U.S. vs. Axis of Weasels

[NewsGuy]

As has been pointed out by others, Germany, France, Russia, and Belgium have come to be called an Axis of Weasels.

Europe has rarely been motivated by noble principles, but rather by greed, national hatred, and cowardice, historically speaking. That's why there is no doubt that their opposition to a war in Iraq stems from their multi-billion-dollar deals with Saddam's brutal regime.

But what is their relationship to the U.S. at this point? Have they shifted from being allies to trade competitors, and now to political adversaries?

Is NATO finished? Is the UN next? I sure hope that the answer is yes to both.

[ibrodsky]

Speaking of trade, I think it should be pointed out that Europe has been engaging in a deceptive game of protectionism for years.

Led by France, the EU pretends that its markets are open to competition, but myriad regulatory obstacles are used to keep out select products deemed a threat to European companies.

Unfortunately, the US Dept of Commerce is no more competent than the UN inspectors. I submitted a complaint to them about a specific technology that has been (and continues to be) banned in western Europe and they responded by saying that they were assured such obstacles had been removed. That was about five years ago, and we saw last week yet another example that the obstacles are still very much in place.

Rush Limbaugh suggested an interesting theory regarding their determination to shield Iraq. He doesn't think it is greed. Because they stand to lose much more if relations with the US sour sufficiently.

His theory is that those countries have been involved in supplying Saddam with materials used to produce WMD, and they are worried that a war would unearth the evidence.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Speaking of trade, I think it should be pointed out that Europe has been engaging in a deceptive game of protectionism for years.

Led by France, the EU pretends that its markets are open to competition, but myriad regulatory obstacles are used to keep out select products deemed a threat to European companies.

Right, despite our granting European countries MVP status in trade relations, they continue to undermine us with protectionism (both official and subtle), as well as circumventing sanctions on rogue countries, like Iran and Iraq.

At the same time, the American taxpayer continues to bear the cost of stationing American troops in Europe to prevent the Europeans from going to war against one another.

I think that trade competition is fine, provided of course, that the parties are forthcoming about their status.

But now, I think it's becoming clear that France, Germany and Belgium are no allies of the U.S., to say the least. In addition to being trade competitors, I think they have now become political adversaries, as well.


Rush Limbaugh suggested an interesting theory regarding their determination to shield Iraq. He doesn't think it is greed. Because they stand to lose much more if relations with the US sour sufficiently.

His theory is that those countries have been involved in supplying Saddam with materials used to produce WMD, and they are worried that a war would unearth the evidence.

Already, it's been announced that the Iraqis themselves have released documentation pointing to French and German supplies of the materials used to produce WMD.

But I think that France, Germany and Russia just don't see their support of Saddam's regime as risking their trade with the U.S. They don't believe that the U.S. will have the backbone to sanction them economically. France and Germany figure that the EU as a whole will threaten a retaliatory trade war against the U.S., so the U.S. will ultimately shrink in fear.

I will be interested to see how this unfolds. Especially, as French and German companies report worse earnings than expected, and Europe is thought to be slipping deeper into recession. Maybe they think that trade relations with third-world and rogue countries will be their way back to prosperity.

[judicial meanz]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
As has been pointed out by others, Germany, France, Russia, and Belgium have come to be called an Axis of Weasels.

Europe has rarely been motivated by noble principles, but rather by greed, national hatred, and cowardice, historically speaking. That's why there is no doubt that their opposition to a war in Iraq stems from their multi-billion-dollar deals with Saddam's brutal regime.

But what is their relationship to the U.S. at this point? Have they shifted from being allies to trade competitors, and now to political adversaries?

Is NATO finished? Is the UN next? I sure hope that the answer is yes to both.

This is a great "Axis of Weasels " graphic!..Follow the link

http://saturn.he.net/~danger/weasels.jpg

Its sums it up nicely!

[Northlander]

Always this "axis". Smart to somehow always link everything to WWII. You gain alot by doing that since its hard to critisise the US during that period. Especially if you are european. However todays conflict is not about WWII as Im sure you know. France surrender to the germans are maybe interesting but hardly relevant today.

As far as NATO goes it has sort of played out its role. Russia is no eminent threat to western europe. There is no reason for Germany and others to be totally allied to USA anymore. At least not in issues where they have different opinions. That cant come as a surprise for you all and cant see why you take it so hard. Sure you bailed them out during the war but as many have said its a long time ago. Things change. For how long must France and Germany be faithful to USA for those things? 100 years? 200?
What you are critisising Germany for basically is that they wont go to war until you present clear evidences that Iraq is a threat to everybody and that they have WMDs. Whats so fundamentally wrong with that opinion? Pacifism we hear alot over here. The Germans are pacifists and cowards is the word on the streets, am I wrong? Expected remarks maybe but obviously not true and had it been true its not that hurting I imagine. According to recent polls in Germany over 50% of the Germans sees USA as a bigger threat to worldpeace than Iraq. The last weeks shows that they are absolutely right. There are still no more reason for war than 5 years ago.

At the same time as the UN inspectors says that Iraq is cooperating N.korea throws out theirs. Still negociations is possible in korea but not in Iraq. The people in N.korea are more oppressed than that in Iraq. Still war is coming to Iraq.
The difference is the resistance the countries can put up and the oil. There are no clear line in US politics right now. No red thread.
There is as always support of several bad regimes and aggression against another. always have been always will be. USA as world police is not working. You are not credible. The europeans wouldnt do any better job. Nor would any other nation. Its just that today, alot of countries do not want USA taking its "responsibility" abroad. You either accept it or not.
You can continue but dont expect your former allies to support you regardless. Sometime you will get support sometimes not. This time no. Why so upset?

When speaking about France and their betrayal towards you, you owe them aswell. Hadnt it been for the French army you would probably still be a part of the british empire. They fought hard for your freedom and they were the first country in the world to accept you as a nation. Followed by my very own. A bit of gratitude thankyou ;)

[minusthejihad]

"Excuse me, will the French representative please leave the room already so we can vote? Thank you."

"sach reblue!"

"OK, now that the annoying Frenchman has left the room, its time for us (NATO) to vote on Turkey's defence. Germany, Belgium, how do you vote?"

"We accept"

"Thought so, good, let's move on"

In the distance, in the small window on the door to the metting room, we can see a sad Frenchman's face. Not because of the moment, but because the man has realized his country's place in the rest of foreign affairs from this point on. Not to mention the future of their own economy, when they don't get the billions owed to them by Iraq.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Northlander
Always this "axis". Smart to somehow always link everything to WWII. You gain alot by doing that since its hard to critisise the US during that period. Especially if you are european. However todays conflict is not about WWII as Im sure you know. France surrender to the germans are maybe interesting but hardly relevant today.

As far as NATO goes it has sort of played out its role. Russia is no eminent threat to western europe. There is no reason for Germany and others to be totally allied to USA anymore. At least not in issues where they have different opinions. That cant come as a surprise for you all and cant see why you take it so hard. Sure you bailed them out during the war but as many have said its a long time ago. Things change. For how long must France and Germany be faithful to USA for those things? 100 years? 200?
What you are critisising Germany for basically is that they wont go to war until you present clear evidences that Iraq is a threat to everybody and that they have WMDs. Whats so fundamentally wrong with that opinion? Pacifism we hear alot over here. The Germans are pacifists and cowards is the word on the streets, am I wrong? Expected remarks maybe but obviously not true and had it been true its not that hurting I imagine. According to recent polls in Germany over 50% of the Germans sees USA as a bigger threat to worldpeace than Iraq. The last weeks shows that they are absolutely right. There are still no more reason for war than 5 years ago.

At the same time as the UN inspectors says that Iraq is cooperating N.korea throws out theirs. Still negociations is possible in korea but not in Iraq. The people in N.korea are more oppressed than that in Iraq. Still war is coming to Iraq.
The difference is the resistance the countries can put up and the oil. There are no clear line in US politics right now. No red thread.
There is as always support of several bad regimes and aggression against another. always have been always will be. USA as world police is not working. You are not credible. The europeans wouldnt do any better job. Nor would any other nation. Its just that today, alot of countries do not want USA taking its "responsibility" abroad. You either accept it or not.
You can continue but dont expect your former allies to support you regardless. Sometime you will get support sometimes not. This time no. Why so upset?

When speaking about France and their betrayal towards you, you owe them aswell. Hadnt it been for the French army you would probably still be a part of the british empire. They fought hard for your freedom and they were the first country in the world to accept you as a nation. Followed by my very own. A bit of gratitude thankyou ;) If your words are representative of the general perspective of your natiion, then there are certainly more "weasels" to be roasted than have, thus far, been put on the spit.

[Northlander]

Both of you better think a minute MichaelC and minusthejihad. Being called a weasel by americans these days are just flattering.

Also France have lost nothing. The NATO veto meant nothing. It was enevidable that USA would alone support turkey anyway. It was just to gain support later on. What matters is the unity of the EU. That is a concern for me and I guess most politicians in europe. In the long run only unity matters.

Germany backed today from its original statement that they could not support a war regardless of UN support. That was also expected. Its not a sign of weakness as you cowboys might belive but rather smart done. France had all along seen war as a thinkable scenario so the Germans basically was alone in EU with the total refusal even though some saw their stance as similar because of this Turkey business. However by having this initial stance Germany now seems inside the EU as the ones compromising. They compromise for the unity of the EU and for supporting France. But that means that Spain and Italy also have thrown in someting on their behalf.
Britain is already out but you and others just dont know it yet.
Britain will not support USA in a war without UN support. Im sure of that now, wasnt before but am now.
Neither will Spain or Italy.

This week we expect a statement from THE WHOLE EU, not only Germany/France that says that the security council alone must decide over war. And we all know that France has veto there if it is needed. Britain might whine a bit more this week but they must support the EU in the end anyway since Germany and France have compromised and Blair knows he is toasted politically in Britain if he doesnt. Remember the smaller countries in europe will also look for unity and not supporting the obstructing ones.

It was never about Turkey, which was obvious. They would get their defence upgraded anyway. It was to object and gain alot in EU and especially in the security council. So far they have played it smart. Tough but not as tough that it ruined the economical ties with USA. Which btw I doubt Germany can afford.

You guys better hurry up in helping the inspectors finding something or this all has just been a very expensive way of destroying the last goodwill you had over here. A singel handed war will finally settle it. Boycotting German wines because they oppose a war? That does not look that good. Without the war I dont think you gained much more than the tan on your soldiers.

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Rush Limbaugh suggested an interesting theory regarding their determination to shield Iraq. He doesn't think it is greed. Because they stand to lose much more if relations with the US sour sufficiently.

His theory is that those countries have been involved in supplying Saddam with materials used to produce WMD, and they are worried that a war would unearth the evidence.

That's why I always listen to Rush Limbaugh, his infallable logic. Next time I have something to hide, I'll send in a team of inspectors to look for it. That will have less chance of discovering something than if I drop a bunch of bombs and destroy everything. Right.

See that crator where the pharmacy used to be? Well it weren't no pharmacy, it were a weapon o' mass distruction.

See that pharmacy over there? Send in your weapons inspectors and tell me what is being produced.

[Mediocrates]

pharmacies and insecticide plants use the same chemicals as WMD factoris. It's a matter of scale. If Iraq suddenly needed a million tons of dioxin one would have to wonder what they needed it for. In fact about 25% of Syri's 'dual use' chemical industry which can make weapons or drugs or farm chemicals is owned by French companies according to CSIS reports.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Northlander
Both of you better think a minute MichaelC and minusthejihad. Being called a weasel by americans these days are just flattering.
We are very happy that you enjoy being referred to as a "weasel". We'd actually have a few other appellations for the likes of you and your buddies, but the software here is self censoring, so "weasel" will have to do.

You don't get it. We are amused.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Northlander
You guys better hurry up in helping the inspectors finding something or this all has just been a very expensive way of destroying the last goodwill you had over here. A singel handed war will finally settle it. Boycotting German wines because they oppose a war? That does not look that good. Without the war I dont think you gained much more than the tan on your soldiers. You and your ilk have never understood that it is not for the inspectors to "find" weapons; it is for Iraq to ACCOUNT for weapons that everyone knows that they have.

They have not done this. They are dissembling.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
pharmacies and insecticide plants use the same chemicals as WMD factoris. It's a matter of scale. If Iraq suddenly needed a million tons of dioxin one would have to wonder what they needed it for. In fact about 25% of Syri's 'dual use' chemical industry which can make weapons or drugs or farm chemicals is owned by French companies according to CSIS reports.

So tell me, in what scenario is there more evidence following a bombing than there is following an inspection? I think we are just jealous that the French horned in on our Iraqi weapons market following the Iran-Iraq war. We wouldn't care a whit if we knew he was planning to use weapons of mass destruction against Iran.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by andak01
So tell me, in what scenario is there more evidence following a bombing than there is following an inspection? I think we are just jealous that the French horned in on our Iraqi weapons market following the Iran-Iraq war. We wouldn't care a whit if we knew he was planning to use weapons of mass destruction against Iran.

Don't worry, Iran and Syria are a little further down the road, but they'll be "disarmed" as well soon enough.

Have I told you how much I liked when the US and Israel sold weapons to both Iraq and Iran before? I can reiterate if you like.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by andak01
So tell me, in what scenario is there more evidence following a bombing than there is following an inspection? I think we are just jealous that the French horned in on our Iraqi weapons market following the Iran-Iraq war. We wouldn't care a whit if we knew he was planning to use weapons of mass destruction against Iran.


I was just making a factual point; that's what dual use technology is. For example ricin comes from castor beans but it is very inefficient. So if Iraq began to process thousands and thousands of gallons of castor bean oil one could surmise that Iraq didn't suddenly hunger for home remedies.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
That's why I always listen to Rush Limbaugh, his infallable logic. Next time I have something to hide, I'll send in a team of inspectors to look for it. That will have less chance of discovering something than if I drop a bunch of bombs and destroy everything. Right.

The purpose of the inspectors is not to see if they can find what is hidden in a country the size of California, it's to verify that the Iraqis are disarming as agreed. Saddam Huseein's regime is believed to have put considerable effort over the last decade in hiding things underground.

So if you think logically instead of reflexively, you'll realize that the chances of the US Army finding something once the inhabitants are free to speak is infinitely greater than the chance of UN bureaucrats finding what is hidden by interviewing people who know loved ones will die if they dare say anything revealing.

[Northlander]

You are very naive. For many Iraqis that hate Saddam, a war which will kill alot of their loved ones and the US occupation after is worse than the situation now. Last time Ive heard we were talking about 2 years with an american general ala Japan 45.

I give you 2 month and people in Iraq will start to oppose you. Very ungrateful maybe but understandable. Also, what does it matter if you find anything AFTER the war when people already died? What if you dont? Will you come out then and agree that the war was indeed unnecessary? I think not.

[Mediocrates]

This is more or less the same thing people said about Afghanistan. That it would plunge the country into warring anarchy.

Well that's only partially true. Afghanistan was never a cohesive country do much as a confederacy of tribes and now Karzai is really the mayor of Kabul. At any rate some of the warlords are being armed as we speak by the PRC and by the Russians and by the Paksitanis. I see this as the long run outcome for Iraq. Dissected into its constituent parts and held together by a lose central government in Baghdad. Since Iraq today really only represents some British colonel's arabophillic dream where he waived a pointer over a map one day while reading Richard Burton's translation of arabic poetry, it really matters little what the future shape of Iraq looks like. After Saddam is atomized let the different groups attain their own semi autonomy; not secession mind you just a soft confederacy of kurds, shiites, sunnis and so on. I think you would see relative quiet in "Iraq" rather quickly.

[Northlander]

I dont agree to the quiet thing. There will be a very strong majority trying to get rid of the americans when they forget their earlier problems with Saddam I believe. People adept to the new situation very quickly. Other nations in the area like Iran and the saudis will probably influence religious and ethnical groups in Iraq too. Im very pessimistic about the future for the iraqis both during and after the war.

Since the situation will probably be chaotic the americans have a reason for staying. Which they probably will for quite some time.
For many it will look like a permanent sollution.
Its then the real problems start. Then we have one of the old crusader kingdoms yet again. Men like Osama will have no difficulties finding supporters.

Creating a much more dangerous threat by removing a docile and controllable threat like Saddam is not wise even from an american POW. Are you really absolutely convinced this is the best thing to do for american safety?

[MGB8]

Couple of big differences between the time of Iran-Iraq war and now.

Biggest one being the END OF THE COLD WAR. At that time...containment and balance was everything.

Our relationship with Europe was good because Europe relied on us to protect them from the big bad USSR.

Now they are relying on us to protect them against terrorists, but want to yell at us while we do it.

I say no more.

Pull our troops out of Europe and also Japan. Why are they needed there? To Guarantee the peace (actually, yes, but that's another story.)

It would be very interesting to see what happens once our troops get pulled out (and that is coming)...I don't think it will take very long for France or Germany or others to start having nationalistic squables...they have learned NOTHING from WWII.

Pull our troops.

As for N. Korea...is that guy completely nuts? A small nation like his is exactly why building a missle defense shield (which will eventually work - technology improves exponentially) - to defend against the newest threats...rogue nations with a couple missles.

By pulling our troops out of Japan, we force Japan, S. Korea, China and Russia to deal with N. Korea, as opposed to everything being placed on the US shoulders. North Korea, btw, is falling apart, and Kim Jong II's government will not last very long. 2 years, tops.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Northlander
I dont agree to the quiet thing. There will be a very strong majority trying to get rid of the americans when they forget their earlier problems with Saddam I believe. People adept to the new situation very quickly. Other nations in the area like Iran and the saudis will probably influence religious and ethnical groups in Iraq too. Im very pessimistic about the future for the iraqis both during and after the war.

Since the situation will probably be chaotic the americans have a reason for staying. Which they probably will for quite some time.
For many it will look like a permanent sollution.
Its then the real problems start. Then we have one of the old crusader kingdoms yet again. Men like Osama will have no difficulties finding supporters.

Creating a much more dangerous threat by removing a docile and controllable threat like Saddam is not wise even from an american POW. Are you really absolutely convinced this is the best thing to do for american safety?



Odd how you create a completely different geopolitical reality to the same forces once you talk about intra arab relationships. Iran views "Iraq" as a threat, not some of the people in it, nor are they attempting some kind of liberation movement for anyone. Iran would meddle in Iraqi affairs and/or go to war with them only if they viewed Iraq as an entity some kind of serious threat to them.

It is in no ones regional interests to have a strong cohesive Iraq but neither is it in their interests to have a constant low level war going on either. The Wahabbist plutocracy of the Sauds cannot tolerate any successful cohesive secular state next door. Nor can the mullahs in Iran to the east. And neither country wants an economic competitor operating with any advantage.

No it's in their interests to keep the Iraqis weak, disorganized but relatively quiet.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by Northlander
Im very pessimistic about the future for the iraqis both during and after the war.

Well, how's about telling us how you feel about the future of Iraqis without any war. Please keep in mind that no one has killed more Muslims than guess who, Saddam Hussein.


Creating a much more dangerous threat by removing a docile and controllable threat like Saddam is not wise even from an american POW.

Docile? Controllable?

I guess it was a pretty docile move to invade and rape Kuwait!

Or I guess, after 11 years of not fulfilling his one duty that spared his life - to disarm - and after kicking out inspectors, Saddam comes off as pretty controlable!

You're absolutely right North, someone's pretty docile and controllable after they gas Kurds and their own people, kill members of their own family, and murder over a million fellow muslims.

By those standards, Hitler must have been Altruistic, Stalin was full of "warm and fuzzy bunny love" and Mao was a teddy bear!

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you just accidentally typed those absurd comments, because I can't believe someone could set themselves up so badly.

Of course that's kind of like Iraq saying they don't have any scuds capable of reaching Israel, and any WMDs to use on our troops, but we'll see the truth in that as well.

[Northlander]

No it's in their interests to keep the Iraqis weak, disorganized but relatively quiet.

Have I said anything else? I just pointed out the fact that they will use their influence in the powerstruggle after the war. The american precense in Iraq after a war will not be good for anyone exept maybe Kuweit..
Also even in arab nations the public opinion matters. There will be anger obvious and the less the arab nations does about the westerners in Iraq the more support men like Usama gets.

As far as terrorism goes the situation will not be better after Saddam is gone but rather much worse.

[Northlander]

I guess it was a pretty docile move to invade and rape Kuwait!

Harsh language. I dont support the invasion obviously but dont come up with the usual propaganda. It was an invasion period. For your information the "throwing newborns in hospitals" testimonys were lies. So were the "raping women" in the streets stories.

You're absolutely right North, someone's pretty docile and controllable after they gas Kurds and their own people, kill members of their own family, and murder over a million fellow muslims.

That was before the Gulfwar. Also they got american support during that period. Rumsfeld himself was a regular there in the support. Strange how opinions change. We all knew what was happening with the kurds but it didnt stopped USA giving him even more support. Compared to then, he is indeed powerless today.

Saddam is under control and he has been lying low. He did probably learn from the last war. however Iraq is still a nation. They have certain right as such. The too have the right to a defence etc, considering their neighbours.
He cant do anything with or without the american presence there. Get rid of him fine. Support Iraqi opposition or anything similar. I would gladly pay money for actions like that. But war and occupation will make things worse.

[minusthejihad]

Answer the first question North.

How do you see the future for Iraqis if there is no war?

And secondly, you keep exposing yourself as having very basic, unchecked, anti-American views. You deliberately pass the blame for Saddam's actions to his "US support". He made the orders, we were not involved. But it figures, coming from the same coward who passes the blame from the terrorist to the victim anyway.

That's right, I called you a coward. I've seen you write about how you would do the same if you were a Pal. Why don't you go and be a human shield in Iraq or a Shaheed in Gaza, wimp. You do understand, that because of cowards like you and Takeo, terrorism is a problem now.

I hold people like you DIRECTLY responsible for terrorism going virtually unchecked until now, when people in our Valient militaries in America (the greatest country in the world) and in Israel (the most proud and respectfully deserved country in the world) will fight tooth and nail to stop. You should feel the burden of guilt for all the death and destruction you have permitted to go for so long.

[Mediocrates]

So today it was noted that "thousands" of people all across the mid east were marching and protesting against the US-Israel today and against a possible war in Iraq.

I'm left wondering where these people were screaming for peace and justice before, I'm left wondering when arab lives became so precious to other arab states?

[andak01]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I was just making a factual point; that's what dual use technology is. For example ricin comes from castor beans but it is very inefficient. So if Iraq began to process thousands and thousands of gallons of castor bean oil one could surmise that Iraq didn't suddenly hunger for home remedies.

I didn't really intend for my analogy to steer us to dual use technologies. I suppose thermos bottles could be molotov cocktails and playdoh could become napalm. Gordon Liddy knows ten ways to kill a man with a pencil, so we should inspect for those too. For that matter sand could be melted into glass and made into a giant lens to fit in a killer laser.

My original comment was in response to Limbaugh saying that France is afraid we would discover something if we go to war. What would we discover with a war that we can't discover with inspections?

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Northlander
Have I said anything else? I just pointed out the fact that they will use their influence in the powerstruggle after the war. The american precense in Iraq after a war will not be good for anyone exept maybe Kuweit..


Yes you have - you harp on bigbadUSA as if we dream up this stuff on our own. Iraq is surrounded by powerful forces with their own claws in American and European foreign policy aparatus such that Iraq will be brought down. We may take the heat for it, but it started out as an idea in Saudi princes and Iranian mullahs heads.

[Mediocrates]

Andy that depends on how suspicious you are. Do you think that there is a long trail of baksheesh that connects Arab states to the corridors of power in Europe? We're accused fairly regularly that the supersecret Mossad fueled AIPAC quiety pulls the strings of the US yet raise the suggestion that countries with absolutely unaccountable tyrannies are somehow beyond any suspicion of manipulating the large, complex and poorly documented organization of the European Parliament and the UN we're floored that anyone could make such a cynical suggestion.

[Northlander]

How do you see the future for Iraqis if there is no war?

And secondly, you keep exposing yourself as having very basic, unchecked, anti-American views. You deliberately pass the blame for Saddam's actions to his "US support". He made the orders, we were not involved. But it figures, coming from the same coward who passes the blame from the terrorist to the victim anyway.

That's right, I called you a coward. I've seen you write about how you would do the same if you were a Pal. Why don't you go and be a human shield in Iraq or a Shaheed in Gaza, wimp. You do understand, that because of cowards like you and Takeo, terrorism is a problem now.

I hold people like you DIRECTLY responsible for terrorism going virtually unchecked until now, when people in our Valient militaries in America (the greatest country in the world) and in Israel (the most proud and respectfully deserved country in the world) will fight tooth and nail to stop. You should feel the burden of guilt for all the death and destruction you have permitted to go for so long.


If war, there is no future at all for many Iraqis. Considering how many exile Iraqis that oppose the war Im not alone with that opinion. We are talking exile Iraqis that have their own personal reason for hating Saddam. I know many. The iraqis are Swedens second largest immigrant group. We have done what we can to support them and taking care of Saddams victims. We know here what Saddam is about.

If I look anti-american because I oppose a war you are about to START it says more about america than me.

Yes, you were involved. So were more countries but mainly USA.
Without USA Saddam wouldnt be in power. It is as simple as that. I hold you responisble for the problems the iraqis had and still have with him. You gave him the clearence to everything. USA gave him photos of the Iranian defences just before his attack on them. That ended in chemical warfare. Commited with chemicals bought from Germany and Britain. Today he might not have that much american weaponry but his position he owes to you. I could see it your way and hold you PERSONALLY responsible.
Maybe some of the exile Iraqis I know do. The region is beyond your jurisdiction. Fail to see it and you will get new enemies. It is really that simple. Who cares today what you did in WWII? I dont really cares what you did during Vietnam to be honest. But killing civilians today causing "collateral damage" will not be accepted.

Had I been a Pal I would not blow up children. I would use arms to kill and fight the invaders. As most people would. Like you would had you been invaded. Come on. You cant see things that differently? You call me a coward at the same time you object to me saying that use of force is necessary to defend you loved ones and your land.

Being a human shield is tempting from a moral POV. However there are enough shields as it is now. Many will die. I really dont think another dead westerner will make any difference. Whats the point of die in vain when you try to change something? If I want to fight american aggression I do it the way I see fit. You personally tempt me alot. The things we heard from USA about americans being form mars and europeans from venus is really funny. Europeans are wimps and americans are real men. Maybe its a common opinion or it is just your media. Regardless of which, it would be fun to see anyone of you say it here on the streets.

Anti-americanism doesnt just exist you know. It hasnt been from the beginning of time. It is a result of american action. NOT because of something in the air we breath or something we eat.
Wake up.

I take no responsibility for the terrorism in the world. Blame you valiant military instead. USA is not the greatest country in the world. Its just the most powerful. Its ok for me as long as you keep on your side of the atlantic and doesnt bother others.
If you do more and more will become "anti-american". Its really up to you. Im not the one bying tape to seal my windows from eventual chemical attacks. Im not the one living in fear. If you goes through alot to make people hate you this it what you get.
Its not a game you know. For every young european you offend you get a new problem. Do you expect them to take your side later on when you are dealing with a new enemy? I think not.
Probably the opposite.

[elke]

Im not the one bying tape to seal my windows from eventual chemical attacks. Im not the one living in fear. If you goes through alot to make people hate you this it what you get.

It's only a matter of time, Northlander - you just wait. Unless and until the world decides that terrorism is intolerable anywhere at all, and takes the necessary steps you so deplore, you will be buying tape soon enough.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by Northlander
I take no responsibility for the terrorism in the world.


I share Minusthejihad's opinion here: whoever supports and defends terrorists, should share the responsibility for the consequences. You can't have it both ways.

Blame you valiant military instead.

You must've meant "violent". BTW, the military is supposed to be violent. It is up to politicians to control them. So far, the "violent" US saved Europe (the origin of 2 World Wars, colonialism, and millenia of bigotry) and the rest of the planet from the Brown plague and from the Red one. The Green one will be defeated, too.

Back to the point: how would you explain the terrorist attacks on

* French tanker
* Indian, Pakistani, Lebanese, Nigerian, Egyptian, - Christians, Hindus, Jews, even moderate muslims.
* Australian disco, - actually, any disco. Do you accept it as a legal mean of fighting for "freedom"? BTW, in the ME this usually means freedom from Jews. Does your soul turn upside down - like mine - at the news of discos, cafes and schoolbuses bombed?


All because those bad violent americans? Your logic is crooked. Some things just cannot be tolerated or justified.

[Northlander]

which was first the hen or the egg?

the terrorism comes from something.

We all know there are terrorism. One can say as some here have said that you doesnt need to know why but rather just fight it. Fine. But if fighting it on some cases means that there will be even more terrorism later on its a win-lose situation. You win a little and lose even more later on. Im convinced that removing Saddam with war is bad if fighting terrorism is your main objective.

Doesnt mean I support terrorism. I dont even know why we have this discussion. I think armed resistance can be right sometimes but that is not terrorism.
There will probably always be some terrorists that want to blow up about anything. Kill anyone regardless. But the majority of terrorists probably have an agenda. Its no coincidence that USA is the main target. I agree that terrorism is a threat to me as well.
War in Iraq just make the threat worse so you wont get me on your side with that arguement.

I wrote valient not violent because minusthejihad used the word in describing the US military. I found it funny so I used it too.
Violent would have been more true of course.

[Kapiti]

Iraq has no chance of winning the war or even defending its borders for anything other than a neglible period of time. But then what ??

The Yanks put some puppet regime whom they hope will actually have some popular support. This on the basis that many iraqis actually would like a change of government but under its present regime can do nothing about it.

I think otherwise. I think most Iraqis will hate the Americans and while they may not do it openly will plot against the Americans controlling their country. I suspect it will not be a safe place for any Americans to be.

Also muslims world wide will feel nervous and hateful of the Americans. The governments will feel especially nervous but fearing the same thing happening will do largely nothing. The muslim citizens however will become in part more radical. This will feed the reservoir of suicide bombers, terrorists, extremists whose focus will be revenge and killing westerners to achieve this.

No question in my mind beating up Iraq will make the whole world a much less safe place. Certainly in the short term.

The problem is that as technology increases and people live closer together it makes killing lots of them easier. A korean nut case killed 130 odd people. Imagine if someone tried to kill a lot of people and actually approached it with some level of sophistication. Very nasty.

So what will all our governments do. Increase the controls, the monitoring, the searches, reduction of civil liberties. I prefer the old world as it is now before this happens but if people starting dieing from fundamentalist terrorists then the Western Countries will become more like Israel with all its controls and searches. Not a nice thought but perhaps necessary.

Frankly the extra-ordinary stupidity and short sightedness of most of the subscribers to this forum amazes me. Do you really think that in 20 years or 50 years technology will not have advanced such that governments or wealthy groups with a reasonable level of resource will not be able to create weapons of mass destruction. Within 50 years my guess, and I concede it is speculation but I have a lot of technological advancement to support my point of view, is that nuclear weapons will be much easier to develop as will all the other nasty ones.

When this happens (whether it be 20-50-100 or 200 years) the nuclear advantage which Israel has over the region will be lost and how secure will Israel then feel if it has not made real peace with its neighbours and with the Palestinians.

Then it will not matter if Israel's borders encompass Palestine or not. The level of security that you have when your neighbours have serious weapons to fight, will not be great. 50 -100 KM will not make much difference.

Frankly I could not care less if Saddam has nuclear weapons or other nasties. He is a bad man not a mad man. He would know he cannot use them and would not use them. Why would he if he faces aniliation immediately thereafter.

[Northlander]

Very good post Kapiti. I totally agree. Despite warnings like this many westerners will complain later on when we see an increase in terrorist attacks not remembering the choice they stood infront of. War or no war.

[andak01]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
So if you think logically instead of reflexively, you'll realize that the chances of the US Army finding something once the inhabitants are free to speak is infinitely greater than the chance of UN bureaucrats finding what is hidden by interviewing people who know loved ones will die if they dare say anything revealing.

Well, I am for U2 spy planes, inspections, removal of scientists to safe locations, destruction of WMDs if any are found and even digging up the entire country. What I am against is carpet bombing of Iraq. I am against punishing the people of Iraq in order to punish Saddam, knowing that in the end, Saddam is not going to get punished.

I have no love of Saddam. I wish he was out, but not at the cost of another 100,000 Iraqi lives. Not at the cost of American lives. He is contained and I would approve of even more measures to insure that.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by andak01
Well, I am for U2 spy planes, inspections, removal of scientists to safe locations, destruction of WMDs if any are found and even digging up the entire country. What I am against is carpet bombing of Iraq. I am against punishing the people of Iraq in order to punish Saddam, knowing that in the end, Saddam is not going to get punished.

I have no love of Saddam. I wish he was out, but not at the cost of another 100,000 Iraqi lives. Not at the cost of American lives. He is contained and I would approve of even more measures to insure that. If you could only bring yourself, by some incredible effort of will, to see the possibilities in FREEING the Iraqis from Saddam and his thugs, maybe you could understand those on the other side of this argument.

Is it at all conceivable in your world view that handing Irag back to the Iraqis is a desirable thing? And if you think that to be a good idea in principle, do you really think Saddam will change his stripes and institute democratic reforms to allow it?

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Kapiti


Frankly the extra-ordinary stupidity and short sightedness of most of the subscribers to this forum amazes me. Do you really think that in 20 years or 50 years technology will not have advanced such that governments or wealthy groups with a reasonable level of resource will not be able to create weapons of mass destruction. Within 50 years my guess, and I concede it is speculation but I have a lot of technological advancement to support my point of view, is that nuclear weapons will be much easier to develop as will all the other nasty ones.

When this happens (whether it be 20-50-100 or 200 years) the nuclear advantage which Israel has over the region will be lost and how secure will Israel then feel if it has not made real peace with its neighbours and with the Palestinians.

Then it will not matter if Israel's borders encompass Palestine or not. The level of security that you have when your neighbours have serious weapons to fight, will not be great. 50 -100 KM will not make much difference.

Frankly I could not care less if Saddam has nuclear weapons or other nasties. He is a bad man not a mad man. He would know he cannot use them and would not use them. Why would he if he faces aniliation immediately thereafter.


Personally, I don't know what the downfall of Saddam will bring to the region. I agree that other equally bad (but not mad) dictators can in future acquire weapons of mass destruction. One thing I have not quite understood from your post is how we supposed to deal with them. You hint that Israel (where I happen to live) should make "real peace" with its neighbours instead of relying on its military strength. Well, was there any conflict between Kuweit and Iraq prior to the invasion? Or do you think we can do something that will permanently endear us to Hussein, Asad, Kaddafi and their likes?

Unfortunately, dictators value force much higher than peace agreements. In my opinion, the main benefit of overthrowing Saddam is not just getting rid of one dictator, but showing all others that aggression and treaty violations won't be tolerated.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by andak01
Well, I am for U2 spy planes, inspections, removal of scientists to safe locations, destruction of WMDs if any are found and even digging up the entire country. What I am against is carpet bombing of Iraq. I am against punishing the people of Iraq in order to punish Saddam, knowing that in the end, Saddam is not going to get punished.

I have no love of Saddam. I wish he was out, but not at the cost of another 100,000 Iraqi lives. Not at the cost of American lives. He is contained and I would approve of even more measures to insure that.

Let me put this to you another way.

Iraq is in blatant violation of the agreement it signed to end the Persian Gulf War.

Now the US is at war with Islamist terrorists and regimes that support them.

If the US does not enforce the terms imposed on Iraq after Iraq was justly thrown out of Kuwait, then any threat of force the US makes to terrorist-sponsoring regimes will ring hollow.

So the US has no choice but to enforce the terms that Iraq agreed to and then quickly violated - and has been violating for the past nine years.

You don't want 100,000 innocent Iraqis to die. Neither do I. That leaves no choice but to demand that either Saddam Hussein accept exile, be removed from power by his own people, or be removed from power by the US.

And let's not forget that >1 million people have died in wars started by Saddam Hussein.

[MGB8]

Ah...Northlander and Kapiti are back to threats...and make no mistake, that is what they are doing, threatening.

In terms of Iraq....most of the people their will WELCOME the removal of Saddam. After that, just like the US did in Germany, Japan and Afghanistan, the US will work to set up a real, self sustaining government...not a "puppet government" but something viable. And, as long as we don't overstay our welcome, like we have in Europe and maybe in Korea, we will be fine for it.

Not loved...look at how Europe treats the US after the Marshall plan, the two workd wars, and saving their buts from the Soviets for 45 years...but not hated either (as opposed to say, the french in Africa.)

What is going on now is the REAL results of the post Cold War Era...France is making a political power move, and China, Russia and Germany aren't exactly sure where they want to side, with Germany currently leaning towards France.

The Arab nations, who hate Europe just as much as they hate the US (although they don't show it), are waiting on the sidelines, to side with the "winner." They'll make their own play later...if they are allowed to develop into such a power.

The Problem with France's power play is that it relies on the concept of a "united Europe" .... but Europe's smaller countries, who appreciate French bullying less than US bullying (at least the US has done something and continues to do things for them...Bosnia, the Marshall plan, aid...) etc. look like they are siding with the US.

Poor poor france.

[MGB8]

As for the causes of terrorism...its AMBITION by a few men, and stupidity by many others. the TERRORISM that we are talking about here is really just:

ISLAMIC NATIONALISM

just like the European Nationalism that preceeded it.

The best cure is the democritization of the Islamic world.

That STARTS with Iraq.

Israel, frankly, has very little to do with it.

[humus_sapiens]

http://www.netanyahu.org/speecattrafs.html

I shortened this great but longish speech. It has all the answers.

Netanyahu's Speech at Trafalgar Square Rally
London 6 May 2002
...
Today, Britain stands before another fork in the road of history. It must choose, along with the other free nations, between two opposing paths: the path of appeasing terror, or the path of confronting it. The path of appeasing terror entices those who embark on it with what seems like a quick and painless passage. Yet paved with flawed logic and false hopes, it leads only to defeat and despair.

The path of confronting terror, by contrast, is strewn with evident dangers. But armed with moral clarity, those who pursue it will overcome its perils and end their journey in triumph and hope.
...
Today, history has placed the people of Israel on the front line in a war against another pathological evil that threatens our entire world – the evil of terrorism.
...
Every day, in Arabic, a Palestinian media fully under Arafat’s control preaches the doctrine of policide – the destruction of a state – through the means of suicide -- suicide and mass terror.

Every day, in their schools and mosques Palestinians are told that their goal is not a Palestinian state next to Israel, but a Palestinian state instead of Israel.

In live broadcasts to his people Arafat calls for a million martyrs against Israel.

He runs suicide kindergarten camps, suicide universities and suicide museums that glorify a culture of death and wanton murder.
...
Let me be clear. With a murderous and fraudulent regime such as Arafat’s, it is impossible to make peace.

Only with a new Palestinian leadership that abandons terror and abandons the goal of destroying Israel can we negotiate a genuine peace – a peace for which we all yearn, pray and dream.

Indeed, every time Israel was faced with an Arab leader, like Anwar Sadat and King Hussein, who genuinely wanted peace, and spoke peace to his people -- Israel made peace.

But with Arafat there can be no peace, because he doesn’t want peace.

Instead of becoming a Palestinian King Hussein, as many had hoped, he has turned out to be a Palestinian Sadaam Hussein.

And what do you do with Sadaam Hussein?

Do you negotiate with him?

Do you placate him?

Do you make concessions to him?

No, you throw him out.

And just as America and Britain must, and will throw out Sadaam Hussein, Israel must ---- and will --- throw out Yasser Arafat.

Now that Arafat’s terror is being steadily unmasked, the appeasers of terror are left with one last argument in their arsenal.

It may be true, they say, that Arafat runs a terrorist regime, but eliminating that regime will not eliminate terror.

For the root cause of terror, they claim, is the deprivation of national and civic rights.

Address that deprivation, they say, and you will end terror.

Well, I suppose you could make that argument to a people whose sense of history extends to breakfast.

For in modern times there have been countless struggles for national independence and civic rights.

If terror is indeed rooted in the absence of rights, we would have expected to see countless examples of terrorism accompanying these struggles.

But we do not.

Mahatma Ghandi fought for the independence of India without resorting to terrorism.

So too did the people of Eastern Europe in their struggle to bring down the Berlin Wall.

And Martin Luther King’s campaign for equal rights for American eschewed all violence, much less terrorism.

And we, the Jewish people, in our struggle for an independent Jewish State did not resort to terrorism.

Sure, they may have called us terrorists. But terrorism is only defined by the nature of the act itself, by the question of whether civilians are deliberately targeted.

The Jewish underground movement did everything in its power to prevent civilian casualties.

They pulled civilians off trains that were to be blown up. They telephoned the British before attacking military barracks so that the lives of soldiers would be spared.

They did not target women, children and non-combatants, nor of course, did they ever blow up buses, coffee houses and shops in London.

In the countless actions taken by the entire Jewish underground, you will not find even a handful of attacks that targeted civilians. Maybe one or two at most.

In striking contrast, if you look at the thousands of attacks of Arab groups, you will see the undeniable target of these murderous terrorist groups are civilians.

If the deprivation of rights is indeed the root cause of terrorism, why did all these people pursue their cause without resorting to terror.

Put simply, because they were democrats, not terrorists. They believed in the sanctity of human life, were committed to the ideal of liberty and championed the values of democracy.

But those who practice terrorism do not believe in these things. In fact, they believe in the very opposite.

For them, the cause they espouse is so all encompassing, so total, that it justifies anything.

It allows them to break any law, discard any moral code and trample all human rights into the dust.

There is a name for the doctrine that produces this evil. It is called totalitarianism.

Indeed the root cause of terror is totalitarianism. Only a totalitarian regime, by systematically brainwashing its subjects, can indoctrinate hordes of killers to suspend all moral constraints for the sake of a twisted cause.

That is why from its inception, totalitarianism has always been wedded to terrorism – from Lenin to Stalin to Hitler to the Ayatollahs to Sadaam Hussein, to Osama bin Laden, to Yasser Arafat.

It is not merely that the goals of terrorists do not justify the means they choose. It is that the means they choose tell us what their true goals are.

Osama bin Laden is not seeking to defend the rights of Muslins but to murder as many Americans as possible, and ultimately to destroy America and the West.

Sadaam Hussein is not seeking to defend his people but to subjugate his neighbors.

Arafat is not seeking to build a state, but to destroy a state.

Arafat established the PLO in 1964 not to liberate the so-called occupied territories.

After all, the entire West Bank and all of the Gaza strip were under Arab sovereignty in 1964.

No, Arafat established the PLO to pursue his unchanging objective: the destruction of Israel – any Israel, of any size in any boundary.

Those who fight as terrorists rule as terrorists.

People who deliberately target the innocent never become leaders who protect freedom and human rights.

When terrorists seize power, they invariably set up the darkest dictatorships – whether in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or Arafatistan.

In short, the reason why some resort to terror and others do not is not any any absence of rights, but the presence of a tyrannical mindset.

The coupling of this fanatical mindset with weapons of mass destruction is the greatest danger facing our world.

If the regimes and terror organizations spawned by this mad militancy are allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, they will use them with no hesitation and no concern for themselves, let alone their enemies.

And if Arafat’s factory of human bombs is not shut down, it is only a matter of time before this technique spreads to your cafes, to your pizza shops, to your supermarkets –- just as Arafat’s pioneering of airline hijackings quickly spread to the entire world.

If not stopped today, the suicide bombers of tomorrow will carry suitcase devices of mass death to New York, to Washington and yes, to London.

As Prime Minister Blair has said, we either defeat terror or be defeated by it.

The terrorists and the terrorist regimes must be stopped.

The Taliban has gone, Sadaam has to go. Arafat must go.

My friends,

Sixty years ago, Europe did not lift a finger to save millions of Jews who were butchered on its soil by a mass killer.

Today, there are many in Europe who shamelessly side with the new mass killers, who seek to destroy the Jews and their state.

And what’s even worse, they condemn Israel for taking legitimate action to defend itself.

To them I say: History’s shame will again be upon you.

To European governments that are squeamishly allowing attacks against their Jewish citizens to go unanswered, I say: Stand up and take action --- Now!!

For you should know that the Jews are merely the first target of these fanatics. But I assure you, they are not the last.

Anti-Jewish violence may begin with the Jews, but it never ends with them.

This too must be stopped. Now!!

My dear friends,

The choice that lies before all free societies is clear - to choose between appeasing terror and confronting it.

The people of Israel, like the people of Britain many decades ago, have made their choice.

We have chosen to confront evil.

We have chosen to live and not to die.

We have chose to fight.

And we have chosen to win.

Let us hope that every free nation follows Israel’s example and joins us in eradicating terror from the face of the earth.

Let us hope that we will summon the wisdom to refute the apologists of terror.

And let us hope that we will summon the courage to secure a peaceful tomorrow.

[Kapiti]

humus_sapiens To you I say : Boring. Same old tripe but you didn't even have the energy to write so you just copied and pasted with minimal editing I am sure.

MGB8 "Ah...Northlander and Kapiti are back to threats...and make no mistake, that is what they are doing, threatening."

What the hell does this mean. Are you suggesting that we are ourselves planning on becoming terrorists. What have you been drinking ? Yes I see bad consaquences resulting from the war but I will keep hoping I am wrong. Being able to tell you I told you so is no compensation for the loss of freedom and life that I fear this path of war will take from me.

Maybe you should study a dictionary and read what threaten actually means.

"China, Russia and Germany aren't exactly sure where they want to side, " I don't think so. I think they are very nervous about the US in its current policy of the pursuit of self interest at all costs regardless of the rights, wrongs or consaquences. They will oppose the US as a balance and a good thing it is too.

Mercury You deal with bad guys the way George the first did. You don't let them get away with it and you contain.

No Kuwait was not at war with Iraq at the time of Iraq's invasion. The Middle East borders are relatively new however and as Israel has shown itself quite flexible if you have the power.

Iraq has claims to Kuwait and the reason why it was seperated was largely because of colonial interests rather than any differentiation of the land or people.

Dictators are not so bad. Singapore had the most successful and benevolent leader of virtually any country and he has been largely a dictator. Democracy is what we in the West are used to but frankly I do not think that any Israeli should start to feel comfortable in case all the leaders of the Middle East were replaced by popular government. I suspect the most popular thing that would follow would be the planning for a united war against Israel.

No need for George the second to teach Saddam a lesson because his dad taught him a pretty good lesson 10 years ago.

[MGB8]

No, you are threatening dire consequences, although you are not threatening to act. Threaten is the wrong word...using a scare tactic is more like it.

As for you...Europe tried to "contain" Hitler. We tried to "contain" Iraq and it violated the peace treaty, kicked inspectors out for 4 years, and no one did anything about it (including the US.)

We tried to contain North Korea and they just got around it.

"Containment" is a joke. You are at war, hot or cold, or you are at peace. Cold war is just an interim period between hot wars.

Since there will be no peace with Saddam, the quicker we take him down the better it is for all involved.

And now a lefty supports dictatorship....its funny how the left goes so left that it actually becomes right wing reactionary.

Its how the neo-nazi's and crazy lefties have met here, also.




Originally posted by Kapiti
humus_sapiens To you I say : Boring. Same old tripe but you didn't even have the energy to write so you just copied and pasted with minimal editing I am sure.

MGB8 "Ah...Northlander and Kapiti are back to threats...and make no mistake, that is what they are doing, threatening."

What the hell does this mean. Are you suggesting that we are ourselves planning on becoming terrorists. What have you been drinking ? Yes I see bad consaquences resulting from the war but I will keep hoping I am wrong. Being able to tell you I told you so is no compensation for the loss of freedom and life that I fear this path of war will take from me.

Maybe you should study a dictionary and read what threaten actually means.

"China, Russia and Germany aren't exactly sure where they want to side, " I don't think so. I think they are very nervous about the US in its current policy of the pursuit of self interest at all costs regardless of the rights, wrongs or consaquences. They will oppose the US as a balance and a good thing it is too.

Mercury You deal with bad guys the way George the first did. You don't let them get away with it and you contain.

No Kuwait was not at war with Iraq at the time of Iraq's invasion. The Middle East borders are relatively new however and as Israel has shown itself quite flexible if you have the power.

Iraq has claims to Kuwait and the reason why it was seperated was largely because of colonial interests rather than any differentiation of the land or people.

Dictators are not so bad. Singapore had the most successful and benevolent leader of virtually any country and he has been largely a dictator. Democracy is what we in the West are used to but frankly I do not think that any Israeli should start to feel comfortable in case all the leaders of the Middle East were replaced by popular government. I suspect the most popular thing that would follow would be the planning for a united war against Israel.

No need for George the second to teach Saddam a lesson because his dad taught him a pretty good lesson 10 years ago.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Kapiti
No Kuwait was not at war with Iraq at the time of Iraq's invasion. The Middle East borders are relatively new however and as Israel has shown itself quite flexible if you have the power.

Iraq has claims to Kuwait and the reason why it was seperated was largely because of colonial interests rather than any differentiation of the land or people.

No that's not right. At the time Iraq owned multibillions to German Banks (mostly German, others as well) for the purchase of Russian weapons systems, ostensibly to replenish his stocks from his disasterous attack on Iran. Revenue streams were drying up at the time because the end of the Iran-Iraq war heralded a long period of oil price drops. Saddam was not paying back his debts and his creditor banks were threatening to cut off his credit. Saddam invaded Kuwait to acquire hard cash in order to both pay off his debts and continue his military expansion. The old argument of the missing 25th province is a well known old sham. No one believes it especially the Iraqis who participated in the final negotiations that created Kuwait in the 1960's.

Dictators are not so bad. Singapore had the most successful and benevolent leader of virtually any country and he has been largely a dictator.

The great thing about analogies is that you can make them mean practically anything. Mussolini made the trains run on time.

Democracy is what we in the West are used to but frankly I do not think that any Israeli should start to feel comfortable in case all the leaders of the Middle East were replaced by popular government. I suspect the most popular thing that would follow would be the planning for a united war against Israel.

I tend to agree - after all lots of countries like Algeria had one election, once. So did Zimbabwe and all sorts of other countries. Democracy is merely a tool, the mechanics of civil order. But let me ask YOU what you mean? Is there a sliding scale? Is Saddam the same as the King of Jordan? Is your dictator the same as the PRC? There is probably room to liberalize ME countries toward some semblence of democratic processes - perhaps Turkey is the model. At any rate it's not a binary decision, is it?

Do you understand this?

[Mediocrates]

http://hnn.us/articles/1264.html


Intro -->

FOLLOWING HANS BLIX'S devastating report and President Bush's compelling State of the Union address, Saddam Hussein looks more and more like a dead man walking. In all likelihood, Baghdad will be liberated by April. This may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history--events like the storming of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall--after which everything is different. If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if), it may mark the moment when the powerful antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and began to transform the region for the better. For the United States, this represents perhaps the last, best chance to do what it has singularly failed to do since World War II--to provide the Middle East with effective imperial oversight. It is not entirely America's fault, but our mismanagement and misconceptions have allowed a backward, once insignificant region to become arguably the main threat to the security of the United States and the entire West.


8 1/2 pages follow.

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Kapiti

Mercury You deal with bad guys the way George the first did. You don't let them get away with it and you contain.

No need for George the second to teach Saddam a lesson because his dad taught him a pretty good lesson 10 years ago.

What exactly the lesson was? Prepare better next time?
Saddam once said about US that "theirs is a nation that can't take 10.000 casualties in a single battle". The only ones who got punished are the ordinary people of Iraq and those who have risen against him.


No Kuwait was not at war with Iraq at the time of Iraq's invasion. The Middle East borders are relatively new however and as Israel has shown itself quite flexible if you have the power.

Iraq has claims to Kuwait and the reason why it was seperated was largely because of colonial interests rather than any differentiation of the land or people.


Syria still claims that both Jordan and Palestine (read Israel) are the southern part of historic Syria province. I can't guess what claimed Nasser had when Egypt invaded Yemen. Do you really believe that a peace treaty would have protected Israel against them? Really?

[TheyAre]

I really must ask this question of Northlander and Kapiti - why is it that none of the Iraqis outside Iraq who do not work for Saddam Hussein only speak of how evil he is and how he should be taken out, and none of the Iraqis inside Iraq have one bad thing to say about good ole Hussein?

Its an interesting comparison. 100% of Iraqi 'exiles' want Saddam gone, 100% of Iraqis still living under Saddam's boot and within his reach sing praises about him. I wonder why.

Typical anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric. We should be the ones to apologize for something they did. Violence is just so awful that is must somehow be the victim's fault, obviously the victim somehow provoked the attacker, seeing how violence is just so awful and all and no one would ever commit an act of violence unless provoked, right?

Iraq has no claims to Kuwait. Stating that provides legitimization to the brutal occupation the Kuwaitis went under when the Republican Guard was sitting in Kuwait City. There are dozens of eyewitness accounts from Americans, Kuwaitis, Saudi Arabians, Pakistanis, etc. etc. about the torture, mass executions, and mass rapes the Kuwaitis endured under Saddam's boot. Are we to merely take your word, the word of a person who wasn't there, over the word of dozens of people who were simply because if we take your word there is no justification for war?

Frankly the extra-ordinary stupidity and short sightedness of most of the subscribers to this forum amazes me. Do you really think that in 20 years or 50 years technology will not have advanced such that governments or wealthy groups with a reasonable level of resource will not be able to create weapons of mass destruction. Within 50 years my guess, and I concede it is speculation but I have a lot of technological advancement to support my point of view, is that nuclear weapons will be much easier to develop as will all the other nasty ones.

When this happens (whether it be 20-50-100 or 200 years) the nuclear advantage which Israel has over the region will be lost and how secure will Israel then feel if it has not made real peace with its neighbours and with the Palestinians.

Where do you come up with like this? Israel is under no obligation to 'make peace' with its neighbors, who have pre-emptively attacked it twice (1948 and 1973) and were preparing to attack it again in 1967? Nevertheless, Israel sent out countless representatives to try to make peace, and were greeted with Nasser or Hassad or King Hussein of Jordan thundering how they were going to take extreme pleasure in eradicating the Jewish state and killing its citizens. Perhaps the Arab states should show they are willing to have peace, to stop the anti-semitic garbage their state-run medias spew, to stop aiding the funding and equipping of terrorists. Maybe then Israel should 'make peace.'

War in Iraq just make the threat worse so you wont get me on your side with that arguement.

I wrote valient not violent because minusthejihad used the word in describing the US military. I found it funny so I used it too.
Violent would have been more true of course.

Violent like the French, massacring the Algerians in the fifties and sixties? Violent like the Jordanians killing thousands of Palestinians and expelling 200,000 to Lebanon when Arafat tried to overthrow King Hussein in 1970?

Or perhaps you mean violent like dropping food on Afghanistan, rebuilding infrastructure, pouring millions into a country that we have no real strategic interest in. I guess if that's your definition of violent, then violent we Americans are!

[Northlander]

As for you...Europe tried to "contain" Hitler. We tried to "contain" Iraq and it violated the peace treaty, kicked inspectors out for 4 years, and no one did anything about it (including the US.)

You are wrong. He didnt really kick the inspectors out. They were actually withdrawn by the UN. Partly because some of the inspectors were found, by the UN, to work for USA. Spies to use a different word. You have the wrong angle to all this if you think that USA is the world community. USA is a part in this conflict just as Iraq.

I really must ask this question of Northlander and Kapiti - why is it that none of the Iraqis outside Iraq who do not work for Saddam Hussein only speak of how evil he is and how he should be taken out, and none of the Iraqis inside Iraq have one bad thing to say about good ole Hussein?

Its an interesting comparison. 100% of Iraqi 'exiles' want Saddam gone, 100% of Iraqis still living under Saddam's boot and within his reach sing praises about him. I wonder why.


That I can answer easily. I too have not a single good thing to say about Saddam and that can be said about most people outside Iraq. Those Iraqis inside Iraq that speak about Saddam are probably to afraid to speak openly. Clearly? Some might support him, the numbers cant really be checked with accuracy.

For the Iraqis OUTSIDE Iraq you think 100% is against Saddam. I think that too. What I KNOW is that a clear majority of those are still against a war against Iraq? How come that people that have personal reasons for wanting Saddam dead still oppose a war? think about that for a few moments. Is it possible that they dont want their relatives dead by american bombings? Do they know more about the region in general maybe, so that they are afraid of the results long term? Probably alot of reasons.

In my country we had large anti-war demonstration but we also had an exile-iraqi demonstration FOR the war. They were 100 something. In the anti-war demonstration there were thousands of Iraqis. Of maybe 50 000 Iraqis in Sweden around 100 came to support USA.
They all want Saddam to disapear but they do not want a war.
At least not the majority.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by Northlander
They all want Saddam to disapear but they do not want a war.


But this so perfectly fits into your bleeding-heart world philosophy:

Saddam, please go away!
Israel, please make peace!
America, please stop pursueing your own interests!
Jews, please cease to exist!

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Northlander
You are wrong. He didnt really kick the inspectors out. They were actually withdrawn by the UN. Partly because some of the inspectors were found, by the UN, to work for USA. Spies to use a different word. You have the wrong angle to all this if you think that USA is the world community. USA is a part in this conflict just as Iraq.



That I can answer easily. I too have not a single good thing to say about Saddam and that can be said about most people outside Iraq. Those Iraqis inside Iraq that speak about Saddam are probably to afraid to speak openly. Clearly? Some might support him, the numbers cant really be checked with accuracy.

For the Iraqis OUTSIDE Iraq you think 100% is against Saddam. I think that too. What I KNOW is that a clear majority of those are still against a war against Iraq? How come that people that have personal reasons for wanting Saddam dead still oppose a war? think about that for a few moments. Is it possible that they dont want their relatives dead by american bombings? Do they know more about the region in general maybe, so that they are afraid of the results long term? Probably alot of reasons.

In my country we had large anti-war demonstration but we also had an exile-iraqi demonstration FOR the war. They were 100 something. In the anti-war demonstration there were thousands of Iraqis. Of maybe 50 000 Iraqis in Sweden around 100 came to support USA.
They all want Saddam to disapear but they do not want a war.
At least not the majority. You make outrageous claims with no source reference. Your own "beliefs" are clear on the matter and it looks like you just "make up" whatever story sounds good to flesh out your argument and give a "phoney" sense of authenticity.

[christian]

Originally posted by Northlander
.
In my country we had large anti-war demonstration but we also had an exile-iraqi demonstration FOR the war. They were 100 something. In the anti-war demonstration there were thousands of Iraqis. Of maybe 50 000 Iraqis in Sweden around 100 came to support USA.
They all want Saddam to disapear but they do not want a war.
At least not the majority.

Northlander,
It is sad to say, but Tony Blair is the official representative of UK. The 80% anti-war protesting in UK means nothing to the arabs, when UK-US bombs Iraq into pieces.

Ironically to say, Tony Blair is the offical representative of anti-war protester.

Terrorism will hit UK.

[Northlander]

My god you are stubborn. UN left Iraq voluntarely in 98. Now every single western media agency use the word "kicked out". Just because you support the war doesnt mean you must be totally blind towards your own countries propaganda.

Whats wrong with thinking for yourself and at least try to see things with a little suspicion? If they lie, the following question must be: why are they lying? If they lie on this, can they lie about more? Like when you ask yourself questions about Saddam or N.korea. Why are N.korea throwing out their inspectors now?
Maybe they are hiding something?

Suspicion shouldnt end where democracy begins. I sort of think the opposite is true since more has to be hidden here. Check it out for yourself. The facts are clear. UN did leave Iraq, they were never kicked out.

The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.
-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98

To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.
--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02

This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain.
--Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98

What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out.
--John King, CNN, 8/18/02

Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council.
--USA Today, 12/17/98

Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies.
--USA Today, 9/4/02

Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night--at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report.
--Washington Post, 12/18/98

Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons,
--Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02


A lie becomes a truth if you say it enough times.
Expelled or kicked out. Over and over again until it becomes the truth.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by Northlander
UN left Iraq voluntarely in 98. Now every single western media agency use the word "kicked out".


Saddam have not cooperated as he was supposed to be, according to many UN resolutions. That was the condition of his staying in power after he lost the Gulf War of 1991. He broke it time and time again. How many lines in the sand are you willing to draw, brave descendant of Chamberlain & Deladier?


Just because you support the war doesnt mean you must be totally blind


You must consider risks of action or inaction. IMO, we support peaceful democratic future. You support future with ruthless dictators armed with WMDs.

Europe has a pathological love to tyrants. Without America, your country would be either Soviet Socialist Republic or a part of the 3rd Reich. It is easy to be peacenik when someone else protects your freedoms.

[Hisardut]

Europe has a pathological love to tyrants. Without America, your country would be either Soviet Socialist Republic or a part of the 3rd Reich. It is easy to be peacenik when someone else protects your freedoms

Well said.

[Salim]

Originally posted by Hisardut
Well said.

Jawohl Herr Oberstleutnant!

[Northlander]

Europe has a pathological love to tyrants. Without America, your country would be either Soviet Socialist Republic or a part of the 3rd Reich. It is easy to be peacenik when someone else protects your freedoms.

Without europe there wouldnt be any United States of America. No Israel either.

USA protects the freedom of no one. Ask the Iraqis that live under the rule of the Baath party á la USA.

Now it seems more and more clear that Turkey is trying real hard to get their hands on the Iraqi parts of kurdistan. They will probably get it too since USA needs Turkey in this. Nice mess we will have of all this. Turkish rule over the kurds, an american general in the middle of the desert. Real nice. Very effective against terrorism. :rolleyes:

[Mediocrates]

No actually what Turkey is worried about is to prevent the creation of Kurdistan . That is unacceptable to them. Nor do they want a porous border between Iraq and their own Kurd province. which will create nothing but civil unrest inside Turkey. They have a legitimate complaint as far as it goes.

[Northlander]

I guess the Turkish ban on the kurdish language in schools and the torture of political prisoners etc etc are legitimate as well in your opinion?

As long as it is a democracy anything goes, am I right?

Feels like the kurds will be the big losers in this conflict. They who oppose Saddam the most will gain the least. What was the latest numbers? 70 000 turkey soldiers into northern Iraq. A Turkish demand is that they double the numbers of american troops there.

According to people I know from there they say that many iraqi kurds fear the turkey soldiers even more than saddams troops. Turkish army comes over the border from time to time and they are not happy about kurds in general.

I dont think the american presence will change much. I hope it does but doubt it.

[Mediocrates]

That wasn't my point and you know it. And while we're on the topic why in the hell don't all the human shields do anything about the Kurds.

BTW it's a fairly complex chicken-egg problem. They kill each other so stop waiving your bloody shirt over your head. It is NOT a prima facie case that any group making the claim of seperatist civil war has either clean hands or a self justified cause.

As a matter of international law since you're the one so keen on that, a country is in fact allowed to have firm borders w/o permitting insurgents in just because you say so.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by Northlander
Without europe there wouldnt be any United States of America.


Maybe. But then, without the US Europe would be a proud part of CCCP.


No Israel either.


Without Europe (Romans) Israel would not be destroyed and renamed into Palestine. Without Europe the Jews would not be persecuted for millenia. The Europe's track record: Colonization, Bigotry, Pogroms, Holocaust, World Wars. Finally, the liberal left has decided to make it up by... surprise! appeasing another bloody tyrant and terrorist threatening the humanity.

USA protects the freedom of no one.

Where did you graduate from: Peshawar Medresse or Sorbonne?
Europe alone was saved by the US in 2 World Wars, Cold War. And what Europe did to save Yugoslavia? Demonstarated...

Ask the Iraqis that live under the rule of the Baath party á la USA.

Make up your mind. Are pro-Saddam or against? Or just anti-US and Israel? BTW, the Baath Arab party is the last remaining descendant of the Nazi Axis.

[Northlander]

Mediocrates, I dont know why the human shields doesnt do anything about the kurds. Its not the first time they are forgotten.
Firm borders I can accept, but it has to go both ways. The kurds doesnt even have their own border.

Humus:
US alone saved europe during WWII?? Personally I think the russians did far more against the germans than USA did.

Maybe I should have supported the soviet invasion of afghanistan just because of that. Hell, the germans more than anyone saved us all from the romans so why did anyone oppose them last century? Come on, real politics are not about gratitude and friendship no matter how many times your president refer to his allies as "our friends".

Make up your mind. Are pro-Saddam or against? Or just anti-US and Israel? BTW, the Baath Arab party is the last remaining descendant of the Nazi Axis.

Black and white. If things were that easy we wouldnt have this discussion.
Nevertheless Im against Saddam. Im also clearly anti-US, at the moment. A change of president and politics would take care of that rapidly.
I like that word better than anti-american which Im not. Anti-US because of the arrogant, destructive, dangerous, illegitimate foreign politics driven by your current administration. Because of the tendency I see in general from USA. Everything is very militarized and nationalistic in a negative way. It sort of remindes me about the SU and Nazi-germany. Flags and soldiers in every larger event. Military parades. Religious undertones in the whole state of the union. In most speeches as a matter of fact religion is there. Very creepy.

USA have to calm down in general. Germany and France have given example of more sane reactions towards the current threats. Fear, its said, is the most common reason for violence.
Fear of communism, fear of terrorism, fear of losing face, what have you.
There is a limit in how many foreign interventions USA can launch in the name of "selfdefence".
I think we have to change that word in the english dictionaries soon.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by Northlander
Humus:
US alone saved europe during WWII?? Personally I think the russians did far more against the germans than USA did.

You are correct, but I didn't imply otherwise. Note the SU was attacked by the Nazi Germany, the US was not. Also, the Stalin's regime was not better than Hitler's.

Maybe I should have supported the soviet invasion of afghanistan just because of that. Hell, the germans more than anyone saved us all from the romans so why did anyone oppose them last century?

The Russians and Germans were bloody totalitarian regimes. You want to support or appease such regimes... Actually, that is exactly what you are doing. :(
OTOH, the US acts as an adult in a sandbox full of rambunctious violent kids.

It sort of remindes me about the SU and Nazi-germany. Flags and soldiers in every larger event. Military parades. Religious undertones in the whole state of the union. In most speeches as a matter of fact religion is there. Very creepy.


Parades? Where did you get this BS? If you make such comparisons, you obviously have no slightest idea what are you talking about. You are comparing a thriving democracy to the worst totalitarian regimes. The US were too lax, and it's been long overdue to add some security.

The pseudo-religious stuff I don't really care about, as long as it does not affect the policy or invites bigotry.

Germany and France have given example of more sane reactions towards the current threats.

ROTFLMAO, you're so naive! They are just protecting their investments in Saddam. Watch for some scandals really soon now. BTW, have you noticed: you just acknowledged the current threats do exist. ;(

[Mediocrates]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/02/25/oil/index.html


It's not about the oil kids. This says pretty much what the Wall Street Journal printed last week.

[andak01]

So in short, here is a war that is:

Bad for the Iraqi people
Bad for the Turks
Bad for the UN
Bad for NATO
Bad for the EU Nations
Bad for the oil companies
Bad for the American economy
Bad for the European economy

Good for Ratheon, Haliburton (of which Cheney was former CEO), Brown and Root and a couple of other companies

This is a war that will save us from the immediate threat from Saddam while exposing us to North Korea, Al Qaida and others. This is a war against people who hate America that is going to increase hatred of America.

This is a war that is going to end in disaster unless about 50 different things happen exactly as planned.

[Micah]

Originally posted by andak01
So in short, here is a war that is:

Bad for the Iraqi people
Bad for the Turks
Bad for the UN
Bad for NATO
Bad for the EU Nations
Bad for the oil companies
Bad for the American economy
Bad for the European economy

Good for Ratheon, Haliburton (of which Cheney was former CEO), Brown and Root and a couple of other companies

This is a war that will save us from the immediate threat from Saddam while exposing us to North Korea, Al Qaida and others. This is a war against people who hate America that is going to increase hatred of America.

This is a war that is going to end in disaster unless about 50 different things happen exactly as planned.

Of course, appeasement in the short term is:

Good for the EU
Good for the UN
Good for oil companies
Good for American economy
Good for European economy
Good for NATO

It isn't so good for the Iraqi people, because they will have to continue to live under Saddam's regime.

But who cares about our morals?

[Mediocrates]

Good for Ratheon, Haliburton (of which Cheney was former CEO), Brown and Root and a couple of other companies



People say this as if it is self evident. It is not. What exactly does this mean?

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Northlander


Black and white. If things were that easy we wouldnt have this discussion.
Nevertheless Im against Saddam. Im also clearly anti-US, at the moment.

You didn't answer my question last time, so let me put it again. You protest against US, Israel etc. Did you ever publicly protest against Saddam or any other muslim dictatorship?

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by andak01
Good for Ratheon, Haliburton (of which Cheney was former CEO), Brown and Root and a couple of other companies

I'm not convinced. We won the Gulf War. Why we did not take over oil fields of Quwait (and Iraq too, for that matter)?


This is a war that is going to end in disaster unless about 50 different things happen exactly as planned.

The same was said in the Fall 2001 about impending US attack on Taliban. So, make up your mind. Are you against it for moral reasons or just scared of bad planning? Or just against and looking for any reason?

BTW, I didn't say I'm all for it. Still hope it won't be necessary.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by andak01
(of which Cheney was former CEO)

Hey, btw - where in the world is Cheney anyway??

The administration is just about as unpopular as ever, and Cheney is nowhere to be found.

I wonder if he's really deceased and instead of Weekend at Bernie's, the White House is doing a "Weekend at Cheney's".

Maybe they're having him sit in a chair with dark sunglasses, with a phone resting on his shoulder and strings lifting his hand every few minutes like he's talking into the phone. :D

[Communication]

Originally posted by andak01
Good for Ratheon, Haliburton (of which Cheney was former CEO), Brown and Root and a couple of other companies


When it comes to oil, I don't think the issue turns on whether it's good for big business. However, do you think we can take a hard line on the Saudis while Saddam Hussein is still in power?

[JustPat]

So the choices are WAR or appeasement ...

Can you tell me of even one time that appeasement had a good outcome?

[Kapiti]

Originally posted by JustPat
So the choices are WAR or appeasement ...

Can you tell me of even one time that appeasement had a good outcome?

Kennedy had the chance to bomb Cuba in the early sixties and effectively rejected the declaration of war. Maybe not appeasement in any sense which any normal person uses the word but since you give people only two choices then I guess in your small mind it must have been appeasement that he was pursuing.

In my view the outcome was a good one and certainly better than the alternative. Are you going to dispute this ?

[abu afak]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Kennedy had the chance to bomb Cuba in the early sixties and effectively rejected the declaration of war. Maybe not appeasement in any sense which any normal person uses the word but since you give people only two choices then I guess in your small mind it must have been appeasement that he was pursuing.

In my view the outcome was a good one and certainly better than the alternative. Are you going to dispute this ?

Really stinky history there guy.

Kennedy gave the Russians and Cuba an Ultimatum: remove the Missiles or War.

SAME as Bush is Giving Saddam: Leave or war

Kennedy rejected Nothing... The Russians backed down

(BTW, aside/beside the above... ever heard of the 'Bay of Pigs'?)

[djnvcm]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
As has been pointed out by others, Germany, France, Russia, and Belgium have come to be called an Axis of Weasels.

Europe has rarely been motivated by noble principles, but rather by greed, national hatred, and cowardice, historically speaking. That's why there is no doubt that their opposition to a war in Iraq stems from their multi-billion-dollar deals with Saddam's brutal regime.

But what is their relationship to the U.S. at this point? Have they shifted from being allies to trade competitors, and now to political adversaries?

Is NATO finished? Is the UN next? I sure hope that the answer is yes to both. : This is totally true since the cold war is over people start to think that the other superpower is not a good example to follow. The american way of life is mostly leading to be fat and to pollute twice the rest of the world. Thus the time is now to raise Europe for the good sake of american people themselves

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Kennedy had the chance to bomb Cuba in the early sixties and effectively rejected the declaration of war. Maybe not appeasement in any sense which any normal person uses the word but since you give people only two choices then I guess in your small mind it must have been appeasement that he was pursuing.

In my view the outcome was a good one and certainly better than the alternative. Are you going to dispute this ?
You'd have to ask a Cuban, but those I have talked to wish we had gone in and taken Castro out.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by djnvcm
: This is totally true since the cold war is over people start to think that the other superpower is not a good example to follow. The american way of life is mostly leading to be fat and to pollute twice the rest of the world. Thus the time is now to raise Europe for the good sake of american people themselves
Oh look, another Frenchman who hates the US! How surprising.

Perhaps you would do well to study pollution word-wide and see the truth from a scientific standpoint. The only reason the US gets numbers for volume is because of our productivity.

[elreason4]

Originally posted by JustPat
Oh look, another Frenchman who hates the US! How surprising.

Perhaps you would do well to study pollution word-wide and see the truth from a scientific standpoint. The only reason the US gets numbers for volume is because of our productivity.

Q: How many Frenchman does it take to defend Paris?

A: Nobody knows. It's never been tried.

[Kapiti]

JUSTPAT
If the USA had invaded Cuba as openly as fools like you would have liked, the chances are we would have had a nuclear confrontation. It is the imbeciles of this planet who cannot see that taking the risks at that time would have been stupid, who also think that there are currently only two choices : war and appeasement.

abu afak

You really need to go back to both your history books and your newspapers. Try a bit harder please.


Kennedy did not say Remove the missiles or war. He said remove the missiles or you don't get any ships through.
Bush did not say to Saddam leave or war. This is not even close.
Yes I have heard of Bay of Pigs. This was not the US government starting a true war. It merely half supported Cuban exiles to try and over throw Castro. Very different to bombing the hell out of cuba don't you think.

[elreason4]

Originally posted by Kapiti
JUSTPAT
If the USA had invaded Cuba as openly as fools like you would have liked, the chances are we would have had a nuclear confrontation. It is the imbeciles of this planet who cannot see that taking the risks at that time would have been stupid, who also think that there are currently only two choices : war and appeasement.

abu afak

You really need to go back to both your history books and your newspapers. Try a bit harder please.


Kennedy did not say Remove the missiles or war. He said remove the missiles or you don't get any ships through.
Bush did not say to Saddam leave or war. This is not even close.
Yes I have heard of Bay of Pigs. This was not the US government starting a true war. It merely half supported Cuban exiles to try and over throw Castro. Very different to bombing the hell out of cuba don't you think.

thanks for the history lesson. and i was somehow under the illusion that the bay of pigs had to do with the soviet union shipping nuclear arms within 100 miles of the u.s. in cuba thus bringing world to the very edge of complete global nuclear war. thanks for clearing that up, it was simply about some missles and an embargo-nothing to do with the cold war and the soviet union.

apples and oranges

[Kapiti]

elreason4

Kennedy put pressure on the Cubans and Russians not by bombing anyone but rather by a blockade. This is the point and it is addressing the issue raised originally by Justpat who gave just two options : War or Appeasement. What Kennedy showed as I have demonstrated is that there are more than just two options. For instance a blockade as simply an example.

Your sarcasm is not necessary and more importantly not at all relevant.

[elreason4]

Originally posted by Kapiti
elreason4

Kennedy put pressure on the Cubans and Russians not by bombing anyone but rather by a blockade. This is the point and it is addressing the issue raised originally by Justpat who gave just two options : War or Appeasement. What Kennedy showed as I have demonstrated is that there are more than just two options. For instance a blockade as simply an example.

Your sarcasm is not necessary and more importantly not at all relevant.
When national or global security is at issue, the threat of war is necessary. After a certain point though, if the threat is not backed up with action, one has appeased by default. The blockade was an immediate action, with an implicit threat of real war. That was the nature of the cold war. In any event, the last 12 years of the global security threat by Iraq’s refusal to disarm has made a mockery of the threat of war as a tactic that could produce results. As the U.S. continues to ready its strike force, and unless Sadaam can show he is clean before then, any U.S. further delay IS DEFINITELY appeasement. JustPat is right at this point in time, it is only war or appeasement.

The real tragedy of further appeasement is that at that point the U.S. can not deny it had the power, but failed, to stop further murder from Sadaam. The U.N. does not have the power to stop Sadaam, only the U.S. This is the burden which Bush faces, to do the right thing because it is only in his power. The popular view (as expressed in the U.N.) is not necessarily the right thing to do. It would be the U.S., not the U.N., who is ultimately responsibility for inaction and appeasement.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Kapiti
elreason4

Kennedy put pressure on the Cubans and Russians not by bombing anyone but rather by a blockade. This is the point and it is addressing the issue raised originally by Justpat who gave just two options : War or Appeasement. What Kennedy showed as I have demonstrated is that there are more than just two options. For instance a blockade as simply an example.




That's pretty simplistic. JFK threatened the SOVIETS with atomic war. It was not entirely important how the Cubans felt about that. Blockade was not meant to embargo Cuba it was meant to impress upon the Soviets our serious intent.

[djnvcm]

Originally posted by JustPat
Oh look, another Frenchman who hates the US! How surprising.

Perhaps you would do well to study pollution word-wide and see the truth from a scientific standpoint. The only reason the US gets numbers for volume is because of our productivity.

You misunderstand me I don't hate the US
My point was on the "American way of life" which may not be a reference anymore in XXI century. You should study what are the benefit of your productivity

[Kapiti]

Mediocrates

Your post seems quite irrelevant. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the point you are trying to make.

Elreason

You say "When national or global security is at issue, the threat of war is necessary" After that the threat must be backed up with war.

The problem I and many others have with this is that you (the USA) are the determiner of when your national security is at issue and you able to be drawing this conclusion too easily.

If Iraq is a risk to you then next by the same loose standards would be North Korea or maybe Iran or maybe those pesky Malaysians who have been critical (and probably housing terrorist elements somewhere). We in Australia through our human suppository prime minister have been sucking up big time but if we don't would we be next.

Do you understand the reservations the world has with the power the USA has and its present policy of using that power when it thinks it necessary. Most people in the world don't think the use of your power is either necessary or adviseable. Once used the first time it becomes easier the next and the next.

[MGB8]

Kapiti,

Your point is irrelevant, to this issue at least.

Iraq can only bejudged on its own merits.

What we have is a dictator who has violated his cease fire agreement for years. He violates countless UN resolutions, too.

Finally, the UN passes a resolution saying "show your cards, or face consequences."

What has Iraq done...certainly NOT show its cards. Now people are saying stuff was destroyed in 1994. Where was that in the 12,000 page report Iraq gave??? That would have been the time to reveal such a thing, if it was in fact the truth.

The thing is, once revealed, it could be checked for accuracy, whereas now they can set stuff up to look like the acted.

This is not a "New" war. This is a continuation of the 1991 War, because Saddam has violated the ccease fire. That's it.

Does Saddam pose a threat to US and world security. Undeniably. He has shown a willingness to use WMD which no one else has, and has consistantly tried to better his arsenal. He has punished his people in order to gain public sympathy (nothing new in the arab workd) and murdered anyone who opposed him. he even brags about his "%100" re-election. How can he have ANY CREDIBILITY - no one gets %100 unless you live in a perfect world. But Saddam does. Hmmm...maybe, just maybe he's a liar.

Saddam poses a threat to the world economic market (and billions of jobs) because of his proximity to oil, which makes it very possible for him to start a world-wide depression.

He posses a huge threat via terrorism.

And, he poses a great threat to his own people. we didn't seem to have these kind of complaints with Bosnia and Somolia when a lefty President went in for crimes similar to what Saddam has commited (albeit those crimes where ongoing whereas Saddam has already killed many of his enemies). The US military is NOT at the command of the world...it is in the hands of the US...and the world needs to realize that.

People argue for containment as opposed to war. Containment simply means delaying and allowing for the possibility that Saddam gets much stronger. Why take that chance, when we can have a shorter and less bloody war now?

I think this is more protest for protest sake, than anything else.




Originally posted by Kapiti
Mediocrates

Your post seems quite irrelevant. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the point you are trying to make.

Elreason

You say "When national or global security is at issue, the threat of war is necessary" After that the threat must be backed up with war.

The problem I and many others have with this is that you (the USA) are the determiner of when your national security is at issue and you able to be drawing this conclusion too easily.

If Iraq is a risk to you then next by the same loose standards would be North Korea or maybe Iran or maybe those pesky Malaysians who have been critical (and probably housing terrorist elements somewhere). We in Australia through our human suppository prime minister have been sucking up big time but if we don't would we be next.

Do you understand the reservations the world has with the power the USA has and its present policy of using that power when it thinks it necessary. Most people in the world don't think the use of your power is either necessary or adviseable. Once used the first time it becomes easier the next and the next.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Mediocrates

Your post seems quite irrelevant. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the point you are trying to make.

Elreason

You say "When national or global security is at issue, the threat of war is necessary" After that the threat must be backed up with war.

The problem I and many others have with this is that you (the USA) are the determiner of when your national security is at issue and you able to be drawing this conclusion too easily.

If Iraq is a risk to you then next by the same loose standards would be North Korea or maybe Iran or maybe those pesky Malaysians who have been critical (and probably housing terrorist elements somewhere). We in Australia through our human suppository prime minister have been sucking up big time but if we don't would we be next.

Do you understand the reservations the world has with the power the USA has and its present policy of using that power when it thinks it necessary. Most people in the world don't think the use of your power is either necessary or adviseable. Once used the first time it becomes easier the next and the next. It is almost embarrasing to read what you post here. I wonder if you just type it out and fling it up there, supposing that you have created some masterpiece of analysis.

The issues of the planet continue despite your ability to understand them or persuade others of the proper course to take.

Dangerous times? Doubtlessly.

Lay down before the enemy? Hide one's head in the sand? Perhaps for Australians and Frenchmen.

Let killers do what they will no matter what weapons fall into their hands? It seems there are some whose vision of safety predicates such meager response, though in this sense, response is not really a term that applies.

Those unaware of history are doomed to repeat it. Many of us do not wish to go down with that ship.