Yeah, that speech by Powell was a real doozy.

And the fact that it was given before AIPAC will NOT go unnoticed.

For someone who is supposedly a seasoned diplomat, you would think Powell would be just a LITTLE smarter than threatening Syria and Iran in a speech given to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee.

What a freakin' dunce.

Is he TRYING to get them into the war?

He may have just succeeded.

If they both enter the war, with their airforces and armies and missile programs, look for some serious carnage in the Mid-East as a whole.

Dan, the Arab "street" has at least something right. this IS a religious war. any thoughts to the contrary are wishfull thinking. I think that Powell knew EXACTLY what he was saying and the effect it would create.

Powell is not a seasoned diplomat, though: he's a trained military officer and a seasoned Washingtonian. He has standing he seems to well have earned, yet it is notable that he had no state dept. posts prior to this admin. Then again, the US military engages in missions that used to be the purview of the State Dept. Logistically, there are good reasons for this, but politically, it is at best questionable, I would say.

Yeah I'm pretty sure Iran & Syria will get involved, pretty much brining in Israel and God only knows who else....Might as well everyone get involved and get it over with

lee- those speeches like Powell gave are gone over with a fine tooth comb before being given, and they convey the exact message it was meant to. Powell didn't write it, somebody on his staff did.

Powell is a diplomat and an intelligent man.

The U.S. has historically been known to sucker countries into war i.e. Libya and Vietnam. These speeches by Rumsfeld and Powell are carefully worded darts.

Just a theory but not necessarily far fetched. Why kill one bird if you can take three. The U.S. has not hidden its distate for Syria let alone Iran. The removal of the Iraqi regime may just be the tip of the American foreign policy iceberg.

Syria has been funelling arms to Iraq for years, why wait until now to come out and publicly challenge them? It makes you wonder about the U.S. missle that "missed" its target and landed in Iran or the bus full of Syrian citizens fleeing Iraq that was "mistakenly" bombed by a coalition fighter.

The situation map seems too dense. It may just be because the symbols are in that odd red/blue-on-black. It's very hard to read.

I think it's a sure bet we go after Syria and Iran, but hopefully not until AFTER we conquer Iraq.

there are also some symbols that arent id'ed on the legend, like the slash-box

Well, regardless of who wrote that speech, why, when or how:

It is really, really, really stupid to threaten and bluster at Syria and Iran during the middle of a tougher than expected war in Iraq, when Turkey is closing its airspace to our Tommyhawks and ground bases to our forces, Saudi is closing their airspace too...Egypt is on the verge of exploding...

And to threaten and bluster at Syria and Iran at a freaking AIPAC meeting?

Are you KIDDING ME?

Maybe Franklin was right on the last thread, maybe these bozo's really DO want the whole shebang to ignite.

What are they going to do when Iran and Syria start providing air cover for the Iraqis, start engagin at Basra and in the North, and start sending their SCUDS, Silkworms, and Seersuckers at our navy in the Gulf and the Med?

Duuuuuuuuh.

has there been any connection between all the "accidents" and sleep deprevation on the US side?

i was talking this over with a friend of mine who has been quite vocally against the war.

there are numerous reasons against the war, and some of them are quite obviously not anti-american. the main one is that this war - any war - damages america's perceived military dominance. reputations can build up over time.

most people believed this war would be a cakewalk because america has such a strong reputation. that reputation has been hurt. syria and iran are making noises they wouldn't have dreamed of a few weeks ago. and we really don't want to think what the north koreans are learning from this.

the cost and problems of occupation (or whatever you want to call it) are yet to be counted. they will further damage america's reputation. never mind the cost in lives and money.

yes, many people are against the war, but now that it's started it had better be won. a loss will have huge negative consequences across america. though an electoral revolt and successful war crimes charges against this administration from within america could be a way for america and the western world to get out of this with minimal consequences.

but that's it. and the latter is not likely, so we're left with winning the war.

and while many think there's no way we can lose, there are scenarios where that's not clear. what if the goverments of syria, iran, egypt and turkey are overthrown with more radical, populist movements and join in the war? what if saddam does have chem/bio/nukes - how much of the us military can he take out? what if sars shows up in iraq?

What the US really needs is a patriotic US president like Eisenhower who told the Israelis to stop

ok, lets look over what we've all just said. if syria and iran get involved, so will israel and who knows what else. it will escalate further. WW III anyone?? (thank god it happened AFTER the cold war ended, we hopefully won't have any nukes this time.)

anybody find it tragic that, now the US and UK have stiffed all normal international rules with their 'pre-emptive' attack, powell can't use moral or legal arguments against syria and the best rhetoric he can raise is 'please don't be unhelpful'?

this is a _bad situation_

aa - we haven't had any president stand up to Israel since then. We let them murder 30 somthing US sailors on the USS Liberty and let them get away with it.

Can you say WWIII? If we continue to attack other arab countries, don't think countries like Russia and China are going to sit back and let it happen.

For those who'd like to listen to "The Connection", and don't have an NPR station who runs it, they have a streaming broadcast at http://www.theconnection.org. Just in case anyone wanted it...

Alex,

We better HOPE that no nukes get used if this thing escalates. Thing is, we really DON'T know what everybody has in their closets, weapon-wise.

stand up to Israel?

And tell them to stop doing what, exactly?

Stop crying over the bombs blowing up in cafes?

There is a reason why most posters dont earn more than 35k a year -- you are all idiots

What are they going to do when Iran and Syria start providing air cover for the Iraqis, start engagin at Basra and in the North, and start sending their SCUDS, Silkworms, and Seersuckers at our navy in the Gulf and the Med?

Duuuuuuuuh.

Posted by Dan at March 31, 2003 10:38 AM

Shoot down Syrian jets, kill Syrian tanks at Basra and in the north, Patriot 2 and 3 the SCUDs (That SH doesn't have, remember?), and CSWS all incoming silkworm and seersuckers.

pan, not questioning Powell's words and not earlier speculating on the intent of the words, either. I questioned "seasoned." Of course, as the Secretary of State he's a diplomat.

Ask state dept. people about generals doing diplomacy, and I beleive one will get a particuar nuanced answer; and ask military folks about diplomacy, and one might get another view. Given security needs, real and created, I remain skeptical of anyone's certainties about US shenanigans, in advance them happening.

I will say I do not see why widening the conflict or "upping an ante" would be in US interests, based on the propositions on which the war is supposedly based. So I would think there could be a sense of low risk of these comments widening the conflict in actuality; and there is the possibility that the offered bases are not the actual bases. There are other possibilities, too.

Russia is a coin toss in a broader confilict. China, however, is historically isolationist-- and smart. They'll let everyone else fight it out and be around to pick up the pieces.

Anybody else think the sitmap too difficult to view? Too much detail, particularly the size of the units designated are obscuring place names, unit directions, etc. I cannot tell from the map much of anything at this point other than that there are lot of blue units across from red units. Would be more useful in imho if the map was broken into smaller sectors. Just a thought.

Just as a means of getting some sort of consensus, what are the nationalities of most posting? i am an american, 27 years old. i feel like most on this site are either a)young and impressionable (aka a product of "revisionist history" like myself) or b)hippie generation left overs. are most here employed? are most democrats? sometimes these wild assumptions and allegations sound downright treasonous. and at the same time, they bring up interesting discussions. but never have i considered the country that i was born and live in to be evil, sae thing with the "chickenhawks" or whatever silly little names people have given to men who's shoes we could not shine. Are we getting a guilt complex? or are we just softer than our ancestors?

This kind of rhetoric is no worse than Damascus and Tehran have been lobbing at us for a long time. It's certainly no worse than putting Iran on the "axis of evil".

Iran already has more than enough of a pretext to get mixed up in this if they want to. The fact that they choose to ignore US missiles landing on their soil is a good sign that what they want out of this more than anything else is to see the backside of Saddam Hussein once and for all.

And Syria, well, Syria has to calculate with Israel. Sharon might be willing to stand off from participating in the US invasion of Iraq, but were Syria to counterattack, I think that would tip the balance.

The point about Powell not being a diplomat is well taken, but to the charge that a general is more likely to promulgate a bellicose foreign policy I have but two words of rejoinder: Henry Kissinger.

Unless the administration has something really amazing up their sleeves, I simply cannot see the logic of getting Iran and Syria riled up like this.

Honestly, whatever support they may or may not be providing to Iraq SHOULD NOT make a difference in the final outcome, unless our military or the military plan is much much much worse than is thought.

However, goading them into this war, at this stage, given the situation we DO know about (and accepting that we do not know the half of it either way) -- well, frankly, it just seems like an invitation to get a whole lot of our military slaughtered.

Maybe the Hawks are hoping that the entry of Iran and Syria will cover their failures, and justify the use of "extreme force"? Maybe they think that the entry of Iran and Syria will cement the support for the war? Maybe they have a super secret super uber plan? Maybe the troops slated for Turkey really are in Turkey after all?

Or maybe they are just fools, and are setting the stage for a wild regional chaotic conflagration that could end with casualties on a scale not seen since WWII?

It is now obvious that the Bush Administration policy is to expand the conflict so that it's the US and Israel vs. every country in the Middle East that Bush's warhawks see as undemocratic: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, even others like Lybia. This isn't a "quaqmire," folks--this is a policy to engage the US in the Mideast for decades to come, and ensure Republican presidents as well.

By the way, what did Clemenza say in Godfather I? "these kinda things have to happen every 5 years, 10 years. gets the bad blood out."

To the jew:

Point well taken. I can't imagine what it is like to live with such a threat. The question I have is this: Will what we are doing help or hurt? Do you expect less attacks if we declare war on the entire Arab world?

I don't have the answers to these questions.

alex:
there are also some symbols that arent id'ed on the legend, like the slash-box

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/fm101-5-1/f545con.htm

Check chapter 4

chris,

"By the way, what did Clemenza say in Godfather I? "these kinda things have to happen every 5 years, 10 years. gets the bad blood out."

Isn't that sort of like the Stalinist purges?

We better HOPE that no nukes get used if this thing escalates.

The only reason a nuke would *ever* be used to destroy something that can't be destroyed by conventional weapons.

Rumsfeld has repeatedly stated that the threshold for America's use of nukes is very, very high.

Nuking tikrit -- just for the sake of showing massive firepower -- makes no tactical or strategic sense since we can achieve the same "show" by using conventional weapons.

I have no doubt that if we need to "show" firepower -- or demonstrate our anger if a chemical weapon is used -- the weapon of choice will be something like the recently tested MOAB.

The only people using nukes will be people who *don't* have massive conventional firepower. For major powers like Russia, America, China -- nukes have little place on the battlefield -- except to destroy things that cannot be destroyed by conventional means. Obviously, hardened bunkers and chemical storage facilities deep underground are what come to mind. But that's why Rumsfeld is thinking along the lines of "mini-nukes" -- super low-yield sub-kiloton weapons -- whose only advantage is the EMP burst and intense heat flare.

pan_dc:

not sure, but Saddam would know more than you, i or the current republican administration, right?

jkc, I miseed anyone makign a charge that a former general, now Sec. of State, would be more bellicose. whose post?

I don't think you can blame Iran/Syria for helping Iraq in the given situtation. Having some country come in and try and change the regime is pretty hard to accept no matter how evil that regime might be, as well as the Sphere of influence it has in the area.

We "suckered" Vietnam into war? So, how'd that work out for us?

Chris,

I am a 32 year old American, Jewish ethnicity, PhD in geology. Worked at Exxon and Schlumberger, now living in Tokyo doing research. Have traveled extensively in Indonesia, E. Asia (China, Malaysia, Japan), a bit Arabia (Yemen, UAE), Africa (Mauritius), Europe (England, France, Denmark, Russia), and have been to every state in the US except Alaska and Hawaii. Also Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.

I grew up on a "back to the lander" hippy-type farm in Maine.

So, chris, I been there, done ALL that, from subsistence farming to corporate oil biz. From the US to East Asia and most places in between.

Hey, man. Who you calling hippie generation left-overs. (William Aged 43) (I prefer to call myself a punk generation left-over anyway).

why is it so taboo to sperk of our unflinching support of israel? that is a huge part of what is going on

Clemenza said "C'mere, lemme show you how to make meatballs for 50 guys..."

iron mike, gracias for the link. that should help. now if we can get those units shrunk or the map enlarged.

"It is really, really, really stupid to threaten and bluster at Syria and Iran during the middle of a tougher than expected war in Iraq"

Who says the US hasn't stalled this campaign just to lure in Syria and Iran. Make them think we are defeatable and then squash them. Would be cruel to think they put our troops through that, but not unbelievable.

Dan and William,
so at heart, you guys are a question the establishment kinda guy?

re: what can we stand up to israel about?

well, they could adhere to several un resolutions. they could stop allowing settlements. they could acknowledge that palestine has a right to exist as a separate nation.

re: dumb comments about who people are.

i have a job, thank you very much. and except for a few gaps in hs and uni, i've had a job of some sort since i was 11. i'm not exactly a democrat - particularly since i've lived abroad for 5 years. i'd consider myself a leftist-libertarian (as opposed to right wing libertarians in america who are a bit naive about social issues).

and the chickenhawk brigade are not worthy to have my shoes shined by me. however i think implying that shoe shiners or other folks who work rather hard for the money they get are lesser people is rather pathetic and classist.

speak not sperk..see how difficult it is

The only American reputation I'm concerned about is that if you attack us or threaten us you die and your regime disappears.

It's all part of the World Domination plan that Cheney et al have been working on for over a decade.

The admittedly small force currently in Iraq is bait for Al Quaeda, Syria, and Iran.

tom - that IS the problem. For many in US political circles, it's political suicide to criticize our unflinching support of Israel. Look what happened to Jim Moran.

Everyone talks about the American administrations fear of casualties, citing Kosovo and Mogadishu as recent examples. I believe that this administration willing to accept casualties in the 000's and is ready to wage a long battle for control of the middle east. North Korea is a wild card but the American administration is banking ion the Chinese keeping them in line.

Awwww, warthog, you're such a cute and fuzzy kinda porker! tell us how you REALLY feel.

Later all.

This has devolved.

Something I've been thinking about, and would like some feedback from those with a better understanding of the Arab mentality.

For starters, I was very opposed to this war before it began, more for the way Bush handled it than for the principle of making sure Saddam was disarmed. But, that's neither here nor there, now that we're fully engaged. My main concern now is the long-term repercussions of the war on global terrorism. Hosni Mubarak in a speech yesterday predicted that our invasion of Iraq will create thousands of new Bin Ladens, which I don't think is an unreasonable prediction.

My question is what the best way to pursue the war in Iraq would be, if (hypothetically) our only goal was to decrease future terrorist attacks on the US. If we were to pull out all of our forces tomorrow and say "sorry!", would that decrease future terrorism (by reducing our appearance as a colonialist power) or increase future terrorism (by looking like we're weak)? If this war lingers on, does it also make us look like we're weak, and encourage future attacks on us? If we could end the war next week by using overwhelming force, but in the process killing 10 times more civillians, would that increase or decrease the future likelihood of terrorist attacks on us?

Obviously these are all hypothetical questions, and we have many more concerns in the way we prosecute this war than just terrorist retribution. But I'd be curious to hear some discussion of these points from those with a better understanding of the middle eastern mentality.

-Deacon

"It's all part of the World Domination plan that Cheney et al have been working on for over a decade."

What a yukker. Was that between rounds of golf or at board meetings?

israel has been bombing arabs with american planes missles helicopters on and on for years

"Stand up to Israel?
And tell them to stop doing what, exactly?"

To state what's obvious, many people who support the existence of a Jewish state will continue to do so with a heavy heart until Israel makes a sincere effort to those who steal land from the occupied territories and make moves to create a Palestinian state that is viable politically and economincally.

"The only American reputation I'm concerned about is that if you attack us or threaten us you die and your regime disappears."

You sound like the schoolyard bully - no, Bush. You are a porker.

kevin,

welcome to the new world order. when shoe shiners are not *necessarily* the leasers of the free world!

tom

And before that they bombed Arabs with French planes, missles and helicopters. Maybe the Arabs should smarten up.

kevin,

welcome to the new world order. when shoe shiners are not *necessarily* the leaders of the free world!

Franklin Covey's Analysis

well, they could adhere to several un resolutions. they could stop allowing settlements. they could acknowledge that palestine has a right to exist as a separate nation.

I think the current understanding -- and I've heard this from several sources -- is that once the Iraq war is over, intense pressure will be put on Sharon to stop the settlements and beging implementing the roadmap.

The UK admission that the "quixotic" enforcement of UN resolutions is the beginning of this push. The post-Iraq pressure on Israel is also meant to repair some (a tiny bit, I suppose) of the political damage of the war.

franklin - would that be too little too late?

i'm sure if we gave the people on the west bank weapons they would rather use an attack helicopter than ducktape explosives to themselves....we've supplied on side for years

m. a. battilana

There's no future in being a victim.

chris, i'm a democratic part time student. my 23rd bday is coming up, and back in high school in my sociology class we took a test to id political leanings. i officialy classify as "radical left" yay. i am generaly anti war, and i don't agree with either the official reasons for this war, or the unofficial reasons we all know and talk about nonstop. i do however, think that this needs to be done. i currently work in the Title one department of a high school district compiling and analyzing data, and i make 24 k a year. i am working for my degree in biochemistry, and intend to go into research. i am somewhat pro-choice, feel that the not guilty by reason of insanity plea is crap, think that capital punishment is sometimes a good idea, and feel that while gun CONTROL is crap, firearms should at least require as much licensing and training as a car. and yes, i question the establishment constatnly. any more questions??

When both Rumsfeld and Powell make tough comments about Syria on the same weekend, we can be sure it isn't an accident. Whether those comments were well-advised may be a matter of opinion, but they were not slips of the tongue.

I am 50, MBA education, married father of 2, white, moderate hawk. Am watching the developments and phrases pop up. Interesting to see them, having lived thru the Vietnam era.

Sean paul is on.

The only thought I will throw into the bin is that Rumsfled and Powell did not start with the strong rhetoric against Iran and Syria until after it became obvious that "shock and awe" wasn't going to work. Perhaps they think a broader military war will actually help somehow with the broader political war. I can't see how, and I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but I can't help but think that if the comments they made were carefully selected, that the timing of those comments must have also been carefully selected.

Hey everyone, I think we all need to tone it down a bit...some of us are getting a little out of hand.

Maybe the Arabs should smarten up

and submit to our domination?

Re U.S. statements regarding iran and syria.

I think it extremely unlikely that either regime will enter conflict or be drawn into same. Both regimes have a fine sense of self preservation.

I don't think Powell is trying to draw them into conflict. I think Powell is trying to position them in the public eye as dangerous enemies of america.

Specifically, by pubicly warning these nations and making accusations against them the public gets the idea that they are evil.

Secondly, when they react to the warnings the countries themselves reinforce the idea.

This is a deft, if hypocricical, politial action.

the real problem for countries like syria, iran, and iraq is that there regimes will not and cannot band together to oppose us foriegn policy. As a result, each will be a victim in turn.

The best analogy i can think of is thatcher picking off each of the three most powerful unions one at a time: rail, steel and mineworkers. The unions talked about supporting each other but did not (except in words). The result was inevitable.

on the syria - iran issue/speech -

if you havent read josh marshalls article in this months washington monthly? you should:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html

more here:

http://www.jinsa.org

It seems to me the time for avoiding this fight is over. To leave Hussein in power now would mean terrible repercussions for any Iraquis opposed to him. I hate that we are in this war, but an arrow once shot cannot be retrieved.

alex,

I'm not attacking you, i just wanted to get a different mix of the people posting on the site. from all the news i have read and polling, it seems that this site is not a very good cross-sectional of the current views. thats all.

Dont worry folks this is just Dubya's strategery based on the Christian Zionists to fulfill Bibical prophesies.

Franklin - I don't understand why you'd need that to be "when this is over". Why not now?

After all, it would at least start to counter the increasing sympathy for Saddam that is emerging in other Arab states if it was done now.

Is the promise as insincere as it always has been; or is there a genuine reason to continue appeasing Sharon during wartime?

franklin - would that be too little too late?

Well, I guess that depends. Sure, it'd be nice if Israel would stop building settlements, but you must understand that a successful Iraq war will put *enormous* pressure on Israel to seize the moment, destroy its settlements, and begin immediate implementation of the Roadmap.

GWI led to a similar moment for Oslo, and while it's clear Oslo failed, I doubt the US and especially the UK will allow Israel to let a similar moment go without some sort of Israeli concessions.

My prediction: the UK especially will start to toughen its rhetoric toward Israel in an attempt (belated, perhaps) to appease wary Arab governements bitten by the US-led war.

ha ha!! now some of you are starting to think about the forest instead of the trees!
Shock and Awe was written in 1996

chris, i didnt say you were attacking me, i answered your question

jeezzz!!!!! they are attacking sp!

they are trying to say he doesnt have the right to determine what reports are true and what aren't!!!

this is crap.

however, he's handling himself VERY well. he needs to start doing some vocal reporting, he's good!

" it seems that this site is not a very good cross-sectional of the current views. thats all."

Really? I so far have found this site about the only tolerable cross section. It seems a pretty reasonable mix of pros and antis. And reasonable pros and antis mostly too.

It's probably more anti than American public opinion; but considerably more pro than world opinion.

pan, Jim Moran's comments were ignorant, and not much happened to him, anyway. That despite the ignorance of failing to distinguish among US political support for Isreali statehood, US politicval convenience in thus far soft pedaling its response to Israeli incursions into Palestinian territory, and US ability to make it own determinations about against whom it will go to war.

Re. Powell and his commments: let's get real, people. The US is at war, and the leader of Syria has (1) outfitted busloads of jihadists to fight with our enemy, and (2) made various intemperate belligerent threats against the USA.

How could the administration _not_ respond to that?

Deacon -

The reasons one becomes a terrorist, I believe, must be studied to answer your questions. The two major socio-economic explanations of the Islamic terrorist phenomenon usually are boiled down to 2 points: disenfranchisement from local government and disillusionment in local economics (i.e. unemployment).

From the Bush Admin. point of view, the short-term potential of terrorism is most likely higher due to the war in Iraq. Long-term stability in the region and the creation of an economically prosperous state and an inclusive government in Iraq will create long-term and lasting stability. Bush believes that Saddam is an impediment to any thought of long-term stability to the region, so the Bush Admin. would make the case that the long-term effects of war will in fact benefit the entire international community.

Another apt Clemenza quote: "Sonny's going crazy. He's already talking about going to the mattresses."

So, who's Sonny? Rumsfeld? Wolfowitz?

Mixing it up with Iran & Syria is simply part of administration's mind-boggling strategy. See Josh Marshall's essay exactly on this:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.marshall.html

It's called Sharonism: you militarize everything. It's also more "1984": state of permanent war.

Re Israel/Palestine: even godalmighty Pat Buchanan knows that Palestinian terrorism is a symptom (a horrible one) of the havoc from Israeli occupation.

"so at heart, you guys are a question the establishment kinda guy?"

Can't speak for Dan, but I'd say probably yes. Why?

Franklin - I don't understand why you'd need that to be "when this is over". Why not now?

I suspect it *is* going on now. But once the war is over, the intense private pressure on Israel will be very, very public.

I actually tend to agree with Mubarak when he calls for the abolishment of all WMDs in the middle-east including Israel. But I suspect Israel strategic doctrine -- which has never admitted the WMDs -- would never abolish that which they have no opinion on (but yet everybody knows they have.)

I also wish -- for the sake of calming things with Iran -- Israel would sign the Nuclear Non-Prolif Treaty. But, again, since they've never admitted weapons, I actually don't know if signing the treaty would then be a tacit admission of nuke capability -- thereby destablizing things even worse. I'm not sure about this.

But I wouldn't be surprised if Iran is privately threatening to pull out of the treaty if Israel doesn't sign it. Both Iran and Israel will come to a weird stalemate: neither will confirm weapons, yet both will be nuclear powers.

Soon, the road to ME peace will, in fact, go through Tel Aviv: Israel will most likely be the see saw. Now, I'm told the road goes through Baghdad. I dunno. I always figured it's Sharon that really carries the burden. I think the road actually leads to the front doors of the settlements.

Juan - how many jihadists from Pakistan went into Afghanistan. Did we make a public threat to attack Pakistan? No! Because we needed the Pak's help in stopping support to the Taliban, so we turned a blind eye to their support of the Taliban and Al Queda. Also, the Paks having nukes may also have something to do with it.

Another account of the 40 day delay on assault on Baghdad:

http://www.news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?id=379692003&tid=518

"Specifically, by pubicly warning these nations and making accusations against them the public gets the idea that they are evil."

That's quite a theory. If Baby Assad and the mullahs are anything Powell says they are why not just declare them benevolent and democratic? Hizbullah and the Syrian occupation of Lebanon goes away and all the Revolutionary Guards turn into Muslim choir boys.

Unless the Bush cabal does some seriousiously effective PR this week, it will be interesting to see what happens with this weekend's protests here in the U.S. It will take a few days for these stories on the military finger-pointing to trickle down into the consciousness of the peace crowd and their sympathizers.

The only American reputation I'm concerned about is that if you attack us or threaten us you die and your regime disappears.

That policy is no longer operative. Didn't you get the memo? The new "Bush Doctrine" is that America's reputation will brook the existence of no state that might, possibly, under circumstances however unlikely, and which we cannot envision presently appearing, threaten us, let alone attack us. We will not suffer another state even to desire to threaten us, much less develop a genuine will to do so, even if that will, should it actually appear, would be clearly deterrable.

The Soviet Union was possessed of the desire to attack the United States from at least 1944 on, and developed a will to do so if the opportunity was right, and the will spawned a capacity. Under the Bush Doctrine, President Truman or Eisehower would have been required to throw a petulant fit that inclued a statement that, "The game is over," and take on the godless Red Army in East Germany, throwing the world into conflagration.

"Preventive war" is almost indistiguishable from a war of conquest and can be stretched to fit all manner of belligerencies. Japan struck us at Pearl Harbor out of similar reasoning, and therefore their fault was losing the war, not starting it. Hitler certainly had reason to stage Operation Barbarrossa under this doctrine.

Since we're bandying about relevant Godfather quotes, let me throw in one from Part II that provides the rationale for pre-emption:

Tom Hagen: "Michael, you've won. Do you want to wipe everyone out?"

Michael: "Not everyone, Tom, not everyone. Just my enemies."

"There's no future in being a victim."

But you are. don't worry though, we may stil be able to find a good mental facility for you yet.

(just joking, of course)

In reality it seems like the US is the country making the most threats, even to our trading partners and allies(Argentina, Chile)and there is no honor in making "victims" of half the world just because some parrinoid fears there is a possibility we might become one. Preemtives srtikes by aggressive nations have historically led to the downfall of that nation, usually at the exspence of large numbers of civilian. If you don't give a shit about those civilians, nor the soldiers put in harms way, then prehaps I can assume you give a shit about your own ass, and all I can say is we are all on this world together and it gets smaller every day.

Sometimes Ocam's razor is not bad.
What if Powel just said what he meant : A warning so sirya and Iran won't interfere ?
Isn't it a bit early for the "bad move, US Army is doomed" or "They want to sucker both those countries into war" ?
Please, suspicion is good but paranoia isn't.

******

US government doesn't strike me as a "gifted and competent" one, but I'm sure of one thing : the NSA's big ears are currently eavesdroping the Syrian and Iranian communications. Powel has far more informations than us. Don't forget that.

William,

Just taking a poll.

chris,

Last from me:

"question the establishment kinda guys"

Huh?

So were Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Madison.

So was Jesus.

So?

Are you being funny, cute, trying to ask "leading" questions to make some grand point?

Trying to cast all who oppose this war as "diehard rebels" who finally found a cause?

Please.

Puerile games and cutesy little repartee do not interest me.

Do you have any information you wish to share? Links to interesting articles? A striking new opinion, a thunderbolt of inspiration that will clarify everything? Or are you just interested in pigeonholing people so that you can discard their opinions?

Juan,

very well done.

"Powell has far more information"? LOL. Oh, so that's why our soldiers are digging trenches outside Baghdad on one MRE a day. This administration clearly knew something we didn't.

How many of you think they will find WMD this week, or that Iran/Syria might get involved this week?

2 interesting stories from the london guardian

'tribal chiefs vow to fight to the death...'

'During the first world war, they slaughtered tens of thousands of British soldiers, who marched into Iraq expecting a hero's welcome for liberating the country from the Ottoman empire. [...]

"We are 34,000 armed men in my tribe, and we are all prepared to spill the last drop of our blood for the homeland," said a leader of the al-Nada group, from the southern town of Diala.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,926169,00.html

and more on the 2 (now 3) uk soldiers sent home for 'protesting at civilian deaths'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,926135,00.html

pan_dc

The English Peshwar papers had a series of articles on the Pakistani jihadis. About 10,000 crossed the border to fight with the Taliban. Only a handful made it back. The Taliban used them as rearguard (cannon fodder) while they made their escape.

Chris,

I'm a 21-year old college student. I'm somewhat impressionable. Registered independent but lean toward the democrats. I am not a Green, or a hippie, and sometimes I wear a tinfoil cap....although i don't think I'm representitive of the site, and I wouldn't be surprised to be the youngest person here.

Cheney is itching to use nukes, and has been for a long time. In Brent Scowcroft's memoir, A World Transformed (1998), he says that while G.H.W. Bush's top advisers had different perspectives, the fundamental division lay between Defense Secretary Richard Cheney and everyone else. In September 1991 Cheney argued that the administration should take measures to speed the breakup of the Soviet Union—even at the risk of encouraging violence and incurring long-term Russian hostility. He opposed the idea, which originated with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell, that the US should withdraw its tactical nuclear weapons from Europe and South Korea. As a part of the preparations for the Gulf War he asked Powell for a study on how small nuclear weapons might be used against Iraqi troops in the desert.

"We are 34,000 armed men in my tribe, and we are all prepared to spill the last drop of our blood for the homeland,"

ask and ye shall receive

The Romans were pretty adept at preemptive warfare...They built an empire using their equivalent of the Bush Doctrine, Just ask the Gauls, Carthegenians, Iberians, Numidians and Mauretanians

What Rummy and Powell are doing is laying the groundwork for future invasion of Iran, Syria, etc. Getting any sort of worldwide support for doing so, as long as they aren't aggressive, is practically nil....not that they may not do it, though.

So my guess is they are attempting to goad them into attacking as a justification. This is very serious, though. If we don't have enough troops in the area to even cover supply lines or take a major city, what happens if Syria and Iran enter and pound our men and women from the east and west? We might then use nukes under the pretext that we are vastly outmanned and surrounded on all sides.

From Iran's and Syria's point of view, it may be their best chance to attack now if they see writing on the wall that it's inevitable. What a freaking mess.

Franklin Covey's Analysis

Another account of the 40 day delay on assault on Baghdad:

Whether or not this is "true" is beside the point.

Remember: much of the success of this depends on us not *having* to confront Baghdad head on.

Many military folks will no doubt consider the war less effective if we have to roll into Baghdad and "take" it.

A successful war is one which (a) civilian casualities are limited, (b) WMDs are not used, and (c) the regime falls.

If we successfully attrit the regime's defenses -- and successfully limit the number of militia attacks -- the thinking is (probably) that Baghdad will fall before we have to take it by force.

Besides, there's no reason think that just because the 3ID is at the gates, doesn't mean that spec ops is also at the gates. To the contrary, I'd guess.

so chris, its your turn, whats your background leanings????

will

Al Guardian is cueing up the same stories it used during Afghanistan. Probably changed a few names in the word processor and let it go as is.

The result will be about the same too.

"Powel has far more informations(sic) than us."

Yes he does, thus the overnight defeat of Bagdad we all witnessed last week.

Forget Powell! Forget Israel. Think about the
coming desrt heat! Picture our troops tearing
off those chemical suits, firing upon their
officers, and moving enmasse back towards
Kuwait.These young people do not think like
their grandfathers. The system made them
what they are and now the system will reap
what they sowed..in shock and awe.

BREAKING:

Hellfighting Boots & Coots expose at Arms And The Man.

Was the New York Times gulled to game the stock price?

Watch WEL volume today.

Read http://majorbarbara.blogspot.com

for point by point attack of just-corrected NYTimes coverage

Militarily, I think that it is important to note that the US is doing something different in Iraq than has ever been attempted before.

They are attacking an enemy in the enemies country making a concerted effort to limit civilian casualties while at the same time trying to preserve civilian infrastructure. Furthermore, they are doing this when the enemy is in fact attempting to destroy much of its own infrastructure and appears willing to sacrifice their own civilians to influence world public opinion.

Is there another case in history of anything even resembling this occuring?

pan_dc,

You wrote:

Juan - how many jihadists from Pakistan went into Afghanistan. Did we make a public threat to attack Pakistan? No! Because we needed the Pak's help in stopping support to the Taliban, so we turned a blind eye to their support of the Taliban and Al Queda. Also, the Paks having nukes may also have something to do with it.
Posted by pan_dc at March 31, 2003 11:18 AM

The ruler of Pakistan _never_ threated the United States. In fact, the USA received Pakistan's pledge to assist us in Afghanistan _and_ clamp down on jihadist activity w/in Pakistan and inside India. (Renewed ties between the USA and Pakistan have led to decreased jihadist activity in the Kashmir.) For all the talk of Bush administration bungling, I think that their "handling" of the Pakistani position during the Afghan war argues for the opposite.

Tom Hagen: "Michael, you've won. Do you want to wipe everyone out?"

Michael: "Not everyone, Tom, not everyone. Just my enemies."

Posted by Juan at March 31, 2003 11:21 AM

But Tom wasn't a "wartime consigliare", so he was out when they went to the mattresses. (Part I)

Powell, as Sec. of State, wouldn't likely have information on battle details that Franks and Centcom didn't have/give him. In many cases, he's hearing things as we do from media, even though he has ceertainly more infromation than we do to evaluate that. Powell has, says reports, sat in on GWB's war council but that's not necessarily where much about the specific war plands would be discussed: those *should* be handled by Centcom, afterall.

Powell would know a great deal about battle logistics etc. from his own experience. But, for example, this war plan does not follow in any orthodix way the so-called Powell doctrine of "overwhelming force," but Powell has not commented directly in response to such questions. He said he beleived more forces were due, which we knwo to be the case.

this is the text in english about the situation with syria. looks more and more like a world war. i have to go over your posts carefully, i am intrigued by the concept that powell knew what he was doing. i was always astounded at the man's stupidity, but now have to look at it from the angle that he knew what he was doing.

can anyone say apocalypse?
____________________________________________

Syria says it supports 'Iraqi people' against invaders
Syria says it has chosen to support the Iraqi people against the "illegal" US-British invasion of Iraq, following a new warning against Damascus from US Secretary of State Colin Powell.

"Syria has chosen to align itself with the brotherly Iraqi people who are facing an illegal and unjustified invasion and against whom are being committed all sorts of crimes against humanity," a foreign ministry spokesman said.

Mr Powell said "Syria now faces a critical choice".

"Syria can continue direct support for terrorist groups and the dying regime of Saddam Hussein, or it can embark on a different and more hopeful course," he said.

"Either way, Syria bears the responsibility for its choices, and for the consequences."

Mr Powell, who also warned Iran, said that as part of its "overall strategy in combating terrorism," Washington was "demanding more responsible behavior" from "states that do not follow acceptable patterns of behaviour".

Washington considers both Syria and Iran state sponsors of terrorism.

The Syrian spokesman retorted that "Mr Powell, like the whole world, knows that Syria has chosen to be with international legitimacy represented by the United Nations and the Security Council, whose role its to preserve world peace and security".

Syria, one of the rotating non-permanent members of the Security Council, "has chosen to be with the international consensus which has said no to aggression against Iraq, the bombardments of cities, the massacre of innocent civilians, the destruction of houses, power plants and water stations," the statement said.

Noting that Mr Powell was speaking to an influential pro-Israeli lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the statement said he was clearly "affirming that all the actions of the US administration in the region serve Israeli interests and plans and satisfy Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister".

"The officials of this administration are thereby obtaining good conduct certificates from Israel and its supporters in the United States," it said.

Syria, the only Arab country on the UN Security Council, fought Washington's determination to launch a war on Iraq, and made clear its bitterness when it failed.

Relations were already fraught since March 12, when Powell accused Syria of developing weapons of mass destruction and called its military presence in Lebanon an "occupation".

Although Syria is not included in US President George W Bush's "axis of evil", which groups Iran, Iraq and North Korea, it is still on the US State Department's list of countries supporting terrorism and fears that it may be next on the list for Washington's attentions after Iraq.

Print Email

I just got an email from a friend who believes that US internet users are now prohibited from accessing the Al Jazeerah website. I had not tried accessing that website before, so I don't know whether I could have accessed it yesterday. Today when I try to access the site, I get an error that says "Forbidden. You do not have permission to access the requested file on this server." This is different behavior than what my friend's email states I should be getting.

Anyone else able to access Al Jazeerah today? Has our government really blocked access to that website? Here's the text of the email I received...

Censorship... ain't it grand... do you feel safer now?

as of the time/date of this email, the Al Jazeerah sight has been apparently censored for Americans. You should only use State approved sources of information?

the site

http://www.aljazeerah.us/

will now get you to

http://www.chiggerbyte.com/

"making a concerted effort to limit civilian casualties while at the same time trying to preserve civilian infrastructure."

If that is what we have been told then it must be true.

Ellen:
"Powell has far more information"? LOL. Oh, so that's why our soldiers are digging trenches outside Baghdad on one MRE a day. This administration clearly knew something we didn't."
the thing is, ellen - how do you KnoW?
unless you have some special insight into the 'great game', (and even then...)
(it has been reported) != (it is true)
point 1- it never does to hold a strong opinion based on hearsay (only personal knowledge and deduction should be used)
point 2- it's implicit in your statement that you are estimating the skills of some long term professionals as being very low
*******
let's just wait and see what we will see..
'keep your eye on the card'...find out it's a whole nother deck, maybe..'

Just saw an interview with a specialist from the Red Cross on CNN; apparently they are just now being let into the POW camps run by the Coalition, and dialogs are ongoing to get them into the Iraqi camps.

BWH,

I would also add they the Anglo-American forces are increasing the risks to themselves through their concern to limit civilian casualties. The reason that Basra, Nasariyah, and Umm Qasr have not "fallen" completely is due to restraint on the part of the Anglo-American forces. SH's army certainly knows how to "take " a city; as does Assad's military forces, I might add.

BREAKING

Was New York Times bamboozled during peak war stock frenzy?

Read their CORRECTION:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/31/pageoneplus/corrections.html

then read THE REAL STORY:

http://majorbarbara.blogspot.com

is someone gaming the stock market -- and the new york times?

M.A. Battilana -

I understand your skepticism and I actually agree to a certain extent. Also, I believe that one civilian casualty is one too many civilian casualties.

But really, I do believe that the US IS making a strong effort to avoid civilian casualties. If not, the military would be carpet bombing every city in which there is any Iraqi resistance.

gk - Since http://www.aljazeerah.us/ was recently hacked, my guess is they have tried to implement tighter security, and it's working poorly at this time. I get the same 'forbidden' page.

"making a concerted effort to limit civilian casualties while at the same time trying to preserve civilian infrastructure."

=

"Trying to secure low wage manpower to help operate U.S. siezed oil wells."

Don't forget peeps that sometimes all info. passed onto the press isn't always accurate as point and case with the Washington Area Sniper...

'Is there another case in history of anything even resembling this occuring?'

bwh - i'm no military historian, but AFAIK there hasn't. that may be why the rules of engagement have already changed to _allow_ US troops to shoot civilians and ask questions later, as has already been reported and linked several times on this board.

In my view the situation with Syria and Iran shows how naïve(or stupid) people in this administration are. What else did they expect? This was predicted by about every thinking head who new something about Middle East.
Let's see, 10 days into this mess two more countries are about to join in, Turks and Saudis close their air space...

Two months from now - Jordan goes banana, kills its pro-American king and joins in as well. Saudis and Iran show us a collective finger and say "No oil for YOU". Venezuela never liked us even before it happen. Russia smiles politely and starts selling us its oil for 90$ per barrel. China giggles and invokes huge tariffs on all goods sold TO the US. Wal-Mart immediately dies on impact... There will go 25% of US productivity gains that came from Wal-Mart.

Not an impossible scenario, is it not?

Question: how long are we going to last then?

So much for being a superpower. We are hugely depend on the world and simply cannot survive without it.

In case anyone cares, I just saw Geraldo broadcasting from somewhere in Iraq.. Apparently his big mouth is still embedded with the 101st Airborne....

So how do you say, "dont get involved" with diplomacy? They are offended by anything they dont agree with. I havent seen anything in here talked down about Iraq. Its all about the mistakes that is felt America makes. Hard to tell what side the Armchair Generals in here are on. If the Generals in here had a option to war, why didnt you offer your suggestions to the media? Prior to the war? Why do we need police? Because we have criminals. You have to use force on to stop their agression. Think how our lives would be without police. Now imagine how it would be without military.Why do we have military? Same reason, just international.It is sometimes necessary to stop threats against our country. If by now you cant see Iraq was involved in 911, you are sadder armchair Generals than I thought.We have been at war since 1979 when Iranian students seized the US embasy in Tehran. We did nothing, attacking us time after time since (arabs). We did nothing, until 911. How much do you think we should let go? How many inocent civilians do you want them to kill with their cowardly acts? You have so many ideas as to how not to. How would you address the war on terrior? Step up Generals, take it away.

bwh - it might also have something to do with the fact that this invasion is an unprecedentedly dumb idea :(

alex,

History and Business double major, my thesis topic was on the Crashes of Wall Street in '29 and '87. Work at a hedge fund as a volatility trader. make north of $100k a year. my brother is a Navigator for EA-6b Prowlers and is engaged in the gulf right now. (hoo rah) My father is a WW 2 vet (received a medal from the Russian embassy ten years ago for his participation in the Murmansk and Archangel runs) his father received a Purple Heart in WW1. HIS father was a Prussian guard. So its safe to say i come from a rather military backround. I am pro-administration, had my reservations about the war, but in the end, i beleive its the right thing to do. and in actuality, my opinion no longer matters, i was just wondering where everyone is coming from

I estimate the skill of certain professionals within this administration to be quite high. Unfortunately, those skills don't seem to be being used to support effective policy in the Middle East. I *do* estimate that these professionals' capacity for
being self-deluded by ideologues, to be pretty high.

I hate to tell you this, but it's the smartest and most experienced people who wind up being seduced into cultlike thinking. In this case, these particular people wield unparalleled power, thanks in part to our compliant media and our compliant judiciary and Congress.

I thought that the whole idea was to use Iraq as an example. Thereby preventing additional wars. Wasnt that the point?

I realize there are balance of power issues and what not, but why does the latest War bill include $10 (was it higher?) Billion for Israel, and a measly few million for NYC? Since most arabs hate us (before Iraq) because of our support for Isreal, the policy is now to give more money and weapons to Isreal (so they hate us more) and provide little protection for places like NYC???

Al Jazeera is up and running, though I am in Canada. They have been receiving an immense amount of traffic and it takes a few tries to get in. Kind of like CNN on 9/11.I never received a "forbidden" message though.
It would not surpirse me if some servers in the U.S. were blocking access.

I still say Ghostbusters II is the best one of the series.

Deacon - bin Laden, a clever, historically conscious and extremely dangerous man, knew exactly what he was doing on September 11, and his opportunity to spark a broad cultural conflict under the guise of a religious war couldn't have been better.

What do you think would happen if the US withdrew, told Israel to keep its hands off anything but what it was given at the end of WWII, and gave up on the notion of importing western culture into the Arab portion of our world?

Do you think the religious tolerance that characterized many Muslim-controlled societies throughout history would have a chance of survival?

I have not been able to connect to Al Jazeera for days - is anybody providing a side door site to it?

"It is also causing concern to British military chiefs who are worried about growing evidence of civilians being killed in fighting involving American soldiers around urban areas in southern Iraq."

Limiting civilian causulties?
Shit, there goes that theory.

due to the many hacker attacks on the al-jazeerah in the past week I would put my money on al-jazeerah blocking access from the USA on to the site. If the US wanted us not to see al-jazeerah why would they allow everyone else to see it. Also I dont not think they (Our Govermant) could block every computer in the US from accessing the site so it sounds like it is being blocked from the sorce.

What a bunch of panty-waists. LOL

People die in war... life is a biatch.

The towelheads should just be thankful we have not firebombed their cities like we did the Germans and Japanese. Of course mud huts don't burn very well anyhow. But still.

As for the goatherders heading into Iraq to become martyrs... if they make it 100 miles in before dying it will be a miracle.

MWAHAHAHA

m. a. battilana,

I have a question: if the USA is as venal as your posts propose, and if US forces absolutely don't care about Iraqi civilians, then why haven't they simply "finished the job" by now through the indiscriminate use of force?" Why dig in around Baghdad, or take casualties outside of Nasariyah?

Major Barbara, I may appreciate what you're doing on your blogspot, but please stop advertising yourself here so overtly. BREAKING NEWS sounds, well, like spam.

...NYCer..sshhhhh..you're on dangerous ground with that kind of talk...

Here is a break down on the sit map symbols and what they mean:

Size Notation - Unit
. Squad
.. Section
... Platoon
I Company
II Battalion
III Regiment
x Brigade
xx Division
xxx Corp
xxxx Armp
xxxxx Army Group

The number the left and right of the box it the unit number (3rd of the 82nd, 1st of the 101st). For all the info you want on Military Map Symbols try this link http://www.cafes.net/mcozart/bwsym.html

I am a 43 yr. old married mother of 3. I am a registered nurse, and currently in school to get a master's in nursing. I was fortunate enough to have a high school government teacher who had us spend the entire year going amendment by amendment through the Constitution. Part of the discussion was case law. The responsibility of every American citizen is to question everything - how else do you know democracy is working? We get the government we deserve.

I love the map and all, but its a little too cluttered in my opinion.

I just want to congradulate the person who runs this site the connection is a great show im goinh to ho and listen in right now.

I agree the map is "busy" I think it should show no unit smaller then Battalion size.

Gashprex:

Re the map, wait till the Yanks move a few more divisions in. In a couple of days I'm sure will see more Blue units and less red units.

Remember: much of the success of this depends on us not *having* to confront Baghdad head on.

Franklin, I think your analysis is weak in that it is only a military one. The political problem is will become more complex over time as the dangers of health crises start to increase. Read this article in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49102-2003Mar29.html?referrer=email and the references to this article in www.npr.org in the report entitled "Rumsfeld Defends US War Plan."

oloos - if that were to happen - the world economy would go to hell along with it. Think China can grow 8% a year without exporting their things to the US? Sure we would go to hell, but we'd take everyone else with us. Hence self-preservation of other nations would prevent such an event.

"But really, I do believe that the US IS making a strong effort to avoid civilian casualties. If not, the military would be carpet bombing every city in which there is any Iraqi resistance."

I'm glad you're here blogging with us, but really, you should look into seeking out other news sources then the one that tell you how limited the civilian casualties are. In fact I'd seriously question the reports coming back of what US casualties are. US soldiers are not bullet proof and there is too much metal flying around over there for me to believe that there have only been 37 US soldiers killed in a week and a half of fighting.I pray it is less and I know 37 is too many already, but reality tells me it is much more. Screw CNN.

hey, looking at the map, we have some volatile situations in the north. i would watch for the iraqis to squish out to the east and west leaving token forces and then coming back at our flanks as our norhtern troops head south. anyone else comment??

how did our oil get under their sand

sorry

Great job on NPR, Sean-Paul. Thank you for articulating so well the value of services such as yours. Thank you to the person posting the URL for access to radio program.

Man, I am getting confused. We are screwing up big time in this war if Iraqis who originally left the country because of Saddam are now coming back to fight against the U.S. in this war in order to 'defend their country'.
I mean to me it seems that barely anyone believes us that this is a war of liberation. Somehow this whole thing is getting all messed up now.
I'm beginning to think the average Iraqi doesn't see this as a war of liberation at all. And if that's true, man, there's no way to win a war when everyone we're 'liberating' hates us. ..Starting to bum me out.

Chris, why don’t you use a nickname "lieutenant Dan". You seem to have a background fo it. Remember, he wanted to die on the battlefield but end up making peace with himself and marrying a Vietnamese woman.

IT IS NEVER LATE TO STOP THE KILLING! WAKE UP!

BWH, you're right. It's an obvious thing. (I hope this effort not to level the cities will continue even if the war is now admited tougher than predicted.) But I'm starting to think that the heat of the moment prevents people to see it.

Yes it's bloody and nasty out there. Yes it didn't go according to plan. But the situation is far from a Vietnam disaster and the civilian death toll is very very low for such operations.
No I don't say those casualties are acceptable, but it's not tchetechia, the US military is showing real efforts (ie: instead of going to the radically efficient methods like carpet bombing they accept more troubles and casualties). No they're not showing free and admirable kind mercy, they NEED to achieve victory with the lowest destruction possible.

Please, instead of snaping back remarks, don't forget the big picture.
- The US are military winning.
- Sadam IS now considered a hero in the arab world and that COULD lead to nasty things
- The population level of hate/love towards US is STILL unknown. (No Oums Quar does not permit an extrapolation to all Irak teritory ! Neither does other stories. Right now we are trying educated guess to answer the question but we do not know.)
- There's still a very strong anti-war opinion in the world : Western Pro-Us gov COULD turn into Anti-Us Gov next elections.
- Propaganda is eveywhere
- We should try not to be as arrogant than the Hawks who made such a brilliant strategy as "shock and awe": We don't know everything, we can too make mistake in our judgement.
- The middle-east region is politicaly shaken, nobody, NOBODY, can tell yet which side it's going to fell.

And for your info : I'm not pro-war. It's actually the oposite. (27, french engineer, spent a few month in US for internship. No political color)

"yes, many people are against the war, but now that it's started it had better be won"

Ah the good old "Vietnam" spirit. You'd be better off declaring victory and running home.

oh yeah, and heres another thing about lieutenant dan: he's fictional! i'm real! im not at war with myself, its those who think that if we leave people like saddam alone we will be okay. thats craziness. i am awake. you are in LA LA LAND. stop and smell the roses.

why did we attack iraq
A. make the world a safer place
B. oil profits
C. israel
D. liberate iraqi people
E. none of the above

Further comment on the prayer thing (soldiers asked to pray for W.): Yesterday's NY Times mag had excellent aritlce by Gary Wills - With God on His Side (I'd link it if I knew how). At the end of the piece he wrote:
[Mark Twain] reminded us exactly what we are praying for when we aks God to take sides in war and accomplish the destruction of our foe. [Twain's] 'War Prayer' runs, in part: "O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover thier smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of ther wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire;...help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolate land....We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love.;
Somone asked about the demographics of some of comment: I'm 64, could be called a liberal, theologian (former Lutheran clergy) who is concerned that we have yet to underestand the damage being done in our world by fundamentalism no matter whether its from Christians (read: Bush, Ashcroft, etc), Jews or Muslims.

NYCer
I think not. Only a persuasion of such magnitude can change the course of this administration. They would go out the window in two weeks if that were to happen. And we all go about our normal business then.

"how did our oil get under their sand"

best one I've heard all week.

Chris

It's not the roses. That was a dead flash I smelled. Wake up! You don't have to die in the next war!

Bobby and tom,

The primary goal of the war is to erase a threat to the security of Americans. (SH had the will and capability to foster a future 9/11.) Democracy for Iraqis is an important secondary goal since a democratic Iraq wouldn't, presumably, be a threat to the USA. Polls have conisitently shown that the majority of USA citizens polled accept this justification for pre-emption.

Note: I am not proposing SH was behind 9/11; what I am proposing is that he had every interest in helping a future 9/11 occur.

re: al-jaz site

in the past few days that the al-jaz and its english language counterpart site have been hacked, one thing that has been happening is that visitors are being re-routed to a porn site. and since i suppose that many of us are at work, if you are getting that "Forbidden" notice it could be due to this redirection and yr local office's policies in this regard...

just a thought...

To Kevin Davis - thanks for the Clemenza comeback.........can't stop laughing out loud.........sorry, gotta go, still laughing.

- dilly

"stop and smell the roses."

I've been trying too, but them damn Iraqis won't throw the things!

a question...
Re: Challenger II Tank
is it the most indestructable hardware the UK has?
is it basically unstoppable (because the Iraqi's do not have the weaponry to do so)?

thanks

oloos,

i would be happy to die in the next war. as you can see, there will always be a bauer in a war to protect america. I'm not scared. are you?

I didn't know roses grew in the desert...

"The primary goal of the war is to erase a threat to the security of Americans. (SH had the will and capability to foster a future 9/11"

the hate we are fueling assures another 911

habib, they do. i live in a desert, and we grow them quite well. you just have to put enough water on them. or in this case, blood.

The only American reputation I'm concerned about is that if you attack us or threaten us you die and your regime disappears.

Care to explain exactly how those two things apply to Iraq, which did neither?

27 virginia
unix sysadmin
left-of-centre on most issues
anti-war before the war started but now believe we must follow the war to victory

nb....Challenger is the UK's main battle tank, similar in capability to the US's Abrams M1 main battle tank. They all have good armor protection, I'm not sure if the Challenger has reactive armor. I know it has the chabom (sp?) armor. It's not indestructible, as the fact that the US already has lost a few M1s to Iraqi attacks, though with no loss of life. They can be disable by RPGs hitting the treads or with other anti-tank guided missiles like the KORNETs which we think the Syrians provided the Iraqis.

hey guys- this is the internet, you know
it's not possible for any government to block access or control information here.
ever hear of a proxy?
and the ppl who live on the net have set up worldwide private proxy chains precisely so anyone, anywhere can browse anything, anytime
you can't stop us!
HAR!

I'm going off line, but before I did I wanted to re-state my question, which has been so far been answered by a resounding silence. I'm urging you all to apply Occam's razor, here: if the USA is a genocidal thug-filled regime bent on conquering the Middle East and, for the time being, killing as many Iraqis as we can, why are we taking so long to get the job done, and why have we exposed our forces to additional risks?

I'm trying to find a link to an article I read late last week, perhaps you all can help. A journalist was describing the behavior of some soldiers who were guarding a bridge in Nasiriyah, or maybe Najaf, and what happened at night when some cilivilians tried to make a run across the bridge in some vehicles. The vehicles were destroyed, and the reporter described a dead Iraqi family.

Any help in dredging up this report would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

Chris
Fear is a very basic instinct that kept humans from being eaten up. If nothing else, its your lack of fear that is scaring me.

has anybody seen the syria story on an american site? i've only seen it on french and australian sites.

re: al-jaz website

Spelling without 'h': Al-Jazeera.

Site was http://english.aljazeera.net/, but's it was cracked and I think they've postponed the launch to April sometime.

Main (Arabic) site: http://www.aljazeera.net/

tom:

I'd really like to believe A & D were the reasons, as well as topple an evil regime; however, the more I read about the "real" reasons the Bush Administration is going into Iraq, the more I think it's partly Isreal, control of Oil & energy, and to increase the US Sphere of influence in the Middle East, whilst waging war with pretty much every opposing Arab country there.

"Polls have conisitently shown that the majority of USA citizens polled accept this justification for pre-emption."

Oppinion polls are suspect. And even if true, just because the majority of US citizens think something is right, especially when it flies in the face of world oppinion, does not necessarily make it so. Remember, the majority of German citizens in the 1930s thought Hitler's policies were right. And many still would if the Germans had not lost. Might makes right is wrong.

why didn't we offer a $100 billion bounty on saddam and his sons??...and don't say because the united nations wouldn't like it..talk about some fighting in bagdad....

Until we get another comment system let say all the pro-war, anti-war, pro-USA, pro-French, ect... all stay back one comment board. Leaving the most current one just news stories. Then when a new comment board is opened up the anti-pro crowd can move up one as well. The thing that made this site so much better then any other war site was it was just news updates. If you want a anto/pro war web site fight there are 100's if not 1000's of other sites to go to. Lets keep this site free of the BS from both sides.

Regarding the "our oil under their sand" our comment, a "serious" question posed to a Washington Post editor in an online chat:

"If the Bush Administration is insisting that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people, does that mean that American oil belongs to the American people, and not the oil companies?"

alex:

Yeah I hear blood will make anything grow. And if you occasionally sprinkle your Roses with a Chemical or Biological weapon (say Ricin), then they become even more intoxicating...

...whilst waging war with pretty much every opposing Arab country there

Has it ever occured to anybody here that perhaps there are indeed *bad* Arab regimes?

I mean, everyone is quick to criticize America. But can anyone step back and perhaps admit (however quietly) that a lot of Arab regimes out there are, in fact, corrupt, myopic, and dangerous?

And this this danger or this corruption does, indeed, exist *outside* of the religious sphere?

Juan The US is at war, and the leader of Syria has (1) outfitted busloads of jihadists to fight with our enemy, and (2) made various intemperate belligerent threats against the USA.In fact, you could have added (3) supplied war material to our enemy. How could the administration _not_ respond to that?

Respond, yes. Bring pressure to bear, write a nasty telegram, give exactly that speech, even. But not to AIPAC!! Arabs believe that group is why the US always sides with Israel, and their gov't-run hate radio will have a field day whipping people up to a frenzy about the audience for that speech.

Saying it there was a calculated insult, a deliberate provocation that makes it suicide for any voice of reason in the Mideast to even hint about backing down. There is no sane reason to give that speech to that group. Is there??? Can you think of one???

Unless the goal really is a wider war. It's got to make you wonder.

To Juan - - Sadly, I think the principle of Occam's razor is unknown to anyone in the current administration. Perhaps if Pres. Bush had truly sought to find out the simplest explanation for why America is hated in certain portions of the Middle East, we could have avoided the present mess altogether.

- dilly

How are the Russians reacting to all of this.
Would not be surpried to see the cold war eturn.

NYCer

"Since most arabs hate us (before Iraq) because of our support for Isreal, the policy is now to give more money and weapons to Isreal (so they hate us more) and provide little protection for places like NYC???"

Great idea. We should do everything the Arab press tells us to do. What could possibly be more important? You should be seeking a refund on you mail-order morals.

a point that may have been overlooked in this movie, with Rumsfeld wagging his finger at Syria last week and Powell making his utternances this week, that this could be Israel's cue into this story.

With Israel in that's the basically UK out. The Brits give or rather gave this sorry saga a measure of acceptibility, a gloss of credibilty. Made this story almost look civilised. With their politicians under pressure, they look likely to waver. Cannot be trusted. I mean look at that latest fragging incident. By all accounts elsewhere, that hog took out their armour on the second turn. Besides these guys (the brits) could become something of a liability in this movie especially when it comes to doling out the booty. No such issue with the Israelis since they are already being accommodated and that this might be pay back time.

No, the guys from the old testment would compliment this story a little better. Would give the special forces guys up some cheer. They would now have someone they see eye to eye with and with whom they could happily work. I'm sure the CIA and other operatives would be equally gleeful. Bugs in the same bed. Would be another Vietnam all over again - the one we didn't see.

Notice that those guys up there take no prisoners. Keep on complaining that these other guys keep on blowing themselves up. Its amazing what a little bit of cordite with knots in it can do.

"If the Bush Administration is insisting that Iraqi oil belongs to the Iraqi people, does that mean that American oil belongs to the American people, and not the oil companies?"

The American oil industry helps Americans and helps America. Is there any doubt about this?

I mean, you'd prefer a bunch of petroleum engineers out of business and sucking up welfare? You'd prefer American engineering to be stagnant -- moreso than it ever has been or will be?

Get real. The people on this forum are the most apocalyptic folks this side of Drudge and Debka.

Hey: daminal

Go to
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2479.htm

Now, now, ma.battilan. You know that comparing media-dulled Americans to propaganda-dulled Germans is not allowed. The only permissible comparison to Nazi Germany is Saddam and Hitler.

Juan:

OK, Let's look at this again.

9/11 Hijackers: Mainly Saudi/None were Iraqi
Saddam H: Iraqi

9/11 Perpetrators: Dead
Saddam H: Wherabouts Unknown

9/11 Hijackers, and ObL: Religious fundamentalists who have no tolerance for secular rulers and would like to kill them.
Saddam H: Secular Ruler who has no tolerance for religious fundamentalists and would like to kill them.

corrupt, myopic, and dangerous????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????