|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 26, 2003 14:27:45 GMT -5
Yes, I know guys, the Forces for JustWar just were far too powerful against the poor Doves. We enjoined the battle only to see the opposition melt away like Iraqi armour.
Yup, since the opposition could not withstand the debilitating onslaught of our "justness and goodness" debate so I switched sides to challenge you young ones and keep you sharp and in fighting trim.
Spozzy, TNG, the games afoot..............en guard!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Very few serious observers in the Middle East, if any, expect the United States to achieve its declared aims of establishing a democratic government in Iraq. Some are openly skeptical of US intent, while others give the US the benefit of the doubt, but consider its aim a hopeless fantasy.
Three days after US invasion forces officially announced the fall of the Iraqi government and proclaimed military control of the city of Baghdad, they allowed, if not encouraged, lawlessness to destroy a cradle of civilization on a scale thousands of times worse than that which the US accused the Saddam Hussein government of having done to the Iraqi nation and its people. The war itself has made a reality of harsh misery out of the abstract discontent of political oppression, the liberation from which had been the pretext for the war. Instead of saving the Iraqi people from alleged oppression, the war has brought them undeniable destruction.
Liberation has come in the form of senseless killing, looting and burning. In the name of defending freedom, the United States has unilaterally denied the people of Iraq their freedom to live a normal life for years to come. The war has robbed the Iraqi people of freedom from lawlessness, freedom to preserve and enjoy their historical and cultural treasures, and freedom from foreign occupation.
The wartime suffering of millions has been aggravated by the postwar loss of even the essentials of life, such as clean water, electricity, medicine, food and personal safety. The Geneva Convention regarding responsibility of occupation powers toward the population in occupied territory has been ignored, resulting in a breakdown of security, anarchy, widespread looting and arson of public property and the proliferation of violent acts of revenge and lawless of settling personal and tribal scores.
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld justified this crime of barbarism dismissively by telling the press that "democracy is untidy" and that "freedom includes freedom to commit crimes". While it may be debatable whether the definition of war crimes should include the killing of civilians by uniformed US soldiers as a standard tactic against urban guerrillas, there is no need to debate that peace crimes against civilization and humanity have become part of the collateral damage of the liberation imposed by US armed occupation of Iraq.
Overwhelming force to shock and awe had been available to military plans with ample reserve. But the world's sole superpower pleads powerlessness to protect civilians and national properties and treasures under its coercive military control. Despite total US control of Iraqi airspace, there is no around-the-clock airlift of humanitarian supplies as in the Berlin blockade, notwithstanding that the toppling of Saddam's statue in central Baghdad by a handful was eagerly compared with the fall of the Berlin Wall by the US media. Apparently, Arabs don't need food and water as much as Europeans do. The US military can summon hundred of cruise missiles and precision bombs to target Saddam on a few minutes' notice, yet this superpower that spends more on its military than all the world's other nations combined cannot provide law and order and basic sustenance for the people it has just conquered. This is a superpower only of destruction, and a paper tiger when it comes to humanitarian rescue.
Presidential palaces were precision-bombed as war targets despite the fact that common sense would surmise that Saddam would be stupid to stay in any of them once hostilities had begun. Television images of US marines trashing the palaces and the subsequent looting by lawless mobs waving to approving GIs were supplemented by embedded media commentary about popular rejoicing over the fall of tyranny. Yet these palaces were built with the resources of the Iraqi people, thus they belong to the people and should be returned to the Iraqi people for their popular enjoyment, rather than trashed by an invading horde. These palaces, albeit not examples of good taste, are nevertheless national assets that could have been turned into a Palace for Youth, Palace for Women, Palace of Science, Palace of Islam, Palace of Freedom, etc. Instead, they are now useless rubble that will constitute heavy added cleanup burdens for the war-battered people of Iraq.
The US Marine Corps in the past has earned well-deserved respect in the journals of military valor. In Iraq, its political officers failed to protect the honor of this once fine and proud military organization.
If this war is about spreading US values, it has scored only defeat by spreading barbarism. The destruction of the Iraqi network of presidential compounds, government and cultural institutions and facilities bring to mind the 19th-century burning and looting of the Summer Palace in Peking by barbaric Western imperialist plunderers.
Contrast that with the flawless protection of oilfields and the commercial records of the Ministry of Petroleum while truly priceless artifacts from the dawn of civilization were looted, some say by foreign professional thieves, with the theft masked by subsequent destruction from looting local mobs hailed as joyful expression of freedom from oppression. So much for the priorities of US freedom and values.
For weeks the world has been talking about the war on Iraq. But in reality, there was no war. There was no formal declaration of war by the invader and there was no formal surrender by a vanquished government. There was a largely unopposed foreign invasion preceded by massive precision hits from thousands of cruise missiles launched from distant warships and bombs dropped from high-altitude planes from distant carriers and air bases. Tens of thousands of precision cruise missiles and bunker-busting bombs added up to a slaughter by remote control. But one side of the conflict did not fight, for reasons that have yet to become clear. There were some minor skirmishes and paramilitary resistance in the initial phase in the south. But there was no war in the sense of major force-on-force battles and there was no decisive Battle of Baghdad.
Peter Maass wrote in the April 20 New York Times Magazine: "To get to Baghdad, the marines of the 3rd Battalion fought the old-fashioned way, by shooting as many of the enemy as they could. The victims weren't all soldiers." The enemy was Iraqi civilians whom the US had come to liberate. Maass reported that after a shooting spree that killed a dozen civilians, the marine squad leader shouted: "My men showed no mercy. Outstanding."
The Iraqi government was not vanquished; it merely vanished. After US forces took control of the capital, there was widespread looting that finally stopped only because there was nothing else left to loot, not because of orderly US postwar planning.
Most of the world's professional military experts had been misled about the prospect of urban warfare inside Baghdad, while the US high command apparently knew it was going to be a cakewalk into Baghdad. Rumsfeld and Vice President dick Cheney knew something that even uniformed officers in the field did not know, which was that no Iraqi resistance was going to materialize.
Was all the pre-invasion bombing merely a fireworks overture to augment the disinformation that the Iraqi military could be expected to be a lethal force of tenacious resistance? The invasion of an enemy capital defended by hundreds of thousands of elite troops was deftly accomplished by a small, fast-moving, light forward force. Is Cheney a military genius, or did he know something the rest of the world did not know when he confidently predicted that the "war" would be over in a matter of weeks?
The "victory" appeared to be less than honorable, achieved mainly through treason on the part of the enemy high command induced by bribes. The Battle of Baghdad was no Iwo Jima or Stalingrad. It appeared that the massive precision bombing did not destroy the Iraqi army as much as treason facilitated through the uninterrupted linkage between the Iraqi high command and its former handlers in the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Pentagon Special Section. If these conspiracy theories are valid, then the question arises whether the intensive bombings of Baghdad and other cities, with tragic collateral damage of sizable civilian casualty, were militarily necessary, and whether the chaos after the fall of Baghdad was part of the war plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 26, 2003 14:33:39 GMT -5
With the military phase of the war in Iraq drawing to a close by the third week of conflict, General Tommy Franks, commander of the US forces, laid out in a CNN interview a timetable that could see his troops in Iraq for another year. "The Iraqi army has been destroyed. There's no regime command and control in existence right now, but we know there are pockets of anything from paramilitaries to death squads," he said. But the winding-up of the military campaign does not signal a quick US exit from Iraq. "We have simply bypassed villages and towns, and we will go to every single one of them to be clear that we don't have some last small stronghold," Franks said. He added that if the country remained fractious, the number of US troops required to stay on for a lengthy period would be significant.
Le Monde, the French daily, reported that Maher Sufyan, commander of the Republican Guard, reached an agreement to cease resistance in exchange for money and postwar protection for himself and his top officers. Maher Sufyan is not included in the infamous "deck of cards" identifying the most wanted officials in the Saddam Hussein government. Iraq's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Al Sahaf, its foreign minister, Naji Sabri, and the minister of health, Oumid Medhat Mubarak, are also not included on the list. Vladimir Titirenko, the Russian ambassador to Iraq, told NTV upon returning to Moscow: "I am confident that the Iraqi generals entered into secret deals with the Americans to refrain from resistance in exchange for sparing their lives."
The question then: Is the "victorious" Iraqi war plan based on treason applicable to other wars, such as the pending wars on Syria and Iran? Or have future targets of US preemptive invasion learned to adopt new strategies of asymmetrical and unconventional warfare of counter-preemption?
New York Times columnist Tom Friedman defines Saddamism as an entrenched Arab mindset, born of years of colonialism and humiliation that insists that upholding Arab dignity and nationalism by defying the West is more important than freedom, democracy and modernization. And he identifies Saddamism as the real enemy of the United States.
Saddamism will now form the new basis of pan-Arabism. No one knows for certain why Saddam did not put up a fight, as expected by everyone except Rumsfeld, Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. Perhaps this is Saddam's new "unconventional" tactic, to turn the fight into a protracted guerrilla struggle, perhaps not. Either Saddam is dead or he merely failed to answer the call of history. Perhaps he was betrayed by the Republican Guard commanders. But if he did not intend to fight, he should have given up before the hostilities began. The entire Arab world is puzzled by his behavior to date and disappointed by the turn of military events in Iraq.
Whatever actually happened, there was no superpower victory. It was a fixed match in a superbowl in which one opponent took a fall. Or the real war has yet to start with a vanished opponent that has merged into the general population to fight a protracted unconventional war. Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress favored by the US Defense Department for a key role in postwar Iraq, told BBC radio on Monday that his group was tracking Saddam Hussein, who remains in Iraq and is moving around the country.
Either way, the potential of Saddamism is very much alive. Many in the Arab world insist that those Iraqis recorded by US television stamping and spitting on the fallen statue of Saddam Hussein were Kurds, not Arabs, or unprincipled paid hooligans, not freedom fighters. "Millions loved Saddam" was a common comment throughout the Arab world, and widely reported in the Arab press.
A Brookings Institution study by Christine Moss Helms in 1984 (before the official US demonization of Saddam) did not contain one single word about the Saddam regime torturing anyone. It characterized the Iraqi Ba'ath Party as a political organization of clandestinity and ubiquity. Iraqi Ba'athists might deviate from strict interpretation of Ba'athist ideology of Arab unity, freedom from foreign domination and tribal socialism, yet Ba'athist doctrine generally set guidelines for Iraqi policy formulation, such as geopolitical non-alignment, pan-Arabism and accommodation with diverse religious and ethnic groups, throughout its history. Leadership was not hereditary, setting it apart from other Arab regimes. Iraqi Ba'athist policies, as distinct from Ba'athism in the Arab world in general, were directed toward specific Iraqi needs and problems, keeping Iraq from extreme pan-Arabism.
Since the Iraqi Ba'athists took control of the country in 1968, the leader had to deal with practical problems of governance of a less-developed country, by devoting considerable resources to internal development, irrigation projects, upgrading of agriculture, industrialization, education and freedom for women. It also had to deal with problems facing any oil-producing nation: economic imperialism, globalized finance and US dollar hegemony.
Resistance by Arabs to foreign intervention and influence generally takes two forms that share diagnosis of the problem but are diametrically opposed in proposed solutions. The first is that Islam provides the raison d'etre for unity, despite a variety of beliefs such as Islamic modernism, reformism, conservatism and fundamentalism. Postmodernist foreign interference in the Muslim world poses increased and profound consequences that push many Islamic movements to adopt political goals, with a return to perceived purity of Islamic values.
The second response is Arab nationalism. While recognizing the importance of Islam, Arab nationalists feel that it, as an ideology, does not fully encompass the modern needs of the Middle East. The reasons are threefold: 1) the region includes non-Arabs and non-Muslims, 2) there are differences of interpretation within Islam and 3) Islamic fundamentalism cannot effectively adapt to changes facing the region. Arab nationalists are committed to modernization through secularization that would also facilitate pan-Arab unity. Nasirism has been generally accepted as the main representation of Arab nationalism. In contrast to Nasirism, as espoused in Egypt, which relied more on personality cult, Ba'athists attained a high level of organization. Although the leader is also inescapably tied to supremacy in the tradition of tribal culture, the Ba'ath Party is designed to function in the event of the leader's sudden death or ouster.
The Brookings study warned that it would be erroneous to assume that all non-Ba'athists opposed the Ba'athist central government, despite the radical and ruthless image with which the Ba'ath Party had been portrayed in the West and by opposition groups in exile. Many Iraqis benefited from the Ba'ath economic and social policies during the 1970s and valued the stability of continuous government since 1968. Many older Iraqis who were not Ba'athists were proud that their children were party members. And party membership did not particularly enhance advancement in the general economy outside of government. One of the Ba'ath Party's goals was to broaden the base of support from Iraq's heterogeneous society. The party launched a Literacy Campaign to reduce the 44 percent illiteracy rate to 20 percent. The party emphasized a policy that the wealth of the nation is in its youth and promoted education for women. The Agrarian Reform Law of 1970 gave women the right to own land on an equal basis as men, and equal wages for female farm-cooperative workers. Women were granted voting rights, and benefited from marriage reform. It was not until 1991, at the start of the first Gulf War, that US demonization of Saddam began in earnest.
Despite US media spin about pent-up Iraqi hatred for Saddam, looting is not political expression. It is mere US propaganda that the looting encouraged by the US military all over Iraq was the joyous expression of an oppressed people suddenly liberated. The New York Times reported isolated incidents of looting by some firemen in the collapsed World Trade Center towers in New York. Surely, New York firemen as a group are patriotic and honorable public servants. If massive bombing were to hit New York, with the sudden disappearance of the police force, and the absence of the National Guard, with indifferent foreign troops waving criminals on, there would also be widespread looting in New York. Rumsfeld acknowledged as much in his news conference by pointing out that riots also happened in US cities even when the government had not collapsed.
Political freedom is not about senseless destruction. The lootings of museums and libraries are crimes against civilization. If only US marines had also failed to protect the Ministry of Petroleum and the oilfields the way they failed to protect these cultural institutions that belong to the all humanity, the excuse of shortage of troops would be more credible. Rumsfeld's lame excuse of "catastrophic success" in war would be more credible if he had not been so confident, in defiance of common-sense expectation, that the military operation would be over within weeks, a confidence that even his own field commanders challenged as unfounded. A war plan that had taken into account all unforeseen contingencies, that had miraculously predicted that the war would end within weeks, had been caught off guard by "catastrophic success"? It is a no-win argument. You cannot have it both ways. Either unpreparedness for success is a poor excuse or predictive confidence in success has been a bluff.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 27, 2003 8:58:49 GMT -5
Yes, I know guys, the Forces for JustWar just were far too powerful against the poor Doves. We enjoined the battle only to see the opposition melt away like Iraqi armour. Yup, since the opposition could not withstand the debilitating onslaught of our "justness and goodness" debate so I switched sides to challenge you young ones and keep you sharp and in fighting trim.  Had I known, I could have saved you a fair amount of typing. To wit: Here is a compilation of my posts re the Iraq fiasco. I haven't bothered posting since, because nothing has happened to change either my original perspective or prediction. I did however somehow disregard Syria's integration into the mess. My bad. ***** « Reply #8 on: Mar 21st, 2003, 9:29pm » To build something takes time, to blow something up takes no time at all. The aftermath is bound to be infinitely more difficult, and could quite possibly plunge the entire region into crisis. Old claims will be brought up. Scores will be settled. Ambitions will be tested. I shudder to imagine the possible magnitude of all this. Especially if the Infidel occupies a Muslim country on whatever pretext. The restructuring of Iraq is best left to the UN. The Americans are a useful tool with their technology in the first stage of the process, but their Coca Cola foreign policy should be kept on this side of the Atlantic after that. « Reply #16 on: Mar 22nd, 2003, 05:38am » Increasingly lost in the hysteria and testosterone rush of wanting and seeing big explosions is the fact that very few have advocated keeping Saddam in power. His removal has been called for by almost all. It is the question of methods and motives (or M&Ms as I'm sure the Cheerleader News Network would quickly get around to calling it) that is eyed with suspicion. The Americans are far from holier than thou: In fact, employing rhetoric slung about in recent years, this can be described as a battle between The Great Satan and The Axis of Evil (there's a working title for a Sunday morning cartoon show for some enterprising young American). This mortal coil is, after all, the domain that was granted to the Fallen One. As for the Shocking and Aweful photos: so what? Such photos can be dredged up daily from the four corners of the world. Might as well show photos of homeless people dead on heating grates and in alley ways, subway suicide victims; and make the claim that a nation that can't guarantee the safety and well-being of its own population has no business policing the world. It is ironic to see the Americans using the two things that they have more of than anyone else in the world to destroy one of their own creations. What remains to be seen is what the embryo they will seek to nourish with their money and weapons will look like as it grows. Recent past history has not been flattering in this regard. « Reply #18 on: Mar 22nd, 2003, 1:48pm » What really sucks is that the American government created and sustained Saddam in the first place. Reality doesn't suck. It just is. The American government (especially its foreign policy) is what sucks. The Americans are not the only ones who could remove Saddam. They are the ones who have chosen to do it in their own unpopular fashion. Though in a sense it's fitting that they clean up the mess they created in the first place. Of course, that they leave a greater mess behind them due to their shortsightedness won't be surprising, given their lack of understanding of the greater reality beyond their insular boundaries. - habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&action=display&n=1&thread=12089*** « Reply #21 on: Mar 24th, 2003, 09:39am »Actually the point I made was contained in my summary paragraph, and is as follows: "I stand by my original assertion that the war won't be the worst of what is to come for this region. Though the war will have served to provoke the impending crisis. The United States with its typically ignorant "my-way-or-the highway" blundering in far corners of the world will be stirring up a hornet's nest." As for the assertion that I have ignored the present or past: that is laughable. The articles themselves are a synopsis of past and present conditions in the area. I used them as a basis for making my prediction that the region will be far more unstable once Saddam is gone, thanks to the Bush Power Vacuum. Yugoslavia - Tito = Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, Muslim, Christian. Iraq - Saddam = Kurds, Sunnis, Shia, Baath party supporters, religious fundamentalists, clans, and possibly outsiders (Turks and Iranians). Rebuilding will be a long, painful process. « Reply #23 on: Mar 24th, 2003, 12:13pm »Saddam is a strong man, not a good man. Perversely he is a better short term guarantor of regional stability than the vacuum his absence would create will be. Long term, one hopes that Iraq will be better off without him, of course. It would be absurd of me to say that there is no possibility that American intervention could bring good. I just think that, given the numerous volatile factors and factions in the area, the probability is low. That plus the flair for diplomatic ham-fistedness American administration are prone to displaying abroad, makes for an explosive roostertail, IMO. The US's strengths are guns and money, not bringing people together. Iraq is a balkanized state, cobbled out of disparate demographic elements by a colonial administration. Heterogenous states have historically been far more prone to internal instability than homogenous states. Sad but true. - habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&thread=1048382316&action=display&start=15 |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 27, 2003 9:00:54 GMT -5
« Thread started on: Mar 23rd, 2003, 1:01pm »What's good for the goose is good for the gander: - launching a missile into southwestern Iran is always an attention getter
- having 10,000 armed Iraqi Muslim fundamentalists lined up on the Iranian side of the border, wating for their chance adds spice
- allowing Turkish troops to cross the border and mingle with their close buddies, the Kurds, couldn't possibly be a bad idea
- vehement anti-American demonstrations in the region, where public protest is generally good for an automatic go to jail card at best
- shooting down an RAF jet
- underestimating armed resistance
- more self-inflicted casualties than those caused by the enemy
And it's just early days, the fun's barely begun. The actual occupation, if and when it occurs, ought to be a morass to rival Vietnam. But hey, in the Nintendoland (courtesy Japan Inc) of North America, who thinks ahead that far realistically (and then decides on what course of action to take)? The silver bullet is a myth. America now is not what America was (despite the unconscious and sometimes legal absorption of past experience). The question is: "What are you doing to me now (and how will it affect *my* [insert appropriate region of the world] future)?" It is fascinating, and frightening, to see the Oedipal saga of father and son Bush played out on the world stage. Beware ancient Greek playwrights  . And, oh yeah, God Bless America, and may Allah protect all Muslims. « Reply #2 on: Mar 23rd, 2003, 1:43pm » You didn't make it clear whether that (stock photo image) represented death at hands of Amercan forces or not. What *does* a dead American (or coalition) soldier look like? What will plunging the region into chaos and destruction, and inviting more terrorist activity on this side of the Atlantic look like? Guess we'll just have to stay tuned. With American military intervention you cannot guarantee any degree of future stability. Following the UN suggestion of continued and persistent inspection there would have been a better chance of maintaining peace. Now, Yankee, go kill some more. Thought the PTSD was bad after the Gulf War? Wait 'til these boys get home. They've started something they won't be able to finish. Bad planning. « Reply #11 on: Mar 23rd, 2003, 6:13pm » Consider the option that not supporting US aggression in Iraq does not necessarily mean that one supports Saddam. One can, with no contradiction, be both against Bush's war mongering and Saddam's brutality. The war is bad enough, but the worst is yet to come, as its consequences multiply « Reply #18 on: Mar 23rd, 2003, 8:27pm »Don't worry TNG, you will NEVER get a solution. NEVER!! But you might as well bring a shovel to go through the Ugly American rhetoric. Well, I agree, the American rhetoric is quite ugly. And they are delivering it with selective, targeted precision (for the most part). The first post in this thread listed a series of facts which were meant to be an indication of things starting to go wrong on the aggressor's side, and an harbinger of worse yet to come as the war drags on; and especially after the last American missile is fired. Btw, I agreed with the UN position of continued inspections. Still do. "Even successful wars at length become misfortunes to those who unjustly commence them." - Ben Franklin (definitely not a handsome American). If one wants to remove Saddam, do it from within, encourage and *support* uprising. Don't encourage and *abandon* uprising as the Americans did a decade ago. My other conerns on this issue and its outcome appear in a handful of threads and a number of posts over the past two or three days. As for the use of my name being an insult to me, not to worry; we're all bozos on this bus. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some death and destruction to watch. - habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&action=display&n=1&thread=12097*** « Reply #10 on: Apr 4th, 2003, 06:21am » It is unfortunate that people tend to follow generalizations because they are easier to assume and require the least thought and effort. But that's life. Give me convenience or give me death. While the more intelligent of those opposed to the war can make the distinction between a country's population and its government, most people can't be bothered. To them Joe Yank represents his government, and is therefore seen as an extension of that government (whether in fact he agrees with his own government or not). Guilty until proven innocent. There are/will be a lot of places throughout the world, aside from Québec, where Americans were either welcomed or at least tolerated which will not be comfortable environments any more. Another of the consequences of this war. « Reply #22 on: Apr 4th, 2003, 8:48pm » For those who have been sleeping, or too busy flexing their biceps at each other at the back of the class: The US helps entrench an oppressive regime and flaunts international conventions to help it develop WMD. A perfect way to set up a fall guy. Give me convenience and give them death: that's the foreign policy vis-à-vis Iraq that's brought the US administration to Baghdad. What a bunch of heroes! Not. - habsrus.proboards4.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&action=display&n=1&thread=12128
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 27, 2003 10:20:54 GMT -5
You missed the point of this thread.
What seperates man from the primordial soup is his ability to reason. The very definition of reason is to offer an explanation or justification to an event or action. Can one claim that they have offered a reasoned opinon if one does not see all "sides" or views of the matter?
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 27, 2003 10:39:03 GMT -5
You missed the point of this thread. What seperates man from the primordial soup is his ability to reason. The very definition of reason is to offer an explanation or justification to an event or action. Can one claim that they have offered a reasoned opinon if one does not see all "sides" or views of the matter?You really should have defined the point of the thread at the beginning of it, in that case. I merely responded to to the opening two paragraphs of the thread; a rebuttal of the notion that the *doves* ceased to post because they had somehow *lost*. Quite the opposite happens to be true, ergo, my post. Sophistry isn't my cup of tea, though you may well stir up some shadow boxers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 27, 2003 11:33:39 GMT -5
You really should have defined the point of the thread at the beginning of it, in that case. I merely responded to to the opening two paragraphs of the thread; a rebuttal of the notion that the *doves* ceased to post because they had somehow *lost*. Quite the opposite happens to be true, ergo, my post. Sophistry isn't my cup of tea, though you may well stir up some shadow boxers. "Sophistry". Now, now Mr. Bozo, one must not use those big words on plain, simple folk....  One can hardly call it sophistry when there is no subtly deceptive reasoning present. I presented a thread that is completely opposite to my well known view and challenged to engage those who are well known in their views. How subtle and deceptive was that? I certainly will not stop you if you wish to write an article with a pro war view. Did you not know that we, the "Right and the Just" have a monopoly on the truth? Why, it was only last week that I got an e-mail from George W. praising us for the great work we do in disseminating the truth to those poor lost ones. He is a good man, you know, he even sends his buckshot love to all the doves. He’s just simple folk too you know…………………. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 27, 2003 11:41:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 27, 2003 14:53:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 27, 2003 15:35:45 GMT -5
HA... it's one thing to switch sides. It's another to try and deluge us in reasoning that we've heard before again and again and again. But the games afoot, let's address this mess paragraph by paragraph (without quotes, so my reply isn't as long as yours):
*p1*
Your reasoning is false. Just because something is unlikely, we shouldn't do it? Especially when it works towards the greater good - regardless of whatever type of government becomes the norm in Iraqi (Monarchy, Democracy, Islamic Fundamentalism) living conditions will at least improve to the norm of some of the worse nations in the region (by logic - the people of Iraq are not more inherently evil (evil as is defined by Western Culture, not EVIL evil such as Saddam Hussien) than any of the other nations of similar culture around them. And while Saudi Arabia and Kuwait might not be up to Western standard, it's still a damn sight better than the Ba'ath Party's Iraq.
*p2*
First off, if you believe that the "violence" carried out by Iraqi mobs to be worse than that carried out by the regime of Saddam Hussien, you need to leave this discussion right now and go get a reality check. Under Saddam, dissenters were shot, or vanished in the middle of the night. People who "failed the regime" were tortured to know end in some of the most cruel tortures this side of the Spanish Inquisition. Saddam gives great power to his son Uday, who is a confirmed serial rapist. Soliders in Kuwait during the first Gulf War found buildings filled with dead people. The women were raped and had various body parts ripped off. Not cut, ripped. Men had their testicles hooked up to car batteries and were shocked repeatedly until they died.
The violence and looting in Baghdad, while tragic and wrong, is NOTHING compared to the violence perpetrated Saddam and his cronies.
Now as for the comment that the war has brought misery to an opressed people, I counter with it was not the US or the UK who brought misery to these people, but the former Iraqi government who shut off the water and the electricity. While the misery is horrible, in this case it was inevitable. The cure nesscessarily had to be worse than the cause, but in the end it is for the better.
*p3*
Just a summary of p1 and p2. No need to comment
*p4*
Actually, the Geneva Conventions have not been violated. The Geneva Convention states that all reasonable actions must be undertaken to ensure the health and welfare of the populace. If I'm not mistaken, the US did not target things like power plants and relay stations (which would've made air superiority a lot easier to obtain). The US has shipped in millions of tonnes of aid. It has sent workers to repair the infrastructure that the IRAQI GOVERNMENT destroyed. The Geneva Conventions have been met and exceeded.
*p5*
More summary work.
*p6*
Heh. Now we're getting somewhere interesting. Where does the power come to "shock and awe" and not to police the populace. Tell you what HA - go outside and find and ants nest. Now stomp on it real good. What happens, the ants come out and swarm about and are "shocked and awed" so to say. Now, go in a two days later try and stop all the ants from getting any food. Make sure not one of them brings back a single crumb to the nest.
One's simple. The other one's impossible.
*p7*
Umm... the palaces were also major anti-aircraft sites. So regardless of Saddam being in them or not, they're more than legitimate targets. And what you call Marines trashing the palace are legitimate searches for documents - likely earlier with regard to the missing POW's and later with regard to the missing Iraqi officals.
*p8*
War aint pretty. Deal with it. The actions of the Marines were in all likelyhood legitmate (except for perhaps an example or two). Remember - Dresden was firebombed in World War II. Much of Berlin was reduced to rubble as well. Thousands of innocents were killed. But no one questions the deposing of Hitler.
*p9*
It's a lot easier to protect oilfields in the desert to protect an urban building. Just as it's a lot easier to protect territory under your control (the oil ministry) than territory in disputed Baghdad (the museums that were raided). It's also quite likely that there were other reasons for occupying the oil ministry - tracing violations of the oil for food program, seeing if any Iraqi money has been moved into forigen accounts in order to fund a Saddam Hussien in exile, serving as a temporary military headquarters (the ministry was likely better connected to vital infrastructure than the museums. The public is all to easyily swayed by emotions to see the real reasons. They're always looking for a sin.
*p10*
Editorial. No reason to debate.
*p11*
Was this before or after the so-called Iraqi civilians killed marines with suicide bombs? Because if it was after, and the Iraqi's were foolish enough to ignore the warnings of the Marine Corps, then I'm sorry - war has its casualties. People die from stupidity everyday. No one blames the electric company when Joe Smoe, a 32 year old metal worker from Hamilton sticks his finger in an electrical socket to see what it would do and winds up dead. Why do the point the finger of blame at Marines who shoot people who ignore their warnings?
And why do we expect war to be clean? Maass says Marines fought to Baghdad the old fashioned way. Is there any other way?
*p12,13,14,15*
Editorializing. No facts. Asinine "blood for oil" anti-war propoganda. Go away
*p16,17,18*
It has been since the dawn of time. I don't see any reason why it should change now.
*p19*
There are lots of reasons why Saddam might not have chosen to fight. He may be dead. He may have been over thrown by Qusay or Uday. He may be plotting a a prolonged guerrilla war, or he may be planning to return in force with a new army once the US is forced to withdraw some of its military presence.
*p20*
The same arab press that reported that there were no troops at the Baghdad Int'l Airport? Give me a break. People call CNN biased and then use evidence collected by Arab Television Networks.
*p21+*
Off topic. Goes on about the Arab world rather than the issue of Iraq. Nice trick HA, but it's not going to fool me.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 27, 2003 16:12:10 GMT -5
I merely responded to to the opening two paragraphs of the thread; a rebuttal of the notion that the *doves* ceased to post because they had somehow *lost*. Quite the opposite happens to be true, ergo, my post. I almost posted with the same idea, but didn't have the time. Seems to me events to date are just backing up those who were against the war - no WMD found of any consequence, Iraqis already starting to rebel, civil services are in disarray, and the US is refusing to let the UN play any kind of a role, and existing NGO organisations might have helped to avert the humanitarian crisis - but then the US army wouldn't be in full control, and we couldn't have that now, could we ?. And while people are still starving and the fighting is still underway, there is talk of getting oil out of these ASAP. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 27, 2003 16:53:09 GMT -5
Now as for the comment that the war has brought misery to an opressed people, I counter with it was not the US or the UK who brought misery to these people, but the former Iraqi government who shut off the water and the electricity. While the misery is horrible, in this case it was inevitable. The cure nesscessarily had to be worse than the cause, but in the end it is for the better. All of which ignores the fact that it's the US who put Saddam in power, let him off the hook in 1991, and imposed sanctions which cost tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraki lives.... Who killed more Irakis, US sanctions or Saddam ? Who knows. Essentially, regardless of events, you're willing to give the US the benefit of the doubt. Many of us aren't that ready to beleive the government of a country that's caused so much harm. Bombing Dresden caused an uproar, and you'll not Bomber Command's "Bomber Harris" received no special commemoration post-war, unlike most other services. Yup, benefit of the doubt, all the way. Have you heard about the Chileans who are suing the US for putting Pinochet in power ? Benefit of the doubt, again. Well, at this point I'd rather listen to the Arab networks where the bias is clear enough, than listen to CNN. Heck, even the BBC chief has critisized American war coverage, calling it biased and uni-directional. the BBC... |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 27, 2003 16:53:17 GMT -5
I almost posted with the same idea, but didn't have the time. Seems to me events to date are just backing up those who were against the war - no WMD found of any consequence, Iraqis already starting to rebel, civil services are in disarray, and the US is refusing to let the UN play any kind of a role, and existing NGO organisations might have helped to avert the humanitarian crisis - but then the US army wouldn't be in full control, and we couldn't have that now, could we ?. And while people are still starving and the fighting is still underway, there is talk of getting oil out of these ASAP. Yep. The two obvious reasons for beginning a thread wherein one reverses one's field are: 1) boredom. 2) creeping revisionism. GO YANKEES GO |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 27, 2003 18:27:02 GMT -5
All of which ignores the fact that it's the US who put Saddam in power, let him off the hook in 1991, and imposed sanctions which cost tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraki lives.... Who killed more Irakis, US sanctions or Saddam ? Who knows. So you're implying that because the US helped put him in power and didn't destroy his regime in 1991 that they should just leave him alone? Right. Hey - I hear the British Government spent year appeasing Hitler in Europe. Should they not have gone to war with him either? Essentially, regardless of events, you're willing to give the US the benefit of the doubt. Many of us aren't that ready to beleive the government of a country that's caused so much harm. No. I'm waiting to see any evidence of a single conspiracy theory that the doves have thrown out. There's a difference. I put forth my views and support them with facts. You and Mr. Bozo and other "radical" sources put forth a theory about how this is all about oil, and then back it up with what amounts to "because I said so". Back up your claims or don't make them at all. Debate is about the exchange of ideas based on facts, not on flights of fancy. Bombing Dresden caused an uproar, and you'll not Bomber Command's "Bomber Harris" received no special commemoration post-war, unlike most other services. But it was done. It was one of the many tragedies of WWII and yet no one finds fault with the movement to depose Hitler. Yup, benefit of the doubt, all the way. Have you heard about the Chileans who are suing the US for putting Pinochet in power? Yup - conspiracy theory all the way. Have you heard about the Americans who are trying to sue Canada for harbouring criminals for 9/11? Morons will sue for just about anything. Benefit of the doubt, again. Conspiracy theory, again. Well, at this point I'd rather listen to the Arab networks where the bias is clear enough, than listen to CNN. Heck, even the BBC chief has critisized American war coverage, calling it biased and uni-directional. the BBC... It is. It brings the American people what they "want to see" (i.e. what will stir the right emotions to increase viewership - stuff like the rescue of Pvt. Lynch). The BBC brings to the British what they want to see, the CBC brings the same to Canada, and Arab TV brings the images of infidels on Arab soil because that is what their viewers want to see. No source is unbiased. But few are as biased as Arab TV. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 27, 2003 18:45:26 GMT -5
No. I'm waiting to see any evidence of a single conspiracy theory that the doves have thrown out. There's a difference. I put forth my views and support them with facts. You and Mr. Bozo and other "radical" sources put forth a theory about how this is all about oil, and then back it up with what amounts to "because I said so". I am not a source (nor have I ever claimed to be one); neither have I ever expressed any concern over oil (you should have looked that up if you had wanted to be factual, rather than emotional, in your accusation). Do get your facts straight (and present them complete with sources), before you state that they are what you use to support your views. Thanks. *** Btw, I'm just watching events unfold in Iraq and area pretty much as I predicted based on my knowledge of that part of the world, which has been gained over the years by associations with people native to various countries in the region as well as attentively following the many (obviously biased - what source isn't) available information sources reflecting perspectives from that part of the globe. A dollop of Anglo-American and European p.o.v. also figures in the mix, but to a lesser degree since it isn't their land which is being occupied under suspicious circumstances. I can't say that I'm happy that I'm right. Needless suffering is never cause for celebration. Before responding to this post, do carefully read the synopsis of my posts made earlier in this thread. And know that my position is non-negotiable. The US had their chance to do the right thing, and, predictably, they blew it. I will not reiterate the countless excerpts and links I used to put a non-pasty-white face on the events, they can be readily accessed. What the heck, here's a good scorecard: www.comw.org/warreport/ |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 27, 2003 20:14:04 GMT -5
Yep. The two obvious reasons for beginning a thread wherein one reverses one's field are: 1) boredom. 2) creeping revisionism. GO YANKEES GO 1.................. Where is the intellectual challenge? Absorb news information for an hours per day on net/tv and go through ten hours of political programming per week. To me, the internet forum is a great place to debate a variety of topic and all can join. All that we are missing is the sight and smell of the cafe. "creeping revisionism" *laughs* Al, this war/peace is far more complex and encompassing then plain old Iraq and Saddam. Keeping the discussion simple does not mean it's a simple subject. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 27, 2003 20:18:31 GMT -5
Al, this war/peace is far more complex and encompassing then plain old Iraq and Saddam. Keeping the discussion simple does not mean it's a simple subject. What? You just discovered that? I'm surprised. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 27, 2003 20:22:20 GMT -5
Where is the intellectual challenge? Absorb news information for an hours per day on net/tv and go through ten hours of political programming per week. To me, the internet forum is a great place to debate a variety of topic and all can join. All that we are missing is the sight and smell of the cafe. I'm not interested in intellectual challenge at the expense of people's lives. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 27, 2003 20:26:41 GMT -5
I'm not interested in intellectual challenge at the expense of people's lives. Al, that just plain......never mind. Of course, we are plotting the course of the universe, right here at HabsRus. Sheesh................. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 27, 2003 20:31:51 GMT -5
What? You just discovered that? I'm surprised. Sheesh...... Why would one want to open the debate to a larger realm when people hold such a polarized view? I have not seen any balance from the "doves" other then BC and that was in private. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 27, 2003 20:33:53 GMT -5
TNG, this is for ya................
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your reasoning is false. Just because something is unlikely, we shouldn't do it? Especially when it works towards the greater good - regardless of whatever type of government becomes the norm in Iraqi (Monarchy, Democracy, Islamic Fundamentalism) living conditions will at least improve to the norm of some of the worse nations in the region (by logic - the people of Iraq are not more inherently evil (evil as is defined by Western Culture, not EVIL evil such as Saddam Hussien) than any of the other nations of similar culture around them. And while Saudi Arabia and Kuwait might not be up to Western standard, it's still a d*mn sight better than the Ba'ath Party's Iraq.
Is all reasoning false for the justification and the declaration of "a just cause" for war? Where ALL other avenues truly explored and exhausted?
If the US knew where Saddam slept on the night of the first bombing, then would it not serve the US better by letting things quite down and then blowing up the head of the snake at the appropriate time? Surely there must have been informants running around. If Saddam was so disliked by his own people, then that information would come out like roaches to a stale cake. Can one argue with 5000 lb of dynamite and 3 meter bomb accuracies?
If the US had jets flying at any time over any part of Iraq, why not systematically destroy the military wing of the Baath party until there was no teeth in it? They certainly have the intelligence resources to pinpoint and destroy tanks, planes and munitions dumps at will. We have seen this happen. So who was going to stop them? France? Germany? The threat of Saddam creating a regional power would be a hollow threat without the guns and tanks to do so. Why invade when you can destroy at will from the comfort of your own chairs?
Did the US offer Saddam a chance to come down from power with his b*lls intact? What man would not want to relinquish power at the point of a gun? Both Russia and France, despite their duplicity, they could of warned Saddam that Bush was serious and ready to destroy him, would that not serve as fair warning to him to step down and negotiate a surrender. Saddam is well know student of survival. Why would his survival instincts leave him now? In fact, in hindsight, he s whereabouts are still unknown, does this not prove his exceptional ability to survive. Why not use his self interest against him? You could always kill him later.
3 alternatives to invasion.
Decapitation
Tactical bombardment.
Negotiated removal.
And all of these three alternatives do not require anyone else to agree with their actions. Who cares what the rest of the world says, they got the guns. Force projection beats UN yapping any time of day and twice on Saddam day.
~~~~~
Check, your move.
|
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 27, 2003 21:01:25 GMT -5
Sheesh...... Why would one want to open the debate to a larger realm when people hold such a polarized view? I have not seen any balance from the "doves" other then BC and that was in private. You're making it sound as if it's up to you to decide how people express their views. Who cares if there's "balance", as long as people are free to express themselves? I don't. Sheesh indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 27, 2003 21:08:33 GMT -5
So you're implying that because the US helped put him in power and didn't destroy his regime in 1991 that they should just leave him alone? If he was as bad as the US decided to portray him, they made a huge mistake in not taking him out in 1991, that's all. Appeasement isn't a bad policy when a peace has been dictated too harshly. Up till March 1939 appeasement was the right way to go; you can't later on claim that it was wrong because of the knowledge of later events, since at the time people had no way of knowing. Of course, any evidence we can come up with will be disregarded as another conspiracy. Just think about this - no WMD have yet to be found. And the US is not allowing UN inspectors to go back into Iraq. Doesn't that ring some alarm bells, somewhere  Yup, having a UN weapons inspector want to go back to Iraq and be barred by the US is just a flight of fancy. No one finds fault with the movement - just like no one was pro-Hussein, it doesn't mean that there weren't better ways to do things. Yeah, that Colin Powell guy is a real jerk - you realise he apologised for the CIA's role in putting Pinochet in power ? What a loser ! It's not "conspiracy", it's having doubts about what CNN feeds us. Of course networks do that, but they can put the emphasis on the aspects of interest without giving thoroughly biased coverage. The BBC complains about the lack of US persepective, think about that. The BBC is very much on the same side as the US, yet still finds their news to be too heavily biased. Indonesia was so incensed at Western coverage that they sent their own news groups. Do you even read any of the links M. Bozo puts up ? Even if you discount 90% of what they say, there's plenty left to put major doubts about the wisdom of this whole affair in any sane person. |
|
|
|
Post by PTH on Apr 27, 2003 21:13:33 GMT -5
3 alternatives to invasion. Decapitation Tactical bombardment. Negotiated removal. Of course, Bush saying "Saddam won't get away" and things to that effect, mustn't have encouraged the Iraqis to leave the country. Bush's ultimatum essentially meant nothing other than - we're going to invade. Step down (or don't), we'll invade. We can't find WMD, we'll invade, you have them anyways. You want to sell your oil with Euros, we'll invade. And so given Iraq's lack of cooperation, they invaded. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 27, 2003 21:14:27 GMT -5
Al, that just plain......never mind. Of course, we are plotting the course of the universe, right here at HabsRus. Sheesh................. If you don't approach discussion of world affairs with at least that seriousness, how seriously can you expect to be taken? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 27, 2003 21:20:28 GMT -5
I am not a source (nor have I ever claimed to be one); neither have I ever expressed any concern over oil (you should have looked that up if you had wanted to be factual, rather than emotional, in your accusation). Do get your facts straight (and present them complete with sources), before you state that they are what you use to support your views. Thanks. I apologize - I tend to run from memory rather than go back and check exact wordings in other threads, and I also tend to lump you and PTH in one group because... well... you're the two I argue against most. The point was that most doves that I see work from the "blood for oil" standpoint, as evidenced by the countless posters saying so around campus. Anyways... like I said... sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 27, 2003 21:22:45 GMT -5
Do you even read any of the links M. Bozo puts up ? Even if you discount 90% of what they say, there's plenty left to put major doubts about the wisdom of this whole affair in any sane person. Precisely. However, one man's sense of balance is another man's noise. |
|
|
|
Post by M. Beaux-Eaux on Apr 27, 2003 21:25:04 GMT -5
I apologize - I tend to run from memory rather than go back and check exact wordings in other threads, and I also tend to lump you and PTH in one group because... well... you're the two I argue against most. The point was that most doves that I see work from the "blood for oil" standpoint, as evidenced by the countless posters saying so around campus. Anyways... like I said... sorry. No harm. Lord knows things can get overheated when the bunch of us get going on this topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 27, 2003 21:38:13 GMT -5
You're making it sound as if it's up to you to decide how people express their views. Who cares if there's "balance", as long as people are free to express themselves? I don't. Sheesh indeed. Mr. Bozo, stop shadowing me, I got gas...... The statement was simple and it was made to a response of a sarcastic comment made at me. "Why would one want to open a debate" was referring to myself. Even simple folk can talk fancy..... You can say whatever you want Mr. Bozo and nowhere did I suggest otherwise. Instead of shadowing boxing, let's discuss some larger issues. The EEU? World Peace? Condoms for pandas? |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Apr 27, 2003 21:40:15 GMT -5
Is all reasoning false for the justification and the declaration of "a just cause" for war? Don't quite understand what you're saying here, so I'll skip it. Where ALL other avenues truly explored and exhausted? We'll never know. The nature of politics is that we can never know what another is thinking. If the US knew where Saddam slept on the night of the first bombing, then would it not serve the US better by letting things quite down and then blowing up the head of the snake at the appropriate time? Surely there must have been informants running around. If Saddam was so disliked by his own people, then that information would come out like roaches to a stale cake. Can one argue with 5000 lb of dynamite and 3 meter bomb accuracies? (a) They thought they knew. This guy has virtual clones running around Iraq. And information is perishable and unreliable. While there are thousands who hate Saddam, there are quite a few that are kept handsomly by Saddam who would be willing to produce disinformation. Relying on direct, accurate missile strikes to virtually assassinate an enemy is iffy at best. (b) In this case, taking out Saddam is not enough. Qusay or Uday are eligible successors to Saddam and are equally terrorizing. In fact, any one of Saddam's inner circle could take over control of Iraq and be equally horrible. Power vaccums are not nice things. If the US had jets flying at any time over any part of Iraq, why not systematically destroy the military wing of the Baath party until there was no teeth in it? They certainly have the intelligence resources to pinpoint and destroy tanks, planes and munitions dumps at will. We have seen this happen. So who was going to stop them? France? Germany? The threat of Saddam creating a regional power would be a hollow threat without the guns and tanks to do so. Why invade when you can destroy at will from the comfort of your own chairs? It's actually relitively easy to hide munitions dumps and tanks (and SCUD launchers etc) if they are not being redeployed (which is where the Coalition did most of its damage to their tanks and munitions). Again - the ant hill analogy. This time, only kill worker ants. Did the US offer Saddam a chance to come down from power with his b*lls intact? What man would not want to relinquish power at the point of a gun? Both Russia and France, despite their duplicity, they could of warned Saddam that Bush was serious and ready to destroy him, would that not serve as fair warning to him to step down and negotiate a surrender. Saddam is well know student of survival. Why would his survival instincts leave him now? In fact, in hindsight, he s whereabouts are still unknown, does this not prove his exceptional ability to survive. Why not use his self interest against him? You could always kill him later. There's no way Saddam steps down without getting his balls busted. Your solution, while fantastic sounding, is best left in the world of Makaveli and Tom Clancy. 3 alternatives to invasion. Decapitation Tactical bombardment. Negotiated removal. (a)Not an option - power vaccum (b)Possible, but difficult to execute without severe colateral damage (c)Not happening. Saddam is a sadistic genius. Like other power driven dictators before him, he was convinced he was going to win. Queens pawn takes your rook. Your go. |
|
. 
[/move]
