Topic awaiting preservation: Gulf War 2: The Revenge of the Son (Page 1 of 4)

So nearly all the dominos are in place and the onrushing inevitable war is virtually upon us so here is a new thread to track developments.

Bush has given Saddam 24 hours:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2858965.stm

Tony Blair (looking old) is calling for a vote tomorrow/today in Parliament) but his majority os so big the 100+ votes against won't stop things:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859189.stm

he has faced one resignation from the cabinet from ginger gnome Robin Cook:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2857251.stm

and other resignations are pos. in the pipeline.

Our Attorney General has said that war under 1441 is legal:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2858939.stm

but legal opinion is divided and since when has a defense 'my lawayer said it was OK' worked in court?

-----------
The BBC have an hour-by-hour running commentary on things:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2859297.stm

--------------------------
So how are things developing in other countries?

--------------------------
Anyone fancy predicting the progress of the war?

Here I go:

The intial advance will be rapid (with British troops taking important positions like Basra) but then there will be some stiff resistance in the larger urban areas. The body bags will start coming home but things won't get too bad in the US. I would iagine everywhere outside of Baghdad will hav fallen somewhere between 2-4 weeks.

Pos. expect at least one use of small scale nukes on WMD targets.

Turkey will grab the Kurdish area as part of a 'humanitarian' effort and will prove awfully difficult to winkle out again (when the British split Kurdistan to make modern Iraq they kep the oil rich parts and gave the Turks most of the rest).

The US and UK will suffer terrorist attacks pos. starting with the onset of war but if not then then within weeks - I doubt it will be much more than 'conventional' attacks against political/finacial organisations.

Ths shoul all flow fairly easily although I fear Rumsfeld's 'arrogance' and his push to end things quickly will lead to a few nasty 'Blackhawk down' kind of incidents. Its the longer term problems that concern me with growing unrest in the region over continued US interference leading to a spread in the conflict.

Ahhhhh well we'll wait and see...........

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Robin Cook? Doesn't he write those medical-thriller type books?

And to steal a line from Mr. T:

"My prediction?... Pain."

:::krets.net:::

[This message has been edited by krets (edited 03-18-2003).]

It is time to wait and see. This could all be over within a week if everything goes as planned. But things never go as planned so I'm think 2-4 weeks sounds just about accurate.

The war is going to be done in an extraordinarily short amount of time but it's the rebuilding and the length of military government before transitioning to an Iraqi one that concerns me the most right now.

I know very few of you here believe this but we are very fortunate that *this* administration is at the helm. I don't say that because they are ideally suited to this task but only to point out that there is as much capability in the people executing this war than we could possibly have hoped for *if* war is going to happen.

So pray for a quick and relatively bloodless action but more importantly pray for the proper rebuilding of this country so its people can have a fighting chance at something better than Hussein's brand of hell on earth.

. . : slicePuzzle

My prediction? Absolute devastation of the enemy. I don't think there will be much left over, after the initial 'strikes'. This one will go even faster than the first war (less than 100 hours). I don't think Saddam will be taken alive. I believe that we will have more casualties from friendly fire, than from the enemy. After brief initial resistance, the army of Iraq will surrender in masses (esp. should Saddam fall in the first hours). The reasoning behind this? The army of Iraq is poorly equipted (esp. in comparison to the first War), is demoralized (because of the first War, they know what is coming), and knows that it can avoid being killed by surrendering. IMHO, every effort should be made to eliminate Saddam in the first hours. That will end the War very quickly.

However, afterwards...that will drag on indefinitely...and that is where (IMHO) the bodybags will start rolling home...and where public unrest, difficult living conditions, and UN resolutions, aid workers, military, etc will get tangled up...esp. in Northern Iraq, where the Kurds are. As for Turkey, I highly suspect that they will do as Emps as suggested...and there will be no way to get them out, outside of military conflict ('Hey, we are just protecting our borders'). Because they are part of NATO, it would be very hard to justify any armed conflict with Turkey...so they will take possession of the rich oil fields in Northern Iraq, which will set off the Kurds there. I'm very interested in what Iran will do...they will probably wait until the initial conflict is over, and then start sending terrorist cells into Iraq big time...and start supporting terrorist cells, organizations, etc, within Iraq...

Well, we will see.


WebShaman

WS: Yes Iran might add extra complications to this - they could send in troops to help their Shia brethern in southern Iraq (conquest under the guise of humanitarian efforts could be this seasons new black) although I suspect they can't afford to do this too overtly as they are already in the Axis of Evil and, if North Korea doesn't start getting out of hand in the meantime, they are the most likely next country to get rolled over in our War Against Terror. So I suspect they will do things in a more covert way - smuggling in weapons and 'advisors'.

Iraq could end up split three ways with Turkey controlling the north (expect more bombs in Ankara and Istanbul - damn my Dad will be out there next month) and Iran supported Shia Muslims probably declaring themselves as an independent area (pos. very quickly - taking advantage of the chaos of the coming weeks).

As the current administration would jump at the chance to take out Iran they might use this as the opportunity - expect accusations of WMD within a couple of months.

------------------
And in the news:

The British parliament is currently debating the war:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2860717.stm

More members of the government have resigned:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2860583.stm

Although Clare Short has stayed despite saying she would resign if there wasn't a second resolution (in a post-Blair government, he will probably win the next election and step aside into some kind of internationl statesman role, its possibly, due to a deal with the Chancellor over the Euro, that the strongest contenders for leadership will be a Brown/Short combination so she has her eye on the bigger picture):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2859809.stm

and there has been a lot of criticism from around the world about the move to war:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2860309.stm
___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Today's Guardian newspaper has 3 full page ads from various groups opposed to the war:

A Manifesto for Peace and Progress

Our World Our Say and the Stop the War Coalition

Sojourners: Christians for Peace and justice

and for any Brits out there remember you can Fax Your MP (I did again last night - she must be getting sick of me).

---------------
And in the news:

On how legal this war is from a UK point of view:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,916397,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,916395,00.html

and the varying opinion:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,916396,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Interestingly support for the war (and the approval ratings for Bush and Blair) has increased in the UK:
www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,916466,00.html

and Bill C*****n has spoken out in favour of the war (urging MPs to vote for the motion in Parliament today):
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well, Emps...I don't think it is really support for the war, just more like solidarity for our troops, now that it is inevitable.

I, too, support our troops...because I have an ilking of what they are about to get involved in...I just hope the Veterans are in charge...nothing like having a war vet leading.

quote:

---

WASHINGTON - As the United States moved closer to war with Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday that 30 nations have declared varying levels of support and 15 others have given their backing privately.

---

Whether you call it the coalition of the willing or the coalition of the bribed, it is still a coalition and not a unilateral action on the part of the US.

I've heard other reports that the Iraqi resistance blew up train tracks and derailed a train. The opposition is becoming more bold and I've heard there have already been some desertions from the Iraqi army. I was listening to the radio news at lunch again, sorry for the lack of links.

Well, the first consequences of this are starting to show up...and they are not pleasant Invasion, even if Saddam goes noted here

quote:

---

The president also telephoned the leaders of Russia and China, two nations that opposed Bush's demand for United Nations authorization to use military force against Iraq. Bush told Russian President Vladimir Putin and newly installed Chinese President Hu Jintao it was important to maintain good relations despite their differences over Iraq, Fleischer said.

Putin seemed to share that view and reiterated his invitation to Bush to visit St. Petersburg in May for the Russian city's 300th-anniversary celebration, Fleischer said.

But there was evidence of repercussions in Moscow, as Russian parliamentarians put off indefinitely a ratification vote on a new arms reduction treaty with the United States. The U.S. Senate has already approved the treaty and the Russian Duma had been expected to begin debate on it Friday, but Duma leaders said the impending U.S. assault made that impossible.

"In the event of an American strike on Iraq the fate of the entire treaty will be in question," Duma Speaker Gennady Seleznyov said in remarks reported by the independent Interfax news agency. "The Americans are striking at international law."

--Newsday

---

Also, the fact that America is going to invade Iraq, irregardless of whether or not Saddam leaves, is...well, an invasion. I think that says it all.

Also, this

quote:

---

That frustration with Bush is shared by citizens throughout Europe, even in countries whose leaders are supporting him on Iraq, according to a new poll released yesterday by the Pew Research Center.

The survey, taken in the United States and eight European nations, found that the public view of America has turned sharply negative in the past year, almost entirely because of Bush and his policies. It found that support for war in Iraq was a minority position in every country, regardless of whether its leaders backed Bush.

--Newsday, Pew poll

---

Well, so much for increasing the love of Americans around the world...thank you, Mr. Bush. IMHO, the worst diplomatic President we have ever had...

I just hope that this doesn't sabotage the war on terrorism. Because, quite frankly, a lot of people (and countries) are pretty fustrated and angry with America (and Americans) right now.

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 03-19-2003).]

And more on the issue of supporting our troops but not supporting the war:
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916976,00.html
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916977,00.html

In fact opposing an unjust and potentially illegal war is the biggest support you can give the troops

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

"unjust" war? I do not accept that at all. We have the 3rd largest international coalition of the last 100 years supporting this move and we are already seeing signs that this may go better than expected. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/World/iraq030318_signals.html
...

quote:

---

Intelligence sources told ABCNEWS the United States is getting clear signals from some senior leaders of Iraq's elite Republican Guard that they are looking for a way to cooperate.

---

I believe Baghdad is where we are going to run into the most trouble and that is very worrisome. But we have to wait and see as we get closer.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-19-2003).]

Bugs: Just because we have managed to cobble together support and are going to cream Saddam doesn't make it 'right'. It failed to get UN security council backing and has no explicit mandate for action.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

well, is it "right" for countries to blanket veto ANY action moving towards giving resolution to the matter at hand? not trying to justify necessarily, just looking at both sides. c*****n had a good point in that article, that the threatened vetoes didn't help diplomacy.

chris


KAIROSinteractive

Ah, yea.

We just dispatched our Delta force into Iraq to try and either capture or kill Saddam.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-18-us-forces-usat_x.htm

I was wondering when someone was going to do ^that^. Why on earth did we not hunt him down before all of this hullabaloo? I'm almost 99% certain it could have been done without the current trashing of international relations...

Bodhi - Cell 617

Security Council backing is in no way a measure of 'right' either. The point is that this is not a unilateral action and it has quite a bit of moral justification. The UN Security Council *refused* to follow its own mandates! Even though mobrul and I disagree vehemently about the UN's role, we can at least agree that the Security Council needs to change because it is ineffective in situations like this.

[edit] bodhi, you have to get rid of the entire regime to make any real change. And besides, do you really think the UN would have sanctioned the assasination of Hussein? So getting the agreement of France would have been no more the easier.

Speaking of France, interesting flip-flop in position today. Isn't that interesting? So they will fight if Hussein uses WoMD that he never had? I'm glad we have their support. [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-19-2003).]

And the double standard (and duplicity) of some of the opponents of the war:

Russia: They are hiring Antonov transports (with engineers and crews) to the RAF to help ferry goods to Our Boys in the Middle East (always a buck to be made during war).

France: They have seemingly been inviting Iraqi anti-Saddamites to France to discuss cutting in french firms (esp TotalFinaElf - could they not have come up with a better name?) after the war.

These articles detail the oil situation nicely and how badly France (TotalFinaElf) and Russia (Lukoil) would be hit (the China National Oil Company would also lose out):
www.forbes.com/markets/commodities/newswire/2003/03/19/rtr911776.html
http://foi.missouri.edu/usenergypolicies/itsnotallaboutoil.html

----------------
I can't say that what France was doing was right but it shouldn't have be used as an excuse to abandon diplomatic efforts.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Emps, I came across this Op/Ed and thought it hit a lot of the points I think of when you and I discuss this issue.

[edit] I forgot to make this point. I agree that some people are using it as an excuse and they are focusing so much on the French issue that they are forgetting the real issue which is regime change. [/edit]

Diplomatic blunders don't nullify arguments for war

It calls the "rush" to war into question. It is very critical of Bush's diplomatic abilities with allies. But underneath all of that, it cuts to the heart of the matter.

quote:

---

But with conflict likely hours away, what can't be blamed on diplomatic blundering is the ultimate need to go to war to disarm a dictator with weapons of mass destruction and a history of using them. While war is always a dangerous undertaking, it is, in this case, the best of the bad alternatives. Twelve years of trying -- and failing -- to do the job peacefully testify to the uselessness of options short of force.

---

You have stated repeatedly we should give it more time. This article explains why more time will lead to exactly what we're doing now, just later on.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-20-2003).]

It has begun.

And so it begins..........

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

......or has it? It appear they had sme intelligence that Saddam and some senior members of his government were in a specific location and they've bombed it. No news on the outcome but that would be the best possible start to the wa

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Well, Bugs, I can't speak for Emps, but the article is precisely along the lines that I've been holding...that I'm not against a war in Iraq, but I'm against how Mr. Bush has (and is) waging it. This explains what I mean

quote:

---

Bush has not adequately explained why the U.S. must adhere to a rigid timetable for invasion. And a strong case can be made that attacking Iraq now with a limited coalition, rather than waiting several months to garner broader support for combat, needlessly complicates the war's goals.

---

taken from the same article that you posted.

It is not enough, that one can 'win'...one needs the UN and allies and world opinion, to optimize not only the actual war (conflict), but also to deal with what happens afterwards. In this, Mr. Bush and his administration failed badly, even catastrophically.

We learned in Vietnam what happens, when we 'go it alone'...not saying that Iraq is similiar, but...what happens afterwards? Are we then going to rebuild Iraq alone? Station troops there, indefinitely? How long is the involvement of US military personal going to be? Shouldn't UN Peacekeepers be installed, after the conflict? What about the people of Iraq? How about the infrastructure?

All unanswered questions...and they all point to one source...Mr. Bush's inability to gather a global coalition, and UN support. Also, where are his plans for post Iraq? Just saying 'We will bring peace and prosperity to Iraqi citizens', will not keep them fed, fix the infrastructure, or re-install a 'just' regime (or government entity) in Iraq. One needs a concrete plan, money, and the will...in end effect, from the ideal, to the reality...that cannot be accomplished with mere words.

Bugs - for a full scale assassination attempt to be effective, of course we would have to take out the whole regime. You have assumed I am only concerned about taking out Saddam. My statement referred to a blanket attempt on the people associated with him, not just him... and I wasn't really concerned about a sanction from the UN. If Bush doesn't need their approval to bomb a nation, surely he wouldn't have needed it to send some special ops in there quietly and take out the operation... He is certainly capable of dealing with the backlash after it had been taken care of...

And I still think that would have been possible without blowing things up.

Alas, no further opportunity for that now...

*edit - damn fingers...

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 03-20-2003).]

Actually Bohdi23, what you are supposing is actually illegal (I think since President Ford). It is illegal (under US law) to assassinate the heads of states.

So...it would have to have been a 'black operation'. And such operations, should they go wrong, can have a very messy political pricetag.

Of course, had Mr. Bush of got the go from the UN, and it was really War, that might have changed things somewhat...being that it is a real War. In that case, it wouldn't of then been considered assassination, but instead killing of the enemy.

It appears things are starting to move. The troops within the DMZ in northern Kuwait were told to be ready by 16:30 GMT (half an hour ago) and, athough reports are sketchy, it appears they may be moving out.

There are various reports (including eye witness reports) that at least 3 or 4 oil wells have been set on fire in the main oil area around Basra - I believe the UK troops are supposed to be in charge of advancing on that area (they are also in command of US troops which is the first time this has happened in a long time). I cn't imagine thats going to be pleasant.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

A real partnership going on there, eh? Yeah, I wonder how that is going with the UK commanding US soldiers.

Another thing about this war that is new. We have reporters on the front lines traveling with the troops. I was listening to a report this morning from a guy with an artillery group. As he was reporting there were all sorts of shouts and he quickly said they had to get moving. It sounded pretty intense.

I think the US military wants to show the world that we aren't out to slaughter people but to get the regime out. So they are risking the coverage at the front to avoid all the negative press they got in Afghanistan.

WS, i won't disagree that i wish the war had happened with more support from the UN, but that really seemed to be looking more and more like a lost cause. saddam should've been disarmed 45 days after the gulf war, and 10 or 12 years later we're still dealing with much of the same problem we started with. hans blix this week has said that iraq really wasn't cooperating, has provided little new evidence in their reports, and seemed to only respond at all once millitary force started to build up in the region (and even then with no real new information). i think france's blanket veto was really the nail in the coffin, as others have observed.

my question to you is, how should this have progressed? its painfully obvious that france was not going to support any sort of resolution with a deadline or even a motion simply supporting 1441. how could this possibly send a message that something needs to happen to saddam. disarm or else...we'll, um...write some more resolutions with no consequences. its like telling a kid to go to his room, he says no and you go well, ok, and leave him there. the kid's learned that he doesn't have to listen because nothing's going to happen to him, so he doesn't.

chris

Bugs: They're all professionals I'm sure they'll be just fine

Yes there are plenty of BBC reporters - one reporting back from the very front line. Amusingly the picture from Ankara was worse than ones coming in from northern Iraq and forward bases in Kuwaiti!!

The shelling has started along the front line and it shouldn't be long:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2869121.stm

The one to watch is Turkey for now their parliament has a pproved use of Turkish airspace (but not refueling):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2862903.stm

they claim they have permission to go into Northern Iraq but the US say they don't:

quote:

---

Ankara has said the US agrees in principle to a Turkish troop presence in the region - but US officials say they oppose a unilateral incursion.

---

I would imagine the Turkish troops are moving already in a move to deliver a fait accompli. The Turks have objected to the PKK and/or the Peshmerga (who now claim to be an army and not just guerillas) actually moving into the main cities and the US say they will occupy them but once the bombing starts things aren't going to remain very clear cut and it could get messy (as will getting the Turks to give up northern Iraq afterwards).

I've travelled through the Kurdish area in Turkey and there really is no love lost there

In fact I was only 15-20 miles from Iraq when Iraq invaded Kuwait last time around (although I didn't find out for a week or so).

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

quote:

---

I think the US military wants to show the world that we aren't out to slaughter people but to get the regime out. So they are risking the coverage at the front to avoid all the negative press they got in Afghanistan.

---

They are not "risking" anything. Quite the opposite - what better way to control the media coverage than putting (carefully chosen) reporters under direct command of the military, while telling all other media people to "leave Iraq immediately for their own safety". How convenient for the military to always know where the reporters are, what they are filming, and that they won´t be allowed to send home any second of material that doesn´t fit in the PR agenda.
Tell me when you see the first mangled corpse on TV, filmed by an "embedded" reporter. Not going to happen, I dare predict.

They are most certainly trying to avoid negative press by keeping specific reporters on the front lines, but that fact doesn't necessarily negate the idea of propaganda either...
It's all one.

Bodhi - Cell 617

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 03-20-2003).]

MW, I disagree because every one of those reporters will not be under military intelligence contraints once the initial attacks have finished. They will be able to come back and report how many bodies they witnessed and any other terrible outcomes you would care to catalog. And I hope you are not suggesting they should not be contrained during the action because too much info leaked out at this point could be directly related to losing lives.

bodhi, I never suggested propoganda and misinformation was not in effect. This is a war and if that were not going on, there would be something seriously wrong

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 03-20-2003).]

Just stumbled across this picture: http://www.msnbc.com/news/1639839.jpg

It's no secret, Sash

Well, if one really thinks those reporters are going to be allowed to present any information that has a negative impact, think again. It's just not going to happen. Think about it. You are a military commander, and you have total control over the embedded reporters...would you let them report negatively? Not if you are smart. Edit and destroy the negative stuff...yup. As for embedded reporters leaving the unit...well, that will also be tightly controlled, IMHO. I mean, you don't want an embedded reporter then 'running amok' on the battlefield...so, if he/she wants to leave, set them on the first plane out of Iraq...without their material. Then they can scream all they want...but without proof.

So I don't think those embedded reporters are going to be showing 'the real war'...because they won't be allowed to...at least, not as it is going on. Maybe afterwards.

Also, to be quite honest, should it come to real firefights, I think most of the embedded reporters are going to be given a real dose of reality. Won't be all that much time to report anything real, under such circumstances, at least, not at first. I wonder how many of those embedded reporters are going to be coming home in body bags?

And to Fig...I already suggested another course of action...I feel that with the proper diplomatic means, a well-defined reason of why, and how, and an explanation of what afterwards, combined with a reasonable time-line, to allow inspectors to attempt to fulfill their duties, would have worked much better...because then, if Saddam hadn't of cooperated fully, it would have been obvious. Then comes the war, backed by the full support of the UN. Now, as to the French reaction, I'm sure a lot of that came because of the harsh words (and actions) on behalf of the US. In fact, if the US had taken all the ground-laying arguements out of why not to go to war (and let Saddam dig his own grave), then the US would have been in a position of right. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush took a great opportunity, and wasted it.

However, this is all now conjecture...we should be concentrating on getting the war over as quickly as possible, and figure out what we are going to do afterwards, to rebuild Iraq as quickly as possible, in order to keep suffering among the Iraqi people at a minimum.

quote:

---

Then comes the war, backed by the full support of the UN.

---

How could that have ever happened when the French stated quite clearly that they would veto any such action? The Security Council is the only entity that can authorize a war.

And I think several billion dollars worth of revenue had far more to do with their opposition than and "harsh" words from the US. They were perfectly willing to go along with the disarmament resolutions but as soon as regime change began to be discussed that's when France put its down.

WS, I've been watching Fox News and the embedded reporter has been riding along in a tank battalion. It's quite historic to be able to see footage live like that. I think we agree that they will be filtered during the war but will be able to report anything they like after the fact. I couldn't imagine it much different, just the fact that they're allowed in there is quite amazing really.

bugs, i have a foggy memory of reporters being controlled by the military, some war/police-action since the vietnam war.. the reporters complained bitterly at the news that was "shared" with them by the military. this may be why they are being allowed to move with the troops, but as ws noted - it's not likely they will be able to report anything negative.

[edit - this is not the first time reporters have been in the action. i recall watching "live" video feed of battles during the vietnam war as well as footage of the troops out on patrol

[This message has been edited by velvetrose (edited 03-21-2003).]

I have little to add but this:

At this precise moment in time, I feel ashamed to be British, and I am seriously considering just how big a part this coutry will play in my future.

The only people whom I shall be thinking of over the coming weeks are the citizens of Iraq, who face an onslaught er of near genocidal proportions.

If I had a God, I would pray to him/her that they survive this, but there are, and shall continue to be, human casualties.

Looky!

Bugs, in response to

quote:

---

How could that have ever happened when the French stated quite clearly that they would veto any such action?

---

I would say, just because they said it, doesn't mean they would do it. After all, many things get said, and then aren't done, after all (case in point - the 'huge' attack that was supposed to roll through Iraq...instead, we have a 'little' attack, that is moderately underway).

As for the French, if Mr. Bush hadn't of been 'hell-bent for war', and had not trod all over the French, I'm sure that a diplomatic solution to the 'impasse' could have been reached. Just another example of Mr. Bushs failed diplomacy efforts. Especially France, which really doesn't liked to be bullied, it would have been far more effective to approach them with civility and the feelings of equalness. And to actually listen, of course, to what they have to say. A deal to 'split' the Oil, maybe? Would have been worth a shot...nobody likes to be completely on the losing end...which is where Mr. Bushs beligerence forced France to be.

And yes, they did have reporters live in the field in Vietnam...the difference being, that they couldn't report live, as one can these days...technology advances...