Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

US is Bombing Iraq (Again...)

By Electric Angst in News
Tue Feb 20, 2001 at 07:22:43 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)

Well, as some of you have undoubtedly heard, at 12:15 pm EST, 24 British and American bombers used what the Pentagon called a "precision-guided standoff weapon" to bomb five "command and control nodes" and 20 radar sites in Iraq. This has been the first attack of Iraqi sites outsite of the southern no-fly zone in over two years.

Here are several links to this story, from Salon.com, CNN, and ABC News.

Obviously, now that Bush Jr. is in office, this type of action takes on a much more intriguing political aspect than previous bombing by the Clinton administration. It is being reported that Bush officials were in meeting with Iraqi resistance leaders at the time the raids were happening, and there is talk of the Bush administration's funding of these resistance movements, a move his father chose to stop at the last minute in the fading moments of the Gulf War.


Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure


My feelings on this action:
o I strongly agree with it. 18%
o I agree with it somewhat. 14%
o I have no feelings about it. 16%
o I disagree with is somewhat. 17%
o I strongly disagree with it. 34%

Votes: 111
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Salon.com
o ABC News
o Also by Electric Angst

Display: Sort:
US is Bombing Iraq (Again...) | 56 comments (21 topical, 35 editorial, 0 hidden)
Oh no! People are fighting! (2.72 / 18) (#14)
by enani on Fri Feb 16, 2001 at 07:57:45 PM EST

This is baka! People are fighting over things when they have no reason to! They could be friends instead, but instead there's a lot of name-calling and unfriendliness! And then there's the UN and Iraqis fighting too!

I do not know why everyone is fighting over stupid little things! Like what section and topic it goes into! And even why George W. Bush isn't a Jr.! And what constitutes 'us' and 'we' and stuff! I do not like seeing people being baka stupidheads! But everyone is fighting! Everyone is fighting even though they are not enemies!

I have a feeling that it will be a long time before the world listens to reason! But we need the truth to come into season, even though it will be a long time! We gotta keep them separated! Itai!
--=* Moshi-moshi! *=--

Hmmm.... (1.86 / 30) (#15)
by Signal 11 on Fri Feb 16, 2001 at 07:59:27 PM EST

Typical texan - shoots everything in sight and then wonders why everyone else is upset about it.

Well... atleast all those bombs we spent good money on are finally being put to good use.

Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.

I retract my next statement (3.14 / 7) (#21)
by eLuddite on Fri Feb 16, 2001 at 09:27:33 PM EST

If I was cynical I'd say that Bush is paying back some debts. What? Oh, like he got to be president without texas oil and arms manufacture backing.

But I'm not cynical so leave my damn juju beans (or whatever karma is called here) alone!

God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmmm (2.00 / 4) (#32)
by ncohen on Sat Feb 17, 2001 at 12:48:14 PM EST

Who's "everyone"? You? Speak for yourself, please.
"(A+Bn)/n = x, hence God exists, reply!"
[ Parent ]
Gee sig (3.83 / 6) (#35)
by finkployd on Sat Feb 17, 2001 at 06:20:14 PM EST

I'm glad we aren't being inconsiderate, ignorant, and sterotypical about this.

Come on, if you disagree with it, argue your points and reasoning. How acceptable would it be for me to say "typical black, crack dealing murderer" in response to a story about a drug killing in some inner city? I usually agree with you on your more thought out points, but this just seems like blatent flamebait.

Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)
[ Parent ]
This is a surprise? (4.33 / 12) (#18)
by aphrael on Fri Feb 16, 2001 at 08:42:49 PM EST

Bombing Iraq periodically under the hopes that maybe this would cause people living there to revolt against their revolting leadership and then embrace is with open arms of friendship has been the stated policy of the United States for, oh, ten years now. Bush is the third president to do it.

I admit that I don't understand it --- either why we think that bombing is going to do anything other than make the Iraqi people permanently pissed off at us, or why the Iraqi government doesn't just give in to the demands that the US and Britain are putting on them.

I am aware that the US and British governments are worried about the Iraqi government developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) because foreign policy analysts believe that Saddam Hussein is one of the few leaders in the world who would deploy them rather than using them for their deterrent value. I do not understand why the right response is to periodically bomb cities and economically strangle the country.

But this isn't surprising any more --- random bombing has been going on for a decade. It's no more news than 'Pepsi sold in Moscow today!' is news.

Following Maggie's footsteps... (3.54 / 11) (#25)
by cezarg on Fri Feb 16, 2001 at 10:24:09 PM EST

It is common knowledge that there is no better boost for a sagging economy than a small war. Just like Maggie Thatcher showed us with the Falklands war.

Small war? (3.00 / 3) (#33)
by CyberQuog on Sat Feb 17, 2001 at 01:07:04 PM EST

I wouldn't call bombing five radar installations a small war, localized bombings in Iraq have been going on for the last decade. Also, the US economy isn't all that bad, the stock market is still over 10,000, which is higher than it was 2 years ago, growth is just slowing from its previously insane pace.

[ Parent ]
Foreign policy differences (2.43 / 23) (#29)
by Julian Morrison on Sat Feb 17, 2001 at 05:03:07 AM EST

They're trying to send a signal which runs roughly as follows:

  • Clinton bombed foreigners if Monica made the news too loudly, and ignored them otherwise.
  • Bush bombs foreigners when they do bad stuff. Regardless of Monica's doings, it is no longer safe to be bad.

difference (3.66 / 3) (#37)
by ooch on Sun Feb 18, 2001 at 05:08:17 AM EST

The press only notices US and Britain bombing Iraq when 'monica made the news too loudly'. In fact they have been bombing iraq for the last decade, with about 10.000 civilians killed. Add to that the child dying every ten minutes because of the sanctions.

I think it is safe to say that under Clinton it also wasn't safe for a people to have a leader who is bad.

[ Parent ]

Yeah, It's different (3.18 / 11) (#36)
by finkployd on Sat Feb 17, 2001 at 06:26:59 PM EST

This is much different than when Clinton attacked Iraq. As a rule, the k5 community liked Clinton and hates Bush. When Clinton did it we made excuses and looked the other way, now that it's Bush (who is not a jr, BTW, you are confusing him with Al Gore jr) we can go back to protesting this action and blasting Bush for trying to act like his dad, all the while conviently forgetting that Clinton did the same thing is '99


Sig: (This will get posted after your comments)
the only reason this is news... (4.62 / 8) (#41)
by SEAL on Sun Feb 18, 2001 at 05:45:51 PM EST

... is because targets outside the "no-fly" zone were hit - and very near to Baghdad.

The thing most people here seem to be missing is that the U.S. and British planes have been bombing Iraq inside the no-fly zones regularly during Clinton's entire stay in office.

Remember when Iraq booted the U.N. inspectors, and was subsequently attacked? Remember how the media had it splashed on every front page? The reason it was such a big deal is because it was the first time Iraq had been bombed in quite awhile. After that, the U.S., with a pretty good understanding of the media, made the decision to start bombing Iraq on a very regular, almost predictable schedule.

The result? After a few such attacks, the press grew bored with it. You rarely see more than a back page blurb anymore. I don't agree with it, but if you want to keep out of the public eye it was a brilliant decision.

Now, Bush, upon entering office, was probably advised to make some sort of statement to Saddam that he wasn't going to be a pushover. In order to do that, you need to generate some press. How do you do that, though, when the press has been desensitized to the weekly bombings? Well, in this case, the planes were ordered to launch standoff weapons from inside the no-fly zone to hit targets outside it.

Maybe there were high value targets posing a threat to U.S. and British aircraft. Maybe not. But I bet you the attack would've happened either way. This is simply a case of a new president establishing himself -- toeing a line in the dirt, so to speak.


It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.

Why the bombing.... (3.00 / 4) (#42)
by Old Man Sam on Sun Feb 18, 2001 at 08:27:11 PM EST

It is merely a diversionary tactic to take the heat off the military for their recent submarine disaster...how many people remember that now?

Old Man Sam

They say (3.00 / 1) (#52)
by retinaburn on Tue Feb 20, 2001 at 10:46:10 AM EST

That it is becoming increasingly dangerous to patrol the no-fly zone due to increased ground radar installations.

I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho

[ Parent ]
Gas prices (3.50 / 6) (#46)
by jabber on Mon Feb 19, 2001 at 11:11:15 AM EST

As soon as this was reported by the news, gas prices went up by $0.03 for the 87 octane flavor. Bush's Texas buddies don't miss a beat, do they?

On the other hand, I would like to see the situation in Iraq resolved one way on another. Hopefully without the excessive loss of civilian lives.

Anyone know the major differences between Clinton's and Bush's middle-east policies? The Israel-Palestine situation seems to be getting very ugly as of the election (both here and in Israel).

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

US hegemony at its finest (3.28 / 7) (#50)
by decaf_dude on Tue Feb 20, 2001 at 03:02:03 AM EST

Bombing Iraq seems to be a routine matter for the US (and her lapdog the UK) and has been for the past 10 years, despite explicit protests from France, Germany, Russia, China, and the whole of the non-aligned bloc, even the Arab countries neighboring Iraq that US hypocritically claims to be protecting.

Saddam Hussein is not there accidentally, CIA admitted long ago that they financed and supported his rise. In the words of the former CIA director:"We knew that Saddam was an SOB, but he was *our* SOB!".

Despite what the official line may be, suppression of Iraq is done for the sole purpose of protection of Israel. Many may disagree, but the only purpose in keeping "protecting" Israel is very simple: as long as there is Israel, the Arabs will need weapons to defend themselves. Israel invaded and occupied at least 4 neighboring countries and still does despite over 200 UN resolutions and direct int'l condemnations. Also, whenever some Arab country "misbehaves" (disobeys an order from the US State Dept), there's a puppet soldier that can "sort things out". And who is the biggest arms manufacturer in the world? You guessed it - the US of A (actually, it's closely followed by Russia and the UK).

And remember, the Gulf War did not stop in 1991, it just lost the UN-delegated legitimacy then. Ask the Iraqi mothers who lose children every day because they cannot get milk and medicines due to fascist continuation of the most oppresive embargo ever imposed on any nation. How bad is the embargo? Well,let's just say that even the Secretary General Kofi Annan of the UN personally condemnded the continuation of embargo, and 3 UN's special envoys for Iraq resigned in disgust over US-dominated policies towards that poor country that was unfortunate to have a ruthless dictator imposed on them with the generous help of the very US that is now intent of destroying what was once the most modern Arab country.

As a piece of socialist Eurotrash (that's how most USians describe those of us living in the Old World) I have enough rants for a whole new article, perhaps some day...


You should... (3.00 / 1) (#51)
by slaytanic killer on Tue Feb 20, 2001 at 10:04:47 AM EST

Make a carefully-researched article pointing out non-obvious things. Or even obvious things, as long as it's shown to be an article that gives people enough information to make informed decisions.

[ Parent ]
*sigh* (none / 0) (#54)
by Apuleius on Tue Feb 20, 2001 at 02:35:00 PM EST

Your ignorance reaches so many issues I don't know where to start. For Iraqi policy, and the extent to which Israel figures into it, read End Game by Scott Ritter. Then come back.

As for Israel's military occupations, the Arab countries started a low intensity war (with a naval blockade) and lost territory in it. That's life.

There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]

And in other news... (none / 0) (#53)
by Minuit on Tue Feb 20, 2001 at 12:43:26 PM EST

President Shrub recently called a press conference to explain his recent actions to the people of the United States.

When asked why he had his pants around his ankles and a ruler in his left hand, he replied "Well, how else can I do it?"

If you were my .sig, you would be home by now.

How effing ironic (none / 0) (#55)
by dneas on Wed Feb 21, 2001 at 06:09:13 AM EST

The funding of Iraqi resistance leaders? I'm all for it, although it makes previous foriegn policy (i.e you support terrorists, so we'll destroy you) against Lybia look all the more hypocritical. The day needs to come when terrorism is recognised as a low-scale, low-rate equivilant of US Military action; currently terrorism seems as meaningless as the terms against communism chucked around in the last century.

But even if the Iraqi resistance do previal, will Iraq want to be on good terms with the western world? The obvious historical example is Germany post-greatwar. The country was ruined by economic sanctions in the form of large fines, which coupled with the world recession made banknotes seem like blotting paper. Hitler appealing to the underworked, got elected, and so on. If Saddam fell, do the allies have a contingency plan if all hell breaks loose?

Finally, and to be completly cynical, Blair has all the reason to be fighting these strikes. He has an election campaign to be getting on with.
-- "The car is on fire, and there's no driver at the wheel." Cut out the spam block if you need to email about something.
*sigh* (none / 0) (#56)
by NovaHeat on Fri Feb 23, 2001 at 06:33:56 PM EST

Well... I suppose it was to be expected. George II seems lined up to do all the things we expected him to:

1) Finish off things (including Iraq) that George I didn't.

2) Do things for 'big oil' (like furthering their goals in Alaska).

3) Dink around with his preposterous tax plan.

The interesting thing about this bombing is that I think i heard that only 45% of the bombs hit their targets... my percentage might be a little off, but it was a ridiculously small number. Now... with all this high-tech weaponry we're supposed to have, shouldn't we be able to do a bit better than that? Oh yeah, I guess that leads me into the fourth thing we all expect George II to do:

4) "Strengthen" (read: "Spend astounding amounts of money on) the military.


Rose clouds of flies.

US is Bombing Iraq (Again...) | 56 comments (21 topical, 35 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!