Mr. Bush should be proud

[Cat]

From BBC online:

The daily briefings given by the allies used video footage and satellite pictures to show that military targets were being devastated and that every effort was being to avoid civilian casualties.

Terms like "collateral damage" and "surgical strike" were staples of the briefings which gave the bombing campaign the air of a computer game. In reality, the devastation on the ground was very messy.

Baghdad devastated

In the capital, military and communications installations were targeted, as well as the parliament, airport, defence ministry, and various palaces.

All over the country the major cities and military targets were hit, as were Iraqi forces in Kuwait.

Outside the Amirya shelter
The scene outside the Amirya bomb shelter in Baghdad
On 13 February what became known as the Amirya bombing shook the US-led alliance and brought home the human cost of Desert Storm.

A US stealth bomber dropped two laser-guided bombs on what the allies had pinpointed as an important command and control bunker.

The bombers had intended to drop the 900kg bombs into the ventilation shafts of the shelter. One missed and exploded nearby, blocking the only escape route.

The second plunged into the bunker and exploded in the middle of the largest room on the upper floor.

The effect was terrible: 314 people are believed to have died, 130 of them children.

Allied forces were unaware that hundreds of women and children had been routinely using the shelter since the start of Desert Storm.

The scenes of badly burnt bodies being pulled out of the devastated shelter and distraught relatives waiting outside shocked the world.

We'll see this again. Again there will be victims of war in aditoin to "victims of peace" (or lack of interest). The inspectors were meant to let Iraq disarm, not to help civilians build up their lives again, so it is not their fault either.

[pds]

"Lack of interest" is an excellent way of putting it.

Yes, once the fighting starts, there will be press conferences galore to naysay the devastation and there will be story after story about the victims to pluck on the heartstrings and help the entertainment media that calls itself news can sell more soap! War is to be avoided if at all possible.

But 314 doesn't equal 200,000 and that's the statistic I question.

[Cat]

314 doesn't equal 200,000. 314 is the civilian deaths due to an error in allied intelligence reports. 200,000 is the number of total casualties, military and civilian, mostly the latter, based not only on operation Desert Storm, but also all the other attacks, the effects of the complete distruction of water and electricity supply etc. in the next ten years.

Now to some sources, I invito you to really read some of these:

This study concludes that the child mortality rate today is at least
double and that at least 170,000 children will die in the coming year
from the delayed effects of the Gulf Crisis.

The most recent available estimate of Iraq's pre-Gulf Crisis child
mortality rate is 52 per thousand. United Nations Children's Fund and
World Health Organization, *1990 National Survey on Vaccination, Diarrhea
and Child Maternal Diseases in Iraq*, (1990). Doubling that figure
produces a post-Gulf War mortality rate of 104 per thousand.

Applying this derived mortality rate to the 3.3 million Iraqis under
five, this study estimated that 55,000 additional deaths of children
under five have already occurred. Applying this mortality rate for the
coming year, this study projects at least 170,000 additional child
deaths because of the delayed effects of the Gulf Crisis.

The conservative nature of this figure of 170,000 additional child deaths
can be understood by focusing on gastroenteritis. Before the Gulf
Crisis in 1990, about 50,000 children a year in Iraq died from
gastroenteritis. Current hospital data show a twofold to tenfold
increase in the number of children admitted with this disease. These
data also show more than a doubling of the rate of child death in
hospitals from all causes, including gastroenteritis.

In other words, at least twice as many children are admitted to
hospitals with gastroenteritis, and of those admitted, at least twice as
many die as before. Therefore, since there were 50,000 child deaths
each year from gastroenteritis before the Gulf War, four times as many,
or an additional 150,000 child deaths from this disease can be expected
in the coming year, unless conditions change.

To repeat, this figure of 150,000 additional deaths is for
gastroenteritis alone. This figure does not include deaths from
malnutrition, respiratory disease, or other common child illnesses.
Hence, the estimate of additional child deaths is probably low.

From http://nativenet.uthscsa.edu/archive/nl/91a/0122.html
Overview of the Harvard Study Team Report "Public Health in Iraq"

See also the Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/reports/1991/gulfwar/

And this report: http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/19.../s91lopez.html

Have a nice day and sleep well. These are some of the things I wouldn't want to happen anymore in my name.

[sanfret]

It blows my mind that nobody recalls the Korean war, or the fact that China is North of North Korea and their biggest supporter. Until we stop buying that cheap TV for your girlfriend, China and North Korea has the US by the nuts. Additionally, North Korea is communist, Let us recall the us v. them mentality that that culture brew. They are supported by the largest standing army/country in the world.

In ethonographic research you learn to understand cultural tendencies. Iraq is one that is tribal. Like it or not, they understand nothing but force. Korea, is one that says one thing and writes down another. Very typical of Asian countries, though they have communist philosphy thrown in to mix it up. Until the cultural influences are brought to light it is obsurd to lay the same policy for everything.

Some people are bitter that they are "behind" another society, others that they have "different" views. One person can cause the world to die in a firey death. Don't let it be our preseident or our country leading the way.

Forcewise, you always take out the little guy (Iraq) before pursuing other objectives (North Korea). It is stupid to think that a two front war is a good thing. Or any front war for that matter.

[mdnky]

Originally posted by toast
Dafuser, what you wrote above makes no sense when applied to history after 1945, date of first nuclear deterrent use.

If you need more precise explanations, check what Samy Cohen means in his book "The Atomic Bomb, Strategy of Terror".

War is a primitive, pre-Cold War means to win primitive domination. I understand African nations can still use war, but I don't understand post-industrial countries can still consider it as an option.

Hence, your post is obsolete since 1946 . No offense, don't worry !

It makes perfect sense. The way you talk Toast you would rather them use a WMD (biological or nuclear) on another country before anyone takes an action to stop it. That is the same as saying we know you have pnemonia, but we won't give you antibiotics untill you're almost dead OR are dead. That's not wisdom, it's ignorance.

Again, this is the same carelessness that led to WWI, and WWII. We must use what we learned from history to avoid another major conflict.

[mdnky]

Originally posted by hulkaros
As for Hitler: He attacked other european countries... Correct me if I'm wrong: When exactly Sadam attacked US, Europe et al and the US MUST strike back? Or is it a matter of pre-strike? Then again european countries and US didn't pre-strike Hitler back then, did they?

No, they did the exact same thing you want us to do with Iraq. Baby it, place restrictions, do inspections, etc.

In the end the same thing will happen if we don't do something about him, we'll wind up in a major conflict again...the really scarry thing is this:

It isn't the 30's or 40's...instead of worrying about those horrible things called airplanes and measly little bombs, we have to worry about WMD and nuclear attacks on the battlefield and at HOME. How about the release of biological agents on civilian populations. Have you ever seen what some of these biological agents do to a human? IT ISN'T PRETTY.


Why lay around waiting for Saddam to attack? That would be the most ignorant thing we could do.

[jeb1138]

Originally posted by Cat
Posted by jeb1138

I do not think Bush is evil, yet I think that the results of the war he is proposing are going to be 'evil'

Thanks for the clarification. I think, then, that we are very closely in agreement. I don't think we can say that "the results of the war" are going to be evil, simply because I believe some results, if a war were to occur, would be very good. Regime-change in Iraq could be extraordinarily wonderful. Or extraordinarily destabilizing. The question in my mind is: Whence the greater evil, and what are the evils that may occur? That question I know I cannot answer because I know I don't have enough facts. I also am sure that none of these leaders can know for sure which will be the better course, since they cannot foretell what tragedies may occur if war is not waged nor what tragedies might be avoided if war is not needed. They (France, Germany, Britain, the U.S. etc.) can only use their best judgment with the information available to them. I pray they do.

[Cat]

The question in my mind is: Whence the greater evil, and what are the evils that may occur?

I think we indeed do largely agree. My point is that through inspection and diplomatic action we have a teeny weeny chanche of avoiding the consequences of war altogether. until there is an ever so slight chance of a peaceful solution, I think it is worth of giving it a try and will ultimately lead to the least evil.