BS: Saddam Has Got To Go

Subject: B.S. Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Richie
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 09:38 PM

This is first BS thread I've started and it might be my last:

About the onlt thing people seem to agree on in the Iraq conflict is that Saddam is a despicable ruler who has murdered, lied and cheated. I'm sick of him. Maybe we can all agree that he has to go.

If everyone in the world stood up against Saddam, protested against Saddam, and stood up to Saddam- it could force him out of power either by exile or an uprising of the Iraqi people.

By standing up to Saddam we could have a peaceful solution.

I say Saddam has got to go!@#$^#$

What do you think?

-Richie

Subject: RE: B.S. Saddam Has Got To Go
From: NicoleC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 09:49 PM

You're right, Richie. Which is why economic sanctions that do the most harm to the Iraq middle class without doing anything to weaken Saddam's power are stupid. It might keep Saddam to poor to invade another country, but it won't get him out of power. Predominantly middle class non-violent uprisings were responsible for getting rid of Suharto and Marcos -- why not add Hussein to that list of former leaders unmissed?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:04 PM

Yep, Richie, I agree!

So do lots of the world's leaders. The list is too long and would read like an all star boogie-man team.

But, like Nicole eluded to, there are other ways of creating changes in leadership than blowing up the countries that they lead.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:19 PM

Here's an interesting article about just that sort of thing:

"In October 2000, Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic was removed from power — not by force of arms, as many had predicted, but by a dedicated, nonviolent strategy of honest elections and massive civil disobedience. Milosevic was strengthened by patriotic fervor when NATO bombed Yugoslavia in early 1999, but a few months later, a student movement named Otpor ("resistance" in Serbian) launched a surprising offensive."

The rest of the article is here:

Bringing down a dictator

I was interested to see that the NATO bombing actually strengthened Milosevic, whereas the peaceful tactics that were used succeeded in ousting him where force did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:19 PM

if only it could be like Chouchescu in Romania...(who remembers the pictures of the palace HE had?)

I'd sure hate to pay the armies necessary to chase around the world, taking out all the wannabe dictators.....but although Saddam is 'almost' as bad as they come, I do not like the precedent we are setting.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: NicoleC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:29 PM

Great link, Carol.

Sadly, we rarely see history lessons on the success of non-violent uprisings, and there have been many. History classes would have you believe the world only changes through wars and bloodshed.

Non-violent movements can also build the foundation for fully democratic societies in a way that military force simply cannot hope to. The people are fully prepared to take political responsibility -- and no question about it, it builds great leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:31 PM

Right on Bobert! You go girl, NicoleC!

Violence begets violence... Wouldn't it be a terrible shame for a 'war on terror' to illicite more terrorism around the world? Let's not shoot from the hip, George... OK?

War is not the answer, in these troubled times... IMHO, we ought to agressively seek compromise with our allies untill we have an effective consensus, and be wholeheartedly truth-serving with diplomacy. If only our current administration could listen... and be respectful in doing so.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: leprechaun
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:50 PM

Perhaps a strongly worded recommendation that Saddam get counseling...

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:56 PM

Awww, c'mon leprechaun. You know that wouldn't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 10:57 PM

How many American troops does it take to change a dictator?

346,721...346,720 to GET there and one to....oh, never mind...

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: michaelr
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:17 PM

Well, this has been bugging me for quite some time, and since nobody else is saying it, I guess I will:

YES, Saddam should be taken out.

NO, bombing Baghdad is not a good way to do it. What's needed is a task force or trained assassins, CIA/Navy Seals/James Bond style, to go in undercover and kill the bastard. Same thing should have taken care of Bin Laden. And don't tell me the US doesn't have that sort of operative, or could not do it if it wanted to. Just ask Salvador Allende...

The very fact that Bush is not taking that route but instead wants to unleash US armed forces on innocent civilians should make it abundantly clear that this is not about Saddam.

It's about controlling the oil and setting the precedent for US world hegemony. I quote again Danny Glover's courageous and true statement at last Saturday's New York peace rally:

"Our democracy has been hijacked by an administration of liars and murderers."

Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:22 PM

It's well documented that in a country under fire its citizens stiffen their resistance. The process of overwhelming that heightened resistance creates huge 'collateral' damage.

I just wish that we, as human beings, explored other ways than war of accomplishing objectives- even just being open to alternatives would be a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Kudzuman
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:32 PM

Thank you Michael...well said as did Danny Glover. I always loved John Prine's observation that so many "Christians" just don't get...."Jesus don't like killing, no matter what the reason for..." but then again hypocrisy (and Daddy's money) can get you elected President and thats the American way I reckon. Here's an interesting article about just that sort of thing:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In October 2000, Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic was removed from power ? not by force of arms, as many had predicted, but by a dedicated, nonviolent strategy of honest elections and massive civil disobedience. Milosevic was strengthened by patriotic fervor when NATO bombed Yugoslavia in early 1999, but a few months later, a student movement named Otpor ("resistance" in Serbian) launched a surprising offensive."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course those Americans who practiced civil disobedience by marching in New York got arrested.....and then there is the "Patriot Act II" being covered up by Ashcroft and cronies...sounds like echoes of Hitler to me

Kudzuman

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: leprechaun
Date: 19 Feb 03 - 11:39 PM

If Saddam has got to go, he should wipe with his left hand like the Ayatollah.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Cluin
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:22 AM

If you've got the Shockwave plug-in, and need a chuckle about now, check out the Bushie Hill cartoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:43 AM

It is against American Law to use assassination as a means of achieving foreign policy. I think that it was made law by Gerald Ford.
As far as non-violent protest as a means of overthrowing unpopular dictators, the quoted examples are certainly impressive. Now, does anyone have any facts and figures on those that DIDN"T work?
Balance is important.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Little Robyn
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:45 AM

Where's MacGyver when you need him?
Robyn

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:48 AM

Michaelr definitely has the right idea. There are safer, more efficient, and overall better solutions to one madman with power than to bulldoze our way through innocents to get to him, regardless of where said madman might be located.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:51 AM

Good question, Troll. Of course, I'm guessing it's still less than the number of groups that have lost violent wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Richie
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 08:24 AM

Guest,

You said:
It is against American Law to use assassination as a means of achieving foreign policy. I think that it was made law by Gerald Ford.


I believe the law was changed as a result of 9-11. Can anyone corroborate?

-Richie

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:30 AM

It is against American Law to use assassination as a means of achieving foreign policy. I think that it was made law by Gerald Ford.

Whether or not this is the case, it is certainly the case that it is against American and international law for the US to wage a first strike attack on another country unless it is currently being attacked by that country, and/or it has permission from the UN.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: TIA
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:37 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: TIA
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:39 AM

oops. here's the poop on assasination...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0921/p11s1-cods.html

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:44 AM

Does anyone know if there are any international laws to which we are a party that address the issue of assasination?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Lepus Rex
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 11:45 AM

There's a good article today at
Sobaka, sort of on this subject:
Black Arabs and Bandit Kings: Iraq, America, & the Legend of Charlemagne Peralte. :)

---Lepus Rex

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 12:32 PM

Interesting links, Lepus Rex. I found this part, in particular, very enlightening...

"But one person did seem to learn something from all this: Smedley Darlington Butler...one of the most decorated soldiers in the history of the Marine Corps and recipient of two Medals of Honor and the Distinguished Service Medal, became unspeakably disillusioned with his accomplishments. His service record reads like an itinerary of all the "peacekeeping" and "humanitarian interventions" Wilson's enlightened and honourable foreign policy brought to a benighted world.

After his retirement in 1931, Butler wrote, "I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

"I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

"Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.""


"Humanitarian intervention" indeed, says I.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:30 PM

It's tough indeed to right the wrongs
Removing heads where none belongs
But much much greater is the pain
To kill the people who's heads remain

When times are tight we seek a fight
And mercenary timings right
Philanderers thus mock the peace
The slippery slope of war to grease

ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:41 PM

Here's another thread started about "a real peaceful solution for Iraq
" - with this link to a proosal that deserves attention, from the World Citizenship Foundation.

But in the light of the rather excessive number of threads about Iraq, I suggest that this thread here is the right place to talk about the ideas in that link, of anyone feels up to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST,herc
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 01:57 PM

Transferred from "real peaceful":

This did seem inspirational, but I am afraid that experts in international law may give us dissapointing news on the plan's viability. This Monbiot fellow seems to have failed to notice that the site promoting the concept clearly states that the UN can have no involvement in a plan for regime change. The site has the following quote: "Danilo Türk, Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs, United Nations:

" This is worth trying. The UN has no mandate for regime change and cannot initiate this or host it, but if the Iraquis initiate this process, we might get involved at a later date. . . . "

The entire thrust of this plan is in the pre-overthrow phase. I can't find any reference on the main site to Monbiot proposal for seizing Iraqi assets and embassies, and giving them all to this pre-overthrow transitional government in exile. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that those are not legal options, either.

In tandem with that, the problems of democratically electing a transitional government-in-exile seem massive. If it then has problems with legal standing, well then, how would it work.

Hate to be a naysayer, but, I suspect this one needs a LOT more work, into a form that would make its current incarnation unrecognizable. Glad to be wrong.

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST,herc
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 02:23 PM

Regardless of who is right or wrong on substantive arguments: For those of you who have felt embarrassed by Bush's talents at international diplomacy, enjoy this delight from Chirac:

"The French president derided the Central and Eastern European countries that have signed letters expressing their support for the U.S. policy on Iraq, saying they were "badly brought up" and had missed "an opportunity to keep quiet."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/wed/news/news_1n19iraq.html

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Troll
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:03 PM

Chirac also threatened the countries who are seeking admission into the EU that their support of America would hold up their admission for a long time.
Rather tough talk from a man whose real purpose in avoiding a war in Iraq is to protect the billions of dollars in Iraqui oil contracts held by French companies and the quite substantial load of IOU's now being held by Saddam's govt.
The French are scared spitless that a new government wouldn't honor any of those, either contracts or IOU's.
So much for the French moral high ground.
No, I don't recall where I heard it but it wasn't on NPR or CNN. It might have been on the English language news in Tokyo.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:39 PM

Re you sure "philanderers" is the word you were after in your little poem Thomas?

Doesn't make a great deal of sense, does it? Or am I missing something?

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:39 PM

It's a fairly normal situation in a revolution or a civil war for there to be a provisional government set up in exile, or in liberated territory, and for this to be recognised by other countries as a legitimate government.

Of course such governments often get up the nose of other governments even when thye recognise them in some degree, and this has some advantages as a mark that of the provisional government is not just a puppet. The position of General de Gaulle during World War II is a case in point.

Such a provisional government could not be a front for the UN, still less for the USA. It would have to be Iraq controlled. The legality of recognising it, and letting it control any Iraq resources outside the control of Baghdad would be interesting, but I would think there are plenty of precedents for this kind of thing happening.

As for the extent to which it would have any democratic standing, that would be limited, but once again there are plenty of precedents. What democratic standing did George Washington have?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: 53
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 03:49 PM

kick his ass into next week and from there outta here.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: NicoleC
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 04:15 PM

The latest news reports, Kevin, are saying that the US is refusing any potential Iraqi interim government in a post-war Iraq in favor of a US Military governor and all top levels of the government filled by Americans; then the lower levels comprised of Iraqis.

Oh yeah. That's gonna go over well. Even if the intentions are entirely honorable, most of the Middle East is still sore over the whole colonial era and are NOT going to respond well. The Iraqi opposition is already objecting, but their main gripe seems to be they're afraid that a US military government wouldn't kick out all of the members of the Ba'ath Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST,herc
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 04:34 PM

Troll: I don't have the time or inclination to sign up for the free subcription, but google news shows an interesting quote: "Russian officials have pressed the US to guarantee the existing contracts. . . ."

The quote is from South China Morning Post:
http://focus.scmp.com/focusnews/ZZZK4D0ABCD.html

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 04:42 PM

The Empire Strikes Back

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:17 PM

Sorry I wasn't more clear Murray... Poetic license is the cause...

Philanderer....intr.v... To engage in love affairs casually; flirt...

...and for the love of war... some will think of any excuse...

ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 20 Feb 03 - 05:46 PM

Assassination is against American and international law, but Dubya really doesn't care. The fact that he's perfectly willing to assassinate suspected minor members of Al Qaeda, but not Saddam, makes you think his major goal might not be to eliminate Saddam, so much as occupy Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 07:30 AM

Someone else quoted this form a link supplied above:

"In October 2000, Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic was removed from power — not by force of arms, as many had predicted, but by a dedicated, nonviolent strategy of honest elections and massive civil disobedience. Milosevic was strengthened by patriotic fervor when NATO bombed Yugoslavia in early 1999, but a few months later, a student movement named Otpor ("resistance" in Serbian) launched a surprising offensive."

Slobodan Milosevic - "Saviour of Serbia" or "Butcher of the Balkans"

Start of his ethnic cleansing operation in Kosovo early 1998.

UN negotiate with Milosevic and actually drag him to a Peace Conference in France, 19th March, 1999. Unsuccessful.

NATO Bombing campaign starts 24th March, 1999 to protect Kosovo Albanians and interrupt Serbian Army operations.

9th June, 1999 Serbians agree to withdraw all forces from Kosovo.

UN applies economic and aid sanctions against Serbia over war crimes.

Milosevic calls elections in September 2000, effects of sanctions and Montenegro threatening to break away from the Federation, secured the election result for the Opposition. Milosevic refuses to accept the election result, there was a national general strike, the Serb Parliament Building and State TV Station were stormed and burnt and the Army and Police refused to act against the protesters.

Had the Peace Protesters in UK and the rest of Europe been listened to when they protested at the NATO decision (Not sanctioned by the UN) to use military intervention. Milosevic's Kosovo campaign would have been successful (let's face it the UNSC wasn't going to act was it - it never does) - there would have been no humiliating withdrawal to explain - Serbia's infrastructure and industry would have been intact, there may, or may not, have been UN sanctions, but the Serb's big brother - Russia - would have seen them alright, and would have ensured that whatever sanctions were applied, remained totally ineffective. Montenegro could have been bullied into line accepting almost direct rule on dictat from Belgrade. Elections would not have been called in September 2000, there would have been no protest movement, no general strike and the Army and Police would have obeyed the orders of the country's Head of State.

So to say that: "Yugoslav dictator Slobodan Milosevic was removed from power by a dedicated, nonviolent strategy of honest elections and massive civil disobedience." is being slightly disengenuous.

Action, or the results of action, got rid of Slobodan Milosevic. Action, or the results of action, will get rid of Saddam Hussein. The sooner the UNSC realise that the better - as an organisation it has proved itself to be weak and ineffectual time after time - its defining moment has come, as Colin Powell has reminded it of.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 08:54 AM

Violent actions set the framework for Milosevic's nonviolent removal. I don't think that this is a situation which will easily be repeated. It requires that the dictator in question have a weak enough grip on his people that public opinion can be expressed. I don't think that this is the case in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 09:18 AM

MGOH:

From your link:

"Troy Davis of the World Citizen Foundation has been sketching out an ingenious means of pulling the rug from beneath Saddam's feet."

Its not ingenious its illegal.

"The United Nations, he proposes, should help the opposition groups based abroad and in Iraq's no-fly zones to establish a democratically-elected government in exile."

The UN cannot do this it is against its Charter. How on earth he expects the people, particularly in the Southern No-Fly Zone, to conduct an election under the eyes of the Special Republican Guard and Fedyin Saddam I do not know. The Kurds in the North are not too badly off they already have their own assembly.

"This government is then given the world's Iraqi embassies and the nation's frozen assets."

Again illegal - its called theft - can't see the UN having anything to do with it.

"It gradually takes control of the no-fly zones and the oil-for-food programme."

How? How do you take control of a no-fly zone? Iraqi troops are still present inside those no-fly zones, they only exist so that Saddam cannot reinforce his actions with airpower. How would it take control of the oil for food programme?

"Saddam Hussein would find himself both isolated diplomatically and confronted by a legitimate alternative government."

No he wouldn't - the alternative government crafted under this proposal is illegal and governs nothing.

"It is not hard to see how his authority over his own people would be undermined, permitting him to be toppled more easily."

So lets understand this aright - Saddam's authority over his people comes from the barrel of a gun, the threat of imprisonment, torture and death. In short he rules by terror. To do this he requires armed forces made up of loyal cadres (SRG & FS are recruited exclusively from Saddam's own tribal group). I can see nothing in the above that even remotely tarnishes Saddam's authority let alone diminish, or undermine it. Therefore toppling him is as hard, if not harder, after implimenting this fiasco of a plan as it is now.

I read through the thread that this was originally mentioned in - I'm not surprised that Bobert liked it and praised it as classic example of someone thinking out of the box. It seems to be a fairly pointless exercise unless your proposal addresses the current situation, reflects reality and has some vestage of attainability.


This plan also ensures that democracy is less likely to be frustrated by the installation of a puppet regime."

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 09:34 AM

Apologies I forgot to add my comment to the last part

All that plan ensures:

1. That Saddam and the Ba'ath Party remain in power in Iraq.

2. That democracy never sees the light of day in Iraq.

3. That the UN is made to look even more foolish and irrelevant than it manages to do by its own actions - or more correctly by its lack of action.

4. That the exiled alternative government is viewed by all as a puppet regime.

The long term good of the Iraqi people and the region as a whole would be better served with an administration similar to that set up in Germany and Japan at the end of the Second World War - long, difficult and costly - but it would work.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 07:07 PM

What the USAK is proposing to do now is illegal anyway.

Once you recognise a government you recognise that government own the embassies and frozen assets. If they belong to private citizens it nationalises them - I know that wouldn't go down too well with the USA, but it's legal enough.

And if the the UN recognises a government, there's nothing illegal in assisting it.

What I mean is, not that this plan would necessarily work as it stands, but there are ways around the legal arguments Teribus came up with.

I predict that if the US tries to run a viceroy type regime in a post Saddam Iraq they are going to find themselves in armed conflict with anti-Saddam Iraqis.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST,herc
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 07:27 PM

Teribus came up with? Dang, I gotta start signing in as a Member.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 07:54 PM

I'm missing something here, obviously.

Uprisings by their very nature are by the citizens, no? Where does another nation come in? Even the USA from its supremely unselfish and altruistic motives.

No, I don't like Hussein. But for the sake of argument, let's postulate the unlikely notion that Bush is not too popular a figure in Europe. Let's say further that he and his administration alarm a great many governments and peoples in the world, that some consider him a menace. So- if some other citizens of some other country decide that he has to go, do we agree that they have the right, nay, even the obligation to do that?

Until and unless the people of a nation have had their fill of their own government, they're not going to rise up against it. And unless and until they do, no one else is going to accomplish it for them. Sure, assassination from the outside is possible but the people in all likelihood will not be friendly toward their liberators nor without extensive outside control will the country have learned anything about freedom. My opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Feb 03 - 08:13 PM

From this part of your post, Teribus:

Had the Peace Protesters in UK and the rest of Europe been listened to when they protested at the NATO decision (Not sanctioned by the UN) to use military intervention....

To this part:

The sooner the UNSC realise that the better - as an organisation it has proved itself to be weak and ineffectual time after time - its defining moment has come, as Colin Powell has reminded it of.

Is all supposition on your part, and there is no way to prove whether you are right about it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 12:34 AM

Teribus:

Why wasn't Sobodan removed before NATO bombed Yugoslavia?

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Troll
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 01:01 AM

The sooner the UNSC realise that the better - as an organisation it has proved itself to be weak and ineffectual time after
time - its defining moment has come, as Colin Powell has reminded it of.
I don't see this as supposition. The UNSC is great at passing resolutions but not too good at enforcing them as you yourself have pointed out in your spirited defenses of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Arabs, Carol.
But, since you think that Teribus' scenario was wrong (at least I assume that's what you think), How do YOU think it would have played out?

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 04:16 AM

Old Guy,

He wasn't removed before NATO took action because within Serbia he was popular, in power and had the backing of his Parliament and the armed forces. Although Kosovo was demographically predominantly Albanian muslim, historically and emotionally it is considered to be the heart of Serbia. It was in Kosovo that the Serbs turned back the Moors (Turks) centuries ago.

As I said in my post carol he was considered by some to the saviour of Serbia and by the non-Serbs in the region the butcher of the Balkans. My supposition is based on the fact that had NATO not taken the action they did Milosevic's campaign of ethnic cleansing would have gone ahead unopposed - that would have been seen as a great victory to the Serbian people. The everyday life of the people of Serbia would not have been disrupted - there would have been no cause for public grievance, no discontent.

Why did NATO act? Because Russia would veto any direct military action against Serbia in the Security Council - The Russians had no sanction over any option open to NATO.

You are correct - they are suppositions - but suppositions that are based on logic, past history and human nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 08:05 AM

Spot on, Ebbie. Mobuto in Zaire comes to mind. Pretty much installed by American interests, but even when the US administration came to see what a monster he was, the official line was that it was for the Zaireans to sort the problem. Is the US about to become the first free democracy to interfere with main force in the internal affairs of a sovereign state?

CarolC, I think there is some merit in Teribus's reasononing, but that was an instructive item re Milosovic that you linked to, for which thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 09:05 AM

The point about Milosevic's overthrow is that it was the Serbs who did it in the end, it wasn't achieved by an invasion and occupation, and if that had been attempted it seems likely that the result would have been disastrous.

Obviously the Kosovo campaign and the bombing had a major impact on what took place later, and it was a different situation to that in Iraq in all kind of ways - Milosevic's power was based on his being popular in a way that Saddam's was not, and he didn't have the kind of militarised grip on the country that Saddam still has. The loss of Kosovo and so forth lost him most of that popularity.

In a way the situation in Yugoslavia was more equivalent to what cold have happened in the Second Gulf War, if the repression of the popular uprising had been prevented, which could very likely have been done by enforcing a no-fly zone in the relevant areas. However just as for a long time the Western powers saw Milosevic as a useful if unpleasant stabilising force, and worked to preserve his position during the Bosnia years, Saddam was also seen as a better alternative to a popular revolution that could very well have taken an Iranian direction.

It still could, which is I imagine why the possibilities of helping an indigenous revolution is being pushed aside in favour of a top down invasion, and extended occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: mytoycar
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 10:39 AM

he's been the starting point of one war why start another over him just have him assasinated!

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 11:19 AM

I think McGrath is mostly right as to why Bush wants an occupation, but I think American commercial interests may also play a part.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 11:28 AM

But, since you think that Teribus' scenario was wrong (at least I assume that's what you think), How do YOU think it would have played out?

I didn't say it was wrong. I said it was supposition and there is no way to prove whether he is right or wrong. Before I will be able to form any suppositions of my own, I need to spend some more time in that site I linked to, which I will do as time allows.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 11:35 AM

P.S.

Troll, you neglected to say...

as you yourself have pointed out in your spirited and highly effective defenses of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Arabs, Carol.

;-P

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 07:17 PM

Here's a thought provoking piece about how anti-Saddam Iraqis are being sidelined in all this."Washington to sideline exile groups" (from the Daily Telegraph in London - thgough I got there via an Iraqi exile site - which has some great Iraqi music.).

Here's a quote from it:

Washington this week flatly ordered one leading opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, not to declare any form of provisional government, officials told the Washington Post.

The INC hit back, threatening to declare an interim government as soon as Arab Iraqi territory - as opposed to Kurdish territory - was liberated. In what could be a nightmare scenario for the Pentagon, an INC official suggested that many Iraqi army units might prefer to defect to an interim government.

Entifadh Qanbar, head of the INC's Washington office, angrily rejected talk of civilian or military governors for Iraq. "That's not acceptable; it's not workable; it's not correct," he said.

Assuning the war gioes ahead, and a US occupation is set up, I doubt if it will be long before Iraqis who were against Saddam will be in open conflict with the occupation troops.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 08:47 PM

Teribus:

So the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia had no affect on the removal of Slobodan?

I think it had and affect on Kosovo and caused him to be removed later in Yugoslavia.

You apply that it was unsucessful in removing Slobodan.

If think the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia should not have happened or it was unecessary, say so.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Troll
Date: 22 Feb 03 - 11:17 PM

Lurker, of course American comercial interests come into it. The only reason that anyone has any interest whatsoever in that region of the workd is because of the oil that is there.
Why on earth do you think France is so against a war? Don't know?
Well, try this on for size. France holds billions of dollars worth of oil contracts with the Iraqi Govt. They are scared spitless that a newGovernment would not honor those contracts, nor would it honor the purported billions in IOUs that the French hold on Iraq. These IOUs are for trade carried on during the past twelve years in direct violation of the UNSC resolution that placed sanctions on Iraq.
CarolC, context, my dear,context I did indeed make that statement but not in that paragraph.
A good spin nevertheless.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 05:07 AM

Apologies Old Guy, if I didn't make my points clearer. In answer to your questions:

I totally agree with you. I think the bombing campaign was indirectly a crucial factor in the chain of events that finally toppled Milosevic, without it he would still be there.

Milosevic's experience in dealing with the United Nations attempts at resolving the conflict in the former Yugoslavia led him to believe that he could get away with anything he wanted to do. Serbia's traditional ally, Russia, could be guaranteed to protect him from direct UN backed military intervention by using their veto in the UNSC.

What he didn't count on was intervention by NATO, whose actions the Russians could not protect him from. So again I totally agree with you - the bombing was essential to destroy the Serbian Army's ability to carry-out their campaign of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, which up until then had proceeded unhindered.

In the UK and other European countries demonstrations were held by people voicing their opinions against the NATO action. What I tried to say in my post was that had those demonstrators been listened to, thousands of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo would have been slaughtered and Milosevic would still be in power.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's thinking is roughly along the same lines as Milosevic's. He believes that the UN will adopt the line of least resistance, as it nearly always does, and that Russia and France will do everything in their power to protect him. Unfortunately for the people of Iraq there is no regional organisation that can intervene as NATO did in Serbia.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:05 AM

I sat in a movie theater watching "Schindler's List," asked myself, "Why didn't the Jews fight back?"

Now I know why.

I sat in a movie theater, watching "Pearl Harbor" and asked myself, "Why weren't we prepared?"

Now I know why.

Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil people.

On September 11, dozens of capable airplane passengers allowed themselves to be overpowered by a handful of poorly armed terrorists because they did not comprehend the depth of hatred that motivated their captors.

On September 11, thousands of innocent people were murdered because too many Americans naively reject the reality that some nations are dedicated to the dominance of others. Many political pundits, pacifists and media personnel want us to forget the carnage. They say we must focus on the bravery of the rescuers and ignore the cowardice of the killers. They implore us to understand the motivation of the perpetrators. Major television stations have announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying devastating footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers.

I will not be manipulated.

I will not pretend to understand.

I will not forget.

I will not forget the liberal media who abused freedom of the press to kick our country when it was vulnerable and hurting.

I will not forget that CBS anchor Dan Rather preceded President Bush's address to the nation with the snide remark, "No matter how you feel about him, he is still our president."

I will not forget that ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings questioned President Bush's motives for not returning immediately to Washington, DC and commented, "We're all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington."

And I will not forget that ABC's Mark Halperin warned if reporters weren't informed of every little detail of this war, they aren't "likely -- nor should they be expected -- to show deference."

I will not isolate myself from my fellow Americans by pretending an attack on the USS Cole in Yemen was not an attack on the United States of America.

I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic terrorists and their supporters with the world's most sophisticated telecommunications equipment and encryption technology, thereby compromising America's ability to trace terrorist radio, cell phone, land lines, faxes and modem communications.

I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like those perfected by the previous administration.

I will not be comforted by "feel-good, do nothing" regulations like the silly "Have your bags been under your control?" question at the airport.

I will not be influenced by so called,"antiwar demonstrators" who exploit the right of expression to chant anti-American obscenities.

I will not forget the moral victory handed the North Vietnamese by American war protesters who reviled and spat upon the returning Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines.

I will not be softened by the wishful thinking of pacifists who chose reassurance over reality.

I will embrace the wise words of Prime Minister Tony Blair who told Labor Party conference, "They have no moral inhibition on the slaughter of the innocent If they could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000, does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it?

There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must!"

I will force myself to:


-hear the weeping
-feel the helplessness
-imagine the terror
-sense the panic
-smell the burning flesh
- experience the loss
- remember the hatred.

I sat in a movie theater, watching "Private Ryan" and asked myself, "Where did they find the courage?"

Now I know.

We have no choice. Living without liberty is not living.

-- Ed Evans, MGySgt., USMC (Ret.)
Not as lean, Not as mean, But still a Marine.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 06:50 AM

Very well said Gunny. I agree wholeheartedly with every word and sentiment expressed in your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 07:46 AM

"On September 11, thousands of innocent people were murdered because too many Americans naively reject the reality that some nations are dedicated to the dominance of others."

Where does the "because" fit in there? There is no evidence or reason to believe that September 11 was carried out by "some nations ... dedicated to the dominance of others". You might as well say that the Columbine massacre happened for the same reason, or that terrible fire in Rhode Island the other day.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 03 - 08:57 AM

perhaps Gunny should have said Religions or Cultures?

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 01:37 PM

Teribus:

"Apologies Old Guy, if I didn't make my points clearer."

My apologies. I thought you meant the actions of NATO did not remove Slobodan but the country itself removed him. We agree.

I think the outcome was almost ideal save for some accidents like bombing the Chinese embassy, some wrong targets and some hardware errors.
I don't see how any one could have solved the problem any other way.
I am sure the people in Kosovo are glad and most of the people in Serbia / Yugoslavia.

Now The UN must closely monitor the situation and take appropriate action to keep things from regressing.

Old Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: DougR
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 04:28 PM

And how much confidence do you have in the UN that it will do that, Old Guy?

Great post Ed Evans! I agree totally.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 08:07 PM

None whatsoever unless someone keeps goading them to do their job.

Old Buy

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 24 Feb 03 - 08:13 PM

I'd hardly call the outcome "ideal," Oldguy. True, the killing was eventually stopped, but many Kosovars lost their lives before NATO took any action, and many more when NATO committed itself to a strictly air campaign, using no land troops, or even helicopters. A strategy of minimal military casualties increased the civilian dath toll.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Troll
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 01:04 AM

Clinton was reluctant to commit ground forces. Bodies don't make for good poll showings. And yes, I know it was a NATO operation but the US still set the strategy.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 01:57 AM

Forum Lurker,

"I'd hardly call the outcome "ideal," Oldguy. True, the killing was eventually stopped, but many Kosovars lost their lives before NATO took any action,"

NATO took action because the UN wouldn't, or couldn't - Russia and possibly France would have used their veto. Because it was going to be a military action on the part of NATO, both France and Russia were cut out of the loop. When they were included after the start it was a French Air Force officer who was caught passing details of missions and mission profiles to the Serbs, after the Serbian Army had withdrawn from Kosovo and sanctions were imposed on Serbia, it was Russian troops who made enforcement of those sanctions a joke.

"... and many more when NATO committed itself to a strictly air campaign, using no land troops, or even helicopters. A strategy of minimal military casualties increased the civilian death toll."

I take it you would have used your air-mobile troops again Forum. There were a number of reasons for deciding on the air campaign:

1. It was quicker to impliment and the situation, having been tossed about the UN for months, was getting drastically worse by the hour. The Serb Army in Kosovo and it's supporting elements in Serbia had to be distracted, disrupted and, when opportunity presented itself, destroyed. It wasn't NATO killing Kosovars it was the Serb Army - that was stopped.

2. How would you have got your land forces in to Kosovo? How long would it have taken? Don't say by parachute - they would have been shredded (No supporting armour or artillery, vulnerable lines of supply, little or no local knowledge of the terrain), it would have been a disaster.

3. The UN already had troops in other parts of the former Yugoslavia, intervention in Kosovo with land forces would have put those troops seriously at risk with the potential of setting the entire region in flames again.

As I have mentioned in another thread, your understanding of military operations is woefully poor and very ill informed.

Had the peace protesters in Europe been listened to the killing would only have stopped after Milosevic had succeeded in driving the last ethnic Albanian muslem out of Kosovo. He would then have started on somebody else.

One interesting little snippet regarding the NATO air campaign. From the Centre for Strategic and International Studies:

"Iraq has learned a great deal about land-based air defense operations from the Gulf War and more than 10 years of operations against U.S. and British aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones. Iraq provided significant aid to the Serbia in air defense tactics during the fighting in Kosovo and helped Serbia make effective use of decoys, "pop-on" and remotely linked radar activity, various ambush tactics, and the use of deployments in civilian areas to limit NATO's ability to strike at targets because of the possibility of collateral damage or civilian casualties."

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 11:03 AM

I didn't say that their actions were wrong, I said they were not quite as effective as they might have been. I certainly don't think that they should have stood by and waited for the UN to act. The airstrikes first targeted anti-air platforms, which makes perfect sense. Then, they were used to attack concentrations of troops, again standard military strategy when you have air superiority. My only objection is that once the Serbian army was in disarray, the NATO land forces which, as I recall, were already present in the region, were not moved in to assist the Kosovars still within the Serbian borders. Normal strategy when you have air superiority is to use it to back up ground troops, not try to do everything with nominally "smart" bombs. This is especially the case when your primary concern is not the military defeat of your opponent, but preventing him from massacring unarmed civilians. The killing kept on after NATO started. I think it would have ended faster had more forces been committed.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 11:30 AM

Forum Lurker,

"..the NATO land forces which, as I recall, were already present in the region."

Had their hands full in Macedonia looking after refugees. They had no armour, they had no heavy support weapons, their logistics were stretched to the limit with the task they had on hand.

Your use of phrases such as "standard military strategy" and "normal strategy" further indicates your lack of understanding of what is involved - anyone who has been involved will tell you only to readily that each situation dictates what stratgey and tactics are and the phrases you use go out of the window the second you move from the start line.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST,Forum Lurker
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 01:45 PM

Funny, I'd always gotten the impression that tactical realities seldom enter into the Pentagon's thought processes.

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 03:05 PM

Tommorrow night on 60 Minutes II- they will air Dan Rather's interview with Saddam. He wants to have an open aired debate with Bush and the Bush teams claims it is a ludicrous idea and says no to it. I would personally like to see that happen. Anyway here is a link to the interview if anyone is interestered...Rather with Hussein

Subject: RE: BS: Saddam Has Got To Go
From: GUEST,Oldguy
Date: 25 Feb 03 - 03:54 PM

Forum Lurker:

I'd hardly call the outcome "ideal," Oldguy. True, the killing was eventually stopped, but many Kosovars lost their lives before NATO took any action, and many more when NATO committed itself to a strictly air campaign, using no land troops, or even helicopters. A strategy of minimal military casualties increased the civilian dath toll.

My words were "almost ideal".

Are you blaming the deaths before Nato took action on Nato?

It sounds like you complain because they did not take action and then you complain when they did, a lose / lose situation.

Do you think the Kosovars are not grateful that someone helped them?

Sure, some died due to the military action, absolutely sure many more lived that would not have if nobody had taken any action.

Old Guy