It is time to wake up America

1) America won't purge international terorism by war, the violence will couse more traumatic experiences and therefore more desperate and psychicaly harmed people willing to make some mad terrorristic attacks.

2) Chirurgic operations, inteligent bombs and war against terror are just words covering that people are being killed.

3) Minimum of civilian victims: Do you think that a dead soldier is not so important for people that loved him? It is "more bad" when defenseless man is killed, but soldier is as much a dead person that left grieving relatives as any. That he wielded gun because he foolishly believed in a dictator (it was very hard to discern what is true and what is a lie in iraq) is of no consequences for iraqi people. THERE ARE THOUSANS OF DEAD PEOPLE IN THE WAR, AND NOTHING CAN JUSRTIFY THIS.

4) West culture is on it's peak. From now it will probably only get worse. We need some change in our general course and war is not the solution.

5) Imagine that U.S.A. conquered and decimated all the middle east (except Israel), because that is what G. W. Bush probably means to do. Do you think there will stil be some democracy or freedom then? Do you think there could be some peace when one nation showed that big enough army can do what it wants?

Take what you want from this. I did not want to show my opinion here for a long time, cause I was afraid I can't express it clearly...

P.S.: At 11th of september 2001 some 2800 (sorry I don't know the exact numbers) died in the attacks. In Afghanistan, in so called war against terror (name which is only covering that war is being held against innocent people, because Al Kaida are just mad individuals, not nations, not Arabs, not Islam) died more that 3000 civilians (not to speak of people, who died for their faith and maybe because they just had wrong informations...)

This shows, that USA quite lost their right to avenge themselves in war against afghanistan, if someone ever can have right to make war against innocent people just bucause their forced leaders are bad.

[ April 08, 2003, 17:36: Message edited by: ArrynMorgerim ]

 

Once again, BTA is right on the money. It's easy to armchair quarterback -- especially when you simply state what you figure the coach did wrong instead of coming up with a better game plan.

As for war and soldiers, in the present situation, all of the American soldiers are volunteers -- that means they knew what they were getting into -- they accepted the risk that they might be killed. That is a far cry from a civilian who has not voluntarily assumed the risk of violent death.

As for the idea that we could have simply taken out Saddam and his sones and that would have solved the whole problem, give me a break. The REGIME would continue. Chabging the regime starts with Saddam, but the whole beast is going to take more effort.

Diplomacy assumes that both sides will actually do what they said they will do. The Iraqis have spent 10 years promising to do things, and then not doing them. Diplomacy in this case failed. I suppose sticking one's head in the sand and saying "I don't see or hear what's going on, and if I can't see it then it can't kill me" is a viable solution to some, but it certainly doesn't work for me.

 

Actually diplomacy do seem to work. Look at Northern Ireland, the problem is not gone but it is alot calmer there now than in a long time. That is not due to British troops trashing the place but due to talks and diplomacy. The more force you tend to use against such people the more fanatic and plentiful they tend to become.

 

They are not volunteers, they are proffesionals and therefore they obliged to follow orders and the Iraq campaign is not a UN peackeeping mission (in this case they would be volunteers). I bet that if you ask the american soldiers in Iraq, they will tell you that they joined the army because they wanted a permanent and well-paid job and that they have never think that they would fight. I don't know if you have served in the army, but this is what my experiences tell me. When I was in the army, I had many conversations with professional soldiers and all of them told me what I wrote previously.

 

BOC, anyone who joins any military not realizing that they could be sent into battle is an idiot. That's what militaries do, for heaven's sake, is fight! As for the American soldiers being volunteers, I was referring to the fact that none of them are conscripts at the present time -- that is, not one of them was FORCED to join the Army, they enlist of their own free will. Yes, it's a job, and most of them probably don't really want to go risk their necks, but they still know they could be sent into harm's way -- they know it and they enlist anyway, for whatever reason, be it money, patriotism, a death wish, a desire to see the world, whatever.

 

What could have been done instead of war?
Here's my two cents:

-Inspections: if Saddam only cooperates when there are troops at his borders then so be it, keep a force there to show him what's next if he doesn't comply with the inspectors' requests.
-Softening the sanctions: as it was said, while iraqi people die from starvation, Hussein has a big belly so if you want to remove the guy that doesn't seem to be the right course of action.
-Stop isolating Iraq: as long as the west means nothing else than bombs and sanctions, the people in Iraq will never think something good can come from there and will support whatever dictator who oppose all things western. If western culture is introduced by aid and commerce into the country, it might change the mind of the people while allowing them to live better, the US (and the others) could have the oil they want. Eventually, when the most basics needs are provided men will begin to think about freedom, democracy and start their own fight (non-violent if possible) to overthrow their oppressors.

I am a naive guy, I know it , but I still think those things could have been done or at least tried.

 

Saddam did showed a lot more cooperative mood to the inspectors when he saw GI's massing in Kuwait. Why? Did he hoped to avoid the war or just wanted some more time? Time for what? Building WMDs while inspectors are sticking their noses everywhere?
Build an army big enough to win the war though he had 12 years to do that, i don't think a few weeks wouldn't have changed anything.
Or he just wanted to play dictator a month longer, not really convincing.
If he thought the coalition troops were there to attack anyway, why bother destroying his own missiles rather than kicking the inspectors and keeping all of his weapons in order to fight the invaders more effectively?
Seeing an army at your borders is a more concrete threat than some words said by some president on some tv far from where you are.

As for totalitarism, it doesn't just take the word to make it work. If Iraqi citizens were not starving and bombed every day, they would less think of the US (and co) as their main enemy and perhaps would start to consider Saddam as their biggest problem. Revolution is in Iraq's people's hands only.

 

He showed more cooperation to buy more time because A) he was betting on the UN voting down the resolution against him, which the US ignored anyway, and B) to better hide, relocate or sell his stockpiles temporarily.

12 years or not, he couldn't have built an army big enough to compete with the U.S. anyway. The bigger his army got, the more support we would have had to topple him, which is why we went in now before he could get stronger.

He wasn't going to kick out inspectors and hoard all his weapons because he claimed he didn't have any. He had to play along with the inspectors to an extent so he could say "I have nothing to hide." He wasn't going to use WMD's in the opening stages especially for this same reason. Using them would immediately kill his "the corrupt US is just bullying me" arguement and rally more support behind us.

Revolution is NOT in Iraq's hands only! We proved that by abandoning them in the last gulf war. The reason we pulled out without killing Saddam last time is because we wanted the people to rise up and take back their country themselves. But without our military support, the rebels were slaughered by what little military and police forces Saddam had left. Those who survived have spent the last 12 years paying through the ass for our mistake (though they call it a 'betrayal.') This is a big reason why the Shia population in Iraq hates us so bad and doesn't trust us.

[ April 09, 2003, 01:34: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

The only complaint I have about American policy regarding Iraq was that they didn't go into Iraq back in '91. It's been 12 years, but better late than never is my motto!

Once the humanitarian aid comes in and the people start to see what Saddam was keeping from them by not complying (while at the same time building up arms and eating well himself), I think that a lot (but certainly not all) of the anti-American sentiment will vanish. Full bellies and decent medical care can work wonders on people.

 

Yes, Depaara, enough food and decent medical care can work wonders -- for those who are left alive or who are not left like the young Iraqi kid, who I saw just a few moments ago on MSNBC, with both of his arms blown off.

Now, if only we had enough food and health care for the poor and elderly here in the good old USA, we might really have something to agree on. I think America needs to put its own house in order before it goes off "crusading."

 

@Death Rabbit
As I understand it (from newspapers and tv mostly) the US did more than just abandon the rebels, they gave Saddam the means to crush the uprising (even lent him helicopters I heard).
In my opinion, the US would rather see Saddam in power than a Shiite government likely to ally with Iran. Besides, Hussein's presence justifies a future war when needed: oil, money for arms sellers, political disaster in Europe, a large army in the middle East, very useful...

 

BTA wrote:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/reference/bios/albright.html

Sidenote: Actually the Germans, Japanese and British pay their salaries. (If anyone wants to argue that, please prove me wrong, not just blah, blah, blah)

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39eb2fd26da1.htm

BTA, before you falsey denounce something as "false", I suggest you get in touch with facts and the policies of your country.

Anyway, I have some Questions BTA

1. My understanding is, that the Bush-Goverment plans to occupy Iraq for at least the next 5 years. How much do you think will the war and the occupation cost the american tax-payer ? (Sidenote: I see a huge rising of your taxes)

2. Given the fact that the US (and other nations) were till 1990 allies and supporters of Saddam Hussein (prove me wrong if you don't agree) and the huge price that the Iraqi Population had to pay in the 1990, don't you think the Iraqi people will have a feeling that their "even" and owe the US no money, therefore will be rather upset with american war-reparation demands ?

3. If your goverment plans to seed democracy and liberty in Iraq, how will the future occupation-authorities react, when confronted by the Iraqis with weird liberal ideology like "no taxation without representation". In other words, when the Iraqi people will demand to have a say, how the huge wealth of their country is administrated and who profits from it ?

[ April 11, 2003, 13:45: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

The extent of the relationship between the US and Iraq isn't clear to me. Certainly it is clear that there was a relationship. It is also clear that it was probably related to Iraq and its relationship to Iran. However, you commonly hear people scream that the US armed Iraq, which is why when I saw this yesterday I was surprised:

http://members.toast.net/eyeofthestorm/arming_saddam.jpg

Now, obviously whoever put this up is trying to make a point. The source however is apparently the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute so, shrug...

Yago, your comments go perfectly with the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" feeling many American's get when reading here. Down below Charlie criticizes the US for not being involved enough in the Phillipines like they were in Japan. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

For the record, the one's screaming the most loudly about Iraqi debt won't be the Iraqis it will be the French and the Russians along with the Kuwaitis. Kuwait claims 40 billion in compensation. France and Russia each are the largest debtors with over 10 billion each. There is a doctrine being bandied about called the "Doctrine of Odious Debt." It was used for example to get rid of the debt Cuba owed because of the actions Spain took when it ruled Cuba with an ironfist. The idea is that when an essentially evil regime rules a people and incurs debts that in no way went to aid the people and which the people had no voice in, when that regime is toppled, the debts don't pass to the people who had no role in those debts being created in the first place.

Uh oh. France and Russia don't like that doctrine one bit do they? That is what so much of the diplomatic positioning going on right now has to do with. The point is, you act as if the US is going to be controlling where the money goes when in reality it is going to be much more complicated than that. France, Russia, Germany etc will make sure of that - they want to be paid too.

 

BTA, I don't like the "comply with UN or face a large scale war" idea, especially when the large scale war has not been approved by the UN.
Last time I heard Blix, he said inspections were going quite well, yet inspectors had to leave Iraq not because of the noncompliance of Saddam but because of the noncompliance of the US to UN resolutions (1441 didn't implied the use of force)
So I find it weird that UN is respected when it means sanctions for Iraq; but is left out of the play when a powerful country wants war.
Just a thought.

 

I guess I can understand your point of view, too.
I'm just saddened to see that when members of the UN don't agree on something the decision is taken by the country who has the biggest guns.
Bush and his administration failed to convince a lot of people, although they tried to summon several different motives (WMD, terrorism, bringing democracy through the barrel of a cannon, etc) and when faced with opposition from France, Russia and others couldn't come up with something better than "old Europe doesn't count" or "we have balls, you don't".
There is a dangerous policy being applied here: if there is no consensus, the US will act alone for what they think is the common good (well, that's what they say, I never thought this war was about "freedom from Iraq" but that's another topic)
Even if the US were the goody-goodies they claim to be and really only just wanted to bring freedom to the poor Iraqi people, leaving matters to be handled only by the most powerful ones (thus dumping international law and other diplomatic babble) scares the hell out of me.