Countdown to a new world.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I t looks like a lot of Iraqis are going to die by the end of this week. I am very apprehensive about what will come afterwards. The Bush junta have crippled the UN in a very cynical move. Europe is further from a common foreign and security policy than ever and the world will be a much less safe place come the weekend.

Anyway WARtalk in the week we go to war.

(PS on the day war starts, if you oppose this war, down tools, walk out and gather at wherever you normally gather in your town, See STWC for details.)

― Ed (dali), Monday, 17 March 2003 13:31 (twenty-three years ago)

and: will the UN fall apart bcz of this?

and: will londoners switch from tube to buses afer the war begins?

and: has saddam already left iraq?

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 17 March 2003 13:47 (twenty-three years ago)

I've just come back from lunch w/ work colleague and it was mostly war talk.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 17 March 2003 13:48 (twenty-three years ago)

I think that the UN will be weakened. It didn't help that Kofi Annan didn't manage to solve the Cyprus dispute last week. The UN has been struggling in the post cold war world anyway. The only thing that can save it is a re drawing of its constitution on more equitable lines. There is no way that this is compatible with the project for a new american century.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 17 March 2003 13:53 (twenty-three years ago)

and: will londoners switch from tube to buses afer the war begins?

virtually impossible for many Londoners - and it would create an impossible situation if everyone did do that - back off commuters, the buses are MY bitch and mine only!

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 17 March 2003 14:00 (twenty-three years ago)

This morning on the radio, they were saying Bush announced today as the last day for diplomacy. So, in other words, they are saying war will probably start tomorrow.

― Sarah McLUsky (coco), Monday, 17 March 2003 14:06 (twenty-three years ago)

Wednesday 0:00am. Blair has to go to parliament tomorrow. He does have to but if he doesn't he's likely to be out of a job before the war's over.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 17 March 2003 14:07 (twenty-three years ago)

truly these are interesting times

― stevem (blueski), Monday, 17 March 2003 14:09 (twenty-three years ago)

It kinda weirds me out to read (on the UN's website) how many almost-unanimously-supported UN Sec. Counsil resolutions the United States has vetoed* in regards to the Israeli-settlements-in-the-occupied-territories and shot down, when Bush, Inc. have been acting like they're about to piss their pants because France & Russia & Germany want to veto this ONE resolution. In fact, that whole UN site is kinda a mind-fuck when read in the context of today's shit.

*at least 30 resolutions from what I've read

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 17 March 2003 14:19 (twenty-three years ago)

From Yahoo News:
In Baghdad, Saddam was unbowed. "When the enemy starts a large-scale battle, he must realize that the battle between us will be open wherever there is sky, land and water in the entire world," he told his military commanders in remarks carried by the official Iraqi news agency.

― Sarah McLUsky (coco), Monday, 17 March 2003 14:21 (twenty-three years ago)

Blair has called an emergency cabinet meeting at 4.00 this afternoon... I suspect this means war almost immediately. For all the deafening volume of the speculation from all sides, I genuinely have no idea what might actually happen once the bombs start falling.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 17 March 2003 14:25 (twenty-three years ago)

CNBC is reporting that Bush is preparing a speech to be given possibly tonight (Eastern U.S. time), and speculating that it could be a formal declaration of war.
:^p

― j.lu (j.lu), Monday, 17 March 2003 14:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Wait --- the US are actually going to declare war? They haven't done this since WWII, have they?

― Wintermute (Wintermute), Monday, 17 March 2003 14:35 (twenty-three years ago)

Okay, not a formal declaration of war, but announcing the "liberation of Iraq."

― j.lu (j.lu), Monday, 17 March 2003 14:35 (twenty-three years ago)

BBC were trailing a possible bush speech yesterday. They had some US wonk on laying out what he 'thought might' happen this week.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 17 March 2003 14:38 (twenty-three years ago)

Did the predictions of said wonk involve five days of intense bombing and a swift victory for the US, perchance?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 17 March 2003 14:45 (twenty-three years ago)

What wonderful times we live in when "invasion" = "liberation".

Non-American Earthians, I'm very sorry for what is being done in my nation's name. Please don't hold it against our future generations, if there are any.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 17 March 2003 14:46 (twenty-three years ago)

In other news - plague!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2856735.stm

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 17 March 2003 15:10 (twenty-three years ago)

[cough, cough]
The air raid sirens won't stop going off around here - WTF.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Monday, 17 March 2003 15:22 (twenty-three years ago)

I think congress formally declared war on Iraq in the first gulf war. Bush can't formally declare war - only congress can. In this case, Bush will use the vaguely worded war resolutions act passed by congress year or so ago to claim the authority to invade Iraq. Stupid congress, some of them are old enough to have been around during Vietnam, with the similarly ill-conceived Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

The war should be very anti-climactic, however. It might unfortunately take years to see the mistake of it.

― fletrejet, Monday, 17 March 2003 15:34 (twenty-three years ago)

Nevertheless Coldplay are against it, so it's my duty to be all in favour.

― Matt (Matt), Monday, 17 March 2003 15:37 (twenty-three years ago)

Looks like its real, this is from CNN:

Bush to address nation
• President to speak at 8 p.m. EST, will say Saddam Hussein must leave Iraq to avoid war
• U.S., UK, Spain will not seek second U.N. vote; White House says diplomacy has ended
• U.N. withdrawing inspectors, officials tell CNN
• U.S. officials say they have seen new evidence that Iraq is preparing to use chemical weapons

― fletrejet, Monday, 17 March 2003 16:05 (twenty-three years ago)

Hitchens: "If there were an election tomorrow I would vote for Bush"
(ie interesting email exchange from the LA Weekly between CH and Doug Ireland)

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Monday, 17 March 2003 16:21 (twenty-three years ago)

whoops, Here's the link.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Monday, 17 March 2003 16:22 (twenty-three years ago)

And its going to be the US and the UK that provoked the use of a chemical weapon.

I would gladly renounce my pacifism for 5 minutes to smack Christopher Hitchens upsaide the head.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 17 March 2003 16:23 (twenty-three years ago)

Once again, Dear Raed

― Kerry (dymaxia), Monday, 17 March 2003 16:26 (twenty-three years ago)

WASHINGTON (AFX) - The diplomatic effort to disarm Iraq has ended and President George Bush will address the nation from the Oval Office at 8.00 pm EST (0100 GMT), White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.
"To avoid a military conflict, Saddam Hussein has no other choice than to leave the country," Fleischer told reporters.
"The diplomatic window is now closed," he said.
Bush will tell the nation that Saddam Hussein must leave Iraq, Fleischer said.
"The UN Security Council has failed to act to enforce its own resolutions," Fleischer said.
Asked if journalists should leave Baghdad immediately, Fleischer said: "Baghdad is not a safe place to be."
Bush spoke by telephone with UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Premier Jose Maria Aznar this morning, Fleischer said.
No effort was made to contact French president Jacques Chirac.

Well, that's it then.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 17 March 2003 17:03 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm not sure if I like Bushwar coverage over by over style. I guess its useful but it feels a little bit flippant.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 17 March 2003 19:33 (twenty-three years ago)

I think congress formally declared war on Iraq in the first gulf war

Really? I didn't think they did...I've never heard someone from the govt refer to the 'Persian Gulf War', it's usu just 'Desert Storm'

― oops (Oops), Monday, 17 March 2003 19:38 (twenty-three years ago)

I think we need to grease up Dubya and Saddam and let them Greco-Roman wrestle this thing out. Secretly, I think that's exactly what they want too.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 17 March 2003 19:42 (twenty-three years ago)

So they both want to be greased up and you want to do the greasing?
Got it.

― oops (Oops), Monday, 17 March 2003 19:45 (twenty-three years ago)

Can I be the grease?

― Sarah MCLusky (coco), Monday, 17 March 2003 19:45 (twenty-three years ago)

Since there's no avoiding this damned war, the only good thing I can hope for out of it is if Blair is given the boot...

― ChristineSH (chrissie1068), Monday, 17 March 2003 19:46 (twenty-three years ago)

I dunno...what's your qualifications? what major greasing jobs have you been a part of?

― oops (Oops), Monday, 17 March 2003 19:47 (twenty-three years ago)

Can it be evil grease?

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Monday, 17 March 2003 19:48 (twenty-three years ago)

Robin Cook would be as good as any of that lot to replace Blair. Peter Kilfoyle might be interesting though.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 17 March 2003 19:49 (twenty-three years ago)

"evil grease" + google image search =

http://grease.errgh.com/gnome/logo.jpg

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 17 March 2003 19:51 (twenty-three years ago)

Its a sign I tell you. Robin Cook will be king of the World.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 17 March 2003 19:53 (twenty-three years ago)

But Evil Gnomes aside, I'm entirely serious when I say I'm frightened for what will have happened by week's end.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 17 March 2003 19:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Me too.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Monday, 17 March 2003 19:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Especially when Saddam said that he will take the fight to wherever there is land. I'm sure he'll start handing stuff over to terrorists now there's no hope of him clinging to power.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 17 March 2003 19:55 (twenty-three years ago)

Bush and co. have continally changed the ostensible pretext for war, and now they've (purposely) set a term that Saddam Hussein can't possibly accept: his leaving the country. Tomorrow I suppose Bush will say that no action short of Hussein performing ritual seppuku wearing PowerPuff Girls boxers will prevent war, and within ten minutes the planes will be in the air.

I'm not frightened but rather outraged and horrified.

I wouldn't take Saddam at his word, BTW.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 17 March 2003 19:59 (twenty-three years ago)

And saddened to be living through the most mendacious administration in a long, long time. When Bush said he idolized TR I didn't realize he meant the unapologetic imperialist asshole part.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:00 (twenty-three years ago)

>I think we need to grease up Dubya and Saddam and let them Greco
>-Roman wrestle this thing out. Secretly, I think that's exactly what
>they want too.

If you'll recall a few months back Saddam challenged Dubya to a duel in order to settle their differences. I would have actually had respect for Dubya if he took him up on the offer - at least then he would live up his cowboy image.

― fletrejet, Monday, 17 March 2003 20:15 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh I remember. I long for the day the leaders themselves become the ones endangered by their decisions.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:20 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm sure he'll start handing stuff over to terrorists now

Isn't this a core argument of the administration anyway?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:22 (twenty-three years ago)

I like the fact that the Dow is rocketing up near 300 points.

The moron traders didn't even wait for the bombs to start falling to celebrate.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:28 (twenty-three years ago)

We're already in a "new world" since 9/11, remember?

So how many more countdowns to a new world are we gonna have? Are they going to be as revelatory as Y2K? the Cold War? the Gulf War? The Taliban War?

Being slightly flippant here, and not to discount the above, but I would think we would learn by now that the world has still been turning after all that has happened in our life times. And while this will be no comfort to those who will die in the seemingly imminent Iraq war, maybe we should not expect the end of the world every time something like this happens?

― donut bitch (donut), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:32 (twenty-three years ago)

What's going on right now is altogether more pernicious than any of the events you've cited, db.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:36 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh, really.

(in completely unrelated news on this rather strange day.. it looks like I finally got a job after being unemployed for over a year.)

― donut bitch (donut), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:38 (twenty-three years ago)

So the Cold War didn't have any pernicious effects, I see.

― donut bitch (donut), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:39 (twenty-three years ago)

Uh, that's why it was called a "cold" war.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Saddam would never have handed over stuff to terrorists whilst there was a chance that he might stay in power. Terrorist would just direct it back at him. Now who knows. We can't put the genie back in the bottle.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:42 (twenty-three years ago)

Saddam would never have handed over stuff to terrorists whilst there was a chance that he might stay in power

Once again.... OH, REALLY!

― donut bitch (donut), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:44 (twenty-three years ago)

Terrorists would just direct it back at him.

I don't follow your logic, Ed.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:45 (twenty-three years ago)

So the proliferation and buildup of mass amounts of nuclear weapons which were the modus operandi of the Cold War hasn't had any pernicious effects. OK, next.

(I'm not trying to argue that our current situation is just hunky dory. It terribly upsets me. But I think the notion of convincing oneself that NOW is the time when things are getting really bad, and will end the world as we know it is ridiculous.. sorry, my opinion... I'll probably regret the tone of my posts later, but damnit)

― donut bitch (donut), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:46 (twenty-three years ago)

Osama and Co hate Saddam and other Ba'athis regimes even more than the Al'Sauds.
Now he has nothing to lose or may be even he thinks that massive retaliation on US or British soil could stop the war and save him. Saddam may just want to go out with a bang.

He is unpredictable and even more so when cornered.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:51 (twenty-three years ago)

Wait, one second you're predicting what he would have done had things gone differently, the next you're saying he's unpredictable. DOES NOT COMPUTE.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:53 (twenty-three years ago)

(Picking fights with people over their debate styles when you actually agree with their points: Cockfarmer or Over-Educated?)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 17 March 2003 20:56 (twenty-three years ago)

it hones my craft

― Ed (dali), Monday, 17 March 2003 21:06 (twenty-three years ago)

Cockfarmer or Over-Educated?)

As if the two are seperate phenomena

― oops (Oops), Monday, 17 March 2003 21:17 (twenty-three years ago)

(BUSTED.)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 17 March 2003 21:18 (twenty-three years ago)

What sickens me about all these situations is how often the media's influences is not talked about. Had we not had the ability to flick over the cnn.com or news.bbc.co.uk or indymedia.org or what have you, would we all be this passionate, nervous, and -- in some cases -- paranoid and irrational about all of this?

Not to say fear, passion, and paranoia are bad things necessarily, but I think too much of all of the above produces no beneficial effect at all.

― donut bitch (donut), Monday, 17 March 2003 21:19 (twenty-three years ago)

Bush to speak at 8pm

What a charade, it's just like 91, you guys should check out the CNN videotape retrospectives of their own coverage sometime, you can get em at the library, they haven't had to re-write the script at all really. "the time for negotiating is OVER" Cut to stock footage of missiles falling out of planes and green-screen grids with pictures of weapons on them. "~~when~~ if diplomacy fails, THIS is what Saddam's forces will find waiting for them!"

the "pre-emptive last resort"

Orwell where are you

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 17 March 2003 21:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Aargh... Events are accelerating before I can get my Grand-Unified Gulf War II Conspiracy Theory together. The sloganeering on both sides is really starting to piss me off as there's no way the Current Situation can be reduced down to a one-dimensional outlook.

Anyway, CNN reporter Kevin Sites is blogging live from the Middle East right now and his reports are worthwhile reading.

I like the fact that the Dow is rocketing up near 300 points.

Pray that Japan doesn't decide to liquidate some/all of it's holding of US treasury bills in order to shore up it's economy.

― Chris Barrus (xibalba), Monday, 17 March 2003 21:23 (twenty-three years ago)

''Orwell where are you''

didn't you know that christopher hitchens is the new orwell?!

sarcasm etc etc

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Monday, 17 March 2003 21:30 (twenty-three years ago)

donut bitch, obviously not knowing about something means you can't react to it, one way or another.

― Rockist Scientist, Monday, 17 March 2003 22:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Agreed, Rockist. I just hate feeling connected to some tension knob up there being played around at the expense of the world and myself, that's all.

― donut bitch (donut), Monday, 17 March 2003 23:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Bush: Saddam has 48 hours to leave Iraq or everyone dies. Since Saddam's pretty much going to die anyway, my bet's on everyone dying.

"These are not peaceful men."

― B.Rad (Brad), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 01:38 (twenty-three years ago)

the moment you've all been waiting for - my post to this thread - and hopefully there will only be one -

got my head checked...
it wasn't eea - syy...
but nothing ii-is...

WOO HOO (der ner ner ner ner ner ner ner ner ner NERR)
WOO HOO (der ner ner ner ner ner ner ner ner ner NERR)
WOO HOO (der ner ner ner ner ner ner ner ner ner NERR)
WOO HOO (der ner ner ner ner ner ner ner ner ner NERR)

etcetera.

With any luck I'll be stuck in the military for another four years or so. At least I don't work at a big fat capitol-area target. Enjoy your breakfast, so on and so forth, absurdist fatalism has now completely conquered my skull.

More things I didn't write:

We're all scared. You hid in that ditch because you think there's still hope. But Blithe, the only hope you have is to accept the fact that you're already dead. And the sooner you accept that, the sooner you'll be able to function as a soldier is supposed to function. Without mercy. Without compassion. Without remorse. All war depends on it.
from "Band of Brothers" which of course I have on DVD

Should I quit smoking?

― Millar (Millar), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 01:59 (twenty-three years ago)

Well, aside from the fact that terrorism doesn't necessarily equal Al Qaeda here, I no longer think its paranoid or hysterical to worry about some kind of retaliatory capacity already having been positioned inside the US or UK...

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 10:16 (twenty-three years ago)

"the world will be a much less safe place come the weekend"

Like it became after the overthrow of the Taliban? In that war, a terrorist threat to the West was greatly diminished and a barbaric regime overthrown. (And for all you say about the present set up being little better, this view doesn't seem to be shared by the millions of Afghanis who have returned since then.) Whether containment works in the case of Iraq is debatable, but even if it does, who does it work for? Not these poor fuckers, that's for sure:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html

― Ste, Tuesday, 18 March 2003 10:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Al' Quaeda and the GIA have the most comprehensive networks but thre's also suspicion that there a a significant number of Ba'athist agents within iraqi refugee communities. Weather they will stay loyal to saddam is open for debate. That's why I think that the islamists pose the greatest threat.

Time will tell.

I don't doubt that overthrowing Saddam will benefit the iraqi people in the long term, but in the short term thousands if not hundreds of thousands will die and the motives of the US are highly suspect.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 10:24 (twenty-three years ago)

As an aside - the top story on Google News currently links through to a Newsround site. Mmmmm, professional.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 10:47 (twenty-three years ago)

I see Clare Short was full of shit. Morning all

― j0e (j0e), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 10:54 (twenty-three years ago)

yes, did you notice she did *2* u-turns yesterday ?

― Fuzzy (Fuzzy), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 11:23 (twenty-three years ago)

she'll want to watch that she'll get dizzy

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 11:26 (twenty-three years ago)

John Denham has just become the 3rd government minister to resign.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 11:38 (twenty-three years ago)

so how long before it's just Tony, Gordon and Geoff Hoon? oh, and tellingly, most of the Tories getting in the war spirit?

― chris (chris), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 11:47 (twenty-three years ago)

and where is clare short in all of this dammit.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 11:47 (twenty-three years ago)

Claire short is very much at her desk. I'm disgusted.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 11:49 (twenty-three years ago)

I've heard that Gordon persuaded Clare to stick around cos he wants her help when he takes over from Our Tone

― j0e (j0e), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 11:52 (twenty-three years ago)

That seems to be the story. I'd have thought that she'd have been better out the cabinet than in for that.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 12:00 (twenty-three years ago)

From BBC News.

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott was dismissive of his resignation - claiming never to have heard of Lord Hunt.

I like it. Nice to see Prescott has his finger on the pulse...

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 12:37 (twenty-three years ago)

it might unfortunately take years to see the mistake of it.

Cop out.

― Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 12:44 (twenty-three years ago)

Kind of like it took years to see the mistake of funding Al-Qaida and the Taleban, Stuart.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 12:45 (twenty-three years ago)

More like "if it becomes blatantly obvious that I've been wrong all along, I'll wait and admit it to my grandkids in 30 years." What's the threshold for failure, or success?

― Stuart (Stuart), Tuesday, 18 March 2003 12:51 (twenty-three years ago)

I've had it with Hitchens. What a bad man he has turned out to be, after all the pomp and polemic of decades. I hope he gets run over by a speeding missile truck.

― the pinefox, Tuesday, 18 March 2003 16:16 (twenty-three years ago)

The BBC is reporting a rumour that Tariq Aziz has defected.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 13:24 (twenty-three years ago)

if so, blimey

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 13:29 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah blimey, that's ruined the punchline of one of my favourite jokes.

― chris (chris), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 13:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Mike o'brien FO minister mentioned it in the commons citing a Bulgarian source. Is so far completely uncomfirmed.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 13:31 (twenty-three years ago)

our paper contained a lovely infograph today, i decided i am for this war, if only because info graphs make me happy.

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 13:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Rumour has been removed from BBC News site.Nothing confirming or denying has replaced it. I suspect therefore that he has and its being hushed up for the time being.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 14:26 (twenty-three years ago)

Or that he hasnt and it's therefore a non-story, surely.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 14:27 (twenty-three years ago)

given that it was mentioned in parliamen tit would be at least worth a 'proved not to be true line somewhere'.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 14:29 (twenty-three years ago)

This is the latest that I've been able to find.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 15:00 (twenty-three years ago)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/iraqcrisis/articles/3895393?source=Evening%20Standard

― chris (chris), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 16:27 (twenty-three years ago)

whoa, is that article right that fighting has already started around Basra?
haven't seen this anywhere else yet and not knowing the Evening Standard have no idea how reliable a source they are

― H (Heruy), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 16:45 (twenty-three years ago)

I envy you not knowing the Evening Standard, H.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 16:47 (twenty-three years ago)

AL jazeera really need to get that english language site they've been promising rolling. Like, Now.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 16:48 (twenty-three years ago)

I really don't know how to take it myself, Vicky forwarded it on to me before she left for the day. It makes sense though, jumping the gun to try and get to the (probably wired up) oil reserves, before they can be blown up. Also rto pave the way for bigger landings.

JtN = right though, it's an opinionated rag, but then there's no editorial in this piece.

― chris (chris), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 16:48 (twenty-three years ago)

It's not neccessarily unreliable, but it's an evening paper and needs a big headline to sell a lot of copies round London tonight. "THE WAR HAS STARTED" shd do the trick.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 16:49 (twenty-three years ago)

Saddam should have begun torching his wells yesterday. I think this will be a very short war.

― fletrejet, Wednesday, 19 March 2003 16:51 (twenty-three years ago)

Al jazeera really need to get their english language website off the ground.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 16:53 (twenty-three years ago)

Good point Tom, I hadn't thought of that. I'm so frazzled, I wish I could go for a beer.

― chris (chris), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 16:55 (twenty-three years ago)

And the Evning Bastard is evil.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 16:55 (twenty-three years ago)

sandstorm = no air support = no war just yet.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 19 March 2003 16:57 (twenty-three years ago)

bomb are not so smart now, eh

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 16:58 (twenty-three years ago)

sandstorm = divine wind of Allah!

― fletrejet, Wednesday, 19 March 2003 16:58 (twenty-three years ago)

Someone on another board said they saw news of the "first shots fired & tanks going in" on CNN...nothing on the web site yet.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 17:00 (twenty-three years ago)

CNN is on in our lobby, I will go look!

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 17:12 (twenty-three years ago)

sandstorm = divine wind of Allah!

At least God's on somebody's side, then.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 19 March 2003 17:14 (twenty-three years ago)

R4 PM says its unclear where Aziz is. Iraqi information misinstry insists he is at his desk.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 17:15 (twenty-three years ago)

God's on everyone's side.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 17:15 (twenty-three years ago)

CNBC reporting that Bush will make an address "shortly".

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 17:16 (twenty-three years ago)

Ed, God ain't on my side.

― hstencil, Wednesday, 19 March 2003 17:20 (twenty-three years ago)

It was Sky News. Still talking about leaflet drops and the Aziz rumour.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 17:21 (twenty-three years ago)

quite frankly anyone who wants god can have him.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 17:24 (twenty-three years ago)

Aziz is on CNN right now.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 17:32 (twenty-three years ago)

Saying?

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 17:33 (twenty-three years ago)

I didn't hear all of it, but basically it was just a little presser called specifically to refute the rumours of his defection.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 17:34 (twenty-three years ago)

Prepare with this.

― Chris V. (Chris V), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 17:34 (twenty-three years ago)

Okay, here's the latest I've heard. There were live pictures on the BBC of B-52s taking off from RAF Fairford. It will take them 8 hours to reach Baghdad. That makes it...8 PM U.S. East Coast time, which is exactly as I thought - the bombs will drop just as prime time begins. Just like the last time. Have the popcorn and potato chips ready.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 18:09 (twenty-three years ago)

Sorry...7-8 hours flight time.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 18:14 (twenty-three years ago)

Kerry, will you be downtown tomorrow?

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 18:19 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, I think I'm going to be. Normally I have a train to catch, but I'm going to spend tomorrow night in the city.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 18:19 (twenty-three years ago)

My boss is going to hang me, but if the war starts this evening, I'm going to be downtown tomorrow as well.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 18:22 (twenty-three years ago)

Chris V., thanks for that shit. I showed it to some of my kinda-worked-up-over-this-whole-thing co-workers. It was the first I had heard them laugh all day. Laughter is good shit.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 18:34 (twenty-three years ago)

I got it this morning from a friend of mine...i haven't stopped laughing. i like the vin diesel one and the mutated hand.

― Chris V. (Chris V), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 18:37 (twenty-three years ago)

Amateurist, I will be wearing my sky blue parka and I've been told I look like this guy if that helps. Be sure and say hi if you think it's me.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 18:38 (twenty-three years ago)

I really hate this assertion that now that war has begun we can't be against it.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 20:25 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, that's bugging me too. I continue to be entirely against it. Still, if we have to have a war, I do hope for the shortest, cleanest war possible, and the minimum in death and destruction. I think that is most feasible by a quick US/UK victory. This wish will not stop me arguing that it's a wrong war in the first place.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Ed, Martin: I think that assertion comes from people who cannot fathom that someone could be against the war AND support the troops

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:01 (twenty-three years ago)

What does it even mean to "support the troops"?

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:05 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't support the troops. I am a pacifist. I hope they don't get killed or wounded or that they don't do the same to others. I don't support them though.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:06 (twenty-three years ago)

(In other words the red-herring quality that phrase takes on in times of war seems sort of built-in.)

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:06 (twenty-three years ago)

I hope a lot more that the civilians in Baghdad and elsewhere don't get killed, but I know they will, and in much greater numbers than the US military.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:07 (twenty-three years ago)

I was going to say something about supporting the troops, but I don't know what it would mean. I can't quite bring myself to shout "Yay troops" - I mean, they are trying to kill people - and I don't see how it would make any difference anyway. And it's too close to the Sun's "The paper that supports our brave boys" bullshit for comfort.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:07 (twenty-three years ago)

I like how for some people "I support the troops" seems to translate into "HEY ENEMIES PLEASE SHOOT AT OUR SOLDIERS THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE THERE FOR".

(I had a typo "HOOT" in there originally which I almost left because it would have been much, much funnier.)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:08 (twenty-three years ago)

Martin's position is mine (as is Ed's, though i'm not a pacifist). ideally, i want no-one (american or iraqi) to die for the asshole in the White House, but that doesn't appear to be an option right now.

i also agree that "oppose the war, support the troops" is a slippery term for any of a number of reasons.

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:10 (twenty-three years ago)

"I support the troops" should mean "I hope the troops don't get killed."

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:10 (twenty-three years ago)

But naturally everyone hopes the troops don't get killed, but that phrase is rarely--nay, never--invoked to mean just that.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:11 (twenty-three years ago)

What does it even mean to "support the troops"?

To do the opposite of what was done during and after Vietnam

(that's what I take it to mean Dan)

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:12 (twenty-three years ago)

Agreed that this is what people might mean by the phrase "support the troops." But a lot of that Vietnam stuff is a myth. Granted, some troops were greeted with catcalls and so on. But it was not that widespread of a phenomenon. It's been blown up and overemphasized by certain elements in the culture to defame a movement and a moment. Many people I know who participated in the antiwar movement also did a lot of work with returning GIs; never once did they think to defame or ridicule those men.

Which is one leery I'm leery of the phrase.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:14 (twenty-three years ago)

oops is right -- the phrase is intended to counter vietnam-era images of protestors spitting on returning american soldiers. which doesn't really reduce the linguistic slipperiness of the phrase, nor will it stop the usual flag-wavers from painting anyone who opposes this war as being "unpatriotic" or whatever.

(cross-posted!)

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:15 (twenty-three years ago)

My brain is apparently a bit quicker than my fingers: "Which is one reason I'm leery of the phrase."

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:15 (twenty-three years ago)

i would support the troops if they were defending the united states, which is what they're supposed to do.

i don't want to live in this world anymore.

― j fail (cenotaph), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:17 (twenty-three years ago)

>But naturally everyone hopes the troops don't get killed, but that phrase is rarely--nay, never--invoked to mean just that.

"Support the troops" is a subtle tool to distort perceptions of the anti-war movement. Something that is completely obvious (i.e. hope that troops wont die) should not have to be stated, but to have to say "Now, I support the troops but I am anti-war because ...." implies that it is somehow exceptional for anti-war people to think this. The same with, "Saddam is an evil man, but I am antiwar because ..." as if anyone doesn't think so.

― fletrejet, Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:21 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah, but the point is that the troops don't actually have a say in what they're doing, who they're fighting, (when they get up in the morning!), etc.
Thus, j fail, why can you not oppose the decision made by those in charge and still support/care for the men and women who are virtually forced to carry out orders?

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:22 (twenty-three years ago)

It'd be nice if:

"I support the troops" = "I hope the troops don't get killed" = "I am against this pointless war"

― hstencil, Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:23 (twenty-three years ago)

fletrejet, these 'givens' need to be said because of a few loud morons who label ALL those opposed to the war as loving Saddam/hating America (and influence the opinions of many others i.e Sean Hannity).

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:24 (twenty-three years ago)

But what is this "support"? Typically to lend "support" to someone that's not a close friend or relative means to agree with their objectives, etc. I mean, I don't want all the religious settlers in the West Bank to be killed, but I hardly "support" them.

It's a weasel word. In politics it means one thing, in personal life another. That should be obvious. But around war time people hide the political meaning behind the personal one.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:24 (twenty-three years ago)

cf. drunk fireman yelling at me in McSorley's last week.

But what is this "support"?

Tying yellow ribbons everywhere? Paying taxes? Waving little flags?

― hstencil, Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:25 (twenty-three years ago)

http://www.geocities.com/nicolenme_99/holidays1/july4flag1.gif

Go USA.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:27 (twenty-three years ago)

Go USA = red x's for everyone?

― hstencil, Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:29 (twenty-three years ago)

The God of symbolism is on my side!

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:33 (twenty-three years ago)

"Orwell where are you "

Last I heard he was fighting a fascist regime in Spain while despairing that his supposed liberal friends were sitting on their hands back home opposing the war and preferring to yabber smug, pious 'pacifist' rhetoric instead.

Yes, agreed, Orwell where are you...

― DavidM (DavidM), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:36 (twenty-three years ago)

he also got pissed off by the way the war was conducted.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 21:39 (twenty-three years ago)

More rumor mill . Hey, I don't endorse them, just post 'em. BTW, it is 1 AM Baghdad time as I type this.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 22:04 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, agreed, Orwell where are you...

i dunno where orwell is (check his grave, maybe?) it does appear that christopher hitchens has discovered ILXor.

― Tad (llamasfur), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 22:13 (twenty-three years ago)

What!? He didn't discover it! We were here first! I suppose he's going to give us all smallpox or some such plague, too.

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 22:15 (twenty-three years ago)

http://pages.ripco.net/~dymaxia/clonethumb.jpeg

hope this works

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 22:47 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, some friends were wearing those buttons on Feb 15. It seemed a little too silly for me, given the circumstances.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 22:50 (twenty-three years ago)

got a chuckle first time i saw that (a few months back before war seemed quite so iminent)

so the aziz defection story is app. a fake and the evening standard story also seems like a sales ploy so guess war starts in abt 2 hours (can't believe there is a fuckin timetable/countdown for this thing!)

― H (Heruy), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 22:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Are they really going to start the attack during the (Iraqi) daytime?

― oops (Oops), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 22:58 (twenty-three years ago)

It's supposed to start around 4 AM Baghdad time - that's in 2 hours. I don't know how much light there is at that time, but Gulf War I started around the same time and it was dark outside.

― Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 23:00 (twenty-three years ago)

So if and when chemical weapons are used against Israel or US/UK soldiers, will people claim it was a plot to make GWB et al. look 'right'?

I thought abt this today listening to Daniel Shore on the radio - he wz talking abt the possibility that the discovery of WMDs during the invasion might very well be the saving grace for international relations between the US and others (admittedly DS is about 750x more optimistic than I, and has far too much faith in people).

― Millar (Millar), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 23:11 (twenty-three years ago)

when bombs first fell in 1991 i was over at Thilo Tschersich's house in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for band practice..... his dad was a German physicist who was working at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. the town of Oak Ridge was built for scientists and their families who would work on the atomic bomb and originally a secret, until the Oak Ridge Boys recorded "Elvira" of course. all the streets are in alphabetical order. it was a particularly weird place to be for the war to start, in the hometown of the atomic bomb, in the house of a liberal Green Party German scientist and his son the hippie drummer

we were all aghast and stopped playing music and just sat around the TV, silently (thilo's parents spoke no english... or maybe they just didn't want to) (THILO IF YOU GOOGLE THIS, EMAIL ME, MOTHERFUCKER!)

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 23:16 (twenty-three years ago)

So if and when chemical weapons are used against Israel or US/UK soldiers, will people claim it was a plot to make GWB et al. look 'right'?

Well there's a big difference between weapons you can deploy at point blank range if someone's invading your country and weapons that would be a danger to the US/UK if they stayed in their own damn country.

Israel is a different matter, and depends on whether Sharon nukes them or not.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 23:29 (twenty-three years ago)

he wz talking abt the possibility that the discovery of WMDs during the invasion might very well be the saving grace for international relations between the US and others

The Newsweek International editor has been flogging this argument all around over the past few days: that what gets found will vindicate the war, if not the greater issue of American power. I actually don't doubt that he's sort of right, and that the aftermath of a full invasion will likely reveal details of a regime even more unpleasant than we might have imagined. (Heh: so would an invasion of Washington or any other capitol.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 23:49 (twenty-three years ago)

(now is the time when we INVADE CANADA)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 23:50 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah, aren't they kinda french or something?

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 23:55 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm going to order a pizza with freedom bacon on it.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Wednesday, 19 March 2003 23:57 (twenty-three years ago)

i feel terrible for the people who are virtually forced to commit murder, but it still comes down to the fact that they are human beings of sound mind who can make moral choices. "i was just taking orders" doesn't work for me. or am i being too harsh? sorry if i come off that way, this whole debacle is making me emotionally unstable i think.

― j fail (cenotaph), Thursday, 20 March 2003 00:01 (twenty-three years ago)

"virtually forced to commit murder" = "the human condition"

― Millar (Millar), Thursday, 20 March 2003 00:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah the qn hasnt been 'does Saddam have these weapons' because yes he probably does, the qn is 'will he use them' and the answer is 'No, if his country isn't at war and inspectors are crawling everywhere' and 'Yes, if his country is being invaded'.

Now that a US-led invasion seems inevitable I hope it will take as little time as possible and result in as few net casualties as possible. I am pessimistic about this but I certainly don't wish anyone on either side dead.

― Tom (Groke), Thursday, 20 March 2003 00:24 (twenty-three years ago)

I want that one guy dead. You know, him. On the side over there.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 20 March 2003 00:34 (twenty-three years ago)

Has anybody read this, and if so what do you all think of it?

Salon article

To me it makes a case for the war, with some best-case assumptions I suspose. Or am I just easily led?

― nickn (nickn), Thursday, 20 March 2003 02:12 (twenty-three years ago)

"'will he use them' and the answer is 'No, if his country isn't at war and inspectors are crawling everywhere' and 'Yes, if his country is being invaded'."

So Saddam is perfectly willing to bring about the certain end of his regime by refusing to destroy his Weapons of Mass Destruction, but it's inconceivable that he would ever have used those weapons otherwise - because to do so would be a suicidal act which would bring about the certain end of his regime?

― Ste, Thursday, 20 March 2003 13:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Pockets of resistance keep popping up behind the fronline. Oil fields that were 'secured', have turned out not to be. The bypassing strategy appears to be failing. Unfortunately this war looks like its going to be a lot more traditional that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were trailing. I'm still eager for a speedy backing down by either side. This war has to stop.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 24 March 2003 10:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Uh-oh...

NADI MARG, India (AFX) - Suspected Islamic militants dressed in army fatigues gunned down 24 Hindus in Indian-administered Kashmir, including 11 women and two children, police said.
In response, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee held an emergency session of his security cabinet which, after condemning the bloodleting in "the strongest terms", hinted of an intensified crackdown against Islamic guerrillas.
"We will keep the situation under review and take whatever steps are neccessary to meet such situation," Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha said after the meeting, which was also attended by Indian army chief NC Vij.
Ten to 12 armed militants stormed the village of Nadi Marg, 54 kilometers (33 miles) south of the summer capital Srinagar, late yesterday pretending to be soldiers, police official MA Amjum told Agence France-Presse.
The gunmen herded out villagers from their homes and sprayed them with bullets from automatic guns and then ran away into nearby forests.
Amjum said the militants overpowered six policemen guarding Nadi Marg, which only had 11 Hindu families, comprising 52 members, after others left the hamlet at the start of the Islamic rebellion in the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley.
A wounded survivor, Chunni Lal, said the gunmen knocked on his door last night and ordered him and his wife out on the pretext of a search operation for guerrillas.
Lal held his breath and feigned death after being shot until the gunmen had left.
So far none of Kashmir's two dozen rebel groups has claimed responsibility for the attack, the bloodiest since last May when guerrillas killed 20 wives and children of Indian soldiers in Kashmir.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 24 March 2003 12:29 (twenty-three years ago)

A lot of people are going to use the war as cover for deplorable acts. expect the situations in Kashmir, Zimbabwe, Colombia, the Phillipines and many other places to get worse whilst this war goes on.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 24 March 2003 13:28 (twenty-three years ago)

Just hearing about people being brutally beaten on a mass scale in Zimbabwe.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 24 March 2003 16:03 (twenty-three years ago)

A lot of people are going to use the war as cover for deplorable acts. expect the situations in Kashmir, Zimbabwe, Colombia, the Phillipines and many other places to get worse whilst this war goes on

question. do these situations actually need any cover?

― gareth (gareth), Monday, 24 March 2003 16:21 (twenty-three years ago)

Mugabe is upping the pressure on his opposition even as we speak. Mass beatings and disappearances. We may be paying attention but are our governments.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 24 March 2003 16:26 (twenty-three years ago)

They, appear to have other fish to fry.

WASHINGTON (AFX) - The US has "credible evidence" that Russian firms have sold military equipment to Iraq, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.
The spokesman said the information was "disturbing" and that Washington had expressed its concerns to Moscow.
Earlier, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov rejected the US accusations, saying an investigation into the claims had yielded no results.
"Russia strictly fulfills all its international obligations and has not supplied any equipment, including military, to Iraq in violation of the sanctions regime," Ivanov told journalists.
Ivanov said the relevant Russian agencies had investigated the US claims but "no facts regarding the US concerns were discovered."
A top US official said Sunday that private Russian experts were in Iraq helping the regime jam satellite signals that could guide bombs and military aircraft used by the US-led coalition in its war to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

The concept of "international diplomacy" is officially dead.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 24 March 2003 16:59 (twenty-three years ago)

Marines deploy on Iran border

'The deployment is the furthest position east for British troops so far and is seen as a sign that the UK and US are concerned Iran could try and exploit uncertainty caused by the war'

Please do not provoke iran mr bush, you did such a good job with turkey.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 25 March 2003 07:53 (twenty-three years ago)

one month passes...

Thilo emailed me!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 12 May 2003 16:05 (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.