When is the last time a Jet Liner was crashed into a building in Europe or a federal building blown up compleatly, or the threat of an attack so great. It is a known fact that Germany and France are host countries, not willingly (I hope), for terrorist on their way into the USA, England, or Canada. And terrorist will leave France and Germany alone until they feel they are no longer needed. Then it will be free game on them as well.

Oh, and I think he may be talking about the eco-terrorism crap (burning of Ag Sci/Vet Med buildings, blocking development, etc), worldwide targetting of US citizens since time began (you are a favored hostage/target because of your "rich nation"), US embassies and military fixtures worldwide (USS Cole, african embassies, Lebanon assassination, etc), and internal civil disobedience which would be crushed brutally in many of the "civilized" European nations.

If someone tries to block the road I'm on, though, I'll just run their protesting ass down. I don't need someone slowing down MY 6PM beer run!

Exactly, because some of these war protestors could care less about the people in Iraq. All they care about is their far left views. Democrats are often seen as pompus asses. They refuse to help repuplicans at all cost, even if in the long run it helps the country out. And the liberal media, CNN, ABC, NBC and several large newspaper organizations show these protesstors over and over and over again making it seem like there are millions of them in every large city. Take away the cameras and the protestors will go home. Thats all they care about, air time.

Ok, so there's 9/11, but Oklahoma was a local incident. The USS cole incident wasn't local to the US.

The question still stands: How do Americans live with the same amount of terrorism everyday if not MORE than those European countries, aside from Isreal?

the future will hold the answers.

for now, noone can argue that:

iraq should be better off without saddam, IF the world can rebuild iraq after the war. it should be everyones wish that all goes well from here.

all economics and other issues set asside.

so being a supporter of the US stance, i sincerely hope i can show all the protesters a rebuilt and better Iraq in a couple of years. and i hope even EU can play a role in the rebuilding of iraq (seeing that humanitarian missions are all they can handle).

again, don't demonize eachother. just try to make the best out of the situation.

phreenet: okay so we're a nest of terrorists, all ready to jump on planes to crash on US buildings.
Really the USA should bomb out Europe.
Be serious. And your claim that the USA has seen more terrorism than all EU has no foundation.. Please give figures.
Already Moscow bombings did about 6000 victims in the '90s. Add to that victims from all terrorists groups in EU..

"war protestors could care less about the people in Iraq. All they care about is their far left views." + "They refuse to help repuplicans at all cost, even if in the long run it helps the country out."
This is what our neo facist party leader Le Pen usually says of his political opponents.
Can you give a serious argument backing up your claims ? Or can you just read into people minds ?
And do you really think that Putin (a strong opponent to war) is a left-wing activist ? Or Chirac for instance ?

(edit) ah and whats wrong with being left-wing. How's that, that everyone who has a divergent political opinion from yours, must have an anti-american secret agenda ?

I would also like to add, that I am not just some hater of world peoples. I would love to take a trip to France, Asia, and/or the Middle East. Even the pictures that come from Iraq show a beautiful place with beautiful people there. All the more reason to set them free. Remember Stalin, err, I mean Hitler, err, I mean SADDAM, is the murder, Saddam is the one killing his own people and tring to kill the people around him. The US didn't wake up one morning and go, lets blow up Iraq. We have reasons and if not for the fact that Saddam continues to threaten peace than for the simple fact that Saddam has done unimaginable things in the past and he still needs to pay for those before we even consider making him pay for what he is doing today.

A good point, g.l.amour.

I would also add that regardless of our different positions, even some war protesters would not hesitate to go to Iraq, if called; I certainly wouldn't.

Maybe we could focus on why the UN has allowed so much time to pass? Were they duped by Saddam, or were they absolutely unwilling to engage them? How could this have been handled better/quicker?

By giving more power to the UN...
(that's the short version)
(i'm tired and want to take a break from this crap. we see enough hate and violence in the news. i'm off on a MMOG)

More power? They are a bunch of scabbling nations, the US included, they can't agree on anything, and they take WAY to long to make up their minds. Show me they can operate effeicently at solving world problems, then ask for more power.

This is the UN :cry:

This is the US :mad:

This is me :cool:

If you weren't in the US, I would have pictured you with a gas mask!

STING :D

OBTW: I lub you all, even you gmat... So don't take it to hard

I didn't read all of the responses to this post. Most of it is just petty bickering with no real value.
The issues at hand are:
1. Is the US wrong for attacking Iraq?
2. Has Saddam sufficiently voilated treaties and agreements to warrant the use of force?

We can see that question 1 will be answered by the finding's of question 2.

Now lets look at the world of politics where word of mouth means nothing, the power of the pen means everything, and those who are good at manipulation and have the best intelligence win everything.
The FACTS:
1. Saddam Hussein agreed to and SIGNED a treaty stating that he would cooperate and disarm. He has FAILED to do so. This is PROVEN by the fact that he has used WMD against the United States in theses early attacks (SCUD as noted by phreenet).

Quite honestly, I can stop right here - and I'm going to. Saddam broke a united nations treaty that had to do with WMD. The consequences of these actions are now falling on Iraq. The US gave Saddam every opportunity to come clean and disarm. Had Saddam faithfully followed through none of this would have happened at all.

Lets look at the real world now.
the FACTS:
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.
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.

Those are the bare facts. Saddam broke his written word, Saddam causes his whole country and the middle eastern region a whole lot of pain. Saddam gets spanked. He is a bad man that needs to be straightened out.

In no way am I saying that I support war, or George Bush (I hate the man) but the simple fact is that George Bush is not breaking international laws and Saddam is, and that provides every justification needed.
.02
-Zoson
EDIT: I pity the fool that does not recognize that the US is looking out for world benefit.

You missed a part:

As for the 2 questions, I would prefer to address them seperately.

#1: Is the US wrong? No, no one has advanced that it was "wrong", in the extreme sense of the words, but many feel that it was premature.

#2: Is Saddam in violation? Probably! But to judge the answer without considering the reasons, is exactly what lead us to where we are today, no? Why is Saddam holding on to WMD, if in fact he is?

A clip from www.un.org :
"THE UNITED NATIONS is a unique international organization of 191 sovereign States, representing virtually every country in the world.* It was founded after the Second World War to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations and promote social progress, better living standards and human rights. "

found here

The reason I bring this up, is because the UN has a mandate limited to the PROMOTION of "social progress, better living standards and human rights", which clearly (to me?) excludes any action that would topple a government.

As such, I maintain that by its very nature, the UN cannot sanction an action that would topple Saddam. In that view, it is perfectly understandable that a top member of its security council would state publicly that a proposal to such an action would be vetoed.

So to which extent would the UN apply, and/or authorize the use of a military force, I ask you?:shrug:

bb2k, saddam is insane, and would like to take over the world. his reasoning is impossible to understand, as is the hate felt towards the US from that region of the world.

It is painfully clear that Saddam has not complied to all the treaties he signed at the end of the Gulf War. He has been lying to us and stringing us on, it is time for the charade to end, Saddam is a threat to the WORLD, not just the US.

Unfortunaly for peace, we must first wage war, because we are human and not perfect. There is no possibility for compromise with a man like Saddam.

-Aeknor (zoson's new watercooler apprentice, lol)

I agree with Zoson on the last post. I think a lot of the problem comes from people tring to reason with insanity and tring to figure out what is going on in Saddam's head. And by problems I mean the difference between supporters and protesters. I feel that the protestors, using their own God given right, are tring to understand Saddam and try to reason with his logic in hopes of avoid military action and to end this peacfully. Whereas, supporters of the war, like myself, realise that Saddam can not be understood and that he can not change. Therefore, we must remove him from power. And if the rest of the World wants to turn a blind eye to this, then by saying "we" I mean the United States of America. We have a right to defend ourselves, and no country in the world has a right to question that. If it is mutally agreed that Saddam is a threat to the world, then why is there so much bickering about removing him? He has already stated that he would not leave power without force. Well end of the story, he chose his destiny to go down in flames, instead of dying on an Island Paradise in peace and exile.

Much of the bickering, as you put it, comes from the fact that a member of the UN security coucil, who happens to have a veto right, also happens to be French, and is imposing the "beatnick" approach, as is his right.

Otherwise, I'm glad to see you (Phreenet) unsderstand clearly both sides, but I'm sorry that you've chosen the side of war.

Zoson (or Aeknor?), I think no one will argue that Saddam has malevolent intentions, but the extension of it can be argued to no end. He attempted to invade Kuwait, 12 years ago, but other than that, and mistreating his own people, what has he done?

As for being a threat, certainly he is, but to what extent, is what we don't really know. So he fired a short range missile (this morning): he's still allowed to have those, as long as the range doesn't exceed 90 miles (see UN security council resolution 1441).


A funny bit: my stepdaughter is afraid that the NASA center here in Houston will be attacked with a nuclear warhead...:shrug: I wonder where she picked that up at?

Actually, it isn't terribly difficult to understand Saddam's position. If Saudi Arabia has long range missiles, Israel has them, Turkey has them, and (especially) Iran has them, why on earth should he get rid of them too? Is it because he used them 12 years ago? And to make it worse, he's being asked to get rid of everything, or else face war, where the same weapons he's been banned from using, will be used against him. Where's the logic in that? ?He's got to be wondering, who the heck the US is, to tell him what to do!

Of course there's the alledged link to Al-Quaeda. That alone, if demonstrated, would justify the american action, as they have warned the world that supporting terrorism will not be tolerated, and the UN is in agreement on this point (within their power).

BTW, if you're still looking for Osama, look in Iran (if they'll let you).

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.

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

Just a few remarks to Alchemy.
 

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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

Like I stated before

This is the face of the UN :cry:

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.....

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.

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

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