Join 3,426 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


February 16, 2001
10:53 AM   Subscribe

America bombs Iraq. What are Dubya's intentions?
posted by quirked (35 comments total)

 
That will get them out of Kuwait! If the Dems had done this, without even uttering an explanation, there would be immediate calls for hearings in Congress. There may well be a good expanation and we will learn what it is. As soon as our president is told.
posted by Postroad at 10:59 AM on February 16, 2001


His intentions are obvious: "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
posted by gluechunk at 11:02 AM on February 16, 2001


This may explain what is takaing place:
http://www.worldtribune.com/index-SS.html
posted by Postroad at 11:03 AM on February 16, 2001


damn you! damn you for beating me to the "all your base" reference.
posted by Hankins at 11:06 AM on February 16, 2001


What are Dubya's intentions?

To destroy all of Iraq's aspirin factories while simultaneuously distracting media attention form his own scandals here at home!

Oh, wait... wrong president.
posted by mikewas at 11:07 AM on February 16, 2001


Ha ha ha, I'm glad we got to all your base right away. And I suppose this proves that small penises are hereditary. At least in the Bush family.
posted by anildash at 11:08 AM on February 16, 2001


"Hey paw, those Ira-kwees are takin' all tha awl from Coo-wait! Gyet the shaht-gun!"
posted by Succa at 11:12 AM on February 16, 2001


Valentines Day present for his father?

Just a reminder that bombing Iraq was (relatively) common during the Clinton years, usually in response to Iraqi jets being in the "no fly zone", or ground defenses targeting US aircraft, (that’s what we were told anyway).

This seams slightly different, in that it’s not a direct response to any one specific attack.

I wonder when Bush will get around to bombing a pharmaceutical factory or an embassy . . .

posted by alan at 11:13 AM on February 16, 2001


Ahem, this was an Allied air strike. And unless Tony Blair has done a 180 I hardly think he's putting British bombers in the air on the say-so of GW Bush.

This was just the latest in the on-going attempts to make Saddam Hussein respect our author-a-tay.
posted by Dreama at 11:14 AM on February 16, 2001


"All them thar base...they's belong tah US!"
posted by Succa at 11:15 AM on February 16, 2001


"As soon as our president is told."

Hilarious.
posted by ojsbuddy at 11:18 AM on February 16, 2001


Same old same old. Just to perpetuate the "Saddam is a demon who needs bombing while the Iraquis have the petulance to starve rather than rebel against him, even though he's better for us still to be in power so we can trot out the 'rogue state' line and boost up the military" meme.

Ahem.
posted by holgate at 11:18 AM on February 16, 2001


Alan: this differs from strikes under Clinton. Clinton claimed that no-fly zones were being violated and we retaliated. This may or may not be the Truth. But this strike is bombing the capital of the country and has nothing to do with no strike zones etc. I am not taking sides etc so much as pointing out the difference which may or may not matter to some folks.
posted by Postroad at 11:21 AM on February 16, 2001


And we have our first military action against Iraq on Day 26 of the new administration.....

Who wins the pool?
posted by briank at 11:21 AM on February 16, 2001


This was just the latest in the on-going attempts to make Saddam Hussein respect our author-a-tay.

It's that, Dreama, but it's also Junior's first attempt to make the American People respect his author-a-tay.

(Eric Dubya Cartman: "Hey Saddam...I'll kick you in the nuts.")
posted by jpoulos at 11:25 AM on February 16, 2001


hey i wonder if the bomber pilots blast that outkast song while flying their sorties...
posted by afx114 at 11:38 AM on February 16, 2001


Just to perpetuate the "Saddam is a demon who needs bombing while the Iraquis have the petulance to starve rather than rebel against him, even though he's better for us still to be in power so we can trot out the 'rogue state' line and boost up the military" meme.

I swear, if I never read the word "meme" again it will be too soon... :) I rarely used to see it, but then I entered the world of blogging, and it seems to be all over the place in blogging-land. Is it just one of those trendy-type things?

On the other hand, it is kind of a frickin' cool word. It's meme-tacular.


Anyway, the president's probably bombing Iraq to distract the Republicans from investigating his pardon of Marc Rich.

Oh, right. Clinton's not president anymore. Someone tell Congress.
posted by Tin Man at 11:42 AM on February 16, 2001


Actually, postroad, we did the same type of thing under Clinton. This one took place in 1999. The only difference is that this attack targeted radar installations closer to Baghdad.

As the MSNBC story says, the strike was in response to an increase in attacks on Coalition aircraft who were patrolling the no-fly zones.
posted by CRS at 11:48 AM on February 16, 2001


Well, looks like we're back to the true business of the Amerikan gubment: Keeping our smoke-and-mirrors, militaristic, economy propped up by creating fake enemies and then bombing the shit out of them. God bless the USA. I have to go lie down now.
posted by Optamystic at 11:51 AM on February 16, 2001


Is it just one of those trendy-type things?
Yeah, it's a meme :P
(and so is calling the spread of the word 'meme' a meme)
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:03 PM on February 16, 2001


But this strike is bombing the capital of the country and has nothing to do with no strike zones etc.

This bombing was on five "command and control facilities" one of which was inside of the no-fly zone, the other four of which were outside of the city of Baghdad.

The Pentagon and the British Ministry of Defence have both characterised this as a necessary reminder to Hussein that he must be mindful of the no-fly zones which he continues to ignore and deny. It remains to be seen that any bombing was done in the capitol of the country, or that it had anything to do with anything other than just that -- "There's a new sheriff in town, but he can kick your ass just as hard as the old one."

posted by Dreama at 12:16 PM on February 16, 2001


So:

1. A meme is a meme (natch)
2. Spreading the word "meme" is, itself, a meme.
3. And calling the spreading of the word "meme" a meme is also a meme?

ALL YOUR MEME ARE BELONG TO US!
posted by jpoulos at 12:17 PM on February 16, 2001


"The Shariff don't like it. Rock the Casbah!"
posted by riffola at 12:29 PM on February 16, 2001


"Saddam, respect our meme, or we'll kick you in the nuts!"


posted by darren at 12:34 PM on February 16, 2001


So, wait, I'm confused by the argument that the US and British governments had to prove that "there's a new sheriff in town, but he can kick your ass just as hard as the old one," so.. they send in planes and kill people? I'm familiar with the macho posturing theory of international diplomacy, but doesn't hurting innocent civilians seem a bit excessive for making a statement?
posted by jess at 12:40 PM on February 16, 2001


Watching Bush squint and stammer his way through a live press conference right now inspires a lot of confidence. Can't we attack Grenada again to let Junior get his sea legs?
posted by rcade at 12:50 PM on February 16, 2001


I agree, jess. Also, I'm pretty sure that the name George Bush carries plenty of weight with the Iraqis. I've got to think that this is more a display for the US (and the rest of the Allies, with whom Junior also has very little credibility) than for Saddam.
posted by jpoulos at 12:52 PM on February 16, 2001


Hell, if Alaska gives him any trouble about opening up those pipelines, Bush'll declare war on them!
posted by jpoulos at 12:53 PM on February 16, 2001


Certainly taken me by surprise.
posted by williamtry at 1:25 PM on February 16, 2001


Jess, my god. Governments do it all the time.

People, c’mon. The bombing never really stopped. NATO has been regularly dropping loads, as it were, on Iraq since the imposing sanctions. The only reason this got reported in the corporate press is because it was outside the no-fly zone.

I was at a Turkish/British/US air force base in ‘99. Of it's two main missions, one was to be a staging base for sorties into Iraq. The Iraqi military is crippled and under extreme survilence, they couldn’t launch a slingshot without being noticed. But every few days while I was at that base, fighters would launch with a full compliment of bomb and missiles spread out along the undercarriage, and come back empty.

Hussein was never a threat. NATO, in fact, worked against a counter-Hussein revolution. They need to keep Iraq under economic and military seige. American foreign policy is simple: keep most countries in the middle east in disarray or loyal. All others get cut off from support, which is why Palestinians are unofficial state enemies, and Iraq is under siege.

Hussein was an ally when he committed most of his mass murders, and he continues to be useful to an inhumane, militarized foreign policy.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 1:26 PM on February 16, 2001


Well, according to most everyone, we're entering some sort of economic slowdown or recession here in the US. Nothing perks up the economy like a good war.
posted by jkottke at 3:59 PM on February 16, 2001


but doesn't hurting innocent civilians seem a bit excessive for making a statement?


It should be mandatory to read news articles before commenting. Is anyone paying attention to what's going on? (Besides the one or two people who have realized the following) Radar stations are being bombed because of the increase of attacks against no-fly zone patrollers. I guess if Bush didn't bomb the radar stations then everyone could bitch when ally military personnel are killed.
posted by thirdball at 4:54 PM on February 16, 2001



Radar stations are being bombed because of the increase of attacks against no-fly zone patrollers.

Are we redefining "attack" to include "radar locking onto a target"? In which case, we'll include the police speed radar on the Scottish borders that was locked by a Tornado jet on exercises, and start bombing Berwick-on-Tweed. Look, if there were any "attacks" involving yer actual munitions, we'd hear about them precisely 12 seconds after they occured. This is nothing but a "remember my daddy?" mission.
posted by holgate at 10:11 PM on February 16, 2001


jason, amen.*cough* "Wag The Dog" *cough*
posted by lia at 11:07 PM on February 16, 2001


Capt. Crackpipe, I think we're on the same side here. :) And, yes, civilians are injured and killed all the time by governments who have something to prove (the US bombings of Iraq under Clinton weren't any more pure than this latest attack), but that doesn't make each subsequent time it happens less immoral or inappropriate.
posted by jess at 1:19 PM on February 17, 2001


« Older You're the world's number one Web destination, res...  |  Recently released FBI hate-cri... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments