& International Humanitarian Law...

Some points for everyone's consideration, from Amnesty International:

Quote:

---

Iraq: Civilians under fire
AI INDEX: MDE 14/071/2002
Publish Date: 08 April 2003

Amnesty International (AI) is deeply concerned about the mounting toll of civilian casualties in Iraq and the reported use of cluster bombs by US forces in heavily populated areas. Despite repeated assurances from US and UK authorities that they would do everything possible to protect the Iraqi people, since 20 March hundreds of civilians have reportedly been killed. Some have been victims of cluster bombs; some have died in attacks in disputed circumstances. AI urges all the warring parties to make the safety of Iraqi civilians a top priority.

In particular, AI calls for:

• an immediate moratorium on the use of cluster bombs by US/UK forces and on other inherently indiscriminate weapons;
• an immediate end to unlawful tactics by Iraqi forces that endanger civilians;
• prompt and impartial investigations into civilian deaths, and the use of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission to investigate incidents of alleged serious violations of international humanitarian law.

Cluster bombs and other indiscriminate weapons

The scenes at al-Hilla's hospital on 1 April showed that something terrible had happened. The bodies of the men, women and children - both dead and alive - brought to the hospital were punctured with shards of shrapnel from cluster bombs. Videotape of the victims was judged by Reuters and Associated Press editors as being too awful to show on television. Independent newspaper journalists reported that the pictures showed babies cut in half and children with their limbs blown off. Two lorry-loads of bodies, including women in flowered dresses, were seen outside the hospital.

Injured survivors told reporters how the explosives fell "like grapes" from the sky, and how bomblets bounced through the windows and doors of their homes before exploding. A doctor at al-Hilla's hospital said that almost all the patients were victims of cluster bombs.

Many of the cluster bombs reportedly dropped from the air by US forces on a civilian area of al-Hilla were of the type BLU97 A. Each canister contains 202 small bomblets the size of a soft drink can. These cluster bombs scatter and spray over a large area about the size of two football fields. At least 5 per cent of the bomblets do not explode on impact, turning them into de facto anti-personnel mines as they continue to pose a threat to people, including civilians, who come into contact with them.

Landmine Action, a UK-based non-governmental organization, has stated that pictures from al-Hilla show unexploded BLU97 A cluster submunition, and that this is the same air-dropped weapon that caused severe humanitarian problems in Afghanistan and Kosovo.

When questioned about the attack on al-Hilla, General Brooks, speaking for the US Central Command, did not deny the use of cluster bombs. He said: "[I]n our approach to targeting and using things like cluster munitions, we always give consideration to what types of activities are likely to occur there next... I don't have any specifics about that particular attack and the explosions that would link it to cluster munitions at all."

The devastating consequences of using cluster bombs in civilian areas are utterly predictable. If, as accounts suggest, US forces dropped cluster bombs in residential areas of al-Hilla, even if they were directed at military targets, such an action could constitute a disproportionate attack. This would be a grave breach of international humanitarian law. An independent and thorough investigation must be held and those found responsible for any violations of the laws of war should be brought to justice. The US and UK authorities should order the immediate halt to further use of cluster bombs.

The rules of war prohibit the use of inherently indiscriminate weapons. These are weapons which are incapable of being used in a manner that complies with the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants.

AI has repeatedly called on all parties to this war not to use anti-personnel landmines, cluster bombs, depleted uranium weapons, and nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Since 20 March both US and UK forces have used several types of cluster bomblets or submunitions. These are delivered by artillery, rocket and aerial bombing. US authorities have also stated that the US "retains the right to use landmines". Iraqi troops have reportedly laid anti-personnel mines, and a large store of landmines was found in a mosque in Kadir Karam in northern Iraq, according to Human Rights Watch.

US and UK military authorities have acknowledged that they have used cluster bombs in other attacks in Iraq since 20 March, although it is unclear if these were in civilian areas or if there were civilian casualties. However, the unexploded bomblets left behind on the ground by cluster shells, rockets and aerial bombs invariably pose a continuing threat to civilians, especially children.

Several reports indicate that there may have been civilian casualties as a result of the use of cluster bombs. For example, on 5 April two clusters bombs reportedly dropped by US forces on the al-Baladiyat quarter in the southwest of Baghdad left eight people wounded, residents told AFP. Small bomblets were scattered over a courtyard between several brick buildings. Most of the 50,000 residents of the quarter are Palestinian families who fled to Iraq in 1948.

Civilian killings

The US and UK governments have repeatedly stated that they have "no quarrel with the Iraqi people". However, the reality is that prolonged and intense bombardment in or near residential areas has destroyed homes and livelihoods, and has maimed and killed civilians, including children. "Fatal errors" have cost lives. Hospitals around the country say they are overwhelmed by the number of injured people arriving at their doors, and can no longer cope. The International Committee of the Red Cross said on 7 April that several hundred wounded Iraqis had been admitted to Baghdad hospitals after US troops reached the city and fighting erupted.

Detailed information about the killing and wounding of Iraqi civilians is hard to verify. However, there have been a number of incidents in which US and UK forces may have breached international humanitarian law.

The following incidents demand investigation. They are by no means a comprehensive list of all the civilian casualties reported, but serve to highlight the extent of the suffering and the urgent need to establish the truth and ensure that such tragedies are not repeated.

6 April: Ali Ismaeel Abbas, 12, was asleep when a missile obliterated his home and most of his family, leaving him orphaned, badly burned and without arms, according to a Reuters report. The boy's father, pregnant mother, brother, aunt, three cousins and three other relatives were killed in night-time missile strikes on their house in Diala Bridge district east of Baghdad.

31 March: A US Apache helicopter reportedly fired on and destroyed a pickup truck in the region of al-Haidariya near al-Hilla. The sole survivor, Razeq al-Kadhem al-Khafaji, told an AFP journalist how 15 members of his family were killed in the attack. He said the family was fleeing fierce fighting in al-Nasiriya, further south, when their truck was blown up. Sitting among the 15 coffins at the local hospital, he said he had lost his wife, six children, his father, his mother, his three brothers and their wives. The circumstances of the attack have not been clarified to AI's knowledge.

31 March: Soldiers with the US Army's 3rd Infantry Division killed seven women and children when they opened fire on an unidentified four-wheel drive vehicle as it approached a US checkpoint near al-Najaf. According to a Pentagon spokesman, initial reports indicated that "the soldiers responded in accordance with the rules of engagement to protect themselves". However, this does not appear to be consistent with the version reported in the Washington Post, which indicated that the officer in command at the scene believed at the time that no warning shots were fired. It asserts that the officer roared at the platoon leader, "You just [expletive] killed a family because you didn't fire a warning shot soon enough!" The US authorities said they were investigating the incident.

28 March: A shattering explosion reportedly killed at least 62 people in a market in Baghdad's poor al-Shu'la neighbourhood. A distraught mother, Sumaya' Abed, said that three of her sons had been killed by pieces of shrapnel that cut through their chests and heads. The youngest was just 11 years old. Both the US and UK governments publicly suggested that the explosion was "probably" caused by an ageing Iraqi anti-aircraft missile. However, according to the Independent newspaper, the remains of a serial number of a missile were found at the scene, identifying it as one manufactured in Texas, the USA, by Raytheon, the world's biggest producer of "smart armaments", and sold to the US Navy. The missile is believed to have been either a HARM (High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile) device, or a Paveway laser-guided bomb. Although the US authorities acknowledged that one of their jets fired at least one missile in the area that day, an official US source claimed that the shrapnel could have been planted at the scene by Iraqi officials. AI believes that in such disputed circumstances independent investigation is vital.

23 March: Five Syrian nationals were killed and a further 10 were hurt when a US missile hit a bus in Rutba, western Iraq, as it was returning to Syria. A US military spokesman admitted that a US missile had hit the bus and said that the real target was a bridge. It is unclear why the bridge was attacked and why it could not have been attacked at a time when there was less likely to be civilian traffic.

Beleaguered cities

Large parts of the southern city of Basra were without running water and electricity for nearly two weeks after the war began. The city's power plants - which provided the energy needed to pump clean water throughout the city - were reported to have been struck early on in the US/UK attack. By 31 March, half the 1.2 million people in the beleaguered city lacked water. People reported that they were reduced to drinking "garden water" normally used for irrigation, which is not safe to wash in, let alone drink. Humanitarian agencies warned that the population of Basra, especially the young and the weak suffering the effects of years of economic sanctions, could be at risk of potentially fatal disease from drinking contaminated water. The ICRC successfully restored running water to some of the population on 2 April and continued to supply water trucks.

Other areas have been deprived of safe water in the past two weeks, including Al-Zubayr and Safwan, according to the ICRC. The ICRC also reported that major water-treatment plants in Ramadi and Felluja (west of Baghdad) and al-Hilla, Iskandariya and Mamoudiyah (south of Baghdad) are now only operating at 40 to 50 per cent of their normal capacity, owing to repeated power cuts.

Heavy shelling of the centre of Basra has also contributed to the destruction of the basic infrastructure and to paralyzing fear. Residents have reported that houses have collapsed after shells landed in or near residential areas; in some areas the houses are so old that they collapse because of the vibration and shock of the explosions. "If we stay inside, we're afraid the house will collapse; if we go out we may be hit," 42-year-old Kasim told a Guardian journalist.

All parties to the conflict in Iraq have a responsibility to ensure that the humanitarian needs of the civilian population are fully met. AI is concerned that the fighting has prevented access for virtually all international non-governmental organizations to civilian populations in Iraq to assess their humanitarian needs. In particular, AI supports the ICRC and its concern about the situations in al-Najaf, al-Nasiriya, Kerbala and other regions where there has been heaving fighting for days and international humanitarian organizations have been unable to visit.
AI calls on all parties to the conflict to facilitate access and the operations of humanitarian organizations, without delay.

Civilians at risk from Iraqi military tactics

In late March, Iraqi troops fired on families trying to escape the beleaguered city of Basra, according to journalist Gethin Chamberlain. The report said that "men, women and children ran for their lives as they fled machine-gun and mortar fire from Iraqi positions in Basra".

Iraqi civilians have also been placed at greater risk of being killed or injured by US and UK forces as a result of tactics used by the Iraqi military that violate international humanitarian law.

AI is concerned about reports that Iraq has been locating military forces and weaponry in close proximity to civilians in order to shield them from attack. In the months before the war started, AI received reports that Iraqi military authorities were placing anti-aircraft guns and other artillery in civilian areas, and military forces were taking over houses in residential districts. Recent reports indicate that Iraqi forces have used buildings such as schools and mosques to store military equipment.

Such deliberate placement of military objects in civilian areas, in order to obtain a military advantage, constitutes a breach of international humanitarian law. It is also a breach to dress combatants in civilian clothes in order to launch surprise attacks - a tactic reportedly used by Iraqi military forces in recent days and publicly endorsed by senior Iraqi officials. Blurring the distinction between combatants and civilians undermines the very foundations of international humanitarian law. AI has publicly condemned such "perfidious" attacks because they put civilians at even greater risk at times of conflict.

AI calls on the Iraqi authorities to abide by international humanitarian law. In particular, it calls on Iraqi forces not to shell civilians and to refrain from using "human shields" or "perfidious" tactics.

Recommendations

Throughout the crisis AI has sought to focus attention on the rights of the Iraqi people. Since 20 March, when it published a 10-point appeal to the parties in conflict, AI has sought assurances from all parties to the conflict that they will do their utmost to comply with their obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law. AI reiterates its appeal to the parties, in particular for:

• an immediate moratorium on the use of cluster bombs by US/UK forces and on other weapons that are inherently indiscriminate or otherwise prohibited under international humanitarian law;
• an immediate end to tactics by Iraqi forces that violate international humanitarian law and endanger civilians;
• all parties involved to declare their readiness to avail themselves of the services of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission regarding incidents of alleged serious violations of international humanitarian law.

---

Maria

The separate American attacks yesterday on the journalists of Al Jazeera and the journalists at the Palestine Hotel are also being alleged as violations of international law by Amnesty and others. Journalists are civilians and as such have the same human rights protections under international law.

And people have been mentioning how the American reputation is now going to hell in Arab countries that once were friendly, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Yes it is. Here is from the April 9 edition of Arab News, which bills itself as "Saudi Arabia's First English Daily."

Quote:

---

Exclusive: Outrage at Killing of Journalists
K.S. Ramkumar & Javid Hassan, Arab News Staff

JEDDAH/RIYADH, 9 April 2003 — The killing and wounding of journalists in the US-led war on Iraq met with condemnation in the Kingdom yesterday.

As the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) and many other international bodies of journalists protested against attacks that have left several journalists dead or injured, Saudi journalists condemned the attacks as a "deliberate and cowardly act" by the American forces. "This is nothing short of a death-blow to free and fair journalism," an Arab journalist said.

"The US-led coalition forces are killing journalists in Iraq to suppress the truth about civilian massacres. This also reinforces the Arab view that America wants the world to hear only its own account of the war," the journalist said.

The bombing of two Arab TV channel offices and a hotel serving as a base for foreign journalists in Baghdad yesterday killed three reporters, bringing to at least 12 the number of deaths among journalists and staff since the war began 20 days ago. Those killed yesterday were Tareq Ayoub, a correspondent of the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera satellite television station; Taras Protsyuk, 35, a Ukrainian TV cameraman of Reuters, and Christian Leibig of the German weekly Focus.

Hussein Shobokshi, a political commentator and businessman, said: "This (killing of journalists) is no surprise because it adds another angle to this dirty war. The Americans are trying to silence journalists and diplomats. They shot at a Russian convoy. They do not want any objective coverage (of the war). They want to make this war acceptable by twisting facts. The first casualties of this war are truth and the Iraqi people."

Anas Khashoggi, a businessman, said: "It's absolutely despicable that journalists are being targeted for doing their job. They have nothing to do with the war other than reporting the events as they unfold. Attacks on them are uncalled for, and the coalition forces should be more prudent in choosing their targets."

"I'm sorry (to hear of the tragedies)," Wahib Binzagr, a columnist and businessman, said. "They must have known the risks they were taking (when they went to the front). Journalists may consider themselves different from ordinary people, but they are no different from the point of view of the shock such war tragedies create. I hope it helps journalists to use their influence on world leaders, who must be blamed for the killing of innocent people and journalists.

"The Iraq war is a dark chapter in the history of humanity because the world leaders who were accepted as the guardians of international law and order are fighting it. Instead they promoted thuggery and resurrected the law of the jungle."

A leading businesswoman, who asked not to be named, said: "They (journalists) were targeted because they were on their own. I think the bombers are butchers. After what I saw today on TV, I think, I cannot take it any more."

Businessman Ahmad Alkhereiji said many people saw the killing of journalists as a deliberate US policy to eliminate people who do not reflect its own views about the war and who are courageous enough to reflect the other side of the story to the Iraqi conflict.

"The conflict is presented to the US public as a Hollywood production, where brilliant American generals are conducting a clean and surgical crusade, and not as the merciless abuse of the Iraqi people that is actually occurring. To say that this is against everything we hear about American beliefs in freedom of speech is really an understatement.

"All you have to do is look at what followed the killings when Abu Dhabi TV office was surrounded by American tanks and Iraqi TV was taken off the air. This shows a desire not to let the other side of the story be shown to the world."

Senior journalists in Riyadh also strongly condemned the killing of journalists. While they generally blamed the US for targeting journalists reporting reality, they said it was quite possible that the Iraqi forces might have used the hotel to direct their fire against the Americans and provoke a media backlash against the Americans. They said it was ironic that while the US claims to be a champion of the free press, it should seek to muzzle it if it found the media coverage unpalatable.

Abdulwahab Al-Fayez, the Riyadh Bureau chief of Alsharq Al-Awsat, said the fact that the US forces had asked the International Committee of the Red Cross to evacuate the journalists suggests that they wanted to get them out of their way before going all out in their battle for Baghdad. However, he did not rule out the possibility of Iraqis firing from the Palestine Hotel as part of their unconventional tactics.

Nasser Al-Majali, a Jordanian journalist with the London-based e-newspaper Elaph.com, however, squarely blamed the Iraqi regime for accommodating the overseas journalists in the Palestine Hotel. "Maybe they wanted to use the journalists for their own end by shooting at the Americans from the hotel and provoking retaliatory action that would discredit the US in the international media.

However, Sharief Qandeel, an Egyptian and managing editor of Al-Eqtisadiah, said the US forces were to blame for yesterday's killings. Quoting a statement issued by the Arab Journalists' Union, he said the US action was a deliberate and premeditated plan to trigger an exodus of journalists from Baghdad.

---

These are viewpoints worth informing ourselves about, I think. This is the world we live in. The US has triggered these reactions through its own chosen actions.

Maria

Maria.......I absolutely cannot understand how anyone can be blind to the awful things people are thinking about our country and it's leader......

....but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize what our image is around the world...and most especially the Arab world....

It's as tho Bush and his cronies have somehow hypnotized a bunch of "sheep" into actually believing THIS WAR WAS NECESSARY.....and that those who have been sacrificed in it, died "fighting for our country!"

Rubbish! Hogwash! bull**it...

I wish I could say to any of those Iraqi people who may think we've done them a favor...."Beware of Greeks bearing gifts..."

...or...careful....this "gift" just might have some strings attached...*sigh*....

There's no way in hell I will ever be convinced that this aggressie attack on Iraq...and the horrible deaths of it's people and ours, was done out of the "kindness" of someone's heart!!!!.....

......this barbaric blood bath that's taking place over there...has me sick, sick, sick....

...and while we're not supposed to wish another person dead.....let's hope that Saddam IS dead....cuz then he will no longer be able to torture and kill his people......

....and maybe....just maybe...it will end this human slaughter sooner....we can only hope and pray....

...but is this aggressive behavior only the tip of the iceberg???

With fear and trembling...I'm wondering....."Who's next?"

Luv
Rainbow

Here's the likely answer to the "Who's next?" question, Rainbow:

Quote:

---

Syria now top US target for 'regime change'
By Toby Harnden in Washington
The Telegraph (U.K.)
(Filed: 08/04/2003)

One of the main subjects on the agenda of the Belfast summit yesterday was Syria, the Pentagon's next likely target for "regime change" amid suspicions it allowed Saddam Hussein to transfer weapons of mass destruction within its borders.


President Assad
Although President George W Bush did not include Syria in his "axis of evil" of Iran, Iraq and North Korea in January 2001, since then American officials say they have seen growing evidence of support for terrorism by Damascus.

American officials stress, however, that regime change can be achieved without military action. There are strong hopes in Washington for a popular revolution in Iran by democratic opposition groups inspired by what has happened in Iraq.

President Bashar Assad, Syria's leader, has led Arab opposition to the Iraq war, stating that he hoped Saddam would remain in power. Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, recently accused Syria of providing military equipment to Saddam.

Some US officials are also convinced that Mr Assad has actively collaborated with Saddam and agreed to take weapons, including Scud missiles, from him so they would not be discovered in Iraq by United Nations inspectors.

"Significant equipment, assets and perhaps even expertise was transferred, the first signs of which appeared in August or September 2002," a Bush administration official told The Telegraph.

"It is quite possible that Iraqi nuclear scientists went to Syria and that Saddam's regime may retain part of its army there."

Increasingly tough rhetoric from the Bush administration had made little fundamental difference to the Syrians, he added.

"They behave only slightly when they're scared to death but the change is only limited and tactical." Satellite photographs revealed heavily guarded convoys moving from Iraq to Syria last year.

The official said: "Put it this way, they wouldn't have needed that kind of security to move cattle."

The official said that there were also well-founded fears that Iraq and Libya had also been co-operating and that weapons proliferation in the Middle East was one of the major problems facing the world. Colonel Gaddafi's regime was "scary close" to developing a nuclear weapon, he said.

In December, Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, said: "We are certain that Iraq has recently moved chemical or biological weapons into Syria."

This claim was subsequently investigated by John Bolton, US under-secretary of state for arms control and a prominent hawk in the Bush administration. Israeli sources said Mr Bolton told Mr Sharon that war with Iraq would force Syria and Libya to "come off the fence".

When asked by The Telegraph last week whether Saddam had exported some of his weapons to Syria, Paul Wolfowitz, the US deputy defence secretary said: "We just don't know."

There is firm resistance within the US State Department to Mr Rumsfeld's hardline stance on Syria with many officials arguing, like their British counterparts, that Syria can be a partner in the war against terrorism if it is given encouragement rather than being threatened.

Richard Murphy, US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs from 1983 to 1989, said he did not believe armed conflict with Syria was on the immediate horizon.

"Talk of a broader military conflict with Syria does not represent a decision taken by American policy makers. This is the view among the neo-conservatives, some of whom are in the administration.

"There's a perception that the time has come to spread democracy in the Middle East. Their view is that the US paid heavily on September 11 for having not stood by its principles in dealing with autocracies in the Middle East."

But neo-conservatives, former Democrats with socially liberal views but a hawkish and ambitious vision of the use of American power abroad, include Mr Wolfowitz and Mr Bolton and enjoy growing influence within the White House.

Story at www.telegraph.co.uk

---

Love,
Greg

Thanks for posting that Maria. It's awful to read, but important to understand....

Greg & Rainbow - I've been watching and paying close attention to anything I see about Iran and Syria. The criteria that the Bush administration used to justify the war in Iraq can almost point-by-point be applied to the governemtns of Syria and Iran - especially regarding WMDs and that they pose a threat to the US.

Here's an article from Slate I read the other day about Syria. If you actallu go to the link and read it from their site you'll notice that they provide other links to things that support what the author says.

Is Syria Next?

Is Syria Next?
By Michael Young
Posted Monday, April 7, 2003, at 12:19 PM PT


The U.S. military's entry into Baghdad Monday may have surprised few Iraqis, but most Arabic newspapers missed it because it started too late for their deadlines. Beirut's English-language Daily Star took precautions against completely losing the big story by spreading a satellite photo of the Iraqi capital over two pages so armchair generals could track military advances.

The fast pace of the war meant papers were behind television in describing Sunday's fighting in Baghdad, the British takeover of Basra, and a friendly-fire incident in northern Iraq where a U.S. plane bombed a column that included Kurdish military leader Wajih Barzani and U.S. special forces troops—an episode filmed by BBC television. Lebanon's pro-Syrian Al-Diyar focused on Iraqi casualties, headlining a story, "Brutal Massacres Inflicted on Civilians in the Iraqi Capital." The London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq al-Awsat mentioned Baghdad and Basra in its headline and also wondered about two senior Iraqi officials: "Uncertainty Surrounds the Fate of 'Chemical Ali' and the 'Disappearance' of Izzat Ibrahim from Kirkuk." "Chemical Ali" is—or was—Saddam Hussein's brutal cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, who led Iraq's southern district. British sources insist he died in a Basra air raid. Izzat Ibrahim, the vice president of the Revolutionary Command Council—Iraq's military leadership—and commander of the northern front, "disappeared from [Kirkuk] the day before yesterday after his location was targeted by intensifying American bombing."


With the days of the Iraqi regime numbered, attention has shifted to U.S. postwar plans and how the balance of power within the Bush administration will determine who rules Iraq. In a front-page story, London's Al-Hayat argued that the administration's neoconservatives, who support "democracy by force," will be the war's real victors. The paper cited a London Sunday Times story suggesting the neocons have convinced President George W. Bush to distance himself from British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Iraq's future. Blair and Bush met in Northern Ireland Monday amid signs of diverging priorities: Britain wants the United Nations to play a leading role in Iraq; a setup the Bush administration opposes. There are also differences over how long a U.S. civil administration should run the country. London's Guardian reported, "Mr. Blair is hoping the temporary administration in Iraq, to be run by a retired U.S. general, Jay Garner, will last only two to three months, before the interim authority takes over. The U.S. deputy defense secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, suggested yesterday a longer time frame, of six months."

Regional papers are now starting to wonder about the United States' postwar relations with Iraq's neighbors. The Lebanese press has kept a close watch on the Bush administration's statements regarding a possible regime change in Syria. The Washington correspondent of Beirut's Al-Safir, Hisham Melhem, filed a story Monday reporting Wolfowitz's remarks on the Sunday talks shows advising Syria (which he described as "a strange regime ... pretty brutal in itself") to close its borders to anti-American fighters and stop shipping weapons to Iraq. Melhem highlighted Wolfowitz's statement to the Fox network that "there's got to be change in Syria," which the paper played up in the story's headline—though it was clearer in the body of the article that Wolfowitz was not necessarily advocating forcible change.

The tensions between Washington and Damascus have already had repercussions in Iraq. According to Kuwait's Al-Rai al-Aam, last week a U.S. special operations unit blew up part of the Iraqi-Syrian pipeline that allowed Iraq to export oil to Syria outside the U.N. oil-for-food program. A day later, the paper published an intriguing and detailed story suggesting that Syrian officials, including President Bashar Assad, had met in February with Sharif Ali, the Hashemite pretender to the Iraqi throne, a leading opposition figure and a favorite of some Washington neocons. The Syrians have denied the reports, but if the story is true, it indicates Damascus is taking a pragmatic approach to preparing for a new postwar order in Iraq.

When the Syrians feel insecure, there tends to be a backlash in Lebanon. Saturday's bombing of a McDonald's restaurant near Beirut, which injured five people, may have been an instance of this. The Daily Star described the bombing as "a message against U.S. companies and products here," though the franchise is entirely Lebanese-owned. The blast was caused by dynamite placed inside a bathroom, though police later found a large car bomb outside that had failed to detonate properly. Several papers, especially the French-language L'Orient-Le Jour, linked this to a recent spate of nighttime attacks against American-style fast-food outlets. However, the scope of the Saturday attack and its occurrence in broad daylight suggest something potentially far more serious, such as a response to U.S. threats against Syria.

In yesterdays news it stated that the U.S. had dropped four bunker busting bombs on a residential house because they had a tip that Saddam Hussein and his sons were holding a meeting there with his cabinet. Without even verifying this "tip" the U.S. dropped four bunker busting bombs on the house leaving a 60 foot deep crater where the house once stood. If there were civilians in that house instead of Hussein and his sons, the bodies were anilhilated and will most likely never be found. The news stated that the U.S. got the same kind of tip in the Gulf War and it proved to be false. Still they did not verify the tip before bombing the residence.

I read the story in the news about the 12 year old boy who had his arms blown off and lost his whole family that was mentioned above. The news story said the boy was crying and begging them for some artificial arms. He said if he has to go through life without arms he will commit suicide. How anyone can justify that is beyond me. The military calls these human beings "collateral damage."

It is beyond me how people can keep saying we have smart bombs that only hit the target they are aimed at and not realize that when the U.S. is dropping that many bombs on a city civilians are going to be hit too. It is either they are in denial or just plain don't care. For the purpose of propaganda ABC News showed a footage from an airplane of a missle being aimed at an enemy target when a civilian car crossed the bridge. They then aimed the missle into the river to avoid hitting the target to save the Iraqi civilian. The guy doesn't know how lucky he was that the U.S. military was filming a propaganda piece at the time he crossed that bridge. Otherwise he would have blown to pieces.

Even when talking about the war to the news media George Bush uses violent terms in his speech describing the war. That alone should be a warning signal to Americans and others in the world what this man is all about. He really sounds like a little boy or teenager playing a video game and getting excited over the kill.

Greg, My husband and I were talking about how Syria would be the next target when the Bush administration started saying things about Syria during this war in Iraq. We knew the administration was already starting their propaganda against Syria to convince the American public that country was a threat to the U.S. as well which gives them reason to go in and take out that regime next. The leaders of Syria are members of the Baath Party as is Hussein according to what I have read in the news about Syria.

America is a very violent society. We only have to look at what is depicted on television and in the movies to see that. We have violent video games that kids grow up playing. Revenge or getting even is also rampant in our society which is depicted on many television shows. People like to watch shows like Jerry Springer where they comb the bottom of the barrel looking for the worse in human nature and put them on the air. George W. Bush was governor of the State of Texas where they put more people to death by injection every year than all the other states combined have in decades. Violence and revenge is rooted in our society today so it is no small wonder that most people in this country support this war and are immune to the deaths of civilians in Iraq. They keep talking about the thousands of Americans who died on Sept. 11 to justify it. We have killed far more Iraqi people in the past 20 years than were killed on Sept. 11.

Yes, the world sees the U.S. in a new light now. Yes, the world hates us now and with good reason. We are now a nation of conquerors. A nation of bullies who, since Ronald Reagan's terms in office have been beating up on small, defenseless countries. Hussein was only a threat to his own people. After all the years of the U.S. dropping bombs on Iraq he had no army, no air force, no tanks, nothing to defend his country against a force like the U.S. We have put many of the Arabic nations in the position where terrorism is their only weapon. In Grenada when Reagan went in there, there were more sheep in that country than there were people. This is what we do now. We go in and take over small countries.

George W. Bush has destroyed any chance there ever was for men of peace to work at bringing equal justice and peace to the Middle East. Peace takes longer than wars so the American people, who expect instant gratification, instant solutions to all their problems, don't have the patience it takes to negotiate peace. Seems they would rather kill people instead to get what they want. That is the true mentality of conquerors.

The same people who advocate dropping bombs on innocent people as a means to attaining peace then have the nerve to call Pople John Paul immoral for meeting with an Iraqi leader in an attempt to negotiate peace in the world, and in an attempt to bring all religions together. They say talking about the war and pointing out the evils and injustices in the world won't help the Iraqi people but dropping tons of bombs on them will according to their thinking. Then they send the Iraqi people a care package and say they are doing a good and moral thing for them and blame the killing and bloodbath in Iraq on the war protesters.

Love, Connie

Hi Connie,

I have some comments about your post,


"Yes, the world sees the U.S. in a new light now. Yes, the world hates us now and with good reason. We are now a nation of conquerors."

Even if you don't belive it, there are thousands of people in the world that see you, Americans as liberators, as hopes of prosperity. Don't you think the freed Iraki people on the streets of Bagdhad see you as a saviuors?

"Hussein was only a threat to his own people."

Do you think the Iraki people didn't deserved to be freed of Hussein, if they were really the only in danger??

A nation of bullies who, since Ronald Reagan's terms in office have been beating up on small, defenseless countries."

"George W. Bush has destroyed any chance there ever was for men of peace to work at bringing equal justice and peace to the Middle East."


For us it doesn't matter if the president is Republican or Democrat, I notice you only mention Republicans.

Connie, I respect you and your opinion, but maybe you are looking at things only through American eyes...

I know for a fact that many, many Arabs are very happy that Irak is been liberated from Sadam Hussein.
And if you add those Arabs plus the many countries that "love" USA, I am sure the total will be greater than the extremists suicidal Arab terrorists that hate, not only Americans but westerners as well.

Tish

Everything you have written Connie is true, but it is happening...as we speak, as we sleep, as we argue and debate! What in your opinion (and I do enjoy your posts so I hope you will respond) what in your opinion would be a solution to regions like Irak, dictators like saddam who use fear and religion (funny after all he's an atheist) to rule and oppress the innocent and fund terrorists. How can we change this on our planet? What is the solution, what would work? I ask genuinely, wondering! because as sure as I am of my honey brown eyes, saddam would never listen to the pope.

Loves ya, Tish.
Joyce

Hi Tish

I too am happy for the Iraqi people. I hope that the world does see the U.S. as liberators. But it remains to be seen yet what the outcome of this war will be for the Middle East and the world. I hope and pray that it will be a good outcome. For the sake of the lives lost I hope and pray it will bring peace and freedom to the world. For all I know it may well have been God's plan so I remain optimistic about it. It does not change my view about war though. It does not change my view of using strong arm tactics and ultimatiums as a means of negotiating with world leaders.

But it is a great day for the Iraqi people to free from the tyranny of the Hussein regime. Something we all can rejoice in watching. God bless them all. God bless your warm, loving and gentle nature too, Tish.

Love, Connie

Thank you Connie,

I also think this was God's plans, but what I fear is that as me and my family, live in a underdeveloped country, some day we could be in the Iraki people's shoes, ruled by a tyran. I hope if that day comes (God forbids) that USA will come in our rescue, I am sure some innocent people will die, but thinking as a soul, their souls will choose to live that experience.

Every innocent person who has died in this war, are advanced souls who have chosen to die for their country to be free...

Tish

Tish,

It's not just "the extremists suicidal Arab terrorists that hate, not only Americans but westerners as well." The Arab News story, in a paper that caters to English-speaking, moderate, intelligent, open-minded people in Saudi Arabia and that part of the Arab world where there is some admiration for American principles -- now those people are expressing grave suspicions of America engaging in wrong-doing against American principles and against the Iraqi people.

This is not a black and white matter of terrorists vs. American people. People all over the world are focusing attention on what's going on, and there are many, many, many shades of opinion on what is happening. I'm a glutton for opinions. For seeing all the way around, getting the story from all sides, all "witnesses," in order to formulate the clearest idea of an event's "meaning" in the world. I live in this world. And we are all interconnected. And the different things we see, and the different things we do and choices we make, this is how we participate as co-creators in the world. This is how we shape how it is. And what are we creating? Lots of things. Some freedom from oppression for some people. Some fear OF oppression by us for some people. Some formerly moderate friends in the Arab world seeing us as downright monstrous, accusing us of massacres of civilians, of targeting journalists, of suppressing truth.

I don't think Americans can feel anymore like it's only the Bad Guys of the world who hate us, when even we and the French can't stand each other any more.

I love the USA. I want it to continue to be a lighthouse to the world, and a rescuer where need be, and a creative fount. I don't want it to provoke World War III. I am concerned about the administration's military ambitions. I am hoping for the best and praying for wisdom and love and life-respecting values to prevail.

Love,
Maria

Hello Maria,

I understand what you are saying and think your fears are right, seeing things from the point where you are, you have all the right to question your Government, I question mine for reasons completely different.
There is always two sides to everything, I don't understand American Politics, nor care to, but what I see in this part of the world, is completely different. We have here a big Arab Colony, and they all very happy that USA is liberating Iraq, as long as USA gets out as soon as things are on their way. They expect a new Iraqi government in place.
Also what I see as an outsider is that some members don't agree with Bush's Government way of dealing with issues, what would have happened if Democrats were in power?, that we will never know, but we foreigners from USA don't care what Party is in power. We don't care if Bush has other interests, everybody does...I don't think there is an altruist politician in the whole world.
I don't want you to get me wrong, I didn't wanted the war to start, but We All as One, created it. Now that it is on, I really wanted the USA to win.

"Some formerly moderate friends in the Arab world seeing us as downright monstrous, accusing us of massacres of civilians, of targeting journalists, of suppressing truth."

I see some Arab countries as monstrous, Sadam Hussein's Regime massacred his own people, in Arab countries they lapidate their women for being raped!!!, in Afghanistan, before USA came in, women had no right at all, not even education, all forbiden by The Taliban, the Government at that time. Did you heard about the accounts on how they murdered women in the foot ball field? Some Arab countries encourage terrorists attacks...what is more monstrous than that?? How many civilians died on Sept 11, Sadam had a lot to do with it, because he was paying $25,000 to the family of the suicide attackers. Supressing the truth?? there was no way of doing that, journalists were all over the place, and I am sure there were not targeted especifically, nor civilians. Hussein did used civialinas knowingly.


Unfortunately innocent people die on wars, that's why we are against wars, but sometimes worldly affairs lead to that. It is like when something we don't want happens in our lives? what do we do? expect the best outcome from it...

Belive me Maria, not the whole world see USA as monstrous, in fact you are many countries dream.

Anyway, now that it happened there is nothing we can do to change it, Bush will be gone in a few years, new governments will come, many will make mistakes, new worldy affairs will come to pass and you (USA) can't escape involvement being the great power you are and the great country you are.

Tish

Hi Tish -

And I'm tired of worrying about how we're viewed by the rest of the world. Why doesn't the rest of the world worry about how they're viewed by US? It's amazing. When someone has a problem, tornado, earthquake, etc., they come to the US for help.

I don't approve of the US invading other countries just because we might not like the leadership. Hey, if that were the case, we'd sure love to get rid of Chirac in France. But where people are starved, tortured and not given basic human rights, I think it's our duty to interfere. And I see nothing wrong with showing the terrorists what could happen to them if they cause problems. We don't have to be loved but the world needs to respect us in order to keep peace.

What is going on in the US right now, Tish, is that the Dems/war protesters are having to eat crow right now. Humble pie, if they prefer.

Thanks for your post -

Joyce

You're welcome Joyce

I'm just telling how we see things in other parts of the world.

If it not were for USA Guatemala would be now another Cuba, fortunately, there was not one bullet fired the day!!

Tish

Hi Tish ,

I liked the way you expressed yourself in the above post. I think it is very well said. My opinion is that I think most Westerners take their freedoms and rights for granted.

We see and hear the tyrannies of other countries, but we haven't lived it. I find it ironic that we talk of our freedom of speech and how our other freedoms are curtailed in America. What about the freedoms and the rights of citizens ... no not citizens, but as human beings in other countries? I'm talking about their basic freedoms and rights. Wasn't the American Revolutionary War fought on gaining our freedom and independence from England?

In Iraq, their version of freedom of speech is getting your tongue cut out. Their version of choosing a leader was a ballot with only Saddam Hussein on the ticket. Oh, you did have a choice though. You could vote for him by putting a check by his name on the card. The other choice would be not to vote but you had to pay with your life.

We are all aware of Hussein's atrocities and I know we are not member of his fan club. Although even with my military background, I am against war and I am definitely against killing. I do try to lean towards the philosophies of Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Wouldn't it be great if everybody on this planet followed the same doctrine?

Unfortunately, not all share this kind of thinking, which is why it doesn't always work. It didn't work with Hussein and it didn't work with Hitler because these individual's would use any means necessary to continue with their agenda even if it means to suppress (or kill) their own people. How else would these tyrants be stopped? With a peace march?

I am sure most if not all Iraqis don't agree with our Middle East policies. But it seems that in the last few days most Iraqi citizens see us not as conquerors but as liberators in much the same way the French and Europeans did when the Americans entered France in WWll.

Sabra

Hi Sabra

This is all very difficult, because we all have had such different lives. Even inside USA, being such a big country and with so many different people, who come from so many different backgrounds.
The same event is percieved in different ways, even in the same family.

I guess that for all of us to understand each other we would have to walk in the other's shoes, and not even then would we react the same way.

Like Krishnamurti said...

We only have to "think together" to have peace in the world.

Tish

I Luvs Ya, Tish.

Tish ,

You reflected what I was trying to say. Thank you for understanding.

Sabra

Maria, Sabra

What a beautiful way to start the day!!!

Thank you!!!

Tish