USA - Iraq (part 7387c)

Saddam hasn't complied with UN resolutions for 10 years. What do you think the missle raid on Bahgdad was? He has chemical weapons. That alone should have been enough for his ousting. He's decived, tricked, and been entriely uncooperative since the late 80's. It's amazing that he wasn't tried for convicted for war crimes after Kuwait. He's an evil man.
In my personal opinion, anyone who thinks that we don't have enough evidence or that Saddam shouldn't be taken from office is being a tad niave.(no offence). France is just being a serious pain. They argue the opposite on basis of mattering. (if that is a word) They still see themselves as a major world power. That is a bygone era for them since WWII. Like this article that I read a few days back; France will eventually agree to support the war effort because the US will go for it regardless of what they say. The US going against that wish is an open admittal to them being unimportant. So they will agree. For them, "it matters to matter."

Promote Peace! Viva la Evil Power-thirsty Dictators!

Putting on binoculars without taking the caps off... sticking two thumbs up at Stevie Wonder...Now who's weird? :/

Oh, and something else in reply to both Phat_Penguin and Mark Smith:

Who? The US of A, Canada and the UK.
When? From 1962 to 1971.
What? The US of A and Canada tested VX nerve gass on their own 'personnel' in 27 tests (military sources point towards 5,500 as the number of personnel involved). The UK tested Sarin gas on its own personnel.
Source? Ummm... the Pentagon (October 2002).

And neel is correct when he says he hasn't seen EVIDENCE yet... sure, we've seen some blurry pictures (take a blurry picture of my appartment, put some red circles around it and call it a nuclear plant.. sure sure) , some blurry 'taped conversations' (maybe they were taping the Iraqi version of the Simpsons... ) , some supposed links between Al-Qauda and Iraq (omg, did they really offer help to a supposed member of Al-Qauda? Sorry, but if a Belgian doctor refused help to someone like that, he'd get sued (even if it were Saddam himself)).
But then again... guess we're all used to evidence like the evidence offered concerning the Cuba-crisis. Now THAT was a "smoking gun"...

Since the original poster asked about opinions from about the world: have you guys ever wondered about the links between Bush and the American propaganda you've been fed? ANBC? FOX? I'm not trying to change opinions here, just trying to point out that sometimes it's worth to check multiple sources... (if only I could find a link to the story of an ex-member of the UN-search team who swears that the 'photo's' been shown by Powell are actually photo's been taken in 1991)...

I do agree with Negative about US media. It's generally a load of crap. Increasingly in the past 2-3 years the media is more hype and lies than truth. Especially with FOX and CNN. All of their poles and information is extrmely preverted and twisted to meet its Liberal task master's desires. They make 2 times as much news as they report it. And what they do report is only to draw hype or deliver bias to the masses. Also note how entertainment stories are headlined when there are world affairs and people dying. They cover who's new in the music commity rather than Oil crisis in Venezuela etc. etc. I'll just stop now, I could go on for hours. Peace.

xenis you provide alot of very good points, however you have to put yourself in the US governments position. The heads of the US have alot of pressure pushing them to fight with Iraq, especially after the Persian Gulf War. Sadaam is a madman and you should definitley not say you have anything against him. The people of iraq do not deserve any more suffering than sadaam has brought to them, and thats the US's standpoint, not only because sadaam has weapons. I agree with you, however. I am not a big US government fan, but again you have to put yourself in their position. I say we get rid of the UN, and just play nice.

I researched the US use of nerve agents against its people and from the information I could gather it was 1964 - 1968 and there were 4 tests using this evil stuff .... it was enlightening, thank you Negative (it was news to me) - but I noted the tests were conducted on (?) military personnel and the details at best are sketchy - (as one would expect) - I couldn't find any reports of mass deaths as a result.

Saddam's 'tests' are at best, pure evil on defenseless men, women and children. The US reportedly scrapped it bio-weapons program in 1997 under treaty (again - so it has been reported). The parallel beween US tests on their people and Iraq's use of nerve agents is in my opinion - is clutching at straws to justify non-action in the current situation.

During the research I found this site purported to be placed on the web by 'Kurdistan Democratic Party-KDP Revised: 28-01-2003, By Alex Atroushi' about the chemical massacre of the people
of Halabja by the Iraqi regime March 1988.

A poignant passage from the site;

Quote:

---

We were burnt as newly-grown plants,
In the current of poisonous winds,
And showed our dreadful wounds,
From one side of the world to the other.
But the unjust eyes of the world
Were never opened truly towards the oppressed.
The world only confined itself to a false regret,
And once again,
We became a target as heaps and heaps of martyrs,
We were the target of poisonous bombardments,
We were the target of destructive bombs,
And we remained the lonely oppressed ones of the world.
We rose from under tons of debris,
And stood up in the lands of poisonous bombings,
And we kept up standing and fighting,
Believe it, you people of tomorrow,
Believe such a history and learn a lesson,
Learn how to fight oppression in this way.*

* From the poem "Khaibar" by Mohammed Reza Abdol-Malakian.

---

I include the following warning, and do not do so lightly ....

** THE PICTURES IN THE SITE ARE GRAPHIC - VIEWERS DISCRETION IS ADVISED - CONTENTS MAY OFFEND **

This is why I say Saddam needs to be ousted from power and all the evidence I need;

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

Setting aside this WMD debate, as members of civilised nations and following the threads and comments we are obviously fighters/believers in our own equal rights, freedom and humanity - so why do we allow people like this to continue on their merry way ? Why don't the people of Iraq deserve the same freedoms we do - with all due respect to their cultural beliefs, of course ?

Why do we wait for one nation to take a stand against it, then nit pick over 'we want this evidence and that evidence' when there is volumes of evidence against this dictator over his treatment of his own people, if for that reason alone he needs to go - and as members of a global nation we should help the people of Iraq get rid of him.

No one said it will be easy, no one has said it will be pretty, throughout history many people before us have laid down their lives to give us the unbridled freedoms and lives we now happily lead - and many from other countries may have died within your borders protecting your way of life. How many Americans, Englishmen and Australians lie in graves throughout Europe in the defence of the defenceless/overwhelmed - lest we forget, people - lest we forget.

'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

I am with the war against iraq cause i think they are a threat towards the world remember guys its not just Usa is the Uk aswell we may be small be we are god damm mighty lol
Bin Laden was never found and Sadam is still around so i reckon we should go to war to stop him attacking any more inocent people as far as im concered he has been hiding weapons of mass destruction away and lying about them you see that was a bad mistake!

This is my opinion

Hope this doesnt affend any one cheers guys

I agree Sadaam is a madman and he and his friends should be put in jail or where ever he can't kill his own people anymore. I think none of us deny Sadaam is a murderer. I don't like the idea though the US of A and the UK moving to a second gulf war, even possibly takeing nukes with them (no proof of that though). Iraq needs to be saved, not exterminated.

There's only one problem with that. The US of A and the UK are much more stronger and in the last war there the fight was over in a few days. This is because they have much advantages in technology. Plains, tanks, all much faster stronger etc. Bit if this time only Sadaam and his friends are the target, you probably have to fight a war on a more equal level. That's a point of fair... even if you fight for a good cause. People ain't going to repeat a war like Vietnam and Korea. In a war like that the US of A and the UK will loose most of their advantage, exept the one that they just have much more man and (maybe) better trained. People will die though and in any war and especially in this place in history, people don't like dying in a war.

The reason for a big assault would be fear I think. Fear for loosing many soldiers and that's a good reason. A shame thing is that this argument is the one I heard least of all. I almost never heard the reason of Sadaam killing his own people as a motivation to this war. I heard terrorist, oil and some others. Sadaam is killing his own people since the last war there and even before that already. The US of A didn't interfere with that before. They kicked Iraq back to their own borders and that's it.

Quote:

---

'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' Edmund Burke (1729-1797)

---

Good men should do something, but they should do it the right way.

I just found out there's a sort of censored book in the netherlands. The least thing I would expect here: a censored book, in a land were drugs are illigal (in some way). Mein Kampf, Hitler's book, may not be published here. I think people should have a right to choose their own way of life to some extend. People shouldn't be forced into our democratic system. The next border is people still should be served by... (lack of english vocabulary) ... some humanitary rights like no discrimination or killing or I don't know what. I understand this book is forbidden, because it doesn't serve those rights. I still doesn't only contain bad things. OK, don't quote me on that, but I'll try to explain a little. A friend read the book and well Hitler based many of his idea's on Nietzsche' s books. Nietzsche was talking about obermensch (interpretation of a dutchy out of german in english: man who is "further"). Hitler talked about ubermensch (man who is "better"). There is a difference in that.

Sadaam has to be stopped, but who are the good men ? In my opinion that not the US of A or the UK ... yet.

hello,
Negative - "Oh, and something else in reply to both Phat_Penguin and Mark Smith:

Who? The US of A, Canada and the UK.
When? From 1962 to 1971.
What? The US of A and Canada tested VX nerve gass on their own 'personnel' in 27 tests (military sources point towards 5,500 as the number of personnel involved). The UK tested Sarin gas on its own personnel.
Source? Ummm... the Pentagon (October 2002). "
2 points on what you say here. -are you trying to justify what sadam insain does by what you are saying above? are you trying to say that it is ok for sadam to do these things because "the us of a has done them" do you have to find a nation of only the pure of heart to remove evil from this earth. i hear an argument like this all the time and frankly it is stupid and slanted with evil. people don't think some evil person should be taken out because anouther evil is going to do it. i think the fact is that some people just don't like bush, or republicans, that i think is the real reason for such logic.
look at the link by phat_penguin and maybe you can understand why i get VERY upset about the deffence of sadam.

as for the issue of what you say is true or not. i am not sure i do know that every time i get in a debate with a left wing they start telling me all these obscure ref. to EVIL things the white man or US of A has done. like Noem Chompsky, if you read his books all his arguements are full of obscure facts and he has been provin to be makeing them up many times. I am sorry if i get upset at people in this bored but the fact is (if any news sorces are remotely correct, and i have looked at a # of them) then saddam is like a bad mix of hitler and stallin and it makes me F*#$ing sick when people wanna go on about -well he hasn't really done much wrong, why can't we just let him be, BUSH KNEW. and all that crap every one has heard a million times. people stop thinking with your hate for republicans and start thinking with your love of your fellow man. sadam in evil as evil as people can get he has power and needs to be taken out

i think this is going to be my last post on this thread because - "to the makeing of many" political arguements "there is no end and much devotion to them is tireing to the flesh"

long live the capitalists,
mark smith

Mark: have I ever said that I justify Saddam's actions? This debate is NOT about whether he's a madman or not, it's about HOW the US is planning on settling the conflict. I don't justify what Saddam has done (I don't even doubt it. Iraq, Iran and Turkey have all used nerve gass against Kurds. Nerve gass supplied by Germany in this case.). You stated that 'maybe it has something to do with the fact that we don't use chemical wepons on our own people to test them', I called you on that one. Maybe a little low, but definitely not from some "obscure left wing sources".
Fox News
USA Today

True or not? You decide.

You get upset about the defense of Saddam? Who upset you, then? I didn't stand up for him, and I never will. I'd like to know something else though: do you get upset by people defending Ariel Sharon? If you don't (your government obviously doesn't), take a look at this: Sabra and Shatila massacre (extremely graphical).

My point in this? The way the media and governments decide who is a madman and who not, and when they are and when not. Phat_Penguin mentioned the bombing of Halabja:
Remember how before 1990 Iraq was the US's best friend? In May 1990, American Intelligence claims that Iraq does not have cyanide, nor produces it. The bombing of Halabja (a Kurdian city) in 1988 is blamed on Iran (the US's arch-enemy before 1990).
Enter the Gulf War (following on the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq). Enter the CIA with proof that Iraq DOES have cyanide.
And let's not forget that the US in the '80s provided Iraq with anthrax and other WMD's (Senate report, May 25, 1994, 198 pages - another obscure left-wing source).

The question in this debate is not (at least not for me) who the real madman is. The question is HOW to solve the crisis.
By going to war? By bombing the country to hell? By killing both Iraqi and American soldiers? I have some objections against that option. Iraq may have WMDs (although I stay by my opinion that I have not seen real proof yet). What good would a war be? How will you be sure that after the war the WMDs will be gone? You won't. You will if you let the weapons inspectors do their work. Once you know what exactly Saddam owns, where it is and what state it is in, you hit Saddam right where he doesn't like it. Monitor his arsenal, and you have him in your grip. I have to agree that the threat of a war might help the inspectors to do a better job though. Is a war THE way to take out Saddam? I don't think so...

It still bothers me that Iraq is the big enemy right now. Why isn't Israel? Turkey? Korea? Iran? Both Iran and Turkey have been guilty of using nerve gass against Kurdish minorities. Both Iran and Turkey still have WMDs. Israel violates UN resolutions every day...

er0k suggested to get rid of the UN. No more UN, no more UN resolutions, no more resolutions for Iraq to break, no more reasons for a war...

Call me left wing, I don't care. Better than right wing anyways. And I'm more a capitalist than your average American, Mark.
And comparing Saddam to Stalin or Hittler would do both of them short...

I've read through this thread several times, promised myself to stay out of it, yet here I am. I've scaled down the perspective from which this issue is viewed, hopefully to make my PERSONAL POV a bit easier to understand. First and foremost, I will state I would prefer to see this settled by peaceful means if at all possible. That being said, on to the scaling down....

I live in a small town (the world) that has several neighborhoods (continents) divided by various geographic features (oceans). Several years ago in one of the other neighborhoods, one of the residents (who hated me, btw) started threatening some of my friends and was disrupting the whole neighborhood in the process. Some of the people in that neighborhood didn't want me wading in and trying to settle the dispute, asking instead for me to help in other ways....like giving them the support (weapons) they needed to settle it themselves. I agreed to this (in retrospect a STUPID decision) and left the bulk of the situation to be settled by the residents of the neighborhood.

After that dispute was settled things really started getting messy. The guy that offered to settle the earlier dispute got "two-faced" on me and started using the support items I had given him on people IN HIS OWN HOUSE (a mistake that I too had made earlier, but as one member said, two wrongs don't make a right.) in full view of the entire town. To make matters worse, this guy went to a different neighborhood and bought himself a catapult so he could use the stuff that I gave him on his neighbors, who happen to be friends of mine also. Then the idiot goes and TAKES OVER his next-door neighbors house, tells all the residents that they will now be living by his rules, and if they don't like it then they can leave or die. The head of that household came to me to help him get his house back. So off I go, trying to clean up the mess I made.

So I get my friends house back for him and start to move in on the two-faced next-door neighbor, but along come the courts (the U.N.) telling me that the matter is considered settled and sending me home....the court set up a patrol (weapons inspectors) at this guys house to keep an eye on him, laid a stiff fine (economic sanctions) on him and declared the matter settled.

But it wasn't settled....12 years ago the guy threw the patrols out of his house, started working odd jobs (illegal trading, which the court had told him he couldn't do) and taking the money to buy more stuff to attack his neighbors with, even though the people in HIS OWN house were sick and starving. He started (and is still) trying to get stuff that is even more destructive than the stuff I gave him. He is trying to intimidate anyone who opposes him with the threat of violence and destruction. He has been accused of trying to buy (or build) bigger catapults so he can lob stuff at the people down the street too, not just his next door neighbors. If left unchecked (based on his previous behaviour) he will eventually get his hands on a catapult that can reach anywhere in the entire town. In the meantime, according to his son, he has people with bombs in MY HOUSE as well as the homes of some of my neighbors. He says that if I make a move to stop him, he will start bombing my house, not a pleasant thought IMHO. He went as far, btw, as to let the patrol back into his house, but he has a reputation for being deceitful and burying stuff under the house so it won't be found. I find his sincerety about wanting a peaceful resolution questionable at best

That being said, can anyone here tell me how to resolve this conflict without burning him and his house down? I know if I do that it will upset some of the people in the town (most likely the ones who have been able to prosper because of him *cough* France...Russia *cough*), but given his total disrespect of the court system (U.N.) and the rules it imposes, I'm having problems seeing a way out of this situation that will keep the majority of the town happy. Some of my friends want me to let the courts handle it, but this guy has already shown that he WILL NOT obey the orders of the court. I know that I had a lot to do with causing the situation in the first place, and I want to clean it up before it gets more out of hand than it already is.

Again, I stress that I am NOT ADVOCATING war....I'm just having trouble finding alternatives that will get the results that the town wants to see.

Neg.....I understand your position and even agree with some of your points regarding the media and such here. But I will point out to you that before he builds a catapult that can hit my house, he will build one that can reach yours. Food for thought.

What we need to ask those who object to military action so loudly, is "What is the solution?" Watching CNN when I am supposed to be writing a paper, I just watched it reported that both France and Russia are requesting, no, demanding a peaceful solution. Ok... what IS that solution? There is nothing specific behind those statements and it has been the same frell that I have been hearing for some months now. Also - the objectors - are they truly objecting for the reason of peace, or because they perhaps, just perhaps have a stake of sorts already tied up in that locale?

I still say the US/UK/AUS and any other units pull out of the Gulf now and let France, Russia and any other objectors handle this situation in Iraq; obviously we are not performing to par, so let's move out of the way and let those other ideas happen. The US needs to refocus on our own issues and the 'War on Terrorism.'

We should be focusing on our own economy and people. I am tired of seeing our flag burned in other countries becuase we have not handled situations to those people's liking. Is that an answer? Or would our flag be burned more often? Again - what is the right specific answer that would satisfy at least most of the world?

:confused:

I live in the US and it seems to me that most people are anti-war and anti-Bush. This is due to the sad fact and most people here in the US don't know anything about politics. These are the people who have jumped on the anti-Bush bandwagon and constantly talk about "bushisms" when in fact they have no idea what is going on.

Personally, I support a war in Iraq, but it should be a swift, powerful attack against military targets. The only thing I am really worried about is if Saddam uses his biological/chemical/nuclear weapons on our soldiers or launches them at Israel. In my opinion, Saddam launching weapons against Israel or any other target in the area will happen eventually if he is not removed from power.

Some people say that Bush is just mad because Saddam tried to kill his father. I can see why some people might say this but it is not really true. What we did in the Gulf War was help Kuwait when they were invaded by Iraq. Saddam never tried to kill Bush Sr. in any way really.

Overall I hope we attack Iraq and have a swift, total victory with as few casualties as possible and no use of weapons of mass destruction.

War , war , war this is sad ! I am not agree with any war .. We have in here there good opinions about this .... Anyway if all in this world (the world great powers) had belived the path of war is not going anywhere .. problably not even first world war started ...
And now if the things are going like they do we are aproching the third war .. and i am not so shure if this is indicated for any of us and the rest of the human beens ...

This is my opinion ...

Cya .... may GOD have mercy on us ....

"The men who create power make an indespensable contribution to the nation's greatness, but the men who question power make a contribution just as indespensable, especially when that questioning is disinterested, for they determine whether we use power or power uses us."
J.F.K
October 26, 1963

I especially enjoy the comments "we don't use chemical weapons on our own people". That may be "somewhat" true, but Donny Rumsfeld and the boys sure didn't mind stocking up Saddam with those weapons way back when did they?

North Korea is over there, banging the snot out of its cage saying they'll nuke anything that threatens them.

Iraq has it's back against the wall and has continually said, "we have nothing...come look".

So it looks somewhat strange that Dubya is focusing all his aggression on Iraq. I'm sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the "fact" that Iraq has a confirmed 112 billion barrels of oil under its feet.

Powell, who has the highest approval ratings of anyone in the Bush admin, is now being used as target practice since George can't open his mouth without tanking the stock market.

Rumsfeld. What an ass.

Tony Blair. "Look at this dossier we have"....(proven to be plagerized from a 1991 student thesis)......"er, ah, umm, hmm, oh..never mind"

America is a great place. Unfortunately they happen to have an ass running the show, who, with his gang of idiots (I exclude Colin Powell), has managed to erode 226 years of pretty impressive global prosperity and friendship, in just a few short years.

At least with Clinton, the only thing getting blown up, was located in his pants. (Please don't enlighten me about Oklahoma City and the Murrah building or the original WTC explosion which happened on Clintons watch. Both those stories have more gaping holes than a Palestinian fruit stand)

Saddam is a headache. Most people get rid of a headache with a couple aspirins. Dubya is set to launch 700+ rockets into Iraq. Newsflash George: You don't kill a headache by cutting off the head. Canadian military snipers can take out targets over 2000 yards away. Maybe you should give em' a call.

Its funny how I see the thoughts of AO members in other counties so passive on this issue...Do keep in mind that if it was in your backyard you would be a little more concerned.

Yeah I guess I am biased as well since we lost so many people in 9/11 and was Saddam involved with BinLaden in which whom was in that terroist cell intellegence has found that to be relevent.

These terrorist cells are against freedom and whom is that? Why does many want to come here?

Remember this; if these terrorists succeed in ruining this freedom (many years of blood and sweat for what we have fought for) in the USA what makes you think they wont come after you?? And who will be there for you when you need them?

Do you remember the day that Saddam was "elected" into power? What happened? Many people of that government were killed. Not to mention a city...(WOD) What do you think killed them?? MOD????? What kind of person do you think Saddam is?? Do you think he's a man you can reason with???

2+2...Come on people...as always when other countries need us we are there...When we need them...We stand alone...

Whatever...I came here to talk about computers not "part 7387c"

I recently got sent this quote from Albert Einstein that really got me thinking, and I think that it is relevant to this particular thread and about war in general.

I apologise if it has been posted previously...

Quote:

---

It really comes down to a very basic choice that we have to make as a civilisation:

Either:

we will learn to bury the animosities of our ethnocentric, militant traditions and come down to understand that Earth's survival depends on our collective, unified participation...

or

we will sustain this cycle of violence and revenge until humanity is returned to the state of primitivity and, Earth, reduced to the rubble of antiquity.

It's really up to us...

---

How very true...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xylinx
Its funny how I see the thoughts of AO members in other counties so passive on this issue...Do keep in mind that if it was in your backyard you would be a little more concerned.

---

How is Iraq in your backyard? We Europeans are right inbetween Iraq and the US... More our backyard than it is yours...
I'll explain to you why we are so 'passive' about this in a little...

Quote:

---

Yeah I guess I am biased as well since we lost so many people in 9/11 and was Saddam involved with BinLaden in which whom was in that terroist cell intellegence has found that to be relevent.

---

Saddam involved with Bin Laden? How?
The American Intelligence community has seen the light... They've discovered that the danger is in the unknown, more particularly in the 'unknown unknown'. The unknown consists of what one knows that he doesn't know (the known unknown), and that what one doesn't even know he doesn't know (the the unknown unknown). And that, according to Donald Rumsfeld, is what the Intelligence Community should focus on... the unknown unknown.
Traditionally, intelligence services gather factual information (tapped phones, satellite intel, spies,...). This mass of information then is translated, filtered, grouped, and analysed. What's left over will be the basis of a hypothesis, on which the government will base it's policy.
The "problem" with this method is that you'll only find things you only knew, or, in the best case, things you knew you didn't know yet (indeed, the known unknown).
Enter Rumsfeld and the unknown unknown. Rumsfeld orders Intelligence services to reverse their way of operation: they'll have to start from a hypothesis, then look for factual information, and finally interprete that information so that it serves the hypothesis. Enter Bush and the TTIC (Terrorist Threat Integration Center).
The result: because the CIA kept on minimizing the link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, the Pentagon accused the CIA of being 'pigeons'. Colin Powell, dubbed with the 'pigeon' image as well, didn't have a choice: last Wednesday, he tried to convince the world that there IS a connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.

Am I making this up? Nah... just read the most recent The New York Times:
"Rumsfeld deserves a lot of credit for challenging the conventional wisdom and burocracy", CIA-director Tenet told The NYT. "We insist that intelligence often is not about proof, but about the lack of proof".... DOH.

Now, about our 'passive-ness'...
'Inexcusable'... that's what Powell called, amongst others, Belgiums stance in the Nato concerning Iraq. Powells reaction followed on an announcement by France, Germany and Belgium that they will use their veto against indirect military support, more exactly military support for Turkey. Why are we doing this? Because public opinion in most of Europe is against a war and we live in democracies, plain and simple. Rumsfeld lost his 'cool' when he found out that Germany and France have been working on an alternative plan ('Project Mirage'): their plan is to tripple weapons-inspections, bring UN-soldiers to Iraq to supervise the disarmament of Iraq (which would turn Iraq into UN-controlled territory), prohibit air-flight above Iraq, and have Mirage IV planes patrol the area. An Iraqi violation would be sanctioned, and there would be a strict control of Iraqi import, also preventing it from smuggling oil.
25,000 Germans were protesting outside the building where Rumsfeld was claiming that 'there is no difference of opinion between the German and the American people; just the governments differ in opinion'.

Bush and company can't seem to get used to the idea that at the other end of the Atlantic, people also can think for themselves.
Once again, the American government showed their lack of diplomacy. The US talking about 'the Old Europe'... Maybe they should remember that the Old Europe was the Europe of nationalism, kolonialism and war. Luckily enough, we're way beyond that stage already...
'Inexcusable'? Whatever...

XyLink is right. He means that terrorism (not Iraq) is/has happened right in our backyard. A lot of people in other countries would have very different opinions if they had been watching two towers in their biggest city be destroyed. You have no idea what if felt like on september 11th unless you live here in the US.

Iraq is a country that could be very rich due to oil, but unfortunately the Iraqi government is extremely corrupt and the leader is a madman. Do you honestly believe that Saddam was elected by 100% of the people? There was no democratic election. Saddam starves and kills his own people, keeping them in constant fear. Obviously a regime change is in order. Saddam is a threat to the region and is own people, he is a tyrant who will do anything to add to his power.

And people please don't complain about Bush. A complete idiot wouldn't get elected president. Or would you have liked to have Gore elcected? He wouldn't have done anything after september 11th.

I fail to see what exactly Sept 11 has to do with Saddam?

There are a lot of dictators and leaders of countries that are extremely corrupt around the world, and there are also a lot of countries around the world that have admitted to possess weapons of mass destruction.

Im sure the reason why the US has singled out Iraq has abolsutely nothing to do with the billions of barrels of oil that they are sitting on. </sarcasm>

It seems to me that no matter what happens the US is always wrong in the rest of the world's eyes. If we weren't waging this War on Terrorism, other world leaders would be saying that the US needs to do something before another major terrorist attacks happens. In the case that we are doing something, everyone acts like the US is very evil and just wants to control the world.

The US has not exactly singled out Iraq, as Bush named both Iran and North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil, Iraq is just the first country that we are doing something about. Also, the US's past history with Iraq has caused our focus to be on them first. Not to mention that Saddam has been harbouring terrorists that are related to/members of Al-Qaeda, who were behind the attacks on September 11th.

Quote:

---

..everyone acts like the US is very evil and just wants to control the world.

---

I dont think that anyone here is acting like this.

I think that people are starting to have the opinion and belief that the US only act on such things if they are going to benefit finacially.

The US believe that Iraq has weapons. Why? Cause Rumsfield sold them to Saddam!! Why? To make a shitload of money!!

Think about it...

Who has weapons of mass destruction:

India - YES
Pakistan - YES
North Korea - YES
Iraq - Maybe???

Why does the US choose to start war against Iraq?

- To disarm him (IMHO, no)
- To free the innocent civilians (IMHO, no)
- To save a few cents a barrel on the price of Oil (IMHO, yes).

everybody knows "good cop - bad cop" right.

Blair: George this jerk has made *******s out of us long enough

Bush: You right Tony. Let’s go kick his ass ive had enough of this ****

UN: hey wait a second guys let’s not get carried away here. hey saddam you really better show these guys your co-operating. i dont know how much longer i can hold them back.

Blair/Bush: you cant hold us back were gonna go kick his friggen butte.

Saddam: im co-operating already, look …see...go watch with U2s.

Blair/Bush: too little too late saddam were coming for you.

UN: you have to do better than that man they’re loosing it.

Saddam: here…have some secret documents

France Belgium Germany: Hey wait i think maybe we should think this over. looks like he really might be co-operating here

Blair/Bush: Bullshit lets get him.

UN: saddam I really think I can make them back off if you’ll just go a little further. Others are starting to believe you.

Saddam:....

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/opinion.cfm?id=164982003

The hawks have made Saddam turn panicky

KATIE GRANT

IF, FINALLY, we do not go to war with Saddam Hussein, it will be the hawks wot won it. In the face of the implacable resolve of Blair and Bush, the old despot is getting panicky, hence the rather better "co-operation" with the weapons inspectors. Nothing like that would ever have happened had "Old Europe" had its way and we were all still turning a blind eye to Saddam’s regime, content to allow him to starve his people while bolstering up a potentially lethal arsenal in order to keep himself in power.
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

Am I the only one here that thinks we might be playing this out exactly as its been written for us. Not just by the UK and US but by all the UN nations

If saddam needs to think where after his oil to motivate him…fine. That’s the only thing that keeps him out of the bronze age. Im sure he doesn’t want to loose that.

Family grudge…just as cool.

All of the above…even better.

Al-Quida terrorist threats if war is launched…no affect.

Our message…give it up dude.

His answer…what do you think. Hes a punk-ass

Yes it’s a very dangerous game but hes a very dangerous man. And I really can't believe the UK and USA would go against world opinion. If you do, i think the plan is working because that means he does.

Hello everyone. I have been reading this thread again and again. Actually im scared to post in here, seeing that you could get negged to death if your opionion is not shared by the others. Which kinda sux actually. Anyways, to get to the point. I agree on the fact that there would have to be some form of control for global security. A form of control that PREVENTS :

1- WARS - Wars are not a solution anymore for peace. Wars are only being done for personal gain, either its money, power, oil, wannabe importance etc...

2 - Terrorism - Terrorism should not be faught by war. With war you just kill everything around the actuall problem/targets/terrorists.

3 - Slavery and rasism - Sad as it may seem, but slavery and rasism still exist in many places of the world.

4 - A leader - A leader, or any goverment who tries to make decisions on the faith of other countries.


My beliefs are that the war on iraq is mostly for personal gain. The reason why other countries do not agree with that statement officially is really simple. They are scared. Its not the respect for the US, but they are scared to tell them what they think. In germany someone (i forgot the name of that person, its a while ago) stated that the way Bush is handling the situation is very similar to what Hitler intended todo. (not just about Iraq, but also the next targets to come) That person got arrested! Why can the US afford to start war anywhere they please??? Because they've got the rest of the world by their balls. Every country owes money to the US. Let me give you an example:

1 - Every country owes money to the US.

2 - Every country is dependend on the US.

3 - The entire world's economy is controlled by the US.

If a country chooses not to abide by what the US wants, life can become hard there. Wall street owns the world. The metal manufactures, the weopons manufactures, the oil companies, they control the world, and the biggest ones are US property. No country will ever stand up and tell the US to STOP, simply because they have no chance. The US knowing all this doesnt give a **** and do what they please. Who gives Bush the right to start a war???? Who gives him the right to actually transport any military unit outside of the US. The middle east, asia, africa are far away from the USA. Bush cant even control internal issues properly. Internal issues include drugs, criminals, rasism, slavery (all the prostitutes who are captured and shipped in), weopons deals and a bunch more i cant even imagine. Now he wants to take over international issues? What a joke! My point will be proven after the war in Iraq, there will be a new target, a new war, new reasons (which really are no reasons, or non of Bush's buisiness), more killing and bombing. Noone can stop this. The US controls the world. Sad but True. The world does not have a choice. If a country chooses not to abide by whatever the US wants, that country will go under:

1 - Economically - All the major US companies will leave. The flow of money will be stopped.

2 - The US will remind that country of its depths.

3 - The US will find a reason to bomb them.

There really is no solution. If the US cuts out from the rest of the world, (which is dependend in many ways), the rest of the world will suffer a great deal. The only thing that will happen is that Bush will wage more wars, the next president will wage more wars, until they actually own the entire planet. Its only a matter of time until they find a reason to start a war on Europe, or the USSR, or any other location. Now you will all say im exagerating....LOL, wait and see in 20 years.

I am against this war, and against any war for whatever reason. War is crime. When Bush will attack Iraq, the only victims will be women and children. Saddam who is somewhere 2 miles underground in a bunker, with his PS2 and his 120" color sony TV eating only good food will just watch Bush destroy life on the surface. Now you would say that wars also include innocent victims. Hah. Bush doesnt care. Its not Saddam he wants, its Iraq he wants. If Saddam would be eliminated, and the next day someone else were to rule Iraq, that would not stop Bush from starting a war. The media is corrupt on what really happens. The media shows you what the US government wants you to see, and nothing more. The protests around the globe screaming to end this war can change nothing. Not even Bush can change anything. Its the major industry that controls the government, and all they want is $$$$ and power. As long as there is greed, there will be killings. Killings include wars, terrorist attacks, any abuse of resources. I wish i could say that i can think of a way to stop all wars, or just even this war, but i cant. Its too late. Bush is too powerful. The US industry is too powerfull.

I live in a small village in greece. My parents are farmers. We dont own many things (i used to share my bedroom with my family, cause we had no space). I wake up every morning and goto the bus stop for a 1 hour ride to work. I see the ocean from my home, the beauty of the nature. Exactly the same situation applies for a family in Iraq. With the difference, they are in great danger of being bombed. And in my situation its a matter of time. What happens if greece strikes oil. How long will it take until that oil will become property of the US. That family in Iraq is the only one who will loose from this war. Their lives. And what for?? Because a madman called Bush and Saddam cannot sit down like civilized people and work things out. Bush will not loose, he will still have his private chopper, his cavier, his little dogs we see on tv when going from the whitehouse to the helicopter. Saddam, no, nor will he loose, hes safe. But that family will loose. Who can they ask for help??? Noone. Saddam doesnt care about this family, and Bush is too busy trying to bomb the world. Your all sitting here talking about what Bush should do about this situation. But who here is discussing that family's fate. The fate of thousands of familys. What about them? What about all the blood and sadness that will arise from this war and the next targets to come? The loss of people or things that they love. I see comments in here saying:

Quote:

---

I am with the war against iraq cause i think they are a threat towards the world remember guys its not just Usa is the Uk aswell we may be small be we are god damm mighty lol

---

sad... Sounds like another movie where the US is out to save the world. But who will save the world from the US?

My deepest apologies if i have insulted anyone personally here. But the question stated in this thread was what we think. And this is what i think and the way i see it. And all our discussion, discoveries about who said what, when, where, can it be proven etc.... will not change the fact that Bush will go out and KILL.


My post is stated only for the innocent victims who will arise out off all this violence and crap that goes around the globe.

Cheers.

//addon//

I flamed the US here because they are the ones who actually have the power at this time. If it were another country who had this much power, they would do the same. GREED.

Cheers

Hey instronics,

I agree with a large part of your post, about the USA being powerfull enough to conquer large parts of the world, every little piece at a time. I disagree the US of A is at this moment the most powerfull might on this world. Maybe they will be ever, if they conquer all small lands and have military bases everywere. The world trusts the US of A, to not mess up the world. If they will there's still another half of that same world that can live without US support and also have their own nukes and ****. Bush will be saved, but he will have maybe 10% of his voters alive if it really comes to a nuclear worldwar.

Economy controls the world and the big companies can ruin lands. Yeah, but the US of A isn't the most powerfull. Not every country owes the US money, not every country is dependand on the US and the US surely doesn't control world economy. If it did, some people would call that communism. The "tangles" the US "controles" Europe with are mostly based on trust treaties and army bases. Nuclear missile Bases all over europe. Bullshit nonsence, but true.

True is though, the banks, of wich the US of A does control lot's of things (because it lends so many lands money). Those don't control the world, they opres 3rd world countries. Because those countries haveing debts there, wich they have to pay of in half the lands total income. They never get out of those debts, so they can decently build up their country to standards wich don't have gigantic deathrates for hunger because of a flood. Even the netherlands could "control" a land like that. Dont pay? Military actions... They never had the change to build up a defense because they were to worried to stay alive.

I refuse to believe the US of A is going to conquer the world (maybe I'm stupid and blind, but I don't believe that yet). I also don't want to connect Bush or the US of A to anything like Hitler, but there are similarities. Time and situation is different, but noone expected Hitler to be like the way people know him now. He played with the peoples minds, the same way Bush and others are doing. I try to be clean of all talks and look at things that do happen only.

I don't even want to discuss fi other copuntries would do the same, I don't know, don't want to know, don't want to tell my view on that.

I have the I forgot something I wanted to say. I'll add it when I remember.

Hello neel, sorry for waiting so long for my reply. I wanted to think well before responding to your reply. Let me try to explain my thoughts on that.

Quote:

---

I agree with a large part of your post, about the USA being powerfull enough to conquer large parts of the world, every little piece at a time. I disagree the US of A is at this moment the most powerfull might on this world. Maybe they will be ever, if they conquer all small lands and have military bases everywere. The world trusts the US of A, to not mess up the world.

---

Its not because its the USA. Any country with this amount of power would abuse it. Abuse it to satisfy their needs. Their needs are blinded by greed, greed as in what they can take since they have that kind of power. All the talking they do (or anyone owning that power) will try to find excuses like the arguments presented by the USA and the UK. Sorry, not the US, but BUSH. Let me make that clear, that i do make a difference between Bush and the people of the US. I tend to exagerate when i said that Bush or the next one in charge will keep on conquering....i love to exagerate. But be sure that Iraq is not the last target. Its nowhere near the last target. When Germany and France said that they are withdrawing their intention of attacking Iraq with Bush, Bush said that Germany and France are becoming a problem. This statement is something i want to be very carefull about, since my only source to it is the media. So, now comes the question, truth or lies. The world does indeed trust the US, but only until the attack on Iraq. Once this has been accomplished, (maybe even sooner, who knows) and the next target is to be specified as "war against terrorism", or "The new target has weapons of mass destruction" the trust will fade. You cannot expect Bush to understand that he is messing up the world, he's blinded with hate and greed. I choose the words hate and greed because his actions will kill human lives (remember that poor family).

Then also:

Quote:

---

Economy controls the world and the big companies can ruin lands. Yeah, but the US of A isn't the most powerfull. Not every country owes the US money, not every country is dependand on the US and the US surely doesn't control world economy.

---

Economy does own the world. The US is the worlds largers economical leader. Its not only the companies, but also the "foul" play that would follow. And ok, its not every country thats depented. But...the countries that are depentend are the countries that have alot of power themselves. Germany, UK, France, Austria, Italy and a few others. They cannot stand up against the US, because they are totally dependend on the US and are scared what would happen if they stopped supporting the US. Even Greece. Alone if the Coca Cola company was to shut down all foreign departments, do you have any idea how many people would loose their jobs? How about Microsoft? And and and....

Quote:

---

I refuse to believe the US of A is going to conquer the world (maybe I'm stupid and blind, but I don't believe that yet). I also don't want to connect Bush or the US of A to anything like Hitler, but there are similarities. Time and situation is different, but noone expected Hitler to be like the way people know him now. He played with the peoples minds, the same way Bush and others are doing

---

I agree with part of that. Ofcourse you cannot believe many things the rest of the world is accusing Bush for. You cannot understand how that "family i mentioned earlier" thinks. You are pretty much dependend on the media, on what people tell you. Bush tells you its about protecting the world, protecting you. About how evil the target is, and how they will save the world. Its eveywhere you look, the ads on the bus stop, the stations, magazines, news papers, media, internet. Which is why i clearly said earlier on that i make a difference between you, the people, and Bush. Im by no means saying that what Saddam did/is doing/wants todo is correct or good. Thats beside the point. But who elected Bush to be the savior. With what rights does he do what he plans on doing? Your everyday surrounding is that so called "playing with peoples minds". In the media, you see the US soldier helping a kid find shelter from an attack, or the US medical department helping the wounded. What you do not see is the bombs killing innocents, killing lives, hopes, the land itself. Damn, i hope i dont sound to much like greenpeace. :p
You dont see the loss. Just the gain.

Please everyone, i hope noone is offended by my words, no offense intendted. Just my thoughts and experience. I for one can see clearer the opinions of Iraq, due to my greek mentality, my way of life. Its not too different. In greece, the people themselves do not agree with the way of Bush, or any so called 1st world country. Maybe its jealousy (we dont even have dsl yet). Maybe its because we have much more freedom that the US, or other countries. Who knows. Fact is that the landscape i live in and my style of life is similar to any middle eastern country. So, im imagining the fact, that if the US was to come here (greece), and want something, our people (not our government!!!!), would not welcome that, resulting in putting us as a target. A target not necessarily for war, but the so called "foul" play. They would try to make us look bad/wrong/evil in the eyes of the UN, and the rest of the world. If its Saddam you all want, go take him out. But not because Bush wants it. Let me put it this way. What if Iraq would surrender? If saddam would truly suicide, or tell the US that they may have won the war, but that nothing on Iraqi territory was to be taken to the US (oil, other resources). What then? Is there any source of guarantee that the US will not rape Iraq's resources for their own benefit or profit??

I await what you wanted to add.

Cheers.

well, I'm against all war... I think peace is a valour that cannot be cancelled whit a stupid war...
But American ( I hope) must have their reason to do this terrible thing called war....
Saddam is a mad man there is no doubt...
I'm very confused of what it's happened from 9/11 till today... to many secrets, to many things that aren't clear...
if you want there is a lot of link that can be usefull to understand or make more confusion in our mind...
Sorry but the site are almost all in Italian but some interesting link are in english....
if you want some document just tell me and I will send you what you want... (I had downloaded a lot....)

the list is:
http://www.nowar.too.it/
http://www.noallaguerra.8m.com/
http://www.attaccoagliusa.too.it/
http://www.public-action.com/911/cbsflight77/
http://antiterrorismo.supereva.it/
http://www.twintowersday.com/index.php

PS: Good Thread...
and very good replies

KEEP PEACE ALIVE!!!!!

I agree with Soggybottom - I read the papers, I watch the news, I surf every single news site going and I have done so since 9/11 but *I still don't get it*. I'm sorry I know the historical side of things creates tension and that the religious intolerances also make it worse, but how did someone in Afghanistan organising the brutal murder of people in America translate into "and now we must bomb Iraq?" I don't know where the end is, if Iraq first, then north Korea, what about India, Japan, China? The list of countries that have demonstrated military power is very wide.

This is not to say I disagree with going to war, I just don't have enough information to form a valid opinion.

I don't think the US is this evil empire, I think we are all pretty evil in our own way and given
the same chances I can't think of any country that would act differently.

I do think though, that this is probably the first war fought in major part, by a publicity machine.

Rachel

Now my own poem about
WaR

I walk this days
With my own dream,
I am gone in the life ...
I am a part of war ..
I am the war ..
But yet i am just an human ...
I want this war to end,
I want to be like heaven,
I dream again,
To peace and health,
I want to see tomorow...
This are my words,
For you and me ..
This is our dream ...
Forever !!

Cya ......

ArabNews

Just to get a glimpse of a different perspective....something other than U.S. or European media sources.

see the Photo...
please...
this is war.............

I don't know anything of her, a found photo sailing in Internet, however... to her surely it didn't interest the war, for guilt of someone, that of certain it didn't know, she has not even known the gifts of the life, she has not discovered the beauty of the love, she has not met the happiness. In front of her, only so much hate that observed him, that she has seen her suffer and finally to die. If this is the justice...

With this horrendous image I end my threads here, if among all those that have read it or they will read it they change mind on: "it has made well America it has to take revenge in that way in Afghanistan" or, and they are many, "I am sorry for the dead people, but to the American government it served a lesson", I will have won my battle.

The photo is very provocative...
someone could find his/her offensive content...
Please don't ban me.....
it is the anger that pushes me to write certain things....
the only thing that it is known about her is that it was about 20 years old......
justice???????????

Hello,people!!!
I'm writing from Sweden. I am totally 100% AGAINST war!!!
I mean ,we can solve this problem in a peaceful way...make a good deal ,agreement. Just think about how many thousands of people are gonna die!!!!!!!
There have already been many deaths i 1st and 2nd World War...and of many other reasons too. Let's not let it happen this time...
What is Bush thinking anyway????
What do you guys think about his government (rulement) system anyway??????

Wite Hachie.

Anatra: I agree with you. Let that image be an example of what is going to happen to many people.

Quick reaction (although I should be on 'your side', Anatra): posting a picture like that is low... you won't proove anything, you'll just work on people's sentiment. And that's been done enough already.

hi guys!
as you can see i am from Greece.do you know where exactly is?i don't think so.well its a little country somewhere in the mediterannean sea.very close to Servia.in fact we share the same borders!as you can imagine my country isn't powerful enough in order to be listened.have someone of you ever imagined how a war could be?i mean your country has never faced a war.nobody has ever tried to bomb you.you are too far and too powerful for us to fight.we are not enemies!ok?i am just trying to say that you are not fighting for freedom.nobody there(iraq) have ever harmed you.i hope i do make myself clear!you are just fighting for money.just think of somethink else....how would you feel if you were in iraqians shoes?or in servians?
don't believe in PROPAGANDA.that's all folks!

Anatra im curious. just what did you feel needed erasing from that picture? something that didn't quit fit your needs?

if i were iraqi how would i feel if i knew id soon be rid of saddam ...hmmm. id have to think about that but of course i couldn't say it in public until after hes gone. saddam is the only one that seems to think there's going to be a struggle. i think hes in for a big surprise. again.

I believe that the moment has come to make things clear.....
Is there still someone of you that thinks that the war in Iraq is made because of hidden chemical weapons?
What Saddam has it is not a novelty considering that he have been furnished him from the U.S.A. for the war against Iran, that was financed in turn by the well S.S.S.R. what Saddam has bonds with Bin Landen... I don't believe really...
then my image is not provocative and doesn't want to make lever on the feelings... at least doesn't make as it Bush in his propaganda anti Saddam.....
it is only an aspect of the war.. if you feel you stricken, disturbed, offended.... you say no to the war and not to the images that withdraw it.... not apply the censorship that all of us blame...
Let's not take around us... the war is that image....
and once and for all: CORRECT WARS DON'T EXIST.... the war is the violation of the right... of the right to the life...
and above all we can not fought the terrorism that is neither a state nor an object with a war to a nation... or for killing some ants that infest you the house.... do you burn the whole house??????

The reason why GWB and the lap dog TB are going to war against Iraq is OIL plain and simple.

Iraq is believed to have the second largest reserve of oil. So I reckon GWB just wants the oil.

GWB is also using proganda to make the American people and others to believe Saddam has a connection with Al-Queda terrorist this is false.

OK lets just say Saddam is a really danger to the international communtity and his people why not just elimate him and the iraqi gov, and not goto war and risk the lives of innocent iraqi's.

Xenia - your right to a certain extent I don't believe Saddam has nukes (nuclear weapons) like you say the American Gov wants the oil. However you are a wrong in thinking all Americans hate you and Arabs in general.

I think GWB and Saddam are the same they are both dictators. GWB thinks he can do what he likes and he does. He will go to war even without the backing of the UN

GWB is going have a big shock once he is starts attacking Iraq, because North Korea will use this advantage and attack America. Also because of GWB and TB, terrorist activities will increase and both the people of America and Britain will suffer.

I think people from the western world are generally very caring i.e. America people, British people, Nearly all of the Europeans nations. However GWB does not care about anyone but Americans citizens and if innocent Iraqi's die in this war (that will happen) do you think he lose some sleep NO - HE DOESN'T CARE.

The prime mister (I mean GWB's lapdog) of GB is a incompetent arsehole and should be removed from office. I can't believe us brits let this idiot into power he clearly cannot stand on his own feet and make his own decisions.

Neel,

In response to this comment.

Quote:

---

Mass distruction weapons in the hands of a madman isn't a good thing, but who gave them the building plans and the ideas ? Who gave them weapons ? Why isn't a country not directly allied to the US allowed to have nukes (for example north Korea, I can understand in a case like Sadaam) ?

---

North Korea should not have nukes, or work towards nukes, not because they are not U.S. allies, but rather, because they are a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/

For a list of signatories, go to...

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/docs/nptstatus.htm

Quote:

---

45. Democratic People?s Republic of Korea

---

Of course, I acknowledge that the US has violated various treaty's before, de facto, or de jure, but if you assume that because someone broke a treaty, they should not be credible when talking about enforcing another treaty is not a good idea, as there would be no treaty's on earth with any power.

There would be no United Nations, as the United Nations was formed by treaty, there would be no, etc. etc. etc.