I just saw this headline in my desktop feed, and I find it quite amusing. Not what the Marines were doing, but the fact that they were caught, and that there's likely to be some measure of an international incident over this. Too bad we all know it won't amount to anything more than embarrassment, really.
Less amusing is the fact that if the military is sending people to cut down fences along the border, that means that Bush and his pals are planning to tell the rest of the world to go to hell and launch their attack pretty soon. Figures...
Gee, does this mean that a war could break out? Odd...I had'nt heard anything about this on CNN...
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Maybe they're just bored and decided to partake in some petty vandalism?
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
The war has already started, y'know.
*CIA receiving funds to manifest itself deeper in Iraq as well as permission to use lethal force against Saddam.
*Daily bombardments of Iraqi air defenses, radar installations, command centers, communication networks, relay stations et all both in- & outside the no-fly zones.
*Multinational coalition of Special Forces carrying out covert operations (arming/training Kurdish rebels, contacting political leaders, observing oil derricks, building airbases, seeking out mobile scud launchers, etc) to clear the way for invasion.
*Psychological warfare (dropping of flyers to pester the Republican Guard, radio- & television stations broadcasting propaganda)
*Bribing and organising the divided Kurdish minority in liberated northern Iraq ("we won't fuck you over like the last three times we urged you to stand up to Saddam!")
Yeah, a new resolution for armed intervention is REALLY necessary. Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Technically, I also don't think that a new resolution is necessary at all -- for several reasons. First, most people seem to forget that Saddam's disarmament was one of the conditions of the armistice established in 1991. So strictly speaking, by not disarming any attack can be justified (by some) as a continuing of the last war instead of a totally new conflict.
Not only that, but Resolution 1441 already included an ultimatum, but an open-ended one because not many were willing to commit to force. They're still not. All of this talk of new deals and amended resolutions is nothing more than attempts to get the rest of the world on board. But it's not diplomacy, it's bullying. Bush doesn't realize that diplomacy means compromise -- and that he can still get what he wants but still work with the rest of the world on it.
Bush is quite possibly one of the worst diplomats this world has ever seen. And I have great respect for Colin Powell for putting up with him for so long. I know from knowledge of his past attitudes and philosophies that this diplomatic bullying is not something that he favors at all -- and it's a gut feeling, but whenever I've seen him speak recently, I've sensed a lack of enthusiasm in his stature. It's a shame, really -- he's trying to keep some reason in the administration, and they're all ignoring him.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I couldn't agree more about Bush and diplomacy; he doesn't apear to have a clue. Mind you, it was always said before he was elected (or not elected or whatever was eventually decided) that foreign policy would be his weak point due to his provincial background and, well, ignorance (anyone remember that interview where he was despeerately trying to remember the name of General Mushareff (sp?)).
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Bush doesn't realize that diplomacy means compromise -- and that he can still get what he wants but still work with the rest of the world on it.
Compromise #1: Refrain from removing Saddam in 1991. Coalition goal reduced to removing Iraq from Kuwait.
Results: Hussein remains in power. Iraqi people suffer 12 years of sanctions and starvation. Current situation.
Compromise #2: Refrain from meddling in Iraq's internal affairs by providing outside support to rebel factions.
Results: Rebels annihilated. US reputation suffers. Hussein remains in power. Current situation.
Compromise #3: Refrain from adding action clauses to any prior UN resolution.
Results: Inaction on part of UN for 12 years. Weapons moved or hidden. No Iraqi cooperation. Current situation.
Compromise #4: Refrain from adding action clause to Res. 1441.
Results: Continued inaction on part of UN. Continued minimal-level cooperation from Iraq. Current situation.
Tell me again why we need to compromise.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh bullshit Rob.
#1 -- Bush made the call to end the war when he did (for fear if he didn't, he would be seen as "butchering" the essentially-defenseless Iraqi army, and suffer politically), leaving most of the Republican Guard in place. Maybe he was restricted from going after Hussein (by an Executive Order in the first place), but he left most of Hussein's support in place for political reasons.
#2 -- It was Swartzkopf (or however you spell it) who allowed Hussein to fly ARMED helicopters after the war. It was these choppers that Hussein used to butcher the Kurds. I don't see how you stick the blame for this on the UN. The US's senior officer made a shitty fucking call and now the US shouldn't take the blame for it? How does that work?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: Oh bullshit Rob.
#1 -- Bush made the call to end the war when he did (for fear if he didn't, he would be seen as "butchering" the essentially-defenseless Iraqi army, and suffer politically), leaving most of the Republican Guard in place. Maybe he was restricted from going after Hussein (by an Executive Order in the first place), but he left most of Hussein's support in place for political reasons.
Seen by who? The International community, that's who. I'm talking about pressure that was applied and decisions that were altered before Desert Shield even began. Brush up on those first pre-Shield days, when the US's first reaction was to remove Hussein. Bush compromised. He was wrong to do so.
quote: #2 -- It was Swartzkopf (or however you spell it) who allowed Hussein to fly ARMED helicopters after the war. It was these choppers that Hussein used to butcher the Kurds. I don't see how you stick the blame for this on the UN. The US's senior officer made a shitty fucking call and now the US shouldn't take the blame for it? How does that work?
This decision was based upon the same compromise I spoke of. The US was being criticized for encouraging the destabilization of Iraq by supporting the coup attempts. Of course, had the initial compromise not taken place, this would have been a moot point.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Compromise #1: Refrain from removing Saddam in 1991. Coalition goal reduced to removing Iraq from Kuwait.
"Results: Hussein remains in power. Iraqi people suffer 12 years of sanctions and starvation. Current situation."
Leaving Hussein in power and imposing sanctions on Iraq were two separate acts. Either could have been done w/o the other. One is not causally dependent upon the other.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Yes, but had Housein been removed, the sanctions would not have been implemented. And having left Housein in, we couldn't very well treat him as a fully-fledged member of the Heads of State club.
And the starvation, that was all Housein.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Ommey, sometimes you remind me of Bushy. I'll give you the fact that you can remember his name...if not spell it
On a side note - its funny how Rob is saying that its the US who is right in invading...but then says that the international community made them withdraw. Last time I looked, your military & government made their own decisions.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
He didn't say we were made to withdraw, he said we were pressured to withdraw, just as we're being pressured not to enforce treaty now. It was a bad idea then to give in, and it'd be a bad idea now.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
But it's also a bad idea to piss off some of the most influential nations in the world. Granted, we're the undisputed military and economic power, but the United States doesn't exist in a background.
I'm wondering if this little spat won't just be the death knell of the UN as an effective organization, but also of NATO because of the divisions the US has caused, especially in Turkey.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)