[Stellite]

Ok, there seems to be two modes of thinking here. One is the erroneus one that Saddam would willingly go away. This is obviously not true. UN inspections didn't work and the ONLY reason why Saddam started to destroy a few missiles was because he had 200,000 US troops at his doorstep. Lets face it, the Saddams, bin ladins, and other little tyrrant, oppresive governments will not willingly change (North Korea).

So here are the two choices as I see them:

1. Do what Bush and Blair have done and remove the threat to the WORLD.

2. Close the doors of our country (and the Britts to do the same) to all foreign nationals from those countries that do not cooperate with Anti-terrorism and who have tyranical governments. The friendly country citizens that would be allowed to come into the US would be citizens born in the friendly country and citizens that have lived n the friendly country for 15 years or more. All persons found in our country illegally would be immediately removed and sent back to their country and those that have been here legally for only a few years would undergo serious background checks to determine their history or be removed.

Option 2 sound harsh? Option 1 is harsher

ANy other Options? and please don't bring up the UN, because the UN is run by a council of corrupt nations with their own agendas. Inspections have not worked and will not work and treaties obviously don' work as North Korea is an example.

Some al those aganst the war give some real options here, instead of arguing and not comming up with real alternate solutions

 

[Drunken_Ninja]

More than 30 million people have been out in the streets to say "No" to this war. More than half the Security Council, given a chance, would say "No" to this war, as would the overwhelming majority of the UN General Assembly. But the Security Council has failed us. It's time for the General Assembly of the United Nations, which more thoroughly represents the voice of this world's people, to rise up and demand that Iraq be disarmed peacefully, and that the slaughter of innocent Iraqis cease immediately.

In 1950, the United Nations agreed a way to address impasses at the Security Council. The "Uniting for Peace" resolution (resolution 377A) was designed to bring the entire General Assembly together to address a "threat to peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression" when the Security Council failed to reach agreement.

Please, urgently, write to your Ambassador at the United Nations and ask that the Uniting for Peace resolution be invoked to stop this war.

The voice of world opinion has been ignored. Don't let it continue to be ignored.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Stellite
Ok, there seems to be two modes of thinking here. One is the erroneus one that Saddam would willingly go away. This is obviously not true. UN inspections didn't work and the ONLY reason why Saddam started to destroy a few missiles was because he had 200,000 US troops at his doorstep. Lets face it, the Saddams, bin ladins, and other little tyrrant, oppresive governments will not willingly change (North Korea).

So here are the two choices as I see them:

1. Do what Bush and Blair have done and remove the threat to the WORLD.

2. Close the doors of our country (and the Britts to do the same) to all foreign nationals from those countries that do not cooperate with Anti-terrorism and who have tyranical governments. The friendly country citizens that would be allowed to come into the US would be citizens born in the friendly country and citizens that have lived n the friendly country for 15 years or more. All persons found in our country illegally would be immediately removed and sent back to their country and those that have been here legally for only a few years would undergo serious background checks to determine their history or be removed.

Option 2 sound harsh? Option 1 is harsher

ANy other Options? and please don't bring up the UN, because the UN is run by a council of corrupt nations with their own agendas. Inspections have not worked and will not work and treaties obviously don' work as North Korea is an example.

Some al those aganst the war give some real options here, instead of arguing and not comming up with real alternate solutions

Is there really any point in responding to such a closed mind?

In_your_opinion the UN is toothless and corrupt and the US is above all suspicion of double-dealing. Do you not see how selectively the US chooses to 'save the world'? Ask any Palestination, or East Timorese, or Tibetan, or Saudi Arabian.

If Iraq was disarming with the threat of force why was actual force necessary?

As an option how about a balanced and open foreign policy? How about not penalising nations because you do not agree with their policies (after all you cannot claim to be fighting for freedom and democracy if you sponsor a coup to remove a democratically elected government just because you don't like it)?

Basically quit bullying.

 

[Stellite]

I think the closed mind is yours and again you give no options because you have none. You want to solve a problem, but you give no solutions.

Solutions? Well?

I posted this to find options, but as typical neither of you offer any, you just use it to promote an agenda that is baseless, unfounded and without facts.

Show me what would have worked better than the war and I'll listen. Can you do that instead of promoting other agendas. GIVE SOLUTIONS!!!!!

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by Stellite
I think the closed mind is yours and again you give no options because you have none. You want to solve a problem, but you give no solutions.

Solutions? Well?

I posted this to find options, but as typical neither of you offer any, you just use it to promote an agenda that is baseless, unfounded and without facts.

Show me what would have worked better than the war and I'll listen. Can you do that instead of promoting other agendas. GIVE SOLUTIONS!!!!!

Did you miss the bit about foreign policy and quitting bullying? Laymans terms sure enough but if you can't grasp them in the basic form what's the point of elaborating?

In another thread you imply that if two countries have nuclear weapons they won't mess with each other, how's about giving them to all and sundry and levelling the playing field?

How's about talking to the North Koreans who keep asking for negotiations? If I was part of Bush's 'axis of evil' I'd be thinking that it's only a matter of time before the US invades, unless of course I have nuclear weapons so I'd better start developing them damn quick. See where your current thinking goes?

It's quite simple really, stop messing with people and they won't get so paranoid.

I think the weapons inspections were working better than war, Iraq was disarming and people weren't being bombed. Right now people are dying and the only way Iraq is destroying any missiles is by using them. Hell of a step forward!

The US was basically not content with disarmament, they want a US-friendly government, and they're gonna get it by force, killing a few innocents on the way. Seems to me the rest of the UN had better aims but your US-centric myopia cannot get you past 'might is right' can it?

 

[Drunken_Ninja]

Canadian part of “Uniting for Peace” delegation

Greenpeace Canada, New York, 12 Mar 03

Canadian Éric Darier is part of a Greenpeace delegation to the United Nations this week calling on all members of the United Nations to uphold the UN Charter by holding an Emergency Session of the General Assembly to avoid an illegal war on Iraq.


Greenpeace, along with the Centre for Constitutional Rights in New York, is advocating for all 191 members of the UN General Assembly to use Resolution 377, known as 'Uniting for Peace’. The resolution would allow for an emergency session in response to the current Security Council impasse on how to maintain international peace and security.


“If it wanted the world to be ruled by the cowboy with the biggest guns, the international community wouldn’t have created the UN in the first place,” said Darier, Campaigner for Greenpeace Canada. “The UN, including the General Assembly, was created to preserve the rule of law and promote multilateralism. It's time the UN fully exercises its mandate and unites as a whole to defend its founding principles and stop the impending attack on Iraq, which would be the most horrific example of unilateralism. It must take this last chance for peace," he added.


According to Steve Sawyer, spokesman for Greenpeace at the United Nations headquarters in New York, “It's clear that the United States and United Kingdom will not succeed in ramming through a resolution to go to war. Yet it's also clear that, even without UN backing, those countries intend to wage a reckless war which would make the world a much more dangerous place. It's now up to all the world’s countries, not just a few of the powerful, to meet together to avert this march to war.”


If the permanent members of the Security Council cannot agree on measures for the maintenance of international peace and security, the ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution enables the General Assembly to consider the matter immediately. The General Assembly can be convened within
24 hours to consider
and recommend, measures to UN members. The resolution has been invoked ten times in the past 50 years.


Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, stated: “The 'Uniting for Peace' resolution may be the last hope to avert war. If passed, it will put the U.S. and the U.K. on notice that a war without Security Council authorization is utterly illegal and a crime against the peace.”

 

[Stellite]

Iraq's former head of its nuclear program has claimed that Saddam Hussein is within months of completing a nuclear weapon. Further still, the former U.N. chief weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, an adamant opponent of the war, recently admitted to the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Secondly, we have a moral duty to attack Iraq. CNN claims that 1.5 million Iraqis have died because of Saddam. Can we truly sit aside and allow a dictator to systematically gas his citizens and kill them on an enormous scale?

Third, the U.S. has a contractual right to attack Iraq. When the Gulf War ended, Iraq signed an agreement with the U.S. and the Unite Nations. For the war to end, a necessary condition for Iraq was to not shoot at our planes in the no-fly zone. But since the end of the war, many planes have been shot at, hit and downed. The latest such attacks was as recently as Wednesday, Jan. 23.

Ask any logician and he or she will tell you that when you negate a necessary condition, the antecedent is also negated. In this case, as soon as Iraq shot at the first plane, the war started back up again.

In all due respect, Mr. President, this attack is not pre-emptive. Instead, it is simply continuing a war that has existed for several years but is simply gaining more attention now.

Many of those who disagree with the war constantly ask about its timing. It is time to fight for our safety, and our lives. It is also time to fight for justice, not only our own justice, but also for the justice of those around the world.

But you want to make this a propaganda thread so I'll throw some in DN..

 

[Stellite]

One in six Iraqis are in exile, and they want this war Many have fled Saddam Hussein's tyranny. We must listen to them

Martin Woollacott
Friday August 16, 2002
The Guardian

At a recent conference on the rights and wrongs of military intervention in Iraq, a division quickly emerged among the academics attending. Those of American or European background were almost all strongly against intervention. Those of Iraqi background, though now holding posts in western universities, were for it, as long as they could be sure it would not be abandoned halfway through. Both sides were conscious of the physical risks of war, both were doubtful about the motives and behaviour of the Bush administration and both had anxieties about the precedents that might be set in international law. But they ended the argument in different places.

That difference reflects a wider division between the left and liberal classes in the west, especially in Europe, and what might be called the Iraqi liberal diaspora. Indeed, outside of specialist circles like that at the conference, it is less a difference than an ignorance. Close to one in six Iraqis are in exile, and it is extraordinary that the views of this large community, as well as the insights they offer into the feelings of those still in the country, should have been neglected so far in the Iraq debate.

That debate goes back and forth, as it has done in Britain over the last three weeks, with only the most perfunctory references to the views of Iraqis themselves. Opponents of the war, after the obligatory admission that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant, move rapidly on to criticise the wilfulness of American policy, the danger of flouting international law, the risks that weapons of mass destruction will be used and the anger of Arabs and other Muslims at an assault on a fraternal country, especially when the US has put so little pressure on Israel to change its ways.

Most advocates of war, after an equally brief mention of Saddam's sins against his own people, move on just as rapidly to stress the danger that the same weapons of mass destruction (those Saddam has now and those he may soon acquire), represent to people outside Iraq, especially to Israel and to western countries. Until now it has been a largely selfish debate in Europe and America, centring on the threats to the west and its friends on the one hand, and on the moral issues arising from American hegemony on the other. It has been all about us, and not at all about them. It has been even more selfish among Arabs, if it has taken place at all. The spectrum of what it is politically permissible to agitate about in Arab countries runs from Palestine at one end to Palestine at the other, with no room, in public at least, for the plight of Iraqis.

The measure of Iraqi opinion abroad is not to be found in the statements of the professional opposition but in the private opinions of hundreds of thousands of households around the world. The Iraqi diaspora is one largely created by Saddam's regime and it is naturally animated by dislike, to put it at a minimum, of the man who drove them out. In more benign circumstances there would of course be some Iraqis living outside Iraq. But these huge numbers, between 4 and 5 million, against a population of 23 million in Iraq, tell a different story.

There is an older generation of educated migrants, including opponents of the regime in its earlier days; then those who fled to avoid the murderous war that Saddam started with Iran; then the half-million or so he expelled into Iran because they were ethnically or religiously suspect; and, finally, the wave after wave of mainly middle-class migrants who came out in the 1990s.

In the broadest sense their motives were political, in that they did not wish to live in Saddam's Iraq, they did not wish their sons to serve in his armies or their most talented members to be coopted into the regime. It is not that, deportations aside, it is easy to leave. Saddam makes that almost impossible for certain professions, such as scientists and doctors, and businessmen often have chosen to sell up and go abroad with only a fraction of their previous wealth.

No doubt there are some abroad who support Saddam, others who are neutral and others who want to see him go but do not think an American war is the way to do it. But what the majority think, in the words of one careful student of Iraqi opinion, is that "military action is the price that has to be paid for the removal of the regime, and this is also the view of most Iraqis in the country". Iraqis at home, leaving aside those so complicit with the regime that they fear change will bring disaster and death to their families, are "worried about bombs raining down on them but things are so bad that they will take that prospect on... People in Iraq are waiting for the strike to happen".

There are few followers among Iraqis, according to the same source, for the "wait until he dies" school, and much fear of the chaos that might come as as Saddam's sons and followers strive to survive. By contrast, most Iraqis regard western predictions about civil war in the aftermath of an American attack as almost racist. Such arguments ignore Iraq's large educated and democratically inclined middle class, much of it in the diaspora but ready to return, the lessons learned by Iraq's peoples under the dictatorship and the heartfelt longing for a new start.

The silence of those in Iraq is understandable. But why are the voices of Iraqis abroad not heard? There are reasons. First, every Iraqi family abroad has hostages at home, in the shape of relatives who remained. Second, there has been until recently an understandable cynicism about how serious the Americans were about displacing Saddam. Third, there is the dominance of the Palestinian issue. Iraqis may feel they have as much right to look to the outside world for redress as Palestinians do, but that is not what the world has seemed to think. Finally, there is the inattention of the west. It does not seem to want to hear, even when Iraqis such as Kanan Makiya (the Iraqi scholar whose analysis of the evils of the regime was so influential at the time of the Gulf war), speak out.

If most Iraqis are ready for the risks of a war to get rid of Saddam, it may not mean in itself that such a war would be wise, but surely it alters the context in which decisions are to be made. The American administration may not see what it plans as primarily a rescue of the Iraqi people but that is, among other things, what it would be.

If we decide not to join in an effort to rescue the Iraqis because the effort would be too costly and dangerous to us, exposing our own populations to unacceptable risk, then we had better be honest about it, as we were during the cold war when we left the Hungarians and others to the mercy of the Russians. Prudence, however, is not the only virtue that nations can display.

 

[Stellite]

Originally posted by fluff


As an option how about a balanced and open foreign policy? How about not penalising nations because you do not agree with their policies

Basically quit bullying.

you're right, quit bullying....

France has moved from simple dissent to active hostility toward America. French President Chirac warned East European nations that if they side with America, France will oppose their membership in the European Union.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
Is there really any point in responding to such a closed mind?

In_your_opinion the UN is toothless and corrupt and the US is above all suspicion of double-dealing. Do you not see how selectively the US chooses to 'save the world'? Ask any Palestination, or East Timorese, or Tibetan, or Saudi Arabian.

If Iraq was disarming with the threat of force why was actual force necessary?

As an option how about a balanced and open foreign policy? How about not penalising nations because you do not agree with their policies (after all you cannot claim to be fighting for freedom and democracy if you sponsor a coup to remove a democratically elected government just because you don't like it)?

Basically quit bullying.

You say quit bullying but then you say the threat of force was working. Is not the threat of force bullying?

But the threat for force only works if their is a belief that force can be used. French, German and Russian represenatitives never espoused the belief that force was needed or ever would be. So Iraq got mixed messages and continued to stall and decieve UN inspectors because they saw no real "threat" to doing so. Iraq hoped the UN would continue to argue amongest itself.

For 12 years sanctions were in place with minor uses of forces as punishments. Did those sanctions actually work? No not really because as late as 1996 it was being found that these weapons were still being built in Iraq. But France and Russia were even angling to have those sanctions lifted as they felt that Iraq was cooperating. Even after there had been no inspectors in Iraq for over 4 years. Again for the 10000 time, Iraq's nuclear programs were based upon technology they got from the French. And their chemical and biological programs from technology and know how they got from the Russians. Notice that all of Iraqi's weapons technology is of French or Russian design.

IF the US intervened in any of the conflicts you mentioned, the samething would be said now about them as they are about Iraq. Here goes the US in their imperalistic ways spreading their ugliness around the world. The world screams when the US doesn't get involved but then screams when we don't get involved. There is no winning move for the US, except not to play. But then you get accused of isolationism.

For once realize that foreign policy as it exists today, BY ANY COUNTRY, is to serve some self interest. If you do not believe this then you are naive and completely out of touch. Even the UN's existance is for countries to try to manipulate a better place for themselves.

Democratically elected government? Please you seem more intelligent than that to believe that Saddam is really an honestly elected official.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB

Democratically elected government? Please you seem more intelligent than that to believe that Saddam is really an honestly elected official.

I'm only here for 20 seconds or so and I'm skimming but I did need to address this bit (it caught my eye). No, I don't believe Saddam is an honestly elected official. I was talking about a Latin American country (Panama or Nicaragua I think but I will check) where the US deposed a democratically elected leader in favour of a military government.

I'll check the rest of the post when I have more time, there's lots of it!

 

[Damn True]

DN, two words; Independant Thought. Quit cutting and pasting drivel from other peoples minds.

Fluff, yawn. That stuff is really nice and sweet and coverd with pretty flowers and smells all good and everything, but outside of a the bedroom of a 12 year old girl being nice dosen't work.

 

[Trond]

Here's a solution, read the title.

---------------------------------------------------
To end terrorism, end state terrorism
By Johan Galtung and Dietrich Fischer*
IPS Columnist Service

NEW YORK (IPS)--One year ago, two dates punctuated a continuing cycle of violence and counter-violence: the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with about 3,000 civilians killed, and the October 7 start of the attack on Afghanistan, in which about 6,000 civilians have been killed so far.

How can we break out of this vicious cycle?

Some days after September 11, a psychologist gave advice on CNN to parents with children asking difficult questions. One young boy had asked, ''What have we done to make them hate us so much that they do such things?'' A mature question, unlike the answer: ''You could tell your child that there are good people in the world, and evil''. That boy had arrived at the stage of reciprocity on psychologist Jean Piaget's scale of child development, seeing the actions of others as influenced at least partly by his own actions (and vice versa). By contrast, the psychologist's answer reflected the earlier stage of autism, in which evil actions by others are seen as uninfluenced by anything we do.

Motivation helps to explain but not to justify. Hitler's success can be explained by the humiliating 1919 Versailles Treaty, which held Germany alone responsible for World War I and imposed huge reparations for 50 years. Of course, nothing can justify what Hitler did. Understanding is not forgiving. Without understanding, we are condemned to repeat history.

The US media never mention the state terrorism exercised by the US against other countries.

67 US interventions since 1945

Since 1945, the United States has intervened abroad 67 times, causing twelve million deaths, about half by overt action (Pentagon) and half by covert action (CIA). These are practically unknown to most Americans and rarely mentioned, with the notable exceptions of Chalmers Johnson's book Blowback and Bill Blum's Rogue State: a Guide to the World's Only Superpower. In addition, 100,000 people die daily around the world from hunger and preventable diseases in the midst of enormous luxury and waste.

The targets of the September 11 terrorist attack were symbolic: the World Trade Center, representing a system of world trade that amasses unspeakable wealth in the hands of a few while impoverishing billions in the Third World; and the Pentagon, seat of the US military.

In the statement broadcast by Al Jazeera shortly after September 11, Bin Laden said, ''Our nation has been tasting this humiliation and this degradation for more than 80 years'', referring to the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement, which brought Arabia under the rule of non-Muslims and broke the British promise of independence for the Arab nations in return for their participation in defeating the Ottoman Empire; and the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which supported the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

Terrorism (carried out by men and women without uniform) and state terrorism (carried out by men and women in uniform – a difference of little importance to the victims) share the following characteristics:

* They use violence for political ends;
* They harm people not directly involved in struggle;
* They are designed to spread panic/terror to bring about capitulation;
* They have an element of surprise in the choice of who, where, and when, and;
* They make perpetrators unavailable for retaliation or incapacitation.

Islam, Puritanism share common characteristics

Wahhabism, a fundamentalist branch of Islam and the state religion of Saudi Arabia, and Puritanism, the civic religion of the US, share certain common characteristics: a dualism that divides the world into US vs. THEM, with no neutral area; Manicheism (WE are good; THEY are evil); and the inevitability of a final decisive battle to ''crush'' the other, like vermin (Armageddon).

The more extreme varieties of the three Abrahamic religions--Judaism, Christianity and Islam-- also share the belief in being a ''Chosen People under God'' with a ''Promised Land''; in a glorious past and/or future; and in a past trauma. All of these elements are found in the rhetoric of both Bush and bin Laden.

Al Qaeda and Wahhabites see the US as greedy, interested primarily in oil (world trade) and military bases (Pentagon). Indeed, the US seized an old Soviet base near Kandahar. And on 30 May 2002 came the signing of the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline by the Turkmen and Pakistani presidents and the former consultant for the US oil company UNOCAL, now Afghan prime minister, Hamid Karzai. The US fully lived up to its image.

If the US had limited itself to a military campaign, leaving policing to the UN Security Council and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, not establishing US bases, and leaving rights to oil pipelines to the Afghan people, they might even have won their war.

Now, however, it is lost.

Religious sensitivities vs. free trade, military security

The Islamic fundamentalists' long-term goal seems to be winning respect for religious sensitivities. The US is seeking free trade and military security. Trade that gives priority to basic needs, as well as religious acceptance, could satisfy both parties.

Imagine if Bush had said on September 12:

My fellow Americans; the attack yesterday on two buildings, killing thousands, was atrocious and totally unacceptable. The perpetrators must be captured and brought to justice by an appropriate international court with a clear UN mandate. But my address tonight goes beyond this. There are serious flaws in our foreign policy, however well intended. We create enemies through our insensitivity to the basic needs of the peoples around the world, as well as to their religious identities. I am therefore taking these steps:

* Withdrawing our military bases from Saudi Arabia,
* Recognizing Palestine as a state (details can follow later),
* Entering into dialogue with Iraq to identify resolvable conflicts,
* Accepting President Khatami's invitation for the same with Iran,
* Pulling out militarily and economically from Afghanistan,
* Stopping our military interventions and reconciling with the victims.

That evening, 1.3 billion Muslims would have embraced America; and the few terrorists left would have had no water in which to swim. It would have taken a speechwriter half an hour to compose and the president ten minutes to deliver--in contrast to, say, 60 billion dollars for the Afghanistan operation. Psychologically, this would not have been easy, but the benefits would have been immeasurable.
------------------------------------------------------
About the authors: Johan Galtung, a Professor of Peace Studies, is Director of TRANSCEND, a peace and development network. Dietrich Fischer, a Professor at Peace University, is Co-director of TRANSCEND (www.transcend.org).

 

[Thepagoda]

Don't piss off the rest of the world with fabricated wars. It is True that Saddam is far from an exemplary citizen, but that is not why we are going into Iraq. We are going to "Disarm Iraq, free the Iraqi people and save teh world from terrorism," or some BS like that. Look at the rest of the world to see if you truly believe this. Africa is having some serious problems with starvation, murder, tyrants and the likes, Korea (WMD, terrible Humanitarian record and no oil), Fractured former USSR states (unsecured Chemicle, biological and nuclear weapons, along with unemployed scientists). I think that the reaction fromt he rest of the world (which is the pretext for the war in the forst place) would be far more positve if this was not a unilateral flexing of power with far reaching implications.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by Trond
In the statement broadcast by Al Jazeera shortly after September 11, Bin Laden said, ''Our nation has been tasting this humiliation and this degradation for more than 80 years'', referring to the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement, which brought Arabia under the rule of non-Muslims and broke the British promise of independence for the Arab nations in return for their participation in defeating the Ottoman Empire; and the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which supported the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.[/B]

Do you think that Bin Laden recognizes the right for Israel to exist? Where exactly do the Israelis go? Europe proved to not be such a good place for them. The Europeans are ultimately responsible for the diaster that befalls the Middle East right now because of their inability or worse unwillingness to protect the Jews in their time of need. So it fell on the Jews to protect themselves and eek out their own place to protect themselves. I always find it distribuing how quickly the Europeans will sell out the Jews.

Imagine if Bush had said on September 12:

My fellow Americans; the attack yesterday on two buildings, killing thousands, was atrocious and totally unacceptable. The perpetrators must be captured and brought to justice by an appropriate international court with a clear UN mandate. But my address tonight goes beyond this. There are serious flaws in our foreign policy, however well intended. We create enemies through our insensitivity to the basic needs of the peoples around the world, as well as to their religious identities. I am therefore taking these steps:

* Withdrawing our military bases from Saudi Arabia,
* Recognizing Palestine as a state (details can follow later),
* Entering into dialogue with Iraq to identify resolvable conflicts,
* Accepting President Khatami's invitation for the same with Iran,
* Pulling out militarily and economically from Afghanistan,
* Stopping our military interventions and reconciling with the victims.

That evening, 1.3 billion Muslims would have embraced America; and the few terrorists left would have had no water in which to swim. It would have taken a speechwriter half an hour to compose and the president ten minutes to deliver--in contrast to, say, 60 billion dollars for the Afghanistan operation. Psychologically, this would not have been easy, but the benefits would have been immeasurable.

Oh that would be an excellent choice. When did Saudi Arabia ask us to remove our military from their lands? Never. They are there at that governments invitation. So grind your axe with them. The US has already on more than one occasion indicate that a Palestinian state is required but as a requirement they indicated that same state must agree to the existance of Israel and stop terrorist activities. (Still see them bombing folks)

We did try to resolve issues with Iraq, thru the UN, but they continued to decieve and not come clean about any of the issues on the table.

Agree 100% on Iran, once they stop supporting Palestinian terrorists.

We weren't in Afghanistan on 9/12 (maybe a few CIA folks running around). But sure lets take all the money that we are pouring into rebuilding the infastructure that was destroyed by 20 years of war and keep it at home. While those who say some deal has already been signed between a UNOCAL led consortium to build the gas pipeline, it is untrue. No formal agreement exists. But do you understand the benefit to Afghanistan? OR just because a US company will profit (in part with several other mostly Muslim companies) then it must be bad.

Foreign interventions. There is nothing more I would love to see than American soldiers not going to foreign countries and dying. I'd love to not see one stationed in any other country in the world except our own. But you will need to talk to the governments were they are about that. Just like Saudi Arabia our troops aren't anywhere they haven't been asked (except Iraq right now). The only land we still hold from any war we have been in since World War I is where our fallen soldiers lie. That certainly won't be the case in Muslim countries because those graves would not be safe. Don't bother me with all the US protectorates in the Pacific, they self determined their future. But unfortunately that's not going to happen as long as there are bigger buttheads in the world than us.

Why does this have to the US giving the farm away shouldn't each of the parties in these problems be required to give. NO? Why wouldn't both sides be required to give something up to come to the table? Or is it just the US that has to give in on these issues. Then that is naive.

 

[LordOpie]

There are evil men amongst us, but a greater evil is the apathy of good men.

I don't claim the US is always or even often doing the right things for the right reasons and we've certainly made lots of mistakes. I think America learned from its mistake of sitting by during WWII.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
Do you think that Bin Laden recognizes the right for Israel to exist? Where exactly do the Israelis go? Europe proved to not be such a good place for them. The Europeans are ultimately responsible for the diaster that befalls the Middle East right now because of their inability or worse unwillingness to protect the Jews in their time of need. So it fell on the Jews to protect themselves and eek out their own place to protect themselves. I always find it distribuing how quickly the Europeans will sell out the Jews.

The Jewish scenario was not simply an European problem, Hitler was prepared to let them leave (with no assets) had anyone been willing to take them. Nobody, including the US, was prepared to take them.

As to the rest of the post, why does the US need troops on foreign soil, for example Saudi Arabia?

Surely as the world's only superpower the US should be able to negotiate with people, but it seems they are unwilling to do so. Talking would be a good start.

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by Stellite
Iraq's former head of its nuclear program has claimed that Saddam Hussein is within months of completing a nuclear weapon. Further still, the former U.N. chief weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, an adamant opponent of the war, recently admitted to the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

That was before Isreal bombed the nuclear plant in Iraq.

Originally posted by Stellite
Secondly, we have a moral duty to attack Iraq. CNN claims that 1.5 million Iraqis have died because of Saddam. Can we truly sit aside and allow a dictator to systematically gas his citizens and kill them on an enormous scale?

Funny considering that when Iraq gased the Kurds 13-14 years ago, the senate was passed a bill for economic sanctions towards Iraq, congress and then President Reagan killed it, because the US was doing alot of business with Iraq. Just look up the facts. Rumsfeld even had a meeting with Saddam during that time, it's really funny seeing both of them shaking hands. Moral duty?

Originally posted by Stellite

Third, the U.S. has a contractual right to attack Iraq. When the Gulf War ended, Iraq signed an agreement with the U.S. and the Unite Nations. For the war to end, a necessary condition for Iraq was to not shoot at our planes in the no-fly zone. But since the end of the war, many planes have been shot at, hit and downed. The latest such attacks was as recently as Wednesday, Jan. 23.

According the UN resolution passsed last year for the latest inspections, there would be any force used unless there is another UN resolution. This is something that Blair wanted put in, this is why they were going through the UN route once again, but failed.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
The Jewish scenario was not simply an European problem, Hitler was prepared to let them leave (with no assets) had anyone been willing to take them. Nobody, including the US, was prepared to take them.

As to the rest of the post, why does the US need troops on foreign soil, for example Saudi Arabia?

Surely as the world's only superpower the US should be able to negotiate with people, but it seems they are unwilling to do so. Talking would be a good start.

Yes it was completely a European problem. Why should it have been the US's responibility at that time to fix the problem? Why shouldn't have a European nation taken care of it? At the time the US was taking immigrants from all over the world eventhough we were in the grips of rampant isolationism. Ask when most Jewish families trace their first coming to the US and see where it leads you. It was Europe's backyard and still they looked to the US for a solution. Again France and the UK could have dealt with the issue early but chose not to appeasing Hitler at every turn until it was too late, then 13 million concentration camp victims later.

My question to you is what does the Saudi Arabian government say about US troops there. They asked for them to be there and have never asked that they be removed. The answer at least from a US standpoint is a forward base for operations against Iraq specifically enforcement of the no-fly zones in Southern Iraq. Even Germany, which has no reason at all to require US troops any more, balks when talk of removing them comes around.

You want us to negotiate with nations. Okay let's take North Korea for instance. North Korea violates an agreement (that was previously negotiated) with the US most likely because they want something else. So they restart their nuclear program. So we negotiate with them, give them what they want and they stop their program. In 2 years they decide they want something else so they restart the program again or maybe this time its chemical weapons. It sets a dangerous precident that you might not be able to back away from.

Again it takes two parties to talk. Again do you really believe that the Iraq was ever truly going to comply or cooperate with the weapons inspectors?

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by SandMan
Funny considering that when Iraq gased the Kurds 13-14 years ago, the senate was passed a bill for economic sanctions towards Iraq, congress and then President Reagan killed it, because the US was doing alot of business with Iraq. Just look up the facts. Rumsfeld even had a meeting with Saddam during that time, it's really funny seeing both of them shaking hands. Moral duty?

does past errors justify today's inaction?

Originally posted by fluff
The Jewish scenario was not simply an European problem, Hitler was prepared to let them leave (with no assets) had anyone been willing to take them. Nobody, including the US, was prepared to take them.

suppose the US made a mistake back then, does that mean they should sit idly by now? And if the US made a mistake by not taking the jews, then so did europe. I think europe should stand up and do their best to correct the situation in which they helped create.

 

[SandMan]

Originally posted by LordOpie
does past errors justify today's inaction?
suppose the US made a mistake back then, does that mean they should sit idly by now

Totally agree, but the same people the made the mistakes and ignored everything, suddenly become champions of moral and libarators? It's this part that makes this whole conflict fishy.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by SandMan
Totally agree, but the same people the made the mistakes and ignored everything, suddenly become champions of moral and libarators? It's this part that makes this whole conflict fishy.

Yeah its funny how the French, Russians, and Germans are like that.

 

[Trond]

Originally posted by DRB
Yeah its funny how the French, Russians, and Germans are like that.

DRB, I agree with you here. But being against a war in Iraq does not mean that you have to agree with the three countries above. I don't.

Trond.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
Yes it was completely a European problem. Why should it have been the US's responibility at that time to fix the problem? Why shouldn't have a European nation taken care of it? At the time the US was taking immigrants from all over the world eventhough we were in the grips of rampant isolationism. Ask when most Jewish families trace their first coming to the US and see where it leads you. It was Europe's backyard and still they looked to the US for a solution. Again France and the UK could have dealt with the issue early but chose not to appeasing Hitler at every turn until it was too late, then 13 million concentration camp victims later.

Why was it completely European, you have lost me there? This is turning into a rather childish game. The Jews were not wanted in Germany but no one else would take them. Those are the facts and the whole world should be ashamed.

Originally posted by DRB

My question to you is what does the Saudi Arabian government say about US troops there. They asked for them to be there and have never asked that they be removed. The answer at least from a US standpoint is a forward base for operations against Iraq specifically enforcement of the no-fly zones in Southern Iraq. Even Germany, which has no reason at all to require US troops any more, balks when talk of removing them comes around.

So why does the Saudi Arabian government want US troops? I guess it couldn't possibly have anything to the regime being almost as nasty (althought some might say more than) as Iraq's?

Originally posted by DRB

You want us to negotiate with nations. Okay let's take North Korea for instance. North Korea violates an agreement (that was previously negotiated) with the US most likely because they want something else. So they restart their nuclear program. So we negotiate with them, give them what they want and they stop their program. In 2 years they decide they want something else so they restart the program again or maybe this time its chemical weapons. It sets a dangerous precident that you might not be able to back away from.

Again it takes two parties to talk. Again do you really believe that the Iraq was ever truly going to comply or cooperate with the weapons inspectors?

Yeah, it takes at least two to talk, and negotiation is an ongoing thing. Complete refusal to talk is not helpful to avoiding war..

If you start threatening everyone if they do things you don't like (some very thinly worded threats against Syria today) you should not be surprised if you are seen as bullying.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by fluff
Why was it completely European, you have lost me there? This is turning into a rather childish game. The Jews were not wanted in Germany but no one else would take them. Those are the facts and the whole world should be ashamed.

You are right someone should have done something about that. The United States is still saddled with a sense of collective guilt 60 years later. That guilt has caused a misshapen foreign policy ever since. For better or worse, the US will not abondon the Jews to anyone ever again. AGAIN funny how quickly Europe forgets. The responsibility should have fallen on those closest but they didn't seem to step up to the plate.

So why does the Saudi Arabian government want US troops? I guess it couldn't possibly have anything to the regime being almost as nasty (althought some might say more than) as Iraq's?

Or maybe they felt threatened by their neighborhood? And you skipped over the part about it being a base of a UN sponsored mission to enforce the Southern no-fly zone to keep Iraq from bombing and strafing its own citizens. In the end none of it is relevant to the point, however. The point is that they have been asked to be there which is half of the issue. The other half being the US's willingness to base those troops there.

Yeah, it takes at least two to talk, and negotiation is an ongoing thing. Complete refusal to talk is not helpful to avoiding war..

If you start threatening everyone if they do things you don't like (some very thinly worded threats against Syria today) you should not be surprised if you are seen as bullying.

You are right Iraq's refusal to cooperate and provide what was asked of them certainly led us to the place we are at now. The US on the other hand started the talking in September and (every other time it came to Iraq because no one else seemed to want to). The US showed it was perfectly willing to talk and allow sanctions, negotiations and inspections to be used. We all know how long that went on. I ask the question again that I asked before do you honestly believe that Saddam was ever going to really cooperate fully with the UN? Futility is the act of doing the samething over and over and expecting a different result.

You could give in when a country in an agreement acts up or breaks that agreement but where does it stop? I believe that North Korea, for example, is proving that point perfectly. They start to develop a nuclear weapons program and use that as leverage to negotiate a variety of deals with the US. Then a few years later they decide to do it again. Even now the US has said we will talk about this as soon as we get back to the status quo of your nuclear program being deactivated. Is that unreasonable?

As for Syria, you want us to talk but then you don't like the words we say. The problem is that you seem to think that everyone in the world wants to negotiate with the US in GOOD FAITH and be up front and honest with the US that is the big bad bully. If Syria has the right to provide material military support to Iraq, then the US has the same right to stop that support. Indicating that is far from a threat. Why use 10000 words when "Stop it" will do?

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by DRB
You are right someone should have done something about that. The United States is still saddled with a sense of collective guilt 60 years later. That guilt has caused a misshapen foreign policy ever since. For better or worse, the US will not abondon the Jews to anyone ever again. AGAIN funny how quickly Europe forgets. The responsibility should have fallen on those closest but they didn't seem to step up to the plate.



Or maybe they felt threatened by their neighborhood? And you skipped over the part about it being a base of a UN sponsored mission to enforce the Southern no-fly zone to keep Iraq from bombing and strafing its own citizens. In the end none of it is relevant to the point, however. The point is that they have been asked to be there which is half of the issue. The other half being the US's willingness to base those troops there.



You are right Iraq's refusal to cooperate and provide what was asked of them certainly led us to the place we are at now. The US on the other hand started the talking in September and (every other time it came to Iraq because no one else seemed to want to). The US showed it was perfectly willing to talk and allow sanctions, negotiations and inspections to be used. We all know how long that went on. I ask the question again that I asked before do you honestly believe that Saddam was ever going to really cooperate fully with the UN? Futility is the act of doing the samething over and over and expecting a different result.

You could give in when a country in an agreement acts up or breaks that agreement but where does it stop? I believe that North Korea, for example, is proving that point perfectly. They start to develop a nuclear weapons program and use that as leverage to negotiate a variety of deals with the US. Then a few years later they decide to do it again. Even now the US has said we will talk about this as soon as we get back to the status quo of your nuclear program being deactivated. Is that unreasonable?

As for Syria, you want us to talk but then you don't like the words we say. The problem is that you seem to think that everyone in the world wants to negotiate with the US in GOOD FAITH and be up front and honest with the US that is the big bad bully. If Syria has the right to provide material military support to Iraq, then the US has the same right to stop that support. Indicating that is far from a threat. Why use 10000 words when "Stop it" will do?

Re. the Jewish question I think it's clear now that such problems have become global with the weapons and communication and travel that we have in the 21st century and as such should be dealt with on a UN basis. (Which might mean the US not getting its own way but that's the thing about democracy..)

The problem I have with the US diplomacy of present times is that the big stick is being waved too often (hence my bullying reference). It comes acorss as the US having no notion of compromise or understanding of others' viewpoints.

Do I think Saddam would have willingly complied with the UN? No, I don't think any regime in that position would. But I do think that the war is premature as weapons were being destroyed and hence progress was being made (hence the smokescreen of librating the Iraqi people).