40 replies to this topic

[Christopher]

I saw a report on CNN yesterday, talking about the dozens of children who have been killed and maimed by cluster bombs which the US dropped on a civilian area despite its promise not to -- and the children who are still being killed or maimed on a daily basis when they come across the hundreds of unexploded bomblets which are littering the village.  Cluster bombs are a weapon whose use is condemned worldwide as an atrocity.  And arguably they kill or injure far more people than, say, an anthrax attack or a radiological "dirty bomb," weapons which generate more fear than actual death.  And we, not the Iraqis, are the ones who used them.  I saw the crippled children myself in the report.  Well, actually I was trying not to look -- although I should have looked, to bear witness.

Unfortunately CNN.com doesn't have the full report (which was actually by an ITV reporter), but I did find this item there.

Drew, you got justifiably angry when you heard that Saddam had imprisoned innocent children.  And because of that anger, you jumped to the conclusion that this whole war was justified.  Well, I hope these children's suffering and death from US weapons makes you just as angry, as angry as it makes me, and helps you to understand that no war can ever be as morally clear-cut as that.  Was it justified to kill one group of innocent children to save another?  Wars always, always kill children, maim children, orphan children, traumatize children, no matter how many other children they may save.  Both sides in any war will always commit atrocities.  Even the most necessary war is a necessary evil.

[Godeskian]

first rule of war, young people die
second rule of war, doctors can't change rule number one
third rule of war, neither can anyone else when the shooting starts

yeah, this does upset me a lot

[Kosh]

Our weapons are more precise now then they have ever been. Anyone who has been injured or killed had the same risks as everyone else. That doesn't make it Right or Just, but it's unavoidable. Those kids stood a big chance of never growing up under Sadam's rule, or growing up in prison. Innocent kids, and adults always suffer.

[Drew]

Screw this, Christopher. I wrote you to apologize for our misunderstanding and tried to mend fences with you; you sent me a long, angry PM saying "as far as I'm concerned, the less we have to do with each other from now on, the better."

I can do without your kind of attitude.

Frankly, so can the Ex Isle.

[Rov Judicata]

Ignoring the interpersonal politics....

Quote

I saw a report on CNN yesterday,

CNN, eh?

Quote

talking about the dozens of children who have been killed and maimed by cluster bombs which the US dropped on a civilian area despite its promise not to

I’m not sure how many were dropped in civilian areas. But I also hasten to point out that it was Iraq that put military equipment in civilian areas, not the US. Yes, the US is responsible for those deaths... but some of the blame does go elsewhere.

Quote

-- and the children who are still being killed or maimed on a daily basis when they come across the hundreds of unexploded bomblets which are littering the village.

Again, hundreds? Did you happen to catch any more precise numbers? And which village?

Quote

Cluster bombs are a weapon whose use is condemned worldwide as an atrocity.

They’re used because they work, and we’ve spent billions trying to get them as reliable as possible. I’ll let CJ or Jon do the heavy lifting on the details; I don’t know that much about them.

Quote

  And arguably they kill or injure far more people than, say, an anthrax attack or a radiological "dirty bomb," weapons which generate more fear than actual death.

That point I’m not ignoring, but have to defer on for now.

Quote

And we, not the Iraqis, are the ones who used them.

That’s unsurprising, since Iraq doesn’t have them...

Quote

I saw the crippled children myself in the report.  Well, actually I was trying not to look -- although I should have looked, to bear witness.

Each one is a tragedy, and I don’t think anybody is disputing that.

Quote

Drew, you got justifiably angry when you heard that Saddam had imprisoned innocent children.  And because of that anger, you jumped to the conclusion that this whole war was justified.

Not Drew, but I think a lot of us were justifying it on our sovereignty and right to enforce cease fires, lest every treaty we make become meaningless.

Quote

Well, I hope these children's suffering and death from US weapons makes you just as angry, as angry as it makes me, and helps you to understand that no war can ever be as morally clear-cut as that.

Saddam *intentionally* killed children. We avoided it as much as militarily possible. More children die in a year of malnutrition in Saddam’s Iraq than the military campaign cost. <And the first person who says that the malnutrition deaths are caused by sanctions will be directed to Saddam’s palaces.>

Quote

Was it justified to kill one group of innocent children to save another?

I think it was justified to accept collateral damage to save millions of lives.

Quote

Wars always, always kill children, maim children, orphan children, traumatize children, no matter how many other children they may save.  Both sides in any war will always commit atrocities.  Even the most necessary war is a necessary evil.

Agreed.

[Christopher]

Drew, on Apr 22 2003, 08:54 AM, said:

I can do without your kind of attitude.

Drew, I'm sorry that you've misconstrued this as "attitude," and responded with such hostility.  I'm simply trying to help you understand that the issues are more complex than you assumed.  And I'm sad that you're not willing to listen.

[Drew]

Christopher, on Apr 22 2003, 09:28 AM, said:

Drew, on Apr 22 2003, 08:54 AM, said:

I can do without your kind of attitude.

Drew, I'm sorry that you've misconstrued this as "attitude," and responded with such hostility.  I'm simply trying to help you understand that the issues are more complex than you assumed.  And I'm sad that you're not willing to listen.

Don't you dare lecture me about hostility.

[Lover of Purple]

Let's ease up here and step back for a bit. We don't want this getting out of control.


Thanks

Lop

[Palisades]

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 22 2003, 09:12 AM, said:

Not Drew, but I think a lot of us were justifying it on our sovereignty and right to enforce cease fires, lest every treaty we make become meaningless.

My problem with that argument is that the cease fire was a UN resolution adapted by the Security Council (UN resolution 687), not a treaty made between the U.S. and Iraq.

[Rov Judicata]

Quote

My problem with that argument is that the cease fire was a UN resolution adapted by the Security Council (UN resolution 687), not a treaty made between the U.S. and Iraq.

True.

But let's look at this:

Quote

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;

(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

Quote

Iraq shall submit to the Secretary-General, within fifteen days of the adoption of the present resolution, a declaration of the locations, amounts and types of all items specified in paragraph 8 and agree to urgent, on-site inspection as specified below;

Which, of course, they never did.

Quote

Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally undertake not to use, develop, construct or acquire any of the items specified in paragraphs 8 and 9 above

We already have proof that the were, in fact, constructing missiles with a range greater than 150 KM. We had that before the first shot was fired.

That alone is a violation of the cease fire.

Virtually nobody is disputing the cease fire was violated. The only dispute is whether it should actually be enforced.

[Palisades]

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 22 2003, 12:59 PM, said:

Virtually nobody is disputing the cease fire was violated. The only dispute is whether it should actually be enforced.

The U.S. and Britain also violated the cease fire by bombing the No Fly zones.

To me it seems shaky for the U.S. to legitimize going to war against Iraq by citing a UN resolution both sides have violated, especially since a majority of the Security Council disputes that Iraq posed a significant, imminent threat.

[Rov Judicata]

Quote

The U.S. and Britain also violated the cease fire by bombing the No Fly zones

Oh? How so? It only prevented Saddam from doing things he wasn't allowed to do.

Quote

To me it seems shaky for the U.S. to legitimize going to war against Iraq by citing a UN resolution both sides have violated,

Again, I'd like a source on the US violating the cease-fire. Perhaps they have.

Quote

especially since a majority of the Security Council disputes that Iraq posed a significant, imminent threat

Two permanent members were selling weapons to Saddam. France actively campaigned and bribed nations to vote "No". And whether or not the security council votes or not doesn't change the fact that Iraq *did* violate the cease-fire.

[Palisades]

Javert Rovinski:

Quote

Again, I'd like a source on the US violating the cease-fire. Perhaps they have.

Don't cease fires mean "no shooting or bombing"?

Quote

Two permanent members were selling weapons to Saddam.

The sanctions still forced Saddam to cut back his armed forces by a sizable amount.

Quote

France actively campaigned and bribed nations to vote "No".

The U.S. actively coerced nations and offered economic incentives to get them to vote "Yes."

Edited by QuantumFlux, 22 April 2003 - 09:59 PM.

[G1223]

The No fly zones werer where US aircraft which were to partol and moniter Iraq. The Iraqies were not allowed to have aircraft in the area and not suppose to use SAM or SAM tracking radars. The bombings were done after attacks against our aircraft.

As per the Rules and terms of the cease fire.

[Palisades]

G1223, on Apr 22 2003, 01:44 PM, said:

The No fly zones werer where US aircraft which were to partol and moniter Iraq.

Where does the cease fire give the U.S. and Britain the authority to violate Iraq's airspace?

Edited to add:

Quote

Iraqies were not allowed to have aircraft in the area and not suppose to use SAM or SAM tracking radars.

I couldn't find that in the cease fire.

Edited by QuantumFlux, 22 April 2003 - 10:09 PM.

[Rov Judicata]

Quote

Don't cease fires mean "no shooting or bombing"?

It does.

http://news.bbc.co.u...000/1175950.stm

This is a BBC article that analyzes both sides.

Quote

The resolution condemned the repression of the Iraqi civilian population and demanded that Iraq end it immediately.

It said the repression amounted to a threat to international peace and security - a phrase our correspondent says is often used to justify intervention.

Quote

The northern no-fly zone was declared after the end of the Gulf War in March 1991 to protect Kurds against military action which had driven huge numbers of people across the borders into Turkey and Iran.

The other side:

Quote

But critics of the no-fly zones point out that the resolution did not say the Security Council was acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which provides for enforcement action.


Clearing the wreckage from a raid in 2000

Nor did it say that all necessary means could be used.

Meaning that, *again* UN members are arguing that their resolutions shouldn't be enforced.

Quote

The sanctions still forced Saddam to cut back his armed forces by a sizable amount.

The fact remains that it was against UN resolutions to sell those weapons to him at all.

Quote

The U.S. actively coerced nations and offered economic incentives to get them to vote "Yes."

Precisely. Which means the UNSC didn't decide whether Iraq was an imminent threat.. they decided who was offering the sweeter pot.

And QF is right, G.. the resolution doesn't give explicit authority to prevent the slaughter. Basically, the UN said, "You really shouldn't slaughter civilians, but we'll leave it up to others to enforce it.". To their credit, the UK, the US, and France (yes, France) stepped up to the plate. .

[G1223]

My understanding of it is that to monitor Iraq's complince with the ceasefire the no fly zones were part of the agreement. I will let CJ .Aegis correct that if I am wrong.

Basically did Iraq deliberatly violate the terms on the cease fire. YES OR NO.

I have seen you dance around the issue. Did Iraq Violate the cease fire by failing to disarm as it agreed?

[Rov Judicata]

Quote

My understanding of it is that to monitor Iraq's complince with the ceasefire the no fly zones were part of the agreement. I will let CJ .Aegis correct that if I am wrong.

Nope. It was to prevent Saddam from heading north and south, preventing him from slaughtering the Kurds and Shiites.

Quote

Basically did Iraq deliberatly violate the terms on the cease fire. YES OR NO.

I have seen you dance around the issue. Did Iraq Violate the cease fire by failing to disarm as it agreed?

I think QF conceded earlier that Iraq has, in fact, violated the CF....

[CJ AEGIS]

Quote

QuantumFlux: The U.S. and Britain also violated the cease fire by bombing the No Fly zones.

Now that is a tad bit of a twisting of the details.  This occurred after the Iraqis made a gross violation of it by locking onto and firing on US/UK aircraft that were enforcing the no fly zone.  Those aircraft were acting in self-defense.

[Palisades]

G1223, on Apr 22 2003, 01:54 PM, said:

Quote

I have seen you dance around the issue. Did Iraq Violate the cease fire by failing to disarm as it agreed?

I said both sides had violated the cease fire.