Unjsut War, on Questionable Grounds?

[Coyote]

So we've fought a war. Not a big war, as wars go in the classic sense of the word, but a war. Folks died and troops were placed in danger, all to a great deal of media frenzy. Let's take a look at it--

So we have a war with no real UN mandate-- I mean, international support and cooperation was sort of forced, really. Few people wanted this war and even the nations closest to the situation could not agree to do anything, or would not. The US had to exert some pressure and spin to get the whole thing going, and even then most "allies" contributed the barest minimum.

A war fought with no real goal that can be agreed-upon, with shifting policy, no real exit strategy, no plan to bring the troops home, in a land and culture known for engaging in long-term, violent guerrilla war. Another potential Vietnam looms.

The war was hyped over Big Issues, threats of all sorts of weapons and atrocities and human rights violations and the need for 'liberation'. Oh, sure, various ethnic groups-- of questionable repute-- were oppressed and suffering, but in the end all we really found were a handful of mass graves and nowhere near the atrocities were were told to expect.

And even the performance of the troops-- at first hailed as heroic and fearless, but later found to be against almost pathetic resistance and moderate fighters equipped with outdated weapons. Despite actually downing one aircraft to the accompaniement of great media hype and the rescue of one person to even more media hype, what really was the problem? Resistance, in the long run, pretty much crumbled.

But despite all this the war was hailed as a great success, and chalked up as a victorious feather in the cap of the Commander in Chief, as if he had re-fought World War Two against the most evil of dictators. I mean, really! Let's put it all in perspective, after all!

Still, the war was fought and won, and now there is the arguement over whether it was necessary, or justified. Was it worth the lives? The risk? The PR troubles when we found out that our Intelligence had not quite been up to snuff? The bombing of a poor nation where many people of a different religion and race lived? What was it it really about, since America's security was probably never really directly threatened in the first place, and our national interests questioned?

Is it an impeachable offense?

Still, all said, with the smoke clearing, I have to agree--





--the world is a lot better off without Slobodan Milosivec.

[Hamel]

I seriously doubt he can be impeached.

There is some conflict in my mind on who really should take the blame for the intellegence mess. Was Bush complicit in the lies and deceit, or did he only act on the data that his appointed liars passed to him?

[Hamel]

Letterman's WMD top 10


10. "We've only looked through 99% of the country"

9. "We spent entire budget making those playing cards"

8. "Containers are labeled in some crazy language"

7. "They must have been stolen by some of them evil X-Men mutants"

6. "Did I say Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? I meant they have goats"

5. "How are we supposed to find weapons of mass destruction when we can't even find Cheney?"

4. "Still screwed up because of Daylight Savings Time"

3. "When you're trying to find something, it's always in the last place you look, am I right, people?"

2. "Let's face it -- I ain't exactly a genius"

1. "Geraldo took them"

[Seggybop]

^^ I think you people missed the point...

I thought that the war in Kosovo has significant allied support. I wasn't paying as much attention to it as I should have, though. That thing you wrote now, though, is awesome.

[Vympel]

So we've fought a war. Not a big war, as wars go in the classic sense of the word, but a war. Folks died and troops were placed in danger, all to a great deal of media frenzy. Let's take a look at it--

So we have a war with no real UN mandate-- I mean, international support and cooperation was sort of forced, really. Few people wanted this war and even the nations closest to the situation could not agree to do anything, or would not. The US had to exert some pressure and spin to get the whole thing going, and even then most "allies" contributed the barest minimum.

A war fought with no real goal that can be agreed-upon, with shifting policy, no real exit strategy, no plan to bring the troops home, in a land and culture known for engaging in long-term, violent guerrilla war. Another potential Vietnam looms.

The war was hyped over Big Issues, threats of all sorts of weapons and atrocities and human rights violations and the need for 'liberation'. Oh, sure, various ethnic groups-- of questionable repute-- were oppressed and suffering, but in the end all we really found were a handful of mass graves and nowhere near the atrocities were were told to expect.

And even the performance of the troops-- at first hailed as heroic and fearless, but later found to be against almost pathetic resistance and moderate fighters equipped with outdated weapons. Despite actually downing one aircraft to the accompaniement of great media hype and the rescue of one person to even more media hype, what really was the problem? Resistance, in the long run, pretty much crumbled.

But despite all this the war was hailed as a great success, and chalked up as a victorious feather in the cap of the Commander in Chief, as if he had re-fought World War Two against the most evil of dictators. I mean, really! Let's put it all in perspective, after all!

Still, the war was fought and won, and now there is the arguement over whether it was necessary, or justified. Was it worth the lives? The risk? The PR troubles when we found out that our Intelligence had not quite been up to snuff? The bombing of a poor nation where many people of a different religion and race lived? What was it it really about, since America's security was probably never really directly threatened in the first place, and our national interests questioned?

Is it an impeachable offense?

Still, all said, with the smoke clearing, I have to agree--





--the world is a lot better off without Slobodan Milosivec.

Inherently flawed for two reasons

Firstly, and this is a nitpick

1: There was at least NATO support for Kosovo, which of course doesn't make it any less of a trumped up bullshit war for bullshit reasons- the peace talks were a sham designed to get Serbia to disagree (fact: Serbia agreed to Ramboulliet, it only disagreed with NATO occupying Kosovo, it wanted an international force, not a foreign military alliance answerable to noone) and the claims of genocide were trumped up nonsense.

And most importantly:

2: Milosevic was not kicked out of power because of Kosovo.

[Axis Kast]

So we have a war with no real UN mandate-- I mean, international support and cooperation was sort of forced, really. Few people wanted this war and even the nations closest to the situation could not agree to do anything, or would not. The US had to exert some pressure and spin to get the whole thing going, and even then most "allies" contributed the barest minimum.

I know what the real argument’s about, but I think it’s important that somebody bring this up anyway …

In this case, a war in Iraq benefited only the United States of America and the State of Israel. There were few compelling reasons for any other nations – or multilateral bodies, for that matter – to sanction our invasion, especially if they stood to lose millions of dollars in trade -however questionable – with the Ba’athi régime. We were dealing with an international community “turned off” to the potential threat of ambitious men like Hussein since before 1998. It was a distant problem for any but the regional guarantor of security (the United States) and the most likely target of Hussein’s own delusions (Israel). Millions across the world were already incensed that Washington’s political and diplomatic objectives had become their own after September 11, 2001 anyway. There wasn’t a shred of sympathy to go ‘round – especially because many adopted a feeling of bitterness after they realized that their opinions (A) weren’t requested and (B) weren’t required. Now that’s not to snub anybody at all. It’s merely bringing up a point: a great number of people in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere are now making the argument: “Why do you want our input in the first place if you’re going to act on it only when it suits you?” Such feelings have also led to an increasing belief that George W. Bush and the American government are somehow beginning to move toward arbitrary intervention. Many now predict – however irrationally – some kind of chain-reaction of events worldwide; in essence, major invasions by the United States of America of a string of “badnik” holdouts from Syria in the west to North Korea in the east. Between apathy over the whole affair (where interest at all was often motivated by wanting to get a word in about Bush’s supposed intellect), ignorance of the situation (which came only of debating in layman’s terms over nebulous issues with no basis in fact), and outright antagonism (between old allies who struggles to reconcile between them diametrically opposed ambitious, let alone points of view), the Coalition of the Willing just wasn’t about to win many PR battles. Even if we had found a warehouse full of older weapons, the overwhelming majority of critics insisted that Blix had been sufficient anyway. Nothing was about to change opposition to a war few people understood – or took the time to consider on any academic level. And while the United States was at time a bit too brusque, a bit too brash, and a bit too blatant, coddling wouldn’t have worked anyway. A nation without interests is still a nation without interests. Asking Ghana nicely wouldn’t have done much more than obliged a, “But thanks anyway,” after the inevitable, “No!”

[MKSheppard]

Another potential Vietnam looms.

Which is funny....We control Iraq completely, we've decimated the
Iraqi army, air force, and navy...

Unlike Vietnam, where we just sat down in South Vietnam with our thumbs
up our asses, while the North Vietnamese sent NVA units and tons and tons
of weaponry down the Ho Chi Minh trail..

[Vympel]

Which is funny....We control Iraq completely, we've decimated the
Iraqi army, air force, and navy...

Unlike Vietnam, where we just sat down in South Vietnam with our thumbs
up our asses, while the North Vietnamese sent NVA units and tons and tons
of weaponry down the Ho Chi Minh trail..

The US claims volunteers from Syria are causing trouble. That could be a bother. And there comes a point where I wonder how many RPGs there are in that country- they really should've run out of ammo by now ... unless they have like hundreds of thousands of them that US forces haven't secured in the known arms caches.

US forces have seized a large cache of rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), the weapon of choice for anti-American guerrillas in Iraq, near a flashpoint town west of Baghdad, the US military said.

A statement says 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment soldiers seized 400-500 RPGs from a vehicle at a checkpoint near Ramadi on Tuesday.

The US troops detained four men.

It also reported finding other ammunition in central Iraq.

Iraqi guerrillas have mainly used RPGs and explosives in daily attacks on US forces.

Since major combat was declared over on May 1, 29 US soldiers have been killed by hostile fire in Iraq.

Six British soldiers and more than 100 Iraqis have also died during that period.

US officials blame remnants of the government of Saddam Hussein for the increasingly bloody attacks.

Disaster would follow if some serious modern rounds, like the anti-personnel fragmentation ones available, flowed into Iraq in quantity. Lots more deaths.

[HemlockGrey]

29 dead, out of 100K+, in 72 days? Pacifying Iraq is safer than driving a car.

[Vympel]

29 dead, out of 100K+, in 72 days? Pacifying Iraq is safer than driving a car.

30+ dead (the article is a few days old), 1000+ wounded, and 25 attacks per day on average (the attackers aren't very good)- it's all well and good to say that you'd be in more danger driving a car, but tell that to troops getting attacked 25 times a day. Note also that the casualties are climbing inexorably upward. It's not good for morale.

[SPOOFE]

it's all well and good to say that you'd be in more danger driving a car, but tell that to troops getting attacked 25 times a day.

What constitutes an "attack"? A crazed old woman slapping a soldier in the face? Hell, I face more danger than that when I go to downtown LA.

[Vympel]

What constitutes an "attack"? A crazed old woman slapping a soldier in the face? Hell, I face more danger than that when I go to downtown LA.

Yeah I'm sure those 1,000 wounded since May 1 were all slapped by old women or some other such trivial matter ... Do *you* want to go to Iraq?

[0.1]

Well, it's done. The going to war part that is.

I don't think anyone reasonable would've taken the reasons the adminstration gave for going. Although you could argue that it was necessary to go through the motions with the UN. But reality is that it was a great waste of time for all involved. There was never any realistic hope of compliance, give Saddam another 30 days, another 60 day, another fucking 30 years, and you'd still have French bitching about how it's not right to attack Iraq, the Germans whining about the evil of using force, the U.S. asserting the need to be proactive in defense, and Kofi would still be useless.

When all is said and done, it would'be been better if Bush had simply said that Iraq is a reminder to those who would consider harming the U.S. what would happen to them. The not too subtle message is DON'T ANNOY US OR YOU WILL PAY DEARLY FOR IT. (of course, I'm sure that would'be offended a great deal of people everywhere because it would've been a simple and unmistakable statment and might actually force people to adapt certain types of behavior in regards to the U.S.)

[darthdavid]

Yeah. Why doesent just get up infront of the UN and start flipping them the bird? Mabye he should put a bag of flaming dog shit on jaque's door step. You really think he should make the international communitity think he's more of an ass than he actually is?