The Iraq War

For the older messages, look here.

This page contains the comments about the War with Iraq. To add your own comments, write to discussion@norfolknet.com.

  • 4/8 10:47pm Being a liberator is a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Massacre? What massacre? Remember, this is a noble cause, and we're the good guys. Mr. Bush said so.
    An old man, disoriented and alone, kept faltering forward with his cane after three warning shots. Finally, U.S. weapons burst and he fell dead.

    A Marine machine gunner at the front lines lay sprawled behind his tripod, left foot jiggling as he watched the road. (AP)

    - AR

  • 4/8 4:54pm AR, You raise an important point (as you often do). One has to wonder what the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is. We toppled the regime in both through use of overwhelming force. They are both Muslim countries. In Afghanistan, The US is passing the rebuilding off to the underfunded United Nations Development Program (UNDP)-- which just kicked off their efforts (April 6 Press Briefing. Not only is the US providing limited help, but at present, when the UN is trying to disarm the militias as their first step toward a stable Afghan future, the United States is paying some factions to keep their militias going to help in the US "war against terror."
    One could argue that Afghanistan will be much more in need of our help than Iraq is. Iraq is rich in natural resources and has, despite great hardships in the past 12 years, U.S.-style expressways, hospitals, universities, and shopping centers. Afghanistan has none of this. Into the 1980's, Iraq's health care system was considered the best in the Arab world well in to the 1980's and stores were filled with luxury goods. Afghanistan never had this in recent memory.
    So why are we eager to pass off Afghanistan reconstruction to the UN, but not Iraq?
    -DAF

  • 4/8 10:22am The Iraqis can only hope to be treated better than the Afghanis. The U.S. is focused on its national goal of hunting for Osama bin Laden, but in spite of the promise to help the Afghanisn rebuild their society, the people feel abandoned. No real rebuilding has taken place, and the situation is being allowed to drift back toward chaos. The power of warlords is on the rise, and the Taliban is making a resurgence.
    "It's like I am seeing the same movie twice and no one is trying to fix the problem," said Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of Afghanistan's president and his representative in southern Kandahar. "What was promised to Afghans with the collapse of the Taliban was a new life of hope and change. But what was delivered? Nothing. Everyone is back in business."

    From safe havens in neighboring Pakistan, aided by militant Muslim groups there, the Taliban launched their revival to coincide with the war in Iraq and capitalize on Muslim anger over the U.S. invasion, say Afghan officials.

    International workers in Kandahar don't feel safe anymore and some have been moved from the Kandahar region to safer areas, said John Oerum, southwest security officer for the United Nations. [...] The Red Cross, with 150 foreign workers in Afghanistan, have suspended operations indefinitely.

    Today most Afghans say their National Army seems a distant dream while the U.S.-led coalition continues to feed and finance warlords for their help in hunting for Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. (AP)

    - AR

  • 4/7 12:42pm What do folks think about this Chalabi fellow being installed as the PM of Iraq? -DAF

  • 4/6 11:24pm The suggested reason why colonel Joe Dowdy was relieved from duty is for not thinking that a two-bit tin-pot dictator was worth getting his guys killed over. His superiors disagreed. From the iraqwar.ru war updates:
    Commander of the 1st Expeditionary Marine Squadron colonel Joe Dowdy was deposed yesterday morning. As was revealed, the colonel was deposed "...for utmost hesitation and loss of the initiative during the storm of An-Nasiriya...". [...] The "guilt" of the colonel was in his refusing to enter the town for almost 3 days and trying to suppress Iraqi resistance with artillery and aviation, trying to avoid losses. As a result, the command additionally had to move the 15th squadron of colonel Tomas Worldhouser there, who had to storm the ferriages for almost 6 days, with about 20 of his soldiers killed, 130 wounded and 4 missing. The 1st Expeditionary Squadron lost no men at An-Nasiriya[.]
    - AR

  • 4/6 11:23pm As expected, the war on Iraq is creating more terrorists than Hussein would even have been able to create. Recruiting at Al-Qaida is up since the conflict began.
    al-Qaida had a hard time recruiting after the war in Afghanistan ended and the organization was left scattered. Arrests of some top figures also hurt the network. "But now it is much easier. The war in Iraq has made every angry Muslim man with nothing to do want to join anything that's against America," he said. In the last two weeks, al-Qaida Web site has shown gruesome photos of dead children, accompanied by captions indicating they were killed by U.S. troops[.] (AP)
    It would be bitterly ironic if after defeating Al Qaeda, the US adventure in Iraq were to revitalize it again.
    - AR

  • 4/6 11:18pm Although the war was billed as a quick little liberation sprint, once the shooting stops, troops may end up staying in Iraq for a while. Ahmad Chalabi was quoted by the BBC (radio) as saying that it might take up to two years to ratify a new constitution, and that US troops should stay during the interim. Paul Wolfowitz declared on TV that setting up a new Iraq civil government will take longer than six months.
    They will also stay while searching for banned weapons.
    "They could take as long as a year just to confirm to everybody's satisfaction that we have found all the weapons of mass destruction, or at least confirmed there aren't any more left,"

    "Victory, in this case, is really defined by the long-term goal of setting up a democratic government in Iraq," Donnelly said. "It'll be wonderful when the fighting's over and when Baghdad falls. But let's keep our eye on the ball and remember what our larger purpose is." (AP)

    - AR
    4/7 12:08am Found the quotes on-line; Chalabi, Wolfowitz - AR

  • 4/6 11:14pm Liberation must not lead to a loss of order and normalcy, else the population may perceive the liberator as the cause of the upheaval.
    There is a lot of anger toward Westerners in Umm Qasr, triggered by bitter disappointment at their "liberation". They feel they have been given false expectations and are scared by the breakdown in social order in the town. (Guar)
    - AR

  • 4/6 11:13pm PFD: Re: "American officials ... would never give out the right information" - they're more confusing than that. A good example is from the first Gulf War: Patriot anti-missile missiles are 90% effective. 70-80% effective. 50%. Less than 10%. As it happens, in that case, the last figure seems to be the correct one.
    - AR

  • 4/5 6:03pm PFD - eh? Damned if we do kill civilians in hundreds, damned if we...don't? You lost me. I never said we should leave "everything" to the UN or the International Criminal Court.
    Look, our troops are in there. Saddam Hussein's regime is soon to be finished off. I think we could have achieved this and the destruction of WMD's without this war. You disagree. OK. But now that we are there, the job must be finished. We agree on that. But how? Do we do it in a way that limits the loss of all human life or do we do it with the "knock-out punch" the Marine Commander spoke of today -- a punch that will take many, many innocent civilian lives. I'm not making this up -- Reuters: "We have to go in forcefully, and when we go in forcefully it just creates a lot of collateral damage."
    As an American, are you not embarassed by the fact that UK soldiers view our men and women as "cowboys with no regard for human life" and British military commanders are critical of US troops' heavy-handed style with civilians? I am.
    - DAF

  • 4/5 3:00pm DAF, If we do anything, we're bad. If we do nothing, we're bad. If we give information, we're bad. If we hold out information, we're bad. If we help, we're bad. If we do not help, we're bad. If we do not turn away, we're bad. If we do turn away, guess what, we're bad. So I guess no matter what, we're bad. I guess we should just leave everything to the U.N. and the International courts.
    AR, since American officials admitted that the white powder was explosives, it must be a lie right, since they would never give out the right information?
    - PFD

  • 4/5 11:48am PFD, The "moral core" is the place we draw upon when we take actions. The Iraqi man drew on it when he risked his life to save a stranger. The soldier on the bridge who retrieved the wounded woman also drew on this core. If you chose to take my celebration of their actions as an impugning of you personally, I can't help that. I have no idea what is inside you. I tell you that if you do not speak out against the unnecessary death of civilians then you are not drawing on a moral core. You are turning away. In Rwanda, we turned away. In the Sudan today, we turn away. In Aghanistan, out of anger with the Taliban and A Qaeda, we turned away. Civilian deaths are caused in our name in Afghanistan -- see for yourself. We turn away.
    - DAF

  • 4/5 11:47am White powder! White powder! They found white powder! Those of us who recall that far back are thinking that perhaps they've found some more of Manuel Noriega's tamale flour. (The found bricks of white powder when raiding his residence, and the hype then was that it could be cocaine. The retraction was in small print, of course. The other item they aired to try and discredit him was that he wore red underpants.)
    American officials have admitted that the thousands of boxes of white powder they seized north of Baghdad are explosives.

    The US military and various media outlets had suggested that they may have made the first discovery of chemical weapons in Iraq. [article]

    I'm eagerly waiting to learn the color of Saddam Hussein's briefs.
    - AR

  • 4/5 11:46am Is it live, or is it Memorex? Saddam Hussein made his first televised appearance since the war started which contains credible proof that he is still alive and in Baghdad.
    Or does it? He refers to the peasant that ``shot down the Apache helicopter with an old rifle,'' an incident that did occur early on in the conflict. My first cynical thought upon reading the story was that this was a brilliant ruse. It goes something like this.
    Pick an incident that is memorable, but likely to happen. Such as an airplane crashing, or a helicopter being captured. Pick someone to honor and reward for their heroic efforts in bringing about this event. Then tape a message referring to the incident, and wait ... for the incident to happen!
    Oh, all right, maybe not, but it was an interesting thought.
    - AR

  • 4/5 11:45am The former "ambassador" to Iraq (actually chief-of-mission, but equivalent) thinks the this war is a ``terrible, bloody miscalculation.'' Or not, depending on what your goals are and what you're willing to sacrifice, but he says:
    The notion that Islamists hate us because of our freedom or "because Britney Spears has a bellybutton" is "terribly stupid," Peck believes.

    Most Americans don't want to face the fact that we've been killing Iraqis for 12 years, through sanctions and bombing, and that we're constantly in the world's face.

    The idea that attacking Iraq will end terrorism is a little hard to square with the fact that we've called up 25,000 reservists to protect the homeland, and Colin Powell has asked for $6 billion to turn every American embassy into a fortress, all to coincide with the beginning of the war.

    "I hope to the depths of my being I am wrong," Peck said. "But I'm afraid we will pay a terrible, bloody price for this miscalculation in Iraq."

    - AR

  • 4/5 11:40am Donald Rumsfeld is not above inventing "proof" to make a case, even if said proof is later discovered to be false. Like Iraq's Nigerian uranium connection. Or now, Syria's shipment of armaments to Iraq (AP):
    The CIA has no credible evidence that the government of Syria has had a role in the shipment of night-vision goggles and other military equipment to Iraq, according to an administration official familiar with U.S. intelligence in the region.

    Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last Friday suggested that Syria was responsible for the shipment to Iraq of defense-related goods, including the goggles, and warned that the United States considered "such trafficking as hostile acts and would hold the Syrian government accountable."

    "It's not a new phenomenon," he said, "and it's not clear it has the Syrian government's imprimatur." At the same time, he said, military goods also have been shipped into Iraq, in violation of UN sanctions, from border countries much more aligned with the U.S. government, including Turkey and Jordan.

    Unfortunately, Rumsfeld has the ear of the President of the United States.
    "An official making a threat is not what is dangerous," Assad said. "What is dangerous is the lack of foresight by that official."
    - AR

  • 4/5 11:16am More war news you may have missed: Mother Jones has an article on the Perlman-Rumsfeld-Israel connection, and how it's causing a rift in conservative ranks.
    [T]he "lack of public discussion about the role of Israel" in Washington's policy-making was "the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it. - Michael Kinsley, Slate
    UPI has a fascinating article on the logistics that make a major undertaking like this war possible.
    It is one thing to marvel at the way the Vth Corps post office in Kuwait delivers 100 tons of incoming mail a day, quite another to see the massed ranks of PCs in the giant hangars at Camp Doha, with GIs e-mailing home and surfing the Web
    The U.S. may end up not capturing or finding Saddam Hussein, but that's not important, according to Colin Powell. This is certainly a change. (Times)
    But Washington appeared nervous that the coalition may fail to find the elusive Iraqi leader. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, said that Saddam's fate was unimportant. "Whether he is there at the end or not, and is found or not, is almost irrelevant."

    His comments were part of a concerted change of tack by the Bush Administration as it tried to play down Saddam's fate.

    - AR

  • 4/4 7:03pm RG, thanks for the answers. We are in agreement -- I don't like comparisons of GWB to Hitler, Stalin, etc.. I've said numerous times here -- religion and Hitler don't belong in a discussion of this war. A point of clarification -- I've never used the word "bloodthirsty." I did use "vicious" to describe the tactics of this invasion. Vicious -- it means dangerously aggressive and immoral. The Pentagon tells us that the majority of Hussein's "army" are men forced on threat of death and death to their families to serve. Our air forces are cluster-bombing them. One Lieutenant in the Marines' First Division said "If the Iraqis try to fight, we'll slaughter them. This is not going to be a fair fight." (Time)
    As for civilians -- I agree (as I have said many times before) that 99% of our troops are doing everything they can to try to avoid civilians, but the tactics being used by their commanders mean that civilians will die. You can't bomb a highly-populated city without killing many civilians. As we have now seen just a taste. There will be more if people do not speak up and oppose these actions. Dare I remain silent and let even more brutal rules of engegment be put in place?
    On ICC -- Hussein, like Milosevic, doesn't have to want to be brought to justice. The UN and ICC can do that. The ICC is the formalized version of the ad hoc court that tried Serbs. So, it sounds like you support it? Except that our soldiers should be indictable (of course, if they committed no war crimes, what's the fuss?)
    I hope never to smell Anthrax -- and I hope the same for you and your family. Alas, many smart, thoughful experts believe that this preemptive invasion will make it more likely (not less) that we will see biological weapons attacks.
    - DAF

  • 4/4 5:39pm DAF, sorry this will be a short answer as I really do not have the time today, but I did not want you to think I would not answer your questions. I agree you never explicitly called anyone immoral, but in my eye you implied those of us that are supporting the war do not have the moral core of the Iraqi lawyer that helped free Pvt. Lynch, which led me to the conclusion that you think I/we are immoral. If I was mistaken by coming to this conclusion from your statement of "If only some of our neighbors had the moral core of this Iraqi man", I apologize after the fact. If I was mistaken, please explain that statement.
    As for the schools, why would you want the American ABC to tell you that? Again I made the conclusion from all your previous posts that you think the US military is using the same tactics as the Iraqi Army in the Shiite Mosque, that we are using shelter in areas we (the US) have deemed off limits. If we were using children as human shields I would agree that we should know about the troops in the schools.
    Lastly, I am of the belief that this war is necessary. I do believe Hussein has WMD's (although I do not think he will use them during this war, as the only campaign he can win is the PR campaign with the people and countries around the world that believed inspections and negotiations would work). I do believe that given the opportunity Hussein would eventually have used WMD's against us. And even though this may not have been the focus of the war in the beginning, Hussein out of power means hundreds of thousands of people will live long lives. I know these are all the things that have been debated over the past couple of months, but I do believe in the above. Therefore, I feel that the loss of Iraqi soldiers, whether they want to fight or are forced to fight, is justifiable. Hussein had a decision to make before all of this and he chose to make the wrong one.
    Okay, so that was not so short. Have a great weekend everyone.
    - PFD

  • 4/4 5:35pm Well, DAF, answers and questions: our Socratic dialogue on the war continues:
    1) Answer: I am vigorously defending the actions of my nation, from those who wish to defame her.
    This is not a "my country, right or wrong" position, this is a war and during wartime partisanship ends at the shorelines. And the ramblings of those opposing the war by calling President Bush a fascist or a nazi, is partisanship. Again, I know from members of my family the difficulty of fighting two wars: one on foreign terrain, and one in the minds of ones' countrymen. It entirely one thing to argue the merits of the president's decision to start a war, it is altogether another to accuse the American military of vicious (your word, mon amie), bloodthirsty tactics.
    And I would again note, I believe it is entirely appropriate for a vigorous judgement after the hostilities have ended. If we do not achieve a humane end to the war (which, for me, entails a pluralistic, democratic Iraq) our political figures must be held accountable.
    With respect to the IBC figure, and the Iraqi figure of 653. How many of those 653 were combat troops dressed in civvies? How many civilians have the Feydaeen (pls excuse spelling) killed?
    Frankly, with the Iraqi minister of (dis)information on today claiming that US troops are not within 100 miles of Baghdad, I wouldn't trust anything coming out of them. (Maybe he's got a factor of 100 problem, and US marines are 1 mile from Baghdad and we've killed 6.53 civilians).
    It is likely we may never know how many people this war killed, and to put a number on the suffering is somewhat, in my humble opinion, callous. One is as bad as one hundred. So if one has to die, it had better result in a just result. And the liberation of Iraq is a just result.
    Question: How can you dare call the current operation in Iraq vicious? We are taking every reasonable means to ensure civilian safety. The precision of our attack is unbelievable. Accidents happen, and when talking about cruise missiles and M-16s, accidents have horrible consequences, but overall the Americans and British have shown tremendous restraint in their actions.
    You are in favor of the removal of Hussein. You would like to see it done by the lawyers, however.
    The nattering nabobs of Indict had been plodding along for how long trying to legally snare Hussein? And puh-leez, spare me about the International Criminal Court. First of all, Bush stymied it because it would have allowed nitwits in France, among other places, to unilaterally indict US citizens (normal combat troops) as war criminals every time the US military does something that offends tender sensibilities.
    The World Court, where we tried the Serbian killers, would be a venue to try Hussein, so we don't need the ICC. What makes you think Hussein would've ever, in a million years, submitted to ICC or World Court jurisdiction? He certainly was respectful of the umpteen UN resolutions, wasn't he?
    Friend, it's time to wake up and smell the anthrax. You and I agree, in our bleeding hearts, that Hussein is a bad dude that needs to be off the scene, if not for American peace of mind, than certainly for the future of Iraq. I, like you, had hoped that we would not need to resort to violent means. But violent men force violent means. Hussein could've lived out the rest of his putrid existence as the ruler of some dandy little Hacienda in an undisclosed location. He chose to stay and fight. So we fight. And we win.
    - RG

  • 4/4 3:09pm RG, I got that 733 from the independent figures at IBC -- it has increased again overnight. I see no reason to start believing the Iraqi regime right now, but on April 1 the Iraqi Information Minister put the number at 653. That was before we got to the outskirts of Baghdad.
    You say "For good or for ill our president has chosen this course. We must see it through to an ending." Agreed. Let's end it humanely. You don't have to be Nostradumus to predict that unless something is done soon to change the viciousness of this invasion, when the numbers come out years from now, you will see that the US and UK will have invaded and conquered Iraq with a larger number of Iraqi casualties than anyone would consider humane. You will see a ratio of approximately 40-50 dead civilians for every dead US or UK soldier (most of whom will have been killed in vehicle accidents and friendly fire episodes). The ratio of dead Iraqi "soldiers" (most of whom are serving against their wills according to the Pentagon) to US and UK soldiers will be something on the order of 120:1.
    A question for you: since you were opposed before the war began and you have changed since then, maybe you could explain what you are "vigorously" defending our country from? Is Iraq attacking us now? - DAF

  • 4/4 1:57pm PFD, Political correctness is always in the eye of the beholder. I always saw that epithet as a red herring. Nice to have you back -- just as good as PC I suppose.
    As usual, I'll answer your questions. Could you do me the favor of answering mine? You ask me if you are immoral. I don't know you so I can't say. Believe it or not, I feel like such judgements about people are better left to others. You probably don't believe this, but I've never said anyone (even PC and the Hawks) is "immoral." I did laud the "moral core" of the Iraqi man who helped free Pvt. Lynch. Here is a man who could have been shot by the Marines he approached, who could have been killed by Hussein's death squads if he was caught, and yet he endangered himself and his family in order to support the humanity of all people, not matter what their ethnicity. Capt. Chris Carter showed this identification of shared humanity when he rescued the old woman on the bridge.
    If you believe "a person is a human being regardless of nationality" maybe you could explain why it is "just" and moral for thousands of Iraqis to be killed when those deaths are unneccesary?
    Second question: what conclusion did I jump to about our troops staying in school buildings?
    - DAF

  • 4/4 12:58pm DAF - where'd you get the 733 number? CBS is reporting that the Iraqi govt, which has absolutely no motive to lowball the number, is claiming civilian losses of 450.
    Now now, I agree that one civilian dead is too many.
    And about being anti-war before the shooting starts and vigourously defending this country after the shooting starts: For good or for ill our president has chosen this course. We must see it through to an ending. The tragedy of the Gulf War 1 was it's incomplete ending, partially due to the overly media-concious actions of Bush I, and partially because that was the deal we had cut with the coalition partners, no advance on Baghdad.
    As our friend PFD will attest to, war is an awful and violent thing - best executed outside the vision of the general populace (and most certainly not for viewing on morning news shows when impressionable 7 year olds may wander by). But it is sometimes, in very limited cases, a necessary thing. And at this point, for me, there is no point in crying over spilt milk (the decision to go to war) until after the milk is cleaned up. Once we end the war, let the American people judge the results, weigh the costs and the outcomes, and judge the President.
    - RG
    [Those are rather interesting points -- under what circumstances is it appropriate to *not* support the President in a course of action? Do morality, legality, or advisability play a part? Does it make a difference if out national interests are not threatened?
    And by not seeing the horror of war, can the public really make an informed choice to support it? Isn't the butchery of the enemy troops part of those costs and results that the American people must judge? - Wm.]

  • 4/4 11:53am To DAF, how appropriate that you use a military term to describe PC (MIA). Wouldn't that be deemed politically incorrect by your neighbors that you believe are moral? Maybe PC has pressing matters other than this web site.
    As for putting troops in the schools, don't jump to conclusions. The schools have been closed since the beginning of the war and unlike the Iraqi murderers there are no children in them. You'll note in that same article we have had the 173rd (my old unit from Italy, I might add, is part of the 173rd) deliberately placed outside of populated areas, but as always that is not the focus. And if you will, just for clarity, can you let me know if I am immoral because I believe this is a just war and I also believe "a person is a human being regardless of nationality"? Thanks from your friendly neighbor.
    - PFD

  • 4/4 9:29am Can this be true -- US forces use schools for cover? If so, why is no American media outlet reporting it? Why does ABC News in Australia report that the International Red Cross is seeing hundreds of new civilian casualties, but not ABC in the US? It must be that liberal media bias in the US, as the MIA PC et al point out.
    If only some of our neighbors had the moral core of this Iraqi man. "A person is a human being regardless of nationality," he explained today.
    - DAF

  • 4/3 10:20pm Interstingly, the sweeping changes planned for Iraq may require the U.S. to disregard the Geneva Convention. This might be convenient, and certainly there is recent precedent for unilateral action in the face of international scorn, but as a signatory, it would be the breaking of a written agreement -- a contract and a promise. Time for the lawyers, I guess, because "it's illegal only if you get convicted." (You know, I used to wonder why so many politicians majored in law...)
    Under the Geneva Conventions, an occupying power can only deal with day-to-day administrative operations unless the U.N. Security Council decides otherwise, said Mark Malloch Brown, administrator of the United Nations Development Program. [...]

    An occupier cannot change the constitution or make long-term legal commitments -- such as the kind of 10- to 20-year contracts and concessions that oil developers need, he said. [AP]

    Hopefully, this will also slow down efforts to privatize the oil [Guar], the "natural resouces of the people of Iraq" that we're so busy defending.
    - AR

  • 4/3 9:57pm Welcome to Bush's Brave New World Order! A world with indefinite detention, without charges filed, without access to lawyers, without evidence. Because the government feels like it.
    Once it would have been laughable, unthinkable, to lose such basic rights. A legal limbo ripe for abuse. Welcome to third-world government, brought to your doorstep, in the dead of night. Knock, knock. [AP story]
    - AR

  • 4/3 9:54pm The Pentagon is busily designing the governing body of the conquered Iraq, to the displeasure of both the State Department and the Iraqi allies.
    The Pentagon is seeking to replace the state department people, who include several ambassadors, with a bunch of neo-conservative hawks - most notably James Woolsey, a former CIA director.

    Several major Iraqi opposition groups, such as the Kurdistan Democratic party and the Iraqi National Accord, say they have been excluded from discussions about the interim government. A KDP official yesterday described the US plans as "not workable at all".

    Although Britain has been consulted, it also seems unhappy about US plans to establish neo-colonial rule, even if it's supposed to be temporary. [Guar]

    And
    He said that the Pentagon had ruled that Mr Rumsfeld should personally approve appointments to the temporary US-British administration, "and there are many people who question his authority to take that decision, including, I assume, the Secretary of State".

    Meanwhile, General Powell and Mr Blair are trying to secure a prominent role for the United Nations in an attempt to avoid further alienating US allies in Europe. [Times]

    Note to PFD: Apologies for the figthing words in Brian Whitaker's, the Guardian author's, piece. I don't pick the articles for the language, but for the content. And I may be harping on the role of Rumsfeld in all this, but it's really frightening how a small clique is able to manipulate the goverment.
    - AR

  • 4/3 1:36pm RG, you are right about the importance of the frame one uses to view the world. I'm not sure what you expected to see from that far up. Would Baghdad have to be a large crater seen from space for you to start thinking that this war is immoral? My frame is closer to the ground. Conservative and objective third parties have counted 733 civilian deaths so far. How many will we have to see before we decide that it is too many? Are you willing to see 1,000? 2,000? 7,000?
    You say "the only way to remove the incentive to violence is to give people a reason to, if you will, `'behave.'" Not only is that a patriarchal and borderline racist notion (the Iraqis can't stop themselves from being violent without us bombing them into line), I must say that there are many, many ways to stop violence against innocents and more violence -- as we have seen in Israel -- is rarely the answer.
    You speak of a "final resolution" that we will impose on Iraq. Aside from the familair ring that that term has (I know unintentionally...unintentionally) it makes no sense to me. Time is going to stop after we install a new regime? Nothing is ever final in this world, as you no doubt know.
    You believe Bush is doing this because "he believes history demands this of him." History must have demanded this of him long before 9-11 since his administration has been shown to have started war planning for Iraq before that horrible day. Even if we assume that he really believes that he is doing this for history -- I would point out the incredible hubris this entails. History is yet to be written -- as are the final body counts of the innocent dead.
    I do not see your statements as sentimental. The idea that the "human condition" requires the death of hundreds and hundreds of innocents (not to mention the thousands of Iraqi "soldiers" who we know are being forced to figh the US and UK against their wills) is far from sentimental in my view. It is nihilistic, in the Russian sense of the word.
    If you truly were aginst this war before March 19th, then it is not your duty to support it today. In fact, you have even more reasons to object to it -- 733 and rising.
    - DAF

  • 4/3 11:33am Regarding the indiscriminate war criminal bombing of Baghdad, check out satellite imagery. I respect the position of those who are opposed to war but nothing is gained by comparing President Bush to Hitler, or suggesting that the US military is indiscriminately and needlessly killing civilians. We are being as humane as possible in this conflict.
    I have never seen war, thank god. I hope for your sakes that none of you have seen war. From the members of my family who have seen war it is impossible to overstate the brutality of modern warfare. Judged against those standards, the American military's restraint in Iraq is absolutely commendable.
    It's all a question of frame of reference. What we are seeing nightly on television, or avidly reading on the internet, is so stark and inhumane, compared to the rest of our experience that it is naturally appaling. But I challenge any of you who happily go to McD's or even order a sausage bagel at Dunkin' Donuts to spend a day in a slaughterhouse.
    What I am trying to say is that there are things about our lives on this planet that are brutal, horrible, and inhumane. This is the human condition. We've managed to carve out on this big island of ours a fairly decent existence, with a smidgen of liberty and a dash of pursuit of happiness. Say what you will about our failures at race relations, or the long battles for equality for women, our country, on balance, has dealt with her problems admirably.
    (And before any of you rant on and on about how wonderful this or that little twit European country is, let's face it, apples and oranges. No other big nation is as diverse AND as fully integrated as ours is.)
    Yes, my comments are hopelessly sentimental. But, you know what?, this is a hopelessly sentimental nation. We get ourselves wrapped so much up in the fate of singular individuals that we sometimes lose sight of the big picture. And the big picture viz the Gulf War 2 is that the state of the modern world requires that a superpower who is a target has the obligation to seek out and preemptively if necessary, remove those threats. And the only way to remove the incentive to violence is to give people a reason to, if you will, ``behave.''
    It's not nations of shopkeepers that inspire suicide bombers and terrorists. It's nations with entire swaths of their population with nothing to lose. The best way to ensure the peace is to create a stability based on self-interest. The Iraqi who drove himself into the checkpoint and blew himself and four americans up was reportedly given $35,000 and a promotion to Colonel. His life was so hopeless and worthless to him that the $35 grand for his family was worth more. A middle class guy struggling to meet the mortgage and pay the orthodontist bill wouldn't cost-benefit his life that low. The removal of Hussein and the occupation, yes, occupation, of Iraq will allow for the development of a democracy, which will give a voice to the dispossed of that nation, and a stable and healthy nation.
    And about our president: I think him to be a man of deeply held and sincere beliefs. I believe he is doing this in Iraq because he believes history demands this of him. I believe he will do the right thing and see this action through to its only acceptable conclusion: the destruction of the regime and the installation of government based on civil rights and law. I disagreed with the ramp up to this war, I didn't want us to do this (I am a pacifist at heart). But having crossed this Rubicon, we must show our support for the complete, total, and final resolution of the Iraq question.
    - RG

  • 4/3 9:25am AR, thank you for your thoughtful posts. What some of our neighbors don't understand is that the Department of Defense often bends the truth in a Clintonesque manner. Are they lieing? Was Clinton? See the followup reporting on the checkpoint killings. The media at large has moved on -- the DOD knows this. So the majority of Americans have assumed that what they were told about this brutal action is true. More civilians will die needlessly. More mothers will see their children decapitated before their eyes. As a Middle Eastern friend of mine once told me -- I'd rather be oppressed and alive than free and dead.
    - DAF



    For the older messages, look here.

  • Home