|
09 Apr 03 - 11:21 AM (#929563) Subject: BS: Now that the war is over From: Wolfgang I know, there will be some more fighting and more or less innocent people will still get killed, some more suicide attacks will be more or less successful, but the main part of this war is over. So: Now that the war is over tell me where you have been wrong (I know most Mudcatters, explicitely not excluding myself here, prefer to tell others that they have been right but I assure you that usually you can learn more for yourself from being wrong). I have been wrong (maybe not actually on the record here in Mudcat, but I know I have said it offline) in my assessment that the war would be over in about a week. I would have expected more Iraqi troops surrendering in the first few days without any fight. I have underestimated the ability of the regime to force their people to fight. I would have thought the breakdown from within would have come somewhat earlier. Up to you now. Wolfgang |
|
09 Apr 03 - 11:32 AM (#929575) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: *daylia* I'm taking a wait-and-see stance, Wolfgang. Though it appears Saddam's regime is history this morning, where is he? And even if he is "gone" (dead or otherwise), will the coalition stop attacking or will they keep "liberating" until the oil-fields are securely under their control, and any opposing Iraqi/Islamic factions are destroyed? daylia |
|
09 Apr 03 - 11:34 AM (#929578) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Amos Although I didn't say so, I expected it to take longer, actually. I am relieved to find that the discovery of WMD was as minimal as it was, although that part is not over either. I didn't know what to expect on that front, but I felt that Bush's assertions were garrulous and unsupported by evidence. I did let his repeated assertions have the effect of making me worry about the possibilities of WMD deployment -- a kind of "Big Lie" sucker routine. BTW, maybe we could round up some of those phsyicists we wanted to talk to and get them to tell the real story now that the Republican Guard and the Baath torture machinery is disassembled. A |
|
09 Apr 03 - 11:37 AM (#929581) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Donuel I addressed this question 4 months ago with my own "future" newspaper. http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/onion4.jpg |
|
09 Apr 03 - 11:37 AM (#929584) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: katlaughing I am not holding my breath...this seems premature to me, so the one thing I can say, provided it really is coming to a close, is I expected it to last a lot longer, though I fervently hoped it would not. I also hope the shrub doesn't use this as an excuse to go after Iran or Syria, now. |
|
09 Apr 03 - 11:39 AM (#929585) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: GUEST,Bagpuss I thought it was probable that Iraq did have some form of chemical/biological capability, and that going to war was a sure way to see them used (which was why I favoured the weapons inspectors staying). It seems I was either wrong about their capability, or I was wrong about their willingness to use them as a desperate last resort. Bagpuss |
|
09 Apr 03 - 11:42 AM (#929589) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: GUEST,Bagpuss "which was why I favoured the weapons inspectors staying" Should have read "which was one of the reasons why I favoured the weapons inspectors staying" |
|
09 Apr 03 - 11:51 AM (#929598) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: CarolC My prediction involves whether or not we go after Syria and Iran once we're finished with Iraq. So I'm still waiting to see if I'll be right about that. |
|
09 Apr 03 - 12:08 PM (#929610) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Ebbie On last night's Charlie Rose this question came up- as to whether Bush, et al, plans to 'fix' Syria next. One person, David Brock, maintained there is no such plan, the others quoted Bush's own words of not so long ago. His words seem more credible as to revealing his mindset than anyone else's saying, oh, no, not at all... I'm reminded again of George Orwell's '1984': War had been literally continuous- though strictly speaking it had not always been the same war. The war of the moment always represented pure evil.' This whole thing just makes me sick. If the war is over, now the consequences begin. How does it go: 'We have sown a wind and reaped a whirlwind'? |
|
09 Apr 03 - 12:24 PM (#929619) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: wysiwyg I can answer this whether the war is over or not. I totally failed to anticipate the extent to which people would have and proclaim rigid opinions about each and every aspect of this whole topic, and the number and extent of know-it-all "solutions" to the percieved problems. (Mudcat threads have given a stellar example of this, but it's not just here that I've run into it.) Given the cultural differences and our own cultural biases, not to mention the distance and the fact that any news is thoroughly filtered through others' biases before we get it, it amazes me that people think they can even attempt to think about it rationally, effectively, or accurately. It amounts to a level of arrogance I can't even measure, and it makes me wonder how often I have been so arrogant as this or that issue came onto the world stage. In fact, it quite humbles me about having any opinions at all, at this point. The broader view, after the bigger picture begins to emerge, for me! ~Susan ~Susan |
|
09 Apr 03 - 12:37 PM (#929630) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: GUEST I am hoping that, whatever we hear about the "glorious victory" or the "sainted liberators" or whatever Faux News is presenting, that those of us who were in activist limbo a year ago, but who've been moved to get involved in peace efforts in whatever way, will continue the struggle to heighten everyuones awareness of peace as a viable option in world affairs, to really attempt to get a Dept. of Peace as a part of our cabinet (it would probably do more for homeland security than Bush's reactionary repressions) and to find the people in your communities who at the grass roots level were out to speak their minds. If all of the peace activists who've been busy in recent months had been as active and vocal continuously over the past years we may have been able to spread the word better. Think of the millions all around the world who have been out to eapress their desire for peace. Keep those images in miond and do not stop learning and educating yuour neighbors. At one time many people considered slavery a necessary evil. Peace can be achieved, but it will not happen. In one of those ironies, peace is what we must fight for. But we can lead a non-violent front to raise awareness and take back our country. |
|
09 Apr 03 - 01:02 PM (#929654) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Alba The "Battle for Baghdad" is nearly over but Tikrit is a heavily defended city full of Saddam supporters and family members of his Republican guard. So the "WAR" is not over yet and the killing is not over yet and the final outcome is not apparent yet..... As was said in a previous post. The consequences are most certaunly not apparent either. If only WAR was over. Period. |
|
09 Apr 03 - 01:31 PM (#929679) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: GUEST,Forum Lurker There has been much less street-to-street fighting than I expected, but it's not definately precluded yet. |
|
09 Apr 03 - 02:02 PM (#929712) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Don Firth I would say that it depends on which war you mean. It appears at this point (a bit prematurely, perhaps) that the war against Iraq is pretty well over. That is, the shooting part of the war. For now. But then, there is the follow-up. Great plans were trumpeted about all that we were going to do for Afghanistan, but one hears very little from that front these days, and last I heard, Afghanistan is still a pile of rubble and the people are still waiting for the United States to fulfill its promises to help them rebuild. Just as they waited for us to fulfill promises we made while supplying them with weapons and other military assistance when they were invaded by the Soviet Union. Our behavior there (or lack of it) contributed greatly to the disillusionment and anger that led eventually to the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I think we'll do a bit better in Iraq. After all, we've trumpeted our intent to make Iraq a democratic show-piece for the rest of the world. And, of course, we definitely want a government there which is friendly to the United States. But at one time, Saddam Hussein was friendly to the United States. So, in the long run, who knows? We've established a pattern all over the world of being untrustworthy, and of establishing or supporting regimes which are more friendly to us than they are to their own people. In the long run, it will be the Iraqi people who will decide whether they have been truly liberated or not, and I'm sure they're watching us very carefully, as well they should. And there is the Project for a New American Century, the world plan put forth by members of the Bush Administration such as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and others. The stated purpose of this plan (outlined in their own words)* is that the United States, now that the Soviet Union is gone, be the one and only Superpower in the world, and by political and economic means if possible, but by military means (including preemptive action) if necessary, prevent any other nation or coalition of nations from ever challenging its preeminent position. Implementation of this plan begins with geopolitical domination of the Middle-East and control of it's energy resources. Establishing a foot-hold in Iraq is the first step. Who's next? Syria? Iran? Probably not North Korea, because they don't fit the timetable at this point, but if they make enough of a pest of themselves, perhaps. I'm not making this up. If you think I am, just read the material in the link above. But—if you mean the "war on terrorism" (and, remember, Bush went to great pains to try to link the war on Iraq with the war on terrorism—a tenuous connection at best), if anything, we've lost the battle and prolonged the "war." It's given many people in the Muslim world an example of what we could do to them if they don't behave themselves, and many of them are fully aware of the PNAC, even if Americans are not. And this is exactly the sort of thing that leads to anger and desperation in people who feel themselves powerless before a juggernaut such as the United States. Unable to face us in open combat, they resort to other methods. Terrorism. So, what it amounts to is that we have given terrorists all the more motivation to wreak havoc and vengeance on the United States—and on those who have offered support. This is going to go on for a long, long time. Unless, of course, we have a regime change in the United States in 2004. Then, at least, we would have a chance to try to modify and alleviate the path the Bush Administration has put us on. Don Firth *Rather that comment on this myself, I suggest you go to google's "Advanced Search", type "Project for a New American Century" in the second search box, and read some of the material that pops up. The first will be the one I linked to, above. Educate yourself on the basis of our current foreign policy. And remember: the material in the one I linked to is in their own words. |
|
09 Apr 03 - 02:04 PM (#929716) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: McGrath of Harlow Touch wood, it looks as though there may be a lot fewer civilians killed than I feared, and that is a relief. "Only" between one and two thousand... But the defeat of the Iraqi regime was never really in doubt, in such a totally one-sided conflict - my worries about the longer term consequences of what has happened are as great as ever. I anticipate that, one way and another, we are going to see a lot more war and atrocity over the next not-so-few years. I worry that the voices calling for further wars by America in the wake of this one may prove irresistable, and that whatever fragile notions of international law restraining the actions of powerful nations have been irreparably damaged. I am worried that a new and terrible extension of terrorism is likely to be unleashed. I am worried that radical fundamentalist movements are going to emerge in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and other countries. I don't think the fat lady is going to sing for quite some time. |
|
09 Apr 03 - 02:28 PM (#929735) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Peg I was wrong to think this thread might have been started by someone with a neutral agenda. |
|
09 Apr 03 - 07:41 PM (#930014) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Bobert GUEST: Dennis Kucinick reintroduced his Department of Peace legislation today. Did you happen to catch that on the mainstream news? me neither. Others: This "war" won't end until years after a Department of Peace is created. Hey, a military victory by the world's superpower over a third rate military is a given. How many folks feel safer? Lets get a show of hands here... No, this war will go on and on and on and on..... Bobert p.s. And I'd love to be wrong.... |
|
09 Apr 03 - 09:00 PM (#930051) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: robomatic I take issue with the subject title. The war is not over, it is a chapter in a much larger war, which may certainly go on to other countries. The U.S. and British military have done an excellent job, but the next part is harder. Check out today's Thomas Friedman article in the NYT. Hold Your Applause This will be an entirely new test of Bush, his advisers, and his policies, not to mention the rest of the world. They will soon announce the chosen design for the sites formerly known as The World Trade Center. The whole idea of this war is that we should not suffer any more big holes in the middle of our cities (Or any other civilized country's cities). I was wrong in estimating that more peoples and countries would 'get it'. |
|
09 Apr 03 - 10:29 PM (#930110) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Amos I was wrong about the extent of the inhumanity which informed the prior government of Iraq. Such as described in this testimony. A |
|
10 Apr 03 - 01:44 AM (#930223) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: DougR Wolfgang: its not over 'till it's over. When it is, I'll reply to your post. Peg: so how many BS threads here on the Mudcat are posted by neutral posters? DougR |
|
10 Apr 03 - 02:34 AM (#930239) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: mg There is no excuse for anyone with access to any media to not know about the torture. It has been reported and reported and reported. There is no excuse. There is no excuse for anyone here in this forum. I have beaten this drum and so have others. Everyone who took a stand against going in and cleaning the damn place up must know that the flip side of doing nothing is permitting torture to go on. Taking it into account, there are still valid reasons for restraint or inaction, but playing dumb is not one of them. mg |
|
10 Apr 03 - 05:04 AM (#930277) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Hrothgar I am still waiting to be proved wrong about the Iraqis having to pay with their own oil for the rebuilding of their country - without having any choice about who does the work and how much they charge. The war is about US hegemony, and the Iraqi regime was just a detail. |
|
10 Apr 03 - 09:29 AM (#930391) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: DougR Why shouldn't Iraqi oil help pay for the cost of freeing the Iraqis? It's to the the Iraqi's benefit isn't it? DougR |
|
10 Apr 03 - 10:07 AM (#930422) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Amos Mary: I don't recall offering excuses, or asking to be excused, by anyone. Sheeshe! A |
|
10 Apr 03 - 03:13 PM (#930585) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: DougR Amos: you lost me on that one. I re-read Mary's post a couple of times and I can't see how she referred to you one way or the other. Enlighten us! DougR |
|
10 Apr 03 - 03:23 PM (#930592) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Amos Sorry if I misinterpreted, Doug. Seemed like a sequel to my post. I'll go stand in the corner with the button-pushees gang for half-an-hour! :>) A |
|
10 Apr 03 - 03:27 PM (#930594) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: CarolC Why shouldn't Iraqi oil help pay for the cost of freeing the Iraqis? Because the US is responsible for the Ba'athist party being in power in the first place. |
|
10 Apr 03 - 03:34 PM (#930598) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: mg It was a sequel to your post but not aimed at you specifically. mg |
|
10 Apr 03 - 03:40 PM (#930602) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: harpgirl Why is it ever okay to kill anyone in the name of war? Why is Saddam's torture worse than our killing and amiming, our blowing up countless buildings, or causing the chaos and anarchy going on there now? Why is the carving up of the country that bloodthirsty capitalists will engage in in the next ten years better? Have we stopped Muslim hatred of us? I didn't vote for George, his father, or his brother and I also think the election was illegal and a travesty of democracy. What Neil Bush did with regard to Silverado was unconscionable. The whole lot of them are a disgrace. Heck, I'm even disappointed in Laura for cancelling the poetry thing when she found out the poets were all anti-war. Please don't gloat that "the war" is won, all you hawks. It's sickening...harpgirl |
|
10 Apr 03 - 04:41 PM (#930644) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: GUEST,Clint Keller I thought taking Bagdad would be a harder fight. People will sometimes fight for their land even if they don't like their leader. But mostly I haven't had opinions about what would happen, just fears, mostly fears of the next war. I was in favor of getting the people responsible for 9/11, but that was one of those bait-&-switch things; Bush immediately moved to war with Afghanistan and then demanded war with Iraq. He has, last I heard, mentioned Osama once since last July. And that was in response to a direct question. Now. in today's paper -- the Spokane Spokesman-Review -- I saw that Wednesday Rumsfeld said Syria had ignored his warnings, and last week ordered the drawing up of contingency plans for a possible invasion of Syria. Wolfowitz told NBC Sunday that "There's got to be a change in Syria" and that they should "get the message" from what happened to Iraq. And "Former CIA director James Wooley -- mentioned at the Pentagon as a possible official in postwar Iraq -- recently said that the United States is involved in a new world war against Iran, the 'facists of Iraq and Syria' and Islamic extremists." Over? I hoped to get Osama bin Laden; I didn't ask for America Uber Alles and World War three. Clint Keller |
|
10 Apr 03 - 05:19 PM (#930666) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: McGrath of Harlow The torture going on was every bit as bad when Saddam was Washingtron's blue-eyes boy, as has been the case, and continues to be the case in in so many other countries. Building up a torturer and then cutting him down many years later is not the best way to stop torture. Nor is using torture as a technique yourself (directly or sub-contracted to friendly torturing allies) a good way of discouraging the practice. School of the Americas |
|
10 Apr 03 - 05:19 PM (#930667) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: CarolC Looks like I was right, then. This is one time when I would have loved to have been wrong. |
|
10 Apr 03 - 05:20 PM (#930668) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Peter T. Two weeks ago I said it would take a week to capture Baghdad, so I was a week off. I think one of the most important things that made people secretly hope (I mean that not in the sense of hoping the Iraqis would win) that it would have taken longer that no one has mentioned is the secret hope that someone would be able to overcome high technology warfare by other means, because of the implications for the rest of 21st century warfare if it were not so. I think some people who were not fighting thought of what it might mean for them to live in a world with a virtually invincible technologically advanced army, really a century ahead of all the rest. I suspect that someone who was a better general than Saddam Hussein could have made somewhat more of his few advantages; but the cold truth is that the American military has morphed into a stupendous new 21st century war machine, fueled by vast tax dollars and high technology, to which all others -- except those with nuclear weapons, which gives tremendous incentive to get them, in spite of the ridiculous notions of the right-wingers in the White House -- will have to bow down. That is the reality rubbed into people's faces by the Iraq war. yours, Peter T. |
|
10 Apr 03 - 05:23 PM (#930672) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: CarolC My last was in response to Clint's post about Syria and Iran. |
|
10 Apr 03 - 05:50 PM (#930688) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: mg yeah...torture is worse than blowing up buildings. I hate it worse than anything...it is far far worse than unintentional injury to a person..like a land mine say..because the injury stops...it doesn't continue...and hopefully the injured person will get medical treatment, pitiful as it might be. Or it might come too late or not at all. But deliberate torture, is the worst thing humans can do to each other. Worse than cancelling poetry readings even. mg |
|
10 Apr 03 - 08:03 PM (#930763) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Sam L You have a point Mary, and maybe that's why intent is considered in law. Some things are just worse than others. But I think WYSIWYG makes the point of all points. |
|
10 Apr 03 - 08:15 PM (#930768) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: McGrath of Harlow "...because the injury stops...it doesn't continue..." When you lose both your arms and both your parents that's an injury that continues. I'm not really disagreeing, mary. I think nothing can justify torture, not even if it's seen as a way of stopping people blowing up buildings and the people in them. But putting atrocities in ranking order seems a mistake to me, it tends to make some of them seem more tolerable, and once you start tolerating any of them you are likely to end up tolerating all of them. "...to live in a world with a virtually invincible technologically advanced army..." Yes, that is indeed frightening, especially if you start thinking a few years down the road; the saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely" comes to mind. Logically there are two ways in which such virtually invincible technology can be countered. One is the nightmare presaged by September 11th, with the technology being turned against itself. A nightmare which in fact feeds into the Terminator type killer technology dead end. The other, which opens up a future, would be principled non-violence, in the full view of a watching world, and in the full knowledge that this involves as real a cost in casualties and death as any other type of struggle. |
|
10 Apr 03 - 10:08 PM (#930821) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: wysiwyg Fred, I think we can never go too far wrong in proclaiming that all humans are, on the one hand, total eedjits and/or assholes and, on the other, wonderful heroes-- all at the same time. ~Susan |
|
11 Apr 03 - 09:35 AM (#931085) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: *daylia* McGrath, thanks for the link re the School of the Americas. It's truly horrifying - how are such awful institutions allowed to continue? Only because they are kept well-hidden from the public eye? |
|
17 Aug 03 - 11:55 AM (#1003595) Subject: RE: BS: The REAL storey behind war in Iraq From: Amos You need to know this, even though some risk might be involved. So I am posting it for you. I think it is important to understand the real and surprising factors behind the war in Iraq, as revealed by no less an organization than Pravda itself. See this page. A |
|
17 Aug 03 - 04:37 PM (#1003700) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Ebbie Amos, HORRORS!! (Where's DG?) |
|
17 Aug 03 - 06:51 PM (#1003746) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: DougR Wolfgang: an interesting question that I missed when it was originally posted. I just read the threads and it was also interesting to me that some "catters" refrained from "preaching" to the gallery, and actually admitted they were wrong about some aspect or another. As for me, I still think it was the right thing to do (oust Saddam)but I believed we would have found weapons of mass destruction, or at least evidence that Saddam had a program going before now. I was wrong about that, but still believe we might find them at some point. DougR |
|
17 Aug 03 - 07:19 PM (#1003774) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Amos DougR: Manly, manly. Thanks! A |
|
18 Aug 03 - 06:54 AM (#1003917) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Hrothgar When are we going to start ousting the brutal regimes that don't have any oil? |
|
18 Aug 03 - 08:01 AM (#1003939) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: McGrath of Harlow This heading feels increasingly premature. Here's a link to the Baghdad Blogger who gives an interesting insight into how it feels being a westernised Iraqi who's pleased Saddam is gone, but doesn't exactly find the occupation too impressive. For example: "G. my friend got beaten up by US Army last night, he was handcuffed and had a bag put on his head. he was kicked several times and was made to lie on his face for a while. All he wanted to do was to take pictures and report on an attack, he works for the New York Times as a translator and fixer. He got more kicks for speaking english. His sin: he looks Iraqi and has a beard...story will be told, I need to get him drunk enough to get the whole thing out of him, he doesn't want to talk. And there's a page of G's pictures, some of them pretty amusing in their way. |
|
18 Aug 03 - 07:53 PM (#1004299) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Bobert It's interesting that this thread was started last April and, inspite of Bush's proclaimation, the war goes on, and on, and on. Just what I posted back then. It's not intended to ever end by Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush/Rice/Pearle/Wlofowitz/Lockheed-Martin/ Haliburton/Bechtell/etc./etc.... Yep, rather than wars every 10 years to fleece the American taxpayers and who ever is the Boggie nation day jour these folks just want to keep them coming one after another, after another.... Keeps them rich and the American worker and the world.... in their place. I am afraid that only a *revolution* can stop these folks. And, no, I'm not talking about taking up arms but national strikes, massive boycotts and a large portion of non violent civil disobeidiance. Bobert |
|
19 Aug 03 - 06:36 PM (#1004896) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: McGrath of Harlow A verse from a song I wrote a few years ago about other wars seems apposite: Well now the war was ended, this had to be the peace, like some fairy story out of Mother Goose. But now it's more than fifty years, and the fighting's never ceased. and every time there's been some fine excuse. But the bottom line was money, and take what you can take, and the promises and dreams were turned around. And the fixing turned to botching, and the botching turned to fake - and now the century we shared, it's winding down. And the new century is no different in that respect. |
|
19 Aug 03 - 06:47 PM (#1004900) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: GUEST |
|
19 Aug 03 - 08:42 PM (#1004951) Subject: RE: BS: Now that the war is over From: Bobert Well said, McGrath... Bobert |
