Falstaff

Thousands of American men and women are making their way inexorably towards a conflict in Iraq. Pres. Bush appears to be willing wait for a little while longer to insure that what ever measures the U.N. inspecters are going to implement are effective. Rumsfeld, Blitz, and Powell are adament about accelerating the time table to get Iraq to comply or reveal all the banned weapons. Hussien is beginning to show signs of weakness, similiar to the very situation that drove us to Bagdad in 1991. Why can't the U.N. agree on anything? Why does Germany and France wield so much power? And public opinion is becoming more than a media tool. Now Americans who were children during the first war are protesting the potential conflict soon to come. I am against war, against needless suffering but terrorists are certainly planning more activity against the western nations, and the U.N. sits and waits... [B]

__________________

Mogar

I personally think that a conflict with Iraq will raise very much the angry from the people of the middle east. They face this like a cultural and economical imperialism.


That would make more terrorist attacks. The terrorist have money and very smart people, so fighting against them is very difficult. Just look that US failed to catch Bin Laden. They are very dangerous.



I'm against a war, and I think that it should be avoided as much as possible. And if a war starts, make it in some way to really avoid killing innocent people, and don't try to force any cultural values to it's people.



George Bush should be more worried with the economy than with this war. Iraq isn't a imminent threat, they have very limited weapons, and can't make big attacks (and they aren't silly, if they start a attack, all UN countries will join the war against Iraq).


The positive side of this war is that the weapons manufactures will have a lot of money with it, and they will be rich.... But I don't think that it can be called as a positive side.

digitalwanderer

Moved this over to "Politics"...do you really feel it belongs in "Technology"?

__________________
WTF is up with the sigs?

raid517

Well I think it is possible to work with the Germans and the French. If the US would just stop arm twisting and attempting to make impossible links with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction - and make a case for the people of Iraq against Saddam, then I think many more people could be persuaded too. To clarify I am not against war, I am for the UN and for a consensus within the UN. I want to see the US act within the auspices of the UN and with a full UN remit, simply because I value the principals of international legality and the enforcement of a common justice. It is true I think that if America acted outside of the authority of the UN, or without full UN backing - that such action could be seen as morally questionable, and will serve only to raise suspicions about US motives in the minds of many people around the world. Far from solving terrorism, such an attitude is likely only to massively increase resentment and will only inspire more terrorism, rather than solve it. But with the full backing of the UN, no one can argue with the outcome, because the world has considered the matter and has passed judgement. No one then can be accused of simply representing their own interests.

But I would not like to see this continue indefinitely. I think if a concession were given to the Germans and the French to allow perhaps 8 weeks more for inspectors to complete their tasks, by which time Iraq must produce all remaining elements of its missing inventory, then I think this would be a good way of bringing the Germans and the French on board. I think they can be made to agree that inspections cannot continue indefinitely and that an agreed timetable is necessary if inspectors are to be able to do their jobs effectively. This would allay their fears (and those of much of the rest of the world) and would give them the possibility of obtaining domestic political credibility, while setting a firm limit during which time Iraq must be seen to fully comply with UN demands. In this time I would try to make a better case for the people of Iraq against Saddam Hussein and would try to suppress talk of links with international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, since these are what most people (including most Western security services) find very hard to accept. This seems like a very sensible approach to me and could satisfy everyone concerned, although sadly I am unable to influence these events - and common sense is in very short supply right now.

So in conclusion I would like to make it clear that I am not anti US, nor anti British, nor anti-war, nor Pro French or German, I am simply pro UN - as I believe the UN is vital to the peace, security and stability of the world - and that this world would be a much less certain and much less stable place without it.

Q

ByteMe

10+ years wasn't enough?

Falstaff

the first casualty of war...

__________________

raid517

Not the point ByteMe. What I'm saying - at least in language that you will understand is that you should call the French and Gemans bluff, give them a little more time (after 12 years a few more weeks doesn't seem so much) after which if Sadam has still not revealed his full inventory the US can feel free to act. (Given that the US can be specific about what it wants to see, since the US has claimed to have 'intelligence' about his full inventory).

The problem is that no one believes the tales about these so called links with international terrorism, or these mysterious weapons of mass destruction.

If you had made a case from the start about the suferring of the Iraqi people, you may have convinced many more people than you have so far been able to. This does not negate the fact that there is a great deal of propaganda involved in all positions, but the point is you could have made a better case for war than you have been able to by talking about things no one believes in.

Q

Falstaff

Surely, in the country you live in, you can see the news on television, you can read versions of the free world press magazines, and the past 12 years of Saddam Hussiens resistance to inspection would convince even you...I think your just stubborn..What you call propaganda is fuel for even our political leaders and is actionable, I was there man, and is certainly real enough for the whole world to see, how about you..

__________________

raid517

Yes and the French and Germans were there at that time too. Are you now suggesting you should work against these former allies too? Neither they, nor any of our combined security forces can find any evidence to support the US' current claims. That is why making a short sensible compromise of a limited amount of time for UN inspectors to do what they are screaming out to be allowed to do, which is simply to be allowed to do their jobs, does not sound like an unreasonable way to go, considering all of the hassle that would be saved and all of the bridges this would help rebuild. Putting the US on a course for conflict with old long standing allies and doing nothing to try to resolve this does not seem like the way to go.

BTW Another question you asked is would the Germans and the French support the Turks in any conflict. Well as of today that has become a non issue, with all of Turkey's NATO allies repledging support to Turkey in the event of Turkey being attacked. Just as I predicted Germany and France simply waited to see Hans Blick's report, after which it appears they too have concluded that war probably is inevitable. But this is not what their protest was about - and if you thought it was you completely missed the point.

Q

ByteMe

WhaT? it is a known FACT that he has some mustard and nerve gas. HE IS SUPPOSSED TO PROVE TO US WHERE THEY ARE! They claim to have destroyed them but offer no proof. We just suspect that he has even more now. Anyone care to provide a link to what has allready been proven that he has?

Falstaff

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/ this is a general one, not bad for content as well

__________________

raid517

There there ByteMe calm down.... Saddam isn't going to be sending any of those nasty bombs your way any time soon. Although, come to think of it, when he is attacked by Western forces he is virtually guranteed to do it. You got to see it from his perspective if he gave up all his guns and bombs, what the hell is he going to have to fight the West with when we invade? He is on a loosing streak from the first shot that is fired, so he might as well cause maximum damage in the mean time. From his point of view (and from the perspective of many others) he is going to be invaded anyway, no matter what he does, so from a military perspective, giving up the one ace card he has left makes no sense at all. From a moral standpoint it might be nuts, but hey we all know what a crazy guy old Saddam is.

Q

ByteMe

The WHOLE point being.... how much more dangerous will he be with a few nukes?

Falstaff

With a few nukes, he could forever change the face of war as we know it..

__________________

raid517

Erm do you mean this quote fallang_jeff?

This entire web site seems to be built around the testimony of a few very cagey witnesses - and the above statement alone virtually forewarns everyone that what is then to follow is likely to be little more than pure propaganda. It is already widely known that America is offering vast sums of money to defectors that are willing to testify against Saddam. Still if this is the only standard of evidence you require then so be it. This is only one web site, in contrast I can supply links to perhaps 10,000 other web pages refuting that such evidence exists (again of particular interest is the comments made by your own director of the CIA saying that such links were 'improbable'). Even with the vast sums of money on offer, there have only been a half dozen takers or so, so it is hardly the overwhelming body of evidence that your leaders would like you to believe.

It is also interesting to note that you highlight a purely media based source as your evidence. From my own life experience, I have good cause to doubt the motives of certain media bodies. Truth as they say, is the first victim of any war, while propaganda is the first victor.

http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2002/10/3018_comment.php

http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=14877

http://cbc.ca/news/features/iraq/bush_blair_iraq.html

Source: CBC news...


And so on and on it could go. Immediately preceding any war one should take great care over what one reads and sees in the media, because traditionally this is when the propaganda effort is ratchet up - and is also when more informed independent sources should be sought. You underestimate the degree of contempt with which our governments regard us - and how easily they feel they can manipulate us through the media - and particularly through television. (Which in my view is the one media that is guaranteed to kill independent thought).

The media is fine and dandy when the government needs it to make a point, but personally I prefer to pursue my own sources of information and use the independent mental faculties that nature has given me to keep perspective and my judgement clear.

Q

Falstaff

I know the power of propoganda, and wonder what is really going on sometimes. None the less, the pressure cooker of tension on the front lines isn't affecte by such things. I can recall watching CNN onboard my ship and listening to expleetives from my shipmates when Saddamisms were quoted by the press, but it was quite a different matter in country. We all knew the U.S. military controlled the press successfully, with the exception of the French, I think it was a unsolicitated coverage that revealed friendly fire incidents. I watch German T.V. because it seems more unbiased. and perhaps more balanced. I was interested in the recent announcement that the European partners are behind 1441 now. the tide is turning and P.M. Shcroeder claimed it a moral victory..I view our local press with a degree of contempt that one might assign to the "boy who cried wolf" Sensationalism is not dead, so isn't unfortunate that much of what we see on television is considered "actionable".

__________________

radTube

Right on the mark. I'm not afraid of saddam, it's war that frightens me. Might be the other way around if I actually believed that this war would actually solve more problems than it will inevitably create.

__________________
[color=orange]
[/color]

raid517

Well I don't know about that Jeff, all I do know is that it is very dangerous to swallow everything you see on TV and accept it as truth. An image can be used to tell a thousand stories, it all depend on the voice and the intention of the narrator in telling us what these images are supposed to represent. Which is why I completely refuse to have a TV in my home. If I need information I research and read about it. This is a facility that is all too lacking in this fast food, soundbyte, pre-packaged semi-reality of a world in which we exist. Sadly with the emergence and dominance of the mass media, people appear prepared to accept almost any version of the truth, providing it can be fed to them and they do not have to uncover it for themselves. Propaganda is the intellectual obesity of a overly self indulgent society. It is simply our own inability to ask questions that gives politicians the degree of power they have.

Another prime example of propaganda (as well as those I supplied above) was the images we here at home were fed of the last gulf war. From what we were shown we were led to believe that the world had entered a fantastic new phase in military technology, where virtually every bomb was a smart bomb and every bomb only hit military targets - and that all these bombs were so precise that the era where war would involve the large scale loss of civilian life had all but come to a close. That was the propaganda - and that was the pictures we were shown. The reality, unsurprisingly however turned out to be very different, in that only 20% of the bombs dropped during the last Gulf war were smart bombs, while the remaining 80% of ordinance was made up of old style 'dumb' or iron type bombs, the design of which has hardly changed in over 150 years. It was also later demonstrated, with an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqi civilian dead, initial claims that large scale civilian casualties had been avoided were also completely false - and that once again ordinary civilians had paid the highest price for US/Iraqi government ambitions. (The most notable incident of civilian dead was I'm sure you will recall the bombing of the Amiriya bomb shelter in Baghdad on February 13 1991, killing 600-1,000 women and children).

While no one imagines it is possible to completely aviod the loss of civilian life during war, it is worth noting how propaganda was exercised then to allay public fears about the correctness and validity of alied action during this first campaign. At that time America was poterayed virtually like a scientist, or a dentist, plucking out a rotten tooth from the Middle East. In the end it proved that as well as picking out a rotten tooth, the US and her allies had also broken many good teeth too, and had still not plucked out the tooth that had caused them most pain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/mi...st/2691475.stm

So the bottom line is that propaganda is, when skilfully handled, as much a weapon of war as any gun or bullet is. Its potential for devastation is only limited by the skill and determination of those who wield it. Sadly, the mob is often all too readily persuaded - and so the same old tricks are used again and again. Still there is hope, with millions of people marching around the world, be they misguided or not, at least this has rekindled a genuine political interest. And where the public do sit up and take notice - and are prepared to challenge their leadership, this is often where real progess can be made. I hope this will be the case on this occasion too.

Q

Falstaff

The hardest word for me accept was the term "collateral damage". It was used over and over again to describe the effects on innocent civilians during the "precision" bombing campaigns. When targets became scare, the bombs began to fall on areas that were occupied by Saddams forces intermingled with his urban and rural populations. Even knocking down a Skud was problematic as well. The images of the diabled missles falling somewhere in Israel meant that Palestinians as well as Israeli's were affected. I am a trained observer, and I can usually determine accuarately what is and what is not relevant. That is why I often watch or read different sources to gleen what I can. We used to call the news during the last gulf war, "the Hollywood version" and the real news was intelligence that was gathered in real time from approved sources.(department of defense). After watching the recent protests worldwide, I wonder if will reawaken some values within many americans that are spiritual in nature. I know Muslims, Christians and Jews that find all of this repugnant, and they are hoping that Saddam can be forced out of power by his own people. But I am not optomistic. We are getting so close to a significant change in the way we do war now. sometimes I feel like the technology of war is fueling these conflicts.

__________________

UberLord

Back on the topic of "Is the U.N. Useless"

I don't think it's useless. I think that recent events have proven that it's actually working. And working rather well.
The simple fact that voting members have veto'ed a speedy invasion of Iraq have annoyed other voting members who want a speedy invasion.

Bushes quote which I read in USA today last week was along the lines off "If the U.N. doesn't act fast then it becomes meaningless". Is he a spoilt brat or something? It's just like a little kid saying "I don't care what you say or do, I'm going to do it". Well, tough - the USA is a small part of the U.N.

And he if goes to war anyway, he - and the whole US and any other nation that partakes - is going to face the wrath of the U.N. members that didn't go to war.

__________________
Gentoo Linux - Developer (baselayout)
Read my blog

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts

raid517

Well I don't quite think saying the US plays a small part in the UN is all that accurate. It plays a part, just like any other. I know we may get some flag wavers in who may say that's BS, the US contributes far more to the UN than anyone else. But this is easily discounted too, as with the US owing something in the region of $560 million, and paying something like 20% of the total running costs, with the EU paying 36% and Japan paying 20% it is clear that on the whole the US' contribution is not disproportionate. There may also be some right wing apologists who claim that the US 'owes more because we do more', which is yet another cynical piece of propaganda meant to satisfy the rightist masses, but this too can be quickly discounted, particularly with those who claim such in-depth familiarity with the principals of capitalism, for they alone should be uniquely familiar with the reality that you cannot 'do more by paying less'. The economics of such and ideology simply do not add up. So I think it is fair to say that America should realise that they make no greater and no less a contribution to the UN than anyone else (and what contribution is made is often made reluctantly) they are indeed very much partners in the UN, even if they do not feel themselves to be partners anywhere else. Which in my view is exactly as it should be.

Q

UberLord

The point I was making is that each country is allowed a maximum of 5 representitives.
There are 191 member states (did you know that Iraq is a member?)
191 * 5 = 955 representitives
(5 / 955) * 100 = 0.5%

So if each member state uses is full alloted reps, the USA only controls 0.5% of the voting. Which was my point about the USA being a small "part" of the UN

Aside from that, I agree with your POV

__________________
Gentoo Linux - Developer (baselayout)
Read my blog

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts

Falstaff

to avoid the ramifications of a speedy invasion, and to allow Saddam Hussien to disperse his weapons of mas destruction, we will increase the potentiol for collateral damage. I have seen it myself. I think the U.N. may exaserbate the problem that will inevitabley occur...

__________________

raid517

I don't get that one Jeff... But ho hum... it doesn't matter i guess... Saddam has already had sufficient time to hide whatever weapons he has (given that no one is to sure about exactly what that might be), so disperal isn't an issue. Recall that it wasn't only the UN who ignored him for the preceding 10 years, it was the USA too. So you can hardly accuse the UN of any obstruction during this time. The USA was as equally to blame. Whatever weapons he has/or hasn't will have been fully dispered by this time. A gung-ho determination to go it alone now, particularly when Blair demonstrated yesterday at the EU how dipolmacy can work, would be foolhardy in the extreme.

Q

BWX

No, it's not enough time, we need to let Saddam go for 10 more years, develope NUkes, then blow a whole country off the face of the earth.

Then we can let the UN write 50 more resolutions and try to put him on trial like we would a common ciminal here in the US, and if we are lucky, put him in jail or something.

Of course this could never happen, but this is the timeline most leftist liberal pacifists anti-war anti-Americans would like to see happen.

Only you can't put someone on trial if you can't capture him, so we have to go in and either kill him or capture him w/ force, and that is what we are going to do.
I bet you anything that IS what will happen. Our constitution states we don't need the support of the UN or any other governing body to protect ourselves or our interests. That is the bottom line, and we have the support of MOST of the countries that matter anyway.

Did anyone else listen to Tony Blair this morning? If not, you should find his speech somewhere and really listen to what he has to say. He makes alot of sense, to bad the most people in his own country won't even listen, he knows what he's talking about.

bluelight

Well you are wrong.What your constitution says in this case is of no relevance.

Either you are attacked by someone else..then according to international treaties and law you fight back.

The only part that is allowed to military unprovoked "attack" a country is the UN.

These are treaties you have signed your self.That is also why.....your government is bothering about it in the UN.

Why hassle with the UN if it wasnt for the fact that doing it on your own is not exactly according to normal international treaties??


So Blair says one thing...80 percent of his people another thing......

Who goes?



BlueLight

raid517

Lol, so now engaging in diplomacy is anti-American too!?!? Seems a lot of things can be anti-American these days. Lol! Nice... There are actually very few "leftist liberal pacifists anti-war anti-Americans", the truth is that most people are simply concerned with the legality of what we do. For example as you point out, something like 83% of the population of the UK currently object to war. But if they are asked would you still object to war if there was a second UN resolution supported by all the UN security council members, this number drops to 23%. So you would have virtually 87% in favour of a war given those circumstances.

So where is the anti-American sentiment in people who simply wish their government to ensure that any war is conducted on a full legal and moral basis? These people see that if you have the full support of the UN, very few people could argue with the outcome, particularly those Muslim countries within the UN who fear that any unilateral action might inspire more religious fundamentalism within their borders. That is why diplomacy is vital, if any war is to have a successful - and a sustainable long term outcome. Whether you can accept that or not, or have a better way to do things I do not know.

Q

raid517

Lol it is particularly ironic that I see so may stalwart republicans supporting someone who is a sworn liberal - and worse still for most of his political life someone who classed himself as a socialist. For a republican, isn't that a bit like getting into bed with the devil?

Q

UberLord

I like to see that your lumping being anti-war with being anti-american.
Thats kinda like saying that the people that didn't vote for Bush are terrorists.

__________________
Gentoo Linux - Developer (baselayout)
Read my blog

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts

raid517

Yeah what about all those people who protested in New York too? Are all those Americans anti American?

Further opinion in the USA itself is pretty evenly split http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...ll020903.html, so are you saying that almost half of America is also anti-American? Another instance I think were the facts just don't add up.

Q