a moral dilemma

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
I still see no reason to defend the man, the regime, nor do I see a peaceful 'solution' that won't cost more lives in the long run and allows the Iraqi people "life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness" that I believe they deserve.

Dude , no body defend the man or his Fu*king regiem cuz everybody simply hate him ... But a peacefull solution is always possible in the hands of the more powerfull , which is the U.S. in that case .
If the U.S. government realy want peace , I'm sure they can force Iraq to do a lot more contribution peacefully and through the UN with no need to war ... It's just cuz the current U.S. government has other goals than real peace.

And tell me , shouldn't the U.S. be on the TOP of the democratic world ?? Doesn't 75% of your own people oppose this war (including the american dude who started this thread) ??
Why is the government still insisting on this war inspite of all of this LOCAL & international oppositions ?

Let me tell you something , why doesn't the U.S. go finish what they started in Afghanistan first ??
We still haven't seen any democracy , freedom , McDonald's & PlayBoy magazines there yet ... As a matter of fact , the main target behind the war in Afghanistan was to get Bin Laden , Mula Omar & their fellows ... Where are they ? Are they dead or alive ? Who knows ?!

Are you sure Iraq is going to be better ? How can you be so sure it won't turn to be like Vietnam ?

Hi rask nice to see ya ripping your way through 'em, ;)
THe difference between the gulf war and this war, is that the gulf was just a VERY VERY BIG air raid, and victory march home... This war, although faced with a much weaker and softer opponent, will be alot more of a gamble. It'll mean actaully invading Iraq, and there will be street combat, and any fundamentalist there will have the advantage, because you dont need hi-tech solutions, just a bull headed will to die...

This war really could go either way, the US could find it a cake walk, or it could get long and drawn out with a massive initail victory only to drag on with years of petty strife and never managing to establish a government... (check out Robert fisk's article "dont mention afganistan" for progress on the disbanding of the talaban and the scattering of the talaban, and the liberation... / oh it makes you proud..)

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=375608

If britain went to war with France/ Germany/ Poland/ whatever that was a real threat and the evidence was laid on the table, I would honestly fight... but to be shown bits and bods, a dossier wich is pure plagarism out of a calafornain students (pre-gulf war) thesis, no real threat being shown (just colin powel holding up a bottle of harmless white powder scare mongering and indirectly suggesting a like between the anthrax attack, despite and american non-arab now being held suspect for it), showing us a list of human rights infringments that WE KNEW ABOUT yet did nothing, and what's worse is that during the Iran- iraq war we helped him cover them up!!! The hell with the draft... I'll go to prison if need be... but i'm in the UK, and the odds of it happening are very very slim... :)

I also noticed that some of the posts were getting a little heated, please calm down, or i THE MODERATOR, will step in... LOL, just be nice poeple, it's fine to disagree but dont get personal ok...

Permalink

Originally posted by SLY
Imperialism is what gives people like Bin Laden his strength in gathering followers around him ... Actualy Bin Laden is an american made extremist, and unfortunately people in the arab & islamic world are the ones who get the blame for his actions.

No, it's quite common knowledge here that the CIA trained him when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan and that fanaticism was a large part of that training. bin Laden won't admit it, but the US does.

As to imperialism - that accusation holds little water. As I said before, does the US buy or sell Kuwaiti oil? Does Japan and Germany go along with everything the US says?

Think critically of the critics, they're just as likely to have alterior motives as anybody else.

educatedfilm - where are you from dude ?

Originally posted by SLY

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
I still see no reason to defend the man, the regime, nor do I see a peaceful 'solution' that won't cost more lives in the long run and allows the Iraqi people "life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness" that I believe they deserve.

Dude , no body defend the man or his Fu*king regiem cuz everybody simply hate him ... But a peacefull solution is always possible in the hands of the more powerfull , which is the U.S. in that case .
If the U.S. government realy want peace , I'm sure they can force Iraq to do a lot more contribution peacefully and through the UN with no need to war ... It's just cuz the current U.S. government has other goals than real peace.

Name one concession that Saddam Hussein has made without the direct threat of force.

And tell me , shouldn't the U.S. be on the TOP of the democratic world ?? Doesn't 75% of your own people oppose this war (including the american dude who started this thread) ??

65% of Americans actually support the war (with an International coalition, the number drops considerably without international support). You need to research more current information.

Let me tell you something , why doesn't the U.S. go finish what they started in Afghanistan first ??

Has the US left Afghanistan? No. We're training an Afghani army, we're protecting the interum government, and we're still fighting Taliban and Al Quida elementis in Afghanistan. This is part of the reason why the North Koreans are talking big - they know we don't have the spare military units to threaten them directly so they're making a play for assurances that they aren't "next" on the regime change list.

Are you sure Iraq is going to be better ? How can you be so sure it won't turn to be like Vietnam ?

First off, Vietnam inspired some very drastic changes in US military doctrine, second the US consistantly WON shooting battles in Vietnam - the war was mostly a political and media defeat. Finally, the ONLY source that claims "oposition" to a US or coalition invasion is even remotely as dedicated as North Vietnam's is Iraq's state controlled media.

I can garantee you that right now, the #1 concern being discussed in the Pentagon right now is how to stop the Republican Guard from making it to Bagdad before an invasion force. That is the key element to winning this fight successfully and swiftley.

hmm, yeah your right about kuwait, but can you say the same for Saudi?
The US has made $$$ from the gulf, cos kuwait it paying it all back... Who do you think is going to pay back THIS war? um, there are gonna be alot of oil field under US control... (are you thinking what i'm thinking)
Imperialism needn't be plain outright as it once was with the freign flag flying high over someone else's homeland.. just a freindly face for the cameras, and iron fist for the locals, and a willingness to deal with large checks with out asking questions that have morals/ scruples...

Sly: I'm from Lincoln (ENGLAND, you bastid 'mericans stole OUR NAMES... j/k, LOL), I'm studying at Leicester.. I'm originally born in libya (benghazi), and yes i was there on the ground in 1986 when we were bombed by Thatcher and Reagan... but i've grown up british (more scotish than english mind you, we left libya in 1988)...
Basically I was only 3years old during the raid, but it's a scary memory, and i when i got older i found out the places that were bombed (including the French embassy :D , the Us couldn't deny that one), and a hospital for those with severe learning difficulties my dad knew, and i think worked in.. which is something that was never reported over here... but what can you but try to correct the up and comming mistakes...
I've also sifted through alot of Arabic/ Isreali/ White supremist/ leftist/ right wing propaganda... and find it really intresting that the tactics are the same... I'm trying to get a copy of Noam Chomsky's book at the mo..
But on the whole I'm a mild pacafist, who agrees with war under EXTREME conditions...

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
No, it's quite common knowledge here that the CIA trained him when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan and that fanaticism was a large part of that training. bin Laden won't admit it, but the US does.

As to imperialism - that accusation holds little water. As I said before, does the US buy or sell Kuwaiti oil? Does Japan and Germany go along with everything the US says?

Think critically of the critics, they're just as likely to have alterior motives as anybody else.

So you admit that Bin Laden was an U.S. mistake ? And now by the actions the U.S. is taking (like war against Iraq) , the U.S. is fueling fundamentalism ... Is it on purpose ? I mean , spreading extremism in the world (mainly arabic nations) so that the U.S. can invade them some other time in the future as "war against terrorism" ??!

You don't have to buy & sell or take over their oil wells to controle it ... You can't deny the great Influence of the U.S. on gulf states decisions to keep the oil price in the range you want it.

Also after invading Iraq , there are going to be lots of investment deals to rebuild Iraq , most of these eventualy will go to the U.S. (in case the war doesn't turn out to be a new Vietnam).

Also , it has been rumored that the U.S. can/will claim their rights in some portions of Iraqi oil to pay for the dues of war... Is that why they don't care about the expenses ? Is the U.S. taking war as a business ?

[Edited by SLY on 02-08-2003 at 04:53 PM]

Originally posted by educatedfilm
hmm, yeah your right about kuwait, but can you say the same for Saudi?
The US has made $$$ from the gulf, cos kuwait it paying it all back... Who do you think is going to pay back THIS war?

The Saudi's are making damn sure we pay top price for their (and everybody else's) oil. Since when have the Saudi's NOT been shrewd businessmen? Of course, some US companies do business with the Saudis (and just about any oil producing nation), but the biggest profits go to those who own the wells, and I can assure you that if US companies ending up owning Iraqi wells (without having to pay Iraq or Iraqi owners a fair price for those wells), I will do my damndest to make sure that the Bush administration comes to regret it.

On a side note, the US still owes money for Gulf War expendiatures. With Bush's business sense, we're going to owe even more, and that will hurt the overall US economy. The US Government is MUCH better at spending money than making it.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Name one concession that Saddam Hussein has made without the direct threat of force.

Cool , so you agree he can do more PEACEFULLY !
A threat of force is still peacefull , till the strikes begin.

65% of Americans actually support the war (with an International coalition, the number drops considerably without international support). You need to research more current information.

No , 75% of the Americans are against the war , anyway statistics might vary significantly from one state/source to another.
But for the international coalition ... Just few europian countries agreed cuz they have no other choice , ("be with us or against us") , turkey & gulf states allows the U.S. to use their bases ... This is Bullsh*t man ,you know that people in all these countries oppose the war , but you know how much pressure the U.S. can use to get such approval.

Has the US left Afghanistan? No. We're training an Afghani army, we're protecting the interum government, and we're still fighting Taliban and Al Quida elementis in Afghanistan. This is part of the reason why the North Koreans are talking big - they know we don't have the spare military units to threaten them directly so they're making a play for assurances that they aren't "next" on the regime change list.

OK , so why don't you wait till you're finished with afghanistan first ? At least to see the results of your work .






[Edited by SLY on 02-08-2003 at 05:09 PM]

Originally posted by SLY

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
No, it's quite common knowledge here that the CIA trained him when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan and that fanaticism was a large part of that training. bin Laden won't admit it, but the US does.

As to imperialism - that accusation holds little water. As I said before, does the US buy or sell Kuwaiti oil? Does Japan and Germany go along with everything the US says?

Think critically of the critics, they're just as likely to have alterior motives as anybody else.

So you admit that Bin Laden was an U.S. mistake ?

Who doesn't? I don't know what your media has been telling you, but our training of bin Laden and it's very obvious repricussions have been very comon knowledge in the US since about 1993.

And now by the actions the U.S. is taking (like war against Iraq) , the U.S. is fueling fundamentalism ... Is it on purpose ? I mean , spreading extremism in the world (mainly arabic nations) so that the U.S. can invade them some other time in the future as "war against terrorism" ??!

Why would we possibly want to do that? Add up the costs of war, factor in the budget deficits that reduce the buying power of the US dollar and strap the economy... Making war doesn't make money. Another very key point in The Art of War.

You don't have to buy & sell or take over their oil wells to controle it ... You can't deny the great Influence of the U.S. on gulf states decisions to keep the oil price in the range you want it.

What are you talking about? I work full time and make about $270 a week after taxes. OVER HALF of that goes right into my rent, my electricity/water bill, and my phone bill. That leaves me with about $120, but of that I spend about $40 (sometimes $50) a week on gasoline leaving just $80-$70 for food and for spending money. Capitalism depends on people like me to be able to afford to spend money. If I spent less on gas, I could afford to buy stuff, I could travel more, I could eat at expensive restaurants, I could be a lot more profitable to a lot of businesses. But instead I have to watch my spending very carefully or I don't eat two days out of the week. In the past couple of years the price of gasoline has gone up about 50%. That increases EVERYBODY's overhead costs and HURTS the economy. Somebody has been feeding you a lot of crap.

Also after invading Iraq , there are going to be lots of investment deals to rebuild Iraq , most of these eventualy will go to the U.S. (in case the war doesn't turn out to be a new Vietnam).

You're probably right, but that's because a). the US has more capital to invest in developing areas than other places and b). the rest of the nations in the world aren't taking action and therefore put themselves out of the bidding. Foreign investment is good for a country with a poor ecomonomy, it means more and jobs for the citizens. Iraq has a fairly well educated population and can very easily fill a lot of high-tech, well paying jobs.

Also , it has been rumored that the U.S. can/will claim their rights in some portions of Iraqi oil to pay for the dues of war... Is that why they don't care about the expenses ? Is the U.S. taking war as a business ?

War might save money in the long run (as opposed to allowing Saddam to cause a much larger, much more expensive battle), but it never makes money.
The US still owes money from our Revolutionary War. That was over 200 years ago. That should tell you something.

Originally posted by SLY

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Name one concession that Saddam Hussein has made without the direct threat of force.

Cool , so you agree he can do more PEACEFULLY !
A threat of force is still peacefull , till the strikes begin.

However the concessions he does make are small and aimed at buying time, not actual progress in the inspections process. Anybody with a basic knowledge of strategy can see that he has no intention of disarming or complying with the UN demands. He's hoping that if he can't worm out of his obligations, he can put up a good fight.

65% of Americans actually support the war (with an International coalition, the number drops considerably without international support). You need to research more current information.

No , 75% of the Americans are against the war , anyway statistics might vary significantly from one state/source to another.[/quote]
No offence, but I live here, you don't. 65% support is a much more accurate number going by my observations, and I talk to people all over the country. 75% oposition might be an accurate description of the sentiments of the people my age and younger here, but sadly, most of America's youth have a pretty weak grasp of history and world events. They just think they're supposed to oppose the government, but really have no idea why. I can respect positions that disagree with mine, but only if they're informed positions. That isn't what you're seeing in the 25 years and younger crowd here in the US. Prime example: More and more vegans (people who eat absolutely no animal products) are popping up all over the nation... not realizing that if humans were intended to be herbavors, we'd have three times more intestine than we actually do. Now, a vegan diet can be quite healthy, but only if you're very careful about what you eat, and in my experience the average vegan really isn't aware of that.

Has the US left Afghanistan? No. We're training an Afghani army, we're protecting the interum government, and we're still fighting Taliban and Al Quida elementis in Afghanistan. This is part of the reason why the North Koreans are talking big - they know we don't have the spare military units to threaten them directly so they're making a play for assurances that they aren't "next" on the regime change list.

OK , so why don't you wait till you're finished with afghanistan first ? At least to see the results of your work .

I've said it many times before, the longer we wait to take the inevitable course of action with Saddam, the heavier the casualties for EVERYBODY. We do have the military power to overthrow Saddam, and especially with a coalition, there is no reason to wait and every reason to act.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

What are you talking about? I work full time and make about $270 a week after taxes. OVER HALF of that goes right into my rent, my electricity/water bill, and my phone bill. That leaves me with about $120, but of that I spend about $40 (sometimes $50) a week on gasoline leaving just $80-$70 for food and for spending money. Capitalism depends on people like me to be able to afford to spend money. If I spent less on gas, I could afford to buy stuff, I could travel more, I could eat at expensive restaurants, I could be a lot more profitable to a lot of businesses. But instead I have to watch my spending very carefully or I don't eat two days out of the week. In the past couple of years the price of gasoline has gone up about 50%. That increases EVERYBODY's overhead costs and HURTS the economy. Somebody has been feeding you a lot of crap.

No body is feeding me crap ... As a matter of fact , I'm more lucky than you when it get to stuff I get from media , cuz I watch both mine & yours and work up my mind to see the truth ... While you only feed on your crap.

Back to our point ... The U.S. is controling the price of oil through the Gulf Oil to ensure it doesn't sell so high , and no big trouble get into the american market like what happened 3 decades ago when the Gulf Countries stopped exporting oil for a short while.

You're drawing concusions that don't reflect reality; The market regulates itself to a large degree. OPEC keeps oil prices high, but not too high because excessively high prices encourage alternative fuel research - really, if the US and Europe (but mostly the US) made a serious effort to move to fuel cells, the Saudies would be out of business. Also, not selling oil means that OPEC members don't make any money.

Now of course, the US Government's responsibility is to look out for it's people's interest, and I'm sure that they make sure to do what they can to encourage OPEC to keep prices down, but in the end America really has no say. We just can't produce enough oil to effect the market. Russia on the other hand could very well be able to challange OPEC once it's oilfields are fully explored. Realisticly, every government's responsibility is to make sure it's people and business do well, and I don't blame any country for that.

But the real underlying fact is that higher oil prices hurt the US economy. We're the world's largest consumer of oil and have very small oil reserves, that means we have to buy it and that means that higher oil prices take a slice out of every American citizen and company's profits.

[Edited by Raskolnikov on 02-08-2003 at 05:42 PM]

If they aren't so sure how profitable the consequences of such a war could be , why are they going for it ?

As an outside viewer , I see that during the last decade Iraq was no threat to anybody , talking nicely on TV , complying with ALL the UN resolutions .

So why now ?

You said it's bec now will be easier than in the future ... That's not a good point and still sounds similar to the preemptive strikes bullsh*t .
I can tell you why now ... Bec Mr. Bush is so happy with his poor victory in Afghanistan (it will never become a complete victory till you get Bin Laden or make sure he's dead) , so he want to try his luck again in Iraq , so he might get a bigger victory , become more popular than ever , wins the next elections ... And wilingly ,his brother takes over from him after that .

He's gotta show the world real evidence to attack Iraq ... Something like discovering a hidden nuke or stuff like that , not sending Mr. Powell to the Security council to hear some clapping here and there.

It's war dude , real innocent people are gonna die there (from both sides) ... So why war for no good reason ?

Originally posted by SLY
If they aren't so sure how profitable the consequences of such a war could be , why are they going for it ?

As an outside viewer , I see that during the last decade Iraq was no threat to anybody , talking nicely on TV , complying with ALL the UN resolutions .

So why now ?

Saddam Hussein is clearly not complying with the UN demands, to say otherwise is to ignore a growing mound of evidence. The inspection teams want more time not because they're making any real progress, but because they can't say anything one way or another--they want time to make some kind of progress. Thus the history of the past decade repeats itself. The game of cat and mouse has been altered for a different playing field, but the spirit remains the same. Bottom line: the inspection teams have never said that Iraq is in compliance, inface they've said that Iraq is not complying and needs to do A LOT more. The issue before the UN is not if Iraq is in compliance or not, but weather or not action is justified yet. That is the disagreement. In fact, the only nation who's official standpoint is that Iraq is complying with the UN is Iraq itself. There is enough circumstantial evidence on the table now to show very clearly that Iraq is hiding something and the only logical conclusion is that they're hiding something that they're not allowed to have - weapons of mass destruction. And none of us have seen the sensitive intelligence yet!
Next key issue: The consequences for Saddam Hussein have always been that noncompliance will result in a continuation in the Gulf War ending with his removal from power. He is obviously not in compliance and he obviously has no intention of ever complying.

You said it's bec now will be easier than in the future ... That's not a good point and still sounds similar to the preemptive strikes bullsh*t.

It's a great point - The time is right. Saddam is not in compliance, he is an unequivically despicable person who has no business leading a nation, his people want him gone, and he is weaker than he will be if allowed to hold onto power. He could have put the UN demands to rest very easily many years ago, but he hasn't because that's not his goal. "But how can a nation ever really prove anything?" Well, the Ukrain did it, South Africa did it, North Korea does it when it feels like it; willing nations have never had a problem proving that they've disarmed. Waiting now only adds to the death toll.

I can tell you why now ... Bec Mr. Bush is so happy with his poor victory in Afghanistan (it will never become a complete victory till you get Bin Laden or make sure he's dead) , so he want to try his luck again in Iraq , so he might get a bigger victory , become more popular than ever , wins the next elections ... And wilingly ,his brother takes over from him after that .

His dad lost the election after a very successful Gulf War, and the Democrats are actually fielding some contenders with both intelligence, practical policies, and charisma. Bush's days in office are numbered - you should note that less than half of Americans would vote for Bush right now. Support for war in Iraq isn't directly support for Bush, you have to look at all the numbers, and all the statements being tossed around.
And Afghanistan is hardly a failure; An oppressive regime is out of power, a democratic government is shaping up, Al Quida is weakened, bin Laden is either dead or afraid to peek his head out of whatever rock he's hiding under, and most importantly, the Afghanis have their first real shot at peace in years. It won't be easy, but it's not like they don't have help this time.

He's gotta show the world real evidence to attack Iraq ... Something like discovering a hidden nuke or stuff like that , not sending Mr. Powell to the Security council to hear some clapping here and there.

I have yet to hear any reputable rebuttal of any information that Colin Powell presented to the UN. Not everybody agrees that it's enough, but all agree it's compelling. Well, a few suggest it could easily be fabricated, but if we were going to fabricate something, why not go for the gold and fabricate the "smoking gun" everybody is talking about?

It's war dude , real innocent people are gonna die there (from both sides) ... So why war for no good reason ?

There are plenty of good reasons, cheif amongst them is that not going to war will cost more lives than the war in question. 20 silent deaths is 20 times worse than 1 loud one. But for some strange reason, it's easier for people to accept the 20 quiet ones. And there lies the heart of the issue.

SLY - I just want to take a time out and say it's good to debate with you. In an issue this serious it is critical that everybody is well informed and that the arguments made are very robust.

I gotta go, but I like that you keep my brain moving (even if I have to repeat myself a lot).

Thanks for the debate. I'll catch you later.

It's good to hear from you again, educatedfilm. I've missed our discussions.

Originally posted by educatedfilm
...Imperialism needn't be plain outright as it once was with the freign flag flying high over someone else's homeland.. just a freindly face for the cameras, and iron fist for the locals, and a willingness to deal with large checks with out asking questions that have morals/ scruples... I've also sifted through alot of Arabic/ Isreali/ White supremist/ leftist/ right wing propaganda... and find it really intresting that the tactics are the same...

I think that any accustatons of Imperialism are based on a very flawed reading of the situation. Just as it is a common human trait to label an opponent as stupid, it is a common PR move to label American foreign policy as Imperialism. I congatulate you on your observation that extreme groups of any persuasion use similar tactics. Now make the next step, and examine the situation without such prejudicial attribution of reputed motives.

What's in it for the US? Why [u]now[/u]? Why isn't it enough, when the UN passes Resolution 1441?


What's in it for the US?
In short, economic hardship, (as described by Raskolnikov), a military action that will subject the American populace to TV images of their young men being stuffed into body bags half-way around the world, a groundswell of popular revulsion that wii probably destroy a presidency, troubled relations with such fair-weather 'friends' as France and Germay. Jeez, that sounds like fun!

I think that future generations will look back on this, (assuming they have more interest in History than the current generation) and wonder why there was so much opposition to doing the right thing. Why are countries that support the US initiative being portrayed as having no other choice, as if they were somehow coerced into their position? Why is there so little notice taken of the fact France and Germany are the only NATO members who are dragging their heels? I suggest that George W. Bush, gaffe-prone as he is, has a much better grasp of the situation, and it's ramificatons, than his critics are prepared to admit.

Why [u]now[/u]?
It is obvious that this wouldn't be necessary now, if George Bush senior had finished the job 12 years ago. At the time, it was thought that such action would be seen as unjustfiable. The mandate from the UN only allowed for forceful removal of Iraq's army from Kuwait. At the time, the UN was seen to be a legitimate forum of the world's governments. At the time, it was hoped that the people of Iraq would be able to finish off Saddam Hussein without foreign intervention. In summary, invading Iraq did not seem like the right thing to do, at the time, [u]Now is the time[/u]!

Why isn't it enough, when the UN passes Resolution 1441?
The UN has become a meaningless joke in terms of acting to represent the governments of the world. The recent election of Libya to chair The Human Rights Committee is just one recent example of how badly a once-proud concept has been perverted. I'm sure 'Daffy' Ghadaffi has much to tell us all, about how to foster respect for the dignity and security of all individuals, ragardless of race or creed! {note to ed: that's sarcasm!}

Even if the Security Council was not stymied by France and Germany trying to avoid having their part in creating this fiasco come to light, the validity of such documents as Resolution 1441, is directly proportional to the perceived enforcement. Uh, that's like [u]zero[/u] at the moment. In concrete terms, in 12 years of ineffective hand-wringing, the UN has done nothing to persuade Saddam Hussein to chnge his ways. Only the recent promise of US armed intervention has stimulated any kind of response.

"Peaceful ways" to persuade someone to change are only effective with those who are willing to respond to them. There is no conscience to be appealed to here. If some Mahatma Ghandi disciples attempted non-violent protest in Bhagdad, they would simply be shot where they sat, and the bodies left to fester in the sun as a warning to others. Remember that image. After Saddam Hussein is removed, such verifiable stories will emerge.

I still can't accept that invading such a weak country on the other side of the world that can never attack you under any circumstances can be some sourt of self defense.
I still can't see what else can Iraq afford to do other than opening everywhere in their country for inspectors , to be said that they're fully co-operating with the UN.
(The U.S. can claim that Iraq is trying to hide something forever anyway , but this doesn't make Iraq guilty for hiding something)
And I still see that the U.S. government is taking war as some kinda easy business for lots of reasons, like trying new weapons , proving their domination and supremacy on the world , keeping their army in action , etc. till they prove otherwise.

I'm sure that if they realy wanted to change life & the regiem in Iraq gradualy & peacefully they could , as they could force Iraq to make lots of contributions before . (e.g. opening presidential sites for inspections )

I still wish & pray that the U.S. government change their attitude in the last moment or to find out that they were just using military threats for more contribution from Iraq.


Peace.

Before the World Trade Center was destroyed, I might have thought your assessment had some merit. Now, no-one can assume that people on the other side of the world cannot possibly be a threat. That obviously is not true anymore.

Iraq is not the first piece of the terrorist structure to be dealt with, and it won't be the last. As I said much earlier in this thread, America has been at war since 11 September 2001. The government of my own country (Canada) just doesn't seem to 'get' that, and we risk becoming irrevalent because of it. The events that are unfolding aren't just theoretical permutations anymore. Containment, and peaceful persuasion have not done the job. There's no longer any patience for more of the same. With, or without the UN, the Americans are not going to accept anything less than the destruction of their enemies.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think your position is not suported by the facts, but then you have that opinion of my position. All I can say is, wait and see. A couple of weeks, I think.

Yes, indeed, Peace.

The WTC was destroyed by terrorists , no one disagree that terrorism should be destroyed , it's very normal , criminals should be prosecuted.

But Iraq has never got anything to do with terrorism , it's so silly that the U.S. is still trying to link them to that...
Actualy , in case the U.S. attacks Iraq , I won't be surprised to read about new terror attacks inside U.S. that are suspected or declared to be fund/supported by Saddam ... It should be expected that he may try to take some kind of revenge, I don't know how are people in the white house ignoring such a fact.

You can't expect any threats against your countries from Iraq unless the you attacked Iraq first ... Or else , the U.S. should destroy the whole world , just to guarantee their own safety .
Man, this is paranoia ... I know that 11/9 was a real shock to the americans & the whole world, but they should have overcome the psychological effects , and they've already destroyed Taliban & Al Qaeda in Afghanistan ... That was a message for the world that any one who support terrorism will be similarly destroyed ... That was clear , and it should be over now , and people must think more independently now without having 11/9 fixed in their minds.

Iraq has been very quite for more than a decade now , it's just that the U.S. got bored from this silence ... Also they're not satisfied that they aren't having business within Iraq like other countries (Germany / Russia / France in particular) , so invading Iraq can asure them some realy nice job opportunities for Americans ... Believe me dude , this has got nothing to do with WMDs , terrorism , or Dictatorsh*t... It's more of a moral issue , $$$ Vs. Blood .

It seems like manKIND will never learn how to be KIND. (no offence to anybody here)