Almost all of the first British "human shields" to go to Iraq were on their way home Saturday after deciding that their much-heralded task was now too dangerous. Two red double-decker buses, which symbolised the hopes of anti-war activists when they arrived to a fanfare of publicity a fortnight ago, slipped quietly out of Baghdad on the long journey back to Britain, carrying most of the 11 protesters with them. Â Â
Nine out of the original 11 activists decided to pull out after being given an ultimatum by Iraqi officials to station themselves at targets likely to be bombed in a war or leave the country.
....
It heightened fears among some peace activists that they could be stationed at non-civilian sites. Meynell and fellow protesters who moved into the power station in south Baghdad last weekend were dismayed to find it stood immediately next to an army base and the strategically crucial road south to Basra.
Many shields had earlier asked to be stationed at sites such as schools, hospitals or orphanages, but Iraqi officials said there was little point in guarding low-risk targets in any aerial assault.
You were in SA and do not see the significance of this? Kept to the base again I guess. I do not know if things in SA are like in Korea. Surely none of the go-go girls hugging posts while GI's stuffed bills down their panties and copped a feel. Osan was full of these.
In many cultures, the moustache is a symbol of male macho and virility. Cursing anothers moustache is calling him a faggot and wuss. It is reason enough to kill.
In my own Tamil culture, twirling ones moustache is an affectation of the male staking his ground.
I bet the Iraqi chap was aiming those invectives at little boy bush.
(Stock film of the amy. Tanks rolling, troops moving forward etc. Stirring military music.)
Voice Over: In 1943, a group of British Army Officers working deep behind enemy lines, carried out one of the most dangerous and heroic raids in the history of warfare. But that's as maybe. And now . . .
(Superimposed Caption on Screen : 'AND NOW . . . UNOCCUPIED BRITAIN 1970 Cut to colond's office. Colond is seated at desk.)
Colonel: Come in, what do you want?
(Private Watkins enters and salutes.)
Watkins: I'd like to leave the army please, sir.
Colonel: Good heavens man, why?
Watkins: It's dangerous.
Colonel: What?
Watkins: There are people with guns out there, sir.
Colonel: What?
Watkins: Real guns, sir. Not toy ones, sir. Proper ones, sir. They've all got 'em. All of 'em, sir. And some of 'em have got tanks.
Colonel: Watkins, they are on our side.
Watkins: And grenades, sir. And machine guns, sir. So I'd like to leave, sir, before I get killed, please.
Colonel: Watkins, you've only been in the army a day.
Watkins: I know sir but people get killed, properly dead, sir, no barley cross fingers, sir. A bloke was telling me, if you're in the army and there's a war you have to go and fight.
Colonel: That's true.
Watkins: Well I mean, blimey, I mean if it was a big war somebody could be hurt.
Colonel: Watkins why did you join the army?
Watkins: For the water-skiing and for the travel, sir. And not for the killing, sir. I asked them to put it on my form, sir - no killing.
Colonel: Watkins are you a pacifist?
Watkins: No sir, l'm not a pacifist, sir. I'm a coward.
That's why I thought it was funny. I just always thought it was a wierd thing to have facial hair become such a symbol of machismo. I don't recall seeing any male in that region without one, their might have been a few but not that I can recall.
You are correct though, SA was about the only place we never really wondered off base much. It really was a stark contrast in cultures and they tolerated us at best. Oh they were all smiles if you were in a shop, but they weren't exactly warm to troops. We went to a few resturaunts and shops but that was about it. Otherwise we hung around. Now S.K, the Philipines or Okinawa,,,,,,Well that was a different story............., Ah to be young again :)
I was on the city train heading downtown in Kuala Lumpur last fall, near the university. A group of women wearing head scarves, but with their faces uncovered were standing near the door when the train stopped and a young woman got on who looked Chinese. She was dressed head to toe in designer clothes and I think she was carrying a bag from a boutique store.
THE UNITED States and its allies have come to the end of their dance with the United Nations Security Council.
Charter members France, Russia and China simply will not be convinced, persuaded or shamed into enforcing the council's resolution on Iraqi disarmament.
For weeks France has been brandishing its veto power on the council, vowing at Friday's meeting to block any attempt to forcibly disarm Iraq.
It's time to make the French, and the Russians and Chinese, if they're of a like mind, to cast that veto, to transform envy of American power reflected in France's rhetoric into action for all the world to see.
President Bush called for just such a defining moment in his nationally televised press conference Thursday night. "We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council," Bush said. "It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam."
If and when France decides it is a big enough world power to defy logic and history and oppose the United States for the sake of Saddam's murderous regime, the council's utility indeed will be known.
The United States then will do the right thing and proceed with its true friends to disarm Iraq's deadly dictator, setting the stage, as one pundit said, for the biggest "I told you so" moment in recent world history -- the discovery of Saddam's weapons stockpile, his chemical and biological agents.
These will prove what Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have said for weeks, that Iraqi deceptions should not deter free people from defending liberty.
"If we need to act, we will act," Bush said. "And we really don't need United Nations approval to do so ... When it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission."
TERRIFIED Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces - because they thought the war had already started.
The motley band of a dozen troops waved the white flag as British paratroopers tested their weapons during a routine exercise.
The stunned Paras from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender.
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times cited this phase, too.
"Fact," writes Friedman. "The invasion of Iraq today is not vital to American security. Saddam Hussein has neither the intention nor the capability to threaten America, and is easily deterrable if he did.
"This is not a war of necessity. That was Afghanistan. Iraq is a war of choice -- a legitimate choice to preserve the credability of the UN, which Saddam has defied for 12 years, and to destroy his tyranny and replace it with a decent regime that could drive reform in the Arab/Muslim world, That is the real case.
"The problem that Mr. Bush is having with the legitimate critics of this war stems from his consistent exaggeration on this point. Whem Mr. Bush takes a war of choice and turns it into a war of necessity people naturally ask: '"Hey, what's going on here? We're being hustled. The real reason must be his father, or oil or some right-wing ideology.
"And that brings us to the second phrase: "We really don't need anybody's permission. Again, for a war of no choice against the 9/11 terrorists in Kabul, we didn't need anyone's permission. But for a war of choice, we need the world's permission -- because of what it will take to rebuild Iraq.
"Mr. Bush talks only about why it's right to dismantle the bad Iraq...And alone, Americans will not have the patience, manpower and energy for nation-building, which is not a sprint, but a marathon."
But for a war of choice, we need the world's permission -- because of what it will take to rebuild Iraq.
And who will foot the bill for this? I know it won't be the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese or anyone else in the world. Most of it will be paid for by the U.S.A. and a small percentage by the allies that go with us.
"Mr. Bush talks only about why it's right to dismantle the bad Iraq...And alone, Americans will not have the patience, manpower and energy for nation-building, which is not a sprint, but a marathon."
Here we go with the America going it alone again. We have the support and backing of 95% of NATO and some 90 odd different countries helping us. Even if the U.N. signed on, what would be the percentage of U.S. troops going in be? When everthing is over the U.S. and the allies that go with us will rebuild Iraq. I for one hope we cut the French, Germans and Russians out of it. Let them thumb their noses at us and watch them grovel when they lose billions in investments.
Thomas Friedman idiot extrodinaire! The man is clueless.
"Let them thumb their noses at us and watch them grovel when they lose billions in investments."
Investments in what, pray tell?
I'd say Friedman has been around the world a few more times than you or I have. I thought he made several good points in that column. That's why I posted it. I think I can spot an idiot and he doesn't appear to me to be one.
Do you have any idea of the time or investment it may take in the aftermath of this war? I don't. I'm cynical enough to think that the American people would be quite satisfied with a massive initial strike, subsequent clean-up, installing a new government and high-tailing it out. They may demand it.
Not at all. Let Saddam's squandered wealth be used to actually improve the lives of the Iraqi people. And we should get *some* compensation for our costs.
his intransigence in the face of mounting criticism and resistance to his policies with regards to the importance of the U.N. in a "Global Community"
And exactly what has the U.N. done that is worth considering? The U.N. has been and always will be irrelivant.
his unabashed trashing of the Constitution and the right and importance of Congress to be the ONLY body to declare War...
Ever hear of House Resolution 114?
A plunder not unlike what will take place, once the powers that be get their hands on the Iraqi Oil Fields which they already have plans to snatch, FIRST, inititally to keep them from burning, but mostly, to HAVE them.
And once they have a functioning government again, they will be turned over to that government. This war for oil is BS.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to --
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
I disagree Bill. The only time you see U.N. peace keepers is after America has secured the problem. Even then the majority of peacekeepers are American soldiers. Bottom line is we are the U.N. in both man power and money, with out the U.S. the U.N. is nothing. In my opinion we should get out of the U.N.
BTW
We will not be going alone, at last count there was some 90 Countries on board with us for what we are going to do.
One minute you're blasting the admin for taking action "unilaterally" never mind there's 90 some countries for with a majority in NATO as well. You say he's blowing them off. well from the story you just posted it doesn't appear that they are. I forgot, it's a rush to war.
You said George has his "Gulf of Tokin" resolution. How do you compare the two ? The differences are vast.
You say that only congress has the ability to declare war. I might agree but precedence was set from Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somolia, Haiti, etc. War wasn't declared in 91 nor was it not declared in Afghanistan, should we have not gone then ? THe vote passed overwhemingly in 141, they knew exatly what they were voting for. Same with 1441 in the U.N.
The Pandora's Box is about to open WIDE, and thanks to YOUR President
I thought he was your too unless you recently moved.
But just for now, I can tell you that in the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis, it played THE key role in diffusing the situation and giving a platform for ALL sides a place to argue, disagree and, in the case of Stevenson, a place to call the Soviets on their LIES about placing those missiles IN Cuba, in the first place.
Hmmm, the difference Bill is that they did something about it. Powell did a very similar thing a few weeks back. See any difference ? Do you think we should not have acted alone if the U.N failed to do so ? The world and the U.N are vastly different today than they were in 62'. If you can tell me you honestly think Saddam is going to live up to his word so be it. If you can honestly tell me that you think they'll be upfront and honest about what they have so be it as well. The difference is that the U.N used to actually back up what it said. 17 resolutions and 12 years in this rash rush to war. How many more resolutions, chances and speeches are the right amount ? Why do you think Iraq even let inspectors back in ? The U.N ? Hardly, resolutions were used as royal T.P in Saddamns palaces. Gee I wonder why.
Bush is TRASHING the system we have all depended on for more than 50 years, as a court of last-resort in matters of War, and only NOW, under this President, has it become Impotent. Nice Job GDubbya!
You're right, it's all Bush's fault that the U.N is becoming impotent, it has nothing to do with 12 years of resolutions. It has nothing to do with the endless broken resolutions in that period. It has nothing to do with failure to act other times. It has nothing to do with the FEW countries holding out for their own interests as well. It has nothing to do appointing Syria and Lybia to the human rights comission. It has nothing to do with Iraq being on the nuke comittee. It has nothing to do with these same few nations and the U.N being mute on Korea, they are no where to be found and have no problem letting us deal with it. Then we aren't being unilatteralist. It has nothing to do with other times they've sat on the sidelines.
WASHINGTON Reading the papers from both sides of the Atlantic, I sometimes wonder whether the impending war is not between France and the United States. I would like to strongly reaffirm what, in the heart of the French people, is a long-standing reality: The friendship between France and America began in the early days of your fight for independence and has endured throughout the centuries. . America rescued my country twice in the last century - something we will never forget. Today we stand side by side in many parts of the world, including Afghanistan. France is the largest contributor of troops to NATO operations. Our friendship is a treasure, and it must be maintained, protected, enhanced.
Rick: The United States is one week away from taking a huge gamble, perhaps the biggest in the last half century
Why do you support an orginization that has become nothing but a bash America body? The decisions they make and the way they decide to "enforce" them has left the U.N. nothing but a joke. Do you think Saddam fears the U.N. or anything that comes out of the security council? No he fears the force ready to go in. I say lets give the inspections more time. We have over 250,000 "inspectors" ready to go and inspect. I bet they find a hell of a lot more then the inspectors that are there now and it would be final.
There's risk in anything we do and risk if we don't do anything. IMO we've tried the nothing or little route for a while. A few cruise missles here and there a harshly worded speech and the U.N passing a harshly worded speeech.
There's also risk for France, Germany and Belgium as well. They've staked thier claim. So be it. They've chosen sides. It's obvious to me that no matter what is/was found. No matter the increased violations, delay and stalling that I can honestly see no time when they'd apporve of going in.
I know you love France. I don't wish any harm upon them ever, I just disagree vehemently with their posisitions. I disagree with their motives.
Currently selling MIG parts to Iraq doesn't exactly help the case either IMO.
You mean like the drones that Blix glossed over in his report to the security council? Or maybe the cluster bomb that are used for chem/bio weapons that they found?
What I find funny is how no one goes after Iraq for these things. These should have been declared and just shows EVEN FURTHER breach of U.N. resolutions.
Like I just said to Rick, I get the feeling that no matter what's found it wouldn't matter and we'd here the same thing. Rush to war, a war about oil, give it more time, see it's working yadda yadda yadda. I said months ago I think to you that unless they break into a secret lair with Saddamm with his hands on the button via James Bond and Al Jezzera films it, it won't matter. Wouldn't want to hurt that trade contract. Oh wait, I forgot we're the bad guy.
History will be the ultimate judge. "Polls" and people worldwide were against taking out Germany. The public was against the civil war. Fortunately we aren't ruled by polls. Polls are innacurate and can be skewed. I wa called about a month ago for a poll. I can't remember the organization but I hadn't heard of it. The questions were posed this way. Do you you support militay action in Iraq ? (yes). Do you support military action if the U.S acts alone or without international approval ? (I answered yes) I also said what do you define as alone ? She said she couldn't really say. What do you define as international approval ? Same answer See how easily that's skewed ? O.K 90 some nations in favor yet a few might veto it through the U.N and that's not international approval ? In my opinion it is but that's why they're a joke. And that's why I am thankfull we have a president who doesn't rule by which way the wind is blowing one week to the next. Abraham Lincoln was right about polls.
So, if the Middle East explodes from this war, it's the right thing to do? It will become just a matter or continued escalation to match the threat and the hostilities?
You want to be in Tel Aviv next week, Rob? How about Ankara? What happens if Chicago becomes the new Tel Aviv, or Atlanta? Busiest airports in the world.
What happens if Israel retalliates? There's lots of people who think that hanging back in the last war was a profound mistake for Israel.
There's a million scenario's Rick. I read some quotes from some people that said the same thing in 91'. Is it possible to make things worse than they already are in the M.E ? Possibly. To me despotic regimes and fanatacism allowed to fester pose the greater threat. What I mean is that looking ahead or down the road I see that inaction that brought us 9-11. It's not an indictment of any one past administration. They all thought they were doing what was best at the time. The gift of highinsight is great. This is new territory for everyone concerned.
Doomsday scenario's are everwhere and understandibly. It's easy to predict or think of all that could happen. Do you think if we do nothing they'll suddenly see the error of their ways and send flowers ?
What I do not see or hear discussed much are the possiblities of it working. Democracy and benign leaders in this region are a rareity. From that locale, it very well could bloom if done correctly. From everything I've seen I believe that rogue's and extremists see us as being soft. We've given them every reason to believe so in the past on many occasions starting with the Marine barracks bombing in 83'. To Somolia to he Cole etc. Kill a few Americans and they'll pull out. I've heard many of that ilk sport that mantra and belief.
It's understandable to be afraid of the consequencees and consider them no doubt. It would be irresponsible not to. Perhaps though we've learned some lessons about leaving and also leaving before the real work was done. It's a fine balance of help vs. hinderance or staying too long.
It's also though our fear of what could or might happen that could very well paralyze us and start a pattern of leaving when the stakes are high and the risks great. It doesn't mean you war with anyone opposed or who presents a risk. Of course not. It's a simplistic argument of those who say "well are we going to go into every country"? Of course not, for one the political price is high obviously. The American public can be pretty discerning sometimes. They aren't given enough credit. Most importantly Rick I think that each situation is unique. Each culture, leader, nation and political climate all come into play. So they each must be dealt with accordingly and very differently in many cases. A daunting task no doubt, however, again what are the consequences of inaction ?
I personally think that inaction is the easy way out. It is politically, morally and internationally. Obviously it would be given today's climate. Do I think that it's the wrong decision ? No, I don't. As much as I would love to not be having this conversation about an impending war I haven't heard a plausible solution to dealing with Saddamm other than having him step aside and given asylum. Other than that, there's plenty of what if's and diatribe and rhetoric but few realistic solutions.
I'm sure we would have had this exact same conversation if in August of 01' We were talking about invading Afghanistan to oust this guy nobody had heard of. I'm sure the arguments would have been similar. What threat is he ? C'mon what's one nutty guy and some followers going to do ? He hasn't invaded anyone, hell we helped Afghanistan against the Russians so why go in ? It could ignite the extremist parts of the Muslim world against us. Trouble was, they already were, we just didn't know it. We paid a hell of a price for that peace. But hey, everyone loved us, the staus quo went on and nobody wanted to upset the apple cart.
My opposition to the war on Iraq is echoed by this gentleman perfectly. Will try to post the transcript later - but please listen to the audio clip - and ruminate
In the latest in a series of commentaries on the subject of a possible war, commentator and retired Col. Mike Turner says he fears a worst-case scenario in a U.S. strike on Iraq -- hand-to-hand street battles in Baghdad, terrorist attacks at home and further nuclear development from North Korea. Turner was Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf's personal briefing officer during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
One afternoon, in Vancouver I saw a group of men who looked Arab line up in front of the Pan Pacific hotel. They carried some signs. I don't know what they were protesting.
The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a made up incident. That's the difference. Unless you're saying we planted bio and chem weapons and made it up as the Gulf of Tonkin.
However, the latter was NOT meant to give him wide powers to make war on foreign soil,
Really ? From HJ Res 114. "a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --
"(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and"
"(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Yea, That wasn't meant to give him any powers over using force.
HE has caused the rift between us and the French.
Right Bill, France is just doing the right thing. It has nothing to do with thier power or lack of it. It has nothing to do with oil for them, it has nothing to do with billions of dollars in trade at stake. It has nothing to do with a 10% Muslim population that is at odds with the French govt. and Chirac having all kinds of problems already from within. And oh one more thing, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the French selling parts STILL to the Iraqi's for thier aircraft. You know those pesky little jets that will go into battle against our troops. I really wish Bush would be nicer to France.
HE has mistaken their intentions and ruined a centuries old Alliance and Friendship. HE is responsible for the turmoil in our inability to find agreement with our traditional allies and he has BAD advisors surrounding him, and an "It's what God told me to do" self-righteous and selfish persistence in the path HE has chosen.
Yea, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, what washed up hacks and bad advisors. Before that the French were just lovey dovey, Like that time when they refused our aircraft to even fly over their country when we went after Kadahfi. True friends show their stuff when they're needed the most, but you're right, it's Georges fault. Oh and you know pesronally that Bush hasn't talked to Chirac in 6 weeks ? Yea those traditional allies, Great. 90 countries to what 7-10 opposed?
In any case, the current coalition that GDubbya and you brag about, and as you are also so proud to mention here, is a coalition of nations that for the most part, have been Bought Off(Bribed), and they will be Fair-Weathered Allies at BEST,
You mean like the French ? Talk about fair weathered, LOL. Yea let's not upset them though, they 've been such good allies as of late. I got news for you Bill, Any time a coalition is put toghether their's pay-offs. It was in 91' it was in Kosovo etc. etc. You're kidding yourself if you think it's only this time.
and useless at worst, since all but the British will send NO troops, No Weapons and in fact, little to ANY help or support at all.
But damn if we just had France and Germany, The Germans have hardly a military and as for the French, well I think that's been covered.
We have tried paying of the Turks too, but they didn't go for it.
Might wan't to check the latest on that. A new leader was elected. And we already have some troops there.
Some Coalition-Builder this guy is.
Yea, all those countries, that whole NATO majority. pffft.Fact is that the number of countries who oppose action are ALOT less than those who support us. Wouldn't want to let that get in the way of debate though. Man if we just had France and Germany, we could win. Screw the fact that 90% of Europe's countries support us. That whole 90% of Europe, who cares.
I can certainly see for myself how much support GDubbya has lost in his crusade to invade a nation that most citizens are against invading without the help and consent of the U.N.(See any poll you want)
Losing support ? You know how I feel about polls but since you seem to quote them or point to them often I looked. So let's see Bush losing support. Oh, here found this one.
Poll: Losing Patience With The U.N.
Two-thirds of the public approves of military action against Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power, about the same number as has supported action in every CBS News Poll conducted since last fall.
Losing support ? It's the opposite.
U.S. SHOULD:
Take military action soon:
Now  44%
Last Week  35%
Give Inspectors more time:
Now  52% Last week  60%
IRAQI THREAT:
Requires military action now:
Now  50% Last week  45%
Can be contained:
Now  41% Last week  43%
most citizens are against invading without the help and consent of the U.N.(See any poll you want)
From the same poll.
Overall:
Approve  66% Disapprove  30%
Without U.N. approval:
Approve  55% Disapprove
That's CBS' newest poll by the way. Damn right wing news organizations.
Here's another Poll Bill. This ones from those radicals over at ABC.
It's also their newest one.
The bottom line, nonetheless, is that 59 percent do support administration policy on Iraq, while 37 percent oppose it. That's in response to a question — unlike previous ABCNEWS/Washington Post measurements — that summarizes the policy's main features: Moving soon against Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein, by war if necessary, working with countries that are willing to assist, even without the support of the United Nations.
What if the UN Security Council votes against the U.S.‑sponsored resolution to take military action against Iraq? Would you approve or disapprove of the U.S. taking military action against Iraq to try to remove Saddam Hussein from power without UN approval?”
Approve Disap-prove Don't Know                  % % %  ALL 55 41 4
Republicans 73 23 4 Â Democrats 42 55 3 Â Independents 52 44 4
Great Britain is willing to participate in a joint action with the United States against Iraq, but some countries, like France and Russia, oppose military action at this time. Under these circumstances, would you favor or oppose the U.S. taking military action against Iraq?"
Favor Oppose Don't Know            % % % 3/4-5/03 53 42 5
Human Shields leave for safety reasons
LOL!
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/3/3/1199/99882
....
Maybe they originally thought of it as the Ultimate Extreme Sport.
If they came back alive, they probably figured it would be a good way to meet girls. Imagine the talk around the pub.
"Yeah. I was a human shield in Baghdad. "
Luv2Fly 3/5/03 12:55pm- He also cursed his moustache.
You were in SA and do not see the significance of this? Kept to the base again I guess. I do not know if things in SA are like in Korea. Surely none of the go-go girls hugging posts while GI's stuffed bills down their panties and copped a feel. Osan was full of these.
In many cultures, the moustache is a symbol of male macho and virility. Cursing anothers moustache is calling him a faggot and wuss. It is reason enough to kill.
In my own Tamil culture, twirling ones moustache is an affectation of the male staking his ground.
I bet the Iraqi chap was aiming those invectives at little boy bush.
Ok, he's a pacifist, and he joined the Army?
Reminds me of a Python scetch.....
(Stock film of the amy. Tanks rolling, troops moving forward etc. Stirring military music.)
Voice Over: In 1943, a group of British Army Officers working deep behind enemy lines, carried out one of the most dangerous and heroic raids in the history of warfare. But that's as maybe. And now . . .
(Superimposed Caption on Screen : 'AND NOW . . . UNOCCUPIED BRITAIN 1970 Cut to colond's office. Colond is seated at desk.)
Colonel: Come in, what do you want?
(Private Watkins enters and salutes.)
Watkins: I'd like to leave the army please, sir.
Colonel: Good heavens man, why?
Watkins: It's dangerous.
Colonel: What?
Watkins: There are people with guns out there, sir.
Colonel: What?
Watkins: Real guns, sir. Not toy ones, sir. Proper ones, sir. They've all got 'em. All of 'em, sir. And some of 'em have got tanks.
Colonel: Watkins, they are on our side.
Watkins: And grenades, sir. And machine guns, sir. So I'd like to leave, sir, before I get killed, please.
Colonel: Watkins, you've only been in the army a day.
Watkins: I know sir but people get killed, properly dead, sir, no barley cross fingers, sir. A bloke was telling me, if you're in the army and there's a war you have to go and fight.
Colonel: That's true.
Watkins: Well I mean, blimey, I mean if it was a big war somebody could be hurt.
Colonel: Watkins why did you join the army?
Watkins: For the water-skiing and for the travel, sir. And not for the killing, sir. I asked them to put it on my form, sir - no killing.
Colonel: Watkins are you a pacifist?
Watkins: No sir, l'm not a pacifist, sir. I'm a coward.
Colonel: That's a very silly line. Sit down.
Watkins: Yes sir. Silly, sir. (sits in corner)
Colonel: Awfully bad.
Naradar,
That's why I thought it was funny. I just always thought it was a wierd thing to have facial hair become such a symbol of machismo. I don't recall seeing any male in that region without one, their might have been a few but not that I can recall.
You are correct though, SA was about the only place we never really wondered off base much. It really was a stark contrast in cultures and they tolerated us at best. Oh they were all smiles if you were in a shop, but they weren't exactly warm to troops. We went to a few resturaunts and shops but that was about it. Otherwise we hung around. Now S.K, the Philipines or Okinawa,,,,,,Well that was a different story............., Ah to be young again :)
I was on the city train heading downtown in Kuala Lumpur last fall, near the university. A group of women wearing head scarves, but with their faces uncovered were standing near the door when the train stopped and a young woman got on who looked Chinese. She was dressed head to toe in designer clothes and I think she was carrying a bag from a boutique store.
She wore a strong fragrance.
The women in head scarves stared daggers at her.
Rick 3/6/03 11:22am
I saw that exact look many times, sent chills up my spine. That's the exact reason I never ventured out much when in the M.E.
THE UNITED States and its allies have come to the end of their dance with the United Nations Security Council.
Charter members France, Russia and China simply will not be convinced, persuaded or shamed into enforcing the council's resolution on Iraqi disarmament.
For weeks France has been brandishing its veto power on the council, vowing at Friday's meeting to block any attempt to forcibly disarm Iraq.
It's time to make the French, and the Russians and Chinese, if they're of a like mind, to cast that veto, to transform envy of American power reflected in France's rhetoric into action for all the world to see.
President Bush called for just such a defining moment in his nationally televised press conference Thursday night. "We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council," Bush said. "It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam."
If and when France decides it is a big enough world power to defy logic and history and oppose the United States for the sake of Saddam's murderous regime, the council's utility indeed will be known.
The United States then will do the right thing and proceed with its true friends to disarm Iraq's deadly dictator, setting the stage, as one pundit said, for the biggest "I told you so" moment in recent world history -- the discovery of Saddam's weapons stockpile, his chemical and biological agents.
These will prove what Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have said for weeks, that Iraqi deceptions should not deter free people from defending liberty.
"If we need to act, we will act," Bush said. "And we really don't need United Nations approval to do so ... When it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission."
TERRIFIED Iraqi soldiers have crossed the Kuwait border and tried to surrender to British forces - because they thought the war had already started.
The motley band of a dozen troops waved the white flag as British paratroopers tested their weapons during a routine exercise.
The stunned Paras from 16 Air Assault Brigade were forced to tell the Iraqis they were not firing at them, and ordered them back to their home country telling them it was too early to surrender.
Iraq Troops Surrender
LOL! Mother of all battles my ......
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times cited this phase, too.
"Fact," writes Friedman. "The invasion of Iraq today is not vital to American security. Saddam Hussein has neither the intention nor the capability to threaten America, and is easily deterrable if he did.
"This is not a war of necessity. That was Afghanistan. Iraq is a war of choice -- a legitimate choice to preserve the credability of the UN, which Saddam has defied for 12 years, and to destroy his tyranny and replace it with a decent regime that could drive reform in the Arab/Muslim world, That is the real case.
"The problem that Mr. Bush is having with the legitimate critics of this war stems from his consistent exaggeration on this point. Whem Mr. Bush takes a war of choice and turns it into a war of necessity people naturally ask: '"Hey, what's going on here? We're being hustled. The real reason must be his father, or oil or some right-wing ideology.
"And that brings us to the second phrase: "We really don't need anybody's permission. Again, for a war of no choice against the 9/11 terrorists in Kabul, we didn't need anyone's permission. But for a war of choice, we need the world's permission -- because of what it will take to rebuild Iraq.
"Mr. Bush talks only about why it's right to dismantle the bad Iraq...And alone, Americans will not have the patience, manpower and energy for nation-building, which is not a sprint, but a marathon."
But for a war of choice, we need the world's permission -- because of what it will take to rebuild Iraq.
And who will foot the bill for this? I know it won't be the French, Germans, Russians, Chinese or anyone else in the world. Most of it will be paid for by the U.S.A. and a small percentage by the allies that go with us.
"Mr. Bush talks only about why it's right to dismantle the bad Iraq...And alone, Americans will not have the patience, manpower and energy for nation-building, which is not a sprint, but a marathon."
Here we go with the America going it alone again. We have the support and backing of 95% of NATO and some 90 odd different countries helping us. Even if the U.N. signed on, what would be the percentage of U.S. troops going in be? When everthing is over the U.S. and the allies that go with us will rebuild Iraq. I for one hope we cut the French, Germans and Russians out of it. Let them thumb their noses at us and watch them grovel when they lose billions in investments.
Thomas Friedman idiot extrodinaire! The man is clueless.
"Let them thumb their noses at us and watch them grovel when they lose billions in investments."
Investments in what, pray tell?
I'd say Friedman has been around the world a few more times than you or I have. I thought he made several good points in that column. That's why I posted it. I think I can spot an idiot and he doesn't appear to me to be one.
Do you have any idea of the time or investment it may take in the aftermath of this war? I don't. I'm cynical enough to think that the American people would be quite satisfied with a massive initial strike, subsequent clean-up, installing a new government and high-tailing it out. They may demand it.
But that's a sprint and not a marathon.
I think we should take the cost of rebuilding Iraq from Iraq.
Destrorying a country's infrastructure and taking its wealth to rebuild.
Isn't that a tad imperialistic? Possibly theft?
Not at all. Let Saddam's squandered wealth be used to actually improve the lives of the Iraqi people. And we should get *some* compensation for our costs.
The United States and Britain destroy Iraq's capital city, and, for their trouble, confiscate the country's wealth.
That's like something Franz Kafka would write.
That's not compensation, it's plunder.
his intransigence in the face of mounting criticism and resistance to his policies with regards to the importance of the U.N. in a "Global Community"
And exactly what has the U.N. done that is worth considering? The U.N. has been and always will be irrelivant.
his unabashed trashing of the Constitution and the right and importance of Congress to be the ONLY body to declare War...
Ever hear of House Resolution 114?
A plunder not unlike what will take place, once the powers that be get their hands on the Iraqi Oil Fields which they already have plans to snatch, FIRST, inititally to keep them from burning, but mostly, to HAVE them.
And once they have a functioning government again, they will be turned over to that government. This war for oil is BS.
HJ Res 114
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to --
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
And this was signed by a majority of Congress.
The news has been repleat with people who have said they would NOT vote for that House resolution today.
Then why did they vote for it then? It is pretty specific on Iraq.
I disagree Bill. The only time you see U.N. peace keepers is after America has secured the problem. Even then the majority of peacekeepers are American soldiers. Bottom line is we are the U.N. in both man power and money, with out the U.S. the U.N. is nothing. In my opinion we should get out of the U.N.
BTW
We will not be going alone, at last count there was some 90 Countries on board with us for what we are going to do.
Bill,
Your last few posts are puzzling.
One minute you're blasting the admin for taking action "unilaterally" never mind there's 90 some countries for with a majority in NATO as well. You say he's blowing them off. well from the story you just posted it doesn't appear that they are. I forgot, it's a rush to war.
You said George has his "Gulf of Tokin" resolution. How do you compare the two ? The differences are vast.
You say that only congress has the ability to declare war. I might agree but precedence was set from Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somolia, Haiti, etc. War wasn't declared in 91 nor was it not declared in Afghanistan, should we have not gone then ? THe vote passed overwhemingly in 141, they knew exatly what they were voting for. Same with 1441 in the U.N.
I thought he was your too unless you recently moved.
Hmmm, the difference Bill is that they did something about it. Powell did a very similar thing a few weeks back. See any difference ? Do you think we should not have acted alone if the U.N failed to do so ? The world and the U.N are vastly different today than they were in 62'. If you can tell me you honestly think Saddam is going to live up to his word so be it. If you can honestly tell me that you think they'll be upfront and honest about what they have so be it as well. The difference is that the U.N used to actually back up what it said. 17 resolutions and 12 years in this rash rush to war. How many more resolutions, chances and speeches are the right amount ? Why do you think Iraq even let inspectors back in ? The U.N ? Hardly, resolutions were used as royal T.P in Saddamns palaces. Gee I wonder why.
You're right, it's all Bush's fault that the U.N is becoming impotent, it has nothing to do with 12 years of resolutions. It has nothing to do with the endless broken resolutions in that period. It has nothing to do with failure to act other times. It has nothing to do with the FEW countries holding out for their own interests as well. It has nothing to do appointing Syria and Lybia to the human rights comission. It has nothing to do with Iraq being on the nuke comittee. It has nothing to do with these same few nations and the U.N being mute on Korea, they are no where to be found and have no problem letting us deal with it. Then we aren't being unilatteralist. It has nothing to do with other times they've sat on the sidelines.
It's Bush's fault.
A letter from France's ambassador to the United States, JeanDavid Levitte
A friendly warning
WASHINGTON Reading the papers from both sides of the Atlantic, I sometimes wonder whether the impending war is not between France and the United States. I would like to strongly reaffirm what, in the heart of the French people, is a long-standing reality: The friendship between France and America began in the early days of your fight for independence and has endured throughout the centuries.
.
America rescued my country twice in the last century - something we will never forget. Today we stand side by side in many parts of the world, including Afghanistan. France is the largest contributor of troops to NATO operations. Our friendship is a treasure, and it must be maintained, protected, enhanced.
Rick: The United States is one week away from taking a huge gamble, perhaps the biggest in the last half century
Bill,
Why do you support an orginization that has become nothing but a bash America body? The decisions they make and the way they decide to "enforce" them has left the U.N. nothing but a joke. Do you think Saddam fears the U.N. or anything that comes out of the security council? No he fears the force ready to go in. I say lets give the inspections more time. We have over 250,000 "inspectors" ready to go and inspect. I bet they find a hell of a lot more then the inspectors that are there now and it would be final.
Wolvie 3/10/03 3:58pm
BTW they found more banned stuff. Let's give them just one more chance.
"I bet they find a hell of a lot more then the inspectors that are there now and it would be final."
Let's all hope it's final.
I'm traveling by air March 17. It's happened three times that I'm traveling when all hell breaks loose.
Maybe the military is planning their attacks to go with you travel schedule? =)
Rick,
There's risk in anything we do and risk if we don't do anything.
IMO we've tried the nothing or little route for a while. A few cruise missles here and there a harshly worded speech and the U.N passing a harshly worded speeech.
There's also risk for France, Germany and Belgium as well. They've staked thier claim. So be it. They've chosen sides. It's obvious to me that no matter what is/was found. No matter the increased violations, delay and stalling that I can honestly see no time when they'd apporve of going in.
I know you love France. I don't wish any harm upon them ever, I just disagree vehemently with their posisitions. I disagree with their motives.
Currently selling MIG parts to Iraq doesn't exactly help the case either IMO.
L2F,
You mean like the drones that Blix glossed over in his report to the security council? Or maybe the cluster bomb that are used for chem/bio weapons that they found?
What I find funny is how no one goes after Iraq for these things. These should have been declared and just shows EVEN FURTHER breach of U.N. resolutions.
Wolvie 3/10/03 4:08pm
Like I just said to Rick, I get the feeling that no matter what's found it wouldn't matter and we'd here the same thing. Rush to war, a war about oil, give it more time, see it's working yadda yadda yadda. I said months ago I think to you that unless they break into a secret lair with Saddamm with his hands on the button via James Bond and Al Jezzera films it, it won't matter. Wouldn't want to hurt that trade contract. Oh wait, I forgot we're the bad guy.
History will be the ultimate judge. "Polls" and people worldwide were against taking out Germany. The public was against the civil war. Fortunately we aren't ruled by polls. Polls are innacurate and can be skewed. I wa called about a month ago for a poll. I can't remember the organization but I hadn't heard of it. The questions were posed this way. Do you you support militay action in Iraq ? (yes). Do you support military action if the U.S acts alone or without international approval ? (I answered yes) I also said what do you define as alone ? She said she couldn't really say. What do you define as international approval ? Same answer See how easily that's skewed ? O.K 90 some nations in favor yet a few might veto it through the U.N and that's not international approval ? In my opinion it is but that's why they're a joke. And that's why I am thankfull we have a president who doesn't rule by which way the wind is blowing one week to the next. Abraham Lincoln was right about polls.
So, if the Middle East explodes from this war, it's the right thing to do? It will become just a matter or continued escalation to match the threat and the hostilities?
You want to be in Tel Aviv next week, Rob? How about Ankara? What happens if Chicago becomes the new Tel Aviv, or Atlanta? Busiest airports in the world.
What happens if Israel retalliates? There's lots of people who think that hanging back in the last war was a profound mistake for Israel.
Rick 3/10/03 5:31pm
There's a million scenario's Rick. I read some quotes from some people that said the same thing in 91'. Is it possible to make things worse than they already are in the M.E ? Possibly. To me despotic regimes and fanatacism allowed to fester pose the greater threat. What I mean is that looking ahead or down the road I see that inaction that brought us 9-11. It's not an indictment of any one past administration. They all thought they were doing what was best at the time. The gift of highinsight is great. This is new territory for everyone concerned.
Doomsday scenario's are everwhere and understandibly. It's easy to predict or think of all that could happen. Do you think if we do nothing they'll suddenly see the error of their ways and send flowers ?
What I do not see or hear discussed much are the possiblities of it working. Democracy and benign leaders in this region are a rareity. From that locale, it very well could bloom if done correctly. From everything I've seen I believe that rogue's and extremists see us as being soft. We've given them every reason to believe so in the past on many occasions starting with the Marine barracks bombing in 83'. To Somolia to he Cole etc. Kill a few Americans and they'll pull out. I've heard many of that ilk sport that mantra and belief.
It's understandable to be afraid of the consequencees and consider them no doubt. It would be irresponsible not to. Perhaps though we've learned some lessons about leaving and also leaving before the real work was done. It's a fine balance of help vs. hinderance or staying too long.
It's also though our fear of what could or might happen that could very well paralyze us and start a pattern of leaving when the stakes are high and the risks great. It doesn't mean you war with anyone opposed or who presents a risk. Of course not. It's a simplistic argument of those who say "well are we going to go into every country"? Of course not, for one the political price is high obviously. The American public can be pretty discerning sometimes. They aren't given enough credit. Most importantly Rick I think that each situation is unique. Each culture, leader, nation and political climate all come into play. So they each must be dealt with accordingly and very differently in many cases. A daunting task no doubt, however, again what are the consequences of inaction ?
I personally think that inaction is the easy way out. It is politically, morally and internationally. Obviously it would be given today's climate. Do I think that it's the wrong decision ? No, I don't. As much as I would love to not be having this conversation about an impending war I haven't heard a plausible solution to dealing with Saddamm other than having him step aside and given asylum. Other than that, there's plenty of what if's and diatribe and rhetoric but few realistic solutions.
I'm sure we would have had this exact same conversation if in August of 01' We were talking about invading Afghanistan to oust this guy nobody had heard of. I'm sure the arguments would have been similar. What threat is he ? C'mon what's one nutty guy and some followers going to do ? He hasn't invaded anyone, hell we helped Afghanistan against the Russians so why go in ? It could ignite the extremist parts of the Muslim world against us. Trouble was, they already were, we just didn't know it. We paid a hell of a price for that peace. But hey, everyone loved us, the staus quo went on and nobody wanted to upset the apple cart.
Here's one soldier's take:
http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/editorial/5357279.htm
Of course, it's about oil. And there's no need to deny it. Oil's part of the equation. So what?
The soldier makes that case it's about freeing the poor, oppressed Iraqi people.
That's nice, but it's not the reason the United States finds it in its interest to do this.
It's talk like that that clouds makes people suspect there's other motives for this war.
Oh, I get it, he lied.
How do you lie about your opinion? It's his opinion.
Do you think the movement of oil at market prices is not a reason for this war?
Because it is, does that somehow taint the motiviation?
My opposition to the war on Iraq is echoed by this gentleman perfectly. Will try to post the transcript later - but please listen to the audio clip - and ruminate
In the latest in a series of commentaries on the subject of a possible war, commentator and retired Col. Mike Turner says he fears a worst-case scenario in a U.S. strike on Iraq -- hand-to-hand street battles in Baghdad, terrorist attacks at home and further nuclear development from North Korea. Turner was Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf's personal briefing officer during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
An audio link will be found here
http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1188587
"Let the U.N. inspectors do their job first" is the chant of the protesters."
That falls under the heading of "chants we don't think were chanted."
Not very catchy, is it?
One afternoon, in Vancouver I saw a group of men who looked Arab line up in front of the Pan Pacific hotel. They carried some signs. I don't know what they were protesting.
They started chanting :
"Hey, hey, ho, ho -- stop terrorism."
That didn't exactly trip off the tongue.
Bill,
The Gulf of Tonkin resolution was a made up incident. That's the difference. Unless you're saying we planted bio and chem weapons and made it up as the Gulf of Tonkin.
Really ? From HJ Res 114. "a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to --
"(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and"
"(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
Yea, That wasn't meant to give him any powers over using force.
Right Bill, France is just doing the right thing. It has nothing to do with thier power or lack of it. It has nothing to do with oil for them, it has nothing to do with billions of dollars in trade at stake. It has nothing to do with a 10% Muslim population that is at odds with the French govt. and Chirac having all kinds of problems already from within. And oh one more thing, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the French selling parts STILL to the Iraqi's for thier aircraft. You know those pesky little jets that will go into battle against our troops. I really wish Bush would be nicer to France.
Yea, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, what washed up hacks and bad advisors.
Before that the French were just lovey dovey, Like that time when they refused our aircraft to even fly over their country when we went after Kadahfi. True friends show their stuff when they're needed the most, but you're right, it's Georges fault. Oh and you know pesronally that Bush hasn't talked to Chirac in 6 weeks ? Yea those traditional allies, Great. 90 countries to what 7-10 opposed?
You mean like the French ? Talk about fair weathered, LOL. Yea let's not upset them though, they 've been such good allies as of late. I got news for you Bill, Any time a coalition is put toghether their's pay-offs. It was in 91' it was in Kosovo etc. etc. You're kidding yourself if you think it's only this time.
But damn if we just had France and Germany, The Germans have hardly a military and as for the French, well I think that's been covered.
Might wan't to check the latest on that. A new leader was elected. And we already have some troops there.
Yea, all those countries, that whole NATO majority. pffft.Fact is that the number of countries who oppose action are ALOT less than those who support us. Wouldn't want to let that get in the way of debate though. Man if we just had France and Germany, we could win. Screw the fact that 90% of Europe's countries support us. That whole 90% of Europe, who cares.
Luv2Fly 3/11/03 7:57am
Screw the fact that 90% of Europe's countries support us. That whole 90% of Europe, who cares.
Oh really?? Countries have people in them you know. Not just warmongering leaders.
Bill,
Losing support ? You know how I feel about polls but since you seem to quote them or point to them often I looked. So let's see Bush losing support. Oh, here found this one.
Losing support ? It's the opposite.
U.S. SHOULD:
Take military action soon:
Now
 44%
Last Week
 35%
Give Inspectors more time:
Now
 52%
Last week
 60%
IRAQI THREAT:
Requires military action now:
Now
 50%
Last week
 45%
Can be contained:
Now
 41%
Last week
 43%
From the same poll.
Overall:
Approve
 66%
Disapprove
 30%
Without U.N. approval:
Approve
 55%
Disapprove
That's CBS' newest poll by the way. Damn right wing news organizations.
Naradar 3/11/03 8:04am
That's why it's called being a leader.
Here's another Poll Bill. This ones from those radicals over at ABC.
It's also their newest one.
Approve Disap-prove Don't Know
                 % % %
 ALL 55 41 4
Republicans 73 23 4
 Democrats 42 55 3
 Independents 52 44 4
Favor Oppose Don't Know
           % % %
3/4-5/03 53 42 5
Luv2Fly 3/11/03 8:43am
I believe 90% of the Arab world would endorse bombing the U.S. With that kind of approval rating, dont you think they should be doing something?
They already did.
90% of legitimate Arab governments would not endorse bombing the U.S.
Which Arab government would qualify as legitimate ?
The last I heard, democracy was still an alien concept to all but a handful of countries in West Asia.
Hey, how many WAR boards does this site need? Dang!