Bush addresses the world- Pending War

[Artanis]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
No, he only said that about 2 weeks before the war started, when he said "No one can tell us how to protect ourselves" or something like that...

As far back as in septemper/october 2002, Bush said in the UN that America would take the actions necessary against Iraq, even if they had to do it alone. This has been rather up-front in the news here for some months now. The statement Bush gave there have roused suspicion and uncertainty in countries around the world.

Also, if he did say that early on then what would the point be in even going to the UN?

Because he would have been bashed by the world (and possilbly Americans, you would know that better than me) far stronger than he is now, if he hadn't gone to the UN. And support from the UN is still nice to have, politically and economically, and military, even if, as he sees it, it's not necessary.

[Draken]

Originally posted by Aeryn
You mean it's typical they were drunk at the wheel?

Care to expand on that?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
I've seen it on 4 different news channels, I also saw pictures of them pulling away one of the scuds on the back of a big platform truck and the scud launcher...

Then why has a statement been issued by General wotshisface that to date there have been no scuds used?

• Major General Stanley McChrystal, the vice director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference yesterday that the Iraqis have not fired any Scuds and that US forces searching airfields in the far western desert of Iraq have uncovered no missiles or launchers.

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
That's the part we feel they broke...

Actually, it is quite a good thing he broke that one; since the prisoners were shown in good health, now they will think twice before harming them.
Also, you will notice that we also saw Iraqi prisoners; both sides have consistently broken this rule.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Actually, it is quite a good thing he broke that one; since the prisoners were shown in good health, now they will think twice before harming them.
Also, you will notice that we also saw Iraqi prisoners; both sides have consistently broken this rule.

They were not shown to be in good health. One was on a stretcher and appeared to have a chest wound. The female soldier was not wearing shoes or boots, and appeared to have injuries to her feet.

As for the US violating the GC-article 13, how so? Any of the Iraqi POWs that have been shown on tv, were shown on the field when they were taken into custody. there are large amounts of journalists that are with the coalition forces that are covering the war. There is a big difference between showing soldiers being taken into custody on the battlefield, and soldiers being taken to an undisclosed location, interviewed as a pretence of interrogation, and paraded before the cameras. Also, when did the US show dead Iraqi soldiers that we executed, laying in undignified positions that they were manipulated into on camera?

[markedel]

And so it gets messy. No surprise that.

The bombing, so I understand (courtesy of the Iraqi Blogger Salam Pax-the URL is in this thread) is very precise (the bombs hit where they should) but since all the facility are in the middle of residential areas there's lots of collatoral damage, and of course the city is getting wrecked which naturally pisses off the Iraqis.

I don't the think the U.S is going to enjoy the occupation of Iraq...but I still wish them luck, because they really really need it.

[Lizra]

Luck! There is no "luck"! Empty wishes......

I wish them well. Very well.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
I've seen it on 4 different news channels, I also saw pictures of them pulling away one of the scuds on the back of a big platform truck and the scud launcher...

Those were the initial reports, but as it turned out they weren't Scuds, they were Frogs (shorter range)

I did see one report that some of the Iraqi missile attacks were coming from a range of 110- 120 miles ( about 180 kms.) which would put them over the 90-mile limit, but I've been jumping around to so many sites I can't remember where.

Also, when did the US show dead Iraqi soldiers that we executed, laying in undignified positions that they were manipulated into on camera?

AFAIK, no-one in the U.S. government or military is claiming that the soldiers were executed; I certainly wouldn't put it past the Iraqis, but if there was evidence wouldn't somebody be making that claim?

Did you hear how the Republican Guard dressed in civilian clothes and acted like they were welcoming our troops and ambushed them? Or what about the other one where the Republican Guard dressed as normal Iraqi soldiers - acted like they were surrendering (even carrying a white flag) and then opened fire on our troops?

Did you hear how your troops were engaged in a massive and overwhelming invasion of their country? Did you hear that your Air Force is bombing their cities? And you're complaining that they're not fighting fair?

[Artanis]

All this just confirms the obvious: The war is not fought on the battlefield alone, but also in the media.
I for one do not trust any news from the war these days.

It's interesting to read American newspapers and notice the difference in war coverage from the Norwegian newspapers.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Did you hear how your troops were engaged in a massive and overwhelming invasion of their country? Did you hear that your Air Force is bombing their cities? And you're complaining that they're not fighting fair?

Technically, because Iraq never complied with the UN resolutions - the cease fire from the Gulf War was null and void. Also - we are NOT targeting their civilians - nor are we pretending to accept surrenders and then blowing them away. We are targetting the REGIME of Hussein.

Hussein just had to come clean on hiis chemical and biological weapons or leave the country. He chose neither. The fact that we are there in his country lies squarely on Hussein.

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
They were not shown to be in good health. One was on a stretcher and appeared to have a chest wound. The female soldier was not wearing shoes or boots, and appeared to have injuries to her feet.

SGH, the images I saw were more limited, didn’t show that detail, but the argument remains true all the same; I fear much more about those that are missing that about those they did show. At least those shown are unlikely to be (further) harmed, since that would put the Iraqis responsible in serious trouble after the war. I actually wish they would show all prisoners they capture, since that makes it less probable that they further harm or kill them.

As for the US violating the GC-article 13, how so? Any of the Iraqi POWs that have been shown on tv, were shown on the field when they were taken into custody. there are large amounts of journalists that are with the coalition forces that are covering the war. There is a big difference between showing soldiers being taken into custody on the battlefield, and soldiers being taken to an undisclosed location, interviewed as a pretence of interrogation, and paraded before the cameras. Also, when did the US show dead Iraqi soldiers that we executed, laying in undignified positions that they were manipulated into on camera?

There is a difference, BUT it still is a violation. You haven’t seen anyone trying to stop those images being taken, did you? (And at least one image was not of prisoners being taken) The reason is simple; there was no intention of stopping the reporters of taking those images despite that they constituted a violation, on the contrary, that was seen as a useful tool of the psychological war. So, the soldier were not instructed to stop the reporters doing that, and you know what? I don’t object that the US and Brits have shown Iraqi PoWs, after all, that have two positive results:

First, it demoralise the enemy, making them less likely to fight, and therefore saving the life’s of both your soldiers and the Iraqi’s. It is the proverbial case of doing the lesser evil to avoid doing the greater one (killing).

Second, it shows they are well, and not being mistreated. This is rather important, especially to avoid ugly rumours to surface among the Arab world, and indeed even among Iraqi combatants. If they were not shown you may be sure that, by now, many Arabs would be asking themselves what was the fate of their “brothers”, and ugly rumours would have appeared.

As for the case of the prisoners taken by the Iraqis, I’ve just said it, but I will repeat it. I believe that because they are shown they are now safer then before, so it is a positive thing, despite being a blatant violation of the Convention. Again, it is a trade of a greater evil for a lesser one.

Finally, I wasn’t speaking about images of the dead at all, as you may have noticed. Nor, I must say, were they shown in the local media (at least up to now), it seems we have a more restrained media around here, fortunately, since showing them is just doing Saddan’s immoral game.

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by Artanis
All this just confirms the obvious: The war is not fought on the battlefield alone, but also in the media.
I for one do not trust any news from the war these days.

True, as the saying goes: Truth is the first casualty in a war. No matter how one tries, it is always very difficult to stay impartial.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Our soldiers need special prayer now, and our military leaders (for those who believe in prayer's effectiveness).

Lief- you might want to add the POWs in there

You could even throw in a few words for the poor soddin' Iraqi civilians trapped in the middle of all this.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Technically, because Iraq never complied with the UN resolutions - the cease fire from the Gulf War was null and void. Also - we are NOT targeting their civilians - nor are we pretending to accept surrenders and then blowing them away. We are targetting the REGIME of Hussein.

Hussein just had to come clean on hiis chemical and biological weapons or leave the country. He chose neither. The fact that we are there in his country lies squarely on Hussein.

Absolutely- totally agree on everything. Unfortunately, a sufficient number of Iraqis might not.

The problem is, everything Saddam is doing is to try and make the coalition target civilians and those trying to separate themselves from the regime.

Look at what the fake surrenders do- it makes the US and British troops more wary of accepting white flags- and if word gets out, as I'm sure it will, it makes Iraqi troops more wary of surrendering, not knowing if the enemy will be willing to trust them.

Same thing with the fighting in the cities. The Iraqi forces are dispersing into the civilian population and forcing the coalition to try and attack them there. They're putting their anti-aircraft on apartment buildings and their artillery in residential neighborhoods.

Their whole aim is to try and shift the brunt of the Coalition attack from the regime to the people, in hopes that it will enrage the population as well as opposition in the outside world.

I don't think it's going to work- in the end I think most people will just try and keep their head down- but it's going to be messy.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
You could even throw in a few words for the poor soddin' Iraqi civilians trapped in the middle of all this.

Hear hear.

[jerseydevil]

Graymouser - I agree with you 100% with you on that is Hussein's plan. We are working our hardest not to hurt innocent civilians. Our Apache helicopters were attacked brutaly and we couldn't do much because theywere massed aroudn residential areas.

Hussein wants to try dragging this out so we have no choice but to pull out, but that is OUT of the question. If we pull out - we might as well tell Osama Bin Ladin that he was right - "when the tough get going - we get out". We might as well open up the doors of America to him and tell to go right ahead and bomb us.

I don't want innocent Iraqis dying. I also think that it was a definite mistake not to secure the lower areas of Iraq. I think we should have secured the southern and northern sections of Iraq - bring in humaitarian aid and then work on Baghdad. Of course that is 20/20 hindsight. It was felt that with the massive bombing campaigns against the government buildings that Hussein's regime would crumble. Now I think we need to rethink - and concentrate on isolating Hussein to Baghdad - while we secure the area around it. This will allow us to bring in the humanitarian aid that needs to be brought in. Right now the Iraqis are complaining that we didn't bring humantarian aid - but we can't because the southern ports are still unstable.

We need to draw Hussein's troops out into the open. Encourage them to leave Baghdad and attack us more in the open. I'm not sure how to do that exactly - I'm just saying what the best scenario would be.

The world should be outraged that while the US is trying to prevent civilian loses - he's trying to indirectly and in some ways directly cause them.

[azalea]

I have a question -- the UN weapons inspectors left Iraq a day or two before the war started. Did they ever give a final report, or was it left as "inconclusive" because they had to leave early? I thought the deadline was set for after they were to have finished the inspections. I'm just curious, because I remember hearing they were leaving, but haven't heard anything since about if they thought it likely the WMD existed.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by azalea
I have a question -- the UN weapons inspectors left Iraq a day or two before the war started. Did they ever give a final report, or was it left as "inconclusive" because they had to leave early? I thought the deadline was set for after they were to have finished the inspections. I'm just curious, because I remember hearing they were leaving, but haven't heard anything since about if they thought it likely the WMD existed.

They did give a final report. It wasn't covered as much - because when it was given, the US had already given Hussein his 48 hour ultimatum to leave the country. The report was the same old stuff. Cooperating a little bit more - but a lot to be desired.

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Elvellon
There is a difference, BUT it still is a violation. You haven’t seen anyone trying to stop those images being taken, did you? (And at least one image was not of prisoners being taken) The reason is simple; there was no intention of stopping the reporters of taking those images despite that they constituted a violation, on the contrary, that was seen as a useful tool of the psychological war. So, the soldier were not instructed to stop the reporters doing that, and you know what? I don’t object that the US and Brits have shown Iraqi PoWs, after all, that have two positive results:

First of all the US isn't in violation and this is why. Those Iraqi's that you saw were not Prisoners of War, they were soldiers that surrendered willingly. We didn't take and capture them, they are being detained as they surrendered. PoW and someone who Surrender's are very different....

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dúnedain
First of all the US isn't in violation and this is why. Those Iraqi's that you saw were not Prisoners of War, they were soldiers that surrendered willingly. We didn't take and capture them, they are being detained as they surrendered. PoW and someone who Surrender's are very different....

That is very true. PoWs are only people who aren't willingly giving themselves up and are captured. The soldiers we showed had surrendered - without even firing a shot. Also - we don't show the intergations - like Iraq was doing.