The US, UN & Iraq II

The following couple of paragraphs are from the Robert Scheer editorial in the LA Times which has got the conservative community up in arms -- this and pretty much all of his earlier pieces! They are demanding that everyone call or write the Chicago Tribune (owner) and urge that Scheer be fired. Do read the entire thing. It's good. And if you want, write a letter supporting Scheer. He is consistently interesting and, for many of us, right on target:

...As long as the meaning of "terror" exists only in the eye of the beholder, the function of the word is to subvert the moral argument. It's just that arrogance that led George W. Bush to believe that the Iraqi people would be so grateful for our "smart" bombs they would rise up en masse from the ruins to greet us. Maybe they still will, cheering the victors in stunned relief that the terror -- Hussein's and that caused by U.S. firepower -- has ended.

If so, let it happen soon. For now, however, with the savagery of war on newspaper front pages, the bitter lesson is that "terror" has been turned into an amoral category defined for the convenience of the purveyors of violence -- whether fanatical "irregulars" or leaders of the most powerful nation on Earth.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-war-oescheer1apr01,1,3847453.story

0 Replies

Gelisgesti's article wrote:

"You can tell comrade Fidel Castro," he said getting up, "that I thank him for his solicitude. If the troops of the United States invade Iraq, we shall crush them like that," he concluded resoundingly, stamping the carpet several times with his shining military boots... The audience had ended. Without smiling, Saddam shook the hands of each of the Cubans as we left the sumptuous hall. He bid the Gallego farewell with an Oriental embrace and asked that his greetings be sent to El Comandante.

That boy jes' don' git it, do he?

0 Replies

Boy's so dumb he thinks the Mexican border pays rent .......

0 Replies

Walter, I had a revisit to the Imperial War Museum in London on my visit to that grand city last month. If anybody wants to ask a specific question, I may be able to answer, by my memory fades quickly. I especially like the WWII memorabilia, photos, sights and sounds of that period. Smile

c.i.

0 Replies

interesting; just listening to NPR seems that Blair and Bush dont quite see eye to eye. Following the end of "Operation Predicted Cakewalk" Blair seems to be saying that neither GB nor US should be involved in establishing Iraq government. Britain has urged a strong role for the United Nations in rebuilding Iraq, but the United States, which has carried the brunt of the invasion to topple Saddam, appears to be less enthusiastic about U.N. participation in an interim administration.

The United States has set up a team to administer Iraq immediately after a war, and appointed retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner to act as a civil administrator. Pentagon officials have said their intention would be to hand over authority to an interim government of Iraqis within months.

"I think the most intelligent way of proceeding is to recognize that the basic principle is that any transitional arrangements and the Iraqi interim authority has got to be U.N.-endorsed," Blair said. "The rest of it, frankly, is a matter of working in partnership with the U.N. which, if we behave sensibly, we should be able to do very easily."

0 Replies

Quote:

Tony Blair has said there are differences over who should run a post-war interim administration in Iraq.

Blair admits post-war plan splits

0 Replies

That's the reason why I still admire Tony Blair. He lives by a foundation of ethics. George Bush??????? c.i.

0 Replies

I percieve a growing sense of frustration from those opposed to The Current Administration and its conduct of the attack on Iraq. That the military action goes unprecedentedly well for the US-led forces seems a particular sorepoint. No militarily significant oppostion has impeded the planned advance, and in fact unexpected successes have created some operational inconveniences. That significant independent Iraqi civilian resistance to the troops is increasingly cotraindicated, and mounting active civilian cooperation in the effort to root out Ba'athists becomes ever more evident, conclusively invalidates other hysterical presuppositions. It seems lots of other folks "Jes' don' git it". I would imagine that as the protesters begin to realize the depth their irrelelevance, their resort to hysteria and hyperbole will gain prominence. Impotence is a terrible thing. Denial only makes it worse. Reality is a bitch, goes the old aphorism. Poor Pollyanna ... forever doomed to live in the real world.

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men and women stand ready to do violence on their behalf" George Orwell

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

Boy's so dumb he thinks the Mexican border pays rent .......

LOL ... good one.

0 Replies

Sure was. Taco Bell is not a phone company, either.

0 Replies

Timberlandko wrote.

No militarily significant opposition has impeded the planned advance,

I think there is significant opposition but it is being soft peddled.
According to CNN the fighting at Al Kut was fierce

Scott Nelson, a Boston Globe reporter embedded with the Marines, said: "There was a relatively fierce firefight to get across the bridge." "scores of Iraqi dead -- it was a fairly brutal scene."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/02/sprj.irq.baghdad.battle/index.html

We are being given a sanitized picture of the combat

0 Replies

I submit the impression of an "Embedded Reporter" as to the "Fierceness" of combat is somewhat subjective, given the relative unfamiliarity of today's crop of reporters with combat in general. I would allow that that the Iraqis are receiving a fierce drubbing, but the conduct of the advance certainly does not indicate "Fierce Fighting". To me, "Fierce Fighting" entails effective, substantive enemy response to opposing forces, with resultant significant casualties, equipment loss, and inhibition of movement.
That ain't what's going on, partner ... not at all. I've spent time wishing my battledress buttons were thinner so I could get closer to the ground while a furious enemy artillery and rocket barrage attempted to dismantle a firebase. I've witnessed a steady stream of medevac choppers, conducting operations under fire. I've seen outposts overrun, planes shot down, instalations and supplies blown up. That ain't happening. This isn't easy; war never is. It isn't, and won't be, Stalingrad or Khe San, either.

0 Replies

Talking of random quotes of famous historical figures - pple here seem to be quite keen on bandying them about at will, to seemingly 'underpin' their views - i came across these two here. Now - think back a month or so -

Quote:

A country cannot simultaneously prepare and prevent war.

- Albert Einstein

Quote:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure. If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'" -

- Abraham Lincoln

0 Replies

Yes, nimh, the defenses along our Canadian Border are weak indeed. Perhaps we should look to that Laughing

It is also said that the surest deterent to war is to be prepared to overwhelmingly prevail in the event of war. I rather subscribe to that view. Then, my experience base is limited ... I have only history by which to judge.

0 Replies

The problem with an "embedded journalist" is that he has an infantry man's perspective on the action, he sees only what is in front of him. For a discussion of perspective in battle see John Keegan's "The Face of Battle "or Fred Anderson's "A Peoples Army". This is mobile warfare, there a few if any fixed positions, particularly for the allies and they are trying (successfully) to draw the Iraqi's out of theirs. As a result resistance is dispersed, the battle is strung out not concentrated, and so to is the carnage. The high command, which would have a better over all perspective on what is happening is being less forth coming than the frontline officers and soldiers (for many and good reasons). I think retrospective accounts will describe a much different war then the present newspaper and TV "real time" accounts.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

I percieve a growing sense of frustration from those opposed to The Current Administration and its conduct of the attack on Iraq. [..] conclusively invalidates other hysterical presuppositions. It seems lots of other folks "Jes' don' git it". I would imagine that as the protesters begin to realize the depth their irrelelevance, their resort to hysteria and hyperbole will gain prominence. Impotence is a terrible thing. Denial only makes it worse. Reality is a bitch, goes the old aphorism. Poor Pollyanna ... forever doomed to live in the real world.

i think you're being it a little too easy on yourself, timber.

you could have taken something someone "opposed to the current administration" actually said or wrote, here or elsewhere, show that (s)he is representative of his kind, and then argue where exactly his reasoning is "hysterical", "hyperbolical" or "irrelevant".

instead, you prefer to describe an unspecified, anonymous, mass of war opponents - not any of us specifically, of course - in those terms, and for extra safety, you place the actual "hysteria" of their behavior in an unspecified future. that allows you to equate "those opposed to the current administration and [..] the attack on Iraq" (that'd be us, folks) with a bunch of irrelevant hystericals - without ever having to take on any specific argument they made.

0 Replies

I also think there's something to be said for being humble and hardy and knowledgeable and taking one's chances -- after having formed a healthy relationship with the rest of the world. Have no problem with having a really good defense force, but "defense" must be very clearly defined and the standard adhered to. Because we've always had such tremendous resources in this country, we've always run the risk of militarism, aggression.

0 Replies

Nimh wrote:

Quote:
Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure. If today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I see it, if you don't.'" -

- Abraham Lincoln

Bit of irony here----Lincoln held the Union together ---- he only spent 600,000 lives to do. As I have said before, if he had to watch the body bags from the first battle and answer to a modern day press my guess is he would never have lived to make the Gettysburg address. He would have committed suicide or been lynched.

Yeah I,m back---fish weren't biting

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Yes, nimh, the defenses along our Canadian Border are weak indeed. Perhaps we should look to that

well, you never know <smiles>.

seriously tho, you know that i meant to showcase lincoln's quote a s a classic rejection of the logic of a "pre-emptive strike" - and of the governmental dynamic accepting such logical potentially creates.

0 Replies

Stinger posted another thread in which he suggested a number of Awkward questions on [the Iraq] war. After a bit of to and fro about his exact intentions, I made my own attempt at answering them, but perhaps more interestingly, before doing that also phrased a few of them anew for further discussion. Might be interesting to profer y'r input, y'all.

0 Replies

The US, UN & Iraq II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know