The U.S. invasion of Iraq was perhaps the most cowardly war ever fought in history
Entire article (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ROY306A.html)
by Arundhati Roy

(in part)
'[A]n ancient civilization has been casually decimated by a very recent, casually brutal nation.

Throughout more than a decade of war and sanctions, American and British forces fired thousands of missiles and bombs on Iraq. Iraq's fields and farmlands were shelled with 300 tons of depleted uranium.

In their bombing sorties, the Allies targeted and destroyed water treatment plants, aware of the fact that they could not be repaired without foreign assistance. In southern Iraq there was a fourfold increase in cancer among children. In the decade of economic sanctions that followed the war, Iraqi civilians were denied medicine, hospital equipment, ambulances, clean water – the basic essentials.

About half a million Iraqi children died as a result of the sanctions.'

And so it has come to this: 'Those of us who belong to former colonies think of imperialism as rape. So you rape. Then you kill. Then you demand the right to rape the corpse. That's usually known as necrophilia.'

That is America
http://www.soaring-gull.com/2lf/bushsmile.jpg

The war is not exactly cowardly, but the people pushing it most and profiting from it most are cowards. It's hardly as though many writers of neocon rags and the like have kids who run a chance of being sent into Iraq.

If I had to think of a word, I'd say "shameful", or possibly "wasteful".

Maybe what Roy meant by cowardly were the indirect tactics - such as bombing Iraq's infrastructure, sanctions, and all the rest - employed to topple Saddam. Countless Iraqis suffered, mostly civilians, as a result of America's vendetta against one man and his relatively small regime.

For sure, 'shameful' and 'wasteful' apply as well. My own candidate as the most appropriate adjective is hypocritical. From Gulf War I right up to the present, hypocrisy simply exudes from each new statement by Mr. Bush and the neocons who surround him. One example: America's unending grief for the 3000+ innocents who died in on 9/11/01. Contrast this with this nation's ho hum attitude toward the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead or debilitated by U.S. sanctions:

Lesley Stahl, speaking of US sanctions against Iraq:
"We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean,
that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And -- and you know, is
the price worth it?"
Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice,
but the price -- we think the price is worth it." ("60 Minutes", May 12, 1996)

Isn't the Air National Guard with that Bush served in protecting Alabama from the Viet Cong currently in Iraq?

'protecting Alabama from the Viet Cong' Well put!!!

If not currently, Alabama's ANG was or will be. Anything to protect those American oil fields.

Isn't the Air National Guard with that Bush served in protecting Alabama from the Viet Cong currently in Iraq?

Air National Guard Pilots have a long history of getting flight experience overseas in warzones. Many ANG pilots went over to vietnam and subsequent wars. He was only doing drill duty in Alabama.

To comment on this thread:
No, the USA Iraqi Conflicts (either of them) were not cowardly. No more so than Germanys Barbarossa campaign on Russia or any other invasion of a foreign country for that matter. I find it quite idiotic, that for political purposes, he ties modern Iraq to the ancient civilizations. They have nothing in common. The most destructive thing to ancient mesopotamia was Islam. Before people try to blame the US, they need to look closer to the middle east.

If, as you say, ‘The most destructive thing to ancient mesopotamia was Islam’, then it seems modern Iraq has much in common with ancient civilizations - locale and religion being two examples. A broad-based DNA analysis might establish a third strong link. Also, general cultural identification is surely strong among many Iraqis today, even though Babylon’s glories are long gone.

Regarding the term ‘cowardly’:
Throughout history there’s probably been few if any nice invasions, but Germany launched Barbarossa, in part at least, against an empire that obviously was a threat, and a mortal one at that. So far as I can tell, Iraq was never a serious threat to us. After Gulf War 1, it wasn’t much of threat even to its neighbors.

Which brings us to Ms. Roy’s use of the term ‘cowardly’. She’s referring to the campaign America’s leadership has relentlessly waged against that nation from Gulf War 1 to the present. Overt military actions, of course, but also crippling economic sanctions, propaganda/disinformation campaigns, diplomatic isolation, etc.,.

Most cowardly invasion in history? Hyperbole, perhaps. Still, a list of reasons for making that claim would be long indeed, starting with our leaders hiding behind outright lies (WMDs, 9/11 connections, al Qaeda links) to justify their war. I think a lot of people here and abroad have looked at the Middle-East situation closely, and their conclusions help explain why America’s Olympic athletes were cautioned not to wave the flag.

Made a good point post GW1 when he said that to go to Baghdad then would have been the wrong thing to do .
He went on to describe what occupation would mean and the responsibilities which would come with it to America , all of which would be long term.
Everything which he gave as being a " wrong reason" has been proved to be still "wrong".
SH was no good for his own people that was always known GW2 has solved nothing and complicated eveerything.
Some how you have to think that the count in Florida was the greatest misfortune which ever befell American politics.

As far as cowardly wars go if you are in the front line holding a gun there are none.
The strong flexing their muscles ? look at " Operation Vengence" and you will see an example of a cowardly war.
Stalins move on Finland , he though he was on a winner there and he got a lot more than he ever wanted.

What was Operation Vengeance, cerberus? My search engine couldn't find anything about it.

Didn't have much luck with WMD (http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/) either.

The Invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941.

Another contender might be the "Zulu wars". Didn't go exactly as planned.
The Zulus just didn't roll over and die.
Boer war might be another , Gold and greed , the Boers likewise didn't just give up .

The Boer War! By coincidence I'm about to start re-reading The Randlords, by Geoffrey Wheatcroft.

That war may indeed have been more cowardly than Iraq. The concept of concentration camps was invented by the British in that one, as you probably know. And it worked. A substantial percentage of Boer women and children died in those camps, as did the fighting spirit of many Boer men in the field.

A culture nearly wiped out, mainly for gold.

Thanks for the input. Think I'll rent a copy of Breaker Morant this weekend.

BTW the difference between the british use of camps.
They intendednot to kill Boer women and children but to deny the Boer fighters the support they neeed to operate.
You ignore the high death toll amongest the British themselves , in Poland / occupied lands the purpose of the camps was to work and to kill.
GB set up what might be dscribed as concentration camps to win a war , one which was not right I say.
Hitler set up concentration camps to control the german people which is quite different.
To make a distinction between concentration camps adn extermination camps , well don't want to turn this into yet another holocaust yarsn.
But yes hands up , the Boer war was about greed and gold.
Death thores of Empire. ( Fade , pre WW1 ).
BTW A good movie , enjoy !
For me DVD of " Dr. Strangelove - Or How I learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb" A classic.

The death rate of Boer detainees was, I think, around 20%. Personally, I'm not willing to cut the damn British any slack whatsoever for those deaths. For a country that still snivels about the Black Hole of Calcutta and Coventry, they sure were willing to spread death and destruction whenever they had a chance.

And so often for blatant greed! Opium revenues in China, goldfields in the Rand. The English elite are blood-sucking parasites, and one of the very few benefits of WW I is that their power was severely diminished.

Back to the Boers, I strongly suspect that the deaths of so many women was intentional; i.e., extermination camps by neglect. Guaranteed to demoralize Boer fighting men, but also, at war's end, fewer Boers (inferior stock, you know) and more empty farmsteads for proper British families to take possession of. The pig British officers in charge of those camps could have prevented the malnutrition and epidemics from the start - and did so once world opinion caught up with the situation.

Damn it, cerberus. I may have to bail out of my own original post. For all the war crimes that we Americans are doing in Iraq, I think British conduct in the Boer War was even more cowardly! :mad:




Incidentally, Dr. Strangelove is on my list of Top Ten Movies!

Greed is not cowardice.

No argument with that. If there's something in my last post that implied both words mean the same, I should have stated it better.

Okay. I agree the Boer War was a greedy affair, but I wouldn't call it cowardly. Could you explain further why you think it was?

I thought I did. I'll try again, but first let me ask: What's your opinion of someone, or some group, that uses women and children as shields in a war?

I don't have a predefined opinion on it to apply in the abstract. I don't regard it necessarily as a pursuit in cowardice, though it could be, depending on the situation.

This quote might be relevant:

"Don't talk to me about atrocities in war; all war is an atrocity."

- Lord Horatio Kitchener

Okay.

Maybe men in your corner of the world hide behind women and children without being thought cowardly, but it sure isn't the norm in my neighborhood.

Regarding what is now Rhodesia, it was the British Empire against a bunch of farmers and small merchants. These British soldiers couldn't beat the outnumbered, lightly-armed farmers, and even lost some battles. So these same British troops (you know, the ones with the impressive uniforms and much-ballyhooed codes of honor and gallantry?) proceeded to round up a substantial percentage of Boer women and children, herd them into camps, and essentially let them die of malnutrition and epidemics. The strategy was: Shooting at us brave British (fine fellows, one and all) prolongs this war, and every day more of your Boer women and children die.

Literally hiding behind women and kids? No. Figuratively... Well, if cowardly isn't appropriate, what's your term for it?

Regarding Kitchener's quote: typical elitist stupidity. The Boers waged war - in their own country - to defend their own people, land, and culture. If Kitchener considered such actions atrocious, I'm sure seeing his own family in one of those camps would have prompted him to revise his contemptible generality!