Now that Baghdad has been occupied and the much publicized (where I am at least), statue of Saddam has fallen, the Iraqis both there and here (here being Washington), are partying in the streets. Now, this may be my pro war mentality talking, but doesn't all this jubilation on the part of the oppressed make all you anti-war people feel just a bit in the wrong? :rolleyes: A little? Maybe? I mean, the people directly affected seem happy, so what beef does anyone else have?

That said:
*Covers vulnerable regions in preparation for counterattacks*

This is not suprising.People have often greeted "liberating" armies with open arms and smiles at first.Its later when the army is still their that things get tricky.

Hopefully we can do a better job here than we did in Afghanastan.This is going to be a real tricky time for the United States.If some how we can realy help Iraq become an independant,self governed nation, it could mean tremendous strides for the nations relations with that region.

We shall see.I hope things go well.

The celebrations are what the media shows you, but you should take a look at all pictures of dead children and people who have lost limbs. They are many, and over 2000 civilians are expected to have died during this war. No, I don't feel "slightly wrong" for being anti-war, I feel "slightly disgusted" for being the same race as the agressors.

How was it in Bowling for Columbine again? Something about "the president making war on a country whose name we can't spell"? It's Afghanistan. ;)

Pyro, i dont think i could agree with you more. Sheepish? I think i will have to take 8 showers and drink detergent to feel dirty, let alone clean. The fact that the US have 'won' doesn't mean that you were in the right when the war was declared. I have a question. If you are so hard against terrorism, how does it feel to be terrorists yourselves? Because you went to war without UN sanction, you have broken the law, and thus have scared MIGHTILY the people in Iraq. What was it, the definition that Bush gave for terrorists? "Those who use fear or terror as a weapon...". If you are fighting terrorists, who will fight you?

Another lovely bush quote, "I will never apologize for the United States of America, I don't care what the facts are.". Guess what Georgey baby, those facts are pretty condemning in themselves.

In answer to your question, no. I dont feel sheepish. I feel damn right indignitive that you took it upon yourselves to liberate a country through the deaths of the citizens. So instead of gloating, cram it and think about the people that are now dead.

Baezlebub the war was never about terrorism.
I know they tried to make that connection but it never took.

Foradasthar I would not use spelling and grammer to try to discredit some ones point.

Pryo the media did show the wounded as well no one is saying this was without consequence.I don't think anyone wants to see people killed.

The reality is this is where we are.The war seems to be winding down but does anyone else find it odd that Saddam and company seemed to just vanish like Ghosts?

The war was never about terrorism - they couldn't make it stick. Well yes, but the fact they tried to make it stick in the first place is the point. Another one they tried was that Iraq was a massive threat to world peace because of their awesome arsenal. I guess that will be the 2 scud missiles and the 20 or so 1955 vintage tanks then. The other one that it was never about, of course was the oil, which just happened to be the first objective for the 'Allies.' (Before anyone re-starts the argument about access to oil, I know that isn't the issue, but don't think no one was worried about controlling the price of oil). The humanitarian angle was only really pushed as a reason when they realised that most of the world where against using violence to resolve the situation. The right wingers then tried to take the moral high ground by suggesting that being anti-war was in some bizarre way being pro-Sadam :rolleyes:

Anyway, it is still too early to say that the scenes of welcome on the telly justify anything. We will have to see how things pan out to see if the majority are still happy about outside interference in the longer term (they didn't seem so happy to be invaded (oh sorry I guess I am expected to say liberated) in the southern cities). It is also not over yet and the Kurdish situation is far from resolved.

So do I feel better about the war now? Well I'm glad it hasn't been much much worse but I'm far from happy that lots of innocent men, women and children have been killed or injured not to mention the losses of both sides brave fighting forces. I'm also worried about the long-term political implications of America (and shamefully this travesty of a democracy that I live in) proving that it has no regard for international law (who polices the police?, since when has vengeance been the same as justice? etc). I also still think that the best way to help people in need is to drop food, support, help, aid, education and better alternatives rather than exploding lumps of metal.

Slappy, you overlook that the WMDs that aren't to be found have probably been proliferated and hidden - supposedly in Syria and Iran? The threat isn't over!

Just as with Bin Laden alive WNDs not found are much better as they allow to justify further actions without great effort. No one will seriously deny that an anthrax or VX warhead is dangerous. If it exists.

And you never know. The greatest thing of all is that you can't find what is not there (and better, you cannot even logically proove that something that isn't there doesn't exist :roll: :spin: ) so you even might end up having excuses for a whole decade!

My question is: Where are the 200,000 dead that the UN predicted in this war?

The verdict is still out on the WMD. However, to try to pin one overriding reason for this war is purely a tactic to discredit it. There was a preponderance of evidence that led to one inescapable conclusion, Saddam Hussein had to go. The only debate worthy of discussion was the manner in which it was to happen. IMO, we tried a decade of diplomacy, and it failed.

Now, the people are celebrating in the streets, and it is jubilation over the end of the their oppression. In the next few days reality will settle in. Thought of things like getting food, medicine, friends and relatives who have died or been injured, and the continued warfare in their nation will settle in. This is actually the most dangerous time. IMO, the coalition must get an interim Iraqi government established, and basic needs must be provided or this is destined to failure.

The Iraqi people have a unique opportunity to make their nation the leaders of the Middle East. There are many pitfalls here, and the US could be one of the biggest. I hope that they are prepared for the task ahead, and I hope that the US helps them help themselves, and that we don't use or usual heavy-handed approach toward establishing the future of Iraq.

You believe this war is over; I don't think so and in fact that now begins the real thing. Do you think that in Iraq live only Iraqies; There are 3 different populations (i can't imagine a better description) and these are sunites siites and kurds. These three populations will kill each other for control. And furthermore the Kurds dream only one thing their own nation and guess what they will try to get one way or another.

Do i feel sheepish; No i feel that we just entered a road that has many curves and traps and many will pay this cost with more than money. And one question now that the whole thing is coming to this and the worlds peace and prosperity was "secured" can you tell me if Bush, Afnar and Blur will be brought to justice for dissobeying the UN;
Oh i forgot Bush administration didn't sign the foundation of international criminal law court for war crimes. In fact the Bush administration is trying to convice the rest of the world to sign treaties (bipartite) that exclude the US citizens from the court jurisdiction. And this happened three months before even the first hints of the war. How convienient. The nation that claims to be the champion of legitimacy is the first to undermine this effort to have a court with the power and the will to bring to justice war criminals. :(
That's how sheepish i feel

I only feel sheepish when I try to find out where I am in the morning. It's perfectly true that Saddam was best removed - only the peaceful means hadn't been exhausted. Besides, the actual reasons of US being in Iraq now are far from any relation to Saddam.

Winning the war doesn't make it right, and I doubt the few Iraqi I've seen rejoicing on TV represent the mood of an entire population who owes a great deal of pain to the invaders.
Sheepish, no. Afraid it will lead to endless wars and guerillas all around the world, yes.

Ralgnar, in very brief: No.

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/1598451.php

Link courtesy of Sprite.

Reminds me of the day after 9/11 when US reporters paid a handful of palestinian youths to burn a US flag, and to cheer a little while making their vicious dance to bring the right shots back home.

Ragusa - I hereby declare you KING of the conspiracy theorists! :lol:

Ragusa ... don't forget about the other theories out there.

As reported by Front Page (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7213)

As the Iraqis' support for the U.S. military appeared on the television, the first instinctive reaction of Democratic Party activists at the popular discussion site Democratic Underground was to deny what was actually happening. One claimed there was only "2 dozen" Iraqis celebrating, and claimed they only celebrated out of fear of our troops. Another sarcastically questioned the Iraqis' sanity, writing "I think I just read where they released all the mental patients." Others didn't believe the protestors were 'real' Iraqis, arguing that the event was staged and those celebrating were exiles returned by the American army. Another expresses his total racist contempt for the Iraqi people by writing, about the Iraqis who trampled Hussein's statue underfoot, "Okay, we're dancing, massa. you going to give us some food now or what?" Sorry but the truth is that yesterday was a victory - for Iraq, for America, and for freedom. Thousands of people in Iraq took to the streets to celebrate their liberation as the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein all but collapsed. The images of cheering Iraqis and the American military cooperating together to topple statues of the dictator were seen around the world, including on Arab media; such images of freedom have not been seen since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The vast majority of Americans, those who support our troops and our government, were not surprised - this had been expected from the start. Only the anti-Americans in our midst are unable to explain it; and therefore they must ignore it. The rest of us know better.

I don't buy it. Whole thing seems fishy to me and not all that convincing.

If anything, I see this example of proof of propaganda as little more than leftist propaganda itself. This picture could've been taken before the crowds had a chance to grow - it's too fuzzy to tell. Worse case, it's much easier to erase people with photoshop than it is to add them. (that goes for fallen statues, too). And if not, the fact that the crowd was small doesn't mean it was planted. Radio and television is out in Bagdhad and only those in that immediate area would've known what was going on. That was downtown anyway, not a residential area. I'm not surprised there weren't all that many people in that area - if I knew tanks were going to be rolling through and a major battle was 'supposedly' about to take place, I wouldn't have been hanging around either.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but journalists from all over the world were staying and filming in that very area as well - many of whom are just itching to catch the US red-handed at staging something that would make them look like heroes. They would've called 'bullsh*t' like crazy if they thought it was fake. And so what if the guy pictured with the Chalibi group is the same as the 2nd picture (which I'm not convinced it is). The reporter who wrote the caption and put the picture with that article could've just as easily made it up as any "stagers."

I'm not saying it's not true because I don't know for sure. All I'm saying is it's not all that convincing unless you want it to be, and then of course 'it's what REALLY happened.' It's very suspect at best and flat out spin at worst. The left is just as guilty of spin as the right. I'll continue to look at anything like this with a major grain (make that a boulder) of salt until more facts are presented to support it.

[ADDED: Well said, Mat! ]

[ April 10, 2003, 20:37: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

I've read in the news that many Iraqi-Americans (and presumably other Iraqis not living in their home country) were very happy. Naturally, they are the ones who would probably be more riled up about the (presumably) accidental deaths of civilians in the bombings. Of course, there are many Iraqi-Westerners who are angry at America being a "watchdog".

I've also read that not everyone is ecstatic about the U.S. military. Ecstatic about the removal of Saddam Hussein, little doubt, but ecstatic about the arrival of the military... well, it certainly ain't unanimous.

What I worry about is that there is going to be little control now beyond that of the U.S.' and their allies' military. I saw a political cartoon today. The Iraqi people were pulling down a big statue of Saddam. They failed to see the Demon of Anarchy and Chaos crawling out from the pedestal.

Hopefully will go well for Iraq and the troops stationed there.

Velcro and I had this very discussion last night after some obnoxiously smug commentator went off on the anti-war celebrities. My point was this: if someone believes that it was wrong for the US to go into Iraq in the first place, a quick and apparently successful result doesn't change that fact. Their fundamental premise that there were other avenues to be pursued remains intact.

Of course, we have yet to see just how "successful" we really were...

Sorry for the last post people, Wasn't myself at that time. So here we go again :cool:

One thing that always gets on my nerves is seeing politics "dressed up" i.e hearing things like "This is a great victory for freedom, light and peace in the world" and "We shall free (insert name here) and bring the light of justice to (insert name here)"

World politics is crap, for a lack of a better term.

And when I say crap I mean that it is ugly, dirty and not "good" in any way. Dressing a war up in fancy phrases doesn't change anything. people still die, even if it now is a "War of light and justice, a war for freedom, liberation etc etc)

And Ragusa, I've always respected you, but I don't know If I belive in these theories. Of course the Iraqis were celebrating! Bagdad has fallen! this is a new era! A new beginning for the Iraqi people (etc etc.) If I were there I would be celebrating too.

Look at the "Khmer Rouge" in Kambodja. When they won, there were celebrations, people on the streets, the whole thing. They were also celebrated as saviours, come to end a long war, but does that mean they were "right"?

I bet you all know what the "Khmer Rouge" did to the people of Kambodja :aww: .

Please try to understand one thing. I'm not feeling sheepish, not at all.
I am in fact in favor of the removal of Saddam, since he's an evil (why do I use that word? It's dangerous :doh: )bastard. But don't fool yourself. the US goverment is not after the "Liberation" of the world. There are countless of countries who really needs it, and the US chooses Iraq -strange coincidence, no? considering the fact it has the world second largest oil supply. And don't belive that crap about WMD's. Saddam has no missiles to launch a (non-existing) nuclear warhead half around the world. You'd need really advanced missiles for that, and Saddam only has a few home made short range missiles and a few SCUD's.

The WMD is an excuse, nothing more.

I guess those of you feeling smug about things, having assumed the whole thing is over, haven't been watching the recent news - or maybe this just isn't shown in the US. What we are seeing on the screens now is Baghdad in chaos with looting and no law or order. We all see US marines looking very scared and nervous while wildly shooting at anything that moves. Strangely it also seems that officialdom assumes US English is the main langauge in Iraq as the troops have no access to translators and the leaflets are in English.

Of course I hate to see the media using one off incidents to sum up a situation but seeing 6 year old girls being shot in the head by Marines is difficult to live with. In this case, the media haven't even had to rely on one shocking story. In one clip last night we saw several innocent civilians being killed for the terrible crimes of driving a car and stepping out onto a balcony.

Now before the outrage startes, I fully understand why the troops are doing this. Christ if I was out there I'd be cacking my pants and shooting at anything to. The point is, before you start to celebrate the great 'liberation' and think that it justified war, look at the terrible costs and realise that this far from over. Of course, those who seem to love war, will no doubt be looking forward to WWIII part 3 - Turkey v the Kurds...

The most remarkable thing, not only when considering the actual situation in Baghdad, was the narrow angle on the pics with Saddam's statue beeing toppled.
If the iraqi crows cheerfully greeted that - why weren't they shown? The US would hardly drop such a strong pic for propaganda. However, no such pics were shown - just the narrow angle perspective. I vividly remember the reunification and the fall of the dictatorships and communist regimes in eastern europe and the reporting from that time: The streets were full of people, thousands of them, and the reports clearly showed that it was a *mass* movement. Where were the cheering iraqi masses? Hiding for joy?

Most amazingly, while in baghdad there is still fighting, a woman in Burka, with her two kids, stands still, and watches the removal of the statue. In a city in war? Or chaos? I'm very sceptical about the reporting from the current "liberation" of iraq. Maybe it's time to lend "Wag the dog" in the library again ...

It clearly is nicer to believe the iraqis are glad to be freed because that would confirm that the US does right in iraq. They have to ....

That 2000 figure for civilian deaths is an Iraqi one, people. Bear in mind that this is the regime with a Minister of Information who told journalists the Iraqi forces were winning and that US forces were not in Baghdad (or words to that effect) whilst gunshots could be clearly heard in the background. Of course I am not denying that innocent people have died and will continue to die, as is the case with any war, but these statistics might be exagerrated a little bit.
Putting a different spin on the question and applying it to those for whom it is or will be most important, I think that although Bush and Blair do not feel sheepish now, they're going to look really stupid very soon unless they find some WMDs...

It is natural for the Iraqies to be happy with the removal of the pain in the ass they had so many years.
But the anarchy and looting in Baghdad is present and growing, they started looting hospitals now.
And one more thing yesterday night i saw in the news an assatination of the siites leader and by priests. The report said that the priests in the temple litterally pulled out knives and stubbed him to death. Does anyone here thinks this will pass without response because i don't think so.
US has now started walking down the road of many more problems that will affect the whole area not just Iraq.
And is it true that Ramsfeld warned Syria to behave; Who will warn him to behave; If the USA attacks Syria i tell you we will have the third WW in our hands promptly. The Arab nations are feeling very uneasy already and another war in this region will rise the exact same thing USA now tries to put aside Anti-Americanism.

by AP:
http://www.realcities.com/images/realcities/realcities/5594/31296734018.jpg
http://www.realcities.com/images/realcities/realcities/5594/31296739612.jpg
http://www.realcities.com/images/realcities/realcities/5594/31296745206.jpg
http://www.realcities.com/images/realcities/realcities/5594/31296750800.jpg

Mithrandir,
they may hate Saddam but it is still the US who's been bombing and embargoing them for a decade.
No one unterstands: "When I'm shooting at you that's because I want to rescue you!" Or "Sorry, been aiming on Saddam!" or "That I killed your family was an accident, look, now at least you are free from Saddam's terrible regime of terror!" :roll: :spin: And you wouldn't understand anyone who did something like that to you and telling you such a bull later either. So don't expect too much from the iraqis.

Darwolf wrote:

My question is: Where are the 200,000 dead that the UN predicted in this war? They are dying right now. This numbers assume how many civilian lifes it will cost to occupy Iraq, not to defeat Iraq.

Momentarily, the infrastructure of the cities in Iraq are heavily damaged. The biggest problem for the care-agencies seems to be now, to get water in the cities. Hospitals seem to be in dire need of medicaments and personal. And all this Anarchy and disorder that's going on now, doesn't make things much easier.

And i heard a quote of a member of the Red-Cross, that he's afraid of going out into the streets of Baghdad, because he doesn't want to loose his life for the watch his wearing.

Darkwolf,
I agree with Yago. The UN is calculating long term, and not just doing a bodycount for the "collateral damage". The most remarkable aspect isn't so much the incredible number of 200.000. Would it be better if it were only 50.000?

Is this a number of iraqi civilian casualties the US population can accept, sitting in their comfy houses in a peaceful, wealthy land? Or a number that a president can accept with his moral standards and the next election in mind? Or is the dead of such a number of civialians overseas, in a remote backward country, an acceptable price for enforced US interests? That's the much more interesting question.

Ragusa first my name is MITRANTIR and yes i agree with you the USA should not expect too much from the Iraqies other than resistance. But ok we must realize that this side effect is true. Most Iraqies after all disliked Saddam but they would prefer to dispose him themselves not an invasion force.I believed that Ragusa from the very first day this war started. They are dying right now. This numbers assume how many civilian lifes it will cost to occupy Iraq, not to defeat Iraq.
I think that these numbers assume the cost of defeating Iraq. You see the bombs the US uses have uranium in degenerated form ( i can't find the right term in English for) which is not a nuclear bomb but the radioactivity is there and is more dangerous because the land scape is not devastated and noone get suspicious.
In Yugoslavia there are still people dying by cancer because they inhaled the dust from this kind of explosion and the leukemia incidents(future deaths :mad: ) have increased very much especially in areas that were bombed. :(

One minor correction: No nuclear material is in the bombs; there are certain types of ammunition (like some tank rounds) that can have depleted Uranium in them.

That is partly right. Depleted uranium ( DU (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du.htm) ) ammunition was used extensively by british and US forces in the kosovo war as well as in the gulf war. It has been brought in context with causing cancer among NATO soldiers exposed to DU dust at the impact sites.

Because of its high density it is an excellent material for anti-tank rounds for tank cannons and autocannons in aircraft and light vehicles as well as tank armor (as on the Abrahams tank). Compared to other dense materials it is very cheap as it is available in large quantities as a rest from uranium enrichment. Guess why the US, russia and the UK are using this stuff ....

Even though much less radioactive than enriched uranium DU is iirc still a light alpha-ray emitter; a sheet of paper will protect you from that radiation. As dust inhaled, however, it would take effect directly in the human body. It has also been seen responsible for the gulf war illness. More about it on the link above.

[ April 11, 2003, 17:12: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

I talked to the Iraqi Minister of Information this morning...Boy was I amazed! Not only have the Americans been defeated in Iraq, they have pushed us all the way back to Kuwait!

I was even more shocked to find out that the Philadelphia Flyers actually won the Stanley Cup in 1997, sweeping the Detroit Red Wings in 4 games. Now I just have to ask him if I won the 64 million dollar powerball lottery last week....I think every country should have a Minister of Information!

But seriously, I think the United States backed some serious dogs during the Cold War using the theory that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach. Now I think we're just cleaning up a few of our messes. And regarding the children and civilians injured and killed during our operations, although tragic, who's to say that more people wouldn't have died in the course of daily brutality under the Iraqi regime. Sorry folks, I am not going to shed one tear for Saddam and his gang o' thugs!

My biggest concern is what we're going to do next...I think we are at a crossroads in history - we have an actual chance to change the world for the better by our actions over the next few years. I hope the leaders of the world have the wisdom and foresight not to squander it.

That is in special demand with the very-special-leader-who-won't-ask-other-leaders as unilateralism is his style.

Ragusa,

Unilaterialism, is that just because we went against the UN?

What about the forty-some odd countries that have signed on supporting the action. Are we all acting unilaterally? You can't get 10 people on the street to all agree on any topic, so if you are going to define unilateral as having everyone agree, all actions are going to be unilateral.

I think that a very good arguement could be made that 2 nations with veto power in the UN acted unilaterally (in their own financial interests) to block the rightful actions of the coalition. :p

If the US had done nothing? They are selfish pigs who don't care about the plight of the Iraqi civilians, sitting in their wealth. They go in, paying a heavy price both in terms of their own casualties and the sad knowledge that some innocents will die as a result of their actions, and they are selfish pigs, sitting in their wealth. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And Darkwolf is right -- Bush made great efforts to forge a coalition, and he got what, 35 countries? he's the first politician in history to try to follow Un conventions (did Russia or the former Soviet Union? Did Thatcher in the Falklands crisis? Did the French ask for UN sanction when they recently sent troops to Algeria? No. They determined, internally, that their interests were being threatened, and took steps. Bush at least made an effort, and not people are bandiying about this silliness about an "illegal war." Spare me, please.

It's true Darkwolf! We have the backing of 42 other countries in the world...Personally, I'd like to thank the Marshall Islands and Cameroon! We couldn't have done it without ya!

Bottom line: We did what we had to do. We will do it again. We didn't start this war on global terrorism...But I'm pretty sure we're gonna finish it!

Did you really think we'd just let some nutcase radical bomb New York and the Pentagon and just sit back and take it?!?!? Just like in December 1941...The sleeping giant has awakened! We Americans have a pretty long fuse - we tried the diplomatic approach, it didn't work - so Unleash the Kraken!!!

42? Wow! That must be about 1/5th of the world's countries. And I bet Powell didn't even had to buy all of them ... :evil:

I'd say the current american president has the shortest fuse recorded in history.

I'd still like to see the dangerous nuclear and bio/chemical weapons of mass destruction that I presume this war was about in the first place.

but oh well, it's the glorious US. If they want to keep up the warmongery, they'll probably end up in economical suicide before too long.

As for feeling sheepish, no not really, I have to say I feel disgusted, but hey that's just me right ;)

It was on the news today that they have found some mobile Bio weapons labs. Personally I don't care what excuse America gave for the war, at least saddam is out of power.

:yot: The Coalition of the Willing shall not be forgotten. (I was under the impression that Lichtenstein also was a member of the coalition, but that seems to be wrong.)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=573&e=3&cid=573&u=/nm/20030328/od_nm/iraq_usa_slovenia_dcLJUBLJANA

(Reuters) - The United States mistakenly named Slovenia as a partner in its war against Iraq (news - web sites) and even offered it a share of the money budgeted for the conflict, the tiny Alpine nation said on Thursday.

Prime Minister Anton Rop said Washington goofed

"When we asked for an explanation, the State Department told us we were named in the document by mistake as we are not a member of the coalition against Iraq," Rop told a hastily arranged news conference.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,917741,00.html

it will come as welcome news to our troops in the Gulf this week that when the going gets tough, Azerbaijan is right behind them. The "coalition of the willing", as Colin Powell has called it, is the list of 30 countries that responded positively to a phone call from Washington, seeking their support against Iraq. Starting with Afghanistan, ending with Uzbekistan and with 15 countries in between preferring to remain anonymous, it is an imaginative list, eschewing the usual suspects to give those nations not used to playing a role on the world stage a chance to shine. Albania, for example. And Georgia.

Eritrea is one of the poorest, most war-torn countries in the world. I call the embassy to ask how it intends to show its support of the US and coalition of the willing, of which it is a member? There is a long, stunned pause before the spokeswoman says: "Can you call back tomorrow morning?"

http://www.areporter.com/sys-tmpl/thecoalitionofthewilling/

Now up to 47! Our 10 latest allies are: Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Iceland, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Palau, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Uganda!

Short fuse huh? Lets see, in the 2+ years Bush has been in office he has used US military forces in two operations that were attacks in foreign nations. That is 1 per year. In the 8 years that Clinton was in office he used the military in over 20 such operations. That is 2.5 ops per year.

The difference is that Bush doesn't just lob a few cruise missiles into the desert and hope he kills all the rats. So far he has shown the resolve to make sure that what he starts actually accomplishes something. It might not work, but it sure stands a better chance of working that the politically motivated strikes Slick Willie ordered in his almost worthless tenure.

I guess Bush has the second shortest fuse in history.

Boy you UN types sure are hypocritical. One minute you are professing the equality of all nations, the next taking pot shots at the puny little nations that support this action. :rolleyes:

I guess that should just about do it for calling the US hypocrites for a while.

Boy you UN types sure are hypocritical. One minute you are professing the equality of all nations, the next taking pot shots at the puny little nations that support this action.

I guess that should just about do it for calling the US hypocrites for a while.I think the funniest part of it is, that some countries on this list don't even know, there's a list and they're on it.

Ahm, the equality part. The coalition is a minority.

Ahm, the equality part. The coalition is a minority. So is the opposition.

:hmm: A coalition or a minority? :hmm: It is pretty evident that the coalition of the willing is minority, so the majority forms another coalition, the axis of those who are unwilling (or opposing rather) , in beeing against the same thing: War without UN - and US unilateralism.

Acting unilateral is kinda hairy in international affairs: It's hard to rely and trust on someone who signs and ratifies a treaty only to ignore it at need. And it kinda bites the principle of countries beeing equal and dogmatic stuff like that. Even his self-perceived moral superiority can't overcome this simple truth.

So is the opposition. Hm, yes. IMO, that's just the reason, why those who opposed the war in the USA never should feel sheepish. Because they stood up to the majority and expressed their point of view.

And on the other hand, it never has been a big issue, that the US would defeat the Iraqi-army. The issue is, is it right and will it have consequences which are not to at all to the benefit of the american people.

(Ofcourse, this could be turned in the favour of the coalition of the willing)

The world at all and the US are a lot more unsafer, because Empires, as good old Bismarck pointed out so well, are founded and paid for with "blood and steel". And the "Gretchen Frage" is, will Bush stand to his vow, that the Iraqi in the end will be freed from Saddam and the US and will the US-Troops be withdrawn in the next 6 months or not and how they will behave.

Something I thought wa interesting

For European states, the first half of the 20th century was a time of unprecedented savagery. In European minds, the culprit was nationalism -- or, more precisely, the unilateral pursuit of national interest. Multilateralism is the Europeans' response to their history. The United States, however, has a very different history and a very different set of fears. It has no historical reason to fear its own nationalism, but it does have reason to fear inaction. The U.S. need to deal with Islamic radicalism collides with the European fear that the shattering of multilateralism will release the demons of nationalism once again.

LLandon,

:whoa: :whoa: :whoa: :whoa: :whoa: :whoa: :whoa: :whoa:


Sorry. just sitting here being awed by your statement. Extremely insightful, yet stated in elegant simplicity.

Llandon, you hit the nail on the head.

(Llandon, you should post that again in a thread concerning US-outside-world differences)

But there's one big issue. Europeans don't think of the USA as "free from sin". They now see that yet another country begins to behave like Germany behaved from the 1890's on. As the new emperor fired Bismarck.

History repeats itself. The UN was established with the strong support of one the wisest presidents the US ever had. FDR. Now, the US thinks that the system of security, that was shaped by themselves and from which they profited as much as the rest of the world, is not longer necessary.

This somehow reminds me of Wilhem II. The work of Bismarck, alliances between the empires which secured Germany and Europe, seemed to him not important. He broke the bond between Germany, Russia and the United Kingdom.

And Europeans know very well, that terrorism is something that comes with Empires. They're used to terrorism and found means to fight it.

India developped anti-british terrorism. First, the British tried to fight it with cruel brutality. Now, their free from indian terrorism and India is free from the British.

To fight Terrorism, you have to end the conflict that nourishes terrorism.

[ April 11, 2003, 21:31: Message edited by: Yago ]

I see we've gone full circle. Now it is all justified because it is a war on terroism after all and the US was defending itself from an aggressor (that'll be those 20 or so 1955 vintage tanks again).

So I guess it is just like the Falklands war, no difference at all really. Although the Uk was a bit slow in getting their pre-emptive action in during that one.

Concerning the WMD (these being those based on WW1 technology that have a range of a few miles, if the wind is blowing in the right direction, as opposed to those that can fly all the way around the world kill millions in one go and then polute the environment for 1000s of years afterwards that most Western 'civilised' countries have) I fully expect some to be found as soon as public opinion starts to waver (we had a hint of it in the first week when the advance slowed down - 'oh don't worry, we've just found a factory, it must have been making WMD'). Although as Ragusa pointed out, the main reason we haven't found any is that they have all been moved to Iran, Syria, North Korea, the moon, etc, etc

Sorry, sarcasm overdose.

Just back to the terroism and the efforts to get aggrement. I refer you again to the speech by Robin Cook. There was the possibly the largest coalition the world has ever seen after 9/11 yet the US and British leaders have squanderd that support. I leave you to wonder how.

As another interesting PS, the word coalition is a French word derived from Latin. So all of you who still think that you can only be a bad ally by not supporting the US & UK approach (rather than say, being a bad ally for not supporting your French and German allies' position) you had better make up a new word for coalition.

And finally to those that think that by being anti-war, we are weeping for Sadam :sosad:

As much as I would like to be able to take credit for that...alas I cannot. Those words were not mine, they were someone elses. I just thought that it was in interesting perspective.

Just amazing ... people still think this war was wrong, and we're getting more and more info about how bad life really was in Iraq.

The latest from the NY Times (via the Drudge Report)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html?ex=1050638400&en=ea21e8c88feae21c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

The opposition to the war was not based on the premise that life in Iraq was a bed of roses. It was based on a whole bunch of different premises, one of which - that it will create a backlash that will lead to *more* terrorism and anti-Americanism - has unfortunately not yet been disproven. Only time will tell how the millions of Arabs and Muslims outside Iraq react to the fall of Saddam Hussein: by claiming he was a martyr, and encouraging future generations of terrorists to avenge the coalition's "wrongs" against the Arab world, or by resolving to not repeat his mistakes in the future and being grateful to America and Britain for their roles in destroying an obviously evil regime. We all hope for the latter, but most war opponents still fear the former. Nothing to be sheepish about - yet.

Here's a very funny parody that seems to capture the frustration of protestors at having their point of view constantly misrepresented by the hawks. Warning: contains very rude language.

Thin Ice (http://www.e-sheep.com/thinice.html)

LMAO! That's pretty funny all right. I was chuckling the whole time :)

Sprite,

So was Bill Clinton doing a better job with the 15 or so times he fired a few cruise missiles into the desert to try to eliminate the problem? I don't know about you, but I would call that terrorism myself. It certainly does not show a face of strength to the terrorists, and that is the only thing that these people seem to respect/fear (honestly I don't know which). I don't believe that the UN was ever going to accomplish anything either, I mean 12 years is just too long.

It is a funny thing though, during the entire time that Clinton was negotiating with Arafat and Sharon :confused: (drawing a blank as to who was leading the Israelis at that time), the Palestinian terrorism was always increasing, all the way up to the point when negotiations broke down because Arafat couldn't accept a deal for less than 100% of his demands without ending up with a bullet in his head from his own people, and even beyond that. Then Bush comes along, takes the gloves off the Israelis, and the terrorist attacks have diminished to a small trickle.

I am not saying that I think that the right thing to do is to go in and brutally crush the Palestinians, far from it; I am actually more sympathetic to their cause than I have ever been before, but it is something that I have noticed. :(

Dearest Sprite

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I can now just post that link whenever some moron starts using any of the 'logic' of being anti-war = being pro Sadam, or anti-US or anti-brave boys, or anti-whatever. I was really beginning to think that I must have been transported to planet Idiocy without realising it. :mommy:

Sadly though, I see even our dear old cleric (who I still respect immensly) is convinced that we will become pro-war because things were bad in Iraq before. More worringly, there is a post soon after your own that states the equivelent of - 'what's wrong with your Sprite, they tried a "plastic kitchen stepladder" last week.' :rolleyes:

So maybe it is time to spell it out in the simplest terms I can:

Being anti-war does not automatically equate to any of the following:
- being anti-US
- having no sympathy for 9/11
- thinking that Sadam is a good guy
- being a coward
- being a whiny liberal
- thinking terroism is good
- trying to cover up a murky past
- having no alternative solutions
- not believing in WMD
- not being happy for a better Iraq
- not hoping that our troops are safe
- not wanting the people of Iraq to be free

However, being anti-war might equate to the following:
- not wanting innocent men, women and children to be killed
- not wanting brave soldiers to be killed
- not wanting the tense situation in the middle-east to be blown out of all control
- not wanting Muslins all around the world to be frightened, intemidated and complelled to rebel against Christian religious fanaticism
- not wanting fanatics to be given even more anti-western ammunition
- not wanting to see the world's super power doing whatever it likes, including invading another country, regardles of world opinion
- not supporting a vigilante mentality
- not believing the John Wayne mentality is a sound basis for international politics
- not wanting to be treated as an idiot or manipulated by shameful propoganda (I see no oil)
- not wanting any 'democratic' leader to take a country to war when there is no clear immediate threat (supported with public proof not vague 'trust me' comments) without a referendum
- not accepting war except as the very final resort, after all peaceful means have been pursued fully
- wanting governments to spend as much money on aid, support and education of 'suspect' regimes as they do on bombing the crap out of them
- not wanting WW3 to start

There are many others I suspect, these are just some of my own.

Artist: Rolling Stones
Song: Highwire

We sell 'em missiles, We sell 'em tanks
We give 'em credit, You can call the bank

It's just a business, You can pay us in crude
You love these toys, just go play out your feuds

Got no pride, don't know whose boots to lick
We act so greedy, makes me sick sick sick

So get up, stand up, out of my way
I want to talk to the boss right away
Get up, stand up, whose gonna pay
I want to talk to the man right away

We walk the highwire
Sending the men up to the front line
Hoping they don't catch the hell fire
With hot guns and cold, cold nights

Our lives are threatened, our jobs at risk
Sometimes dictators need a slap on the wrist

Another Munich we just can't afford
We're gonna send in the eighty-second airborne

Get up, stand up, who's gonna pay
I wanna talk to the boss right away
Get up, stand up, outta my way
I wanna talk to the man right away

We walk the highwire
Putting the world out on a deadline
And hoping they don't catch the shellfire
With hot guns and cold, cold nights

We walk the highwire
We send all our men into the front lines
We're hoping that we backed the right side
With hot guns and cold, cold nights

We walk the highwire
Putting the world out on a deadline
Catching the bite on primetime
With hot guns and cold, cold nights The part of the whole propaganda issue I love the most is:

First, it is:

1. It's not about OIL. No, it's about liberation, democracy and security. It's just impertinent to suggest that it is about OIL.

Than it changes to:

2. Now, that we have got the OIL, it's just impertinent of other countries to expect they will get any of the OIL. Only those who sent troops and lost Blood (for OIL) shall have the OIL.

3. Don't worry about the war-costs. Iraqis are rich, the can pay us in crude.

The whole thing is not over yet. And the big issue still is, Arabs have a brain too. And a clear sense of nationality and a concept of "mine is not yours".

IMO, when someone get's near a hornets-nest, he should move carefully and try not to stir up the hornets.

[ April 12, 2003, 16:36: Message edited by: Yago ]

well said Slappy, you certainly clear out things in your post :)

Slappy, you overlook that the WMDs that aren't to be found have probably been proliferated and hidden - supposedly in Syria and Iran? The threat isn't over!Strange that now America is touting that line, laying now the blame on Syria and Iran when those WMDs can't be found in Iraq. Do we see a pattern here--occupy first, ask questions later? Far from being sheepish, I think pro-war supporters should be feeling that since it's becoming an embarrassment for America that the WMDs can't be found, and are demanding them from another country!

Hmmmm... well I think all the antiwar-people should apologize (apologize for our "so digusted" anti-war views) to the people of Iraq.

Let me start

I´m sorry that I wanted a peaceful solution to the problems in the middle-east.
I´m sorry that I rather had 12 years of diplomatic pressure than economical pressure.
I´m sorry that I thought that the lifes of you and your children, family and friends were a price too great to pay for the removal of Saddam.
I´m sorry that I didn´t want to unstabilize the situation in the middle-east.
I´m sorry that I thought that all nations should stand on one line, instead of whining like a bunch of little children.
I´m sorry that I didn´t believe in the "facts" given by the United States to the United Nations about WMD´s and terrorism

*sniff*
Hope you can forgive me :wail:

[ April 15, 2003, 14:04: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

*applause*

(...)

[ April 15, 2003, 13:52: Message edited by: Arabwel ]

apologize for what?

I feel sorry for the thousands of years of death and destruction followed by the chaos of war, thus I do not want war. End of line.

"Conviction is a luxury of those on the sideline."

Slappy is right as to what anti-war does and does not mean, but I doubt it covers each and every anti-war person. I think I can safely state that there are a lot of silly people with silly reasons for opposing (well, had opposed) the war.

I´m sorry that I rather had 12 years of diplomatic pressure than economical pressure.What do youthink the embargo was for? :rolleyes:

A failed political action which only caused the death of tens of thousands Iraqi?

AFAIK it had a more economical impact than diplomatic

[ April 15, 2003, 14:11: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

Oh, sorry. I didn't get your meaning. :doh:

I still stand by my belief that the world would be a happier place if all major conflicts were dealt with via Rock, Paper, Scissors.

Beyond that, if you were suddenly allowed to loot a bunch of rich guys' houses with no fear of being punished, you'd be happy too.

Or perhaps having Saddam as a leader all the time just got boring, and they needed a little variety.

Thank you Slappy for the clarification of anti-war
at least now we hopefully can say something without the fear of accusation of america bashing. :D

I still stand by my belief that the world would be a happier place if all major conflicts were dealt with via Rock, Paper, ScissorsWell, Misato and Shinji did that and...wait, Shinji lost to Misato on that one...