Well, that was officially the reason of the Bush administration, but I don't think this is the real reason. Actually, they need Saddam as the threat because one of the reason of the gulf war in 91 was to base US Military forces in the Middle East. It is not the version of a left wing person but I was very surprised to hear it from Former Gulf War General Schwarzkopf.

Thanks the menace of Saddam, the US Administration could let their army in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and sale a lot of weapon in this area. Also during the invasion of Iraq during 91, an Islamic revolution began and the US didn’t want it. So they allowed Saddam to stay and to stop this Islamic revolution…

Btw I really like America and Americans, but I don't like the current US administration, so if you could change it next time I (and a lot of people) will be very happy

Of course! Have you ever heard of FTAA - the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas?

Nah - they can't do that. You can only do that in a democracy, where the guy/girl with the most votes becomes the leader. Where did you get the idea that this is how America works?


On a serious note, winning a war makes a leader popular* so I think he'll be back.


D.

* except in the UK - look at Churchill - so look out Blair!

B)

Look at the father of the current one, wining the war and failing the election but I bet GW Bush will capture Ben Laden just before the next election.

spoon: something that really annoys me is people who don't understand the israeli-arab conflict basing their argument on facts from internet sites that are clearly biased, either anti-israeli or anti-jewish altogether. please, read books on the subject, and at least get your facts from more balanced sources

>>>'Around 1947 the Jews started performing some of the worst terrorist acts against the Brittish which led to their eventual abandoning of the area'<<<

yes the jews committed terror, but so did the arabs. and the british left precisely because of that -- the constant clashes between the two sides. the arabs were offered the land they're basically fighting for today 50 years ago. the jews agreed and chose peace, the arabs refused and chose war. and about the refugee problem and "right to return" -- it's all a myth. the arabs that were inside what today is referred to as the green line left on their own accord. they were encouraged to leave by arab leaders who said that neighbouring arab states will launch a collective war to kick the jews out and give all of "palestine" to arabs and that this was going to be a bloody war, blah, blah, blah. they failed repeatedly. the arabs never even imagined the jews had the power to overcome a united arab force. the jews surprised them, though. it's quite laughable, actually. even today, the arabs are bitching about israel and the land it conquered when the arabs themselves are the ones who started all the wars!

>>>'skip a few decades and you have a situation where Israel is now armed to the teeth (they spend 10% of GDP on arms, UK is 2-3%, US 5%)'<<<

and this is relevant because... ??

>>>'and the arabs are constantly squeezed, subject to live in poverty'<<<

what are you taking about? the arabs were not "squeezed" by israel. to this day, if israel does not let palestinians to work in israel (and even with the turmoil today, israel allows nearly 40 000 palestinians into israel to work whenever there are no high risk security threats). so why are the palestinians ALWAYS in such bad shape?

well, maybe it's because yassir arafat stashed $1.6 billion of the money for the palestinian people for himself. maybe it's because yassir arafat had 7 fancy villas all over the territories while his people were starving to death, living in the streets in poverty, relying on israel to let them work, relying on the UN, the US, and EU to feed them. all of that was happening while arafat was getting richer and richer, and using terror against israel at the same time. btw, did you know that arafat's wife the daughter live like royalty in france away from all the terror arafat is so keenly supporting and perpetuating? not bad, eh, considering arafat is egyptian, not "palestinian". and i should also remind you, that israel helped the palestinian population more than any of the filthy rich arab states. these countries after all know how to finance terror, not humanitarian efforts

in short, i really feel bad for all the innocent palestinians stuck in the middle of this conflict, just because their leader insists on using terror, and the israelis have no other choice but to retaliate against the terrorists who are hiding (intentionally) in heavily populated areas

>>>'it should take back much of the land and should begin to disarm Israel - including the 400 odd Nuclear weapons they posses'<<<

LOL, why should the UN disarm israel? i mean, nobody disarmed britain or france of their nuclear arsenal despite all the war crimes they committed. yes, israel has a huge military, but there is no law that permits how big your military can be. besides, israel needs such a strong military. the arabs, collectively, tried to eradicate israel on a regular basis, well before israel even conquered the "territories" in 1967

>>>'Shame America will not allow the right thing to done, I am just sure the 2 Billion of extra arms about to land in Israel will bring much stability to the area.'<<<

the only stability in the region will be when the arabs accept israel and stop the terror. israel already proved it stands for peace. it signed a peace treaty with egypt and returned the sinai, it signed a peace treaty with jordan and settled territorial disputes, it held high-level peace talks with the syrians, and it even signed a peace deal with the palestinians. i remind you, that when israel signed peace with the palestinians, israel was taking a huge risk. allowing a terrorist like arafat to come back from exile and actually rule the territories and supervise peace talks shows incredible character on the part of israel. israel's will to live in peace with its arab neighbours has been shown time and time again, and everytime this effort was met with violence from the arabs, even in the respective arab country that made peace with israel. the islamists simply do not want the jews there, and since there is no democracy in any of the arab states, the moderate voices in the arab world who want to make peace are never heard

yes, it is indeed sad. and i never said the US never made any critical mistakes, like supporting saddam. i guess at the time it seemed logical to the americans because of all the islamic fundamentalism in iran

I am half norwegian, half pakistani; in my heart I manage to be neither, perhaps, but I do believe, whether I'm right or wrong, that I can do something that few people who are not truly multicultural can do--that is, to see things from both side.

And with "truly multicultural" I am not saying any child of two very different countries is this.. in fact, most who have both white blood and asian blood tend to pick a side. Their are thousands of half-pakistanis out there, and I bet the vast majority of these think of themselves as pakistanis. All my closest family is half norwegian, but none think of themselves as such, and always call themselves, and are proud to, pakistanis.

They have seen things from both sides better than most people, but yet, you can bet they somehow, one way or the other, will always end up supporting the middle-eastern way in front of the "way of the white man". My english is somewhat limited, but the point I am trying to make is one I hope some have already have understood; that, one way or the other, no matter how open-minded some try to be, most are one side or the other. That is what happens when we're all divided by culture and religion, land and language. Now, whether you are against or for the war sort of becomes irrelevant. If you even in the slightest think of asian people as "them", even if you're living together with them in the same country - even if you admire them and love them and whatever, as long as you in the slightest make the seperation "us and them", that is part of the problem.. or maybe i shouldn't say "problem", but rather, realities of how things work.. as long as it is "us and them", wars will never stop.

Of course, not thinking "us and them" is something incredibly few people can do. I cannot claim I can, even though I am both "us" and "them".. I simply think of myself as "neither of them" more than anything else. That doesn't really solve the problem either, does it?

Someone asked me how I felt about the war.. expecting, naturally enough I suppose, to say whether I support the war or not.. and who's side I was on. I answered: In my heart I am perhaps both white and asian, and therefore, it is like the two halfs that make my family are fighting against eachother. When one half has destroyed the other half, I will have lost half my family. Unfortunately, they (the families) view themselves as two different and seperate entities, while for me, they both together make up what I call "family". I speak litterally here for myself, of course, but others can say the same too.. because never forget that in the end, we're all alike, one big family.

I think eliminitaing "us and them" mentality is perhaps not possible in general for most humans, as our natural instincts make us focus too much on looks and differences and the likes. But.. perhaps it would be enough that more people came in the realisation of what "us and them" truly means. But that in itself is perhaps an impossible task as well for most people living in this world.

And if anyone is wondering what I think of Mr. Bush and Mr. Hussein.. how am I supposed to know? I have never seen the true heart of these people, never sensed their true precence, never seen what is in their eyes and in their smiles. Fortunately, it is easy not to pick sides in this case. Some will tell me how good saddam is, some will tell me how evil he is, and the same goes for Bush. I cannot face to face tell any one of these that I do not believe them, so it becomes easy enough not to have too much of an opinion either way. And they will all show me what they call facts, yet, these very "facts" are being discussed over and over again, and so it becomes evident to me that they are perhaps not simple facts after all.. or perhaps, in such matters, facts cannot exist as simple black and white things?

Anyway, all I can say is that I am glad I am unable to have strong opinions on any of these things. Because I sure cannot understand how anyone is able to pick any side at all in this chaos of thousands of different opinions and "facts". Perhaps it's as simple as that there is no right or wrong, only differences.

And I'm fine with that, because I only have to make up my mind on little things.

Oh, one more thing. Most people I speak to seem to tell me that Saddam is evil.. but most people tell me the same thing about Bush, and well.. it is worth mentioning that they say "saddam is evil" without any passion.. they say it dry and clean. But when they say "Bush is evil", they speak with passion, and a certain hatred. I hope US knows what is doing, although I personally cannot care too much either way. Worth adding: it has long been trendy to dislike the US here in Europe.. but only lately,
for the first time in many years, can I sense real hatred towards the US in many. Just a little observation.

Sorry if my english was incoherent.. funny, that.. it must be incoherent because i do not really even know what "incoherent" means.. But for some reason I thought it was the right word to use.. ?? Whatever.

Wow, this is a hot thread!

I believe we should view this crisis from a wider perspective. It is not really about the war. Not about Saddam or Iraq, or Arab and Israelis. It is not at all about Bush administration. (If it were not Bush, it would be Al Gore or somebody else.)

It is about the new order in the world after the cold-war, when there is only one super-power nation, de facto. The US have long been waiting for this to come true, and now they have all the means and opportunities to really make it.

It seems to me that there are two major driving forces behind the USA government actions:

1. Economical/business reasons. This is obvious. If opportunity presents itself, why not take it.

2. The concept of USA being truly democratic, enlightened, industrially advanced, respecting the human rights and private property, etc. - a better society, in every possible way. The true leader of the modern civilisation. Therefore, it is their honourable right and their duty to propagate the principles of the US democracy to other nations (less advanced and less democratic), and help them re-build their local societies. Sometimes it has to be done with force, if some nation refuses to accept the US higher standards. Existence of such outcast nations is a threat to the USA security, and to the security of the whole "international community", of which USA is a guardian.

The US strategic line (some sort of "reconquista") is related to the 2nd point.
The tactical choices of who to attack when and how is related to the 1st.


IMO. it is perfectly understandable why French and German governments feel so much disappointed about this new Iraqi war. The USA no longer need to consult with them and can act on their own.
When there was other super-power, the Soviets, US had to be cautious and needed support from the European friends. Now the former allies are expendable. The US doesn't have to share a piece of the pie with them. In this case, the pie is Iraqi oil and other concessions.

outscape: Thanks for your input, I might not agree with some of it.

I think Israel having peace with the surrounding countries is slightly different to the peace needed with the Palestinians, the others were seperate countries.

My points were America adding more and more arms to that area will solve nothing, if your neighbour (or neighor) is armed to the teeth, you will want to be too. International peace keepers need to be sent in, which America has vetoed.

That whole area is so political, you just have to laugh when a leader appears in TV saying it is all for the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Seems like my last post was overlooked (see middle of page 4), but I would really like an answer on a few questions.

• Of the conflicts the USA played a major role in after WW2, which ones resulted in lasting peace (democracy even) in that country/region?
• If so, was it the United States that stayed to ensure peace and rebuilt the country and economy?

I don't even know a positive answer to my first question so:

• What makes you think it will be different this time?

I think no one here supports Saddam Hussein, but is war the only solution that's left? Most of you have allready found their position on this including me. A great deal of damage will be done to the people of Iraq; the outcome doesn't justify the means. Since South Park has been mentioned, this sounds like "thinning out their numbers". "So you see, we have to kill animals, or else they'll die!"

While placement of U.S. forces in the Middle East has always been a concern of the U.S., it's not true that there were an alterior motives to not invading Iraq in '91. Bush Sr. was a former Ambassador to the UN and a WWII vet, and thus had a lot of respect for international institutions--the cornerstone of his foreign policy was the "New World Order," or rather strong international organizations helping smaller states abide by international law.

The UN mandate simply didn't allow for an invasion of Iraq, and the vast majority of the Bush Sr. Administration felt that Hussein would not last in power for long after the war, hence no invasion and hence the embargo. Both of those policies were temporary measures.

Another factor in Bush Sr.'s mind was the unintended consequences of invading Iraq, which are basically the same today; it will incur a massive cost rebuilding Iraq (which may not be successful) and it might destabilize the entire region.

Look at WWII more closely--I doubt anyone can say that Japan, Germany, and Italy would have been better off without American intervention and with American rebuilding efforts afterward. All three had totalitarian governments; all three now have thriving democracies.

South Korea is another example. Had the U.S. not repelled the North Korea forces, there would likely only be "Korea" today, functioning as North Korea does.

Kosovo is a hell of a lot better today for American military intervention. With the assassination of the Serbian Prime Minister, the whole region will likely require a larger U.S. military presence to ensure stability.

Operation Just Cause in Panama resulted in, at the higest estimates, 4000 civilian deaths, yet restored democracy to the country.

The United States has completed over 50 operations since the end of the Cold War. The majority of these lacked any sort of mandate from the "international community" yet did much to stabilize the regions they took place in.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/

I think you are right but I guess there were different reasons: official and unofficial. Unfortunately, we will never know the truth.
But you can’t disagree the fact that the US Army was staying in the Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and that the USA have sold a lot of weapon there.

That's why I said: after WW2.
With the imposed threats of a nuclear strike from the North Korean government, that region is hardly stable.
Like you say yourself: the region is still unstable.
Thanks for the link, I will look into this.

I agree with one of the posters above that the real reason that Bush Sr., did not go after Saddam when he had the chance was that he NEEDED him. Saddam, not being an Islamic fundamentalist, still is a hell of a lot better to "deal" with than fanatics. Remember, a fanatic listens to no reason. The religious causes are the worst because you cannot reason with somebody who thinks that is "God's Will" to go against you. To "deal" with Saddam, an embargo/inspections combo was more than enough (an embargo has been more than enough with Fidel Castro, another known "gringo-hating dictator" and at sometime, also nuclear threat).
But now things are different. I still think that as current events are, Saddam meant no real threat to America. I do not believe he had weapons of mass destruction (and if he does, knowing that the US will not stop until he is killed, he will certainly try and use them). I do not believe, either, that this war is for oil. Just think that the cost of war (and of putting out the oil-field fires that Saddam is most likely to start) just doesn't make the oil fields look like much of a "war bounty". I mean, most of the world's greatest oil producers are US friendly (like my own country), and letting USA companies exploit the oil fieds in Iraq is not really a good idea to help fix the public image of the US in the world (it would prove the French right, and Bush wouldn't want that, would he?).
No, to me the real reason behind this war was that Bush needed somebody to pay for 9/11 ever since Bin Laden is still on the run (and I think we will hear from him again in the future) and thought Saddam was an easy target, with the added bonus that elimitating him and setting a US-friendly goverment ("democracy" will only be allowed to work that way) with the accompanying military long-term occupation, would give the US the chance to strenghten it's "presence" in the Muslim world.
To put it in a different way, Bush lost his car keys in the garage, but he decided to look for them in the living room just because the it has better illumination.

About the UN, this whole issue brings to my mind an old joke from an Argentinian comic strip (Mafalda, anyone?). The world-weary 5 year-old girl Mafalda (this was from the Cold War days) asks his father what the UN purpose is. He answers that the UN mediates in conflicts between two nations. When the conflict is between 2 small nations, the UN pays atention to no one, when it is between a big nation and a small one, the UN pays atention to the big one, and when it is between two big nations, none of them pay any atention to the UN!
This is what happended. The USA expected the UN to pay atention to them as usual, but it did not...

Korea is not stable; however, it was, as you asked, a U.S. military intervention that preserved a democracy.

The former Yugoslavia is not stable either; however, it is a U.S. military intervention that halted a genocide and produced a democracy. It should also be noted that the U.S. and NATO became involved when European leaders admitted they couldn't control the situation. And, as you say, if it is still unstable then that is an argument for a continued U.S. military presence.

Compare this to East Timor, when the U.S. military did not intervene as they became independent. The Indonesia government killed thousands of citizens and destroyed much of the country's infrastructure. A strong U.S. presence in the area would have likely prevented that.

The majority of U.S. military interventions are small peacekeeping operations like Restore Hope in Somalia. Most of them do fairly well--it's when they leave, either under foreign or domestic pressure, that trouble returns.

The fact is the U.S. military's broad deployment has, on balance, produced far greater stability around the world than no deployment would have.

------------

Regarding Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, as an earlier poster noted, I strongly doubt that anyone in '91 actually planned to keep Iraq around as an enemy so that the U.S. could sell more arms. All indications, from memoirs, notes of briefings, and so on and so forth, point to the U.S. leadership believing that Hussein's days were numbered, and thus he would not have continued to exist as a threat. The U.S. has certainly sold a lot of arms to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and the U.S. has certainly used questionable tactics to sell arms (most recently twisting Poland's arm over purchasing F-16s), but I doubt that was the case regarding Iraq in '91. The UN mandate wasn't there, the unintended consequences of invading seemed too risky, and the U.S. thought Hussein would fall anyway. That's why the policy was chosen.

That was NATO intervention, not U.S. intervention (if I remember correctly, and I remember - because I lived in Yugoslavia) 19 countries were in that operation.

Real history is little bit more complicated than the "good guy vs. bad guy" approach - and the same dictator Milosevic enjoyed support during 1995-1996 (he was regarded as stability factor in Daytona, USA on peace talks concerning Bosnia) and failures of foreign diplomacy caused regime to stay powerful for a looong time (they didn't support opposition enough in 1996 like they did in 2000). By the way, Milosevic fell in late 2000 (October) while the war in Kosovo was in early 1999 (March-May). If there was strong and determined US will to remove him in the early stages of the conflict, he would be gone long time before 2000, but Serbia is not as nearly important geopolitically as Iraq... Too bad nobody was "smart enough" to stop the chaos in the early 90's in Yugoslavia - but they were busy with Iraq and end of Soviet union - and then the chaos converted to genocide... and the rest is sad history.

Sanctions that US imposed to Yugoslavia in eraly 90's targeted common people only, Milosevics and his criminals just got richer as they were the only ones able to make smuggling enterprises and companies in off-shore zones. Even today, 3 years after he was defeated, goverment have problems with the relicts of the criminal enterprise that enjoyed period of sanctions (that should aim at dictatorship, but only the common people suffered).

It's not finger-pointing, but just a message that every political method has failures and drawbacks of its own - I personally think that the whole approach to ex-Yugoslavia was, well, not to say wrong - but it could be much much better. Good thing is that people learn from history.

Politics is far more complicated than public PR of the goverments.

And, democracy cannot be "produced" as you say - transition from dictatorship (like Milosevic dictatorship) to democracy is very long and painful process with many chances for temorary failures and taking steps back - it takes decades (and even more) to form one healthy society with democratic traditions. Cheering with "we brought the democracy" (and Yugoslavia, not to mention Kosovo is still far from democracy - it had 50 years of communist history, before that - rigid monarchy, so 0 / zero / zip years of democratic tradition - and it is kinda hard to organise things quickly) is not of much help. I guess Iraq will probably take even more time.

Hopefully, by analysing all facts from all conflicts the world community will become smarter in the future - errors made in Iraq two decades earlier (supporting it to fight Iran), Yugoslavia (many errors...) and others - not to mention failed interventions should never repeat.

You're right, it was a NATO operation, but it was primarily under US leadership. The Supreme Allied Commander was Gen. Wesley Clark, an American.

I'm no expert on the former Yugoslavia and I'd be the first to admit that there were problems with the way the entire situation was handled. But there were also many positives: for one, civilian casualties in the operation were extraordinarily low because extraordinary care was taken to avoid them. The bombing of the Chinese embassay in Belgrade and other incidents were unfortunate, but, considering that it was a war, the end death toll was impressively low.

Democracies rarely spring up over night--though I wouldn't say that doesn't happen, because it did happen in Germany and Japan after WWII.

Going back to the original poster's questions, Kosovo is still an example of a US/NATO military intervention that was, on the whole, positive, and which led to a fragile democracy. You lived there: do you believe that the US/NATO intervention was, on the whole, good for the area?

Even a "yes, but ..." answer would be enough for the point I'm trying to make here--that not all US interventions are bad and that many have produced a positive change in the world. Was it perfect? Of course not. But it was still a net positive for the area and still improved the world as a whole.

Mind you, I'm not trying to be an apologist for every action the US has taken. Far from it. But I also don't believe that damning criticism of every action (which, to be clear, I am not accusing you of at all) the US has taken is productive.

And the Supreme Alled comander follows orders from the NATO political leadership that do vote on each issue



It is very hard to talk about the final epilog without taking into consideration the whole decade before, you can't give a simple answer on the question - if you isolate the period on the beginning of the 1999, than the operation indeed was giving results on the very long run. But I do think that it had an peaceful alternative - only if diplomatic efforts were bigger earlier, and considering that - it was bad, and I do think that military options are generally bad, especially if they could have diplomatic alternative. It was bad because of the dead people (there were casaulties - I don't have exact number but it measures in thousands), because of the destroyed country and because of the psychological trauma in the whole region. Of course, it gave results - it ended suffering and agony of many in Kosovo - I guess that was a matter of the trade-off in that precise moment, but history of that conflict did not begin in that moment - and that is the biggest problem.

If you have M1 Abrams in front of your house that's not what I call democracy.

And I must remind you that Milosevic stepped out >only< after broad support was given to the united oposition in late 2000, after war in Kosovo ended in 1999 he just stepped-up dictatorship. Yes, one problem was partially solved (Kosovo), but problem of Yugoslavia just became more dramatic until oposition finally won the elections in late 2000.

the 'democracy' note:
imho 'democracy' in former republics of yu were not formed becouse of the us intervention, but solely becouse ppl wanted that. (in any case the word is missleading, especialy when used in ' in the name of democracy ' which sounds exactly the same as ' in the name of alah '). democracy is missleading word in general as well, as it is constantly used in the same sentence as 'the good guys'.

I would like to come up with a different angle. I think that the price of oil is became too expensive:
- Air pollution
- Sea pollution
- Terrorism financing
- Aggressive Islamic expansion financing
- War (Iraq, Chechnya, …)
- Energetic dependencies
- Economic instability

In a way, we are paying for our own ruin…

So maybe all this money spent for war and weapon could be useful to find a better way to provide energy. One day we will have to find out a solution for that, so why not try to find it now?

I believe Germany and Italy already had democracy, both goverments were elected.
Any guarantee, you won't elect wrong guys one time, who will convert to something less beatyfull?



About 'any sort of mandate from the "international community"': do you really care?
You had no military operations on your territory for how many years and keep getting them all over the world, after fixing one regime and raising another. When former less evil become major evil, you get another cycle.
It's the international community who deals with consequences after all.


It's people who believes. Leadership has intelligence, information and analysts, geopolitics and regional interests. If it based its actions on beliefs it'll fall down in split seconds.
It has its reasons, and I would suppose, it doesn't operate the same categories as you.



For who long you gonna do this? like forever? Absolute democracy all over the world with absolutely necessary US military presence? Binding in areas of current conflicts and preventive everywhere else?

Actually it was just the one typo that was fixed. The rest was fecetious. Because bickering children does accuratly describe the behavior. And they have let their hate and jealosy make them myopic and ignorant to some of the larger themes. Calling someone ignorant is not offensive. Ignorance can be rectified. Calling them stupid; now that would be offensive. But honestly I don't think they are stupid. Just a bit ignorant. I don't claim to be 100% immune either. It was simply an attention getting stunt. And an effort to vent some frustration at some of the ignorant fud being presented.

Well we are all getting a little over heated here. I am generally one of the cooler cats you will find in a debate. Hinting back to my nick. Explicatives are a last resort and as such are almost never used. I had tried using a calm voice of reason. But all that got me was a bunch of "Your wrong!" or "America is eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeviiiiiiiiiiil!" type posts with no explanation or no justification.

But now it is clear to me that if I present worthwhile intellectual arguments in a calm reasonable tone or in an over the top offensive manner. Pretty much no one here has any intention of trying to rebuke or respond to them.

Because after all. Hasn't this thread shown itself to be all about the little guys jumping completely off topic so they can bash the US for the most part.

I don't claim that America is saintly or blameless. Because our government like every other government on earth is populated by humans. Some countries are to small or have to much going on at home to do this sort of thing. I don't blame them. But it would be criminal if a country in the united states position did nothing. And that is part of why people are so upset with France. They could do something. No one said France had to go in guns blazing. If nothing else France could claim under false pretences that they were going in to keep things civilised.

Untrue. I'd argue the vast majority of us just have a major problem with your elected representation - even if the election was questionable at best (ironic considering the administrations wish of spreading democracy).

I have alot of sympathy with the average american, who are having these militant actions pinned on them. Not to mention your servicemen, who probably have a small voice in the back of their heads saying "wtf are we doing here?? what purpose will this serve?" What a horrible experience they will have to live with.

I don't particularly care for Bush Jr. or dubbya as I call him. To be honest Gore would not have been much better. There has just been a lack of strong candidates for quite some time now. But it does not matter my dislike for Bush and his inability to say the word Nuclear among others correctly. The fact is that he is the president. And removing Sadam is long over due.

Our forces in the gulf have no question what they are there for. They have no question as to the many goals. Their resolve is solid. War is not a pretty thing. But it is a slighly better course than the alternative. Sadam is not leaving without a fight. As such the UN will never get him to leave.

And probably a clearer voice in the front of their heads answers what they have been told over and over again: "I am here to liberate iraqi people and taking Saddam out of power."
Saddam is so clear bad guy, that frankly I don't believe allied soldiers will be thinking much why they are there.

Yes I fully agree. Nothing against American people.
A little bit like “Nothing against Iraqi people but we want that Saddam leaves”. Because your are in democracy and we have Internet now, so we can talk about it and it’s not necessary to make a war in order to change your government… or our thought.

About France and Germany, they don’t want this war because they were in current business with Iraq.

About the US administration, the hawks (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle and Wolfowitz) told this: “We are the most powerful country in the world, so we have to use our power and do what we want”. With an American point of view, why not? But don’t ask other country to accept that and don’t be surprised to feel hate against USA.

In Europe we know this kind of behavior and we know the danger of it. Even Belgium, my very small country, has done reprehensible acts in Africa.

About the link between terrorism and the war in Iraq, I really don’t by it, actually Bush wanted this war before 9/11. Worst, because a lot of people in the world are against this war, it could increase the popular support for terrorism against USA…

Finally, war being started; I can understand that American people have to stand by the US Army and the president and it would be very difficult to disagree now.

This is a great article of Brian Eno (I'm sure you all know who the guy is) that was included only with the european version of Times (unfortunately). I hope nobody would mind if I copy it here (due to its length)...I think it deserves the space:

"The U.S. Needs to Open Up to the World

To this European, America is trapped in a fortress of arrogance and ignorance"

Europeans have always looked at America with a mixture of fascination and puzzlement, and now, increasingly, disbelief. How is it that a country that prides itself on its economic success could have so many very poor people? How is it that a country so insistent on the rule of law should seek to exempt itself from international agreements? And how is it that the world's beacon of democracy can have elections dominated by wealthy special interest groups? For me, the question has become: "How can a country that has produced so much cultural and economic wealth act so dumb?"

I could fill this page with the names of Americans who have influenced, entertained and educated me. They represent what I admire about America: a vigorous originality of thought, and a confidence that things can be changed for the better. That was the America I lived in and enjoyed from 1978 until 1983. That America was an act of faith ? the faith that "otherness" was not threatening but nourishing, the faith that there could be a country big enough in spirit to welcome and nurture all the diversity the world could throw at it. But since Sept. 11, that vision has been eclipsed by a suspicious, introverted America, a country-sized version of that peculiarly American form of ghetto: the gated community. A gated community is defensive. Designed to keep the "others" out, it dissolves the rich web of society into a random clustering of disconnected individuals. It turns paranoia and isolation into a lifestyle.

Surely this isn't the America that anyone dreamed of; it's a last resort, nobody's choice. It's especially ironic since so much of the best new thinking about society, economics, politics and philosophy in the last century came from America. Unhampered by the snobbery and exclusivity of much European thought, American thinkers vaulted forward ? courageous, innovative and determined to talk in a public language. But, unfortunately, over the same period, the mass media vaulted backward, thriving on increasingly simple stories and trivializing news into something indistinguishable from entertainment. As a result, a wealth of original and subtle thought ? America's real wealth ? is squandered.

This narrowing of the American mind is exacerbated by the withdrawal of the left from active politics. Virtually ignored by the media, the left has further marginalized itself by a retreat into introspective cultural criticism. It seems content to do yoga and gender studies, leaving the fundamentalist Christian right and the multinationals to do the politics. The separation of church and state seems to be breaking down too. Political discourse is now dominated by moralizing, like George W. Bush's promotion of American "family values" abroad, and dissent is unpatriotic. "You're either with us or against us" is the kind of cant you'd expect from a zealous mullah, not an American President.

When Europeans make such criticisms, Americans assume we're envious. "They want what we've got," the thinking goes, "and if they can't get it, they're going to stop us from having it." But does everyone want what America has? Well, we like some of it but could do without the rest: among the highest rates of violent crime, economic inequality, functional illiteracy, incarceration and drug use in the developed world. President Bush recently declared that the U.S. was "the single surviving model of human progress." Maybe some Americans think this self-evident, but the rest of us see it as a clumsy arrogance born of ignorance.

Europeans tend to regard free national health services, unemployment benefits, social housing and so on as pretty good models of human progress. We think it's important ? civilized, in fact ? to help people who fall through society's cracks. This isn't just altruism, but an understanding that having too many losers in society hurts everyone. It's better for everybody to have a stake in society than to have a resentful underclass bent on wrecking things. To many Americans, this sounds like socialism, big government, the nanny state. But so what? The result is: Europe has less gun crime and homicide, less poverty and arguably a higher quality of life than the U.S., which makes a lot of us wonder why America doesn't want some of what we've got.

Too often, the U.S. presents the "American way" as the only way, insisting on its kind of free-market Darwinism as the only acceptable "model of human progress." But isn't civilization what happens when people stop behaving as if they're trapped in a ruthless Darwinian struggle and start thinking about communities and shared futures? America as a gated community won't work, because not even the world's sole superpower can build walls high enough to shield itself from the intertwined realities of the 21st century. There's a better form of security: reconnect with the rest of the world, don't shut it out; stop making enemies and start making friends. Perhaps it's asking a lot to expect America to act differently from all the other empires in history, but wasn't that the original idea?

Do you think that being "facetious" makes your point any stronger?



Whether it was an attention getting stunt or not, topping of your argument with fallacy (ad hominem) and sophistry (facetious, attention getting stunts with no dialectical merit), certainly goes towards making your arguments (and intentions) no better than those of the so called ignorants that you are debating against.

Calling someone simply ignorant may not be an insult, but this is not what you said. You called them ignorant bickering children, and then you clarified beyond all doubt the manner in which you meant this statement with the bit about "added venom". Your statement was clearly meant in a hostile manner.

Also note that this is not the first time I have seen this methodology from you in debate threads. As I told SK1, please refrain from this attitude when debating here. It doesn't get your point across any better (quite the opposite in fact), but it does agitate other people.

1) I wouldn't think this to be very true at this point. If they are not afraid to go after Bin Laden or Hussein, they wouldn't be afraid to go after the next wingnut that comes around either.

2) Couldn't agree more.

The text I'm about to copy comes from Blaine L. Reininger, the man that along with Steven Brown were the visionaries behind the collective named Tuxedomoon, one of the best and most innovative art-rock/avantgarde groups of 70's, 80's. They formed in San Francisco in 1977 but it seems that the local audience wasn't very fond of them, so they ended up in Europe, Belgium. After their split, Blaine remained in Belgium till he found out that his wife was suffering from cancer. When they realized that they didn't have much time, she decided to live in Greece, where she died two months after their arrival...he is still here in Athens, an excellent violinist and a true artist...this information was sent to all those who have subscribed to his mailing list:

"Greetings, sports fans. Unless you have been hibernating you will know that george bush can die happy now, knowing that he will be remembered as the man who started the first war of the 21st century. Of course, many of us who must share the same galaxy with this miscarriage can be forgiven for wishing that he would just go, happy or not. They went ahead and did it, gang. They are wagging that dog with a vengeance. Mercy me. It's war.

I know that the cogent arguments against this war (forget the arguments for, they don't deserve the breath it takes to say them) have been written and talked about until everyone is bored stiff and numb and apathetic. That's the way THEY want you to feel. I will refrain from rehashing these points. Go to www.MichaelMoore.com for articulate satiric comment on this mess from the man who gave you "Bowling for Columbine".

What I find particularly sad is this. The people who gave the world rock 'n' roll, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Marilyn Manson, the Beatles, Shakespeare, Citizen Kane, Andy Warhol, Hollywood, the Wright Brothers, the Marx Brothers, in short all that is liberating, fascinating, sexy and fun in modern culture have turned their back on the spirit that gave rise to these things. How can the people of the world continue to emulate Americans in their desire to be free, beautiful, self-motivated and glad to be alive after those same people have opted instead to become bringers of death from above, a snarling ignorant herd who believe that they are the only real people on this planet? The lives that they disrupt can surely have no meaning. Surely the people of iraq will only be truly happy when they too can shop at wal-mart and wear levi's as god intended them to.

Now, when I meet people in Europe and elsewhere in love with late 20th century American culture, those fascinated with the history of rock music and the culture it spawned, I am embarrassed for my country. "Yes, we invented rock, but now we're too old to want to hang out with our friends and play guitars on the beach. Now, we want to rule you morons and bomb you into the stone age if you disagree even mildly."

George Bush and the nasty constipated little people who have put him in power are trying to kill Rock 'n' Roll. I will never forgive them.

Pass the Freedom Fries."

Edit: Some spelling mistakes

Of course this is true. But in the case of terrorists the threat of force isn't applicable. This seems to be something that both Israel and the US don't understand yet.

Lets face it, these terrorists are fully willing and capable of giving up their lives for their cause; how will the threat or use of force change this? All it creates is more small children growing up without parents and instead with the suicide bomber ideology; more recruits for Bin Laden or someone else like him.

The only way to truly combat terrorism is to either: create a police state where terrorists will have extreme problems in establishing operations (the US is starting on this route, Israel is farther along it), or examine the reasons why some human beings are so committed to a cause that they are willing give up their lives without a second thought for it. If the US government bothered examining the terrorists' motivations with an open mind, they would see that their own foreign policy decisions are attracting terrorists like bees to honey.

An open mind? We have had an open mind, and country for years. No more. This is not about an open mind with terrorists. These fanatics despise everything about the western world. Simple and clear. You're not one of us, you must die. This is not just an American problem. Checked out headlines lately? Wasn't SE Asia bombed not long ago by this bunch? France just discovered traces of a deadly toxin in its subway system. Do you think it just fell out of someones pocket? You all like to point the finger at the US and its policies, but you sure don't mind having us on your side. Try and harbor one of these scourges to mankind and see what you get. Not from us mind you, from them. One day, when they decide you need to get yours, we in the US can just knowingly look in your direction and say, 'Whatcha gonna do 'bout it'?

EDIT: Spelling MH

Just like there are different countries on this planet with different agendas, so to are there myriad different terrorists groups. Is there any evidence that Bali was bombed by Al-Qaeda? I'm not aware of anything other than pure speculation. I have heard nothing about France's subway so I can't comment on that.

No one is born evil. No one is born a terrorist. Let's do a little exercise here, shall we? Imagine you are a 16 year-old iraqi. You have now lived to see the a US lead coalition bomb your country twice. I don't know if you have researched anything at all about your "enemies", but for the average iraqi, before 1991, that country was a rather ok place to live. Iraq used to have a very good (free) education and health system. Now they can't even have clean water because the sanctions forbid Iraq from buying chlorine because "it could be use to build WMDs". Maybe he even lost a kid brother to a intestinary tract infection, or malnourishment.
Now, don't fool yourself. I am not, in any way defending Saddam. But such 16 year-old would most likely blame you (us, since we are in the same part of the world) for his disgrace. People tend to support their own kind. It's not a thing of reason, most people in this forum have a hard time understanding why most americans blindly support someone like Dubya. But he's YOUR president, he's YOUR fellow american, you will support him, no matter what, right? You might even die for him, for your Old Glory, for America The Beautiful, no matter what (altough maybe not by blowing yourself to pieces) I repeat, don't fool yourself, Saddam is a SOB, no question, but he is far more loved by the average iraqi than the Almighty Cowboy and His Liberating Force. And people will die for him, people will try to avenge this invasion by any means they can. They can't obviously stand a "fair fight", that is, using conventional warfare. They have to be more inventive, mhh, perhaps flying a passenger plane into a tall building. Terrorism is the warfare of the poor.

Remember: these "fanatics" were not born that way. They despise everything about the west because, so far, the west has not been very nice to them. Just try to imagine your town being bombed to kingdom come in the dead of the night. Would you remain calm, thinking "they are only coming for that bastard president of mine"? Please.

It is not "simple and clear". Real life never is. I agree, a terrorist can't be dealt with. But terrorism CAN be prevented, just not the way you think.

Sure he is. Because if you don't love (sic) him, he'll stick you feet first into a tree shredder. Bad arguement.

He has been in power for 23 years, life wasn't any better then if you were a Kurd or Shiite Muslim. Find one and ask them.

PS- Who invaded Kuwait first in '91? Did we do some preemptive strike then?

Terrorism is the war of the weak minded. Led under the false pretense that you'll get yourself a bunch of virgins in the afterlife. Oh, sign me up.

And your damned right I'll stand behind our President if means keeping the type of life I'm living now. FREE. Not suppressed and cajoled into submission for fear of reprisal for so much as smiling. This simple human act of emotion is worth punishment in some of these idiots eyes. Could you go through life like this?

EDIT: Additional..

The neat thing about living here and dealing with Dubya. We can vote him out. Try that in Iraq

Fox News is reporting that the Pentagon has pictures of panicked digging after that bunker of Saddam's that was struck on the 1st night of bombing. Apparently they also have pictures of SADDAM being put onto a stretcher and into an ambulence. Also reports of senior Iraqi military officials having already left Baghdad or in the process of leaving.

I have no doubt at all that A LOT of iraqis love him/stand by him/support him. Tree shredder or not. But of course, your administration and media would rather have you think that everybody in Iraq is grateful that his days are counted.

You did notice that I specifically wrote "average iraqi", did you? Bad argument.

I agree, terrorist martyrdom is stupid. But a martyr is a person of enormous irrational FAITH that will give his life for a cause which can be very valid. It's their means to it that are not.
You really think that hijacking a plane and flying it to the exact spot to where a 100+ story building in the middle of the most important city in the world is a task for the "weak minded"? That, again, is your media and administration who would rather have you thinking that your "enemies" have no vitues whatsoever (they are not even human!), because if you grant them any, they may not seem so "evil". They are not cardboard cut-up villains, again, my friend: don't fool yourself. You have to respect and know your enemies so you can really defeat them.
And, have you been to the afterlife ?! So you already know what's true and false?

I most certainly think that Dubya will get kicked out of the White House.

Finally, he speaks the truth!! heh

The news channels are the worst. My conservative friends are watching Fox News and the other conservative-slant news stations constantly, oohing and aahing at all the bombs going off. They love it: it looks like a movie to them. Fox News has a favorite tagline for the first bombing runs: "Shock & Awe".

I hope no one's still in Baghdad. They had a news clip of 9am bombings... I hope no one showed up to work and said "Hmmm, why are all my co-workers late to work." *KABOOM* "...Holy bejesus, I'm getting out of here!"

Nope. I added it simply because I knew they would ignore it. They have not been paying attention from the get go.



Nope. But what do I care? I could present the ultimate argument. To which they have no rebuttle. But would thay pay attention? Nope. Strong; weak. It doesn't matter. I am an "evil" American who's views conflict with theirs and are not to be listened to. Muahahahahahahahahahaha! Phear me for I am an American!



Hey there is no serious debate being perpetrated here. I thought we were all just having fun here. Wasn't this supposed to be one of those "Yo mommas so..." style threads. Yo countries so evil even satan fears you! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.



Details details. Who cares about details? It is clear many people can not be bothered with details. America is going against the UN's wishes. Therefore America is evil. Who cares what Saddam has done.



Hey I am not alone. But thank you for singling me out. It shows you care. :|



K. Whateva. You are preaching to the choir. At this point I don't care about getting any point across. Because no matter what I say no one is listening. Save you my friend. Any how you should have nothing to be concerned from me in this thread at this point. I realise my words are wasted. It's like talking to a brick wall. I know futility when I see it. So I am gonna go elsewhere to another thread to read and respond to discussions of an audio related nature in which people are reasonable, understanding, and insightful. It's not your falt. It's mine. Just make sure that the rumors of my departure were greatly exaggerated. Because I am after all an evil American with more than enough gall to supply the world forever. It's not like I called anyone an evil french, check, poll, fin, sweed, german, turk, etc, etc, etc. Because we all know Americans have the market cornered for evil. And therefore they have a right to call us as they have. I see it now. I see it is not they who started and posted to this thread to aggitate people. It was solely me. I see the light.

Bye thread.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
*edit me up scotty!*

@Neo Neko:

Please, read that post from Bluewer Than Blue: "The U.S. Needs to Open Up to the World" and you'll understand a few very important things.

Before bashing on several people for their disagreement with you, please consider the following:

- movies that U.S government doesn't like, are censored in the U.S homeland
- Saddam Hussein was brought to power by the U.S
- Ousama Bin Laden was trained and brought to power by the U.S
- and so on..

Does this sound right to you ?
You haven't mentioned those facts, did you.

Many dictators were put in place, as a part of the US's foreign policy. This is not conspiracy theory, simply history ! There were also good such things done as the US foreign policy - unfortunately they are a minority.

[edit] fixed bluewer than blue's name - sorry [/edit]

Maybe I was dreaming but I would appreciate reaction.

LOL! I hope these messages are online after 10 years or so, and I hope you then understand how funny and irrational you sound, though you are not the only one in this thread..
I'm absolutely sure that everybody here understands that american people are not "evil", and nobody is claiming that. The dispute here has all the time been about the actions of the Bush Administration. I sure hope you understand that, because those who critisize USA's actions sure do..
I'm also absolutely sure that most american people no matter what they think about the war understand that the critique is addressed to Bush&co, not against american people. Heck, even Iraki officials implied that, by saying american people should stop Bush administration.

Bye bye Neko...

Personally Brian Eno can think what he wants. Personally his oppinion is not touted very highly. Perhaps it is all time you actually listened to what others are saying and you can understand a few very important things.



I was not "bashing" anyone because of their disagreement. Nor was I "bashing" anyone in particular.



That goes for any country. Don't you think we know not to unquestioningly trust the national media? You did not get the oppinion we did from your national media did you? Did Mr. Eno?



Nope. America did give him weapons to fight with Iran for taking American hostages.(Big mistake yes.) Guess what. He was already in power.



Again wrong. America did work with Ousama Bin Laden to fight against the Russians. They did provide weapons and munitions so they would not be throwing stones against AK-47s. But outside that is was those like Binladen which trained those troops involved to fight in that terrain. And the US did not set Ousama Bin Laden up as a leader nor construct Alqueda for him. Ousama was one of many. A face in the crowd. He came into his current power after America pulled out. He set up Alqueda on his own. No assembly nescessary on the part of the US. At the time their interests were in tune. Ousama was not a leader of a terrorist organisation. He was a member of a group of reble fighters trying to stave off Russian occupation of Afganistan. So what you are saying is that the US should have stayed out and let Russia conqur and occupy Afganistan? Which is the two would have been worse? So what you are saying is that the United States appointed Ousama as supreme leader of all the Afgani rebles and set up the frame work of Alqueda for Bin Laden? Please. I admit mistakes were made and things could have been done better. But it is nowhere near what you make it out to be. Did you know that Ousama is a wealthy Saudiarabian exile? He has the money to buy all sorts of weapons and munitions. Even had the US not left weapons there how confident are you that Ousama would have never got them any way and we would not be in the same situation we are in today?



Not even close.



Nope. Because they are not facts. There are bits of facts in there. But it is packed in with copious ammounts of chaff. And here comes the most important part for me. Of all those so called facts only one has any close relation to the topic at hand for now. Ousama asside. Saddam has done more than enough on his own to warrant this.



I am not saying that the US has not facilitated some in the past. After all there are benevolent and not so benevolent dictators. But I am quite interesed to see the list you attribute. I am not so sure that I would not see Hitler on there. But I am sure it would be a fun if not slightly fabricated read.



I am not claiming conspiracy theory. But a very warped sense of events is not out of the question. I am not saying what the US has done is always good like the national media would have you believe. But for all accounts I may as well have because it looks as if much of the data you are claiming has an equaly nationalistic spin.

I want to see your argument to this.

1. America did give Saddam weapons. I find it fitting that America go in and rectify that mistake no matter how belated it is.

2. Saddam violated UN sanctions and resolutions repeatedly over the last 12+ years. Sanctions and resolutions which Sadam was told there would be consequences to if he did not comply. So why has the harshest consequence the UN has dished out been no consequences and more resolutions with no teeth.

3. Saddam is actually firing weapons he does not have at us and Saudi Arabia?

4. As a consequence to Saddam remaining in power there were restrictions and embargos placed on Iraq by the UN and the US. That's right. The UN is partly to blame for the poor living conditions over there. The US is not sole heir to that blame. If Saddam got his hands on large amounts of chlorine he would have used it for weapons production. Does it not make sense to remove him from power and put in someone more responsible and set up programs to improve the condition of drinking water? Oh and Chlorine is not the only way to purify water. There are other ways that it could be done without using materials that are easily used for weapons of mass destruction. Had Saddam been concerned with his people he could have set up water purification systems for them. He did nothing. But I am sure his palaces had plenty of clean water to drink. To bad he would not help his people and that his people had to suffer because of him. This should put an end to that. Saddam could improve living conditions over there if he wanted to. It is not all Americas fault. He could put up a few less murals and frescos of himself. He could cut back on the luxury items. But no. His people are not that important to him.

5. Saddam does support terrorism. He pays very large sums of money to the families of those who commit terrorism at the very least. Lets say perhaps you live outside Israiel and are a palestinian. As one of those citizens under Arafat you see no aid or real money coming in. Sure Arafat is living high on the hog with all sorts of compounds and a wife and daughter living like royalty in France. "?" But you as a common palestinian have nor major prospects for the future. You either follow the popular belief that the Isralies are to blame for the poverty Arafat is placing on you or you don't. If you do terrorist attacks look like an attractive alternative. After all you may have no prospects. But with one simple act of terrorism your family could be set for life by Saddam Heusein. That's right. Saddam will leave his people in squaller with improper resources. But he will pay good money for those willing to kill innocent people in the name of religeous martydom or terrorism.

If you are one of those that thinks that America is trying to start a new age of imperialism well then you are mistaken. Even if that is what the current administration is aiming for it is not what the people want and it will not be tollerated. I did not vote for Bush the last time and I am sure not going to next time. America has no interest in imperialism. It is not supported. Our government has a bit of autonomy. But it does still answer to the people. The people do not want to set up colonies in Iraq. Neither do they want to annex Iraq. There are things at home that need to be tended to. And if the administration does not get back to that then this will be their only term for sure.

Hi, do you have some kind of support for this statement? I honestly wonder whether or not this is the case.

The most infurating thing about U.S. foreign policy is that I never get the impression I'm being told the truth. The Bush Administration's "pre-emptive defense" argument is absolutely rediculous. The news media is really excited that people are tuning in to watch buildings get blown up. I put more faith in the liberal media outlets because they have less to gain from the military action, except they always seem to support the underdog no matter what the situation, so maybe their anti-war stance is arbitrary.

But I'm sure it's like this for everyone in their own country.


National polls say 2/3rds of the U.S. population is in favor of military action against Iraq. That seems absolutely bizarre to me, because on my campus about 90% of the students are anti-war. Still, I think our little Shrub has quite a cozy seat in the White House for now.

Nope. But if these scum are allowed in 'Heaven' based on the attrocities against their fellow man, then I'd just as soon go to Hell.

You have to go before that. Saddam was helped by CIA since 1958.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y1998/IraqLott.html

Also, can you tell me what an 'average' Iraqi is?

One who has been oppressed for so many years that they don't know anything else? You cannot just assume that because these people are at least alive, that things are just peachy. You have to take the entire nation as a whole into account, not just those who are members of his particular religious sect.



Let's get one thing straight. Our enemies are not the Iraqi people. It is that countries leadership. Some virtues this man has. And for the record, I'm sure the US knows this enemy quite well. But do not expect anyone to have a great deal of respect for him. Anywhere.