& Bush

[Rat*haC]

I would like to share a quote from a German Justice Minister of Chancellor Schroeder. She said that Bush is using Nazi tactics by starting a war with Iraq to change the focus from our countries domestic problems.
I definitely agree with her, it’s the same thing that happened when Clinton was accused of lying; he started bombing Iraq to get people to change the focus from him to the war.
What do you think?

BERLIN, Sept. 19 -- Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's justice minister said yesterday that President Bush's "method" of pressuring Iraq was similar to tactics employed by Adolf Hitler because both sought to divert attention from domestic problems, according to a German newspaper

More of what she said

[Chuck56]

It's a tough call, and you might very well be right. On the other hand, I keep thinking back to the 9/11 thing and the speech he made.

Bush made it pretty plain over a year ago now that we'd be taking a hard look at a lot of places. In that respect, the thing with Iraq shouldn't surprise anybody. Iraq has in the past, and probably still is, financing and supporting terrorism. I think Iraq is one of many on the list. After we finish with them, there will be another, and another after that.

As far as the stock market taking a dive...if somebody sneezes in Timbuktu, the market is affected these days. I don't have a huge amount in it. I've got a LOT less now than before. I'm just letting it sit. The market will recover. It might take longer now. People today are motivated more by greed than in the past.

[KissCool]

Bush has all the reasons to provocate war:
- He have to change the focus of the people as you said.
- War is very good for the economy.
- After the 9/11, all his credibility his based on his anti-terrorist politic. Without terrorists, it's not really efficient. But, what lucky man he is, usa have a credible evildoer in stock.
- With those operations in Irak, usa will be able to do some pressures on anothers states.

The fact that Irak is in a very bad situation with the embargo and the non existence of real interests for them to help terrorism are not predominants factors.

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

Originally posted here by Chuck56
Iraq has in the past, and probably still is, financing and supporting terrorism.

How do you know that for a fact? Did you see it on The US propaganda machine, CNN?


Show me some solid evidence of Iraq's involvement in 9/11 attacks. I bet you can't.


On the other hand, here are some FACTS on loss of life during the Gulf War. SOURCE.

March 6, 1992: The Washington Post reports that the U.S. Census Bureau demographer assigned to estimate the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War will be fired. Beth Osborne Daponte estimates that 86,000 men, 40,000 women and 32,000 children died at the hands of American-led coalition forces, during the domestic rebellions that followed and from postwar deprivation. After various protests, the Bureau rescinds the firing but rewrites the report, lowering the death toll and removing the data on women and children. The following month, the Pentagon published its three-volume official history of the war, but a draft chapter on casualties is deleted and there is no mention of Iraqi deaths. (The London Independent, April 23, 1992)

[4MidgetHitmen]

I doubt that there will ever be any clear eveidence that Iraq had anything more to do with the 9-11 attacks then praising those who did it... That in and of it self makes no differance... As far as I can see the reason the US is going after Saddam at this point is that he is actively seeking to get weapons of mass destruction... IMO if he is allowed to get them he will give them to any terrorist that asks him for them so they can use them on Isreal, the US, or the UK... That makes the argument for going to war with Iraq very strong IMHO... As for the civilian deaths that were mentioned I haven't seen anyone mention the 100,000+ civilians Saddam killed during the war he had with Iran... OR the Kurdish civilians he has killed since the end of the Gulf War... some estimates put the number well above 100,000... Others put it around 50,000... THere is no reason to think that when the US and who ever goes into the war with us attack that there will not be civilian deaths... There are civilian deaths in all wars... They are a sad product of war and one that will never be changed unfortunately...
And as for Bush starting a war because he is just trying to get attention off of domestic issues I disagree... Clinton started bombing folks because he had commited a crime and didn't want teh sheeple of the US to notice he was about to get caught... Bush is doing nothing more than he saud he would do in speach on Sept 14, 2001... He is going after terrorists, those who sponser them, those who harbor them, and those who would give material aid to them...Just as many on AO I am sure I ahevone really very important reason NOT to go to war... My wife is in the Army... She has been away from home now for over 6 months supporting Operation Enduring Freedom in Afganastan... Do I want anyones wife, father, son, daughter, or husband to have to go to war? No but do I think it is going to happen and do I agree with it? Yes... Just my $.02...

[Conf1rm3d_K1ll]

Originally posted here by 4MidgetHitmen
Bush is doing nothing more than he saud he would do in speach on Sept 14, 2001... He is going after terrorists, those who sponser them, those who harbor them, and those who would give material aid to them...

Here's a "c & p" from a piece written by a Canadian activist, Steve Gowans. You can read the full article here. It's entitled- Does this country have the moral authority to lead the world?

The country's wars are always said to be fought for some high moral
purpose: to stop ethnic cleansing, to prevent tyranny, to uphold
international law, to defeat communist expansion, to root out
terrorism,
but somehow, while this is being done, the country always seems, as
John
Flynn once put it, to capture its enemies' markets while blundering
into
their oil wells.

No matter what your beliefs are, the article makes for an interesting read and I strongly recommend checking it out...

[gghornet]

First I'd like to say that the US has been talking about sending troops back into Iraq long before anyone had heard any mention of the insider trading scandals,so accusations that Bush is using Iraq to divert attention from himself is completely rediculous.Next,people get killed in wars.They always have and they always will.Letting ruthless dictators get their hands on nuclear weapons isn't the way to prevent that.I nuke dropped on any large city will kill and injure many more than 150000 people,not to mention making the land for miles around uninhabitable.Accusing the US government of being Nazi's disgusts me.It may not be a perfect government,but it's the best in the world in my opinion,and anyone who thinks otherwise go spend a few years in a third world country of your choice and come talk to me when you come back.The funny thing about all this is.I bet at least half of the people that are critisizing the US government now,are the same people that were saying lets kill 'em all immediately after 9/11.

[darkes]

Lots of interesting points here.

The reason for the views of the current German chancellor (Gerhard Schroeder ) are straightforward. He has taken a strong view against any sort of war against Iraq (and also to a large extent, a general anti US view), because this is popular with the voters.
His opponent (Edmund Stoibe) was ahead by 2-4% until Gerhard Schroeder changed his tactics, and now the result is too close to call. Can't really blame a politician for doing what his people want to hear, can you?

I don't think that there is significant evidence to link Iraq to 9/11. I think Bush made a big mistake in trying to claim that was the case (I don't expect Blair to claim that).
Of course, that doesn't mean that there may well be compelling evidence to support the claim that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Over here, it will all turn on what the UK's dossier about Iraq reveals when it is published on Tuesday in the UK, before the debate about Iraq in the House of Commons.

I don't believe that Bush or Blair are using this as a diversionary tactic. Why should they?
They are both doing fairly well politically, and have no need to invent a crisis.
They both believe that the policy they are pursuing on Iraq is valid from a moral perspective.

[detoxsmurf]

At first I was against the first strike policy. However after talking to a WWII veteran I changed my mind. He said if we had this policy piror WWII, we would have been able to stop Germany before they became a threat. He talked about how many friends died because we didn't stand up and stop Germany. We would have never dropped the bomb and killed all those people in Japan.

[Chuck56]

That's true detoxsmurf. My father says the same thing and the guys at the local VFW(Veterans of Foreign Wars) are all pretty much in agreement that, for a change, we're doing it right. Most of them are WW2 or Korean War vets. Most of them don't LIKE it, but the consensus seems to be that somebody has to take the lead. Right now, we're the only ones who can.

I've seen war and paid a small price, considering what happened to some of my buddies, and I don't wish it on my worst enemy. Still, I think it's got to be done. Even then, we aren't out of the woods. Those folks are here, and they're only waiting for somebody to give them the word.