The last thread is long enough that it takes a while to load its page, even _after_ I moved the uber-long post to a separate page, so let's continue here:

I've been away for a few days, and so I'm going to have to respond to mini-discussions in the thread en masse.

CodeRed seems to have ignored many things I said that have the potential to make him look bad, including my response to his suggestion to leave the country and my answer to his question about the US of chemical weapons by the US government on its citizens.

To Mycroft's ridiculing of my calling Iraq "a former British colony": Saddam rose to power by assassinating a puppet leader appointed by the British. It is very relevant to refer to that, as Iraq is probably headed in that direction again, with America instead of the UK calling the shots.

CodeRed says: "You are obviously not very informed on the nature of this conflict. We (the US/Great Brittian) are NOT doing this to turn Iraq into a colony, in fact, after US soldiers put up a US flag in Umm Quasr they were ordered to take it down by their supperiors and reminded that we are not there as invaders but as liberators."
Oh, of course, you're right! I forgot that the physical laws of the universe prevent members of the military from lying for strategic purposes!

Statements that embargoes on Iraq only deal with weapons: This is blatantly untrue in practice. Again I recommend the movie "Killing the Children of Iraq." The committees in charge of allowing imports to Iraq use vague connections to possible weapons use, along with the power of bureaucratic delays, to keep necessary "humanitarian" supplies out of Iraq.

rdd's reasons for war: No fact related to Iraq could justify the war. The key problem is with the corruption of the AMERICAN LEADERSHIP. They cannot be trusted to handle this, and they will ruin the lives of the Iraqis in the long run. Everyone under the sun agrees that (ex-American puppet) Saddam should go, and only lapdog politicians in the US/UK act like the real issue of debate is whether Saddam needs to be deposed.

CodeRed thanks gian for "chiming in with an original argument": I wasn't aware that an argument needed to be original to be valid. As mentioned above, you seem to have ignored quite a few of my points outright.

There were a lot of messages in the thread. If anyone thinks I missed responding to something important that he said to me, please let me know.

"Wow. Justin posted something long enough to make the server hang serving this page"

I wondered what happend, unfortunately none of it was his original work...

Sorry if I seem to be ignoring you Psion, it's like trying to dodge a handful of gravel that was thrown at you, I can't deal with everyone of you at the same time, you all exhaust me both mentally and physically (my fingers cramp LOL)

Well, now I've helped you out by listing specific things, so you can respond!

Oh, would you look at the time! I have to be off to school now... rats, I really wanted to smack down every one of Psions arguments but I guess it will have to wait till later... *sigh*

I meant "if you don't agree" in my previous post, not disagree. A stupid typo I didn't catch before because I had to run off before getting to read my own post.

As for Jesus, Bush says that God is on his side...so I was more making fun of him. The man that said to love your enemies and hate no one is on Bush's side in a bloody war...I can't stand the American Religion.

> The key problem is with the corruption of the AMERICAN LEADERSHIP.

I'm a skeptic and a cynic, and generally a liberal, and yet I can't believe that our administration is so corrupt as to start a war without due cause and lie to us about it.

They're all conservative, and clearly their threshold for starting a war is on the low end. But (aside from Bush), they're smart people. And they're not self-absorbed (as far as I can tell). They understand what they're doing, and while I wouldn't have said this a year ago, I trust they will follow through as best as can be expected.

- taubz

Well, taubz, I think the burden is on you to give an example of a time and place in history when laws have prevented people with power from using it to bring themselves personal gain. There is a _due_cause_ for them (where "them" includes all of America's richest-of-the-rich): they can take an opportunity to cement their hold on world resources and wealth.

Surely you've heard about the plan authored around the early 90's by current Bush administration members that describes just this campaign, with clear imperialistic goals? I think you need to justify your personal opinion that these people wouldn't lie to the public.

I encourage everyone to read "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli. Its a book you could probably read in 2 or 3 trips to the can.

See if you can draw any compairisons to modern day political tactics.

Machiavelli supposed, the ruler needs to acquire a good reputation while actually doing whatever wrong seems necessary in the circumstances.

'But it is necessary to know well how to disguise this characteristic, and to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived. One recent example I cannot pass over in silence. Alexander VI did nothing else but deceive men, nor ever thought of doing otherwise, and he always found victims; for there never was a man who had greater power in asserting, or who with greater oaths would affirm a thing, yet would observe it less; nevertheless his deceits always succeeded according to his wishes, because he well understood this side of mankind.'

Someone said that Bush didn't involve religion in any way; actually that's not the case. Our religion teacher was pissed enough to record some of Bush's speach (prior to the actuall attacks) and show it to us in a class - Bush is "comparing" his action to the crusades by the europeans in medival times.

Another thing, rdd, why do you think that "the most intelligent" and "the most stupid" people would support the war? I do think that intelligence has little (to nothing) to do with one's oppinion.

Also, as people already stated, being against the war has NOTHING to do with supporting saddam, which I belive NO ONE here does. Rather, I disapprove of the way. After 12 (?) years of inactivity, suddenly, in only a few months, matters degrade into a war. What's so pressing now, that wasn't earlier?

CViper - Personally, I don't see why it should effect one's opinion, I was just saying that of the people in my class, the people who do best and worst in tests are pro war and the ones in the middle are anti war.

I believe this war is partially for oil, but not in the way people make out. I believe that opening up Iraqs oil supply will actually bring long term stability to the middle east. And remember, if it was as simple as just taking Iraq's oil, the US placed restrictions on how much he can export. The reason I am for the war is that many Iraqis have been masacered, and for the small number of people who will loose their lives in this war, a million will be saved from Iraqi genocide. It is choosing the lesser of two evils.

As for Bush wanting the oil:
It's not him who wants it. If he wanted it, it would only be useful for him being re-elected. How many years away is that? Two or three as far as I know. They say that it will be at least three years before the oil will be fully flowing out of Iraq again, and by that time the election will have passed. (And remember, it would take a further year or two for the economy to boost itself in the way he would need to be re-elected).

My theory on long term stability.
In one way, this war is about revenge for September 11th, but in a strange way. I don't believe Iraq had much to do with it. Instead, lets trace the roots of Al Quaeda. They will take us back to Saudi Arabia. Now where did Al Quaeda get their funding? - The Saudi government. Where did the Saudi government get this money? - By selling their oil to the US! What America may be trying to do is opening up Iraqs oil supplys (and please remeber, before Saddam, the Iraqi government was the most stable in the middle east). Then they can stop accepting Saudi Arabias oil. Saudi Arabia is a key force in destabilising the middle east (along with Israel). Without the oil, they will have little power and influence, and the corrupt Saudi government may even fall. I believe that as well as taking out the Iraqi leadership, Israel needs to be dealt with. After all, it is illegally occupying another nations teritory as far as I know... More will continue when I get a chance.

Yeah, Saudi Arabia is the "flag ship" country of the middle east, ie most other arabian countries seem to look up to them.

BTW, does anyone here get Al Jazeera on their TV? I get the Chinese News Network, but I don't think Al Jazeera...

Psion -

I don't agree with CodeRed stating that you get out of the country because you dislike the polictical systems, but I do have a few questions for you.

1. If you dislike the way things are run in the US, why do you use up their resources, you buy things they manufacter, watch their TV, read their books or attend University there?

2. Can you name a country run under Arachism or Communism (Governments far from similar to the US) etc., that offer all these things?

"2. Can you name a country run under Arachism or Communism (Governments far from similar to the US) etc., that offer all these things?"

I can't, but then again I can't say I'v gone looking Communist nations offering these "luxories" [I dunno, I would think there would be some kinda college in China, as populus and large as it is. I know Russia has colleges, but they got off the wagon a few years ago (^_^)]. Is it just me, or do Communist nations seem to be getting rarer and rarer these days?? If it weren't for that dog Truman [And his naive predesessor], there hardly would be any Communist nations left. Let's face it, the Communism can't be achieved.

Psion: I think the burden is on you to give an example of a time and place in history when laws have prevented people with power from using it to bring themselves personal gain.

If I were in power, I would not use it for my own gain. You wouldn't either. I don't have any greater share in the burden of proof than do you.

> Surely you've heard about the plan authored around the early 90's by current Bush administration members that describes just this campaign

Nope. Source?

- taubz

"Psion: I think the burden is on you to give an example of a time and place in history when laws have prevented people with power from using it to bring themselves personal gain."

____

It is also up to him, to tell me which country that runs under Anarchism lets you live as well as countries that run under governments used in North America.


"[I dunno, I would think there would be some kinda college in China, as populus and large as it is. I know Russia has colleges, but they got off the wagon a few years ago (^_^)]"

____

As popular or world renowned as Harvard, Stanford, M.I.T., Caltech, Berkeley, Brown, Yale, or Carnelle? I would only compare a few Universitites out of the US to these like Oxford or Cambridge for certain subjects. I would presume, many of you will bash me with words for my choice of Universities though :).


"Is it just me, or do Communist nations seem to be getting rarer and rarer these days?? If it weren't for that dog Truman [And his naive predesessor], there hardly would be any Communist nations left. Let's face it, the Communism can't be achieved."

____

Communism can't be achieved, I agree. Less and less communists exist because of the hatred towards them. For instance, just today, I told my mom that I liked communism (the idea of it), and she told me to "Get out of the car." She, like many North Americans deteste Communism like faithful Christians despise the Atheus. I don't blame her though.

However, I think their could be a few more communist countries. This may not make much sense to any of you because it is truly on opinion but Iraq, Afghanistan and almost the rest of the middle east would benefit from Communism. At least the basic, vague idea of it. No/Less religion would unite them and bring a true sense of brotherhood which Communism is known for. All would be better-off living with probably more possessions and money that they have now, and the affluent would not have as much money, and the poor would have more.

This will not happen though, sense Bush and the US truly hate Communism and would never turn the Middle East under that Government.

You must admit, they would be better off with Communism right?

"As popular or world renowned as Harvard, Stanford, M.I.T., Caltech, Berkeley, Brown, Yale, or Carnelle? I would only compare a few Universitites out of the US to these like Oxford or Cambridge for certain subjects. I would presume, many of you will bash me with words for my choice of Universities though :)."

Don't forget Tokyo University, probly one of the top 5 in the world (^_^).

Well, I like you used to think Communism was a good, and interesting idea. But, when I began reading about the founders and such. Most of Communism is based on the teachings of Karl Marx. He was a lazy dog who refused to work, while his family starved, causing the death of three of his children. The money that was given to him mostly by Engles, he used to buy travel, liquer, and tobbacco. I now no longer like Communism, but rather found a new political, Militarism.

"Well, I like you used to think Communism was a good, and interesting idea. But, when I began reading about the founders and such. Most of Communism is based on the teachings of Karl Marx. He was a lazy dog who refused to work, while his family starved, causing the death of three of his children. The money that was given to him mostly by Engles, he used to buy travel, liquer, and tobbacco. I now no longer like Communism, but rather found a new political, Militarism."

___

Me either. I found out I didn't like it when in most countries, every possession you did get was...well...crap.

I wouldn't have my Apple computer for instance, unless everybody else did.

The song "Imagine" by John Lennon explains it in a nice way though.

I favor Socialism more over any government. It just makes sense the most.

Hmm...they seem to have taken makign things "fair" to the extreem...

Socialism?! Communism over that any day!! At least Communist will take action... France is a good example of a socialist country that won't take action, I'm not just taalking about recent events, they never have wanted to take action aganst their enimies [With the exception the times around Napoleon].

"Socialism?! Communism over that any day!! At least Communist will take action... France is a good example of a socialist country that won't take action, I'm not just taalking about recent events, they never have wanted to take action aganst their enimies [With the exception the times around Napoleon]. "

____

So, you're saying that you would rather take Communism over Socialism? That you would rather have the country you are living in run under Communism, instead of Socialism?

Um, though as I stated, it's not my first choice, but yes. There are very few kinds of people that I get along with worse than pacifists and peaceniks [Which seem to be rather prodominant in socialist regions].

ken: France is socialist?

"ken: France is socialist?"

____

I didn't state that, ItinitI did.

Oh, so he did.

Yes, I believe France is socialist. [Though a democratic one, but still socialist.] France is essentialy where the idea of socialism began, around the time known as the "Enlightenment", the two main persons of it were Voltair [sp?] and Rossou [sp?].

and Montesquieu.. although everything I've read says that they partly founded the democratic ideas (or what people call democratic today); especially Montesquieu, whose ideas came to the USA through Great Brittain. He's talking about the 3 "different" powers in a government: [bad translation]the lawmaking, the judging and the executing powers[/bad translation].

Responding to Wizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz's message on the previous thread:

The US will never disarm, in fact, they are developing new neuclear warheads as we speak: They found a loophole in the treaty and have now exploited it.

they dont need to disarm. there are to be a balance of power of the world to exist peacefully(thats a relative term). besides, do you know that nuclear research helps feed a lot of people. all forms of research should be encouraged as long as it is done in the US( now thats a laugh).
about this war, i doont give a damn. i wish someone would pay me to take sides . id gladly do it. maybe stage a nude protest at wall street.
how much do you figure theyll pay for that.
whizzzzzzz

The US has a little more restraint when it comes to using such weapons, with the obviouse exception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for which I am ashamed of my country. Yes, I do believe that nobody on the planet should posses a nuclear arsenal large enough to kill all life on earth hundreds of times over, that's just ridiculous. However, there is no way to get rid of them without making sure that every other nuclear power in the world is getting rid of them at an equal rate, and unfortunately that hasn't happened yet. In the future I hope that war is waged in virtual reality, or through some kind of contest, but I doubt it will ever happen, because if America loses the contest to Somalia, we'll just be like, "yeah, well... BOOOM!" LOL. For all of you opposed to the United States being in Iraq, you can take comfort in the fact that we are finding this much more difficult than we originally thought, mainly because the goddamn towel heads are using guerrila tactics, dressing soldiers up as civilians and whatnot. And on top of that our fucking helicopters keep crashing, it's embarasing. Those Black Hawks are death traps, we should just stick with the Apaches. And on a final note, that missile that hit a populated marketplace just sucks. I feel sorry for them and if I was George Bush I would make reparations to the survivors on the order of millions of dollars.

At present the US are developing neuclear weapons to use in conventional (eg Iraq-like) conflicts. They're not happy enough with the explosive yeilds of existing bunker-buster bombs so they want to replace them with neuclear weapons.

CodeRed: If you hadn't have used those nuclear weapons, how much longer do you think the war would have lasted? How many more millions instead of the hundred thousands would have been killed? It was the lesser of two evils.

"they dont need to disarm. there are to be a balance of power of the world to exist peacefully"

Yeah, Pax Americano. It only costs us our freedom and culture.

"At present the US are developing neuclear weapons to use in conventional (eg Iraq-like) conflicts"

This something to be affraid for. Develop a nuke without the nuclear polution and you take away a large part of the taboo on nuclear warfare.
They can claim to only use them against bunkers, but one *will* land in the middle of a city (see the large list of fuckups made by the US army in this war) and then what? Claim it was an Iraqi anti-air-grenade? Or just call it colladeral damage?

"CodeRed: If you hadn't have used those nuclear weapons, how much longer do you think the war would have lasted? How many more millions instead of the hundred thousands would have been killed? It was the lesser of two evils."

The European war was over before we used those nukes. The war in the Pacific was drawing to a close, it wouldn't have lasted much longer whether we nuked them or not. Besides, I'd rather have 10 dead soldiers than 1 dead civilian

The point was that civilians were slaughtered en masse in World War II. And in World War II, it didn't matter whether you were civillian or not, 'cause conscription meant you didn't have a choice.

Little kids weren't drafted, you know how many cute little japanese kids had their skin melted off by those bombs

I'm back from some travelling, so here are some responses to messages posted since my last:

rdd:
You say about Bush and oil "it's not him who wants it." So you don't think being a member of what is basically an "oil monarchy" in terms of rich families brings him opportunities for gain? And I must add that your offhand description of old Iraq as a "stable country" is appalling, since "stable" here means "ruled by a puppet leader installed by the British." I hope you didn't mean to convey personal support for that idea by using a word with a positive connotation.

ken:
> 1. If you dislike the way things are run in the US, why do you use up their resources, you buy things they manufacter, watch their TV, read their books or attend University there?
The government and the people are very separate things. I do not recognize any moral right of the elite who run the government to claim ownership over the society created here by diverse groups of people over hundreds of years. Your statement attributing ownership of natural resources formed millions of years ago to current elites here is particularly disturbing, if that is what you meant. A similar statement for agricultural, industrial, etc., resources created by the hard labor of the underclasses is almost as disturbing. Besides, I don't watch TV, and the only books I buy (instead of borrow from a library) are textbooks for classes. =)

And while I'm marginally on the subject of US higher education: I think universities here are getting worse and worse. I think it's very likely that you've done very little thinking about what makes the schools you've listed "good," and you just rattle them off like a trained parrot. Most of their clout comes from "old boys' network" organization. Grade inflation and other methods are becoming more common for going easy on the economically privileged but not very intelligent students who are admitted. Perhaps this lack of preparation can be blamed on the horrendous public primary and secondary schools here.

> 2. Can you name a country run under Arachism or Communism (Governments far from similar to the US) etc., that offer all these things?
I don't like the society here. I think it is a horrible place to live, full of unhealthy and stressful customs and institutions. That doesn't imply that I "should leave." I'm not that morally weak, though others may be. It implies, as I said before, that I should work to make it better. If you have any real questions about anarchism, there is the usual http://www.anarchismfaq.org/

taubz:
Generalize your experiences in everyday life of how people act when given special privileges. All of the evidence points toward the extreme unlikeliness of "the rule of law" being an effective way to prevent abuse of power within groups as large as the US government. As for the plan I spoke of, it appears it was actually written in 2000, but here's Google's top link for it: http://www.sundayherald.com/print27735

rdd^2:
I recall reading that the Japanese were ready to surrender before the dropping of the atomic bombs, and that the powers that be in the US did it solely to try to establish their psychological world dominance in the post war period. I've hunted down enough references for today, but maybe you could find corroboration yourself.

ken^2:
Your bizarre statements about everyone living in a socialist society having the exact same things shows how little you know about socialism. I think you should do a little more reading (and not just of propaganda this time) before making any more statements like that.

whizkide:
It's hard to tell if he's being facetious anywhere, but the mention of weapons of mass destruction research providing jobs to people is particularly disturbing. If people didn't need to have jobs to survive, this wouldn't be an issue. A much preferable life has everyone working together to fulfill the community's basic needs, and then doing what they please in the ample free time remaining.

As I recall from research a long time ago, the Japanese were done fighting the war, but they wouldn't surrender to the conditions of the US (maybe it was unconditionally), and the US wouldn't budge on the conditions.

Note: This message has no impact on my opinionof the war, it is just somethin I thought was interesting when I heard it:

A little thesis on Saddam Hussein:

If you look closely at any recent interview of Saddam Hussein, he has a book, a cigar and a memo pad. A heavy cocaine or amphetamines user always involuntarily fiddles. When you see someone high on ecstasy dancing, although their hand movements are made to look like a dance, they are actually involuntary movements. He has been given a book, a cigar and a notepad to hide the signs of Stereotypical Behaviour. Thus it is a reasonable conclusion that Saddam Hussein is a drug addict using either cocaine or amphetamines.

"And while I'm marginally on the subject of US higher education: I think universities here are getting worse and worse. I think it's very likely that you've done very little thinking about what makes the schools you've listed "good," and you just rattle them off like a trained parrot. Most of their clout comes from "old boys' network" organization. Grade inflation and other methods are becoming more common for going easy on the economically privileged but not very intelligent students who are admitted. Perhaps this lack of preparation can be blamed on the horrendous public primary and secondary schools here."

___

I think, you are just showing jealousy towards the University I named. You realize, that you
1. Don't have the intelligence to be admitted
2. Don't have the money
3. The skills for a scholarship

So, instead of admitting you don't have what it takes to be admitted in, you just continue to bash it until it makes you feel better that you were never admitted. What you are doing, is quite clear and you are embarassing yourself by continuing to do this. I think you should do some research on the great people that have graduated from the great Universities I've listed, until then you shall not speak of the matter.

"I don't like the society here. I think it is a horrible place to live, full of unhealthy and stressful customs and institutions. That doesn't imply that I "should leave." I'm not that morally weak, though others may be. It implies, as I said before, that I should work to make it better. If you have any real questions about anarchism, there is the usual http://www.anarchismfaq.or"

You didn't answer my question. What country that is run under Anarchism is as big, run as smoothly or offers as much as the US?

I also believe that you do watch TV, even if just a bit. You denying this is ridiculous, and it shows your efforts to raise your image. Even if I am wrong, you seem to mention it like you deserve a medal.

Is anarchism where there is as little government interference in the running of a country as is possible?

Anarchism according to a dictionary:

SYLLABICATION:
an?ar?chism
PRONUNCIATION:
?n??r-k?z'?m
NOUN:
1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. 2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists. 3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority: ?He was inclined to anarchism; he hated system and organization and uniformity? (Bertrand Russell).
OTHER FORMS:
an'ar?chis?tic (-k?s?t?k) ?ADJECTIVE


I realize Psion will reply in something as that's just a rudimentary definition, or the definition is wrong.

I am however, quite surprised that Psion was swayed into the direction of just a single website written by people who follow Anarchism.

If one website, is what he calls research. He should do more.

Lets face it, anarchism is a great idealism, but this is the real world that we live in. All governments are not necessarily bad. Besides, what is he complaining about? America is the most free-market economy in the world.

True.

And I am highly surprised that he was persuaded in all his political views by just a single FAQ webpage, written by a few anarchists. And he quotes that he "thinks for himself."

America is a nice place to live in. Like Canada, Japan, US, or Britain. When you get sent to a worse place, like Africa or Saudi Arabia, then they will be thankful for the place they live in.

"...So, instead of admitting you don't have what it takes to be admitted in..."

I like how that point is the defining part of your post even though you're just in junior high school yourself.

In my opinion, Psion is possibly a teenager who never grew up... it explains why he is still rebellious and believes in anrchism.

All I can say to ken's humorous attack against me is: If I don't have what it takes to get in to the schools you listed, then it's very strange that I've just finished a month of visiting half the schools in the Ivy League at their expense, where they have tried to convince me to attend them for graduate school.... (No, I didn't apply to the other half.)

ken also asks "what country is run under anarchism?". Anarchism is a system of society that denies both having "a country" and having a separate system that you can describe as "running" said country. People control their own lives.

That dictionary entry is actually rather good, with 3 being the best among the parts. As far as the attack on my sources of information on anarchism, this isn't a bloody research paper. This is information on a philosophy of life that is really the default way that people were meant to view things. You don't need an annotated bibliography to explain why one should do The Right Thing.

rdd says: "In my opinion, Psion is possibly a teenager who never grew up... it explains why he is still rebellious and believes in anrchism." I guess Noam Chomsky is also a 70-something year old teenager who never grew up either, eh?

rdd, anarchy is not some legitimization of teenage angst into a political theory, it is a viable political system which makes a lot of sense. Once again, I'll draw your attention to ken's definition, "Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority". It makes sense.

This entire Iraq thing is (in the words of Bush) "a way of freeing the Iraqi people from oppression". Okay... so he thinks that freedom from oppression is a good thing. It's hard to tell if you're being oppressed from the inside, but IMHO, the American people are.

"This entire Iraq thing is (in the words of Bush) "a way of freeing the Iraqi people from oppression". Okay... so he thinks that freedom from oppression is a good thing. It's hard to tell if you're being oppressed from the inside, but IMHO, the American people are. "

___

I doubt he is freeing anybody. He just wants to do this to protect the US, "freeing iraq" when they win is a plus.

"I doubt he is freeing anybody. He just wants to do this to protect the US, "freeing iraq" when they win is a plus"

LOL, do you really think the US needs to protect itself from Iraq? If anything we are protecting the other middle eastern countries from Saddam and his imperialistic, pro active aggression, which he has demonstrated several times. The US saw people being oppressed and people being threatened and, being the only country with the balls to do it, took action.

"The US saw people being oppressed and people being threatened and [...] took action."

I'd really like to believe that, but with all the other stuff I've heard/read/seen I can't. Simply dosen't work out.

"being the only country with the balls to do it, took action"

Taking on a war against a nation which has only a fraction of your militairy forces isn't brave.

"LOL, do you really think the US needs to protect itself from Iraq? If anything we are protecting the other middle eastern countries from Saddam and his imperialistic, pro active aggression, which he has demonstrated several times. The US saw people being oppressed and people being threatened and, being the only country with the balls to do it, took action."

____

No, I still believe that the only reason Bush is attacking Iraq is to protect himself and his country. He could probably give less of a crap to any other country. He is saying that he is freeing the Iraq's, not hurting other soldiers as so not to make him look like another Hitler on a rampage.


"Taking on a war against a nation which has only a fraction of your militairy forces isn't brave. "

____

Far from it.

"No, I still believe that the only reason Bush is attacking Iraq is to protect himself and his country"

You seem to have missed my point. Neither the United States nor George Bush needs protection from Saddam Hussein, he poses no threat to us WHATSOEVER.

"Taking on a war against a nation which has only a fraction of your militairy forces isn't brave"

Maybe not brave, but we are spending a great deal of money to help other people. It is certaintly noble

It is brave... when you consider the potential international backlash they risked and are now facing.

"You seem to have missed my point. Neither the United States nor George Bush needs protection from Saddam Hussein, he poses no threat to us WHATSOEVER."

____

So, you're saying that the only reason Bush is spending so much money and risking so many lives because he wants to protect other people, and Hussien is in no way, a threat to the US? So, Bush is doing all of this, to help others but himself.

That doesn't seem like George Bush to me.

Now that I'm back...

CodeRed>"The US has a little more restraint when it comes to using such weapons, with the obviouse exception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for which I am ashamed of my country."

Truman should have been executed for war crimes in responce to his heinous acts. [Oh, and let's not forget to mention his predecessor who was _so_ concerned Prime Minister Winston Churchill would try to "resurect" the British empire that he just sat there and played Stalin's whore. I realize he was ill at the time, however if he was ill beyond understanding a resignation for such conditions would have been honorable and acceptable.] Not to mention that he fired one of the better American generals for no practical reason. Yet, General Hideki Tojo _was_ executed, when his primary "crime" was genocide aganst the Communists. The fact is the the Americans were pissed b/c they got caught with their pants down [Perl Harbor _was_ a legit military target, with few civilian casulties {in comparision with the atomic drops}] and they just couldn't compete [at the time] with the Empire of Japan's military's morale and loyalty.

"Maybe not brave, but we are spending a great deal of money to help other people. It is certaintly noble"

Yeah, only it's a shame those "other people" happen to be the American oil aristocrats.
Nothing will change for the Iraqi people. Just like nothing changed for Afganistan.

Speaking of Afghanistan, just as soon as things started to slow down over there, talk of an oil pipeline began. The current puppet government in Afghanistan (who, by the way, has really no control over the country except the city of Kabul) support that pipeline.

I should also note that Afghan food is very tasty.

Such a long thread. I cannot really say anything else because it has probably already been covered.

But I can indeed say that there was and still is an alternate way to deal with Saddam, but I guess that would be too difficult to accomplish within Bush's 2 years. Wolfowitz probably thinks he's been patient long enough waiting for this oppertunity.

I don't understand this war. Perhaps it is to "liberate the iraqi people", as codered claims - but in that case, why run it under the banner of removing Hussein so that he is no longer a threat to the rest of the world?

It doesn't make sense to me for this war to be about disarming him. For a long time, he wasn't seen as a threat - he was given free rein for 10 years or so, after all.

I also don't buy into the "Bush wants oil" theory, because I can't see how the war will assist that. If anything, it would threaten the oilfields and risk destroying the infrastructure that provides for the delivery of oil. Besides that, according to http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/opecrev.html Iraq is far from being a dominant force in oil production.

Can anyone provide me with some insight here?