I think the only danger to the world peace process is the US, in this particular subject. Fortunatly, im not alone, and that includes several governments.
Where does the US government gets off saying what other countrys should or should not do ? Saddam is a ass that needs to get his butt kicked, but not this way, and definitly not with those "made up" arguments.
Hey, lets declare war on Norway for having such high quotas of codfish. I think its criminal to the portuguese industry...
>What is sad is that Iraq doesn't have to invade >anyone. All he has to do is continue paying people to
>kill children.
Doesnt... Russia, the US, and a dozen countries do the same? How about several countries in Africa, Asia ... who do more and worse? Dont they count? Or do they situation favour the US ? Hmmm.
The US was the only country in history to use nuclear weapons... They used the army to test ground zero effects, radiation, etc (so did france thou). And used 2 bombs on Japan 3 days after Japan sent a surrender letter to Truman. They didnt care. He (truman) wanted to test the bombs and that was the perfect excuse. Same goes for biological weapons testing, they admitted openly just a few month ago that those tests existed, were done on civilians (and pregant women).
>What is the current amount he pays to the families of
>palestinian terrorists who blow themselves and Israeli
>civilians to kingdom come?
History lesson. 50 years ago there was no Isreali state. There was the Palestine controled by a reluctant british provisional government that didnt really like the palestinians...
A devastated europe had milions of jewish refuggies , scared (with good reason) , and with a need of protection from a menace that no longer existed. So France, US and GBritain (mainly) used that fear and cultivated a need for a place, a country where they could live. And used Palestine as the perfect target due the religious grounds. Sponsored by those 3 countrys mainly , borned Israel. The palestinians didnt have a real army, no real government, no real police. The Israelits were armed , sponsored, trained.
How can a people fight an enemy far superior, with no army, no infrastructures, no support?. Simple, guerrila warfare. Thats what it is, not terrorism. How would you feel if some country invaded yours in such a way ? What would you do? I've seen a movie stating that, american made, and the hero's did the same thing, guerilla, killed, and more. But it was against the russians... so it was ok.
Same during the WWII , had the germans won, the french resistance, who were very incive in their actions, would be called terrorists, not heros. Same thing. Just different points of view. Its the winners that change the names.
> WE KNOW HE STILL HAS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL
> WEAPONS
So? Its not like he used it to conquer half the planet. France, Germany, US , even Spain has bioweapons . The difference is that they call themselfs "civilized", and say saddam isnt. Its a power game. Control game. Not about weapons. The weapons argument is the "fall guy" for the "need for action". There is no shred of evidence that saddam is/was going to strike the US. It isnt in his best interest. He's a rich man, with oil money, treated, sold, sponsored by the US, France, Germany and others. It is not in his best interest to piss them off. He's also a tired man, and an old man, who doesnt need the comotion.
Its about control of one of the most oil productive area in the world. Having a good US military base would tip the scales, and probably the US could tell the United Arabes League what prices they think they should do... or else. Or even control the exits (exports of the area). Its pretty simple.
Heck, East Timor had his situation solved after large deposits of oil were discovered in the country... coincidence? Its about the money, and control. Control is the key word. before that , east timor was a nobody, and then, whoop, in half a year , the 25 year situation was solved. Woohoo.
>What the heck should we do with this guy, leave him
>alone to go about his scheming?
Of course. If the iraquians have it so bad, then they could do a revolution. Portugal had 2 in less then 100 years. And under a strict dictatorship. Thats what they should do. If they havent done it so far, then they're not that tired of Saddam , and those things must come from the inside, or the US will be seen as another invader. Besides, most of the poor conditions on the country is due to the constant sanctions and embargos currently active on the country. How's that for "civilized"?
And another thing, who sponsored, armed, and backed politics of Saddamn 20 years ago was the US, in favour of a good oil policy and prices. Now that they need a target, he's it.
>We just kicked some of his people out of our country
>because they were caught gathering surveillience on
>tunnels, bridges, and other civilian targets in the US.
>He's paying terrorists in Israel. He's tried to bomb US
>targets internationally (in the Phillipines in 1991).
Thats a laugh. So US can have spys and surveillance where ever they what, but if others do, they're terrorists ? Right.
How about the bombing of afganistan in the 70's ? Iran? Siria? Jordan? Covert Ops, assassination by the CIA, etc. Oh sorry, those were "liberty fighters". Not terrorists.
>The reason that N. Korea is a different problem is that
>the tinpot dictator running that particular hellhole is a
>different type of crazy than Saddam. He also currently
>has nukes.
Of course he has nukes. Do you think he wants see the US take the same road as the one took with iraq? Hell no. I was amused by the reaction of the Bush administration when they said N.Korea was from the axis of evil, then discovered they have the bomb. "Who let them in the axis? damnit, we didnt mean that, honest."
Besides, every industrialized country has the bomb, let them. They wont use it, nobody except the US have used the bomb. The repercussions are well know. Its a power game, not a threat of destruction. One of the main reasons the NK nuke program got brought back is simple. The US are the best, the specialist, in paying off others. NK is waiting for money, stretching out their hand. You just watch. A financial help and some other type of exports there , and puf.
>THE US DOES NOT CARPET BOMB CIVILIANS.
Afanistan, last year, in the 70's, in iraq, in Iran, in Somalia, etc. When the casualties are "acceptable", they will drop the bomb. Not just the US, everybody who "did" war thinks like that, its called winning. Just because it doesnt show up on CNN , doesnt mean it doesnt happen.
>The US isn't the monster that your propaganda
>machine likes to make it out as
No, he can be worse, but there are no saints, its a mean world out there. But your propaganda machine isnt working very well abroad. Internally yes, and thats why more than half the population is ignorant of what happens outside the country. But thats not your fault. They even control what o read (the papers and magazines, most of them we get here un europe, and they are highly "patriotic" in their speech, and have that arrogant tone), and what students have access to.
>we would be perfectly justified in bombing them to hell.
I rest my case. Thats a tipical answer "If we dont like, blow them".
Its like the foreign policy. "We come first, no matter the cost to others". Thats why the US has so many against them. A little consideration is in order. Its a matter of respect too.
>afghanistan has been cleaned out, now maybe iraq.
>who knows maybe even NKorea in a while.
Cleaned of what? The goverment there does nothing without asking the local warlords that are... taliban. Nothing is done in the country without the warlords that control the regions authorize it. Nothing has changed in that way. The war was a CNN war, to show something to the americans that watch tv. And a good part of the dead were civilians.
And Bin Laden would never be caught because if he died at americans hand , that would generate such a muslim movement , that would make 9/11 look like fireworks. That was a strategic move, not to get him. A good one i might add.
But the financial repercussions of 9/11 , the rise in unemployment, the instability with the "election" needed to be diverted. So enter Saddam, who , as been pretty quiet for 12 years. Perfect fall guy, to make expenses , take attention of the economical situation, make people walk in fear of another attack, and swallow any shitty measure that Bush administration puts out. Its a control thing. Unfortunatly, some people have "eyes wide shut" ...
As a final point, i have no problem with the american people, just with their rulers.
PS: Airspirit, nobody here is agaisnt you, we respect your opinion, and we will give ours. I just hope you respect them too.