1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The US wants War

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ditch, Jan 30, 2003.

  1. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Phillip Knightley is a journalist writing on this occasion for The Diplomat. He believes the reason The US is talking up the possibility of war with Iraq is to throw their weight around with the intention of remaining numero uno, top dog, the one the rest of the world is scared of opposing.

    And if you happen to be part of the media that gives a balanced rather than a pro US slant on the stories emanating from the Iraq invasion then watch out. Rear Admiral Craig Quigley's, the deputy assistant defence secretary for public affiars attitude can be summed up as, according to Knightley, "Don't get in our way, or we'll bomb you too".

    At the beginning of the twentieth century, about 90% of all casulties were soldiers. A hundred years later 90% of all casultiues in war are civilians.

    What is the real reason the US wants to go to war? If the evidence against saddam was damming, wouldn't have the US and Britain released evidence by now?

    Read all about it.
  2. Ravenink

    Ravenink Veteran Member

    Though I'll gladly go into further detail if wished, I can respond in only one way:

  3. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Any part more than the other? I'd much prefer some detail rather than a one word response.
    The stats re civilians/soldiers killed in wars is not an opinion.
  4. melpomene

    melpomene Banned

    i just think that here in australia, we are not getting enough information. i have to go to overseas sites on the internet to read up on Hans Blix's decision and subsequent address to the UN. the actual statements. to read up on Bush's State of Union address i have to get it from a friend in Texas. to read up on political analyst's reports i have to site's overseas.
  5. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Good to see another Aussie here melpomene.

    I think its pretty typical for local news services to only give a superficial coverage of events. Local news always seems to dominate. Also the volume of events worth reporting is huge so in the interest of breadth of coverage, the detail can suffer.
    However Bush's speech yestersay, State of the Union, was live of News Radio, 630 on the AM dial in Sydney.
  6. melpomene

    melpomene Banned

    well i was at work then.

    and thank you for the welcome.

    the ABC covers this impending war well. no bias and factual. the ABC use the political analysts well. i am always sifting through the crap and sensational building journalism looking for good articles.
  7. ditch

    ditch Downunder Member

    Yes the ABC is the better of the news services. The commercial channels often resort to sensationalism and infotainment. If I come across any articles worth passing on I'll let you know.
  8. melpomene

    melpomene Banned

    thank you ditch
  9. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

    So if the article is right, why do we bother with the pretense? Just kick ass and be done with it. Hell, Rome was no touchy-feely Empire and neither was the British Empire. As for any homegrown dissidents, plenty of open space in the mid-west for those relocation camps like WWII. We can start with Canada, south to Mexico (why have a border problem when you can just enlarge your border). The ME is a source of nice cheap oil, so of course, that is on the menu. Europe better get in line or a few RNEPs will make them shut up for a few centuries, the whinny bastards. The sub-continent we want no part of, way to messy. As for Australia, well we have to have somewhere to go for vacation. Remember, over-sexed, over-paid and over-there.

    Did I mention the deal we made with Putin on all of this?


    * just another silly, arrogant American bastard standing up against silly European-style rubbish *
  10. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    Some people won't be happy until our cities are nuked or nerve gassed. America won't be happy unless it's the top dog for the next century? The only way America won't be top dog is if our cities are attacked in that way. Our military and technological edge won't be surmounted by any other society without those societies redefining themselves.

    Of course, this is what those jealous of our society would like to see... our cities gassed, that is. I guess once a hundred million of us die, then everything will be better.

    I think American's viewpoint is closer to the idea that America won't be happy unless it's assured of security. Right now, a lot of countries are against that because it goes against their own political agendas... ie, alliances of their own with regimes like Iraq.
  11. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

    The following is from Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy (1994):

    "First, before the United States commits itself to combat, it should have a clear understanding of the nature of the threat it will be confronting and of the objectives it can realistically reach. It must have a clear military strategy and an unambiguous definition of constitutes a successful political outcome.

    Second, when America commits itself to military action, there can be no alternative to victory, as Gen. Douglas MacArthur advised. Qualms cannot be stilled by hesitant execution: prolonged stalemate will sap the endurance and hence the will of the American Public. This requires a careful elaboration of political goals and the military strategy to achieve them before the decision is made to go to war.

    Third, a democracy cannot conduct a serious foreign policy if the contending factions within it do not exercise a minimum of restraint toward each other. Once victory over domestic opponents becomes the sole objective of a policy, cohesion evaporates. Nixon was convinced that it was the president's ultimate responsibility to defend the national interest, even if it went against his country's own passionate dissenters -- perhaps especially then. Yet Vietnam showed that president's cannot conduct war by fiat."

    This is why the article is so flawed. It speaks of an American empire that exists only in the imagination of those with an agenda to make it so not in reality. The American public would never stand for it.

    We as a people can endure much if the cause is perceived just and right. The comment about body bags belies an unfamiliarity with American history as does 'They believe that they can wage war in the 21st century with minimum American casualties. (Other countries casualties do not count.) New war technology and the use of mercenaries has transferred the risk of being killed in an American-run war away from American servicemen to others.'

    That statement is a monstrous falsehood as to be beneath contempt. American military planners make avoiding civilian casualties a concern in all targeting decisions. If he were to read the mission logs and history of the units involved he would see that indiscriminate targeting of civilian population is not American national policy.

    I suggest that Mr. Phillip Knightley crawl out from under the rock he is living under, dry off the ooze and learn some facts before he vents his opinions.
  12. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    I've not yet read the article--I will, of course--but I have to offer these two questions:

    Is the United States not already the sole world leader?

    And from reading the quote above, the soldier/civilian death ratio is at an all-time low; most certainly on the soldier side (at least insofar as American and coalition soldiers go; not the enemy) and civilian deaths are no where near where they were in good old WWII, where millions of civilians died. Again, going by the quote only, the author is fluffing up this dummy and apparently angling for the attack that US forces are indiscriminate killers, when it's been shown to be completely the reverse.

    Off to read now.

  13. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    OK, having read the article, I can tell you this from a military perspective: Mr. Knightley does not know the difference between ballistics and ballroom dancing.

    I do not recall participating in any operations to bomb or invade Guatemala or Honduras. That is total and complete fancy.

    Korea was a legit conflict. Vietnam started out as such, but deteriorated into something else; most of us know the reasons. Laos and Cambodia were offshoots of that engagement, as the North Vietnamese expanded their scope of operations into those nations.

    Grenada had a legit center of gravity; American lives were at stake.

    Haiti began as a takedown mission, and transformed into a peacekeeping and restoration mission on the fly.

    The Balkans and Somalia were nothing what Mr. Knightley wishes they were.

    Libya was a successful operation that turned the tide against Khadaffy Duck.

    Lebanon was a peacekeeping operation wherein the US suffered over 200 dead. I am unaware of the US conducting combat operations in Lebanon. Perhaps Mr. Knightley's military history books are different from mine.

    Iraq was a legit operation. We did not stay and occupy the oil fields. We had an international mandate. (See? Even when we get it and act within the so-called "legal framework," it's called something else later by the revisionists.)

    Afghanistan was a legit operation. To presume otherwise is foolish, naive, and instantly decimates any credibility a "jounalist" might have.

    The only operation I think is questionable is JUST CAUSE in Panama. Even us guys called it JUST BECAUSE. There is no doubt that Noriega was a bad guy, and I do think things are better in Panama now that he's gone. But one instance out of 16 is hardly a great record for Mr. Knightley to base his rather outlandish presumptions upon.

    I see he also apparently thinks the PRC leadership is a collection of warm and fuzzy individuals. To be sure, Jiang Zemin does look like a muppet, but I would recommend he visit the PRC to cement his understanding. And preferably do more than stay at a five star hotel.

    I'm with Rave; rubbish. Utter, complete, revisionist rubbish.

  14. jfcjrus

    jfcjrus Veteran Member

    Thanks, Steve.
    I glad someone's keeping track of this stuff, and can respond accordingly.

    A journalist's opinion really carrys no more weight than our own, no matter how good it may sound, nor how much it may support some folks opinion of the USA, today.
    Although it may sell more newspapers, etc.....

    Thanks again, for trying to keep the FACTS straight and visable.

  15. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Free of charge, of course.

  16. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

    Yet this utter,complete, revisionist rubbish is being eagerly consumed as absolute gospel not only by those who do not know any better but even more alarmingly by those like the Ramsey Clarks of the world who should know better. Even now, the Iraqi propaganda machine is busy turning the Blix report on its head and saying that any deficiency of the findings is not their fault but a plot by the US to provoke war. Rubbish. Yet everyone wants to give Saadam unlimited time unless the inspectors 'find something'.

    What the hell do they think they will find? A mushroom cloud popping up over Israel and Saadam going on tv saying they have just concluded their first test? Hospitals suddenly overflowing with cases of flu symptoms with rash?

    Saadam knows full well what he has to do to comply with the UN regulations. He has no intention of ever doing anything other than what he wants. The time has long past to turn Iraq back to its people.
  17. nitewriter

    nitewriter To Perceive Is To Suffer

    Originally posted by mikepd

    So if the article is right, why do we bother with the pretense? Just kick ass and be done with it. Hell, Rome was no touchy-feely Empire and neither was the British Empire.
    But isn't that what they are doing anyway.

    Okay here's what evidence we have , but if you don't like it tough. We are going in anyway.

    Didn't Bush say in his speach that those you don't follow, will lose out.

    I think the pretenses are quickly falling by the way side.

    And as for expanding the borders and making Canada part of the U.S, who would they have to lampoon on their weekly t.v shows then.
  18. Robert Harris

    Robert Harris Passed Away Aug. 19, 2006

    We don't need Canada. Nothing up there but ice and bears, as I understand it. But there might be some use for Australia. We'll have to look into that. :)
  19. nitewriter

    nitewriter To Perceive Is To Suffer

    Originally posted by Robert Harris

    We don't need Canada. Nothing up there but ice and bears, as I understand it. But there might be some use for Australia. We'll have to look into that.
    Show's how much people know about Canada, we have GREAT BEER TOO.

  20. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Where? Only decent beer I've had is in Europe!

Share This Page