War / Not a good day for GWB

[mrph]

So, what have we had today?

A Baghdad marketplace gets bombed, and the first response from the USA is basically "don't look at us, we're not admitting any responsibility, we didn't drop any bombs there". The second, rather confused, response is "there were some missile launchers hidden next to civilian buildings". What they're pointedly not saying is "OK, we may have screwed up and killed innocent civilians". Unfortunately, their changing story just makes them look spin-driven and shifty...

Still no telegenic crowds of liberated Iraqis. But the military has now described the snipers "in civilian clothing" as "terrorist style attackers". Definitely not civilians who think they're defending their country, then?

The WTO ruled that GWB's steel tariffs are illegal.

We seem to have bombed a TV station. On purpose. The US and UK are telling different stories as to why - I'm tempted to think that it's not about "dual use" transmitters or secret coded messages, it's so that we don't see any more awkward pictures of coalition POWs.

Bush's massive tax cuts are meeting serious political opposition.

Very small print in a couple of newspapers acknowledges that the "scuds" fired at Kuwait weren't scuds, and were actually short range missiles, allowed under the UN resolutions.

The US and UK are still not seeing eye to eye on post-Saddam Iraq. This could be yet more political strife for Blair...

Political people are seriously talking about "re-evaluating" our relationship with the USA after this war. Given the political fall-out so far, following a war-hungry Bush administration into Iran or North Korea could be disastrous - I can see the British government trying to tactfully step away when they get a chance...

Finally, as ever, the US armed forces are still killing more UK troops than the Iraqi armed forces are. This is nothing new - it was the largest cause of UK casualties in the last Gulf war, too, and the UK has never forgotten that.

Comments

[melston.livejournal.com]

Did you see that programme on BBC2 at about 7.30?

It more-or-less agreed with my (rather cynical) stance that this whole war is about oil & nothing more...

The French & USSR are anti-war because they've struck oil deals with Saddam's reigime, and the US & UK are negotiating with the opposition!

[ladybirdintheuk.livejournal.com]

yep I saw ... found it by accident, so missed the beginning tho ...

Re:

[melston.livejournal.com]

Think I saw all of it& IMO it hit the nail right on the head.

It was also rather interesting that someone's finally remembered the predictions (made in the 1970s) that we would run out of oil between 2010 and 2030...

Byebye civilization!

[wechsler.livejournal.com]

Actually I think "accidents" killed more than "friendly fire" (with apologies to the english language) in the last war, at least according to Martin Gilbert. Still, "the enemy" came a very distinct third.

The UK Military may not have forgotten that. I can only assume that Blair has. I think that the old adage "Never get involved in a ground war in Asia" has been shunted down by "Never get involved in a war anywhere near the american US miliary".

I for one will be delighted if the UK moves away from the appaling GWB regime and closer to europe. If this involves opposing US use of Iraq as a combination piggy-bank / captive market, in favour of UN management, so much the better.

The US definition of "Precision weaponry" is an interesting one, too. The precision is apparently determined as the radius within which 50% of munitions strike. Anyone familiar with gaussian distribution will know just how appropriate a measure that isn't.

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

similarly i dont approve of flying in and bombing barracks as people lie sleeping in them. You give them a chance to surrender if they are not armed, you dont just kill the buggers.
In the briefing a couple days ago, there were images of barracks that were levelled. I feel sorry for the poor buggers caught inside. The US doesn't seem to have the word 'give quarter' in it's vocabulary. They did a similar thing on the Basra road last time around, where they bulldozed live Iraqi troops in their trenches, no option to surrender was given - they just drove in with armoured bulldozers or ploughs mounted on tanks and levelled the place. A reporter (Patrick Sloyan) who followed the group, but had been held back from witnessing the battle itself, wanted to know where the bodies of the opposition were...and was told 'there were no bodies...'!!

[rosenkavalier.livejournal.com]

I wasn't sure whether to be amused or horrified by the discovery that the 80 % success rate reported for cruise missiles during the last Gulf War referred simply to a successful launch - that is, provided the thing didn't jam in the launcher, it was considered a success, regardless of where it actually landed...

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.

- Wernher von Braun, Tom Lehrer.

[lougarry.livejournal.com]

If all else fails, listen to the British side of things, especially the military, as they seem to be more helpful about giving information over. Many journos are saying this as well, I'm not sure on how tough the restrictions are (may find out next week)but during GW1 the US military wer given orders to arrest, detain, threaten at gun-point, or chase off any 'rogue[1]' reporters.
I have been watching very carefully over the course of the war, and I am pleased to say that there seem to be a load of 'renegade' reporters on the loose - which is not somethign the US wants :D It certainly does appear that there is a bit more freedom of media this time around, though there are restraints in place. Though I have some thoughts on the ITV guys who were killed...I wonder if it is all that it seems or did they get too close(not to enemy fire in other words) and saw things they weren't suposed to.

RE: casualties - well, the people maybe. Blair seems to have made a good job of sweeping it under the mat. I can not believe the amount of deaths due to ingnorance, incompetence and accidents. The Iraqis dont have to worry, we'll do the job for them :(

[1] - rogue as in non-US-approved Press.

[rosenkavalier.livejournal.com]

The US and UK are still not seeing eye to eye on post-Saddam Iraq.

From various reports on the radio this morning it would appear that the 'regime change' is going to involve US military administration of the country, followed (eventually) by a US supervised civilian government, whilst US companies rebuild the infrastructure (the contracts for which have already been negotiated). Slightly one sided perhaps? Not at all - the UN is going to be allowed to pay for it all, apparently, provided they don't try to interfere. So that's all right then.