Hehe.. but here's the difference. There are many US "sides". The most strict would be Pentagon/Bush administration side, the completely opposite US side would be Michael Moore's side.

Try that in Middle East..

Exactly. Funny that you mention it... I _don't_ want USA (or Sweden for that matter) to go down the same slope as Iraq did. I _don't_ want to end up in a world where Mr Bush is the new dictator and his police can arrest just anybody they like. That's why USA (and Sweden) in cases like these so called terrorists on Cuba (or "terrorist"-immigrants in Sweden) should give them a fair trial and show that they are better than Saddam.

> "The people" have no say in this. W seized power illegally...

While I didn't (or any of my friends & family) personally suggest to George that we go to war with Iraq, latest US approval polls for this effort are around 70 to 75%.

> He tricks Americans into supporting an attack on Iraq by suggesting that September 11th was connected to Iraq and that this war prevent terrorisms...Iraq had nothing to do with September 11, Hussein isn't a religious extremist

Bluewer...Why did you post this? This is a joke...right? Your arguments so far have been (somewhat) passable (or at least worthy of a response) until now. "Sam" is a first class bozo who has a either a large chip on this shoulder or a dull axe to grind (take your pick). He would have been one of the first to "skip out" when duty calls (say like WW1 or 2...at the time I'm sure he would have found Hitler "misunderstood" and "harmless").

Sam Rosenthal can go to hell for all I care

xen-uno

You could do much worse.

You have gotten it all wrong JohnV. I (and I'm sure ErikS as well) never said that it would be ok for me to be in the same plane with a terrorist. But like it or not that's how the justice system works in every country that it claims to be "civilized", and not in a police state. You get caught, you go to trial and the judges decide if you are guilty or not...that's the procedure as far as I know and it has been followed countless times in the past. You either recognize its effectiveness to bring the bad guys inside a cell and you keep the procedures or you don't and you change it. For the time being, US and many other countries out there do the former...or that's what they claim at least.

What if even of them is innocent? Things have been decided to work in a way that innocent people won't get imprisoned, even if that means that "guilty" ones will get away. Utopia? I don't know...I can't claim that I leave in the Land of the Free myself.

Still, those people can't be called officially "terrorists" since no court has decided upon their case yet. And who knows when this is gonna happen.



It's down to the prosecutor to prove the guilt of those men. If they can't do that, I guess they are worthy of their fate. But I do find it extremely unlikely that there are not any evidences...surely it must not be that hard to prove that someone participates in a terroristic group. Especially if you have such well organized secret agencies.

Edit: grammar problems

Since you ask Xenno, I'll tell you...

I included this only to prove that it's not a matter of Europe Vs US (at least to me and to many participants in this thread as well as it seems). STSinNYC probably hasn't understood this yet, so I decided to use some opinions that exist in US, regardless if I agree with them or not.

Extreme views can be found anywhere. The vast majority of the members here have made it clear that they have no problem with the US nation, but with the US government alone (and probably not with every decision it takes either).

The thing is that none can call Sam Rosenthal just another European basher.

blewerthanblue is absolutely correct when he says that there is opposition to the war in the U.S. as well as in Europe. But, gee, how do you see it when the German foreign minister compares the U.S. president to Hitler? As a great campaign line? I have traveled in Europe and done business there. And observed a lot of anti-Americanism, to us as people, not just to the government. Especially in France.

To most Americans the logic of people in other countries disliking our government while claiming to like us as people doesn't work. Look at the poll figures on the high percentage of the U.S. poulation that supports the President's decision to go to war in Iraq. The government reflects the will of the people much more than is understood.

I can understand why you did not like my warning about the last Americans to die for Europe. But it's important to understand that there has always been a considerable isolationist mindset in the U.S. It's essential that the U.S. and Europe remain tied together politically, economically, and militarily.

@ Blue.
You always dance around the one issue I wish you would really comment on. One of my last posts you replied to you simply ignored the body and picked off the little parts. So I am going to bring it to you directly.



You say that war is not the answer. You say the inspections should have been allowed to continue. I ask you then what should be done to make the inspections effective? Because possibly contrary to your belief they were not. After 12 years of no inspections and letting the Iraqi have their way nothing short of halting the economy of Iraq and detaining its citizens untill the inspectors have had opportunity to inspect every building, shed, tent, computer, file cabinet, folder, cookie jar, strong box, vault, safe, truck, car, drawer, etc is ever going to turn anything solid up. In my estimation that dooms the inspections to failure even before they started. Unless you get the Iraqi to tell you the truth there is no hope of finding anything. And lemme tell you they were being very deceptive in nearly everything they said.

So if war is not the answer, and inspections can't work then what? What should we have done.

This is part of the reason I got so hot and bothered earlier. I ask very pertinant questions that speak to the core of the issue of the war and the best I get in response is Bush bashing, america has propped up every faschist dictator in the last 150 years, or that the "detainees" are somehow being treated inhumainly. Topics that are not true though there may be some truth hidden in there and are at best related by tangents.

Oh and bush bashing will not get you any browny points or prove your arguments. It is to easy. I have said it before I don't like bush and I am not alone. He sucks as a president in general. But the thing I find kinda scarry was that there were not any candidates that clearly outshone him. I think Gore would have been better yes. But not a whole lot. I suppose at least with Gore he is a much better diplomat and vastly better spoken. In fact with his dulcet monotone voice addressing the UN they would have all been zonked to sleep and we would have been in and out of Iraq before you woke up.

Neo Neko:

Please stop quoting large chunks of text and then editing them after the fact with your response. This disrupts the flow of discussion in the thread and serves no useful purpose.

Respond like everyone else in the forums here do -- when they've actually written their post and are finished with it.

I've removed your latest post like this, please don't do it again in the future.

And you somehow being a hypocrit do?



Who. Im' sure your list is pretty short. One entry right? Lemme guess.



Where did you dig up that little gem of proppaganda?



No. Again you completely miss the point. The point is that America is no the only one who should be sporting blame. I have yet to see you mention anyone else let alone accuse them.



If there were a viable option beyond war we would take it. It is not like you guys were presenting us with the key to middle east peace and understanding and we said "Screw dat! We are going to war.". We do not want war. We really don't want to have to rebuld other peoples national infrastructure. And we sure as hell really do not want to have to stay there for years watching over them to make sure Saddam's sons and buddies don't slip into power. It costs us..... ME money. And we have problems here at home. But we are willing to do that to improve conditions on many issues there. Which will improve conditions here and elsewhere in the world. While the UN was more than content to let Iraq suffer under US and UN embargo while dealing in a limp wrist fashion with a duplicitous dictator who would tell you anything but the truth. We were not.



Neither do you. You are very picky in what you respond to. Choosing to avoid the more weighty and treacherous stuff and instead go after fluff.

Oh it is clear I can not comment on you or judge you Mr. masterdebator.

Anyhow don't get to full of yourself. You really don't have anything that spectacular going for you ATM.

But I will ask you this as well. If war is not the answer. And in light that there is no way the inspections could have succeded. What should we have done?

Ok sorry.

It was the best way to date I had found to deal with the quirky quoting style this forrum software has.

I would like Bush to bring up other reasons to attack Iraq than the ones he does. Right now he playes on americans fear to get their approval of the war:

1. He has dangerous weapons
2. He is friends with those who hijacked planes and crashed them in the WTC.

Both arguments are hazy.
1. Wouldn't it be good to have proofs before claiming such things? UNMOVIC could have done just that. Now he must prove it by finding the weapons after the war, otherwise this turns out to be a complete lie from Bush's side.
2. No links have been found at all between Al-Qaeda and Saddam according to CIA. He has a connection to palestinian terrorists, but that's not what Bush gave as a reason for attacking him.

A better reason which could even convince me of the good of this war is:
3. Help the Iraqi to overthrow their brutal dictator who has murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqies opposing him.
But why is this not the number one reason? I have barely heard it at all from Bush & co. Why??

Btw, didn't the inspections stop 5 years ago? Where did you get the figure 12 from?

Sorry guys, but I'm closing this thread.

I've been watching it for the last few days, and while I thought things might get better, I seriously do not like the atmosphere of discussion and manner of debate that is taking place here. Many of the posts I have seen are not only personal and irrational, but they are also full of fallacies, weak/non-cogent/invalid/unsound arguments, and finally, unnecessary hostility. Because of these things, and their regularity in occurance (and acceptance?), I don't think there is going to be anything remotely near a resolution or agreement between some of the more vocal parties in the thread. Maybe this just the nature of the situation given certain peoples overly emotional response to hearing different perspectives on the matter, but it does not have to be this way. I don't feel that this type of situation fits in with the spirit of debate that the staff of HA tries to promote on the forums here. I feel that if I let this go on any longer it's going to not only give the impression that this type of thing is OK and acceptable, but also end up causing some people to become very upset (it's already happened a few times in the thread) leading to long term grudges, bickering, and rivalry.

As a side note, I'm not going to necessarily lock new war related threads that pop up, but if people want to discuss this matter, they need to keep the tone rational and impersonal, and they need to be lucid, critical, unemotional (at least non-fanatical), and non-specious in their arguments. If the discussion degenerates to the level seen in this thread, it will be locked also. And please, don't even bother posting if you're not serious, if you think the whole thing is a joke, or if you're only out to show yourself as being "superior". That's not what debates are about here.