And tonight I weep for this world

[reprise]

The toughest thing I've had to do today is get in contact with my US friends and wish them safety and peace.

Australia is a nation divided - right now - about our own participation in this inevitable conflict.

For once, I'm going to put my political opinions on the back-burner and hope to heck that we are all prepared to take the responsibility for what our democratically elected representatives are doing on behalf of their electorates.

Please stay safe, my US friends.

regards

Merryl

[Baggle]

Do you mean take responsibility for the possible bloodshed of innocent lives of civilians in Iraq? It will be terrible, indeed, when that first civilian dies from being caught in a crossfire or a misguided missle or bomb. However, I think that the civilian casualties will be held to a relative minimum. Lower at least than just about everyone who is talking about it is expecting. Perhaps they will get to be a bit more when we are finally moving in on Baghdad and Saddam has his bunkers lined with them, but hopefully he'll be dead in the first 24 hours and that won't happen.

Or did you mean that there will now be terrorist attacks against the western world because of this war? If this is the case, I am sure the war will be mentioned in future video tapes before/after an attack, but I think you are nuts if you think this will significantly increase the amount of attacks by terrorist organizations. Trigger for one or two? Maybe. Cause of many? Doubtful. Al Qaeda/etc is currently operating at full capacity. They kill as much as they can, whenever they can. It's not as if they're going easy on us right now because they're not pissed off, and as soon as we attack Iraq they're going to get angry and retaliate. They are operating to the best of their ability, which is far less than it was when this whole mess started in 2001.

-Baggle

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Baggle
Do you mean take responsibility for the possible bloodshed of innocent lives of civilians in Iraq? It will be terrible, indeed, when that first civilian dies from being caught in a crossfire or a misguided missle or bomb. However, I think that the civilian casualties will be held to a relative minimum. Lower at least than just about everyone who is talking about it is expecting. Perhaps they will get to be a bit more when we are finally moving in on Baghdad and Saddam has his bunkers lined with them, but hopefully he'll be dead in the first 24 hours and that won't happen.
Yet Bush has already said that the initial attack will be "shock and awe". This certainly implies a very massive initial attack, in which there are bound to be very high civilian casualties. The one thing the US wants to avoid is a ground war, and yet, that is the only way to keep from killing lots of non-combatants. If Saddam decides to use chemical and biological warfare against us and a lot of civilians are killed (because they don't have proper protection), is that our fault? Think carefully before you reply.

Originally posted by Baggle

Or did you mean that there will now be terrorist attacks against the western world because of this war? If this is the case, I am sure the war will be mentioned in future video tapes before/after an attack, but I think you are nuts if you think this will significantly increase the amount of attacks by terrorist organizations.
Nuts? Almost everyone in the world realizes that this sort of war will recruit volunteers for the terrorists. Their web may be weakened now, but this invasion will surely strengthen it. The 9-11 terrorists showed that you don't need a lot of expensive equipment to launch attacks. Just watch the Star Wars movies if you think that opposition to an "evil empire" is not heroic.

Originally posted by Baggle
Trigger for one or two? Maybe. Cause of many? Doubtful. Al Qaeda/etc is currently operating at full capacity. They kill as much as they can, whenever they can. It's not as if they're going easy on us right now because they're not pissed off, and as soon as we attack Iraq they're going to get angry and retaliate. They are operating to the best of their ability, which is far less than it was when this whole mess started in 2001.

Agreed. We have been doing a pretty good job against the existing terrorists. Why do you want to swell their ranks?

[Baggle]

The "shock and awe" military campaign in Iraq will be a nearly simultaneous air and ground attack on Iraqi military targets. This is going to be a ground war from day one, just to clarify that point.

Also, just because we will be launching a massive military campaign in the first 24 hours instead of stretching the same one over the course of a month does not mean that there will be massive civilian casualties or that we will target civilian areas purposely. We will be attacking Iraqi military targets, and civilian casualties, even if Bush did not care one bit otherwise, are to be kept to an absolute minimum is at least a business sense. Every civilian killed will be broadcast to the middle east on Al Jazeera television, no matter what the excuse is. This is something the United States wants to absolutely avoid. Also, the percentage of smart bombs in this war is 80%, while it was merely 20% in the first Gulf War. This should also help with guiding missles and bombs more effectively.

As far as the opinion that this attack will swell the ranks of terrorist organizations goes, that is aboslutely debatable. Perhaps at first a few pissed off people in Saudi Arabia or Palestinian terrority will do a few suicide bombings, but once the veil is lifted and the only thing all over the news is Iraqis dancing in the streets and praising the United States and Britain, I think maybe world opinion will change a bit. Also remember that the access that reporters have to the military frontline is unprecedented. I forget the exact numbers, but I believe that each news organization will have something like 10 reporters on the ground following United States troops while they are fighting.

Also, as far as strengthening the web of terrorists goes, I'm not so sure. You can have a million grunts, but without proper leadership and funding, they'll never do much damage before being stopped. Do not think funding is not needed, either, as you asert. You use Sept. 11 as your example, but those guys spent a lot of money on training. Flying lessons and cost of living is not cheap when you don't have a job...or even when you do. No, unless these attacks recruit another Bin Laden who is willing to throw his billions at terrorist campaigns and probably be aprehended, there isn't much chance of any sort of organized or "professional" attack versus the United States, IMHO.

-Baggle

EDIT: to clarify, I meant no additional "professional" attacks resulting from this war. I did not mean that they will not happen at all, although I do think another Sept. 11 is getting more and more unlikely.

[Baggle]

Interesting link: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030317/nmilitaryA.html

-Baggle

[DrBenway]

I have an Egyptian friend who recently came back to the U.S. from a visit home. He says no one will shed a tear for Saddam. He's universally hated. Although no one is happy about war, they're hopeful it will be quick, so the economy in the region isn't badly affected.

There are many moderate Muslims out there who don't believe the suicide killings are right. The moderates support secularism and human rights. Unfortunately, too many are afraid of speaking out, because the fundamentalists wield a lot of power and will retaliate against them.

Fundamentalism promises a new era of Islamic bliss for its followers. It's possible that a firm, "absolutely not!" from the West may prove the fundamentalist dream for the lie that it is. The moderates then may feel freer to rise up against this insane world jihad erupting in the Middle East, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Chechnya, the Kashmir, and so on.

Saddam is an oblique target. He's no fundamentalist. However, resolving the conflict between Saddam and the West ought to make life better for the Iraqi people. It's my hope that a liberated Iraq will embrace a better path than its neighbor, Iran. I'm banking on the fact that most parents, regardless of their faith, would prefer their children to have something better than what's offered in Iran. Maybe the Islamic revolution looked like a good idea 30 years ago. But the evidence is now in: life in Iran sucks. I'm really hoping Iraqis have no illusions about that.

The war on terror is a war against Islamic fundamentalism. Skilled communicators have difficulty giving voice to this aspect of the war without offending everyone in sight. Bush is one of the worst communicators to ever rise to high office. He hasn't a prayer of success in any dialogue regarding the religious aspects of the war on terror. Consequently, he's doomed to sound like he's telling only half the truth when he makes his case to the world.

I think Saddam is a bad guy and it's time for him to go. I think the rationale for action could have been developed more carefully, in a way respectful of the concerns and questions of our allies. I hope the diplomatic damage done by the Bush administration can eventually be repaired.

Now it's too late to stop this war, even if world support isn't there. It seems like bad faith, this dance of decision with the UNSC, when the Rubicon's already been crossed. If I were a US ally, I'd feel like girl being asked out to dinner: "Where do you want to eat?" he says, just as we pull into a restauraunt parking lot.

I don't blame our allies for their sense of confusion over the purpose of military action in Iraq. The case has been put forth badly. Even so, I can see the potential good from the removal of Saddam. I wish I felt confident that the good I imagine will be realized. At best, now, I have a little hope.

[Questioninggeller]

I don't know really what to say... My heart goes out to the innocent people in the middle east, not just Iraq but all citizens of all the countries who will be forever harmed due to the forth coming actions.

[Baggle]

Please expand on that. Who is going to be harmed by changing the Iraqi government except for the possible(and terrible) human casualty?

Thanks.
-Baggle

[max]

I say my prayers for all the soldiers too who are going to fight this war whether they agree or not. I can't imagine what it will be like when the first dead young soldiers are brought back to the UK. How will those mothers feel? They will have to brave the cameras most likely and say how brave their son was fighting for peace and so for ever more she's no son. Young lives lost and for what? Why can't Saddam's palaces and his other buildings be bombed first? Particularly his palace which stretches for miles. I also feel terribly sorry for the Iraqi soldiers who didn't even have decent boots in the gulf war. Do you all remember that road of death that stretched for miles. Hundreds of young sons dead. Dreadful. I wonder too, why intelligence.sas couldn't have assassinated Saddam and his cronies.

[Always Free]

I don't know about the situation in Iraq but if my city was about to be bombed you wouldn't see me for the dust. I'd be headed for the hills. It's got to be the better option of either stay and hope my house doesn't get hit or leave everything behind and high tail it out of there. On foot if I had to!:(

[Baggle]

Max, all bombing will be almost simultaneous and Saddam's palaces will be bombed, if only for psychological value. I assure you that he won't be relaxing on in his palace bedroom when the war starts. He'll be holed up in a bunker somewhere.

As far as assassination goes...it's against the rules. That is why you haven't seen it attempted. At least officially, anyhow.

Read the link I provided. Lots of good information there from Time magazine.

-Baggle