|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-08 22:50:57
I believe, the original plan was right. The attack was supposed to be on terrorist camps and organizations including the Taliban. I do believe, however, that the Americans got carried away or are just plain inept. There were too many "mistaken targets: too many innocent villages, villagers attack only because one was tall; too much "collateral damage" including our Canadian soldiers. Either the American Military is completely inept or ruthless and callous.
Then they suddenly left without completing their objectives. Off for easier pickings? They have left the roots of the terrorism problem to grow.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 06:34:00
I think there is a problem, and its very difficult to see which one is right... There will always be civilian deaths in a war, a 'clean' war does not exist... Those who say clean wars exist are idealists. The goal is to make sure there are the least deaths as possible...
Now put yourself in the place of a general(? - the military boss whatever they call him)... You have several options:
1) Classical war, with air support when attacking clearly defined ennemies (the front). This is the longest route, and may cause the most deaths on both sides of the conflict (albeit mostly military).
2a) Air patrols, guided by Special Forces which act on intelligence reports to try to kill (or disable) all leaders and command and control to shorten the war. The intelligence reports might not all be true, so sometimes they bomb someplaces where they should not. There can be civilian deaths here.
2b) Pilots of aircraft can decide to engage and destroy any target that seem reasonable they see without any clear and real picture of the target. Here there can be civilian deaths.
I think the Americans did #2a and #2b in Afghanistan, while leaving the ground assault for special Forces and Northern Alliance soldiers.
The Americans are currently using all three options in the Iraq war.
In all cases, as a General , i would have some serious reservations about option #2b (because i think most, if not all, blunders come from there)... But the other options would be reasonable, no?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 09:20:53
Even though I'm against this war, i must admit that the British troops are quite admirable, as well as their commanders...I think the US troops should take exemple on them...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-12 17:58:37
I believe you are correct the reregarding the British. Seldom or never hear of major blunder of friendly fire incidents or hitting innocent targets. It shows that collateral damage is not completely avoidable. I realize there will always be some civillian casualties. I wonder why so many in this day and age with superior computer technology and better, faster communication technology.
I do have reservations about all targets are unforeseen errors when we have all seen the "coalition" present fraudulent documents to support the attack on Iraq. I do not believe they are that ignorant that they were not aware that the documents are fraudulent.
Neither the attack on Afghanistan or Iraq were declared wars. We were lead to believe these actions were against specific targets within the country not involving civillians. I expected a little better intelligence, accuracy and restraint. I did not like to hear a group of villagers were wiped out because one was tall and could be Osama.
I expected better communications between cooperating forces. Our Canadian soldiers were killed needlessly; they were bombed after the
battles were more controlled not during the heat of the battle.
The American administration sought approval for this invasion claiming Iraq was a threat to the USA and that it possessed WMD. Now they have shifted their purpose to be to free the Iraqi people from a despotic dictator; this was not their focus when seeking to begin this invasion. I suspect this shift was taken to defect criticism if they could not find any WMD.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-14 06:34:56
Well i think, an analyst had it right when he was saying that the British have more experience in Peace Keeping than the Americans, so they are more patient...
Seriously, the fraudulent documents were crude forgeries, even Mr. El-Baradai (UN inspector) said that the CIA and MI6 would never have crafted so crude forgeries... The US and UK are to blame because they only took what came under their hands without double-checking anything...
I wonder what will happen with Syria...
Did you know who informed the US regarding the WMD's stored in Syria? It was not the CIA, but the Mossad ... And we know how Syria and Isreal 'love' each other...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-04-14 23:53:53
I did not believe they made the forgeries but I would hope the American intelligence knew that the documents were worthless but tried to pass them off anyway. There was also a plagiarized report that was copied from a student's 10 year old paper produced by Tony Blair.
Regarding Syria; from what I have read the people there probably need liberating more than Iraq. How does the USA have the right to decide if Syria can possess WMD? They are under no order that I am aware of not to possess any. The USA itself possesses many weapons of mass destruction. They definitely used cluster bombs which most countries are trying to ban. The USA refuses to ban landmines.
I do not like Syria or other unstable governments to possess WMD but is there any international law forbidding them of such possession. There may be; I am not aware of any. I plan on doing more checking on Syria.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-09 13:04:50
copy and paste this into your address bar...
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030409/capt.1049901490.war_us_iraq_northern_front_sulf102.jpg
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-09 15:51:49
I know this post was not for me, but i had to comment ...
I'm happy that the Iraqi people will now be free and suffer less, but it does not change the fact that the war is illegal, and i am opposed to it by principle ...
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-09 21:15:32
Well codc01, you have been consistent, I have to respect that.
I know you have said it before but could you explain again the process as to why you still see this war as illegal? Is it the pre-emptive part, U.N. part?
Oh, and the picture is certainly not for you. :)
Thanks.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-10 14:21:09
The war is illegal because it was not approved by the UN, and was not a war of self-defence.
For those who strongly say some countries on the Security Council would veto anything, well i would say that the US should have brought this to the attention to the UN General Assembly, but i think they knew most countries would vote against the resolution, or would abstain.
Now, some people will say, that the UN is useless, and does not represent anything, this may partially true for the security council, but i really don't think this is the case of the General Assembly, they do represent all official governments of the world, and if some of these governments don't have a perfect track record, the General Assembly does represent the majority of the world population.
Once again, some people will say that the world population and world governments don't understand the US, well if someone goes down to this kind of reasoning, it means that they only
take the point of view of one country, and ignores the rest of the world.
(personally the kind of people who have this last kind of reasoning should not be allowed to de diplomats, otherwise it would make for a very scary world).
I'm not saying that the UN is perfect, far from it... It needs reform, but the underlying texts of international law are quite good in my opinion.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-11 05:35:07
Another clarification, if the question is ever asked, i would still view this war as illegal even if Saddam now decided to use WMD's. Even though i would strongly condemn its usage.
But i fear that Saddam may now use them (if he did not destroy them). People of Iraq are now liberated, he decided not to die as a martyr, and he's cornered (if he is still alive). So the theory that he will go out with a big bang is now more prominent...
Several news outlets are now rejoicing, and are quite happy, but the war is not over yet. The US government is quite right in saying so.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-04-11 08:55:15
Actually, the problem with the US working under UN auspices is that it must relinquish control to a bunch of beaureaucrats who are paid too much to blah, blah, blah without any connection to reality.
Any failure committed by the UN would be blamed on the US and would be paid for in US blood.
For example, UN sanctions on Iraq were blamed on the US.
The failure to rebuild Afghanistan instantly (like Folgers coffee crystals) is blamed on the US - even though the UN is the nation builder there.
It is absolutely false to say "that the world population and world governments don't understand the US, well if someone goes down to this kind of reasoning, it means that they only
take the point of view of one country, and ignores the rest of the world."
There are many countries, particularly those who have been recently freed of dictatorial yokes, that agree with US. Those who adore the security council think these countries either don't count or are, to use Chirac's language, "spoiled brat children states".
Other countries have waffled on Iraq for internal reasons. Specifically, Canada and Chile. Chile has a history with dictatorship and international justice that is quite unique and they should not be lumped in with France and Syria.
I think people who create the dichotomy of One country (US) and "The rest of the world" are people who should not be diplomats because they simply want to suppress the opinions of non-US countries that disagree with France.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Barretm82
Date: 2003-04-11 14:43:33
I wonder if calling this war illegal is missing the point of Justice?
How do you see legality and Justice? Are they one in the same to you, or is one a process and the other a result?
(Keep in mind I'm a computer engineer not a lawyer) ;)
Before you reply, please read this link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html?ex=1050638400&en=ea21e8c88feae21c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: codc01
Date: 2003-04-12 13:33:28
You are talking with your heart, and i fully understand this. But someone's heart may be different to another's one.
If someone steals something because he is starving, it is still thievery - The laws were made for everyone to avoid chaos. The people who are currently looting Baghdad are doing it because they have nothing - so if you think with your heart, then you are right, even if they attack hospitals - but we simply cannot think like that, otherwise chaos would invade everywhere (including in Canada).
As i said in a previous post, i feel that if most nations of the world agree on laws, i must assume that these laws must be good (especially if those who created these laws are the US, Canada, UK, France, Japan)...
I do understand your point of view though.
Reply to this message
|
Visit us online at: http://www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
|
