Bush, Rumsfeld et al American traitors?

Cork

I'd find it difficult other than that to comment, when I've never been a soldier in a combat situation, the decisions when theres fire coming at you from all angles must be very difficult to take, and theres no guarantee that you will get them all right.

I would 100% agree. It is very easy for us to cast comment on US soldiers.

There was pressure out there. Iraqis were not going by their own admission not going to fight a coventional war. Suicide Bombers were a reality out there. The Iraqis did bring weapons into civialian areas.

These are not excuses for US soldiers. Technology has not eliminated military mistakes andblunders. War is not a tidy little operation. Wars by their their nature are ugly. Mistakes are made - mistakes that cost lives. This is the reality of war.

This post will be slated as being pro US - It is not meant to be. It is a comment on war.

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Could it be that some of their facilities were being used to keep it on air, and Aljazeera didn't want that which led to the row....
{end conspiracy theory}

Regardless of what may or may not have been going on, the US should either give sufficient explanation as to how it managed to screw up so magnificently on this one, or explain why it was a deliberate action that they didnt feel the need to warn Al Jazeera about. Failing that, I'd settle for a full and proper investigation, which publically reported its findings.

This whole "it was an accident" thing is such a handy excuse, though, isnt it. Civilian deaths all get brushed aside by a combination of "unavoidable" and "accident". How many accidents, and of what scale, do we need to have before someone starts actually listening to the possibility that sometimes "accident" is spelled "negligence", which there is no excuse for.

I accept that civilians - including journalists - will get injured and killed in war.

What I do not accept is that those who favour war as the solution to so many evils wish use this fact to cover all the casualties.

Noone should even think of asking that things be investigated to see if they were avoidable, or perhaps even deliberate.

Nope - if its a classifiable as a civilian death, then its just an unavoidable tragedy, we just should say "these things happen in wartime" and shut up about it. Right?

After all, the Iraqis are dancing and singing in the streets, so the good guys couldnt have done anything wrong.

jc

gandalf

THe following users have been banned from Politics for a week for ignoring the personal insults part of the charter.

Big Daddy Cruz
Sam
The Corinthian

And if I have missed someone in that pile of drivel that makes up a proportion of this thread then please let me know. I am getting fed up with people ignoring the basic rule of this board which is to treat others with respect especially if you do not agree with their ideas/opinions.

Gandalf.

Cork

Originally posted by Big Daddy Cruz
US marines found more nuclear materials in three weeks than twelve years of inspections did.

FYI The UN has only backed two wars. Korea and Gulf War 1. Both left the job unfinished with problems festering.

The Kosovo attack was not UN santioned why don't some of you try to bring responsible countries to task for that?

Thousands of innocents died in Africa this week from fighting. Where are the protestors? What about in Cheniyea(sp)? Hyprocites?

Saddam is the bad guy. He killed millions. He attacked five of his neighbors. He tortures millions. Iraqis seem happy he is gone. He has WMD. He lead his country to ruin. He isolated his country internationally.Why do some of you like him so much and hate the US?

It is amazing that arms inspections and sanctions continued for years without achieving much. Saddam should have been ousted years ago. What we got was 12 years of sanctions by the UN. What these these sanctions achieve? Saddam lived like a King in his various palaces while Iraqis lived in fear.

We had 5 months of arms inspections. The French, Germans and Russians wanted to give this tyrant more time. The US & UK knew Saddam did not comply with resolution 1441 and went in.

Arms Inspections were progressing. But resolution 1441 was not complied with.

The UN needs big reform. UN sanctions were not working & they continued for 12 years.

bonkey

Originally posted by Cork
It is amazing that arms inspections and sanctions continued for years without achieving much. Saddam should have been ousted years ago. What we got was 12 years of sanctions by the UN. What these these sanctions achieve?

Cork...did you actually read the rest of the thread, where that claim was repeatedly rubbished, or have you some other excuse for mentioning it again?

Arms Inspections were progressing. But resolution 1441 was not complied with.

How many times will it have to be explained to you that this has nothing to do with anything?

Not even the US and UK were willing to use non-compliance with 1441 as their excuse for the war, because the claim would never stick. non-compliance of 1441 was not, is not, and was never going to be an excuse for war, So will you please, please, please stop bringing it up as though it is.

Look at what you're saying...that war and suffering is preferable to a slightly-slower-than-ideal peaceful process. Think about it. Hundreds dead, thousands injured, and you still want to sell this to us because the weapons inspectors were looking for an extra 6 months and that was too much.

Now, you can argue all you want about Saddam being a tyrant, and I'll quite happily discuss the rights and wrongs of enforced regime change with you, but that has absolutely nothing to do with 1441. Gottit? Nothing. Nada. Zip.

So please....seeing as you wanted to drag this stuff up yet again, I'll tell you what.....

If you want to believe that the marines "discovered" more nuclear material than the weapons inspectors ever did, you go and find a link to it and prove your point.

If you want to argue that overly-slow compliance with 1441 was a reason to kill hundreds and injure thousands - and I'm only considering the civilians here - you go and explain why the coalition arent using that excuse, and explain why these people dying was a preferable solution.

Go on. I dare you. Actually back up one of your statements for a change. I know that other poster's have already posted a bucket of links showing why these claims are false, but you want to re-introduce them as truth....so you must have new information showing their veracity.

Well?

Gonna try, or are you simply going to drag back up more soundbites and propagandist claims which have already been rubbished.

Oh - and please do this without mentioning Saddam's tyranny, and how he was a nasty man, because that has nothing to do with either point that we're discussing. I'll quite happily discuss the rights and wrongs of replacing a regime with which you disagree, but it has nothing to do with 1441 or the marines "discovering" more nuclear material than the arms inspectors......so its not relevant to this discussion.

Do you think people wont notice youre mentioning the same disproven points again and again, or that if you bring them up often enough and ignore the facts, that the rest of the readres will buy into it as well? Because quite frankly, other than trolling, these are about the only possible reasons I can come up with for explaining your current stlye of "discussion".

jc

Lennoxschips

Both Kofi Annan and Hans Blix repeatedly rubbished American claims that Iraq was not complying with 1441.

Cork

Bonkey, the main point of my post was of UN reform that sactions were not working & the Iraqis had 12 years of them.

I really don't want to go over ground that has been covered already - so I will keep this posting pretty brief. I actually see much merit in your arguements.

that war and suffering is preferable to a slightly-slower-than-ideal peaceful process.

A genuine and meaningful peace process is always preferable to war.

If you want to argue that overly-slow compliance with 1441 was a reason to kill hundreds and injure thousands - and I'm only considering the civilians here - you go and explain why the coalition arent using that excuse, and explain why these people dying was a preferable solution.

Go on. I dare you

Show me a war that civialians were not killed. This is the unfortunate horror of war. Wars are ugly. Casulties occur in war. This is a euphonisim. People are killed, mained and injured in war.

People dying is never a preferable solution. On the Agenda programme this morning on TV3 - It was noted that more died each month under this regime than during this war. This comment will do nothing to ease the heart ache of people who lost friends during this war.

The infant mortality rate in Iraq was very high while Saddam lived in his various palaces. Iraq now will be rebuilt and the lot of the average Iraqi should be improved.

Bonkey, I am in agreement with your overall posting - but think the US are intent at doing a good job at rebuilding Iraq.

Now this is where I differ from you:

I'll quite happily discuss the rights and wrongs of enforced regime change

The Iraqi were not going to get organised aganist Saddam. I think that the Iraqis needed help in getting rid of Saddam. The US should have got rid of him after the Gulf War - but they left the Iraqis down then. It was the average Iraqi who was then hit with sanctions not Saddam.

To conclude, I am actually in complete agreement with you except for the enforced regime change point.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
If you had a potentially fatal illness, and a doctor decided to operate on you without your consent, with potentially fatal consequences because he felt it would result in an improvement, would you say the doctor was correct in decided for you to carry out the surgery?

For the comparison to be valid you would have to assume that the patient was incapable of giving assent. We would also have to assume that the doctor believed the procedure would lead to a huge improvement in the quality of life of the patient. And that the only people advising against the operation were the other surgeons who were currently under investigation for medical malpractice and who were always player-hating on the other doctor because he was so skilled and made so much money and all the nurses fancied him. In those circumstances I would say that it was ethical behaviour.

Now, lets assume that there are hundreds of people like you, and the same doctor decides that the rich - those who can pay his exorbitant fees - will get operated on because they will help make him richer, but the poor patients can just go and rot somewhere. Their problems are there own.

No, although this doctor certainly makes a good living because he works hard and his skills are very much in demand, he also helps poor families who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford his fees. Although sometimes I wonder why he bothers his arse, because if he ever makes even the slightest mistake or there is a totally unforeseen complication, those same people he helped out will be forever talking trash about him back in the hood.

Now, lets assume that this doctor has a track record of this type of behaviour - deciding that patients needed surgery, but only when it was to his advantage. Lets also assume that this doctor has a track record of performing this incredibly expensive surgery and leaving the patient to deal with any post-surgical complications which arise....often complications which can be as serious (or more serious) than the original illness being treated.

That’s me eye. The good doctor always takes great care when he operates, even if it means he has to skip his afternoon round of golf, but the problems only arise when the patient goes home and doesn’t follow the expert advice he has been given. He forgets to take his medication, doesn’t go for regular checkups and doesn’t change his unhealthy lifestyle that led to his condition in the first place. It’s unfair to blame the doctor for this.

Originally posted by seamus
Quote me once saying, "I wish Saddam was back in power". I'm glad he's gone. But I'm absolutely appalled at the contempt shown by Bush for the rest of the world, in carrying out Saddam's removal.

Answer me this then: do you think Iraq would be better off if this war had never happened and Saddam was still in power?

I'm not an historian nor a politican nor a military strategist. I don't know of how to organise peaceful mediation of disputes. However, I trust the UNSC, and if they claim that force is not necessary then I stand with them.

The UNSC never said that force was not necessary. Some countries on the UNSC said they did not want to see force used. But the UNSC never spoke with a unanimous voice on this.

Besides, as we've said over and over, this war was allegedly about WMDs, NOT about removing Saddam.

It doesn’t matter what anyone said the war was about. The fact remains that if you are anti-war you are against the only realistic means of removing Saddam and bringing human rights to Iraqis.

WMDs were being removed peacefully.

Iraq was not cooperating fully with the weapons inspectors as they themselves admitted. This constitutes non-compliance with multiple UNSC resolutions demanding that Iraq divest itself of WMD. Given Iraq’s long history of evasion and non-cooperation with the inspectors, it should have been clear to everyone that the only way to ensure disarmament of Iraq was via regime change.

They didn't want the US to go in without their approval, and damn right.

But the question is, why didn’t they give their approval?

Lemming

Originally posted by Cork


Show me a war that civialians were not killed. This is the unfortunate horror of war. Wars are ugly. Casulties occur in war. This is a euphonisim. People are killed, mained and injured in war.

People dying is never a preferable solution. On the Agenda programme this morning on TV3 - It was noted that more died each month under this regime than during this war. This comment will do nothing to ease the heart ache of people who lost friends during this war.

Cork, I think you've side-stepped exactly what bonkey was asking you. Rather than stating that civilians will always die in war, I think he wanted to you justify why civilians dying now is more palatable and justifiable than had the UN been given the extra 6 months they were looking for.

The infant mortality rate in Iraq was very high while Saddam lived in his various palaces.

Whilst you will get absolutely no arguement from me that Saddam was indeed to blame here, so too, to an extent, were the US led santions imposed on Iraq.

Iraq now will be rebuilt and the lot of the average Iraqi should be improved.
<SNIP>
- but think the US are intent at doing a good job at rebuilding Iraq.

Right now, that isn't looking too good. I recall reading in a paper (tried finding an online link to no avail - so must have been a printed paper) yesterday that Condoleeza Rice stated that the US forces were not going to act as police in Iraq. Yet until a new administration is established, who do they expect to enforce law & order. It's common sense, yet here we have a "We'll trash your communities and be on our merry way" atttitude.

Not a good start to "rebuilding".

Cork

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon


Iraq was not cooperating fully with the weapons inspectors as they themselves admitted. This constitutes non-compliance with multiple UNSC resolutions demanding that Iraq divest itself of WMD. Given Iraq’s long history of evasion and non-cooperation with the inspectors, it should have been clear to everyone that the only way to ensure disarmament of Iraq was via regime change.

why civilians dying now is more palatable and justifiable than had the UN been given the extra 6 months they were looking for.

Civialians dying has been happening in Iraq over the entire regien of Saddam. I think Biffa made a good point above that answers this query.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Answer me this then: do you think Iraq would be better off if this war had never happened and Saddam was still in power?

I'm undecided. Its too early to be able to say. I know that the US believe they will make things better, but already we see signs of Iraqi's becoming dissillusioned. This afternoon, I watched a CNN report talking about Iraqi's out in thw street, chanting the same anti-US hate slogans that they did under Saddam, only now they do it of their own free will.

No doubt you will dismiss this as a small meaningless and temporary event which we shouldnt blow out of proportion, and I'd mostly agree, but then again, I took the same stance about the Iraqi's dancing in the streets, so I can claim some degree of objectivity in my comment. Can you do the same?

Iraq might be a better place. It might fall into rack and ruin to a scale which beggars the hardship of the previous 10 year. Right now, its on a knife-edge, and it could quite honestly go either way.

I'm sure the US - and coalition in general - wish to make things better for Iraqis (as well as for themselves).

I have never questioned that. I still dont. It makes perfect sense.

What I have questioned is their ability to carry it off - something very much not proven yet no matter how much triumphalism pro-war advocates wish to include in their posts. Yes, they've apparently done quite well so far, but they're only a fraction of the way to having made Iraq a better place. If you wish to believe its all said and done, then thats your perogative. I'll just look at how well the most successful war in history is still going on - over one year later - in Afghanistan, and how the only effect it has had on the vast majority of people is that it has changed the despot that controls their lives as control has shifted to tribal warlords in most of the country.

I have questioned the right of any nation to choose to play dice with the fates of another nation in this way, and continue to do so. Regardless of whether or not this turns out well, there was never any guarantee that it would, and plenty of "prior art" indicating that it probably wouldnt.

You may feel perfectly at home with those ideas, but I sure as hell do not.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
No doubt you will dismiss this as a small meaningless and temporary event which we shouldnt blow out of proportion, and I'd mostly agree, but then again, I took the same stance about the Iraqi's dancing in the streets, so I can claim some degree of objectivity in my comment. Can you do the same?

I'd call it impatience, I mean 4 or 5 days after the fall of Baghdad, thats a very short time considering whats been done.
It's not a case of snap your fingers and everything will be normal again.
And because of the nature of the human race, I'll take the view that the U.S at this stage should only be worried when they see the same level of discord as there was dancing in the days to come.
Now that could happen, but you are never going to satisfy everyone immediately, not in one week anyhow.
Now the coalition have their work cut out for them for sure, but a first plane load of medical supplies into Baghdad airport is a welcome start.
mm

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

For the comparison to be valid you would have to assume that the patient was incapable of giving assent. We would also have to assume that the doctor believed the procedure would lead to a huge improvement in the quality of life of the patient

Just for the record- if it is impossible for assent to be given, then no major operation can be peformed if the patient is an adult. The one and only exception to this are VCPs- in which case the next of kin contribute to a decision which is ultimately not one of intervention (unless you're Dutch).

The analogy here is Iraq's neighbours of course. Undoubtedly many of them privately wish he was gone- but the manner of his passing is crucial. We expect Syria's government to scream support for its sister party in Iraq, we expect Yemen and Libya to cry imperialism. But Turkey? Egypt? These are two moderate Arab nations- one entirely democratic, the other well on the road to full democracy. Jordan is another moderate nation that pleaded against the war. Contrast that with any previous "conflict of compassion"- where the international community was *asked* in. Genocide, invasion by a neighbouring power- generally foreign armies are *asked* in, they don't impose themselves on behalf of a people's future. That is the ideology of imperialism- the idea that somehow our ways are the best ways, and for all people- that troubles me greatly.

On a side note, I'm sick and tired of idiots saying "Aha, you support SADDAM!@%~! every time I tell them I would have preferred inspections to continue. To those same idiots I would ask this- because the US administration chooses to negotiate with North Korea, does that necessarily mean that they support Kim Jong Il?

Of course it doesn't- in the world of diplomacy you are required to be pragmatic. The same people who clamour that I support Saddam for holding the inspections view snap their mouths shut when I mention North Korea, China, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia- all of whom the US has incredibly strong ties with diplomatically. If our governments only maintained relations with nations they broadly agreed with, then diplomacy would fall into small spheres of influence and a myriad of power cabals with conflicting alliances. Let's all not forget, the reason an international order was created in the first place was because of the utter chaos resulting from nation-states forming power-groups and clashing views outside of a uniting authority. Two world wars, massive instability and a drastically bi-polar world were the consequences of such a chaotic structure.

You said earlier the UN doesn't speak with one voice Biffa- and I should damn well hope so. Speaking with one voice sounds awfully lot like a dictatorial oligarchy to me, no thank you. An interesting opinion piece I read in the Seattle Times likened the UN re:Iraq to a party political system. You had the pro-war party, and the anti-war party. A civil legislative body, in order to have any legitimacy requires its representatives to respect the majority decision. To be blunt, the pro-war elements never even had the so-called "moral majority" in the security council. Bully, bribe and cajole- the two most influential nations on the planet couldn't convince a handful of third-world countries to support the war.

Think about that- despite the risk of opposing US foreign policy (ask Yemen about how disagreeing in one area causes denial in another)- despite that risk, as one the "neutral swing" was firmly in the anti-war camp. Neighbouring *moderate* Arab leaders were saying the war would create a hundred bin Ladens. It's not just about NIMBY or a war on one's doorstep- the ramifications for the region are widespread, and damning for leaders walking a tight-rope to modernize yet please the Arab street.

Again, the issue is not whether Saddam should have gone or not, any more than it is an issue currently whether Kim Jong Il goes or not. The issue is the manner in which change is accrued. Consider this. If the United Nations (as in Afghanistan) was involved from the beginning- the process would have both regional and international legitimacy. All concerns are addressed, not merely national interests. In Afghanistan, UN authorities re-established education, health, power and water facilities, in many cases establishing them where they were previously absent. Looting was the norm in Kabul before that war, after it- the UN has restored authority. Abandoning the UN route has left Iraq bereft of any social order. American troops, 99% with not a word of Arabic between them have to try and restore order to a society gone mad. I don't blame them, but I blame the leaders that put them in a position to be a target.

Another side-note: For all those who talk of "unforseen consequences"- I advise you to check out the PNAC(Project for New American Century) website at

http://www.newamericancentury.org

The site was down last I checked but I'm sure it's temporary. In the meantime, here's a good article outlining what it is, who its members are and what they stand for: http://64.176.94.191/article1665.htm

So it isn't as if recent circumstances have "forced" them into this war, they've wanted it since 1996(read the policy letter to President Clinton in the PNAC archive), even before they entered the administration. When people say the war was inevitable for a year or more they were wrong- it was inevitable since the Bush administration took office. And guess what- they've made a rat's ass of it. From the unprecedented scenes of chaos it's blatantly clear the "coalition" forces hadn't even thought past V-day+1. An administration that short-sighted is a danger to us all- having planned and dreamed about it for 7 years, they still managed to screw it up.

Lastly- let us consider the impact that a breakdown of international institutions has- for all of us. The war on terror, international security issues, the Israel-Palestine peace process- all have been thrown into jeopardy by the cavalier attitude of elements in the Pentagon. Relics of the Cold war have now put US foreign policy back into the dark ages. Hope is all we have left- I sincerely hope that we somehow reverse these dangerous trends, if not by the next election, then at it.