CNN's talking heads certainly are large, aren't they? Wolfy is talking with two senators right now and when they try to fit them all on the screen, they make the heads very large. YOW!

Speaking of talking heads, who'd they trot across the stage today in the morning talk shows? You can always tell the spin that the Admin's trying to spew by who they choose to parade in front of the cameras.

Can anybody give directions on how to create italic and bold text and linking a URL to text?

Sounds like you have your support Sean-Paul but if any assistance is needed I can help.

thanks for your site...

btw: I left a note on your bio page -- I was at the very same Daily Cougar near your time -- were you there when G. Sheppard was editor? I was the photo editor.

Reading the Globe and Mail piece on how support for Canada joining the war effort seems to be growing, I couldn't help wondering about the phrasing of the question:

"it is now time for us to come aboard and offer our military support"

Come aboard? Military support?

Why not just phrase it, "it is now time for Canadians to do the right thing"?

I can't but wonder how the poll would have gone if it had been phrased, "join the invasion of Iraq and participate in guerilla warfare." Or if it had had one of those "worth how much?" questions -- ten killed? a hundred? a thousand?

Another lesson in how one should never evaluate a poll without reading the questions first.

Just heard a report on MSNBC of a "huge explosion in Kabul." No further info yet.

Can anybody give directions on how to create italic and bold text and linking a URL to text?

With basic HTML.

The difficulty is that if you give the directions, the program executes them instead of reproducing them.

So, in the examples below, there should be ARROW ( ) brackets instead of SQUARE brackets.

italics = [i] to begin, [/i] to end
bold = [b] to begin, [/b] to end
blockquote = [blockquote] to begin, [/blockquote] to end
URL = [a href="your URL here"] to begin, [/a] to end.

As a newcomer to the warblog world, I'm still trying to sort out a lot of new information. I'm curious to know if anyone is tracking a Russian "intelligence" page that offers almost daily summaries of the war in Iraq. Today's comments are at http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news083.htm

I am assuming that it's a largely bogus site, but have not seen anything in the western media that outright refutes the assertions the Russians make. Comments would be welcome.

Trouble.

British troops refuse to fight. Were sent back and will face military justice.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/

to prevent the computer from executing when it encounters arrow brackets: write &lt; (for "<") or &gt;(for ">").
Then you can write <i>.

cu

vlacek

I am from Iran.We used to be Saddam's enemies.We suffered his bombs and his missles.We sufferd his gas weapons.Every day a vetern dies from chemical wounds caused by his weapons.
But every one here is disapointed now.We find ourselves betrayed by this aggresion against Iraqi people.
How do we believe this propaganda about liberating Iraq when they plan to make an american general to govern post war Iraq?
Either these guys dont know about anti-foriegner ,anti-colonist seniments in this part of world or they try to provoke this sentiments for some grand plans.
I can tell you guys and gals that the pro-american sentiments here are fading fast.Even my 15 yrs old sister now switched from CNN and BBC to TV5 (france) and aljaz.
We were close to toppling our dictators when all this take place and I think that we must wait for 0-15 other years before trying again because nodbody buys our words for an american style democracy.
We are betrayed by Rummy and his friends.

The devil made me do it.

Shouldn’t Dubya be billed as the Robinhood of the world–after all he’s stealing the freedoms of a freedom rich country and attempting to give them to a freedom poor one.

What if there was a Democracy in Saudi Arabia and Osama bin Laden was elected president?

What if one of the rules of war was- both sides have to start with and equal number of troops and equipment?

What if Gen. Franks is waiting for a call from his wife to decide what to do next?

What if Iraq, Venezuela and Iran decided to only accept Euros for oil?

What if it was a well known fact that the Kurds were killed by a cyanide based gas which Iraq didn’t have but the occupying force of Iran did?

Didn’t people realize with a Dick and a Bush running the country someone was gonna get screwed?

since 2000 Iraq is actually trading oil in Euro ... http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/23463

British troops refuse to fight. Were sent back and will face military justice.

They way things are turning out (the ones to be "liberated" are more and more declared as targets) I can't blame them. I don't doubt they'll get a fair trial and might even get away with a slap on the wrist, relatively speaking.

At least they're not fragging their officers.

BTW, Sean-Paul, what happened to the guest map?

Breaking news:

Newsweek expose on Dick Cheney's conflict of interest re: Halliburton.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/892744.asp

Bacground at Arms And The Man

http://majorbarbara.blogspot.com

DNS stuff,

Remember, setting new DNS IP addresses can take upto 72 hours, usually 24 or so...

British troops refuse to fight. Were sent back and will face military justice.

They way things are turning out (the ones to be "liberated" are more and more declared as targets) I can't blame them. I don't doubt they'll get a fair trial and might even get away with a slap on the wrist, relatively speaking.

At least they're not fragging their officers.

Oh, could you paste the story? Can't access, because I'm not a registered user.

BTW, Sean-Paul, what happened to the guest map?

KAMRAN;

I am from the USA, and I can only agree with you, sadly.

Are you in Iraq now?

I guess some of the British Troops can read, and looked at the Nuremberg principles.

"Rocket Slams Into Peacekeepers' HQ In Kabul"

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/03/30/international1340EST0519.DTL

Perhaps the same person (presumably with access to the London Sunday Times site) could likewise post the Franchetti story (also in todays Times) about U.S. Marines allegedly shooting civilians outside Nasariya.

The timesonline seems to be a tabloid type publication.

Is this the Brit version of the National Enquirer?

Article about british troops refusing to fight

Don't imagine you can just switch over. Make the old address a mirror of the new address for at least 72 hours. This is because even though you change the DNS, to save traffic on generally pointless DNS requests many name servers will only check a given address every few days.

DNS stuff,

Remember, setting new DNS IP addresses can take upto 72 hours, usually 24 or so...

Not if you actually know what you're doing.

Before moving, decrease the TTL in the SOA to a short period of time and wait until it has propagated.

That might slightly increase the load on the server, but it's negliable.

Then switch over.
Since the TTL is very short, all the servers around the world will almost immediately get the new A record with the changed IP address.

The change back TTL to default or whatever other longer period.

Simple.

re: British troops refuse to fight.

I can't get to the timesonline page either, (404'd on me). But you can find that story here
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=24&art_id=qw1049017321709B262&set_id=1.

Two refusing to fight ... not a big deal, Sgt. York refused to fight at first.

Living in Edmonton Alberta (Canada)--the heart of right wing Canada--I have to say opinions on the war are split. Evenly? Tough to say. Protests are not necessarily indicative of where the public is at, but last weekend we had 18,000 people protest against the war, and from what I could tell, 3 people in support of it.

Everyone was civil, and they only used about 12 cops on bicycles to control the crowds. No pepper spray, no beatings. No violence. God bless Canada! =)

Even the article in the globe and mail shows a slim majority against the war. Seeing as how the government took the position of popular opinion, shouldn't that be seen as democracy at work?

Canadians have always had a bit of an identity crisis. The only thing we know for sure is that we're NOT American. We're good friends, but we're not the same.

It hurts us to hear the US was disappointed. That they feel we're not standing by them. We've stood together for a long, long time. It is apparent that Bush and Chretien don't get along. Ideologically they don't see eye to eye. For that I'm glad. I personally find George W. Bush more than a little scary. So do many other Canadians. To me he appears to be a self-righteous bully with no capacity for empathy.

I'm getting to the point where I can't watch American media anymore. I usually try to balance my TV viewing with a bit of CNN, CBC and the BBC. Just to get a bigger picture. I think I can do without CNN.

I just saw a promo that posed the question - "how will the war affect my portfolio?"

How f*cking sick. People are being torn in two and you're worried about your portfolio? How about this one - "How will Enron, WorldCom, tax breaks for the rich and astronomical deficits affect my portfolio?" Wouldn't that be a better question? Why don't we see THAT kind of question being posed? I can't believe the American public puts up with this nonsense.

Perhaps the most fitting question of all should have been - "Who's still got a portfolio to worry about? Still got a job?" Many don’t.

It seems the more people know about the issue, the less they support action outside of the UN. At work there are two camps of people who support the war. Those who have no argument but insults for their opponents, and those who base their arguments on lies and spin (inspectors kicked out, Iraq has nukes, Iraq is al-queda).

I realize there are people who argue for action without basing their argument on lies, but I have yet to encounter anyone personally that has a factual argument. The comment boards here offer some analytical arguments for both sides. That is very refreshing.

There are those who are interested in clearing up any spin they may have ingested over the years, but there are those who steadfastly refuse to admit they may have been duped or misled. That goes for both sides.

I'm personally against the war. It has become apparent to me why the US backed out of the International Criminal Court. How could they ever work within its framework? They break international law daily. Will the ends justify the means? Is this the beginning of the “domino theory”, or an era of increased terrorism? I’m afraid time will tell.

I think Saddam's a tyrant. I've been saying that for a long time. His people deserve better--but having the US decide what is best--by itself (with some occasional Tony Blair steering) is scary indeed. They don't have the best track record. They had already forgotten about Afghanistan. Can Iraq be far behind?

Wow, this has been a little jumbled—sort of stream of consciousness, but hey, it’s an open forum right?! =)

Sean-Paul,

2-part comments system & "Fact Tract" feature are top rate ideas.

"EST 800 tonnes amnunition and 1000 tonnes food are required by the ground forces every day. This figure is metric and does not include fuel. "

Sorry, but this cannot be correct. Ammunition is very heavy, and even an all-infantry force has much more (in weight) ammo than food. If you throw in tanks, aircraft ane -especially- artillery into the mix, ammo is much heavier.
In terms of space the ratio gets more even as what determines how many shells you can put on a truck is weight, not bulk size.

Best regards

M Dahlstrom.

LJ

I am from Iran and not form Iraq.We see Iraqis suffering everyday in local TV and on satelite channels.We understand their pain,because we experience these fears and pains for 8 years in iran-iraq war at 80's.however we dont feel any hatard toward Iraqis or others.
thanks for your sympathy.But i think its necessary to save USA's face in this region.
doing aggersion and bombing people and imposing foreign governors dont help it.But positive actions of peace and understanding will do wonderful things.
Otherwise those like me, who understand american values wont be able to get anyone conviced to choose these values.

What's has been going on inside Bagdad outside of the range of the state cameras. How are the citizens getting food, and can anyone leave the city as they please. Are there terror squads conscripting male citizens for the suicide squads-hmm.

RUN, don't walk to this article linked on Instapundit.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/72148.htm

A taste:
The inability of the Arab world to compete with the West in any field of endeavor (even their efforts at terrorism ultimately fail) has been so devastating to the Arab psychology that they are desperate for someone to blame for what they and their grotesque leaders have done to their own culture.

Without the United States - and, of course, Israel - as excuses for Arab political squalor, Arabs might have to engage in self-examination, to ask themselves, "How have we failed so badly?"

Puts the "Arab Street" in perspective.

Franklin Covey's Analysis

We were close to toppling our dictators when all this take place and I think that we must wait for 0-15 other years before trying again because nodbody buys our words for an american style democracy.
We are betrayed by Rummy and his friends.

Then do yourself and your friends a favor and don't give up. Your fears are misplaced and will do nothing but cause more innocent Iranians and Iraqis to die.

America *will* leave Iraq in better shape than it is now. You can't expect it to happen in a week, a month, or even a year. And if you do, you are sorely misguided.

If you give up America, then you'll continue to condemn yourself to the corrupt, myopic, fanatical regimes that continue to kill *far more* Muslims than current American efforts.

US Marines turn fire on civilians at the bridge of death

Mark Franchetti, Nasiriya
London Sunday Times

THE light was a strange yellowy grey and the wind was coming up, the beginnings of a sandstorm. The silence felt almost eerie after a night of shooting so intense it hurt the eardrums and shattered the nerves. My footsteps felt heavy on the hot, dusty asphalt as I walked slowly towards the bridge at Nasiriya. A horrific scene lay ahead.

Some 15 vehicles, including a minivan and a couple of trucks, blocked the road. They were riddled with bullet holes. Some had caught fire and turned into piles of black twisted metal. Others were still burning.

Amid the wreckage I counted 12 dead civilians, lying in the road or in nearby ditches. All had been trying to leave this southern town overnight, probably for fear of being killed by US helicopter attacks and heavy artillery.

Their mistake had been to flee over a bridge that is crucial to the coalition’s supply lines and to run into a group of shell-shocked young American marines with orders to shoot anything that moved.

One man’s body was still in flames. It gave out a hissing sound. Tucked away in his breast pocket, thick wads of banknotes were turning to ashes. His savings, perhaps.

Down the road, a little girl, no older than five and dressed in a pretty orange and gold dress, lay dead in a ditch next to the body of a man who may have been her father. Half his head was missing.

Nearby, in a battered old Volga, peppered with ammunition holes, an Iraqi woman — perhaps the girl’s mother — was dead, slumped in the back seat. A US Abrams tank nicknamed Ghetto Fabulous drove past the bodies.

This was not the only family who had taken what they thought was a last chance for safety. A father, baby girl and boy lay in a shallow grave. On the bridge itself a dead Iraqi civilian lay next to the carcass of a donkey.

Next morning, the men of Alpha company talked about the fighting over MREs (meals ready to eat). They were jittery now and reacted nervously to any movement around their dugouts. When cars were spotted speeding along two roads, frantic calls were made over the radio to get permission to “kill the vehicles”. Twenty-four hours earlier it would almost certainly have been denied: now it was granted.

Immediately, the level of force levelled at civilian vehicles was overwhelming. Tanks were placed on the road and AAVs lined along one side. Several taxis were destroyed by helicopter gunships as they drove down the road.

A lorry filled with sacks of wheat made the fatal mistake of driving through US lines. The order was given to fire. Several AAVs pounded it with a barrage of machinegun fire, riddling the windscreen with at least 20 holes. The driver was killed instantly. The lorry swerved off the road and into a ditch. Rumour spread that the driver had been armed and had fired at the marines. I walked up to the lorry, but could find no trace of a weapon.

This was the start of day that claimed many civilian casualties. After the lorry a truck came down the road. Again the marines fired. Inside, four men were killed. They had been travelling with some 10 other civilians, mainly women and children who were evacuated, crying, their clothes splattered in blood. Hours later a dog belonging to the dead driver was still by his side.

At the barracks, the marines hung a US flag from a statue of Saddam, but Lieutenant-Colonel Rick Grabowski, the battalion commander, ordered it down. He toured barracks. There were stacks of Russian-made ammunition and hundreds of Iraqi army uniforms, some new, others left behind by fleeing Iraqi soldiers.

As night fell again there was great tension, the marines fearing an ambush. Two tanks and three AAVs were placed at the north end of the third bridge, their guns pointing down towards Nasiriya, and given orders to shoot at any vehicle that drove towards American positions.

Though civilians on foot passed by safely, the policy was to shoot anything that moved on wheels. Inevitably, terrified civilians drove at speed to escape: marines took that speed to be a threat and hit out. During the night, our teeth on edge, we listened a dozen times as the AVVs’ machineguns opened fire, cutting through cars and trucks like paper.

Next morning I saw the result of this order — the dead civilians, the little girl in the orange and gold dress.

Suddenly, some of the young men who had crossed into Iraq with me reminded me now of their fathers’ generation, the trigger-happy grunts of Vietnam. Covered in the mud from the violent storms, they were drained and dangerously aggressive.

In the days afterwards, the marines consolidated their position and put a barrier of trucks across the bridge to stop anyone from driving across, so there were no more civilian deaths.

They also ruminated on what they had done. Some rationalised it.

“I was shooting down a street when suddenly a woman came out and casually began to cross the street with a child no older than 10,” said Gunnery Sergeant John Merriman, another Gulf war veteran. “At first I froze on seeing the civilian woman. She then crossed back again with the child and went behind a wall. Within less than a minute a guy with an RPG came out and fired at us from behind the same wall. This happened a second time so I thought, ‘Okay, I get it. Let her come out again’.

She did and this time I took her out with my M-16.”

The more I read these posts the more I realize most people here have no idea what their talking about

I keep hearing how the "admin" is spinning this war. Newsflash: BOTH SIDES ARE SPINNING THIS WAR. Propaganda is spouting from the right and left. Give me a break. You cannot get 100% truth from anywhere.

The inability of the Arab world to compete with the West in any field of endeavor (even their efforts at terrorism ultimately fail) has been so devastating to the Arab psychology that they are desperate for someone to blame for what they and their grotesque leaders have done to their own culture.

Sarcasm:
Must be because they are clearly subhumans.
I heard and read similar things in Nazi propaganda. Just substitute Arab with Slav.

I've always found the idea of the "Arab street" pretty offensive. If I were an Arab, I'd be enraged. The West continues to group the mass of Arabs together and call it the "Arab street".

I'd like to think that even Arabs living under corrupt regimes are a bit more savvy than the term "Arab street" gives them credit for.

just wanted to thank Felix Deutsch for answering my question on German troops yesterday. Some good commentary out there today.....ffynnon & kamran

With regards to how to deal with paramilitary groups, I'm starting to think that it's time the Coalition changed its rules of engagement. The Geneva Convention allows combatants fighting out of uniform to be summarily executed. Is it time to consider such an approach here? Basically, would such an approach prevent further attacks of this nature or simply engender more hatred leading to more of them?

Any thoughts?

ffynnon - Leaving aside whether this war is right or wrong, whether Bush is an idiot or not, no one else has the money or the power to even be able to consider the choice of going after Saddam or leaving him to come after us.

We don't like our media either. That's why we're here at the Agonist. But we believe in letting them say whatever, as long as it's not libel or slander. If they exaggerate, or misrepresent or have a different opinion, so be it. If you see/hear enough variety, you know who to trust. Is it really that different in Canada?

Who said anything about subhuman? Read the article.

Here's my perspective on the picture here. I am not exceptionally well versed on all current international law (like many of the very informed posters here are), so I probably missed a few points – so comment!

Basic Rights

We believe in a bill of rights for all people. We believe in these basic human rights.

At what point does this bill of rights apply to the human rights of all people, not just the United States citizens? Humans and society are evolving. When does freedom become a basic privilege of a sentient being?

President GW has used Saddam's history of gassing and murdering his own people as part of the justification for war. However, as a dictator, killing his own people is perfectly within his rights and responsibilities, as he is the law, and there is no “consensus” or congress about his decisions.

In effect, GW has said that dictatorships are not valid as governments.

(After all, GW has had many of his own people gassed, poisoned, and electrocuted, but he referred to the law of the state congress when he enforced their sentence. Thus, GW’s government is valid even though it kills its own people, because more than one person agrees to the punishment.)

But, let’s get back to the point. Are all men truly created equal? If so, then totalitarian regimes are nothing more than slavery, with one person owning the whole country. So often, this regime is enforced through military strength, instead of by agreement of the people; thus, such a “leader” is really only the equivalent of a mafia boss or thug.

If this is the case, is it the responsibility of the United Nations to bring order and justice to this world, by removing these country-sized slave lords, and freeing their people? We cry about sex-slave children, human shields in war, and forced human medical experimentation, yet all of these things are perfectly valid for one who’s voice is the law, who does not belong to the UN.

Maybe the current “UN” is not the one who will eventually protect all people. But who will protect this lost people, and when will they be free to live as we ourselves demand? If not I, then whom? If not now, then when?

And when my government takes these basic rights away from me, who will be left out there to give them back?

Rights for All, not Just Some

Those who are not blind have a responsibility to those who are. They have the responsibility to be the eyes for the blind, to tell them what they see, when asked, not to use our sight to our advantage over them. Fortunately, most of us have our vision.

Imagine if one day, those with vision came up with a medical cure for all blindness, to the extent that we had the power to restore vision with just a clinic visit. Imagine that a group of blind people should rise up and say that it is their right to be blind, perhaps that “God has granted them blindness”. Let’s say that they deeply believe that they should ensure the continued blindness of all, and they go out and bomb the clinics where people are cured. Do these people have the right to choose for all of their peers? Do they have the right to terrorize not just the doctors who would be happy to cure them, but also those who wish to be cured?

Some will say, “the people if Iraq do not want us to help them, see them fighting for their leader”. Do these fighters then determine the fate of all of their countrymen? Do a few determine the fate of all, or are all men created equal, not just those who take up arms?

The fighters are not the ones to be “freed”, as they have made their choice, and are already free in following their leader; but they do not have the right to enslave the others. As long as there is one person who wishes his or her own freedom from this leader, then there is still a captive.

And if we allow anyone in a region, a situation, to be ruled by another person, just because of his or her location, then we are all slaves. The rest us are just lucky that we are not trapped in the master’s house.

[quote]
US Marines turn fire on civilians at the bridge of death
[/quote]

I think here is the complete article.

Another quote:

On one level, Arabs know that Saddam Hussein is a monster. They know he has killed more Arabs than Israel ever could do. Saddam has been the worst thing to happen to Mesopotamia since the Mongols razed Baghdad. But Arabs are so jealous and discouraged that they need to inflate even Saddam into a hero. They have no one else.

Try to understand how broken the Arab world must be, how pitiful, if the celebrated Arab "triumph" of this war is the execution of prisoners in cold blood and the display of a few POWs on TV.

We would be foolish to descend to their level and gloat. The world would be better off were Arab civilization a success. We all should pray that the Arab world might, one day, be better governed and more equitable, that Arab peoples might join us in the march of human progress, instead of fleeing into reveries of bygone glories.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/72148.htm

Any thoughts?

Yes. Are the Special Force which are in Baghdad, Basra, Kirkuk, Mosul etc - like Franks said - wearing uniforms?

BBC World invites viwers to submit email questions to be answerd by expert panel on their "Panorama" show in 2 hours.

Submit your question to:

panorama@bbc.co.uk

mako

the london times is a murdoch-owned, conservative newspaper, the voice of the UK establishment. all their war 'spin', for months past, has been relentlessly pro-bush & blair (as with all 150+ murdoch owned papers). so i would be inclined to trust this report. it also names the US soldiers it quotes.

Who said anything about subhuman? Read the article.

sar·casm ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm)
n.

1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.

I even marked it as sarcasm...

About yesterday's WP/ABC survey:
74% war approval
82% believe significant casualties
57% believe duration of months

(Also: war costs of $75B and more)

I am, in all candor, extremely proud of my fellow Americans right now.
(And I am absolutely NOT a flag-waving type; I’m sort of a "Clinton-type DLC Democrat". I even dislike George W. 80% of the time)
But today I fully support my country, our troops and (even!) our president.

Why I am so proud of my compatriots today is our willingness to endure a great deal for a noble good. Even and especially with such a loud (and unscrupulous and/or ignorant) opposition.

There is a very tough road ahead, politically as well as militarily. But I have great faith in the resolve of the American people (and the Brits) to stay the course. I look forward to the day when Saddam is dead, the Iraqis are dancing in the streets and they begin their wonderful new journey to democracy.

Once again the planet Earth has the people of the United States of America to thank for their ultimate peace and security.

I also look forward to the egg-in-the-face of our "allies" who are acting out of their proclaimed "moral" convictions.

* * *

So much of the world is now fighting us politically. So much of the freeloading world benefits from the security umbrella they are now ignorantly opposing.

RUSSIA, (the former Soviet Union and previously aspiring world-dominator) has declared US action as not a "Liberation". (I suspect the Poles and Lithuanians have a slightly different confidence in Russian credibility as the arbiter of what constitutes “Liberation”).

The ARAB masses are now crying over the deaths of a few dozen Iraqi innocents and then haughtily dismiss the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of their "brother" Arabs because, well, the butcher Saddam is also a "brother". And aren't Arabs so proud of their strong and blood-soaked tyrant! Saddam Akbar!

ISRAEL continues to remind us how our support of their Conquest of the Palestinian Homeland is "so helpful" for American interests (We support the one true Middle East democracy!). In return, in support of their ONLY ally at OUR time of need, the Israelis have taken the opportunity of media distraction to screw us. They are now aggressively accelerating their campaign to crush what is left of Palestinian dignity and aspiration with their tanks and their relentless settlement building. The 100-year effort to ethnically cleanse the Levant of non-Jews continues!

After the US arm-twisted the "hard-core" Euro-wimp contingent to fulfill their NATO treaty obligations to defend Turkey, TURKEY returns the favor by snubbing the US request for a second front which will now result in hundreds (or thousands) of dead American soldiers. So much for the Mutual Defense Pact. Thanks Turkey!

The do-gooder West, the Canadians, New Zealanders, Swedes and pacifist types throughout the West do not have a clue as to how global security works. These deluded freeloaders have no concept as to how their own Homeland Security for 50 years has been, and for decades henceforth will be, the direct result of American firepower and the resolve to use it.
Tyrants and terrorists of the world do not quake in fear over the sight of Hans Blix.

And finally . . . La Belle Francais!

The great-power pretender FRANCE would rather sabotage America, orchestrate world opposition to weaken us and give encouragement to the Saddam regime rather than suffer the ignobility of following the USA. This power grab is cloaked in a pretense of "Morality" (The French are, of course, famous as the world’s exemplars of selfless moral leadership!) As Foreign Minister Villepin has stated, "Zeez iz not a game Mr. Bush!" It is not a game if you have billions of American taxpayer dollars and tens of thousands of American soldiers lives at stake. It is a game when you try to leverage the fluke of Security Council veto power to aggrandize the shrinking influence of your post-colonial nation.

Villepin, one week into the start of this emerging protracted and bloody war, refused to state that his country prefers an American victory to a Saddam victory. "Zeez iz an illegal war!" The French somehow fail to regard the 17 previous disarmament resolutions as relevant. To the French, stopping the once 30-day disarmament regiment after twelve years of obfuscation would be a "failure" of patience. Their idea of the "serious consequences” of Resolution 1441 is four more months of Hans Blix. Pretty serious! It was the French, by the way, who refused to back up the inspection regiment when, in 1998, Saddam said "enough is enough" and the French willingly collaborated with its dismantling.

Then, of course, the bombing of Serbia in the Kosovo campaign had Zero UN resolutions. Yet the French eagerly participated. The difference was not UN authorization; it was a French "Oui!" This hypocrisy exposes the true French agenda. As France struggles to maintain global influence, it is attempting to twist International Law such that all military action becomes illegal without French permission.

Finally, the French embrace of the "War for Oil" canard is absurd on its face. First, the US stands to lose tens or hundreds of billions of dollars from the war and war-harmed industries. The Iraqi oil industry is puny by comparison. The French (and Russians) on the other hand may lose several billion in oil development contracts that they have already signed with their trade partners, the Saddam regime.

The net result of France's "glorious" efforts to belittle the "hyperpower" will be to curtail what might well have been a military "cakewalk.” But for French maneuvering, we could have had the whole world united against a frightened Saddam (ala 1991). George Bush Sr. had as much initial opposition before Gulf War I, but with the ultimate support of our Allies we received UN backing and even the Syrians supplied troops! Instead we are now politically isolated and fighting a defiant and (French) encouraged brutal enemy in a single-front war.

If indeed when Saddam is ousted, and as many as 8,000 plus Americans die in the upcoming "Mother of All Battles" please remember our French "allies" in your eulogies. I am sure they are “saddened” by the tragedy.

Aye Haider, the "out of Uniform = Terrorist" doesn't hold much water.

American Revolutionaries, French Resistance fighters, Russian Partisans, Boers. History is full of un-uniformed fighters.

Not to justify the actions of the "paramilitaries", but until they begin targeting civilians (and many seem to be - abeit their own) they aren't terrorists.

BBC reporting a British soldier killed on the Al Faw penisula.

Special Forces refers to elite members of the military, who are uniformed. When out of uniform, members of the military are considered spies, not special forces. And yes, spies can be summarily executed and accept that risk as part of the mission.

So yes, those special forces are wearing uniforms.

About Crawford Kilian's comments about the Russian "aeronautics.ru" website: I've been following it for several days and I find it credible, insofar as it represents a perspective on the war with its own interests (the Russians are not eager to make to coalition look good, I am sure).

Much of the information is borne out by developments over the following days. Some things seem hard to believe, such as the quotes from intercepted conversations. However, it is refreshing to read a perspective that makes no use of dramatic narrative devices in its coverage (I find that most Western coverage, whether accurate or not, does have to present a "human interest" angle that distorts the bigger picture).

But I have no knowledge that would prove or disprove its credibility. I'd be curious if anyone else has any specific idea.

Yes. Are the Special Force which are in Baghdad, Basra, Kirkuk, Mosul etc - like Franks said - wearing uniforms?

Some are, some aren't. The *point* of the dark ops across Iraq is that they're *dark*. Most likely, our SF's are dressed in whatever they need to carry out the mission.

This isn't a war that will be won on the battlefield with folks in flak jackets and chem suits. Like Afghanistan, its success will largely be carried out in secrecy by people as "clever" as the Saddam's thugs. Except our guys can read, are healthy, are smarter, and are better equippped.

Syria wants to send in a bunch of toothless ex-pats to jihad and tango with the spec ops? God bless 'em. Load 'em up, ship 'em out. Load up Uncle Fedayeen's broken down jihad bus, fill it up with Koran's that probably have never been by any of its defenders, plaster it with pictures of Uncle Bin Laden, and point it in the direction of Baghdad.

But they better get squared away and ready to meet their maker, because the only dreamy-eyed virgins they're gonna be seeing are the ones they dreamed about when they were 13.

Lots of pressure on Canadians to stick by their pals "as we've always done"... Gee, Canada was in WWI & WWII two years before US took up arms in each. Never joined in on Viet Nam, Granada, Panama and many Cold War secret ops. Only two big ones Canada and U.S. stormed in together: Korea and Gulf War I - both sanctioned by UN.

Partisan -- I'm not claiming that Iraqis (or others) fighting out of uniform are terrorists. But the Geneva Convention does not say that you can execute terrorists. It says that if you fight, you're supposed to be in uniform, and that anybody fighting out of uniform runs the risk of summary execution. Does that outlaw fighting out of uniform? No, spies are an accepted part of warfare. It simply outlines the risks.

My question is whether it would now be good US policy to, at least in a few publicized instances, summarily execute combatants out of uniform with the idea of convincing the opposition to fight in uniform.

Partisan -- I'm not claiming that Iraqis (or others) fighting out of uniform are terrorists. But the Geneva Convention does not say that you can execute terrorists. It says that if you fight, you're supposed to be in uniform, and that anybody fighting out of uniform runs the risk of summary execution. Does that outlaw fighting out of uniform? No, spies are an accepted part of warfare. It simply outlines the risks.

My question is whether it would now be good US policy to, at least in a few publicized instances, summarily execute combatants out of uniform with the idea of convincing the opposition to fight in uniform.

http://www.zaman.org/default.php?kn=1384

The US and Turkey never had an agreement to be Strategic Allies. Now they never will. We were just friends. May give the Kurds food for thought, I suppose.

Michael Erickson -

not to derail... but the US explicity supported the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet (while george bush senior was head of the CIA) which tortured and murdered thousands of chileans (FACT). We also suppported the goverment of El Salvador while it did the same thing in the eighties (Reagan president, bush senior vice president, bush junior - party animal). Many of the colonels and generals who were responsible for the murders and torture of the el salvadorans are currently living a comfy life free from prosecution in miami (FACT). The US also supported Hussein and Iraq while it gassed its own citizens in the south (marsh arabs) and iranian solidiers (FACT) - but no one wants to discuss this.

has the administration in washington all of a sudden had a change of heart and all of a sudden human rights are important to us? pardon me, most iraqis, iranians, the rest of the middle east and world if we are a little skeptical ...

BBC reporting a British soldier killed on the Al Faw penisula.

Which was secured and under control now how often?

My question is whether it would now be good US policy to, at least in a few publicized instances, summarily execute combatants out of uniform with the idea of convincing the opposition to fight in uniform.

What, you think this isn't happening? I'm sure this is part of our psyops. Whattya think that bomb drop on a building of 200 fedayeen was for?

We killed them. They are no more. And if they are, they're probably like Saddam -- with a bad chest wound, possibly no legs, dying in some bunker.

My question is whether it would now be good US policy to, at least in a few publicized instances, summarily execute combatants out of uniform with the idea of convincing the opposition to fight in uniform.

What, you think this isn't happening? I'm sure this is part of our psyops. Whattya think that bomb drop on a building of 200 fedayeen was for?

We killed them. They are no more. And if they are, they're probably like Saddam -- with a bad chest wound, possibly no legs, dying in some bunker.

Where are the gas cannisters?I've got a very bad feeling about this. Iraq has obviously learned some lessons while watching satellite dish reruns of "Black Hawk Down" while Rumsfeld and Co. were busy planning the war. They want an urban fight.

Now imagine an urban fight with nerve agents and tens of thousands of human shields in Baghdad. The implicit (or explicit) threat is: step over this line and we release the gas and kill everyone. Then their deaths are on your head, Uncle Sam. How would the US respond to that type of game of chicken?

Charles,

Executing any Iraqi's, in or out of uniform, will be the job of the new Iraqi judicial system. There will be a day of reckoning for the Saddam Fedayeen and other thugs in Iraq.

Which was secured and under control now how often?

It's getting tiresome to keep hearing this. Whether or not we secure something, doesn't make it 100% safe.

We've secured Chicago for many years now, but I can still get shot by some thug if he points his gun out the window of his Cadillac.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,2368240a10,00.html

New Zealand stays out of it, offers peaceful help.
My comment:
Dear USA, Making a martyr out of Saddam (attempted take out with CIA advice even beforwe the 48 hour ultimatum expired) was dumb, making a martyr out of the Iraqi people is dumber, taking on the entire nation of Islam - will bankrupt the USA, among other evils.

Pray for all victims, please.

Amen IT.

New York was considered secure ever since the War of 1812.

Is it secure now?

Just to be clear, by the way, I want to point out that morally I do not have a problem with the summary execution of combatants out of uniform. I do have a moral problem with the summary execution of combatants in uniform -- those are prisoners of war.

But when we allow people fighting out of uniform to gain the status of prisoners of war, we tell the enemy that there is no difference between fighting in and out of uniform. In truth, the only way that there is no difference between fighting in and out of uniform would be if the rules of engagement made no distinction between civilians and members of the military. Since our rules of engagement do, which is quite obviously the ethical position, what happens when apparent civilians fire on our troops? The result is that in the resultant confusion, true civilians will get fired upon. If all combatants were in uniform, it would be easy to know whether somebody is a legitimate target, and as a result civilians in a war zone would gain considerable added safety. When combatants fight out of uniform, the result is a massive increase in civilian casualties.

So from that point of view, the ethical question is whether it is better to allow members of the military to fight out of uniform with impunity, killing civilians, or whether it is better for the members of the military themselves to assume the risks of war.

Your call - which sounds to you like the more ethical position?

As I said, my question dealt with effectiveness, because from a moral point of view I definitely think this policy would be justified.

Alan: "They want an urban fight."

So why do you think/assume we're going to be so silly as to give them one?

IT,

Your statement that "[w]hether or not we secure something, doesn't make it 100% safe" is a great point. The same can be said for Afghanistan. Just because there are continued attacks upon the American forces doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of the Afghan population isn't glad to be free of the Taliban.

Best,

Juan

Crawford Kilian wrote at March 30, 2003 01:52 PM,

"... I'm curious to know if anyone is tracking a Russian "intelligence" page that offers almost daily summaries of the war in Iraq. Today's comments are at http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news083.htm..."

I don't find it bogus at all. It has info available before the Western news media picks up on it, and has refuted some claims that later were shown to be false such as the surrender of the Iraqi division in S. Iraq. The very 1st update in the series quoted a Russian saying the campaign was going to much more difficult that the US thought.

MSNBC reports a Marine UH-1 copter down near forward refueling base. 4 dead and 1 wounded

There was a suspected case of SARS reported in central New York yesterday:

http://www.syracuse.com/news/poststandard/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1048930581169460.xml

It's a 17-month-old baby who had been in China; reportedly expected to recover.

The do-gooder West, the Canadians, New Zealanders, Swedes and pacifist types throughout the West do not have a clue as to how global security works.

Security???

Tell that to the people of Chile, Paraquay, Argentina, Brazil, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Panama, Uganda, South Africa.. th list goes on, every single one of them once run by a brutally repressive regime propped up by the USA.

If getting its buildings blown up at home, its embassies and citizens blown up abroad is the cost of American global "security", I will take a pass. If global "security" means American troops suddenly showing up on your shores because the current occupant of the White House does not like your government, I will take a pass.

Please, go back into the shell of isolationism and do not bother us with this kind of "security" for the next 50 years. Not even during the Cuban Missile Crisis did I have so much fear about how history is about to unfold.

Correction: 3 dead and 1 wounded on copter crash

The Geneva Convention allows combatants fighting out of uniform to be summarily executed. Is it time to consider such an approach here?

Charles, an interesting thought. That, I would guess, may be the fate of those US Special Ops guys roaming around Baghdad since March 17. However, it seems to me the crucial battle now for the US is the "Hearts & Minds" both local in Iraq and global in the media. This would not play well. Summary execution would also fail to serve it's prime objective -deterrence- in this situation. The US finds itself pitted against an opponent that does not seem to much fear death, however it arrives.

Questions about the rocket hitting the ISAF HQ in Kabul: Usually, comments on rocket attacks against western forces end like: "US-bases are regularly attacked with rockets. However, these rockets are poorly aimed and seldom reach their targets."

How come they hit this time?

1. Bad luck?
2. Enemy now has better aiming/guiding devices = we're doomed in Afghanistan?
3. Something wrong with this report?
4. Something wrong with other reports on rockets against bases?

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/30/1048962646005.html

awesome article "the war is lost politically"
by Aussie experts; remember, the Aussies have as closest neighbors the largest Islamic country in the world (Indonesia), the most powerful Asian country (China).

The US is isolating itself - loyal Americans must stop the political suicide; don't make Saddam a martyr - leave him in Baghdad as the 'mayor'; consult with Middle Eastern countries; get a plan!!

Please pray for all victims!

About 'securing' Iraq

The Iraq cannot be 'secured'...the people will keep fighting your soldiers, even when Saddam is killed and a new administration is in power.

In order to 'secure' the Iraq US and GB soldiers will have to stay for the next couple of years. They will be targets for suicide bombers, the resistance won't just die down after Saddams death.

And this time the US will have to bear the costs of the war and the 'nation building' itself, contrary to the last gulf war...

Shawn Pickrell:

if you aren't going to give them a fight on the streets of Baghdad, what are you going to give them? A several-month siege that will bring plague and cholera, starvation and slow death from dehydration, epidemics of any other kind of disease you may think of?

Or will you just drop a few MOABs on top of a city of 5 million?

So, is the word "terrorist" appropriate for violent action taken against a uniformed military enemy? If not, are "guerilla tactics" and "suicide attacks" correct alternatives?

Those uncouth colonial insurrectionists! They fire upon us from behind walls and trees. They follow no civilized rules of war! - a typical British commander during the U.S. revolution in the 1700's.

Granmere:

"no one else has the money or the power to even be able to consider the choice of going after Saddam or leaving him to come after us."

I agree and I don't. The US can't afford to provide humanitarian aid or rebuild Iraq by itself. That's why we have International organizations like the UN or the Red Cross. Besides, the US didn't go it alone last time. This time they'll be footing the bill by themselves (essentially). I'm not sure that they made their case about Saddam coming after Amercia either...

"If you see/hear enough variety, you know who to trust. Is it really that different in Canada?"

I'm sorry if I left you with that impression. ?? Yes it's the same here. The difference is that it's easier for us to get a better balanced newscast. Our national news broadcaster (CBC) is available to everyone in the country free of charge. The Amercian media we get here (cable or satellite) can only be described as cheerleaders for war. CNN, MSNBC, FOX news etc. Without turning to the internet (which is what people should really do in this case) do Americans have access to a balanced TV newscast? I'm not being sly, I'm asking. I don't know. =)

I believe the average person gets most of their news from television broadcasts. (various surveys as to such) Seeing as CNN claims to be the nation's "most trusted newssource", that leaves us with the impression of an American public who's placed their trust in something that might not be deserving of it...

Sorry if I sounded like I was beating up on Amercians--I just agree with you--your media is doing you no favours in these times. They're not doing their job.

Kamran:

Most Americans believe in the democratic peace theory, that is they believe that democracies generaly don't go to war with each other. Therefore the goal of the US is to topple Hussein, replace him with an administrator in the short run, and then to have democratic elections once things have settled down.

The US does not want to rule Iraq. We understand that would be unjust and impractical.

How come they hit this time?

1. Bad luck?
2. Enemy now has better aiming/guiding devices = we're doomed in Afghanistan?
3. Something wrong with this report?
4. Something wrong with other reports on rockets against bases?

The rockets were most likely fired above/next to the target as a demonstration of power. "Look we can harm you". The ISAF forces are quite well liked (like I already said over at Daily Kos) even by Hekmatyar and the rebels. But they hate the US troops, which operate completly independent from the ISAF. The rockets on the ISAF are more a warning than an attack. If the Rebels choose to attack, the ISAF would be doomed. They only have about 1000 lightly equiped combat-ready trooper.
But with the Iraq war, the rebels may get more angry.

disturbing article regarding US treatment of afghani prisoners, geneva convention etc. (also printed in london guardian apparently, but here with sources and links)

http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=569

Did anyone catch this in yesterday's DoD news briefing?

http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/transcripts/20030332.htm

"Rumsfeld: No, I didn't say it wasn't important to know. I said it wasn't knowable. I said -- my goodness! We will know. We will find out. That real estate will end up being occupied by the coalition forces -- "
(emphasis mine).

It seems to me that the language is changing. Was this a slip?
Rummy is becoming quite a liability if you ask me.

What do you mean, "becoming"??

Uh-oh. I read that SARS story a little more closely and I see that it's also been suspected in Jefferson County in a mother and child, which is north of here and closer to the Canadian border.

real estate will end up being occupied by the coalition

Speaking of occupied real estate, what does the USA propose to do with the Palestinians?

Georgie has already promised them he would support a Palestinian state after Iraq is taken care of. Note that he was careful not to promise it would be on the West Bank, nor anywhere west of the Jordan River.

Now, there is a whole bunch of land in western Iraq that is pretty empty most of the time.

As Nimitz said to Halsey, the world wonders.

Thank's Haider!

I'm still puzzled though. NYT quotes AP telling: "...ISAF is across the street from the US Embassy", and, ...Asaf (Afghan Police)said rocket were fired from several miles...".

If from close distance, why didn't they take the Embassy? Why is the Police saying it was from far away?

Maybe because they it is their responsibility to prevent downtown shooting?

OK, final report on the SARS thing, if anyone is interested: the Jefferson County case also has its origins in Hong Kong.

http://www.rochesterdandc.com/news/0329story6_news.shtml

Kamran:

Many in the west oppose removing Hussein and introducing democracy because they think that many Muslims are terrorists and a democratic Muslim nation would not be safe. Do you agree?

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. 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 greater danger."

Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

from
URL = [a href="http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm"] Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials [/a]

Most Americans may believe in the democracy theory; most young children also believe in the Easter Bunny.

helpless____

very helpful indeed!

Raven:

"Chile, Paraquay, Argentina, Brazil, Cambodia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Panama, Uganda, South Africa the list goes on, every single one of them once run by a brutally repressive regime propped up by the USA."

History not your strong suit eh? If you want to use a very liberal definition of "propped up" then it fits for at most 2 of those countries. But what do I know? I only double concentrated in latin america history and african history....The facts are that the US lent some support to some of these regimes -- as did the world bank, the rest of the world, england, france, spain, germany, and the rest of the first world.

The US hasnt been any sort of boon for Latin America -- it has a mixed track record (generous) and has operated how all nations do -- in self interest. Maybe you should do some reading, before you keep typing?

eeks,

And where did you study history? Check out William Blum's Killing Hope.

eeks posted:
and has operated how all nations do -- in self interest.

That says it all!! At least spare us the ´democracy´ preaching.

P.S: Raven doesn´t need reading for those facts. He was being lenient. There are at least 15 more cases he didn´t mention.

eeks, whatever.

Make up your own list, if you're honest enough to do so.

Make sure not to remove Cambodia from such a list. When Viet Nam invaded to get rid of Pol Pot, the US sent in aid that kept him in power.. the most brutally repressive dictator the world has seen since Josef Stalin.

At one of the most liberal universities in the country. I wrote several papers on my pet thesis that Ike was the anti-chirst and all our postwar problems can be put on his head for the precedents he set with how he used th CIA, how he acted internationally (Iran, Guatemala, Venezuela, messing up the summit with the U2 miscue) and even his domestic policies (Highway act, tearing up Native American treaties). I'm no cheerleader, and I have read this book...along with about 100 others. Raven is wrong, as is the implicit point of her post(s) that the US acts somehow more dastardly/inhumanly than the rest of the world.

....The facts are that the US lent some support to some of these regimes

eeks.... "some support"? as previously mentioned.. US backed regimes in Chile, El Salvador, Guatamala etc.... killed and tortured thousands and thousands of their own civilians.

perhaps our leadership and the Bush family has undergone a change of heart on the subject of human rights.... there is plenty of evidence to the contrary - good excuse for a war in iraq though.

people where i work were arguing about the war....some said we need to free the iraqi people from saddam because he is so evil, that we are doing the right thing...when i said that my son was over there fighting, and that i was very concerned about him and how ugly the urban fighting is going to be they said we should just bomb bagdad to oblivion to reduce u.s. casulties...from liberating them to murdering them within one conversation....

eeks:

I don't think people are necessarily trying to vilify the US. They're just pointing out that their track record is spotty at best--that people's fears and apprehension aren't unwarranted.

European,

Why can't US actions be self-interested _and_ result in democracy in Iraq? I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. The Afghan case is a supporting example. Our self-interest was to retaliate against al Qaeda, and the end result was the removal of the Taliban. That regime was replaced by a more democratic one, which has popular support. So what if our primary goal was not exactly to create the latter entity; it exists nonetheless.

and since factuality plays an important role in any discussion, let´s bring the curtain down. It´s not only the Arabs or the under-developed that the ´missionary´ democrats liberated.

They ´raped´ a democratic and European nation like Greece in 1967 by installing and supporting a military junta for 7 years.

Pres. Clinton had the good sense to formally apologize for those actions.
And you know what? It wasn´t that bad..... people have a capacity to forgive. It only takes some courage to say "I was wrong and i´m sorry".

European

The very last thing any European can do is honestly lecture an American about "self interest" and meddling in everybody elses' affairs. The difference is that the Europeans did it to establish de facto colonies or prevent a rival European power from doing so.

What may have happened 10, 50 or 100 years ago is interesting and sometimes even instructive but as an analytical tool to guage the effect of current events, it's useless.

Spend some time and read the jihadi rantings in the Arab press. Palestinius bacillus, thanks largely to European cowardness and feckleness, is spreading throughout Arabworld. No surprise here.

We will take care of ourselves, thank you. If you're lucky you can continue as a freerider.

Regarding Canada:

from "Coming to aid of 'family' a myth
The idea that the U.S. would rush to save us is touching. The reality is less comforting, says historian James Laxer" :

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1035780014478

Really, the issue with Canada not joining in is that we don't support the Bush Doctrine pof invading in order to pre-empt a thoroughly thoeretical pre-emptive attack by the target country.

Canada is a middle power and cannot secure its place in the world by the projection, or threat of projection, of military power. What we have as collateral in this world is trust in our motives.

The conditions by which we would have entered this war are/were any one of:

1. UN approval
2. Security Council approves by majority vote which is then vetoed ()the 'rogue veto' stance
3. A significant use of WMD against the coalition by Iraq.

We were trying to cut a deal with in the UN whereas Iraq would be given specific deadlines for disarmament. If any were violated, the matter would go before the Security Council for a war vote. We were generating support for this. Our diplomats believe that under such a circumstance France would abstain. If not, then according to premise #2 above, we would give the US our support given that the majority of the Security Council voted in favour.

Bush's intrasience is startling. Canada has 'swing' power in the UN and could have enlarged the coalition, and have found a way to provide more troops and financial and humanitarian aid support to this war from that enlarged coalition. This would have legitimized the war, saved American tax dollars and reduced suspicions about US motives.

It is worth noting that Canada, Mexico and now Chile all depend heavily upon trade with America, and all did not join the coalition.
We did not do this on a whim.

Most countries in the coalition joined up due to bribes of one sort or another, and most have contributed nothing to the war effort.

Both Australia and the UK are trying to gain favour with the Americans. UK PM Blair was thining that in joining in the war, he would gain some influence with America over the status and disposition of post-war Iraq. Looks like he may be wrong.

Canada does not shirk from its responsibilities. We maintain peace keeping duties throughout the world. We were quite active in the Kosovo war. Our troops stationed in Rwanda screamed for help when it became apparant that things were about to come apart. (No one listened, our troops had to pull out and 800,000 people died - didn't the US veto involvement?) Our mobilization in both world wars was huge. We are currently active in the Mediterrean doing interdiction duties for America. We have troops on exchange duty serving in Iraq (Shhhh!). We have troops in Afghanistan, and are sending more soon. We took in immense numbers of planes and people when US airspace was cleared due to 9/11, taking some risk of a suicide terrorist attack upon ourselves. Heck, a Canadian general was even running Norad at the time. We lost Canadian citizens in the 9/11 attack too.

This is just a partial list off the top of my head.

We often have allowed the US to use our territory in order to protect their interest. That they characterize this at times as some sort of selfless act of defending us, is an irritant, but we put up with it.

We like our American cousins, and feel the pain of their loss 9/11 and hope that their troops stay safe.

But many of us feel that the Bush Doctrine is ill-advised and will cause much blow-back.

eeks must still believe in the Easter Bunny.

I didn't say the US acts alone in perfidy; if you go back through the pages of the Agonist, you will find that I have made the same accusations against France and the UK for their actions during their eras of colonial expansion.

But uniquely in history, a nation has the power to do such thinks on a global basis, and it is doing so.

That nation is the United States of America.

"Make up your own list, if you're honest enough to do so."

Well Iran is a lot more appropriate, all things considered, n'est-ce pas?

History is a history of strong nations/peopels aserting their interests over weaker nations/peoples.

Was the world some sort of Utopia before the US became a super power? Are things better now than they were say 100 years ago? 200 years ago? More fair or less fair? Is Iraq better off with Stalin in charge (and then his hand picked successor) or a US general for a short duration and then perhaps some sort of democracy (it could be genuine or dubious we have no guidance to really see what will happen with it -- see, Afghanistan). I mean ask yourselves these questions. Honestly.

Warthog___

I never said that America was solely responsible.
In fact, my personal opinion about what many European countries did, is worse.

Blame is shared by all.

glrotate
I cannt decide if you really want to know or you are trying to insult me, but I think that there are lots of problems between west and muslims in 19 and 20 centuries that lead to this misunderstandings on both sides.

As we saw in the last few years attemps to show goodwill by leaders like pres.Clinton and pres. Khatami can help a lot to remove these misunderstandings.
Belive muslims are not more terrorists than others.but everybody if find himself sbject to unfairness (either rightly or wrongly) may use means which may not acceptab le.
the best way to cure this is not using methods that make more implicAtions of unfairness.
simply using peaceful fair methods whould isolate those few criminals and made them surrender.We see this in recent Iran reforms.
Regretly the current war on Iraq certainly worked against any possible goodwills of its designers.I can see a bloody future in region for years ahead.I wish great wisdom for USA leaders to prevent this bloody future.amin

Therefore the goal of the US is to topple Hussein, replace him with an administrator in the short run, and then to have democratic elections once things have settled down.

The US does not want to rule Iraq. We understand that would be unjust and impractical.

Brian, assuming your tongue is not firmly in cheek:
The US wants Baghdad to be it's "second pillar" in the Middle East. The Iraqi people will be allowed to have a democracy as long as it is US friendly, as long as it's values coincide with the US and most importantly as long as it serves US economic & hegemonic interests. This is the US definition of what's just and practical, like any bully. The Just and the Practical of the weaker are values to be overcome by the stronger. What, not democratic? There must be something wrong here, we'll fix it! Your democracy doesn't agree with ours? (ie. Canada, the UN, 80% of the world's population) Time for a regime change!
This is the message portrayed by the US to the world. This is why the US is losing the PR war. The majority of the world sees the US not as a liberator, but as a self-serving bully; not as a protector, but as a protection racket; not as an Ally, but as a fickle friend that will only play if it gets to be Master.
This is the hubris of complacency and arrogance.
This is the legacy of the current Administration. You asked for it, you got it.

from liberating them to murdering them within one conversation..

"We had to level Hue in order to liberate it."

Good morning, Vietnam

eeks,

I don't think that the point is that the US acts MORE inhumanely than other governments. I think there has been enough terror in the last 100 yrs. for that arguement to be put to rest. The difference in my mind is that the US consistently claims NOT to be doing these things; i.e. when we terrorize people it's OK, but when our enemies do it, it's inexcusable. It's a fundamental hypocrisy, particularly for a nation that claims to hold values like liberty and self-determination. I almost with the Bush junta would just come out and say, "look, this guy Hussein is on top of alot of oil, and we want that stuff! Not to mention, we'd really like a government in place in Iraq that wouldn't give us any trouble about moving all of the profits from that oil to us." At least it would avoid the need for all of the silly rhetoric about "liberating" the people.

"3. A significant use of WMD against the coalition by Iraq."

A "significant" use. Thank you very much Oh Canada.

Canada used to be a great country. It's now a breeding ground of pathetic appeasers hiding from responsibility. We do not want your help. You would be in the way.

"They're just pointing out that their track record is spotty at best--that people's fears and apprehension aren't unwarranted."

But what's the comparison for the spotty track record? A nation that doesn't have a spotty track record is either isolationistic or xenophobic enough to never get involved...and even some of those guys have spotty track records.

What do people fear? That the US will look for someone worse than Saddam to run Iraq? I mean even if you assume that the US is guided solely by self-interest, it is NOT in the US interest to have Iraq be run anything but ideally. These fears are grounded in the morass of anti-realism.

Charles,

The answer is: no. We will gain more by showing mercy. War criminals can be prosecuted in public trials, if necessary. U.S. soldiers are not Saddam's Fedayeen--we don't practice summary executions. We also don't sanction rape. We don't target civilian populations. We don't use terror tactics. There are higher moralities than the Geneva Convention, even in times of war: the Geneva Convention is a baseline, not a manifesto. The very short answer to your suggestion is the following: we are not thugs. And we will not become like the thugs we are fighting.

I was very moved by the story of an Iraqi woman who was seen waving at British troops. She was last seen hanging from a lamp post. This demonstrates the nature of the evil we are fighting. But I don't believe we should become that evil to fight it. The Brits are doing their best to capture Baath Party thugs--but they are not hanging them from lamp posts.

If at some point we become a mere "force", and cease to be a "moral force", we may win the war, but we will have lost every argument for fighting it. We might win the war, but we'd lose the peace. In effect, we'd win the battle and lose the war. Our conduct during the war is tied very closely to the post-war peace that follows. We cannot jeopardize that for reasons of petty revenge or emotionalism.

I doubt very much that, from a military perspective, the threat of summary executions would have any impact. These are fanatics. As fanatics, no threat will influence them. Do you believe that there would have been no kamikaze bombers in the Pacific if we announced that all kamikaze bombers we captured would be executed? Don't underestimate the courage of fanatics, and don't overestimate the effect that the threat of punishment has on fanatics--who are courageous enough to die for a cause. I don't think fanatics can be deterred by threats. Fanatics are deterred by one thing: the knowledge that their fanaticism is suicide and won't have any impact on the battle. Many fanatics aren't even deterred by that--and most of them are going to die, having achieved nothing.

The tactics of these fanatics will, in fact, drive world opinion against them. There are strong indications that world opinion is already changing.

I do know that, if U.S. troops began practicing summary executions, world opinion would shift--against us. We went to war, justly, I believe, against world opinion--but I also believe that that decision will be vindicated in the long run. The only thing that threatens that outcome are idiots who believe the purpose of fighting this war is to kill people. The real purpose of the war is to create a lasting peace.

And we will never have the moral authority to create that if we begin practicing summary executions, Charles. We will be no better than the thugs we are trying to oust, who hang their own people from lamp posts for waving at British troops. Who have dungeons and interrogation chambers, who practice rape to instill terror, whose leader idolizes Stalin. Stalin was evil, but to my knowledge, he never used war gasses to instill fear in the rebellious provinces of the former Soviet empire. To my knowledge, Stalin never institutionalized rape.

Saddam has been experimenting in new ways with the worst evils known to mankind--to create a new society? I don't profess to know his motivations. All I know is that it is evil. We have the power to end it. But, in ending it, I don't believe in becoming the evil we are trying to eliminate. We must have moral clarity. Saddam measures victory by the boolean yardstick of his own survival. He probably sees the current war in terms of his hero, Joseph Stalin, who at one time was threatened by German troops who could see Moscow. I think Saddam also believes that Iraqis will fight for him, in the same way that the Red Army fought for Stalin. He is wrong.

And I will not weep when this outpost of worse-than-Stalinist brutality is erased from the tributaries of the ebb and flow of human history.

James,

Read the Monbiot piece alluded to above before you go waxing on about how merciful American soldiers are.

http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=569

"The difference in my mind is that the US consistently claims NOT to be doing these things; i.e. when we terrorize people it's OK, but when our enemies do it, it's inexcusable. It's a fundamental hypocrisy, particularly for a nation that claims to hold values like liberty and self-determination."

No, every nation who does bad things claims they are good things. Iraq's gov has built a cult of hero-worship around Saddam and I think we could all agree that when he invades Kuwait it's glorious; when he gets invaded it's criminal. It's just posturing for the easily swayed. I mean Qin dynasty brought us legalism and they were an inhumane bunch of jackals -- but it was justice and it was great!

No nations claims to be making mistakes or acting criminally....unless it's a new gov replacing an old gov and speaking about the acts of the past gov.

The real evil is the way in which short-term political cycles incentivize the pursuit of interests only in the short term without mind to their long term repercussions. But I'll stop before I start getting all Ike and Arbenzy.

then to have democratic elections once things have settled down.

gotnogun, you forgot to mention the fact that Richard Perle has already stated that American values are the ones on which any such "democracy" will be based, and any nation which does not agree that those values are good and righteous will "be held at a distance" until it does.

[CBC interview with Richard Perle, broadcast today]

Somewhere in the Agonist archives may be found references to some very disturbing articles along these lines: the God Squad has already announced its contribution to relief aid will be comprised of missionary teams. "But we will not proselytize." uh huh

I forget the names (one is the son of Billy Graham), but advocates of bombing Mecca to teach the heathen a lesson are amongst the crowd.

This is freedom???

eeks and Diogenes,

eeks, I agree with you on this one. Diogenes, your attempts to minimize real differences between the US and other nations (SH's Iraq, specifically) doesn't stand up to scrutiny. For example, do our enemies place their own fighting forces at risk in order to lessen civilian casulaties? (And I'm talking about military policy and rules of engagement.) I see a pretty big difference between the USA and those nations, states, and regimes that do the opposite in time of war, that place civilians in harm's way, or, in fact, have an active interest in maximizing the other side's civilian casualties. This makes a difference in how I evaluate their statements relating to the war's aims.

pursuit of interests only in the short term without mind to their long term repercussions

Which is precisely what US governments in recent history always seem to do, and this one is no exception.

please, eeks, Easter is still 4 weeks away. The bunny isn't here yet.

eeks:

A nation that doesn't have a spotty track record is either isolationistic or xenophobic enough to never get involved...and even some of those guys have spotty track records.

I agree to a point. But how does this dillute in any way the justification people have for feeling uneasy about this? The fact that others have spotty track records too only ADDS to the arguement that spotty track records scare people. You would be hearing the same thing if another country with a spotty track record was embarking on this "crusade" (to quote Bush). ;)

it is NOT in the US interest to have Iraq be run anything but ideally

ideally for whom? richard cheney?

you are digging yourself a hole ... eeks ...

eeks,

If all governments do this, then doesn't it follow that there ought to be an international arbiter to sort it all out?

And, I still maintain that few other nations claim to have such "values" as the US. Saddam does not adhere to a constitution that calls for him to get approval from Congress to declare war, and there is nothing about his regime that is about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." But, we claim to hold those values, and yet our foreign policy is consistently allayed against them. Again, that, in my mind, points to the hypocrisy of attempting to institute American-style democracy at gunpoint.

Diogenes,

How exactly is "American-style" democracy distinct from other brands, and how would the introduction of another brand be better for the Iraqi people?

do our enemies place their own fighting forces at risk in order to lessen civilian casulaties?

I asked this question a few days ago of someone else, and got no answer. Juan, perhaps I will get an answer now.

If some space aliens invaded the USA with as much a technological advantage over you as you have over Iraq, do you expect me to believe Americans would not act in precisely the same way as Iraqis do now?

If fact, you've already done that in your history: during the War of Independence, you rewrote the rules of war by having some of your troops a) dress in civilian clothes, and b) fight from behind trees instead of standing in lines in the open like all "civilized" men did in those days.

"Are there terror squads conscripting male citizens for the suicide squads-hmm"

How is that supposed to work out (outside of US propaganda fantasies). "Kill yourself or we'll shoot you"?

There's a huge effort on the part of the "coalition" to present any resistance by Iraqis as forced by Saddam but let's face it --- it's a big lie. I'm sure there are some Iraqis who don't want to fight and feel under pressure to. That's true of the US marines too. Article the other day about a marine saying he just wanted to go home. He won't of course. Fear of being shot by his officer? Not exactly, but he knows he has little choice but to carry on fighting.

The British soldiers who refused to fight, and the US soldier who attacked his own officers are exceptions, and I dare say there are some exceptions on the Iraqi side too.

Two points to respond to:

in terms of Iraq and military strategy and all of that: I daresay that were the US attacked and a foreign power were to invade the mainland, rules of engagement would go out the window. Not to mention that I think it is ridiculous to have "how to fight fair" rules. If someone breaks into my house with a gun, and he happens to be 6'8" and 260 kg, I wouldn't really be thinking about how to fight fair. I'd be thinking about how to survive. I think the analogy holds up. Of course, the solution to all of the 'engagement' nonsense is to avoid war at all costs in the first place.

As for your second question, I think there was a post above that referred to Perle's definition of "American-style" democracy -- democracy that agrees with what we say it should. Now, I think this makes it something other than a democracy (perhaps a vassal state? Ask Israel -- they have this status).

There was a post earlier about William Blum's "Killing Hope".

I was unaware of it and just did some digging.

According to a list compiled by historian William Blum, the U.S. has bombed 23 nations since the end of World War II. The list begins with China in 1945-46, includes Korea (1950-53), Vietnam (1961-73), Libya (1983), Panama (1989), Yugoslavia (1999) and ends with the current bombing campaign in Iraq. Blum goes on to explain that of these 23 countries, exactly zero have formed democratic governments as a result of the bombing.

Is this on the level? If so, does Iraq really have a hope in hell of getting a true democracy? What are the criticisms of this book?

raven,

I answered this hypothetical in an earlier comments thread. Here goes again. If the USA were invaded by a nation of superior military force US forces would use "guerilla" tactics, yes. Sabotage of enemy supplies, stores, you bet. Would the civilian political leaders issue orders to US troops to kill the families of those men unwilling to fight? I don't think so. Would the poltical or military leadership direct US troops or forces to use _unwilling_ civiilians as shields, and to shoot those civilians if they refused to serve this purpose? I don't think so.

oh fuxxor..the trolls are here
/me gone

diogenes, do you have any idea why US troops in Iraq should be asked to pray for George Bush, instead of the other way around?

otoh, if they do pray that he will be guided by God's wisdom, then maybe there will be a chance for a ceasefire and they can come home.

Assuming, of course, that Caesar George II actually listens when he prays.

"The Geneva Convention allows combatants fighting out of uniform to be summarily executed"

Not exactly. There's several exceptions which cover most of what's happening in Iraq. It's recognised that a lot of times people just don't have uniforms. In any case so far as anyone knows the US has shot all its prisoners since they refuse access to the Red Cross. I don't think this is wise. It's basically signing the death warrants of any US and UK POWs that are currently in Iraqi hands.

The idea of having rules of war helps America far more than Iraq. Throwing away the pretense of rules hurts America far more than Iraq.

I have read all the above and it seems to me that there are those who believe that this war is necessary and those who don't, and all arguments follow.

But I have yet to hear an answer from anyone on the planet to this question: what is the long term solution to Saddam Hussein's evil other than war to oust his regime?

Containment cannot go on forever. So please, someone, answer this question if you can.

If the US was purely interested in democracies that toe the US party line, please explain to me France, Turkey, S. Korea, Japan ... and countless others that the US helped foster and now are free to make their own choices, and even *gasp* choose paths that diverge from the US.

Would the civilian political leaders issue orders....

Thanks, Juan. There is only one flaw in what you say.

Your thesis is predicated on the assumption that that is what the IRaq government is actually doing. The only way you can believe that is if you believe that not a single Iraqi views this as a war of national survival.

Why, if the USA were attacked in similar fashion, I tend to believe that even the lunatic fringe that cries "peace at any cost, whatever that cost may be" would even pick up a rifle and fight.

So why is it so inconceivable that Omar the Iraqi might just do the same thing?

raven,

it is truly frightening, in my opinion, that we are continuing to see the breakdown of the separation of church and state. In fact, there is a bill in the US House (HR 153) calling on Bush to institute a national day of prayer and fasting for our troops.

I think it is summed up best in a book by Tariq Ali called The Clash of Fundamentalisms. I agree with you, and Dylan's "With God On Our Side" comes to mind: "if God's on our side, he'll stop the next war."

To Duane!

I, as a Quebecer from Canada, fully support my governement on his decision of not supporting this war. I know really well what Saddam has done to his people. They also do! Why are they resisting then? Ask
Salam Pax what he think of this invasion.
This war will not cause "few dozens of civilian casualities"but a "few" hundreds, if not thousand. Did you not a missile thrown by a b52 throw srhapnel to 1 km around whit real possibility to harm someone.
Precision bombing my ass!

We as Canadian do not support doing so much casualities in each side for reasons we think are weak.This is not a thing of being your ally or not. World isn't black or white. You have to respect our sovereignty as we do for you by letting you make this war whitout UN.What if we were stopping selling you paper, electricity for New york city. What will american do in a hundred year when your country is gonna be so dry you can't have drinking water if we do not share ours whit you. You can think you are a super power but you r not. You are more dependent than never of your allies.

This war could had been handled on a peaceful way. You american cannot tell you bring democracy around the world! Do I have to remember you the way dubya Bush has been elected? How can we trust a governement wich is applying those principles of democracy quite selectively while dealing whit North Korea, Rwanda, Cambodge,Pakistan, or guantanamo bay prisoners. And what about their implications whit the oil worker strike in Venezuela where it was reported that some american seniors has been involved to organize whit the media this strike against a “socialist” willing to nationalize his industry? Can you name me a Country where USA has brought a real democracy? Can we tell that a two party democratic system based on geographical représentation can be democratic. What about those socialist, greens, pro-weed, trotkist, anarcho-communist and even extremists who do not have any voices in their governement despite the fact that a part of the population support them?

Continue supporting a governement who prefer manage a way to assure his oil independance instead of dealing to really get rid of our addiction to this product.
Who need a SUV made to go offroad when it is brought 80% of the time on highway?
Does tank burns oil?? And apache copters?

Now that this war is unfolding and showing his real face, we see that iraqi people will resist. Those person are fighting for their country, not for saddam. Maybe the regime change will improve their lifstyle, but in wich way.Let me think , by opening mcdos, nike stores and Wall-Mart; by giving them jobs so they can buy all those american “goodies”? and think their full oil money is coming back in their hands while us is taking some part to “finance” Irak gulf war 2.0? We can’t tell in their names what peoples want. Who are we to tell them our american way of living is what they need? American should know better than any one that a regime change who is valuable come from the inside. Certainly not in the name of god by a western country totally different from Iraq. This god wich everyone in this battle is fighting for.…

That war is let me a bad aftertaste not you?

PS:to all Usa citizens who understand our sovereignty, don't feel hurt by the use of american in this text.

Mathieu

"ideally for whom? richard cheney?

you are digging yourself a hole ... eeks ... "

No ideally, as in visibly equitable and more humane than Saddam. Like the veritable "nation on the hill." Whether that's will actually happen will be tricky and maybe not possible. I'm not in a hole.

"please, eeks, Easter is still 4 weeks away. The bunny isn't here yet."

Is Easter the holiday where Christ comes back from the grave and gives you a brain? Or in that the where we kill Turkeys and eat indigenous person pudding?

"If some space aliens invaded the USA with as much a technological advantage over you as you have over Iraq, do you expect me to believe Americans would not act in precisely the same way as Iraqis do now? "

Yeah, you are well grounded in the ideas behind the rules of engagement, the Geneva convention. Space aliens? I may believe in the Easter bunny, but you might possibly *BE* the easter bunny.

If the US was purely interested in democracies that toe the US party line, please explain to me France, Turkey, S. Korea, Japan

They're too strong for the US to take them on?

They're actually democratic (well, Turkey so-so) so the US could not haul out the liberation argument?

They are strategically vital to US interests, namely containment of China and Russia?

"as a dictator, killing his own people is perfectly within his rights and responsibilities, as he is the law, and there is no “consensus” or congress about his decisions"

Well that's not true. Iraq isn't a medieval kingdom. It has laws. A parliament. It is a signatory to various well know international treaties that gaurantee various rights. Having said that it is also not usually recognised that the "classic" example used of "he gassed his own people" was possibly legal since it took place during the war with Iraq. I'm not sure that Iraq had signed on to any chemical weapons treaty at that time.... Halabja was colateral damage.

Oddly enough the argument used for "liberating" Iraqis when they don't want to be liberated is an example of breaking all kinds of laws and rules and would put Iraq back to a medieval level of law. Namely - whatever Bush says goes. Might is right. The only law that Bush holds to is the law of the jungle. The US invasion represents a great loss of rights to the Iraqi people. Trying to argue that this criminal war is made on humanitarian grounds fails whenever it is allowed to meet any facts. There has probably never been a genuinely humanitarian invasion ever in world history. The idea that America of all countries -- a country that has devastated Iraq for years -- could possibly be considered a savior to Iraq is sick. It's a testement to the US government's black-ops against its own citizens that Americans beleive this misinformation.

Space aliens? I may believe in the Easter bunny, but you might possibly *BE* the easter bunny

Now eeks would have us believe that it is absolutely and utterly impossible for there to be intelligent life somewhere other than the earth.

Next he'll ask us to believe in Santa Claus.

"So yes, those special forces are wearing uniforms."

They are operating inside Baghdad in full uniform? Rubbish.

Jim O'C:

There are international laws that (ought to)govern such things. I think the United States should have continued to work with the rest of the world to bring Hussein to trail for crimes against humanity. Of couse, the US would have to ratify the international criminal court in order to have a venue for that.

Why did the US not allow the inspections process to continue? Why has it not ratified the ICC? Why has it continued to thumb its nose at the rest of the world? My answer to all of these is that this illegal military action has nothing to do with Hussein's crimes or weapons. I honestly think that if the US were truly interested in the people of Iraq and in democracy in any meaningful sense, it would have pursued an international course of action and viewed military action as an absolute last resort.

There are legitimate, legal methods to deal with individuals like Hussein, and the US should have worked in partnership with the rest of the world to deal with him. Again, I see the US' failure to do that as an indication that the who issue is oil and regional hegemony.

I'm not sure that Iraq had signed on....

DavidByron, stop giving them ammunition; they have enough lies to feed on already without someone helping them invent the lie that anyone who opposes the war supports Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons on his own people.

Why has it not ratified the ICC?

And further, why has the US announced that it will unilaterally try any/all war criminals, without reference to the international community? (Presumably, that announcement even means without British or Australian involvement.)

If the Iraqi people were truly fighting, they would represent an armed force of over 10 million people resisting the coalition forces. 5m people in Baghdad and they are almost all are armed. If they were truly seeing this as a fight for national survival, they would utterly crush us and they would be undefeatable -- unless we were to lay waste to their entire civilization. Look no further than Vietnam to see the effects of an extremely mobilized and armed people fighting for national survival. The "civilian" resistance seems to be so muted (per articles by independed journalists) that I can only imagine that they do *NOT* see this as a war for national survival. Most of the civilian attacks seem to be basically soldiers in disguise. Maybe you are missing all the links on the front page.

If there was an invading force of say, 600k Mexican troops into Texas, I'm sure every man and woman would be fighting and they would crush the Mexicans (assuming the Mexicans and the Texans had US and Iraqi tech respectively).

"Most Americans believe in the democratic peace theory, that is they believe that democracies generaly don't go to war with each other"

That's just more US propaganda. Nicaragua took the US to the World Court because America attacked it (as a democracy). America simply designates those countries it wishes to bomb or invade or destabilise as "communist" or I suppose these days, "terrorist".

Where did I say I don't believe in space aliens? A conflict between two unknowns does not = a conflict waged between two knowns. To compare the two, or to think that analogy holds any water, is "Look at me I'm an ass making a strawperson argument" hyperbole.

Time to catch a plane!

Peace,
eeks

unless we were to lay waste to their entire civilization.

Therein lies the rub, to quote Wil Shakespeare.

I'm waiting for someone in DC to start mentioning the nuclear option.

Bad exemple. If USA was invading Canada Whit 600k troops, wil would not fight that much. Because we see the stupiduty of it getting killed. Doesn't mean we would accept. Some of us could start guerilla but i'm sure not everyone would do.
A vast majority of Iraq population are children and older person, would you ask children to go to fight?

Mathieu

Diogenes: Thank you for a reasonable answer, and one worth pondering.

But do you honestly believe that bringing Hussein to trial was doable? If so, why does the U.S. have to lead that charge? Is the U.S. the only nation who can do it? And how far down the Hussein regime chain does one go in ascribing blame for atrocities?

I posit that if it were doable it would have been done, and thus it's not doable.

ak,

"it is NOT in the US interest to have Iraq be run anything but ideally"

means

"having Iraq run in a way that respects human rights and the interests of the Iraqi people [="ideally"] is in the U.S. interest".

At least that's what I take from eeks's statement.

Agree or disagree with it, but don't play games with the word "ideally". Most of us on here are smart enough to recognize that as the cheap rhetorical trick that it is.

A conflict between two unknowns does not

What? Hypothetical arguments are suddenly invalid?

In that case, the hypothetical argument that the US is trying to bring peace, freedom and democracy to Iraq is invalid, because the US has not yet done so.

Then again, the battle is going completely according to plan, so of course we can trust the politicos in Washington.

"Was the world some sort of Utopia before the US became a super power? Are things better now than they were say 100 years ago? 200 years ago? More fair or less fair?"

Waht is this, sour grapes? "Aww you Europeans got to kill a bunch and now we can't? It's soooo UNFAAAAAAIR!!!"

There's a reason they called it the "Dark Ages". Yes we do expect more of countries today than we did 100 or 200 or 500 years ago. Yes, the standards are higher. But Bush wants to put things back to 1200 AD. Getting rid of Magna Carta and habeas corpus even....

If the US was purely interested in democracies that toe the US party line, please explain to me France, Turkey, S. Korea, Japan

During the liberation of Europe, which, by the way, included a few more countries than just America, American foreign policy followed a very different tack then it does today. It was more idealistic, and believed in largely leaving other country's affairs to themselves. This changed quickly due to the cold war and the rise of the foreign policy of realpolitik.

Realistically, the US could not have held Europe after it was reabuilt without help either.

The problem with bringing democracy to Iraq is that it has no democractic traditions. Also, the entire Middle East is a mess of arbitrary borders imposed on the region. It might make more sense to subdivide Iraq into several smaller states - you know, to keep the Kurds from the shiites, etc... But then, there we would be going again, defining borders and countries on the behalf of other people.

By the way, in regards to the democratization of Afghanistan, where is it?!!! At this rate, we're just going to bug out of there in a few years. The culture is just too different.

"But what's the comparison for the spotty track record? A nation that doesn't have a spotty track record is either isolationistic or..."

That's false. Only the US has the power and the immorality to project power across the world and threaten to invade countries on the opposite side of the planet for no reason. And only the US does it. There is NO other nation today that does this. Sure, wars over borders break out but they usually have a history of dispute - a reason. For America there is no need for any reason to go to war.

Jim O'C

I think it was doable; the US actively worked against anything other than the military reponse (bugging embassies, falsifying documents, cevertly working to make certain the weapons inspectors failed -- these are all well-documented US 'interventions').

I don't the the US as having to lead that charge at all. In fact, if there was any charge to be led, it should have been by the international community as a whole. If we were so concerned about people and human rights, why did we veto a security council resolution that would have helped stop the massacre of Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda? The international community was saying, "we have to stop this," and the US said, "sorry, no more help for international peacekeepers." (I am oversimplfying, and I am sure someone will take me to task).

I would argue that this whole "crisis" was manufactured by Bush and Co. for the reasons I mentioned. No doubt that there are any number of undemocratic, horrible regimes in the world; why focus on this one? Again, I go back to oil and regional hegemony. North Korea is arguably more combative and has been much more provacative in its threats (I think at one point they said they would hit California with nukes) -- why deal with them differently? The reasons for that are many, I know, but somewhere in there is the undeniable issue of natural resources.

I think once criminals are brought to court, the appropriate proof can be found of their guilt. In other words, if Hussein's crimes stretch 5 layers below him in his administration, skilled international lawyers can get at that information. At least, they were able to with Milosevic.

That's a try...

"I was very moved by the story of an Iraqi woman who was seen waving at British troops. She was last seen hanging from a lamp post. This demonstrates the nature of the evil we are fighting"

Do you mean the evil nature of US propaganda?

" if U.S. troops began practicing summary executions, world opinion would shift--against us"

World opinion is against you. And btw? The US does practise summary executions. Remember the container trucks of Afghan POWs that were executed.

"please explain to me France, Turkey, S. Korea, Japan ... and countless others that the US helped foster and now are free to make their own choices"

You think America created France?
Ok. I guess I'm not sure what you're saying.

It seems to be the usual arrogant / ignorant American attitude that the entire world should bow down in gratitude whenever America bombs them. And then they ask why the world hates them......

I bet you do think Iraqis should be bowing dow in gratitude for being bombed don't you? And South Korea... you murdered 4 million Koreans, split their country in two and supported a dictatorship for decades but you think they are grateful to you?

Turkey France and Japan all have more history than America does so perhaps you should re-think the concept that you created them. Hint: France created America, not vice versa.

Whether or not the U.S. succeeds in creating a democracy in Iraq, saying that Iraq and the Middle East would be better off with Saddam Hussein is like saying that Cambodia and Southeast Asia would have been better off with Pol Pot. Not a viable argument.

Where BW blew it was on the diplomatic front, in failing to build thorough international support for the war effort. If the U.S. ultimately fails to win the support of the Iraqi people and build a stable, peaceful government there, I bet you will see a major withdrawal of the U.S. from its current internationalist stance. The resulting U.S. isolationism would have major negative consequences for world peace and stability, as other nations arm themselves to the teeth to fill the power vacuum.

History might look back on the U.S. as a fairly benevolent superpower, regardless of its mistakes in the Middle East. With the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction, a multipolar power structure will be much more complicated and threatening to world peace and global human rights.

GW has his faults, but his optimistic vision of a productive and peaceful Middle East is probably what is driving the war effort. Unfortunately, it is probably just not possible to impose a democracy on a country that is divided not by class differences but by tribal, ethnic and religious differences.

"If the Iraqi people were truly fighting, they would represent an armed force of over 10 million people resisting the coalition forces"

That's close to the correct figure that is armed. You forgot that so many Iraqis are children.

Iraqi woman who was seen waving at British troops. She was last seen hanging from a lamp post

Following the liberation of many countries during WW2, many local collaborators found themselves hanging from a lamp post. Mussolini himself was strung from a lamp post (though he was already dead). I guess those "prove" that the Allies were war criminals.

There is enough on which to convict Saddam Hussein and his cronies without reaching for the bottom of the barrel to haul out examples which would be perfectly fine if carried out by any alliance of western "civilizations" under similar circumstances.

"But do you honestly believe that bringing Hussein to trial was doable? If so, why does the U.S. have to lead that charge?"

Can you avoid using a phrase like "lead that charge" to describe a unilateral criminal war?

burteewoppa

You ignore the fact that the Noam Chomsky crowd says that Pol Pot, and Joe Stalin for that matter, were GOOD things put upon this mother earth for the benefit of mankind.

Diogenes: Thank you for the try. I just don't see how it could have been done. Getting Hussein and his henchmen out of Iraq to face trial would have required the full-scale war that we're already in.

This brings me back to where I started. Many people seem to WANT to believe that the U.S. was just itching to get in this war. The motives for that WANT come from other than their stated positions, as evidenced by the fact that no one can ever give a doable alternative to this war. You are one of the very few who even try to provide a viable long term alternative. Most just bad mouth the U.S. and speak of great conspiracies and imperialistic aspirations that the U.S. simply does not have.

While there are others such as N. Korea who pose a real threat, to date they threaten and posture but they have not acted. Hussein is no poser. He came to power in 1979 and attacked Iran in 1980 (please don't lob the "but the U.S. armed him" blah blah blah at me--the U.S. has certainly made more than its fair share of mistakes--and we are now dealing with NOW, not then). Eight years later with a million Iranians and a million Iraqis dead Hussein claimed victory despite not gaining one inch of land, which is what he went to war for in the first place.

Hussein killed no less than 100,000 Kurds, many with chemical weapons. In 1990 he attacked and occupied Kuwait. Since 1991 he has been under sanctions and has refused to ever live up to the cease-fire agreement.

In summary, Hussein has been at war with his neighbors for 9 out of the 11 years that he hasn't been under sanctions. He is no poser, and I think all agree on that.

The argument that this is about Iraqi oil is absurd. The cost of war and reconstruction is so great that it would take decades to recoup the money from Iraqi oil. There surely is truth, however, in an argument that this is about influence and stability in the Middle East, which in turn does encompass oil.

But this is also about humanity. When one opposes the U.S. it is very easy to make arguments supporting that opposition, just as it is very easy to make arguments against any nation. But Americans are a good people who truly do believe that all people deserve to be treated humanely and deserve self-determination. I realize alot of rocks will come back my way about how one gives self-determination by first determining for them but, in the case of Iraq, there is only this one course of action that can achieve that. The Iraqi people could not ever overthrow Hussein from within. His layers of security based on Stalinistic and Nazi models is very well done. And when he dies his son Qusay would clearly carry on the legacy.

I am still open-minded to what other alternatives to ridding Iraq of Hussein might have been. But until I see one that would have been doable it's all just talk, much of it motivated by an apparent dislike of or ill will towards the U.S. Regardless, it's a little late and the best we can do now is hope for a quick war and a truly just reconstruction and re-governing of Iraq.

DavidByron

History would suggest that a bunch of tough Englishmen created America.

"if Hussein's crimes stretch 5 layers below him in his administration, skilled international lawyers can get at that information. At least, they were able to with Milosevic."

Milosevic's trial is a kangaroo court. No credible evidence has been presented to the judges who know they are only there because America wanted something to rubber stamp the criminal bombardment of Serbia, and the UN wouldn't do it. The court has no legal status. It's main backer, the US, rejects the ICC.

Saddam's crimes against the Kurds have more chance of being proven but I guess that the Americans won't bother too much with the truth --- that would be too embarassing to people like Rumsfeld. We'll probably see Saddam convicted of faked crimes while his real crimes get papered over. That is - if they ever catch him. Track record of Bush catching the CIA's ex-employees hasn't been too good recently.

DavidByron: You must be kidding. "Lead that charge" offends you? That's a little thin-skinned, don't you think?

I used it in the context of bringing Hussein to trial as a possible alternative to what you call "a unilateral criminal war." Sheesh.

Many people seem to WANT to believe that the U.S. was just itching to get in this war

I don't have to "want to believe" anything; every time Richard Perle opens his mouth, he proves this very point.

The Perle/Wolfowitz/Cheney "Mein Kampf" of world domination, written long before GW Bush was ever appointed president, can be freely found all over the Internet. There is no need to "want to believe" anything.

"You ignore the fact that the Noam Chomsky crowd says that Pol Pot, and Joe Stalin for that matter, were GOOD things put upon this mother earth for the benefit of mankind."

Chomsky actually points out that the US allied with Pol Pot. Actually they allied with Stalin too. The lesson here is: get better examples.

"Many people seem to WANT to believe that the U.S. was just itching to get in this war."

Ummm... because that was the clearly re-iterated policy of the hawks in charge for years even before Bush came to power in that political coup?

what he went to war [against Iran] for in the first place.

And there is not even the slightest chance he went to war against Iran because Ronnie baby wanted him to take out what was then the "most evil" enemy the US had?

. . . The do-gooder West, the Canadians, New Zealanders, Swedes and pacifist types throughout the West do not have a clue as to how global security works. . .

* * *

Security???

Tell that to the people of Chile, Paraquay,[etc.].. the list goes on, every single one of them once run by a brutally repressive regime propped up by the USA.

. . . Please, go back into the shell of isolationism and do not bother us with this kind of "security" for the next 50 years. Not even during the Cuban Missile Crisis did I have so much fear about how history is about to unfold.

* * *

Raven,
I was being extremely brief and one-dimensional in my post. My full position on "global security" is much more complex and nuanced.

I agree with you 100% that our expedient support of third world thugs (Marcos, Pinochet, Pahlavi, etc) was paranoic and a moral disgrace.

I have a great deal of hope for the future. The general trend over the past few centuries has been progressively anti-war and pro-human rights. As much as my post is critical of the pacifist West for tactical reasons, I am very hopeful that these grandchildren of the Warriors of very stupid World Wars are viserally repulsed by the violence of War. I look forward to the day when the Islamic and African cultures will reach this level of pacifistic maturity. Maybe then there will be no more War.

Duane W.

*******************************************

to anyone:
I cant figure out how to reply with previous message in italics.

Chomsky actually points out

Member of crowd: Give 'em hell, Harry.

Harry S Truman: I only tell the truth, but to them it must sound like hell.

cant figure out how to reply with previous message in italics.

At the front of the text you type a

At the end you type the same thing, but with a forward slash / in front of the i.

Don't leave off that close italics at the end, or everything afterwards will be in italics, even the next person's comment.

DavidByron and raven: You are both so transparent. Do you have a viable alternative to this war? If not, the rest is just frothing anti-Americanism. And FYI, Perle is not even in the U.S. administration. And hawks are not just given "free reign" here in the U.S.

Read about Hussein and you will find that he is delusional about conquering territory. But you can't stand the truth, it seems. Rather, you have to have your conspiracy and imperialism theories because you obviously hate the U.S.

I guess this chat is pretty much going round in circles now. Interesting summary thought: why is it easier to find data that demonises the US than Saddam? See ya next 'open thread'

Byron

Because we temporarily allied with one evil to defeat another is not an endorsement of either.

That you shill for Pol Pot,Milosevic and Hussein says volumes about your character - or lack of it.

Scrapple: "US Marines turn fire on civilians at the bridge of death"

The story is horrendous enough without your dishonest editing . I will never believe anything that appears over your name.

Thanks to Norman for posting the WHOLE ARTICLE.

Warthog,

I would welcome Canada's involvement, even if it is too late to be of any use. Canada is our greatest trade partner and our neighbor. It is not in our long-term interest to create divisions with them over this issue.

The trend one sees in the West is that most western countries take their own freedom for granted, and this has created a sort of pacifism amongst our traditional allies--who perceive themselves to be threatened by nothing. I also don't believe most Americans are very up-to-date in the news--we killed a substantial number of Canadian soldiers in a "friendly fire" accident in Afghanistan recently, and they have not forgiven us for that. Canadians understandably have many concerns about U.S. "precision" weapons. That is simply their experience. It is a fact. I have my own concerns...apparently one of our errant cruise missiles landed in Turkey, recently. I think the weapons are very accurate, but...there are many technical glitches--by "many", we are probably talking about a 1% range of error...thousands of precision weapons have been used so far, but, at best, only a few have been errant. But the Canadian experience shows us that sometimes U.S. pilots make innocent mistakes with deadly consequences. A U.S. pilot on a training mission clipped a tramway cable that wasn't on his map in Italy, within the past few years, with dozens of civilian lives lost. Italians are still angry at us about that. Germans and South Koreans are angry at us for similar incidents. I think accidents are accidents and sincere apologies are in order, because accidents where U.S. troops are involved overseas can be highly political. A U.S. submarine recently sank a Japanese fishing boat with great loss of life, apparently to raise the adrenaline level of a few VIP's on board (who didn't want to be named because they didn't want to be associated with the incident) who wanted to experience an "emergency blow" maneuver. Unfortunately, when the submarine came up, it hit a Japanese fishing boat, sinking it.

These accidents fuel the debate overseas about the utility of U.S. projection of power, and they are highly political debates...and many countries perceive that they are very safe, and without threat, and they question the utility of having U.S. forces near them, when accidents are happening. We have made the world so safe, in other words, that the people we are protecting are now pointing out the traffic accidents we are causing.

In Canada's case, however, they had sent troops to Afghanistan to help us, and the troops they sent were not involved in a traffic accident, but a "friendly fire" accident. An incident like that creates a lot of distrust between nations.

I think it is provincial to assault Canadians and Canada because, at the moment, they don't trust us--or our precision weapons. Which recently killed the people they'd sent to help us in a "friendly fire" accident.

It is too late for Canada to help us in Iraq. But it is not too late to mend some bridges. Goodwill and agreement on the basic issues of the day is in the interests of both the U.S. and Canada. Tony Blair is right about the so-called "Transatlantic Alliance". It is not in the interests of the U.S. or Europe for a rift to exist across the Atlantic on the basic issues. Canada is a large part of that equation.

If bridges can be mended, I would welcome that. It may be too late for Canada to play any role in Iraq, but it is not too late to reaffirm friendships. Canada has lived side-by-side with a world superpower for a very, very, very long time. The U.S. no longer has any territorial or imperial ambitions. It is tragic that an accident has created a rift amongst traditional allies.

It is especially tragic, because Canadians know that Americans don't covet Baghdad, any more than we covet Toronto. Canada sells us more fossil fuels than any country in the Middle East. We haven't invaded Canada for Canada's natural gas or oil reserves. We never will. So-called American "aggression" and American "imperialism" are really overstated, on the world stage. The U.S. has no territorial or imperialistic aims or goals for the world.

The war in Iraq is not about oil. The reason why gasoline prices are "high" has as much to do with South America as it has to do with the Middle East. We are not threatening to invade Venezuela to lower the price of a gallon of gas by 10 cents. Currently, we haven't even decided on whether to drill in ANWR. Drilling in ANWR would make a lot of Middle East politics irrelevant, from an energy perspective. We can't even drill for oil in Alaska, because of politics. It is insanely naive and stupid to think that we are invading Iraq for oil. Iraq doesn't have anything close to the oil reserves that we have, which environmentalist politicians won't let us drill for. If we needed oil, we could do a lot more of our own drilling, thankyou.

Canada exports more energy to the U.S. than any country in the Middle East.

It is stupid and provincial to say that Canada isn't important. It is also stupid and provincial to claim that there will be a permanent rift between the two countries over the current war. I don't think the outcome of the war is in doubt. I think Canadians, like many western countries which have had peace and security for decades, are very pacifistic, in nature. All enlightened countries and cultures despise war.

It is unenlightened countries which agitate for it.

It is not the role of the U.S. to agitate democracies to go to war. Democracies don't go to war easily. It is our role to defend our own interests and defend treaty arrangements which the international community proved it could not enforce--and if the U.N. cannot enforce its own resolutions, we will. The political structure of the U.S. changed after 9/11--with very good reason. More people died on 9/11 than died at Pearl Harbor, but the galling difference was that most who died at Pearl Harbor were sailors. Everyone who died on 9/11 was a civilian. 9/11 was a far greater atrocity. U.S. politics shifted after 9/11.

We will no longer be sitting ducks for wacko fringe movements. We destroyed the Taliban for this reason. Does anyone out there want to defend the morality of the Taliban with its brutal policies of repression, and its internationally criminal actions? We destroyed the Taliban for a reason. We are in the process of destroying Saddam, for very similar reasons. Saddam's regime is just as brutal--probably more so. It is more dangerous because Iraq is more modern. If anyone wants to come out in defense of So-Damn Insane (Saddam "Insane" Hussein), you have your chance, right now. Understand that if you support Saddam, you are sponsoring death squads, rape squads, and repression which supports bands of thugs who can cut off the hands of women, at a whim, because some moron thinks a schoolteacher is a prostitute, and must be punished under Islamic law. You are supporting people who hang women from lamp posts, for waving at British troops. You are supporting cowards who take off their uniforms and practice terrorism. You are supporting suicide bombers.

Be careful about who you support, because your inconsistent morality may come back to slap you in the face.

Those people who do not support our troops have little more intelligence and wisdom than our very dear "American Taliban", Johnny Bin Walker. I do not believe that Taliban supporters have any conscience or morality. And neither do Saddam supporters.

Americans who express support for Saddam are no better than the rapists and murderers who fight for Saddam.

Start Quote:
Posted by DavidByron at March 30, 2003 04:44 PM
Well that's not true. Iraq isn't a medieval kingdom. It has laws. A parliament. It is a signatory to various well know international treaties that gaurantee various rights.
End Quote:

Dont make me laugh. All the laws in Iraq dont amount to shit to Saddam. He and his sons are totally above the law. Dont be deliberately stupid, DavidByron.

Start Qoute:
Halabja was colateral damage.
End Quote:

Considering the sheer volume of screeching you output about civilain deaths from the coalition bombing, I fond you lack of empathy towards the Kurds somewhat disturbing.

No wait, that not right. I find you disturbing in general.

Start Qoute:
Oddly enough the argument used for "liberating" Iraqis when they don't want to be liberated is an example of breaking all kinds of laws and rules and would put Iraq back to a medieval level of law.
End Quote:

Say, glad to know that DavidByron has read the minds of the collective Iraqi population. Say DavidByron, did you ever read this article:

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24481

I have posted this (and I have others like it) yet you continue to run away from it.

What makes you so damn sure that all the Iraqis would rather stew under Saddam than take a shot at democracy ?

I dont see millions of iraqis pciking up guns and going after coalition forces.

Start Quote:
. Namely - whatever Bush says goes. Might is right. The only law that Bush holds to is the law of the jungle.
End Quote:

Just like what we did to the Germans the Italians and Japanese after WW2, EH ?

Mad Dog

I have a great deal of hope for the future

I am afraid that I do not.

In the past century, we have had 2 world wars with a collective toll of nearly 100 million lives, soldier and civilian.

That is just the start. We have seen the likes of Josef Stalin starving the Ukraine to make a political point, Adolf Hitler gassing and cooking 6 million Jews, and another 6 million everyone else. (In terms of percentage of population the Gypsies suffered at least as much as the European Jews.) Pol Pot massacred how many, a third of the population of Cambodia? The Hutus and Tutsis of Rwanda massacred a million of each other.

No, I really do not think the planet has become any more "civilized".

Just like what we did to the Germans the Italians and Japanese after WW2, EH ?

Please do not try to equate George Walker Bush with the likes of Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Harry S Truman.

Start Quote:
"I was very moved by the story of an Iraqi woman who was seen waving at British troops. She was last seen hanging from a lamp post. This demonstrates the nature of the evil we are fighting"

Do you mean the evil nature of US propaganda?
Posted by DavidByron at March 30, 2003 05:12 PM
End Quote:

As opposed to the DavidByron "skool" of anti-US invectives ?

Grow up DavidByron, your inherent, predetermined anti-US spew labels you as the crank you are.

Mad Dog

Diogenes,

I read the article.

It was leftist tripe.

You may as well have told me to read "The Communist Manifesto", by Marx, to justify Stalinism. I did read Marx. It was required reading at Rice, where I graduated with a degree in mathemathics. On the same "reading list" was "The Gulag Archipelago", by Solzhenitsyn. Perhaps you should read THAT before being too critical of our own political process.

Start Quote:
I bet you do think Iraqis should be bowing dow in gratitude for being bombed don't you? And South Korea... you murdered 4 million Koreans, split their country in two and supported a dictatorship for decades but you think they are grateful to you?
Posted by DavidByron at March 30, 2003 05:25 PM
End Quote:

Oh this gets better and better. Now the US murdered 4 million Koreans, according to DavidByron.
I dont suppose we should ask for proof ?

We split the Korean peninsula ? No dumbass, the Korean peninsula was split by agreement between the US AND Russia to prevent another immediate war. Too bad the North Koreans, with Chinese and Russain backing decided to try to turn South Korea into another "workers paradise".

I guess the next thing DavidByron will blame on the US is the black plague and Cultural Revolution in China.

Rave On, DavidByron !

Mad Dog

DavidByron: are you saying that the U.S. should not have allied itself with Russia to defeat the Nazis? As far a the U.S. being an ally with Pol Pot, what a crock

Start Quote:
"If the Iraqi people were truly fighting, they would represent an armed force of over 10 million people resisting the coalition forces"

That's close to the correct figure that is armed. You forgot that so many Iraqis are children.
Posted by DavidByron at March 30, 2003 05:30 PM
End Quote:

So DavidByron, how come 10 million of them havnt swollowed up all the coalition forces ?

Could it be, just maybe could it be that maybe they dont want Saddam around and they are seeing how things turn out ?

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24481

Mad Dog

Start Quote:
DavidByron and raven: You are both so transparent. Do you have a viable alternative to this war? If not, the rest is just frothing anti-Americanism. And FYI, Perle is not even in the U.S. administration. And hawks are not just given "free reign" here in the U.S.

Read about Hussein and you will find that he is delusional about conquering territory. But you can't stand the truth, it seems. Rather, you have to have your conspiracy and imperialism theories because you obviously hate the U.S.
Posted by JimO'C at March 30, 2003 05:57 PM
End Quote:

Dont hold your breath. I have asked DavidByron several times what he would do, and he never has the courage to respond. DavidByron is a well known crank with an agenda of anti-US spew that makes Goebbles look like an amateur.

Dont believe me ? Try these links:

On DavidByron

For anyone reading DavidByron posts, and wondering if he's for real, here's a bit of light.

A quick Google search reveals his extensive world wide trolling including everything from why Osama bin Laden is morally superior to the US, and why Feminism is a Hate movement.

A couple of URLS:
(Some scrolling required)

DavidByron claiming that Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor Attacks, and therefore Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11. (Hilarious rebuke)
http://www.meanmrmustard.net/archives/000489.html

DavidByron explaining why the US is less moral than bin Laden because the US murders millions of people. (A classic)
http://nowarblog.org.he.sabren.com/archives/000476.html

DavidByron site on why Feminism is a Hate movement ( 3 stars***)
http://members.tripod.com/feministhate/index.htm

Enjoy!

Posted by Rob at March 30, 2003 02:47 PM

DavidByrons words speak for himself. Crank #1 !

Mad Dog

Start Quote:
DavidByron and raven: You are both so transparent. Do you have a viable alternative to this war? If not, the rest is just frothing anti-Americanism. And FYI, Perle is not even in the U.S. administration. And hawks are not just given "free reign" here in the U.S.

Read about Hussein and you will find that he is delusional about conquering territory. But you can't stand the truth, it seems. Rather, you have to have your conspiracy and imperialism theories because you obviously hate the U.S.
Posted by JimO'C at March 30, 2003 05:57 PM
End Quote:

Dont hold your breath. I have asked DavidByron several times what he would do, and he never has the courage to respond. DavidByron is a well known crank with an agenda of anti-US spew that makes Goebbles look like an amateur.

Dont believe me ? Try these links:

On DavidByron

For anyone reading DavidByron posts, and wondering if he's for real, here's a bit of light.

A quick Google search reveals his extensive world wide trolling including everything from why Osama bin Laden is morally superior to the US, and why Feminism is a Hate movement.

A couple of URLS:
(Some scrolling required)

DavidByron claiming that Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor Attacks, and therefore Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11. (Hilarious rebuke)
http://www.meanmrmustard.net/archives/000489.html

DavidByron explaining why the US is less moral than bin Laden because the US murders millions of people. (A classic)
http://nowarblog.org.he.sabren.com/archives/000476.html

DavidByron site on why Feminism is a Hate movement ( 3 stars***)
http://members.tripod.com/feministhate/index.htm

Enjoy!

Posted by Rob at March 30, 2003 02:47 PM

DavidByrons words speak for himself. Crank #1 !

Mad Dog

Start Quote:
I guess this chat is pretty much going round in circles now. Interesting summary thought: why is it easier to find data that demonises the US than Saddam? See ya next 'open thread'
Posted by DavidByron at March 30, 2003 05:57 PM
End Quote:

1) Its easy to find material demonizing Saddam, you just dont wish to acknowledge it.

2) The US has an open press, while Iraq is a ruthless dictatorship where critisizing the govt gets you killed.

Is this obvious to just me, or does DavidByron has the IQ of your typical lawn gnome ?

Mad Dog

Start Quote:
Just like what we did to the Germans the Italians and Japanese after WW2, EH ?

Please do not try to equate George Walker Bush with the likes of Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Harry S Truman.
Posted by raven at March 30, 2003 06:06 PM
End Quote:

That would be kind of hard to do since FDR died before WW2 was over.

And yes, I think FDR was a great president. Bush, so far, has been a president.

Mad Dog

Start Quote:
I have a great deal of hope for the future

I am afraid that I do not.

In the past century, we have had 2 world wars with a collective toll of nearly 100 million lives, soldier and civilian.

That is just the start. We have seen the likes of Josef Stalin starving the Ukraine to make a political point, Adolf Hitler gassing and cooking 6 million Jews, and another 6 million everyone else. (In terms of percentage of population the Gypsies suffered at least as much as the European Jews.) Pol Pot massacred how many, a third of the population of Cambodia? The Hutus and Tutsis of Rwanda massacred a million of each other.

No, I really do not think the planet has become any more "civilized".
Posted by raven at March 30, 2003 06:03 PM
End Quote:

Dont forget the Great Leap Forward by Mao. Maybe 30 million dead ?

The times have just made it easier to kill each other.

Mad Dog

DavidByron and raven: You are both so transparent. Do you have a viable alternative to this war? If not, the rest is just frothing anti-Americanism. And FYI, Perle is not even in the U.S. administration. And hawks are not just given "free reign" here in the U.S.

How about give the inspection teams real information to work with, if indeed the CIA had any proof at all. Hussein was already in possession of Blix's requirement that he prove what happened to the unaccounted-for chemical precursors. If the US had waited for that and the required demonstration was not forthcoming, I would be in favour of this war. But be damned if I will believe somethign is true simply because George Walker Bush says it is true.

If Perle isn't in the administration then what is he doing on the DoD planning board? My understanding is he only resigned as chairman. In any event, it doesn't matter whether or not he's part of the administration, all he has to do is have the ear of the President, or those close to him.. which he does.

The times have just made it easier to kill each other.

Which merely proves my point. We are at least as willing to destroy each other as at any point in the past.

"where are the 10 million"

You gauleiters of global domination can rave all you want; I for one will believe they are all afraid that wiping out the invasion will merely result in their being turned into radioactive dust.

This is Saddam's obvious goal in life:

He believes he is the next Saladin, no he believes he is destined to exceed Saladin, he will be the most important Arab in history (except of course The Prophet). He is the heroic figure who will finally re-unite the entire Arab World into one great, glorious superpower equal to or exceeding any rivals.

For nine centuries the great Arab people have lived in shame. During the 8th-11th Centuries, the Arab Empire was the most intellectual, powerful and wealthiest polity on the planet. Nine centuries later, the Arabs are nobodies and decry the current meddlers as "Crusaders" and "Mongols".

Saddam is evil. He is possibly even more ruthless than Hitler (I don't know if Hilter engaged in the same face-to-face viciousness as Saddam, correct me if I am wrong). He would have no qualms about killing 3 billion people if it would serve to his glory. He would glorify in the heinous act.

Saddam is an extreme genius. He looked foolish at Gulf War I only because his understanding of the West was still developing, the Cold War collapse dramatically shifted the political dynamic and "wimpy" Bush Sr. had unexpected mettle.

Saddam has learned much in 12 years. His guerilla campaign and human-shield tactics plays right into American tactical weaknesses. Rumsfeld was a fool for not anticipating Saddam's learning curve. We are fighting the so-called "Last War" as Saddam outfoxes us. Shock & Awe was a flop because Saddam is too clever.

Saddam can play the world stage like a fiddle, even after a heinous 24-year track record should warn us otherwise. The "sophisticated" French are his unknowing accomplises as he plays off of their vanity. He understands the balance of global power and all the important players, from Western peaceniks to the Arab Street longing to be proud to be Arab.

This is a dangerous man. Lets hope he will be dead this year.

This is a dangerous man. Lets hope he will be dead this year.

Which begs the question, why wasn't he simply taken out by a special ops team?

Answer: because Iraq is not a regime founded on just a single person, so taking out Hussein would make as much sense as it would have made to take out some General Secretary of the CPSU.

Mad Dog,

You aimed at DavidByron and hit me. Obviously, your opinions are not precision weapons. Perhaps you will be more careful about your attributions in the future.

In terms of evil U.S. propaganda, all I can say is that you clearly have no clue about who is propagandizing who.

My example of the moment is that the Egyptian state-controlled media typically attributes unsolved murders at the time of Jewish Passover to a Jewish "custom" of leavening Passover bread with the blood of Arabs. I'm not Jewish, but we can discuss who is propagandizing who. Essentially, Egyptian state-controlled media attributes all unsolved murders at Passover time to a nonexistent Jewish ceremony of leavening Passover bread with the blood of murdered Muslims. Next example: after 9/11, it was very popular in the Arab so-called "media" to report that no Jews died on 9/11. The facts contradict this. People of many nations died at the WTC. But it is very convenient for Arab state-controlled media to ferment anti-semitic sentiment, by reporting such "facts"--like the Arab propaganda "fact" that no Jews died at the WTC, because, in fact, 9/11 was all a "zionist" conspiracy. According to Arab propaganda.

I.e., the implication was that Israel attacked the WTC on 9/11, in order to rally the United States against the Arab world. The facts are that 15 out of the 19 9/11 terrorists were devout Saudi Muslims.

Nonetheless, the Arabs found a way in their "media" to blame 9/11 on the Jews. The entire Arab world doubted that Osama Bin Laden did it...despite all evidence.

If you want to discuss U.S. propaganda, let's discuss Arab propaganda first. We can begin with Al Jazeera.

We can begin with the fact that the Arab world was duped into thinking Osama didn't do it. Now, Osama claims responsibility. You can explain your position about "U.S. propaganda" by first explaining why the U.S. media got things right about Osama, and the Arab media screwed up.

After you have explained that, perhaps you can explain to me again about "U.S. propaganda".

I have few doubts that there are Iraqi agents injecting themselves into the international debate on the internet.

I suppose my advice is to read a very excellent novel by Vernor Vinge, titled, "A Fire in the Deep." Which describes the primitive internet we have today with a futuristic internet of the future. The future 'net is called, "The Net of a million lies." It is very hard to discern the truth on this imagined futuristic internet. Unfortunately, what it all basically boils down to is prejudice, and misinformation.

Mad Dog seems to be taking a part in that.

Saddam Hussein's basic strategy is to survive through international intervention. It is unreasonable to believe that his agents are not active on the 'net to influence world opinion. Mad Dog may be an activist or an agent...it is unclear to me what he is. It is clear to me that he can't get his attributions right.

I decided to express my opinions because I had grown tired of "activists" ruling the debate. But I'm also perfectly willing to meet agents head on.

I don't want death on the battlefield, and I don't want innocents to die, but disinformation ticks me off.

Mad Dog's comments remind me of the Iraqi government's comments about CNN, when CNN reporters were expelled from Baghdad. The Iraqis told CNN they were "propagandists" and "no better than the American army", so they expelled CNN from Baghdad. It's sort of humorous, watching CNN using Abu Dhabi TV to show images of Baghdad. But it's pretty clear from CNN's attributions that they no longer have a camera there. CNN is still connected to some NYT print journalists on the phone, etc.

If the U.S. media is "propaganda", why did Baghdad expel CNN?

It's a rhetorical question, Mad Dog, but since you seem very keen on U.S. propaganda, perhaps you can explain why Baghdad is "picking and choosing" western journalists. Perhaps you can explain why Baghdad is importing Italian journalists to replace all the other western journalists they have expelled? Riddle me this, Mad Dog, my Iraqi agent friend: why doesn't the regime in Baghdad let journalists wander around the city to see all the damage the errant U.S. precision weapons have been doing? Riddle me this...why are most western journalists commenting about what they can see from their hotels? Riddle me this: why can't western journalists travel freely? Why can't they leave their hotels? Why are they being expelled?

I suspect Al Jazeera is more to your liking, Mad Dog. That says a lot about you.

Start Quote:
"where are the 10 million"

You gauleiters of global domination can rave all you want; I for one will believe they are all afraid that wiping out the invasion will merely result in their being turned into radioactive dust.
Posted by raven at March 30, 2003 06:48 PM
End Quote:

"gauleiters of global domination" ? I like it. Snappy !

I however, interpret the lack of 10 million as something else: there arent 10 million willing to fight for Saddam.

Speaking of those willing to fight for Saddam, how come we dont hear ANYTHING about the regular Iraqi army divisions (except for the 51st mech) ? Thos are the cannon fodder Saddam usually employed. Maybe they are so unrealiable Saddam doesnt even bother trying ?

Time will tell.

Mad Dog

I have a great deal of hope for the future.

I am afraid that I do not.

Raven,
As of year 2003:

The Germans will never again accept another Hitler. The Americans will never again enslave Blacks or exterminate Natives. The French and British will never again colonize the Third World. The Russians will never again deliberately starve 10 million Ukrainians.

I stand by my original statement. I think that the West has fundamentally transformed itself in the last 60 years to a humane and enlightened culture. And I celebrate that fact.

The Third World will catch up with us in this 21st Century.

******
Always a realist, ain't it great to also be an optimist?
duane

Start Quote:
This is a dangerous man. Lets hope he will be dead this year.

Which begs the question, why wasn't he simply taken out by a special ops team?

Answer: because Iraq is not a regime founded on just a single person, so taking out Hussein would make as much sense as it would have made to take out some General Secretary of the CPSU.
Posted by raven at March 30, 2003 06:59 PM
End Quote:

Raven, I have serious doubts any western hit team could get to Saddam. Recall that Saddam has survived numerous assassination and coup attempts. He has enough security to make Hitler look like an amateur.

While "putting the hit" on Saddam is a great idea, I doubt it can be done from external forces. Otherwise either the Iranians or the Isrealis wouldve had him pushing daisies long ago.

Even if you did manage to get Saddam, what about his sons ? The rotten fruit doent fall far from the tree and his sons are at least as ruthless as he is.

Mad Dog

Start Quote:
Mad Dog, You aimed at DavidByron and hit me. Obviously, your opinions are not precision weapons. Perhaps you will be more careful about your attributions in the future.
End Quote:

Sorry, my GPS Flame Bombs must of been jammed by the DavidByron Illogical Fields.

Start Quote:
In terms of evil U.S. propaganda, all I can say is that you clearly have no clue about who is propagandizing who.
End Quote:

I think everyone is propogandizing everyone.

Start Quote:
Saddam Hussein's basic strategy is to survive through international intervention. It is unreasonable to believe that his agents are not active on the 'net to influence world opinion. Mad Dog may be an activist or an agent...it is unclear to me what he is. It is clear to me that he can't get his attributions right.
End Quote:

I think you are trying to be ironic in regards to my mis-attribution (where did I do that ?).

Just for the record:
If anyone is a Saddam apologist, DavidByron fits the bill. Dont believe me, simply read his posts.

Start Quote:
t's a rhetorical question, Mad Dog, but since you seem very keen on U.S. propaganda, perhaps you can explain why Baghdad is "picking and choosing" western journalists. Perhaps you can explain why Baghdad is importing Italian journalists to replace all the other western journalists they have expelled? Riddle me this, Mad Dog, my Iraqi agent friend: why doesn't the regime in Baghdad let journalists wander around the city to see all the damage the errant U.S. precision weapons have been doing? Riddle me this...why are most western journalists commenting about what they can see from their hotels? Riddle me this: why can't western journalists travel freely? Why can't they leave their hotels? Why are they being expelled?

I suspect Al Jazeera is more to your liking, Mad Dog. That says a lot about you.
Posted by JamesD at March 30, 2003 07:22 PM
End Quote:

WHAT !?!?!? JamesD, quite simply, what the heck are you talking about ?

Read the exchanges between myself and DavidByron !

Mad Dog

how come we dont hear ANYTHING about the regular Iraqi army divisions (except for the 51st mech)

You tell us. If they just wandered off into the desert, they were thoughtful to bury their tanks and heavy ordnance rather deeply in the sand so coalition forces wouldn't find them.

Perhaps these are being hidden alongside all the weapons of mass destruction, to be hauled out when things really get rough.

(They're deployed in Baghdad Nassiriyah, Basra, Najat, Karbela, al Kut.... Where did you think they were?)

arrrgh

Start Quote:
how come we dont hear ANYTHING about the regular Iraqi army divisions (except for the 51st mech)

You tell us. If they just wandered off into the desert, they were thoughtful to bury their tanks and heavy ordnance rather deeply in the sand so coalition forces wouldn't find them.

Perhaps these are being hidden alongside all the weapons of mass destruction, to be hauled out when things really get rough.

(They're deployed in Baghdad Nassiriyah, Basra, Najat, Karbela, al Kut.... Where did you think they were?)
Posted by raven at March 30, 2003 07:42 PM
End Quote:

Maybe they all buggered off and decided to go home ? Normally we hear about unit identification after the fighting. At this time public information has only identified RG and irregular units (again not counting the 51st mech).

There has been absolutely no info on regular army units. That strikes me a s unusual. Not sure how to interpret that though.

Mad Dog

I wonder if 3 "close" codes will do the trick.

What browser are you using ? Either NS 4.7.2 or iCab 2.9.1 have graphic artifacts. I have double posted a couple of times.

Mad Dog

Mad Dog:

right you are, there has been absolutely no talk of them.

Buggered off home, did they? Did they take the tanks with them to use as tractors on their farms? Sorry to sound so sarcastic, but you even quoted the part where I asked you to address that point.

I am afraid this time it's "If you find the tanks, you'll find the troops"

"What browser are you using "

Mozilla 1.2.1

This is a dangerous man. Lets hope he will be dead this year.

Which begs the question, why wasn't he simply taken out by a special ops team?

Answer: because Iraq is not a regime founded on just a single person, so taking out Hussein would make as much sense as it would have made to take out some General Secretary of the CPSU.

Iraq is now a regime completely structured around a single person. Similar historical examples include Hitler, Ceausescu and Kim il Sung, although Saddam is tied with Hitler on the top of that list. Yes, his inner circle and especially his sons would take over but ultimately the power in Iraq is extraordinarily centralized.

Raven, please come to the side of stoic defense. I hate to witness babies dying as much as you. I know your opposition is sincere; we all have the same ultimate goals.

Start Quote:
Mad Dog:

right you are, there has been absolutely no talk of them.

Buggered off home, did they? Did they take the tanks with them to use as tractors on their farms? Sorry to sound so sarcastic, but you even quoted the part where I asked you to address that point.

I am afraid this time it's "If you find the tanks, you'll find the troops"
Posted by raven at March 30, 2003 07:51 PM
End Quote:

Dont you know ? Ford has a great trade in deal for T-55's. THATS where they all went.

Seriously, I doubt they all buggered off and went home. Some, no doubt, but not all.

However the regular army troops are usuallt Saddams cannon fodder, and apparently he hasnt used them to any real degree.
I dont think there are any in Bagdad (if the RG isnt IN bagdad, I doubt regualr army divisions are in there). Not sure about the other cities, but according to my info (which is 4 years out of dat) there should be a 6th armor div somewhere around Al Nasaryiah (sp ?).

Again the lack of identifying regular divisions is odd. I would think they would at least be harrassing coalition forces some.

Mad Dog

I hate to witness babies dying as much as you.

Just what is it you are so stoically defending, duane? The right of one nation to invade another simply because it claims that other nation is a threat to its national security?

The only threat to national security from Iraq was Iraq's insistence on Euros for its oil instead of US dollars.

And no, we do not have the same ultimate goals. I do not for one instant believe that it is yet possible for democracy to survive in the middle east. They were all carved out of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, and before that they were all nothing but a bunch of feudal tribal states. Just look at the United Arab Emirates; before 1961 or 62, they were hardly anything I'd call "united". Democracies they are not.

You are quite mistaken in believing Saddam Hussein runs a one-man show that would collapse without him. You may as well try to argue that the Soviet Union ceased to exist on the death of Josef Stalin.

Make no mistake about it, though; Saddam Hussein is merely one more brutal tyrant in a very long list of contemporaneous brutal tyrants.

-the government of Myan Mar (Burma).
-Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe
-the Ayatollahs of Tehran
-Bashur al Assad
-the reborn "god" currently in charge of (?) Uzbekhistan (one of those former Soviet republics bordering on Afghanistan anyway)
-the King of Saudi Arabia

and yes, you had better believe that last one. The Royal House of Saud tolerates -no- dissent.

What to do about them? Hell if I know, but forcing American Rightness and Goodness on them, and anyone else who might try to get in the way, just somehow does not seem to be something I find overly tasteful.

Ford has a great trade in deal for T-55's

Wherever you find T55s, that's where you will find them.

AFAIK, the Republican Guard has all the T72s, and no 55s.

Yes, the lack of identification of the regular army divisions is very strange. However, with all the tiny villages all over the place, one might well be able to hide an entire tank corps and it wouldn't be found by someone whose objective was to race to Baghdad.

When would they be hauled out? Hell if I know. I don't even know if that's where they're hidden.

Northeast of al Kut, along the Tigris, seems to be a nice place to toss a few divisions, 2 or 3 for sure.

Mad Dog, here's another question that has bothered me for a few days.

Do you remember that 1000-vehicle column that was detected and followed by JSTAR, engaged once or twice by air, once or twice on the ground, but then turned out to be nothing more than salt in the air due to the sandstorm?

The first clue that something is amiss there should be the salt in the air; Mesopotamia is one of the richest pieces of agricultural land on the planet. If it was not, then Hammurabi made a big mistake starting a civilization there.

So that leads me to question what some here have occasionally claimed (in the past, by others.. haven't seen the claim in the past several days) that JSTAR is infallible and invincible.

Assuming all those engagements did take place, just where did all those vehicles go after disengaging?

There has been a general tendency of late to downgrade the severity of an Iraqi counter-attack to equal precisely the number of AFVs destroyed. That worries me a great deal.

So yeah, there could very easily be 2 or 3 or 4 divisions holed up between the Tigris and the Euphrates, just waiting for something, again what I do not know. Total Iraqi strength at Basra already seems to be quite a bit more than just a single division.

An absolute lack of coalition intell on this? I would be amazed if that were the case.

But I do know one thing, and one thing only on all this: mass desertions result in mass parking lots of tanks, etc that the coalition would just love to show off to the media.

"Odd" seems to be one masssive understatement; are you British? :)

Looks like Mad Dog's gone out to find those T55s all by himself.

The only threat to national security from Iraq was Iraq's insistence on Euros for its oil instead of US dollars

raven,
You are disappointing me. I though you were an insightful debater.

If you truly believe your comment above, you really are out of touch. This statement is very bizarre and every intelligent American knows it. I would find it much more stimulating if you could refrain from oddball hyperbole and stand on substantive positions. There are enough kooks out there.

I was hoping for an intelligent debate.
we can discuss:

-what will happen on the Arab street? Will in blow up in USA's face?
- is the connectivity to Al Queda a complete crock? Could Al Queda and Baghdad have an alliance of convenience as did Statin and Hitler?
- A future "reformed" Iraq under Saddam, what will the regime do when the Big Powers give him a clean bill of health.
-will the regime in a few years have a nuclear arsenal? How will it be contained? What would its nuclear goals might be?
-will the "Pro-West" Arab states abandon the West? Will the "Street" revolt against their pro-West leaders?
-etc. etc.

Mad Dog,

Sorry...I was laggin'. I'm not a regular here. I screwed up...responded to the wrong response. Please accept my apologies.

Start Quote:
Ford has a great trade in deal for T-55's

Wherever you find T55s, that's where you will find them.

AFAIK, the Republican Guard has all the T72s, and no 55s.

Yes, the lack of identification of the regular army divisions is very strange. However, with all the tiny villages all over the place, one might well be able to hide an entire tank corps and it wouldn't be found by someone whose objective was to race to Baghdad.

When would they be hauled out? Hell if I know. I don't even know if that's where they're hidden.

Northeast of al Kut, along the Tigris, seems to be a nice place to toss a few divisions, 2 or 3 for sure.
Posted by raven at March 30, 2003 08:27 PM
End Quote:

Were talking about the regular iraqi divisions. They mostly have T-55 and T-62 (I think).

You are forgetting, its not just the tanks. Its the APCs, the artillery and the support vehicles. You cant hide all that in small villages. Is CENTCOM not talking about them, or are they simply not on the battlefield ?

Mad Dog

Start Quote:
Mad Dog, here's another question that has bothered me for a few days.

Do you remember that 1000-vehicle column that was detected and followed by JSTAR, engaged once or twice by air, once or twice on the ground, but then turned out to be nothing more than salt in the air due to the sandstorm?

The first clue that something is amiss there should be the salt in the air; Mesopotamia is one of the richest pieces of agricultural land on the planet. If it was not, then Hammurabi made a big mistake starting a civilization there.

So that leads me to question what some here have occasionally claimed (in the past, by others.. haven't seen the claim in the past several days) that JSTAR is infallible and invincible.

Assuming all those engagements did take place, just where did all those vehicles go after disengaging?

There has been a general tendency of late to downgrade the severity of an Iraqi counter-attack to equal precisely the number of AFVs destroyed. That worries me a great deal.

So yeah, there could very easily be 2 or 3 or 4 divisions holed up between the Tigris and the Euphrates, just waiting for something, again what I do not know. Total Iraqi strength at Basra already seems to be quite a bit more than just a single division.

An absolute lack of coalition intell on this? I would be amazed if that were the case.

But I do know one thing, and one thing only on all this: mass desertions result in mass parking lots of tanks, etc that the coalition would just love to show off to the media.

"Odd" seems to be one masssive understatement; are you British? :)
Posted by raven at March 30, 2003 08:38 PM
End Quote:

I remember that too. 1000 vehicles cuasing a big uproar. Then I heard it was a false alarm, and then I heard the B-52s were bombing the convoy (that doesnt exist ?).

Now I hear nothing about it. I honestly dont know if it existed at all. I would think we would have plently of videos if a large convoy had been blasted to tiny bits.

Color me cynical, (not British).

As for Basra, British forces are keeping things nice and slow. No need to bull in and start another Aachen.

Mad Dog