Gulf War II
For the older messages, look here.
This page contains the comments about the Iraq War, part of Norfolknet.
4/2 12:51am I guess that's why I post the quotes -- because every story is complex, and because so many people here in the US get only the jingoistic side. We are powerful, we are great, we are of course right, the world is wrong. Our enemy is evil, death to our enemy, may he suffer untold agonies for eternity. I'm always startled how many miss the paradox of an invading force being a gentle, humane killing machine. I'm bothered by the attitude of ``This is for your own good. This will hurt you a lot more than it will hurt me. Please stand still so I can shoot you in the head, because if you jump around I will wound you, causing you unnecessary pain and suffering.'' I've posted many stories, many aspects of the war, many just providing detail and background information. I clip them because they provide a picture of the war that I don't see in the mainstream press. It should be mandatory reading for everyone who advocates military action, because death is what war is about. I'm sorry it disturbs you, but war should. ``There were people being burned alive in their cars, headless bodies, human parts on the street and people screaming and running.'' [AP]- AR
4/2 12:47am Consider ... A powerful nation, a proud people, reeling from a recent terrible blow, steered by ambitious politicians to view ethnics as the source of the troubles, and manipulated into taking steps to seek revenge and assure that nothing like it can happen ever again. Their national pride stoked, they decide to liberate an oppressed people, to grant them the liberty that they themselves rightfully enjoy. The rest of the world is unable to decide how to react to the affront. While the world looks on, their high-minded mission is undertaken in spite of a promise not to act unilaterally. Few realize at the time that the hidden plan for conquest is much more ambitious. The year was 1939. And the rest is history. - AR
4/2 11:19pm AR: Your comment about the U.S. hiring its own inspectors to make sure WMD's are found seems to suggest that you doubt the existence of WMD's. I hope you have thought this through, because if there are no WMD's, that means our President has been lying to us. You should know better. A U.S. President would never lie to the American people. Now, don't bring up Clinton to me. He wasn't lying, he was just using a different definition of "sexual relations" than you or I would. Anyway, he is a Democrat, and they tend to be untrustworthy. Don't mention Nixon either. OK, maybe he did lie to us about Watergate, but that was a long time ago, and he was a liberal Republican, which is worse than a Democrat. And I'm sure that Reagan had absolutely no knowledge of the Iran-Contra affair. So, as you can see, a good conservative Republican like Bush would never lie to us about something so important as his reasons for attacking a country overflowiing with oil wealth and headed by a guy who tried to kill his dad. On another subject, I want to say how outraged I am by the war crimes being committed by the Iraqi soldiers, such as wearing civilian clothes and using "human shields." I think we have a right to expect that the Iraqi regime will instruct its soldiers to scrupulously observe the Geneva Convention whenever they are invaded without provocation by a superpower bent on bombing them into the stone age. I'm sure we'll have to have a stern talk with Mr. Hussein about this when we catch up to him. - WJB
4/2 5:43pm PFD, When did I ever say that "all of the civilian casualties caused by the Americans and British" were "done on purpose?" Point to me one place where I indicated that. I of course know that 99% of the US and UK soldiers have no intention of harming civilians. Our military is much more enlightened than the military of prior wars, in which our armed forces often treated civilians hardly any different than the enemy military (Dresden, Hiroshima, Mai Lai). Does intent count more than the result? AR is right -- there is a deep irony at work here. Our conservative culture is forever dismissing intent with a hard eye toward results. Sure, the intent of providing affordable health care for every American is nice, but the result would be bad (long lines for surgery, lack of choice, and so on). Sure, affirmative action has a nice intent, but the result is that some white kids don't get to go to the college of their choice and that's not fair. Now, because they don't intend to do it, we are being asked to look the other way when our young people are killing civilians. In a few days, the number of Iraqi civilians killed in this preemptive invasion will likely surpass the number of Americans killed in the 9/11/2001 attacks. How can anyone support that, no matter what the intentions are behind it? It is immoral. It is wrong. And it must stop. - DAF
4/2 4:49pm AR, I did not say The Guardian is lying about anything they are reporting. My point is this, you put Guardian articles up here every day pointing out that virtually everything that is said by the US powers (political and military) is either untrue or politically motivated and almost always US propaganda. Every story can have many sides. I am assuming you put the piece up about the cruise missile because it was questioned by the US whether or not it was our missile or Hussein's. Forgive me if I am wrong on this, but you try to point out (certainly DAF does) all of the civilian casualties caused by the Americans and British as if they were done on purpose. In my view, The Guardian (or at least what you post as I do not go to the site to read the articles) is taking this same stance. I put the link to Indict up there only as a way to point out that Hussein is doing 10,000 times more evil to his own population than we ever could. It is a shame that civilians have to lose their lives, I too wish it did not happen. The US has taken many precautions to prevent accidents like the one in the marketplace (if in fact it was our cruise missile), but that is ignored. Check out this article regarding the Iraqis in the Shiite Mosque (http://www.boston.com/news/daily/02/war_shrine.htm). As soon as one Mosque is fired upon by the US I am sure an article will be posted on this site pointing it out. There is no other country in this world that would take the precautions we are. Civilians may sadly lose their lives now, but many will be saved in the future. This is a point the pieces you post from The Guardian will never make. - PFD
4/2 4:16pm Hi RG, a couple of misconceptions you have that I'd like to clear up for you First. I don't own an SUV and I get my cup of non-designer decaf at Norfolk Food Mart every morning. Thanks for flattering my home -- I like it, too, although it still needs some work. With that out of the way, let me address the substance of your remarks. You seem to be saying that there is some sort of Either/Or dichotomy: either we bomb Iraq and hundreds of civilians die or we don't bomb Iraq and we impose brutal sanctions that also kill civilians. How about we do neither and no civilians are killed? There are literally a dozen other solutions to the problem of the repressive Hussein regime that do not include starving the population or bombing the population. Iraqi obstruction of the oil-for-food program, not United Nations sanctions, is the primary reason the Iraqi people were suffering before March 17, 2003. The UN would surely support an international movement to stop the regime's obstruction of the program while trying to resolve the WMD issue in a less destructive manner. Ann Clwyd is simply wrong or intentionally misleading in order to gain favor for her Labour Party leader when she says that "the Security Council has failed to set up a war crimes tribunal on Iraq because of opposition from France, China and Russia." It is George Bush and his rejection of the ICC that is keeping us from the prosecution of Hussein. According to Jelena Pejic of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Bush's proposed amendments to the ICC "would mean that if you wanted to ever investigate or prosecute [Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein, you would have to ask Iraq's permission to go ahead". Michael Moran -- neither a Labour Party, Baath Party, or Republican Party operative wrote more objectively about this back in September on MSNBC. And the ICC isn't the only way to go.The $75 billion we have spent so far would have been enough to fund opposition groups within Iraq to overthrow Hussein's regime. We could have done many things. But the administration has wanted to do what they are doing now for a long time. And so they are doing it. I'm glad for your daughter and I am proud of the ideals behind our country. But, as you cue the patriotic background music, you know as well as I do that we haven't always lived up to those ideals and that the US is not the only country on Earth that provides freedom and liberty. And please don't tell me to move to Canada, New Zealand, Australia or one of the other democracies that do just as good a job as we do with freedom for all people -- male and female. I've put too much work into my beautiful house. - DAF
[4:47pm I like the point about funding opposition groups -- liberation is that much sweeter if accomplished on one's own terms - Wm.]
4/2 3:04pm The incredible paradox of this war struck me only this morning. Here we are, bringing democracy to an oppressed people, with full support of the political right. Democracy -- having a say, and having your voice count. You know, as in civil liberties, suffrage, equal rights, and all that. So we're spending $100 billion on social engineering! And instead of objecting, all the conservatives are gung-ho about it! Truly, we live in interesting times. - AR
4/2 2:30pm PFD, I don't understand your point. Are you saying that events reported on by the Guardian did not happen? Or that paying attention to what our government is doing in our name is somehow disrespectful? Is it that a group that fabricated proof for an international commission would provide reliable evidence in the absence of impartial oversight? Or perhaps you mean to impress upon us that the manner in which people are murdered is critically important, that VX is worse somehow than being shredded, incinerated, dismembered, or just shot with a cannon by a kid not paying attention. Yes, Saddam Hussein is a brutal tyrant, and has killed thousands to protect his regime. Killed, in some cases with U.S. complicity -- thousands of Kurds for siding with Iran in our proxy war, and a hundred thousand Shiites for trusting the US more than fearing him. Indeed, there is much evil in the world. - AR
4/2 2:26pm To DAF - Well, a new "Hawk" on the line, I guess. Isn't it nice that we can sit here in our beautiful homes, drink our designer coffee, drive our SUV and make sarcastic cracks about children dying in Iraq. Yes, this is a horrible tragedy. But how many more children would've died under upteen more years of sanctions? If there is a tumor growing on the tip of your finger, you don't hope it goes away -- eventually losing the whole arm, or your life -- you excise it. I could go on and on about how this war is fought for the most humanitarian of goals: the creation of pluralistic, democratic state in a region sorely lacking same. I could go on and on about the horrors of Hussein's Iraq, but apparently you'd rather throw a brigade of lawyers at him rather than the 3rd infantry (well, the lawyers are a pretty scarey thought....). I would refer you to the statement of Ann Clwyd, a Labour Party MP and supporter of the war, and not incidentially, the Chair of Indict: [article here]. She makes the case against Hussein and for war much better than I could. The United Nations has failed in its responsibility to ensure Iraq's complaince with their requirements. As the last truly super-power, this naturally falls to the United States. This man is evil. This regime is evil. We abetted evil in 1991 by encouraging and then selling out the Shiite rebellion in southern Iraq. If nothing else, Gulf War 2 is about restoring honor in American foreign policy, and paying a debt we wracked up twelve years ago. Look, I have both a son and a daughter. In vast portions of this world, my daughter would be relegated, by accident of birth, to a life devoid of hope, individuality, freedom. Happily, she was born here. And while she can't be a priest (yet....), her membership in this wonderful polyglot of a nation entitles her to dream dreams unbounded. Don't little girls the world over deserve such dreams? This is a pivotal time. Some may call this an attempt at Pax Americana. I hope that instead what we are aiming for is Pax Democratia. It is only through democracy can people truly be free. Iraq is actually a fairly advanced nation, so far as secularism in the middle east goes. It can work there. And if it works there, imagine the effect it could have on the burgeoning adolescent population of Iran, which is fairly western and resentful of the Mullahs? (Please do not mistake me: I harbor no ill will toward Islam. A democratic Iraq is not incompatiable with an islamic Iraq. True Islam is not the religion of Bin Laden. But true human rights demand the separation of state and religion, just as true human rights demand the separation of state and any single philosophy or creed.) This will not be an easy, or short, war. Barring some miracle capitulation, this war may well go on for weeks (if not months). The Iraqi leadership is caught: they know that surrender means either death, from their own, or imprisonment as war criminals. Acting as men with nothing loose, they can severly impede our war plan. But this cannot go on forever. And the superiority of the American fighting man and woman, in terms of training, technology, and yes, ethics, will cause a proud history to be written of this conflict. We could have ended this war in five days, and reduced the mass of Iraq's infrastructure to puddles of molten metal. We did not do that. We will not attack religious shrines, and we use weapons of great precision that will spare as many civilians lives as possible. Can any other government say the same? The death of one person is a tragedy, the death of an innocent even more so. But the epic stakes involved should not be forgotten. Enjoy your spring day, and bless the happy luck that you were either born here or came here, where speaking ill of presidents doesn't get your tongue cut out. - RG
4/2 11:24am PFD, Nobody here, especially not AR, questions the mountain of evidence that proves Saddam Hussein and his closest regime ministers are guilty of crimes against humanity. You'll notice that the Indict site's entire raison d'etre is the bringing of these villains to justice in an international court of law. In 1999, the US government called on the UN to indict Hussein. Clinton signed the agreement to create the International Criminal Court for just this reason. Unfortunately, George Bush took the unprecedented action of "unsigning" the international agreement. And so, there is no indictment. As a recent article on the site you link in says: The best-known recent war-crimes prosecutions - those that have dealt with atrocities in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia - were conducted under international oversight. This was a matter of principle, a belief that only international bodies could confer the kind of moral legitimacy that such trials - which are, after all, significantly about public display - require. But obviously this is not a view that the Bush administration, which has rejected the International Criminal Court and extricated itself from international agreements, shares. Washington is no more likely to leave the trials of Iraqi war criminals to the United Nations than it was to leave the war itself to it.Let's indict Hussein, bring him to justice (as we did the Rwandan murderers) and stopping killing innocent civilians and our own young men and women. -DAF
4/2 11:18am SW, PC, PA, LH and other "hawks" -- where are you? What do you think of the latest liberations? -DAF
4/2 10:27am To AR, sure would be a shame if the US did in fact find WMD's huh? Sure would not want to validate this "unjust and immoral war". Thank God we have the Guardian to point out all the evil things the US is doing?!?! And isn't it a shame that Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei are furious? They opposed being in there to begin with and now they are "furious" that they can not verify what was found. Of course, I am sure the Guardian will find evidence that George Bush personally planted all the evidence of WMD's. Where are the articles from the Guardian detailing what has been done with the tons (and that is thousands of tons) of VX and Sarin gas WMD's that the Iraqi's built (and the Iraqi's verified they were built, not George Bush "thinking" they were built)? I see the Guardian pointed out the evidence that the marketplace bombing was likely from a US cruise missile, but did it point out the thousands and thousands of civilians killed by Hussein and his sons? Did it point out the woman that was hanged last week because she waved to a US convoy? For some additional reading besides the Guardian or from our good trusted friends in Russia, feel free to poke around http://www.indict.org.uk/. I am sure it will be pointed out that this organization is nothing but a US puppet, but check it out anyway. With all of this said, I do appreciate the passion with which you and others on this post are "fighting" for your positions. These are the reasons America is so great. - PFD
4/1 6:16pm The Guardian is reporting that evidence found at the site points to a U.S. cruise missile as the cause of the Baghdad marketplace massacre. A metal fragment found at the scene by British journalist Robert Fisk carried various markings, including "MFR 96214 09". This, our reader pointed out in an email, is a manufacturer's identification number known as a "cage code".From the same article, looks like the U.S. is going to find banned WMDs, doggone it, even if they have to hire their own inspectors to do it.Cage codes can be looked up on the internet (www.gidm.dlis.dla.mil), and keying in the number 96214 traces the fragment back to a plant in McKinney, Texas, owned by the Raytheon Company.
Raytheon, whose headquarters are in Lexington, Massachusetts, [...] makes a vast array of military equipment, including the AGM-129 cruise missile which is launched from B-52 bombers.
The two chief UN inspectors, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Authority, are reportedly furious. Dr Baradei, in remarks quoted by the BBC, insisted that the IAEA is the sole body with legal authority to verify any nuclear programmes in Iraq.- AR
4/1 11:44am To PA Re: what can our soldiers do - how about STOP [MESSING] AROUNG? Capt. Johnson, the guard on watch, called for warning shots. Then he called for a bullet into the radiator. Then, urgently, asked that the van be stopped -- at which point a half-dozen shots were heard in quick succession. Note the order. "Fire a warning shot," he ordered as the vehicle kept coming. Then, with increasing urgency, he told the platoon to shoot a 7.62mm machine-gun round into its radiator. "Stop [messing] around!" Johnson yelled into the company radio network when he still saw no action being taken.The Post doesn't come out and call the official account a lie, but it's very specific and deliberate in keeping to its own version of what happened. The Washington Post reporter was *there*, and unlike the platoon leader and military brass, has nothing to hide.- AR
[In case the article disappears or can not be accessed, here's another copy - Wm.]
4/1 11:19am PA (AR, forgive me for answering for you), The Times report you are referring to is a report on what the Central Command and Army press statements said about it -- not a report by a journalist who was actually there. The Post story is a report of what happened by a first-person observer of the action. There is a huge difference. You ask what else they could do other than turn their 25mm Bradley FV's cannons on the van? I ask you, how is it that we can stop people on the US highways with physical barriers and roadblocks, but in Iraq we must shoot the vehicles with cannons. There are cheap and effective methods for stopping vehicles and these are used by the Israelis in the occupation of the Palestinian areas -- RoadSpike is just one. Can't we afford to outfit our checkpoints as well as the Israelis? Do our armed forces know more about invasion and occupation security than the Israelis? Putting that aside, you mention the civilian clothes. Perhaps you'd like to answer my still-unanswered question from yesterday. If the US Special Forces were carrying out assassinations in Iraq while wearing civilian clothing before the war officially began (as reported in several news outlets) and they continue to carry out these civilian-clothed attacks -- why is it more wrong for the Iraqis to do it? - DAF
[Worst of all is the CNN report, which cites the Washington Post heavily, but re-interprets it by interspersing the Central Command version line by line, completely changing the point - Wm.]
4/1 9:54am To AR: On the tragedy involving women and children yesterday, it appears that our Armed Forces did the following, according to the NY Times: They motioned for the vehicle to stop (remember, the Washington Post referred to the vehicle as "barreling toward an intersection.") When the vehicle didn't stop, they fired warning shots. When that didn't work, they fired shots into the engine block. When that didn't work, they finally fired shots into the vehicle. In the NY Times account, an officer with the Third Infantry Division is quoted as saying "the soldiers did the right thing." While I've been a vocal supporter of our efforts in Iraq, I had hoped the civilian casualties wound be minimal, but what other choices did our soldiers have? After last week's suicide bombing by an Iraqui "cabbie" and the other incidents with Iraqui soldiers wearing civilian clothes, I ask again: WHAT OPTIONS WERE OUR SOLDIERS LEFT WITH? - PA
4/1 9:08am AR, thank you for sharing these links and others. The Post story about the murder of the civilians was devastating. This war isn't going to just be bad for the Iraqis killed and maimed or the US soldiers killed in combat. I've worked with Vietnam-era veterans in Boston at the New England Shelter for Homeless Veterans and many of them have an event like the checkpoint killing in their histories. Witnessing or taking part in the accidental murder of civilians -- especially women and children -- wreaks havoc on the psyche and soul. I wonder if our local hawks have met the walking wounded down at the shelter on Court Street? I can only report that when I was working at the shelter at night, the other volunteers feeding and counseling the vets were other bleeding heart liberals like myself. Maybe the "support our president" crowd were working the day shift. - DAF
[Have any of the hawks in the administration ever served in the armed forces? Other than Colin Powell, who's the most markedly non-hawk among them - Wm.]
4/1 1:55am The latest state of the war forecast from the Russians (covering 3/30): "...a third of our equipment can be dragged to a junk yard right now. We are holding up only thanks to the round-the-clock maintenance. The real heroes on the front lines are not the Marines but the "ants" from the repair units. If it wasn't for them we'd be riding camels by now..."- ARA particular point of concern [for the coalition] is the fact that most Iraqi night vision systems captured by the coalition are the latest models manufactured in the US and Japan. After analyzing the origins of this equipment the US begun talking about the "Syrian connection". In this regard, the US military experts have analyzed Syria's weapons imports for the past two years and have concluded that in the future fighting [in Iraq] the coalition troops may have to deal with the latest Russian-made anti-tank systems, latest radars and radio reconnaissance systems resistant to the effects electronic counter measures.
Analysis of the information coming from the combat zone shows a rapid decline in the [coalition's] contacts with the media and increasing restrictions on all information except for the official reports. [which might indicate a major offensive in the making]
Certain available information points to a serious conflict between the coalition command and the US political and military leadership. The [US] Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld - the main planner and lobbyist of the military operation against Iraq - accuses the coalition command and Gen. Tommy Franks personally of being passive and indecisive, which [in Rumsfeld's opinion] led to the lengthening of the conflict and the current dead end situation. In his turn Franks in front of his subordinates calls the Secretary of Defense the "old blabbermouth" and an "adventurist" who dragged the army into the war on the most unfavorable terms possible.
4/1 1:54am Details are starting to emerge about the occupation government that the US intends to impose on Iraq. Twenty-three ministries, with every ministry headed by an American and assisted by four Iraqi advisors. It should come as no surprise that the ministers and advisors were personally hand-picked mostly by Rumsfeld's pal Wolfowitz. Last week Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, told Congress that immediately after the fall of President Saddam's regime, the US military would take control of the Iraqi government.Well, this should prove interesting. We'll see what the French, Chinese, Russians, Iranians and Syrians have to say about it :-)His only concession was that this would be done with the "full understanding" of the international community and with "the UN presence in the form of a UN special coordinator".
- AR
4/1 1:02am The Washington Post has a detailed account of the shooting of the van with the women and children inside. It is much more specific than the press-core version; it must have been written using first-hand information. It's also disturbingly different from the official version. Apparently, not all that uncommon. War is war, and stuff happens I guess, but when the war is unnecessary, it makes it that much more terrible. "Cease fire!" Johnson yelled over the radio. Then, as he peered into his binoculars from the intersection on Highway 9, he roared at the platoon leader, "You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!"- AR
3/31 6:00pm PC, I've answered every question you've put to me, but you can't seem to answer even one of mine in a direct way. What in the world does Social Darwinism have to do with this? Social Darwinism refers to a set of now generally discredited 19th century theories that attempted to legitimize social inequality, and explain social classes and processes, by appealing to popular misunderstandings of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Could you answer the questions? - DAF
3/31 4:35pm Here's a worrisome scenario that is bothering me -- Now that Rumsfeld has discredited himself (as a military organizer) and disproved a basic axiom of neoconservative lore (that the incredible superiority of the lone superpower allows it to trivially push around other nations), once this war is over, no-one will permit him to pull another stupid stunt like this again. So this war is the only opportunity for the chickenhawks to re-mold the world to their liking, and to permanently alter the Middle East and ``make the region safer for Israel'' [1]. ``The goal is not just a new regime in Iraq. The goal is a new Middle East. The goal has been and remains one of the main driving factors of preemptive action against Iraq.'' [1].It would seem that there is strong incentive for the Perle/Wolfowitz/Rumsfeld crowd to broaden the conflict to include Syria and Iran as well. After all, if the citizenry won't be fooled twice, then might as stick them ``in for a penny, in for a pound.'' It is worrisome that the propaganda to prep the public seems to have started already.- AR
3/31 4:33pm Wm - your apolitical posting is surprising me - you're not a "L" militant dressing civilian on me, are you? DAF - Give it up, you might not like it but this world is pure Social Darwinism - is it right ... how long can we go on - PC
[Worse, I'm anti-political :-) I do militate, but not along any partisan angle; I have my own convictions. Like look before you leap, the ends do not justify the means, equal protection under the law, due process. Simple stuff. - Wm.]
3/31 4:00pm We didn't impeach Clinton for bombing Iraq! His issue was with tobacco, not oil - PC
[No; we impeached Clinton for lying under oath, but my point was he got off - Wm.]
3/31 3:58pm PC, your logic still eludes me. I asked you -- you be the judge. If it is wrong for the Iraqis, why isn't it wrong for US forces? You can't be suggesting that there is no "truth" out there, only situational ethics, are you? Your colleagues at the Institute would be shocked. Conservatives reject situational ethics in favor of permanent values: abortion is wrong, no matter what the situation of the pregnant woman; lying to the American people is wrong, even if it is just about your sex life, and so on. As for question 2, I think you must understand that my question is a variation on the first question, which is -- if we can do it, why can't others? - DAF
3/31 3:18pm Wm - And your "crime" point is? Anyway, here's a link you might enjoy - [link] PS: how do you collapse/rename these long links anyway ? - PC
[I thought you made a very good point - whether it's criminal or not depends on who gets caught, who prosecutes, and who is the judge. This was certainly evident during the Clinton impeachment, as well as the Iran-Contra debacle. As to the links, I wrap them in an HTML "anchor" tag; the format is<A HREF="(link goes here)">(short text)</A>. This makes clicking on the short text take you to the linked page. The angle brackets are required, the parentheses I added - Wm.]
3/31 3:05pm DAF: Question #1 - It will all depend who's holding court - after the liquidation of Hussein and Co. there will be war criminals and they probably won't be Americans (and in the words of Martha Stewart, "that's a good thing"). Is that fair, no, so what - it's war. Question #2 I would even answer the rampant speculation of your next world problems - ask me when the tickets go on sale. - PC
[Yes, the ``it's a crime only if you get convicted'' principle. That certainly explains much of domestic politics as well - Wm.]
3/31 2:25pm The New Yorker article on Rumsfeld is incredible. Read it carefully, word for word, then read it again. If even half of it is true, Rumsfeld deserves a court-martial for having recklessly endangered our troops. If asked to pick between our military and Rumsfeld, I know which I'd trust. Quotes from the generals: ``The Marines are worried as hell.'' ``The only way out now is back, and to hope for some kind of a miracle.'' ``Hope is not a course of action.'' - Wm.
3/31 1:40pm To WJB: Your thoughts today have never been more cogent. I'm glad you're back on board... I'll be out for awhile. I've got to go to NY. I'm auditioning for Peter Arnett's gig and have a meeting tonight at 30 Rock! - PA
3/31 1:39pm PC, I'm not sure I understand your answers. I'll ask the questions again for you. 1) If it is a war crime for Iraqi militants to wear civilian clothing while fighting the US and UK armed forces invading their country, is it a war crime for American Special Forces soldiers to be wearing civilian clothing while assassinating civilian "regime targets?" 2) If it is legal for the US and UK to engage in a pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq, will it be legal for India to pre-emptively invade Pakistan, a nation with nuclear weapons, which harbors the majority of the Al Qaeda membership who fled Afghanistan? Will it be legal for China to invade Taiwan? The intelligence services say that Taiwan continues their bioweapons program, despite their public statements that the program has been shut down. Will it be legal for Syria to invade Israel (Israel has nuclear WMDs)? - DAF
3/31 1:23pm Re: Liberal Media nonsense - The Boston Globe of all rags publishing a story like that - hmmm a little self-serving or is there cause for concern in the All the News that fit to Twist world. Are these papers going to start running from the "L" word ? - PC
3/31 12:19pm To all and WJB - NOW this board is fun. Touche - PC
3/31 11:58am You're right PA, I can't stay out. The anti-war people on this board just don't understand a darn thing. I can't believe they don't understand that we have got to take this Saddam Bin Laden guy out. After all, he killed 3,000 of our people! This guy is just like Hitler, building up an awesome war machine and taking over the countries around him. How many countries has he taken over so far? A lot, I think. Anyone who doesn't want to take this guy out is just like those cheese-eating surrender monkeys, the French, who appeased Hitler. Our good allies the Brits would never pull a stunt like that. Now. President Bush is a real man. He knows that the only way to avoid being an appeaser is to be at war all the time, forever. Clinton was a loser because he didn't understand this, and was only interested in his booming economy. Good war, bad economy, that's the recipe the American people want. Anyway, this war is really about freeing the Iraqi people. In fact, they welcome us. I know they're not showing it right now, but as soon as Saddam is gone, those that survive will come out and show us their gratitude for invading and conquering their country, just as soon as they get done with all the funerals for their friends and relatives that we killed with our bombing campaign. Plus, we're going to use their oil to benefit them. Those buildings that we're blowing up right now will all need to be rebuilt, and the Iraqi people will be glad to let use the money we get from selling their oil to do that. Anyway, this new Institute for Conservative Thinking sounds great, and I'm definitely going to sign up, just as soon as my wife signs the papers to get me out of the Institute I'm in now. - WJB
3/31 11:57am Thanks, the Globe article on the media does make rather interesting reading. The article's sub-title serves as a summary - ``How conservatives control the media, and pretend they don't''. The article actually goes into quite a bit more depth than just war coverage and liberal or conservative. Apropos liberal media, here's the New Yorker article that started all the ruckus about Rumsfeld ``overruling senior Pentagon planners'' and ``micromanaging the war's operational details.'' A quote: ``Rumsfeld further stunned the Joint Staff by insisting that he would control the timing and flow of Army and Marine troops to the combat zone. He, and not the generals, would decide which unit would go when and where.'' - Wm.
3/31 11:31am DAF - reporting live from the thicket -- India Pakistan Korea China are off topic; I'm sorry, but under the rules of engagement, I can't answer you. Pre-emptive invasion? Is that a question, statement, or a little mind journey ? We're in this, like it or not - why doesn't matter anymore - it's Baghdad or Bust, baby. What I really want to know is do you think all the post-war development rights along the Euphrates have been sold - I'd love to pop up a few hundred condos? - PC
3/31 11:23am PC, could you elaborate? What works for you? - DAF
3/31 11:06am PA, I'll answer your questions. It would be neighborly if you would answer the questions I posed for you as well. I disagree with Tariq Aziz -- suicide bombers are not heroes. Aziz is the mouthpiece of a despotic regime. If Al Gore were president, I would still be against this war. In fact, I have a copy of a letter that I wrote to Senator John Kerry in December 1998 asking for him to raise objections with the US and UK bombing of residential sections of Baghdad during Operation Desert Fox. Kerry sent me a letter a few weeks later essentially telling me that he supported the bombing. So yes, I'm nonpartisan on this issue. Now, perhaps you could answer my questions to you and PC. Or, better yet, perhaps you could confer with your Institute fellows and come up with a view informed by your "intellects?" - DAF
3/31 11:05am DAF - Good to see you back, I thought you must've got run over at one of those silly die-ins. Re: "Or is it only a war crime if Iraqis engage in these guerilla tactics? " - That works for me ... this is a war, our job is to WIN. Do you think war should be fair ? - PC
3/31 9:58am Attached is a link to an interesting article on the media in Boston.com I thought I'd pass it on given some comments I've read on the media in the war postings section. I enjoyed (and agree with) the article... [article] - MSD
3/31 9:52am To DAF: Your opinions are welcome on the Institute. (There are some intellects in the mix who offer some very deep thoughts.) I have two questions for you: Do you agree with Tariq Aziz that those people they are recruiting from other countries to carry out suicide missions are "heroes" as he stated? If our President was Al Gore, would you be behind the USA 100%? - PA
[Behind the USA, behind the war, or behind Bush? Or are they the same thing? - Wm.]
3/31 9:40am More news of hypocrisy in action -- US Special Forces fighting in civilian clothes. We had Special Forces in Iraq before the "official" beginning of the war dressed in civilian clothes, carrying out murders. We continue to have these undercover fighters. Is this a war crime? Or is it only a war crime if Iraqis engage in these guerilla tactics? - DAF
3/30 10:02pm PA and PC: I find it hard to believe that you honestly defend Nixon. Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember his lies to the Congress and to the American people -- lies about important life and death matters. To hear him on the White House tapes is to listen to a man filled with delusional fantasies, suspicions, and hate. He misused executive orders, the pocket veto, the power to impound funds appropriated by Congress, executive privilege, executive agreements, and his war powers. If eulogizing Nixon is something your "Institute" is up to, then it is probably misnamed. Perhaps it is in Norfolk and perhaps it is Conservative, but there cannot be much Thinking going on. Back to the matter at hand, please. How come you two keep pulling us off the main topic into the thicket? Can't you base your support for this pre-emptive invasion and occupation on something other than partisan politics? How about you explain why it is justifiable for the US to pre-emptively invade Iraq, but not justifiable for China to pre-emptively invade Taiwan or North Korea to pre-emptively invade South Korea? If I were the PM of India, I'd be itching to invade Pakistan -- a hotbed of WMD's and Al Qaeda. - DAF
3/30 6:34pm To LH: Your views will be welcome in the newly formed Norfolk Institute fror Conservative Thinking. We should be meeting again next week. Your insights into Richard M. Nixon ending Vietnam are right on. I'm sure you thought Rumseld was great again with the press this weekend, as usual. To WJB: I knew you wouldn't stay out for long!! I'm glad you're back, because it wasn't right to blame one other person for your retreat. Healthy dissidence amongst Amercans is good! I'm glad the weather was okay Saturday in Boston for you and your friends! - PA
3/30 6:31pm Here's is the qualified source from which many of our local die-in participants get their dogma = The following is their own assessment of themselves - All the news fit to print CounterPunch is the bi-weekly muckraking newsletter... nothing makes us happier than when CounterPunch readers write in to say how useful they've found our newsletter in their battles against the war machine, big business and the rapers of nature.- PC
[Sounds like a Drudge Report with a holistic slant :-) - Wm.]
For the older messages, look here.