The US, UN & Iraq III

Be careful what you say or you'll end up marrying georgeob. That was his quote.



The quote you are lauding did precisely that IMO.



I couldn't agree more, argumentum ad misericordiam.



I've long held, throughout my opposition to the war, that this is not about oil. But I wish the administration would do itself a favor and help quash this doubt. Some of their actions have begged that allegation.



Not from me, my qualm is not related to misery or death.

Fair enough, but I'm only willing to do half the housework. :wink:

Scrat--
I wish I had been responsible for that moment of clarity, but it was courtesy of georgeob1, as Craven said. Alas, missed out on a nice proposal. Dang. Always the bridesmaid.

And, like you, I saw that the 'torn apart' child comment that followed was an example of the point george made.

Have valued your comments.

Steissd said:

[quote]American position is wrongly being considered unequivocally pro-Israeli. It is pro-Israeli only in the following aspect: U.S. takes into consideration essential conditions of Israeli national survival and protects these. But in all the other aspects of American approach it is rather balanced, since USA supports the idea of two countries for two peoples.[/quote]

If you read the entirety of PNAC, you will see that the defense of Israel is a key principle of the neo-conservative viewpoint. I heard today, (on always-suspect NPR, ) that 70% of the Israeli people hope for a peaceful solution to their conflict with the Palestinians. This is a disconnect with their leader. Is a regime change in Israel what is needed?

Regarding ground wars vs. air wars:
As a former soldier and a student of past conflicts I find a discussion about the least lethal strategy to conduct a war so that we don't kill too many of the enemy a little bizarre.

One of Hitler's observation's about previous wars, especially WWI, was that perhaps, if one was going to commit to fight a war, civility should be given no quarter. One should adopt an overall strategy to actually win the war by degrading the enemies ability to fight as quickly as possible by any means. The concern for preserving civilian casualties usually applies to one's own citizens not the enemy's. So Hitler attacked enemy civilians because it is they who support their troops in a conflict not only morally but because they are in the rear making the munitions, which killed his soldiers. The attacks on London citizens were a secondary luxury afforded the Germans (because they had taken France) and involved the terror of war visited upon civilians to further weaken their resolve. Hitler was not the first to use these tactics. He was evil for other reasons.

When the decision comes to go to war all bets are off, all is fair, and people in and out of uniform perish. That the U.S. tried to spare civilians and civilian targets is laudable but not necessary. The fact it did so speaks as to what the war's ultimate reason was...free the Iraqi people so as they may rebuild a better society.

The U.S. was able to try and discriminate between targets mostly because of its overwhelming power and in addition it simply could. (More efficient smart weapons.) That it did so, I believe, is telling about us Americans. We, as a people and society, are at best good at worst flawed but never evil. Yes, the fathers of our county seemed sinful in pursuing Thomas Jefferson's grand concept of "Manifest Destiny" and so did other campaigns rooted in this continental concept of expansion. The Mexican-American War qualifies, as does the "Taming of the West". These past acts (and others) are constantly being dredged up and fashioned into rhetorical billy clubs then subsequently used to try to bludgeon Americans into thinking how evil they must be and...by the way if they could manage reparations that would be fair (but certainly not appreciated).

Critics of the U.S. have the right to complain even if most of them are U.S. residents, indeed especially if they so reside. But one must be careful placing blame on the sons of sinful fathers.

Witness: The author of The Declaration of Independence and our First American President owned slaves and were looked up to. Nobody whispered "Dirty Slave Owners" behind their backs. People wanted to be like them. Those who wish to so place blame either forget or wish to obfuscate that the sins of today were the acceptable norms of the past and to judge those of the past with today's morals is an invalid exercise. To further try and project "guilt by association" upon today's Americans is disingenuous. Then when American reason's for present day actions are questioned these old sins are dusted off propped up and pointed to while the mantras of "Blood for Oil" or "Imperialist America" is not so quietly recited. This is wrong.

Many blame G.W. Bush for the War and cite the fact that he told Iraq many months before that if certain conditions did not come to pass they would be invaded. Apparently, the Republican Guards that wisely made for parts unknown took us at our word, so why not Saddam?

So, if Saddam knew all about this and was even given 48hrs to get out of dodge in order to prevent the war, whose fault is the war? How many civilian casualties resulted from the deliberate placement of mobile military targets adjacent to civilians? Who did this? What was their intent by thus exposing the civilian population? Hmmm... but, surely it was Saddams's responsibility to protect all his people and not that of the invading nation's military. So what was Saddam doing during that 48 hours? Were he and his government officials franticly searching for the paperwork demonstrating WMD destruction or geographic location? Well no, the Iraqi people should have been so lucky. Apparently Saddam and his sons were providing lorry rides for almost one billion in U.S. dollars, the Pound Sterling, and bars of gold bullion.

One last thing, so far the U.S. led coalition has not found WMD so, given that we don't find them, that of course means the U.S.'s basis of using UN SCR 1441 for going into Iraq was flawed. Well, not exactly. Here is an excerpt from that much beloved international legal body's resolution:



Complete text at http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

Translation: It was Iraq's responsibility to produce either the WMD or proof that they were destroyed. Iraq failed to do so. Therefore to deny this is merely to deny one's own eyes or to deny the validity of the UN to so state.

I remember that in the last conflict Iraq moved all its best fighter aircraft to Iran, where they still safely reside. If Iraq had no WMD why did they not produce the records of their destruction? But if not destroyed where are they? Maybe Saddam is mum on the subject because he is a stand up guy and doesn't want to get his bagman into trouble.

Respectfully,

JM

Well, I've never had my head shrunk before, if that is what that was by scrat. Then the grand finale post mortem by the master himself, my head just blew right back up again.
Are you two Freud wannabe's absolutely sure that you re-wrote what I said to your satisfaction?
My comments were written for shock value only ....not as the two of you would suggest, that I was trying to convert others to my way of thinking. Your attempt to convert my empathy into 'complaints' was eally lame.

Scrat wrote:

"Any attempt to bring context into the equation... discuss the prospects for all Iraqi children with or without Saddam, discuss the likely longevity of the average Iraqi child with or without Saddam, discuss the prospects for those children to live free and happy with or without Saddam... and you will simply be met with complaint after complaint about the very real casualties of war with no consideration given to what is won at such tragic, but sometimes necessary, cost."

Can either of you tell me just what, other than Saddam is no longer in power, has been won?




I tried to demonstrate that realities differ ... to a person that I felt was staring so intently into the forest that they could not see the trees.
Why do I feel that I should submit for approval any future post?



Here is the url, pick your own horror story.

In the deserted emergency ward, Mohammed Suleiman hysterically looked for his 8-month-old daughter, Rowand, brought in after a bomb her brother unwittingly brought home exploded. "Please look at her face and see how beautiful she is," he screamed when he found the baby's lifeless body, covered with a blanket, her eyes half open, her nose and mouth bloodied.7

The lower half of her body had been blown away as she crawled on the floor, disturbing a cluster bomblet brought into the house by other children.8


http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial.htm

Also don't miss the Massing article which Blatham referred to earlier on about press coverage. Really first-rate. What America saw, didn't see. Very readable -- after you pick the sand out of your ears, eyes, nose and mouth, that is.

Hang in there, Geligesti. You're right, of course.

Admirable admonition to another: hang in there! Why should he hang alone and not in a group - would be much more fun together, as y'all research links for videos of dogs placed on red-hot skewers (until they died terrifyingly agonizing deaths) by Saddam Hussein when he was "graduating" from torturers' school.

Not to mention the 2 million Iranians maimed and slaughtered in that war initiated by Saddam in addition to a million of his own ditto, poisoned Shias and Kurds, or the 500,000 political dissenters tortured and disappeared during his rule. Is it that y'all have no brains, or is it you have no shame??????

Thanks tartarin .....

Beg pardon, Gelisgesti, of the "wokiksuye etc" motto - omitted your case evidently consisting of BOTH lack of brain AND lack of shame - not to mention inability to read report on battle of "Woki...Opi":
_______________________________________________________

"That women and children were casualties was unfortunate but unavoidable, and most must have been [killed] from Indian bullets...The Indians at Wounded Knee brought their own destruction as surely as any people ever did. Their attack on the troops was as treacherous as any in the history of Indian warfare, and that they were under a strange religious hallucination is only an explanation not an excuse."

...excerpts from an official investigation of Wounded Knee
initiated at the behest of Congress, written by General E. D. Scott.

_______________________________________________________

You ma'am, are a proctologist dream wth no fear that those you disparage in this life are waitng.

Do you have a point?

Well now I know what a proctologist is.

McTag..heard the same radio programme. Was motivated to scribble some notes.

I posted some conclusions before but here's what I understood

1. Britain said the war was legal on the basis of 1441, which incorporates all the previous resolutions 687, etc etc. It was well drafted and makes a case for military action. But...
2. A more powerful legal argument says authority for "continuing" Gulf War 1 had LAPSED by 2003 and a new SC res. specifically authorising the use of force was needed to make war legal. This of course was withdrawn when it became clear it would never pass.
3. The Americans justified the attack with their new doctrine of pre emptive self defence. This has still to be incorporated into the body of international law, i.e. has to be accepted by the international community, but most lawyers think it is complete bull****


Sorry about the scare stories about the world ending today. The good news is that it hasn't ended yet in Europe, and as we are about 7 hours ahead we would surely know first....hang on a minute...what the HELLISTHAT HUGE GRAAAHHAAH.

Ok it was nothing, just forgot I live near an airport.

oil
Just a reminder ...... this is not about oil ..... in the general sense

"But the officials suggested that the administration would insist on retaining control of the country's oil revenue and achieving a clear council mandate to rule the country until a democratically elected government is in place"


Not about oil

This morning I heard John Reid desperately trying to play down the significance of not finding WMD in Iraq.

BUT Dr Reid, I distinctly remember your boss Mr Blair saying before the war:

"Saddam will disarm voluntarily or he will be disarmed by force"
"Iraq could be disarmed of WMD in a matter of weeks - like South Africa - if only Saddam fully co operated"
"If Saddam gets rid of his WMD then the nature of Iraqi regime will have changed and it will therefore not be necessary to change it"
"Saddam threatens his own people and the region. Britain could not avoid being dragged into any conflict"
"Iraq has WMD that could be made ready in 45 minutes"

Now I would respectfully suggest, as many people have died in the conflict to "disarm Iraq by force", that the issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction does matter. In the United States the war was not sold so much on disarmament as on removing Saddam. But in Britain it was most definitely sold on the basis that Saddam was a menace because he had WMD and it was imperative to do something about it. So I'm sorry Dr Reid, its no good trying to play DOWN WMD because you are the one who played it UP to justify the war in the first place. Do you really think we are that stupid?

Kara

It seems that even mentioning regime change in Israel is to invite vicious scurrillous and completely unfounded attacks of anti semitism and racism.

http://nytimes.abuzz.com/interaction/s.319033/discussion_in_list/ci/0/

Geli

Of course its not about oil. Its about dates. The whole industrial world relies on a continual supply of good quality dates (you know they used to come in flat little boxes with rounded ends), and the fact is the world's date supply is limited. Therefore to secure that supply and protect American date palm plantations from Saudi Arabia to Kazakhstan, it was necessary to take over Iraqi date production, and remove Saddam Hussein.

That surely makes more sense than any of the scare stories about weapons of mass destruction.

Oh I get it, like Regan and the nutmeg ...... I can be so thick ....doh

How so? Do you have evidence that Sharon is opposed to peace, or are you attempting to infer this from his use of his military?

If the latter, are you unfamiliar with the concept of self-defense? (I recognize that we could debate the methods and scale involved, but I find the notion that Sharon prefers conflict to peace absurd.)

JM - Excellent comments!

jamesmorrison said That is as naive and ahistorical a claim to US intentions and behaviors as one might come across.

HofT wrote Well, if awareness of such acts were what really motivated US foreign policy, we'd see a completely different history over the last fifty years from what we have seen.

Shame is easy to come by. It requires only the presumption that one might have had it wrong. You'll note the ease with which this adminstration fesses up to mistakes, and how it hesitates to blame others.