Slashdot Mirror
Major Strike on Iraq Underway
The major news sources are reporting that much larger scale attacks are now underway in Iraq. Here is CNNs story. Pentagon officials have confirmed that this is "A-day" for war, presumably the so called "Shock & Awe" mentioned by the White House earlier. In other words, it starts now. Update: 18:01 GMT by CT : Iraq has apparently ordered
CNN out of Baghdad.
Updates as events warrant.
Are any non Allies news feeds confirming this? Also does anyone have any video feeds on it?
As a aside issue, can anyone tell me why Saddam sets fire to the oil fields?
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
This is supposed to be STUFF THAT MATTERS for bobs sakes!!!!
Iraq is HOPELESSLY outclassed by the American military, the physical outcome is a foregone conclusion. "Shock and awe" is accurate, I'd hate to be an Iraqi soldier right now.
"Shock and Awe" is not going to be the outcome of the "new regime" and "friendly democracy" that will be put in place after the war (if the political side does not collapse) - more like same old same old. You can't impose American free market orthodoxy on a country in this stage of development (look at all the discussions on patents and trade abuse).
Afghanistan is now perilously close to the position it was in that led to the taliban takeover - warlords and chaos.
Johns: Well, how does it look now? Riddick: Looks clear.
This is it. Thousands of innocent people will die in the next few hours. You americans must be real happy now...
...or "Blitzkreig", as the Nazi party used to call it. Not a new or original tactic.
You're probably right. However, in the eyes of the majority of moderate muslims the world over, I'm an anti-war American, doing my part to try to help stop this insane madness...
You're right, there are militant muslims out there, and many of them may indeed be terrorists. However, there are many, many more non-militant muslims. Of course, our war actions may encourage more than a few of those to become militant and possibly even become terrorists...
IS::
100K + of normal bombs == "wepons of mass destruction" ?
We're helping Osama bin Laden by taking out a non-extremist, and making the area a more fertile recruiting ground for extremist terrorist! Osama bin Laden couldn't be more pleased with this war!
Little Brother, watching the watchers
Perfection, of a kind, was what he was after
And the poetry he invented was easy to understand;
He knew human folly like the back of his hand,
And was greatly interested in armies and fleets;
When he laughed, respectable senators burst with laughter,
And when he cried the little children died in the streets.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Has anybody said yet why they've gone ahead with the plan today? They said themselves the Iraqi gov't is in chaos and disarray and it doesn't look to me like they're fighting back much at this time. CNN's talking heads are mostly discussing fluff such as "what does the A in A-day stand for"....
(B-52s launched from Emgland a few hours ago.)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
As far as I can tell this war is only slightly bigger then Kosovo. Why is it recieving so much attention? The protests were non existent. The media attention wasn't 1/100th this size in Kosovo or when Clinton bombed Iraq. What am I missing?
The U.N. didn't approve either action, so it doesn't seem likely. Both Saddam and Milosevic are very evil men who commited "ethnic cleansings." Why is everyone getting so angry and childish? "Bush is an evil oilman/warmonger" "I'll never buy anything from France again"
Capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth
Socialism: equal distribution of poverty
Try to think like a defender in this case. Would you (a) move out to engage the enemy in the open so you could be ripped apart by their superior long-range weapons and air power, or (b) let 'em come into the cities to fight, where recent history shows they're vulnerable (imagine Mogidishu with trained troops with real weapons rather than some militia with AKs)?
I'd think (b), personally -- set a few guys you don't like out in the desert to put up token resistance and place your loyal troops in areas where they can't be easily MOAB'ed.
It's too soon to call this a victory. I still think the US will win this particular battle, but it's probably not going to be as bloodless and easy as it seems so far.
But we can hope for a quick peace with minimal casualties. Hell, that's all we can do at this point.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
It is interesting the US Army has choosen to liberate the oil wells before liberating any people. Okay neocons and dittoheads step up and let the flames begin.
"You don't need a weatherman/ To know which way the wind blows" -Bob Dylan: Subterranean Homesick Blues
Iraq actually has more troops and tanks than the coalition forces. The big difference comes in the quality of those troops and armored vehicles and of course, air power.
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
The idea here isn't to destroy the Iraqi army; they could do that by pressing a few buttons.
The idea here is that the Iraqi army blinks, and suddenly finds itself surrounded by loaded and cocked weapons. They shake their heads in bemusement, and slowly lift their hands above their heads.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
American Army during the war.
Otherwise, all the remaining Iraquis left alive will love democracy and freedom.
I just expect the vast majority of Iraqui people don't vote for extremist leaders right in the first free elections.
Looking at the current Iraq demographics and the meadle east social movements, I think we might risk having an elected government in Iraq worst than the present one.
except that this is really the WWE equivalent of The Rock beating on a retarded 11 year old kid. If it has to be done, get it over with but please don't brag about it, and don't hype it up as if the outcome were in question.
I think this is an example of the press trying to take the juciest bits of out context. Presumably, someone somwhere at one point used "shock and awe" when they wanted to say Blitzkrieg, but didn't want to associate with Ze Germanz. This was said once. Then, the media began pumping out this one phrase over and over again until everyone is sick of it like we are now. Watching the original speeches and press releases around 9-11 and then watching the news later that day showed me that this is how this sort of stuff really works.
Using religion and misinterpretation of religious writings to justify war and suffering is what got us into this mess.
Yeah, those darn Iranian theocrats--
Oh, I mean, those darn Taliban fantaics--
er, that extremeist Al---oh, never mind.
Iraq is as secular a state as America. We got in this mess because Iraq invaded Kuwait, we invaded to get Kuwait back, Iraq bristled at the sanctions and restrictions we left them wtih--and then a terrorist attack gave the USA the moral capital to take the initative against the terrorist centers in the world.
Yes, we probably have spent all of the political capital that Sept. 11 gave us--but if a free Iraq results, it will have been worth it.
Anyway, just remember that religon had almost nothing to do with the USA/Iraq conflict, up until some religious terrorists sparked us to action and a religious president carried the momentum to clean up a petty tyrant who should have been removed from power twelve years ago.
Personally, I've had enough of that sort of bullshit; I think 1000+ years of East-West conflict would be enough to convince anyone of that.
The default state of mankind is at war. Deal with it, or start campaigning to replace the UN with a strong intercontinental government.
One minute Baghdad was quiet. The next then entire southern horizon lit up. The MSNBC reporter was so shaken Tom Brokaw broke away to give him time to collect himself.
Yeah, shock and awe is an appropriate description, even when you're watching a feed on the internet at 56K.
This administration has some of finest strategic minds in country. Bush may be unreliable, but Colin Powell's integrity is unquestioned. even as a general, he was extremely conservative and patient. he refused to make hasty decisions on unreliable or unconfirmed information, and I can't imagine that his nature has changed since then. I think we have to have some amount of faith that the US is in possession of still-classified information that Saddam definitely has something up his sleeve.
we already know for a fact that Hussein offers large cash rewards to the families of Palestinians that act as suicide bombers in Israel. that crime alone damns the Iraqi government nearly as much as the Taliban. we demolished Afghanistan simply because they let terrorists set up training camps. if Saddam places a bounty on Israeli casualties, that's almost as bad. so that right there is a pretty strong reason to attack, and one which Bush doesn't seem to have placed enough emphasis on.
does that mean our intentions are entirely honorable? no, not at all. I'm sure Bush would love to drive oil prices back down ( and for my part, I hope he does it quickly; filling up my SUV every 2 weeks with $1.65/gal gasoline isn't cheap ). and protecting Israel always helps grease the wheels when it comes time to solicit campaign contributions. cleaning up dad's mess is a nice bonus, too. I'm sure all those factors weigh in to the equation. but even in post-9/11 america, the system still has enough checks and balances to prevent a war based SOLELY on those reasons.
let's talk about democracy's role in all this. is ignoring war protests tantamount to ignoring democracy? no, i say, democracy is still winning. current polls place opposition to the war at around 30%, maybe 40% at most. that means the majority of Americans still support getting rid of Saddam. Congress voted overwhelmingly to give Bush the power to invoke military action. that same Congress received a significant message from the people who elected a Republican majority just a few short months ago. all that adds up to representative democracy, folks.
right now it seems like we're pissing off a lot of the world, and yes, we probably are. the muslim terrorist groups are going to be especially irate, and they're going to come back swinging. very true, but frankly, they would have attacked us anyways sooner or later. unless we suddenly pulled all of our forces out of the Middle East, AND dissolved the Israeli state, Muslim fanatics are always going to hate us. the question is, do we want them to hate us with the support of a chemical- and biological-weapon producing madman, or without him? I'd say, "without him", definitely.
some people may be troubled by the way the US is so blatantly calling for a regime change in Iraq. it seems really wrong to hear that kind of talk out of an administration that won its own power in a very dubious manner. but of course the big difference is we know that our tyrant will be held accountable by the voting public in 2 years; Hussein will not. and the fact is, we've forced regime changes before. sometimes covertly with the CIA, sometimes very obviously, like the capture of Manuel Noriega in Panama. that one was just as economically motivated as this: you really think anyone wanted a madman in control of something as vital as the Panama Canal? Saddam Hussein is probably a convenient boogeyman now that Bin Laden has disappeared. but don't kid yourself, Hussein DOES deserve to b
"You want a toe? I can get you a toe by three o'clock... with nail polish."
if the reason why the US is going into Iraq, is because of WofMD they are hiding, I'm sure they are hiding all of the Russian Migs that were sold to them over the years. I'm sorry that I hid my intentions within a joke, and got modded to troll.
In all reality, if there are weapons that are hidden, tanks that are hidden, then surely enough, there are planes that are hidden. Deductive reasoning, that is all.
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
What these posters were probably getting at is something more like an English language version of Al-jezzera. The English language news outlets seem to be acting less as journalists and more as arms of some American propagada apparatus.
As an American, I find this insulting.
I'd love to know what the Al-Jezzera perspective was on the authenticity of Hussien's address to the nation (for example).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Lots of war photos from the last few days: photo link
But the US hasn't used it on innocent civilians, dickhead.
Thats highly debatable.
http://www.madison.com/captimes/news/stories/45
The Feingold amendment is taking $100b from Bush's tax cuts over the next ten years to pay for the war.
Thank God someone in Washinton is still sane -- maybe we'll have an economic rebound in the next ten years after all...
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Actually, I've always been told that D-Day stood for "Demarcation Day", at least as relates to the invasion of Normandy.
.02
my
Ok--here's one thing. How about the initial thrust into Iraq? MSNBC and CNN did not report that the initial thrust actually had to hold their position/retreat. I found that it did not go as successfully as portrayed on washingtonpost.com and bbc.
I was annoyed by someone at work today telling me that whilst the British
are helping the US, the Americans have made the greater sacrifice.
I wanted to set the record straight.
100,000 US ground troops fighting - from a total of 250,000 people out there. 40,000 British ground troops fighting (I don't know the total number of Brit's out there).
So, when you look at the guys who *might* get killed - that's 0.04% of the US population and 0.06% of the British population. By that measure (and of course there are ways to look at this), the British commitment is 50% larger than the US.
Against a background where 80% of Brits are against the war and only 40% of Americans are - I sure hope the US appreciates that!
www.sjbaker.org
I was reading Yahoo this morning and found this quote from a Bush advisor:
I guess this means that once we beat up Iraq, we'll invade North Korea. Iran and Cuba aren't far behind.
What about the lack attention on the fact that it's illegal for the Pres. to order the assination of a foriegn leader, unless he first revokes Carter's order making it illegal? It would be nice to hear him called on that. If you still want examples there are plenty of details missing that are important and obviously need to be investigated (revoking important presidental orders is a big deal).
Rita Cosby on FOX News- US Troops Have Just Discovered WMD in the Field
On the subject or Goering...
Goering: But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship."
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Goering: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
--Nazi leader Hermann Goering, interviewed during the Easter Recess at the Nuremberg trials
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Reading the story, though, that doesn't appear to be the motivation for this latest move (the invasion is a "fabrication"? Give me a break!). Also, the coalition has enough intelligence to not need CNN pictures for targeting purposes. Still, I'm kinda surprised that they chose to let CNN stay in the first place, even if they had expected to feed them their own propoganda.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
This is the second time I've seen that post modded up to 5. It deserves a response. Finding superficial similarities is completely irrelavent.
Textbooks and Open Educational Resources
The military personel who served in Vietnam were not an all volunteer force like we have today. Anyone who is in the Middle East serving in the US Armed Forces, volunteered for the military and knew that fighting a war was a possibility. Many soldiers in Vietnam were there because they were drafted, and didn't have much of a choice.
What?
Boop, wrong again.
The 'D' in D-Day actually stands for "Doo-dah" named after the popular song "Ode to Doo-dah Day" which was very popular in the 1940's.
In addition, CNN had a very good summary of all the different weapons/forces from both sides.
A couple things that I learned: Iraq has 3 main models of tanks, T-72, T-62, and T-55. While I can only guess what the numbers represent, they do correspond to the decade that they were first built. The T-72 is a 30 year old tank design. Most of their tanks have gone through several wars and are only running buy scavanging other tanks for parts.
My brother just a few weeks ago finished his AIT for repair on track vehicles. He said that the some of the shells that the Abrams fire will penetrate a tank shoot through the tank, and exit out the otherside. It does this with so much force that just about anything not solid (i.e. human bodies) are usually sucked out of the small exit hole. Also, I read somewhere that the Abrams can/will shoot through sand dunes and still inflict serious damage to a tank. I also remember seeing once on TLC or Discovery Channel that the Abrams can track either 8 or 16 different targets at a time and fire accurately at 40 mph over bumpy terrain.
I'm not sure if you should take this all as religion, but it just sounded interesting.
I couldn't find an "A" day, but here's some other terms:
5 401.html
From http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/t/0
(DOD) (C-, D-, M-days end at 2400 hours Universal Time (Zulu time) and are assumed to be 24 hours long for planning.) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff normally coordinates the proposed date with the commanders of the appropriate unified and specified commands, as well as any recommended changes to C-day.
L-hour will be established per plan, crisis, or theater of operations and will apply to both air and surface movements. Normally, L-hour will be established to allow C-day to be a 24-hour day.
C-day. The unnamed day on which a deployment operation commences or is to commence. The deployment may be movement of troops, cargo, weapon systems, or a combination of these elements using any or all types of transport. The letter "C" will be the only one used to denote the above. The highest command or headquarters responsible for coordinating the planning will specify the exact meaning of C-day within the aforementioned definition. The command or headquarters directly responsible for the execution of the operation, if other than the one coordinating the planning, will do so in light of the meaning specified by the highest command or headquarters coordinating the planning.
D-day. The unnamed day on which a particular operation commences or is to commence.
F-hour. The effective time of announcement by the Secretary of Defense to the Military Departments of a decision to mobilize Reserve units.
H-hour. The specific hour on D-day at which a particular operation commences.
H-hour (amphibious operations). For amphibious operations, the time the first assault elements are scheduled to touch down on the beach, or a landing zone, and in some cases the commencement of countermine breaching operations.
L-hour. The specific hour on C-day at which a deployment operation commences or is to commence.
L-hour (amphibious operations). In amphibious operations, the time at which the first helicopter of the helicopter-borne assault wave touches down in the landing zone.
M-day. The term used to designate the unnamed day on which full mobilization commences or is due to commence.
N-day. The unnamed day an active duty unit is notified for deployment or redeployment.
R-day. Redeployment day. The day on which redeployment of major combat, combat support, and combat service support forces begins in an operation.
S-day. The day the President authorizes Selective Reserve callup (not more than 200,000).
T-day. The effective day coincident with Presidential declaration of national emergency and authorization of partial mobilization (not more than 1,000,000 personnel exclusive of the 200,000 callup).
W-day. Declared by the National Command Authorities, W-day is associated with an adversary decision to prepare for war (unambiguous strategic warning).
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Perhaps the true "Shock and Awe" in this campaign lies not just with the firepower of the U.S. military, but the embedded journalists along with each of those units. Journalism can be a powerful nonlethal weapon, and there is no better way to make the Iraqis lose their will to fight then have several news reports across several news channels saying that there is an army of 250,000+ allied troops headed straight for Baghdad.
I believe you have just voiced the fear that underlies much of the international opposition to this war.
I am an American citizen, and I am not an imperialist. I don't know anyone who advocates American imperialism. I teach my children, as most Americans do, to mind their own damn business. So, I can tell you honestly that countries which do not threaten the U.S. need have no fear of us. Unfortunately, that still leaves three problems for the rest of the world:
1. What if I (and the U.S. government) are lying about our intentions?
2. Who decides what constitutes a threat? (apparently, we do)
3. What if our attitude becomes more imperialistic later on?
I don't know what to tell you. Direct U.S. involvement in this mess began in 1979, in Iran, and since that time there have been over 800 U.S. citizens killed in Middle East-related violence before 9/11. Many Americans think we have been patient bordering on negligent. The WTC/Pentagon attacks pushed us into action; now we all have to work to find a peace that everyone can live with. This cannot even begin until the aftermath of the current fighting, when it will be seen that (as in Afghanistan) we were as good as our word insofar as returning Iraq to the Iraqis, and helping the citizens of Iraq to rebuild their country.
After that, who knows? The U.S. seems to be attempting to execute the Paul Wolfowitz plan to remake the Middle East into a region of free societies. This is a risky course which seeks to preempt an ever-increasing spiral: terrorist attacks followed by military retribution (against people who may or may not have been involved in the terror) followed by terrorist attacks... Eventually, many of us think, this would lead to World War III, especially if terrorists succeed in using a nuclear device against a U.S. city. I support the President and his advisors in this attempt. However, I know many well-intentioned people who think it's a bad idea, for reasons that range from "fuck it, just nuke 'em all now", to "Arabs can't make a free democracy work" to "we brought it all on ourselves with misguided foreign policy".
I very much hope that our course is the correct one. Only time will tell.
There are only a handful of weapons and communications systems in the field that weren't used in Gulf War I, such as the JDAM and JSOW air-dropped ordnance, or the IVIS tactical display used by US and British armored vehicles.
.50 caliber machine guns mounted on tanks, APCs, and Hummers were designed right after World War One, in the early Twenties, and have been in constant use ever since. The B-52H bombers -- the last of which rolled off the assembly line in 1963 -- were first conceived in 1949. Iraqi forces are armed with AK-47s (and the later AK-74 variants) that were first adopted by Soviet forces in the late '40s. The basic Scud missile design is nearly as old, and could be considered an adaptation of the German V-2 from WWII.
Some of the weapons used by both sides are positively ancient. The M2
What I really find compelling is not these high- and low-tech implements of destruction, but the advances in communication and news-gathering that have taken place over the last 12 years. Not just the Internet, though that's certainly worthy of note, but the satellite phones and cameras used by reporters embedded with the troops and correspondents in the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad.
True, Peter Arnett was reporting from his room in 1991, when the 43-day air war started, but he was tied to landlines and an Iraqi-controlled dish. Now he can send realtime audio and video with gear that can fit in a briefcase. Sat phones have gotten smaller, better, clearer. Yes, the frame rate suffers when more than 10% of the picture changes, and there are visible compression artifacts, but given time I'm sure it'll be just as good (or crappy) as NTSC video.
At the risk of sounding flippant in the face of the inevitable loss of human life and injuries, military and civilian, I can't help but think that this is the first High Definition War, and that they'll have the DVD box sets on the shelves for Christmas.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Couple KNOWN actions by Saddam:
- Husband and wife are tortured repeatedly in front of their children. Reason? Sale of a vehicle that Iraqi's claimed was taken from oppositionists.
- Udday, Saddam's son, was known to have a torture chamber and personally executed many people and raped many many women.
- Udday had their football team all caned on the soles of their feet after losing a World Cup championship.
- Qusayy, another son, also encouraged rape and use of torture again many Iraqi citizens.
I don't even want to think about this any more. Just read the Link above.... After reading about Saddam and his family all I can say is hoorah for the USA finally removing this evil motherfucker and his well-trained bastard children from power.According to this article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Iraqi defectors have reported that Saddam's son Uday "mercilessly beats girls as young as 12 on the soles of their feet if they refuse to sleep with him, Iraqi defectors said today."
Like father like son. This just underscores how corrupt and abusive Saddam's regime is, and it shouldn't be terribly surprising. It's a pretty stomach-turning article for a major newspaper, and not for the squimish.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Pentagon officials have confirmed that this is "A-day" for war, presumably the so called "Shock & Awe" mentioned by the White House earlier.
I am neither shocked, nor awed, that the United States has picked a fight with the weakest opponent it could find that could be linked, even so tenuously, to the 9/11 attacks.
Watching the amazing barrage of million dollar missiles killing the enemy "army", and murdering innocent civilian women, children and elderly, I cannot help but be swept up by the majesty unfolding before us. Yes, I shall now go and affix a "Protestors Shut Up!" sign above the flag on my giant SUV.
I found this from Google News on Arab News:
My Dear Americans
Tariq A. Al-Maeena, clsencounters@hotmail.com
US President Bush has declared a war on Iraq. He calls it "Operation Iraqi Freedom." In a televised address to the nation he said, "These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign." But the truth is far from it. It is not a war. It is willful and premeditated murder, and should be dubbed Operation Iraqi Slaughter.
With each weapon of mass destruction landing in Iraq, Bush is condemning thousands of innocent Iraqis to death. And his stated purpose? To set them free of tyranny. But the horrors of what Bush has unleashed on the civilians of Iraq will undoubtedly leave few of them around to enjoy the so-called freedom Bush so grandly envisages.
The preliminary missile and bombing attacks on Iraq were just a taste of what will soon be unleashed on a weary and helpless population. As the US secretary of defense grandly announced in Washington last Thursday, "What will follow will not be a repeat of any other conflict. It will be of a force and scope and scale that is beyond what has been seen before."
Hundreds of cruise missiles, to give just one example, are to be launched in the first days of the attack. Those who survive the initial onslaught will be struggling to survive in cities from which there is no escape, and in which the water supplies, the sewage systems, and the electrical grids, have been deliberately destroyed. Diseases will be rampant, and death multi-fold.
American and British forces will use thousands of depleted uranium (DU) shells -- widely regarded by 1991 veterans as the cause of Gulf War syndrome as well as thousands of child cancers in present-day Iraq -- to batter their way across the Kuwaiti-Iraqi frontier. The long-term health effects of this invasion will not be determined for decades.
And once the soldiers are in combat, you will be expected to unite behind the war. Images showing "smart bombs" exploding while Mr. Rumsfeld assures you that civilian casualties are being kept to a minimum will dominate the TV screens of a country far removed from the horrors.
You can be assured too that you will be spared the bloody realities of the dead and wounded of Iraq, as the human tragedy unfolding in Iraq will be told in numbers, in abstractions, in brief video clips, and not in the stories of real human beings, real children, real mothers and fathers. But remember that those abstractions were living flesh and blood.
And in defending their purpose to continue with this mass slaughter should any horrific incident be exposed, your government will be sure to pacify your consciences with apologies such as: "The death of this family was an accident," "We apologize for the dismemberment of this child," "This was an intelligence mistake," "A radar malfunction" -- and perhaps even some more imaginative ones.
Then the US will conveniently find the weapons of mass destruction that supposedly provoked this bloody war. In the journalistic hunt for these weapons, any old rocket will do.
Why? To get rid of Saddam, a tyrant, a threat to the world? To defend ourselves? To destroy his mighty arsenal? Then how come the rest of the world, much closer to Iraq, does not want war? If indeed he had such an arsenal under his control, shouldn't we wonder why he isn't using it now, when he risks being destroyed himself?
Why, for God's sake, this sudden urgency to create a threat where hardly any existed? Why were the inspections not allowed to continue? Was anybody being threatened during the inspection process? Were bodies being blown to bits? Just a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.
Or is it that Bush, in pursuit of his own agenda, was afraid that a vote against war by the Security Council would have formally declared the United States
Perhaps Saddam doesn't want to facilitate the spin being put on this illegal war? CNN cuts reports of Arab responses to the war and it shows scenes of peace and quiet in Bagdhad while buildings are burning.
... The clearly stated intention of the American government is to crush any opposing leadership, destroy the UN, and control the world through economic and military might.
An interesting discussion would be, what can/should the world do to punish America for this? They are flouting international law, they are intentionally discrediting and destroying the UN, and they are bombing a foreign country with nuclear waste with no provocation whatsoever.
In a simple world, it would be clear that we should demand that the US withdraws, destroys its weapons of mass destruction, and cease selling arms around the world. But it's not a simple world. Every member of the older generation has massive amounts of their retirement money tied up in the US, so they're not going to be inclined to do anything too disruptive. Facist America (aka Corporate America - learn) has its fingers in the industry of most nations around the world, and has always been pretty brutal about using its economic power to crush opposition. So doing something about America would require most countries to seize American ownership of business and infrastructure within their own nations and redistrbute it, while also dealing with the political and military aspects of the task... an expensive logistical nightmare.
That said, America is an ever growing threat to world peace. Take a look at www.newamericancentury.org
So what do we do? Cause it beats the hell out of me.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Maybe Europe is too even-headed to run around installing 'regimes', only to topple them when the turn despotic, or stop doing what their told.
I'm getting bored with the Hitler/Saddam comparison, I see no simularity between them, at all. Yes, Saddam is an ass, yes, he's a bad guy, but Hitler? Appeasment didn't work ONCE, count the number if occurances carefully, once. SO STOP USING IT AS A BLOODY EXAMPLE! Saddam didn't declare war on us or our allies this time, Hitler did (after pearl harbor [the real reason we joined WWII, not the Jews]). Sadam has shown no further external hostility, meaning HE IS NOT A DIRECT THREAT.
If the world was concerned, you'd think they'd do something, no? But a majority of the world doesn't agree, hell most of our so-called allies don't agree, their only in the game for their own self-interest. And then their Britan... Ahem.
Yeah, the french HELPED, after we revolted. The Iraqi people haven't revolted, the Iraqi people will not be allowed to found their government, in their own cultural/historical image. We will force an oil exporting, capitalist economy down their throat, along with some icky democracy, which WILL NOT WORK. That region has never seen a democracy, democracy is ALIEN to that region, alien to that culture. Capitolism and Democracy is not some sociopolitical panacea.
And, I do not forget my origins, I am a son of Prussian draft dodgers. My ancestors escaped a superpower to avoid silly wars.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Like this one, for instance? No wait a minute, the US refuses to sign that treaty, perhaps this one? Or maybe that'll end up the same place the anti-ballistic missile treaty did about a year ago.
Quite how it went from 80% against war to 53% for war in a matter of days, after the parliament vote picked up a few more votes against war, and Blair and Bush effectively bypassed the UN security council to go it alone, I don't know. I do know that truth is the first casualty of war though. I still don't know a single person who supports this war.