[DTguitarist99]

Is a Ronald Reagan avatar really necessary?

Well I might change it to a Bush avatar, but I still like Reagan, even if the Iran-Contra affair tarnished his reputation.

[Putinist]

Well I might change it to a Bush avatar, but I still like Reagan, even if the Iran-Contra affair tarnished his reputation.

No, no, no - please!!! Anything but that!!! I love Reagan! Reagan in the best! Kissy, kissy, kissy, Mr. Reagan!

Reagan rules!!!

[Free the Six Counties!]

I am seeing a dangerous idea being thrown around here, what Isildur refered to as "civilized war"...

Let me also take a crack at defining total war.

Total war is the complete unified effort of all civilians, all branches of the military, and all industry towards one single goal: the defeat of a percieved menace to the country, no matter what the cost in lives to either side.

Thats the best definition of the term that I can come up with off the top of my head, if anyone can do any better, be my guest.

According to my definition, the very lack of that state of "total war" reveals a potentially serious moral problem: the US did not view Iraq as a real threat.
Look at US history to prove this point... starting with the US Revolution. Britain was a real threat to Colonial interests and freedom, and the war was on US soil, which resulted in a state of primitive total war, with men of all ages leaving homes and farms to fight for little or no pay, and many civilian militias established.
Next, we see the US Civil war... This war was total in every aspect of the term, especially for the South. The Confederacy suffered around a 10% fatality rate of all men. this is comparable to Soviet loses in WWII.
We then have WWI... this war was foreign to the US, but posed a threat to our allies, and the nation were itching for a chance to establish itself as a world power. Therefore the US did contribute substantially to the war effort, but not in a manner that would fall within "Total War"
WWII is an obvious example of a threat to the world being met with total war, and does not need to be examined further here.
Skipping over Korea, which i am virtually ignorant in regards to, we have Vietnam, a quite obviously non-total war to the US, as the US as a nation was not threatened directly by the N.Veitnamese. On, the other hand, it is a great example of total war on the behalf of the N.Veitnamese, as everything was at stake for them, and the fought in a manner that suited that.
The Persian Gulf wars are obviously well outside the realm of total, leading to a hole in the US party line that Saddam was a threat to us. (I hope you like the round-about reasoning...)

It could be argued that the US really was in it for the Iraqis, but the US didn't go in guns blazing when 500,000 people were killed in Rwanda as recently as 1993! This number is far in excess of any killings that Saddam has done in the last decade or so, Yet WE did NOTHING...

(a side note that may or may not be important: there is no oil in Rwanda.)

[Gothmog]

Progress will be made soon I'm sure. Its not like you can snap your fingers and have everything restored.

-Maybe, but one the Baath officials were purged, the Iraqi people were left with no people with administrative experience and good education. This was diferent from what happened in Japan, whe the emperor and the bureaucracy remained in their places.

We'll have to see how soon the infrastructure will be rebuilt, but my guess is it will happen pretty soon after we get the government set up.

-The events in Afghanistan tell us the opposite

The human rights watch estimates hundreds or thousands of innocents were killed by Saddam every year. Theres no way to know exactly, but had we not gone to war, its reasonable to guess that many thousands would be killed during the rest of Saddams lifetime and many more after one of his sons took over.

-Hundreds or thousands of innocents each year is a number from 100 to 9999. If the number is closer to the smaller estimate, than you will probably beat Saddam.....if the number is closer to higher estimate, it will be a hard match. However, this has nothing to do with the reasons for war, if you were really worried with Saddam´s attrocities, you would have ousted him in 1991, when there was a good Casus Belli. And of course, many of Saddam´s attrocities happened when he was a good friend of both the USA and USSR. Furthermore, the economic embargo not only strengthened Saddam but also killed hundreds of thousands people, whose responsability must be divided between Saddam and the internacional comunity.

[DTguitarist99]

The events in Afghanistan tell us the opposite

I think Iraq will be different because it was a much bigger issue than the war in Afghanistan. The American people will be more interested in whats going on there after the war, so that will attract the media, which will lead to politicians directing more effort into restructuring Iraq. I don't deny that oil will be a major factor in the US wanting to rebuild Iraq instead of leaving it up to the natives, although I don't think oil was a reason Bush lead us to the war. major oil companies have an interest in making sure Iraq's oil industry works well so they can buy more oil, and that will lead to an expanding of the rest of Iraq's economy.

Hundreds or thousands of innocents each year is a number from 100 to 9999. If the number is closer to the smaller estimate, than you will probably beat Saddam.....if the number is closer to higher estimate, it will be a hard match. However, this has nothing to do with the reasons for war, if you were really worried with Saddam´s attrocities, you would have ousted him in 1991, when there was a good Casus Belli. And of course, many of Saddam´s attrocities happened when he was a good friend of both the USA and USSR. Furthermore, the economic embargo not only strengthened Saddam but also killed hundreds of thousands people, whose responsability must be divided between Saddam and the internacional comunity.

Hundreds most likely doesn't mean 100, but at least 300. In that case, assuming Saddam/Qusay would have ruled the next 50 years or so had we not gone to war, the number of people killed by Saddam by the year 2053 would be around 15,000. Thats a minimum. Probably more if you count his campaign to eliminate the Marsh Arabs, of whom 200,000 have dissapeared since 1991, many executed by Saddam. Many of the 40,000 left probably would have been killed by Saddam. Now compare that to your estimate of 3000-4000 (according to IraqBodyCount.com its 5000-7000, but that site was created by liberals and is probably exaggerated).

We should have "finished the job" in 1991, but George Bush Sr. was relying too much on his coalition, which only agreed to free Kuwait, and he expected the the Shiite rebellion he incited would drive Saddam out while his army was recovering from the war. Many high level conservatives have pressured for war in Iraq ever since the first Gulf War ended, but George Bush Sr., Clinton, and GW (before 9/11) ignored them. Immediately after 9/11 the conservatives pressured for war against Iraq again, but it was decided to invade Afghanistan first. That is why the war in Iraq happened when it did, we (or at least the top level conservatives) were concerned about atrocities in Iraq the whole time.

The effects of the economic embargo you mentioned were most likely exaggerated, although I aknowledge that it probably killed thousands. The UNICEF report claiming 500,000 children were killed by sanctions relied heavily on future projections of the population, many of which turned out to be wrong. A recent report showed that the bodies of children "killed by the sanctions" that Saddam paraded around were not killed by sanctions at all. You'd think that with so many children dying like the UNICEF report claimed, he would have found some children who were really killed by the sanctions. The blame is mostly on Saddam, since we tried to make the sanctions humane by initiating the oil-for-food program, which Saddam refused to accept until 1998 or so, resulting in the deaths of many. We also had no other option, because had we lifted sanctions, Saddam would hawhicve built up his military again and invaded another country like Kuwait. This would have killed many innocent people.

Total war is the complete unified effort of all civilians, all branches of the military, and all industry towards one single goal: the defeat of a percieved menace to the country, no matter what the cost in lives to either side.

Thats the best definition of the term that I can come up with off the top of my head, if anyone can do any better, be my guest.

I agree with your definition, but I also think it means that the side engaging in total war perceives all of the people on the other side as the enemy, not just a select few. Iraq wasn't total war because we distinguished between the civilians, who were innocent, and the Baathists, who were our enemy. In World War II, we were fighting against the "Japs,"
which was inclusive of all Japanese, civilians and military. We were engaged in total war against the entire Japanese population. The Islamic fundamentalists in Palestine are engaged in total war against Israel because they perceive all Jews as being their enemies, not just the Israeli soldiers.

The Persian Gulf wars are obviously well outside the realm of total, leading to a hole in the US party line that Saddam was a threat to us.

Where did you come up with "no total war=country is no threat"? That country can be a threat to our civilians through terrorism, while it is not a threat to our military. Our military could afford to take the time to distinguish between civilian and military in a civilized war because it wasn't fighting desperately to win. Athough even fighting desperately to win doesn't justify total war, only when the other side engaged in total war first and it is necessary to use their dirty tactics against them.

It could be argued that the US really was in it for the Iraqis, but the US didn't go in guns blazing when 500,000 people were killed in Rwanda as recently as 1993! This number is far in excess of any killings that Saddam has done in the last decade or so, Yet WE did NOTHING...

You mean Clinton and the U.N. did nothing. It was their responsibility to do something in Rwanda. The UN is supposed to ensure human rights and prevent genocide, and Clinton had the responsibility as the leader of a military force effective enough to do something to prevent the genocide. They might have done something given enough time, but Rwanda required that they act immediately in order to prevent the imminent genocide, and Clinton and the UN were too busy argueing and delaying I guess.

No, no, no - please!!! Anything but that!!! I love Reagan! Reagan in the best! Kissy, kissy, kissy, Mr. Reagan!

Reagan rules!!!

Haha, I always thought liberals hated Reagan more than Bush, I guess its the otehr way around.

[Proctor]

My definition of total war would be a goal of victory by any means necessary.


And on a side note, give me Bush over Reagan any day.

[DayTripper]

Getting back to the original topic, my point is that the US avoids total war when possible because it is not a murderous aggressor that conquers and targets civilians. Terrorists use total war as their primary strategy. Therefore they are uncivilized, immoral, and cannot be called freedom fighters.

How many terrorists have conquered other countries?

Most "terrorism" arises from impoverished or oppressed areas of the world. Defending and ousting the foreign invaders is usually their primary goal, that or sweeping political change.

[FCP]

I think "total war" necessarily entails the usage of conventional weapons on some scale, therefore, alot of "terrorists" aren't engaging in "total war" in the traditional sense -- though perhaps they may be in effect. Terrorism is precisely a product of the terrorists inability to engage an adversary in conventional ways, thus, in many ways, a terrorist becomes a terrorist because they do not have the means to engage in traditional warfare.

[Free the Six Counties!]

I think "total war" necessarily entails the usage of conventional weapons on some scale, therefore, alot of "terrorists" aren't engaging in "total war" in the traditional sense -- though perhaps they may be in effect. Terrorism is precisely a product of the terrorists inability to engage an adversary in conventional ways, thus, in many ways, a terrorist becomes a terrorist because they do not have the means to engage in traditional warfare.

You are absolutely right, but i was never arguing that terrorism is total war... terrorism is however a direct offshoot of total war. Terrorism is simply one of the facets that can be expected in an era of "Total War."

[DTguitarist99]

I think "total war" necessarily entails the usage of conventional weapons on some scale, therefore, alot of "terrorists" aren't engaging in "total war" in the traditional sense -- though perhaps they may be in effect. Terrorism is precisely a product of the terrorists inability to engage an adversary in conventional ways, thus, in many ways, a terrorist becomes a terrorist because they do not have the means to engage in traditional warfare.

Those poor terrorists, they can't fight back any other way, so lets just allow them to kill as many civilians as they want!

Terrorists could fight back using guerilla tactics. Many underdogs have used this approach to win wars, ie vietnam. The actual reason they are terrorists and not guerillas is that they are engaged in a total war against Israelis, and don't distinguish between Israeli civilians and soldiers.

Most "terrorism" arises from impoverished or oppressed areas of the world. Defending and ousting the foreign invaders is usually their primary goal, that or sweeping political change.

That is true, but most poor and oppressed countries do not harbor terrorists. Terrorists thrive in areas where people are susceptible to their propaganda, and their only purpose is to demoralize the other side so it gives up. You can obviously not win a war through terrorism, because if it was directed against the opposing military it would be guerilla warfare.

[Lt. Spoonman]

That is true, but most poor and oppressed countries do not harbor terrorists. Terrorists thrive in areas where people are susceptible to their propaganda, and their only purpose is to demoralize the other side so it gives up. You can obviously not win a war through terrorism, because if it was directed against the opposing military it would be guerilla warfare.

hey, isildur, you are fucking retarded... does the communist overthrow in cuba ring any bells, BASTARD... che and fidel used what your shrunken brain (not to mention penis) would refer to as "terrorism. its obvious that your limited education in heart land, usa, did not cover such controversial topics as such. i have to go snort some crack... -SPOONMAN OUT-

[jaakko]

About Palestine. Both sides are engaged in terrorism. I don't condemn Palestinian acts of terrorism, because their struggle is just and it's up to them to decide what methods they use. It's a matter of principle for me to support all genuine struggles of the oppressed peoples. But if I was a Palestinian, I'd support other techniques of warfare, because terrorism is ineffective and usually also harmful to their cause. If terror tactics were used more selectively (ie. only against military targets and Israeli authorities), maybe the grip of Zionism on the jew population wouldn't be so strong. I know the Palestinians are currently unable to wage a full-scale guerrilla war against Israel, but such acts as was the incident where Merkava III was blown up are always good practice and preparation for widening such more fruitfull (as compared to plain terrorism) activities.

[jaakko]

hey, isildur, you are fucking retarded... does the communist overthrow in cuba ring any bells, BASTARD... che and fidel used what your shrunken brain (not to mention penis) would refer to as "terrorism. its obvious that your limited education in heart land, usa, did not cover such controversial topics as such. i have to go snort some crack... -SPOONMAN OUT-

That's not very nice, Spoonman. Also, if my memory serves me well, terrorism formed only a minor part (if any) in the guerrilla warfare of the Cuban revolution.

[FCP]

Those poor terrorists, they can't fight back any other way, so lets just allow them to kill as many civilians as they want!

I didn't say that, you assumed it. All I'm saying is that you can debate the "morality" or "immorality" and "civilized" or "uncivilized" nature of actions taken by some "terrorists" all you want. However, it is a logical, and rational conclusion that when one is engaged in conflict with an adversary (in the traditional sense) you have to -- assuming you want to survive -- engage in tactics that are condusive to your survival.

Terrorists could fight back using guerilla tactics. Many underdogs have used this approach to win wars, ie vietnam.

And the North Vietnamese army also terrorized citizens of South Vietnam and killed many of them. Moreover the North Vietnamese HAD a **STANDING ARMY** so the analogy is not analogous. Nevertheless, are you suggesting that it would be logical for the Palestinians to use their slingshots, rocks, and at best AK47's against the Israeli air force -- which coincidentally is one of the best in the world (talk about David + Goliath).

The actual reason they are terrorists and not guerillas is that they are engaged in a total war against Israelis, and don't distinguish between Israeli civilians and soldiers.

What is the difference between deliberately targeting civilians and targeting combatants with the full knowledge, that there is a high degree of probability, that you will kill civilians in the process?

The end result is exactly the same, dead children. The difference is, the powerful are able to use the "morally" upstanding terminology of "collateral damage" as opposed to "terrorism" to cloak their actions in the guise of morality.

[Gothmog]

I think Iraq will be different because it was a much bigger issue than the war in Afghanistan. The American people will be more interested in whats going on there after the war, so that will attract the media, which will lead to politicians directing more effort into restructuring Iraq. I don't deny that oil will be a major factor in the US wanting to rebuild Iraq instead of leaving it up to the natives, although I don't think oil was a reason Bush lead us to the war. major oil companies have an interest in making sure Iraq's oil industry works well so they can buy more oil, and that will lead to an expanding of the rest of Iraq's economy.

-Ah!!! And of course US companies will have big profits by rebuilding the damage that US itself inflicted. Of course, this is not imperialism?

Now compare that to your estimate of 3000-4000 (according to IraqBodyCount.com its 5000-7000, but that site was created by liberals and is probably exaggerated).

-Actually these ´reports could be highly underestimated, since the collapse of Iraqi government let the country withouth a working health system, able to collect epidemiological data. Furthermore, they don´t include the so called latter mortality, described in NEJM

We should have "finished the job" in 1991, but George Bush Sr. was relying too much on his coalition, which only agreed to free Kuwait, and he expected the the Shiite rebellion he incited would drive Saddam out while his army was recovering from the war.

-In his autobiography, Colin Powell argues that it was better to allow Saddam remain in power, since he would be the least of the evils He also argues that the embrago would be useful to weaken Iraq. Better said, the US decided to allow Saddam to remain in charge and pusnish the Iraqi people as a whole

Many high level conservatives have pressured for war in Iraq ever since the first Gulf War ended, but George Bush Sr., Clinton, and GW (before 9/11) ignored them. Immediately after 9/11 the conservatives pressured for war against Iraq again, but it was decided to invade Afghanistan first. That is why the war in Iraq happened when it did, we (or at least the top level conservatives) were concerned about atrocities in Iraq the whole time.

-That´s hipocrisy. The US troops did nothing when the Iraqi Army crushed the Shiite rebellion in 1991. And the worst crimes of Saddam happened when he was a good allied of the US (and of the USSR too), including the killing of thousands of members of Iraqi communist party, an attrocity that probably was hailed by US conservatives.

The effects of the economic embargo you mentioned were most likely exaggerated, although I aknowledge that it probably killed thousands. The UNICEF report claiming 500,000 children were killed by sanctions relied heavily on future projections of the population, many of which turned out to be wrong.

-Given the dramatic increases of infant mortality and the dramatic economic regression (Iraqi GDP fell by 50-65%), hundreds of thousands of excess deaths are highly possible. And the UNICEF report didn´t count how much adults died as a consequence of sanctions, so an overestimation of children deaths can be balanced by an underestimation of adult deaths. Of course the real numbers are don´t know, but a smaller decrease in GDP in Russia (1991-2000), which was much more self sufficient economically than Iraq resulted in 3-5 million deaths, and Russia even was not subjected to sanctions. Another point of disagreement is the relative fault of Saddam and UN in this disaster. I think that Saddam diverted a lot of resources to palaces and weapons, but, even if Olaf Palme were in charge he would find difficult to avoid an humanitarian disaster under these conditions.


http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/01/iraq-memo.htm


.....
The crisis has been particularly acute in the area of public health, putting millions of Iraqis, if not an entire generation, at grave risk. The humanitarian panel noted that communicable diseases that had previously been brought under control "have now become part of the endemic pattern of the precarious health situation" (para. 21). Chronic malnutrition has affected nearly one in four Iraqi children for much of the last decade. UNICEF, comparing the 1984-89 and 1994-99 periods in the government-controlled center and south of the country, found that infant mortality had increased from 47 to 108 deaths per 1000 live births, while child mortality (under five years of age) has increased from 56 to 131 deaths per 1000 live births.(7) This is a rate of increase that is unprecedented. Put simply, children under five are dying at more than twice the rate of ten years ago. Lack of access to sufficient and appropriate food and medicine has been one element, but also crucial has been the degradation of the water and sanitation sectors, contributing to chronic intestinal and acute respiratory infections.
....
The devastating impact of the sanctions is largely a consequence of their unprecedentedly comprehensive scope and duration, coupled with the fact that their imposition followed the military campaign to compel Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. This campaign, conducted under the authority conferred by Resolution 678 (1990), included air attacks that crippled most of Iraq's electrical power system. Because of the centrality of the country's electric power grid to water and sewage treatment, the health care system, agricultural irrigation, and other vital civilian areas, these attacks have had grave civilian consequences. The embargo, in turn, has severely impeded the repair and reconstruction of these sectors that together function as a life support system for most of Iraqi society. More than nine years after the war, it is less and less possible to resort to the make-shift repairs and cannibalization of parts that for a number of years enabled the country to keep in operation some of its pre-war stock of generators, transformers, water pumps, and similar sorts of equipment.
......
This physical breakdown has been accompanied by the devastation of the country's human resource infrastructure. Real incomes and purchasing power of the great majority of Iraqis plummeted, leading many salaried professionals and skilled workers to emigrate or to shift to casual unskilled labor. This systematic "de-skilling" of the population has been aggravated by the severe intellectual isolation stemming from the extension of the embargo to cover professional and scientific journals and books as well as travel outside the country to professional conferences and the like. The damage to the country's physical and human infrastructure and the acutely distressed income levels of most of the population have seriously compromised the beneficial impact of a program limited to commodities alone.
....
The economic siege of the country has contributed directly to the general pauperization of the vast majority of people. The comprehensiveness and protracted nature of these sanctions, now in their tenth year, have had long-term consequences by, in particular, impeding the repair of the country's infrastructure--communication, transportation, education, government services. These generalized humanitarian consequences have radically complicated and limited the possibilities for meeting basic civilian needs under a program restricted to the delivery of commodities. The Secretary-General expressed this in his two-year review when he noted that "there is little experience with the type of problems encountered when the whole spectrum of basic services starts to fail, as is happening in Iraq" (para. 55).
....
The policies of the government of Iraq have greatly compounded and magnified the humanitarian crisis. These include Iraq's failure to comply fully with Resolution 687; its refusal between 1991 and 1996 to implement any "oil-for-food" arrangement and its mixed record of cooperation since then; and its use of scarce available resources for non-humanitarian purposes--including military purposes as well as palaces and monuments--thereby redirecting the consequences of sanctions away from itself and onto vulnerable civilians. The recent reports of the Secretary-General on the operation of the humanitarian program have criticized the government's excessive warehousing of medicines and failure to order foods specially designed for the nourishment of infants, small children, and nursing mothers, and also noted Iraq's failure to cooperate with the program by routinely not providing government escorts for observer teams, thus preventing them from carrying out their duties. Broadly speaking, it is clear that the Iraqi government is not fulfilling its obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to use "the maximum of its available resources," including "international assistance and cooperation," to provide an adequate standard of living and improve living standards.
......
At the same time, the member states of the Council, given their responsibility to the international community as members, have an obligation not to destroy or undermine the right of people to an adequate standard of living, the improvement of living conditions, freedom from hunger, and the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. The Security Council must share responsibility for the enormous impact of the measures it has imposed on the well-being of Iraq's population. For this reason, we urge the Council to revise the present embargo in favor of a regime that targets specifically the ability of that government to import military and dual-use goods, and lifts restrictions on the import of civilian commodities and on financial transactions broadly, restrictions that have a disproportionately harmful impact on ordinary Iraqi people.
.......
The Convention on the Rights of the Child obligates States Parties, which include Iraq and all members of the Security Council with the exception of the United States, which has not signed the convention, to "take appropriate measures: (a) to diminish infant and child mortality; (b) to ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children; [and] (c ) to combat disease and malnutrition including...through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking water" (Art 24, 2). While there may be varied interpretations regarding the measurement of such rights as guaranteed by the Convention, policies that in fact promote the deterioration of nutrition and health, for instance, or directly impede their realization, clearly contravene these standards.

The blame is mostly on Saddam, since we tried to make the sanctions humane by initiating the oil-for-food program, which Saddam refused to accept until 1998 or so, resulting in the deaths of many.

-The oil for food program helped very little, because a modern economy needs to be able to import in other to keep its civilian infrastructure working. Even if you can buy medicines, you can´t do too much withouth importing books teacing how to use them, or to import Rx rays or CT or Radiotherapy machines (all forbidden under sanctions-"double use equipment"). The same can be said about transportations, agriculture, industrial equipment and so on.

We also had no other option, because had we lifted sanctions, Saddam would hawhicve built up his military again and invaded another country like Kuwait. This would have killed many innocent people.

-Wrong, you could have limited the military equipments to be imported. It´s much better to put a ban (or even a restriction) over the imports of items like aircraft, tanks, missile systems and other stuff who are difficult to hide and absolutely necessary for waging offensive wars, than destroying a society, and more, the sanctions actually strenghtened Saddam, since they made Iraqi people dependent on government help (people has no jobs), which was used for political ends.

I agree with the communist party of Iraqi who argues that Iraqi people
owes nothing to USA

"The United States fully supported Saddam during his
senseless war against Iran, in which nearly a million
lives were lost on both sides," al-Dujaily said in his
tiny office on the ground floor of the former army
building. "After the invasion of Kuwait, it imposed
sanctions that did nothing to harm Saddam but killed
half a million Iraqi children."

al-Dujaily is a leader of the Iraqi communist Party.

[DTguitarist99]

Ah!!! And of course US companies will have big profits by rebuilding the damage that US itself inflicted. Of course, this is not imperialism?

No, imperialism would be adding Iraq to our empire, if we had one in the first place. Companies will take advantage of any opportunity. Rebuilding Iraq for oil is an opportunity. Even if Bush conspired with oil companies to create this business opportunity in Iraq, which he didn't, that would not make the US an empire. We would actually have to have long-term control over their resources, not just trade with them.

Actually these ´reports could be highly underestimated, since the collapse of Iraqi government let the country withouth a working health system, able to collect epidemiological data. Furthermore, they don´t include the so called latter mortality, described in NEJM

I see IraqBodyCount.com as the absolute maximum, since the site is run by anti-war liberals and if any higher body count were factual, they would post that.

In his autobiography, Colin Powell argues that it was better to allow Saddam remain in power, since he would be the least of the evils He also argues that the embrago would be useful to weaken Iraq. Better said, the US decided to allow Saddam to remain in charge and pusnish the Iraqi people as a whole

Colin Powell is not the same as the whole administration. He is very multilateral in his approach to world politics and he would not voluntarily go against the will of the international community. Right then the UN wanted to stop at liberating Kuwait, and not go further. So he is trying to come up with good reasons to leave Saddam in power other than its what the UN wants.

That´s hipocrisy. The US troops did nothing when the Iraqi Army crushed the Shiite rebellion in 1991. And the worst crimes of Saddam happened when he was a good allied of the US (and of the USSR too), including the killing of thousands of members of Iraqi communist party, an attrocity that probably was hailed by US conservatives.

A rebellion that we were sure would work without our help. We had already ended the war, and it we couldn't just jump back in immediately when we saw the Shiites being slaughtered. We should have, but that is a tough decision with many complicating factors that couldn't be decided on immediately.

A good ally or a useful weapon? Theres a difference. We were only using him as a weapon against the Iranian fundamentalist threat, not condoning his human rights violations. He would have committed those atrocities with or without our aid for his fight against the Iranians. Had we done nothing, Southern Iraq might have become a pro-Iranian Islamic fundamentalist state, which would have been just as oppressive as Saddam's regime, if not more.

-Given the dramatic increases of infant mortality and the dramatic economic regression (Iraqi GDP fell by 50-65%), hundreds of thousands of excess deaths are highly possible.

If there were so many deaths, why did Saddam parade dead children around who were not killed by sanctions and claim they were?

The oil for food program helped very little, because a modern economy needs to be able to import in other to keep its civilian infrastructure working.

No, it would have worked fine without Saddam manipulating it for his own purposes. It worked fine in non-Saddam controlled nothern Iraq.

Wrong, you could have limited the military equipments to be imported.

It shouldn't have mattered under a properly working oil-for-food program.

I didn't say that, you assumed it. All I'm saying is that you can debate the "morality" or "immorality" and "civilized" or "uncivilized" nature of actions taken by some "terrorists" all you want. However, it is a logical, and rational conclusion that when one is engaged in conflict with an adversary (in the traditional sense) you have to -- assuming you want to survive -- engage in tactics that are condusive to your survival.

So now Palestinians are "fighting for their survival" against the Israelis who want to kill them all? If Israel had wanted to do that, they would have done it already.

And the North Vietnamese army also terrorized citizens of South Vietnam and killed many of them. Moreover the North Vietnamese HAD a **STANDING ARMY** so the analogy is not analogous. Nevertheless, are you suggesting that it would be logical for the Palestinians to use their slingshots, rocks, and at best AK47's against the Israeli air force -- which coincidentally is one of the best in the world (talk about David + Goliath).

Some North Vietnamese and Vietcong used terrorism, but they won the war through guerilla attacks on American military. Palestinians could easily conduct a propaganda war to advance their cause without terrorism. Terrorism is the only thing thats preventing them from getting a state right now.

What is the difference between deliberately targeting civilians and targeting combatants with the full knowledge, that there is a high degree of probability, that you will kill civilians in the process?

The end result is exactly the same, dead children. The difference is, the powerful are able to use the "morally" upstanding terminology of "collateral damage" as opposed to "terrorism" to cloak their actions in the guise of morality.

Oh come on, this is ridiculous. So now 9/11 is morally equivalent to any war in which civilians die? Is the holocaust moreally equivalent to the US getting involved in WWII to stop Hitler, because both claimed millions of innocent lives?

By your reasoning, we should have just let Hitler take over the world because we would kill civilians in trying to stop him.

The left needs to stop its moral equivalence. It is nothing more than blatant apologism for evil.

About Palestine. Both sides are engaged in terrorism. I don't condemn Palestinian acts of terrorism, because their struggle is just and it's up to them to decide what methods they use. It's a matter of principle for me to support all genuine struggles of the oppressed peoples. But if I was a Palestinian, I'd support other techniques of warfare, because terrorism is ineffective and usually also harmful to their cause. If terror tactics were used more selectively (ie. only against military targets and Israeli authorities), maybe the grip of Zionism on the jew population wouldn't be so strong. I know the Palestinians are currently unable to wage a full-scale guerrilla war against Israel, but such acts as was the incident where Merkava III was blown up are always good practice and preparation for widening such more fruitfull (as compared to plain terrorism) activities.

Even more moral equivalence, great. People try so hard to be "fair" to both sides that they miss out on the truth. There is no moral equivalence between Israel and Palestine. Terrorism cannot be equated with reactions against terrorism that cause collateral damage. Ultimately the terrorists are responsible for the palestinians who die as a result of Israeli reactions to terror. They know that their actions will bring retaliation, which will result in palestinian deaths, which will further their anti-Israeli cause. The terrorist propaganda is getting to some of you people. Don't you understand that all the anti-Israeli sentiment around the world is a result of terrorist's cynical use of palestinian lives for propaganda? Any country would have done the same in Isreal's place. They all would have retaliated to terror. They all would have killed civilians by doing so. It all wouldn't have happened had the terrorists not perpetrated it.

[Demosthenes]

The left needs to stop its moral equivalence. It is nothing more than blatant apologism for evil.

Weh...he...hell this nice little statement and this one:

Even more moral equivalence, great. People try so hard to be "fair" to both sides that they miss out on the truth. There is no moral equivalence between Israel and Palestine. Terrorism cannot be equated with reactions against terrorism that cause collateral damage. Ultimately the terrorists are responsible for the palestinians who die as a result of Israeli reactions to terror. They know that their actions will bring retaliation, which will result in palestinian deaths, which will further their anti-Israeli cause. The terrorist propaganda is getting to some of you people. Don't you understand that all the anti-Israeli sentiment around the world is a result of terrorist's cynical use of palestinian lives for propaganda? Any country would have done the same in Isreal's place. They all would have retaliated to terror. They all would have killed civilians by doing so. It all wouldn't have happened had the terrorists not perpetrated it.

says it all. Very well spoken Izzy! Those comments are some of the best ones I've read on this forum.

To be fair I bought all the crap the Palistinians were selling too, until that event so many non-Americans are tired of hearing about. Yes I mean 9/11. Well, I didn't buy it completely but I did see this Israel/Palestinian problem as more of a two headed dragon until then.

Then after 9/11 I realized those poor bastards have been living with this crap since they came into existance. And we tell them to just take it! It hit home how unfair American policy can be to Israel. (I know except Izzy, most of you are gasping at my audacity) I mean, we get nailed once and we "unleash the beast" to prevent this from happening again, and yet we still ask Israel to bend over and take it, because "all the other countries might not like us anymore" Well to hell with them if they can't see doing nothing is wrong. Same ole' Neville Chamberlain-appeasement-in-the-name-of-peace-crap that they preached more than sixty years ago.

I couldn't have said it better myself, If this were happening to France or Germany, I bet they'd be #1 and #2 in line for the ass kicking contest. You all talk so much about American Hypocrisy...HA! Most of you cannot fathom real hypocrisy.

By the way GREAT avatar Izzy, don't change a thing!

[jaakko]

Even more moral equivalence, great. People try so hard to be "fair" to both sides that they miss out on the truth. There is no moral equivalence between Israel and Palestine. Terrorism cannot be equated with reactions against terrorism that cause collateral damage. Ultimately the terrorists are responsible for the palestinians who die as a result of Israeli reactions to terror.

That is the very same reasoning the fascists exercised among the populations of the occupied countries; "the reason for your suffering are these partisan activities (not occupation)". But the responsible was always the fascist invaders, while the struggle of the partisans was just.

The responsible is the settler-state of "Israel" and US which supports this artificial outpost. It's hypocritical to point at "Palestinian terrorism". The Zionists don't "react to terror", it reacts to all Palestinian struggle in general. Zionists are trying to demoralise Palestinian people in order to lower its willingness to fight. Sure, the Zionists don't like Palestinian terrorist attacks. But they would be even less happy to see organised guerrilla warfare. What really drives them berserk are guerrilla-style attacks on military targets. So, moving from terrorist tactics to other guerrilla tactics would only escalate the situation.

The terrorist propaganda is getting to some of you people. Don't you understand that all the anti-Israeli sentiment around the world is a result of terrorist's cynical use of palestinian lives for propaganda?

No. I would support Palestinians even if they didn't use terrorism.

Any country would have done the same in Isreal's place. They all would have retaliated to terror. They all would have killed civilians by doing so.

As I said, it's not about terror but Palestinian resistance in general. Surely my country would do the same... For example if our army was occupying areas belonging to the so-called 'Great-Finland' and if armed resistance on the part of the population would arise. It would be retaliated, irrespective of the forms of resistance. Our government tried to expand our borders between the years 1918-1944. Good it failed. All in all, our nation has been living where it belongs, and haven't settled in territories of other nations. The jews weren't even a nation when 'Israel' was established. Jews are living in all over the world. All they have in common is religion. Some are of the same race but that doesn't matter if we are to speak of nations and nation states not races and race-states.

It all wouldn't have happened had the terrorists not perpetrated it.

No, the "retaliation" would be even harsher if the Palestinians were able to wage effective guerrilla war. And they would be still called 'terrorists'.

[DayTripper]

Palestinians could easily conduct a propaganda war to advance their cause without terrorism. Terrorism is the only thing thats preventing them from getting a state right now.

That and the fact that Isreal is backed by the United States. They, meaning Isreal, are the worst "terrorists" of them all. Bulldozing houses, how do you justify that? At least the Palestinians are fighting for the land that was taken from them.

[Lt. Spoonman]

hey, IRA- your boys sold out! I have no respect for those pussies!!! Go suck some british dick - Tony Blair is GOD - SPOONMAN OUT