The House of Politics

[Tar-Palantir]

Here you can drag on, and on, and on, and on, all until foam comes out of your moth and you fall backwards *falls backwards with a THUD*.

Well, joke beside, I think that some of us need a proper place to discuss politics. Right now perhaps the possible war in Iraq.

[Roca Wear]

Ummm ok. Here's my simple views on Iraq:

1.Prove it. If Sadamn says that he has destroyed all his weapons, poisions, chemicals, everything. Just give us some proof that you did destroy it. He has those big missles that U.N weapons inspectors labeled, destroy them. If he refuses to destroy them, we go for a military strike.

I think we've tried a peaceful resolution. But it's as simple as that. All he has to do is show us some proof and/or destroy them now. He only has one more chance left to do this. If he wants to stay in power, keep his people alive, and keep his country "safe", then disarm. If not, then we're going to have to strike.

=\

[Rumil]

I don't know. On the one hand I believe that Saddam Hussein is a mass murdering tyrant (he is by no means the only one of these in the world) and that seeing him fall from power is a laudable aim (NB not forcibly removing him). The prob about the weapons of mass destruction issue is far trickier - who decides who gets weapons of mass destruction and who doesn't? Who gets to say that it's alright for certain nations to have vast nuclear, chemical and prob biological weapon supplies? I find it a little strange that Bush can unilaterally tear up the international intercontinental ballistic missile treaty which goverened the proliferation of long range ICBM's (so that the USA could develop more) and yet be urging war to disarm other states. It does look a bit like 'well it's ok for us to have them cause we're nice but not for people we don't like' - surely everybody could use the same argument. Whatever you think, from Saddam's point of view he's the good guy.

Oh i don't know - but i don't feel easy with this war and i certainly don't think that the options for peace have been exhausted.

[Finrod Felagund]

I don't think that Saddam thinks himself a good guy, he is trying to play that so he can get the pacifists of the world on his side. He is evil, period. The US has not (to my knowledge) use WMD (weopons of mass destruction)on neighbors or our selves nor have we been overtly hostile to said neighbors. And its not about those who we don't like not being able to have nuke capability, its about people having them who are not a threat to their neighbors and the world. Saddam and N. Korea theaten their neighbors and the world. I personally think NK is worse but one thing at time.

Is it fair that we are trying to tell Saddam to disarm? probably not but we know he has , can and will use WMD to further his own twisted ends, not his peoples, not Muslims', he will and is killing his people to keep himself in power.
When you are a good person and try to do the right thing, it is hard to imagine someone willingly being evil.

I saw on CNN the otherday a commentator was saying that leading means doing what is right, not what is popular or ehat feels good. This may be the end of G. Bush and Tony Blair, but they are doing what is right, ridding the world of a potential Hitler. Remember, pre WWII, people tried to pacify Hitler and several MILLION deaths later, we decide that we should have never let him do what he did. And this was before people could smuggle nuclear weopons in a suit case.

The Germans and the French governments are so up in arms about it b/c Sadam owes them billions and they don't know what will happen if he is ousted. The Muslim countries are surprisingly quiet though
I personally am boycotting German and French goods. It is the only way I can express my opinion, very small and not much punch, but it makes me feel better

I know this has been somewhat of a ramble but I have been wanting to get that off my chest. I also am interested to hear what others form different countries think

Any way I'm done for now and may God help our leaders make the right choice

[Bonos-Girl]

i don't think that a military strike is necersarily the best thing to use against iraq at this moment in time.
Roca, you say that he (saddam) should either prove he has, or destroy weapons of mass destruction...surely if he has destroyed them there isn't gonn abe much proof...that is about as sane as the argument that he must have hidden the weapons cos they can't fnd them.....erm...briliant argument there!

comparing this to WW2 is not quite fair, people in general thought hitler was basically a good guy who was vital for rebuilding germany, they weren't so much pacifying him as saying that maybe the treaty of versailles was kinda too harsh and maybe germany should have some stuff as kinda compensation. People know that saddam is in no way good man dedicated to helping his country. it is almost a completely diferent circumstance.

[Finrod Felagund]

BG, there is tons of evidence that he has WMD. MI 6, Massad, GRU,CIA, ...lots of intelligence agencies have given evidence that he has them. Iraq is a large place, please don't think that he is not clever enough to hide his weopons from the inspectors. He is an evil person, he will do or say anything that will let him keep his weopons

I read somewhere that those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it. If we could go back in time and stop Hitler or Mussolini or Stalin or Mao or etc. wouldn't we? Saddam has all the markings of killers like these.

Yes, they thought that of Hitler but look at what history has tought us, allowed on his own, he has a seat next to Stalin and Mao as causing more deaths than the Plague. What's worse is that Saddam can hold the rest of the world hostage by his close proximity to the life blood of the world economy. Whether you like it or not, oil is what makes our life as we know it what it is. With out it, Everyone suffers. That may be a little melodramatic but, if we leave Saddam to his designs, he could come up with weopons that would enable him to do grievious damage to his neighbors. He has already shown us that he is aggressive and wants more control of the worlds oil supply. Imagine the damage to the world he could inflict by taking over Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, he would hold a vast majority of the world's oil in his hands which means the price EVERYTHING goes up which in turn means the poor of the world get even less. Imagine those that would die because the richer countries that give money and food to the poorer contries end up giving less because it costs much more to move it. More money for oil means less that goes to the less fortunate. The chant "No blood for Oil" sounds very hollow if you look at it that way.

Remember we are dealing with a man who is not a good person, he does not listen to reason the way civilized people do. He will continue to go down this path until someone forces him to change and unfortunately the Iraqi people are paying his toll. Can you imagine the aid and help that would pour into that country if he were gone?

Not trying to be sarcastic, but what would you suggest we do?For 11 years he has snubbed his nose at the world and continued to make weopons that threaten us all. I may sound like a war monger but it seems that diplomacy has failed. Pacifism has only led to bigger problems down the road. (see WWI and II) How long can we afford to let him be, sanctions have done nothing but turn the Iraqi people against the world. They starve and bathe in dirty water and die while Saddam and his toadies live in opulent luxury.

What would the world be like if in 1941 the US had decided that Hitler and Mussolini and Hirohito were not their problem...

[Roca Wear]

Originally posted by Bonos-Girl
i don't think that a military strike is necersarily the best thing to use against iraq at this moment in time.
Roca, you say that he (saddam) should either prove he has, or destroy weapons of mass destruction...surely if he has destroyed them there isn't gonn abe much proof...that is about as sane as the argument that he must have hidden the weapons cos they can't fnd them.....erm...briliant argument there!



no becuz there would be documents and there would be SOME proof. trust me

[Miruvor]

FF - Who made you the Judge and Jury. If every "good" country (using your judging parameters) would get together thru the UN and create international laws and agree to enforce them, Laws against 1.) massacring your own people, and 2.) having WoMD if you are under sanctions or treaty not to, 3.) Harboring or supporting or sponsoring Terrorists or terrorist acts, then we could oust him without war, instead, we could arrest him with policing action in cooperation with allies, who would be much more likely to come on board. I suspect, those countries who refuse to blindly fall in line with the USA's bullying tactics, are clearly predicting that the USA may, in the future, be able to bully any sovereign nation it wants to. This is the anti-thesis to freedom. IF the US has proof, they should take Saddam to court to have him relieved of office.
You should take your own advise about not repeating history. Go see "The Quiet American". If America really wants to be "good" and "honorable", it should work WITH it's allies to create Laws with the same kind of standards it has for it's own people. And, then agree to live under the same Laws. Doing anything only under the rallying cry of "GOOD vs. EVIL" is a blatant religious persecutionary philosophy. It looks like we are saying we want to have one standard of law within our country, but anarchy when it comes to international relations.

[Tar-Palantir]

Truly said Miruvor!

I recall that I have read an article about a professor who predicted that the US will fall in 20 years.
Quite Interesting, no?
He has some things to support him, 1980 he predicted the fall of the Soviet Union.
He missed it with a few months, as everyone did then, they laughed at this prediction, as some people do now.
Personally I think that America has gotten far too deep in the economical system in the world. It's ok for them to mind their own buisness, but I don't really like the thought of them trying to mind the whole buissness of the World.
Who said that they could?
Why do they think they are the supreme rulers of the world?

(Sorry if I have offended some people here, but I just think that George W. Bush is one of (if not) the greatest Morons in the entire history of the world, the leader of the military greatest nation in the world should at least know SOMETHING about politics, foreign countries, etc. etc.)

[Miruvor]

So right Tar.
If the US doesn't wise up and get off it's high horse and join with the International Community, ostracism and a fall from power will most likely be thier ultimate fate.

I had more to say on FF's post:
What's worse is that Saddam can hold the rest of the world hostage by his close proximity to the life blood of the world economy. Whether you like it or not, oil is what makes our life as we know it what it is. With out it, Everyone suffers.
I find this defense of War OFFENSIVE (no pun intended). So it boils down to money and Greed? Where is the 'Good vs. Evil' in that! If we used the money and technology we are using to defend oil supplies (and unlimited deforestation - my other 'pet peeve') to create alternatives, we would be better off - and sooner - and with less loss of life. And that innovative trend would create replacement jobs for those who seem to be obsessively tied to logging, oil, and internal-combustion-engine related jobs. Some people just HAVE to resist change to the nth degree. I guess because of fear and lazyness?
Everyone suffers.
Suffers? Yeah, it would really be SO 'painful' for everyone in America to have to cut back 20% on their oppulence and excesses. (as opposed to 'needs').
[Sorry about being so sarcastic. The issue just screams for it.]

[Miruvor]

This is encouraging, from the NY Times.

Los Angeles Council Adopts Resolution Against Iraq War
After a 9-to-4 vote, Los Angeles became the country's
largest city to oppose a unilateral war against Iraq,
joining more than 100 other cities and counties.

[Tári Celebrindal]

This is a cool thread! I'd have to say I agree with Tar about Bush. He's on a very high horse and I think it is appalling the way he shoves the issue down everyone's throat.

We also have to look closely on the reasons why the US is pushing for war. Is it really as a response to 9/11? To stop terrorists? If that is the case, as it is being made out, then why focus only on Iraq? It's not the only country that has terrorists. Saddam has always been a fly in the ointment, and 11 years or so years after the gulf war, why is he suddenly back as the villain-to-defeat? And the Iraqis are not complaining about having him as their leader. It's their country so why should the outside dictate for them?

I know I'm not making much sense :p. My bottomline is that war is never the answer for anything...and could someone bring Bush and Blair back to their senses?

[Bonos-Girl]

how would everyone who has said there are 'good' countries prove that these countries were so. how could you prove for exapmple that US is a god country. it's killed it's fair share of people over the years.

saying that saddam has killed more people than the plague, how is that an accurate representation of things. if you use a more than it is completely comparitive and therefore not a great way of measuring things. cigarettes have probably killed more people than the plague, but does anyoine launch a high scale attack on packs of B + H? nope. natural deaths are still the number one killer, has anyone found a potion for immortality yet to comabt this? nope. the only reason that bush wants to do something about iraq is cos he feels that this is one issue that he can overcome.

[Tar-Palantir]

Another reason for an Iraq War (which I don't like), is that Bush has some sort of complex. He is son to a president, he tries to be a president (though he failed miserably) and now he tries to do what "daddy couldn't do".
Overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Think about it, hope someone does. ;)

(WOW! This is my 400th post! entdraught CHEERS! :beer: )

[Bonos-Girl]

congrats! :beer:

i agree that that is one of the only reasons that bush is trying top overthrow saddam...he feels no moral obligation...thats just an excuse

[Tar-Palantir]

Interesting, wonder if anyone now can try to defend bush so that we ge a debate going.

[Bonos-Girl]

i doubt it....i've actually never spoken to anyone who likes bush or agrees with what he is doing....

[Tar-Palantir]

Well, Finrod Felagund did something to defend it.
I was only hoping for a debate, but it seems like what Bush does is undefendable.

[Ralenquil]

Oh Joy I have returned to the forums to find multiple lets bash America threads yay yay.

Bush is a moron, explain this statement with facts
The war is about oil,explain this statement with facts
America is trying to run the world, explain this statement with facts

I see very few facts in any anti war /anti Bush/ anti american statement

[Rumil]

Fair enough DSC, you are right abuse is not argument. I have never called Bush a moron or merely attcked USA. My only point in the thread was one of the hypocrisy of Bush over the international ICBM treaty. Whcih makes it look like he is trying to re-start the arms race which given the current climate of trying to limit the spread of WMD seems a risky policy.

[Ralenquil]

The international ICBM treaty ceased to exist when the US became the last remaining signatory to the treaty, I dont see how Unilaterally reducing the US nuclear arsenal from 12000 warheads to 3500 constitutes an arms race.

[Rumil]

My understanding of events is that Bush announced his withdrawal from the international agreement on weapons proliferation in December 2001 in order to develop new weapons systems. The agreement had been long standing and was not terminated until Bush announced his intention to be no longer bound by it. The announcement was greeted with anger in Russia and Europe. Recently he has given indications that he intends to resume nuclear weapons testing (notably the tactical so-called 'bunker busters') which has also been limited by international agreement.The 'unilateral' decrease in warheads was at least partly povoked by Gorbachov who did it first in the Soviet Union. I merely restate that to me this looks like a new period in arms development and acquisition that was making international politics uneasy prior to the current Iraq situation and which doesn't sit comfortably next to a policy of forced disarmament. That said i also repeat my view that Saddam Hussein is a mass murdering tyrant.

[Ralenquil]

The US withdrew from the ABM treaty in order to develope a missle defense system which was prohibited under the ABM treaty. Russia is not a signatory to any treaty with the US the old USSR was, and when it benefits the Russians they definitely remind us the US of this. resumption of nuclear testing is not a possibilty in the US not politically feasable.. The decrease of weapons from the Gorbechoev era was from over 18000 to the 12000 level, the reduction to 3500 was offered to Putin in early 2001 before the events of 9/11.

Iraq is being forced to disarm because they agreed to disarm after the Gulf War of 1991, that was part of the surrender agreement, we have had 12 years of on again off again inspections which are not working .

Personally I dont want a war either, I got to fight in the last one in 1991, but then again I dont want to wake up one morning to the scenes of a sarin gas attack in a major city in Europe or the US either.

Keep in mind that Bush as president can not withdraw from any treaty, that takes a vote of the senate. what he may want to do and what he can do are 2 different things.

I look at the possible war this way it can be fought now or in 5 or 10 years, personally I prefer now I dont want my grandkids fighting it.

[Finrod Felagund]

I was hoping this would happen.

Any way...

Everybody wants to complain about the Big Bully America but no one has given a VIABLE alternative to forcibly removing Saddam.
We could just turn the other cheek until he lights up one of his neighbors or sells a device to some fanatic that blows up half of London or New York or someone else they don't like. Then the world will complain and moan about how we (the world) should have seen this coming or some other hindsighted statement.
We are in the situation now b/c in 1991 G.Bush Sr. listend to the world and didn't evict Saddam when there was nothing between Coalition forces and Bagdad but sand.

Miruvor: if that would work, I'm all for it, but if you think Saddam would go quietly, I've got a bridge to sell you, cheap.

Unfortunately, the world runs on money, not good or evil. I'm not being callous or unempathetic, just realistic.

I'm all for the US staying out of other countries business but unfortunately the only country powerful enough to keep little tyrants like Saddam from expanding is the US and no one seems to complain when our folks get killed in places like Somalia ( where we had our butts handed to us) when we are trying to feed people or in Balkans when we are trying to get a genocidal dictator out. And in Bosnia we had to have help. No one seemed to complain about the US leading a coalition to get Saddam out of Kuwait either. Who did most of the fighting and dying in Kuwait, the British and the Americans. Funny, most of the planes we shot down were French and Russian... The same folks who don't want Saddam out apparently.

Make no mistake, the only reason the French, Germans, and Russians don't want a war with Iraw is b/c of money. He owes them Billions, that's with a B. All the rhetoric about wanting peace is ****, they are scared they won't see their money.


Here again, somone tell me another way to keep Saddam from threatening the world

Tar-P there are lots of Americans that feel the same way but fortunately we are all in it together now. I drive a Japanese vehicle, hunt with a Finnish rifle with a German Scope (because they are the best money can buy) wearing clothes made in China. Some isolationist here want to close our borders and stop importing and exporting but everybody loses that way.

It would be great if we could all hug and say "I'm sorry" and everybody just get along, if that would work great but unfortunately there are some people in the world who want what other folks have or want to tell everyone what to do because of their own greed, not because it's better for everyone.
There are people in this world who take advantage of people trying to do the right thing and be civilized, Saddam is one of those people. He will kill maim and destroy to get his own way. He does not play nice.


I wish nuclear power had no down side, I wish we could all get along, I wish there weren't bad people who want to kill me just because I am an American or a Christian or white or male or I have brown eyes or *fill in whatever you want* but the world, like Nature, can be and is a very mean place.

PS: I do believe it is over oil but I don't see why that is a bad thing b/c through his threatening the world's oil supply, he exerts a tremendous amount of power over money which controls the companies ( in one way or another) that keep us all employed and feeding our families and keeping our houses lit and our computers on and our governments operating and our police forces employed and our schools open and driving the economic engine that allows those with to give to those with out.

[Finrod Felagund]

PPS. Tar-Palantir, where did you read that article about the guy predicting the downfall of the US, I'd like to read it.
The way this thread sounds, some of you would cheer that like those little kids cheering in the streets after 9-11. Sorry, I'm just a little miffed that no one seems believe that Saddam is a real threat.

[Finrod Felagund]

PPPS
quote:
"And the Iraqis are not complaining about having him as their leader. It's their country so why should the outside dictate for them?"
It is a dictatorship, they have no choice. Iraq is not part of the Free world.
Please. With that logic why did Stalin, Mao, Hitler,* insert tyrant here* get to stay in power so long?

[Bonos-Girl]

i belive saddam is a real threart...i just don't think bush is handling the situation in the right way or for the right reasons (although i guess you could argue that it doesn't matter his reasoning....)

[Tar-Palantir]

Mao took the leadership in China after a revolution, Hitler was really and fully democratically elected.

A little sharp one here: I don't think that the diffrences between elections in Iraq and the latest election in USA are so many, Bush wasn't really elected fairly, and Saddam did somethings like, no other people to vote on and such stuff.

FF, I read the article about the downfall of USA in a Swedish newspaper, www.dn.se, I could translate it for you, but it might take some time.

And lastly, I DO NOT think that Saddam is a nice little boy, and I think that those who were responsible for the 11/9 attacks were real *******s.
IMO Saddam could attack Iran or Saudi-Arabia, but until I see some "smoking guns" about his WoMD I can't tell if he can attack Europe or USA.
I also do not think that saying that "Iraq has 'probably' WoMD" is enough reason to go to war when no weapons were found.

[Bonos-Girl]

saddam was not part of 9/11...was he? i confuzzled

[Finrod Felagund]

B-G: Directly, no

Looking at what is going on in the world is like reading good literature, you have to read between the lines to understand what is really going on. It's not all black and white, only gray

1. Don't get me started on the election, there was plenty of sneakyness from Al Gore's side.
2. I'm afraid the only smoking gun you will find will be a smoking city.
3. Bush can and probably will lose the next election

Yep and the only way they were removed was their death

comparing Saddam's "election" to Bush's, that's not sharp, that's an insult
Why was there no one to run against Saddam? He had is own son killed, do you think he is going allow fair elections?

OK, we let the inspections go on, how long and what do we do when they find something?
After the fall of Apartheid, South Africa voluntarily disarmed but I don't think that Saddam is going to give up his weopons so easily, do you?

[Finrod Felagund]

Tar P, if you could find the direct link maybe my puter could translate it

[Bonos-Girl]

if not you vcould always search in google or summat that would translate.

[Rumil]

I (like the rest of the world) have been thinking about this one today and the idea occurs to me Slobodan Milosevich is now on trial for war crimes at the Hague. The Serbian regime was as evil/destructive as the curreent Iraqi one. There was a need for military intervention in the Balkans to prevent/curtail Serb aggression and yet there was no need to forcibly topple the regime. They undermined it from the outside. If it can work there why not in Iraq? Why not flood the country with a UN peacekeeping force (derived from other Muslim countries if possible), allow for the return of Iraqi dissidents exiled by Saddam and make their safety + free elections in two years time a prerequisite for lifting oil/trade embargoes (but not on weapons). Lift the oppression just a little and maintain a serious/credible UN force and the Iraqis (like the Serbs) will get rid of their dictator all by themselves without massively hiking tension in the Middle East. And it is the tension in the area that we all need to fear, that is the main reason I have concerns over a simple brute force approach.

[Tári Celebrindal]

Hear, hear, Rumil!
It's saddening, though, that amidst all the protests around the globe and the alternatives presented by other countries, Britain and the US has given a three-week ultimatum. It is disheartening to listen to and see on the news.

[Daisy Gamgee]

Lifting sanctions and embargos will not lift the oppression....any money, etc will just get redirected to Saddam and his cronies....that is what is happening with the aid packages they are receiving at the moment, they're not going to the people who really need them.

RE, the "smoking gun" - there is equipment and things unaccounted for.....where are they? or wheres the paper work? Why aren't they being fully cooperative? Something to hide maybe? I'd rather find out now, than **** around for another couple of years, and be surprised when he has managed to make a bio-wmd that could actually affect a westernised country.

It took an army to go into Bosnia and bring about the downfall and subsequent trial of Milosovich. He didn't give himelf up peacefully....I doubt Saddam will adbicate just because a council said he had to.
Rumil, good suggestion on the Peace keepers...though I don't think it being muslim will change Sadam's mind anyway.

[Bonos-Girl]

i still think that although maybe he does have something to hide, most peope in his situation would feel kinda defensive and not very cooperative....

it was very sad listening to the entire UN thing on the news...it git me so depressed i couldn't evern manage a smile when they said that they are gonna start phasing out nuclear and gas and coal etc power stations and build lots more wind generators and stuff.....

[Lady Melody]

I'm sorry, I've not the time nor will to read the last threads, all I'm doing is taking the suggestion from the anti-war rallies thread and posting here. I'll have to get ready to go back to my boarding school soon, and let's see how much in 10 mins I can cook up.

I'm against the bloody, gory war against Iraq, and I support the freedom for Palestinians. Why, do you ask?

Well, lemme start first with the Palestinians... spare me the historical explaination, but please consider, they haven't a home or a country to go home to, and those blasted Israelis have been at war with them for as long as I could remember reading the newspapers. Personally, I'm sick of the news of people murdering each other endlessly, just for a stupid piece of land. It's sadistic, childish, not to mention ridiculous. The Israelis already HAVE a country, why do they need the Palestinian soil? Waste time, waste money, waste lives fighting over it. Naturally, the Palestinians can do nothing but defend their rights, and their beliefs. If I'm not mistaken, Palestinians consists mostly of Muslims, right? And Israelis... I think most of them are Jewish... (keep this in mind)

Next will be for Iraq. Before that, let's take a little teeny tiny look at (I forgot which, North ot South) Korea... I daresay they've much, much more advanced and dangerous weapons of mass destruction beyond anything that Saddham can cook up with his finances. They've already admitted too... gee.... why don't the US declare war against Korea?? The Iraqian people already allowed the PBB inspectors to come and thoroughly check the so called 'weapons' that would endanger the rest of the world and threaten tiny, poor little US. They came back empty-handed. No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq anywhere, and big, righteous, peaceful Bush has already declared openly that Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction.

My, my... where can he put his face now? Come on, Bush, why don't you step down from your post as the President Of The United States Of America... I recall once a leader of so and so country had stepped down because he made one small mistake, you already made plenty. Shoo!

Iraq is a Muslim country.

Oh, come on... it's so obvious and blatant you're certainly stupid or quite biased actually (I am too, but my bitterness I believe is just)... It's Bush and Blair's personal enmity against all Muslims worldwide. Look at all the restrictions imposed on us. I'm quite a liberal Muslim, and I'm telling you, with or without my head covering (I don't wear one) it's just plain unfair. Despite all our efforts of so called peace it's already taught to us since childhood (minus Malaysians, for obvious reasons... take example for us, we never shed a drop of blood to free our country) that oh, it's stated in the so and so holy book that so and so people who is that religion is bad, and they have to be destroyed at all costs (thus what Hitler almost accomplish at the cost of the Jews).... *sighs* I'm exceeding my time limit.

Okay, then there's the oil issue. *cough* Look, as I've stated somewhere else before, there are other times when there are dictators (in this case Saddham is one, or so they claimed) who are ruining their people to the point of lunacy and yet US never bothered before. Oh, they do say that they care and all, but come on, why is Bush suddenly sooooo bloody interested in Iraq. There's oil there, of course, but mark my words, the people of Iraq would burn their oil wells before the US could even start to lay their hands on it. Forget it. And besides, after the 9/11 attack, America's economy has been quite less than was satisfactory, isn't it? Nobody wanted to use US currency as the main currency while dealing in business matters anymore (boo hoo... and I known because I read the newspapers) and so we're switching to a more 'stable' currency like Euro....

I bet Bush's hair is thinning by all this tedious matters that he has to deal with.

Anyways... I do admit that somehow Bush feels that he must retailiate and fight back to sate the anger of the American people because of the 9/11 attack, but it won't solve anything.

Have you ever seen children in a fight? One would box his friend for some reason, and the other one would hit back, then it will continue and worsen until the teacher/parent would break it up.

I think I made my point clear enough.

Don't bother trying to capsize the downsize of my comment, because by then I'm already off to boarding school, devoid of any internet connection until around a month, at least.

Thank you for reading my comment. (I know I'm being quite sarcastic, but at least I do mine in writing, not in other methods that would do harm to others)

[Rumil]

Originally posted by Lady Melody
it's so obvious and blatant you're certainly stupid or quite biased actually (I am too, but my bitterness I believe is just)... It's Bush and Blair's personal enmity against all Muslims worldwide.

Actually melody although you have made some very valid points I don't agree with this. I mentioned Milosovich earlier - he is now on trial for crimes against humanity. His crimes were against Muslims. British and American troops were used in the Balkans and Tony Blair was keen to be involved. There is no oil, no great wealth - so why did NATO start bombing the Serbs to stop them massacring Muslims? Doesn't seem like the action of rabidly anti-Muslim people does it? I don't buy it. The idea that anyone who disagrees with Saddam is anti-Muslim is not necessarily true - because ultimately it boils down to the idea that any non Muslim who disagrees with any Muslim is doing so because of prejudice. Well that's clearly false - unless you are saying that all Muslims are perfect (because I know that non-muslims aren't). Simple, unquestionning, 'them and us' thinking is highly dangerous in this situation. Clinging to the notion that this is a war between Islam and the rest of the world is probably the best way to make it one (which is exactly what Bin - Laden is trying to achieve).

[Finrod Felagund]

Amen Daisy,
Another difference between Slobidan and Saddam is that Saddam with his oil reserves has several countries by the short and curlies and therefore has a much larger baraining chip against those who want him out.

Thank you Rumil for giving a viable option to invasion rather than insulting or complaining about how the US is such a bully. I have to disagree with you though, Saddam has too much power to let a large military force in unmolested. Milosivich had no choice. I seriously doubt Saddam will go quietly, which I hope we all agree is the solution to the problem, that he must go.

I think I have seen and read what the world feels about the US, now, let me tell you how I and some (note I said some) hard working, middle class Americans feel about the rest of the world, not academics or journalists who try to tell us what to think, but Joe Shmoe American. We feel like we are the younger brother of an ungrateful older sibling whose butt we have pulled out of the fire not once but 3 times. We know we didn't do it alone but, if it wasn't for us, the older sibling would be speaking German, Russian or Japanese (WWI/II and the Cold War) because they were forced to learn something other than their native tongue. We love our older sibling and buy stuff made by them and sometimes worship them in a younger sibling kind of way but are offended when we try to help them again and they spit in our face and tell us to **** off. We can be arrogant and pushy sometimes but we know we can get the job done. Unlike our older sibling, we're doers, not talkers. We have little patience for screwing around. We want to solve the problem and move on. Impatience is in our blood, how else could a bunch of immigrants build a superpower in less than 200 years. Oh, and when we want to defend something or do something that we feel is right, we send our people to do it, not let someone else do the majority of the fighting and dying.

Something I've been dying to get off my chest.

Anyway where were we...oh yeah, Saddam must go, but how?

[Tári Celebrindal]

Wait...I'm a bit slow today...Finrod, the older bro, is it the UN?

I do agree that Saddam should probably go, but never through war. We cannot limit our thinking to the present. What happens to the people after the war? Where do they go then? US is not going to war with Saddam only; it will involve the entire country and will displace millions of innocent civilians. So what happens to them?

[Finrod Felagund]

I was speaking of mainly Eurasia, especially the french and Germans. The french I knew would be against the US because they never have and never will have any spine, but the Germans suprised me. I don't know what we can do to patch things up with them and the rest of Europe. Although I personally don't care if we patch it up with france, all they have ever done is complain and sell weapons to our future enemies.
I just hope this doesn't sour future cooperation b/c terrorism is going to get worse and we will all need each others help

Tari, here's a hint, what are the only two countries in the world that can challenge the economic might of the US? Germany and Japan, who just happen to be our former enemies. How did they get that way? the US and its allies poured money into them so that they would never have a reason to fight us again.

What you people don't understand is that Saddam is killing his people right now through starvation.

[SindarinGirl]

Originally posted by Tári Celebrindal
What happens to the people after the war? Where do they go then? US is not going to war with Saddam only; it will involve the entire country and will displace millions of innocent civilians. So what happens to them?

The same thing that happens to every country that we go to war with, as Finrod says, the US will rebuild that country and feed those people while we still have homeless veterans and starving children here at home.
I don't agree, however, that we do it so the country has no reason to fight us again, where do you think most of the funds and weapons we gave to Iraq to fight the Iranians have ended up? Pointed right back at us, just as occurred in Afghanistan - we backed them in their fight against the Soviet invasion, with food, medicine, weapons and money, during and after the war. And in return for helping secure the freedom of their country, we've suffered mightily.

So part of me agrees with those who say we should stay out of Iraq. That we should turn a blind eye while Saddam starves, tortures and murders his own people. What do we care? It's none of our business and as someone here put it, they're not complaining (as if they could).

But then the other part of me remembers the 8 million lost to Hitler because he was none of our business and the 800,000 Tutsis murdered in Rwanda because that was none of our business, and the possibly hundreds of thousands of muslims massacred in Serbia because that wasn't any of our business either.
And although I hate, detest, loathe, and dread the idea of going to war, I realize wearily that it must be done and done soon. As Finrod says, we need to solve the problem and move on. And we do need to do it, because apparently no one else will.

[Daisy Gamgee]

Originally posted by Rumil
Actually melody although you have made some very valid points I don't agree with this. I mentioned Milosovich earlier - he is now on trial for crimes against humanity. His crimes were against Muslims. British and American troops were used in the Balkans and Tony Blair was keen to be involved. There is no oil, no great wealth - so why did NATO start bombing the Serbs to stop them massacring Muslims? Doesn't seem like the action of rabidly anti-Muslim people does it? I don't buy it. The idea that anyone who disagrees with Saddam is anti-Muslim is not necessarily true - because ultimately it boils down to the idea that any non Muslim who disagrees with any Muslim is doing so because of prejudice. Well that's clearly false - unless you are saying that all Muslims are perfect (because I know that non-muslims aren't). Simple, unquestionning, 'them and us' thinking is highly dangerous in this situation. Clinging to the notion that this is a war between Islam and the rest of the world is probably the best way to make it one (which is exactly what Bin - Laden is trying to achieve).

Excellant post Rumil....I have one thing to add. Apparently, in 10 or 20 years time, the majority of the population of the UK will be muslim....if Blair was anti-muslim, wouldn't he be doing something now, ie preventing Muslims from emigrating to the UK?
This isn't a war about religion. The US, UK and Australia are among the most religiously-diverse countries in the world. We're not arguing that its catholic/christian land and that there should be no other religions living here. Some of my friends at uni were muslim, but they were also British and I wouldn't dream of going to war with them.

But as SindarinGirl said Saddam needs to be stopped and soon......if that means war, then so be it....I will be supporting the troops who go, and I will remember and honour those that don't return. War is an evil thing, but it is sometimes a necessary evil. And then they can concentrate of Korea.

[Tar-Palantir]

Wow, you really have loads of stuff to vent, maybe it was good to have this thread?

[Finrod Felagund]

You have no idea...:battle:

[SindarinGirl]

Originally posted by Daisy Gamgee
I will be supporting the troops who go, and I will remember and honour those that don't return. War is an evil thing, but it is sometimes a necessary evil.

Amen, Daisy. Thank you. :mmmm:

[Bonos-Girl]

the only problem i have (maybe a lie...) is with the idea of fighting for peace. Lots of leaders and stuff seem to have a problem with the whole 'ends justifying the means' thing...except when tlking about war. i don't gte it?! :huh:

[Rumil]

Originally posted by Finrod Felagund
Thank you Rumil for giving a viable option to invasion rather than insulting or complaining about how the US is such a bully. I have to disagree with you though,

No problem Finrod, as Dark Storm Crow rightly reminded us abuse is not discussion and insult does nothing to further debate. You may be quite right, this alternative might not work ... I belive it should be allowed to fail first though. Let the world really see that every last avenue for peace has at least been tried, maybe?

[Finrod Felagund]

B-G, unfourtunately diplomacy only works when both sides want what is best in the long run, I don't think Saddam cares about what is best for Iraq, just what keeps him in his 20 or so palaces.

Rumil,
We've tried that for the last 10 years. He will nickle and dime his way to delay and delay, he will use the free press of the world to turn the allies against each other (which he is doing quite successfully), time works in his favor, the longer he delays, the more we get distracted and turn our attention to other things as we always do. Then he will fade into the noise until he has enough weopons in his arsenal to do what he really wants and then many more people feel the consequences for our lack of fortitude and unity.

Here's how I see it, do we amputate the hand that we have almost no doubt is gangrene or do we take antibiotics that we think will work but are not sure? My point is, how long can we wait until the infection spreads and takes the whole arm or worse.
Very simplistic but I think it fits