War?

President Bush seems eager to start a war with Iraq.
People inside and outside of government are asking
if it is legal to start a war with no excuse other than
the general fact that we don't approve of the present
regime in Baghdad.

I'm thinking back many years to 1964:

Quote:

---

On the night of Aug. 4, the Pentagon proclaimed that a second attack by North Vietnamese PT boats had occurred earlier that day in the Tonkin Gulf -- a report cited by President Johnson as he went on national TV that evening to announce a momentous escalation in the war: air strikes against North Vietnam.

But Johnson ordered U.S. bombers to "retaliate" for a North Vietnamese torpedo attack that never happened

---

http://www.fair.org/media-beat/940727.html

How have we managed to take the focus off of Islamic terrorism
and onto Iraq instead?
:cool:

Vote GORE 2004!

Quote:

---

How have we managed to take the focus off of Islamic terrorism
and onto Iraq instead?
:cool: [/B]

---

According to the news, Donald Rumsfeld has directly link Hussein with Al Quaeda, and there are rumors abound that he is procuring a nuclear weapon, as well as other weapons, for them. Whether this is true or not, I don't know. I'd love to see Hussein taken out, but then again the next person to take over might be just as bad. Same thing happened in Afghanatstan, when we put in the next power -- a look what happened.

Personally, I think it's Bush trying to finish was his father started, and nudging information in that direction to justify his later actions. But what do I know, right?

:D

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by DarkGuardian
Same thing happened in Afghanatstan, when we put in the next power -- a look what happened.

---

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but since the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (not 'Afghanatstan') has fallen, a transitional authority under leadership of premier Hamid Karzai rules the country. Not only has Karzai been chosen by parlement, he also keeps a relative peace in the much tormented country, and is allied to all those that oppose terrorism.

If, on the other hand, you're referring to the Taliban: Yes, they were supported by the western world, the US in particular, but that was because they fought the Russian conquerors, then cold-war opponent of the United States. As far as I know, they delivered weapons to the Taliban (amongst other tribes and groups) to fight off the Russians: that they seized power after that war, was not the ultimate goal.

I personally think that we should have removed Saddam when we had an excuse in 1991. Then we had most of the UN with us, whereas now other counties seem to have run off when we ask for help.
I am happy that we have agreed to help the US here in England. I will be even happyer when this is all sorted out and the world can be a peace again

Guus,

I just this minute finished watching a documentary on the war in Afghanistan and according to reporters, Karzai is being viewed with much scepticism outside the main cities and for that part in these cities as well. According to reports he is viewed by the larger part of the Afghan population as a foriegn puppet which has been re-inforced this weekend with his adoption of US military bodyguards for protection. The Defence Minister requires US military approval before he can meet with his President - something that would not indicate stability in government at present. Tribal fighting is still raging in the remote areas of Afghanistan as it has for many years.

It was also reported the Taliban and Al Quaeda forces who fled to Pakistan (and it would appear aided by some of these Afghan allies) seem poised over the border in the tribal areas of the Pakistan mountains waiting to return the moment the international forces leave the region, making for the exit strategy of US led forces an extremely complex and difficult issue.

It was a fascinating overview of the "war" that I was previously unaware of and had not given much though about.

Thats the main problem with removing the leader of a country, the country will be very unstable for ages after and If we leave it like that then the country could turn back to its old ways

Sure, Afghanistan is still a mess - I'm not so naieve to think that a country transforms from a warzone to a paradise overnight. You can't compare it with a country (and it's leaders) like Iraq though.

Let's see some of the US picked leaders, Shaw of Iran, Marcos off the top of my head, then look to history and leaders on South America that the US picked since the 60's, Throw in a few in Africa, a few million dead or missing, hunger, etc. History alone if you take the time to learn it or if like me lived through much since the 50's you would see the US record of placing people into to power in other countries more often then not resulted in corruption, abuse of power to the everyday people of that country. I know first hand what Marcos did my wife is a filipina was in their country during and after he was removed. I simply see a very broad and general statement with no specifics and no objective reporting now days.

I absolutely agree Guus, and I think Afghanistan is as far from stability today as it has ever been.

Onto Iraq, I think the main question is not how to topple of Saddam, that by comparison will be the easy task. What type of government/regime is going to be created in the vacuum, the cost both fiscal and in lives for such a campaign and how the other nations of the Middle East and elsewhere are going to respond, are the difficult questions facing any of the decision makers at the moment. I do not envy anyone faced with the responsibilty of answering or acting upon these issues. - we can only hope they make the right ones that leave us a peaceful world in the end.