The US, UN & Iraq II

Of course soldiers should be held accountable, just like everyone else. But one has to start with those who wanted to put soldiers in this situation. We have a curious system which divorces those who want war from those who have to fight it. As civilization "progresses," the farther the combatants and victims are from the planners and spin machines. If only those responsible were forced to lose a body part for every victim of a war, we'd have a lovely scene like the one at the end of "Fargo" in which we'd see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. fed into a chipper.

0 Replies

Perhaps my comment was a bit over the top, dlowan. You are right in that a war does not excuse my using an overly dramatic analogy to make a point.

0 Replies

Kara,

Thanks for the Arab News Website. This is another valuable arrow to my informational quiver. The ability to consult various sources of information is quite desirable.

To All,

This observation may be simplistic but I detect a variation of the "Prisoner’s Dilemma" in postings to this thread with different gaming strategies driving each side's debate.

One side (Cooperation strategy) feels that war is wrong and reflect Rodney King’s lament, "Can't we all just get along?". This concept is reflected in their verbal hand wringing demonstrated by such statements as: "If I could just sit down face to face with the enemy I know he would see I am right" and "What if they had a War and nobody came?" There is nobility and validity in these thoughts but at some point it must be recognized that, no matter how noble the intention of not harming another fellow being, the validity is lost when that being is perceived as life threatening.

The other side (Defection strategy) tends toward a Ronald Reaganesque "Trust but Verify" and "Better them than us" philosophy. This is a very practical ideology, however, the timing of its application is not only crucial but also debatable. This side tends towards quick decisive judgment and abhors the Nixonian "Analysis to Paralysis" dilemma.

Obviously, the best answer is some sort of compromise but at what point along this scale does one point and say, "This is the best solution!"? Well, forums such as this certainly help me. They help because, not only am I able to interact with those with varying ideas, but also I am exposed to the sources of their reasoning in the form of books, articles and Websites.

As an aside: Some emphasis has been put on logic and logical arguments in this thread. I am myself particularly enamored with the power of logic, however, I perceive this thread more of a debate than a procession of logical arguments leading to a conclusive proof. The object of a debate, of course, is to persuade.
I myself have, not uncommonly, formed an opinion of sorts and that is evident in my posts. There is no doubt that others have not only formed their own opinions but also put forward powerful persuasive arguments to support them.

Respectfully,

JM

P.S. Although the future of Post Saddam Iraq is not entirely clear I am also interested in any opinions you might have about the N. Korean "thing". I have participated in a number of threads about this but no one seems to have much interest. My thoughts are that if we can get the political/diplomatic ball rolling on this we could avoid the same situation we see in Iraq. I have started a thread in this forum if anyone is interested.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5969&highlight=

0 Replies

The BBC had a report on Al-Jazeera, that was interesting. They interviewed an Iraqi family and a white English family living in the same neighbourhood.

The Iraqi father had fled Iraq with his family some ten or fifteen years ago, as a member of an opposition movement. He was strongly anti-Saddam - but also anti-war. The family spoke fluent English; the son went to college. At his family home they had Al-Jazeera on all day. The daughter said: on the British channels, you feel you don't get to see everything. You don't see the gory stuff, they dont want you to know, it seems. I want to know, it's my people suffering over there. The son said: I trust Al-Jazeera more on telling how it really is. The father said: they show you how its like inside Iraq.

The British family, of course, was of the opposite opinion. They said BBC and ITN gave a truthful picture of the behaviour of the coalition troops. They were also worried, about how the Arabs in their neighbourhood relied on wholly different news. The mother said: I believe the regime in Iraq has people living in fear. They won't say what they really think. So how can they think Al-Jazeera is able to give a real picture? The British media give a more truthful picture.

Now, I may be paraphrasing, but two things in the latter interview struck me. One: the British woman apparently thought Al-Jazeera was an Iraqi channel. (The viewers of the report luckily won't, because it ended with the distress of the Iraqi family at seeing their news source of home cut off after the Al-Jazeera correspondents were sent out by the Iraqi government. But the fact that the woman did think so says something about how Al-Jazeera is portrayed in British media). Two: just like many proponents of war here on Able2Know, the British family had a very clear idea of how truthful Al-Jazeera reporting was, and how (un)reliable a news source. This despite them never actually having been able to watch or understand any Al-Jazeera programme, considering it broadcasts in Arabic. They probably don't know anything much more than that Al-Jazeera broadcast images of the American POWs. The Iraqi family at least had actually been able to compare.

The report included the Al-Jazeera claim it had gained 4 million new viewers in Europe, and the affirmation of the local satellite company (or the like), that requests for Al-Jazeera had gone up by 25%.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

frolic wrote:
Saddam Hussein: Honorary citizen of Detroit, Michigan

Can someone confirm this?

Of course its true. And when that happened The Soviet Union was a Super Power, Disco was King, I had considerably more hair, and Alan Alda starred on the number one TV sitcom.

And when that happened Saddam Hussein was already a brutal and ruthless dictator ... but not even in rhetorics did US policy-makers care much about that kind of thing yet.

(Which I guess was kinda the point of the post, even tho it was just about one city's decision).

(And yes, I'm glad that they do, nowadays, at least in rhetorics. I just wished they'd do it in a manner less arbitrary enough to not make it seem the human rights rhetorics is just a facade for military-economic interests so much ... :wink: ).

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

A State which harbors or endorses Terrorism abets a stateless enemy of peaceable States, thereby participating, often at the remove of proxy, in the assault of terrorism upon peaceable states. [..] A regime providing sanctuary to or employment of terrorism is intolerable, and such refuges must be eliminated.

The part in that which I find worrisome, as I have previously commented and quite specifically asked you about, is the total lack of criteria, definitions, benchmarks. You haven't replied to that, yet, though you've made sure to point out that "this is only the beginning".

You talk of Terrorism as if it is, indeed, a coherent ideology of some kind. In fact, terrorism is the continuation of war with other means - basically, the continuation of war by anyone who doesn't represent a state. Every guerrilla fighter can and will be called a terrorist by some, whereas every terrorist will be called a freedom fighter by some. I mentioned the FARC and the paramilitaries in Colombia as exemplary dilemma in this. The US government has taken a stand - helping to fight FARC, while de facto aiding the paras - which is hard to translate in any consistent "War on Terrorism" model. The PLO is the ultimate example - once an international terrorist organisation; later the formally recognized self-government of Palestinians; now, again, terrorists? All that to say, merely, that more specification is needed than just "Terrorism needs to be fought" to build any solid case for launching this or that war. What would be your suggested policy beyond that?

Secondly, and on this I queried you, too, you seem to make no distinction between terrorists who attacked your country, and other random terrorists. It doesnt matter if Saddam turns out not to have supported Al-Qaeda - he has supported some terrorists, and that's enough validation for this war. Now nobody much would be on your back - on America's back, I mean - when US troops hit at Al-Qaeda bases - they attacked your main cities, after all. But every "regime providing sanctuary to or employment of terrorism" - of which you provide no definition? By what selection? Who will be the judge of which regimes do? Who will be the judge of when a war is a justified retaliation? When do you consider war to be a justified retaliation? Do you really consider the US to be justified in starting a war, on its own authority, against any regime in the world who, to its own opinion, provides sanctuary to any kind of terrorists? Where's your criteria? What paths of decision-making and legitimisation do you propose in the matter?

timberlandko wrote:

The existing structure of international laws and social mechanisms is incapable of dealing adequately with the threat. [..] The role of nations is no longer what it has been, and a border or a flag cannot be allowed to provide sanctuary for the vermin which use the openness and freedom of civilization to prey on it. Ideally, this would be a task for the UN. That body has abdicated responsibility in the matter.

I remain puzzled by this, too. Doesn't the establishment of, respectively, the War Crimes Tribunal on Yugoslavia, the War Crimes Tribunal on Rwanda, and the International Criminal Court, show that the international community is in fact more than ever aware of how "the role of nations is no longer what it has been"? That it has drawn the lessons from the 20th century and that it is now willing to cede some national authority in the matter to international law - to UN institutions, in fact - to tackle the problem of both state and rogue terrorism? The War Crimes Tribunal on Yugoslavia is now judging the killers of the irregular militias as well as those who presided over state terrorism. In the Rwanda trials, government officials were tried for the attempted genocide on the Tutsis, but also priests, who provided sanctuary and encouragement to the violent mobs in their churches. Even if the ICC, for example, has only just started, the UN has taken more responsibility in the matter of tackling the irregular and state networks that target innocent civilians than it has ever before. Even in the specific case of Iraq it has not "abdicated responsibility" - it has seen its responsibility being taken away and denied - by the US government.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Quote:

Do you support preemptive attacks on

1) DPRK

Very briefly, DPRK: Diplomatic and economic solution likely.

Without wanting to seem like I'm persecuting you or anything, this is yet another thing I'm wondering about.

How do you argue that the case of the DPRK merits further attempts at diplomatic and economic solutions, and the case of Iraq didn't?

Iraq was suspected of having WMD; North Korea is proven to have WMD.

Iraq was suspected of not allowing UN inspectors full access; N-Korea wont allow UN inspectors in.

What Iraq was actually accused of - to be slightly more precise - was of not being able to prove it no longer had the weapons it claimed to have fully destroyed. It actually started destroying the weapons those agencies did find. None of the finds suggested any nuclear program. N-Korea, on the other hand, has missiles that can reach up to the American Westcoast, and demonstratively started up its nuclear program again recently, openly rejecting IAEE access and authority.

Iraq has not actually demonstrated any offensive military action since the Gulf War ended and a no-fly zone was installed over its territory; N-Korea would never accept a no-fly zone and lobbed a missile in the sea near Japan this year to make the point.

Iraq declared it was willing to co-operate with UN agencies and continued negotiatons throughout, and such diplomatic solutions were being pursued until the very time the US opted for war; N-Korea accepts no such intervention and rejected negotiations.

Iraq was a brutal dictatorship; North-Korea is most probably the single most totalitarian regime on this planet.

Both nations have been "snubbing their nose" at both UN and US since time memorial.

Now, honestly; how can one argue that North-Korea deserved the patience needed for a further pursuance of diplomatic and economic solutions, and Iraq didnt?

What are your criteria there?

0 Replies

The outrage about American soldiers' behaviour misses one thing. No matter how well trained they may be, they are a bunch of very scared young men and women. They are in a foreign country. They don't know the language, they don't know the habits, they don't know who's on their side and who's against. They know some Iraqis have deceived them, and the suicide taxi driver incident tells them every Iraqi is a more than a potential enemy. I don't think the great majority of them are particularly mean, or trigger happy cowboys. They are, I repeat, a bunch of very scared young men and women, sent by their country to fight a war in a distant, strange land.

While that attitude is understandable, one must also acknowledge that, as war rolls on, some commanders care less and less about civilian safety. Caring less about civilian safety leads to a better efficiency of the warring machine. This has happened in all wars, involving commanders of all nationalities. That is why there are rules of engagement, that is why there was a Geneva Convention. That is why there are tribunals on war crimes.

To pretend that American soldiers do not commit excesses against human rights is naive.
It's like thinking that your team will not commit a foul during a football game. Football coaches know that fouls are sometimes even necessary to win a game (of course, fouls look bad when you're badly outscoring your opponent). To pretend that a foul exists only when your cheerleader acknowledges it is silly.

To underline the excesses of Americans is unfair. For the right or the wrong reasons, they are fighting an elusive enemy, with a different culture, and who does not abide to the rules, either. Even more, it is an enemy with a culture that understands little about those rules, and who will not understand them even after the main military development of this lengthy war is over.

Now, for a touch of humor:

What did those Portuguese journalists expect? They probably look Arab. And the family name of one of them is Castro.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

timber,

I never put forward the notion that States are the only players. I never put forward the notion that States are the most relevant players. I simply have not made comment on that.

You're right ... I projected.

Quote:

To find a logical flaw in someone's argument it is usually good practice to use something they said, not to invent something.

Whether you intended it or not, I sensed you were projecting regarding my motivations. I could be wrong. I often am. I may well have perceived something neither said explicity nor implied.

Quote:

[
timberlandko" wrote:
A State which harbors or endorses Terrorism abets a stateless enemy of peaceable States, thereby participating, often at the remove of proxy, in the assault of terrorism upon peaceable states.

Any nation can fall under those criteria.

I submit that is hyperboble ... of course any nation CAN, yet very, very few will do so. Most nations, like most folks, are more prone to peace than war, and few folks or nations endorse or participate in terrorism.

Quote:

timberlandko wrote:
The ideology of terrorism is that which must be eradicated.

The ideology of terrorism will not be eradicated. Terrorism is the epitome of sanctioning violence irresponsibly. More of the same dish does nothing in and of itself.

I submit that if extreme sanction becomes the normative, consistent manner of dealing with Terrorism (defined as the indiscriminate infliction of harm upon otherwise uninvolved civilians or civil infrastructure, with or without political subtext), the practice of Terrorism will fall from favor as no longer affording a suitable cost-benefit ratio.

Quote:

Timber,

I'm gonna ask one last time then I will give up.

A) you stated that civilization's existence is at risk. Please validate this wild claim.

The primary aim of Terrorism is to disrupt civil proceedings and instiitutions, primarily in the prosecution of repressive, fundamentalist agendas.

Quote:

B) I did not ask for your take on geopolitical status. I aksed if you have any proof that invading Iraq will decrease the statistical probability of terrorist attacks. I don't mind the status update but it ignored, once again, a simple pointed request for you to validate one of your claims.

Fair enough ... Statistical proof is of course unavailable. In faqct, I imagine stability in the region will suffer somewhat short term, but I believe a significant US presence in the region MAY. if properly implemented, serve to reduce tensions and foster the notion of non-repressive representative government and responsible fiscal policy throughout the region mid-to-long term. This does depend on dealing honorably with the People of Iraq, and upon the implementation of The Roadmap, and that the US be seen to be committed to the entire process.
I admit that will be the tricky part, but I believe those to be the US intentions, and I believe they will be followed through. Many don't share that view, and I admit they have considerable historic precedent to support their skepticism.

Quote:

Now let's play with the conclusions you draw from your take on geopolitics.

I posit that the "freedoms of civilization" is "preyed" upon by those who arbitrarily determine what terrorism is, and more importantly that borders and flags and thus, sovereignty, need no longer be respected.

And I submit that a flaw in that argument exists in that Terrorism is not subject to an arbitrary definition. Further, I submit that Terrorism is unconcerned with borders or soveriegnity, and it must be denied sanctuary on accord of geopolitical considerations. Terrorism respects no border; it must not be granted the shelter of any border.

Quote:

I posit that those who take an existing danger, and employ hyperbole to make it justify special circumstances, then take these special circumstances and justify a deviation from international law ("The existing structure of international laws and social mechanisms is incapable of dealing adequately with the threat.") and a breach of sovereignty are no better than any person who wishes to break the law and make up excuses for it.

I submit that there are new social, commercial, and political considerations which existing international law and institutions are ill equipped to address. I do not hold The US, or US Interes,t should be either the arbiter or wielder of justice. I submit that a better system is neede, and that such a system, while implied by the UN, does not in fact exist.

Quote:

A) you did nothing to validate the assertion that Iraq poses anything other than a possible threat.

The threat is Iraqi complicity in Terrorism, wherever, however that complicity is evidenced. I maintain that there is sufficient evidence of such Iraqi complicity in Terrorism to validate the perception of threat. I do bnot ascribe to Iraq alone the Terrorism Problem. It is the part of the problem currently being most visibly addressed.

Quote:

B) You claim international law no longer valid and arbitrarily decide what should be done, what the rules of conduct should be.

Not to my mind ... I maintain the current system requires updating to accomodate the instant-access, always-on world of today, which really is something very, very new, and wholly outside humankind's experience heretofore.

Quote:

C) You render borders and self-determination a thing of the past.

No I don't. I submit merely that Terrorism should be denied the shelter of borders. If a State, as a matter of self-determination, embraces Terrorism, that should be seen as an act of war by that State upon The World Community.

Quote:

And you still have the gall to say that you are defending civilization's existence? Many persons can make proclamations about what kind of ideologies are "tolerable" and what peoples need to be "eliminated". That is precisely what terrorists do. What makes acting upon such arbitrary determinations illegal is the fact that man has come to recognize that for the purposes of civility one can't be allowed to decide that he no longer has to respect the life of his counterpart. One can't decide that laws no longer need to be respected, that borders are now lines that you can cross at will.

I submit that I pose no arbitrary definition of Terrorism. I submit that laws must be devised to deal effectively with the stateless nature of Terrorism.

Quote:

Would you like to live in a society wherin your neighbor can invade your home (your front door is no longer relevant) cause harm to you (laws are no longer applicable he says) and get away with it?

I don't see that I offer such an idea at all.

Quote:

The UN performed it's task. It determined that the US's concerns about Iraq were not supported by evidence at the time. It concluded that the US's proclamations that it would wage war without what they consider sufficient justification it would not be sanctioned. The UN did not "abdicate responsibility". The UN sought to contain persons who think that their opinion about what ideologies need to be destroyed trump international law.

I submit that had the UN performed its design function, the current situation would not pertain. I do not exclude the US from blame in the matter, but I hold other parties equally responsible for the failure as well. It took a lot of screwing up to get things this bad.

Quote:

Laws: Morality is defined by individuals, since such determinations do not jive with each other we have what we call laws. Laws are the collective morality. The very principle of law is that one entity's morality is not superior to the laws determined by the whole.

The indiscriminate infliction of harm on otherwise uninvolved civilians or civilian infrastructure is illegal, unethical, and immoral. Its ascendence is evidence of the need to devise new methods for addressing the outrage.

Quote:

Terrorism is a perfect example. Some idiot thinks their ideological differences make the laws not pertain to them.

Yup.

Quote:

You have advocated the dismissal of law and borders when one entity detremines that it is to their interest. This goes against what law represents and can be construed as an advocation of impulsive lawlessness.

And I submit I have advocated no such notion.

Quote:

I find it ironic that this is done under the hyperbolic banner of saving civilization.

again, I do not see such an assessment validated by any of my assertions.

Quote:

"Let's save civilization by destroying ideologies that we oppose and by rejecting the laws and foundations that civilization consists of"

Nonsense. Civilization is threatened by Terrorism, not a political or religious ideology, and must address the matter.

Quote:

Once again, rhetoric about how laws no longer apply to you in the world as you see it aside, can you please demonstrate any proof that through this disregard for law the statistical probability of violence is reduced. Just a bare minimum, an attempt, please.

I submit that a request for a statiscal projection is purposeless. I submit that I have made my argument. A new threat has appeared, and new mechanisms must be devised to deal with that threat.

I don't anticipate "Changing your mind", and I doubt you harbor any such expectation regarding your influence over my conclusions and opinions. I respect your view, and the manner in which you develop and express it. I find far more basis for agreement between us than disagreement, and attribute much of such disagreement as may exist more to mutual misunderstanding, or perhaps to communicating to cross purposes, than to opposing ideology.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

That's a fairly good guess, nimh; areosols depend on wind strength and direction for effect. Neither favor Iraqi employment of aerosols in the immediate environs of Baghdad at the moment. That to do so would be tactically unwise or innefective may not matter. The Iraqi command structure may be so damaged that no effective order to deploy them can be issued and carried out.

I LIKE FROLIC'S GUESS ALOT BETTER.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

That's a fairly good guess, nimh; areosols depend on wind strength and direction for effect. Neither favor Iraqi employment of aerosols in the immediate environs of Baghdad at the moment. That to do so would be tactically unwise or innefective may not matter. The Iraqi command structure may be so damaged that no effective order to deploy them can be issued and carried out.

Well, that's reassuring, though it makes the question why they weren't used earlier, then, even more interesting. One possible answer is, as I posited before, that the Iraqi gvt doesnt actually have any operational chemical weapons anymore, although that, of course, can never be more than a suspicion.

There's another possibility - in fact, I'm curious - how many of you believe Saddam might in fact well be dead - or alternatively (but less likely) abroad?

Timber, you mentioned earlier among the 'good news about the war' the facts that most of the oil wells have not been torched and that the dam has not been exploded - to flood the valley and stop the invading troops that way. Now Saddam has never alive been qeasy about risking civilian lives or destroying civilian habitat. And this war does acutely endanger his live as well as his regime. Wouldn't somebody like that haven't thought twice about turning to such drastic measures?

Now if he's dead, and the army units are working under, say, decentralised command, it's much more logical that individual commanders would recoil from such extreme destruction, and that Republican Guard divisions would prefer to "blend away".

How probable a possibility?

0 Replies

Absolutely right, Nimh. I think you've explicated the matter very well. We have a very bad case of meaningless-language-as-shield in the US.

We don't even know clearly who attacked our country. Some fuzzy photographs appeared and were later refuted. Moving from crisis to alert to orange to red over the past eighteen months, we've rushed past any discussion of WHY. Some continue to believe quite strongly that 9/11 was an internal affair. Whatever the case may be, 3000 or more lives have become a government tool to make so many more lives miserable, to victimize the civilians of a country half a world away in the name of "democracy," even as so many of this country's rights and ideals evaporate.

In the case of the FARC and the paramilitaries, many Americans are unaware that our presence in Colombia is largely that of mercenaries from DynCorp and (I gather) other companies, all having strong, long-term relationships to the Pentagon and to members of this administration in particular. Multinational corporations naturally form their own alliances and policies based on corporate interests which don't of course necessarily coincide with the (stated) national interest. Just follow DynCorp through Google and you'll get the picture. You'll see how they "get the job done."

Of course, mercenaries and mercenary multinationals can "get the job done," while international councils have to follow the rules. The icons of American culture in the US lately -- from road ragers to Enron executives to Bush/Cheney -- don't think much of rules.

It's ironic that this country could well be accused of terrorism itself.

For good or for ill, the US is making war with the rest of the world even as it is in the process of dividing and turning upon itself. The Iraq invasion is depicted as righteous and the country united behind it. Hardly. Don't believe a word of it!

0 Replies

frolic wrote:

perception wrote:
Frolic wrote:

Quote:
At the base camp of the Fifth Marine Regiment here, two sharpshooters, Sgt. Eric Schrumpf, 28, and Cpl. Mikael McIntosh, 20, sat on a sand berm and swapped combat tales. The marines said they had little trouble dispatching their foes, most of whom they characterized as ill-trained and cowardly. "We had a great day," Sergeant Schrumpf said. "We killed a lot of people.... We dropped a few civilians," Sergeant Schrumpf said, "but what do you do?" [In one incident], he recalled watching one of the women standing near the Iraqi soldier go down. "I'm sorry," the sergeant said. "But the chick was in the way."

Do you have proof of this terrible allegation? If not you should be banned from this forum for printing this insult.

This isn't the first and it wont be the last disgusting comment of US soldiers in Iraq. All recorded or written down by the embedded media.

How about this from the Sunday Times?
"The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy . . . Wait till I get hold of a friggin' Iraqi. No, I won't get hold of one. I'll just kill him.

I'm suprised to admit that I actually agree with perception (someone write down the date!) on this one. Frolic, you need to damn well reference that first smear, or retract it. I can't sit still and watch folks get gratuitous mileage from verbally painting the US military as a bunch of heathen baby killers. Hell, I know a couple NCO's over there.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I'm suprised to admit that I actually agree with perception (someone write down the date!) on this one. Frolic, you need to damn well reference that first smear, or retract it. I can't sit still and watch folks get gratuitous mileage from verbally painting the US military as a bunch of heathen baby killers.

Snood, frolic already did, in the very post you quote: the excerpt was from a New York Times article.

His quote was, as perception illustrated later on, a rather selective one - but not some unspecified/anonymous one.

0 Replies

I'm not sure how one reconciles ethics and war. Soldiers are trained to kill the enemy. Many innocent people engage in fighting wars. Many do not have a choice to engage or not engage. If a soldier hesitates in killing the enemy, he endangers himself and his comrades. What's right and what's wrong? I doubt there is an easy answer. c.i.

0 Replies

The blossoming fields of new Osamas...from Jane's

Quote:

...It is a sure sign that there are major policy problems when various sections of a US administration start 'briefing against' the respective secretaries of other departments.

The root cause of the deep divisions within the US administration lies principally with the State Department, whose experienced staffers have been warning of the potentially dire consequences of the current Iraqi conflict for US interests. Now there are clear signs that Arabs from across the region are heading to Iraq.

However, even the arrival in Iraq of Islamic Jihad - a group which is far more interested in striking at the US than in rescuing Saddam and the Ba'ath Party - is far from being the worst case scenario. Of far greater geo-political significance is the rapid radicalisation now sweeping across the Arab world....

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid030403_2_n.shtml

0 Replies

I'm confused, Snood wrote that frolic wrote that perception wrote about Marines killing civililians. Can any of the the three of you provide a source for this story. Thanks.

0 Replies

realjohnboy wrote:

I'm confused, Snood wrote that frolic wrote that perception wrote about Marines killing civililians. Can any of the the three of you provide a source for this story. Thanks.

Hell, son, that's just the fog of war. You think its tough following things here, try keeping track while folks are shooting at you.

0 Replies

ON RICHARD PERLE,
LOBBYIST, BUSINESSMAN
AND, PERHAPS NOT
COINCIDENTALLY,
CHAIRMAN OF THE
DEFENSE POLICY BOARD

by Calvin Trillin
The Nation, 4/14

The plans to start this war were laid
Within the Sissy Hawk Brigade --
A band of Vietnam evaders
All puffed up now as tough crusaders.
Yes, now, as then, they love inciting
A war that others will be fighting.

In recent weeks, there's been much talk
Of Richard Perle, a sissy hawk.
There've been some articles about
Just whether Perle has used his clout,
While fighting evil, hell for leather,
To profit. (Hawks have nests to feather.)

A pity that some lads who fought
In Vietnam were later brought
Back home again in body bags
Adorned with battle stars and flags:
They missed the fruits that dedication
Can bring to those who serve their nation.

0 Replies

re: the chick was in the way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/29/international/worldspecial/29HALT.html

0 Replies

The US, UN & Iraq II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know