war

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

is the u.s. of a gonna do it?

― donna (donna), Monday, 16 September 2002 19:45 (twenty-three years ago)

of course they are.........

― donna (donna), Monday, 16 September 2002 19:45 (twenty-three years ago)

I like how 'do it' can be read as both the attempt at war and flat-out victory, and personally I'll agree with the former take and look extremely askance at the latter...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 16 September 2002 19:51 (twenty-three years ago)

um yeah i mean the attempt actually

― donna (donna), Monday, 16 September 2002 19:52 (twenty-three years ago)

what is victory in war anyway? isnt it all relative to the side you are on?

― donna (donna), Monday, 16 September 2002 19:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, I think the war against Iraq will happen. I also think that the US will win it - messing around in war games is a red herring: the US forces, given the determination to win, will eventually be irresistible, I think. And there will be that determination, because Bush is staking his presidency on it, and because Desert Storm looks now like a half-arsed job - they won't stop without at least toppling Saddam.

I don't think any of this is a good thing, I should emphasise: I am not saying "huzzah! we will defeat the evil tyrant!". On the other hand, I won't be mourning for Saddam if he gets killed.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 16 September 2002 20:11 (twenty-three years ago)

It does seem a certainty at this point, doesn't it? I'm curious to see how many Americans will actually support it, though.

― nory (nory), Monday, 16 September 2002 20:18 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, Martin, remember the Powell doctrine: be very selective about the use of force, but when you've elected to use it, use it entirely. Funnily, I think we've been watching this very process with Powell over recent months: he started off a bit lukewarm about the idea, but now seems fully on-board and ready to go. For the time being, though, the ball is entirely in the UN's court.

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 16 September 2002 21:20 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't think so. It is however taking a lot of peoples minds off of the recent recession in the economy, gurmbling about how we don't have enough security and making it much easier for the government to justify taking away some of our rights. The threat of war as a deversion in going to continue...

― brg30 (brg30), Monday, 16 September 2002 21:27 (twenty-three years ago)

I also think that the US will win it

How are you defining "win"? I don't doubt that the U.S. military can take out Saddam Hussein (in a body bag if necessary), but what happens after he's gone? Supposedly the reason Hussein's been allowed to remain in office is that there is no satisfactory sucessor to be found.

― j.lu (j.lu), Monday, 16 September 2002 21:51 (twenty-three years ago)

I think the poles are showing more American support for the coming invasion. Bush's UN speech apparently won people over.

― DeRayMi, Monday, 16 September 2002 22:09 (twenty-three years ago)

J.Lu is absolutely right that amid all of the administration's preparatory "we're ready" talk, no one has claimed that we've found the core or even the vaguest seed of a suitable/viable post-Hussein government (leave alone a likeable one).

― nabisco (nabisco), Monday, 16 September 2002 22:12 (twenty-three years ago)

I think what matters is not whether Americans will support the war, but whether they will oppose it in ways in which compel Bush not to invade, or to curtail the scale of the action. I think the answer is probably: no. Sadly, I can include myself as someone who opposes this war and much of Bush's foreign policy, but is unwilling to take to become an activist in any reliable manner.

― DeRayMi, Monday, 16 September 2002 22:16 (twenty-three years ago)

Iraq to accept UN weapons inspectors.

― bnw (bnw), Monday, 16 September 2002 22:21 (twenty-three years ago)

Interesting. Another clever dodge on Hussein's part or did he blink in a game of brinksmanship?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 17 September 2002 00:30 (twenty-three years ago)

j.lu, I'm not defining winning, I'm saying that the US can achieve what it states are its objectives - which explicitly amount to toppling the current regime, and implicitly must also include some notion of what kind of replacement will be acceptable, i.e. I can't see that they've won if Iraq is taken over by Saddam MkII. Actually, this is an extremely pertinent and interesting question, in that one of the most dangerous movements since the start of America's 'war on terrorism' is the slippage of its objectives (inevitable, since as originally framed they were ludicrous), and the unevenness and vagueness of how it defines its purposes and what 'victory' might look like.

Some of the papers seem to be presenting Iraq's acceding to UN resolutions as some sinister scheme to dodge the war to which we're righteously entitled: Saddam is doing what the West has asked and what the UN has mandated. Let's accept that with some grace. Let's not move the goalposts. (Let's also accept that this wouldn't have happened without the pressure and threats.)

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 17 September 2002 11:42 (twenty-three years ago)

what is it good for? absolutely nothing.

― di smith (lucylurex), Tuesday, 17 September 2002 19:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Let's accept that with some grace. Let's not move the goalposts.

Rather a disengenuous statement to make, Martin -- not that I don't doubt your sentiments, but I think it's been clear enough over the past few weeks that goalposts will shift in terms of general developments and that the administration and its representatives have more than once said that the arms inspections themselves are not the issue at hand. It seems the more logical thing to do is to trust neither side at face value, at all.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 17 September 2002 20:29 (twenty-three years ago)

it's an awful thing but it will prob happen :(

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 17 September 2002 20:47 (twenty-three years ago)

And I don't, Ned: I just mean that the US have tried to found some of their intentions on Saddam flouting UN resolutions, and on the threat of his weapons of mass destruction. I think if he accedes to these resolutions, and no such weapons are found, it would be unreasonable to say fuck that, we're attacking anyway. It might happen anyway, but it would seem to me to be without any real basis, or even a fair stab at a pretence of same.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 17 September 2002 20:49 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.