Now don't you feel sheepish?

Remove all ads!

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!" 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:

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.

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 ) have increased very much especially in areas that were bombed.

 

That is partly right. Depleted uranium ( DU ) 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.

 

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 ...

 

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.

 

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.

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.