no war

[Anonymous]

After a day of mass protest marches in Europe; Athens, Budapest, Paris, Berlin, London, Amsterdam where millions of people marched, showing their opinion and dislike against this silly upcoming war, New York wakes up and protest marches are about to commence there.
I think this is a wise thing to do, showing this George W Bush dictator that he is not the supreme being walking around on this earth and that he is not representing the supreme population on this earth ... megalomania is a more appropriate noun here.
kind regards

[Matthew Phillips]

War between Iraq and the U.S. is inevitable. The real question is does the U.S. attack now when casualties will be minimal or does it wait until Iraq has a nuclear arsenal, starts it's conquest of the rest of the middle east, and casualties on both sides will be much greater.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
I think this is a wise thing to do, showing this George W Bush dictator that he is not the supreme being walking around on this earth and that he is not representing the supreme population on this earth ... megalomania is a more appropriate noun here.

I will be more impressed when Europeans wake up and start protesting the mass murderers of the world like Sadaam. "Useful idiots" is the term to describe this bunch. These are the same type of idiots who demanded that the French stand by and let the nazis re-militarize the Rheinland. When there are 3,000 dead in Paris then we will listen to the French tell us about whether we should attack Sadaam or not.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Matthew Phillips:
War between Iraq and the U.S. is inevitable. The real question is does the U.S. attack now when casualties will be minimal or does it wait until Iraq has a nuclear arsenal, starts it's conquest of the rest of the middle east, and casualties on both sides will be much greater.

Well, for one thing, Iraq didn't attack anything for more then a decade; it attacked Iran and guess where those weapons came from. Remember Rumsfeld et al.?
friends
And this is just an example; drop me a note and I'll dig up more of this opportunistic stuff, easy enough.
All I'm saying is that the usa is acting like a self appointed world god now and all I'm saying is, that this is just a big nono. Broader minds do acknowledge that there's more than imminent war, and war isn't inevitable; millions of Europeans can't be all wrong; opposed to millions of Americans thinking they're all right. The usa isn't the world you know; the usa is just part of it like we all are.
kind regards

[Axel Janssen]

Arguments against war(1):
They will be contraproductive in context of war against terror:
[recent historical experience from continent of idiot, western europe]
As I was a small kid in the 70ties left wing Red Army Fraction terrorists kidnapped lots of economic leaders, aereoplanes and robed out lots of bancs.
After blody autumn of 1977 (kidnapped president of employer organization Hans Martin Schleyer killed, plane with german tourists liberated out the hands of terrorists by GSG9 (special anti-terrorist-unit)).
Both acts were seen as very inhumane. The terrorists lost support even in radical left circles of our population.
Something similar hapened in Italy after killing of Aldo Moro by italian terrorists (Brigadas Rosas)
In pa�s vasco, Spain, the terrorists group ETA still is alive, because they have some backing in population.
If NATO atacks the support for Osama bin Laden among muslim population will rise. This war will fuel their prejudices and their culture of self-pity (america rules the media and the economy and does not like pure muslim).

[Thomas Paul]

The US was attacked on 9/11/2001 not France, Germany, or Italy. Who cares what they say? When they have airliners crashing into their cities then they can talk to us.
As far as what happened in 1988, who cares? Are you saying that because the US did something stupid 15 years ago that we have to do something stupid today? Can't we learn from our mistakes?
By the way, in 1938 when France and England handed Czechoslovakia over to Germany they hadn't attacked anything in 20 years. Do you doubt for a second that if the US wasn't over there shooting down anything of Sadaam's that infringes on the no-fly zone that he wouldn't have slaughtered the Kurds by now? Perhaps the fact that the he hasn't attacked anyone in 10 years is due to the USA's foreign policy!

[Axel Janssen]

arguments against war(2):
Americans think they could install a democratic government in Iraq.
Nobody in europe believes that this will work.
How you think this would work:
Go in there, and "Hi Iraqas and Iraquos. Look. We have great new idea. Democracy. Open market economies. Rule of the law." And Iraquis will say: Hey great idea. Lets do that".
You live in a society which was quite democrativ even before independence in 1776 (?). Thats a lot of time. But other nations had big, big struggles with becoming more democratic. First german republic 1918-1933 did mostly fail, because german society did not support democracy.
Everybody who has occupied himself for at least 3 minutes with history of belarus, chile, germany, russia or ukrania knows that its very dificult process for a country to become a democracy. There must be LOTS of forces inside the country who wants to democratice the country.
A blitzkrieg against iraq no is a good start for iraqui democracy.

[Axel Janssen]

Arguments for war(1)
Crazy governments like that of Iraq or North Corea. American pressure did show some good results in Iraq. Fear that we need some credible pressure. Europe is not able to create that pressure, because of lacking unity, partly because some chancelors now supported by peace movement used "fear of war" for getting re-elected.

[Mapraputa Is]

Regarding building democracy in societies that lack this experience...
I am currently reading "Turmoil at tiamammen. A study of U.S. press coverage of the Beijing spring of 1989" made in John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Very enlightening. Some quotes:
1. "A number of journalists, sinologists and American government officials we interviewed criticized United States media for giving viewers and readers the false impression that protesters in Beijing desired an American-style democratic system. "I believe we tried to put a 'made in the U.S.A.' democracy stamp on it," said Jackie Judd of ABC."
2. "Harry Harding of the Brookings Institution said that "to call it [a] pro-democracy [movement]" was to "overly glorify the demands." And an American government official we interviewed for this study was skeptical that the Chinese students were democrats. "Were these genuine democratic aspirations?" he asked and went on to complain: "[The media] portrayed the demonstrations as an outbreak of Democracy, with a big D. This helped create false [public] expectations."
3. "I was thinking back over recent times," said Tom Kent of AP, "and I can recall the word democracy appearing on the lips of Afghan guerrillas, Ethiopian revolutionaries, Yeltsin, Kuwaiti students, Kurdish tribesman and an announcer from North Korean radio. Something here suggests that definition is necessary when the word is used and I think that's something that we will carry forward from this [China experience]."
4. "The student movement in general was a far cry from a drive for American democracy to replace Communist rule. As reported in the Washington Post, Barbara Ranagan, an American teacher in Wuhan, asked her students in the midst of the movement, "What do you mean when you say democracy? ... Do you want to give the 80 percent of the people who are out there in the countryside the right to vote?" She received this reply: "No, they're not ready." (9) The students were not bent on replacing one political system with another political system. According to Shen Tong, in the early meetings of the Beijing University Democracy Salon and the Olympic Institute (small organizations devoted to studying political issues), discussion focused on how to change the policies of the government, not how to overthrow the government. Shen said at a presentation at Harvard University: "I had no answer to the question 'What if you succeed?'"
5. "The Chinese demonstrators, who were building their movement and aims as they went along, did not make presentation of their ideas, especially the role of Western influences, an easy job for journalists. One frustration of the press was later summarized by David Schweisberg, UPI's Beijing bureau chief (outside our sample), in relating a conversation with students:
What do you want?--"We want democracy."
Well what does that mean?--"Well democracy means more freedom."
Well what do you mean by more freedom?--"Democracy."
http://www.tsquare.tv/themes/TatTcover.html#anchor240080
Warning: I chose quotes deliberately to illustrate my point, in fact, it is a well-balanced research.

[Thomas Paul]

Before there was a United States, most of the colonists didn't want independence, they just wanted their taxes lowered. It was when they realized that they had no voice in the government, no one who would listen to their complaints that independece started being talked about. Just because the students weren't talking about over-throwing the government and establishing democracy doesn't mean they wouldn't eventually have ended up there.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
Arguments against war(1):
They will be contraproductive in context of war against terror:

I agree that this is a valid argument in some aspects, in as much as generating further suport for the terrorists. However Iraq is a state supporter of terrorist organizations. People get fixated on whether or not they agree that Hussein has supported Al-Qaueda, but that doesn't really matter. He has supported other international terrorist organizations, including the financing of Palestinian terrorists. Of course Al-Qaeda also suports Palestinian terrorism. So taking out Iraq will contribute to the larger war on terror.

As I was a small kid in the 70ties left wing Red Army Fraction terrorists kidnapped lots of economic leaders, aereoplanes and robed out lots of bancs.

European terrorism is a different beast than Islamic terrorism. Euro-terrorists were political idealogues, Islamic terrorists are religious idealogues. It's a bit different when you believe that your God is commanding you to murder people. As far as popular support goes, Europe never had the grass root support for this terrorism that is able to be had in the Middle-East. The Islamic terrorists view this as a religious war and a cultural war, so that will be quite tough to overcome on our side.

If NATO atacks the support for Osama bin Laden among muslim population will rise. This war will fuel their prejudices and their culture of self-pity (america rules the media and the economy and does not like pure muslim).

I don't doubt this. But will support be any less if we don't attack? It seems like there are a couple different ways to deal with this terrorism. On one hand we could attempt appeasement, and hope that this is enough to discourage this terrorism against us. This is the model chosen by some European governments. Another option is to go to war against terrorism, bring the battle to the terrorists, and not wait around until they decide to strike again, and not hold out hope that you can appease them in order to keep them from coming after you. This is obviously the model the US has chosen.
Both are probably valid options, and they each come with their own risks. With appeasement, you give the terrorists time to muster their resources and formulate plans. They get to choose when and where they will strike next and all we can do is wait around and hope it won't be us. There is no guarantee that appeasement will keep us safe or will that people will not continue to flock to the terrists cause. This strategy places our fait in the terrorists hands.
When we take the battle to them, we run the risk of certain confrontation and generating further sympathy for their cause. The payoff is that we keep them on the run, disrupt their organizations, strangle their resources, and make it very dangerous for states who want to support them, as well as make it very dangerous for the terrorists themselves. We become the ones who are forcing the terrorists and their supporters to face uncertainty, not knowing where and how we might strike next.
Personally I prefer the pro-active strategy. I don't want to gamble that we might be able to generate some goodwill towards us, at least enough for them to choose a different target. I don't want to count on them having a total reversal in their philosophy. I'd rather just take them at their word that they want to destroy western civilization, and respond accordingly.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:
Well, for one thing, Iraq didn't attack anything for more then a decade;

Of course they haven't, well not militarily anyway. You can thank US and UK foreign policy for that.

it attacked Iran and guess where those weapons came from.

France, actually.

All I'm saying is that the usa is acting like a self appointed world god now and all I'm saying is, that this is just a big nono.

We are acting in our best interests. This is what we elected our leaders to do. Although Europe has counted on us to protect their interests for decades, we cannot count on them to protect ours. Therefore we are certainly not going to ask for anybody's permission to do what needs to be done. We'll use diplomacy to try to smoothe the road, but that can only go as far as people are willing to take it.

millions of Europeans can't be all wrong; opposed to millions of Americans thinking they're all right.

Millions of Europeans aren't necessarily wrong, nor are millions of Americans. The Europeans will do what they think is right for themselves, and we will do what we think is right for ourselves. Four airliners used as guided missiles have given us a different perspective on the situation that many in Europe do not share. Additionally, we're not even asking you all to commit troops. We're just asking you all not to stand in the way.

[Fred Grott]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The US was attacked on 9/11/2001 not France, Germany, or Italy. Who cares what they say? When they have airliners crashing into their cities then they can talk to us.
As far as what happened in 1988, who cares? Are you saying that because the US did something stupid 15 years ago that we have to do something stupid today? Can't we learn from our mistakes?
By the way, in 1938 when France and England handed Czechoslovakia over to Germany they hadn't attacked anything in 20 years. Do you doubt for a second that if the US wasn't over there shooting down anything of Sadaam's that infringes on the no-fly zone that he wouldn't have slaughtered the Kurds by now? Perhaps the fact that the he hasn't attacked anyone in 10 years is due to the USA's foreign policy!

Thomas the countries who gave suport to Al Queda are not being attacked:
Sadia Arabia
Pakistan
Yemen
20 years ago --USA..
US is in no fly zoen becasue of UN's ploicy not US"S read the resolutiojn covering the no fly zone..
Even when that resolution was passed US wanted war instead..
This play has run before about 10 years ago..

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Fred Grott:
Thomas the countries who gave suport to Al Queda are not being attacked:
Sadia Arabia
Pakistan
Yemen

However we are placing heavy political pressure on them to reign in their extremists. As the President's policy has stated, not every situation calls for military intervention.

20 years ago --USA..

YOu know of course that is false. We supplied assistance to mujahadin and arab fundamentalists fighting in Afghanistan against the Soviets. One such organization the CIA used to get money distributed to those people was a Pakistani intelligence front organization called Maktab al-Khidamar (MAK), and was run by Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda didn't come into existence until after the war in Afghanistan, once he returned home to Saudi Arabia.

US is in no fly zoen becasue of UN's ploicy not US"S read the resolutiojn covering the no fly zone..

There are no UN resolutions covering the no-fly zones. They were established unilaterally by the US, and have been enforced by the US and British.
[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Bert Bates]

Do we really imagine that we can attack Iraq and NOT create legions of people that will hate the US. Innocent people WILL get killed, and like it or not, fair or not, the US willed get blamed.
The world is changing, it's getting smaller and smaller, and Bush has old ideas. His old ideas aren't good enough for this new world.
It seems to me that having inspectors crawling around Iraq has the pretty good side effect of making it hard for Iraq to launch any military strikes. Certainly it's a lot more cost effective to inspect Iraq than it is to attack them.
Let's FOR SURE keep a very close eye on this situation, but let's use a little forward thinking.

[Jason Menard]

France and Germany are being lauded by many for taking positions that reflect the majority of their publics sentiment. On the same token, the US is also taking a position which reflects the majority of American public sentiment.
It seems too simplistic to me to be pointing at Bush and saying how awful his policies are, when these policies are overwhelmingly popular at home. No matter what else you say about the man, every action he has taken has been in the US's best interest, or at the very least public opinion generally agrees that this is the case. Isn't that what an elected official is supposed to do?
If there is anything wrong with any of these governmental policies that have such widespread public support, we are as guilty as he is. It seems to me that this point is often missed by many overseas who try to claim that they are anti-Bush, not anti-American. While they think they are lashing out at Bush policies (which I always got the impression they thought weren't popular here), what they are really lashing out at is the American people who encourage and support these policies.
[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Peter Pol]

Just one question:
Why does Bush want to attack Iraq, not for example North Korea? They also have nuclear weapons and threw away UN inspectors... There is no democracy in North Korea, either.
Is this war going to be only about oil???

------------------------------------------------
Peter C.
SCJP
"Cogito ergo sum" - Descartes

[Mapraputa Is]

About popularity of Bush' politics on Iraq:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[Thomas Paul]

Yeah, trot out the old oil thing again. :roll: First off, the US gets very little oil as a percentage from the Middle East. Most of our imported oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Nigeria, and Venezuela.
Second, if we ever attack North Korea, there will be millions of dead South Korean civilians. Seoul, a city of 10 million people allied with us, is within cannon range of North Korea and within easy walking distance for 1,000,000 North Korean soldiers. Tokyo, another city containing millions of our allies is within missile range of North Korea. if you own a map, take a peek and figure it out for yourself that Iraq is in a slightly different position than North Korea.
Third, even though North Korea has all sorts of weapons they have not shown a desire to use them in more than 50 years!!! North Korea has not attacked any of its neighbors or used poison gas on them. It is most likely that North Korea is doing this because they are trying to blackmail us into providing them food and money to prop up their failing country. It is unlikely that North Korea plans on using their weapons against any of their neighbors.
:roll:

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Bert Bates:
It seems to me that having inspectors crawling around Iraq has the pretty good side effect of making it hard for Iraq to launch any military strikes. Certainly it's a lot more cost effective to inspect Iraq than it is to attack them.

You don't get it do you? The inspectors were never supposed to find the weapons or stop the Iaqis from making them. They were supposed to determine if the Iraqis were in material breach of the UN resolution and they have determined that they are!!! Do you really think that 100 inspectors could find anything in a country the size of California if Sadaam wanted to hide it? Did you listen to Colin Powell's report? As soon as the inspectors start a journey towards a facility the Iraqis load their stuff into trucks and are gone. Five hours later when the inspectors arrive they find nothing. But they know that the Iraqis had anthrax for example and the Iraqis have refused to turn it over or reveal what happened to it. The Iraqis are lying and the inspectors will never be able to do anything more that what they have done. Meanwhile, Sadaam continues to manufacture poison gas and anthrax and continues to work on missiles to carry the stuff to distant targets.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
About popularity of Bush' politics on Iraq:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

You can also view the Washington Post's most recent polls, which allow you to sort the responses using various demographic criteria.
A couple that seem to be on topic for this thread:
What if the United Nations opposes such action - in that case would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq?

Favor - 72%

Oppose - 23%

DK / No Opinion - 5%

What if the United Nations opposes such action but some U.S. allies such as Great Britain, Australia and Italy support it - in that case would you favor or oppose having U.S. forces take military action against Iraq?

Favor - 83%

Oppose - 13%

DK / No Opinion - 5%

[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Ashik Uzzaman]

I want NO WAR

[Peter Pol]

Aren't Americans the ones who first used nuclear weapon?
Who is (was) putting weapons in terrorists hands?
Who gave money to train Al Qaida members? They were supposed to fight Russians, weren't they?
Just couple questions with not clear answers.

-----------------------------------------
"Cogito ergo sum".

[John Dunn]

I lived and worked in Manhattan for over 10 years. All of us here in NY, lost friends in the WTC. It was so touching after 9/11 to see how the world came together to support us spiritually and emotionally. Now I'm start to realize that it was all lip service.
Why should appeasement, all of sudden, start to work differently than it has in the last 10 years?? Didn't they try once before to bomb the WTC?? We should stand by like fools and wait, right?
----------
Don't forget that we bailed Europe out three times. WWI, WWII, and Bosnia. Europeans, (aside from Britain), just can't get the job done. Their methods simply don't work.
-----------
Don't forget that we armed the Muslim to help fight off the Soviets that killed over 1 million people in Afganistan.
Cuba tried to bring nuclear weapons into North America. We tried our best not to let any more States turn Communist or Socialist/Communist.
We aided Iraq b/c Iran took our hostages and supported terrorists that blew up our embassies and our military barracks. Iran was a very serious threat.
We need to watch out for our interests because very few people can be relied on to help us.

[Jason Menard]

Aren't Americans the ones who first used nuclear weapon?
In the 1940's. Is this relevant?
Who is (was) putting weapons in terrorists hands?
Syria, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the Palestinian Authority, and Libya off the top of my head. Afghanistan was, but that problem has been taken care of.
Who gave money to train Al Qaida members?
Same list as above.
They were supposed to fight Russians, weren't they?
Al-Qaeda wasn't around when the Soviets occupied Afghanistan.
Just couple questions with not clear answers.
Is there some larger point you are trying to make?
[ February 15, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Peter Czerniawski:
Aren't Americans the ones who first used nuclear weapon?
Who is (was) putting weapons in terrorists hands?
Who gave money to train Al Qaida members? They were supposed to fight Russians, weren't they?
Just couple questions with not clear answers.

-----------------------------------------
"Cogito ergo sum".

Yes, the US was the first to use nuclear weapons. Do you think that that it would have been better for the US to invade Japan after destroying their cities with conventional bombs?
Al Quadda didn't exist until recently. They didn't exist when the USSR had invaded Afghanistan. Could you please make an attempt to buy yourself a clue?

[John Dunn]

Aren't Americans the ones who first used nuclear weapon?
Yes, thank God!! Would you have preferred the WW2-Japanese, Nazis or Soviets??
The Japanese killed 3X more people in Nanking WITHOUT an atom bomb!!!
The Rape of Nanking
Hiroshima & Nagasaki
When we were Island hopping through the Pacific Islands (ex: Saipan, Solomens, Iwo Jima) we were losing thousands of Marines in each battle and would find that almost EVERY Japanese soldier would fight to the death. A decision was made to take Japan without the loss of American lives. We paid for that decision with A LOT of American blood. I have many uncles/cousins dead on those Islands. I am sorry we couldn't drop the bomb sooner.
--------------
Who gave money to train Al Qaida members?
Osama bin Laden financed Al Qaida. Saudi Arabia also gave money in order for Al Qaida to go cause trouble somewhere else, (could this have been extortion??).
? They were supposed to fight Russians, weren't they
No. Al Qaida was formed AFTER the Russians were defeated. The mujahideen consisted of many groups who put their differences aside to defeat the Soviets. As soon as the Soviets left, they fought each other. The Taliban rose in this time period to fight them all. Unfortunately, they were no angels themselves. Al Qaida formed after the Taliban took control of Afganistan because the Taliban did not mind having Osama's money around.

[John Dunn]

Who is (was) putting weapons in terrorists hands?
During the American Revolution: The French.
In Europe, during World War II: The British & U.S.
Viet Nam: Russia
In Ireland: Irish-Americans gave lots of money during the Irish Uprising
In Beirut: Iran, Syria
etc, etc
If you think the U.S. sponsers terrorism you are not looking at all the facts. We are an extremely generous country and although not perfect, we have often treated our enemies quite fairly.

[Michael Ernest]

If the US takes military action Iraq, I wouldn't go so far as to call what would happen a war. It was more like a beating than a war 12 years ago. After a decade of trade embargoes and hectoring by NATO, what do we think would happen now? A war seems like an awfully generous term for what Iraq would be capable of.
That said, Jos, your first post in this topic is more than a little ignorant. There have been protests in the US against war for quite some time; there's been no waiting on cues from Europe, so please, get off that high horse.
There's really no explaining what the Bush administration is after in all this; oil doen't cover the enormity of this foreign policy black hole. But I'll break it down easy for everyone: five years ago, George W. Bush couldn't tell you who the heads of state of every global power were, much less what they stood for. A man like that couldn't build a coalition for UNICEF, much less a war effort.

[Mapraputa Is]

A decision was made to take Japan without the loss of American lives. We paid for that decision with A LOT of American blood.
Or with A LOT of German scientists?
I guess, what the rest of the world cannot comprehend, is your free exchange of freedom for money and then for blood. Not that the rest of the world is morally superiour to you, just that the rest of the world can not afford to buy moral superiority for either money or blood.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
France and Germany are being lauded by many for taking positions that reflect the majority of their publics sentiment. On the same token, the US is also taking a position which reflects the majority of American public sentiment.

Agree on that one. This actually here very common "crazy Bush, crazy Americans" drives me nuts. There are arguments for war, as there are arguments against war.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

As far as popular support goes, Europe never had the grass root support for this terrorism that is able to be had in the Middle-East.

Not the same level but enough support. Before 1977 the RAF got support from people who did live a normal life. This network of active suporters faded away after bloody autumn.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

He has supported other international terrorist organizations, including the financing of Palestinian terrorists.

So what country will be next in the list, when job in Iraq is done?
Syria? Iran?

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The US was attacked on 9/11/2001 not France, Germany, or Italy. Who cares what they say? When they have airliners crashing into their cities then they can talk to us.

1. Not only americans were among the victims. Al Quaeda targeted a symbol of global economy.
2. Sounds a little bit like taking revenge.
In my opinion final goal should be to reach peace.
To reach peace capability to forgive is of highest important.
An extreme example:
The actual chilean ministry of defence Michelle Bachelet is daughter of a general of chilean armed forces who died as a political prisioner in 74"[...]for lack of medical treatment and for lack of air[...]" and
was tortured before.
So she is boss of organization which killed and tortured her own father and She was tortured too, "but nothing with electricity". Big parts of chilean armed forces keeps strong emotional ties with A. Pinochet. She keeps saying that searching for dialog is important for progress of the country, although if its dificult.
NYT article
[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Anonymous]

Since when are the vietnamese are terrorists? If someone doesnt share american ideology that doesnt make them terrorist.
Can anyone help me out in understanding why war is necessary?
1. why do you want to kill innocent people when things can be done peacefully. You can send as many inspectors as you want.Saddam cant say no.And he will not attack bcos that will mean his own death.
2. What is good dictatorship and what is bad? how does american decides that? Good are those who are profitable for americans wag their tails in front of them, who are good to american companies.
Many people have died in Chile, but hey those were bad people their dictators are good.And millions of Iraqis support saddam but still he is bad bcos bush doesnt like him. Pakistan's ISI is the biggest suppoter of Terrorism ,but still they are alies in war against terrorism.And jason dont tell general is doing enough(ARMY and ISI works hand in hand).
3)And also if you look at demonstration and public opinion in London it shows people are against war, ur news channel are saying Tony blair is a leader but mind you if it was some arab/any other country it would be "leader are working against the interest of people, they are imposing their on decisions on them."! for God sake stop this hypocracy.
otherwise if you think americans have genuine interest in well being of this planet! then please correct me, it would be a great favour and i will thank you for it. I have never considered america as a country but as a World, bcos that the only place on earth where u can find all nationality/religion/languages living together(sadly not in peace anymore),it just too colorful. Now i think americans are self centered and war mongering,where people found it funny to kill civilians by nuking them then someone else will jump in conversation and say lets not nuke them but instead use them as a target practice! how sick these people are.

PS: pardon my broken english, i am working on it.

[John Dunn]

Since when are the vietnamese are terrorists? If someone doesnt share american ideology that doesnt make them terrorist.
Viet Cong Terrorism
Can anyone help me out in understanding why war is necessary?
Try this...

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <peace lover>:
Now i think americans are self centered and war mongering,where people found it funny to kill civilians by nuking them then someone else will jump in conversation and say lets not nuke them but instead use them as a target practice! how sick these people are.

Pehrpas if you had watched people plummet to their death from 100 stories you would feel differently. Meanwhile since you feel so strongly against the USA when will you be leaving? If you need any help getting your bags to the airport, let me know.
By thw way, if you had the nerve to register instead of hiding behind an anonymous id I might take you more seriously.

[Bert Bates]

Two things:
1) - I never said the inspectors would find anything, I said that having them there hobbles Iraq to some degree - seems like relatively cheap insurance. Not perfect, but some benefit for very little cost - if you compare the cost of inspections to the cost of war.
2) - Noam Chomsky says: Depending on your perspective, whenever you see the word 'terrorist' in the media, insert the phrase 'person whose land has been taken'. That said, I am completely opposed to terrorism, of course, but the US's current approach to stamping out terrorism reminds me of someone holding a handful of water, and trying to keep hold of it by squeezing harder.
(Ok, more than 2 things )
We are approaching the war on terrorism just like we are approaching the war on drugs, the generals get to use their toys, the masters of war get richer, innocent people get killed, and the core causes of these problems are NEVER addressed.
Thomas, I'm not advocating ignoring this situation, but it seems that Bush is advocating overly simplistic, and short sighted solutions to complex problems that will only ever be solved with a broader and longer perspective.
Let's try this... let's phase out all government subsidies over the next decade. Let's learn the true COST of the goods that we consume, let's end up paying $10 for a gallon for gasoline, $30 for a pound of beef, and so on, and then let's see what Americans and Europeans think about how their governments are spending their money. This is about thinking long term, this is about thinking about our grandchildren. Bush's policies will leave this world a shambles for them.

[Thomas Paul]

Bert,
1) So instead of taking one year for Iraq to build an anthrax equipped missile it takes them 13 months. I don't think you are quite getting the purpose of the inspectors at all.
2) Noam Chomsky is an imbecile. What land was taken from Al Quadda?
I have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about government subsidies for the price of gasoline. Without all the taxes, based on the cost of a barrel of oil we should be paying about 70 cents per gallon for gasoline.
Let's try this, what is your solution that stops Saddam from getting weapons of mass destruction?

[Matthew Phillips]

Originally posted by Jos Horsmeier:

All I'm saying is that the usa is acting like a self appointed world god now and all I'm saying is, that this is just a big nono. Broader minds do acknowledge that there's more than imminent war, and war isn't inevitable; millions of Europeans can't be all wrong; opposed to millions of Americans thinking they're all right. The usa isn't the world you know; the usa is just part of it like we all are.
kind regards

That is the problem with the U.S. trying to go through the UN for "permission." It has nothing to do with the rest of the world. The U.S. is protecting it's own interests. Although we are seeking the aid of our "allies," we do not need it.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by <peace lover>:
1. why do you want to kill innocent people when things can be done peacefully. You can send as many inspectors as you want.Saddam cant say no.And he will not attack bcos that will mean his own death.

It was just a couple of years ago that Sadaam threw all the inspectors out. We can be sure that if they ever became a major inconvenience he would toss them out again. Think of it this way... Iraq is the size of California. How many crystal meth factories are operating in California today that the police can't find in spite of the fact that there are tens of thousands of police officers all over the state? Now reduce the police force to a couple of hunderd and have the remainder of the police force and the state government help to hide the crystal meth factories. Now, how many do you think the police will find?

[Michael Ernest]

This Sunday's SF Chronicle has a story on the Saudi slant to all this. If the US enters Iraq, throws Saddam Hussen and installs a US-friendly government, so the story goes, no one has more to lose than the Saudis, who currently speak first where oil markets are concerned. They also of course influence the US quite a bit on Middle East policy, which would presumably weaken if we didn't want their oil quite so much.
The article suggests that Iraq's oil reserves are "largely untapped," whatever that means, and that a US-backed government in Iraq would support foreign investment (i.e., development) to get to them.
Having had my own homeland (California) held hostage by Texas-based energy conglomerates in the dot-com years, I can appreciate the Saudi position better than I can anyone else's. Maybe it's Texas we should be invading...
[ February 16, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
The article suggests that Iraq's oil reserves are "largely untapped," whatever that means, and that a US-backed government in Iraq would support foreign investment (i.e., development) to get to them.

Saudia Arabia is the only country in the Middle East on our top 5 list of countries we import from (they are number 4). Iraq hasn't been able to sell oil for awhile and they do have fairly extensive reserves. A friendly Iraq might put more oil onto the market, pushing prices down a bit especially in Europe. Iraq is a member of OPEC though so the actual effect may be to increase Iraq's share of the supply while decreasing Saudia Arabia's.