A strike on Iraq

[pax]

We're making some progress here, FYMers. Let's try and keep the debate going in the civilized manner in which it is currently proceeding, mmmmmkay?

 

[ultraviolet7]

We're making some progress here, FYMers. Let's try and keep the debate going in the civilized manner in which it is currently proceeding, mmmmmkay?

Yes miss Fully subscribe to that

 

[Zoomerang96]

alright, if the us has the balls to attack everyone evil, since apparently they were blessed with the ability to decide what IS in fact good and evil when are they gonna attack the horrible chinese?

theyre a communist country.

they have been stockpiling weapons for years...they never fight big wars... there surplus MUST be huge.

oh wait! they dont have any oil...

i guess we dont need to fight them either...

 

[The Wanderer]

did I hear someone babbling about "pro-Western governments" in the Middle East? ha! what a oxymoron if I ever heard one! two-fold in fact

and the US is already fighting a war with the Chinese, albeit economic, which is what I prefer because that's when we are most leathal

 

[Salome]

Actually Salome, the real question is do we know what we are getting ourselves into if we do nothing at all?

simply put, I do not agree

I don't think you can let speculation decide military actions
-->
you can't decide on military actions without having a very clear idea about the consequences of your deeds

if you don't chances are you have only made the problem worse for the future

even if the chance of things getting worse is only 10% then IMO that is still too high to take a gamble and start a war

 

[STING2]

In response to Ultraviolet7:

1. How many dictatorships did the USA install in Europe after World War II? After all if its in the interest of the USA to replace a regime with a dictatorship so it can control everything, as you say, why not do it in the part of the world that is most important to the USA? Wouldn't have been a problem to do it either with Europe in ruins and considering how easy most of the countries fell to the Germans which we defeated. Where are the dictatorships today in Bosnia, Kosovo, South Korea, the rest of Eastern Europe? All area's of US military, political, and economic intervention.

a. The US invasion of Iraq does have to do with Saddam Hussains behavior which when combined with weapons of mass destruction and the opportunity to supply terrorist with those weapons, makes the case for changing the regime.

2. Actually "spyplane" was right in a way when he said the USA is the UN. In terms of enforcing UN resolutions especially regarding Iraq, the USA has been the UN. UN resolutions specifically stated that if Iraq violated the UN ceacefire terms(which it signed on to) that stopped the conflict in 1991, that the UN is obligated to enforce the terms by force if necessary. Iraq has never fully complied with the Gulf War Ceacefire terms and has been in open violation of them since November 1998. Rather than going against the UN, the USA is the only country attempting to live up to its UN obiligations in regards to enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.

3. People look at evidence differently, but few other nations have the technology that the USA does to see and investigate what may be going on behind the scenes in another country, and provide evidence for the need for intervention. It was non-intervention and Isolationism on the part of the USA that contributed to the starting of WW I and WW II. Engagement and the willingness to use force early on could have prevented these World War's. The US policies of Engagement and Containment since 1945 have been a great success. There is no evidence that the Talaban were helped to power in any way shape or form by the USA. The main critisism of the USA when it comes to Afghanistan after the Soviets left 1989, is that we were not involved and completely pulled out politically, economically and militarily. The Talaban were born out of schools in Pakistan and assisted and supported by Pakistan to take over Afghanistan in order to destroy or keep the Northern Alliance pinned down, who were their political enemies.

a. as far as US interventions worsening conditions in the country intervened in I refer to Europe, and several countries in Asia where your theory has no traction. As far as Hussain's replacement and the idea that the USA can't guarantee that his replacement will be better, similar things were said about the replacement of the dictatorships in Germany, Japan, and Italy. Those that thought we could not do it were wrong. If the USA is willing to commit enough resources to build a new nation in Iraq, the US can guarantee not only a stable democratic government, but a prosperous country as well.

4. In 1990 on the eve of the Gulf War, everyone was saying the same things, how every country in the middle east would become militantly anti-US and governments would be overthrown left and right. Islamic fundamentalism would reign supreme. Arabs would be in the streets everywhere pulling down their governments once the USA attacked Iraq. Not so, not even close. The same was said about the US invasion of Afghanistan last year, again this did not happen, not even in Pakistan. It is in Arab peoples interest to have Saddam Hussain removed from power as well and millions of arabs behind the scenes realize this. That is why these catastrophic events do not happen when the USA intervene's in a major way in the middle east.

5. There are cost to war, but one must also think of the cost of inaction. Doing nothing can be costly as well. This war will bring freedom and democracy to a country that has never known it, and throw out perhaps the worse dictator and certainly the most destabilizing influence in the middle east of the late 20th century and early 21st century. You, me and everyone else on this planet benefit when the world is made more secure by the elimination of a threat to international security. Intitially oil prices will go up as well as energy cost, but then they will return to normal and in fact drop as the region experiences more stability than it had before do to the removal of a regime that has attacked 4 countries in the region and been in a near state of war with either one or all its neighbors for the past 20 years. When the price of oil drops, so does the cost of energy for you and me that we use everyday. That free's up money and increases the amount of disposable income one can use to save or buy things which spurs economic growth. I imagine the few that you think are trying to some how cynically profit in some way from this are the President and his circle of advisors. Even if that was their aim, I really don't see how they could in the long run benefit, since this will lead to lower oil prices, plus they only get the opportunity for one more four year term in the Presidency, that is if they get re-elected.

 

[AcrobatMan]

I agree with sting2

 

[Klaus]

In response to Ultraviolet7:

1. How many dictatorships did the USA install in Europe after World War II?

a. The US invasion of Iraq does have to do with Saddam Hussains behavior which when combined with weapons of mass destruction and the opportunity to supply terrorist with those weapons, makes the case for changing the regime.

I think you missed the intention of the original post.

The point of ultraviolet7 was:
The chances are high that the current dictator is just exchanged for another dictator are pretty high here the US didn't install dictators in all - but in some countries.

2. Actually "spyplane" was right in a way when he said the USA is the UN. In

The US is not the UN .
Sadam Agreed once to let UN Troops in the country as long as there are no US Citizen among them (because some of the US-UN Guys were spys)

3. People look at evidence differently, but few other nations have the technology that the USA does to see and investigate what may be going on behind the scenes in another country, and provide evidence for the need for intervention. It was ..

Traditional Spys seem to work quite efficent. It was always the approach of the US to "investigate " their enemies with high-tech but the low-tech isn't neccessarily worse

Russians were quite efficient with that and if you look back to the 11th September lots of European countries "with a low budget on Spy technology" knew stuff the US didn't know.

BTW: i'm still waiting for the proof that there were chemical wepons in that factory like Mr. Clinton said!

non-intervention and Isolationism on the part of the USA that contributed to the starting of WW I and WW II. Engagement

Sorry but that just shows a lack of historical knowledge!

5. There are cost to war, but one must also think of the cost of inaction. Doing

There are more political options than war! (And no - we (US+Alies) didn't try verry hard in that point.

But the most important questions weren't asked.

1. Why do we (Western Media + Politics) see only one solution:
Starting War without using all diplomatic options before that?

2. Could it be that the US is used by some Iraq politicians who live in the US (and spend tons of $ in the last years for lobying) to get control over "their" country?

3. Wouldn't it be wise to think about arguments of allies?

4. Can we afford to wait until Sadam attacks another country?

5. Can the US afford to break international rules (is the US trustworthy after attacking in from the view of the islamic world)

6. How are the chances to win and kill the old dictator - how high is the "price" for the 2nd? (how many dead civilians and soldiers)

7. How about the Kurds after the War?

8. Why didn't we accept Sadam's invitaion for Mr. Blix (UN-Chiefinspector)

9. What will change after a War?


There are good reasons for a war - but there also good reasons against!

 

[STING2]

In response to Klaus:

Actually they way Ultraviolet7 presented their view did suggest that in nearly every case the USA installed a dictatorship to further its own interest. If the USA goes in to remove Saddam, the US military will be there for at least 10 years giving time for a democratic government to devolop. If the US invest the needed resources in Iraq, there is no chance for a return to dictatorship(look at Japan, Germany, Italy, and several other countries)

Upon the ending of the Gulf War, Saddam signed a ceacefire agreement in which US forces agreed to halt their advance towards Baghdad in exchange for the Iraq's agreeing to multiple conditions. These conditions were 1. the elimination of all Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear related components, weapons, and supplies. This was to be done by a group of international inspectors. It was very successful and was coming close to completion despite Iraqi interference, in the years 1991 to 1998, then in November 1998 the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq for good, a total open violation of the Gulf War Ceace fire terms, which when violated calls for the resumption of offensive military action against Iraq in order to bring them into compliance with UN resolutions. Other ceacefire resolutions included 2. return of Kuwaiti hostages and other missing Kuwaities, 3. paying for the rebuilding of Kuwait. There were other conditions in addition to these 3. The US is not the UN of course, but when UN resolutions need to be enforced especially in regards to Iraq, the US is usually the only country enforcing agreed upon UN resolutions. It makes it SEEM like then that the US is the UN.

In response to me saying that US Isolationism and non-intervention as chief tenents of US policy from 1900 to 1941 partly contributed to WW 1 and WW 2, your response was this:

"Sorry but that just shows a lack of historical knowledge"

Oh really. You could of asked me to explain myself or offered your own assesment of why my arguement was not valid, but instead you decided to print a false, unbased, and untactful statement about me. Not that I'm really concerned because I'd love to debate this specific point with you. Rather statements like that today in the FYM forum can get you kicked out of here if one of the mods see's it. Just be careful and please remind me if anything I ever say is out of line too! A great member of this forum was recently just kicked out.

You are certainly correct in stating there are other political options rather than war, but the USA has more than used these options for the past 12 years with mixed results in regards to Saddam. Sometimes force is necessary.

1. Name one diplomatic solution that the USA has not used over the past 12 years in regards to Iraq.

2. There are Iraqi dissendent groups in the USA, but these have actually largely been ignored by the US government over the past 12 years.

3. Certainly we do respect and consult are allies, but it would be foolish to do simply what they say, especially when it is the USA and not are allies that have the evidence that proves are allegations. I have not seen a convincing arguement by any of our allies yet.

4. Can we afford to wait for an event 10 times worse than 9/11 to happen before we act.

5. Again the USA is NOT breaking international rules by attacking Iraq. It is mandated that we attack under the conditions of the March 1991 UN ceacefire agreement. Breaking the agreement allows for the resumption of offensive operations against Iraq that were halted in 1991 only because Iraq agreed to the Ceacefire agreement.

6. What is the cost of NOT killing the old dictaror and replacing his regime with a democracy?

7. The Kurds will finally have a voice in the government in Baghdad, and Kurdish politicians will now have the opportunity to become the president of all of Iraq.

8. We didn't except it because it was inspections with restrictions. Part of Saddam's cheat and retreat strategy. The UN ceacefire agreement of 1991 called for un-restricted inspections of all of Iraq.

9. Iraq will become a prosperous democracy helping to bring greater stability to the middle east and lower energy cost for the entire world helping to spur economic growth.

The question of war with Iraq should be decided by the answer to this question: Does the risk of continuing with just containment of Iraq outweight the cost of regime change in Iraq?

 

[Klaus]

In response to Klaus:

Actually they way Ultraviolet7 presented their view did suggest that in nearly every case the USA installed a dictatorship to further its own interest. If

Right - all i wanted to say that the truth is somewhere inbetween your and Ultraviolet7's statement

the USA goes in to remove Saddam, the US military will be there for at least 10 years giving time for a democratic government to devolop. If the US invest the needed resources in Iraq, there is no chance for a return to dictatorship(look at Japan, Germany, Italy, and several other countries)

Right - IF the US invest these 10 Years.
But afaik Mr. Bush told the world that the US Troops are not in foreign countries for peacemission or as policemen - others should do that.

Upon the ending of the Gulf War, Saddam signed a ceacefire agreement in which US forces agreed to halt their advance towards Baghdad in exchange for the Iraq's agreeing to multiple conditions. These conditions were 1. the elimination of all Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear related components, weapons, and supplies. This was to be done by a group of international inspectors. It was very successful and was coming close to completion despite Iraqi interference, in the years 1991 to 1998, then in November 1998 the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq for good, a total open violation of the Gulf War Ceace fire terms, which when violated calls for the resumption of offensive military action against Iraq in order to bring them into compliance with UN resolutions. Other ceacefire resolutions included 2. return of Kuwaiti hostages and other missing Kuwaities, 3. paying for the rebuilding of Kuwait. There were other conditions in addition to these 3. The US is not the UN of course, but when UN resolutions need to be enforced especially in regards to Iraq, the US is usually the only country enforcing agreed upon UN resolutions. It makes it SEEM like then that the US is the UN.

All okay here just one point
The UN Troups were kicked out from Baghdad because there were US Spies inbetween them - after that kickout most went wrong for years and now we can discuss how to continue in such a messy situation.
Of Course Sadam is not an innocent guy - and i'd love it when he would loose his power.

But imho one of the reasons why he's still there is that he blames the US and the UN for almost everything that is going wrong in his country.
Starting war and not succeding 100% would make that worse

In response to me saying that US Isolationism and non-intervention as chief tenents of US policy from 1900 to 1941 partly contributed to WW 1 and WW 2, your response was this:
...

I didn't want to offend you
If it felt for you that way i appologize when I translate words too direct from my native language to english they are sometimes more harsh than i expect.

Also i didn't want to start a WW 1 and 2 discussion here that would really take lots of time.

I'd be glad to discuss this in mails with you because i'm sure that talking that way about the reasons of WW 1 and 2 . really misses the point.

You are certainly correct in stating there are other political options rather than war, but the USA has more than used these options for the past 12 years with mixed results in regards to Saddam. Sometimes force is necessary.

Right - that's what i said at the end, there are some good reasons for starting a war - it might be the "ultima ratio" .

1. Name one diplomatic solution that the USA has not used over the past 12 years in regards to Iraq.

They denied a sollution with UN inspectors without American inspectors for example.

2. There are Iraqi dissendent groups in the USA, but these have actually largely been ignored by the US government over the past 12 years.

I read different things in the "New York Times" and in "Die Zeit".
They were both talking about growing influences of these groups for the last 2 years

3. Certainly we do respect and consult are allies, but it would be foolish to do simply what they say, especially when it is the USA and not are allies that have the evidence that proves are allegations. I have not seen a convincing arguement by any of our allies yet.

I hope the US and it's alies exchange their proves.
And i was talking about a discussions not about taking orders from it's allies ,-)

4. Can we afford to wait for an event 10 times worse than 9/11 to happen before we act.

No - and how can we protect us from things like that?
I'm affraid war raises the chances for a desaster like that.

Chemical or Biological weapons are relatively easy to create. Extremists don't need a sadam hussein for that.
Nuclear Weapons are more difficult but "dirty bombs" don't need much testing.
Or just finding one of the bombs the US military has lost in the last centuries in oceans (the one in the himalaya was US too or was it russian?)

5. Again the USA is NOT breaking international rules by attacking Iraq. It is mandated that we attack under the conditions of the March 1991 UN ceacefire agreement. Breaking the agreement allows for the resumption of offensive operations against Iraq that were halted in 1991 only because Iraq agreed to the Ceacefire agreement.

I have to read the original UN papers for that because my informations (newspapers) are different.

6. What is the cost of NOT killing the old dictaror and replacing his regime with a democracy?

Good Question!
I wouldn't say that "ignoring the problem" is a alternative to war but there are alternatives. Lots of revolutions in countries started from the inside - if you give them a chance.

7. The Kurds will finally have a voice in the government in Baghdad, and Kurdish politicians will now have the opportunity to become the president of all of Iraq.

Turkey for example said that they would never accept a country controlled by Kurds that would mean war

(you probably know kurds are in the iraq and in turkey - they are discriminated and hated in both countries. I just wanted to mention it to other readers of this thread)

8. We didn't except it because it was inspections with restrictions. Part of Saddam's cheat and retreat strategy. The UN ceacefire agreement of 1991 called for un-restricted inspections of all of Iraq.

Imho the main restriction was:
No more US citizens inside the UN Inspectors troups - or am i missing a 2nd point?

9. Iraq will become a prosperous democracy helping to bring greater stability to the middle east and lower energy cost for the entire world helping to spur economic growth.

If it's going that way i'd be impressed and would vote for it - but i just don't believe it. Sometimes this works (example japan / germany) sometimes it dosn't work (vietnam / somalia)

and all examples are no good to compare it to the current situation.

The Arabic Culture is quite different from the US or European (which are pretty similar). Also Government and Religion is tied together - only a few countries start to change that (Iran)

The question of war with Iraq should be decided by the answer to this question: Does the risk of continuing with just containment of Iraq outweight the cost of regime change in Iraq?

I'm not a military expert - so i can't tell you how many US and Iraq men and women could die in a worse case scenario but i'd love to read about that.
(The US military simulated it already)

So when we've carefully thought about all that options there's imho the best way:

- The US shows the proves to the world
- The UN manifests an ultimatum because of that (and the world should accept that Sadam dosn't trust US Inspectors)

AND no matter if we start a War or not:

We have to assure that the "human rights" are also minded for enemies and political enemies. (ai talks about 30 potential political enemies who are in Jail)
If we don't care about that we might win a war but loose our credibly

Klaus

 

[Hi Bias]

I keep listening to the words coming from the Bush administration about Iraq and I become increasingly alarmed. There seems to be such confusion, but through it all a grim determination that they are, at some point, going to launch a military attack.

The key country in the Middle East, as far as the Americans are concerned, is Saudi Arabia:

Since September 11, however, it has become increasingly apparent to the US administration that the Saudi regime is vulnerable. Both on the streets and in the leading families, including the royal family, there are increasingly anti-western voices. Osama bin Laden is just one prominent example.

The Americans know they cannot stop such a revolution. They must therefore hope that they can control the Saudi oil fields, if not the government. And what better way to do that than to have a large military force in the field at the time of such disruption. In the name of saving the west, these vital assets could be seized and controlled. No longer would the US have to depend on a corrupt and unpopular royal family to keep it supplied with cheap oil. If there is chaos in the region, the US armed forces could be seen as a global saviour. Under cover of the war on terrorism, the war to secure oil supplies could be waged.

 

[Basstrap]

What?
If not the US then whom?
We have no business in other countries policies? The truth is we are the only ones with the balls to interviene and put a stop to terrorism, tyrants, dictators, genocide, etc.

The UN?
We are the UN buddy!
WHAT A FREAKING JOKE!

I just saw this post and it is the most pathetic thing ever.

it is this arrogance and feeling of superiority that gives you guys a bad name.

America never intervenes BUDDY
which of the dozens of genocides in the 20th century has the US stopped? They didn't even enter WWII until the last minute when somebody attacked them.
And Hiroshimi and Nagosoki both seem like genocidal massacres to me.

And what about canada you ask? we like hiding in the shadows?
Well, I think the whole kyoto affair proves that wrong, alone.-
-We were in both of the world wars right from the beginning-
-We were the ONLY ones who tried to stop the Rwanda genocide, but the UN (which I guess is actually the US right?) ignored that canadian officer and let 800,000 people become slaughtered.
-We are the worlds leading peace keepers and have soldiers all over the world. When the UN wants peacekeepers they come to us

So don't say we are hiding in the shadows of the US, I hate it when people say that

 

[pinkfloyd]

Bush will give a ultimatum after his speech in U.N. next week , i strongly hope Sadam or whoever Iraq main people will accept it , for peace and the future of our children .

 

[STING2]

In response to Klaus:

Bush did say he wanted to reduce US peace keeping missions, and he was mainly refering to the US role in Bosnia and Kosovo. But those missions have continued to this day. The US still has thousands of troops in both places.

It is true there were spies in the UN team, but Saddams moves and his weapons of Mass destruction or inter-mixed. Spies are needed to dig up evidence that does not exist elsewhere or to get a lead. His uncooperative nature through out the 90s gave the US no choice but to have spies. Of course the mere fact that he was uncooperative at any time following the signing of the UN Ceacefire agreement, give the USA the write to resume offensive military operations against Baghdad that were halted in March 1991.

In regards to WW 1, WW 2, I have the feeling you do not completely understand what I was talking about when I said US policies of isolation and non-intervention contributed to launching and widening of both World Wars. I'll have to explain that in a later post, and yes I have plenty of history to support my theory.

A UN inspection regime without US inspectors is simply crazy. It benifits Iraq because its easier to hide things when some of the best members of the inspection team are not on the inspection team. This is Iraq's proposal and they don't have the right to make such a proposal. They agreed to unrestricted UN inspections when they signed the ceacefire agreement in 1991. If they had not signed that ceacefire agreement, US tanks could have been in Baghdad in under 72 hours. Any violation of the ceacefire agreement gives the US under the UN the right to resume those offensive operations that were stopped in March 1991.

If the USA topples Saddam, then Saddam will have been prevented from the possibility of building and arming terror organizations with Weopons of Mass destruction that could cause an event in the USA 10 times worse than 9/11. Chemical and Biological weapons are easy to create, but not easy to effectively disperse in such a way as to cause mass causalties over several miles. The Anthrax attacks last year were do to someone in the USA. They were able to get a hold of incredibly refined Anthrax, something not even Iraq could create at this point, but still their method of sending Anthrax in the mail did not cause mass losses. Many people took medication, but only 5 people died. Terrorist may be able to create crude chemical and bio weapons, but the specially refined weapons and the means to effectively disperse them to cause thousands of dead over several miles, lie primarily with Nation States. In addition, a full Nuclear weapon, not a dirty bomb, is something that probably only a country like Iraq could build and then give to terrorist. There are not as many nuclear bombs missing as you may think, and even if one was found, most terrorist would not know how to detonate it. Thats where a country like Iraq comes in!

A successful revolution in Iraq is impossible without the Iraqi military itself turning on its ruler. Saddam bribes his military to stay loyal to him and controls what they know from the outside world. The civilian uprisings of April 1991 throughout all of Iraq were easily wiped out by surviving Iraqi Republican guard troops. Saddam cannot be toppled from within because of the loyalty of the Republican Guards and his ruthless annual killings of anyone he suspects could go against him. Only foreign intervention can knock Saddam out of power.

Turkey does not accept an independent Kurdastan. But they would not have any problem if a Kurdish politician became president of a united democratic Iraq.

Arabic culture may be different from the US or European, but Iraq is actually the most westernized country of the Arab world. All the restrictions that women are force to deal with in other countries do not exist in Iraq. In this regard, Iraq is more like their muslim neighbor Turkey.

 

[STING2]

A Revolution in Saudia Arabia is no more likely than it was when the US invaded Iraq in 1991 or when the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001. In both cases people predicted the government would be overthrown and there would be thousands of people in the streets and both times it did not happen. Not even close.

Basstrap,

Perhaps you have never heard of Bosnia and Kosovo, both places where ONLY the intervention by US military power stopped the slaughter of innocent civilians. By the way, the Canadians early on opposed US military intervention in those conflicts and favored the UN peacekeepers that did next to nothing except watch civilians get slaughtered for up to 3 years and until the USA under NATO finally intervened in Bosnia in 1995. It was the USA again that intervened in Kosovo in 1999 under NATO, but 90% of the forces were US. In 1993, US forces intervened in Somolia to prevent mass starvation of civilians. So we were late in getting into World War II. Would you prefer that the USA did not get involved at all? I think not since the genocide would have spread and gotton worse. By the way where were the Europeans when Hitler was rising to power in Germany in the 1930s?!!! As far as Japan goes, you sound like you would have prefered a US invasion of the Island potentially killing tens of millions of Japanese citizens as opposed to the 200,000 that died in the A-bomb drops.

 

[Basstrap]

geeze, no problem to tell the ones spoon-fed by the media around here...

anyway...about the bomb, yes, an invasion would have been better, or something along the lines of the bombing of afghanistan - selective, stategic bombing. But to drop a bomb and end the lives of millions of innocent families...there is NO justification for that. These days, that would simply not be allowed. Can you imagine if America dropped an A bomb on Kandahar??

 

[ultraviolet7]

To STING2
Sorry for the delay in responding.

How many dictatorships did the USA install in Europe after World War II? After all if its in the interest of the USA to replace a regime with a dictatorship so it can control everything, as you say, why not do it in the part of the world that is most important to the USA? Wouldn't have been a problem to do it either with Europe in ruins and considering how easy most of the countries fell to the Germans which we defeated. Where are the dictatorships today in Bosnia, Kosovo, South Korea, the rest of Eastern Europe? All area's of US military, political, and economic intervention.

In the first place I did NOT say that it's in the interest of the USA to replace a regime with a dictatorship so it can control everything. My post says textually "In fact the regimes helped into office or assisted during their administration were in MOST cases dictatorships or other puppet governments who acted in favour of US "national interest" in detriment of their own nations' welfare." In fact it is not strictly necessary that a government is a dictatorship to serve external interests. There are many cases in which there have been/are US subservient "democracies" whose action has been and is highly detrimental to local populations. Many present and recently past Latin American governments are a clear example of this.

What I'm trying to say is instead that in all cases that the US intervened directly or indirectly in another nation's affairs it was to the sole end to preserve their (the US) own interest. This includes the reconstruction of western Europe after WWII. However most cases are/were NOT like post-war Europe. The European case after the world conflict was a particular one since the US needed to conform a powerful bloc both politically and economically to counterbalance the growing power of the USSR. To this end they helped Western Europe to rebuild itself through the Marshall Plan. Not to do this was an open invitation for them to turn to the Soviet Union. It would be foolish on my part not to recognise the benefits Europe derived from US help after the war, however I have to point out necessarily that this case was an exception to the normal rule of US interventionism.

In contrast you are ignoring all the regimes helped into power directly or indirectly in Africa, Asia and Latin America during the past 50 years. In none of those cases there was a Marshall Plan nor local people's welfare was of any concern, but rather exclusively US "national interest" no matter who was adversely affected. If you run a conscientious check you'll see that there are many more countries than what you imagine whose internal situations worsened dramatically after US (and also USSR) interventions.

the USA is the only country attempting to live up to its UN obiligations in regards to enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.

Of course it is!! UN resolutions seem to be important to the US only when their application is favourable their own interest. Regarding the war in Afghanistan UN rules were notably overlooked.

There is no evidence that the Talaban were helped to power in any way shape or form by the USA.

What do you expect? An official statement from the government of the United States? Of course there isn't that sort of "evidence"! Maybe when we get access to CIA declassified files in a few years' time we'll get such evidence. However some analysis of the Middle Eastern/Afghan scenario of the last 20 years will provide some clues. I will not tackle this issue in depth because of the limited space available. However to review the following facts may prove helpful:

1.That the US alongside Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia participated actively during the 80s by supplying and training anti-communist guerrilla fighters most of which of fundamentalist Islamic background including Osama bin Laden.
2.That throughout the Cold War the United States used Islam as a bulwark against communism and revolution.
3.That Taleban leaders were trained in the madrassas of Pakistan and funded mainly by wealthy Saudis and Pakistanis (wealthy groups in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are those who run the countries actually). Despite the anti-American and generally reactionary teachings of these madrassas, Pakistan has been a US ally and Saudi Arabia has been one of Washington's most priced assets in the Middle East due to its stalwart complacency to US demands.
4.That the Northern Alliance (ruling force until 1996) was conformed in part by former pro-communist elements who even after the fall of the Soviet Union might have been prone to nationalisation of foreign investments, or of hindering foreign based business in the area, etc. In addition the Northern Alliance was believed to receive support from Iran, a notorious US enemy state.

as far as US interventions worsening conditions in the country intervened in I refer to Europe, and several countries in Asia where your theory has no traction.

My theory has no traction in those cases since they are the exception to the general rule of interventionism! Excuse me but you are only seeing what you want to see. As for South Korea and "several countries in Asia" (?) the situation also called for an ally in the region mainly to keep the North Koreans in line and to avoid the suction of the southern part of the country into the communist orbit. However it must be noted that the Southern Korean situation hasn't been that brilliant in the last 25/30 years since there have been bouts of massive Southern Korean emigration due to the less than desirable economic conditions over there (most notorious era - a few years ago during the SE Asian crisis). So bad they were that many Southern Koreans ended up in Latin America, whose own conditions were already far from brilliant. It must also be noted that what's said especially in the US/Europe regarding developing countries is to be taken with a pinch of salt. In fact all over the first world it was publicised that Latin America was seeing during the last decade the light of day regarding economic growth and consequential well-being of the populations when nothing was further from reality. I mean it did look like that on the surface, but it was in truth a huge farce of which the consequences are the present situation in countries such as Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay present victims of what is known as Tango effect.

As far as Hussain's replacement and the idea that the USA can't guarantee that his replacement will be better, similar things were said about the replacement of the dictatorships in Germany, Japan, and Italy.

The comparison doesn't hold. The situation was completely different in the post war scenario and as I said, it was in the US interest to strengthen those countries politically and economically. BTW who said "similar things" then? It was more than obvious that the US wouldn't help to power other dictators in those countries especially after the war in view of what had happened and even if there had not been an aid plan to go with it.

If the USA is willing to commit enough resources to build a new nation in Iraq, the US can guarantee not only a stable democratic government, but a prosperous country as well.

You're right here: IF and ONLY the USA wants to. That is to be seen.

In 1990 on the eve of the Gulf War, everyone was saying the same things, how every country in the middle east would become militantly anti-US and governments would be overthrown left and right. Islamic fundamentalism would reign supreme. Arabs would be in the streets everywhere pulling down their governments once the USA attacked Iraq. Not so, not even close. The same was said about the US invasion of Afghanistan last year, again this did not happen, not even in Pakistan. It is in Arab peoples interest to have Saddam Hussain removed from power as well and millions of arabs behind the scenes realize this.

Well most countries in the Middle East are actually militantly anti-US! Maybe not at governmental level but certainly at popular level. Islamic fundamentalism doesn't reign supreme but there's no denial of a dramatic escalation in fundamentalist adhesion in the last few years. There's no doubt that they've got more power now, they are well funded, they've got massive popular support and they've already shown that they have the will and power to strike the West. Regarding Pakistan they are an US ally. It isn't a very difficult guess that the US may be actually supporting Musharraf which would be the main reason for his permanence.

That is why these catastrophic events do not happen when the USA intervene's in a major way in the middle east.

Why is that these catastrophic events don't happen when the US intervenes in the Middle East? Sorry but I got lost here.

This war will bring freedom and democracy to a country that has never known it

Who says so???

You, me and everyone else on this planet benefit when the world is made more secure by the elimination of a threat to international security.

If the *threat* is proven to be real, yes. It hasn't. Not that I'm fond of Hussein since he's a dictator and violates systematically human rights. However I'm not fond either of imperialism of any sort (American, Soviet, Islamic, whatever).

Intitially oil prices will go up as well as energy cost, but then they will return to normal and in fact drop as the region experiences more stability than it had before do to the removal of a regime that has attacked 4 countries in the region and been in a near state of war with either one or all its neighbors for the past 20 years. When the price of oil drops, so does the cost of energy for you and me that we use everyday. That free's up money and increases the amount of disposable income one can use to save or buy things which spurs economic growth.

This is purely theoretical. I'd love to believe you but I can't. Why? Because a monopoly will be constituted. Monopolies can evade clean-cut most of the rules of capitalism, basically because they break capitalism rule #1: with a monopoly there's no possibility whatsoever of a free market.

I imagine the few that you think are trying to some how cynically profit in some way from this are the President and his circle of advisors.

No. This has nothing to do with Mr Bush's probable personal ambitions which are certainly of a more limited scope (re-election/glory for himself, etc). I'm talking about the establishment who detains real global power.

 

[z edge]

I just saw this post and it is the most pathetic thing ever.

Thank you for your compliment

it is this arrogance and feeling of superiority that gives you guys a bad name.

Again thank you for your compliment, and thank you for stating that we Americans have a bad name.

America never intervenes BUDDY

I am NOT a big ASS-KISSER in interference, so I don't think we are buddies

which of the dozens of genocides in the 20th century has the US stopped?

Please go to school and get an education, I do not have time to teach you tonight.

They didn't even enter WWII until the last minute when somebody attacked them.

And if we hadn't have entered WWII? Perhaps you woud be happier then?

And Hiroshimi and Nagosoki both seem like genocidal massacres to me.

So? BOOM!

And what about canada you ask? we like hiding in the shadows?
Well, I think the whole kyoto affair proves that wrong, alone.-
-We were in both of the world wars right from the beginning-
-We were the ONLY ones who tried to stop the Rwanda genocide, but the UN (which I guess is actually the US right?) ignored that canadian officer and let 800,000 people become slaughtered.
-We are the worlds leading peace keepers and have soldiers all over the world. When the UN wants peacekeepers they come to us

If you are the "world's leading peacekeepers", then you are even a bigger failure than I thought! Look around you! You call this PEACE???????????

What a freaking JOKE!

So don't say we are hiding in the shadows of the US, I hate it when people say that

Whatever, I am not going to argue about your military.

You will need my help sooner or later.......

 

[diamond]

Bass-
Can u try to be more friendly to us Americans?
thank u
-diamond-

 

[Rono]

I do not have time to teach you tonight.

Yes master, we understand.

And if we hadn't have entered WWII? Perhaps you woud be happier then?

Glad that the Russian people helped us out, and the irish, and the marrocan, and ect.

So? BOOM!

That is realy repectfull to all the innocent victims that suvered the radio active fallout. Up to today, there are Japanese dieing because of it. Or all the children that are born dead or mutelated.

If you are the "world's leading peacekeepers", then you are even a bigger failure than I thought! Look around you! You call this PEACE???????????

That should be prove enough that war never is a permanent solution to problems.

 

[Anthony]

Cool It

This thread went on reasonably well, but both of you (Z_Edge and Basstrap) are turning it into a hate-fest. I implore you to stop it.

Basstrap; I know you didn't like Z_Edge's post. I myself hated that 'US is the UN' comment, and found it as arrogant as you did. However, there are better ways of arguing the point that paint you in a better light. Please control your anger at the arrogant notions you find in here.

Z_edge; Basstrap responded to you in such a way because your post was inflammatory, at best. Honestly, you put in a sweeping comment such as 'The US IS the UN!' and you're bound to get a less than respectful answer. I myself felt the impulse to flame you, but I did what I usually did and tried to control myself. I ended up not posting anything in the end.

Two wrongs don't make a right, either, hence I'm asking BOTH of you not to endanger the quality of the thread. STING2 has kept his composure and his cool, and has argued in a respectful and coherent way.

Ant.

 

[Klaus]

Hi Bias:

I agree with most of the things you said - that (Oil) is the real motivation of the invasion.


To Sting:

In response to Klaus:

Bush did say he wanted to reduce US peace keeping missions, and he was mainly refering to the US role in Bosnia and Kosovo. But those missions have continued to this day. The US still has thousands of troops in both places.

So what do you want me to say with that?
Yes he did say it, but he dosn't do what he says? That's not that surprising - after all he is a politican ,-)

It is true there were spies in the UN team, but Saddams moves and his weapons of Mass destruction or...

And there's no excuse for that, using spies in a UN Mission damages the image of the UN.
It's like transporting Weapons in Red Cross Cars (Hapened in ex Yougoslavia by the Germans)

In regards to WW 1, WW 2, I have the feeling you do not completely

As i sad before - that theory would lead this thread far off topic, please send me privat mails about that or start a new thread (and tell me about that).

I spent years studying both Worldwars I'm looking forward to share my knowledge.

A UN inspection regime without US inspectors is simply crazy. It benifits Iraq because its easier to hide things when some of the best members of the inspection team are not on the inspection team...

I simply don't agree to that point.
I don't want to start a flame war which nation has the best inspectors.

If the USA topples Saddam, then Saddam will have been prevented from the possibility of building and arming terror organizations with Weopons of Mass destruction that could cause an event in the USA 10 times worse than 9/11.

Did i get you right:
It's okay to attack everyone who has the chance to make great damage (comparable to the 9/11 Terrorism?

So - thinking logical, it's okay to bomb every country that dosn't sympathize with the US regime and has pilots who can fly big airplanes?

Sorry, i can't agree with that.
Imho that would result in much more agression against Americans Worldwide

The Anthrax attacks last year were do to someone in the USA. They were able to get a hold of incredibly refined Anthrax, something not even Iraq could create at this point, but still their method of sending Anthrax in the mail did not cause mass losses.

It wasn't the intension of that guy to kill lots of people.
He wanted to scare the people - and he did that quite successful.
Lots of people paniced, including the government which forjudged (is this the right word? - i'm not sure, i wanted to talk "they were behaving like Communists against factory owners) patents for Anthrax medicals. Also that company was willing to sell as much as the US government wanted to have.

Turkey does not accept an independent Kurdastan. But they would not have any problem if a Kurdish politician became president of a united democratic Iraq.

I'm pretty sure there will be problems.

Arabic culture may be different from the US or European, but Iraq is actually the most westernized country of the Arab world. All the restrictions that women are force to deal with in other countries do not exist in Iraq. In this regard, Iraq is more like their muslim neighbor Turkey.

Imho Iran is much more westernized than Iraq (they are starting to split Religion from Politics!). Of course Israel is also much more westernized ,-)

But again we could discuss endless about that - it's just my oppinion.

We can be pretty sure that their culture differs a lot from the culture we're used to.

One more point:

You're talking about war like it was just a simple computer game.
Always remember there will be lots of dead innocent people in every war - much more than there were on 9/11 and also they live far away from us and we never have to look in their eyes.

Stoping Terrorism is also starting to give others the chance to change the world without terror. The more agressive we get - the more agressive they get.

You can only stop hate with love - also it's verry unpolular these days it dosn't stop that sentence from being right

Klaus

 

[z edge]

Re: Cool It

This thread went on reasonably well, but both of you (Z_Edge and Basstrap) are turning it into a hate-fest. I implore you to stop it.

Well it is more than just us but I agree to stop it.

Basstrap; I know you didn't like Z_Edge's post. I myself hated that 'US is the UN' comment, and found it as arrogant as you did. However, there are better ways of arguing the point that paint you in a better light. Please control your anger at the arrogant notions you find in here.

Z_edge; Basstrap responded to you in such a way because your post was inflammatory, at best. Honestly, you put in a sweeping comment such as 'The US IS the UN!' and you're bound to get a less than respectful answer. I myself felt the impulse to flame you, but I did what I usually did and tried to control myself. I ended up not posting anything in the end.

This is all you are going to say? Basically you are telling Basstrap that what he said was understandable because of my inflammatory post, but try to slam me in a better way.

What about the crap I found to be inflammatory?

ANd by the way, can somebody tell me who gave the U.N. $100,000,000.00 in 1962?

Can someone tell me who is the biggest player in UN missions? DOn't tell me, I have personally been there!

Have any of you?

Two wrongs don't make a right, either, hence I'm asking BOTH of you not to endanger the quality of the thread. STING2 has kept his composure and his cool, and has argued in a respectful and coherent way.

Ant.

Yes STING2 keeps his composure quite well, though he dosen't get personally attacked like I.

As far as someone I do not share the same opinion of but I respect the qualities of his post, Klaus.

I respect Klaus in the way he presents himself and his opinion, I wish more people could post like him and STING2.

 

[Anthony]

Well, z_edge, Basstrap was responding to your post, it is arguable, but don't you think that the post may have contained something inflammatory? I do NOT condone his reaction and the way he did, but I do understand such a response. Everybody gets it, its called disagreeing with someone intensely. I even, gasp, understand how you may be feeling when people talk to YOU directly with inflammatory comments.

However, that warning was for BOTH of you.

As I said in the other thread, if you have a problem with the way I do things, PM me about it. I warn publically in threads because its what I'm supposed to do, if you have gripes that do not concern the thread then take it up with me.

Ant.

 

[OzAurora]

Remind me again why the US shouldn't get rid of a corrupt tyrant who runs a police state, has liquidated his political enemies in the past, and builds extravagant palaces for himself while allowing his people to live without adequate food?

well I guess that they should, but then they should also step into Africa and maybe get rid of Robert Mugabwe, but thats right there is no oil in Mozambique! and the US dont have any interest in either Mozambique or Mugabwe

 

[STING2]

In response to Ultraviolet7:

I understand I overstated your claims early on. But I still disagree with your assertion that most regimes put in place, helped, assisted by the USA during the cold war, were dictatorships acting in the USA's interest to the detrimint of their own civilian population.

The primary goal of US foreign Policy since 1945 in a very narrowly defined way, was to deter, but if necessary defeat a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. The vast majority of aid, that did not end with just the Marshall Plan, went to Western Europe to rebuild and strengthen it not only so it did not fall into the Soviet Orbit, but to restore one of our biggest trading partners, vital, long term wise to the US economy, and the part of the world that America has its deepest cultural and historical ties to.

You speak of all these other places in the world, but when compiling US foreign Policy over the past 60 years, they are a mere footnote compared to US involvment in Europe. In terms of the number of US troops, the annual budget of NATO, the constant and yearly Reforger exercises, US weapons technology, the bulk of it built with war in Europe the top priority, how do you defeat a Soviet/Warsaw Pact military force capable on mobilization of fielding over 250 Armored and mechanized divisions(one of the many questions diplomats, NSC officers, Think Tanks, and military officers spent much of their time debating and arguing over the best course of action).

I can go into great amounts of detail with Statistics that I have from the IISS(International Institute of Strategic Studies) which is based in London. But I'll just say briefly that my main point is that there were 20 West European countries that the USA spent the lion share of its money the past 60 years supplying and helping defend and deter an attack that could come at any time. Even at the height of the Vietnam War, the USA still maintained its entire force structure in Western Europe and never called up its reserves for service in Vietnam in order to keep them ready for possible deployment to Europe. 80% of US force structure, whether based in Europe or in the United States, had as its soul purpose to fight a war in Europe against a Soviet/Warsaw Pact Invasion. Spies and other covert operations were aimed at pentrating the Soviet Union to dig up secrets and plans.

With the exception of the two hot wars fought by the USA in Asia and US support for Israel and South Korea during the Cold War, Latin America, Africa, and to a lesser extent Asia were all tiny fractions of US commitment compared to Europe. With the exception of the hot wars, the real history of the Cold War is the constantly changing military balances between NATO and the Warsaw Pact Forces in Europe. Thats where the vast majority of the men, material, and money went over 50 years.

What you would call the normal rule of US intervention, I clearly see as the exception and in those exceptions, it is simply making the best of a bad situation or supporting the lesser of two evils. The fact is, it was simply either Soviet interest or US interest prevailing. To not be involved at all, would be letting the Soviets possibly have a free hand, which would be foolish strategically for the US and its allies considering the long term global bipolar struggle that the world was locked into that could erupt in major world war at any given moment. The USA also does not have infinite resources for a marshall plan everywhere, if it did, it would have enacted one, because just as in the case of Europe, building up and developing a countries economy and democratic government, was one of the best ways to hedge against communism and Soviet expansion.

Now lets turn to your facts on US involvment in Afghanistan.

1. The US provided 1/3 of the supplies which only amounted to a few Billion dollars, pocket change in military terms, to what ever fighters were available. Islamic fundamentalism in the rural area's of Afghanistan is almost universal. The fact is the only fighters available were ones that would be labled fundamentalist. The more secular groups of people lived in the cities where the government still ran and controlled things with Soviet help.

2. Your assertion that the USA used Islam as a bulwark against Communism and revolution falls flat in the middle east. Most US support in the Middle East went to Israel to fight SOVIET supported Islamic countries like Egypt, Syria, Jordon and Iraq. The massive numbers of Soviet Tanks, APC's, Artillery, Jets, shipped to these countries testifies to this point. So does the glarring lack of Western European weapons in most of the above named countries arsonals during the ARab Israeli wars. Only the secular dictatorship of the Shah recieved anything substantial and this was comparitively a tiny fraction of what the Soviets sent to the region.

3. The friendly relations between the USA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan does not translate into support for the Taliban. Thats a gross overgeneralization in my view. Again the USA pulled out of Afghanistan militarily, economically and politically, in 1989. It was certainly a mistake to have done so.

4. The Northern Alliance was basically the remain core of the Mujahadeen. Their leader, killed on Sept. 10, 2001, was probably the biggest player in the Mujahadeen's drive to survive and continue to resist Soviet Occupation. Both the Russians and the USA see their interest with the Northern Alliance because they are the more secular of the two groups. By the way, in 1995/1996, Russia is a developing democratic country, starting to privatise whole sections of its economy. They are much more interested in seeing Afghanistan develop into a capitalist country rather than something from their failed past.

I think your seeing only what you want to see. Your view on the main form of US intervention in my opinion is the exception not the rule. My reasons are stated above. South Korea has seen some of the most rapid economic development in the past 50 years that many economist have called it a miracle. Per capita GDP is now higher than some Western European countries. South Korea does several hundred Billion dollars worth of trade every year with the international community. I can produce annual export and import statistics if needed as well as GDP and per capita GDP figures. My father has been to South Korea twice during his military career, each time for a year. My best friend in the US Marine Corp was just there in the Spring. They can both testify to what I'm saying if you disregard national statistics.

Why would it be as you seem to suggest, in the USA's interest not to develop a democracy like they did in Germany and Japan to prevent a threatening dictatorship like Saddam from rising again? Far better in my view to have a democracy focused on the people rather than military invasions of its neighbors and the raw accumulation of wealth for one person and his followers. That will enhance the security of mideast oil, and may even bring the price down.

When I say catastrophic events, I mean Islamic revolutions and overthrowing of governments etc. These things were supposed to happen in 1991 and last year. They never did, not even close. The rate of Al quada attacks on US targets is no great than it was 5 years ago. Most muslims will tell you they are not fundamentalist and are not interested and are in fact insulted by Bin Ladin perversion of their religion. I just talked extensively with a women from Pakistan when I was in Dublin a few months ago about this very point.

It does not take a genious to realize that if the USA commits the resources after invading and taking over Iraq, that Iraq will become a proserperous democratic country. Unlike most other countries that go through nation building, Iraq sits on the worlds second largest oil reserves. That type of wealth properly distributed has a way of smoothing out problems and rough edges that other third world countries come up against.

The evidence produced by the fine men and women of our armed forces and intelligence services is proof enough for me. Plus, this is really about pre-emption and the fact that Saddam has failed to live up to the ceace-fire agreement he signed in March 1991 ending the US offensive towards Baghdad. His failure to comply allows the USA to resume offensive operations stopped in March 1991.

How many true monopolies exist today. Where in our free market do you NOT see competition? In regards to oil prices, the price of oil is dirt cheap! Adjusted for inflation its less now than it was 40 years ago. Its only half of what it was in 1982, adjusting for inflation. Monopolies create high price's for the consumer, low prices is a clear sign of a healthy competitive market.

Please explain to me this establishment that detains real global power.

 

[STING2]

In response to Klaus:

Actually no, you got me wrong. It is first and formost a countries behavior then the addition of weapons of mass destruction that make that a country a threat and a candidate for regime change. Iraq's behavior over the past 20 years speaks for itself.

Actually Iraq is the more western of the two. It already had a mainly secular government over 10 years ago. This was widely publized in the lead up to the 1991 Gulf War The prime minister of Iraq Tariq Aziz is actually a Christian and not a muslim.

With all due respect Klaus, I really do not need to be reminded about the cost of war. I'm a bit surprised that you refer to my post as computer game talk. I really don't want to get into personal stuff but I come from a US military family and have kind of had a bit of history with the military myself and may again in the future. In addition, my best friend of 18 years will be going to Iraq if there is a war. He is a Cobra Helicopter Attack Pilot with the US Marine Corp. How many people on this board have a friend of 18 years that will be flying into combat in a helicopter gunship? If there is a war he will be in the thick of it. He is currently stationed in California but I will soon get to see him for a week coinciding with my birthday. After that though we may not see him again until the operation is over. It is dificult to think about and sometimes I dream that there is not about to be a conflict.

This US operation is being done of a love and respect for international security and the desire to PREVENT a catastraphic episode down the road that will cause more loss of life than an invasion of Iraq. One of the ways to defeat terrorism is to pre-empt which is what the USA military and other militaries and police have been doing since 9/11. Some types of pre-emption are on a greater scale and this is one of them.

This has nothing to do with hate, this is about security.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

"And Hiroshimi and Nagosoki both seem like genocidal massacres to me."

So? BOOM!

Z edge, you know I have nothing against you, nor would I want to start an argument, (being a typical Canadian hiding out in the shadows and all), but I find this statement to be truly disturbing.

Do you REALLY mean this?

 

[Klaus]

In response to Klaus:

Actually no, you got me wrong. It is first and formost a countries behavior then the addition of weapons of mass destruction that make that a country a threat and a candidate for regime change. Iraq's behavior over the past 20 years speaks for itself.

Okay, than there are some Coutries with a higher priority for Invasion left:

1. Jemen (they have training camps for terrorists)
2. Sudan (also training camps for terrorists)
3. Pakistan (Military regime, Al Quaida sympatisants with access to nuclear weapons)

What's the main difference? For some of us it looks like Oil, Strategical interests or lobyists spending tons of money in Washnington.

Actually Iraq is the more western of the two. It already had a mainly secular government over 10 years ago. This was widely publized in the lead up to the 1991 Gulf War The prime minister of Iraq Tariq Aziz is actually a Christian and not a muslim.

Discussions about that might become quite academical. Let's say it in another way: Lots of problems can result because of a missunderstanding of how they could feel about good things we want to do.
That reminds me on a western reporter who gave a Afghan kid a saussage as a gift - and it turned out it was pork meat in it. The (muslim) parents got pretty upset.
That's an pretty easy obvious thing - we know that from Jews and some protestants here too - just as an example of wanting to do good and earning hate for that.

This US operation is being done of a love and respect for international security and the desire to PREVENT a catastraphic episode down the road that will cause more loss of life than an invasion of Iraq. One of the ways to defeat terrorism is to pre-empt which is what the USA military and other militaries and police have been doing since 9/11. Some types of pre-emption are on a greater scale and this is one of them.

Remember my point a few postings ago?

You can't stop Terrorism with war - it might be usefull to destroy the infrastructure of them with bombs.
But the more unnecessary agression you show against their people the more terorrists you get.

Let's take an example of Afghanistan:
Because of wrong informations from the spies and the "allied" warlords the US Military was bombing the wrong things there with the high-tech equipment.
Result: the US military started to use Daisy Cutters for example

(you know it, z-edge know what they are but for other readers:
These are international outlawed weapons who kill everything in the radius of hundreds of meters)

Some Al-Quaida leaders are caught, some killed and some are still out there and we have no clue where they are (for example Osama bin Laden)

Lots of the small kids and the young people who saw these masacres hate the US or the Western world quite a lot for it and are, because of this, easy to catch for radical ideas.

And another thing - it seems easy for us to score military victories over "them" (Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan) to lead them to peace or turn them into a democratic country is something much more difficult.
W are not willing to spend just a few percent from our military budget and menpower to prevent desasters or to help people there to solve conflicts without war.

This has nothing to do with hate, this is about security.

As long as there are people ther who think you are is a western tyranny - as long as they see no perspective to change things other than by terror they won't stop it.
And war against terrorists is far more complicated than bombing countries of their supporters. Terorrists won't care about rules, they will start to hide in other countries. There are already Terror-groups connected to Al-Quaida in Canada or France for example - at least at that point you will come to the conclusion that War against these countries is not a sollution.

War against terrorism seems to me a war much more difficult to win than vietnam.

Klaus

 

[Not George Lucas]

There are some things we Americans must realize:

1. The United States has never been given the position of World Police. It is neither our right nor our duty to interfere with foreign affairs unless we are specifically asked.

2. It is not up to the US to decide what other countries can and cannot have weapons of mass destruction (as opposed to weapons of mass love?), no matter how much we hate the guy in charge. Furthermore, there is no real evidence that Iraq has nuclear weapons. All we have is speculation.

3. An unprovoked invasion of Iraq would be unnecessary, unjust, and violate international law. International law specifically states that any unprovoked attack on any nation (like when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor) is wrong. Such an attack would also be unjust (and here I'm using Plato's definition of justice), as we have no business there other than to interfere.

4. Other than similar geographic location, there is no real evidence that the attacks on 9-11 were in any way linked to Saddam Hussein.