I Must Agree With Gmat

[Alchemy]

Originally posted by zoson
1. The United States is the largest, most intelligent, most successful, and most powerful country in the entire world. Time and again we(the people of the US) have proven our worth and our concern for the world. I'd like to see ANYONE try to dispute the fact that the US gives back to the world more than any other nation. We head the red cross, we head the blue shield, we give billions in support to the world in the form of food, money, and supplies.

I'd venture that Canada and China are larger, Japan is more successful financially, and our military power is subject to some question since we haven't needed to match our entire military against a foe since WWII. How well does our better technology fare against China's numbers and training? Hard to say.

2. The world is subject to Darwin's law's of natural selection whether anyone likes it or not. Those most fit for survival do just that - they survive. If something/someone is threatening the survival of the strongest, they're going to get squished. It's just like when you kill a bug - it was not fit for survival, and thus did not survive.

As much as some Europeans would like to disagree, the USA is not a big dumb shoggoth of a country whose whims are justified simply because it is big and powerful. We are a collection of human beings and we need to defend our actions to the world. We can't look upon an entire group of people - the Iraquis - and simply tell them "you don't matter," and kill them all.

Myself, I think this war on Iraq is justified. I think Saddam Hussein has broken enough treaties to show he will continue to build up his military. I think he remains a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and Iran and Turkey and Israel. I think some of these governments are oppresive and should be replaced by ones that recognize human rights, but I don't think it is our place to invade them.

I think it is hypocritical of so many Europeans and liberal Americans to view this war as a means for the US to murder Iraquis when Saddam has been starving his people for ten years. I think it's hypocritical to view this starvation as an act of the USA, when it is the UN that made these sanctions. If the sanctions are killing Iraquis and not Saddam, then it is all of Europe who is at fault, not only the USA. I also think it's hypocritical to see so many Europeans accuse the USA of wanting to carpet bomb millions of Iraqui civilians when those same Europeans would want us to throw Israel to the mercy of its neighbors.

I don't like Bush. He is a diplomatically impotent leader. He is not clever. I think he pays too little attention to the UN. He is also something of a cowboy, though he would not seem so much if he did not follow Clinton's administration, whose passiveness helped lead to the series of terrorists attacks we've seen since the mid-90s.

I think the fact that the USA has a very minor problem with terrorism compared to our European friends does not mean that we should be content with it. The fact that the UK lives on even through the IRA bombing does not mean the USA must do the same.

I think concerns of the US installing a puppet government in Iraq are well-founded, and I hope that we leave the UN to the politics when Saddam is removed. I also realize this does not matter, for it is very common for everyone to confuse the sanctioned military actions of the UN with the soverign acts of the USA.

I respect the opinions of those for and against our actions. I don't particularly like the name-calling coming from either side. I hope people on both sides ignore the pro-war side's flag-and-penis-waving hysteria and anti-France garbage as well as the anti-war side's claims of baby-killing and cowboy Americanism.

Alchemy

[TerraMex]

You've missed out the most important point, and wich alot of the debate is focused upon. It's the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world. With Kuwait and Iraq it stands for 20% of the world's total oil exports. It's an important slice alot of countrys fear that it can be "held hostage" to the whims of the Bush Administration.

This to say that a good part of europeans see the war in this format.

Of course, the use of the "regime change" without looking at consequences (there are inumerous), civilian losses, bypassing the UN, etc , add up to the cake.

The Sanctions were presses by the UN, with the US agreement, and some specially forced by the US and the Uk. So that argument is out the window. And some were presented to the UN to be lifted and were promptly dismissed by the US, Uk and several other (and european) countrys, wich were benificiaries of the Oil for Food endeavour , and other financial beneficts from it. Its a money thing.

Israel is an illegal state by any standards. The palestinians were there first, and with (mainly) the aid of the USA and UK (specially UK, since they controlled the region for some time) they were trampled by the israelit military to date. If you check the news, so much for the humans rights there too. They (israel) enjoy a protection given mainly by the USA in the securty council . Knowing that, most countrys dont really like Israel. Including iraq, jordan, iran, turkey, saudi arabia , etc (those neighbours). They find it insulting that one of their neighbours was/is under occupation. Doesnt matter if they like the palestinians or not, its a matter of respecting their soberany (i think is well written), so thats one of the corner stones of the middle east conflict.

Its not pratical to "get then into a rocket and shoot them into the sun". They're not moving, and neither are the palestinians. The real agenda will have to be a peace agreeded by both sides, and kept by the UN. It can be done.

I agree that the US shouldnt stay put when it comes to certain attacks (I refrain myself for saying terrorism) . But those actions start in knowing why, and doing something to change the "why" and not picking up a target (on a raffle) and droping "the bomb" on them.

Interesting enough, there's zero evidence of Iraq sponsoring "terrorists". It wasnt even proven that the 9/11 was from the Talibans. There was one or two talibans in the attacks. Most were from Saudi Arabia for that matter, and some from Kuwait and Iran and a few other countrys . But you can go after Saudi Arabia because... they're one of the US's biggest oil supplier. And not a flimsy country with a beaten army. Things get alot complicated when you reach world's politics.

I all forward in getting Saddam out of there but not by invading Iraq. Diplomatic pressure, combined by a willing people to revolt is the best way to go. IMO. Then the rest would be under the supervision of the UN.

Just my 0.02 cents.

[airspirit]

Don't go after Israel on human rights records, or you show ignorance. They are fighting an enemy with no regulars: the palestinians are using guerilla forces to fight the Israelis, and doing so in populated areas usually in the attempt to get as many palestinian civilian casualties as possible in an effort to gain sympathy for their cause. Further, they regularly target civilian targets, unlike the Israelis who are attempting to destroy terrorist cells which hide in civilian areas. Unfortunately, the method that the palestinians "wage war" ensures civilian casualties, especially when civilians are chucking rocks and other things at the Israeli soldiers sent in to root out these cells. It is difficult to imagine being one of those soldiers trying to tell who is a combatant and who is not, when you have 10 year olds throwing rocks at you and 20 year olds shooting AK47s and RPGs at you from directly behind them.

It is a show of restraint from the Israeli forces that there aren't more civilian casualties. Imagine yourself in the shoes of one of those soldiers and try to guess what you would do, knowing that even those 10 year olds would try to kill you if they had the chance, but that you have to do everything in your power to avoid hurting them. It is very difficult to do.

I don't blame Israel from trying to protect itself, and I don't blame the Palestinians from wanting a state of their own. The mindless killing that is most often spurred by palestinian terrorist activity in order to further their cause. Both sides need to come to the table and make a deal. Until the Palestinians stop their violence, though, I can't blame the Israelis for defending themselves, because however legit you consider their nationhood, they ARE a nation in all rights at this point and the palestinians do not have one. The Israelis do not HAVE to submit, and their willingness to compromise is a sign that they are going above and beyond what is required of them.

Don't blame the Israelis for that violence down there. Blame the terrorists that are doing their best to enflame it. This will require you to look past the propaganda you see on the news and actually think about the situation, but I'm sure that if you're able to type somewhat coherently on this forum that you can do a decent job thinking it through.

If I was running that show, I'd kick every one of their asses out of Israel and set my military on the border to keep them out. That would solve the problem right there and then. The fact that they aren't doing this should demonstrate honorable intentions.

[airspirit]

Oh, and there is information proving that Iraqis sponsor terrorism: the Iraqi government pays palestinians to be suicide bombers with the funds going to the families once it is done. The Iraqi regime does this openly and unapologetically. Blowing up civilian targets with the intent of killing as many civilians as possible and inflicting terror upon a population IS terrorism, whatever your take on the Israeli situation is. It is NOT RIGHT.

[cybrsamurai]

Oh, and there is information proving that Iraqis sponsor terrorism: the Iraqi government pays palestinians to be suicide bombers with the funds going to the families once it is done. The Iraqi regime does this openly and unapologetically. Blowing up civilian targets with the intent of killing as many civilians as possible and inflicting terror upon a population IS terrorism, whatever your take on the Israeli situation is. It is NOT RIGHT.

Quite a few CIA agents are now saying that the documents proving the connection by our government and british government are forged and untrue. I don't know if the governments are lying or the CIA guys are lying but some one isnt telling the truth.

[phreenet]

"When I watch the anti-war protesters around the world on television, I am angry that they never denounce Saddam's crimes. Do they have more compassion for a tyrant than for his innocent victims? Why don't their rallies have posters of the thousands of children he killed in three days with mustard gas at Halabja? These protestors claim to stand for peace, but there can never be peace unless people stand up against tyrants like Saddam. "
-Kanar Sarraj of Women for a Free Iraq

No comment needed.

[phreenet]

I think you guys are missing a key part in this as well.

Like I stated before

This is the face of the UN

The UN = teh useless. We all know they are incapable of solving problems in a timily fashion. I mean how long does it take to get a Light Bulb changed in the UN? Well we don't know because France is still threatening a veto and the US is ready to lanuch missles. So.....

[cybrsamurai]

"When I watch the anti-war protesters around the world on television, I am angry that they never denounce Saddam's crimes. Do they have more compassion for a tyrant than for his innocent victims? Why don't their rallies have posters of the thousands of children he killed in three days with mustard gas at Halabja? These protestors claim to stand for peace, but there can never be peace unless people stand up against tyrants like Saddam. "

I think you miss understand peace protesters. There are more peacefull means of bringing regime change. Raw force is not the only thing that shapes this world.

[phreenet]

We gave Saddam several times to flee from Iraq and save lives. He said no. Doesn't get any clearer than that.

[Alchemy]

Originally posted by cybrsamurai
I think you miss understand peace protesters. There are more peacefull means of bringing regime change. Raw force is not the only thing that shapes this world.

I find it very unlikely - laughable, in fact - that Saddam Hussein would allow himself to be peacefully removed from power. Are you completely unaware of what he has done and is doing to his own people?

If you want Saddam Hussein and his elite government removed from power, it will happen one of three ways:

1) He will die naturally and his regime with fall apart due to infighting, in which many civilians are killed.

2) One or more underground revolutionary groups will overtake his government in an incredibly bloody overthrow, in which many civilians are killed.

3) A foreign nation that intends to deal as few civilian casualties as possible will eliminate Saddam Hussein's army and government and replace it with a democratic government that will be controlled by the people.

So I disagree. This, I think, is the most peaceful route.

Alchemy

[deeppow]

I find this whole line of thought useless. While I believe France is wrong in this issue, it maybe the opposite the next time.

Anyway, France has been a leading fighter of terrorism (the world's fight).

Look folks, disagreement IS allowed. Discussion is required. We have to walk away from the discussion as friends and allies.

[TerraMex]

>Don't go after Israel on human rights records, or you
>show ignorance

But i do, it is plain to see . Israel has an army, the palestinians dont. If they did, rest assure you'd know about it.

And I assume you think they're terrorists? How do think an occupied people, who's randomly arrested, and shot and bombed should do? Sit on their asses? No, they do what they can, and thats guerrilla warfare. Oh please, lets take that guerrilla warfare into the middle of the desert, just to be nice. Not going to happen. Its done where both live, and die for that matter. Of course the Israelits then try to capture any palestinian combatent, no wonder.

Discussion of methods of operation only is relevant when you understand what's at stake. And never by the standard "right and wrong", they dont apply.

The Israelits want to stop the attacks, by attacking. In the mean time , they want to expand their borders.

The Palestinians dont want to give them any more terrain, and keep getting shot for it. And retaliate in suicidal attacks.

Redo from start.

> It is very difficult to do.

Might be, but many israelits feel the palestinians should be all thrown out (or killed). And so does the palestinians. A whole generation grew with this hate wich wont dissipate for quite a while.

>I don't blame Israel from trying to protect itself, and I
>don't blame the Palestinians from wanting a state of
>their own.

Exactly. Thank you.

>The mindless killing that is most often
>spurred by palestinian terrorist activity in order to
>further their cause.

You forget, the palestinians cant go directly agains the israely miliary. They do what they can. And alot is that "mindless killing". Its not mindless, its planned to get a desired effect. Sometimes to media, sometimes internally.

>Don't blame the Israelis for that violence down there.

But i do, alot really. They invaded the Palestine, they forced , killed and took over the palestinians homes. No wonder the palestinians hate them so much. They are the "invaders", and true enough to an good extent.

>If I was running that show, I'd kick every one of their
>asses out of Israel and set my military on the border to
>keep them out

The borders keep growing in favour of Israel. Alot what stopped thanks to the media, the "terrorist" attacks, and a big effort by the UN. If it was 80 years ago, you bet they would have killed every palestinian they could find. Nowadays its "uncivilized" to whipe out a people.

>Blowing up civilian targets with the intent of killing as
>many civilians as possible and inflicting terror upon a
>population IS terrorism, whatever your take on the
>Israeli situation is.

Thank you again. The Israelits did/do that so many times.

> information proving that Iraqis sponsor terrorism:

Even Tony Blair address the people and apologized for the mixup with those fake papers publicly.

[cybrsamurai]

As Stated by Alchemy:

So I disagree. This, I think, is the most peaceful route.

And this is where you differ from a peace protester...

[Blackeagle]

I'd like to add one point here.

It's very clear to anyone watching the news that the US armed forces are showing great restraint in strikes aginst Iraq so far, compared to what could be done.

This is at a very real risk to our armed forces personel. I hope the Iraqi armed forces dump Saddam now while the butchers bill is still low.

[TerraMex]

One of the real risks i see is having part of the operation reported in realtime on CNN. It's like waving a big bulleye in front of them. An from the same CNN, they have met no big resistance... supporting the fact that the Iraqian army is smaller than they thought, and poorly equipped. Wich is no big news. It will just make things faster and less prone to skirmishes between them.

[jaydee]

Originally posted by cybrsamurai
As Stated by Alchemy:

And this is where you differ from a peace protester...

See those peace protestors RIOTING in San Francisco and NY today? "Yeah there is a peacfull solution, lets go tear up San Francisco and disrupt traffic on NY bridges to prove it".

Saddam gives a rats ass about peace. If anyone here thinks he does take the blind fold off. He is hell bent on taking over the countries around him and killing his own people to do it. Not to mention killing his own people and their families that oppose him.

He has been laughing his ass off at the world for giving him 12 years to think about how he is going to get revenge. If he was interested in peace he would have gave up his weapons that are banned. But no, biased inspectors have to drag it out for 12 years and can't find the broad side of a barn and HIDE some of their findings in their the reports like the pilotless drons that are designed to drop bio agents, which are banned by the UN BTW.

So we should just let murderous dictactors who support terrorism, commit acts of mass murder against his own citizens, violate UN resolutions, attack neighboring countries without cause, harass the world, enslave his people, oppress his people, MURDER his people...stay in power?

I just cannot understand why anyone would be opposed of this war. When you anti Iraq war supporters read stuff like this:

FOR MORE THAN 25 years he has sought to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and has, in several documented cases, succeeded. He gassed 60,000 of his own people in 1986 in Halabja. He has launched two catastrophic wars, sacrificing nearly a million Iraqis and killing or wounding more than a million Iranians. He has flouted 16 United Nations resolutions over 12 years that have warned him to disarm or else, including one, four months ago, giving him a “final opportunity” to do so “fully and immediately” or face “serious consequences.”

Source: http://www.msnbc.com/news/885222.asp?0cv=KA01

Even if he isn't an imminate threat to the USA he is certainly an imminate threat to the people of the country he is running. The people of Iraq are threatened to follow him or they and their families will be executed. Examples of that above in the quote.

Would you rather innocent people die in a war that will liberate them (for a cause)

or

rather they die for Saddams world domination personal goals (for nothing)?

Just do not get it....

Enough of the ANTI whinning BS. The war is on, support the troops, bitch later!

[Alchemy]

Originally posted by jaydee116
See those peace protestors RIOTING in San Francisco and NY today? "Yeah there is a peacfull solution, lets go tear up San Francisco and disrupt traffic on NY bridges to prove it".

The fact that idiots flock to a particular opinion does not make that opinion wrong, nor does it make the intelligent folk holding that opinion less intelligent.

Enough of the ANTI whinning BS. The war is on, support the troops, bitch later!

The fact the war has begun does not make arguments against it invalid. I hope everyone here fully supports our troops in the sense they hope for their safety and do not attempt acts of civil disobedience or otherwise that puts our troops in direct harm (it seems here that most people hope that this action, now begun, will be completed quickly with minimal Iraqui and American casualties, which is a hope I hold as well). I do not expect nor want people to support this war only because it has begun.

To paraphrase, it is "My country, right or wrong. When wrong, to be put right, when right, to be kept that way." Not "When wrong, to be right anyway because we are the USA."

Those who support actions of the USA because it is the USA are as foolish as those who detract against the USA because it is the USA.

Let's have patriotism, not fanaticism.

Alchemy

[jaydee]

Originally posted by Alchemy
[b]The fact that idiots flock to a particular opinion does not make that opinion wrong, nor does it make the intelligent folk holding that opinion less intelligent.

Give it up. "lets promote peace by causing conflict". Whatever, hypocricy is bliss eh?.

The fact the war has begun does not make arguments against it invalid.

Nor arguments for it invalid, whichare far and away topple argument against it. I see you nicely side stepped my questions above with BS. Answer those questions and then lets hear some more ANTI war BS!

Oil someone says? BS!!!

"If it's only for oil, answer this one question. Why did we not get involved in Venezuela when they had all their political problems just a few months ago? They are our 4th largst oil supplier behind Saudi, Mexico and Canada. They currently produce just under 3 million barrels per day and expect that to more than double in the next few years to 7 million. A lot of oil experts believe that Venezuela's oil reserves that have yet to be tapped contain more oil than almost ANY middle eastern country and more than the majority combined? We are not going into Iraq for the oil, there are too many other countries that use it's oil than the US and I think it would destroy any remnents of respect we have in the middle east.

According to a 2001 oil production report by the IEA, Venezuela produces 2.9 million barrels per day, 59% coming from 10 'giant' category oil fields that are expected to last over 25+ years. Iraq produces 2.5 million, 96% of that from only 5 giant fields, meaning they are tapping their reserves quickly. Also, The only countries outproducing Venezuela in the middle east are Saudi and Iran, with 8.0 million and 3.6 million respectively. The rest of the middle east OPEC members account for a total of 4.5 million barrels per day, 90% being UAE and Kuwait, both whom have very lucrative contracts with the US already. The US itself produces 11.4 million barrels a day, which is more than 3.5 million barrels more than Saudi, the number 2 oil producer. So with Us having 11.4 million from North American production, and deals with Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, ASIA and Latin America and the Former Soviet States which all combined equate to over 30 millon barrels a day we have access to, why would we care for 2.5 million that Iraq would supply us? That's a drop in the bucket! With Venezuals expected to shortly be the third largest oil producer behind the US and Saudi, why did we not help ensure a more US friendly non-government run oil company would result from the stirke and political turnoil there if US' sole agenda is oil?"

[Alchemy]

Originally posted by jaydee116
I see you nicely side stepped my questions above with BS. Answer those questions and then lets hear some more ANTI war BS!

I frequent a few message boards, and yet this is the only one where I'm quite regularly accused of spreading or consisting of bullshit. It gets tiring.

Alchemy

[TerraMex]

Dont mind that Alchemy, i like to read your posts, even if i dont agree with them .

>The fact that idiots flock to a particular opinion does not
>make that opinion wrong, nor does it make the
>intelligent folk holding that opinion less intelligent.

Totally agree. However destroying "stuff" with something like a riot is hardly the best way. Its like breaking an egg with a mallet.

>it seems here that most people hope that this action,
>now begun, will be completed quickly with minimal
>Iraqui and American casualties, which is a hope I hold
>as well

I have confidence that it will. The Iraqian army is nowhere near what it was 12 years ago, and well, we know how that ended up.


Oil thingy:

Personally i'm convinced it's a win win situation. Look good with the military and get the "mean dictator" out, "free" the people, and get a nice access to a very large oil reserve. Having already kuwait in the pocked just hadded the cherry on top. Both of them together make up for 20% of the world's reserve. Wich is not too shabby.

Venezuela has two problems. One, they followed the IMF (international monetary fund, i think it's like this) who , well... suck. Their main agenda is control over companies and resources, but they say "its helping others, they come to us, not we to them". See how venezuela is, or even several african countrys, or even ethiopia is doing. They followed the IMF and they're at the worse they could get. Specially Ethiopia.

This resulted in the IMF telling them , instead of balancing the costs and income, in cutting the deficit, that is, cutting the expenses, and in the end, selling almost all the public companies, and making some large loans, from very eager international banks. Those public companies are sold to... rich international companies... who's CEO's , along with the international bank owners make up the IMF board. Interesting isnt it? Unfortunatly true. It's like a legalized mafia. Unfortunatly most of the countrys that go to the IMF dont have much of a choise, or get money fast, or the govermnet crumbles for the lack of resources.

Most of third world countrys "ask" the IMF for advice due to "ease" those countrys doing what the IMF tells them have in getting large bank loans, essencial to the development of the countrys. But there's always a catch.

Problem two, they have alot of oil. So, because they need to get out of this financial crisis, they are willing to part from with pennys. You dont have to "go military" when you got them with their pants down. They're controlable like this. Besides, they love the US and the US's money . They'd probably be interested in american (and other) companies investing in the country. And reaching a compromize.

Besides, they have nothing to go on venezuela. North Korea has WMD, Iraq has saddam, Iran always supported attacks againts several countrys... etc. Well, if you think of it, you can say they're a bunch of drug lords. Damn, wait, thats Colombia...

Last but not least, the US are not interested in spending their reserve. It's like money in the bank that they are not willing to part. Keeping a steady level of oil favours the economy and it can be used for a future event. I can understand that.

[airspirit]

Terra:

The Israelis are trying to take out paramilitary targets in their raids. The palestinians normally target civilians, even though they have ample military targets to hit. There is a big difference there. I fail to see how a reasonable person can't see that.

As far as "the Israelis are the agressors" goes: do you honestly think there would be fewer terrorist attacks from the palestinians if the Israelis just left them alone? We both know that they'd just be emboldened and increase the frequency of attacks. This has been proven before. Whenever the Israelis move back, the palestinians increase the frequency of their terrorist attacks.

That situation is about public opinion: the palestinians are trying to sway world opiinion to their cause by showing the "devastation" inflicted on them by the Israelis through out-of-context photos and horror stories, failing to mention the reason why those situations come about in the first place, like sick bastards lighting off bombs in schools. Should schoolchildren be targetted in military action EVER? Can you conceivably believe that's right for ANY reason? You don't see Israel doing it EVER even by ACCIDENT, though young children have been injured and killed during valid military raids to try to supress atrocities against their people. It also doesn't hurt that many of those injured kids were probably armed to the teeth and trying to kill some Jews before supper.

While harming children sucks by any side, it is more valid to shoot a kid with a gun than to shoot a kid with a pencil and paper, don't you think? Or is your burning antisemetism getting the better of you?

It is no excuse to say that the actions of the palestinians are justified because they don't have a regular army. Regardless, it is a crime to target civilian populations, especially considering the multitude of military targets that they could more easily target.

[jaydee]

Originally posted by Alchemy
I frequent a few message boards, and yet this is the only one where I'm quite regularly accused of spreading or consisting of bullshit. It gets tiring.

Alchemy

So?:shrug: Don't like it blunt and to the point? Go somewhere else that suger coats it eh? Not going to answer the questions?

TerraMex: I can't tell if you are arguning my oil point or agreeing? All the points you brought up can be argued either way.

Anyway there will be alot of disapointed whiners when the US does not take over the oil feilds and use them for ourselfs. Only people that think that have no clue what America is about. Not only would it be a political disaster but a public one. The people of the US would not stand for it. That is where our VOTING system comes in. Something Iraqi people do not have the right of. It is Saddams way or you and your family is dead.

Anyways I made my points, non of which I will have time to debate for a few days.

Have a good weekend guys.

[TerraMex]

>The Israelis are trying to take out paramilitary targets
>in their raids. The palestinians normally target civilians,
>even though they have ample military targets to hit.
>There is a big difference there. I fail to see how a
>reasonable person can't see that.

You're failing to see a particular point. Most of what you consider a civilian area, isnt for them. It's a constant warzone, take the Gaza strip. There a inumerous inhabitants, but there are also a considerable amout of israelit military posts and skirmishes between both sides. So the difference is very blur. It boils down on how the news is treated.

And they do hit israelit military targets ... who then drop a few bombs on palestinian areas by helicopter, or drive the tanks through to the palestinian side... and redo from start. Its a no win situation for both sides.

>As far as "the Israelis are the agressors" goes: do you
>honestly think there would be fewer terrorist attacks
>from the palestinians if the Israelis just left them
>alone?

It's hard to tell.

You'll have to see the general picture. Part just wants to be left alone to keep living their lives without interference, a large part , but another part just will see the redrawal of israelit forces as an sign of weakness , and push more attacks. Others just want the isrealits out of their houses, another part want them all dead. So its a mix of feelings that keep this a explosive situation. Its not easy to predict a certain event.

>We both know that they'd just be emboldened and
>increase the frequency of attacks. This has been
>proven before. Whenever the Israelis move back, the
>palestinians increase the frequency of their terrorist
>attacks.

That's unsubstanciated (and the rest is above) But i'm going as far as to say "its wrong". I cant really tell that far, and i'm safe to assume that its not that linear.

>That situation is about public opinion: (...)

The public opinion is based alot in what they see on tv. They didnt see concentration camps for the captured palestinians , neither the mass executions by the military.

> Or is your burning antisemetism getting the better of
> you?

Nothing to do with that. It's a plain analysis of the events. You're seeing it as antisemitism.

If the palestinians invaded israel, i'd have the same rant about them.

>It is no excuse to say that the actions of the
>palestinians are justified because they don't have a
>regular army.

It's not what i said . It will happen as long they are an occupied people. They fight as they can. Its not about right or wrong (like i've said before). As long as they feel as an occupied people, opressed and hunted, they will strike back. Changing that has to pass in resolving the conflict between them, in order to the palestinians feel safer. And the israelits for that matter.

You keep forgeting an important point, they have a different culture from ours. This determines the methods of operations . You say its terrorism, they say its freedom fighters, and for them that's exactly what it is. Their cultural and religious beliefs have a major role in determining what is done , and how.

The Bottom line is , they'll keep at each others throats until the Old City problem is solved, the Israelits start following the UN's resolutions (wich they havent), and the palestininians form a stable goverment.

The first one is the real "pain", because neither wants to part with the old city due to the religious grounds. Personally i'd put it under the blue helmets, and keep it an international place, with neither have control over it.

>Regardless, it is a crime to target civilian populations,
>especially considering the multitude of military targets
>that they could more easily target.

Also true, and goes also for the Israelits.

Jaydee116 :

It disagrees with you in the point that you say the Iraqian oil is not that critical. It is, alot.

This can have several outcomes. The US takes over the oil, and uses to its own agenda. And that will have serious repercussions on the economy depending on whats done.

The US turns over the oil fields to the new Iraqian govermnent, but "convinces them" to give the exploration to american companies. Wich is not as bad, but since those power and technology scandals, im not very confident.

The US turns over the oil fields to an international , UN agreeded, taskforce , composed also by the US, and keeps things stable, and the oil flowing, with the current agreements with the companies that are exploring them. Probably boosts up confidence, and keeps the economy stable.

PS: I've just heard that the US military have taken over a large area of oil rigs. Wich is not a surprize, having fully operational oil rigs is on the agenda. And keeps the economy from sinking. Another oil crisis wont help anybody.

[bigben2k]

Originally posted by TerraMex
[BPS: I've just heard that the US military have taken over a large area of oil rigs. Wich is not a surprize, having fully operational oil rigs is on the agenda. And keeps the economy from sinking. Another oil crisis wont help anybody. [/b]

Just to make sure that this isn't taken out of context, the term is "secured", not "taken over". The latter proposes that the US has taken posession of an oilwell, where it has simply been secured for future use of the privisionary Iraqi government.

Your point still stands though; there is an extremely high value to reduce the fluctuations in the price of oil. Conquering Iraq would certainly have this effect.

[TerraMex]

I stand corrected. Secured it a more valid statement.

A friend of mine just emailed me this...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...543296,00.html

I havent written them , so dont come after me .