The war on iraq

[Keverzwijn]

I was just wondering how this community feels about the war. Please don't verbally attack each other, just state your opinions. I for one am against the war, I don't support Saddam's regime but I can't stand what Bush is doing now. No blood for oil.

Peace entdraught

[Roca Wear]

we're gonna bomb'em next week..lol

[Keverzwijn]

Could you eloborate on why you think that is a good case.

[Roca Wear]

no its not opinion .. its fact lol

[Bonos-Girl]

i feel that, although roca wear is rihgt that 'we' (we...i'm not gonna do the bomnbing personally) will bomb them very soon.

For Bush it is almost certainly about oil, but i think that Blair actually thinks that it is the 'morally right thing to do'.

[Keverzwijn]

Yeah, I think the bombing will probaly start very soon, resolution or not, cuz otherwise it will be to warm to fight and they'll have to wait a long time.

[Bonos-Girl]

plus, if they just keep all the troops they've shipped out there waiting for ages it'll be an enourmous embaressment for them i think.

[Pil]

I think Bush wants his pound of flesh for what happened and there will be no stopping an attack on Iraq. It's also about the whole oil thing which aggravates things further. Unfortunately Bush is in charge of the most powerful nation in the world, Blair doesn't want to be seen to be against Bush. All in all there's gonna be a war...but i think that any justificaiton for it needs to be explained further before it happens. :mmmm:

[Bonos-Girl]

it may need to be explained but its not going to in any more words than 'there is a moral case for war'.

[Pil]

But i'd LOVE to see blair really try to explain that.....disjointed sentences galore! lol

[SindarinGirl]

I don't want to support a war in Iraq, but Saddam Hussein has to be stopped. It should have been done years ago when we were there the last time stopping him from rolling through Kuwait and into whatever other country he wants.

If war is the only way to do it, then so be it. I will support the men and women of our Armed Forces who go, honor those who do not return alive and respect those who come home safe.

[Bonos-Girl]

but there are other ways. i don't think that bombing lots of innocent civilians will get rid of sadam. the whole point is that he is evil and his regime is awful. what do his people have to do with that?

[Keverzwijn]

True, and I don't think Bush will stop at Iraq. He's talking about N-Korea and other countries too.

[Bonos-Girl]

i think that, although i also believe N korea is a bigger threat, Bush won't launch a full on war with them. they have let them get too strong without any interfernce from 'outside' so its anyones guess how many nuclear weapons they actually have and stuff. even dubya isn't that stoopid.

[SindarinGirl]

Originally posted by Bonos-Girl
but there are other ways. i don't think that bombing lots of innocent civilians will get rid of sadam. the whole point is that he is evil and his regime is awful. what do his people have to do with that?

What other ways do you suggest? :huh: He has stated emphatically again and again that he has no intention of leaving willingly. Sanctions have left nothing but starving people in the streets, while what little food and goods are to be had go straight to Hussein and his cronies.
I seriously doubt that it is the US's or anyone else's intention to bomb civilians. Hussein trucks civilians into his "palaces" (which are compounds hundreds of acres in size and usually include some kind of munitions or chemical plants) to use as human shields. :(
He puts his own people in harm's way, hoping that we won't go through with the bombings because they are civilians, but if we do, he can claim we've massacred thousands of innocent Iraqis. Either way, in his mind, he doesn't lose. He doesn't care about the Iraqi people and setting them up to be them killed is not a problem for him. :angry:

[Keverzwijn]

But what if the regime is overthrown. Would it all end well. Another didctator would rise, supported by the Ameicans this time. i don't think the Iraqis would benefit under another regime, they'd still be starving. I'm not saying that I agree with Saddams regime but the solution that Bush is offering isn't going to help.

[SindarinGirl]

I haven't seen Bush's plan for what comes after the war. Although I can almost guarantee that it will include millions of dollars in aid, as well as food, shelters, medicines, engineers, building materials, etc.
I would hope the UN would get off its collective rump and go about helping to build a government, as in Afghanistan. I don't recall the US setting up a puppet dictatorship there. :huh:

[Kenzie]

i just wanna getrid of sudam!!! .... whether that means war or not ( i think it does though) ...

my friends dad got shipped out last week :mmmm:

[Gwaihir]

Sorry for all you people whose relatives got shipped out. I don't really care for that war now, at least not yet. I choose to stay neutral, but alert. We (Japan) have enough to worry as it is about N. Korea. N. Korea will probably assist Iraq if they start a war, and U. S. won't be able to ignore it then. I don't want a war, but if it's necessary, let there be one, and let it be over quick with minimum casualty! :brave:

[Bonos-Girl]

I don't think that it's for me to suggest other ideas. I haven't thought it over enough. But how is bombing civilians really gonna stop sadam? its not, its just gonna hurt his people even more.

[Little Devil]

Well, today's papers headlines is 10 days till war. :(

[Bonos-Girl]

tabloid or broadsheet?

[Gwaihir]

10 days till war?! :o Oh man! Bombing civilians will only turn the people against the U. S.! :( I wonder why they can't think of any alternatives... I think this war won't turn out very helpful.

[Bonos-Girl]

i wonder what it is that the US actually wants? they said they wanted him to destroy the missiles, so they did, and then US said it was all a trick...whats with that!?

[Miruvor]

Well, I listened to that guy on Nightline the other night who was/is the head of the Republican think tank that sits around planning the future of America from a Republican perspective, and he said as long ago as two years before Bush was in office, he and others, including Rumsfeld and Chaney (who were also part of the think tank) planned a path of foreign policy, the first step of which was to relieve Suddam of his office, occupy Iraq for an extended time, in order to have a degree of control in the OPEC area, then later possibly take on Saudia Arabia, because they don't think the monarchy there is cooperative enough, then go on to increase our empire of occupation in whatever countries are necessary to stablize "the interests of America" throughout the world. They presented this plan to Clinton at the time, and he rejected it. (That's because Democrats are more lazaire-faire (sp?) and live-and-let-live in their attitudes, instead of being paranoid and controlling) It wouldn't surprise me if they (the think tank) provoked and rallied the defamation of Clinton's character there at the end and even possibly rigged the election to get someone in office who would be more ammenable to their proposal. Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 other than that the powers-that-be took advantage of it to rouse the tempers of the American people to more easily bamboozle them to go along with these imperialistic tactics. Bush has made a bee-line in every respect since he got into office, to railroad our country into the far right-wing principles. But in reality, I think he is a puppet for a larger and more determined and insipid bulldozing Force of the far right.
As Jimmy Carter has just said in the paper today, War at this time is not justified - there has been no immediate provocation, and the humanitarian damage would far outweigh any benefit gained. This is purely an offensive action taken with long term deliberation, (not defensive), just as must as Iraq's attack on Kuwait 12 years ago, or Hitlers take over of the countries around him.
I guess since, trying to overthrow Suddam by sneaking around back during the Iran-Contra affair, backfired on them, this time they are trying it with full frontal force.

[Keverzwijn]

It's laisse-faire (french, I learned it at school). I think what you stated are the real resons for this war. Gaining power in the world.

[Glarawen]

i saport it. i know this sound childish but They started it!!!! and what most people dont realize is if anyone in the world were to go to war with anyone else in the world it would be more likely to be started because of the lack of water not oil.(but that isnt the point)

they killed a lot of people 9-11 and will continue to do so (maybe not in the us but somewhere else) if they are not stoped and people in the us are just begining to understand that it is the whoole pop of iraq, it is only a few far lords and some followers. not all the people are volent and most of the people over there WANT the us and all the other countries to bomb the heck out of iraq so they can start new
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
this is very contriveral and its not the question: do you want to go to war with iraq? it is the question: If we DO go to war w/ iraq what will be some of the problems and how will they fix them?

[Bonos-Girl]

but it wasn't the iraq people who started it at all. sadam is the evil one and even he didn't do 9/11....and erm....why would the iraqi people want the US to bomb them? i'm not sure wheher i understand right....

[Kenzie]

it's half out of revenge it seems ( 9/11) ........ i dunno ....... but i don't think the U.S wants to really hurt the civilians ( though they will) .... the bitter comes with the sweet in this case

[Glarawen]

kenzie's right the us doesnt want to hurt the people but it will happen regardless.... even if the us doesnt bomb it, it will happen anyway.......

to answerr you question Bonos-Girl, the iraqi people are being treated unfairly by all the warlords. if the us bombs the *heck out of iraq there is a good chance that the us does what they intended to: bomb to get rid of the warlords after the warlords are gone the people can rebuild the cities and life there was this woman, (i dont know where) that didnt have her headdress on and they killed her and if you steal over there they cut off your hand most of all this is because the warlords. the people want to have rights and as long as the warlords are around they wont.

[Ithielnor]

I support it. Sure, war isn't pretty, but I believe in this case it is necessary. I believe I said more on this in another thread. :mmmm:

[Miruvor]

there was this woman, (i dont know where) that didnt have her headdress on and they killed her and if you steal over there they cut off your hand most of all this is because the warlords. the people want to have rights and as long as the warlords are around they wont.

I don't think it's the Warlords, but the Muslim culture. But all the Muslim countries (Women included) do these horendous things. BBC was just reporting yesterday that in Bangledesh it's common for a women to have acid thrown in her face just for refusing a marriage proposal. But does that mean we have a right to bomb them all? In the long run, we need to have inforcable internation laws created (thru th UN perhaps) outlawing these human rights offenses so they can be prosecuted. That is the only way to have a respectable future. How is bombing the heck out of a country everytime they act in a way we don't approve of, any less greivous that the human rights offense itself?

[Miruvor]

I said Bangledesh above, but I think it may have been Pakistan - one of the two. I get them mixed up.:huh:

[Ludibunda]

It seems to me that although many lives were lost at The World Trade Center, many more will be lost in a war. How can our leaders feel so autonomous, ignoring the rest of the world community? I have seen the ultimate arrogance and it scares me! I have never been an alarmist, but I will quietly stock 3 days supplies in the basement. No point in sealing windows. Living between DC & NYC, we would quickly be sent to heaven in case of chemical warfare. More likely, I will spend some time huddling in the classroom with my students. Obviously, war is coming and I'm scared.

[Gwaihir]

So am I, Ludibunda. Tension is very high, and it scares me. The war will definitely claim many lives. :(

~Originally posted by Miruvor
BBC was just reporting yesterday that in Bangledesh it's common for a women to have acid thrown in her face just for refusing a marriage proposal.

Eek! :o That's terrible! But war will not help get rid of these terrible things. Won't anyone listen to reason? :rolleyes:

[Glarawen]

but even if we dont want it to happen, it will. bush is dertermined to end this madness. war is terrible and only a few want it but history is full of wars and wars shape the furture. if past wars didnt happen, the world would be a lot different than we know it. the us would still be parented by england i dont want it to really happen who does?! but i saport it i think it is nessarry

[SindarinGirl]

Originally posted by Bonos-Girl
I don't think that it's for me to suggest other ideas. I haven't thought it over enough. But how is bombing civilians really gonna stop sadam? its not, its just gonna hurt his people even more.

Why shouldn't you come up with other ideas? Even if it's not a totally original one, that's ok, you can give voice to an alternative solution that someone else has that you support, instead of just saying "this is wrong" and not suggesting any options. I wish someone would come up with a viable alternative plan to remove Hussein, but I doubt the UN's ability to enforce any resolution it passes. :(

I cannot undertand why you keep insisting that the US will bomb civilians. You're right that it won't do any good, why would we want to do that? Civilians are never purposely targeted by the US.
The military will be targeting munitions factories and storage areas, chemical plants and storage facilities, and the like. The unfortunate civilians being bombed will be the men, women and children Saddam has had rounded up, trucked to these military targets, and held there under guard. If they try to leave they will be shot. He does this so that when those military targets are destroyed he can claim we slaughtered the poor citizens. Of course there won't be any mention that he's the one that put them in harm's way in the first place.
There are reports this morning of some people volunteering to stay at hospitals as human shields. Once they enter Iraq, however, they are taken to the ammo dumps. :rolleyes:

If the Iraqis don't want Saddam gone, why are his soldiers surrendering to the British now?

[Cuthalion]

I live in a country that recently became part of the security council of the UN (I don't know if it's well written but you got the idea). Now we know that every country in the council have been spied by the US. I think that's just sad because we, a third world small country which has nothing to do with this imperialistic attitudes from Mr. Butcher...sorry, Bush, and all of HIS warlords, now have to give our vote concerning this war that, let's face it , nobody wants. We all know Saddam is one of the worst dictators in the world but neither the US nor any other country has the right to decide what's "best" for the rest of the world. That's why the UN exists, isn't it? Now the US is pulling a recent commercial agreement that they had with my country to get our vote and that's nasty. Bush has to take a look at history; every empire throughout the history of the world has fallen. Let's hope they don't take us all down with it. Besides, the US goes way back on occupations and support of dictatorships in small countries like mine for example. In 1973 the US government supported (in supplies and CIA agents) Pinochet and his regime which costs a lot of lives. They had people disappeared
men, women, even children and the same happened in half the countries of South America so I won't ever buy the "innocence" and "care for the world and people" of the US governments.

[Cuthalion]

There are reports this morning of some people volunteering to stay at hospitals as human shields
Sorry, but I don't buy the media either

[Bonos-Girl]

even if sadam does place civilians in the way of harm it doesn't mean we should bomb them.

ok...you asked for my opinions on what they should do, here they are:
firstly (ok...so this is kinda past now...but nevermind), they should have taken him out of power 12 years ago, not ignored him after creating allthat fuss. they left him alone for quite a long time...not a good idea (see N korea as an exaomple of what can happen...)

secondly, they should say what they want, and when it happens not say its a trick (the missile thing...first they say thgey should be destroyed, then when they are its apparently all a trick)

thirdly, they should not have it fixed in their mind that sadam will never do anything remotely cooperative (kinda linking to second point here)

and lastly, they should realise that bombing iraq won't get rid of sadam. just make the country in a worse state than it already is.

erm....i have this feeling that i didn't really answer the whole 'what should they do' question.....but i'm just kinda avoiding it....

[SindarinGirl]

Originally posted by Cuthalion
Sorry, but I don't buy the media either

Then where did you find out that the US gathers intelligence on all the member nations of the Security Council?
Remember, too, that the member nations do the same thing to us and each other. Every country that can afford to, spies on others. Even within their own alliances.

[Miruvor]

I think the military targets will be Saddam's array of palaces and hideouts. Or maybe places that will put a stranglehold on Saddam - food distribution, everyday business works, hospitals.

Why waste good ammo on warehouses containing empty missle shells. Especially when the inspectors can rout them out.

I'd sure like to see the War Plans.

[Miruvor]

P.S. (too late to edit above)

That country I mentioned above WAS Bangledesh, not Pakistan. I don't want to defame the wrong country. Pakistan so far is a helpful force.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1791513.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2832769.stm

[Gatsby]

all i can say is that i am against the war... and canada is looking like a nice option lol
out
gatsby

[Bonos-Girl]

lol...well...as far as i can see iraq isn't gonna bomb britain or america. he will attack somewhere closer to him. so all we have to warry bout is dubya and N korea...great.....

[Gwaihir]

Yeah great... N. Korea. I know I've said it more than once already, but it scares me. They fired a test missile over the Sea of Japan. :( Communist countries are really agressive. I hope they won't come up with a surprise attack!

[Bonos-Girl]

i don't think it's just the fact that its communist country. its the fact that they've been allowed to get on with their own thing without any outside interfernece. at least US knows what weapons iraw might have cos it sold most of them to iraq. N korea is the only country to survive completely on its on without any need for outside things. this means that we have no idea whther they have one nuclear bomb or hundreds.....not good.

[Glarawen]

i think the us is keeping close watch....more than they are leting on ____ and the "others" know it. if they do do a surpirze attack somewhere (prob close) they are going to do it very carefully cause they know if they get caught in the act, everyone that is involled and catchable will leave the earth cause bush is sick of it all........

[Bonos-Girl]

i know they are keeping a close watch...but they aren't doing anything as such....wel...anything conspicuous anyways...

[Glarawen]

and that could be a good thing -----or a bad thing. iraq is being careful~ maybe so carefull that the activity cant be spotted be US eyes

[Khamul]

I'm against the war as it stands right now. But I do think that the job should have been done properly back in the early nineties... I do believe that the main interest is down to oil, but I also believe that Bush believes if he backs down that he will look weak, reducing American military might in the eyes of other countries. This would be played up by Iraq and the other 'rogue states' aswell, and Bush knows this. He merely wishes to 'flex his muscles' to the world by attacking Iraq.
Re: North Korea. Yeah, I'm much more worried about these lunatics. I know its dismissive and naive to refer to thema as lunatics but... They ARE an extremely creepy country, and I believe that Bush is TOO afraid of them to do anything about them. He knows that they are too unpredictable and well armed for him to do anything about it WITHOUT it escalating into a third world war. As it stands, N Korea pretty much keep themselves to themselves, but I do not believe it will remain this way for long. They are an aggresive country who believe that they have been wronged, and I think within the next decade or so will certainly be THE major threat to world peace. But hell, what do I know after all? (Well, I know I can read at a higher level than Bush, but then, I imagine my dog probably could too). :rolleyes:

[Kenzie]

why doesn't n korea just and iraqk just disarm and the world would be a better place!!! ... (i know it's not likly but it's a nice tought)

[Daisy Gamgee]

Originally posted by Bonos-Girl
firstly (ok...so this is kinda past now...but nevermind), they should have taken him out of power 12 years ago, not ignored him after creating allthat fuss. they left him alone for quite a long time...not a good idea (see N korea as an exaomple of what can happen...)

secondly, they should say what they want, and when it happens not say its a trick (the missile thing...first they say thgey should be destroyed, then when they are its apparently all a trick)

thirdly, they should not have it fixed in their mind that sadam will never do anything remotely cooperative (kinda linking to second point here)

and lastly, they should realise that bombing iraq won't get rid of sadam. just make the country in a worse state than it already is.



Ok first point - they couldh ave taken him out, but at that moment in time, the Un had noone lined up to take control - the guy who then would have managed to get control would in all likelyhood have been as bad if not worse than Saddam....so it was better the devil you know

Secondly - there is no evidence that they destroyed things - Blix himself is not satisfied with what they have been shown. Its not good saying that I have just eaten a bowl of soup, if theres no bowl or pan or trace of soup.

Thirdly, they had to assume that he would do as instructed - they placed santions on him - unfortunately this kind of backfired as the aid they were sending in, was re-diverted to Saddam and his cronies, not the people needing it.

Back to the arguement about the peole of Iraq wanteing war - I have heard this on many occasion. Its not just the fact that the laws are inhumane - its the disapeerence of someones husband or father or son, which is not just one or two isolated cases.

In my local newspaper, there was aopinion comment by a journo who had been to an International crisis group in Brussels - she had meet 6 iraqi womenwho spoke out against Saddams regime. One had asked why they were searching for weapons yet had no investigation into Saddams crime against Iraqi people. He is apparently ethnically cleansing the population, and has hidden gas chambers and mass graves. Surely the ethnic cleansing is enough reason for an intervention? it was in Bosnia.


Anyway I have to go or else I will be late for my lec.

[Miruvor]

Someone back aways in the thread questioned what other choices there might be besides war.

Here is one : (from NY Times headline)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
World Court for Crimes of War Opens in The Hague
By MARLISE SIMONS
The court's task will be to try individuals — not nations
or armies — accused of large-scale crimes against civilians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/international/europe/12COUR.html?th
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Why don't the OTHER nations of the world get in there and bring charges against Saddam, then they will be taking away Bush's target, and the need for war will disappear.
hearnoevil

[SindarinGirl]

You have a good point Miruvor, I wish the international community would stand up and say this is enough, you've killed hundreds of thousands of your own countrymen, you're obviously not fit to lead this country, but no has done so, and no one will.
Remember the Taliban? The horrors they put the Afghani people through, the arrests and death sentences of aid workers and missionaries, the destruction of one of the wonders of the world and it wasn't until they aided in the massacre of over 3000 people from all over the world that the nations of the world united to remove them from power.
Iraq is headed down the same path. Most want to turn a blind eye to Saddam, but one day it'll be too late to stop him from killing thousands in another country. He's done it once.
I understand that's not the reason Dubya is taking this road, I'm not so naive as to think that he has anything other than his own greed in mind, but I am hopeful that this war is going to accomplish something other than giving Dubya an oil reserve.

[Bonos-Girl]

Originally posted by Daisy Gamgee
Ok first point - they couldh ave taken him out, but at that moment in time, the Un had noone lined up to take control - the guy who then would have managed to get control would in all likelyhood have been as bad if not worse than Saddam....so it was better the devil you know

ok...at the moment...do they know who will take over? no (as far as i know anyways..) there is a chance that saddams son will takje over and supposedly he is even more 'evil' than his father.

Originally posted by Daisy Gamgee
Secondly - there is no evidence that they destroyed things - Blix himself is not satisfied with what they have been shown. Its not good saying that I have just eaten a bowl of soup, if theres no bowl or pan or trace of soup.

no evidence that they have destroyed what? they have destroyed the missiles that had a too long range. oh yes..i forgot...rthere are those weapons which they must be hiding wince we haven't found em yet....solid evidence of course.....te US sold the weapons to iraq.


Originally posted by Daisy Gamgee
Thirdly, they had to assume that he would do as instructed - they placed santions on him - unfortunately this kind of backfired as the aid they were sending in, was re-diverted to Saddam and his cronies, not the people needing it.

ok...by now i have forgotten the point this was referring to so i'll answer it another time if i have an answer!


Originally posted by Daisy Gamgee
In my local newspaper, there was aopinion comment by a journo who had been to an International crisis group in Brussels - she had meet 6 iraqi womenwho spoke out against Saddams regime. One had asked why they were searching for weapons yet had no investigation into Saddams crime against Iraqi people. He is apparently ethnically cleansing the population, and has hidden gas chambers and mass graves. Surely the ethnic cleansing is enough reason for an intervention? it was in Bosnia.

a) Bosnia was a different place and i different situation. its like comparing saddam to hitler which seems entirely ridiculous to me.

b)how is bombing his people going to save them? i'm not saying there shouldn't be intervention. just that there is no reason for a full scale attack on iraq.

[Daisy Gamgee]

BG - the Un now have a guy/council lined up to take over - his son won't get a chance, in fact if they manage to take Saddam out, they'll probably take out all his cronies, including his son.

In regards to the weapons, its not just the US that are saying that they must have them hidden - Blix, the chief inspector who works for the UN, not the Us, is not satisifed with the way things are going.

Ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing whether its in London or Baghdad. He is doing this, and so something should be done to stop him.
From what I've read his people do want war - from what i've gathered, they would rather have a few months where a few stray bombs might hit a house, instead of the intended military target (although bombs are getting more and more accurate), than arry on with Saddam in power, controlling the country, with continuing poverty, low food and medical supplies, and the disapeerence of people.

[Roca Wear]

yea well my mom was listenin to her scanner(the radio where u can listen to cops and such) and there was a guy who was outside grand central station in a truck with binoculars, just sittin there. cops were called, he was told to leave. then there was a guy who was on the bridge, in a truck, with binoculars and a two way radio, cops called, told to leave. THEN! a guy was in a train station with a video camera/binoculars, cops called ect.

..today in newspaper, sources say osama is transferring an A-Bomb on a cruiser and could be set off in grand central station or the train..

:elfeek: coincidence?

[Bonos-Girl]

but i don't think bombing iraq will stop saddam. it may (or may not) take out some military bases and stuff.....but unless they go assasinate him or summat then its not gonna happen.

[Lady Melody]

Oh, well... House Of Politics thread is gone. That is to be expected, I guess. I admit my words there were too harsh and too 'hasty' (as treebeard would have agreed to). For that, I wish to apologise for any ill feelings that I might have, and had caused.

"You cannot fight darkness with darkness, as only light can drive away the darkness."

I forgot... blame it on youth, you might say... and a highly kindled stirring of enthusiasm against whatever's against peace. I did a long session of self-critism for my error... and now with a much calmer head, I'm going to write what I know, my evaluations from what I have read and all.

I was angered, as many others... not merely because it is somehow blatantly appeared to be something like the start of the whole world's animosity against those of my religion. Do you not read of those extremist Hindus who clambers and attacks all the mosques there in India, claiming that the land which the mosques rests were former places of worships. Lunacy, blasphemy, idiocy! Then, there's the all-Islamics-are-suicidal-bunch-of-fanatics thingy that was greatly popularized by Bush (And I quote what a British protester wrote on her signboard "The only Bush that I trust is my own. lol ) and many others... *sighs*

First of all, it's a sin to commit suicide in Islam, unless for a just cause. Some (well... what's left of the 'true' ones... not those fakes) ulama' or wisemens are releasing Fatwas or decrees that should the US and little Tony (Blair) attack Iraq, attacks in retaliation is a jihad, I shudder at the thought. I can imagine the hoards of more Osama Bin Laden in the making. My words may be sharp and they sting, but I prefer to fight peacefully, in the manner of discussions and debates plus I really, really hate weaponry, the less I know about them the better.

You know, I think that all of you are more or less quite well informed about the news... and I hold no grudges against the soldiers, although they're the ones who's gonna do the much damage.... as they are nothing but pawns... trained to be brainless and merely to follow orders, for most part. I'm not very well-informed in the matters of weaponry and all those technological wizardry that goes with it. Anyways... the US are using that latest 6000 something kg of heavy blasting missile, and I cringe even further when I read that they are using the Satelite controlling method instead of the more reliable laser method.

As far as I know, the Satelite method, however accurate it was said to be, causes more life mortality rate than the laser method when it comes to the civilians, and the ones that were supposed to die is usually still alive and kicking while all pieces of whats left of innocents are splattered all over the place. Furthermore, laser controlled bombs costs 10X times more than the Satellite method, and the first requires the pilots to be in close range to be used. What I'm trying to state here is that *cough* the Americans thinks of the Iraqian innocents as lesser worth of their own (quite understandable, if you get my meaning) and of lesser worth than dogs, frankly speaking.

Then there's the idea that they're going to split it into three states and governed seperately, under the caring US supervision of course, and of course they'd rebuilt the place. They only desire world peace after all....

I was laughing like *toot* when I read this.

It was no different than the early days of my country. Any self-respecting 15-year-old who learns history in my school would automatically become a No-War-Upon-Iraq demonstrater and etc... (I'm 17 now) We never forgot what the British did to us. Do you wish to know what the British Imperialism did to my country? They seperated the three main races; the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians, give them seperate education, ridicule them and our leaders to the lowest degree that they could get away with, and it took us centuries to finally get back to our feet. Anyways, the whole idea is that interior peace and unity (however how well meaning the US's sweetened tounges wag) is to be avoided so that they could exploit the oil, etc... and if it's about the nuclear reactors.... go ask the Russians, they're the ones who're funding them.

For Saddham Hussein to be of any real threat, I find it hard to believe. Mainly, if my memory served right, didn't Iraq just lost some war slightly over a decade or less ago? How could they build and collect mass-destruction weapons when they'd still quite sore and have other problems to deal with to bother with the outside world? Furthermore, the range limit, although it's claimed to be for the neighbour's sake are although out of range for certain countries, left the small, weak, other Muslim countries within range. Well, does it not portray the message : Go and attack each other *toot*less, the weaker and more in debt and destruction you are, the more we can exploit you later routine.

*yawn* The more I read and learn history as a hobby (no matter how lousy my memory can be) the more repettative, and silly things I had noticed done today... we humans, at the zenith of human civilization... (or so forth)

All right, I'm getting a bit too sarcastic again... feel free to reply to my words... and I might continue more later....

[Cuthalion]

I'm with you Lady Melody :thumbs: (I'll continue later)

[Lady Melody]

Oh, I just remembered... about the people starving on the streets in Iraq, believe it or not compared to other countries, Iraq is the most fair (well, where Arabian customs are concerned) to women, they actually are slowly increasing in income and economy, and they're as far as the US is concerned; recovering to rapidly for comfort. And that is why Bush is so bent on crushing Iraq.

My Ustazah did mention that Bush is actually very threatened by Saddham....as far as I was concerned, it was the US who fueled Saddham's cruel deeds (well, Saddham wouldn't have been able to do anything if he wasn't supplied with oh, good weapons and bombs and all...) and he followed the US's poiting finger, here and there for a while... and then when the US find him of no use to them any more... where independant and creative thinking are concerned, they wanted to replace him with a more loyal puppet....

Politics... pah.... it disgusts me....

I think more things would come to mind soon...

[SindarinGirl]

You're quite right Lady Melody!

The US (along with Saudi Arabia and the Soviet Union) did indeed provide Iraq with weapons, intelligence and supplies during it's war with Iran begun in 1979.
I remember when the Shiites took control of the Iranian government in 1979 and stormed the US embassy in Tehran, taking 69 people hostage and demanding the return of the exiled Shah (who was in the US for medical treatment) so they could execute him. After about a month they released 16 people and held the remaining 53 for 444 days.
Technically, as the grounds of an embassy belong to the nation it represents, the "invasion" could have been considered an act of war.
But since Jimmy Carter was our president we didn't declare war on Iran, we backed another country that did (even though Iraq's real goal was to gain control of the oil-rich border lands). The policy is basically: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Carter also used this philosophy when supporting the Taliban against the Soviet invasion.
Carter's mistake was in trusting these people. He never suspected what use they would put our weapons and supplies to. So when you say Saddam's cruelty is fueled by the US, you are correct in that we gave him the original munitions that he has built upon to enforce a draconian dictatorship, murder thousands of his own people, back terrorists, and invade Kuwait.
And again you're right - we don't have any use for him since he's been engaged in that kind of "independent and creative thinking".

[Daisy Gamgee]

Originally posted by SindarinGirl
And again you're right - we don't have any use for him since he's been engaged in that kind of "independent and creative thinking". [/B]

:hooray: wonderful, SG.....Sorry nothing constructive to add at the mo.

[Lady Melody]

Well, Sindarin, I believe I had found someone I could seriously relate to! ;)

In any case, the inconsisties in the US for supporting or warring against anyone is quite well...how should I put it, angering the world. Since currently you guys are the sole BIG power of the world, it seems that you're milking it for all you're worth. You've been referred to as a "big bully' and I agree to it to some extent.

Should the US ignore the UN, well... *cough* I expect World War Three to be coming on our way... *sighing*

I dunno about you guys, but according to Bible Codes 2 (Yeah, I'm Muslim... so what) that some sort of war will happen soon and by next year we'll be facing the end of the world.... 0_o

The coincidence to this WOI thingy is making me feel really worried.

Anyways... anyone with or against me on the weapons and weigh of humans lives thing?

[Miruvor]

True, the fundamentalist Christians are realizing their self-fulfilling prophecies. The rest of us just get to go along for the ride.

[Gwaihir]

Many Christians say that we are nearing the end of the world. Now that'd be terrible and great at the same time!

Oh goodie, ther's another neutral person! Glad to know I'm not alone anymore! :)

[Lady Melody]

In Islam it is widely known and claimed that the current editions of the Bible, Old and New Testament are corrupted. However, as these are the words of God, I do not believe that us puny humans may have corrupted it to the point of it bearing nothing but lies...

So... I think that any sort of prophecy is not to be ignored. And I fear it.

Anyways... back to the topic, here's an article, off TAP.



Why Iraq?

By John B. Judis
Issue Date: 3.1.03
Print Friendly | Email Article

When a country goes to war, one question that already should have been answered is "why?" But many people in the United States, Europe and elsewhere are genuinely perplexed about why the Bush administration is so determined, even at the cost of war, to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. In their public statements, administration officials have, if anything, increased the puzzlement. They have portrayed their campaign against Iraq as a continuation of the war against terrorism. They have claimed to have evidence of close ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda, but outside of a few scattered citations, they have failed to make a case that Hussein is an active ally of Osama bin Laden.

By offering an implausible rationale, the administration raises suspicion, particularly outside the United States, that it must have a secret agenda for ousting Hussein. Many people think that President George W. Bush wants to control Iraq's oil fields on behalf of U.S. companies. In mid-January, the German weekly Der Spiegel ran a cover story titled, "Blood for Oil." But anyone familiar with positions taken by American oil companies knows that this is implausible. In the late 1990s, oil companies lobbied to remove sanctions on Iraq. And most oil executives are extremely wary about the Bush policies toward Iraq, which they fear will destabilize the region.

What, then, explains the administration's Iraq policy? I offer here my own account, based on interviews with administration officials, press reports and, where necessary, speculation. It's not an explanation that will satisfy anyone looking for a single cause such as "blood for oil." Like many policy decisions, this one was the complicated and compromised product of different views and different factions within the administration. At any given point, it has contained contradictory aspects, wishful thinking and irrational fears, as well as the more conventional geopolitical calculations.

Three factions in the administration have been involved in formulating the Iraq policy: The first and most important has consisted of Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. They are Republican unilateralists who disdain international organizations and have been reluctant to intervene overseas except when they saw America's interests clearly at stake. The second faction is led by Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and CIA Director George Tenet. They adhere to the classic blend of realism and internationalism that had characterized the Bush Senior and Clinton administrations. And the third faction has been the neoconservatives, led by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

Before September 11, neither Bush nor Powell favored confrontation with Iraq. At the United Nations, Powell advocated "smart sanctions" designed to revive the Iraqi economy. Only the neoconservatives favored confronting Iraq, but they were preoccupied with China and were not represented within the cabinet itself. By last winter, however, opinion on Iraq had shifted dramatically. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld joined the neoconservatives in favoring confrontation. But they didn't share the neoconservative scenario of using an invasion of Iraq to install a model regime that would threaten its Arab neighbors, including Saudi Arabia. Instead, they were moved by two major considerations.

The first was geopolitical. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were not concerned about enriching American oil companies, but they were worried that if Iraq acquired nuclear weapons, Hussein could achieve dominance over a region vital to world economic stability. Quipped one State Department official in explaining their reasoning, "If the Gulf produced kumquats, would we be doing this? I have my doubts." They also feared that if Iraq acquired nuclear weapons, Israel would either attempt a preemptive strike of its own or develop a second strike capability that would destabilize the region. In his State of the Union address, Bush vowed that Hussein "will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the U.S.," but the administration generally has avoided any statements of purpose that explicitly included either oil or Israel. To do so, administration officials feared, would be to invite misunderstanding and opposition. Not to do so has equally invited misunderstanding.

The second consideration was more psychological. The September 11 attacks, combined with the subsequent anthrax episodes, created a national trauma -- a feeling of powerlessness in the face of the unknown. Bush and his administration were certainly not exempt. After the al-Qaeda and anthrax attacks, the administration sought to counter or eliminate any possible threat, and administration explanations invariably invoked America's newfound "vulnerability." Bush stated his own recurring nightmare in his State of the Union address: "Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." This scenario, seemingly far-fetched to many Europeans, was not just for public consumption but rather reflected fears in the White House about another September 11. (Indeed, some CIA officials continue to believe that Iraq was responsible for the anthrax attacks after September 11.) Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld believed that by knocking out Hussein they would reduce America's vulnerability to attack. Of course, an attack against Iraq could increase the incidence of terrorism in the Middle East and against the United States by creating a new Islamic martyr. But Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld may have been convinced otherwise by neoconservative arguments that an attack would scare Arab leaders into cracking down on their own native terrorists and curbing anti-Americanism in their schools and media.

Powell and his allies did not share these views. They continued to believe that Hussein could be contained without risk to the United States. Last summer they provoked a debate within the administration that was finally resolved (with pressure from British Prime Minister Tony Blair and congressional Democrats) when Bush agreed to seek a UN resolution that would focus on disarming Hussein rather than overthrowing him. From that point on, the administration no longer spoke of regime change as its objective. But the resulting decision reflected at best a compromise between Powell and the other two factions. Bush outwardly embraced Powell's strategy but continued to act as if the administration's real objective was regime change. He didn't just send troops to the Mideast but leaked war plans, and even had a military general boast that troops were already inside Iraq. He sought to bully rather than work with the United Nations.

Of course, Hussein would never have allowed inspectors back into Iraq if Bush hadn't produced a credible threat on Iraq's borders. But Bush never signaled to wary allies or to Baghdad that if the Iraqi dictator were to comply with UN Resolution 1441, the United States would withdraw from Iraq's immediate perimeter (and find the will to coexist with Hussein). He never sent his secretary of state, as his father had sent James Baker on the eve of the Gulf War, to make clear to Hussein that disarmament was an alternative to war. Instead, administration officials told reporters that they had no faith in the United Nations and that war was inevitable.

Bush was also unwilling to rest his case against Hussein solely on the Iraqi's refusal to abide by the post-Gulf War disarmament resolutions. Instead, the administration released in September, after the president's UN speech, an official strategy paper that sanctioned preemptive attacks against "emerging threats." The paper also stated that "while the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone." To Europeans who already believed that the United States was out to capture Iraq's oil fields, these words suggested that America aspired to be the new Rome.

Bush's September UN strategy was a hodgepodge of contradictory intentions. When Powell, the good soldier, finally abandoned any attempt to stop the administration's rush to war, Bush's goal became abundantly clear. But the reason for its urgency remained unclear and susceptible to misinterpretation, particularly outside the United States. The administration's Iraq strategy may yet turn out to be a success -- if, for instance, Hussein is forced into a last-minute exile. But Bush appears to have squandered an opportunity either to avoid a war or to fight one on the most favorable terms. If the administration had made clear that it would accept a disarmed Iraq without Hussein's ouster, it might have eventually forced the Iraqi dictator to comply with UN Resolution 1441. If Hussein still refused to comply, the administration would have enjoyed the broad support of a powerful coalition with which to go to war. Instead, the United States is likely to obtain at best a grudging acceptance of its war plans. And erstwhile allies, as well as implacable foes, will characterize the war as George W. Bush's attempt to take over the Middle East. In this interdependent world, that's not a reputation the United States wants to have.

John B. Judis

[Miruvor]

Good article, thanks.

[Ralenquil]

Terror attacks against the US

1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy is destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shi'ite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.
1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Two Libyan intelligence officers were tried under Scottish law in The Hague; only one, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, was found guilty, in Jan. 2001.
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center; killing six and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and nine others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. Thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near two U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. Four men, two of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole was heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. Seventeen sailors were killed in what was apparently a deliberate terrorist attack. Prime suspect thought to be Osama bin Laden, or members of his al-Qaeda terrorist network.

2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed two commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; two more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 3,038, including the 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed.

Maybe Americans finally decided to fight back instead of just let things like these attacks go.

[Ralenquil]

Just something to read and think about


THE RESENTMENTS OF OLD EUROPE
William Hague says the present crisis is confirming the virtues of Anglo-American attitudes

By William Hague

A few years ago, as I waited for a plane in Phoenix airport, I fell into conversation with a woman from Tucson. She greeted my statement that I had just flown on a plane from Britain with a level of astonishment that would not have been out of place if I had said it was a spaceship from Pluto. 'And what is the weather like there?' she asked, wide-eyed with curiosity. 'Oh,' I said, 'it's pretty wet, but that's what comes of living on an island at the edge of the ocean.'

'Britain is an island!' she exclaimed. 'Hey, John,' she shouted to her husband, 'did you know the Brits all live on an island?'

Such encounters feed all our prejudices about America. They stand accused of being insular, unsophisticated and ignorant of the rest of the world. In many European eyes, these grave deficiencies make it all the more annoying that they have nevertheless become by far the richest and most powerful nation on our planet. To be seen as stupid invites contempt, and to be powerful produces respect, but to be known as both at the same time creates a particularly intense form of jealousy and resentment.

Such are the feelings of many on this side of the Atlantic towards America's assertion of its power. Bush is more dangerous than Saddam, they chant. Americans have killed more people than the Iraqis. The US seeks world domination and an oil monopoly. If none of these things is true, then the Americans just don't understand us in the rest of the world. And allied to the heated chants of demonstrators is the cold power-play of the Elysée Palace, freely confessed to by French ministers in private, determined to take the opportunity to scotch Anglo-American leadership in world affairs.

But what is the true nature of America? Is the US really more dangerous to world peace than a mass-murdering, genocidal dictator who has invaded his neighbours, used chemical weapons, stowed away hundreds of tons of anthrax and tortured tens of thousands to death? Is it now an imperialist nation?

I have been lucky enough to travel across most of the states of America. I have sat with old men on their porches in Tennessee, and ridden with young wranglers in Montana in the mountains of the Great Divide. As a politician, I have visited schools in New York, retirement homes in Florida and technology firms in San Diego. And I have to say that it would be hard to come across a nation of people less imperialist by culture, temperament and inclination. America was forged in the first place by the families of Protestant settlers who had a work ethic, a strong sense of right and wrong, and a hostility to governmental power and royal authority. They went to a new land in order to be away from wars, taxes and kings. Their attitudes, reinforced by the waves of dispossessed people who have joined them in succeeding centuries, remain the central characteristics of America today. Americans are still by nature disrespectful of authority, deeply democratic by instinct, very conscious !
of their freedom, and particularly happy to live in a vast and beautiful land which is free from external threats.

Such people are difficult to rouse to war. If Americans are insular - and many of them are - they cannot be imperialist at the same time. In British and French eyes, their sin over much of the last century has been isolationism: 'too proud to fight', as Woodrow Wilson said. Americans have always hated joining in other people's conflicts. Only unrestricted submarine attacks off their west coast brought them into the first world war, and only a direct attack on American soil in Pearl Harbor brought them into the second, even Churchill's brilliant eloquence having made little progress with them until then. Once roused, however, they have responded with a mixture of determination, loyalty and generosity that no other nation has ever matched. Without America, France would have lived in a dark age of dictatorship for decades. Without America, Germans could not have rescued themselves from a racist ideology. And without America, Europe's only alternative to Nazi tyranny would have !
been communist tyranny. American troops left behind them an independent and democratic Japan, and brought Europe the Marshall Plan - both supreme acts of enlightenment in foreign policy. They share with Britain, but not with other European powers, the distinction of leaving democracy and freedom in their wake wherever they can.

That very freedom now gives millions the right to protest. South Koreans now resent the US troops without whom their society could not have survived. The French, it seems, have never got over the indignity of having to be rescued. And as the responsibilities of being a superpower in a Cold War required Americans to intervene in a wider range of conflicts, such resentment can be found anywhere on earth.

But now Americans are roused once again. They suffered on 11 September an attack on their own soil more devastating to human life than Pearl Harbor itself. Europeans sympathised, but they did so in the manner of sympathising with a friend who has suffered a bereavement. Americans actually experienced the bereavement. Pre-emptive warfare is their response, and if it had been Canary Wharf or the Eiffel Tower that had been reduced to dust, such a policy would be cheered to the echo. Those Europeans, including British people, who attack American policy have not seen thousands of their own citizens killed before their eyes in a single act. And they are not prepared to do anything about it themselves.

This surely is the crucial point. Americans are not warlike people, but they will now go after rogue states and terrorists because, if they don't, no one else will. All over the world, America takes on responsibilities because others shirk them. They got involved in Kosovo because Europeans had neither the means nor the ability to sort it out. They pursue a 'one-sided' policy on Israel because without it the Jews would be driven into the sea. They need a huge increase in military spending partly because France, Germany and others are not prepared to spend a penny more themselves.

What the present crisis underlines is that Western Europe is losing its influence. In the coming decades, the greatest growth of manufacturing will be in China, the fastest growth of population in the Middle East and India, and the strongest enterprise culture and greatest military power will remain in America. The sound we can hear from Paris and Berlin is not the march of ever closer union, but the rage of ever closer impotence. Once again, when the world gets dangerous, it is the Americans, British and Australians who respond. The vacuum left by others leaves us no choice. And if America leads us yet again in destroying another murdering despot, I will join the woman in Tucson who has no knowledge of where I live, in saying, 'God Bless America.'

[Old Man Muffin]

I am totally with Bush, war is, unfortunately, our way to peace. It is the human way. God gave us free will and too many people abuse the privilege. Sorry, but, war is unavoidable, and the U.S. is going!

[Bonos-Girl]

war the way to peace? hmm.....seems unlikely to me.

war would not be unavoidable if the governent and george bush listened to what peple had to say rather than trying to figure out whether going to war without a resolution would be illegal (which it obviously would be...it wasn't ambiguous at all....but thats just MHO).

anyways...wasr is not unavoidable...just inevitable withm the pople in power that we have.

[Catz]

yes i accept that the US has become a terrorist target lately.............but that has nothing to do with Iraqu......terrorists dont have a race, terrorists are those who would bully and blackmail their way to what they want..........i accept also that Hussain is a menace to his own people......most Iraquis would agree too.........and thats the real irony here.........Hussain isnt a popular leader.......and most Iraquis dont follow him.........but many will die for him.........but the US has managed to remove inconvenient leaders before now, without resorting to war
:catz:

[Miruvor]

I wish everyone could be as clear-headed as Catz.
This afternoon, I went down to watch (and stand in) the ongoing Sunday afternoon anti-war protest here in my city. (It's quite exciting and drawing huge crowds and traffic honking)
It makes me think the newspaper polls that report over 50% of Americans supporting war, as probably biased and bogus.

Loved seeing a big sign with that picture of Bush with the inset showing him wearing The One Ring, and the caption said
'Frodo failed'.

[Arkenstone]

Can it be that I am actually the first person here to mention the Kurds? A milloin....not hundreds....not thousands....not even hundreds of thousands...but a MILLION people put to death because they didn't fit into Saddam's plans. By way of VX nerve gas, men, women, and CHILDREN were destroied. I cannot say they were killed, as I read the reports on how this particular nerve agent works. Imagine coughing out your loungs and bleeding from evey opening in your body, your nerve endings on fire, till death takes you. Some of these people took DAYS to die!

Guess who authorized this action....

He's the current leader of Iraq.

Ok, boys & girls of the world, time to go to school...


American technology is better than you think. We have weapons that will destroy a weapons factory and not touch the school or hospital next door 97.6 % of the time. Sorry, not beings gods, that's the best we can do.

We have missiles that do nothing but seek and destroy other missiles. 12 years ago, they NEVER missed! The one that the media said missed, well, here's what happened. 4 seconds after fireing and locking onto the outbound SCUD missile, the SCUD's engine malfunctioned, and it went down. Our missile tracked it, and hit it on the ground. The damage done to the civilian area was done by the SCUD before our's hit.

It is a cold, hard fact that civies get killed in war. But, if you build your school next to the factories that make your weapons, can you really blame the country you are at war with for it's distruction?

As I stated elseware, being a former soldier, I know that war is the last option. But why are we the only ones with the big brass ones that are willing to be the bad guys and step up to the plate?

This is not about oil. This is not about beliefs. This is about terror.
If I could give myself to end the terror in the world, I'd blow my own brains out right now. If killing an innocent person would mean lasting world peace, I'd pull the trigger.
Unfortunatly, these options do not work.

Welcome to the human race.

[Bonos-Girl]

97.6% still leaves 2.4% that you do hit schols and hospitals and stuff......i know you aren't gods but surely the best you can do is not have any chance of bombing schols and hospitals by not bombing iraq. many of the weapons favctories have got civilians standing inside them or next to them because saddam is forcing them to stand there.

i've said it before, i'll say it again....bombing iraq is not going to remove saddam from leadership.

[SindarinGirl]

DarkStormCrow, thank you. The article you have posted is thoughtful, eloquent and, to a proud American, greatly appreciated.

BG, I'm sorry but we can't leave Iraq alone because Saddam puts his civilians in harm's way. It's like when a child gets his way because he throws a temper tantrum, he will throw that tantrum every time he wants something he shouldn't have. I'm not saying this to belittle those people's lives. But if this tactic works to keep us from destroying the weapons and plants this time, he'll do it again and again, all the while developing and building more dangerous weapons.

[Bonos-Girl]

i'm not saying that we should not interfere, just that bombiing weapons stores is not entirely different to bombing schools or hostpitals.

[SindarinGirl]

The only reason that you are right, that the munitions dumps are not too different from hospitals and schools, is because he is putting his own civillians there under threat of torture and death.
Weapons stores are viable military targets. One of the main goals in a war is to destroy the enemy's weapons so they can no longer fight, and must surrender, ending the war as quickly as possible, therefore preventing excessive loss of life, if at all possible.
Hospitals and schools are not accepted military targets, and as much as possible, they will be avoided. But, unfortunately we cannot allow Hussein to continue in power because we might destroy a hospital, housing complex or school if we wage war in Iraq. I guarantee that prospect will stop him if he's given the chance.

[Bonos-Girl]

the main outcome of war is excessive loss of life. if you don't want it then don't start a war...its simple.

[SindarinGirl]

Yes, it's very simple, isn't it?
Let's pretend we all leave Saddam alone, we turn a blind eye to his development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. What do you think he's going to do with those arms once he has them?
He's wiped out whole populations of his own countrymen, what makes you think that any other nation will be safe from him?

If you could convince Saddam to not invade his neighbors, to stop gassing his own people, to stop torturing and executing his detractors and their families, then yes, this war would be totally unnecessary. But no one has been able to do that, so now war is coming.
I don't want it to be this way, I hate the idea of our soldiers going into that country to face whatever he's been growing in his petri dishes, but with a heavy heart I accept that it's the only option left. Feeling sorry for the Iraqi civilians isn't going to change that fact or deter us from the objective: to remove him from power.

[Illuvatar]

Well, I personally have been refraining from posting in this particular thread. I have seen some great posts and thoughtfull viewpoints being shared from both sides of the issue.

My thoughts on this are a little complicated. I'm an ex-Navy man myself, and my father spent 23 years in the Army, also my son has joined the Navy on the delayed entry program and is due to ship out in October. So needless to say, the probable war with Iraq ways heavily in my household.

I have basically two major points that if given the chance I would put before the UN and our present leaders if I could.

#1. Saddam must be removed, of that there is no doubt. This man attempted Genocide, and that is considered a crime against humanity. Why has he not been brought before the War Crimes Tribunal on these charges? Is this tribunal selective? This was my question after we stopped at the gates of Bagdad and ended the Persian Gulf war. In my mind...knowing that these crimes were commited, and leaving him in power instead of putting him on trial before the whole world, did every nation on the planet a dis-service. What's the point of having a system to handle crimes such as genocide if you don't use it!

#2. There has been a mass build up of troops, ships, arms, etc. in preparation for the planned assault on Iraq which while must be dealt with, hasn't attacked anyone in awhile now. It's basically just unfinished business. The question is, we were attacked in New York, or should I say back on 9/11 we were attacked, but we did not send 1/4 of the amount of the troops that are currently in the Gulf to Afanistan to take care of Osama and those folks. I am really confusled about this! With as many troops as are built up now, we could have practically walked though Afagan and tossed Osama in a cell. Now we're buidling up massive amounts of force against a very depleted opponent. All the while, the retribution for the 9/11 attacks goes unfinished! pfbbt

Does any of this make sense? Or is my logic all fouled up?

Please don't think my un-patriotic....I love my country and the freedoms we enjoy, but some things need to be asked, and those are my feelings and the questions that I have.

[Catz]

umm lets not get sidetracked here into the red herring of attacking Hussain because of the atrocities hes committed against his own people.......that really doesnt hold water
look at the Shah of Iran........under his leadership.......a govt supported by the US i might add.........there were thousands of people detained without trial, executed........taken by secret police raids..............many just disappeared......but that was OK........and as for the terrorism angle.........thats just patently rubbish......most of the terrorists in the trade centre attack were Saudi nationals........but Bush isnt attacking Saudi is he?......maybe theyre just a tad too well prepared and too stable to take easily?
now dont get me wrong.........im not anti american at all........im just very concerned about the hidden agenda of the present US president
:catz:

[Little Devil]

Well, I'm listening to the news on TV, right now and war looks closer then ever before. :(

[Finrod Felagund]

Ill:
1. We were prevented from going to Bagdad b/c Bush Sr. knew the backlash would be like it is today. GW is now paying for that lack of foresight.
2. The Russians already tried that

Catz: yep we have backed some nasty folks in the past (much to my embarrassment) but is that a reason to continue to make the same mistake.

Answer me this: will the world be a better place without Saddam Hussein?
Will the Iraqis be better off with out Saddam.
Will the Middleast be a better place with a democracy in Iraq?

He has demonstrated that he will change his ways by one method only and that is at the point of a bayonet. If you think that diplomacy will work on a genocidal dictator who kills, tortures and starves his own people and has some of the most powerful countries in the world by the short hairs, I've got a bridge to sell you... cheap

[Catz]

well i never said that diplomacy would work did i?
it wont........Saddam Hussain is clearly not playing with a full deck......i never disagreed with his removal, just with the choice of war as the meduim of that removal
the US has managed to remove people it found objectionable by other means before now.........thats why i wonder why war is necessary now..........and yes im sure that most Iraquis will be glad to see the back of Saddam..........the live ones that is...........this war is not to save the people of Iraqu from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussain, and to me its offensive to suggest that it is.......to use them as an excuse, when had the US interests not been at stake, they would simply have ignored whatever Saddam did to them
:catz:

[Finrod Felagund]

Catz, what were our interests in the Balkans or Somalia or any of these other places where American's and her allies have lost there lives?
But seriously, can you name who the US has removed with out invading, I can think of several that we would like removed and haven't, Castro and Kim Jong Il come to mind. We did put Noreaga in jail, but after we invaded and he was forcibly removed.
And we would have to "remove" Saddam's sons also, they are more ruthless than he is.

On a different tack:

Some of you who think you know how to save the world with a Coke and a Smile think that my president and his staff are stupid and uninfomed, well, before you go shooting your mouth off and sounding foolish for talking about something you have absoulutely no clue about, take a look at the education and experience of those you are insulting.


President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic re-election victory, he became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year terms on November 3, 1998 winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998 Governor Bush won49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern Republican other than Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone began circulating a false story about his I. Q. being lower than any other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to URBANLEGENDS. COM and see the truth.)

Vice President Dick Cheney: Earned a B. A. in 1965 and a M. A. in 1966, both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice President Cheney regularly goes to Capital Hill to meet with Senators and members of the House of Representatives to work on the Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America.

Secretary of State Colin Powell: Educated in the New York City public schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at CCNY and received a commission as an Army second lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of numerous U. S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal, the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary degrees from universities and colleges across the country.(Note: He retired as Four Star General in the United States Army)

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: Attended Princeton University on Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U. S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval aviator; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin (R-MI), 1957-59; U. S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U. S. Ambassador to NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77.

Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge: Raised in a working class family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U. S. Army, where he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the U. S. House, and was overwhelmingly re-elected six times.

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice: Earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science, *** Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph. D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. (Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15, graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (*** Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in Political Science.) She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U. S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J. P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she resides in Washington, D. C.


Not only are these people educated but they have the most powerful intelligence gathering agencies in the world keeping them informed. They have access to the CIA, NSA, FBI, and several others that escape my mind. They also recieve information from the varius intelligence agencies from other countries.

I started to go off on a rant but it got way off topic so I deleted it, it was quite grand too...

[SindarinGirl]

If the US only gets involved when it's in our best interest, what benefit were we looking for in the Phillipines, Kosovo or Somalia? Why do we back Israel? To say that we are totally self-servng in sending our troops and supplies around the world is not entirely fair.

"Catz: yep we have backed some nasty folks in the past (much to my embarrassment) but is that a reason to continue to make the same mistake." Finrod

The French, German, Japanese or British peoples are hardly in a position to cast stones over past US foreign policy. There are very few modern nations that haven't, at one time or another, engaged in activities outside their own borders that cause some throat-clearing and apologetic stammering in the current generations.

[Finrod Felagund]

Throat clearing and stammering, I like that

[Bonos-Girl]

Originally posted by SindarinGirl
Yes, it's very simple, isn't it?
Let's pretend we all leave Saddam alone, we turn a blind eye to his development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. What do you think he's going to do with those arms once he has them?
He's wiped out whole populations of his own countrymen, what makes you think that any other nation will be safe from him?

If you could convince Saddam to not invade his neighbors, to stop gassing his own people, to stop torturing and executing his detractors and their families, then yes, this war would be totally unnecessary. But no one has been able to do that, so now war is coming.
I don't want it to be this way, I hate the idea of our soldiers going into that country to face whatever he's been growing in his petri dishes, but with a heavy heart I accept that it's the only option left. Feeling sorry for the Iraqi civilians isn't going to change that fact or deter us from the objective: to remove him from power.

I'm not saying leave him alone, just that war does cause unneccesary loss of life whether or not you believe it's for the best.

Originally posted by SindarinGirl

I have basically two major points that if given the chance I would put before the UN and our present leaders if I could.

#1. Saddam must be removed, of that there is no doubt. This man attempted Genocide, and that is considered a crime against humanity. Why has he not been brought before the War Crimes Tribunal on these charges? Is this tribunal selective? This was my question after we stopped at the gates of Bagdad and ended the Persian Gulf war. In my mind...knowing that these crimes were commited, and leaving him in power instead of putting him on trial before the whole world, did every nation on the planet a dis-service. What's the point of having a system to handle crimes such as genocide if you don't use it!

#2. There has been a mass build up of troops, ships, arms, etc. in preparation for the planned assault on Iraq which while must be dealt with, hasn't attacked anyone in awhile now. It's basically just unfinished business. The question is, we were attacked in New York, or should I say back on 9/11 we were attacked, but we did not send 1/4 of the amount of the troops that are currently in the Gulf to Afanistan to take care of Osama and those folks. I am really confusled about this! With as many troops as are built up now, we could have practically walked though Afagan and tossed Osama in a cell. Now we're buidling up massive amounts of force against a very depleted opponent. All the while, the retribution for the 9/11 attacks goes unfinished!

Does any of this make sense? Or is my logic all fouled up?



no your logic is most definitely not fouled up. all you are saying makes complete sense. i wondered for a while why Bush was suddenly interested in Iraq after spending not very long not doing much with Afghanistan who he seemed to blame for 9/11. it makes no sense, as far as i can see Sadam hasn't done anything recently that would make people notice him more than before, yet dubya is still more intent in waging war on Iraw than getting Afghanistan over and done with. Although i think he was kinda wrong about the whol Afghanistan is entirely to blame for terrorism thing.....since when do terrorists make up an entire country?!

[Miruvor]

Go back and read my previous post. Iraq and 9/11 are two different things. They have planned on ousting Saddam since 1998 but are doing it now to take advantage of the riled up emotions of the public, who were not interested in invading Iraq in 1998, or even in June of 2001. It's a bait and switch tactic.
All of those well educated people listed above are putting their evil genius to work on you / us.

[Bonos-Girl]

according to Bush and most of our government they've been planning to oust him since 12 years ago (not them specifically...).

i wasn't saying they are linked, just that dubya is using 9/11 as an excuse to bomb iraq (so basically i'm agreeing with you.....)

[Lady Arien]

I was stirred by the truthfulness of Arkenstone's post...obviously, like Hitler, who believed he was carrying out a God-inspired plan to protect his country, Saddam (and, I believe, and entire network of those like him) is an utter madman....and the mad do not listen to reason...he was given an ultimatum and basically laughed in the President's face...and the insanity goes on, and all the talk of a peaceful solution to the problem is just that...talk....it seems as though the US is now the bad guy because we've chosen (at long last) to step up and clean house....do I agree with the war.....in a perfect world, no, but inviting Saddam and those like him for a cup of tea and a dose of reason would be as effective as spitting into the ocean to get its attention....as we prayed around our dinner table last night for the Almighty powers that guide us (no...I don't mean the government) and protect those we love who have been called to duty, and presently could be, I found myself thinking that if I were ten years younger, and not a wife or mother, I would, indeed, join the military in support of this country, as my son has done, and I cannot disrespect his decision to turn his will and his life over to Uncle Sam by protesting under my own roof....Bush didn't get my vote, but as an American, he gets my support...I know Vietnam veterans who were spit on upon their return....I'd rip the tongue out of the head that was foolish enough to spit at my son....and before I'm asked to give a logical explanation for my feelings here, I want to say that my feelings, my deepest, gut-and-heartfelt feelings are just that, feelings, and not facts....they are the feelings of a parent, plain and simple...I look on my son with pride, and not a small amount of fear for his future, and the only explanation I'm prepared to give for that is unconditional support for his choice....I wish to the Goddess that my children did not have to live in the shadow of this impending doom, but simply wishing for a better way will not make it go away...the insane cannot be reasoned with.

[Arkenstone]

Lady Arien, that was beautiful!
Salute your son for me, and may the wind be at his back.

[Finrod Felagund]

evil genius?
I don't know whether to pity you or to be incensed. I'll chose pity
BG-
1. So does leaving that man and those of his kind alone
2. What makes you think we have left Afghanistan? You can't build a nation and form a Gov't in a few months. It took several YEARS before the men who founded the US to finally agree on a form of government. And they basically had the same idea, imagine trying to get people who are enemies to agree on something...

Nobody has answered my questions yet... just bashed Bush
And no one has given a workable solution other than forcbly evicting him... Just bashed Bush

[Catz]

ok first off Finrod.......while i appreciate that you feel strongly about this.........cool it, ok?..........no one is "bashing Bush" they are questioning his rationale......that IS after all one of the tenets of democracy.....and given that the decisions of President Bush will affect all of us, whether we have a say in it or not, i think we all have that right
oh and some of the worst dictators in history have been very well educated men........education does not presuppose correctness.......clever people get it wrong too.....and sometimes theyre just out for number one
and SG
The French, German, Japanese or British peoples are hardly in a position to cast stones over past US foreign policy. There are very few modern nations that haven't, at one time or another, engaged in activities outside their own borders that cause some throat-clearing and apologetic stammering in the current generations.
i never said they didnt......even my own tiny country has incidents in its past that are shameful............but were not mounting an attack on another country......the US is.......and to use human rights as an excuse is pretty hollow, when they have quite obviously ignored human rights abuses before, when it suited them to do so......im just saying that the rights of the average Iraqui dont have anything to do with this war.......oh and in the Philipines......the reasoning was to keep a US friendly govt stable and in power........Somalia and Kosovo were both to prevent the rise of Islamic states......and so is Israel actually........and Israel is a whole nother can o worms.....NO govt goes into a fight wthout some clear benefit to them..........gods if they did, wed get rid of em quick smart lol so to plead no self interest is naive to say the least......i just dont think weve been told the full reason for that self interest........and with politicians, its always what they dont say thats really important
:catz:

[Finrod Felagund]

I apologize if I have let my emotions come out in my responses and insulted anyone but I feel very strongly about this and I feel that some are reverting to insult and don't see the whole picture.
Having said that,
I beg to differ Catz, the intelligence and morals of President Bush have been labeled as moronic and evil by people on this and other forums. I'm all for giving one's opinions about anything but I can also give my views about others opinions. And thank you for not refering to him as "dubya" or some other disrespectful moniker.

I have never said that the only reason for war was to save the Iraqi people, I was using that argument to counter others argument that many will die in an invasion. Is a war in Iraq to oust Saddam in our best interst, absolutely, for more reasons than I have time to type, but one at least is that he is a threat to all of us, not directly but with the way he can support those that want to kill us and destroy our way of life. And yes the US, UK, Spain, Australia, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and several others have a lot to gain from Saddam's forcible exit. For one, added security in the long run. Make no mistake I believe this war, both pro and con, is about oil. Most wars are about power in some form or fashion, and these days oil is power. Since Saddam sits on a large portion of the world's oil (he has more reserves than the Saudi's) he can weild a disproportionate amount of power over those countries who do not have it. This allows him the freedom to develop NBC (Nuclear, Biological,Chemical) weapons that he has demostrated a will to use on his and other people. What is to stop him from exporting those weapons to others with even more will to use them? And yes if we remove him the weapons can be saught elsewhere but that's one less Tyrant and weapon stock pile to deal with. Can you deny that the world will be better off without him?
Now, the people of the countries who are against the war are in it for the right reason, they don't want to see people die, however those in power of those countries (not just their governments)are not, specifically the french, Germans, and Russians. I'll say it again, Saddam owes them each Tens of Billions of dollars and if he's gone, they will be hard pressed to see any of it. I have a very jaded view of politics because I observe history. And history has taught me that wars are over power. Our own Civil War was not fought for the End of Slavery, Slavery was a cause but not the main reason it was fought( the South was invaded, but that is for another discussion) . Even the American Revolution was over power to rule ourselves.
I can continue this tack if you want but I think I have made my point.

You are correct that intelligence does not breed morals, I was just defending their intelligence to those who thought otherwise. But to call their genius evil is just too much

Some of my country's actions are indefensible, but some (I'd like to think the majority) are not and I believe ridding the world of Saddam is one.

I hope my reply has been adequate, if not lenghty, and written without sarcasm or insult. If not, tough:p

[Shieldmaide of Rohan]

Personally, Im really fearful for what war could mean for all of us, especially when its people you know and love being called up to fight.

Having said that my roomate is an Iraqi (she emmigrated to the US in 1999) and she is unbelievably pro-war. I certainly give her view a lot of weight since she knows what it is like to live under the Hussein dictatorship. She just wants the war to be over quickly so her relatives still living there can finally be free.

[SindarinGirl]

Catz, I never claimed to believe that Dubya (sorry, Finrod) is in this war purely for the liberation of the Iraqi people. Actually I've stated the same view as you hold on why the President is in Iraq, but what I am saying (like Finrod) is that ridding the country of Saddam's tyranny will be a positive benefit and as such, shouldn't that be enough reason to take this action? Or would you prefer we continue to let them suffer so they can be added to our list of foreign policy sins?
It really sounds as if you're holding us to a double standard: You're reminding us of helping other regimes terrorize their populations, and now that one of the benefits of a change in Iraq will end the same type of horrors, it sounds like you're saying the ONLY reason we're doing it is for our own good.
Yes, innocent people will die in this war. I'm willing to bet it will be fewer than if we leave Saddam in power, especially if you count all the Iraqis and Kuwaitis he's already massacred.

So what does the world want from us? You (not you, specifically Catz, I'm using the "universal you") want us to stay out of Iraq, so that years later you can all gripe about how we let those people suffer and die under Hussein, or are we supposed to go in there (for whatever main reason Dubya has) and give those folks a break from the genocidal maniac who's in power? It can't be both ways.

On the same train of thought, I've noticed that not too many folks are badmouthing us for entering WW I and WW II purely for our own interests. Or was it okay that we did that because it happened to help them out as well? Do you think the generations that lived through the Nazi invasion and then under the shadow of the Soviet Union cares whether or not the US came to Europe because we wanted something in return? And what did we get out of that besides the chance to rebuild Europe and hold the Soviets from rolling through the continent?

BTW, Somalian operations were as follows: "The Army forces were to secure an airfield and key installations, and provide security for the safe passage of relief supplies.
Security was quickly established at all food distribution sites and connecting routes to ensure rapid distribution of food and humanitarian supplies throughout the country. Army forces in Somalia were reduced in preparation for a transition to a United Nations peacekeeping force. All forces departed Somalia by the end of March 1994." www.bragg.army.mil
It was about feeding people, not preventing the rise of an Islamic govt.
And Kosovo: "In NATO's war against Serbia's ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, soldiers of the US Army's Task Force Hawk--originally assigned to protect the Army Apache helicopters that were never used in combat--enter Kosovo after Yugoslavian troops are forced to withdraw." www.pbs.org
Again, not about preventing an Islamic govt. from being established.

Okay, long and wordy (my apologies) but hopefully clear and respectful for the most part.

[Bonos-Girl]

surely counting the number of iraqis and kuwaitis saddams aleady killed isn't very fair since this war on iraq won't exacltly bring them back to life so they've been killed either way.

...and erm..i'd just like to say that i ahve in fact badmouthed you (universal you) for entering into WW1 and WW2 but that has nothing to do with iraq, they are completely different situations.

[Finrod Felagund]

please explain that last one BG... about bad mouthing us for entering WW1 and 2

[Eowyn]

okay why does 'hide' come to mind? :huh: I've switched my TV off so I don't have to keep hearing them going on about the damn war!

[Lady Arien]

I'm with Finrod, BG....please explain it...if there is an explanation....

[Little Devil]

It really does get very depressing, always going on about the war, I think that the troops are now flying over Bagdad which is very muched almost emptied, and now bracing itself for an attack.

[Gatsby]

This sux... i really do not want to go to war... bloody Bush! is there going to be an adress tonight?
out
gatz

[Black Rider]

ok i'm just going to poke my petite little head into this thread and share my 2 cents. i haven't read all the pages of this post, just this and the last one so i'll probably repeat some things but whatever...

i'm against war, but war is inevitable. i feel that we are going to have to get into a war to get out of the mess we've gotten ourselves into (we = america) in his farewell address, george washington warned the united states to stay isolationist, but in this day and age it is damned near impossible to do that. however, the united states has been somewhat of a bully with it's culture in other countries. coming in and expecting developping countries to choose american forms of government.

another subject about this that i feel even stronger about is the france-bashing this country is doing. just today some seniors in one of my classes were serious when they were talking about how we should never use words such as consierge, or r.s.v.p. because they are french. a popular statement in my area is also, "the u.s. going to war without france is like the u.s. going to war without it's acordian". my french class, the advanced french class for our school is starting a pro-french culture campaign of sorts in our school to end this nonsense ethnocentricity of the kids that is so appauling. but they are thinking that because this country does not support the u.s. everything about them is wrong and corrupt. and this is the impression that the world is getting of our country. if another country does not support us, then we will either alienate their culture, or go to war with them. i'm not saying it's true, it's just an impression.

in conclusion, i'm very angry that the u.s. has chosen such brash and unsupported actions against iraq, but we must dig ourselves out of the mess with the lives of our soldiers that the government's foreign policy made for us.

[Miruvor]

That pretty much sums it up. Were on the brink now and it's obvious no amount of talk or reasoning will dissuade Bush's course of action, and there is no time left, so, dig in it is. But I don't think this will be good for our reputation in the end.

[Sharky]

Just over 2 years ago East Timor had a vote for independance from Indonisia which resulted in violence from some Militia. Many were killed but Australia did nothing immediately because to send in troops in was a violation of Indonesian teritory. A vote was taken in the UN to send in peace keeping force and Australia, being closest, was first on the scene and eventually order was restored.

I think I can say that our prime Minister had the majority support of the nation for this course of action. We can't invade another county by international law, but a clear UN madate makes it legal until the UN and established goverment.

Now the same Australian government has commited troops, planes & ships to a war against a country thousands of kilometres away, and without a UN mandate. To me this just seems wrong.

It saddens me that the Australian governemt holds the treaty with the US over the obligations to the UN.

If we (the world) are going to try and have some sort of international law then it will only work if strongest & richest countries abide by it, rather than see it as a nusance that can be worked around and avoided.

[Alatar]

Well i am going to a little off topic hear but bear with me.

With the East Timor situation we(Australia) should of sent troops there along time ago to help the East Timories, thousands of them died defending Australia in WW2(i think it was that one). As soon as the volence started to happen and civilians were being killed we should of went there and protected them as they had done for us years before.

Now back to the topic.

I belive that we needed to go and should of gone there with American and British troops. If America or Britan our ALLIES! goes to war and they ask for assistance we should go, i think some people are forgetting the thousands of men and woman who died in stopping the Japanese from from reaching Australia years ago. I think we should go with our Allies as a sign of respect for there decisions and because we owe them our commitment, for if they go to war and ask of assistance and we refuse to help what sort of an Allie are we?? when we dont assist our freinds like they did In WWI & WWII.

Saddam Hussein is a Villian to humanity, and the sooner he is overthrown the sooner the world can relax.

[Gwaihir]

This war is getting too confusing for me! :( I hope it ends quickly with least casualty. I don't want anything to do with the war!

[SindarinGirl]

BG - I would like to hear your rationale behind the statement you made about badmouthing the US for our involvement in World Wars 1 & 2. I realize it's off-topic, but I'm very curious about your view.

When I suggested comparing the numbers of dead btw war in Iraq and the ones Hussein has had murdered, it was more a comparison of two evils. I realize that war will not bring those massacred back to life, but if it prevents Hussein from continuing his genocidal policies then surely it is the lesser of the two evils. Yes, I am sorry that civilians will die in this war, just as they die in every war, but many more of them will die if we sit back and do nothing, while we wait for the UN (predominantly France and Russia) to decide he's gone too far. How many more millions dead will it take?
People all over the world are accusing us of not caring about the Iraqi people, but I see very few of them doing anything for the Iraqis at all.
You have acknowledged that diplomacy won't work with him, and that we shouldn't let him continue in power, but we shouldn't go to war. What option does that leave us since the UN isn't moving? What course of action would you support?

Black Rider, there are over 56,000 Americans buried in France who died liberating that country not once, but twice, from invasion and occupation. We came to their support in Vietnam in 1954, and entered into a disastrous war that had nothing to do with us, because France is our ally and we stood with them against the rise of Communism in a country they occcupied, for right or wrong. Having that country rail against us and refuse their support in our military actions over the past 30 years (with very few exceptions) has left many in the US bitter about the aid and friendship we've given them in the past.
And the quote is: "Going to war without France is like going duck hunting without your accordion."

[Black Rider]

ah yes! that was it, i remember. i wonder who made it up. oh well. what you say is true but they don't need to express themselves in such vulgar ways as i've seen walking down the hallways of my school. politics is one thing, fromage is another.

[Finrod Felagund]

Hurrah for the Brits! I'm going to buy a Jag

[Alatar]

Australians have Stood by the Americans and the British since WWI and WWII, and we will continue to do so through this war and the ones to follow.

God Bless Australia:thumbs:

[Catz]

im not trying to hold anyone to a double standard SG.......merely pointing out that there is one here and wondering why its SO important that the US go to war with Iraq to "save the Iraqui people", when its fine for US friendly govts to kill their people........you have to wonder why.........and just accepting that Mr Bush has, as i heard on a chat show yesterday, "his reasons, and intelligence we dont have" is truely a betrayal of one of the basic tenets of democracy........that the leader is accountable to the led
and i would also just like to say thank you to all who have contributed to this thread for the maturity of you comments, on a very delicate and sensitive topic.........thank you all........;) and keep it up ;)
:catz:

[Amoraq]

I hope this war ends quickly with as few casualties as possible. I kind of question President Bush's motives for going to war with Iraq. I really don't think it is that much about "freeing the Iraqi people" as it is about politics and money.

[Lintefaniel]

I would prefer that war didn't happen, and I really would prefer that it wouldn't happen in my lifetime, but for what ever reasons it is here. I certainly would like to believe it was for oil and then it would be easy for me to be against it. But many people suffer and die for causes we may be able to prevent by participating in this war over. I for one wish we didn't have to do it but if it has to happen, then let's pray for safety and swiftness. And those who will be judged in the end will be so by the only persons who should.

[Alatar]

Well i just saw on the news that 16 American & British soldiers were killed when there Helicopter crashed while flying from Kuwait, i pray for there loved ones and to there comrades.

The first casualties for the war on Iraq, and all due to faults in the aircraft as far as we know.
Truely this was a needless loss of live and i feel much smpathy for them.