Acts can most assuredly be "evil" -- Jah knows Saddam his committed his share of such acts, as have various operatives in the name of the U.S. and many many other governments, both recently and throughout history.
But.... sheesh! This will probably sound like the rantings of a recovering Catholic still burdened with vestiges of his God-haunted past clinging to him like unborn children -- but I simply cannot muster the psychic/spiritual courage ("arrogance"?) to pass such ultimate judgment as to call another human being "evil," even in cases where all evidence seems to lead very logically to that conclusion. It somehow seems to be opening myself up to similar judgment, which --I guess-- I don't want to do.
Either way, though, I do NOT think that a "country" or a "nation" can be "evil" by any definition; in this kind of context, such things are pretty much abstractions. Can a government be "evil"? I'd say, probably not -- "evil," to me, implies intent -- an actual desire to do something unholy, or to be unholy. I think that only individuas could possibly be possessed of such desires (not to say that such individuals couldn't get together and work in groups).
In terms of the U.S. agenda in Iraq and globally, I think it's merely economic/political self-interest. That being said, I consider greed, imperialism, exploitation of resources/humans, and other such nastinesses to be immoral as hell, but I'd be the last one to peg 'em as "evil" in any cosmological or Karmic sense.
hell bent on war
Live / Evil
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
Axis
Hmmm... I knew that the German/Japanese/Italian alliance was called the "Axis," but I hadn't been aware that the entire phrase "Axis of Evil" was used then. Bush was, however, definitely and consciously invoking the Axis powers when he originally used the term.
For what it's worth, by the way, I consider that entire "Axis of evil" business to have been a horrible stategic blunder. After 9/11, it seemed to be that the thing to do was to isolate Al Queda, "front them off," so to speak, from any and every possible or potential ally they might have, by any means necessary. If they had been a country, they might have been physically cut off by means of bombing their supply routes, annihilating power plants and communcations, etc. Since they weren't a country, but were instead pretty much a borderless cabal of like-minded ideologues, it seemed to me that to isolate them IDEOLOGICALLY would have been the key -- e.g, and literally, to try to emphasize how they'd even threatened Saddam with obliteration because they considered him a secularist, and to harp on the theological disagreements between them and the Iranian mullahs, etc. For once, I could actually see having treated Saddam like --if not an ally, at least not quite as much of an enemy, if it meant racheting up the pressure on Al Queda.
Instead, Bush literally gave Al Qyeda, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea [of all countries!] an instant rhetorical "alliance" that didn't exist in any way (as far as we know) before then. Iran, in fact, has developed some definite pro-western leanings since the death of the Ayotollah; North Korea is a loose cannon [or a loose A-Bomb] with virtually no friends or allies anywhere, let alone in the Middle East. It's utterly beyond me what the Bush strategists were thinking when they came up with that one.
For what it's worth, by the way, I consider that entire "Axis of evil" business to have been a horrible stategic blunder. After 9/11, it seemed to be that the thing to do was to isolate Al Queda, "front them off," so to speak, from any and every possible or potential ally they might have, by any means necessary. If they had been a country, they might have been physically cut off by means of bombing their supply routes, annihilating power plants and communcations, etc. Since they weren't a country, but were instead pretty much a borderless cabal of like-minded ideologues, it seemed to me that to isolate them IDEOLOGICALLY would have been the key -- e.g, and literally, to try to emphasize how they'd even threatened Saddam with obliteration because they considered him a secularist, and to harp on the theological disagreements between them and the Iranian mullahs, etc. For once, I could actually see having treated Saddam like --if not an ally, at least not quite as much of an enemy, if it meant racheting up the pressure on Al Queda.
Instead, Bush literally gave Al Qyeda, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea [of all countries!] an instant rhetorical "alliance" that didn't exist in any way (as far as we know) before then. Iran, in fact, has developed some definite pro-western leanings since the death of the Ayotollah; North Korea is a loose cannon [or a loose A-Bomb] with virtually no friends or allies anywhere, let alone in the Middle East. It's utterly beyond me what the Bush strategists were thinking when they came up with that one.
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
-
vern.silver
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Sault Ste Marie, Canada
I have been away from this forum for about a week now, and have spent much time catching up on this thread (all 10 pages!) What follows (and probably over a few posts,) are my responses/input into what has gone on – though some of it may be outdated:
Re the post of Candice on 29 March of the article from the Guardian:
Interesting indeed!
The Author, Julie Burchell, does not support nor give any reasons for why she supports the war in Iraq. Instead, she falls into the same ranting attacks against those who question the war and/or oppose it. That she attempts to justify her stance by stating she was “brought up to be anti-American” and lists her reasons why she was “against the US” in the past is as shallow as her arguments which follow.
It is the same screed: all who oppose the war are Anti-American and therefore Pro-Saddam; “the sheer befuddled babyishness”; “like hyperactive brats”; “mind boggling selfishness”; “the Catholic church taking a break from buggering babies”; “posturing pansies such as Sean Penn, Sheryl Crow and Dana Albarn”.
If the intent of her article was to show the pointlessness of debates such as the one now ongoing on this thread, she has failed miserably. As a spokesperson for the pro-war “side” (as she calls it,) she fails miserably and actually qualifies and puts a truth to her own statement “being extremely babyish myself.”
You do not convince people and bring them to your “side” by demeaning them and calling them names. If you do, the arguments you give will be lost in the diatribe. She had some valid arguments – item 2 and 4 in particular. She would have done better to couch her article in these debatable terms as apposed to calling those who espouse the views as befuddled babies.
If I were to follow her ‘logic’ then I would be correct in assuming those who are pro-war are childish, ignorant, unintelligent, racist and uninformed based on the comments I have heard some make (and not necessarily on this thread.) For example, this article (one of several from the Toronto Star called the Pulse of America,) where journalists are capturing the mood of Americans from several major cities in the US – Berkley, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Philadelphia, Tampa and New York.) I excerpt the one from Tampa titled “Sports bar nation tunes in to CNN.”
Re the post of Candice on 29 March of the article from the Guardian:
Interesting indeed!
The Author, Julie Burchell, does not support nor give any reasons for why she supports the war in Iraq. Instead, she falls into the same ranting attacks against those who question the war and/or oppose it. That she attempts to justify her stance by stating she was “brought up to be anti-American” and lists her reasons why she was “against the US” in the past is as shallow as her arguments which follow.
It is the same screed: all who oppose the war are Anti-American and therefore Pro-Saddam; “the sheer befuddled babyishness”; “like hyperactive brats”; “mind boggling selfishness”; “the Catholic church taking a break from buggering babies”; “posturing pansies such as Sean Penn, Sheryl Crow and Dana Albarn”.
If the intent of her article was to show the pointlessness of debates such as the one now ongoing on this thread, she has failed miserably. As a spokesperson for the pro-war “side” (as she calls it,) she fails miserably and actually qualifies and puts a truth to her own statement “being extremely babyish myself.”
You do not convince people and bring them to your “side” by demeaning them and calling them names. If you do, the arguments you give will be lost in the diatribe. She had some valid arguments – item 2 and 4 in particular. She would have done better to couch her article in these debatable terms as apposed to calling those who espouse the views as befuddled babies.
If I were to follow her ‘logic’ then I would be correct in assuming those who are pro-war are childish, ignorant, unintelligent, racist and uninformed based on the comments I have heard some make (and not necessarily on this thread.) For example, this article (one of several from the Toronto Star called the Pulse of America,) where journalists are capturing the mood of Americans from several major cities in the US – Berkley, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Philadelphia, Tampa and New York.) I excerpt the one from Tampa titled “Sports bar nation tunes in to CNN.”
“… when Michigan native Michael Moore appeared to accept his best documentary Oscar for Bowling for Columbine … (A)s expected Moore’s acceptance speech became an anti-war sermon and he was quickly drowned out by bar patrons … ‘You traitor,’ one of them screamed. ‘F--- you!’ yelled another. … ‘Somebody kill that guy!’ A woman shouted. The unanimous, Moore-bashing chorus continued until one hefty-looking patron … cried out in a booming voice: ‘What do you expect? The guy’s Canadian!”
-
vern.silver
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Sault Ste Marie, Canada
On the topic of brainwashing - Linda’s Post from March 29 and David and Linda’s from March 30th.
In my view it is not so much brainwashing ( def- systematic replacement of established ideas in a persons mind by new ones,) as indoctrination (def – imbue with a doctrine, idea or opinion.) From the day we are born we are ‘indoctrinated’ into the culture – parents, religion, education, media, government – to which we are exposed. This indoctrination continues throughout our lives – when we start a job, join clubs, etc. Most of us are or should be aware of the ‘cultures’ which exist within our own workplaces and communities. How we develop ‘language’ etc common and only understood by that group.
As for Linda’s comment “I don’t believe prot4esting with people from around the world against your country is the answer, and hard for me to accept.”
Protesting against the war does not necessarily equate into protesting against your country although the rhetoric may seem to point that way. It may be against the policies/aims of the leaders which the protests are against and not actually the country and the people who live there as a whole. I am a Canadian and I love my country and support much of what we ‘stand for’ as a nation, and internationally. I do not always support my leaders – in fact I am more likely to question and study their motives before I choose to support them or not. The leaders do not make up the ‘nature’ of a country: its people do. Yes there are many anti-US protests going on in the world in conjunction with the anti-war protests. But that does not mean that they are one in the same.
Lizzytish post from 30 March regarding NAFTA:
A correction Lizztytish – The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was during Bush the senior’s presidency. Barbara Bush during a visit to Canada a day or two ago was quick to point this out as well as bring a message from George senior that the US in fact does love Canada even though we choose not to support this war.
Tom’s post from 30 March:
“It takes more than a gun to make a man; it takes more than a salute to make a patriot; it takes more than a flag to love your country!”
The same sort of qualification can be applied to ‘respect.’ That the positi9n of “President of the US” should be respected does not hold that the ‘person’ in that position must be respected. That individual must earn that respect and does that first by he/she having respect for the ‘position’ they are in. Questioning and speaking out against a person in a ‘position of respect’ does not imply disrespect for that position – in fact, (depending on how it is presented,) can show great respect for that position.
In my view it is not so much brainwashing ( def- systematic replacement of established ideas in a persons mind by new ones,) as indoctrination (def – imbue with a doctrine, idea or opinion.) From the day we are born we are ‘indoctrinated’ into the culture – parents, religion, education, media, government – to which we are exposed. This indoctrination continues throughout our lives – when we start a job, join clubs, etc. Most of us are or should be aware of the ‘cultures’ which exist within our own workplaces and communities. How we develop ‘language’ etc common and only understood by that group.
As for Linda’s comment “I don’t believe prot4esting with people from around the world against your country is the answer, and hard for me to accept.”
Protesting against the war does not necessarily equate into protesting against your country although the rhetoric may seem to point that way. It may be against the policies/aims of the leaders which the protests are against and not actually the country and the people who live there as a whole. I am a Canadian and I love my country and support much of what we ‘stand for’ as a nation, and internationally. I do not always support my leaders – in fact I am more likely to question and study their motives before I choose to support them or not. The leaders do not make up the ‘nature’ of a country: its people do. Yes there are many anti-US protests going on in the world in conjunction with the anti-war protests. But that does not mean that they are one in the same.
Lizzytish post from 30 March regarding NAFTA:
A correction Lizztytish – The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was during Bush the senior’s presidency. Barbara Bush during a visit to Canada a day or two ago was quick to point this out as well as bring a message from George senior that the US in fact does love Canada even though we choose not to support this war.
Tom’s post from 30 March:
“It takes more than a gun to make a man; it takes more than a salute to make a patriot; it takes more than a flag to love your country!”
The same sort of qualification can be applied to ‘respect.’ That the positi9n of “President of the US” should be respected does not hold that the ‘person’ in that position must be respected. That individual must earn that respect and does that first by he/she having respect for the ‘position’ they are in. Questioning and speaking out against a person in a ‘position of respect’ does not imply disrespect for that position – in fact, (depending on how it is presented,) can show great respect for that position.
-
vern.silver
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Sault Ste Marie, Canada
Lizztytish post from 30 March:
Regarding the Opinion of your co-worker – who as her comments show is still affected by her ‘indoctrination’ into the military. In my opinion it is true to say that the US army is the most powerful, modern military in the world, but this does not equate to best. Look at the number of friendly fire incidents during this war, the Afghan war (4 Canadians killed,) and the first gulf war. The vast majority of them were by the US military who seem to have a shoot first (or as in the case of the Canadian victims, shoot anyway even though you have been told not too) attitude. This feeling was expressed by one of the Brits who survived the recent incident. One also should point out how many ‘civilian’ friendly fire incidents have occurred and who is involved – no Brit ones yet that I am aware of.
Here is a few excerpts from an article from the Globe and Mail from 29 March. It is entitled “Seconds to decide; shoot or hold fire.” It is an interview with two US sharpshooters of the US 5th Marine Regiment: Sgt Eric Shrumpf 28, and Corporal Mikael McIntosh 20:
Regarding the Opinion of your co-worker – who as her comments show is still affected by her ‘indoctrination’ into the military. In my opinion it is true to say that the US army is the most powerful, modern military in the world, but this does not equate to best. Look at the number of friendly fire incidents during this war, the Afghan war (4 Canadians killed,) and the first gulf war. The vast majority of them were by the US military who seem to have a shoot first (or as in the case of the Canadian victims, shoot anyway even though you have been told not too) attitude. This feeling was expressed by one of the Brits who survived the recent incident. One also should point out how many ‘civilian’ friendly fire incidents have occurred and who is involved – no Brit ones yet that I am aware of.
Here is a few excerpts from an article from the Globe and Mail from 29 March. It is entitled “Seconds to decide; shoot or hold fire.” It is an interview with two US sharpshooters of the US 5th Marine Regiment: Sgt Eric Shrumpf 28, and Corporal Mikael McIntosh 20:
I guess 25 dead women and children are harder to explain away as one or two – and less chance of witness to the incident as well, I guess.… “We had a great day,” Sgt Schrumpf said. “We killed a lot of people.”… Yet in the heart of a firefight, both men conceded, when the calculus often warps, a shot not taken in one set of circumstances might suddenly present itself as a life-or-death necessity. …
“We dropped a few civilians,” Sgt Schrumpf said, “but what do you do?” …
“To illustrate, the sergeant offer a pair of examples from earlier in the week.”
“There was one Iraqi soldier and 25 women and children,” he said. “I didn’t take the shot.
“But more than once he faced a different choice: One Iraqi soldier standing amongst two or three civilians. He recalled one such incident in which he and other men in his unit opened fire. He recalled watching one of the women standing near the Iraqi soldier go down.” …
-
vern.silver
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Sault Ste Marie, Canada
Second Lizztytish post from 30 March as well as Paula’a remarks:
David’s post in response to Paula from March 29:
For the discussion on warriors and torture:
Front line soldiers generally do not conduct ‘interrogation’ of prisoners of war. They simply take them into custody and then they are passed ‘back’ for other’s to care for. The interrogation is then carried out by ‘intelligence’ personnel trained in such things. It is not against the Geneva Convention to question prisoners, and prisoner’s are only obligated to give the ritual Name rank and serial number in response. When I underwent POW training during my ‘military years,’ we were told not to divulge type of personal information as this could ultimately be used against you later on.
This is not to say that abuses don’t occur on ‘our’ side. Note this article:
To understand this, one needs to look back at the war in Afghanistan. Putting together the coalition for that war was not such an easy task as well, and for a while it looked as if it would not happen. It was through the efforts of Blair in particular that this coalition was knitted together. As I watched the recent ‘quagmire’ of events leading up to this war, it was evident to me (in my opinion) that Blair was attempting to do this again. He was trying to be the link between the opposing views on this war, and by supporting the US position, it is possible that he felt that he could eventually bring the others onside. When this failed, he was pretty much committed.“I am frankly confused by Britain’s willingness to get into this …”
David’s post in response to Paula from March 29:
The infamous Unibomber was turned in by his brother. Supporting your family does not mean turning a blind eye to their misdeeds. It means standing by them though good and by. There is such a thing as tough love too. Perhaps one could look at the Anti-war protesters in this light?“Blood is thicker than water,” perhaps, but “right and wrong” may be thicker than blood.
For the discussion on warriors and torture:
Front line soldiers generally do not conduct ‘interrogation’ of prisoners of war. They simply take them into custody and then they are passed ‘back’ for other’s to care for. The interrogation is then carried out by ‘intelligence’ personnel trained in such things. It is not against the Geneva Convention to question prisoners, and prisoner’s are only obligated to give the ritual Name rank and serial number in response. When I underwent POW training during my ‘military years,’ we were told not to divulge type of personal information as this could ultimately be used against you later on.
This is not to say that abuses don’t occur on ‘our’ side. Note this article:
Recently we have seen the capture in Pakistan of Khalid Shekh Mohammad – said to be the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. He was being questioned by Pakastani Intelligence and it is said that he has been providing information on al_Queda. Does anyone one really believe that he freely gave any information?How Bush kicked the [expletive] out of the Geneva Conventions
Nothing George Bush says on the subject of Geneva Conventions and international legal standards is likely to convince anyone, says Paul Knox
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
… Extensive U.S. press reports -- challenged only in the most general terms by the Bush administration -- have revealed that U.S. interrogators are using borderline torture techniques against suspected terrorists. The toughest methods are used at Bagram air force base in Afghanistan and on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. There, "stress and duress" tactics include sleep deprivation, questioning under pain and subjecting the suspects to extremes of cold or heat.
More disturbingly, U.S. officials acknowledge that some terror suspects have been turned over to countries such as Pakistan and Jordan, which Washington's own annual human-rights reports accuse of practising torture. "We don't kick the [expletive] out of them," one official told The Washington Post. "We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them." This despite the fact that the U.S. is a party, along with 131 other countries, to the 1987 convention against torture.
Mr. Bush insists on calling his counterterrorism campaign a war -- yet the hundreds of prisoners rounded up since September of 2001 are not accorded the status of prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions. Hundreds have been held, incognito and without charge, for more than a year. The U.S. government says they are "unlawful combatants," subject to no laws whatsoever because they are neither U.S. citizens nor held on U.S. soil. It says it can hold them for as long as it wants, with no access to lawyers or judicial oversight. Shamefully, U.S. courts appear to agree.
-
vern.silver
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Sault Ste Marie, Canada
David (tues apr 1 post)
Linda (wed april 2 post)
Tell me what would a delay of six months to give the weapons inspectors a chance to do their job have caused? Iraq’s military capability was severely destroyed after the first Gulf War. Continued bombing missions by the British and US further undermined their military might. I have read reports by the first Inspectors that stated 90% of Saddams weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed in the first years after that war.
Should thousands of Iraqi citizens pay for your fear of other terrorist attacks?
tom.d.stiller (wed apr 2 post)
As I stated I an early post to this thread, there was a way to deal with the likes of Saddam.As for how to eliminate Saddam, I honestly don't have a good answer for that, except to suggest that in the long run tyrants tend to get deposed by their own people. I still think that the U.N. inspections, if truly carried out and supported, would have done a lot to isolate and marginalize him, as well as to compel him to at least modify (if not desist) some of his more nefarious activities.
The UN, the Security council and the International Criminal Court are the means to deal with the likes of Saddam Hussein. The US, and other countries continue to prevent these parties from being effective. Perhaps this is answered by a comment made by a former advisor to Bush senior when he said that the UN was a useless body because it doesn’t –represent our interests.” He made this comment on a CBC Newscast that I saw in the first days of the war – I wish I could remember his name and I apologize for not being able to provide it here.Their has been much comment on the usefulness of the United Nations and the Security Council. Yes, they are basically a cake with no icing. Why? Because it's not really an organization of united nations when 5 or 6 countries have permanent status/veto powers simply because of how powerful/wealthy they are. If it was truly a United Nations, all would be equal. This can only happen if these 5 or 6 stronger nation take a real leadership role - governed by the reasons the UN was borne from rather than self interest and power. And the US is not the only one guilty here! Even the smaller countries who waste their terms on the security council taint its possibilities.
Linda (wed april 2 post)
I can’t speak for everyone else, but I know I never stated that I believe the use of force was never necessary. I certainly never suggested that anyone disband their military and disarm. My view throughout this thread has been that the war is ILLEGAL as the US did not have the right under International law to start this war.David, I wasn't saying you people would be the Saddams. My point was that when we all give up our weapons and are solving things peacefully, if there is a tyrant some where in the world who wants our peaceful little world, what are we going to do?
Tell me what would a delay of six months to give the weapons inspectors a chance to do their job have caused? Iraq’s military capability was severely destroyed after the first Gulf War. Continued bombing missions by the British and US further undermined their military might. I have read reports by the first Inspectors that stated 90% of Saddams weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed in the first years after that war.
Should thousands of Iraqi citizens pay for your fear of other terrorist attacks?
What the delay likely would have allowed was the diplomacy necessary to bring more countires into the coalition – without the bullying and bribery that was needed to put together the present one.Last week, syndicated newspaper columnist Ellen Goodman took note of the talk-radio phenomenon and its effect on current American policy as she drove through Florida on a week's break.
The liberal commentator was, to put it mildly, shocked at what she heard, calling it "propaganda" and "fact-free opinions delivered by a cast of angry baritones."
She could not fathom how the talk-radio media could assert, time and time again, a connection between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11, even though the CIA itself has said that Saddam was not behind the terrorist attack.
tom.d.stiller (wed apr 2 post)
Whether or not Hitler would have survived after the war had he not committed suicide is questionable. Many of the ‘elite’ in his ‘regime’ were tried for their crimes after the war. However, there were many more ‘war criminals’ that never faced justice. They were used to assist in the reconstruction of Europe and Germany after the war.Had Hitler not committed suicide, and the Allies had decided after the capitulation that this horrible dictator might stay in place (as was the case with Saddam), had Hitler then lost all power and intent to invade the neighboring countries, he would have been a tamed dictator indeed, and no one would have cared for the still suppressed part of the German people. The Allies probably would have detected a valuable friend in the fight against communism, the scapegoat of the times. (Sir Winston Churchill actually said something to that effect...)
-
vern.silver
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Sault Ste Marie, Canada
tom.d.stiller (Wed Apr 2 post)
David (April 2 Post)
Linda (April 2 post)
Seems sad that we’re so much more concerned with liberating them today than 12 years ago.
The fact that oil is a reason for this war is evident in the fact that the oil fields were a stated strategic objective at the outset of this war.
One other historical note on the first Gulf war. Iraq stated at the time that the reason they had attacked Kuwait was to regain a province that was once a part of Iraq. If one wants to check a little history, one will find that Kuwait was created by Britain when it was dividing the region (part of its colony) up after the second world war and was in fact at one time a part of Iraq. A chunk of what is now Iran was also. This was at about the same time that Britain sliced off a piece of Palestine and created what we all now know as Israel.
Gordon George
Why do you try to paint those of us who have ‘similar’ views about this war with such a narrow brush. I stated the following in a previous post:
The recent war in Afghanistan shows that this did not change. Pakistan. Without the support of this country it is questionable that the war would have been the success it is. It has long been considered a supporter of terrorism. Pakistan helped to put the Taliban into power in Afghanistan and trained many of their people, as well as providing military and logistic support. It was reported tha a great many of the members of the Taliban and al-Queda ‘escaped’ into Pakistan. Pakistan is one of the few countries in the region that does have nuclear weapons.As to David's argument: I agree there are no good guys in this war, there aren't any in any war anymore. And the US did support many dictators in the past, and still tolerate some. But that's not the core of my argument, though the fact nourishes anti-American feelings in some countries, not only in Araby, but there, too.
David (April 2 Post)
Another point to consider is that if a nation has a unilateral right to strike first if it believes that another nation is going to attack it, what position does that put the US? They threatened and then struck out unilaterally at Iraq. Why shouldn’t Iran, Syria, Korea who have been openly threatened by the US have a right then to attack the US? The old saying comes to mind – be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.In this case, though, I think the precedent is truly dangerous. If a country can invade another one and try to take over because it perceives a threat, or because (in its judgment) that other country is being led by a tyrannic despot -- what does this portend for situations like that between Pakistan and India, where each considers the other [with good reason] to be a very real & immediate threat? What does it portend for the Balkan region? What does it portend for Israel & Palestine? etc.etc.etc. –
Linda (April 2 post)
Going in and getting Saddam at that time likely wouldn’t have caused many more casualties than it is causing now. In fact there is a good chance it might have caused less and been more successful than this one is proving to be. The Shiites and Kurds were willing and in fact did rise up against Saddams regime then. Southern Iraq would likely fell quicker and the coalition troops would have been greeted with open arms. There were about 500,000 troops on the ground at the time – not the 100,000 or so that there is now. And there is the additional fact that the 100,000’s of Kurds and Shiites that were murdered by Saddam in the aftermath, an d the great many other Iraqi’s who died in the interim may still be alive today.I don’t believe my argument in support of the war is what you say. I have said all along oil plays a part in the war, the economy of the world relies heavily on oil, Saddam must have thought so also in 1991 or he would never have invaded Kuwait.
The ending of the war in Kuwait was controversial, but I think that was a war we were reluctant to get into in the first place, and the sole objective was to liberate Kuwait. Going in and getting rid of Saddam Hussein at that time would have involved more casualties on both sides, there was opposition in the US then of the war, it would have likely meant doing what we are doing now in Baghdad. Hind sight says yes we should have, Saddam remained in power, but I remember the belief was that Saddam and his military was weakened enough that his people would be able to overthrow him, but he wasn’t and look what happen to the people that did try, the Kurds, and Shiite Muslims. So did that war ever end? Sanctions were placed on Saddam, resolutions, inspections. Saddam rebuilt his forces and continued trying to produce nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Place a just blame for that one also.
Seems sad that we’re so much more concerned with liberating them today than 12 years ago.
The fact that oil is a reason for this war is evident in the fact that the oil fields were a stated strategic objective at the outset of this war.
One other historical note on the first Gulf war. Iraq stated at the time that the reason they had attacked Kuwait was to regain a province that was once a part of Iraq. If one wants to check a little history, one will find that Kuwait was created by Britain when it was dividing the region (part of its colony) up after the second world war and was in fact at one time a part of Iraq. A chunk of what is now Iran was also. This was at about the same time that Britain sliced off a piece of Palestine and created what we all now know as Israel.
Gordon George
Why do you try to paint those of us who have ‘similar’ views about this war with such a narrow brush. I stated the following in a previous post:
I am not going to answer your question about the AIDS conspiracy because it does not deserve an answer. It is tempting to colour you with a bleak brush for what I’m assuming is your pro-war stance. But I won’t.Don't think I am a Pacifist. I spent twenty years of my life as a reservist in Canada in an infantry unit. I did two brief tours in Europe with NATO. I supported the Gulf war in 1991. War is sometimes necessary. I just don't believe that there is justification for this particular war at this particular time.
-
vern.silver
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Sault Ste Marie, Canada
You know one thing that is wrong with this story? Bombs explode. No one seems to be talking about this. You can hit a target with precision with a smart bomb, but it doesn’t create smart shrapnel. When a bomb explodes it has an area of effect. If I can remember my military training well enough, a hand grenade has an area of effect of about 10 or 15 yards – that is the radius around it that will kill or cause serious injury. An 81mm (3 inch) mortar (this is a weapon I was trained to use), is 30 to 40 yards. These are relatively small explosive devices – a grenade having an ounce or two of explosives, a mortar bomb maybe a pound or two.The Most Accurate Bombs In History
NEW YORK, March 31, 2003 (CBS NEWS ONLINE)
AP) The U.S. military is fighting perhaps the most accurate air war in history, with most of the 8,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles loosed on Iraq blasting their intended targets.
But "precision" weapons also miss. Human and mechanical errors send 10 percent or more astray, Pentagon and civilian experts say — a disastrous percentage for civilians living near the intended targets. …
…"These two marketplace attacks are looking increasingly sure to have been caused by coalition weapons than went off target," Hewson said.
Terrain-hugging U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles fired by ships in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Persian Gulf have also missed targets. A handful of the 700 fired in the war have slammed mistakenly into Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, leading the Saudis and Turks to ask the Pentagon to stop firing them across their territory. Iran has protested at least three hits by U.S. missiles. …
These Tomahawk cruise missiles contain at least 1000lbs of payload. What do you think the area of effect of a weapon of that magnitude is? Linda – ask your friends at the local military base. While the coalition was raining these missiles down on largely vacant buildings in Baghdad, the debris and shrapnel from these weapons – and lets not forget the blast effect as well which can kill and/or casue internal injuries – is hitting people perhaps 100’s of yards away, as well as damaging the structures of the buildings around tem.
Meanwhile we sit here thousands of miles away safe in the knowledge that the precision of these smart weapons is winning the hearts and minds of the citizens of Iraq.
Further - The US also dropped at least 2 "bunker Busters" into Regime buildings in downtown Bahgdad. These are 4500lb bombs.
For an idea of the effect of devices of these magnitudes, consider that the bombs used against the US embassies in africa were in the range of 400 - 600 lbs, and the Oklahoma City bomb was estimated at around 4500lbs. If i'm not mistaken, the axle from the Ryder van was discovbered several blocks away.
-
vern.silver
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Sault Ste Marie, Canada
Remember, it's about liberating Iraq for the Iraqis.
U.S. insists on running postwar Iraq
Putting UN, others on notice to butt out is a flawed strategy for building peace, analysts warn
By PAUL KNOX
Monday, March 31, 2003 - Page A10 GLOBE AND MAIL
… Washington says its goal is liberation, not prolonged occupation. But U.S. officials are also dismissing the idea of sharing power in the immediate aftermath of war with anyone -- least of all the United Nations.
"We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have significant, dominating control over how it unfolds in the future," U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told a congressional committee last week.
It was a telling remark from a man considered more diplomatic and more inclined to compromise than most senior members of President George W. Bush's
I am sure as I take the time to read through your posts Vern I will have more questions. But for now as far as I got
1) name calling, does calling the President of the United States a war monger fall under name calling?
2) An answer for what to do about Saddam. Give the UN more time, how much more time? Are you living in Canada? Although Sept 11 should be just as real for you however. For us in America it was a wake up call, how much more time did we have to give? What was going on with the UN that Saddam could dilly dally for twelve years? I believed we tried to get the UN to act, by inforcing the resolutions that he was to live up to. off course the inspectors were lead around Iraq, reporting to the UN every now and then. That whole twelve year deal needs investigations also.
1) name calling, does calling the President of the United States a war monger fall under name calling?
2) An answer for what to do about Saddam. Give the UN more time, how much more time? Are you living in Canada? Although Sept 11 should be just as real for you however. For us in America it was a wake up call, how much more time did we have to give? What was going on with the UN that Saddam could dilly dally for twelve years? I believed we tried to get the UN to act, by inforcing the resolutions that he was to live up to. off course the inspectors were lead around Iraq, reporting to the UN every now and then. That whole twelve year deal needs investigations also.
Linda
Dear Pete ~ This is in catch-up mode that I personally want to thank you for expressing your own views on this war, and how you've struggled with them, but your conscience still prevails. I appreciate your coming out and saying so. Also, your discernment in reading posts and seeing what's actually been said.
Paula ~ With regard to Jo's posting here, I've seen where she has posted what she also believes, and in conjunction with mine. We share similar views, so her giving hers may appear that she's only parroting mine, when in fact, she's speaking for herself. As far as saying something in my favour, or on my behalf, defending me or whatever, I've always found loyalty to a friend, to an ideal, to whatever to be an admirable quality, and one that many would do well to cultivate. To have her postings equated to "doglike" qualities really baffles me, and seems an unbecoming thing to do to someone who has expressed themself quite seriously. Unless my memory doesn't have something right [always possible], she was also harpie-ized right along with me, and for some reason, I was thinking she was named first. Of course, I always loved the Greek mythology movies, where the timing of the sound never matched the picture, and was fascinated by the harpies and their powers of song. So, for me, and it appears her as well, it was rather a compliment.....especially when it draws such suitors as David
....genetically enslaved as he is.
~ Lizzytysh
Paula ~ With regard to Jo's posting here, I've seen where she has posted what she also believes, and in conjunction with mine. We share similar views, so her giving hers may appear that she's only parroting mine, when in fact, she's speaking for herself. As far as saying something in my favour, or on my behalf, defending me or whatever, I've always found loyalty to a friend, to an ideal, to whatever to be an admirable quality, and one that many would do well to cultivate. To have her postings equated to "doglike" qualities really baffles me, and seems an unbecoming thing to do to someone who has expressed themself quite seriously. Unless my memory doesn't have something right [always possible], she was also harpie-ized right along with me, and for some reason, I was thinking she was named first. Of course, I always loved the Greek mythology movies, where the timing of the sound never matched the picture, and was fascinated by the harpies and their powers of song. So, for me, and it appears her as well, it was rather a compliment.....especially when it draws such suitors as David
....genetically enslaved as he is.~ Lizzytysh