US/British planes fire on Iraq (closed)

Subject: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Alice
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 01:58 PM

I've been listening to the news on this for the last hour on one TV news station. A press conference coming up shortly. Anyone else watching news of this?

Alice

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 02:10 PM

Hadn't heard about it, until opening your thread, Alice. Here is what AP has to say. I do not liek the sounds of this, at all. Thansk for bringing it to our attention.

U.S. Planes Attack Iraq Radar Sites
The Associated Press
Friday, Feb. 16, 2001; 2:02 p.m. EST

WASHINGTON –– U.S. and British planes struck Iraqi air defense sites south of Baghdad Friday in a mission meant to destroy radar systems that had been threatening American and British aircraft, Pentagon officials said.

"We fired on some integrated air defense targets in Iraq," one official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

All U.S. and British planes involved in the attack returned safely, the official said.

Some of the Iraqi radars were located north of the 33rd Parallel, which marks the outer limit of the "no-fly" zone that U.S. and British planes have been enforcing over southern Iraq since the end of the 1991 Gulf War.

The Pentagon official said Friday's strike was the first against targets outside the southern no-fly zone since December 1998, when U.S. and British planes staged a four-day air campaign against Iraq.

The official said the allied aircraft did not fly outside the no-fly zone. They used "standoff" weapons to reach their targets, he said. These are capable of zeroing in on targets from a distance after being launched from an aircraft, making it safer for the pilot.

Air-raid sirens wailed through Baghdad Friday night and explosions were heard as anti-aircraft weapons fired into the sky.

Witnesses saw nothing unusual over the Iraqi capital, but the city was tense. The explosions from anti-aircraft weaponry from the southern and western outskirts of the city began soon afterward.

State-run TV aired its regular newscast. Another station, al-Shabab TV, began playing patriotic songs and showing footage of commando training and marching.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Alice
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 02:13 PM

Pentagon briefing will be aired in a few minutes.

Alice

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 02:21 PM

Yeah alice, I've been watching too. Kat's posted AP summary is pretty much what they are saying at this point. Waiting..........

Spaw

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Wesley S
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:15 PM

Please keep us posted.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:21 PM

If American and British pilots were at risk, sounds justified to me. We are there on a United Nations mission.

DougR

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: kendall
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:43 PM

Hey Doug, I thought you had quit us. Glad you didn't. And, I agree with you.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: wdyat12
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:57 PM

I've got close friends with kids over there. We are all quite nervous. wdyat12

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 03:58 PM

And "Presto"! New TV stars will be created! Fascinating when you think that there would be no:

Roger Cossack, Greta Van Sustram, and Gerry Spence, without "OJ"

and no:

Peter Arnott, Wolf Blitzer, Colin Powell, Christine Amanpoor, and Norman Shwartzkoff, and that "scud stud" guy, without desert storm.

and no: Lanny Davis, Charlie Rangle, and the rest of that revolting cast of attackers and denyers without "Bubba's" wandering dickie. By the way, anybody notice how much younger (and in some cases scarier) they look today than when they debuted? Plastic surgery is everywhere...glad we don't need it on Mudcat.

I'll probably watch a fair bit of it. Curiosity and sheer wonder of it all, ya know.

Rick

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Peter Kasin
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 04:13 PM

I haven't heard anything more yet on this, and I'm about to be sequestered for the weekend at a fiddlers getaway at a ranch/conference center, but I'm aware that it's been reported that the Iraqi military has pretty much routinely shot at US/British pilots, and that intelligence reports point to a growing re-armament in Iraq. I also agree with Doug R on his initial reaction. We'll just have to see how this all plays out, whether it will help prevent a bigger mess from happening later, or if Hussein wants to escalate it into who knows what.

-chanteyranger

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: wdyat12
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 04:17 PM

chantyranger,

I hope this is a squelch and not fuel for another storm.

wdyat12

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,ivan
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 04:20 PM

What UN mission are we on. If US & UK planes didn's fly over Iraq none of our pilots would be at risk. We don't seem to be prventing any mess just helping to continue/create one.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Bert
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 04:24 PM

My thoughts are with you wdyat12. I had many friends on that area before the Iran/Contra scandal when we started selling arms to Iran. They're probably all dead now.

Of course we all KNOW that Daddy Bush had nothing at all to do with that.

Here's hoping that this turns out to be a minor deal and your friends remain safe and sound.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 04:34 PM

If I recall correctcly we are supposed to be ensuring that Iraq does not create or use any weapons of mass destruction, and prevent their planes from overflying Kuwait. Maybe somebody who knows more precisely what the UN mandate is in this area can say more?

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 04:50 PM

The only difference in this and what we have been doing since the end(?) of the Gulf War is that 4 of the 5 were inside the 33rd and 5 to 20 miles from Baghdad. We've been taking out radar and weapons sites on a regular basis and they have been building them up on a regular basis. They were tired of the US bombing them so they moved the new ones inside the "No-Fly" zone. As the firings on planes picked up again, we, again, bombed the crap out of the radar/AA installations. This is the same policy that has been going on.........same shit, different day.

And isn't it nice the Kuwaitis are making big bucks on their oil again.............................

geeziz.....

Spaw

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 05:37 PM

"Its Deja Vu all over again!"- Prince George picking up where Daddy left off. Ain't that America- somethin' to see.

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 05:37 PM

Well let's get this worked out. The economy is weak and war stimulates it. I work for the Air Force and it is only timing that our Expeditionary Wing wasn't involved.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Penny S.
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 06:22 PM

Any of you folks with military experience know how long it takes to get something like this rolling?

Penny

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 06:39 PM

It's really too bad the US and the UK etc backed Saddam so enthusiastically (if surreptitiously at times) all through the war with Iran isn't it? - including turning a complete blind eye to atrocities carried out by him against the Kurds - even to the extent of helping out by shooting down a Iranian airliner.

And of course when the Turkish air force today flies over and bombs Kurds in the "no-fly zone", the US/UK don't make any effort to stop them.

This is politics - maybe in 30 years the facts, whatever they are, will come out. And whatever they are, they won't be the ones we are told at the time. They never are.

Here's a song I wrote about that kind of stuff a couple of years ago, in the context of Kosovo:

Collateral Damage
I'd a neighbour was cruel to his children,
The poor kids had a swine for a dad.
I just couldn't stand it no longer,
The racket was driving me mad.
It was plain that I had to take action,
Put an end to his sinister games,
And I felt such a strange satisfaction
Seeing his house as it went up in flames.
It's a shame the flames spread once they'd started,
oh the smoke and the smell and the heat.
In the morning I fairly felt gutted,
but then, so was the rest of the street.

But I couldn't do nothing,
I had to do something,
He was such a swine and a slob
It's a pity the kids were burnt up in the blaze,
while the neighbour was down at the pub,
But I couldn't do nothing,
I had to do something,
He was ever so nasty and bad
Though the outcome was grim,
it was all down to him
And the matches were all that I had...

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Tony (home) in Sweden
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 06:41 PM

Penny, I'm to understand that it's been on the boil for the best part of 1½ yrs, when patrol aircraft zeroed in on the co-ordinates of the Iraqi air defense sites south of Baghdad. These COs can then be used by any other patrol when necessary, and as we have heard today/night, that's exactly what's been done.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 07:23 PM

Say, I haven't been keeping up. Have women gotten the right to vote in Kuwait yet?

Cheers,

-- Arne Lagsetmo

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: mousethief
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 07:28 PM

Does anybody vote in Kuwait?

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 10:12 PM

I evidently was incorrect when I said in my original post that the US and British are a UN mission. I heard a later report that the UN is not involved. The "no fly" zone was evidently established by the U.S. and G.B., and perhaps the other nations involved in the consortium involved in Desert Storm after that conflict.

Frankly, I think it evidently has just been a slow news day because, in my opinion, the press is way overplaying this incident. Evidently this attack is not that different from others that take place regularly.

No, Kendall, I never quit the Mudcat. I just decided not to participate in further political discussions.

DougR

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 10:38 PM

Saddam is reputed to have two divisions on the Syrian border and has been pressuring the Syrians to let him cross Syrian territory to reach Israel.
A recent defector said that he has two nuclear devices and is working on a third. The problem is a reliable delivery system. Scuds probably wouldn't cut it.
Our government definitely made a mistake when we helped him build his army during the Iran-Iraq war. We made the monster and now we are responsible for controling it.
What I have never understood is Bushs' refusal to go on to Bagdad and take him out once and for all when we had the chance. Of course it would have played hell with the balance of power in the Middle East but would it have been any worse than the situation there now?
As was pointed out on another thread, alliances are not made for moral or humanitarian reasons but for reasons of economic and national interest.It is truly said that politics makes strange bedfellows.

troll

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: katlaughing
Date: 16 Feb 01 - 10:49 PM

Geez, it sure does, troll! I happen to agree with you in wondering why Bush didn't just take him out, too!

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 04:50 AM

And bang goes the stock market, plunging like a plane in flames. Oh, wait, there haven't been any planes in flames. Well, bang goes the stock market, plunging like the benighted economy. Still, a nice war will take people's minds off the economy, won't it?

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Penny S.
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 06:59 AM

I knew that there were regular missions being flown. It seems remarkably close to a change in the man at the top of one of the nations concerned that this has been escalated, when there will be probable developments which should also have been planned for.

Penny

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Gary T
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 07:49 AM

Just recently Iraq has acquired SAM's (surface-to-air missiles) that have significantly increased the probability that they might actually take out a U.S. or British plane. This, apparently, is their goal--they would love to have a downed plane to exploit for propaganda, presumably of the swaggering variety. The longer reach of U.S./U.K. countermeasures that made the news is in response to the increased threat posed by Saddam's new toys.

It seems every U.S./U.K. firing action is answered with Iraqi reports of X number of civilian casualties. My belief is that there have been few, if any, such casualties and that Iraq keeps saying such things on the hope that if you lie long enough, people will start believing it.

I wish safety and health to wdyat12's friends and all civilians in the region.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: MARINER
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 08:56 AM

Gary T,Of course Iraq would like to down some U.K./U.S.A.planes. If the Iraqis were bombing your country,and including it appears,innocent civilians, on a daily basis wouldn't you like to take out some of their planes??.Not only are they bombing the place to hell, but have you read of the mortality rate among children there due to the lack of basic medicines?. Meanwhile Sadam and his twisted family sit back and amass fortunes of the broken backs of his people.I still wonder why Bush the Elder didn't finish him when he had the chance and public opinion on his side.If he had maybe we wouldn't have this slaughter of innocent civilians to day, including the children and elderly left to die from lack of facilities. It worries me, now that young Bush is in power as he has already shown that he has little regard for human life.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 11:10 AM

May I repeat my point: the American economy is in deep trouble.

All rulers have found, throughout history, that if they can't run the economy, a war takes people's minds off things.

Nobody wants to hate the bosses when there are convenient foreigners to hate (preferably distant enough that you can't actually see the foreigners starve and die).

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Gervase
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 11:22 AM

Thank you Kevin, Mariner; well said.
I find it obscene that we are prepared to continue sanctions which have actively led to the deaths of Iraqie civilians, are prepared to destroy defensive munitions with all the resulting "collateral damage" and continue a course of action which is no longer condoned by the Alliance that went to war in Desert Storm and which risks greatly destabilising the peace process across the Middle East - and at the same time we accept Turkey as a member of NATO when it is systematically killing Kurds on the northern Iraqi border - something which is recognised but ignored by the many British and American personnel based at Incirluk airbase.
From Dubbya I expected it - but I'm disgusted with Blair!

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,Guest Who
Date: 17 Feb 01 - 03:05 PM

Come on Gervase - what do you expect from Blair? His first Guest at 10 Downing Street was M thatcher - Warmonger First Class.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: DougR
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 12:21 AM

Marinar: Seems to me you're sending a mixed message. George, Sr. is criticized because he didn't take Saddam out; George W. is criticized because he might try to.

Guest JTT: Once the press let's go of this story, the Iraq raid will be a footnote in history. We are a long way from war with Iraq, I think. Anyway, that was Clinton's way of getting the people's minds off his troubles, Bush hasn't had time to establish a pattern of any kind it seems to me.

DougR

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 12:48 PM

Footnotes in history are dead people on the ground. Noone's going to make war on America, if that's what people are worried about. There might be some people blown up or shot in reprisal, more footnotes in history. Unless they happen to be important people, which they hardly ever are.

This isn't anything to do with anything except politics, nothing to do with protecting opponents of Saddam, or safeguarding pilots, or putting Saddam in any kind of risk. Politics, making some kind of political statement for domestic purposes.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: wdyat12
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 03:08 PM

McGrath of Harlow,

You're right. This agression against Iraq has been the failed US policy for over ten years now and they still haven't got it yet.

wdyat12

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: wdyat12
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 03:12 PM

The attack on Iraq is Dubya's way of saying, "I have arrived."

wdyat12

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Jack The Lad
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 03:39 PM

Britain and the USA attack Baghdad- and who gets the blame? Israel of course. Out with the old gasmasks again. Jack The Lad- in Israel.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: wdyat12
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 04:43 PM

Jack,

Who's blaming Israel? Israel has it's own problems to face right now. Less aggression and more communication in both venues would certainly ease tensions for the rest of the planet.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: MARINER
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 05:16 PM

Denis Halliday resigned as as coordinator of the U.N's humanitarian aid programme to Iraq in 1998. At the time he was quoted as saying "The sanctions are killing the people of Iraq. Five thousand innocent children under the age of five are dying every month as a direct result of the economic embargo forced on the Iraqi people over the last ten years". This is indefencable. The bombings in 1991 destroyed the water and sewage plants, disease is rife and there's no medicines to treat them.And still Sadam and his henchmen are untouched. The campaign has not affected them in the least. Surely there most be some other way to deal with him that will leave the next generation of Iraqi's intact??

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 07:18 PM

Haven't seen anyone blaming Israel for this one. The way Israel gets brought into the discussion around this in the media is when it's pointed out that the US and others operate a double standard when it comes to Israel ignoring UN resolutions, occupying foreign territory, developing nuclear weapons and so forth.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Grab
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 07:26 PM

There's plenty of medicine available, Mariner. Iraq is at liberty to sell oil for medicine, but Hussein refuses to do it. So whose fault is that?

Suggestions Mariner? "Something must be done" is fine, but knowing what to do - that's the trick. Thing is, all political solutions require that the leaders are elected, or at least can be easily removed. Make life hell for the ppl, let them know that a new leader will solve the problem, and they'll find a new leader. This has failed bcos: (1) Hussein is an amoral psycho, as are his entourage, and any resistance is met with extreme force (eg. poison gas used on the Kurds and Marsh Arabs); and (2) Hussein's convinced the ppl (and some of the rest of the world) that the sanctions aren't his fault.

So what's left is to get rid of Hussein. Would you send in the CIA to assassinate him? Might be nice, but is it legitimate? And what then? Get his son (another psycho) in charge? Or do we kill the son too? Where do you fancy stopping?

And aid-wise, what should the world do? Say "Oh, you're not going to sell your oil, so we'll give you the stuff anyway for free?" All the more oil for him to sell illegally to keep him and his cronies in power.

Gervase, I'd agree with you about Turkey. Not just Kurds - anyone organising trade unions too, and anti-government political organisations. But we're also doing business with China, and their human rights record needs no summary. Bottom line, the political view is that an ethical foreign policy only works as far as it doesn't get in the way of business.

Grab.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Rollo
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 08:38 PM

Seems to me the whole region is close to the danger of being set ablaze now. allready the israel/palestina conflict and the iraq affair are merged into u.s. and jewish agression against the arabian world by muslim politicians. the israel election alone was desastrous for peace in near east. the timing of the bombardement couldn't have been worse. What will happen when arafat loses control over the more radical groups in palestina, or simply dies suddenly of high age? Or when ghadafi decides his days of playing good guy are over? When all these arabian so called "rogue states" are deciding to go rogue indeed? Every reasonable human should be able to recognice the need to de-escalate the most dangerous area on our planet, instead of showing power. Lord have mercy!

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,cretinous yahoo
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 08:45 PM

George sr. had no authority to "take out Saddam"

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Pete M
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 09:06 PM

Guest cretinous yahoo is correct so far as the UN mandate was concerned, but then if what you are really concerned about was liberating Kuwait I would suggest that the whole Desert Storm campaign was a farce and fiasco. To achieve that aim militarily was no justification for the destruction of Iraqi infrastucture, nor for the long drawn out nature of the campaign which allowed the destruction of Kuwait as well.

If, heaven forbid, one was to be cynical, you would almost think that the chance to show off all those wondeful new toys a grateful nation had been buying for the military, and so justify the billions spent on them; had something to do with it.

Pete M

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Gary T
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 09:33 PM

From the Kansas City Star, Sat. 17 Feb.:
"Hussein blamed the United States and Israel for the bombings, although American and Israeli officials said Israel had not been informed in advance of the strikes."

So now you know who's blaming Israel. Surprised?

From the same paper:
"...U.S. officials said the targets, which were from five to 20 miles from downtown Baghdad, had been chosen in part because they were not in civilian areas."

My opinion is that Iraq's reports of civilian casualties are fabrications for the sole purpose of generating sympathy from the gullible.

From MARINER'S first post above: " If the Iraqis were bombing your country, and including it appears, innocent civilians, on a daily basis wouldn't you like to take out some of their planes?"

What's that got to do with the price of wheat? The U.S. and British planes are suppressing Iraqi aggression and defending themselves from Iraqi anti-aircraft action. They aren't going around bombing Iraq because they feel like it. If Iraq would keep their planes out of the no-fly zone, their targeting radar turned off, and their anti-aircraft weapons still, there would be no exchange of fire there. The Iraqis are the ones who could easily make hostilities cease, yet they continue to provoke return fire for the propaganda value. Judging from some of the reactions I've heard, the propaganda is working.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Pete M
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 09:41 PM

Oh come on Gary T; the bombing of radar, SAM and AAA sites is a correct military response to the threat to US/RAF planes. That is not the issue. It's why those planes are there in the first place. And if you believe they are there to protect the kurds and "minority groups" or to enforce UN Security Council edicts, ask your self why we are not also bombing Turkey for theier persecution of the Kurds and Israel for breaking UN resolutions and illegally occupying Palestine.

Pete M

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 11:06 PM

I'm with Mariner & Co all the way on this, but I'm glad to see DougR is still around, despite my bad manners on one occasion.

As for why Daddy Bush didn't finish the job, I agree, not for the first time, with Stormin' Norman, who seems to be gifted with a much deeper intellect than we've a right to expect in a squaddie. He said one of the main reasons was that US troops had no stomach for continuing what was already becoming an obscene and bloody turkey run, slaughering young Iraqi kids where they sat in their becalmed tanks and trucks, on the traffic-jammed roads back to Baghdad.

The other main reason - and this one certainly concentrated the minds of the combatant nations - was that going all the way would have meant committing ground troops to the region for years to come. The alternative would have been to leave a short-lived vacuum. Short-lived because Iran, maybe Syria and certainly and above all, Turkey, would have moved in to fill it.

Turkey, which has the second-biggest military capability in NATO, gets away with murder on a daily basis, tortures children in its police stations, and is about to be welcomed with open arms into the European Union. But that doesn't alter the fact that there is huge unease in Washington and London - to say nothing of Athens and many other capitals - at the prospect of Turkey acquiring even greater influence.

Someone said that medicine need not be a problem in Irag. That goes for food too. Doesn't work in practice though. I don't know about right now, but very recently doctors were unable to use the medicines they had, because the sanctions denied them basic tools like syringes.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the endless bombing of Iraq is illegal in international law, and it sickens me to see the UK hanging on to America's coat-tails. There is of course no military need for British support - it is there purely to take a little of the heat off Washington. The net result will be both countries being hated the world over not for any sincs of the past, but for what they are doing right now. The 20th Century saw 160 million killed in wars, and plainly we've learnt nothing.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 18 Feb 01 - 11:15 PM

The planes are there to enforce the "on fly zone" which is supposed to keep Iraqi planes and gunships out of the north and south of the country.
Why? So Saddam can't massacre the Sunnis in the south and the Kurds in the north.
Why are the Turks killing Kurds? Because the Kurds want an independent country of their own (if they can ever agree among themselves who is in charge) and they want to make it out of part of Turkey and part of Iraq. I can understand the Turks reluctance to allow this.
This is not to say that the Turks haven't been a bit too enthusiastic in their zeal to protect their territorial integrity and political power.
Just telling a bit of the other side.
Bush Sr. had no mandate to take out Saddam and our laws forbid assassination as an instrument of foreign policy. We had hoped that his own people would overthrow him but it didn't work. Hence the current situation.

troll

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: InOBU
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 10:43 AM

the was a brilliant Saturday Night Live the other night, with Dubblya looking confused as ever, saying he was bombing Irac to divert attention from the Clinton pardon scandle in a spirit of bi-partisanship, Brilliant!
Larry

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Kim C
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 01:21 PM

I'm with Troll. If we had finished the job 10 years ago we wouldn't be having this conversation. BUT we're not supposed to "assassinate" anyone. So whaddya do? It always confounded me that no one could ever pin down Saddam's whereabouts, but that there were film clips of him, photos, etc. Obviously the photographers knew where he was...

It's sort of like a small child who won't behave. We say, hey now, you stop that, or you'll get a whuppin. Child perpetuates hijinks. Again we say, hey now, you Stop That, or you'll get a Whuppin. Child continues to perpetuate hijinks, this time a little louder. And we say, I SAID, STOP THAT, or you'll get a WHUPPIN. Child keeps it up, finally gets a whuppin. Then the child sits around and whines about it, even though he was fairly warned.

At this point I am relatively unconcerned about this action - this sort of thing has happened before and I think the news media doesn't have much to do right now, so they're making a big deal over this latest unzip-and-let's-measure measure.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 01:51 PM

the no-fly zone does not apply to gunships fighting the kurds. (in a televions interview) Stormin Norman noted himself the Iraqis outwitted the coalition at the negotiating tables after the war. They asked if they could fly helicopters in the no-fly zone and norman said sure, then they asked if they could fly armed helicopters and were told yes. They subsequently used them on their attacks on the kurds. I dont know if that policy has since been reversed.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 01:54 PM

I imagine if radar can be counted as an offensive weapon, so would pointing a pair of binoculars in the direction of a foreigh aeroplane.

"My opinion is that Iraq's reports of civilian casualties are fabrications for the sole purpose of generating sympathy from the gullible." When people drop bombs and fire rockets it's virtually impossible to avoid what is rather grotesquely referred to as "collateral damage" - it might be nice to tell yourself that nice friendly US and UK weapons don't kill civilians, but it's not true.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Gary T
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 02:19 PM

The radar I referred to is used specifically to aim anti-aircraft weapons. Detecting this radar beamed to a plane is the equivalent of seeing a gunsight laser dot on your chest.

I understand that regrettably, there will be civilian casualties. I exaggerated a bit, but without independent trustworthy reports, I don't believe anything near the truth is being delivered from Iraqi sources.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GeorgeH
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 02:43 PM

Re: the suggestion that Iraqi claims of civilian losses are exagerated - do any of you know anyone who's been to Iraq during these hostilities? (Yes, I do . . two such visitors I know/knew well enough to trust their reports absolutely.) Though of course the casualties in these actions are limited enough compared to the number of Iraqis who continue to die from the effects of sanctions and the war (poisoning, generally considered to be radiation but might equally be heavy metal, IMO).

I'd guess the "President (for the time being) of the USA" (in cahoots with our very own godless "Christian Socialist Prime Minister) has managed to beat Sadam Hussain into second place in the "who can butcher the most Iraqis" stakes . . quite an achievement, really.

Of course one of the ironies of this is that Iraq is actually one of the most liberal and free of the Arab states (if you leave politics out of it - and few Arab states have significantly more political freedom).

As McGrath (I think it was he) observes, we ignored Sadam Hussain when he gassed the Kurds, we've alowed Turkey to increase her persecution of the Kurds in return for providing practical support for "our" attacks on Iraq . . and we supplied Iraq with the material from which her chemical and biological weapons are derived . . To claim there is any moral basis for the current actions is pure hypocracy - "we" attack Iraq when "we" feel it is in our political interest to do so.

Oh - and the reason the US has never "finished the job" with Sadam is that they WANT him to remain in power . . That's why they backed out after encouraging uprisings against him in Iraq.

And Troll, you're talking nonsense . . The Kurds want the return of the lands which were theirs (now split between Iraq, Turkey and Saudi) until the "Western Powers" imposed the current borders on the area (just as the Iraq/Kuwait border was imposed and has always been in dispute). But I still wonder why you condone Turkish action against the Kurds but condem similar action by Iraq.

Oh, and the Sunnis are in the majority in ALL of Iraq, including Baghdad. And, to a very large extent, Iraqis don't want the overthrow of Sadam because they suspect they'd be even worse off if that were to happen . . (This view is also held by many expatriot Iraqis, strongly opposed to Sadam - who also point to the disarray of the different Iraqi opposition groups in exile).

G.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: rube1
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 03:20 PM

for a related thread, see "Sadang Husang" I should have labeled it "The Ballad of Sadang Husang" (Saddam Hussein)

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Pete M
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 05:06 PM

An interesting point raised on National Radio (NZ) this morning by the editor of an Arab newspaper (can't remember the name - sorry) is that there isa growing feeling amongst Arabs that the timing of this action was determined by Washington to divert attention from the growing international criticism of Israel over it's persecution of the Palestinians.

This may or may not be true (the policy that is) but it shows just how unimportant "facts" are in these situations. I also get the worrying feeling that when several people above refer to having friends in the area, the "Bomb Sadam" faction have automatically assumed that US / British servicemen were being refered to rather than westerners living in Iraq, or Iraqui civilians.

As GeorgeH points out, Busn and Co, did not want to destroy Saddam. As a hate object he is of far more use to Washington than a democratically elected government. These just can't be trusted and are prone to making ridiculous decisions like supporting policies inimical to US business interests.

Sorry this is a bit of a ramble, trying to catch up on several points at once.

Pete M

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Gern
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 05:13 PM

This war has been on slow-boil for a decade now with now end in sight, no justification and no public debate. What happened to Americans and British citizens who were offended by govt-sponsored violence and the victimization of the weak by the powerful? Where are all the war protesters and one-time moralists? Are they all tepid supporters of America's daily bombings and sanctions? Why wasn't our costly and pointless war a campaign issue in the last election? US govt. censorship in the name of "the safety of our boys" has been unprecedented for a free society at war or peace. The Allies' claim that pilots are at risk is hard to argue with, except that 'risk' is established to their satisfaction whenever Iraqi radar merely locks on to a target. No shots fired. Did we agree to a 10-year war? Did we agree to build a permanently manned superbase in Saudi Arabia and fly-overs covering 2/3 of Iraq 24 hours a day for a decade or more? Previous posters have spread nonsense like Saddam massing forces on Syrian border -- wouldn't you think Israel would have said something about this? Saddam is a paper tiger whose convenience as a demonized bad guy was useful to Bush SR and now to Bush JR as well. Question for all aging folkies: did you mean it when you sang about peace and marched to end war?

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 05:22 PM

That theory about the Isreaeli dimension makes as much sense as any other I've heard Pete M. In which case was Saddam being particularlyu astute, or just lucky, when he blamed Isreael at the outset?

KimC, you say you are with Troll, but I thought Troll was fully recognising that there was no way of "finishing the job" ten years ago. You don't seem to have grasped that point. For the US and UK to have gone any further than they did would have been more like beginning the job. Apart from which, as has been pointed out, there was no mandate. For America to have any moral authority, it must honour international law - and tell Israel to come into line too, by observing the various UN resolutions it continues to flout.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 05:46 PM

Mariner wrote: It worries me, now that young Bush is in power as he has already shown that he has little regard for human life.

Now, that's really unfair! Prince George has a DEEP and ABIDING RESPECT for human life-- as long as it's "unborn". He's said so......

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Grab
Date: 19 Feb 01 - 08:00 PM

GeorgeH - "most liberal, if you leave politics out of it"? What's that supposed to mean? I'd guess it translates as, "the ppl are friendly, but the regime in power is ruthless and oppressive".

In an "ideal" world, maybe sanctioned assassinations would be a better way of controlling mad leaders of countries - but you need someone "sane" to decide who's deserving. Anyone fancy the job, literally having power of life and death - you say the word, and a team of guys go out and shoot someone? Could you do that, and stay sane? A long succession of Presidents and Prime Ministers all over the world have got bogged down in dragged-out wars bcos they couldn't be effectively amoral enough. Fionn noted that even the soldiers (paid to kill) couldn't stomach any more killing of Iraqi soldiers, but if they had, would that horrible massacre have brought a better result now? Would any of us have been able to make that decision, and live with our consciences?

Gern, what would YOU do? How would you end it, whilst ensuring that Saddam Hussein isn't effectively rewarded for the invasion of Kuwait and the massacre of his countrymen?

Grab.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: NH Dave
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 12:52 AM

     To have continued into Iraq after the fleeing Iraqis, to have "carried the war to Baghdad" wouls have exceeded out mandate to remove the Iraqis from Kuwait, but would also have been seen as waging an invasive war agains one Arabic country, Iraq, from another, Saudi Arabia, and negated whatever good will we had engendered by our actions during Desert Storm.

     Schwartzkoff admitted we got snookered when we allowed the Iraqis to fly armed helicopters, which they used to kill Kurds and others hostile to Saddam's rule. As a result, we established the no-fly zones, and have been routinely attacking military aircraft flying in this zone. For obvious reasons, not the least of which being Saddam's mad-dog response to anyone who opposes him in any way, his anti-aircraft artillery and missile sites have been targeting oposing force fighters with missile guidance radars at every opportunity.

      While there are missiles targeted by optical sights, similar to binoculars or telescopes, and guided by other optical systems, use of an optical system can not be detected until the opposing aircraft observes a missile launch, while "locking up" a SAM radar on an opposing aircraft is both an act of war and easily detectible.

      The operating rules here are "you paint our aircraft with AAA Radar and we'll try our darndest to take that AAA site out! You keep on doing it and we'll launch supressive strikes on every site we can find to convince you that painting our aircraft is dangerous to your health."

     Now Hussein is not the first, nor will he be the last, to deliberately group civilians and civilian installations like hospitals or religious sites around radar, missile, and other military sites; it was common in North Viet Nam, Germany during WWII, and in other conflicts. During the Gulf War we heard much about our destroying innocent civilians taking shelter in the top floors of bunkers housing commsnd posts and other centers of war making activity. Doing so is contrary to the Geneva Conventions for Land Warfare, which insure that POWs are treated humanely, that hospitals and hospital ships are not targeted, and that the neutrality of uninvolved nations is not violated. Unfortunately, many nations are not signatory to these conventions, and frequently they are not observered in their entirety during a conflict.

      We can't do much about these things except try to fight by the book ourselves, and stay out of as many conflicts as we morally can.

      Dave

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 09:34 AM

Let's not forget the role of the arms trade in spreading human misery. The country that exports most arms is the US. Britain is a long way second, closely followed by France. (Anyone remember the outrage of the British media when Argentina turned out to be using French-made excocet missiles against our forces in 1982?) Russia comes a poor fourth, a long way behind France.

In respective degrees, the economies of these nations thrive on this immoral trade. But like the worker in a nuclear-bomb factory said: "A man's gotta live...."

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 09:37 AM

Dead sure I switched the italics off after "French" - bet I didn't though.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 10:41 AM

George H,I mis-spoke. Of course it is the Shi'ites in southern Iraq that Saddam would kill off, not the Sunnis. My error.
The Kurds have never had a country of their own. There has never, to my knowledge, been a "Kurdistan" historically as a separate entity outside the Ottoman Empire,>
That the Kurds were ignored as a people when the "Western Powers" split up the midle east afetr the collapes of the Ottoman Empire is unfortunate. The problems they are having today could have been avoided.
But what would you have the"Wesrern Powers" do now? Go back and tAke land from Turkey and Iraq and give it to the Kurds?
" Here you are. We apologize for the oversight 80 years ago. Here's your homeland and you countries that we took this land from, well, you're just going to have to accept it."
Yeah. Right. One Israel is all we can afford right now. The Kurds will have to wait.
BTW, I did not condone the treatment of the Kurds by the turkish government. I simply pointed out the situation as it presently exists.
Gern, the "nonsense" about Saddam massing troops on the Syrian border was taken from announcments made by Saddam himself and corroborated by Israeli intelligence. Whether it was bluster and porturing is another matter. At the time of Desert Storm, Iraq had the 6th largest army in the world and Saddam has spent 10 years starving his people to build the army back up. He may be a paper tiger as you say, but remember that a ton of paper will kill you just as dead as a ton of steel if it falls on your head and paper cuts are very painful.

troll

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 01:14 PM

Full marks for glibness, Troll - always handy when you you're not making sense. Why is one Israel enough? Who says? And why Israel rather than Kurdistan? And why do use the qualification "outside the Ottoman empire" - are you saying that a state had no right to its own sovereignty if it was within that empire (as so many states once were)?

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: MARINER
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 03:15 PM

Grab, The fact remains that for whatever reason, innocent people are dying by the thousnads in Irag because of the sanctions. They're obviously not hurting Sadam or his henchmen, so why pursue them. And now, lets face it, when were the CI.A. ever worried about legitimacy??.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 01 - 07:50 PM

I imagine what George H would have been meaning by "Iraq is actually one of the most liberal and free of the Arab states, if you leave politics out of it" would have been stuff like, you don't get women stoned for not wearing traditional dress, or banned from going to school etc, and aside from the Sunni-Shi'ite quarrel there's a fair amount of religious toleration.

Which isn't to say it's not a tyrannical and murderous regime in a lot of ways. But one of the main things keeping Saddam in power is this kind of nonsense carried out by the US and its client regime in London.

Do you see that sad dictator, with his country broke and bust,
and his throne is feeling shaky, seems there's noone he can trust.
Then help comes falling from the sky, saved by the bombs once more -
for the cry is "No Surrender" when your country's Making War...

That's from another song I wrote at a time when Clinton appeared to be bombing Iraq as a way of distracting attention from his problems over Monica.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Grab
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 12:08 PM

Mariner, there is NO embargo on medicine or food, or on trade to suppply the Iraqi ppl with medicine or food. The only sanction is imposed by Saddam Hussein - he is the Iraqi government who are refusing to buy them. What's the West supposed to do, force him to buy them?

The tactic is intended to get back his wealth at the expense of his ppl. His method can best be described as "I'll keep killing my own ppl with starvation and lack of medicine, until you give me back my trade." He refuses to buy food or medicine until full trade is re-established - this is pure moral blackmail. And we all know that the first thing to be traded would not be medicine, it would be weapons, missiles, supplies for making poison gas, nuclear weapon parts, etc..

The sanctions may not be biting as deep for Hussein as for his country, but you can at least say that they've prevented him acquiring missile systems to launch nuclear and chemical attacks on Israel, Turkey and anyone else in range. So, a question - is it a good idea to continue the sanctions so that Hussein doesn't have the facilities to launch weapons of mass destruction which would kill millions? Or do we say "Go ahead, buy all the nukes you want" and just hope he won't decide to use them?

Grab.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GeorgeH
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 01:05 PM

Wrong, Grab . . there are, de facto, restrictions of medical and food purchases (every transaction has to be "approved" and some of the decisions are - remarkable, shall we say). There are also limits on the oil Iraq can sell to purchase those goods, but since she cannot obtain spares for her oil extraction equipment she hasn't always been able to reach those limits. And do give me the moral or even legal basis on which Israel is allowed to develop nuclear capability but Iraq is not . .

Yes, McGrath has correctly interpreted my "liberal if you leave out politics"; you might have added "take the wife out for a beer" (I AM talking about the Arabs here). Political freedom is rare in the Arab world; most (? - I acknowledge my sample, and, say, John Pilger's, are relatively small) prefer things as they are to the prospect of Islamic fundamentalism.

And troll, without reference I can't remember whether the Bah'ists are Sunni or Shia - but whichever they are, my point was that they are in the minority throughout Iraq, including Baghdadl. The attacks on the Southern Iraqis aren't based on the religious division; the peoples of that area have (I'm told) long been the object of denigration (in the we we English have denigrated the Irish); that's the basis on which Sadam has sought to "justify" his attacks on them. Also - the reason why the issue of a Kurdish homeland is a relatively recent one is that in the past there was virtually no attempt by governments to control them, and they were free to move freely throughout the area of their homeland. Probably the issue of stronger controlling instincts from central governments doesn't entirely stem from the western carve-up of the area, I grant . . . Interesting that you rate the plight of the Kurds as being merely "unfortunate" . . .

Also, while on the subject of the no-fly zones . . let's note that there have been a number of incidents of the airmen attacking non-military targets . . . whether from bordom, for target practice or by mistake is not much consolation for those killed and wounded in the attacks (who are, of course, the people we claim to be seeking to protect . . )

G. e wasn't an issue of a

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Kim C
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 01:19 PM

Troll said, "What I have never understood is Bushs' refusal to go on to Bagdad and take him out once and for all when we had the chance. Of course it would have played hell with the balance of power in the Middle East but would it have been any worse than the situation there now?"

I certainly did grasp that point and that's what I agreed with. Did I do that wrong or something?

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Gary T
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 02:29 PM

The moral basis on which Israel is allowed to develop nuclear capability but Iraq is not?

It's what Iraq has demonstrated they're likely to do with them.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 04:47 PM

Well over the years Israel has not been a slouch when it comes to killing Arab civilians either. Especially their new Prime Minister.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,Pete M at work
Date: 21 Feb 01 - 07:52 PM

Excuse me Gary T, but could you expand on the differences you percieve between Israel and Iraqi regimes? From a quick think: Indescriminate killing of civilians, assasination of rivals, illegal occupation of another country, pandering to religious extremists and 'solving' political situations with HE, they seem very similar to me.

And in both countries the majority of people who just want peace and the option to get on with their lives are ignored.

Pete M

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 04:20 AM

American/British ground troops in Baghdad from then till now and beyond, Kim C? Good idea? If you don't think that's what would have happened, maybe you'd explain what the exit strategy might have been, once Iraq was "conquered". Maybe you think everyone would have shaken hands and gone home.

And are you, and the other warmongers, utterly indifferent to the additional slaughter that would have been involved? Is it being seriously argued, in this forum of all places, that Norman should have told his troops to ignore their scruples and just get on with killing those kids stuck in their trucks and tanks on the traffic-jammed road back to Baghdad? I would have thought we had already stoked up more than enough hatred towards the western powers.

Kevin McGrath, I've not followed the link to the rest of the song yet, but terrific lines in your last post.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Gary T
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 09:49 AM

Pete M, here's my perspective. Israel has, from its inception, had a policy of retaliating to attacks on it not just in kind, but in greater measure. Various Arab entities, being slow learners or gluttons for punishment, have initiated countless offensives aimed at Israel, and generally lost more than they bargained for as a result. I'm not aware of Israel taking military action other than in response to actual attacks or clear threats of attack. Given the amount of hostility and military aggression directed toward them, I think they've shown remarkable restraint.

Iraq, on the other hand, has shown an utter disregard for any semblance of moderation. I find it notable that their attack on Kuwait drew condemnation even from most of their fellow Arab states. They went out of their way to wreak as much havoc as possible, including firing missiles at Israel for no better reason than the international equivalent of "I don't like your face." Even after being soundly whipped back by U.N. approved forces, they have consistently flouted measures intended to stem their aggression, including, but not limited to, their egregious lack of cooperation with U.N. inspection teams and their penchant for provoking skirmishes with the enforcers of the no-fly zone.

In sum, Israel, in the midst of ever-present attack or threat of attack, limits its actions to measured responses even though it is clearly capable of doing more. Iraq, who would be left alone in peace if they stopped lashing out every chance they got, keeps stirring things up, just champing at the bit to cause trouble. I think Israel has demonstrated that they would not be at all likely to employ nuclear weapons, while Iraq has demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to show any restraint other than that which is forced upon them.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Kim C
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 10:15 AM

That's funny, I never thought of myself as a warmonger.

In the words of William Sherman, "War is hell, boys." Sure it's ugly. Sure it's senseless. People die. Innocent people die. But that's WAR. Perhaps I oversimplify.

I don't claim to have any answers. All I know is if you want the dog to stop barking you have to cut its head off, not its tail, and because we didn't do that, we're still playing cat-and-mouse. And because we're still playing cat-and-mouse, that leaves the door open for another possible conflict, where more money and lives are wasted.

Since I obviously don't know what I'm talking about I'm going to exit this thread now and leave the discussion to those more knowledgeable in military affairs. :)

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: The Dane
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 12:21 PM

They're at it again. Right now...This moment!

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 02:55 PM

KimC - Dead on with your remark
"killed young Iraqi kids where they sat in their becalmed tanks and trucks"?
As we used to say in Viet Nam - "Some days you count the meat and some days the meat counts you." The military is here to kill and if they don't kill they die.
As for politics - thwyerirnshgfke cijdheufh - I was a grunt.

This is a flamer!!!!!!! WOW!!!!!!!!
Who'd ah thunk it?

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 03:59 PM

George H, I NEVER said that the plight of the Kurds was merely "Unfortunate". I don't know where you got the word from to quote since I didn't use it. I said that I was speaking of the situation as it now exists and thats all. I also said that I in no way condone the Turkish treatment of their Kurdish minority.
Fionn, I say we can't afford another Israel. The Arab states would have overrun Israel years ago if not for the massive amounts of aid poured in by the US. The right or wrong of the foundation of the State of Israel I will leave to others to debate. Lest you think me anti-Semitic,my wife and son are Jewish.
Regarding the Ottoman Empire remark, I simply said that because I don't know if the Kurds had an autonomous region within the Empire or not.
Why Israel and not Kurdistan? No reasonexcept that Israel is already in existance.
What would YOU have done? Who would YOU go to to have the Kurds given a homeland? How would YOU force the Turks and Iraqis to give up part of their territory?
I await your answer.

troll

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Jack The Lad
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 05:38 PM

In 1948 when the Jews in Palestine accepted the UN partition plan , and were immediately attacked by 5 Arab armies , including Iraq, all that massive aid was not so apparant, and arms had to be aquired by many devious routes. Sure, there has been massive US aid ever since- as there has been to Egypt and to other countries of the region.(I am sure the US would rather send food to Iraq than bomb her). Throughout the years until Anwar Sadat's courageous move(Rest his soul) no Arab state was willing to consider anything less than wiping Israel off the face of the earth.Saddam Hussein still does. Personally I don't know much about Israel's nuclear capabilities- except that if they do exist, they would not be used lightly. Saddam Hussein is a megalomaniac, who is not to be trusted- and God help the peoples of the area if he does get nuclear weapons.Fallout does not discriminate. Jack The Lad- In Israel

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 05:39 PM

All cases are different cases, and that means that it's always possible to pick and choose some aspects of a situation to give a more favourable spin to the people you sympathise with.

Israel and Iraq are very different. So is Iraq and Afghanistan. What they have in common is that they don't have too much regard to "international law".

Of course that's hardly unusual, in practice - what's different about these countries is maybe that they are more open about it. When the British or the Americans go in for shoot-to-kill and assassination, for example, it's done in a hole-in-the corner way. The British wheel out judges to say that "no it didn't happen" - Israel brings out judges who say, "yes it happened, and so what?"

And maybe that's more honest. But in the case of some countries this kind of official state use of terrorist methods is seen as a reason to brand the countries involved as "pariah states" - but not in the case of Israel. And that is where the double standards come in.

Incidentally the bombing this thread is on about wasn't Resident Bush's first strike. Only two days after his inauguration, there was a cruise missile attack in southern Iraq that blew up a veterinary centre and killed a few civilians. But it didn't get the attention - maybe it was a good news day. And the British weren't involved that time.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 08:33 PM

Jack the Lad, according to a news story a week or so ago, a high-ranking Iraqi defector said that Saddam has two nukes and is working on a third. Hopefully, he will try to use them as blackmail rather than as a weapon of all-out war.
As you said, fallout doesn't discriminate.

troll * I probably read it on Drudge but i'm not sure*

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Skeptic
Date: 22 Feb 01 - 11:06 PM

Gary T

I'm not aware of Israel taking military action other than in response to actual attacks or clear threats of attack. Given the amount of hostility and military aggression directed toward them, I think they've shown remarkable restraint

Clear threats. Now there's an interesting turn of phrase. So if a country feels there's a "clear threat" its okay to attack?. A sort of preemptive strike? That was the rationale Nixon used for Cambodia. Except it turned out the "clear threat" was a little murky. And the rationale Bush used for his recent action.

The "restraint" was more than a little imposed from the outside by the US (and to a lesser extent other supporters).

I agree that Iraq is much more likely to initiate the aggression. I Just don't agree that Israel, without the US moderating them, would have been (or will be) all that restrained.

Troll said What would YOU have done? Who would YOU go to to have the Kurds given a homeland? How would YOU force the Turks and Iraqis to give up part of their territory?

I liked to hear that to. Would I be willing to fight for a Kurdish homeland? Probably not. On the other hand, the (so far) lack of any substantial criticism of Turkey (dating back to Bush Sr) is disturbing.

Jack the Lab,

Saddam Hussein is a megalomaniac, who is not to be trusted- and God help the peoples of the area if he does get nuclear weapons Which is the reality. Another question is: Who clear would the threat have to be before Israel used its nukes?

McGrath

But in the case of some countries this kind of official state use of terrorist methods is seen as a reason to brand the countries involved as "pariah states" - but not in the case of Israel. And that is where the double standards come in.

Along with selective attention to UN sanctions. And I believe the US has some fairly strict laws about trade with countries branded as terrorist.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:39 AM

Toll, I guess I wouldn't do much to get a result for the Kurds, beyond using any diplomatic influence I had to get the parties round a table. But then I wouldn't have armed Iraq to the hilt in its spat with Iran, I wouldn't have rushed to the defence of a brutal and greedy regime when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and I would not have imposed a new sovereign state on the middle-east as a means of preserving western influence in that region.

Norton1, yes, I can see a gun's the best way to settle and argument. Hope you're proud of whatever killings you got to do in Vietnam, and think they served some valuable purpose in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not sure what threat was posed to American troops by the Iraqi convoys log-jammed on the retreat back to Baghdad. I think anyone who reads Schwarzkopf's account of Desert Storm and its aftermath would soon understand why the military advice was against going all the way.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Wolfgang
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 11:50 AM

That the Kurds were ignored as a people when the "Western Powers" split up the midle east afetr the collapes of the Ottoman Empire is unfortunate (troll)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Jack The Lad
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 01:06 PM

McGrath, A country which sanctions the training and sending of individuals or groups of terrorists to place carbombs, pipebombs, bicycle bombs, donkeycart bombs, or indiscriminately kidnap and murder civilians ,or any young men and women in uniform- should be defined as a pariah state. Israel does not do this. Israel does send its soldiers and/or agents to take out (assassinate if you must)key terrorist figures. Personally I do not believe that this policy will ultimately bring peace any closer- but it's a damn site better than allowing them to bomb your local shopping mall.

Skeptic John I hope that Israel would never use nuclear weapons. However I believe that if the country were to be in a last ditch stand before sure annihilation as an entity, the temptation would be very great.

Had Iraq used atomic, biological or chemical weapons, I am sure that Israel would have considered using it's own ( presumed) nuclear weapon. As it was in the Gulf war Iraq , unoprovokedly rocketed Israel with Scuds- and Israel wisely, did not retaliate. Troll, thanks for the reminder- I haven't got enough to worry about already! Best Wishes to all, Jack The Lad in Israel

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 06:02 PM

Fionn - A gun is the only way to settle an argument during a war. Proud of killing? I don't think I would put it that way. Rather I learned that I would rather cause someone else to die for their country while I was in the midst of the war. You read a tad caustic in your note and maybe with good right. What I learned about killing was as a youth and if you haven't had the opportunity to engage in the insanity maybe you should reserve judgement on those of us who have. I'm definitely proud of my service to country, I'm proud that as a result of my going my Son did not have to go, I believe that our sacrifice in Viet Nam was not for valor (war doesn't have much of that) but probably prevented our involvement in others because of the attitude towards those of us who fought the war, and if you are an American then we were representing "We the People" in that engagement. We who fought the war didn't have a lot of input on how, or even if, the war was fought. I'm also proud of being a member of the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War, I'm proud of being part of the underground railroad that took young kids to Canada to prevent their involvement in the war, I'm proud of being a member of the security for peace marchers in the late 60s and early 70s, I'm proud that as a result of my involvement I learned another way to resolve issues, I'm proud that I was part of the early "Rap Groups" that were being taught to Navy Corpsmen going to Viet Nam so they could help those that killed and got killed process some sense of what they did - there never seems to be a "Why." I'm proud that as a result of my going I became part of the underground railroad that brought refugees out of El Salvador when they were in the killing fields. So if that smidgen of insight into what I have done with my life for the past 35 years is an indicator of pride - I am very proud of killing and the lessons I learned. And yes I believe it did some good.

The other thing I learned is that there are no innocent people in war. Does this answer your question?

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 07:50 PM

A high-ranking Iraqi defector said that Saddam has two nukes and is working on a third." troll

If I was a high-ranking defector I think I might be inclined to say whatever I thought the people to whom I had defected wanted me to say, or would be most likely to keep them interested. So I would take that kind of statement with a large pinch of salt.

A country which sanctions the training and sending of individuals or groups of terrorists to place carbombs, JaCKpipebombs, bicycle bombs, donkeycart bombs, or indiscriminately kidnap and murder civilians ,or any young men and women in uniform - should be defined as a pariah state. Israel does not do this. Israel does send its soldiers and/or agents to take out (assassinate if you must)key terrorist figures. (Jack the Lad)

So far as I can see Israel does in fact meet those criteria you lay down for pariah status in that first sentence of yours in that quote from your post. The second sentence should surely have read "Israel does this."

Assassination is a policy openly sanctioned by the Israeli government, including the use of carbombs. Some of those who have been assassinated ("taken out" is a shabby euphemism in this context) have been involved in armed opposition to the Israeli occupation, others have not. At least one of those assassinated in the last couple of months was a man who had been actively involved in the peace process, and there were many friends of his in Israel who denounced the killing.

As for random victims of atrocities - I'm afraid many many Arab civilians have been killed in commando raids, bombings and shellings of one sort or another. Including the occasion the Israeli forces blitzed a Red Cross medical centre with hundred of civilians sheltering in it, in a village called Kana a few years back.

Atrocities do not justify atrocities, but every atrocity has a history. "The politics of the last atrocity" is one of the key mechanisms for keeping conflicts going on and on and on.

All this isn't saying Israel is worse than the rest of the world. Just that it should be judged according to the same criteria. Shoot-to-kill assassinations were criminal when the British did it in Ireland. Or the USA, or the Soviet Union in various other places...They are criminal when Israel does it in Palestine. If Pinochet and Milosevic should be put on trial for war crimes (and they should) so should Sharon.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 23 Feb 01 - 09:13 PM

Wolfgang, you are right. I DID use the word "unfortunate". Would you have prefered " a tragic travesty"? That is what I believe the treatment of the Kurds TODAY to be, both by Turkey and Iraq.
The implication seems to be that the US should do something about it. Why should the US bear the burden. Why shouldn't Britain, or Germany, or France. or Egypt take the lead in trying to settle the problem.
America seems to have been given the job of being the worlds policeman; go take care of this problem; no! you were too rough, you went too far, you didn't go far enough.
If you don't like the way the job is being done, let someone else try it for a while.
With regard to the story about Saddam's nukes, apparently the defector provided enough verifiable data to convince the de-briefers that he was telling the truth.

troll

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Gern
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 09:56 AM

I find it sad to see war become so fashionable and staunchly defended in these quarters. The poster who cited Saddam's lack of respect for international law is of course correct; this was the case before 1990, when the Bushes and Thatchers were arming him to the teeth. I guess that was before he became "worse than Hitler," a jingoistic absurdity coined by Bush Sr. Read THE FIRE THIS TIME by former Atoorney General Ramsey Clark and see how US and Britain fared by the standards of international law. He calld it genocide, according to the strict definition of international law, unjustified by any Iraqi atrocities. The incineration of retreating soldiers, destruction of the civilian power grid, the bombing of bomb shleters, tanks with snowplow attachments that buried surrendering soldiers alive, and fuel-air explosives which produce nuclear destruction without the bad press of the A-bomb. Little Bush has reassembled the team that trashed Iraq for political gain: Powell, Baker, Cheney. Don't be surprised that Saddam is back in the news; he is still useful to these people. Likable Powell is a hideous cabinet choice -- a military leader as chief diplomat? Does he wonder why the Palestinians didn't want his 'goodwill tour?' Are there any Mudcatters left who oppose war for moral reasons? Any folkies around who object to the deliberate and systematic slaughter so glorified in our countries? Have we ever "given peace a chance"?

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Skeptic
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 01:34 PM

Gern,

I'm not sure Ramsey Clark is all that credible a source. He has avery bad habit of mixing fairly well documented (such as the destruction of the power grid - calling it civilian is silly. It implies a separate Military power grid.

I hadn't heard the tanks with snow plows one. Are there really dozer blades for tanks? It would seem a very inefficient use of the weapon.

Fuel Air Explosion is also a new one. (though how that's "nuclear" isn't clear). Dumping fuel and setting in on fire? What about vaporization and flash back? Or a sudden updraft engulfing the plane/copter in a fireball?

If their was all the atrocities and "genocide", where was China. They were Saddam supporters. Surely they would have leaped at the chance to publically embarrass the allies.

I recall skimming the book. It struck me that it ought to be subtitled "The Big Book of hearsay and Wishful Thinking". It came out in 1992, right after the War. That had to be some fast research.

That aside, there probably were individual incidents that qualify as atrocities. Genocide implies much more than that.

All that said, I agree that W seems to be using Iraq for political purposes.(The aspirin Factory bombing comes to mind as an example of type) For better or worse, Bush Sr stuck fairly close to the UN Mandate. And got a lot of criticism for doing it to begin with and then for not perusing it (as in taking out Bagdad). Muzzling the press (with their consent) was ominous. I've also heard speculation that Bush is doing all this to vindicate Bush Sr. Stress is on the speculation

Peace (if you want a win/win situation anyway) isn't unilateral. If all the players don't go along it ends up with somebody being the Martyr. And yes, somebody needs to take the first step. It probaly should be us. It probably won't be.

My experience is that the people who glorify war have generally never been there. In Viet Nam, there were guys who lived for it. They had their own little groups. Really frightening.

A friend of mine who's now a prison guard said that he never figured that type out while he was in Nam. But after guarding Ted Bundy for a couple of months, he realized what they were.

Why do we need the planes in the no fly zone. Between our radar, SAM's, superior air power, spy satellites (with a 1 meter resolution), the air patrols seem more provocative than preventive. Why do we use the UN mandate as an excuse in Iraq, and ignore the UN on the West Bank settlement issue in Israel? Or, as McGrath brought up, ignore state supported terrorism? While Israel is perfectly within its rights to use assaination as a tool, we don't and there is an executive order (and legislation) prohibiting as a "tool" for th US. Hard to condem "Arab Terrorists" on one side and ignore it on the other and expect anything but deep distrust.

In Iraq, we backed ourselves into a number of corners. First by totally misunderstanding Sadaam, then by imposing draconian surrender conditions. Apparently no one remembered the lessons learned (the hard way) after the punitive and economically debilitating Treaty of Versailles. The conditions and our own erratic foreign policy give Saddam plenty of opportunity to paint Iraq as a victim. It worked for Hitler, after all, and allowed him to develop and maintain the loyalty he needed to create the third Reich.

If the peace protests of the 60's can be considered successful (and that it was, just wasn't the sole cause of the end of the War), it was because of a lot of dedicated men and women saw past the rhetoric and slogans and media curcuses and started pointing out carefully, consistently, with good documentation what was happening. And reminding people that it was wrong. Calling people "war mongers" and "baby killers" didn't win the Movement many friends. Showing them the atrocities, reminding them of what the believed in as right and wrong did. .

During the South African embargo, I had a friend who was on the Board of a university that had investments in South Africa. He said that most of the members ignored the issue for along time because they were being accused of being bigots, of supporting genocide. In their mind it was just a business decision and the name calling was totally unwarranted: were sound bites. What got their attention was a group that carefully documented what was going on and reminding the board members that what was happening wasn't morally right. It worked.

Accusing someone of being a bigot (even if he is) wins no friends. Giving him the chance to look like a good guy (even if he isn't) works better.

I suppose it depends on your goal: working to resolve the (admittedly bad) problem, or just expressing your opinions. I don't know your history, or mean to imply anything about your motives, btw. My experience has shown that tossing out words like genocide and deliberate and systematic slaughter so glorified in our countries does little to even get people to start thinking , let alone win any converts.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 02:04 PM

"While Israel is perfectly within its rights to use assassination as a tool."

No state has that right. Except in time of war - and that is defined fairly closely, and the present situation with Israel is that it is not at war with Palestine - political assassination is classed as a terrorist activity. A state which indulges in it is acting criminally, the people involved in it can properly be tried for murder.

There are all kinds of justifications which can be made for organisational which see it as necessary to resort to terrorist methods. The Israeli government is one such organisation, and any arguments made in defence of its behaviour have to be grounded on acceptance of that fact.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Gern
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 03:02 PM

'Skeptic' has learned that it is better to refute facts than to consider them. Trashes the book he hasn't read and find the truth easy to ignore. He dismisses a Nobel Prize nominee whose fact-finding group toured Iraq in Fe. '91 while the bombs flew. I'll take Clark's legally detailed definition and application of the term 'genocide' before the opnion of any anonymous Mudcat expert (myself included.) Clark documented his findings in detail, presented them to the United Nations and filmed these events. Amnesty International cited his findings heavily while condemning Desert Storm. Find a copy of this film, called "No Place to Hide," and look at what war fever can do. Fuel-air explosives, mocked by the misunderstanding 'Skeptic,' erupt into an above-ground fireball that is quite enormous and indiscriminate. Its potency has been described as 'nuclear' by Doctors Without Borders, who have sought their ban. Those tanks with plow attachents? Hundreds were mounted this way to burst thru Iraqi earthworks. Several Allied commanders diverted these to bury bunkers with soldiers inside. Some US tank drivers recalled seeing white flags waving from inside those bunkers. Remember those 'surgically-accurate' Smart bombs? All PR. 93% of the heaviest bombing barrage in human history were plain old "dumb bombs," rolling out of bomb bay windows and striking their targets with less than 40% accuracy. 'Colatteral damage' [sp?] sounds a lot better than '100,000 civilians killed,' don't you think? Don't dismiss the truth without daring to examine it.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Troll
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 04:26 PM

Gern, there is something you need to know about Skeptic. When he says he "skimmed" a book, he means that he didn't do an in-depth re-read of it, NOT that he just flipped through it.
None of the people that I worked with who were in Desert Storm ever talked about the atrocities you and Clark claim and they were in the thick of the fighting. Surely one of them would have mentioned burying Iraqi soldiers alive or "Fuel Air" bursts. But you can believe Ramsey Clark if you like.
He has his agenda and he presses it forward with vigor if not accuracy. The point is, that just 'cause he said it don't make it so. You say he had evidence. Why did NO ONE ELSE, including Saddams supporters, publish similar evidence or produce his evidence.
It seems to me that you have an agenda and are willing to use ANY source that appears to support it. So much easier to use the "facts" of others than to find out things on your own.

troll

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Jack The Lad
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 05:00 PM

McGrath, Israel does not indiscriminately place car bombs in public areas, any bombs, rockets or bullets used for killing or assassination, have been used against individuals said to have been involved in terrorist leadership. If you wish to believe differently you may.

I know Dr Tabeth Tabeth had been involved in peace circles in the past, and had friends among Israelis. The story was that he had become involved with leadership of the local terror gangs- I don't know whether that was true. In the case of Kafr Kana, many innocent civilians were killed. This was in the midst of an action trying to prevent the frequent Katyusha rocketing of Israeli towns. I know of the suffering of thousands on both sides because of these actions. It was becoming impossible to live in the area (I live and work in this area). It was a war, and someone blundered. I have no excuses to make. Things like that happen in war. The obvious solution is not to have wars. Arik Sharon is not to my liking- but I don't believe that he knowingly ordered the Lebanese Christians to slaughter the Muslim inhabitants of Sabra and Shatila. He probably was guilty of criminal negligence in not forseeing that that would happen and preventing it. He has been democratically elected prime minister by over 60 percent of those who voted. Many of these people have become disillusioned by the constant meeting of peace offers with increased violence. Barak was prepared to compromise on nearly all issues- each time peace seemed closer the Palestinian violence became greater, people in Israellost confidence in his peacemaking. It would seem that nothing short of the complete destruction of Israel will suffice many of the Arabs. Israel is not going to give in and cease to exist. Many compromises have to be made- by both sides, and I personally, along with a great many others would like to see the end of the occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.Unfortunately I have the feeling that whatever concessions are made to the Palestinians - the refusal to accept Israel as a permanency will still be there, accompanied by terrorism. I am quite willing to give anything a try, but at the same time I am not willing to have our cities, towns and population subjected to terrorism,death and injury. To your latest- When men plot to place bombs in buses and marketplaces, and to bring a country to its knees from fear, I call it war, and would have those people dealt with appropriately. Jack The Lad - in Israel

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Skeptic
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 08:45 PM

McGrath,

Sorry for not being more precise. A nation has the "right" in the sense of the ability to use terrorism and under the guise of sovereignity to do what it needs to do to protect itself. Not "right" by any standard of international law or morality. It's sad that when it comes to our allies, the US and I suppose Britain don't even bother to protest when anymore.

From a practical standpoint, he use of assassination as a tool of state is counter-productive. Eventually even your allies start wondering if they're next.

Gern,

I wasn't trying to suggest there were not a number of atrocities committed in Desert Storm. By both sides. Some of which should be actionable. I am suggesting that Ramsey Clark, despite a fairly high profile in international peace circles, pursues the agenda of peace only as it supports his own personal agenda. He has, over the years, demonstrated a bad habit of finding facts to support his conclusions. Amnesty International has documented some of the atrocities and the International War Crimes Tribunal has heard the evidence. The Commissions and the World Court have declined to act. Interestingly, the charge of genocide in the second indictment rests, in part, on the economic sanctions, claiming that it denies basic health care and food to Iraqi citizens. Of interest is the indictment the a group called INDICT has presented leveling a charge of genocide against Saddam Huessan for diversion of the money allowed by the UN sanctions to buy food and medicine for citizens to his war machine.

To his credit, Ramsey Clark does make his personal agenda very clear: Information, Activism, and Resistance to U.S.Militarism, War, and Corporate Greed, Linking with Struggles Against Racism and Oppression within the United States. to quote the purpose of his International Action Center.

As militarism and war imply countries other than the United States, his efforts seem a little lop sided. Of late he has expanded to accuse NATO of genocide in Yugoslovia. He was noticeably silent on the earlier genocide in Bosnia, however. Or rather, he claims it never happen. I guess all those tens of thousands of people who disappeared are just on a long vacation. Reading (and believing) some of the reports at the IAC site makes you think the various ethnic cleansings in the area were the work of NATO. Or that it's somehow their fault.

Is the US guilty of human rights abuses? Probably. Is Iraqi. Dittto. And Indonesia. And Sri Lanka. What about Rwanda? Ethiopia? To deliberately limit your moral outrage to a single country indicates a different agenda. To ignore the guilt of others in pursuit of that agenda is intellectual and moral dishonesty. The failure of any competent international tribunal or court to act would lead a reasonable person to suspect that Mr Clark's definitions and application werrn't all that credible. (The same bodies ho were established by the various documents Mr. Clark cites as being violated).

The fight against terrorism, human rights violations, genocide and other atrocities is fought anywhere they occur. All who share in the responsibility should be punished. Mr Clark is right in supposing that it might not happen in the US. He should learn a lesson from Amnesty International, who tries to apply their criteria impartially and might find a more receptive audience (Well, probably not in the US. We have an amazing capacity for self delusion and rationalization)

Which is why I didn't do a detailed read of his book. There were other sources available that had a little more credibility. (To me at least), and a lot less posturing and presumptions.

And as it seems the rule of the day is to impune intent without adequate evidence, let us consider:

'Skeptic' has learned that it is better to refute facts than to consider them

Or learned not accept them blindly because Clark is a " Nobel Prize nominee" Or to carefully consider the source of facts?

Trashes the book he hasn't read and find the truth easy to ignore. He dismisses a Nobel Prize nominee whose fact-finding group toured Iraq in Fe. '91 while the bombs flew

Troll addressed that in part. Being a Nobel nominee implies exactly nothing. Merely argument to authority. I prefer all the truth, not just the truth that plays to a particular prejudice or agenda. (except my own, of course :-)) I'll take Clark's legally detailed definition and application of the term 'genocide' before the opnion of any anonymous Mudcat expert (myself included.)

I'll take the opinion (by default) of the various international (and national) bodies who considered his charges. Their silence was and is resounding.

Clark documented his findings in detail, presented them to the United Nations and filmed these events

Who did nothing, to their discredit

Amnesty International cited his findings heavily while condemning Desert Storm

Which is consistent with their mission. Integrity is a good thing to find. I believe that there charges were at least looked into by congress. Integrity does it every time.

Find a copy of this film, called "No Place to Hide," and look at what war fever can do

Or live it. Much more frightening and profoundly more meaningful. Talking to people who lived it/lived through it allows you to ask the questions you need, not just accept or reject the film-makers point of view.

Fuel-air explosives, mocked by the misunderstanding 'Skeptic,' erupt into an above-ground fireball that is quite enormous and indiscriminate

Mocked?. I'd say "had some question" is a better description. I'd read about incindiaries and Napalm. Not this.

Its potency has been described as 'nuclear' by Doctors Without Borders, who have sought their ban

An should. I'm not sure what nuclear potency means. Radiation burns and burns by napalm of air bursts (except i had heard the air bursts were incendiary bombs with an altitude trigger) have some similarities. However, I was responding to your original statement that merely said

fuel-air explosives which produce nuclear destruction without the bad press of the A-bomb

A far cry from your second statement. As I know all to well, it never pays to over generalize or over dramatize.

Again, your first statement was tanks with snowplow attachments that buried surrendering soldiers alive has a far more sinister (though no less deadly) meaning than Those tanks with plow attachents? Hundreds were mounted this way to burst thru Iraqi earthworks. Several Allied commanders diverted these to bury bunkers with soldiers inside. Some US tank drivers recalled seeing white flags waving from inside those bunkers

The first statement (and the beginning of the second) seem to imply that was a deliberate policy (as does Clark in some of his charges). In which case the responsibility flows up the chain of command. If it was action by individual tank commanders, they should be court marshaled.

.

And the smart bombs were only 75% accurate. All the talk about "Saddam put military targets in the middle of civilian areas' aside, by about the four day of the war it was pretty evident that Saddam was a paper tiger. (Although he did shoot at planes and brough a few down - something Clark forget in one of his indictments). Yet we kept on. An don. And on. Arguing that because we kept on, the final assault resulted in less casualties is one of those non-falsifiable claims beloved of the parasciences. But then, no is claiming the contrary.

Colatteral damage' [sp?] sounds a lot better than '100,000 civilians killed,' don't you think? Don't dismiss the truth without daring to examine it

Sound advice. Mine to you is to examine all sides the truth before you claim to possess it.

There were clearly abuses by the Allied forces. Abuses that were never addressed by competent authority. Napalm, for instance. Or the 25% of the smart bombs that missed their targets. Mr Clark feels that Bush the Elder maneuvered the world into war, pushing the UN to support him and went overboard executing the UN mandate. I agree it went much further than it ever should have been allowed too. The "highway to hell" incendiary burst. Explaining them away as "war is hell" carries venality to unacceptable limits.

Despite the very real claim that we were protecting the sovereignty of Kuwait from invasion by Iraq. (which Mr. Clark sites as evidence of some crime in one of his indictments on the curious grounds that Kuwait wasn't a democracy) - One of the purposes of the UN, according to its charter.

In war, no matter how "noble" there are no heros. Everyone is wrong, no matter how painfully necessary the fighting may be. The innocent end up doing the suffering, both directly and as "collateral damage". Mr Clark is trying to find a hero and a villian. (Probably viewing himself as qualified for the role ofhero and having already defined the US (and Britain and NATO and the UN, as the villain). He seems more qualified as a gadfly. And despite self advertisement, his devisive methods seem to do more harm than good..

Regards

John

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Skeptic
Date: 24 Feb 01 - 08:53 PM

Jack the Lad,

There is a distinction between state mandated terrorism and that of terrorists groups. All the "necessity" arguments aside, a State that claims to follow the rule of law and then engages in terrorism has begun to loose its credibility. After all the justifications and rationalizations, once the State accepts assassinations a legitimate tool and places itself outside its own laws, it begins to eat away at its own legitimacy. The State, as a State, should (IMO anyway) adopt a higher moral, ethical and legal standard than that of a terrorist. Regards

John

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 01:24 PM

Fair comment, Norton1. But my take on Vietnam (on which I admit I equivocated in the mid-60s) is that with hindsight it was wrong, and it achieved nothing. I'm not seeking to apportion blame with the benefit of that hindsight, only to suggest that we could learn from it. If we do, we must surely veer towards a presumption against violent solutions.

Jack the Lad, in response to McGrath's comments about Israeli lawlessness, what was the relevance of exonerating Sharon of the Sabra and Shatila crimes? McGrath was talking about Israel, not Sharon. Are you suggesting that Israel had nothing to do with those atrocities? Anyway regardless of what happened then, Sharon is the person most responsible for the present upsurge of violence. He knew what he was doing, he was advised to stay away, but he pressed on with his own agenda. I couldn't care less how many Israelis voted for Sharon. In doing so, they are all implicated in his crimes. They will get the peace and security they crave only when they behave more moderately.

Cern, Skeptic etc, I've seen Ramsay Clark fending questions at hostile meetings, and I'm with Cern. In my view Clark was impressive, and his critics seemed to have little in the way of facts to hit him with.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 05:53 PM

I find it puzzling how people somehow seem to think that when innocent civilians are killed by bombs, it's terrorism, if the bombers have their feet on the ground, but a legitimate act of war if it's done from the air. I cannot see any significant distinction, except that bombing from the air involves fewer risks for the bombers.

I am sure that, if the people involved in carrying out Palestinian bombings had the technology to do it from the air, they'd do it that way; and that if the Israelis didn't have an air force, they'd deliver the bombs by hand,if they thought it was necessary. After all, that's what was done when they were fighting the British.

The point I'm making is not that the Israeli state is uniquely wicked, but that it operates essentially according to the same rules of engagement as non-state organisational, which carry out political assassinations and explosions which kill innocent civilians, for political/military reasons. This is customarily referred to as terrorism when it is done by non-state organisations, and states which act in this way have been generally stigmatised as "rogue states" or "pariah states" in the western media. For example South Africa, Bulgaria, Iraq... But not Israel.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,Johan
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 08:33 PM

I'm proud that I was part of the early "Rap Groups" that were being taught to Navy Corpsmen going to Viet Nam so they could help those that killed and got killed process some sense of what they did.

Hmmm....I would be interested to know how the ones that got killed processed some sense out of what they did.

Answers on a postcard....

Johan

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: GUEST,norton1
Date: 25 Feb 01 - 11:21 PM

Johan - Good point - It wasn't meant the way I wrote it. I get a tad steamed when the uninitiated take a shot at veterans. And when I'm steamed I'm not always literate. I don't really give a shit if the war is right or wrong. To the folks that fight them there needs to be some sense of purpose - a learning if you will - or else why not just shoot oneself and be done with it. We figured that those that went had a right to anything that might help them survive it psychologically. To many who fought in Viet Nam the dead were the lucky ones. And when they came home they killed themselves in record droves.

Fionn -- I'm glad you missed the war. One less client I get to deal with. I don't equivocate on much.

To the rest - It is a semantical debate. All war oriented killing is terrorism. It's meant to be. If one's opponents aren't terrorized they aren't apt to run away and lose. And the "State" is the one the "people" who's country it is that decides on the level of terrorism and the method of delivery of the terrorism. And there is no glory - at least not from what I have read here. We are all apalled by what goes on in our names. At least I am and how I read the rest seems congruent with that. And "Folk Song's" roots are deeply imbedded in that sense of what war was/is for the common troop. Even the wars for voting rights, fair pay for farm workers, migrant rights, and any other thing you can think of. I think this is, of all places, THE forum for the discussion of war. At the very least it should be the musical reminders of what we don't want occuring again.

Subject: RE: US/British planes fire on Iraq
From: Skeptic
Date: 26 Feb 01 - 01:15 AM

Fionn,

I've seen Ramsay Clark fending questions at hostile meetings, and I'm with Cern. In my view Clark was impressive, and his critics seemed to have little in the way of facts to hit him with.

Or don't bother. In much the same way a scientist's doesn't bother to argue with the guy who created the perpetual motion machine.

Which is unfair because some of his facts are real and quite legitimate, as are some of his charges (which are often ignored) and should be investigated. I just distrust his motives and find that he has a habit of adding 2 plus 2 and getting a kitchen sink. That tends to prejudice his case, allows his valid charges and facts to be dismissed with his less documented and less well reasoned accusations. This further's the cause of peace how?

Regards

John

---

On to PART DEUX

---

This thread is getting too long to load. Please continue this discussion in PART DEUX. Thanks. -Joe Offer-