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

[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

[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

[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

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.

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

[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

[dudle]

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

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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:dang

[sx10]

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

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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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).

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

[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

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!

[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!

[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).

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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 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.

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: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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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...

[Alternity]

You forgot kill innocent civilians among the only things war has ever done...

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...

[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: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!!!

[LittleLebowskiUrbanA]

Double Dohhh!

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

PsyOps web style

[r00tarded]

gulf war drinking game - drink em under the table!

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.

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?

[kbonapart]

"America needs another Churchill"

When did we have the first one?

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:Not necessarily the war yet

[kfg]

In the words of Pete Seeger:

"Support our boys in Vietnam. Send them home."

KFG

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.

"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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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"

[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.

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: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...

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: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

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

[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.

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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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: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.

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.

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

[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.

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: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.

"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: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

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..

[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...)

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

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: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...

[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: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: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: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.

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: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.

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

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 ?

[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 ?

[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 ?

[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: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?

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: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.

In other news....

[Frogbert]

In other news... .iq domain names are going for a record low.

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.

Un-Real

[bstadil]

As if the war atrocities was not enough.

They are streaming using RealAudio.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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: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:CNN IRC newsticker?

[ahaning]

On Slashnet (us.slashnet.org, for instance) join #newswire.

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.

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.

* * *: 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).

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.

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.

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!!!"

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?

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.

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: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?

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: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.

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. :)

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.

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

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: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.

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.

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: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.

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!!!

[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.

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.

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

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

[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?)

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

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.

"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?

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

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: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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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....

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

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: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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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/

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 ...

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