Iraq: The ugliness of a senseless war!

[dancing-loon]

Hi, Alex;
I like your new avatar!! I can't determine what front the Panzer is serving... is it a German one? That would be so chic!

Well, you certainly have the ME situation in focus, and are able to see which way things might be moving. I, in contrast, have no real understanding of what is what down there. My concern is that the US and Israel (USrael for short) are the ones who ignited that powder keg, IF it even was a keg at the time. I blame, whether that is deserved or not, USrael for the crisis we are in at the present.

It is also my conviction that more force and determination by the West not to give in, not to let go, will only create more violence. If we, the West, expect the Arabs to be the wiser ones and give in, we are fooling ourselves.

Because the US is dedicated to the Israeli cause, and will do everything in its power to help Israel reach its goal, they simply cannot withdraw. Too much is at stake not just for Israel's survival, but also for America's strategic position and plans of further expansion.

Therefore, it will be war until one side is eliminated. The US must be realizing they can't go on like this much longer. Something will have to give.
I don't know for how much longer the other big forces will watch this slow bloodletting, before they will interfere. I'm thinking of Russia or China. Either one could stand behind Iran, just as the US is standing behind Israel.

 

[alypipes]

Hi Dancing Loon,
Thanks for the compliments on the avatar, it's a Sherman Vc aka Firefly of the Fort Garry Horse. My Grandfather was a gunner in a Firefly with the British Columbia Regiment during WW2. The Brits figured out how to fit a 17lb anti-tank gun in a Sherman, it could hole Tiger tanks, a regular Sherman couldn't. The Amis wouldn't use them because the 17lber was a British gun. The Americans waited until they designed a new tank that would fit a high velocity gun of American origin, the decicion probably cost many an Amis his life.

The situation in the ME is complex, the violence does just keep escalating. Russia has already said it would attack the US if the US nuked Iran. The lines are being drawn, I think we are in big trouble already.

 

[dancing-loon]

Hi Dancing Loon,
Thanks for the compliments on the avatar, it's a Sherman Vc aka Firefly of the Fort Garry Horse. My Grandfather was a gunner in a Firefly with the British Columbia Regiment during WW2. The Brits figured out how to fit a 17lb anti-tank gun in a Sherman, it could hole Tiger tanks, a regular Sherman couldn't. The Amis wouldn't use them because the 17lber was a British gun. The Americans waited until they designed a new tank that would fit a high velocity gun of American origin, the decision probably cost many an Amis his life.

The situation in the ME is complex, the violence does just keep escalating. Russia has already said it would attack the US if the US nuked Iran. The lines are being drawn, I think we are in big trouble already.

Hi, Alex;
thanks for explaining these pieces of weaponry to me! ;-) Your expert-knowledge is impressive!
My interest in war is more with the human aspect of it... the soldiers, the politicians, and the victims.

As to the war, I read that Israel will carry out the bombing of Iran. In that case the Amis can wash their hands in innocence.

Read here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html

 

[normbc9]

The former Presidential Press Secretary Scott McClelland has a new book out telling his version of what is going on in the Bush administration. If his recorded observations are correct Bush chooses to believe anything that may support his hidden inclinations. The writer states that the US presence in Iraq was one of those inclinations privately stated during the first presidential campaign Bush participated in. Maybe the rest of us were either blind or hearing impaired? I wish all of the disaffected White House staffers would get together and then make of list of their feelings about this whole failed presidency. Ths great nation is in trouble right now and digging out the hole it is in will take a strong, disciplined leader. In my view Obama is definitely not that person.

 

[I think not]

The former Presidential Press Secretary Scott McClelland has a new book out telling his version of what is going on in the Bush administration. If his recorded observations are correct Bush chooses to believe anything that may support his hidden inclinations. The writer states that the US presence in Iraq was one of those inclinations privately stated during the first presidential campaign Bush participated in. Maybe the rest of us were either blind or hearing impaired? I wish all of the disaffected White House staffers would get together and then make of list of their feelings about this whole failed presidency. Ths great nation is in trouble right now and digging out the hole it is in will take a strong, disciplined leader. In my view Obama is definitely not that person.

What a well thought out articulated post norm, may I ask who you think would be most "qualified" in your view?

 

[gopher]

ugliness of Bush's war:

http://icasualties.org/oif/



but let's talk about global warming, instead ...

 

[gopher]

Sunday: 46 Iraqis Killed, 79 Wounded


http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=13028


It sure doesn't look good for Bush's war.

But let's talk about global warming, instead.

 

[dancing-loon]

Hi, Gopher;
thanks for bringing this topic back up from the cellar! I had completely forgotten about it.

I wonder, do you know anything about Bush' plan for Iraq? An article in the Boston Globe from January 08 talks about Bush' planned long-term agreement with the Iraqi government to provide permanent military security for the country. He was going to by-pass congress' approval, a first in American history.

By contrast, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki have already agreed that a coming compact will include the United States providing "security assurances and commitments" to Iraq to deter any foreign invasion or internal terrorism by "outlaw groups." But a top White House official has also said that Bush does not intend to submit the deal to Congress.

A little strange, don't you think? Why wouldn't he run it through the congress, I wonder? What is he worried about?

But there is now also growing alarm about the constitutional issues raised by Bush's plan. Legal specialists and lawmakers of both parties are raising questions about whether it would be unconstitutional for Bush to complete such a sweeping deal on behalf of the United States without the consent of the legislative branch.

This "pact" is intended to be completed by July 31st, a mere 5 weeks away.

The two countries need to reach some kind of an agreement this year in order to create a legal framework for the continued presence of US troops in Iraq after Dec. 31, when a United Nations Security Counsel mandate is due to expire.

I see... the US is in Iraq under some sort of mandate. Naturally, they want to continue staying there!! Gone is the hope of a troop withdrawal!

But the "long-term relationship of cooperation and friendship" outlined in November goes far beyond an ordinary status-of-forces agreement. It would include promises of debt forgiveness, economic and technical aid, facilitating "especially American investments" in Iraq - and the security commitments, according to Bush and Maliki's joint declaration last November.

Mrs. Clinton:

"We've got to rein in President Bush," Clinton said Monday in a South Carolina debate. "We need legislation in a hurry."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...ld_be_a_first/
----------------------------------------------------------------
What a strange behavior from Mr. Bush!
This was in January. In the meantime things could have changed.

 

[gopher]

Bush is still trying to get that long term deal in Iraq which is obviously intended to secure the oil wells for the warmongers who profit from his war. Unfortunately, the do nothing Congress sits by idly and allows him to continue his reign of terror.

 

[gopher]

Saturday: 1 Azeri Soldier, 41 Iraqis Killed; 2 Iraqis Wounded

http://www.antiwar.com/updates/?articleid=13063

The ugliness of Evil Bush's imperialistic war continues unabated.

 

[MikeyDB]

ITN

Sorry for jumping in here...on a question you asked Norm...but I couldn't resist..

Whomever the next president of the United States may be, the dynamics at play in the very heart, in the fabric of America will determine what happens. I don't subscribe to the myth that America is a democracy, it is a republic and as a republic, it has repeated many times that the purpose of America is to shape the world as those premier republicans that run the United States wish it to be..... America has voluntarily surrendered to an infatuation with wealth and power. There may be some republicans who mirror the xenophobia of an Adolph Hitler but they're hopefully a dying minority among the PTB. I have less trepidation regarding racism and fear of anything/anyone "foreign" to America as being a driving impulse to wage war and destruction on others. It would be anti-evolution for a people to crawl willingly back into a cave and live like no other human being shares this planet... Whether Americans "like-it-or-not", this is a finite limited world with resources that are being used faster than ever before as more people subscribe to the idea that it's their turn to experience the quality of life that American (and Canadians) have enjoyed for a very long time. Either the people of America (and Canada) come to terms with the reality that "foreign" folk aren't going to abandon their efforts to attain and obtain the best quality of life for themselves and their children that its potentially (whether misguided or not) possible to have. Resources like water and energy will be in far greater demand. Republicans will decide if Americans are weaned off their "Everything in the world is mine.." (as my "right" and my "destiny") for my exclusive use and enjoyment and any threat to this paradigm will be met with violence and war.....to a place that realistically accepts that if we are to survive as a species we have some serious re-thinking to do regarding how we view ourselves others and the very planet upon which we live.....EVERYONE!

A staunch republican will have considerable difficulty with this idea. Republicans are conditioned/raised to believe that hard work and prudent investment assure future prosperity. And it would if there weren's just as many good republicans convinced that the use of any and all "means" to secure the wealth success and prosperity they regard as their just entitlement...is equally the manifest destiny and "right" of every "good" American.

We've seen it before....in America.

America as a political and economic entity is shaped by a very small but very powerful elite who may or may not have the wisdom to conceptualize the reality this world faces. Whether they have the wisdom to acknowledge reality or not they have demonstrated that they're willing to ignore reshape and redefine that understanding as another "means" to attaining the "end" of wealth power and authority.

The American people are facing yet another test. Albeit somewhat peculiar (having watched as slavery was abandoned by many other societies) the early test of American society resulted in the bloodiest war (in terms of numbers of Americans killed in war) fought over the dispositon of decision/law-making authority between state and federal government...with slavery and racism as the overarching "principle"....

America failed that test, and a fermenting unrest and growing interracial disparity ensures that this unresolved issue will remain for a significant period. In addition the business and economic sectors of "good" republicans don't mind allowing illegal immigration as another "means" to achieving their goals.....

America has to grow up. Leadership is important and as we've witnessed from the George W. Bush cabal...critical to the stability and security of the United States, but unless and until Americans begin to get more comfortable with the reality that they share this planet with millions upon millions of other people who don't subscribe to American "values"...who have ancient cultures vulnerable to manipulation by religious freaks and fanatics....that water and aerable land and opportunity to work and raise a family is just as important to those millions as they are to Americans. America will make the choice....join the world...or not.

 

[I think not]

A war being senseless is a matter of perspective, ask 15 million Kurds what they think.

 

[MikeyDB]

ITN

How many of those did the war in Iraq save?

 

[I think not]

A war being senseless is a matter of perspective, ask 15 million Kurds what they think.

This bears repeating. :smile:

 

[earth_as_one]

Most Kurds want independance. I bet they would also support the US invading and occupying the Kurdish part of Turkey too. Do you think that's a good idea too? I mean if that a good enough reason to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, that must also be a good enough reason to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent Turks.

Face it ITN, justification for the US led invasion of Iraq was a bunch of lies. Bad intelligence would have been misjudging the size of Iraq's WMD stockpiles. But claiming they existed when they didn't and then forcing Iraq to prove their non-existance was deliberate misinformation and manipulation.

Some people were smart enough to figure out that absence of proof isn't proof of existance. Other people can't tell $hit from Shinola.

 

[I think not]

Got a tad bent out of shape there EAO? Kurds are partying and laughing at your perspective, quite a few Shiites and Sunnis also.

Forgive me, I would rather listen to the people on the ground than someone behind a computer thousands of miles away.

Carry on. :smile:

 

[MikeyDB]

ITN

Then why are you here?

 

[earth_as_one]

The US led invasion/occupation of Iraq was a clear violation of international law and the UN Charter. Even the UN Secretary General said it.

...In the interview, Mr. Annan was repeatedly asked whether the war was "illegal." "Yes," he finally said, "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."...

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=11953&Cr=iraq&Cr1=

Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?
By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted July 10, 2006.


...Ferencz, now 87, has gone on to become a founding father of the basis behind international law regarding war crimes, and his essays and legal work drawing from the Nuremberg trials and later the commission that established the International Criminal Court remain a lasting influence in that realm.

Ferencz's biggest contribution to the war crimes field is his assertion that an unprovoked or "aggressive" war is the highest crime against mankind. It was the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 that made possible the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the destruction of Fallouja and Ramadi, the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haditha, and on and on. Ferencz believes that a "prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."

Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a simple summary of the case:

"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."

It's that simple. Ferencz called the invasion a "clear breach of law," and dismissed the Bush administration's legal defense that previous U.N. Security Council resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War justified an invasion in 2003. Ferencz notes that the first Bush president believed that the United States didn't have a U.N. mandate to go into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein; that authorization was simply to eject Hussein from Kuwait. Ferencz asked, "So how do we get authorization more than a decade later to finish the job? The arguments made to defend this are not persuasive."

Writing for the United Kingdom's Guardian, shortly before the 2003 invasion, international law expert Mark Littman echoed Ferencz: "The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorized by a new and unambiguous resolution of the Security Council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in self-defense or authorized by the Security Council."...

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/

 

[I think not]

EAO, you like quoting the UN do you? Why don't you show us where Annan retracted his statement, and while you're at it, find the link where he acknowledges the Iraqi government was elected legally.

Go ahead, you're better at cutting and pasting than I am, I bow to your greatness.

 

[earth_as_one]

I'm not aware Annan retracted his statement. But I am aware that the US did try to assassinate his character:

The Right's Assault on Kofi Annan:
How the Neocons Created a "Scandal"
to Punish a Critic of US Policies
By Ian Williams
The Nation
January 10, 2005

Last June UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said of the media coverage of the so-called Oil for Food Scandal, "It's a bit like lynching, actually." By December the vigilantes were lining up, swinging their ropes. The neoconservative and paleoconservative assault on him and the UN has been like a slightly slower version of the Swift Boat veterans' campaign against Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry--right down to the halfhearted and belated disavowals by George W. Bush.

Listening to the cable pundits, you would never suspect that there is no proof at this point that Annan, or indeed anyone else at the UN, did anything wrong. Charges of corruption against UN official Benon Sevan are suspect at best, given that they come via Ahmad Chalabi, who was also the source of the discredited information about Iraq's illusory weapons, as well as the assurances that Iraqis would greet US and British forces as liberators. Nor is there any evidence that Annan used his influence to give Cotecna, a company that employed his son, the job of monitoring contracts under the oil-for-food program, and no proof that Cotecna did anything illegal or corrupt...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/reform/topics/general/2005/0110neocon.htm

The Iraq government might have been legally elected. But my point is the original invasion/occupation was illegal, not the election. That makes Bush and Co. war criminals and McCain a war crime supporter.