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.

Comments

Overated

[I_am_God_Here]

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"

Remember, its not about the oil

[Adam_Weishaupt]

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.

The Case for the War

[el_gregorio]

I certainly can't refute the apparent hypocrisy of many American policies. but let's face it, we're really not doing anything all that different than we always have. doesn't make it right, of course, but at least it follows precedent. it's just that this administration is less diplomatically persuasive and more "rough around the edges". Dubya is widely perceived as a six-shootin' cowboy, and while that's probably a pretty accurate description, it doesn't necessarily mean that he's going off half-cocked this time.

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

Troop ratio's.

[sbaker]

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!

Re:Come on editors, step up!

[cdrudge]

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.

Re:Good or bad news?

[Oswald]

In the other hand, if the war ends, was "easy" and without a lot of lost lives, and Bush feels sucessful and invincible, what will be next? North Korea? the rest of the arab countries? China? France?

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.