quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok but at the same time the Iraqi people support their politicians right? I mean Sadam just did get 100% of the vote right? Hahhaha next time watch him get 150% of the vote. But anyway ... despite the election thing being clearly faked, it seems that a majority of the people DO support sadam which is why he's in power. So let me ask you something ... if we the American people supported Bush wholeheartedly would you support the American people? Would you support the German people in 1939 when they supported Hitler? To place all blame of a country on a single person or institution is naive and ignorant. There's a reason why that institution or that peroson is in power and there's a reason why they are tolerated.

-if u don't vote for Saddam ur a dead man
-if just the idea of getting opposed to saddam crosses ur mind you're a dead man too
-the majority supports saddam because they have a strong feeling of pride you guys will never understand , they prefer saddam who's causing them to suffer instead of the US governing the country
-you don't even know 1 ounce of how the politics work in arab countries , there's no democracy , dictators are doing whatever they want wether the population likes it or not , they're basically saying "it's my way or the high way" , therefore u can't compare Iraq and germany of 39 which was a democracy
-all arab leaders from morocco to egypt to every single arab country are suck ups to the US except lybia and iraq , and when i say they are SUCKING UP i mean they could turn their back and leave their arab brothers just for a couple of $$$ (i'm still talking about the leaders not the nations)
-with all my respect i think president bush is a total idiot but that doesn't make me think all americans are dumb
-the opposite is happening in america : saddam is evil then all iraqis are evil , most of you guys don't know how much they are suffering , how much kids died of starvation diarhea and lack of medecine , it's true it's because of Saddam but it's MAINLY because of the US embargo not letting enough food and medecine entering the country

___________________
"A style that's impossible to define. Prog? Hardly. Tech house? Not boring enough. It's like trippy twisted acid house but deep and funky. See, I told you - impossible."

quote:

Originally posted by fastmp3 -if u don't vote for Saddam ur a dead man -if just the idea of getting opposed to saddam crosses ur mind you're a dead man too -the majority supports saddam because they have a strong feeling of pride you guys will never understand , they prefer saddam who's causing them to suffer instead of the US governing the country -you don't even know 1 ounce of how the politics work in arab countries , there's no democracy , dictators are doing whatever they want wether the population likes it or not , they're basically saying "it's my way or the high way" , therefore u can't compare Iraq and germany of 39 which was a democracy

just a few of the reasons listed above to get rid of the fukker. i mean. people prefer saddam who is causing them to suffer smart people they are,..wait! yeah they cant do much about it anyways, so it's not their fault - they got no freedom of choice, expression.... that is fucking wrong, immoral...eh

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by Juricimo they got no freedom of choice, expression.... that is fucking wrong, immoral...eh

For the sake of playing devil's advocate I'd have to say that the west is a little too gung-ho to push their notion of what the "correct" way of living is on others, and that *we* don't exactly have a great record on *respecting* freedom of speech even as we publically venerate it every step of the way.

I agree that in a perfect society you're going to have those freedoms, but the fact of the matter is that if Saddam was that unpopular he wouldn't be in power; armed revolution tends to occur when a large percentage of the population gets peeved about the ruler, even in a dictatorship based place like Iraq.

An important point that needs to be made as well that a lot of the middle eastern and eastern bloc areas (including Russia) have a deep history that venerates "strong man" leaders who stand up to outsiders, do what needs to be done at home, and so on. To people living in such a place, democracy is strange, and not altogether welcome at times.

I'm certainly not going to say whether that's better than what we've got or not, but as I observed in another thread, a democracy being voted on by ill or completely uninformed people isn't really a whole lot better than *or* significantly different in essence than a dictatorship.

For instance, when was the last time the Green Party had a president in the US? When was the last time the Socialists made a serious splash in Parliament?

People in democractic societies need to stay informed, and actually realize that the parties they're voting on are increasingly becoming the *same damn party* made up of rich white guys who really are just trying to stay in power at any reasonable cost, with "reasonable" being in constant flux.

If you want proof of this in the US just look at the ridiculous second and third debates between Gore and Bush last election...they'd basically take turns saying the same friggin' thing. Even the press picked up on it, asking where the difference was between the two candidates. To me, this underlines the necessity for an informed, and active voting population for democracy to be effective.

Going back to the freedom of speech issue though:

Yes, in the west there's freedom of assembly and speech, but in the US for example, people with different viewpoints are being marginalized by the press, or the ominipresent CNN.

Just for one instance of such look at the anti-war rallies that were recently held in DC, San Fran, and several international cities.

The American press completely downplayed the event, and at times even seemed to be poking fun at "those silly demonstraters", much like the attitude that's greeted anti-G8 rallies.

And I know this isn't just me noticing this stuff, because my ethics teacher, a Croatian who only recently moved to North America, commented on it as well. IMHO freedom of speech, and actually having that speech be *heard* by anyone are two entirely different things.

quote:

Originally posted by fastmp3 -the majority supports saddam because they have a strong feeling of pride you guys will never understand , they prefer saddam who's causing them to suffer instead of the US governing the country

This pride thing is a very good point fastmp3.
We want to go into Iraq, get rid of the current government, and replace it with one that we can control. Put yourself in the person's shoes. Ok, living conditions might improve, but how would you feel if you knew your country was just a puppet of the US?

My parents, who are both from South Vietnam, says that it would've been nice if the South won, and democracy was established, but at the same time, acknowledge that having the North win also brough some advantages. At least now, the people can call the country their own, as opposed to being ruled by teh French, or a south Vietnamese US puppet.

It is not suprising why many Arabs are opposed to the US going into the middle-east, and replacing governments one by one. In our eyes, it might be better for the people that we do this, but maybe they don't feel the same way...

___________________
jimtran.net

quote:

Originally posted by quddha This pride thing is a very good point fastmp3. We want to go into Iraq, get rid of the current government, and replace it with one that we can control. Put yourself in the person's shoes. Ok, living conditions might improve, but how would you feel if you knew your country was just a puppet of the US? My parents, who are both from South Vietnam, says that it would've been nice if the South won, and democracy was established, but at the same time, acknowledge that having the North win also brough some advantages. At least now, the people can call the country their own, as opposed to being ruled by teh French, or a south Vietnamese US puppet. It is not suprising why many Arabs are opposed to the US going into the middle-east, and replacing governments one by one. In our eyes, it might be better for the people that we do this, but maybe they don't feel the same way...

dude i'm so glad u understood what i mean and it's exactly what you explained

___________________
"A style that's impossible to define. Prog? Hardly. Tech house? Not boring enough. It's like trippy twisted acid house but deep and funky. See, I told you - impossible."

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb For the sake of playing devil's advocate I'd have to say that the west is a little too gung-ho to push their notion of what the "correct" way of living is on others, and that *we* don't exactly have a great record on *respecting* freedom of speech even as we publically venerate it every step of the way........

i knew that was gonna come up good points ^^^ and i somewhat agree with you because i have experience living in different countries. i'm just saying what i believe is moral, yeah different culures do their own things...boils down to respect and that is what a lot of the time is lacking...and pure hate as well...


ALTHOUGH, nobody should ever feel threathned and fear their life and bow down to a dictator, do you agree? anyways, good arguments in your thread i respect that

>JM<

quote:

Originally posted by Juricimo ALTHOUGH, nobody should ever feel threathned and fear their life and bow down to a dictator, do you agree? anyways, good arguments in your thread i respect that >JM<

First things first, yes, much respect to people in this thread, this is just another instance of the political forum being a big success...I was a little tenative about the idea of it being split from the chill room initially, but so far I've been really happy with what's been going on over here.

And yeah, I agree that people shouldn't have to live in fear of their lives, particularly in as a result of speaking their minds about political or social issues.

As I said above though, I'm not entirely down on the notion of dictatorships, it really depends on who the dictator is, and how the people feel about it, if you have a guy that the people have no big problems with, then I guess I really don't see the problem either. It's all in context.

And even though I dislike the notion of living underneath someone like Saddam, I also can't, in good conscience, support a war that I haven't heard compelling reasons for. Right now the scales are essentially a (IMHO) slim to low moderate possibility that Saddam can in fact

A) Get WMD

and

B) Would be crazy enough to deploy them, or hand them off.

(And, as JohnSmith has said repeatedly, the guy isn't completely gone, he knows that attacking the US would be tantamount to suicide for him, and the entire country; so I have to discount B to a large extent)

vs.

The 100% guranteed high "collateral damage" toll as a result of a US invasion plus the additional terrorist attacks that'll be inspired in the future by such an act.

To me, the choice is pretty clear. On one hand you've got politically motivated rhetoric and a low to medium percentage, on the other you've got the guranteed death of soldiers and innocents in Iraq with a very probable follow up of innocents dead in the US due to retaliatory terrorist attacks.

And I'm certainly not saying that the possibility for terrorist attacks is nill if the US doesn't attack, all that I'm saying is that every time the US acts against an Islamic state it's serving to rub a little more salt in the wound, and give the Bin Laden's of the world one more thing to bring up to motivate people into suicidal terrorist acts.

In short, I can sympathize with the Iraqi people's situation as a political radical, because people like me are the ones who tend to be in danger in those kinds of states; but I don't think the situation is bad enough to where a war has become justifiable, not even close.

Additionally, I think the US led UN sanctions have done more to screw the people of that country over then any policies that Saddam has. People can say that as long as he's in power he's the one causing the deaths, but to me that argument rings hollow. He's the ruler of that country, and it's not our place to say whether he should be or not, punishing the people with sanctions for having a ruler that we don't care for is a piss-poor way of handling things, and it's certainly not making for a positive P.R. image IMHO.

In any case, sure, the Iraqi people don't currently have freedom of speech against the government, but we seem to forget that people in the US routinely sacrifice freedom for safety these days, and I think we should respect the Iraqi people enough to let them do the same.

As odd as it seems to us to not be in control of who's governing the country (hmm...the last election?), and as strange as it might be to not be able to say anything bad about said person (again, for a while there this seemed to be the case in the US as well...), that's simply a part of life in Iraq, and since the resistence movement is still a tiny minority I say let them make their own minds up about whether or not their government and way of life is unacceptable or not.

It's not our place to judge the merits of the world, or to overthrow governments whenever we perceive a *possible* threat.

Well said CortexBomb, that's pretty much the way I see things as well..

Also just a point about dictators that was raised earlier in the thread.. consider this:
if Hitler had've died in 1938, he probably would've been one of the great leaders of modern history.

Think about it, he hadn't started a world war, hadn't started to exterminate minorities etc, but what he had done for Germany was actually pretty incredible. He took a country devastated from World War I, exhausted from 10 years of useless democratically elected governments who couldn't organise a pissup in a brewery, let alone organise a country. Also don't forget that Hitler was originally elected via democratic means (ie he won the election - an election that wasn't staged .. the people truly wanted him to run the country). It wasn't until ~1935 that he started to eliminate threats to his leadership.

Before you flame me for being a Nazi or supporting Hitler or whatever, please let me clearly point out that I DON'T support any of his ideas or anything like that, nor do I think he left a good mark on the world. I'm just raising a point that needs to be made.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Of course the US has chemical weapons. Not only that but they have biological weapons too. Probably more than any other country besides Russia. What do you expect from the Cold War buildup? The difference is that the US has never had the propensity to use chemical warfare. Nor have they ever THREATENED to use it. If I recall, Iraq has not only threatened to use it ... but they HAVE used it, against the Iranians and their own people. What kind of restraint do you think they will show if they have nuclear weapons? Fine they might not use it against a country that can retaliate in kind (because they are bullies and cowards at heart), but they would most certainly use it against smaller, weaker countries without remorse. Ummmmmmm how did the gulf war start? I guess the American CIA told Iraq to invade Kuwait. Then the CIA told Iraq to start threatening to invade Saudi Arabia. Then the omnipotent CIA coerced the Saudis to set up bases for US troops as a guise for the PROTECTION of Saudi Arabia. Then, in secret, the CIA convinced the United Nations that the benevolent Iraqis were a hostile threat to the region and that they should set up a coalition force to oust the Iraqis from the countries they invaded. Then, the warmongering United States, despite having the ability to completely destroy Iraq, inexplicably decided to sign a peace treaty returning the countries to their natural borders. How out of character. Finally, the godless Americans have the audacity to get upset over the peace loving Iraqis after they refuse access of several research areas to the UN weapons inspectors ... who are agents of Satan (America). I would back up my arguments with facts but that's old school ... everybody nowadays just blurts out whatever they think.

Damn that was well put.... great job explaining occrider!

Also funny what cortex bomb said about his teacher being croatian, so they "Must" have a better view... ironically enough, the person you were arguing with is croatian! our very own Juricimo! LoL, funny little humor there...

Anyway the last couple of posts i partly agree with... I don't blame the iraqi people, and i understand national pride - sometimes it sees no limits, usually reflecting the country itself and not its government (perfect example of this is Cuba - the people there HATE fidel castro, yet they maintain so much pride in their country..) So i can perfectly see how each iraqi citizen must feel.... however what they need to realize that a conquering of Saddam Hussein is not going to lead to a US-government in Iraq... initially it will seem that way b/c we will have to set up some kind of organization, SOMEthing to stabilize a little bit. We defeated Germany and Japan in WWII - are they still US puppets? by NO means.... We helped out Kuwait and Saudi in the early 90's... no US-puppeteering here either. It seems like you guys give too much credit to the USA in these cases of re-installing governments.

And there seems to be countless references blaming the US for setting up these embargoes and not "helping" the iraqi people... but you fail to mention how iraq was no better off BEFORE they invaded kuwait and f*cked themselves... they were already in the shitter back when there WAS no restrictions! Basically what you guys are saying here is that "shame on the USA for not doing aid-airlift-drops back then!" Doesn't make sense... you can scold a guy for doing something bad, but you can't scold him for not doing something that he is not required to do. Sure, it would have been kind of the US to do it, and they have done it for other countries, but you just can't do everywhere... Doesn't mean its the US's fault. Its unfortunate for the Iraqi people that Saddam had to go and screw every chance they would have had for aid up when he invaded Kuwait, but hey, thats the way it happened. If your country is going to be a threat and attack others, why the hell would you expect others to help you? IT DOESN"T MAKE SENSE!

Reverse the roles here.... if the USA had attacked, say Canada to seize oil or something, and the UK and France and Germany came and kicked our ass, and over the last ten years we've been starving and dying.... and at the same time we've been producing a lot of weapons and stockpiling them, would it be our place to blame the UK France and Germany for placing restrictions on us? In my eyes no, b/c we were/are a threat for attacking Canada! And b/c we still have weapons we are STILL a threat.... if we agreed to get rid of all of our weapons, and made ATTEMPTS towards a treaty with everyone, and showed earnest effort in restoring peace, then we could rightfully ask for aid....

See thats why i dont see why Iraq doesn't do this... if they simply got rid of all their weapons (and don't say "why doesn't the US get rid of its weapons???" - b/c we aren't threatening to blatantly attack someone for no reason), and if saddam showed ATTEMPTS at peace talks, let the UN inspectors search EVERYTHING, then we'd agree to help them out, give aid, etc.... and it WOULD NOT REQUIRE A USA-PUPPET GOVERNMENT!!! all the USA needs is an assurance of peace and a serious lack-of-hostility! This is where Saddam's personal pride is smothering his country.

What everyone needs to do here is replace the names of USA and Iraq with names of friends of yours, and re-enact all the events - it would be a lot different with such an easy solution if some people would just put their pride away and suck it up. Don't worry about politics or US-relations with Israel and supposed favoritism or whatever-the-f*ck.... it doesn't matter - worry about yourself and don't "harass" anyone else (sic 'other countries'). Help when needed, but don't harass. If Saddam had never invaded Kuwait, and had earnestly asked for the United States help wayyy back then, i don't see why we would not have helped! Especially since, as was pointed out earlier, we were allies with Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war! Just drop the pride Saddam...

its not that hard...

___________________
Peace.

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline Also funny what cortex bomb said about his teacher being croatian, so they "Must" have a better view... ironically enough, the person you were arguing with is croatian! our very own Juricimo! LoL, funny little humor there...

I don't know where it was that I said she had to have a better view, I was just stating that someone who'd only recently moved here *immediately* picked up on the way the media portrays things here, that's all. I'd would have mentioned anyone from off-continent who'd brought it up, it just so happens that she's Croatian :shrug:

quote:

And there seems to be countless references blaming the US for setting up these embargoes and not "helping" the iraqi people... but you fail to mention how iraq was no better off BEFORE they invaded kuwait and f*cked themselves... they were already in the shitter back when there WAS no restrictions! Basically what you guys are saying here is that "shame on the USA for not doing aid-airlift-drops back then!" Doesn't make sense... you can scold a guy for doing something bad, but you can't scold him for not doing something that he is not required to do.

I don't know how you define "better off" but the increased numbers of people dying of starvation because of food that's deemed unacceptable for one reason or another underneath the sanctions never getting to them, not to mention increased deaths due to lack of medicine, isn't exactly old hat, it's a direct result of the US led UN sanctions.

I can't speak for anyone else in the thread, but I'm not saying the US should be obligated to give Iraq more food and medicine, I'm saying that they should be obligated to push for lessening sanctions so Iraq can sell more oil, and do more to procure these kinds of items for themselves, and from other countries so people aren't dying left and right.

That's not exactly a push for positive action (ie: actively giving things) it's just a push for the easing of the rules so Iraq can help itself per se.

quote:

Reverse the roles here.... if the USA had attacked, say Canada to seize oil or something, and the UK and France and Germany came and kicked our ass, and over the last ten years we've been starving and dying.... and at the same time we've been producing a lot of weapons and stockpiling them, would it be our place to blame the UK France and Germany for placing restrictions on us?

I don't see a problem with sanctions on *weapons*, what I have a problem with is sanctions which prevent the flow of food and medicines. I don't think sanctions which directly cause the death of innocents are acceptable in any situation, regardless of the actions that preceded them.

quote:

See thats why i dont see why Iraq doesn't do this... if they simply got rid of all their weapons, and if saddam showed ATTEMPTS at peace talks, let the UN inspectors search EVERYTHING, then we'd agree to help them out, give aid, etc.... all the USA needs is an assurance of peace and a serious lack-of-hostility!

I think Iraq is justifiably wary of the US motivation for picking it out of a host of possible choices in their "War on Terror"...you say that if A, B, and C are met that the US isn't going to attack, but I don't think Saddam, or a lot of people on this board entirely believe that.

For one reason or another Bush and his cabinet have been pushing hard for this war for months. Every time Iraq sounds like it's going to give in to their demands what's the US response? Elation? No, each time they respond by making increasingly unreasonable demands, which naturally means that eventually they'll push things to the point where Saddam has to stop giving in because he'd end up looking weak (a seriously dangerous proposition for any dictator) and likely end up being removed from office by his own people instead of by the US; which I'm sure you can imagine seems less glorious than a fight to the death with the "imperialist US forces"...when given the choice I'm sure *any* dictator would rather die fighting a foreign enemy than by having his own people knock him off in retaliation for looking weak, and IMHO this is basically the point we're getting to with the Iraq case.

The constant escalation of demands makes a lot of people wary of the US motives, especially when coupled with brilliant quotes from Bush like "That guy tried to kill my Dad"...

quote:

it would be a lot different with such an easy solution if some people would just put their pride away and suck it up. Don't worry about politics or US-relations with Israel and supposed favoritism or whatever-the-f*ck.... it doesn't matter - worry about yourself and don't "harass" anyone else (sic 'other countries').

First, by this rationale, the US should just "suck it up" and give in to international consensus that a war against Iraq is the wrong thing to do...because Bush is surely pursuing the war at this point out of pride, and an unwavering faith in the righteousness of his actions, because the majority view on it is crystal clear.

Secondly, you can try to seperate these other conflicts from the picture, but that's not going to give you a realistic look at things. This issue *isn't* happening in a vacume, so why should we try to treat a discussion about it as though it is?

quote:

Originally posted by CortexBomb I can't speak for anyone else in the thread, but I'm not saying the US should be obligated to give Iraq more food and medicine, I'm saying that they should be obligated to push for lessening sanctions so Iraq can sell more oil, and do more to procure these kinds of items for themselves, and from other countries so people aren't dying left and right.

ok there seems to be a big mis-understanding of how these sanctions work... Iraq CAN purchase/get a hold of food and medicine... the sanctions are on oil trade, metal trade, raw materials, etc... If Saddam really cared enough about his people, he could just approve spending to go next door (or pick any random country), and buy food and medicine... but he is not looking to do so. Just b/c people are starving and dying doesn't mean that Iraq can't purchase necessities... so we need to clear this up... and if you still disagree, look at it this way: Iraq didn't follow UN instructions on weapons inspections, so why would it "follow" the sanctions? if it REALLY wanted to, it would just violate them too! and don't tell me that no country would sell them any food or medicine - thats B.S.... you mean to tell me that all other countries in the world are pro-USA and anti-iraq? I don't think so...

quote:

I don't see a problem with sanctions on *weapons*, what I have a problem with is sanctions which prevent the flow of food and medicines. I don't think sanctions which directly cause the death of innocents are acceptable in any situation, regardless of the actions that preceded them.

again, you are glorifying iraq's case. Thats like blaming us for not helping out the homeless... for a crude example, i will reference the "bum" on the corner of 5th and Main everyday... I see this guy receive decent amounts of money begging everyday... probably enough to get himself back on his feet and DEFINITELY enough to buy decent clothes or some good food... Yet he always has a bottle in his hand and cigarettes, wearing the same raggedy clothes - and who knows what drugs he buys with the money (again, assumption).... but for the effect of my analogy here, do you catch my drift? You may offer the opportunity for someone to better their position, but that doesn't mean they will act on it.

quote:

I think Iraq is justifiably wary of the US motivation for picking it out of a host of possible choices in their "War on Terror"...you say that if A, B, and C are met that the US isn't going to attack, but I don't think Saddam, or a lot of people on this board entirely believe that.

well then everyone needs to do two things: 1) have some level of trust, (which iraq blew when they invaded kuwait), and 2) realize that the UN has clearly stated a set of rules, and why is Iraq so special they don't have to follow? After Desert Storm, treaties were drawn outlining certian things for iraq to do in order to earn its own "freedom" back .... yet they couldn't follow these simple steps? Back then it wasn't about pride - they were already conquered. They would have been back in the clear if they had just followed the rules. This is what i've been talking about - its not that hard. Bottom line: if saddam simply rid of his weapons of "mass destruction", and allowed the UN inspectors to survey ALL areas, i can GUARANTEE The USA would not invade. We are not doing this "for fun", trust me. But everyone on their anti-USA kick will point fingers at Bush and the US anyway saying we are warmongering and just want to pick a fight... :rolleyes

quote:

For one reason or another Bush and his cabinet have been pushing hard for this war for months. Every time Iraq sounds like it's going to give in to their demands what's the US response? Elation? No, each time they respond by making increasingly unreasonable demands, which naturally means that eventually they'll push things to the point where Saddam has to stop giving in because he'd end up looking weak (a seriously dangerous proposition for any dictator) and likely end up being removed from office by his own people instead of by the US; which I'm sure you can imagine seems less glorious than a fight to the death with the "imperialist US forces"...when given the choice I'm sure *any* dictator would rather die fighting a foreign enemy than by having his own people knock him off in retaliation for looking weak, and IMHO this is basically the point we're getting to with the Iraq case.

possibly true about saddam's pride part... but your whole comment about "every time iraq 'gives in' to demands the US just places harsher demands and there is no elation"... i dont like this comment at all - NOT true. The only, i repeat ONLY cooperation iraq has ever shown was to allow UN inspectors in AT ALL, but they still left certain areas off limits! whats the point in that!?? Duh he just moved and relocated his facilities and weapons! It was simply a PR stunt by saddam to garner some votes in his favor around the world.... and it worked. the USA has not made "increasingly unreasonable demands"... if you think so i'd like to hear one. The only demands the US has made are to remove its threats toward others. Shit 95% of the rest of the world had to do this. again, what makes iraq so special?

quote:

The constant escalation of demands makes a lot of people wary of the US motives, especially when coupled with brilliant quotes from Bush like "That guy tried to kill my Dad"...

wary of US motives? Correct me if i'm wrong, but iraq initially attacked Kuwait ten years ago right? ok, just checking, b/c by the way everyone's arguement has been going, you would have thought the USA was attacking innocent countries for their own personal gain. Thats iraq's job, get it straight!

quote:

First, by this rationale, the US should just "suck it up" and give in to international consensus that a war against Iraq is the wrong thing to do...because Bush is surely pursuing the war at this point out of pride, and an unwavering faith in the righteousness of his actions, because the majority view on it is crystal clear.

again here you are incorrect.... you are re-using my expression of "suck it up" for the wrong purpose - i was referring to saddam's pride at little to no physical cost... if the USA just pulled out and didnt do anything, nothing would stop the increasing terrorist camps, the threat of that hostility and weaponry in the middle east, and yes nothing would be shown to get some sort of payback for the attack on our country. Its not "international consensus" that a war with iraq is bad - where do you get your information? Most of the countries participating in the UN (and everywhere else for that matter) all AGREE that something needs to be done about iraq and saddam needs to be ousted, but the disagreements are all with how we "go about it".... the USA is gung-ho in this respect and wants to attack right now - but of course we do, iraq already violated its trust ten years ago, and over the last ten years haven't taken any steps to better itself or make itself a better part of the world community....

if you ask me ten years is more than enough to agree to simple terms.... again, we didnt tell them what government they had to have, we didnt tell them what religion to be, all we told them ten years ago after the war was to deplete your weapons and do NOT attack anyone else again. Those rules weren't that hard, and if in ten years they didn't even make a STEP towards fixing this, then IMO they are pretty much "asking" for it (literally asking, not the expression)... its almost as if they are daring us or something!

Anyway, off to bed. I'm out like the fat kid in dodge ball....

-ABT-

___________________
Peace.