Are you FOR or AGAINST a War in Iraq?

Post-9/11 Era Forum

Are you FOR or AGAINST a War in Iraq? Explain your answer.

In my opinion, if the U.S. government invested half the money it does on waging war instead on education and in companies that specialize in alternative and renewable energy, it would lessen, and possibly even eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

One day fossil fuels are going to dry up completely and we'll be forced to face the issue at the last minute. To me, wisdom would be advance preparation (disregarding entirely, of course, that renewable energy resources tend to be pollution-free, better for our health, better for the environment, etc).

Yes, that's what I think this war-mongering is all about: oil. Why else would we feel it necessary to baby-sit that patch of sand. Let them kill themselves if they want, just keep it away from us and we're fine. I know the politics behind it all are more involved than that, but to some the view is much more simplistic.

If the primary interest of our government was to obtain the oil reserves of Iraq - why didn't they achieve this goal in the first war of the gulf in the 90s?

Isn't it a little short-sighted to concentrate on obtaining a resource which is due to be replaced it the relatively near future?

I'm only throwing out some questions.

My other thought is that we can't disregard some of the facts surrounding Hussein's regime:

a) He's as close to a tyrant as you can get. He's has his political competition or tortured or assassinated. He was just recently elected back into his position by ALL of the Iraqi people. In other words, there was not ONE vote against him out of millions of voters. I can only wonder why.

b) Misappropriations of funds. His people starve and go without necessary medical supplies while he builds more and more million dollar palaces. Iraq largely blames this on the UN for their imposed trade sanctions.

c) Iraq supports the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. They reward these families with large sums of money. It's clear he supports anyone fighting against Western ideals. What will stop them from supporting any of the numerous terrorist organizations if and when they are capable of producing weapons of mass destruction?

Leading to...

9-11 all over again. We are day dreaming if we think that these terrorist organizations (funded by places like Iraq) are completely satisfied with what they accomplished on this tragic date.

Has anyone seen the Sum of All Fears? With nations like Iraq being run by power/money-hungry individuals like Saddam - is the prospect of a nuclear weapon being detonated in a US city that far fetched? Particularly when there are a thousand anti-US extremists that would die to go down in the history books as the first martyr to do such an act.

It's a simple equation: Terrorist + Money = SaddamxWoMD

While I'm not promoting pro-war propaganda - I'm not quick to write off our reasons for "baby-sitting" particular nations in other parts of the world. There certainly are significant reasons to get people like Saddam to step down. I, for the record, particularly hope it doesn't take a war to do it.

On second thought, we may need war to stimulate growth in this economy. The Labor Department's last report of mass layoffs in November (2,150 rounds, 240,000 workers!) was released in December - they recently announced that they'll no longer be releasing such reports - I guess they don't think we need to know any more.. perhaps they think non-disclosure will help us all just forget and go along our hunky-dorey way thinking everything is peachy - and of course, believing == receiving - yeah right.

They say war stimulates economic growth, especially BIG wars.. and though there will be massive suffering, violence and death, the economy will surge feeding supplies into battle. So watch out Saddam, here we come - you're going to do this country more good than harm in the end.

I'm no fan of Sadam.. ..BUT!! We had better have some REAL PROOF of weapons production come out of there before we lift a finger!! If we don't we will be forfitting forever our place in the world!! We will be no different than the solviates when they started taking over other countries without real probibal cause!! We will simply be imperial expansionists. International opinion of and trust in America is already in the gutter over our forign policies. We need to stop the bleeding before it's too late and show some integrity. This is a crossroads in our history and a wrong move will have long lasting if not perminant ramfifcations.

Anybody who's in bed with Osama needs to be nuked.

Kenny

So if we were to become imperial expansionists, wouldn't you say our system of government (despite their inclination to coverup the UFO pnehomenon) is more of step in the right direction than the one they currently have in place?

While death may occur - aren't we doing these countries a benefit in the end to step in and take over?

In otherwords, doesn't the greater good outweigh the bad? After all, everyone dies eventually.

Signed,

Devil's Advocate

I agree that we are doing them a favor in the long run... ...the problem comes in with world oppinion. If we fail to prove a real threat.. ..then we will be commiting unprovoked aggression.. ..only furthering the low oppinion of America and our policies in the world stage. It's not our planet and we need to wise with our poisition in it.

So far, the US is being wise and exercising restraint (despite talking the talk). They haven't started a war, so they're sitting back and waiting for Iraq to give them a reason.

Ball's in Iraq's court right now.

It'd certainly appear as though we're being a tad on the impatient side. News indicates that a military force of 150,000+ will be in position by mid-February.

With all the money being spent to put these soldiers into place, it's beginning to look like a fairly expensive threat. Or perhaps something all together more sinister.

My opinion is that if a war is started against Iraq, the
Consequencis are terrible!!
I ' m afraid of Suicide attacks all over the world,but especially
in the US!!!
ANY lunatic can walk into a building and blow himself and take
many innocent civilians with him!!


It could take place all over the world,everyday,any minute
several times!!
I know that fear is a bad thing,and you must NEVER surrender
to any kind of Terrorism...but what is the price we all
must pay!!
I think the US must REALLY not attack Iraq,if there do not find
any Nuclear weapons!!

martin
The Netherlands.

Im for ousting Saddam and his regime by military force. Most of the people I have talked to agree that he needs to go, but many dont want to see a war to do it. I have listened to the reasons for not going to war, and I understand their fears, and even share them to some degree. Yet not one of these people have offered a credible alternative. This says to me that they, while not happy with the present situation with the dictatorship of Iraq, think it is perferable to keep the status quo.

The status quo means that the people of Iraq continue to be without basic freedoms. They are killed, raped and tortured for even suspected disagreement with the government. And the government is so intrusive, any hint of rebellion is squashed before anything can become of it. Without offering a credible alternative, the people who are against war agree that it is better for the people of Iraq to be oppressed, tortured and murdered than to do something about it.

The status quo means that, if nothing is done, Saddam WILL at some point obtain nuclear weapons. Why is this so bad? Saddam's character, beleifs and ambitions.

Character: Without a doubt, a murderous dictator who oppresses his people and has no qualm about using chemical and biological weapons, against his own countrymen as well as against his neihbors. For good reason? No. For ambition.

Beleifs and ambitions: Saddam beleives that his destiny is to rule the middle east. When the city of ancient babylon was discovered south of Bagdad, Saddam began building his palaces with the bricks inscribed with his name on them - just like the ancient evil babylonian ruler Nebuchadnezzar did on the bricks archeologists uncovered for hispalaces.
It is Saddam's ambition to obliterate Israel. 3 nuclear reactors were purchased from France years ago for this very purpose. Israel, knowing this, went in in the 80's and bombed them.

Now about oil. If Saddam gets nukes and the means to deploy them, he WILL be in a position to take over the middle east. If that happens, Saddam will be a world power, a very evil one. He will lift sanctions with the threat of nuclear war. He will build his war machine with the trillions of dollars he will have in oil spoils. He will finally be able to realise his dream of destroying Israel.

No country...NO COUNTRY will be eager to go to war with a nuclear power ruled by a dictator like Saddam with the means to deploy his missles. The time for war will be OVER. ANY WAR at that point means NUCLEAR WAR.

He could ruin industralised countries such as the US by witholding oil. Remember that Saddam encouraged OPEC countries to do this during the gulf war. With that much money at his disposal, he could easily become the richest, most powerful man on the planet.

It is said that WW2 was "won on a sea of oil". The war machines of powerful countries run on oil. Economies of powerful countries run to a very large degree on transport made avaliable by oil.

The people who chant "no war for oil" are missing the point. Without it, we would instantly lose our status as a world power. Our economy would crumble. Our industry would crumble. Our war machine would crumble. Our farmers, which have decreased exponentially over the years, for lack of mechanization, would fail to provide food for the masses.

Sure there are other forms of fuel and energy. But they are not as cheap as oil. And studies have shown that they cannot, alone, sustain us. For instance, a study was done on the use of ethanol as a means of fuel for cars. Taking everything into account, the US does not have the amount of biomass needed to produce the amount of ethanol to fuel our transport.

Would it be so terrible if the US lost it's status as a world power? No, as long as there is a democratic one with similiar values to replace it.

Having a dictator like Saddam as a world power is not an option.

"What we're looking at is a biological weapon," said Joyce Riley (gulfwarvets.com ) about Gulf War Illness (GWI) in her appearance on a recent radio show. She believes GWI is a communicable disease, with not only spouses and children in families of veterans coming down with symptoms, but their pets as well.

Riley, an impassioned speaker, is a nurse who served as a captain in the Gulf War. "We're looking at an astronomical figure," Riley said estimating that as many as 400,000 veterans have some symptoms of GWI.

Whether it was our government that was experimenting on the troops with vaccines, or exposure in the Gulf to depleted uranium or biological/chemical weapons, Riley feels "that what is going on in our military is an abomination," because they have not taken responsibility for this devastating illness...

I wouldn't mind if George strapped on his six guns and called Saddam out into the street for a shootout. He has made this a personal struggle, so he should handle it himself. If he causes one American GI to lose his or her life in that "God-Forsaken Desert", we should Impeach him!

Lets take this one step further. Wouldn't it be great if all the members of Congress who are opposed to the war, would get up and walk out during the upcoming 'hawkish" State of the Union speech. Make a real statement! We need a show of conviction from people in power who are against this maddness!

If you get the chance, go to the following web site and read Jimmy Carter's speech of acceptance at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. No one has said it better, especially the quote, "We will not learn to live together in peace by killing each others children."
www.nobel.no/eng_lect_2002b.html

I keep hearing how president clinton is to blame for the sept. 11 tragedy. Those damned right wingers are saying he did't act upon the intellegence information available at that time. Now people are saying that if we attack Saddam, we are only giving terrorist more reasons to attack us. Catch-22. For those of us who like to point fingers, we have got this Bush fellow either way he goes. As for whether to trust Bush,I would go with your own instincts. Trust Saddam? No freaking way.

IMHO, America is perceived as an extremely biased neo-colonialist intruder by the majority of inhabitants of the region. We are not heeding the bloody lessons of the past, that technological and military superiority does not bring victory in wrongful interventions. The Middle East is at the very brink of dramatic changes: After the inevitable fall of Saddam Hussein, we will not have the stomach to keep Iraq intact, and the United States (along with Israel, defacto U.S. territory) will be blamed for triggering an environment that will spawn regional disasters including the collapse of several "moderate" regimes, possibly including (nuclear) Pakistan and (Bin Laden's) Arabia. The Middle East will experience political convulsions similar to the evolution Europe underwent over the past 300 years, but in very bloody fast forward. The United States, rightly or wrongly, will be blamed for the carnage, will continue lashing out disruptively in response to a cycle of terrorism, until expending itself into a repressive, bankrupt shell and world pariah. Tough lessons lie ahead for a country whose power has far outpaced its awareness and understanding of others. I cry for my country, more for the millions of victims, and turn my hope to the survivors. One more time, humanity, while there's still time, the sad refrain: Don't Get Fooled Again.

Hypewaders:
Thanks for the insightful post. I think the opposition to this maddness is too little......too late. Our Cowboy President has already invested so much manpower, money, supplies, and military might to that region, there's no way he can pull out now and save face.................or so he thinks in his demented state.
If the taxpayers in the U.S. really knew what this was costing us now, and what it will cost in the future, there just might be an uprising that would get some attention.

So the "official" reason for attacking Iraq is to "liberate" the people of Iraq and disarm Saddam Hussein because he "might" have Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Do any of you believe that?

Let me just explain a few things:

1) 1.5 million Iraquis have died as part of the UN sanctions (blockade).

2) The US dropped uranium tipped missiles and bombs into Iraq during the first gulf war leading to over a 700% rise in cancer and also birth deformities.

3) The US have not ruled out the use of bunker-busting nuclear bombs in Iraq this time round.

There is absolutely nothing huminitarian about the US & UK's war proposals.

and on the subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

1) The US are the ONLY country in the world to have ever used nukes, dropping 2 on Japan in 1945.

2) The US dropped millions of tons of agent orange (cancer producing defoliant) and flesh burning napalm on vietnam.

3) The US refuses to sign up to the international treaty on banning biological weapons and testing nuclear weapons.

4) The US has sprayed chemicals all over Cuba to try and destroy and contaminate crops.

5) The US is now stating a policy of pre-emptive attacks on any soverign nation who "might" have the means to attack the US.
This is illegal in international law and the Geneva convention.

6) The head of the Japanese Biological and Chemical Weapons Unit in WW2 was given a job in the US instead of facing war crime charges.


Still think your the good guys?

In saying all this, I am well aware Saddam Hussein is a an unsavoury brutal man. But he is certainly far less dangerous than when the US was supplying him with all manner of arms and chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

September 11th was a hideous murderous attack but Americans must realise that in comparison to the daily death and carnage going on around the world (Some of which is US sponsored) it is the tip of the iceberg. And definitely the tip of the iceberg compared to the terror that will result from a continued US globalisation policy on other nations involving pre-emptive attacks - where does it end - North Korea, Iran ...?? You must realise why people in certain parts of the world are so anti-american. Understanding your enemy is probably the best think you'll ever achieve rather than simply trying to blow every one of them away.

PS I am not anti-american, just trying to help you understand WHY there is so much anti-american feeling around the world (which is rapidly increasing).

I don't believe the US' problems can be shrugged off in terms of propaganda and shadow government. I think part of the reason our government behaves in selfish and misinformed ways is precisely because it is a fairly representative democracy. I interact with fellow Americans every day who have incredibly shallow knowledge of history and the world outside, hold oversimplistic notions about US righteousness and superiority, and whose opinions are entirely compatible with current Washington dogma.

I believe Americans could influence their government for the betterment of themselves and the entire world. Unfortunately, selfish aspects of human nature and herd instinct seem to be heading a spoiled, comfortable USA on a collision course with a world outside that is just growing increasingly intolerant of us. Ultimately, we'll get put in our place. Unfortunately, it seems likely millions will be maimed, starved, and killed in the process.

Such a pity. If Americans could understand their own civics, hold their elected representatives accountable, and learn respect and empathy for the world outside, we could continue to enjoy our place in the world. However, I think we may be just too spoiled to be bothered with the self-examination. We may sooner rather than later be put in our place in ways we have no real countermeasures for. Human history remains in apparent acceleration, and many changes are coming in the Middle East. If Americans remain too apathetic to adjust, there are others who are going to rock our world for us. Enemies will exploit fatal weaknesses of empires past, a far more potent threat than WMD to our "national interest." Enemies will manipulate the predictable overreaction the US demonstrates when challenged. Empires have always succumbed in surprise to their militarily inferior colonies, and we cannot expect to somehow be different.

I share the frustration with the inertia of our huge government. But in respect to the big picture, both regime change and hubris begin at home. Personally, I don't expect to influence a great deal. But I speak out anyway, write letters to congress, and attend the big protests. And I vote my conscience on the issues, and not along any party line. Unless more Americans do the same, I think we are going down.

Hi, I'm sorry for my english...

I think that USA (goverment will gain on war in Iraq and so petrol will be pretty cheap in USA. (One liter in Europe is about $1 and more, $0.5 in USA right???...) It is necessary for the ***American life style***. (But for european too...) But I want to say something different. Well: Yes, Americans will have cheaper petrol (say), but it is true that Iraki people will have freedom. NO, don't stop reading, I know it sounds quite naive (stupid (sorry)), but I think, there is a pees of truth too. I'm from Czechia, last sunday Vaclav Havel become an EX-president. I was thinking about what did he do, and what realy happened to me in last 14 years, what has changed. And I think I should say 'thank You' to him for at least that I can travel freely now. Now I can visit France, India, USA, everything, but it would be very difficult before 1989 (impossibel in fact). There is much more, but I'm giving this examle, for I'm not sure if You (from free counries) can imagine what freedom realy means (or how it is if you don't have it). I wanna say that it's not normal if 99% of Iraqi peope vote for Saddam. It can't be true, it was very the same in Czechia before (99.9% peole voted for their beloved comunist party).

So I say Yes for invasion to Irak.

Have a nice day, Mirek.

Ahoj Mirko-

If you want to compare the Middle East with Central Europe in the 20th century, the closest fit would be to imagine the United States playing the part of the Soviet Union: Unrelated events created the situation whereby a superpower takes a weaker country without serious international opposition. This invasion will be much more violent than the 1st and 2nd Soviet invasions of Czech.

I lived in the Middle East as a teenager, served on Board American Submarines during the cold war, and lived in Czech shortly after communism.

Iraq has already suffered under US more than Czechs did under Russians- and I realize that is saying a lot. Not unrelated in the context of Arab feelings, Israel & America together continue to act in defiance of civil rights, and have been humiliating the Arab world for a longer period of time than the 3rd Reich cursed Europe, and nearly as long as the Soviet Union held Central and Eastern Europe prisoner. However, few Czechs had their land taken away, and few by comparison were shot in the streets. This is happening today. American troops are in heavily armed camps in nearly every middle eastern country now, and have very little friendly interaction with native people outside their fortress walls. They are seen as hostile occupiers by most of the people, just as the Soviets were despised by free-thinking Czechs. All of these issues and more are on the minds of people just like you, who want the same things in life, but who have already seen many friends and family hurt and killed by sanctions and bombs, and they are now waiting with great uncertainty. Some expect only death as victims, some as soldiers. Some expect a better future.

In most every past intervention by the US, how these people feel is not a consideration in Washington. Most political analysis predicts Iraq will end up very much like Yugoslavia, because the borders do not reflect political realities, and there are many scores to settle that have been held at bay by Tito/Saddam.

In the first minutes of Gulf War 2, a large number of Iraq's oil wells will be burning. In the aftermath of the US occupation and exit, the entire region will be destabilized, and major conflicts are likely between Progressive and fundamentalist Arabs, and between Arabs and Israelis.

Your energy will be more expensive, and so will ours in America. Czech will come through much better though, because your country will not be blamed for millions of deaths. The United States will never recover from this disaster as a trustworthy world power, in my estimation.

Of course, in large regional conflicts like this anything is possible, so I wish you good luck too. Don't be too hard on us Americans when it's over. It was only my government, as the Germans and Russians used to say.

-Cau!

"...what is a possible scenario you see resulting from the path the US has taken that would lead to our eventual downfall? And what sort of timeframe are you proposing?"

Possible scenario in short, economic collapse, political isolation, and a closed society resembling Israel. Timeframe unpredictable: My hunch 2-10 years.

Scenario in detail (hypothetical- subject to error): US invades Iraq as domestic and foreign public opinion reaches crisis-of-government levels. Siege of Baghdad lasts 1 week. Partisan attacks dog US and British troops garrisoned to prop up foundering coalition government of mortal Iraqi enemies. Iraq becomes mideastern version of Yugoslavia. US begs for UN troops to stop bullets and catch schrapnel instead of American boys. No joy. Musharaf junta in Pakistan is overthrown by the Taliban. Israel annexes the West Bank. Second refugee crisis in Lebanon and Syria. Jordanian King assasinated. India takes out Pakistani missile bases with Israeli and US intel support. United states economy paralysed by energy crisis. Iran attempts to negotiate, but is attacked by the United States "for supporting terrorism". Iranian militia conduct coordinated offensive in Iraq. Turkey in vades Northern Iraq. China negotiates Korean treaty, US troops ordered out of South Kirea and Saudia Arabia. Saudi Government collapses. United States invades Saudi Arabia. Saudi government collapses, Eastern province secedes, becomes fundamentalist Shiite state, armed with abandoned US equipment. Mecca and Medina under martial law. Attacks on US troops everywhere. Terrorist attacks of small intensity but increasing frequency increase paranoia in United States. Regional mideast war pits millions of "mujaheddin" against isolated American and British stronggholds, gradually exiting as Americans and French did from from Saigon. America recoils into a tiny fetus within a police state to lick its wounds. The war tapers off. Europe reigns as the next economic and political power. China on the rise, but their time not arriving for anothr 30-50 years. Now I'm really getting conjectural so I'll stop.

The farther I go, the more unpredictable it gets.


Marc Fleming:
"I think that what you suggest is for us to cease being human."

The United States is heading into disaster because of misguided leadership, and apathy allowing this is certainly human. However, when the Busheviks are discredited and removed, we will be a more "human" country than we are now in my estimation. That doesn't mean we will stop making mistakes- we will just be a good deal more keen at recognising fascism in our own midst.

I hope I answered your questions- happy to try again if I did not.

FAO Marc: Your questions answered:

"How many Iraqis have found death under the irresponsible and oppressive rule of Saddam? How many neighbors have died with his past use of chemical weapons? Were not the sanctions the RESULT of Saddam's actions? If so, would it not be fair to say that "1.5 million" Iraqis have perished because of Saddam and not because of the sanctions that would have otherwise not existed were he not in power?"

Iranian Officials claim Saddam Hussein gassed between 3 and 5,000 Kurds. Somewhere short of the cost of 1.5 million lives resulting from sanctions. Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran. These chemical weapons were supplied at the time by the United States of America. Why? Because even though Saddam Hussein was had perpetrated genocide against uprising Kurds, he was fighting Iran, who at the time were regarded by the US as the greater of two evils.
So, the US supplied the weapons allowing the dictator to ruthlessly crush the Kurdish uprisings and for use in the Iran-Iraq war. Explain to me why nobody in the US gave a sh1t then? Because you sponsored it to serve your political interest.

We're the guys that saved the UK's butt in World War II.
Yes, it's fair to say that since a large portion of your post is dwelling on the past.

So you obviously like to think. In reality, Hitlers decision to attempt an invasion on Russia, opening the war on two fronts and getting bogged down at Stalingrad in the Russian winter cost the Germans the war. The Russians got to Berlin first, so in effect "they" can probably lay the greatest claim to having won the war. Still, the US film industry paints rather a different story on historical events.

In light of his past, is Saddam the sort of man that would pursue nuclear weapons? Is Saddam the sort of man that would not resort to nuclear weapons EVER if her were to obtain them?


I think he probably would pursue them. Would he resort to using them? Who knows? There are tens, if not hundreds of dictatorships around the world of whom you could ask the same question. Do we launch a pre-emptive strike on each and every country that "might" use nuclear weapons at some point in the future? How do we judge this? The US is the only country to ever resorted to nuclear weapons and has not ruled out using nuclear weapons in Iraq - Does that mean countries are entitled to pre-emptive attacks on the US? There are more countries in the world than the US and we all have an obligation to try to co-exist.

And so somehow that JUSTIFIES 9/11? Are we to stand idly by while it happens again? And again and again?


Nothing justifies September 11th. In my opinion, nothing justifies the death of innocent lives. But I'll tell you this, if the US start launching pre-emptive attacks on the basis that a country "might" at some point attack them then you are going to open yourself up to a lot more attacks of this nature, not reduce them. The IRA started bombing Britain in the 70s, the first reaction was to send more troops into Ireland and subsequent human rights violations. The bombing got worse, the hate increased. In more recent years, the British government have actually tried to start talking to these people and their is now some sort of a peace process - however flawed.

Describe then - who my enemy is. I'm speaking of people like Saddam. Are they just misunderstood? Sufferers of a bad case of post-adolescent boredom syndrome? Tell me if I'm mistaken - but I believe my enemy is insane - and in the process wiping out my enemy will be doing more than a few people a favor.


Your enemy number 1 is surely Osama Bin Laden at this very moment in time. Try explaining that to the 74% of US citizens who reportdely think the 9/11 attack was the work of Saddam Hussein. Why is that, I wonder, propoganda?

Excellent points by Britbox. This is usually the point at which Busheviks either try to change the subject, or are not heard from again. But perhaps Marc is unique, and has more to back up his position: Do you , Marc?

The United States and the Iraq military in bed together? I know it sound weird, but it's true. We did help Iraq during the later part of it's on again and off again war with Iran. As someone said" the lesser of two evils". But we did not supply them with chemical, biological or even tactical weapons. We only supplied them training and intellegence information, and maybe money(covertly). Scuds, migs, these are not leftovers of weapons that would have been supplied by the U.S. They don't even have M-16's in Iraq. Our generals helped their generals and that is basically all the help that was supplied. Not chemical weapons as someone suggested.

The U.S. has provided Saddam with much more than that which you suggest, jay, but not in the form of government-to-government transactions. Take, for example the large number of helicopters that Saddam purchased outright from U.S. companies in the early 90's. I don't know what all else he purchased during his shopping spree, but you can bet he put it all to good use. (Also, I thought that the VX gas was directly related to U.S. involvement, but I oculd be wrong - I guess it was developed in Germany (?) originally..)

Those are great questions, unfortunately I am spread a little thin to post everywhere. Look for hypewaders posts on sciforums.com, and I am happy to discuss back here. We could make inReview the more "advanced" forum perhaps.

Ahoj Hypewadersi

I didn't want to compare US with Soviet Union, but Saddam's regime with Soviet Union. I think it's very similar.

I'm not telling US invasion is ideal solution of situation in Iraq (nothing is ideal). But I think that something should be done and at this time the invasion is the only way. You can see those sanctions against Iraq don't work. And for Iraqi people it's much worse than war. But the worst for them is Saddam's regime. Of course war is bad, some people will probably die (soldiers mainly (well it's their job)). But Saddam has already killed much more Iraqi peole. He killed many Kurds in northern Iraq. He tryed to take Kuwait. Then, during Gulf war, he was pushed back to Iraq and left unjudged. Now You know It was a fault, he should have been taken to justice. But at this time noboby knew what he will do in next 10 years (not only to rest of the World, but mainly to Iraqi citizens). At this time You would say US don't have a right to do it, Saddam apeared to behave good. You would be wrong. Now we are in the same situation.

I don't care for real reasons why Americans want to spend billions of dollars on war in Iraq, but I think it's good, it will bring freedom & peace to Iraq.

Yes we could wait till Saddam dies, he's old. In my opinion it's impossible for those free-thinking peope in Iraq to do kinda revolution like was in Czaechoslovakia in '89. Saddams regime is much stronger, it's military regime.

It's a pity I can't ask Iraqi people what they think, but there are only few of them having Internet... (sarkasm)

Cau, Mirek.

PS: You were born in Middle East? Where? And what did you do in Czechia?

PPS: no 'Ahoj Mirko' but 'Ahoj Mirku'





TO jayterrier: No, they don't have M-16's, they have AK47 from Czechia...

As you know, I live in a country where we do not want war on Iraq. It seems to be that most american people think french and german people are cowards. I think that it's a little bit too easy...
We prefer diplomatic solution to the crisis, that means we recognize there is a major crisis in Iraq, but killing civilians (a clean war doesn't exist) won't solve the problem. Why americans care about iraqis now, after years and years of embargo. Many people died these last years. I don't understand everything. Why Saddam wasn't killed during the desert storm? It was possible, everybody knows that.
The terrorist threat in US is very important, but do you think that a war in Iraq will be a solution ? Don't you think that an attack on Irak will make a very dangerous Muslim coalition ?
That's what I think. I love and respect the USA, but I sometimes have difficulties to understand your foreign policy.
War will happen. It costs a lot to bring so many soldiers, planes, and boats to this area. That's a very expensive travel. The cost of the war is already known. The benefits too. Someone has to pay. What a luck, there's oil in this country.

George Bush----->war on Iraq (this one was justified)
Bill Clinton-------->peace
George W Bush->wants war, in Iraq or anywhere, but war
Nice family isn't it ?

to complete the family picture :
Prescott Bush made business with the nazis during WWII

Ahoj Mirku,

I was born in USA, lived in Mideast from age 5-22, was a pilot in Czechia. USA can do this invasion, certainly , but we cannot rule Iraq. Iraq would be a better place without Saddam, but there is a good possibility that life will be worse after Saddam with the USA forcing history. Like your country was tired of the russians, Arabs are tired of their own governments that oppress them, and the USA, that keeps them in power. America has not ever supported freedom or democracy in the middle east, and on the contrary has torn it down. This is because leaders in America are racist. I am sorry to put it so bluntly, but that is the truth.

Cau!

The problem is to think that democracy can be forced by a war. I fear that the hate for americans is greater that the aspiration for democracy in arabic countries. BTW each time a free election is held, a muslem integrist majority wins. I am not sure those chaps like democracy.

Marc FLeming: "I support the idea of finding a solution. So far, and I'm still looking, I haven't heard one that anyone with authority is likely to consider."

Continue the proven successful inspections/disarmament of Iraq. Announce a policy of addressing the concerns of millions who feel that American influences in the Middle East are unfair and self-serving. Announce a policy that the US will compete/purchase on the world market without threat of force. Announce a plicy where the US will defend itself on it's own soil/waters only. Announce a policy where Israel will have to comport itself as a true democracy, comply with UN resolutions applicable, and forge and agreement with its neigbors that will secure the future of the state, if there is one, when the US cuts off all overt, covert legal, and illegal aid to Israel.

Domesticly, begin a political dialog for constitutional amendment that the United States wil not evermore conduct wars of imperialism. Begin a political dialog on the roots of terrorism, and how the United States can remove the underpinning of terrorism by ceasing to be an oppressor in the world.

I know this is a lot of "solution" but we have a lot of "problem" and you asked for it

I recently learnt that some people in the states call to boycott french products. That means cheese and wine of course. In fact, it's known all over the world that the frenchs can only make cheese and wine. What about doing the same thing with the german beer and bretzels (a way to protect Mr Bush in person) ?
You know, we both construct roads, cars, planes. We have electricity and phone. And I think boycott is not a solution.
What about boycotting american products in Europe ? For my part, I'll do it.
Yesterday, your politics had a big fun with french stories. (If americans wouldn't have helped them, they should speak german now...). I think it's very funny too : )
Why using history to their purpose ? Lafayette supported the first americans. We don't talk about this story any more. That's not a big deal.
We are grateful, that's a fact. But do we have to be grateful at any conditions ? For how long ?
I come from a little town on the western sea side in France, called Lorient. This town was destroyed by the allied forces during the ww2. Because there was the world biggest base for U-boot. This town has been bombed month after month. Many civilians were killed. Now the town is awful (a little bit like vladivistok) and you can still visit thes enormous submarines base.
But I'm grateful. I'm not sure that today I would speak german. We have our heroes too. Most of them were killed during the conflict by the gestapo. We call them partisans (remember Leonard cohen's song), the nazis called them terrorists. My grandfather was in a nazy camp. He fighted for France and Freedom. He wasn't killed on an beach in Normandy, that's a fact. But he was not a coward, I'm not a coward. I'll never leave someone to say me I'm a coward, directly in the eyes.
I think it needs more courage to say sometimes no.

To Montecristo,

Americans like all other persons sharing this planet want the same thing everyone else wants, and that is peace and safety, we just want to raise are children and to provide for our families. Contrary to what the rest of the world thinks , we are not a bunch of cowboys. We do however recognize Saddam for what he is. He is a powder keg waiting to explode. As for peace and safety, we are trying to provide for that security. Waiting is good for him and bad for us. Time is on his side. He would like nothing more than to bomb a school or an area packed with civilians, anything to strike fear into the hearts of Americans. He hates us, and he has the will to carry out such a thing. It seems the world can be devided into two catagories; those who hate Americans and those who risk all including their life to come to America(the land of freedom and opportunity). As for the French, we still haven't forgot the help they provided during our liberation from England and their help during the world wars, but they must understand that it is us, not them that has the most at stake here.

I agree with most of the things you wrote. But don't think the planet is splited in two parts. That's a Manichean vision of the world. Every intelligent people must recognize Sadam Hussein is a danger, but he's a danger for his people first.
Using nuclear weapons (apparently it's a possibility) is a bit too strong for only one person, don't you think ? Even a very tiny atomic bomb.
Here in Europe (most of people donesn't want this war, even if Italy and Spain joins US and UK, people of this countries are in majority against) are pro americans but anti-Bush. Americans are not cow-boys but he is. For him, he has to organize a posse. Nice vision for someone who when he was elected promise to his people to concentrate his efforts on the inside problems.
My english is not good enough to tell what I really think but I think that's a pity. I'm affraid that after the War on Iraq, the situation becomes worse and worse.

Hi

Can anybody tell us more about these 2 guys named Paul Worovitz (not sure it's correct) and Richard Perle ?
They are not too famous on this side of the pond (BTW I'm French) but I was told that they are responsible of the idea to go to war against Iraq.

They are apparently the theoricists of the war in the pentagone and they had to "fight" against Colin Powell to impose their hawk ideal. No need to say that W. has been easily convinced.

Hard to imagine that Colin Powell is a moderate though...

My opinion is that they want to get a solid foot in Middle-East to replace the bases in Saudi Arabia because the saudi-US relashionships are quickly deteriorating.

Controlling Iraq is utterly important strategicaly speaking, Iran would be surrounded as well as Syria which would be under crossfire of Israel and US army in Iraq. One of the benefit is obviously to put more pressure on the "terrorist states".

All the massive destruction weapons stuff is more or less a-posteriori justifications. Nobody really thinks either that
Al qaida is whatsoever linked to Saddam Hussein.

I don't believe either that oil is an issue, may be though like the cherry on the cake.


A brilliant idea indeed but probably difficult to apply on the terrain. Probably that the Iraqis will be wiped out rapidly (not 100% sure) but then the troubles will begin.

This upcoming war is not about the possibly terrorist linked madman that is Suddam Hussain. There are plenty of power crazed dictators dotted around our planet most of them created and funded by Western Governments (mostly uk, and us).

This is a war based on the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S energy policy. The USA has a massive thirst for oil due to CRAZY man BUSH and his backward looking and imperialistic policy.

A war based on oil reserves is morally unjustfiable.

I AM GREATLY SADDENED THAT TONY BLAIR HAS CHOSEN THE WAR MONGERING PATH LAID IN FRONT OF HIM BY george w bush ( a president without a majority vote in the presidential elections)

Hmmm....I keep erasing....basically I agree with Strav...as for losses, we expect losses in war, casualties, and loss of property (jets tanks etc) Its war, there are people shooting, etc. I just wish more people could wake up, and think about the future. Play the what if in your head, and see what you come up with....most likely your own death at a young age due to nuclear war. If we just get in there now, get the job done, then we don't have to think what if. I for one do not want my dieing thoughts to be if only humans across the world wernt so stupid, we'd have gone in did the job, removed the maniac from power, and I wouldn't be dieing from (insert weapon of mass destruction here). Instead a year from now I might be thinking well we were wrong, iraq had nothing, many take it as a critisim of US foreign policy....idiots....Or even if I did feel "shame" for what we did, I'd still think its better to feel a little shame, than be nuked!

Is it about the Oil? I think not. Iraq produces less than 1% of the OPEC oil. The U.S. get's only a portion of our oil from OPEC.

Inspections aren't working. Just because the inspectors found a few missles doesn't mean that they are. It was up to Saddam to present the weapons to the inspectors for verification then destruction. Saddam will never do that because he is a dictator. That is his trump card. If we continue with inspections then he achieves his goal.

If inspections continue then Sanctions will continue. Under sanctions since 1991 Iraq have buried 4000 - 9000 children per month because of starvation and disease.

The Oil for food program didn't work either, which said that he could sell some of his oil ($billions) to feed his people. He hasn't used the money for that in fact a lot of the money still sits unused.

As far as the U.S. doing it unilateral, I wouldn't call 22+ countries unilateral. I think it's closer to 35+

Now what about a Saddam/Usama link. I'm not sure that it is there, I think the jury is still out on that one. Usama doesn't like Saddam, however Saddam doesn't like the U.S. and neither does Usama so there is a common thread there. However I think that Usama would like to see the U.S. oust Saddam then he can develope ties with the new government. We might be playing into Usama's game plan.

Take a look at http://iraq.usaiway.net/

To goots,

Iraq produces 1% of the OPEP oil because the country is not allowed to sell his oil, but his oil capacity production is as important as Saudi Arabia. So, don't try to minimize the economic interrest of this country. The relationships between Saudi Arabia and the United States become worse and worse. I think that one day, well see a very huge increase of the price for the oil gallon, that's an evidence. For the moment, that's Saudi Arabia who controls the price.
When you say that Iraq buried beetween 4000 and 9000 children each year since the Gulf War, don't you think we are responsible of this situation too. What about the cause and the consequence ? With the war, I think that we have to expect that the number will be very more important.
To end, to my opinion I think that the volounty of this war is unilateral, 22 countries is not representative of the rest of the planet (208 coutries - Iraq is not 22), that's only arithmetic !
And the words od a President or a Dictator (Saddam is not the only one dictator) is not the voice of his people. We saw it last saturday.

The U.S. gets roughly 1/2 of it's crude oil from OPEC. The Oil For Food Program allows Iraq to sell oil to it's neighbors via pipeline. The key here is that the U.S. doesn't need Iraq's oil. We get plenty from the rest of the world. What matters is that the Oil For Food Program was not designed to be the sole support for the Iraqi people but a temporary measure to aid in the support of the Iraqi people until Saddam complied with the U.N. mandate to disarm and sanctions ended. He chose not to disarm in a timely maner thus his people suffer. He could have disarmed in months not 12+ years. Yes you could blame this on the U.N. but that's like blaming the bank when you write bad checks. You know it's not right to write bad checks and the bank tells you not to do it but you keep doing it. Eventually the police catch up with you and you go to jail. Is it the Banks fault?

By the way it's not 4000 - 9000 per year, it's 4000 - 9000 per month. Sanctions is not just the will of the U.S. it is the will of the United Nations to force Iraq to disarm. Again he could have ended the sanctions by disarming. He chose not to do that so his people are suffering.

Since Saddam chooses to not disarm and end the sanctions then the United Nations will and should end the sanctions for him and remove him from power.

When I say 22 countries, those are the ones that I know for sure. I believe the news says 35+ for war and 9+ for inspections. As far as the others are concerned they are either on the fence, staying neutral or are dictatorships.

As far as protesters goes yes England had 750,000 people in the streets and if you want to play the numbers game. How many people live in Great Britian? Yes the polls show a great many against war but most will change sides if we go for a second resolution as will more countries maybe including FRANCE.

The U.S. is the best most technical military in the world. We are the kindest most careing people in the world. When we go in we will not target the Iraqi civilians. The first wave will target anti aircraft batteries, radar sites, military infrustructure and command and control. Let's say, really surgical strikes. They are talking about not even taking out power stations so that the Iraqi's will still have power. I believe that a war will kill far less then sanctions and the Saddam killing machine who gassed his own people and his neighbors. A man that tortures and kills even his own family.

Bottom line Saddam has got to go one way or another and the longer we put it off with worthless inspections the more his people continue suffering.

I don't believe in your surgical strikes. You can only see that in movies. It doesn't exist, a "clean" war is an Utopia. BTW, I bet we won't have any information during the war, as usual, only the official films, pictures and informations US army gives. That's propaganda.
I'm not against disarming Saddam Hussein, but I don't accept civilians die for it.
I think that even for the "best army" in the world (I don't see exactly the reason to be proud of it), it will be very difficult. We've seen the way US army solved the troubles in Somalia. That's a fact, somalians were very well prepared and very dangerous (they had AK47, knives and screwdrivers) but US army encoutered very hard difficulties. Don't say me that there were surgical strikes in Mogadiscio. Many civilians have been killed.
The modern conflicts are made for shock troops, and you need England for that.</