War has started

[lems]

Well, it has started, can't say I'm in total agreement with the principles of this campaign but, like many others, I have close members of my family who are serving in the forces and my 100% support goes to those who are serving their respective countries.

I wanted to share with you a small excerpt of a speech printed in this morning's Daily Mail and given by Lt Colonel Tim Collins of the Royal Irish Regiment to his troops.

"Iraq is steeped in history.  It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham.  Tread lightly there.

You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.  You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.

Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country.  Their children in years to come will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.

If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed this morning they did not plan to die this day.  Allow them dignity in death.  Bury them properly and mark their graves".

What can I say?  May our boys and girls come home safely and not to many innocents lose their lives.

Lems

[radaro]

How touching, thanks for sharing.

While I can understand the need to get rid of Sadam and his dangerous dictatorship (he's as dangerous to his own people as he is to the rest of the world), I wish there was a way to resolve this without risking so many.  My heart goes out to the soldiers, their parents, partners and children.  I pray for swift victory and few casualties.

Edited by radaro on 20/03/03 02:28 PM.

[blufire21]

Ditto.

Ellen in TX

[raindance]

Dear Lems,

Thank you for posting this.  My prayers and thoughts are with you and all those whose relations are serving so bravely in the armed services in this war.  It's an awful business, but we have to hope and pray for the best - that peace will be restored very soon and that everyone will come home safe and sound.

Raindance

[mnaeempk]

The only problem that I have is that if US & Company are against Saddam (no doubt a dictator), why they are favouring other dictators/monarchs in some  countries (Pakistan/Kuwait/Saudi Arab) etc. This makes the whole process questionable.  

mnaeempk
Naeem in Pakistan

[sueg22]

Muhammed,

I have thought long and hard about your question and I wrote and re-wrote many replies.  My wish is to share with you my thoughts and feelings - of course, I speak only for myself and I most certainly do not wish to offend you or others with my thoughts and feelings.  Just as I am sure citizens of every country burn with great pride in their country, please realize that as a 4th generation American, I also burn with that great pride for my America.

The problem with Saddam is not his being a dictator - Fiedel Castro's been sitting 90 miles off Florida for some time now and coalition forces are not going after him.  The problem with Saddam is that 12 years ago he was bound to disarm and he has not done so, despite being giving every opportunity to do so. A United Nations that does not enforce it's own ruling is a powerless governing body.  Fortunately, there are now 45 countries that agree that if this man is allowed to proceed unchecked, he is a real and present danger to the world.

The good, kind and gentle people of Iraq have lived in fear of this lunatic and his minions.  They cannot be expected to rise up against him because of that fear.  No one can fault them for that.  However, they need to be liberated from living in fear, from watching their loved ones dragged away to be tortured, maimed, raped and murdered.  This is a man who tortures children to get information from their parents.  This is not a governmental leader - this is an insane lunatic who needs to be far removed from  any position of power.  His sons were raised to think that this way is right, and as such, they need to be removed with him.  

A good editorial on this was printed in the San Diego Union Tribune this weekend:

------------------

The San Diego Union-Tribune, on the risk of inaction in Iraq (news - web sites):


Now, war is not only unavoidable but, in our view, necessary. It is necessary both to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and to preserve the credibility of the international order that set out to disarm Iraq in 1991. This task is made all the more urgent by the global war on terror.


Sept. 11, 2001, taught us the consequences of looking the other way when rogue governments give sanctuary to terrorists, as Iraq has done. We refer to the international order, rather than the United Nations (news - web sites), because the Security Council, at the critical moment of decision, surrendered its responsibility to enforce its own mandates.


French President Jacques Chirac's repeated vows to veto any enforcement resolution that authorized war effectively eviscerated the power and influence of the Security Council.


Sadly, the world body sits impotently on the sidelines as the United States, Britain and their allies prepare to impose the "serious consequences" promised by Security Council Resolution 1441. ...


In the face of Hussein's intransigence, it would have been far better for this conflict to be carried out under the auspices of a unified Security Council. But the council's abdication of its responsibility is surely no reason for the United States also to abandon its duty to disarm Iraq. With nearly 300,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines including many from San Diego County deployed in the region, the United States and its allies cannot back down. To retreat now would hand a strategic victory to Hussein and thereby make the future far less secure, not only for Iraq's neighbors but also for ourselves.


To shrink from this difficult mission would serve only to make the world a more dangerous place.


--------------------------


Praying for peace for the world and supporting our troops,

Susan

Oh! thus be it ever, when freeman shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."....

-Francis Scott Key

[lillibelle]

I do agree with your assessment of the process being questionable. Like many other people, I cannot help thinking that if Saddam would not sit on a big stash of oil, he would not be bothered.

While Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have questionable and quite undemocratic governments as well, they tolerate a certain American presence on their soil - presumably to prop up their own regime. This tolerating also helps the US get a fairly reliable supply of oil.

I believe that the past has shown that the solutions of the UN Security Council are only selectively enforced - i. e. whenever they serve a greater political or economic purpose. The resolutions to disarm Saddam have been on the books for a while (After all, the previous Gulf War took place in 1991), and no one was really serious about enforcing it until after 9/11, and when Osama bin Laden could not be apprehended, they turned to the old standby Saddam again. When one looks at the situation without emotions, one can see that Osama bin Laden, a religious fanatic and Saddam Hussein who heads a pseudo-Socialist party have little in common, and probably do not even like each other. So why would Saddam even cooperate with Osama bin Laden in planning 9/11?

If my memory serves me right, there are resolutions concerning the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma on the books at the UN, but the US do not think about enforcing these resolutions, especially those that take the Israelis to task, because they do not want to antagonize the Jewish lobby around the world. I am not anti-semitic or pro-Palestinian, but I think there is a certain double standard here.

Even if the aforementioned countries do not have any weapons of mass destruction as the US claim Iraq has, there are enough other states who also have weapons of mass destruction (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, France, North Korea, Great Britain and the US all are known nuclear powers - and nuclear weapons are certainly weapons of mass destruction).

Lillibelle