Iraqi crisis explained...

[James]

A letter from my dad to The Economist:

You give too exclusive credit to France for defeating the US-UK in the Security Council. The six 'uncommitted' Council members played a big part by resisting horrendous arm twisting. The substance of the issue also weighed heavily: to most of Iraq’s neighbours and to the wider world, the proposed war always looked a clearer and greater danger to them than did Saddam’s weapons and megalomania. The greatest part of responsibility goes to the US Administration itself. Its aim was clear from the start: regime change, regardless of all other nations’ opinions and interests. Nothing Saddam did would be enough; all proposals for objective benchmarks or for slowing the march to war were rejected. The resolution was a sham, seeking dubious legitimacy for aggression. This was never diplomacy: the only way it could have worked was if the world had submitted to US coercion to join it in a cynical charade.

The main reason most people and most governments on this planet reject US policy on Iraq is not superior morality. It is their alienation from and fear of the Bush Administration. The President's off-putting physiognomy, manner and religiosity could be overlooked if his Administration inspired confidence. Instead its domestic and international agendas appear driven by an extreme simplification and selectivity of issues. Its approach to other nations is contemptuous and bullying. It reviles and destroys the institutions that embody our hopes and ideals, such as the United Nations. Probably most damaging has been the attempt to exclude Americans from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. This is felt as an assertion of superiority over all other nationalities and a demand for immunity from all restraints.

All this is why, for most non-Americans, the issue of the Iraqi cockroach is eclipsed by that of the rogue superpower.

 

[James]

This is traditional 'just war doctrine'. Traditional just war doctrine is based in the supposition that soveriegn states will operate under certain predictable rules. These days are unprecedented. You can not apply just war doctrine to a state who refuses to play by the 'rules' much less an entity which has no state (Al-Q). Additionally just war doctrine lays the onus at the feet of the aggressor and defender, not their friends.

I don't agree that "these days are unprecedented." Terrorism, state sponsored and otherwise, has been going on for decades - the only difference as far as the US is concerned is it has recently started happening on your own soil.

I don't disagree that terrorism has existed for a while. However, terrorism has been primarily in the name of a country or a revolution of a country. The new phenomena is terrorism in the name of an idea. An idea which has no home. Which crosses boundries and ethnic groups. An idea whos goal is the extermination of everything that is not "it". There are no realistic goals for this terrorism.

I have no idea how you get to that conclusion, but then I don't agree with your theory that terrorism has changed in any fundamental way. The goals of terrorism are no more or less realistic than they were before. And if terrorism is no longer tied to a country as you say, how does attacking Afghanistan and Iraq help eradicate it?

By throwing all the rules of international diplomacy out the window you are creating anarchy, and an environment in which terrorism will thrive. As far as I am concerned North Korea has just as much right to a pre-emptive first strike to protect its ideals and way of life as the US does. Or are we heading towards a world where there's one set of rules for the US and its friends, backed up with threat of war, and one for everyone else?

Diplomacy worked. Resolution 1441 passed. Now some countries want to pull the teeth from the UN.

Like the US. As soon as you step outside the UN process you are weakening the entire institution. The US is now acting independently of both the UN structure and international law, I fail to understand how this is a good thing.

You obviously do not understand what diplomacy means. Diplomacy does not stop at getting a UN resolution passed.

As for the meat of my question, you fail to answer it.

The UN will not be an effective body without teeth. What happened in the twelve years the UN has been gumming Iraq. The analogy to the danger of the UN becoming archaic is astounding. Only since the US has threatened force have any of the UNs mandates on Iraq not been sent to the circular file by Saddam.

Not true. This is a "crisis" which in large part is of the US's own making. Weapons inspectors were allowed in after the 1991 war, and during that time found WMDs which were then largely destroyed. The question of whether or not they were all destroyed is something that has only recently come up because the US made a crisis about it.

If you had actually taken the time to read the weapons inspectors' reports now and from after the first Gulf war, you would know that one of the conclusions the inspectors made was that Iraq, given the industrial resources of the United States and perhaps ten years it would perhaps be in the position to build a simple atomic device. Since Iraq has never had industrial resources even vaguely approaching those of the US, in fact it has gone backwards since 1991, it's hard to see what suddenly created such a crisis.

If the US is so great at enforcing UN resolutions with force, what has it done to get Israel to comply to the many UN resolutions applied to it? This sort of double standard (hypocracy) is exactly what drives the rest of the world crazy.

And then there's the question - what's the solution you're advocating here anyway? And how would it prevent another September 11th or Oklahoma City (neither of which were done with weapons of mass destruction)? If the US view is that terrorism is just going to get worse (and use more and more sophisticated weapons) then how does going to war against Iraq fix this?

Ridding the world of state sponsors of terror will fix this. Iraq is step two. Step three is probably Iran. N. Korea, SA, Syria are probably next.

SA? South Africa? What?

Okay, so these terrorists who according to you have no national ties or ideals, are going to be defeated by removing the leadership of all these countries? How? Why wouldn't they just relocate their training facilities elsewhere? Why do they even need state sponsorship?

Why not Indonesia, which raised the terrorists that bombed Bali? Or the Philippines, which has been home-growing terrorists and kidnappers for years?

Why are those countries most likely to be affected by Hussein's weapons of mass destruction not in favour of a US attack on Iraq?

Because they know they may be next. Besides, many of the countries in the region are helping with logistics support and intelligence, not to meantion oil infrastructure.

Many? Not many I can see in the list of 30 published in the papers yesterday.

So in short you're saying that all Middle East nations (Iraq's neighbours) support terrorism and fear the wrath of the United States? You don't think this might be a slightly simplistic view?

Does the fact that your own diplomats are leaving their jobs in protest, and people like Norman Schwartzkopf disagree with the current course of action, and millions of people are protesting across the world not indicate in some subtle way that maybe the US isn't following the best course of action?

Millions of people across the world are protesting because they are supporting their governments. It is those governments who have been irresponsible.

This is a proposterous idea, and an arrogant, dismissive attitude. There were 750,000-1M people protesting in London against the UK's policy. Around 750,000 (out of 19 million population) protested against the Australian government's support of the US. Why weren't they in favour of their governments, apparent sheep that you think all national populations (except the Americans, of course) are? Some hundreds of thousands protested in the US, after all. Is it really incomprehensible to you that large numbers of people do not agree with this war?

Again, you don't answer the first half of my question.

If you really agree with with the article you linked to, we are poles apart and likely to remain that way.

 

[Tannin]

Terrorism, state sponsored and otherwise, has been going on for decades

Nonsense. Read some Tacitus or Herodotus or Pliny or ..... heck! Go back a little further in history and pick up the Old Testament. Now I'm no Biblical scholar, but if there are not at least three examples of terrorisim recorded in the OT, then I'll eat my King James edition.

Raw.

Without sauce.

Terrorism is as old as civilisation itself, or damn near.

Even if we restrict ourselves to relatively modern times, the history of the Peninsular War (early 19th Century, Spain and Portugal vs France) is full of acts that can only be defined as terrorisim. (On both sides, I hasten to add.) I mention this one as perhaps he most obvious and clear example, but I shouldn't think it would be difficult to discover examples in any century and on any continent you care to nominate.

This sudden American decision to pretend that "everything is different now" should be seen for what it is: a nakedly cynical attempt to cash in on the universal sympathy that the entire world felt for the people of the USA after the horrible events of 911.

The Shrub Regime, in its collosal arrogance, has managed to take that 99% world support and friendship for the USA in its time of trouble—and turn it into 93% fear, doubt, and loathing.

Mr Shrub, have you stopped to look at who your friends are now? All 7% of the world's nations that support you? Let's list them, shall we? Let's list the countries that actually still like (or fear) you enough to offer to send troops of their own into combat alongside the Marines and the US Army.

• United Kingdom: solid support from Tony Blair. Only about half the people of Britain go along with it. Huge controversy. Two Cabinet Ministers resigned.
  
• Australia. The usual spineless arselicking from Howard. A "massive" contribution of 18 combat aircraft - i.e., about 10% of the number available. And massive opposition from the Australian people: the latest poll (in the right-wing, pro-American Murdoch-owned Australian newspaper, of all places) puts support for Howard's policy at 22%. Yes, that is not a misprint: almost four out of five Australians oppose Shrub's war. (If Shrub had done it the legal and proper way, there was 70% support there for the asking.)
  
• Turkey. Huge bribes and the wonderfully enticing prospect of being able to beat up the Kurds in Iraq as well. (A well as their own Kurds, I mean, but that doesn't count, the Turks beat up their own Kurds all the time.) And they still can't quite decide if the bait is worth the hook - no wonder, as public opinion in Turkey is vociferously anti-Shrub.
  
• Then there are the little countries that say they are on your side, George Shrub—and who knows? Maybe some of them really are?— but none of them actually support your war enough to actually send combat troops: Iceland, South Korea, Netherlands, Philippines, Denmark, Spain. Throw in more fence-sitters in Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the Philippines, and Spain. (Notice how many of these countries are very vulnerable to US pressure, by the way? Consider the Philippines or South Korea.)
  
• And, of course, there are the former iron curtain countries, every one of them desperate for foreign exchange dollars, and many of them prepared to vote for anything just so long as they are voining against Russia. Poland, Romania, Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, FYR of Macedonia, and Uzbekistan. Funniny thing: ain't none of them prepared to send combat forces.
  
  Still, never mind that lack-lustre list above. The main thing is that at least you've managed to attract the cream of the world's freedom-loving democracies. Wonderful, wonderful champions of human rights. Aren't you just so proud of the ringing endosement you have attracted from Colombia, George Shrub? Or El Salvador? What about Eritrea? Ethiopia! Everyone knows Eithiopia is a Number One haven of free speech and democratic virtues. Oh! And I nearly forgot Nicaragua!

George W Bush. Leader of the Free World.

 

[Mercutio]

I believe I said much the same thing about 100 posts ago, Tannin. About our "allies", at least.

Spain is my favorite. "Spain". That's like the punchline to a joke. Spain's citizens are still pissed about the USS Maine and losing Cuba. Think support among Aussies is bad, less than 10% of our newest bestest buddy Spain's citizens support this effort.

And of course, this leads me to something *I* saw on slashdot:

"How bad do you have to suck to lose a popularity contest to Saddam Hussein?"
-- Bill Maher

 

[The Giver]

Tannin,

Australia. The usual spineless arselicking from Howard. A "massive" contribution of 18 combat aircraft - i.e., about 10% of the number available. And massive opposition from the Australian people: the latest poll (in the right-wing, pro-American Murdoch-owned Australian newspaper, of all places) puts support for Howard's policy at 22%. Yes, that is not a misprint: almost four out of five Australians oppose Shrub's war. (If Shrub had done it the legal and proper way, there was 70% support there for the asking.)

I don't know when your polling data is from. But here is some data from the first poll taken since the start of the war. It's a bit different from you say above. Of particular interest is the support for the U.S. taking action.

20 Mar 2003 22:26
Australians evenly divided over Iraq war

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


CANBERRA, March 21 (Reuters) - Australians appear almost evenly divided over the involvement of their troops in a U.S.-led war on Iraq, and a majority support the U.S. role, the first poll released since the start of the war showed on Friday.

The Morgan poll showed 46.5 percent of 1,067 respondents approved of Australian participation in the Iraq war, while 48.5 percent were opposed -- a marked contrast with other polls which have shown two-thirds of Australians against the war.

The poll was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday nights, the night before and the night after the United States launched its attack on Iraq. The war began on Thursday afternoon Australian time.

Tens of thousands of Australians took to the streets on Thursday to protest the government's staunch backing of the U.S.-led attack and the participation of a 2,000-strong Australian force in the war.

The Roy Morgan Research Centre, which carried out the survey, also found a 51.5 percent majority said they approved of the use of U.S. force against Iraq to depose President Saddam Hussein, while 41 percent disapproved and 7.5 percent were undecided.

Australia's Prime Minister John Howard has been a staunch and consistent supporter of U.S. President George W. Bush's hard line against Iraq and has committed a 2,000-strong force of elite SAS troops, combat jets and warships to the war.

Conscious of his divided nation, the prime minister addressed the nation on Thursday to describe the "horrific" regime of Saddam Hussein and argue that disarming Iraq sent a vital message to other "despotic regimes" such as North Korea.

From - http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L20103159

 

[Jake the Dog]

those polls have only just started to show a roughly 50-50 results. the reason they have changed is because when it became clear that Howard was going to blindlingy follow Bush into war, people are moving into the mindset that supporting the war will end it sooner.

personally I'm ashamed of all the Aussies that have changed their opinion so rapidly. If war was wrong before, why all of a is it OK now. it shows weak strength of conviction...

 

[The Giver]

Any chance that once the UN option was no longer on the table, regardless of who is responsible for it being removed, that opinions shifted?

 

[James]

The Morgan Poll is an anomaly. All the other polls I have seen locally have all had around 70-30 disapproval of Australia's policy towards Iraq.

Logically, you just don't get three quarters of a million people out protesting against a policy (and none protesting for!) if the support for it was evenly divided.

From today's paper:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/20/1047749882761.html

Tony,
pardon me for being conservative on the terrorism thing. I thought I'd ease into it...

 

[Handruin]

Todays events:
http://www.boston.com/news/daily/20/mass_protests.htm

 

[Jake the Dog]

James, I've seen a few polls with close to 50-50% support for the war now in progress.

 

[Dozer]

It makes me sick to see the protestors out around the country. Division is exactly what our enemies want. We need to come together in support for each other and our country, in support of our troops, regardless of misgivings some may have about the war. We are now involved in conflict, there's no turning back. For a change, let's have some patriotism, pride for our country, some faith in our leadership. I may be stepping out on a limb here, but I support this conflict as a need to remove Saddam Hussein from power--a horrible person who should have been removed long. long ago. And I am a patriot--I take great pride in our country, our heritage, our way of life. And I support our military 100%. These people put their lives on the line every day, unselfishly, in proud service of their country. Let's show a little respect for their bravery by showing a little more support.

(Keep in mind that I'm not directing this at anyone specifically in the forum, but rather venting a bit of my frustation regarding war protests).

 

[zx]

It makes me sick to see the protestors out around the country. Division is exactly what our enemies want. We need to come together in support for each other and our country, in support of our troops, regardless of misgivings some may have about the war. We are now involved in conflict, there's no turning back. For a change, let's have some patriotism, pride for our country, some faith in our leadership. I may be stepping out on a limb here, but I support this conflict as a need to remove Saddam Hussein from power--a horrible person who should have been removed long. long ago. And I am a patriot--I take great pride in our country, our heritage, our way of life. And I support our military 100%. These people put their lives on the line every day, unselfishly, in proud service of their country. Let's show a little respect for their bravery by showing a little more support.

(Keep in mind that I'm not directing this at anyone specifically in the forum, but rather venting a bit of my frustation regarding war protests).

I think i'll have to agree with you here. Even though i've been against the war all along, there is no need to show opposition now. If I was an American, i would avoid protesting during this war. Like you said, there is no turning back, and what must be done, must be done. I'd do this to support the soldiers out on the ground risking their lives to accomplish that mission....After the war is over we can start arguing.

 

[time]

I've become disillusioned with Gary Morgan's polls - he was miles out with the last federal election.

For the record, I don't believe the questions in his poll were properly framed, but more significantly, it was a telephone poll and is consequently unreliable.

Here are the results from Newspoll, which used proper face to face interviews: http://newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/cgi-lib.26256.1.0303war.pdf

 

[timwhit]

If I can I would also like to vent some frustrations. It is beyond me how anyone can be proud to be an American. That's about the same as saying I am proud to be white, or I am proud that I speak English.

To me, to say that I am proud to be an American, is about the same as saying, "I am proud that I am white, speak English, am right handed, and the rest of the world is below me because I am American." Everyone here knows that I was born and raised in the USA (and if you didn't know that, you know now). I will never again say that I am proud to be anything that I didn't work to achieve. To be proud of something that you didn't do is ridiculous; you didn't achieve birth.

In Germany to say that you are proud to be Deutsch is the same as saying that you are a Neo-Nazi. Which is not really a good thing. I wish that more Americans thought the same way, because saying that you are proud to be born American is ridiculous.

 

[timwhit]

One thing to add...I am not in support or in opposition of this war. I have friends and relatives that are serving in the US military right now in the Middle East. I just wish all those who are serving a quick and decisive end to this war, whatever its outcome. To lose a loved one (or anyone for that matter) in a battle so meaningless is truly sad.

 

[Dozer]

To me, to say that I am proud to be an American, is about the same as saying, "I am proud that I am white, speak English, am right handed, and the rest of the world is below me because I am American."

Pride and support of country is not equivalent to being snobbish. I don't feel like other countries are below us because we are American. I simply take pride of where I was born and raised, just as many others take pride of where they are born and raised. I didn't choose my parents, but I'm proud that they are my parents. If we don't support and take pride in the countries in which we live, then how do we ever achieve anything?

 

[jtr1962]

In Germany to say that you are proud to be Deutsch is the same as saying that you are a Neo-Nazi. Which is not really a good thing. I wish that more Americans thought the same way, because saying that you are proud to be born American is ridiculous.

Maybe one day we'll have a world without borders. It's always been a hope of mine. Race, religion, and nationality are all things that have been used to divide people, create an us versus them mentality. I doubt it'll change in my lifetime, but someday. Yes, someday.

 

[Vlad The Impaler]

Maybe one day we'll have a world without borders. It's always been a hope of mine. Race, religion, and nationality are all things that have been used to divide people, create an us versus them mentality. I doubt it'll change in my lifetime, but someday. Yes, someday.

Not when you have animals in suits all with their snouts in the trough.....

 

[Jake the Dog]

in regards to the 1st night of the "shock & awe" I heard by a senior NBC reporter earlier today say:

Finally some payback. The Iraqi's now get to experience there own 9/11.

aren't the 'coalition' forces supposed to be there to liberate the Iraqi people from Hussein regime? no, it's about oil ... yet few from the US seem to believe that so that makes it not true I guess. it must have to do with terrorism and preventing a 9/11 from happening agian. wasn't it Bin Ladens mob that did that? yh wait, he can't be found. well someone has to pay for 9/11. the Iraqi's look like the same type of people as Osams and that Saddam is a nasty person. and certainly nobody likes him. obvisouly he is the perfect candidate to direct a country's worth of ire, this one being being revenge.

 

[Tannin]

..... and the office boy kicked the cat ...

 

[Jake the Dog]

was it a nasty, evil, heavily moustached cat?

 

[slo crostic]

Maybe one day we'll have a world without borders. It's always been a hope of mine. Race, religion, and nationality are all things that have been used to divide people, create an us versus them mentality. I doubt it'll change in my lifetime, but someday. Yes, someday.

But why? Hasn't the world functioned perfectly well for thousands of years the way it is? And what is the benefit of a generic worldwide people anyway?

I personally think the answer is for every race and religion to respect their neighbours differences and say "hey, it works for them why don't we keep letting it work for them and mind our own business." The problem with the world today is that there are too many "do-gooders" out there trying to lay down the law in other countries and cultures that they know nothing about. So what if a particular culture chooses to persecute women for showing their faces in public, or cut peoples hands off for stealing a loaf of bread, that's the way it's been done for thousand of years and it works for them. Admittedly it would be a shock if something like that happened in our own "western" countries but it doesn't. The real problem here is that these cultures have never before seen how life is in a western society and would be better off left unaware of what they're missing out on. Similarly, albeit hard to understand, if we had all been raised under these types of laws we would be ranting on about how good they are because of the lack of thefts etc...
It's a similar situation to the US's hard stance on the death penalty. I as an Australian think it's totally wrong, but if I were brought up in America I'd probably be all for it.

<end rant>

 

[Tea]

... or else dead.

 

[zx]

In Germany to say that you are proud to be Deutsch is the same as saying that you are a Neo-Nazi. Which is not really a good thing. I wish that more Americans thought the same way, because saying that you are proud to be born American is ridiculous.

Maybe one day we'll have a world without borders. It's always been a hope of mine. Race, religion, and nationality are all things that have been used to divide people, create an us versus them mentality. I doubt it'll change in my lifetime, but someday. Yes, someday.

You can suppress borders, religion and race, but they all lead to one fundamental division : ideas. You can't get rid of differect ideas. Nationality, religion and race all point to the same division. "You are an american, you must think like me, i like you"..."you're a christian, you must think like me, i like you". Of course that a simple illustration, but it's true to a certain extent. And if it's not religion that seperate people, it will be ideas. "You're a conservative, ...you're a liberal...."

Just look at the SR's B&G forums and you will see the bitter hatred beween people who do not have the same ideas....

 

[jtr1962]

Maybe one day we'll have a world without borders. It's always been a hope of mine. Race, religion, and nationality are all things that have been used to divide people, create an us versus them mentality. I doubt it'll change in my lifetime, but someday. Yes, someday.

But why? Hasn't the world functioned perfectly well for thousands of years the way it is? And what is the benefit of a generic worldwide people anyway?

To elaborate:

1)Nationality: the only reason large nation-states exist is to protect their populations from.....other large nation-states. Some nations will attack their neighbors for various reasons-territory, resources, religious differences, etc. Get rid of the nation states everywhere and there can no longer be large armies, and hence no need to form your own army for defense. Ever stop and think many world crises are created by the powers-that-be to support the military-industrial complex, and how much money has been wasted on war throughout history on both arms plus destruction of the productive outputs of people? Think about the current "crisis". Perhaps if the US hadn't given Israel WMD Saddam wouldn't have felt the need seek them for himself. If the entire world devolved into organizations no larger than small cities or even large towns, we would still all retain our unique cultures but large-scale warfare would no longer be possible. Nation states lead to war, which destroys the productive output of society and therefore creates poverty, which in turn fuels the flames for more war and keeps the nation states in existence. Neat, isn't it? Once formed, nation states are essentially self-perpetuating.

2)Religion: the primary motivator throughout history used to justify conquest and invasion. The most illogical part is that nearly all religions claim to be the one true religion. Obviously, at most only one of them can be correct, and likely none of them are. In my opinion we'll lose nothing once religion is simply seen as a quaint belief from the past, much as people used to believe in wizards and dragons.

3)Race: I'm not suggesting genetic purity or anything. I want people to be raised as citizens of the planet Earth, and not think of themselves as members of any one race. The physical differences will remain, but will be immaterial. I've found it amazing how people can use small differences in genetic code to justify some really horrendous acts. In my opinion we still have a long way to go in this department, even in so-called enlightened societies that claim race makes no difference, and then give special preferences to one race over another(i.e. affirmative action in the US, the many ethnic clubs in many universities, etc.). These things only divide us.

I'm not suggesting a generic world-wide people. Differences in living due to local climate and food sources will always remain. People will continue to be unique individuals but will not try to impose their way on anybody else. This will result in more freedom, not less. And I'm certainly not suggesting one world-wide government, either. Quite the opposite, in fact. I'd rather have tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of city-states with their own sets of rules(or even no rules at all if that's what they choose). It will make the large scale cooperation needed for mass warfare pretty much impossible. Perhaps there would be only one world-wide guideline-keep the planet livable for your neighbors, which basically means no more pollution or other environmental destruction. Nobody can really argue with that.

 

[jtr1962]

You can suppress borders, religion and race, but they all lead to one fundamental division : ideas. You can't get rid of differect ideas.

You can't, but you can create a world where it is impossible to create widespread death and destruction because of those differences. One problem is that many countries, especially younger Western ones, feel that their way is the only way, and that they need to impose this way on the indigenous peoples of other nations "for their own benefit". To me this is just the Crusades revisited in a different form. Any society that claims to be enlightened should adopt non-interference in other cultures as it's prime directive. You can help if asked, but not before.

Just look at the SR's B&G forums and you will see the bitter hatred beween people who do not have the same ideas....

You think that's bad? I've already seen ten times worse on other sites. All that's missing is the patriotic drum beating and mindless flag waving.

 

[CougTek]

It makes me sick to see the protestors out around the country. Division is exactly what our enemies want. We need to come together in support for each other and our country, in support of our troops, regardless of misgivings some may have about the war. We are now involved in conflict, there's no turning back. For a change, let's have some patriotism, pride for our country, some faith in our leadership.

Yeehoo! Hurray! Let's all suddenly turn out into a bunch of mindless Bush-loving sheeps! Let's all close our eyes and mind on the true reasons behind this nonsense war! I'm so proud, it's unreal!

The sad part is that you really believe that crap. You and Howell have been spoon-feeded by CNN and the like for too long. You eat all the US propaganda without a second thought, like a hungry baby with pablum. I wish I could both slap you, knock your head on a desk and scream "Open Up!" as hard as I can 6 inches from your ears, but that would do no good, except maybe for venting my own frustration about you lack of clue. In a way, I envy you. It must be so much easier to see everything in black and white, good or evil and not having to think about the gray shades. Humanity won't go far with that line of thinking though.

You seem to believe hard as a rock that this idot-beyond-belief (Bush, if you didn't guess it) is doing that for the interest of U.S citizens. If the saw the press conference that infuriated me the other day and you swallow all his bullshit (and the one from every other morons of his administration) without blinking, your situation is ...

I'm sorry for being rude. I don't want to offence you and Howell, even if I know you'll most certainly be pissed by this post (as I was by yours, BTW - it doesn't show, but I had a lot of self-restrain in this reply). You're probably two good guys, just two blind good guys. To that, the only thing I'll add is that when you're alone in your corner thinking everyone else is fool and you're not, you should start wondering about yourself.

 

[CougTek]

For the following yummy story on Hussein family member pastimes, I hope none of you are queasy:

• ...It was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3284-614607,00.html

I won't say that I am against a regime change in Iraq. Saddam should have been thrown out at least 12 years ago and not helped in the previous two decades. However, loooking how the U.S. fared in the past everytime they overthrown a regime and put another one in place afterward, I cannot say I'm very optimistic for the people in the area.

And if "freeing opressed people" was the main goal of this operation, many African countries would be above Iraq on U.S. target list.

Just getting rid of Saddam and leaving the country as-is as long as the replacing party let the U.S. have their oil for cheap won't solve the terrorism problem, on the countrary. Iraq will be weak and it will probably lose portions of its territory to surrounding countries like Iran and Turkey. This will just piss off its population even more against the U.S., with the resulting effect on terrorism.

Bright move.

Like I wrote before, this isn't about protecting your people or those in Iraq. And don't think for a second that U.S. will provide a lot of help in order to build a solid state in Iraq, where people will live in freedom, secrity and prosperity. It won't. I'm sadistical waiting for my hour in a few months when I'll have the golden opportunity to sing the "I told you so" song.

 

[zx]

You can suppress borders, religion and race, but they all lead to one fundamental division : ideas. You can't get rid of differect ideas.

You can't, but you can create a world where it is impossible to create widespread death and destruction because of those differences. One problem is that many countries, especially younger Western ones, feel that their way is the only way, and that they need to impose this way on the indigenous peoples of other nations "for their own benefit". To me this is just the Crusades revisited in a different form. Any society that claims to be enlightened should adopt non-interference in other cultures as it's prime directive. You can help if asked, but not before.

Just look at the SR's B&G forums and you will see the bitter hatred beween people who do not have the same ideas....

You think that's bad? I've already seen ten times worse on other sites. All that's missing is the patriotic drum beating and mindless flag waving.

No I don't think it's that bad, and I’ve also seen worse. My point it to show how people can end up hating each other over ideas. It can get to the point that it's worse than a religion or nationality difference.

Religion and nationalities are not the reason people hate each other. However, when people hate each other, they use religion and nationality to approve of the hate and the violence.

Let's say you suppress religion. Do you think people will not find other reasons to develop a bitter hatred towards others? If it's not religion, they will find anything else. Usually, anything that groups people can be used to create what religion and nationality is doing. It can be what clothes you wear or what political party you support.

 

[Dozer]

Coug,

First, let me say that it takes a lot to get my feathers ruffled. I have fairly thick skin, so any criticism that you have of my opinions is minor in the scheme of my life.

Second, the point I was (am) trying to make is that despite the misgivings that some people in our country have for this war, at least support and have a little genuine respect for the men and women that are fighting in this battle.

Third, I am an educated, intelligent person and capable of forming my own opinions, just as you are. President Bush, CNN, the newspaper, forum members, and the like do not program me to believe what I believe. So grant me the right to my opinions, as I grant you yours.

Last, I never think people are fools. I have greater respect for other people than you will ever know. If I came off that way in my post, I apologize.

Thank you for presenting another side of the issue, and understand again that little of what is said in response to my posts is taken personally.

Regards,

Dozer

 

[CougTek]

My apologies...for the amount of spelling mistakes I did in my two previous posts here. I'm using a shitty keyboard and I guess I wasn't very awaken when I previewed the above this morning. I almost look like an illiterate now


Dozer,

You didn't come off in the way you expressed your view. My gripe was against the content, not the way it was put into text. Of course, you have the right to have your own opinion about it, even if I radically disagree with it.

Regarding the respect for army men... The main reason I never went into army, even though I have very high level of agressivity and martial skills, is because I never felt people sending soldiers to fight deserve my help, much less my life. I never felt politicians go to war for the good of their country, but rather for the good of their own interest in those of their close "friends" (lobyists). These people are slugs and I will never, ever, help them to achieve their deeds.

Therefore, I won't drop a tear or show support for soldiers, whatever is their nationality, as they fail to see who their efforts and sacrifices really help.

The only causes I would care to fight for probably won't ever generate a war. Environment protection is the first. And I wouldn't do it as a soldier, but as a free man.

 

[Howell]

I'm not offended Coug. I pity crackpots.

Though it's funny how you can conjure all of this knowledge about what the Pres motivations might be. As we say, "The proof is in the pudding."

PS. I don't even watch TV much less CNN. I make up my mind on a logical basis not based on drama.

 

[Mercutio]

Naw...

If you want to talk to crackpots, either listen to the idiots who are STILL babbling about Vincent Foster's death, or talk to the people who managed to get arrested at the protest I went to this morning.

 

[timwhit]

Naw...

If you want to talk to crackpots, either listen to the idiots who are STILL babbling about Vincent Foster's death, or talk to the people who managed to get arrested at the protest I went to this morning.

Merc, Where was the protest that you went to?

 

[jtr1962]

The only causes I would care to fight for probably won't ever generate a war. Environment protection is the first. And I wouldn't do it as a soldier, but as a free man.

Once it's general knowledge that the cancer caused by pollution kills millions each year I think you might very well generate a war with environmental causes. I can just imagine oil company executives swinging from lamp posts. :lol:

[joking]Coug, feel like blowing up a couple of pipelines and refineries together?[/joking]

Note to any FBI, CIA, KGB, SS, etc. operatives reading this-the above line is a joke. I have no intention or ability to do those things. The oil companies will go out of business, but it will be done peacefully, without loss of equipment or life.

* Thinks before hitting submit button-should I do this, or will I have men in black knocking at my door? WTF, nobody ever reads my posts anyway. *

 

[Mercutio]

Merc, Where was the protest that you went to?

It wasn't so much that I specifically went downtown to protest as I was downtown already and decided to spend a little time getting "held back by police" in front of the Daley Building (where the Picasso statue is). There were maybe a thousand people milling around shouting nasty things at each other... some ass with a bullhorn kept calling the antiwar crowd "members of the Elite Republican Guard".

Me, I was mortified by being called a republican.

OK, so seriously, on one level the experience was very childish. Basically, the peace crowd and the pro-war types yelled insults at each other - some of them had been screaming at each other since Thursday.

Lest you think there's some kind of justice in all this, the counterprotesters were downright vulgar - but the only people I saw being led away by police were on my side of the barricade.

There was chanting and there were some interesting signs. Most of the people I saw weren't very articulate in their opinion one way or another, a few more were clearly there as some kind of dating opportunity and a few more were like me, just kind-of present as a body in the crowd, just wanting to "do something".

The feeling I got, after chanting for awhile and occasionally talking to the people around me (their idea, not mine), was that I should've been standing in a crowd and yelling a lot sooner. Most of the people who were protesting, whom I spoke to, DO want Iraq free from Saddam. Most of the people I spoke to just don't like the way we've gone about it, which pretty much sums up my attitude as well.

In the end, I don't think anyone will really listen to what was said. It'll come down to a couple of paragraphs in the Chicago newspapers. A dozen more arrested blah blah blah. In that way, it's kind of maudlin that the paragraph in the Trib' will probably be the only impact all those voices end up having.

 

[CougTek]

WTF, nobody ever reads my posts anyway.

I do, but I rarely reply to them since they, for the most part, reflect my opinion as well. My post count is already inflated enough that I don't feel the need to just quote you and add "dito".

 

[its.fubar]

It has come to my attention That the Russians companies have been selling sophisticated military equipment to Iraq,such as jamming equipment which knocks out the GPS guidance system on American equipment.

now the question is this, how do you Americans feel about your former enemy Russia learning high finance from you in the American capitalistic democratic way, I believe the term is "make a profit " and it doesn't matter how you do it as long as you make a profit.

How many lives will this cost the American people.

by the way the Russians are still in Iraq teaching them how to use it.

 

[CougTek]

It has come to my attention That the Russians companies have been selling sophisticated military equipment to Iraq,such as jamming equipment which knocks out the GPS guidance system on American equipment.

[...]

by the way the Russians are still in Iraq teaching them how to use it.

Oh wow, here's CIA wonder boy coming to the rescue. What's your number, secret agent? 00...0?

 

[Handruin]

how do you Americans feel about your former enemy Russia learning high finance from you in the American capitalistic democratic way, I believe the term is "make a profit " and it doesn't matter how you do it as long as you make a profit.

I sat here for about an hour trying to figure out a way to express what it is I'm feeling. Now that I've decided it makes ABSOLUTLY NO DAMN DIFFERENCE expressing my thoughts, I'll leave you with my feelings.

You piss me off, that's how I feel.