinians in "camps" and murderd them. Never again doesn't mean "never again unles we're the ones doing it". As long as we continue to fund these actions arabs in the middle east won't trust us.

4000 replies?

[Echnin]

Damn, that's a lot. Like, none of the comments on the last page have been moderated. I'd troll, but no one would read it anyway. Oh well.

Re:Defying the UN

[Reziac]

[goes off, reads] Hmm. Replyability has aged out, so... I don't agree with your choices for replacement nations, in that I don't believe democracy is the *only* acceptable form of gov't (if a nation is happy and lives well under a monarchy or feudal system or whatever, is that really a drawback? or even our business??) I also think it's important that it represents reality rather than idealism.

And I don't think replacing the voices present would solve the fundamental problems, such as single-nation veto. I did note that most of the discussion didn't even touch on restructuring, only on changing the voices.

I don't have any better solutions in my pocket, but it is an interesting problem. [g]

Re:Defying the UN

[Twirlip of the Mists]

(if a nation is happy and lives well under a monarchy or feudal system or whatever, is that really a drawback? or even our business??)

Yes, it's a drawback. Yes, it's our business. This is axiomatic. If your neighbor suffers, it's your responsibility to help him. If another nation suffers under the yoke of authoritarian rule, it's our responsibility to change that situation through one means or another.

And, no offense intended, but your implication that it's possible for the people of a country to live happily under a non-representative system is naive at best. There is no such thing, in the real world, as a benevolent dictatorship.

Re:Defying the UN

[Reziac]

Hmm. In that case, please come overthrow the California state gov't. 50% of my property tax (not to mention 100% of zoning restrictions and the like) was imposed without democratic process, and I am suffering under this authoritarian rule!

Actually, that's not much of a joke. In Calif., a kennel owner has NO right to due process wrt fair trial, search, or seizure, and is deemed guilty of anything someone cares to accuse them of (with no right to face their accuser) until proven innocent, not the other way round. I could rant about this all night, but point is, just because a gov't is "free and democratic" doesn't necessarily mean it's truly applied at the level of individual lives.

Re:insightful?

[uraj]

Bill Maher is just another elitist liberal...

Again, an ad hominem attack that doesn't address the words spoken. I was crediting Maher for his words, not everything he stands for or has ever said. Instead of criticizing the statement, you allow your judgement of the person speaking them to motivate your rebuttal. I'm sorry you were overwhelmed by two quotes that exceeded your personal sound-bite threshhold.

It was my opinion that it was witty, but I think Maher makes a good point that we're being sold a bill of goods, and America is just taking it. There is no credible threat to the United States from Iraq, and Bush has convinced us that there is.

In defense of Maher, you may not like what he says, and a lot of what he says I don't disagree with either (and I promise there is a lot) or that he has to be funny for entertainment's sake, but he has brought political debate on a regular basis into more homes more than any personality I can think of. Now that he is free of ABC he has moved on to print where he doesn't have to rely on a sound bite, and he now has an HBO show where he doesn't have to slip in a punch line before the commercial. On his ABC show he got rid of his monologue so that there would be more time for discussion. If you've ever seen Carrot-top on his show you'll see a stark contrast between a silly comedian and a comedian who can make many cogent points about politics and culture.

"we"

[thebigbadme]

What I would really like to know is where all of a sudden the United States government's actions can be qualified as "we" statements. We are not bombing Iraq, the United States government is. Regardless of the fact that "we" might live in the United States, the only individuals that should be allowed to use the word "we" in regards to this whole situation are military personnel.
If you happen to disagree, good, I think that we would rather have some real, undeniable, open proof that something exists before we decide to go to war without congressional approval.
Iraq=bad human rights?
Yeah?
China=worse human rights.
Terrorism? Remember Afghanistan?
Nukes?... I'm not even going to touch this one with a pair of cowboy boots and a "good time in Vegas".
And least we forget the current largest threat to world peace: The United States of America.

Re:"we"

[Truth101]

World peace is okay for Americans, French, Canadians, Brits, Germans, Russians, BUT not for the people of Iraq.

Your comments about China, hmmmm, so you think we should not help the Iraqi people because there are other people in the world that have to suffer also?

If I chant "down with the US", and "Leave Saddam alone", can I join the "afraid to make the world a better place group"?

benevolent dictatorship

[wadiwood]

South Australia had one (unofficially) from 1938 for 27 years under Thomas Playford. He didn't allow for much discussion or dissent, but mostly he acted in the best interests of the people and our state. Now, if only that were always the case.

In our form of democracy, Thomas was elected by a small part of SA, and then elected again by the majority party to lead the elected reps, if that makes any sense, so, he personally wasn't elected by the majority of SA people, because he wasn't on a state ballot paper but on a subdivision electorate ballot paper. Personally I like the NZ system of proportional representation. It means some nutters get in, but it also means that people can see their vote counts, and that parliment does truly reflect the diversity of the population that elected it. Note. George Bush was not elected by a majority of USA citizens (not even the ones eligible to vote), so does that mean that the USA is no longer a democracy?

Re:benevolent dictatorship

[Reziac]

The better feudal systems also had a system of checks and responsibilties, all the way from villein to king, and it certainly was a more directly representative system for the people. Abuse of such systems is a problem due to the human love of power over others, but it's not like democracies are free of that either. Look how little of what our Congress presently does is in the people's best interests. :(

Bush's election was an overblown example (if Gore had won, people would be saying Gore's side cheated -- no one was going to look good in that incident no matter what). Rather, look at average elections anywhere -- maybe 20% of the people vote. If that vote is typically split 3-2 for whoever wins, that means that only about 12% of the people determine who rules the other 88%. Democracy? Ha. More like a few wolves deciding the fate of the larger flock of sheep.

Not to mention that because of how easily people in the mass are swayed by well-tuned rhetoric or selective advertising, it often amounts to mob rule rather than any sort of thoughtful selection process.

A letter to our fair-weathered friends

[Truth101]

Your "apology" while lame and ignorant, is not representative of all Canadians.

Here are a few snips from an editorial in "The Calgary Sun":
'Klein, to his credit, immediately warmed to the idea of showing a united way with the U.S.

Hopefully, such gestures will help to comfort our friends and allies after all of the damage caused by Chretien and his U.S.-bashing caucus.

We also agree wholeheartedly with Canadian Alliance Foreign Affairs critic Stockwell Day's call for the feds to expel a representative of Saddam Hussein's regime who is posted in Canada. "Australia and Thailand recently expelled all of Saddam's representatives," said Day.

"It's time we did the same. These diplomats speak for a regime that has murdered a million people and is firing missiles at our closest allies as we speak."

It really is the least we could do -- a small symbolic gesture of support to our best friend in the world.

But again, Chretien's arrogance and ignorance leaves him defiant. '

Then later they say :
'We want our American neighbours to know that Jean Chretien is our beef and that we are praying for regime change -- both in Iraq and here at home.'

Here are a few parts of a REAL Canadian's response to the editorial:
'I am angry our leadership has chosen not to side with our allies. I am angry our leadership has chosen to act smug and superior to our U.S. friends and I'm angry with our leadership for being spineless, cowardly, and unable to make a decision, unless it is popular with the UN. '

And later he says:
'We live in one of the greatest countries in the world, and even if our leaders are morons, I and most everyone else in this country, am not. '

Bottom line, Saddam is a dictator who has killed more Iraqi citizens than the U.S. ever will. If we don't remove him, then who will? How long will they wait before doing so - after he murders another million or so of his own people?

Post like this apology from Canada are fueled by one thing, hate for America, and ignorance to world needs. Like the French, you want to see the U.S. fall out of power.

That is okay though. Because no matter your snide words and rude comments, we will still be there in YOUR time of need. We are good like that.

Your Friend,
An American

Re:A letter to our fair-weathered friends

[BCGlorfindel]

Your "apology" while lame and ignorant, is not representative of all Canadians.

It wasn't intended to represent any Canadians. 'This hour has 22 minutes' is a canadian comedy program. As I said, I was meaning to lighten the mood a little. It was not intended as a serious criticism of America.

Bottom line, Saddam is a dictator who has killed more Iraqi citizens than the U.S. ever will. If we don't remove him, then who will? How long will they wait before doing so - after he murders another million or so of his own people?

I think everyone is agreed that Saddam is a dictator and that the Iraqi people would be far better off without him. How to achieve the goal of removing Saddam with the least harm to the Iraqi people and the stability of the middle east in general is a complex issue though. To suggest the current war is obviously the best means to such an end is trivializing the complexities involved.

Post like this apology from Canada are fueled by one thing, hate for America, and ignorance to world needs. Like the French, you want to see the U.S. fall out of power.

The 'apology' was fueled by a comedian, and meant as such, but suggesting France wants to see America fall out of power is just silly. Other sovereign nations have a right to their own opinions on how to solve world problems. The plight of the Iraqi people is not as simple as you seem to think. Accusing other nations of ignorance to world needs because they don't back the current war is, well, ignorant. Why was the second resolution from the UN pushed for so hard? Clearly the UN's opinion holds some value to the American government. To cast the UN's opinion aside because the American government disagrees is at best arrogant, and at worst reckless and dangerous.

compulsory voting

[wadiwood]

doesn't seem to make things any better. I think our (Australian's) main problem is the quality of candidates that we get to choose from. At the moment the only one that looks any good is Bob Brown, a gay tasmanian (note: tasmania most homophobic state in Aus so he's a brave man).

Unfortunately most voters think the greens want us to go back to being nomadic and subsistence farmers. Which isn't true. You can live very well in a sustainable way.

What I'd like to see is reform that encourages a better quality of candidate

1. no felons, so everyone who nominates goes through the same kind of security checks that you would to get work at the pentagon, with things like political protest related arrests being an exception to exclusion.

2. no bankrupts, I guess bankruptsy is a learning experience so maybe not more than one, and not in the last 10 years. After all these people will be in charge of running our government so they'd better be able to manage money.

3. some degree of privacy. No reporting on sexual habits or love life or children or family in relation to candidates. Ie you can report about Jeb Bush but no need to mention he is George's brother. Uh, except where the family member is over 18 and working in politics then the stuff that family member does that is politically related should be ok.

4. assets declared but not required to be given up. I don't mind if a candidate has a vested interest so long as I know up front what that is.

5. repsonsible working hours. Candidates should not be expected to sit for more than 4 hours at a time or 8 hours in a 24hr period. And not more than 250 days (ie excluding weekends or equivalent time) in a year. No sitting between 10pm at night and 6am in the morning unless the sitting has been called because war has been or needs to be declared. NZ use their "emergency sittng" all the time just to get regular stuff done instead of managing things better. I think thats wrong.

6. Child care should be available at or near Parliament House or venues that candidates are required to work. This isn't just a women's issue.

The above is based on what I think needs to be done to get the kind of people I think ought to be elected, to run. There's probably more stuff related to campaign spending, like perhaps equal time and space in public media, ie if candidate 1 buys itself some air time, the medium must give equal time to the other candidates. Personally I make my decision before the election and don't let any of the crap that comes out during the campaign make a difference. Just as well cos it is almost entirely lies.

Hmm, I'd like to be able to force the ones that lie about political things to resign when they are found out. And the ones that don't keep their promises. They shouldn't be promising things they can't fund.

Hmm, think I'd better start hassling my rep again.

Re: to the tune of "if your'e happy & you know

[AWhistler]

Wrong. In 1991 the goal was to ensure that Iraq couldn't be a threat to Kuwait again after they were ejected. To accomplish this Iraq had to disarm, and there would be inspectors to monitor that. There would also be no-fly zones so that missiles and jets wouldn't try to attack Kuwait or their own people.

They are still there, and there has been no disarmament. It's about time this was put to an end. Enough is enough.

Bro

[TheDarkRogue]

I Just hope my bro isn't involved in this in any way, he is a tanker.

Actually,

[TheConfusedOne]

It would be a gross violation of the rules of war and the Geneva convention.

First off, wanton targeting of civilian populations is a no-no. Second off, chemical weapons have also been outlawed. (That's use, not possession.)

I would say the fact that the lights are still on in Bagdad are a pretty good sign of the restraint being shown by US and UK forces in their bombing missions.

Now, the whole war is a terrible and tragic thing. I certainly am no big fan of war and the damage it causes. However, in this case, I believe that all avenues of diplomacy had been played out (and actively subverted in the case of France and Russia) and the only two possible solutions were to walk away and hope for the best or a full armed confrontation.

(Now, the interesting thing is that this war is suddenly so terrible when we've been flying planes and bombing Iraq for almost 12 years now. Clinton managed to launch a cruise missile or two into the country as well (once when Iraq tried to assassinate a former head of state, once when Iraq ordered the inspectors out of the country).)

Re:War Pigs

[junkgrep]

---I just find it ironic that someone so keen for war couldn't stomach it himself.---

Why is that ironic? Some people are made to fight wars, some are made to be politicians. Both positions are now voluntary, as they should be.

---Don't worry, I don't like Al Gore much either. Is anyone suprised that the election came down to effectively a draw with two such lacklustre, mediocre men as candidates?---

Don't tell me you're one of those empty-headed third party advocates who can't figure out that we have a median voter system, not a "what'ever Chompsky says is what everyone really believes, the media is just keeping us down!" zealots.

Not this way.....

[Mattygfunk1]

This is a sad, sad, moment for the world. Going without UN approval effectively makes the UN worth nothing. To then expect the UN to clean up after us is further rubbing it in.

I am FOR the war, but not this way.

__________________

Cheap Web Site Hosting - web site hosting plans from $3 a Month.

Re:War Pigs

[juhaz]

No respect for others is roughly equal with the global opinion thing, obviously he DOESN'T have respect for the invidual people who happen to make up that opinion. CHECK.

Careless regard for international law == disregarding the UN as well (hey, enforcers of the international law are going weak, yeehaa, now we can do whatever we want!1). CHECK.

A bad track record? This and Afghanistan. CHECK.

Mentally unstable? No, however stupid I may think Bush is, can't say he is a lunatic, but perfectly sane people can and will sometimes do very bad things.

Re:to the tune of "if your'e happy & you know

[Vagary]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

one more thought

[Gorbie]

There is no question that the Bush administration has made some serious political blunders in terms of world politics. I agree with you there, and my personal sense of right and wrong tells me that attacking is bad. period.

These are issues we will have to deal with. Regardless of my own misgivings, I do recognize that Saddam needs to be removed and that this is the only way it is going to happen.

What I think is true, and that most protestors fail to realize, is that IF the UN security council had done it's job and supported it's own resolution, then either we would be removing Saddam with world support making the world a safer place OR he would have stepped down knowing that he was going to be removed. I think the former scenario much more likely, and that the world would indeed be in that safe place if the UN body took the "brook no nonsense" stance that it needs to take. I think they were making the situation worse for everyone with their lack of resolve.

Perhaps that is where we disagree most strongly. I think that a UN backed war would have certainly been in the best interest of the world as a whole. A US coalition war is not, but perhaps it is best for the U.S., Britain, Australia, and whomever else is involved.