:: Gandalf23's Blog ::

:: Monday, March 31, 2003 ::

---

When asked about what they think of this war, most Iraqis said that they were against the loss of innocent life and the destruction of their cities, but they seemed adamant about the removal of Saddam. This is from the Saudi based Arab News.



:: gandalf23 9:32:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

Taking Democracy Seriously in Iraq

by Eric Davis

March 27 2003

Eric Davis is Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Rutgers University. His forthcoming book, Memories of State: Politics, History and Collective Identity in Modern Iraq, which is being published by the University of California Press, can be accessed online at: fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/~davis.

In May, Professor Davis will be one of seven speakers addressing our 2003 History Institute for Teachers on “The American Encounter with Islam.”

Americans share two misperceptions of Iraqi politics and society. One is that ethnic conflict is endemic to Iraqi society. Another is that Iraqis lack a tradition of civil society, cultural tolerance, and political participation. Both perceptions are contradicted by the historical record. These faulty premises lay behind Washington’s unwillingness to support the Iraqi uprising of 1991, which came close to ousting the Ba’athist regime. It would be a great tragedy if the United States were to make the same mistake in 2003.

The Rise of Iraqi Civil Society

Having studied Iraqi politics and society since first visiting Iraq in May 1980, I have been struck by the resilience of Iraqis and their unwillingness to submit to Ba’athist authoritarianism. Indeed, the Iraqi nationalist movement, which developed following the Ottoman collapse in World War I, exhibited an ecumenical tradition advocating cultural pluralism, political participation, and social justice. This Iraqi nationalist vision was most evident in the June-October 1920 Revolt against British rule in Iraq. Sunni and Shi’i Arabs joined forces, praying in each others’ mosques and celebrating together their respective holidays while Iraqi Muslims went to the houses of Christians and Jews (who were the largest single ethnic group in Baghdad at the time of the uprising) and insisted that they join protest marches and demonstrations because they were Iraqi citizens like everyone else.

The Hashemite monarchy the British installed during a rigged national referendum in 1921 undermined the Iraqi nationalist vision as a “big tent” which, while recognizing Iraq’s predominantly Arab character, would offer cultural and political space to all Iraq’s ethnic groups. The Iraqi nationalists stood in opposition to a smaller, state-supported Pan-Arabist political tendency, which sought to make Iraq part of a larger Pan-Arab state. One of the goals of the Pan-Arabists was to change Iraq’s Sunni Arabs’ status as a minority in Iraq to a majority once Iraq was only a region (qutr) of a larger Pan-Arab state.

The Pan-Arabist tendency rejected pluralist notions of Iraqi political community and instead emphasized a chauvinist interpretation of Arabism, emphasizing Sunni Arab domination of Iraqi politics and society. Under the Hashemite monarchy, the Iraqi government attempted to inculcate a Pan-Arabist consciousness among Iraqi school children. The Hashemite monarchy, which carried the stigma of having been installed by the British, sought to use Pan-Arabism to bolster its legitimacy by stressing its ties to the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina, of which the Hashemites were the guardians, and its blood ties to the Quraysh, the tribe of the Prophet Muhammad.

In contrast to the Pan-Arab tendency, many of whose members developed during the 1930s proto-fascist organizations such as the al-Muthanna Club and its al-Futuwwa movement, and participated in an attack on Baghdad’s Jewish community in June 1941, the Iraqi nationalist movement developed a broad political coalition encompassing members of all Iraq’s ethnic groups, including Sunni and Shi’i Arabs, Kurds, Jews, Christians, Armenians and other minority groups. Political, parties, such as the National Party, Jami’at al-Ahali (the People’s Organization), the National Democratic Party, the Iraqi Communist Party, student and professional associations, artisans organizations and labor unions, promoted political participation by all Iraqis and emphasized the need to develop an inclusive sense of political community. Iraqis from all the country’s ethnic groups cooperated in opposing the British-imposed Constitution in 1924, organizing the 1931 General Strike against the British, maintaining solidarity during numerous labor strikes during the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, which called for better working conditions. They also organized broad-based uprisings against the monarchy and the British in 1948 and 1953, known as the Wathba and Intifada, respectively.

In the 1920s, a flourishing Iraq civil society began with the formation of numerous professional associations, including a highly respected legal profession, a vibrant press, political parties, artist ateliers, writers associations, labor unions, and an extensive coffeehouse culture. This nascent civil society expanded greatly after the end of World War II. During the 1950s, large numbers of Iraqis participated in Iraqi politics through the many new political parties, such as the National Democratic and Independence parties formed after the war. In 1954, with the temporary relaxation of state control, a coalition of Iraqi nationalists and moderate Pan-Arabists competed in the June elections, running a highly professional campaign and scoring impressive victories in 13 of the country’s most important electoral districts in 2 of Iraq’s main cities, Baghdad and Mosul. Efforts by sectarian elements, during the electoral campaign, particularly those from the Ba’ath Party, first formed in Iraq in 1952, to separate Arab nationalists from Iraqi nationalists, were unsuccessful and the electoral coalition retained its cohesion.

During the 1950s, Iraqi poets developed the Free Verse Movement, one of the most important innovations in modern Arabic poetry. Similar developments occurred in other areas of literature, such as the short story, and in the plastic arts, particularly in sculpture. Poets such as Muhammad Mahdi al-Jawahiri, Abd al-Wahhab al-Bayati, Nazik al- Mala’ika, Badr Shakir al-Sayyab, and Buland al-Haydari, short story writers such as ’Abd al-Malik Nuri, Mahdi al- Saqr, artists such as Jawad Salim and Isma’il al-Shaikhly, and historians such as ’Abd al-Razzak al-Hasani and Faysal al-Samir became famous throughout the Arab world.

Iraqi nationalism received a strong impetus from the regime of Staff Brigadier ’Abdal-Karim Qasim, which took power after the overthrow of the Hashemite monarchy in July 1958. While sympathetic to Pan-Arab concerns, Qasim believed that Iraq needed to address its internal development problems first. Instead of a unitary state, he favored a federated entity, much along the lines of the European Union. Under Qasim, sectarianism disappeared as a key element in recruitment positions within the state bureaucracy, military and other official walks of life. Indeed, Qasim is the only ruler of modern Iraq who eschewed sectarian criteria in ruling the country. His refusal to exploit sectarian divisions for political ends, his focus on social justice, such as the need for land reform, and his own ascetic lifestyle made Qasim the only truly popular leader since the founding of the modern state. After he was overthrown and executed by the first Ba’athist regime in February 1963, it was discovered that he had no personal wealth, having donated his military pension and his two government salaries as prime minister and defense minister to the poor.

Qasim’s fate offers many lessons for the current situation in Iraq. Immediately after the July 1958 Revolution, Qasim assembled a cabinet of distinguished opposition leaders from the monarchist era. These included Kamil al-Chadirji, head of the National Democratic Party; Muhammad Mahdi al-Kubba, head of the Independence Party; Siddiq Shanshal; Fai’q al- Samarai’I; Muhammad Hadid; and others. Unfortunately, after consolidating his power, Qasim felt he could dispense with the cabinet, thereby foregoing the opportunity to have institutionalized a moderate, non-sectarian government committed to political pluralism and social reform. While others have argued that Qasim feared that a democratic political system would allow either the Pan-Arabists, who had many followers with the Sunni Arab-dominated officer corps, or the powerful Iraqi Communist Party, the fact remains that power corrupts. No matter how well intentioned Qasim was in trying to bring about better living conditions for the Iraqi populace and eliminating sectarianism in politics, his authoritarian rule, however non- violent, gradually isolated him from the citizenry, facilitating his overthrow in 1963.

The Rise of the Ba’ath and the End of Civil Society

The Ba’athist regime that came to power in February 1963, and its brutal National Guard militia, foreshadowed the extensive human rights abuses that would characterize the Ba’athist regime that seized power in a July 1968 putsch. Counting petty criminals among its members, the new regime quickly tried to undue many of the social reforms enacted by Qasim, such as equal rights for women. Shocked by the excesses of its National Guard, a forerunner of Saddam Husayn’s security apparatus, the regime was toppled by the military in November 1963. Iraq was ruled by a number of weak Pan-Arabist regimes until Saddam, Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr and Ba’athists drawn largely from the rural tribal areas around the town of Takrit in the so-called Sunni Arab triangle of north-central Iraq seized power in 1968.

The second or Takriti Ba’thist regime that came to power in 1968 was very weak. In January 1969, it hung a group of Iraqi Jews in Liberation Square in downtown Baghdad in an effort, as British diplomatic correspondents reported at the time, to intimidate the populace. Internal schisms afflicted the Ba’athists until 1973, when the chief of the security apparatus, Nazim al-Kazzar, tried the last unsuccessful coup attempt. The regime felt so vulnerable that it invited the Iraqi Communist Party, its historical nemesis, to join a national front coalition and give the regime greater legitimacy as “revolutionary” and anti- imperialist.” This front was short-lived as rising oil wealth during the 1970s allowed the regime to initiate an ambitious development plan and co-opt large numbers of middle class and educated Iraqis.

Just when the Takriti Ba’ath seemed to have consolidated power during the late 1970s, after having eliminated the communists through executing party members in 1978 who had become government ministers, Saddam Husayn ousted Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr and seized the presidency in 1979, and invaded Iran in September 1980 to seize territory from the new Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khumayni. The war turned into a disaster. Iraq suffered huge human and material losses and probably would have lost the war had it not been for Saudi and Kuwaiti financial support and U.S intelligence and military assistance. When a truce was finally arranged in 1988, the Ba’athist regime faced massive domestic discontent as lower oil prices prevented it from sustaining the 1970s social welfare state. The seizure of Kuwait in August 1990, was a desperate attempt to buy the support of Ba’ath Party members and security forces operatives by allowing them to plunder Kuwaiti society. His “Project to Rewrite History” had seduced Saddam into believing his own rhetoric, namely his status as a semi-deity, his foreordained role as leader of a Pan-Arab state, and Iraq’s military invincibility.

The 1991 Uprising

The 1991 Intifada almost led to the collapse of the Ba’athist regime. Suddenly the historical memory of the Iraqi nationalist movement reinserted itself into Iraqi political discourse. For the first time in modern Iraqi history, Iraqis openly discussed sectarianism. Opposition groups met to develop ways of promoting civil society in a post-Ba’athist Iraq. One of the results was Charter 91, produced at a conference in liberated Kurdistan in 1991 and which called for a federated, democratic, and culturally pluralistic Iraq. The huge exodus of Iraq’s middle and upper middle classes, which has been estimated to comprise as much as 15 percent of the populace, one of the largest expatriate communities in the world, began producing some of the most important works on the need to confront sectarianism, to develop political institutions that would control would-be authoritarian rulers, and to be tolerant of cultural diversity. The rule of ’Abd al-Karim Qasim was reexamined because of its lack of corruption and anti-sectarianism. Still Qasim was criticized for not allowing free, democratic elections. Even Iraq’s Jewish community was reexamined in monographs and articles that argued that the Iraqi Jewish community had contributed much to Iraqi society in all walks of life. While some Iraqi Jews had been sympathetic to Zionism, the vast majority considered themselves Iraqi citizens and fully integrated members of Iraqi society.

This effort had a powerful impact on Saddam and the Ba’ath. A long series of articles attributed to Saddam and published in the Ba’ath Party newspaper, al-Thawra, in April 1991, demonstrated the impact of the Intifada and the democratic opposition. For the first time, Saddam himself publicly discussed sectarian differences in Iraq and the role of the Shi’a in the 1991 uprising. While Saddam tried to tar the Shi’a, Kurds, and other oppositional forces, what was noteworthy was that he did not blame Western imperialism or Zionism for the Intifada but recognized that it represented an internally generated movement.

Increasingly insecure over his role, Saddam continued to narrow the social base of his regime. Executions, even of many Takritis, led him to rely increasingly on his immediate family and clan members, leading to what Falih ’Abd al-Jabbar has called, “the family party state” (dawlat hizb al-usra). As Saddam’s two sons, ’Uday and Qusay, acquired greater power, the focus of the Project for the Rewriting of History all but disappeared with the regime increasingly appearing to Iraqis as a criminal syndicate rather than a functioning state. In an act of desperation, Saddam even revived the moribund system of tribalism in the countryside so that tribal shaykhs took control of the rural populace to replace the many Ba’thist leaders killed during the 1991 Intifada.

Inklings of Democracy

At the same time, a democracy, albeit not perfect, developed in liberated Kurdestan in Iraq’s northern provinces. Landlocked, having no economic resources to speak of and suffering from a blockade from the Ba’athist regime to the south, the Kurdish regional government established a parliament, held free elections, allowed radio and television stations and an ideologically diverse press to develop, and built new schools and hospitals. Infant mortality declined and educational levels rose while, in Ba’athist-controlled areas, the opposite trends were the case. The Kurdish experience clearly demonstrated that, once freed from Ba’athist repression, Iraqis were perfectly capable of ruling themselves.

An Arabic proverb states that, “The Egyptians write, the Lebanese publish, and the Iraqis read.” Iraq has the capability to become one of the most advanced countries of the Middle East. It has a large and highly educated middle class, a tradition of a flourishing civil society (which can be documented in school history textbooks after Saddam and the Ba’ath are ousted), an agricultural sector whose potential is greatly underutilized, one of the world’s great civilizational heritages (after all, history as we understand it began in ancient Mesopotamia), and a rich base of oil wealth, which can provide the resources for ambitious development projects. Once no longer at odds with its neighbors in the Gulf region, it will be able to cooperate with them to produce serious economic development. The demonstration effect of a functioning Iraqi democracy can have a salutary impact on neighboring authoritarian regimes.

What would an Iraqi democracy look like? Because Iraq is a multi-ethnic society, it would undoubtedly have a “rough and tumble” quality. However, countries like Italy also have such democracies and have remained relatively stable over time. To the riposte that Italian governments are constantly changing, Italians often respond that this only means that many people have access to governing the country. After all, they point out, Italy has one of the world’s most prosperous economies and a strong civil society. Numerous Iraqi political parties will also vie for power in a post- Saddam Iraq. However, a federated country in which Iraq’s main ethnic groups, the Sunni and Shi’i Arabs and the Kurds, as well as other minorities, can feel that their traditions are respected and not subject to state repression, and in which economic development assures every citizen a decent standard of living will work to offset the strife that facilitated the rise of the Ba’ath Party. Taking democracy seriously in Iraq will go a long way toward winning the hearts of minds of Iraqis.

You may forward this email as you like provided that you send it in its entirety and attribute it to the Foreign Policy Research Institute. If you post it on a mailing list, please contact FPRI with the name, location, purpose, and number of recipients of the mailing list.

If you receive this as a forward and would like to be placed directly on our mailing lists, send email to FPRI@fpri.org. Include your name, address, and affiliation. For further
information, contact Alan Luxenberg at (215) 732-3774 x105.
:: gandalf23 9:21:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

Atlantic Man: Peaceniks talking truth

By Ira Straus
From the International Desk
Published 3/30/2003 10:25 AM

WASHINGTON, March 30 (UPI) -- What would happen if members of the "peace movement" were given a
shot of sodium pentathol or some other "truth drug," and found themselves seized with an uncontrollable urge to start speaking honestly about the war?

What if they broke their silence about the efforts of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his colleagues to get their own people killed for propaganda purposes? What if they were to apply their skills at finding "hypocrisy" in others and started noticing it in themselves?

It would make for an interesting "thought experiment." Or "gedankenexperiment" as Albert Einstein liked to put it.

Let's suppose just a few "peace" people overdosed on sodium pentathol and launched into an analysis of the blind spots of their movement. Here's what they might say:

"It seems we got it all wrong. America is trying to minimize the casualties not only on its own side but on the other side as well. Meanwhile Iraq is trying to get its own people to get killed as well as to kill Americans. It's doing its best to put its people in harm's way. Then it tries to pin the blame on America.

"This is sheer hypocrisy. And it seems we've shared in the hypocrisy. We haven't said an honest word yet against the Iraqi tactics. Instead we've been waiting at their side for the first opportunity to blame America. Which means we're egging them on, promising to help them get the propaganda bonuses they want if they can just get their people killed.

"There's something new afoot. Usually in wars each side tries to protect its own people and kill people on the other side. This time it's different: one side is working to protect the people on both sides, the other side is working for death on both sides.

"And that means it comes pretty close to being a war of good against evil. There's an idea we always scoffed at. And - what is hardest for us to admit -- America is the good side.

"So why are we still directing all our attacks on America?

"There seems to be a dirty little secret about our movement. We aren't really for peace, we're at war against America and the West. For us, America is 'the evil empire.' We focus all our energies on fighting it.

"We speak of love for humanity, but in practice, hatred of our own society seems to be the motor force of our politics. We're so deep into our anti-Americanism we've lost the ability to see straight. If anyone wanted to predict what side we'd support in any situation, all they'd have to do is figure out which side is bad for America. They'd get it right every time.

"Where are our criticisms of Iraq for trying to get its own people killed? Where, for that matter, were our criticisms when the same things happened in Afghanistan and in Serbia? We are always on the wrong side. In each of these wars, America goes to heroic lengths to spare the civilians, while the regimes brazenly use them as human shields and try to get them killed for propaganda purposes.

"Where is our 'ruthless analysis' when it comes to this propaganda, our famous skill at spotting 'hypocrisy'? It is nowhere to be found. Why not? Evidently because we are ourselves a part of the same propaganda system.

"It is as if we're all embedded in a loose global network of anti-American propaganda-making. Isn't that our real place in the world? Isn't that who we really are? We had better face up to it and figure out what it means.

"Where is our famous concern for protecting the environment, when the Iraqi regime is poisoning the air of Baghdad with the fumes of its oil fires and trying to torch its own oil fields farther south? Where is our famous concern for international law, when Baghdad brazenly violates every rule and law in the book? Nowhere. It seems we've been hypocrites all down the line.

"It is time to admit it. We are not the Peace Movement. We are not the Environmental Movement. We are not the Human Rights Movement. We are plain and simply the Anti-America Movement. And the Anti-West Movement.

"We have an unerring nose for figuring out how to hurt the West. Our language games in our internal discussions, with all our code words about what is 'progressive' and what is 'reactionary' or 'imperialist' or 'corporate' or 'racist' or 'foundationalist' or whatever -- they all come down in practice to ways of invalidating any Western interests and validating every interest that is damaging to the West.

"We make sure the code words are used only in this way. It seems by now everyone instinctively understands that's how these words are to be used. Let us face it: what 'political correctness' is about isn't protecting minorities, it's about demonizing the West and privileging anything that's Anti-West. It's a tool for channeling people into an anti-Western course.

"So now that we see who we really are and it's not a pretty picture, what should we do with ourselves? We have always spoken in the name of all the sacred causes: Peace, Justice, Love, Humanity, Freedom, Environment. Now we must begin the hard work of figuring out how actually to serve these causes in a real world that is completely different from the one of our propaganda. And how to choose among them when they conflict.

"We will have to stop thinking issues are simple. We'll have to evaluate our choices by the evidence, not live in a cocoon of praise for our in-group and vilification of outsiders. In fact, we will have to stop thinking as a 'we' and get back to the rigors of individual moral responsibility. And we will have to practice finding our way to the right side of issues, after years of practicing the opposite."

--

(Ira Straus teaches international relations at University of Tuebingen and at Moscow State Institute of International Relations.)

Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International
:: gandalf23 9:04:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty War in Iraq coverage

:: gandalf23 8:49:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

Convex grinds

:: gandalf23 8:43:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

Tragedy of the Arabs
By Ralph Peters
THE NEW YORK POST
March 30, 2003

TV networks in the Arab world gloat as they broadcast pictures of American prisoners executed by Saddam's thugs. They report every Iraqi lie as if it contains unassailable truth, while mocking each report of allied success. They promise their viewers Iraq is winning the war.
They betray their own people by doing so, setting up Arabs for yet another psychological catastrophe.

Our natural response to the Arab world's phenomenal lies is anger: We resent their indecency in glorifying murder and war crimes. We cannot understand how anyone can believe these gruesome fairy tales for adults.

My advice is to ignore the Arabs. Hand-wringing about Arab TV disinformation or about the rage of the Arab street is a waste of our time. We cannot convince them and we cannot force them to change.

The best we can do - even for the Arabs - is to get on with America's agenda of liberation.

The most important thing for Americans to grasp about the impotent fury of the Arab world is that it isn't really about us. It's about their own internal demons.

The absurdities broadcast and printed throughout the Arab world are symptoms of a once-great culture's moral desolation, of the comprehensiveness of Arab failure. The Arabian Nights have long since turned into the Arabian nightmare.

The inability of the Arab world to compete with the West in any field of endeavor (even their efforts at terrorism ultimately fail) has been so devastating to the Arab psychology that they are desperate for someone to blame for what they and their grotesque leaders have done to their own culture.

Without the United States - and, of course, Israel - as excuses for Arab political squalor, Arabs might have to engage in self- examination, to ask themselves, "How have we failed so badly?"

They prefer to blame others, to sleepwalk through history, and to cheer when tyrants and terrorists "avenge" them.

On one level, Arabs know that Saddam Hussein is a monster. They know he has killed more Arabs than Israel ever could do. Saddam has been the worst thing to happen to Mesopotamia since the Mongols razed Baghdad. But Arabs are so jealous and discouraged that they need to inflate even Saddam into a hero. They have no one else.

Try to understand how broken the Arab world must be, how pitiful, if the celebrated Arab "triumph" of this war is the execution of prisoners in cold blood and the display of a few POWs on TV.

We would be foolish to descend to their level and gloat. The world would be better off were Arab civilization a success. We all should pray that the Arab world might, one day, be better governed and more equitable, that Arab peoples might join us in the march of human progress, instead of fleeing into reveries of bygone glories.

But the obstacles Arabs have erected for themselves are enormous. For all of the oil revenue that has flowed into the wealthier Arab countries, consider the overall state of the Arab world:

* It does not produce a single manufactured product of sufficient quality to sell on world markets.

* Arab productivity is the lowest in the world.

* It contains not a single world-class university.

* The once-great tradition of Arab science has degenerated into a few research programs in the fields of chemical and biological warfare.

* No Arab state is a true democracy.

* No Arab state genuinely respects human rights.

* No Arab state hosts a responsible media.

* No Arab society fully respects the rights of women or minorities.

* No Arab government has ever accepted public responsibility for its own shortcomings.

This is a self-help world. We can't force Arab states to better themselves. If Arabs prefer to dream of imaginary triumphs while engaging in fits of very real savagery, they're their own ultimate victims.

Is there any hope? Yes: Iraq.

While building the Iraq of tomorrow must be done by the Iraqis themselves, we would be foolish not to give them every reasonable assistance.

With their oil reserves, a comparatively educated population and their traditionally sophisticated (compared to other Arabs) outlook, the Iraqis are the best hope the region has of building a healthy modern state.

It isn't going to be easy, and it is going to take years, not months. But the Iraqis have the chance to begin the long-overdue transformation of Arab civilization.

For all the shouting and hand-waving in the Arab world, the truth is that Arabs have a deep inferiority complex. They're afraid they really might not be able to build a successful modern state - to say nothing of a post-modern, information-based society.

If Iraq could do even a fair job of developing a prosperous Arab democracy that respected human rights, it could be an inspiration to the rest of the states in the region - and beyond.

The Arab world desperately needs a success story. Let us hope, for the sake of hundreds of millions of our fellow human beings in the Middle East, that Iraq provides that example.

In the short term, though, the Arab world is in for a shock. By lying about Saddam's atrocities and promising an Arab victory, those Arab media outlets are doing all Arabs a cruel disservice.

Imagine the impact on the Arab world when Saddam lies dead and the oppression-stunned people of Iraq begin to tell their stories of suffering under his regime. What will Arabs do when their own fellow Arabs tell them Saddam's glory was all a big lie?

My prediction: They will turn on the Iraqis and accuse them of being tools of the United States.

But be patient. The cliché is absolutely true: Nothing succeeds like success.

Baghdad was once the center of Arab culture, of science and the arts, and a beacon of human progress. It should be our sincere hope that Baghdad one day might play that role again.


Ralph Peters is a retired military officer and the author of "Fighting For The Future: Will America Triumph?"
:: gandalf23 8:42:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

Practice to Deceive "Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan."
:: gandalf23 2:24:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

Sometimes you find a few a perls of wisdomon Slashdot :

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=58980&cid=5630037
Umm, no, no one died `because of the sanctions'. Mr. Hussein received billions and billions of dollars in food aid every year that the sanctions were in place. Instead of using this money to feed his people (remember there were no sanctions on food imports), he skimmed this money, and even re-exported food he was given for sale on the black market to get money to build spacious palaces and WMD programs.

If we gave him ample food and food money, and he spent that money on weapons instead, how does this mean the sanctions caused starvation?

To show how silly this is, look at the Kurdish north. Under oil-for-food, the Kurdish north got exactly the same amount per capita to buy food as the rest of Iraq did. In the north, there has been no shortage of food, medicine, or anything else.

***********
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=58980&cid=5629863

IAAL, and while I was a Midshipmen at the Naval Academy years ago, I took a short course in the law of armed conflict. The rule concerning civilian casualties was cynically shortened to this: "So sad, too bad, incidental casualties".

What this really means is that under international law, a combatant has the right to shoot at another combatant wherever he may be, regardless of whether or not there may happen to be civilians standing in the way. It's perfectly legal to shoot at a SAM battery in an elementary school playground, during recess. Combatants are supposed to make efforts to reduce the risk of civilian casualties, but can still target enemy combatants NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE. Enemy combatants are always fair game, and cannot hide behind their own civilians to protect themselves from combat. Human Shields aren't, at least under international law.

Of course, combatants still have a duty to minimize civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible, so dropping a MOAB on the elementary school playground is still not permitted.

Furthermore, while combatants may not deliberately target civilians, they may deliberately target civilian infrastructure, such as industry. In the present conflict, if it were of a more drawn out nature, we would be bombing Iraq's oil fields (instead of them doing it themselves), and we would be doing so legally.

Also, and this is a bit disturbing, there is the concept of legal "reprisals" against violations of the law of armed conflict. It is permissible to attack targets (ie, civilians) legally in retailiation for war crimes committed by the enemy. The bombing of Dresden, for example, is justified in part by numerous Nazi war atrocities, even though the purpose of bombing Dresden was to see how much devastation carpet bombing could achieve if we REALLY tried.

I would also like to point out that expanding Israeli settlements on the West Bank isn't really a war crime - at least not to the extent of suicide bombings, etc. It's a land grab, and it's wrong, and it's a really bad idea if you actually want peace someday, but it's not really an atrocity in and of itself.

*************

And finally, in response ot a post claiming "stong evidence" that the missles/bombs/whatever that fell on the Iraqi market was non-Allied in origin:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=58980&cid=5630134

I'm going to call you on this: WHAT "strong evidence" is there?

I'll field this one. It's not so much that there's strong evidence that the explosions were caused by Iraqi SAMs as it is that there's strong evidence that they weren't caused by anything the Allies have, and some interesting circumstantial evidence that they might have been the result of Iraqi air defense oopses.

First, we have the timing. The first of these incidents occurred during a period of time when the Allies had no planes in the air over Baghdad at all. So that one couldn't have been caused by Allied gravity bombs or air-launched missiles. That leaves either cruise missiles, JSOWs, or artillery.

Artillery is easy to rule out; unless the Allies were able to sneak an M109 within about 20 miles of Baghdad without anybody on either side noticing, it wasn't artillery.

Cruise and JSOW present an interesting quandry. We know that we've had a failure rate of about 1% on the BGM-109's; that's not a bad rate, but out of the hundreds of missiles launched it adds up to several that have gone astray. So it's entirely possible than an Allied cruise missile could have gone off course and landed in a Baghdad market.

But two of them? Seconds apart? Landing on opposite sides of the same street? That's so unlikely that I'm willing to go the extra step and call it practically impossible. Getting two missiles to hit in that close proximity both in space and time is a hard thing to do even when we mean it; it simply wouldn't be possbile for it to happen by accident.

JSOW's are a different kettle of fish. We haven't gotten any good feedback on JSOW reliability; one possibility is, like our JDAMs, that we simply haven't had any fail yet. But if you postulate that it's possible, we have the same problem we had with the cruise missile theory: two of them, seconds apart, on opposite sides of the same street? Unlikely in the extreme.

Finally, we have the craters. Each of the craters in the first market incident was reported to be between two and four feet deep, depending on who was giving the account at the time. That doesn't make any sense at all. All of our Tomahawks and JSOWs have thus far been penetrators; one of them wouldn't have blown out a four foot crater; one of them would have blown out a forty foot crater.

So all the evidence in the first market incident points to some cause other than Allied ordinance.

One theory that's been floated was that the incident was caused by two Iraqi SAM's that fell to ground. That's certainly possible, and the damage assessment is not inconsistent with that theory, but we still have the sheer coincidence of it to contend with. On the other hand, we do have reports that the Iraqi general in charge of air defense around Baghdad was "fired" after the two market incidents, so that might support the theory that it was Iraqi fratricide. (When an Iraqi general is "fired," he's usually dragged out into the street and shot. Nobody knows if the alleged general is dead or alive.)

Another possibility is that the incidents might have been caused by Iraqi bombs, either planted in cars or just on the street. We have reports from defectors that the SSO-- the special security organization, kind of the Iraqi equivalent of a combination of the CIA and the Delta Force, only operating domestically inside of Iraq-- was planning to do just this sort of thing, setting off bombs inside Iraq and blaming the incidents on Allied attacks. Nobody knows whether these reports are credible or not, but it just adds more fuel to the fire of speculation.

The last piece of the puzzle-- not the last one period, but rather the last one that we have right now-- is the second market incident. In the first, about 14 people were reported killed, and in the second more than 50 were reported killed. While the first happened during a time in the mid-morning when there were no Allied aircraft overhead, the second happened during the night in the middle of an Allied bombing run. While the first involved two explosions seconds and feet apart, the second involved one very large explosion in the center of the market.

If you were to put on your conspiracy theory hat for just a second, it might look like the second incident was much more "successful" from the point of view of the Iraqi leadership. The first incident was highly questionable; there was a lot of evidence implying that it might not have been caused by the Allies at all. The second one, though, did away with most of those aspects of the first: it was better timed, and better executed, and the civilian body count was much higher than the first time. We certainly know that the Iraqi leadership had the motive to carry out such an event, and the opportunity. It's a theory worth considering.

On the other hand, the second incident might actually have been an Allied munition going astray. It wouldn't be the first time, though it would be the first time that we know of for a JDAM-equipped bomb. And it certainly wouldn't have been the most serious such incident; the Amariyah bombing in 1991 killed more than 300 civilians, though we learned later that those civilians were being used as human shields around an important Iraqi military intelligence facility, so that one ended up being kind of a grey area.

Bottom line: we don't know. But there is strong evidence to suggest that at least one and possibly both of these incidents were not caused by Allied munitions, and some interesting circumstantial evidence that they might have been caused, either deliberately or accidentally, by the Iraqis themselves.

Sure there is no reason to believe Iraqi propaganda (only a fool would), but only a fool would believe the US propaganda too.

You know, the ability to distinguish between propaganda and simple reports (accurate or otherwise) of fact is an important one to exercise. Don't assume everything you hear is propaganda. Instead, ask yourself whether you have a reason to doubt what you're hearing. You'll find yourself getting much closer to the truth much more quickly that way.

:: gandalf23 2:16:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

Kanan Makiya's War Diary, from inside Iraq

:: gandalf23 2:14:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

ArabNews.com, Saudi's first English News site. Check out the From the Frontlines section, for reports from their reporters inside Iraq: Naseer Al-Nahr, reporting from Baghdad, and Essam Al-Ghalib reporting from Southern Iraq. Good stuff.



:: gandalf23 2:08:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

Shame on you American-Hating Liberals
From London’s Daily Mirror (9/12/02)
By Tony Parsons

ONE year ago, the world witnessed a unique kind of broadcasting - the
mass murder of thousands, live on television. As a lesson in the
pitiless cruelty of the human race, September 11 was up there with Pol
Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia, or the skeletal bodies stacked
like garbage in the Nazi concentration camps. An unspeakable act so
cruel, so calculated and so utterly merciless that surely the world
could agree on one thing - nobody deserves this fate.

Surely there could be consensus: the victims were truly innocent, the
perpetrators truly evil. But to the world's eternal shame, 9/11 is
increasingly seen as America's comeuppance. Incredibly, anti-Americanism
has increased over the last year.

There has always been a simmering resentment to the USA in this country
- too loud, too rich, too full of themselves and so much happier than
Europeans - but it has become an epidemic.

And it seems incredible to me. More than that, it turns my stomach.
America is this country's greatest friend and our staunchest ally. We
are bonded to the US by culture, language, and blood.

A little over half a century ago, around half a million Americans died
for our freedoms, as well as their own. Have we forgotten so soon? And
exactly a year ago, thousands of ordinary men, women and children - not
just Americans, but from dozens of countries - were butchered by a small
group of religious fanatics. Are we so quick to betray them?

What touched the heart about those who died in the twin towers and on
the planes was that we recognized them. Young fathers and mothers,
somebody's son and somebody's daughter, husbands and wives. And
children. Some unborn. And these people brought it on themselves? And
their nation is to blame for their meticulously planned slaughter?

These days you don't have to be some dust-encrusted nut job in Kabul or
Karachi or Finsbury Park to see America as the Great Satan. The
anti-American alliance is made up of self-loathing liberals who blame
the Americans for every ill in the Third World, and conservatives
suffering from power-envy, bitter that the world's only superpower can
do what it likes without having to ask permission.

The truth is that America has behaved with enormous restraint since
September 11. Remember, remember.

Remember the gut-wrenching tapes of weeping men phoning their wives to
say, "I love you," before they were burned alive.

Remember those people leaping to their deaths from the top of burning
skyscrapers.

Remember the hundreds of firemen buried alive.

Remember the smiling face of that beautiful little girl who was on one
of the planes with her mum.

Remember, remember - and realize that America has never retaliated for
9/11 in anything like the way it could have.

So a few al-Qaeda tourists got locked without a trial in Camp X-ray?
Pass the Kleenex.

So some Afghan wedding receptions were shot up after they merrily fired
their semi-automatics in a sky full of American planes? A shame, but
maybe next time they should stick to confetti.

AMERICA could have turned a large chunk of the world into a parking lot.
That it didn't is a sign of strength. American voices are already being
raised against attacking Iraq - that's what a democracy is for. How many
in the Islamic world will have a minute's silence for the slaughtered
innocents of 9/11? How many Islamic leaders will have the guts to say
that the mass murder of 9/11 was an abomination?

When the news of 9/11 broke on the West Bank, those freedom-loving
Palestinians were dancing in the street. America watched all of that -
and didn't push the button. We should thank the stars that America is
the most powerful nation in the world. I still find it incredible that
9/11 did not provoke all-out war. Not a "war on terrorism". A real war.

The fundamentalist dudes are talking about "opening the gates of hell",
if America attacks Iraq. Well, America could have opened the gates of
hell like you wouldn't believe. The US is the most militarily powerful
nation that ever strode the face of the earth. The campaign in
Afghanistan may have been less than perfect and the planned war on Iraq
may be misconceived.

But don't blame America for not bringing peace and light to these
wretched countries. How many democracies are there in the Middle East,
or in the Muslim world? You can count them on the fingers of one hand -
assuming you haven't had any chopped off for minor shoplifting.

I love America, yet America is hated. I guess that makes me Bush's
poodle. But I would rather be a dog in New York City than a Prince in
Riyadh.

Above all, America is hated because it is what every country wants to be
- rich, free, strong, open, optimistic. Not ground down by the past, or
religion, or some caste system.

America is the best friend this country ever had and we should start
remembering that. Or do you really think the USA is the root of all
evil?

Tell it to the loved ones of the men and women who leaped to their death
from the burning towers. Tell it to the nursing mothers whose husbands
died on one of the hijacked planes, or were ripped apart in a collapsing
skyscraper. And tell it to the hundreds of young widows whose husbands
worked for the New York Fire Department. To our shame, George Bush gets
a worse press than Saddam Hussein.

Once we were told that Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his own people
and set up rape-camps in Kuwait. Now we are told he likes Quality
Street. Save me the orange centre, oh mighty one!

Remember, remember, September 11. One of the greatest atrocities in
human history was committed against America.

No, do more than remember. Never forget.


:: gandalf23 10:27:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

General Patton's prayer, prepared by Msgr. James H. O'Neill, Chief Chaplain of the Third Army

"Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee, of Thy great goodness, to restrain these immoderate rains with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for Battle. Graciously hearken to us as soldiers who call upon Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies and establish Thy justice among men and nations."



:: gandalf23 10:01:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

What Freedom is about


:: gandalf23 12:46:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

During an address to the World Economic Forum, Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked a somewhat long and involved question by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, which ended with the following interrogative:

"And would you not agree, as a very significant political figure in the United States, Colin, that America, at the present time, is in danger of relying too much upon the hard power and not enough upon building the trust from which the soft values, which of course all of our family life that actually at the bottom, when the bottom line is reached, is what makes human life valuable?"

Secretary Powell delivered a lengthy response to the former Archbishop's question:

"The United States believes strongly in what you call soft power, the value of democracy, the value of the free economic system, the value of making sure that each citizen is free and free to pursue their own God-given ambitions and to use the talents that they were given by God. And that is what we say to the rest of the world. That is why we participated in establishing a community of democracy within the Western Hemisphere. It's why we participate in all of these great international organizations.

There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power -- and here I think you're referring to military power -- then sometimes you are faced with situations that you can't deal with.

I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.

So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world. "

(Applause.)

"We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works."


:: gandalf23 12:35:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

"Generally it's a bad idea to try to correct someone's worldview if you want to remain on good terms with them, no matter how skewed it may be." --Delirium


:: gandalf23 12:18:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

Peace for our time

I suppose the day that changed my life was the day I had a letter from the foundation of one Edward S Harkness, an American tycoon who had given his fortune over to good works, mostly medical research.

Shortly after the First World War he noticed that a whole generation of young Americans were going off to study at European universities.

Now Mr Harkness knew, as perhaps few of his kind did, that America too had universities that were leaders in particular fields.

He therefore invented a reverse fellowship - 25 fellowships - to be awarded to graduate students of British and Empire universities to study in America.

In the spring of 1932 I found myself one of the lucky 25 and I was launched, I must say, on the most generous fellowship for two years' study in the United States.

The letter I received contained a booklet with some such title as Living and Travelling in the United States.

It contained three items of advice which I thought, at the time, slightly comical but came to see were a godsend to any newcomer to the New World.

First, it told us gently but firmly something that you still have to tell visiting Englishmen of any age and education - buy lightweight suits and shirts for indoor wear in winter, as well as summer and buy one heavy outer winter top coat if you're going to a Northern or a Midwestern state.

I ignored this in my first weeks at Yale, till I found myself, like the visitors I'd just mocked, Englishmen in horsehair tweeds cursing the steam heat - what they called after the French "central heating" - and trying to force obstinate windows - an irritable gesture that, by the way, gave Winston Churchill his first heart attack on American soil - on any soil, come to think of it.

The second caution was more comical still.

You were obliged by the terms of accepting this fellowship to buy a second-hand car, which I did, for $45, and drive round the United States on your summer holiday.

The booklet warned you to be sure before you put any clothes away for the summer to see that they were encased in plastic bags full of menthol balls or spray. This seemed an unnecessary nicety.

But it said that failure to do so would expose your clothes to the ravages of the Buffalo moth - a predator unknown in England.

I paid no attention. But back in Connecticut at the end of September I found my hung clothes in shreds - thanks to the visits of the said Buffalo moth.

The third item was a startler. When you're driving across country don't give a lift to any female trying to hitch a ride just before you cross a state border.

There was something called the Mann Act, passed by Congress in 1910, which prohibited "the transportation of females across state borders for immoral purposes".

Were they kidding? They were not. We'll go into that a little later.

I promised to lay off topic A - Iraq - until the Security Council makes a judgement on the inspectors' report and I shall keep that promise.

But I must tell you that throughout the past fortnight I've listened to everybody involved in or looking on to a monotonous din of words, like a tide crashing and receding on a beach - making a great noise and saying the same thing over and over.

And this ordeal triggered a nightmare - a day- mare, if you like.

Through the ceaseless tide I heard a voice, a very English voice of an old man - Prime Minister Chamberlain saying: "I believe it is peace for our time" - a sentence that prompted a huge cheer, first from a listening street crowd and then from the House of Commons and next day from every newspaper in the land.

There was a move to urge that Mr Chamberlain should receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

In Parliament there was one unfamiliar old grumbler to growl out: "I believe we have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat."

He was, in view of the general sentiment, very properly booed down.

This scene concluded in the autumn of 1938 the British prime minister's effectual signing away of most of Czechoslovakia to Hitler.

The rest of it, within months, Hitler walked in and conquered.

"Oh dear," said Mr Chamberlain, thunderstruck. "He has betrayed my trust."

During the last fortnight a simple but startling thought occurred to me - every single official, diplomat, president, prime minister involved in the Iraq debate was in 1938 a toddler, most of them unborn. So the dreadful scene I've just drawn will not have been remembered by most listeners.

Hitler had started betraying our trust not 12 years but only two years before, when he broke the First World War peace treaty by occupying the demilitarised zone of the Rhineland.

Only half his troops carried one reload of ammunition because Hitler knew that French morale was too low to confront any war just then and 10 million of 11 million British voters had signed a so-called peace ballot.

It stated no conditions, elaborated no terms, it simply counted the numbers of Britons who were "for peace".

The slogan of this movement was "Against war and fascism" - chanted at the time by every Labour man and Liberal and many moderate Conservatives - a slogan that now sounds as imbecilic as "against hospitals and disease".

In blunter words a majority of Britons would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of Hitler except fight him.

At that time the word pre-emptive had not been invented, though today it's a catchword.

After all the Rhineland was what it said it was - part of Germany. So to march in and throw Hitler out would have been pre-emptive - wouldn't it?

Nobody did anything and Hitler looked forward with confidence to gobbling up the rest of Western Europe country by country - "course by course", as growler Churchill put it.

I bring up Munich and the mid-30s because I was fully grown, on the verge of 30, and knew we were indeed living in the age of anxiety.

And so many of the arguments mounted against each other today, in the last fortnight, are exactly what we heard in the House of Commons debates and read in the French press.

The French especially urged, after every Hitler invasion, "negotiation, negotiation".

They negotiated so successfully as to have their whole country defeated and occupied.

But as one famous French leftist said: "We did anyway manage to make them declare Paris an open city - no bombs on us!"

In Britain the general response to every Hitler advance was disarmament and collective security.

Collective security meant to leave every crisis to the League of Nations. It would put down aggressors, even though, like the United Nations, it had no army, navy or air force.

The League of Nations had its chance to prove itself when Mussolini invaded and conquered Ethiopia (Abyssinia).

The League didn't have any shot to fire. But still the cry was chanted in the House of Commons - the League and collective security is the only true guarantee of peace.

But after the Rhineland the maverick Churchill decided there was no collectivity in collective security and started a highly unpopular campaign for rearmament by Britain, warning against the general belief that Hitler had already built an enormous mechanised army and superior air force.

But he's not used them, he's not used them - people protested.

Still for two years before the outbreak of the Second War you could read the debates in the House of Commons and now shiver at the famous Labour men - Major Attlee was one of them - who voted against rearmament and still went on pointing to the League of Nations as the saviour.

Now, this memory of mine may be totally irrelevant to the present crisis. It haunts me.

I have to say I have written elsewhere with much conviction that most historical analogies are false because, however strikingly similar a new situation may be to an old one, there's usually one element that is different and it turns out to be the crucial one.

It may well be so here. All I know is that all the voices of the 30s are echoing through 2003.

About that third caution to innocent arriving students - Do not pick up females hitching a ride close by a state border! If you drive them into a new state you could be arrested under the Mann Act for "Interstate transportation of the female for immoral purposes".

No fellow I heard of ever reached the state of prosecution and whenever I saw a sign announcing, say, "State of Kansas two miles ahead", I made a point of stepping on the gas.

I thought, until a couple of days ago, that the ludicrous Mann Act had been long repealed, apparently not so. A young, very pretty woman in Louisiana, only half a dozen years ago, got caught by it.

She was a prostitute with a shrewd business sense and in no time turned into a successful and then very prosperous, upper crust madam, and in boisterous Louisiana, much admired madam.

She had 80 girls in her service when she made the mistake of extending her business to neighbouring states - Alabama, Mississippi - eventually a telephone service in Washington.

Now there is, as you know, no national police force in America but for any crime that involves crossing a state border that's when the FBI is allowed to step in.

They stepped into the lush life of Sylvia Landry and sentenced her to six years in jail.

An old restaurant owner in Baton Rouge, the state capital - where she'd serviced so many politicians, lawyers, doctors, businessmen, judges - he said: "It's outrageous. What a scandal. Six years for something that's been going on since Adam and Eve and the beginning of time!"


:: gandalf23 7:41:00 AM [+] ::
...

---

War American Style

War American-style

Tony Blankley

The American personality might be characterized as an
easygoing, sentimental, fair-minded ruthlessness. We tie yellow ribbons round the old oak tree at the same moment that we dispatch a wing of B-52s to carpet bomb the enemy. No murderer in the world gets as many appeals from his conviction as an American murderer. But when we have finished being fair (about the same length of time that a French murderer has to spend in prison before being released), we fry him. More recently, to show our gentle side, we have taken to killing our murderers with a painless lethal injection.

Even amongst our law-abiding citizens, we shock the Europeans with both our generosity and ferocity. We provide for every kid with a pulse to go to college, and then let
them sink or swim in the workplace. American workers are lucky to get two weeks of vacation a year, and if an American is out of work, he is, after a few months, out of luck. In 1996 we repealed the right to welfare payments. Poor people in America have the choice of going to work or going to h*ll. A few nitwit school boards have outlawed dodgeball: But for most Americans dodgeball is a way of life — and we aim at the head.

Europeans, on the other hand, only permit a fraction of their students to go to college, but then coddle their lazy population with lifetime guaranteed maintenance and a month and a half of vacation for those who chose to work. Americans consider it a compliment to be called a cowboy. The French take it as an insult.

The current war with Iraq will bring out all these aspects of our national personality. We started by spending six months asking nicely for Saddam to obey the law. When he refused, we asked nicely for our friends to help us enforce the law. When many of them refused, we appealed to their sentiment — after all, we had helped them out for most of the last century. But when we found out they had a lump of coal where a heart ought to be, we still politely told them we would do it ourselves.

Now the war has started, and once again we are being nice, reasonable, sentimental and fair-minded. First we asked Saddam's generals and colonels to give up quietly. They told us they would think about it. So, we carefully didn't bomb their headquarters in Baghdad. We want the Iraqi people to be our friends, so we left their television and water and lights on while we bombed around, but not in, their residential neighborhoods. We did not want to risk violating the Geneva Conventions, so when their soldiers came out with their hands up and carrying a white flag, we tried to accept their surrender. We lost some good men when the surrendering Iraqis pulled their guns and started shooting. We didn't want to hurt non-combatants. So, when Iraqi soldiers dressed as civilians, they were able to machine-gun a few of our men — until we got the joke. We didn't want any Iraqis to go hungry, and told them we had waiting shiploads of food and medicine, ready to take up the main highway from Kuwait. So, Saddam's goon squads started taking pot-shots at our trucks — assuring a delay in bringing up the civilian supplies.

So far, the Iraqi generals have seen the easygoing, sentimental and fair-minded parts of our personality. But rumor has it that the Marines are developing itchy trigger fingers as revenge for their fallen brothers fills their hearts. Our pilots are getting tired of blowing up empty buildings in Baghdad. Our line generals, just about finished making friends, are looking forward to giving the orders to start influencing (Iraqi) people. And Americans from sea to shining sea have visions of daisycutters dancing in our heads.

Americans are fair, and more than fair. We will even accept a few unnecessary casualties to give the other side time to do the right thing. We understand the need to have as many Iraqis as possible friendly when the shooting stops. But even more importantly, we understand that if Saddam and his gang are still on their feet when the shooting stops, all the goodwill of the Iraqi people would be worth nothing.

And expending the lives of American soldiers in order to save the lives of Iraqi civilians is not a transaction Americans will look kindly on for long. Woe betide the American president who is not prepared to be as murderously ruthless as the American people when we are finished being easygoing, sentimental and fair-minded.

Tony Blankley is editorial page editor of The Washington Times. His syndicated column appears on Wednesdays. E- mail: tblankley@washingtontimes.com.

Couldn't have said it better myself


:: gandalf23 7:30:00 AM [+] ::
...

---

!!



Kinda reminds me of an old U2 album cover.


:: gandalf23 9:39:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

Wow!

"LUCKY MARINE TRICKS DEATH

A Royal Marine Commando who was shot in the head four times has lived to tell the tale of his lucky escape.

Eric Walderman's life was saved by his tough Kevlar helmet after he was caught in enemy gun sights during a savage firefight in Umm Qasr.

The four bullets ripped through the outer camouflage of the 25-year-olds' standard-issue helmet but were stopped by the ultra-tough protective Kevlar shell."





:: gandalf23 9:32:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

Reuters has a good collection of raw video footage from Iraq available online.

Here's the link.

Be sure to click on the Next button on the left where it says "Watch more stories" to see the entire collection.


:: gandalf23 12:21:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

Just saw this on Capt. Steve's page and thought it was really good:

"We hear that citizens of Basra have overthrown Saddam's regime, forcing his remaining sympathizers to flee north. They have taken the first step. Their Americanization has begun. We are happy for them.

Our ground forces are making progress and Saddam's remaining forces, those with nothing to gain from surrender, will become more desperate. We have heard that they fired rockets into a market full of their own people, hoping to blame their deaths on us.

My friend Sideshow remarked to me today that Saddam's forces will use civilians as protection and it occurred to me that this is a perfect example of the differences between us and them. We believe that governments (and by extension, soldiers) exist to protect citizens. They believe that citizens are tools to be used in their defense. The world could not ask for a clearer illustration."

:: gandalf23 11:36:00 AM [+] ::
...

---

If anyone needs a sleeping bag, Sportsman's Guide has a great deal right now on a brand new Norweigian millitary sleeping bag, including the stuff sack (also brand new), liner and cover (both used) for only $14.97! If you order over $50 from them, make sure you head here first to get a coupon for a few bucks off.

:: gandalf23 10:55:00 AM [+] ::
...

---

:: gandalf23 10:49:00 AM [+] ::
...

---

Recent images of the war are on MSNBC.com.

This one was a little disturbing. I hate to see good equipment going to waste. They could have been dismanteled and most of the parts sold over here (every part but the receiver is legal), thus increasing our tax revenue and reducing our deficit :) . Instead, we destroy them. tsk-tsk-tsk.

This one of a cobra attack helicopter is pretty cool. I like how you can see the empty shells falling down. Reminds me of the Matrix :)


:: gandalf23 10:34:00 AM [+] ::
...

---

I'm working on a knife and would like your opinions. Should I make the handle out of old circuit boards like this:




or should I just use wood?

Here's a pic of the knife I'm working on, it's not yet finished, sill have lots of work to do in addition to making the handles, but so far it's been real fun building it.




:: gandalf23 9:41:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

In addition to our troops, the folks over in Iraq are going to need some help.

From the Red Cross/Red Cresent's page (Red Cresent is the version of the Red Cross that goes into Muslim countries [they kinda have a "thing" against red crosses there (too crusadery)]):

Your help is needed now
Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children are suffering the devastating consequences of war. Many have been forced to flee their homes and have lost everything. The Iraqi people need your assistance now more than ever.

Through Red Crescent Societies in the region, the International Federation is reaching Iraqis most severely affected by this conflict. Our volunteers are providing food, water, shelter and medical care in ways that no one else can. But they can only do this with your help.

Your donation today will help those most in need
Please give today so that we can save the lives of the people left most vulnerable by this conflict.

Remember, these're the same folks (International Red Cross) who'll be checking up on our soldiers who're POWs.



:: gandalf23 8:01:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

a few websites of note:

From The Sandbox by Capt. Steve

Lt Smash (not his real name), Live from the Sandbox

Where is Raed? an Iraqi's view from inside Baghdad


The Mother of All War Websites, links to live broadcasts of various TV
news stations around the world, from CNN, BBC to Al-Jazerra


:: gandalf23 6:34:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

Seems like a lot of the talking heads on the TV are thinking that the war is going badly, I'm pretty sure I heard a few opine that we were losing! This former general answers most of the questions I've seen reporters ask lately. I love the closing line "As long as the American people keep their perspective - which they will - it really doesn't matter how many journalists lose theirs."

WINNING BIG
By RALPH PETERS

March 24, 2003 -- IN combat, the ideal leader is the man who remains
calm and methodical under fire. Today's 24/7 broadcast news demands
just the opposite: raised voices, an atmosphere of crisis and a rush to
judgment.

After declaring victory on Friday and Saturday, a number of media
outlets all but announced our defeat yesterday, treating the routine
events of warfare as if they were disasters.

Nonsense.

We're winning, the Iraqis are losing, and the American people have
executive seats for what may prove to be the most successful military
campaign in history.

I do recognize that the majority of our journalists are doing their
best to cover this war accurately and fairly. But, with a few admirable
exceptions, even seasoned reporters lack the perspective needed to
judge the war's progress. Few have read military history. Even fewer
have served in the military. They simply don't understand what they are
seeing.

Every low-level firefight seems a great battle to them. Each pause in
the advance is read as a worrisome delay. While they see friendly
casualties up close, they rarely witness the devastation inflicted on
our enemies. And when isolated groups of Iraqis do stand and fight, the
journalists imply it means the Iraqi people are opposed to our
intervention.

Let's try to understand what's actually happening.

Is Iraqi resistance a surprise? No. And it isn't nearly as strong as
some reporting suggests. In a nation of 22 million people, 1 to 2
million have a stake in Saddam's regime - the officers in "elite"
units, corrupt Baath Party officials, secret policemen and all those
who have enjoyed good careers at the expense of the other 20 million of
their countrymen - who all want Saddam dead.

Some thousands of Iraqis will fight to the death. Out of 22 million.

But wasn't the war supposed to be a cakewalk? No responsible official
ever said this would be a bloodless war. The pundits who suggested such
nonsense never served in uniform themselves. Anyone with the least
knowledge of warfare expected some measure of resistance - and friendly
casualties.

Were we less humane, of course, this war would have gone even faster.
We could have destroyed the Iraqi military in days, killing tens of
thousands of their soldiers from the sky. Instead, we have been trying
to spare lives by giving our enemies a chance to surrender. Many are
doing just that - or simply deserting and going home.

But what about the Iraqis still resisting in the cities in the south,
such as Um Qasr and Basra? Those are small groups of die-hard regime
supporters, thugs from the security forces that answer directly to
Saddam's sons. Their fates are tied to Saddam's rule. Many of the men
firing at our troops from building or bunkers in the south would be
killed by their fellow Iraqis if they laid down their arms.

Haven't they tricked us? If they have, the tricks weren't very
effective. CENTCOM did confirm that, in several instances, Iraqi
elements pretended to surrender, then opened fire on our troops. Others
have worn civilian clothes to ambush resupply convoys. These are not
regular Iraqi army forces or even members of the Republican Guards.
They appear to be from the fidayeen, gangs of murderous thugs, and from
the security services and the Special Republican Guards - the regime's
Gestapo and SS.

While they certainly want to kill allied troops, their most important
mission is to make it harder for all the thousands of Iraqi soldiers
who truly do want to surrender. They want to convince us to fire on
white flags. But we won't.

And the perpetrators of these fake surrenders, as well as those using
civilian clothes to stage ambushes, are war criminals. Both the
traditional laws of war and the Geneva Convention prohibit such
actions. If captured, these men could be executed on the spot, with
complete legality. But we're too decent to do that - even to them.

In the end, all the Iraqi irregular forces are accomplishing is to make
our troops more determined. The latest message I had from a friend
serving in the war made it clear that our troops are enraged, not
deterred, by Iraqi actions - not least by the execution in cold blood
of American prisoners and the abuse of other POWs.

Hey, weren't all those cities in the south supposed to be secure? No.
Even in Um Qasr, our priority was to secure key port facilities, not to
occupy neighborhoods. Consistently, allied forces have bypassed major
population centers to avoid getting drawn into urban combat and causing
needless harm to civilians.

A great deal of potential resistance can simply be left to wither away.
Some Iraqis are zealots - for instance, the Sunni Baath Party enforcers
now stranded behind our lines. They will either die or be taken
prisoner.

Isn't that risky, just bypassing entire cities? Yes. In war, calculated
risks are required. Our British allies are fond of saying that "Fortune
favors the bold." You don't win wars through timidity. Our lead ground
forces were more than two-thirds of the way to Baghdad yesterday. That
sort of progress is unprecedented in the annals of warfare. But it does
leave some potentially dangerous enemy elements in the rear.

We are relying on speed to operate "inside the Iraqi decision cycle" -
to keep the enemy on the ropes, physically and psychologically. We are
aiming for a large-scale, operational victory. But the inherent risks
mean that there will continue to be sharp tactical encounters -
isolated, but deadly - behind our advancing tanks.

It sounds like there have been big, tough battles all of a sudden. No.
Every fight is tough for the soldiers under fire, of course. But what
the broadcast media reported as significant battles consistently have
been one-sided tactical encounters, with overwhelming casualties on the
Iraqi side.

When our forces pause to destroy enemy forces methodically, that is a
sign of professionalism and common sense, not of fear or a reverse.
Cameramen might wish our troops would charge wildly into the enemy
machines guns, but that's not the American way of war. When faced with
a dangerous situation - if the mission allows us the time - we break
contact to a distance that allows us to call down a storm of mortar
fire, field artillery and airstrikes on the enemy. Whenever possible,
we spend shells, not bodies.

Still, there are times when our forces have to get up close and
personal with the enemy, as the Marines did in Nasiriyah yesterday.
When that happens, we win. Period.

So you think we can just roll on to Baghdad, huh? No. We'll get to
Baghdad in due time and in good shape. Several Republican Guard
divisions may make the mistake of trying to take us on in large-scale
battles as we move closer to the city.

If they do, there may be some intense tactical encounters. But those
Iraqi divisions will be attacked so ferociously that a key decision for
Gen. Tommy Franks will be when to turn off our destructive power and
spare the survivors.

Will they use chemical weapons? That remains the greatest single risk
to our troops and to the Iraqi population. If any weapons of mass
destruction are used, it may slow us down for a time - and there could
be painful casualties - but any such attacks will only strengthen our
resolve, while proving to the world that we were right all along about
the threat posed by Saddam.

But we've taken casualties and American soldiers have been captured -
doesn't that mean we're in trouble? No. I wish it were otherwise, but,
in any war - especially one of this magnitude - soldiers die, suffer
wounds, or fall into enemy hands. We cherish every servicemember and
mourn every loss. But, to be frank, our losses thus far are remarkably
low, given the scale of our enterprise.

We may lose considerably higher numbers of casualties before this war
is over. But I can promise you that our military commanders are
relieved by the low level of our losses to date.

Are the Iraqis really trying to lure us deep into their country so they
can spring a trap on our forces? The Iraqis have no choice in the
matter. Our troops go where they want to go.

Yes, the Iraqis are probably planning a large military confrontation,
an operational-level ambush, close to Baghdad - while forces remaining
in our rear area attack our supply lines. They may even have left some
of the bridges across the Euphrates standing on purpose.

If so, it was a grave error. If those Republican Guards divisions
confront our forces, they simply will not survive. Even if their plan
includes the use of chemical weapons.

Thus far, our troops have performed magnificently, seizing an
ever-growing list of airfields, bridges, roads, oil fields and other
critical infrastructure, enabling us to maneuver swiftly and freely,
while preserving the backbone of Iraq's economy for its people. And we
prevented an ecological catastrophe, although those on the left will
never credit us for doing so.

Even if the Iraqis have some ambitious master plan they still believe
they can spring on us, they never expected to lose so much of their
country so quickly. They are reeling; any plan could only be executed
piecemeal, at this point.

After less than four days of ground operations, the Iraqis have lost
control over half their country, they have lost control over most of
their military, and allied forces are closing in on Baghdad.

But what about the "Battle of Baghdad"? Will it be a bloodbath? Haven't
the Iraqis already lured us into urban warfare in the south? No. The
Iraqis haven't lured us into anything. We have consistently imposed our
plan and our will upon the enemy. While there have been some incidences
of urban combat to date, with friendly casualties, our forces are far
better prepared for such encounters than are the Iraqis. The Marine
Corps, especially, has been training intensively in urban environments.

We are not going to be lured into a "Stalingrad" in Baghdad. Ignore the
prophets of doom, who have been wrong consistently. As this column has
steadily maintained, we have time, but Saddam doesn't. If we have to
sit in a ring around Baghdad for several weeks while the last
resistance is dismantled in innovative ways, then that's what we'll do.

Grave dangers lie ahead. Only a fool would underestimate them. But this
war is not being run against a clock. The counsel that we must all be
patient and let our troops do their jobs remains the best a former
soldier can offer.

As long as the American people keep their perspective - which they will
- it really doesn't matter how many journalists lose theirs.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of "Beyond
Terror: Strategy in a Changing World."

:: gandalf23 6:32:00 PM [+] ::
...

---

More war-related, intersting stuff:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/889555.asp?cp1=1
‘I Was Sure I Was Dead’

What happens when you get too far ahead of a U.S. convoy
By Scott Johnson
NEWSWEEK

March 31 issue — It wasn’t until Friday that the Third Marine Expeditionary Brigade set out from a checkpoint west of Route 80, the primary artery between Iraq and Kuwait City. The trucks and armored cars moved slowly on the dirt tracks at 12mph. “What the hell are we doing here?” said Lance Cpl. Sydney Woods, dusting off his pants and letting a thick gob of spit dribble out of his mouth.

FEW IN THE unit had showered in more than two weeks; all of them had been eating nothing but MREs. Pfc. Joel Adams, 21, was so lost in reverie about his home in Albany, Ga., that he didn’t even realize that he was by then in Iraq, the second foreign country he had ever visited (Kuwait had been the first). “I don’t even count the days anymore,” he said. “I don’t even know what today is.”

A NEWSWEEK photographer and I had been hiding out in the desert frontier. We had crossed the border on our own. Now here we were with a group of Marines. As “unilaterals,” journalists who are not embedded with U.S. forces, we were not all that welcome. But they let us join their convoy in our Pajeros (basically, gas-guzzling SUVs). We drove down a road with mines on either side. At night, the Marines told us that we had to go back south.

Despite the dangers, we chose not to follow their orders. After a night sleeping in our cars, we decided we would cut west into the desert to the town of An Nasiriya, west of Basra, and meet up with the Army’s Third Infantry Division, which we knew was going north to Baghdad. We headed across the desert, off-road, at about 7:30 in the morning on Saturday. Following tracks in the sand, we used walkie-talkies and GPS devices that gave us our longitude and latitude.

It was a nerve-racking drive. There were no landmarks, just long convoys, snakelike things that shimmered across the desert. Sometimes, in the distance, we saw shepherds. Sometimes, a massive bombing campaign. There were mines and lots of unexploded ordnance, so we had to stay in the tracks others had made. We ran into a lot of U.S. military. Some were hostile about our not being embedded: unilaterals are a distraction and a potential problem. But none of the troops knew what was going on—they’re all self-contained, moving around with directions given by commanders in helicopters—and they begged us for the latest news of the war.

Finally, we made it to a main road, a six-lane highway, outside An Nasiriya. There were hundreds of coalition tanks, Humvees—massive convoys of U.S. military equipment, all lining up to cross a bridge that had come under Iraqi fire. Cutting in and out of the convoy, we raced to the head. When we crossed the bridge, the terrain changed from flat and inhospitable into fertile farmland. There was evidence of bombing in some villages, and smoldering trucks.

The atmosphere was tense. The U.S. strategy had been to bypass towns, engaging only major targets. That left pockets of Iraqi soldiers and militiamen scattered all along the American “wall of steel” that marched steadily northward. Meanwhile, hundreds of civilians stood silently in the mud lining the sides of the road; some were giving troops the thumbs up. The troops had been briefed that in this part of the world that was the same as giving somebody the finger. They wondered aloud if that was true.

The photographer and I got to the head of the convoy and accelerated past. I saw a post with a soldier standing on an island in the middle of the road. I saw he had a gun—but I thought he was American.

I was wrong. As I passed, I realized he was Iraqi. I looked to my right; there were more than a half-dozen men with guns racing toward my car. Just then the photographer came on the walkie-talkie and said in French, “Weapons! Weapons!” At that moment I heard the Iraqis pepper my car with bullets, hitting it all over. It made an eerie patter, like somebody tapping a finger on glass. I ducked down and put my foot on the gas and sped as fast as I could. It was instinctive. I popped my head up and saw I was fishtailing and going in the wrong direction; trying to compensate, I made it worse. I slammed into the island in the middle of the road, about 150 feet from where the Iraqi had been standing. My car flipped and slammed into a light post.

I opened my eyes. I had ended up in the passenger’s seat and was looking at the ground in front of my windshield. The Iraqis were still firing at the car. I was sure I was dead. I was sure they were going to pull me out of the car and execute me on the spot. Or blow the thing up. They were only 100 or 200 feet away. I thought, “This is it.”

I began kicking the windshield because I didn’t want to expose myself by climbing through the upturned door. After 15 kicks, it cracked and I squeezed out. I crawled away from the car, thinking it would explode. I was still hearing the whir of bullets overhead and the sound of them nicking the dust near me. Keeping the car between the soldiers and me, I crawled about 75 feet from the flipped vehicle. I lay there. There was more gunfire and shouting in Arabic. Then I heard the sound of the oncoming convoy.

The Iraqis stopped firing. The convoy went by and I put my hand up to every single truck that passed, trying to tell the advancing Americans where the Iraqis were hiding out. Trying to get them to stop and pick me up.

They wouldn’t. Five more minutes. At least 15 tanks, Bradleys and Humvees rolled by me in the dust. Finally I got up; otherwise, I realized, they would pass, and the firing would start again. I started running after the convoy. A soldier named Jesse—a platoon leader in the Third Infantry Division, leading a medical unit—motioned me to his Humvee. I said, breathlessly, “My car flipped and they were shooting at me and I need help.” I was hyperventilating from running, and from fear.

Jesse got on the radio and the convoy stopped. Troops went to investigate. They went back with some Bradleys and armored cars, and they found seven Iraqis with AK-47s and two RPGs; they had been lying in wait for the convoy. The soldiers rounded up the men who’d shot at me, and the last I saw they were sitting around the checkpoint with their heads bowed, guarded by U.S. troops.

When I went back to the car there was a huge hole that went in one side and blew out a two-inch-wide hole in the other. I had no idea where the photographer was. He had blown through the checkpoint. (I later learned he was rescued by the Americans, too.)

Dusk was falling. There were Bradleys everywhere, and they had discovered a group of Iraqis coming toward them with small arms. They engaged. There wasn’t any return fire against the massive fire from the tanks. One American soldier was yelling, “Kill the motherf—kers!” This is not a stroll into Baghdad. All along this road they’ve been encountering similar attacks by militia loyal to Saddam who are taking it upon themselves to fight. Bands of Iraqis are resisting, and there are casualties. My car is shrapnel and I’m basically embedded now. I don’t have much chance of going independent again and, to be honest, I don’t know if I want to."


I was a naive fool to be a human shield for Saddam
By Daniel Pepper
(Filed: 23/03/2003)

I wanted to join the human shields in Baghdad
because it was direct action which had a chance of bringing the anti-war movement to the forefront of world attention. It was inspiring: the human shield volunteers were making a sacrifice for their political views - much more of a personal investment than going to a demonstration in Washington or London. It was simple - you get on the bus and you represent yourself.

So that is exactly what I did on the morning of Saturday, January 25. I am a 23-year-old Jewish- American photographer living in Islington, north London. I had travelled in the Middle East before: as a student, I went to the Palestinian West Bank during the intifada. I also went to Afghanistan as a photographer for Newsweek.

The human shields appealed to my anti-war stance, but by the time I had left Baghdad five weeks later my views had changed drastically. I wouldn't say that I was exactly pro-war - no, I am ambivalent - but I have a strong desire to see Saddam removed.

We on the bus felt that we were sympathetic to the views of the Iraqi civilians, even though we didn't actually know any. The group was less interested in standing up for their rights than protesting against the US and UK governments.

I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad - a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, "Bush bad, war bad, Iraq good". He looked at me with an expression of incredulity.

As he realised I was serious, he slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of Saddam's regime. Until then I had only heard the President spoken of with respect, but now this guy was telling me how all of Iraq's oil money went into Saddam's pocket and that if you opposed him politically he would kill your whole family.

It scared the hell out of me. First I was thinking that maybe it was the secret police trying to trick me but later I got the impression that he wanted me to help him escape. I felt so bad. I told him: "Listen, I am just a schmuck from the United States, I am not with the UN, I'm not with the CIA - I just can't help you."

Of course I had read reports that Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein, but this was the real thing. Someone had explained it to me face to face. I told a few journalists who I knew. They said that this sort of thing often happened - spontaneous, emotional, and secretive outbursts imploring visitors to free them from Saddam's tyrannical Iraq.

I became increasingly concerned about the way the Iraqi regime was restricting the movement of the shields, so a few days later I left Baghdad for Jordan by taxi with five others. Once over the border we felt comfortable enough to ask our driver what he felt about the regime and the threat of an aerial bombardment.

"Don't you listen to Powell on Voice of America radio?" he said. "Of course the Americans don't want to bomb civilians. They want to bomb government and Saddam's palaces. We want America to bomb Saddam."

We just sat, listening, our mouths open wide. Jake, one of the others, just kept saying, "Oh my God" as the driver described the horrors of the regime. Jake was so shocked at how naive he had been. We all were. It hadn't occurred to anyone that the Iraqis might actually be pro-war.

The driver's most emphatic statement was: "All Iraqi people want this war." He seemed convinced that civilian casualties would be small; he had such enormous faith in the American war machine to follow through on its promises. Certainly more faith than any of us had.

Perhaps the most crushing thing we learned was that most ordinary Iraqis thought Saddam Hussein had paid us to come to protest in Iraq. Although we explained that this was categorically not the case, I don't think he believed us. Later he asked me: "Really, how much did Saddam pay you to come?"

It hit me on visceral and emotional levels: this was a real portrayal of Iraq life. After the first conversation, I completely rethought my view of the Iraqi situation. My understanding changed on intellectual, emotional, psychological levels. I remembered the experience of seeing Saddam's egomaniacal portraits everywhere for the past two weeks and tried to place myself in the shoes of someone who had been subjected to seeing them every day for the last 20 or so years.

Last Thursday night I went to photograph the anti- war rally in Parliament Square. Thousands of people were shouting "No war" but without thinking about the implications for Iraqis. Some of them were drinking, dancing to Samba music and sparring with the police. It was as if the protesters were talking about a different country where the ruling government is perfectly acceptable. It really upset me.

Anyone with half a brain must see that Saddam has to be taken out. It is extraordinarily ironic that the anti-war protesters are marching to defend a government which stops its people exercising that freedom.


Lucky Break for Jordan

about halfway down:
"A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head.""


:: gandalf23 6:10:00 PM [+] ::
...