Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Children and the Rightness of War

Iraq War Children Rightness of War Iraq 2003

  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#21 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 22 April 2003 - 10:28 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Apr 22 2003, 02:06 PM, said:

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.
I think imposing and enforcing the No Fly Zone was an act of war in and of itself.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#22 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 22 April 2003 - 10:36 PM

Javert Rovinski

Quote

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. :).

The only thing the aircraft have done is bomb air defenses. I don't see how this provides humanitarian protection or enforces the cease fire.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#23 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 22 April 2003 - 10:41 PM

QuantumFlux, on Apr 22 2003, 12:20 PM, said:

The only thing the aircraft have done is bomb air defenses. I don't see how this provides humanitarian protection or enforces the cease fire.
It prevents (or, I should say, PREVENTED) Saddam from taking military action against the Kurds or Shiites. Bombing air defenses was only neccasary because Iraq (futiley, for the most part) fired on coalition aircrafts
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#24 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,142 posts

Posted 22 April 2003 - 10:43 PM

QuantumFlux, on Apr 22 2003, 02:12 PM, said:

CJ AEGIS, on Apr 22 2003, 02:06 PM, said:

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.
I think imposing and enforcing the No Fly Zone was an act of war in and of itself.
It was a result of war, not an act of war.
Can't Touch This!!

#25 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 22 April 2003 - 10:45 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 22 2003, 02:25 PM, said:

It prevents (or, I should say, PREVENTED) Saddam from taking military action against the Kurds or Shiites.
Possibly . . . their effectiveness is unclear.

Edited by QuantumFlux, 22 April 2003 - 10:46 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#26 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 22 April 2003 - 10:48 PM

QuantumFlux, on Apr 22 2003, 12:29 PM, said:

Possibly . . . their effectiveness is unclear.
Um.... huh?

Granted, after the Gulf War, there was slaughter of uprising Shiites.

But for the most part, Saddam did not make a military move against the Kurds to the north or the Shiites to the south.

That leaves three options:

1) He chose not to
Or
2) He wasn't capable, militarily
Or
3) The air power prevented him from doing so.

Two is out of the question. Against largely unarmed civilians, he could win easily.

One is silly. Why would he leave opposition uncrushed? He *gassed* the Kurds, why wouldn't he finish the job?

Three is all that's left.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#27 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 22 April 2003 - 10:49 PM

Well, we can definitely say that no fixed wing Iraqi aircraft got anywhere near the Kurds or Shia thanks to the No-Fly Zone.

Edited by tennyson, 22 April 2003 - 10:50 PM.

"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#28 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 22 April 2003 - 11:07 PM

Javert Rovinski:

Quote

That leaves three options:

1) He chose not to
Or
2) He wasn't capable, militarily
Or
3) The air power prevented him from doing so.

Or 4) Saddam feared that repeated acts of genocide against the Kurds or Shia would result in the U.S. or UN invading Iraq with ground forces.

tennyson:

Quote

Well, we can definitely say that no fixed wing Iraqi aircraft got anywhere near the Kurds or Shia thanks to the No-Fly Zone.
Agreed.

Edited by QuantumFlux, 22 April 2003 - 11:21 PM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#29 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 23 April 2003 - 03:14 AM

Quote

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.

I know of some people who'd say that foreign civilian casualties don't matter, because they aren't American and none of them matter as much as the people we lost on 9/11/01 (and some of these letters I've read say that all Muslims deserve whatever they get since some of them celebrated the 9/11 attacks). That's a bit too cold-blooded for me.

Then there was a bizarre thing I read on Usenet from a pro-war guy -- he saw a photo of an Iraqi civilian woman with blood on her face and sneered "Was this after she ate one our POWs?"

No wonder there's war when people couldn't care less about understanding or caring about anyone else...

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.

I read a book called _The Demonic Comedy: Some Detours in the Baghdad of Saddam Hussein_ by Paul William Roberts. I mentioned this some days ago in another thread. As I recall, he's British and lives in Canada. Anyway, back in '91, during the Gulf War, he dropped in on Iraq again, experienced some bombing of civilians for himself (and lost most of the hearing in one ear as a result), and saw some pretty awful stuff. This despite our claiming that we hit no civilians. (He got out again relatively safely. He remembers watching George H. W. Bush proclaming on TV that we weren't hitting civilians, and because he was there for himself to see some of what "wasn't" happening, he ended up yelling at Bush and throwing stuff at the TV... But since he's not American, one of those foreigners, I guess he was just writing propaganda. Read the book for yourself and decide what you think.)

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.

Anyone else read about the Kurd kid (not even a teen, I think) who declared "I like war!"? That makes me a wee bit angry. Of course, the children's prison is an awful thing, but so's raising kids to enjoy killing.

And what part of "Thou shalt not kill" do we humans not understand? (I notice people brandishing their religion about like a weapon every so often, so why not remind them of one of the aspects of it? Sorry, I'm practicing Attitude.)

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.

War is always more than a clean video game -- and I'm unutterably sick and tired of reading letters from Americans whining about the irresponsibility of war photography. "Ooooh, noooo, mustn't let the children see that!" Well, what about the children who *live* that? Why don't we go on about protecting the children who grow up fighting and learning to be terrorists instead of moaning about the effect of seeing blood will have on our precious little kids? Gee, god forbid that learning what war does may actually teach some kids that they don't want to go to war.


Quote

I can do without your kind of attitude.
Frankly, so can the Ex Isle

How about answering his post instead of quoting the contents of an eeevil PM and saying "Screw this"? Sigh. (People who go public with private messages or e-mail are people I try to avoid, though, so maybe this refusal doesn't matter.)


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

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

Gee. And here I thought we went to war with Iraq to disarm them of their nasty bad weapons... only to find that they may have destroyed any that were left just before war began. Hmm.
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#30 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 23 April 2003 - 05:04 AM

Norville, on Apr 22 2003, 06:58 PM, said:

How about answering his post instead of quoting the contents of an eeevil PM and saying "Screw this"? Sigh.
Since you know nothing about the situation, perhaps you could refrain from commenting on it.

And perhaps my name could be taken off the subject header, since there ain't no way I'm gonna answer this flame-bait.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#31 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 23 April 2003 - 05:16 AM

First, Norville, we have common ground here; I only disagree with one part of your post.

Quote

Gee. And here I thought we went to war with Iraq to disarm them of their nasty bad weapons...

That's true. But nobody ever said they have cluster bombs. I'd be shocked if we found any.

Quote

only to find that they may have destroyed any that were left just before war began. Hmm.

We'll see. I'm fascinated to see how that will turn out
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#32 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 23 April 2003 - 05:20 AM

Norville, on Apr 22 2003, 06:58 PM, said:

Gee. And here I thought we went to war with Iraq to disarm them of their nasty bad weapons... only to find that they may have destroyed any that were left just before war began. Hmm.
They're willing to risk going to war to keep these biological and chemical weapons, and then they secretly destroy them?

Edited by QuantumFlux, 23 April 2003 - 05:33 AM.

"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#33 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 23 April 2003 - 05:33 AM

Drew, on Apr 22 2003, 06:48 PM, said:

And perhaps my name could be taken off the subject header...
That's reasonable enough.

Hang on...

QF-- It is an interesting paradox
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#34 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 23 April 2003 - 05:49 AM

QuantumFlux, on Apr 23 2003, 02:04 AM, said:

They're willing to risk going to war to keep these biological and chemical weapons, and then they secretly destroy them?
I doubt Saddam thought the Coalition would attack until he had dug himself his own grave.  Then he was against the wall before the attack; then he realized that the French, Germans, and Russians weren’t going to manage to stop the Coalition and that US resolve was real.  At that point he had a choice and he went for disposing of them.  All of this was down with the hope that international pressure would stop the US and at a later point he could resume the programs.  

Saddam for all his tenacity for survival made a similar miscalculation when he refused to withdraw from Kuwait and assumed he could fight off the Coalition.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#35 Palisades

Palisades

    Northern Lights

  • Islander
  • 7,753 posts

Posted 23 April 2003 - 05:54 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Apr 22 2003, 09:33 PM, said:

QuantumFlux, on Apr 23 2003, 02:04 AM, said:

They're willing to risk going to war to keep these biological and chemical weapons, and then they secretly destroy them?
I doubt Saddam thought the Coalition would attack until he had dug himself his own grave.  Then he was against the wall before the attack; then he realized that the French, Germans, and Russians weren’t going to manage to stop the Coalition and that US resolve was real.  At that point he had a choice and he went for disposing of them.  All of this was down with the hope that international pressure would stop the US and at a later point he could resume the programs.  

Saddam for all his tenacity for survival made a similar miscalculation when he refused to withdraw from Kuwait and assumed he could fight off the Coalition.
But if he let the U.S. and UN know and verify that he had destroyed the weapons, he would take away the only official reason the U.S. gave for going to war.
"When the Fed is the bartender everybody drinks until they fall down." —Paul McCulley

"In truth, 'too big to fail' is not the worst thing we should fear – our financial institutions are now on their way to becoming 'too big to save'." —Simon Johnson

FKA:
TWP / An Affirming Flame / Solar Wind / Palisade

#36 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 23 April 2003 - 05:59 AM

QuantumFlux, on Apr 22 2003, 07:38 PM, said:

But if he let the U.S. and UN know and verify that he had destroyed the weapons, he would take away the only official reason the U.S. gave for going to war.
I know.

I find it as baffling as you do. :confused:.

What confuses me more is how everybody in the media is pretending this makes sense....
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#37 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 23 April 2003 - 06:16 AM

In a world that's filled with horrible choices, I'm pretty much of a moral utilitarian.  In spite of the botched diplomacy, outright deception, and less than pure motives behind the selling of this war, I'm still inclined to support it if--in the absence of any other viable alternative-- it can be shown that the suffering inflicted and unleashed by overthrowing Saddam is appreciably less than the suffering that would have resulted from some of the other alternatives that were proposed-- "smart sanctions," a more robust inspection regimen, and so forth.

So what's my view so far?  The jury's still out.  If we see a reasonably stable, democratic Iraq blooming over the coming months and years, then for all the horror of innocent bodies maimed by cluster munitions, I think the good will have outweighed the evil of this war.  And if Iraq instead degenerates into civil war and repressive Islamic fundamentalism, then I won't be the only one questioning whether we've done more harm than good.

But for now?  It's simply too early to tell.  And IMHO, it's as foolish to extrapolate the future from pictures of toppling statues and a Mahir lookalike ("I kiss you!") kissing an American soldier as it is to project forward from the lootings, checkpoint shootings, and anti-American demonstrations.  We'll know soon enough, I suppose.

Zack
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#38 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 23 April 2003 - 06:17 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 22 2003, 10:43 PM, said:

QuantumFlux, on Apr 22 2003, 07:38 PM, said:

But if he let the U.S. and UN know and verify that he had destroyed the weapons, he would take away the only official reason the U.S. gave for going to war.
I know.

I find it as baffling as you do. :confused:.

What confuses me more is how everybody in the media is pretending this makes sense....
I think it's pretty simple, Saddam still wants a jihad, and by gaining sympathy for the plight of his nation, and people's "suffering" by American hands, he planed to do just that. ;)
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido

#39 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 23 April 2003 - 06:23 AM

Once again, Zack nailed it. :cool:.

This could go either way. We have some good momentum, IMO.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#40 Chipper

Chipper

    Give it up

  • Islander
  • 5,202 posts

Posted 23 April 2003 - 06:35 AM

And Zack just nailed most of my feelings on this war in a much more articulate way then I could design.
"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?"

- Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq War, Children, Rightness of War, Iraq, 2003

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users