USA vs. IRAQ: part III (Official Iraq thread)

"Got anything besides one liners and tired slogans?"

yes I do.

the Truth.

War is wrong.

We may never be strong enough to be entirely nonviolent in thought, word and deed. But we must keep nonviolence as our goal and make strong progress towards it. The Attainment of freedom, whether for a person, a nation or a world, must be in exact proportion to the attainment of nonviolence for each.
Mohandas Gandhi

 

Peace at what price?

 

Valkor, was WW2 wrong?

And I'm not talking through the hindsight of discovering genocide, but the mere idea of turning away the tide of totalitarianism and fascism.

Was Britain wrong to join the fight against the Axis?

 

At least France and Russia have the guts to stand up for what they believe.

What do you mean by this? Those countries and people who say they support the war are cowards? They dont stand up for what they believe? jeesh give me a break.

War is not the answer.

Yes war has never solved anything. King George III let the American colonies go with firing a single shot, Napolean was asked politely to abdicate the throne of France, and did so, slavery was ended without a war, Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito decided it best to change their governments peacefully, Saddam was asked to withdraw from Kuwait in 1991 which happily oblidged cause hes such a peace loving guy.

Dont rewrite history.

Non Violence will prevail.

Dont know much about Saddam do you? Didnt think so.

Give peace a chance. Geez.

allyouneedislove

Quoting Beatle Song titles, are ya! Two can play that one.

Ive Got a Feeling that no matter how you Twist and Shout against this war It Wont Be Long until the Iraqi people are liberated and for them it will be Getting Better . Personally Im glad Bush is telling Saddam Not A Second Time so the dictator of Iraq better get a Ticket to Ride cause Uncle Sam said hes going throw him out with A little help from my friends . Unlike Yesterday or the Night Before we have a President whose about to make Saddam hit The Long and Winding Road with no chance to Get Back , so he better start singing Im a Loser . So really it doesnt matter what the Two of us say, so go ahead and Shout your 60's slogans Across the Universe cause A Day in the life of Saddam is about to get rough. Dig it?

EDIT We may never be strong enough to be entirely nonviolent in thought, word and deed. But we must keep nonviolence as our goal and make strong progress towards it. The Attainment of freedom, whether for a person, a nation or a world, must be in exact proportion to the attainment of nonviolence for each.

That only works when you dont have a mindless despot ruling a country, and refusing to comply with the UN countless times in over a decade. Just as war isnt always the answer, neither is peace, though peace should be attempted first.

 

dartmalt, Jedi_Xen:

LuukeSkywalker:

Here's a potential site to use.

A Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Dan Hetlage, said that the "Shock and Awe" strategy was "definitely under consideration." He stressed that the reason America has invested so much in precise "smart bombs" is to be able to hit military targets without collateral damage to civilians.

"We take more pains than anybody to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage," Hetlage said. "Our beef is not with the Iraqi people."

In fact, the Air Force is using a new computer program called Bugsplat, which is solely intended to reduce civilian casualties during bombing runs by estimating the size of a blast and what buildings are nearby.

Hope that helps.

Also tell them, "Yes, some Iraqi civilians will die in this 'Shock and Awe' tactic, but it is preferable to a large scale ground invasion which will inevitabley lead to even more civilian deaths. Which would you prefer, more death or less?"

EDIT:
Here's another one.

 

Thanks alot

 

And yet more.

Unfortunately, most of the other stuff I saw online was whacked-out, idiotic posts about us "carpet bombing" Baghdad.

These idiots don't seem to understand the tactic at all. I pity ignorance of the military.

 

yes I do.

the Truth.

War is wrong.

You may be right...but we don't live in an idealistic society. As much as I would like to bury my head in the sand and pretend that every leader and regime in the world is sane and can be dealt with diplomatically, I also know that it would be a dangerous way of thinking.

 

It's interesting that those who quote Gandhi always do so in relation to violence against brutal, totalitarian regimes even though Gandhi actually fought for civil rights against the civilized (albeit imperialistic) British Empire.

Gandhi's non-violence worked against a free and republican nation-state. His followers lay down in front of train tracks in India knowing that the British would stop the trains. Using such methods against a Saddam Hussein or an Adolf Hitler would have resulted in genocide for Gandhi and his followers.

 

rsterling: Exactly.

In fact, he saw the neccesity of waging war against Hitler. So you see, he wasn't so naive as to think that violence never solved anything.

 

Using such methods against a Saddam Hussein or an Adolf Hitler would have resulted in genocide for Gandhi and his followers.

So true.

 

rsterling Excellent point.

The British Empire wasnt nearly as sadistic as Saddam.

 

Simplistic too

 

Here's an interesting editorial article by Bill O'Reilly.

The New Nazi's
By: Bill O'Reilly

It is absolutely eerie how closely the current Iraq situation parallels the rise of The Third Reich 70 years ago.
I consider Saddam Hussein to be "Hitler lite" because he has the same virulent anti-semitism, the same callous disregard for human life, and the identical lust for power that Adolf possessed.

The only difference between the two villains is the size of the moustache.

Back in the 1930's, millions the world over simply did not want to think about the evil that Hitler was brewing up.

France and Russia were the chief appeasers, as they are today on the Iraq question.

Stalin ultimately signed a treaty with Hitler making it possible for him to use most of his forces to crush Europe, and France simply allowed Hitler to violate the Treaty of Versailles, even more than the 17 times Saddam has violated current UN mandates.

Britain went along with France in the '30's, but now it seems the UK has learned from its historical mistakes.

And then there's the Pope. John Paul II recently came out and said that any war against Iraq would be "immoral."

Back in the '30's, Pope Pius XII actually supported Hitler politically, at least in the beginning of his rise when Pius was stationed in Germany.

The Third Reich was considered a bulwark against Communism, which the Church greatly feared.

Subsequently, Pius kept quiet about the atrocities of Hitler's regime because he knew that the Vatican itself could easily be vanquished by the Huns.

Today, John Paul deplores the violence that comes with any war but is at a loss to explain how terrorism and the states that enable it should be dealt with.

Remember, the Pope did not approve of the military action against the Taliban.

Peace, of course, should be the goal of all civilized human beings. Millions of Americans are against a war in Iraq today and millions of us were vehemently opposed to confronting Hitler as well.

Back then the anti-war movement was led by Charles Lindbergh and Ambassador Joseph Kennedy who largely dismissed accusations of Nazi brutality and weapons production as propaganda.

In 1937, SS Chief Henrich Himmler was even on the cover of Time Magazine. I have the issue.

The article criticized Himmler and hinted at barbaric behavior, but there was no "smoking gun."

The failure to confront the obvious evil of the Nazis early, of course, led to the deaths of more than 55 million human beings in Europe. Millions of jews were stunned when they were led by German guards to the gas chambers.

How could human beings do this?

Even after evidence of mass executions surfaced, many the world over refused to believe it. Liberating American soldiers were horrified at what they found in the concentration camps.

Most had no idea of what they were really fighting against.

Does anyone today believe that Al Qaeda or Saddam would not slaughter jews and, indeed, Americans if they had the power to do so?

So what is the difference between a dictator like Saddam and Adolph Hitler?

It continues to astound me that 37% of Americans, according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, do not support the removal of Saddam Hussein unless other countries, which do not share our danger, sign on.

I mean, why allow a dictator who has weapons that would make Hitler salivate, remain a threat to the world?

Does it make sense that Cameroon has to sign on before we neutralize this threat?

If France, German, China, and Russia would support the United States against Saddam, he'd already be out of power. If France, Russia, and Britain had marched into Germany in 1933 there would have been no World War or Holocaust.

Nobody can predict the outcome and aftermath of any war. But we can learn from history. Evil has a way of killing people, that's a fact.

And the only way that evil will be stopped, is for just and courageous people to confront it.

 

-an arab simply *can't* be anti-semitic, it's a non-sense (or arabs hates arabs lol)

-The // Sadam/Hitler is quite exaggerated frankly... In 1991 maybe (and if we forget Iran/Irak war) but now frankly it's made shortcut where it doesn't needed.
We don't need that for saying the man is an psychotic dictator, like we doesn't need that for inculcate it's a "war for freedoms" since US still encourage many such dictators around the world (now).

It's too easy I think.

 

Thanks for that post, DM. Quite interesting.

It does sometimes seem like in the post-Cold War era we are replaying the history of the early 20th century.

Yugoslavia is gone, replaced by many tiny nation-states.

Anti-Semitism is on the rise as memory of the Holocaust fades.

A pacifistic Europe has re-emerged. Appeasement, by many different names, is back in vogue.

Latter-day Neville Chamberlains are lauded for their morality as 21st century Churchills are derided.

It reminds me of what science fiction author Bruce Sterling once said: History doesn't exactly repeat itself, but it does kind of rhyme.

 

DM, that is an excellent article by O'Reilly. it just proves how we can't let an evil like Saddam Hussein to remain in power.


DarthTunick,
i California!

 

There was an article last page about the INC. Lead by Ahmad Chalabi. A wanted criminal in Jordan, who has not set foot in Iraq since the 1980's. And he's the forerunner for the title of President in the New, Democratic Iraq [tm]? Please, he's a con man leading a party of people who have no real support in Iraq.

And thanks to DarthKarde for answering that question regarding veto powers. Whilst you only need a majority of "Yes" votes from the Non-Permanent Members, you can only have positive votes from the permanents. Physical absentions, i.e. actually stating that you'll abstain from voting is also a veto. However, if a vote is conducted when a member is absent, it does not count in the final tally. Hence why the Korean War went ahead - Russia's diplomat "stepped out", and similarly for the PRC with the first Gulf War.

Whilst the Vatican did support the Nazis during WWII, the current Pope did more than his fair share to help the Jews. Remember who lifted the charge of deicide against them? Like Bob Dole, the experiences of his youth have stuck with him to the present day (Dole wanted America to recognise the Armenian genocide, yet strategic concerns allowed this murdering thugs to get away with the crime of 1.5 million murdered. )


E_S

 

Yes, I know I sound too romantic and dreamy if you will, but "I'm not the only one."
It just really really is starting to scare me. I DO support our troops, 100%. I just want them ALL to come home safely.

I honestly believe we have "scared" saddam enough. He KNOWS that if he were ever to attack us, that we'd nuke him to death. Therefore, I am against ATTACKING first, especially Unilaterally. We can't begin to fathom the consequences of going to war which I believe to be way more dangerous than inaction. How many iraqi kids will want to grow up and become the next saddam? We still have a couple issues called
*Bin Laden - War on Terrorism remember
*North Korea
that I believe are way more pressing and concerning right now.

Nothing good comes from War. It's always evil, so why don't we try and break the cycle of violence and do something about peace. War is over (if you want it) brother.

Everyone says they don't want war. I just challenge them to do something about it, by
finding a peaceful solution. We don't need this war. We don't want this war.

 

I'm getting tired of arguments along the lines of "War is sometimes justified, just look at WW2, Kosovo, Afghanistan etc."
Yes, it's true that those cases had a mostly positive outcome and that unfortunately makes the Right-wingers shout that whatever was done was justified because the end result was positive for most people.
A just cause does not justify all means. Who says that a positive result could not have been achieved with a peaceful solution? Could diplomacy not have solved the issues?
I know some of you might say in relation to Iraq that diplomacy was tried but failed (Wrong, totally wrong. What the United States are doing is NOT diplomacy. Putting a gun at somebody's head and saying "Do this or that or we shoot you" is NOT diplomacy. And if history has shown us something then that you can negotiate with ANYBODY. How did Tony Blair solve the Northern Ireland conflict? By negotiating with the IRA. Not by carpet-bombing Dublin). The military intervention in Kosovo was not justified but rather unavoidable due to disastrous policies of the main European countries in that respect. Had they agreed on a diplomatic strategy they might have found a solution but they were unable to get a consensus so they simply said to themselves "We're tired of this , let's call NATO and bomb them, at least we all agree on that". The international community once again (just like before WW2) missed every single opportuntity to solve the conflict peacefully until they maneouvered themselves into a corner where only military action could get them out. However that doesn't make the war JUSTIFIED. Hitler could have been stopped. More than once. Many many mistakes were made, all wasted until there was no way out. Does that justify the bombing of 300,000 people in Dresden?

 

"Putting a gun at somebody's head and saying "Do this or that or we shoot you" is NOT diplomacy."

I'm not sure if you have a solid grasp of International Relations and History.


You can go on believing that in all cases, conflict can be averted; and in a way, you are right. The problem is that sometimes the peaceful resolution is on terms that are unacceptable.

Furthermore, to say that Dresden somehow invalidated the whole underpinnings of WWII is completely baseless. It is a seperate issue. Dresden's legitimacy is not connected to the root reasons of why the two parties were at war in the first place.


As for Iraq, the only way to use your version of 'diplomacy' (which doesn't involve threats of the use of force) in this situation is to simply drop all sanctions, end all inspections, and leave. The only cooperation the International community has seen from Iraq under its current dictatorship has been the direct result of military loss or credible military pressure. Making credible promises to use force unless disarmement and compliance occurs voluntarily might not be nice, or diplomatic, but it is certainly the 'peaceful' option.

Removing this threat, or its credibility (what your nation is doiong) perversely makes it more likely that Iraq does NOT comply peacefully. And, finally, sometimes the terms that are acceptable cannot be reached through peace. The costs of war and risks involved need to be weighed against the costs of flawed peace and the risks involved.

As I've said countless times, the threat and risk and cost assessment phase brings the US and Europe to very different conclusions, based on vast differences in starting perceptions and interests.

 

Did you just say that WWII could've been solved peacefully?

 

I know some of you might say in relation to Iraq that diplomacy was tried but failed (Wrong, totally wrong. What the United States are doing is NOT diplomacy. Putting a gun at somebody's head and saying "Do this or that or we shoot you" is NOT diplomacy. And if history has shown us something then that you can negotiate with ANYBODY. How did Tony Blair solve the Northern Ireland conflict? By negotiating with the IRA. Not by carpet-bombing Dublin).

Many different arguments going on here. First, what do you do when a nation invades his neighbor by force? Negotiate, and hope you will convince them to leave? If negotiation is not the answer, is force called for in this case (the Gulf War)? A cease-fire agreement was signed with Iraq after the Gulf War, and they have failed to keep to the agreement. How do you negotiate with someone who has not lived up to their obligations (this leads into the North Korea crisis as well)? The international community has tried to use negotiation and diplomacy for the past twelve years and it has failed. It is only in the last 4 months that the US has raised the pressure, and because of this pressure we are seeing the first slight signs of compliance (because of the imminent threat of war). What happens when the threat of war is taken off the table? The situation will revert to the level it was at in the 90's, which means it is going nowhere.

Second, the IRA is a much different beast than what is happening around the world today, and to the players in this budding war. How do you negotiate with the Islamic Fundamentalists who are willing to kill themselves for maximum damage? Their admitted objective is the destruction of
Western civilization (the US in particular) and the implementation of Islamic Law throughout all nations around the world. Quite a difference from the objectives of the IRA.

OK, since you feel there are other alternatives in the Iraq situation, what would you do? Knowing the history of the disarmament process in Iraq, and the effectiveness of the threat of war, how would you handle the situation?

 

I know some of you might say in relation to Iraq that diplomacy was tried but failed (Wrong, totally wrong. What the United States are doing is NOT diplomacy. Putting a gun at somebody's head and saying "Do this or that or we shoot you" is NOT diplomacy. And if history has shown us something then that you can negotiate with ANYBODY. How did Tony Blair solve the Northern Ireland conflict? By negotiating with the IRA. Not by carpet-bombing Dublin).


Diplomacy?the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a stick.
?Wynn Catlin

 

Inspectors Find Banned Iraqi Bombs

NEW YORK ? International weapons inspectors have stumbled upon a new kind of bomb in Iraq that could be filled with chemical or biological agents and strewn over populated areas, Fox News has confirmed.

Baghdad also may have in its possession a drone aircraft capable of spraying harmful agents over its enemies.

Armed with this new information, U.S. officials are expected to press chief weapons inspector Hans Blix to admit he has found a "smoking gun" -- the irrefutable evidence many countries have been looking for before they agree to wage war against Baghdad -- in a closed-door session of the U.N. Security Council on Monday.

American officials hope this will help the U.S. and its allies garner more international support for military action against Iraq after March 17, the deadline proposed in an amendment to a U.S.-British resolution before the Security Council.

"It's incredible," a senior diplomat from a swing-vote Security Council nation told the London Times. "The report is going to have a clearly defined impact on the people who are wavering. It's a biggie."

The New York Times reported Monday that U.S. officials say Iraq has reconfigured rocket warheads from its stockpiles of imported or home-built weapons. Some of these makeshift weapons have been used by Iraq with both conventional and chemical warheads.

But officials told Fox News that the weapons are not rockets, but large bombs that can be dropped from wings of airplanes. Soccer-ball-sized cluster bombs then are released from the larger bombs. When triggered by a fuse, these smaller submunitions can disperse chemical or biological agents.

"We're aware" of the munition and drone discoveries, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday.

Iraq Plants Explosives at Its Oil Fields

WASHINGTON ? Iraq is placing explosives at the Kirkuk oil fields in northern Iraq, Fox News has confirmed, raising new fears that Saddam Hussein may be planning to blow up its oil production facilities to prevent them from being taken over in a war with the U.S.

There are no specifics on the types or amounts of explosives the Iraqis are using, but U.S. officials say they are seeing new activity in the area.

Last week, the Pentagon cited reliable reports that Iraq planned to plant explosives at its oil wells, and that in some cases they "had already begun."

Iraq recently received twenty-four railroad boxcars filled with Pentolite explosives, Fox News learned.

In Baghdad, an oil ministry official denied the report.

"Iraq is keen to defend its oil wells and it is illogical that we burn our oil wells with our own hands," Oil Undersecretary Hussein Suleiman Al-Hadithi told Reuters.

U.S. officials have raised fears for several months that Iraq would employ a "scorched-earth" policy if it appears on the verge of losing a war, setting its oil wells on fire rather than see them fall into the hands of allied forces.

The Iraqis set Kuwaiti oil wells ablaze when they retreated from their neighbor at the end of the 1991 Gulf War.