Join 3,552 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

1769 posts tagged with Iraq. (View popular tags)
Displaying 1651 through 1700 of 1769. Subscribe:

Related tags:
+ (691)
+ (248)
+ (218)
+ (156)
+ (148)
+ (118)
+ (85)
+ (78)
+ (77)
+ (71)
+ (63)
+ (62)
+ (60)
+ (55)
+ (54)
+ (52)
+ (52)
+ (52)
+ (51)
+ (51)
+ (48)
+ (46)
+ (43)
+ (39)
+ (38)
+ (37)
+ (35)
+ (34)
+ (34)
+ (33)
+ (33)
+ (32)
+ (32)
+ (31)
+ (30)
+ (30)
+ (29)
+ (29)
+ (28)
+ (28)
+ (28)
+ (28)
+ (27)
+ (26)
+ (25)
+ (24)
+ (24)
+ (24)
+ (24)
+ (23)
+ (23)
+ (23)
+ (22)
+ (22)
+ (21)
+ (21)
+ (21)
+ (21)
+ (20)
+ (20)


Users that often use this tag:
y2karl (96)
homunculus (93)
Postroad (82)
insomnia_lj (59)
amberglow (42)
digaman (39)
kirkaracha (29)
specialk420 (24)
owillis (20)
Ignatius J. Reilly (18)
skallas (16)
troutfishing (16)
mathowie (14)
fold_and_mutilate (13)
semmi (12)
thedailygrowl (12)
russilwvong (12)
acrobat (10)
four panels (10)
stbalbach (9)
srboisvert (9)
XQUZYPHYR (9)
nofundy (8)
delmoi (8)
jenleigh (8)
orthogonality (8)
dejah420 (7)
caddis (7)
the fire you left me (7)
The Jesse Helms (7)
raaka (6)
Steve_at_Linnwood (6)
Smedleyman (6)
bardic (6)
EarBucket (6)
empath (6)
bas67 (5)
mediareport (5)
turbanhead (5)
sheauga (5)
languagehat (5)
CrazyJub (5)
hoder (5)
zarq (5)
adamvasco (5)
stenseng (5)
Ty Webb (4)
kliuless (4)
johnnydark (4)
Elim (4)
brettski (4)
stonerose (4)
Artifice_Eternity (4)
jasper411 (4)
madamjujujive (4)
fenriq (4)
FormlessOne (4)
ibmcginty (4)
mk1gti (4)
growabrain (4)

In the new LRB, a pretty good attempt to answer the pressing question - why do the Bush people want to attack Iraq so much?
posted by Mocata on Sep 25, 2002 - 20 comments

Gore: Saddam must go

Gore: Saddam must go Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein. "There can be no peace for the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighbours" - Al Gore [more inside]
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood on Sep 24, 2002 - 47 comments

Finally released, The British Government's Dossier On Iraq appears, after two hours of reading, to be quite remarkable in it's - well - unremarkableness.(.pdf link from mainpage)
posted by Doozer on Sep 24, 2002 - 28 comments

This may not make as effective a sales pitch

This may not make as effective a sales pitch as "weapons of mass destruction," but with two oil men in office, it can't be ignored as a possible ulterior motive to war in Iraq. Am I a cynic or should we be asking if this "preemptive" war is really about what they are saying it's about?
posted by karlcleveland on Sep 23, 2002 - 7 comments

Is Germany next on the list?

Is Germany next on the list? Well, no, but the way the Bush administration approaches diplomacy needs some work. Is a war in Iraq worth "poisoning" America's relationship with the international community?
posted by elwoodwiles on Sep 23, 2002 - 30 comments

Given the fact we will have a lot of soldiers in Iraq

Given the fact we will have a lot of soldiers in Iraq for a long time after we invade them, not to mention in Afghanistan and other places all over the world, what do you suppose the odds are of the draft being reinstated in some form?
posted by QuestionableSwami on Sep 23, 2002 - 89 comments

TRANSCRIPTS:
A case on Iraq - Rumsfeld's testimony to Senate Armed Services Committee, 9.19.02.
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.
GAO e-Government Proposal.
Senator Byrd on the Department of Homeland Security.
Today's bumper crop of limited audience government info links. "Maybe only 50,000 people want to know what's going on in Libya, but those 50,000 people are really important. You don't want to have more planes blow up. But maybe six million people want to watch Jerry Springer. Well, who owns the airwaves? Basically we do." Do you think that unprocessed, source texts are getting filtered effectively to the public?
posted by sheauga on Sep 22, 2002 - 7 comments

Arming Saddam.

Arming Saddam. "ABC News Nightline opened last June 9 with words to make the heart stop. "It is becoming increasingly clear," said a grave Ted Koppel, "that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy."

Does it matter if no one reports it? Does a tree falling make a sound if no one hears it? Are these facts not relevant to the war against Iraq? For your debating pleasure, a blast from the past.
posted by nofundy on Sep 20, 2002 - 33 comments

When was the last time we bombed Iraq? 1991? 1992? How about 4 days ago. And again six days before that to name just a few. The US Bombing Watch page keeps detailed tabs on all bombing attacks by allied forces since March 9, 2000, but the bombing has continued since the end of the Gulf War [via rc3.org].
posted by mathowie on Sep 19, 2002 - 81 comments

US threat to [wait for it..] stop Iraq inspections

US threat to [wait for it..] stop Iraq inspections
Ri-iiiight. What was that about giving clear and determined leadership to the world? About the need for "Mr Saddam Hussein ... to let inspectors back in his country to show us that he is not developing weapons of mass destruction"? That man is making a fool of his government, policies and his own people. What next?
posted by dash_slot- on Sep 19, 2002 - 98 comments

The grayest of gray Republican eminences weigh in on the Iraq Debate.

The grayest of gray Republican eminences weigh in on the Iraq Debate. Brent Scowcroft, an ex-general with the prejudices and proclivities of his scholarly peers --the nattering nabobs of negativism-- proposes that the United States forget about invading Iraq. Henry Kissinger, one of the great American opportunists, has positioned himself as a kind of stealth critic, a loyal oppositionist who is doing his darnedest to nudge Bush in a multilateral direction. James Baker, who is intimately tied to a wide range of allegedly satanic forces and has an incredibly long and distinguished record of public service, to chasten George W. Bush's hawkish impulses on Iraq, proposes that the administration sponsor "a simple and straightforward resolution requiring that Iraq submit to intrusive inspections anytime, anywhere, with no exceptions, and authorizing all necessary means to enforce it."
posted by semmi on Sep 19, 2002 - 11 comments

This war plan forces me to stand by the dictator who tortured me.

This war plan forces me to stand by the dictator who tortured me. Iraqi writer, an exiled dissident and victim of Hussein's regime speaks against war and sanctions: "You are "either with us or against us", they say. As an Iraqi that means choosing between war and the dictator. To be on the side of the oppressed does not mean we are unaware of the complexity of the situation. To campaign for the lifting of sanctions, for an end to the paralysing bombardment and daily threat of war is to stand by the Iraqi people; it is that policy which will help them to change the oppressive regime. Any change should be initiated from within Iraq, not imposed by Bush or Blair."
posted by talos on Sep 18, 2002 - 11 comments

Bush is "skeptical" about Iraq's announcement to allow weapons inspectors unconditionally.

Bush is "skeptical" about Iraq's announcement to allow weapons inspectors unconditionally. As the administration prepares for war with Iraq, the rogue state led by everyone's favorite madman agrees to pretty much everything the U.S. has demanded. So, we're not going to invade, right? And the fact that this is an election year has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this, right? And Iraq didn't just agree to this to make the U.S. look stupid, right? Right?
posted by vraxoin on Sep 17, 2002 - 42 comments

The United States has invited you to "War on Iraq"

The United States has invited you to "War on Iraq"
posted by mathowie on Sep 16, 2002 - 38 comments

On Iraq, Where Are The Democrats?

On Iraq, Where Are The Democrats? "Oh, the party's leaders speak: They appear on talk shows; they write op-eds; they convene congressional hearings. But most of what they say is best understood as highly articulate evasiveness. They have devised a series of formulations designed to make the party appear to be offering a clear response to the president's proposed war, when it is actually doing the opposite.". But now some are willing to outright question the timing of our newfound desire to eliminate Hussein: "It's hard not to notice that the sudden urgency of war with Iraq has coincided precisely with the emergence of the corporate scandal story, with the flip in the congressional [poll] numbers and with the decline in the Republicans' prospects for retaking the Senate majority"
posted by owillis on Sep 15, 2002 - 18 comments

War Could Unshackle Oil in Iraq

War Could Unshackle Oil in Iraq ..All five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad. Okay, everybody say it with me now...It's about the OIL!
posted by bas67 on Sep 14, 2002 - 38 comments

The Mind of a Madman.

The Mind of a Madman. PRESIDENT SADDAM HUSSEIN’S ADDRESS ON THE ELEVENTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE GRAND BATTLE "MOTHER OF ALL BATTLES" JANUARY 16-17, 1991. See also President Saddam Hussein's speech on the occasion of the 14th anniversary of the day of the great victory over Iran and other funny stories. And now, for the rest of the story.
posted by Mack Twain on Sep 14, 2002 - 10 comments

Saddam Hussein Trained Al Qaeda Fighters - Report

Saddam Hussein Trained Al Qaeda Fighters - Report Blair's evidence to convince the Brits that attacking Iraq is going after Saddam is needed because he has been directly involved with Qaeda network.
posted by Postroad on Sep 14, 2002 - 27 comments

Why Aren't U.S. Journalists Reporting From Iraq?

Why Aren't U.S. Journalists Reporting From Iraq? "This notion that the Iraqi leader is in cahoots with Osama will be easy to feed the American people. To the American people, one bad Arab is the same as the next, and Osama equals Saddam. People who wonder about the Bush war-urgency only need to think about this: there’s a blind spot that needs to be exploited now, before too many journalists get the idea to go inside Iraq and find out what’s really happening. As long as the Condi Rices, Dick Cheneys and other hawks are talking to journalists with no experience inside Iraq, they won’t get a raised eyebrow about this notion that the secular dictator is in bed with the jihadis -- even though [reports indicate]....the CIA has found no link between the Iraqi dictator and Al Qaeda."
posted by fold_and_mutilate on Sep 13, 2002 - 55 comments

A Blast from the Past.

A Blast from the Past. In 1998, George Bush, Sr. explains why Saddam was not removed in the Gulf War: "Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
posted by owillis on Sep 12, 2002 - 19 comments

Here's a transcript of the president's speech

Here's a transcript of the president's speech to the UN General Assembly this morning, for those who missed it. The White House has also provided a 21 page document [pdf link] detailing Iraq's history of defiance and disorder over the past decade.
posted by jammer on Sep 12, 2002 - 84 comments

U.S. troops on DEFCON 2 alert

U.S. troops on DEFCON 2 alert "The Canoe.qc.ca web site has learned that American Marines in the Persian Gulf have been placed on DEFCON 2 alert status, a possible precursor to war with Iraq." - the Canoe.ca site is often several hours ahead of more popular news sites (CNN, MSNBC, ect) with breaking news.
posted by stevengarrity on Sep 11, 2002 - 22 comments

You Call That Evidence?

You Call That Evidence? Op-Ed from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists about the so-called evidence for the administration's claim that Iraq is "moving very near a nuclear weapon capability." Too bad something that at least seems to be approaching the truth will have nothing to do with whether we go to war or not.
posted by elgoose on Sep 11, 2002 - 51 comments

Export Restrictions on a website?

Export Restrictions on a website? I had to agree to this before downloading stuff from Oracle:
I am not a citizen, national or resident of, and am not under the control of, the government of: Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Syria, nor any other country to which the United States has prohibited export.
posted by arnab on Sep 10, 2002 - 10 comments

Implications of attacking Iraq

Implications of attacking Iraq A succinct side-by-side Reasons For and Reasons Against. As always, you read. You decide.
posted by Postroad on Sep 10, 2002 - 48 comments

U.S. Stops Iraq-Al Qaeda Talk

U.S. Stops Iraq-Al Qaeda Talk From the Washington Post. Beyond the superficial significance of administration back-tracking, in regards to intelligence there seems to be two key aspects to this story: 1) The article talks about how the CIA was unable to "validate two prominent allegations made by high-ranking administration officials," implying that Bush/Cheney/etc. have been making baseless assumptions about Iraq in their pro-war arguments, and 2) it brings into question whether we know anything at all about Iraq, anyway. What if the same can be said of Hussein's nuclear plans?
posted by risenc on Sep 10, 2002 - 27 comments

Post-Saddam Iraq? Not Our Problem.

Post-Saddam Iraq? Not Our Problem. "President Bush Monday told world leaders it will be the responsibility of the whole international community, rather than the United States, to determine what kind of regime should replace Iraqi President Saddam Hussein if his government is toppled by U.S. military action, European diplomats told United Press International." How's your shining beacon of democracy doing today?
posted by owillis on Sep 9, 2002 - 45 comments

The Iraq Daily

The Iraq Daily - News from the Iraqi Ministry of Information. Sure, it might be information light and propaganda heavy, but since Iraq has been in the news lately, why not check out how they are represented online? I found their art links to be especially interesting (apparently, Kelsey Grammar's recent "Macbeth" production was of interest to the Iraqi press). The Iraqi News Agency provides a bit more information. Headlines include "Stupid American Sanctions". You can also read a series of open letter to the people of the United States from President Hussein himself.
Egads, I hope I am not going to be monitored by the Feds because I visited these sites.
posted by Joey Michaels on Sep 6, 2002 - 22 comments

Looks like it's already started,

Looks like it's already started, American and British aircraft make an unusually large strike against Iraqi air defences near the jordainian border. Is this the precurser to Bush and Blairs looming Gulf war?
posted by JonnyX on Sep 6, 2002 - 62 comments

What happened in the final days of the Gulf War?

What happened in the final days of the Gulf War? "The Battle of Rumaila was closely reviewed at the war's end by an analyst for the C.I.A., who confirmed that the Iraqi losses were great. The toll included at least a hundred tanks from the Hammurabi division. "It's like eating an artichoke," one colonel had said of combat.... 'Once you start, you can't stop.' One of the destroyed vehicles was a bus, which had been hit by a rocket. The precise number of its occupants who were injured or killed is not known, but they included civilians and children. One of the first Americans at the scene was Lieutenant Charles W. Gameros, Jr., a Scout platoon leader, who called in a Medevac team for the victims. At the time, he was "frustrated" by what he saw as needless deaths, Gameros recalled in an interview. 'Now I look at it sadly,' he said. Unresisting Iraqis had been slain all morning, but the deaths of the children troubled many soldiers."

What's happening in "the final days" of the war in Afghanistan? What will be happening in the upcoming war in Iraq?
posted by fold_and_mutilate on Sep 5, 2002 - 100 comments

Mo Mowlam (former UK Government cabinet member) says the real goal of an Iraq war "is the seizure of Saudi oil".

Mo Mowlam (former UK Government cabinet member) says the real goal of an Iraq war "is the seizure of Saudi oil". The much-loved Northern Ireland peace process go-between writes that the threat of Saddam Hussein is already well-contained and that "Bush wants war to keep US control of the region". Hers is a view espoused fairly regularly of late. Would it really damage the American position to admit that this more about oil than about terrorism?
posted by skylar on Sep 5, 2002 - 12 comments

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11 "CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." Rumsfeld: "Go massive ... Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
posted by owillis on Sep 5, 2002 - 61 comments

Molly Ivins wraps it up nicely and ties a bow on top.

Molly Ivins wraps it up nicely and ties a bow on top. When Dick Cheney was CEO of the oilfield supply firm Halliburton, the company did $23.8 million in business with Saddam Hussein, the evildoer "prepared to share his weapons of mass destruction with terrorists."
posted by pejamo on Sep 4, 2002 - 22 comments

Chinese checkmate ?

Chinese checkmate ? "Those who love to quote Sun Tzu might consider his nationality', says James Webb, as he offers still more cogent reasons why a 30 year "MacArthurian regency in Baghdad" is probably not in America's national interest. Why are the military men the ones who have to keep pointing out the unwisdom of an invasion of Iraq? Quoth Secretary Webb: "The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years."
posted by rdone on Sep 4, 2002 - 18 comments

U.S. faces bigger issues than hitting Iraq.

U.S. faces bigger issues than hitting Iraq. A former Japanese diplomat--now chairman of the English-Speaking Union of Japan-- offers a quintessentially Japanese view regarding the manifest folly of a US attack on Iraq. (From The Japan Times). Mr. Hanabusa underscores the formidable difficulty of the victor's creating anything but a puppet "regime change." Since Japan has had some recent experience in this regard, his words merit contemplation by those who favor an immediate attack and damn the foreseeable consequences thereof.
posted by rdone on Sep 3, 2002 - 26 comments

Iraq Advice-Givers Have Business Ties

Iraq Advice-Givers Have Business Ties This interesting information. I've done a lot of research on these folks and knew of many of these business ties already. But I doubt the general public has put them together. Yet considering how this information affects the slant of the many "printed statements" and "op-ed" pieces by Baker, Scowcroft et, al...why haven't any of the shrill talking heads on cable news revealed this?
posted by bas67 on Sep 2, 2002 - 19 comments

Russia to Sign Oil Deal with Iraq. We saw this coming (right?) But is the timing significant?
posted by Shane on Aug 30, 2002 - 9 comments

Welcome to "Hawk Tawk"

Welcome to "Hawk Tawk", with your host, Dick Cheney. The Vice President spoke to members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Tennessee today, and unequivocally stated that the United States must preemptively strike Iraq, since there is "no doubt" Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and plans on using them against the US and its allies (excerpt of speech here). In other news, Qatar, a proposed launching off point by US forces, announced its opposition to any attacks on Iraq. In addition, National Reservists will continue to be on active duty for another year, the first time that has happened since Vietnam, and the US Army has been gearing up for new action. What's that Chinese proverb about living in interesting times? (And I know people are sick of Iraq talk, but these are fairly significant events)
posted by tittergrrl on Aug 26, 2002 - 111 comments

Target Iraq - Global Security.org - One stop war / anti-war portal.

Target Iraq - Global Security.org - One stop war / anti-war portal.
Military options, pros and cons of attack, anti-war sites, government, diplomatic, NGO links, military policy, breaking news, military targets, Iraq weather.
posted by sheauga on Aug 26, 2002 - 7 comments

Administration Says It Can Attack Iraq without Congressional Approval

Administration Says It Can Attack Iraq without Congressional Approval Not a new story, per se, but this Post article lays out pretty well the arguments behind the administration's case, one being simply Bush's role as commander-in-chief. It's strange how closely this issue reflects earlier attempts by the administration to avoid Congressional and/or public scrutiny (Cheney's Enron meetings, for example). Why this aversion, and why fight so hard? And I have a sneaking fear that Bush will seek Congressional approval only after invading, and he will bully votes by claiming that reps have a patriotic duty to support a president in a time of war.
posted by risenc on Aug 26, 2002 - 65 comments

It appears

It appears that there is another twist in the Abu Nidal death as reports are claiming that Saddam Hussein had Abu killed because Nidal didn't want to train Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq and strike the US. This does contradict the Iraqi claims that Abu killed himself for plotting to overthrow Saddam.

This is getting stranger and stranger. Is this just creative writing by Iraqi opposition? Won't these claims be used to justify claims that Saddam is harboring Terrorists? Will the US awkardly praise Abu for turning down Saddam's offer?

Who knows..
posted by RobbieFal on Aug 24, 2002 - 15 comments

Iraq's Aziz Says U.S. Attack Would Fail

Iraq's Aziz Says U.S. Attack Would Fail This is a news story? What is the Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz supposed to say? "W. has been right all along, Saddam is a tyrant. We need to get him out. Even Saddam agrees he has gone to far." or "Now that you mention it, our military is a mess, the stuff we have bought is junk and your tanks will rip it to shreds."
posted by Coop on Aug 20, 2002 - 14 comments

Iraqi Dissidents Seize Embassy in Berlin.

Iraqi Dissidents Seize Embassy in Berlin. An Iraqi dissident group calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein occupied the Iraqi Embassy in Berlin Tuesday and took several hostages, including the ambassador. Is this just a stunt before the upcoming German elections?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood on Aug 20, 2002 - 28 comments

Iraq: In all but name, the war's on

Iraq: In all but name, the war's on How do you tell a war has begun? This is not the 17th or 18th century. There are no highfalutin' declarations. Troops don't line up in eyesight of each other. There are no drum rolls and bugle calls, no calls of "Chaaa...rge!". When did the Vietnam War begin? When, for that matter, World War I? When mobilizations were ordered setting in motion irreversible chains of events or at the time of the formal declarations of war?
posted by bas67 on Aug 18, 2002 - 24 comments

while we're on the topic of iraq

while we're on the topic of iraq anyone suprised about these revelations/allegations? username: metafilter46 password: metafilter
posted by specialk420 on Aug 17, 2002 - 41 comments

Does invading Iraq require more than declaring Saddam Hussein "evil"?

Does invading Iraq require more than declaring Saddam Hussein "evil"? The New York Times reports public opposition from people not easily labeled Brie-sucking scared-of-war libyerals -- people like Henry "Bombs Away" Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft. Meanwhile, hawks argue that not attacking after all Bush's rhetoric would "produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism." [registration required]
posted by sacre_bleu on Aug 15, 2002 - 62 comments

How Al Qaeda Slipped Away

How Al Qaeda Slipped Away "American officials concede that there was a mass escape from Tora Bora—as well as a broader exodus by various routes into Pakistan and Iran—but insist that Al Qaeda now is crippled and too busy running to do much damage. “Perhaps we could have got them wholesale,” says one senior Defense official. “Now we’re doing it retail. In the end, it doesn’t make much difference. We’re getting them.”" We might want to take care of this before we "invade" Iraq.
posted by owillis on Aug 14, 2002 - 14 comments

The threat of war with Iraq. The decline of the stock market and consumer confidence. Continued violence in the Middle East. Erosion of civil liberties. But with all the negativity afloat in the world, just remember one thing: There will always be the music video of Leonard Nimoy's "The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins." (quicktime)
posted by PrinceValium on Aug 10, 2002 - 34 comments

The "Axis of Evil" v. the "Forces of Evil."

The "Axis of Evil" v. the "Forces of Evil." Saddam Hussein warns the US that any attack on Iraq is "doomed to failure." While the Bush Administration claims that there are no firm plans to invade Iraq, the rhetoric on both sides is intensifying. Are the Hawks on both sides gunning for a showdown? Can a diplomatic solution be reached? If the Bush Administration's goal is to oust Saddam, have we foreclosed any hope of a meaningful "dialogue"? Reportedly, even some generals are wary of invading Iraq. I think containment of Saddam is a much better option than war. Does anyone disagree? What are the alternatives?
posted by Bag Man on Aug 8, 2002 - 121 comments

As it turns out, Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein were buddies back in the day.
posted by queequeg on Aug 3, 2002 - 43 comments

Page: 1 ... 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36